Pro.
A battlefield in the courtroom.
By Eugene Robinson
11/20/2009
Critics of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to bring the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks and four other accused terrorists to New York for trial can't seriously believe the city will have trouble handling the expected "trial of the century" hoopla. The critics can't really think a judge is going to give Khalid Sheik Mohammed an open microphone to spew his jihadist views, or fear that a jury -- sitting just blocks from Ground Zero -- will look for reasons to let an accused mass murderer off on some technicality.
In the enemy's version of history, the West -- meaning the United States, Israel, Britain and what used to be called Christendom -- has a long history of exploiting the Muslim world. We occupy Muslim lands to steal their resources. We install corrupt lackeys as their rulers. For all our high and mighty talk about fairness and justice, we reserve these luxuries for ourselves. In this warped worldview, we deserve any atrocities that jihadist "warriors" might commit against us.
Protesting that all this is absurd and obscene does not make it go away. And our troops' military success actually helps to further the jihadist narrative about a "crusade" against Islam.
It's ironic that many of the officials and commentators who are so upset about the decision to give KSM a civilian trial were also quick to call the Fort Hood killings an act of terrorism. If the suspect, Maj. Nidal Hasan, is indeed a terrorist -- and not just a deranged man who snapped -- then his awful rampage helps demonstrate my point. Hasan reportedly considered the U.S. military deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan a war against Islam, at one point arguing that Muslim soldiers should be excused from combat as conscientious objectors. In other words, he apparently bought at least part of the jihadist line. If killing a terrorist in Kandahar creates one in Killeen, we'll never make progress.
In this context, putting KSM and the others on trial in a civilian proceeding on U.S. soil is not just a duty but also an opportunity. It's a way to show that we do not have one system of justice for ourselves and another for Muslims, that we give defendants their day in court, that we insist they be vigorously defended by competent counsel -- that we really do practice what we preach.
Even if a military tribunal would be just as fair -- and a military court might be even more offended than a civilian one by the fact that KSM was subjected to waterboarding -- a trial by men and women in uniform would be seen as an extension of the "war on Islam."
Holder's choice is not without risk. The biggest question I have is whether an impartial jury could be impaneled in New York. And while I believe the chance of an acquittal is incredibly remote, if it happened, KSM would be kept in indefinite detention anyway -- a nightmare scenario.
But there's one more huge benefit to a civilian trial: It would show the preachers of hatred and their followers that we're not afraid of them or their poisonous ideas. It would show that they haven't changed us or our ideals -- and that they never will.
I say bring it on.
==================================================
Con.
Travesty in New York
By Charles Krauthammer
11/20/2009
For late-19th-century anarchists, terrorism was the "propaganda of the deed." And the most successful propaganda-by-deed in history was 9/11 -- not just the most destructive, but the most spectacular and telegenic.
And now its self-proclaimed architect, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, has been given by the Obama administration a civilian trial in New York. Just as the memory fades, 9/11 has been granted a second life -- and KSM, a second act: "9/11, The Director's Cut," narration by KSM.
September 11, 2001 had to speak for itself. A decade later, the deed will be given voice. KSM has gratuitously been presented with the greatest propaganda platform imaginable -- a civilian trial in the media capital of the world -- from which to proclaim the glory of jihad and the criminality of infidel America.
So why is Attorney General Eric Holder doing this? Ostensibly, to demonstrate to the world the superiority of our system, where the rule of law and the fair trial reign.
Really? What happens if KSM (and his co-defendants) "do not get convicted," asked Senate Judiciary Committee member Herb Kohl. "Failure is not an option," replied Holder. Not an option? Doesn't the presumption of innocence, er, presume that prosecutorial failure -- acquittal, hung jury -- is an option? By undermining that presumption, Holder is undermining the fairness of the trial, the demonstration of which is the alleged rationale for putting on this show in the first place.
Moreover, everyone knows that whatever the outcome of the trial, KSM will never walk free. He will spend the rest of his natural life in U.S. custody. Which makes the proceedings a farcical show trial from the very beginning.
Apart from the fact that any such trial will be a security nightmare and a terror threat to New York -- what better propaganda-by-deed than blowing up the courtroom, making KSM a martyr and turning the judge, jury and spectators into fresh victims? -- it will endanger U.S. security. Civilian courts with broad rights of cross-examination and discovery give terrorists access to crucial information about intelligence sources and methods.
That's precisely what happened during the civilian New York trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. The prosecution was forced to turn over to the defense a list of 200 unindicted co-conspirators, including the name Osama bin Laden. "Within 10 days, a copy of that list reached bin Laden in Khartoum," wrote former attorney general Michael Mukasey, the presiding judge at that trial, "letting him know that his connection to that case had been discovered."
Finally, there's the moral logic. It's not as if Holder opposes military commissions on principle. On the same day he sent KSM to a civilian trial in New York, Holder announced he was sending Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, (accused) mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole, to a military tribunal.
By what logic? In his congressional testimony Wednesday, Holder was utterly incoherent in trying to explain. In his Nov. 13 news conference, he seemed to be saying that if you attack a civilian target, as in 9/11, you get a civilian trial; a military target like the Cole, and you get a military tribunal.
What a perverse moral calculus. Which is the war crime -- an attack on defenseless civilians or an attack on a military target such as a warship, an accepted act of war that the United States itself has engaged in countless times?
By what possible moral reasoning, then, does KSM, who perpetrates the obvious and egregious war crime, receive the special protections and constitutional niceties of a civilian courtroom, while he who attacked a warship is relegated to a military tribunal?
Moreover, the incentive offered any jihadist is as irresistible as it is perverse: Kill as many civilians as possible on American soil and Holder will give you Miranda rights, a lawyer, a propaganda platform -- everything but your own blog.
Alternatively, Holder tried to make the case that he chose a civilian New York trial as a more likely venue for securing a conviction. An absurdity: By the time Barack Obama came to office, KSM was ready to go before a military commission, plead guilty and be executed. It's Obama who blocked a process that would have yielded the swiftest and most certain justice.
Indeed, the perfect justice. Whenever a jihadist volunteers for martyrdom, we should grant his wish. Instead, this one, the most murderous and unrepentant of all, gets to dance and declaim at the scene of his crime.
Holder himself told The Post that the coming New York trial will be "the trial of the century." The last such was the trial of O.J. Simpson.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Day Of Judgement for Webster Smith.
Those who were not present on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at the
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (USCAAF)
450 E Street, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20442-0001
for the oral arguments in the case of United States v. Webster M. Smith, Case No. 08-0719/CG, missed a real burn-burner.
The judges of the USCAAF are civilian judges and sit as a single panel on all cases. Typically, all five judges participate in each case. The judges came out firing questions fast and furious to the two Appellate Attorneys. The first one up was Counsel for Webster Smith: Ronald C. Machen, Esquire. He was prepared and completely unflappable. He responded to every question put to him. When he was interrupted in mid sentence, he did not forge on and try to finish his thought; he immediately responded to the Judge's question. He gave reasoned responsive answers to every question. Some judges fired hard ball questions, and one judge even offer up a soft-ball question which was answered in the same serious manner.
Then came Counsel for U S Coast Guard: LT Emily P. Reuter, USCG. She had a cold or was recovering from the Swine Flu and began by pleading for leniency because of her weakened voice. It was downhill from there for her. She did not appear to give responsive answers to most of the questions put to her. She may have not even clearly understood some of the question before she attempted to respond to them. Frequently she appeared to retreat to her notes or her brief and read the holdings from cases that she had cited in her brief. Perhaps this was her first time arguing before the court or maybe this was a case that no one else wanted to argue, but there surely was not her finest hour.
This was an appeal from a General Court-Martial (GCM) conviction for going from place of duty, attempting to disobey an order, sodomy, extortion, and indecent assault. The ISSUE on Appeal was whether the military judge at the court-martial at the Coast Guard Academy violated Webster Smith’s constitutional right to confront his accusers by limiting his cross-examination of Shelley Roddenbush [SR], the government’s only witness, on three of the five charges.
Counsel for each side was allowed 20 minutes to present oral argument in the case.
The judges of the USCAAF are Judge Andrew S. Effron is the Chief Judge. The other four judges are Judge James E. Baker, Judge Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann, Judge Scott W. Stucky, and Judge Margaret A. Ryan, the most recent appointee.
The first issue that they tackled was the jurisdictional issue. The Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals had denied a request for reconsideration on 14 May 2008. It was not clear whether this was in the Appellate Record. There was a question of how many days had elapsed from the notification of the denial to Webster Smith's attorney and the date that Attorney Machen filed his appeal to the USCAAF. The Coast Guard had sent the Notice of Denial via DHL, a German company, rather than simply using the U. S. Mail as required by the Rules of Court. Apparently there are two time periods that may be relevant under Article 67(B) of the USCAAF's Rules. One is a 61 day rule and the other is a 95 day rule.
They kept coming back to this jurisdictional issue again and again. I do not think they hammered it out definitively during the hearing. Webster Smith's attorney said that it is not in the Record that he was notified on 14 May. LT Emily P. Reuter for the USCG said that it was in the Record. I am sure the USCAAF judges will settled the issue before they issue a decision.
This is troubling because I would hate for the judges to dodge the ISSUE on Appeal because of a technicality like jurisdiction. I could hear a couple of the judges contemplating doing just that. The tone and the tenor of the questions leads me to just that conclusion. It would be a shame after all this time and effort to be cheated out of a hard and definitive decision on the ultimate ISSUE.
That being said, it is my reasoned opinion that the judges of the USCAAF are poised to reverse the conviction of Webster Smith. I feel there is better than a 60-40% chance that they will reverse the conviction by a majority vote. Also, there is a 51-49% chance of a unanimous decision.
I think Judge Ryan is a swing vote. She gave Attorney Machen the hardest time. If at all possible she might do like Judge Lane I. McClelland of the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals and uphold the status quo. However, I do not think she would go out on a limb and write a dissenting opinion. If the other four judges split 2-2, I think she might side with the judges who determine that a reversal is warranted because the Trial Judge abused his discretion and committed reversible error.
Judge Baker appears most eager to reverse this conviction because Webster Smith was denied his right to a fair trial. He sees this as a fair trial issue. He believes that the trial court members had a right to know what the secret was that SR wanted Webster Smith to keep, that it was of a sexual nature, that she had recently lied about it being nonconsensual when it was really consensual oral sex with an enlisted man in Norfolf, Virginia. Also, SR wanted Webster Smith to go out and lie for her so badly that she was willing to pay him with sexual favors.
Judge Baker feels this was crucial evidence that the members were entitled to know. The exact nature of the secret was crucial to Webster Smith's defense. The Trial Judge relied upon Rule 412 of the Military Rules of Evidence and allowed into evidence only the fact that Webster Smith was privy to a secret that SR wanted him to keep; and that secret concerned something that could ruin her cadet and officer career in the Coast Guard.
Even though Judge Baker is a civilian, he might have served in the military. He pointed out that there are lots of secrets that can harm one's career. It could be a secret concerning having failed a physical training exercise; or, it could be a secret involving a wardrobe or a uniform violation. The members had no way of knowing the precise nature of the secret since the trial judge protected SR from more rigorous cross-examination. They did not know that when SR was faced with rumors she lied to limit her own culpability. Giving a limiting instruction to the members was not sufficient to cure the error. It was more than harmless error. It was big, earth shaking, reversible error. It violated the Sixth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
As Attorney Machen so eloquently stated, SR had used the secret as a sword and a shield. It shielded her from testifying at the Article 32 investigation, and it was the sword that she used at trial to stab Webster Smith through the heart. It killed him and his career in the Coast Guard. It is what the judges referred to as the Theory of Innoculation. The secret had innoculated SR from two investigations. It saved her from testifying at the Article 32 Investigation.
LT Emily P. Reuter wanted to argue that this was not a Fair Trial issue, but it was a pattern or practice issue. As such the Trial Judge was correct to limit cross-examination of SR to stop any evidence from coming in concerning her prior sexual history or her propensity to tell lies. She argued that the Defense's Theory of the case at trial was wrong for the evidence that they were trying to elicit, and that the Trial Judge correctly used Rule 412. If he erred, it was no more than harmless error. It was not Reversible Error. She was not persuasive.
Truth crushed to earth shall rise again. The essence of truth in this case is finally coming to the surface. From where I sit, the USCAAF stands ready to right a gigantic wrong. It wants to reconsecrate the Temple of Justice in the Coast Guard. It wants to heal the wound that was inflicted on the Sixth Amendment by the trial court and the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals.
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (USCAAF)
450 E Street, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20442-0001
for the oral arguments in the case of United States v. Webster M. Smith, Case No. 08-0719/CG, missed a real burn-burner.
The judges of the USCAAF are civilian judges and sit as a single panel on all cases. Typically, all five judges participate in each case. The judges came out firing questions fast and furious to the two Appellate Attorneys. The first one up was Counsel for Webster Smith: Ronald C. Machen, Esquire. He was prepared and completely unflappable. He responded to every question put to him. When he was interrupted in mid sentence, he did not forge on and try to finish his thought; he immediately responded to the Judge's question. He gave reasoned responsive answers to every question. Some judges fired hard ball questions, and one judge even offer up a soft-ball question which was answered in the same serious manner.
Then came Counsel for U S Coast Guard: LT Emily P. Reuter, USCG. She had a cold or was recovering from the Swine Flu and began by pleading for leniency because of her weakened voice. It was downhill from there for her. She did not appear to give responsive answers to most of the questions put to her. She may have not even clearly understood some of the question before she attempted to respond to them. Frequently she appeared to retreat to her notes or her brief and read the holdings from cases that she had cited in her brief. Perhaps this was her first time arguing before the court or maybe this was a case that no one else wanted to argue, but there surely was not her finest hour.
This was an appeal from a General Court-Martial (GCM) conviction for going from place of duty, attempting to disobey an order, sodomy, extortion, and indecent assault. The ISSUE on Appeal was whether the military judge at the court-martial at the Coast Guard Academy violated Webster Smith’s constitutional right to confront his accusers by limiting his cross-examination of Shelley Roddenbush [SR], the government’s only witness, on three of the five charges.
Counsel for each side was allowed 20 minutes to present oral argument in the case.
The judges of the USCAAF are Judge Andrew S. Effron is the Chief Judge. The other four judges are Judge James E. Baker, Judge Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann, Judge Scott W. Stucky, and Judge Margaret A. Ryan, the most recent appointee.
The first issue that they tackled was the jurisdictional issue. The Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals had denied a request for reconsideration on 14 May 2008. It was not clear whether this was in the Appellate Record. There was a question of how many days had elapsed from the notification of the denial to Webster Smith's attorney and the date that Attorney Machen filed his appeal to the USCAAF. The Coast Guard had sent the Notice of Denial via DHL, a German company, rather than simply using the U. S. Mail as required by the Rules of Court. Apparently there are two time periods that may be relevant under Article 67(B) of the USCAAF's Rules. One is a 61 day rule and the other is a 95 day rule.
They kept coming back to this jurisdictional issue again and again. I do not think they hammered it out definitively during the hearing. Webster Smith's attorney said that it is not in the Record that he was notified on 14 May. LT Emily P. Reuter for the USCG said that it was in the Record. I am sure the USCAAF judges will settled the issue before they issue a decision.
This is troubling because I would hate for the judges to dodge the ISSUE on Appeal because of a technicality like jurisdiction. I could hear a couple of the judges contemplating doing just that. The tone and the tenor of the questions leads me to just that conclusion. It would be a shame after all this time and effort to be cheated out of a hard and definitive decision on the ultimate ISSUE.
That being said, it is my reasoned opinion that the judges of the USCAAF are poised to reverse the conviction of Webster Smith. I feel there is better than a 60-40% chance that they will reverse the conviction by a majority vote. Also, there is a 51-49% chance of a unanimous decision.
I think Judge Ryan is a swing vote. She gave Attorney Machen the hardest time. If at all possible she might do like Judge Lane I. McClelland of the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals and uphold the status quo. However, I do not think she would go out on a limb and write a dissenting opinion. If the other four judges split 2-2, I think she might side with the judges who determine that a reversal is warranted because the Trial Judge abused his discretion and committed reversible error.
Judge Baker appears most eager to reverse this conviction because Webster Smith was denied his right to a fair trial. He sees this as a fair trial issue. He believes that the trial court members had a right to know what the secret was that SR wanted Webster Smith to keep, that it was of a sexual nature, that she had recently lied about it being nonconsensual when it was really consensual oral sex with an enlisted man in Norfolf, Virginia. Also, SR wanted Webster Smith to go out and lie for her so badly that she was willing to pay him with sexual favors.
Judge Baker feels this was crucial evidence that the members were entitled to know. The exact nature of the secret was crucial to Webster Smith's defense. The Trial Judge relied upon Rule 412 of the Military Rules of Evidence and allowed into evidence only the fact that Webster Smith was privy to a secret that SR wanted him to keep; and that secret concerned something that could ruin her cadet and officer career in the Coast Guard.
Even though Judge Baker is a civilian, he might have served in the military. He pointed out that there are lots of secrets that can harm one's career. It could be a secret concerning having failed a physical training exercise; or, it could be a secret involving a wardrobe or a uniform violation. The members had no way of knowing the precise nature of the secret since the trial judge protected SR from more rigorous cross-examination. They did not know that when SR was faced with rumors she lied to limit her own culpability. Giving a limiting instruction to the members was not sufficient to cure the error. It was more than harmless error. It was big, earth shaking, reversible error. It violated the Sixth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
As Attorney Machen so eloquently stated, SR had used the secret as a sword and a shield. It shielded her from testifying at the Article 32 investigation, and it was the sword that she used at trial to stab Webster Smith through the heart. It killed him and his career in the Coast Guard. It is what the judges referred to as the Theory of Innoculation. The secret had innoculated SR from two investigations. It saved her from testifying at the Article 32 Investigation.
LT Emily P. Reuter wanted to argue that this was not a Fair Trial issue, but it was a pattern or practice issue. As such the Trial Judge was correct to limit cross-examination of SR to stop any evidence from coming in concerning her prior sexual history or her propensity to tell lies. She argued that the Defense's Theory of the case at trial was wrong for the evidence that they were trying to elicit, and that the Trial Judge correctly used Rule 412. If he erred, it was no more than harmless error. It was not Reversible Error. She was not persuasive.
Truth crushed to earth shall rise again. The essence of truth in this case is finally coming to the surface. From where I sit, the USCAAF stands ready to right a gigantic wrong. It wants to reconsecrate the Temple of Justice in the Coast Guard. It wants to heal the wound that was inflicted on the Sixth Amendment by the trial court and the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Judges Are Fading Away; The Bench Has Lost Its Appeal.
PITTSBURGH (AP) - U.S. District Judge Robert Cindrich has a lifetime job and could have retired in less than six years with full pay - though not a pension - of more than $155,000 a year.
But on Feb. 2, the 60-year-old jurist launched a new career as chief legal counsel with a hospital network, joining a record number of federal judges who observers say are retiring or resigning because of lagging pay and stringent guidelines that take away most of their discretion in criminal sentencings.
"We're losing more every year. (Those are) two principal reasons as I see it - and they apply to me, too," Cindrich said.
There are 877 federal judge positions that are lifetime appointments, from the Supreme Court on down to district courts, and 45 of those seats are vacant, according to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts. Although a Senate logjam that has kept President Bush from getting his judicial appointees confirmed gets the headlines, observers say a more pressing long-term concern is the rate at which judges are leaving.
From 1991 through February 2002, more than 60 judges either retired or resigned to go into private practice, said Karen Redmond, spokeswoman for the U.S. Courts office, which studied the matter two years ago. Since then, another 10 federal judges have left the bench - compared to just five judges who resigned or retired during the entire decade of the 1960s, Redmond said.
A commission chaired by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker two years ago strongly urged Congress to boost the pay of federal judges, but a resulting bill that would have raised those salaries by 16.5 percent was defeated last session.
The two largest groups of federal judges - district and circuit court judges - annually make $154,700 and $164,000, respectively. The deans at top U.S. law schools earn more than $300,000, while law professors at those schools make more than $209,000, according to a study cited by the Volcker Commission.
Joe Kendall left his U.S. District Court job in Texas when he was 47 after 10 years on bench. He told The Third Branch, the newsletter for the federal courts system, that with two soon-to-be college-aged children, he couldn't afford not to sell his skills to the private sector.
"If federal judges were paid what an average partner in an average law firm in an average city was paid," Kendall said, "I'd still be on the bench."
Cindrich earned $133,600 when he was appointed in 1994. His $154,700 salary - which has been adjusted for cost of living just five out of his nine years on the bench - is worth about $11,000 less in real dollars today.
"Judges are supposed to be relatively smart people so it doesn't take us long to figure out, 'I'm going backward,'" Cindrich said. Added to that are hidden costs.
Federal judges don't get a pension. They can retire after age 65 once they have at least 15 years' service or take senior status and continue to work as long as they carry a caseload equal to 25 percent of those carried by judges on their court. Either way, they continue to receive full pay - but because it's not a pension, their dependents lose that income when the judge dies.
"That's one of the reasons a lot of us leave the bench," Cindrich said. "You compensate for it by buying a lot of life insurance."
Although Cindrich says the job is deeply satisfying, the changing face of federal law is taking its toll on that, too.
Developed in 1986, federal sentencing guidelines were designed so defendants in different areas of the country received similar sentences for similar crimes. But, combined with mandatory minimum sentences heralded as the solution to the "war on drugs," the guidelines too often result in lengthy sentences for what Cindrich calls "street criminals ... not the big drug runner flying in on jets from South America."
"When the law provides a result that is repugnant, we must still follow the law," Cindrich said. "And you can only do that so many times before you start to wonder, 'How many more times am I going to put my name on this sentence that I don't believe in?'
Judge London Steverson
London Eugene Livingston Steverson (born March 13, 1947) was one of the first two African Americans to graduate from the United States Coast Guard Academy in 1968. Later, as chief of the newly formed Minority Recruiting Section of the United States Coast Guard (USCG), he was charged with desegregating the Coast Guard Academy by recruiting minority candidates. He retired from the Coast Guard in 1988 and in 1990 was appointed to the bench as a Federal Administrative Law Judge with the Office of Hearings and Appeals, Social Security Administration.
Early Life and Education
Steverson was born and raised in Millington, Tennessee, the oldest of three children of Jerome and Ruby Steverson. At the age of 5 he was enrolled in the E. A. Harrold elementary school in a segregated school system. He later attended the all black Woodstock High School in Memphis, Tennessee, graduating valedictorian.
A Presidential Executive Order issued by President Truman had desegregated the armed forces in 1948,[1] but the service academies were lagging in officer recruiting. President Kennedy specifically challenged the United States Coast Guard Academy to tender appointments to Black high school students. London Steverson was one of the Black student to be offered such an appointment, and when he accepted the opportunity to be part of the class of 1968, he became the second African American to enter the previously all-white military academy. On June 4, 1968 Steverson graduated from the Coast Guard Academy with a BS degree in Engineering and a commission as an ensign in the U.S. Coast Guard.
In 1974, while still a member of the Coast Guard, Steverson entered The National Law Center of The George Washington University and graduated in 1977 with a Juris Doctor of Laws Degree.
USCG Assignments.
Steverson's first duty assignment out of the Academy was in Antarctic research logistical support. In July 1968 he reported aboard the Coast Guard Cutter (CGC) Glacier [2] (WAGB-4), an icebreaker operating under the control of the U.S. Navy, and served as a deck watch officer and head of the Marine Science Department. He traveled to Antarctica during two patrols from July 1968 to August 1969, supporting the research operations of the National Science Foundation's Antarctic Research Project in and around McMurdo Station. During the 1969 patrol the CGC Glacier responded to an international distress call from the Argentine icebreaker General SanMartin, which they freed.
He received another military assignment from 1970 to 1972 in Juneau, Alaska as a Search and Rescue Officer. Before being certified as an Operations Duty Officer, it was necessary to become thoroughly familiar with the geography and topography of the Alaskan remote sites. Along with his office mate, Ltjg Herbert Claiborne "Bertie" Pell, the son of Rhode Island Senator Claiborne Pell, Steverson was sent on a familiarization tour of Coast Guard, Navy and Air Force bases. The bases visited were Base Kodiak, Base Adak Island, and Attu Island, in the Aleutian Islands.[3]
Steverson was the Duty Officer on September 4, 1971 when an emergency call was received that an Alaska Airlines Boeing 727 airline passenger plane was overdue at Juneau airport. This was a Saturday and the weather was foggy with drizzling rain. Visibility was less than one-quarter mile. The 727 was en route to Seattle, Washington from Anchorage, Alaska with a scheduled stop in Juneau. There were 109 people on board and there were no survivors. Steverson received the initial alert message and began the coordination of the search and rescue effort. In a matter of hours the wreckage from the plane, with no survivors, was located on the side of a mountain about five miles from the airport. For several weeks the body parts were collected and reassembled in a staging area in the National Guard Armory only a few blocks from the Search and Rescue Center where Steverson first received the distress broadcast.[4]. Later a full investigation with the National Transportation Safety Board determined that the cause of the accident was equipment failure.[5]
Another noteworthy item is Steverson's involvement as an Operations Officer during the seizure of two Russian fishing vessels, the Kolevan and the Lamut for violating an international agreement prohibiting foreign vessels from fishing in United States territorial waters. The initial attempts at seizing the Russian vessels almost precipitated an international incident when the Russian vessels refused to proceed to a U. S. port, and instead sailed toward the Kamchatka Peninsula. Russian MIG fighter planes were scrambled, as well as American fighter planes from Elmendorf Air Force Base before the Russian vessels changed course and steamed back
But on Feb. 2, the 60-year-old jurist launched a new career as chief legal counsel with a hospital network, joining a record number of federal judges who observers say are retiring or resigning because of lagging pay and stringent guidelines that take away most of their discretion in criminal sentencings.
"We're losing more every year. (Those are) two principal reasons as I see it - and they apply to me, too," Cindrich said.
There are 877 federal judge positions that are lifetime appointments, from the Supreme Court on down to district courts, and 45 of those seats are vacant, according to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts. Although a Senate logjam that has kept President Bush from getting his judicial appointees confirmed gets the headlines, observers say a more pressing long-term concern is the rate at which judges are leaving.
From 1991 through February 2002, more than 60 judges either retired or resigned to go into private practice, said Karen Redmond, spokeswoman for the U.S. Courts office, which studied the matter two years ago. Since then, another 10 federal judges have left the bench - compared to just five judges who resigned or retired during the entire decade of the 1960s, Redmond said.
A commission chaired by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker two years ago strongly urged Congress to boost the pay of federal judges, but a resulting bill that would have raised those salaries by 16.5 percent was defeated last session.
The two largest groups of federal judges - district and circuit court judges - annually make $154,700 and $164,000, respectively. The deans at top U.S. law schools earn more than $300,000, while law professors at those schools make more than $209,000, according to a study cited by the Volcker Commission.
Joe Kendall left his U.S. District Court job in Texas when he was 47 after 10 years on bench. He told The Third Branch, the newsletter for the federal courts system, that with two soon-to-be college-aged children, he couldn't afford not to sell his skills to the private sector.
"If federal judges were paid what an average partner in an average law firm in an average city was paid," Kendall said, "I'd still be on the bench."
Cindrich earned $133,600 when he was appointed in 1994. His $154,700 salary - which has been adjusted for cost of living just five out of his nine years on the bench - is worth about $11,000 less in real dollars today.
"Judges are supposed to be relatively smart people so it doesn't take us long to figure out, 'I'm going backward,'" Cindrich said. Added to that are hidden costs.
Federal judges don't get a pension. They can retire after age 65 once they have at least 15 years' service or take senior status and continue to work as long as they carry a caseload equal to 25 percent of those carried by judges on their court. Either way, they continue to receive full pay - but because it's not a pension, their dependents lose that income when the judge dies.
"That's one of the reasons a lot of us leave the bench," Cindrich said. "You compensate for it by buying a lot of life insurance."
Although Cindrich says the job is deeply satisfying, the changing face of federal law is taking its toll on that, too.
Developed in 1986, federal sentencing guidelines were designed so defendants in different areas of the country received similar sentences for similar crimes. But, combined with mandatory minimum sentences heralded as the solution to the "war on drugs," the guidelines too often result in lengthy sentences for what Cindrich calls "street criminals ... not the big drug runner flying in on jets from South America."
"When the law provides a result that is repugnant, we must still follow the law," Cindrich said. "And you can only do that so many times before you start to wonder, 'How many more times am I going to put my name on this sentence that I don't believe in?'
Judge London Steverson
London Eugene Livingston Steverson (born March 13, 1947) was one of the first two African Americans to graduate from the United States Coast Guard Academy in 1968. Later, as chief of the newly formed Minority Recruiting Section of the United States Coast Guard (USCG), he was charged with desegregating the Coast Guard Academy by recruiting minority candidates. He retired from the Coast Guard in 1988 and in 1990 was appointed to the bench as a Federal Administrative Law Judge with the Office of Hearings and Appeals, Social Security Administration.
Early Life and Education
Steverson was born and raised in Millington, Tennessee, the oldest of three children of Jerome and Ruby Steverson. At the age of 5 he was enrolled in the E. A. Harrold elementary school in a segregated school system. He later attended the all black Woodstock High School in Memphis, Tennessee, graduating valedictorian.
A Presidential Executive Order issued by President Truman had desegregated the armed forces in 1948,[1] but the service academies were lagging in officer recruiting. President Kennedy specifically challenged the United States Coast Guard Academy to tender appointments to Black high school students. London Steverson was one of the Black student to be offered such an appointment, and when he accepted the opportunity to be part of the class of 1968, he became the second African American to enter the previously all-white military academy. On June 4, 1968 Steverson graduated from the Coast Guard Academy with a BS degree in Engineering and a commission as an ensign in the U.S. Coast Guard.
In 1974, while still a member of the Coast Guard, Steverson entered The National Law Center of The George Washington University and graduated in 1977 with a Juris Doctor of Laws Degree.
USCG Assignments.
Steverson's first duty assignment out of the Academy was in Antarctic research logistical support. In July 1968 he reported aboard the Coast Guard Cutter (CGC) Glacier [2] (WAGB-4), an icebreaker operating under the control of the U.S. Navy, and served as a deck watch officer and head of the Marine Science Department. He traveled to Antarctica during two patrols from July 1968 to August 1969, supporting the research operations of the National Science Foundation's Antarctic Research Project in and around McMurdo Station. During the 1969 patrol the CGC Glacier responded to an international distress call from the Argentine icebreaker General SanMartin, which they freed.
He received another military assignment from 1970 to 1972 in Juneau, Alaska as a Search and Rescue Officer. Before being certified as an Operations Duty Officer, it was necessary to become thoroughly familiar with the geography and topography of the Alaskan remote sites. Along with his office mate, Ltjg Herbert Claiborne "Bertie" Pell, the son of Rhode Island Senator Claiborne Pell, Steverson was sent on a familiarization tour of Coast Guard, Navy and Air Force bases. The bases visited were Base Kodiak, Base Adak Island, and Attu Island, in the Aleutian Islands.[3]
Steverson was the Duty Officer on September 4, 1971 when an emergency call was received that an Alaska Airlines Boeing 727 airline passenger plane was overdue at Juneau airport. This was a Saturday and the weather was foggy with drizzling rain. Visibility was less than one-quarter mile. The 727 was en route to Seattle, Washington from Anchorage, Alaska with a scheduled stop in Juneau. There were 109 people on board and there were no survivors. Steverson received the initial alert message and began the coordination of the search and rescue effort. In a matter of hours the wreckage from the plane, with no survivors, was located on the side of a mountain about five miles from the airport. For several weeks the body parts were collected and reassembled in a staging area in the National Guard Armory only a few blocks from the Search and Rescue Center where Steverson first received the distress broadcast.[4]. Later a full investigation with the National Transportation Safety Board determined that the cause of the accident was equipment failure.[5]
Another noteworthy item is Steverson's involvement as an Operations Officer during the seizure of two Russian fishing vessels, the Kolevan and the Lamut for violating an international agreement prohibiting foreign vessels from fishing in United States territorial waters. The initial attempts at seizing the Russian vessels almost precipitated an international incident when the Russian vessels refused to proceed to a U. S. port, and instead sailed toward the Kamchatka Peninsula. Russian MIG fighter planes were scrambled, as well as American fighter planes from Elmendorf Air Force Base before the Russian vessels changed course and steamed back
Friday, October 16, 2009
Law Suit To Stop Swine Flu Mandatory Vaccination
New York medical staff took legal action Thursday 15 Oct to halt a massive swine flu inoculation program being rolled out across the United States, claiming the vaccines have not been properly tested.
Lawyers for the group filed a temporary restraining order (TRO) in a Washington federal court against government medical regulators they claim rushed H1N1 vaccines to the public without adequately testing their safety and efficacy.
"None of the vaccines against H1N1 have been properly tested," attorney Jim Turner, one of half a dozen lawyers working on the case.
The class action suit was brought on behalf of a group of doctors, nurses and other medical personnel in New York, where health care professionals who see patients are required to be vaccinated against H1N1, Turner said.
If the complaint is upheld, it would stop the roll-out of the H1N1 vaccine nationwide, said Turner, who accused public health officials of hyping the swine flu outbreak but failing to back up their stance with adequate testing of the vaccine.
"Officials have said the virus is so much like the ordinary flu virus that they don't need to do special new drug testing on it because it's just the same old virus with a minor change to it," said Turner.
"We're saying, if that's the case, then all the hype about this thing being a worldwide threat is misplaced and they've stampeded the state of New York into taking an action they never would have taken if it were just another flu."
Last week, some 2.4 million doses of nasal spray vaccine made of greatly weakened, but live, H1N1 virus were delivered to state and local health authorities around the United States.
This week, even larger stocks of injectable vaccine were delivered and administered to people in groups deemed to be at particular risk from swine flu, including children and health care professionals.
US public health officials want to vaccinate tens of millions of Americans by year's end against swine flu, which has claimed more than 4,500 lives worldwide since an outbreak of H1N1 was first reported in Mexico in April.
WASHINGTON REDSKIN'S CHEERLEADING HOPEFUL DEVELOPS NEUROLOGICAL PROBLEMS AFETR FLU SHOT.
ASHBURN, Va.(10/14/2009) -- Desiree Jennings thought it would be a good idea to get the seasonal flu shot. Her job offered incentives for it, and she didn't want to get sick.
Ten days after she got the shot at a Reston Safeway, she did get sick.
"I got flu-like symptoms -- nausea, vomiting, body aches, fever -- then was lethargic for a week and started blacking out," said Jennings, an AOL employee and Washington Redskins ambassador hoping to one day be a cheerleader for the team, the Loudoun Times-Mirror reported.
Doctors couldn't figure out why her ability to speak and walk were so adversely affected. She saw neurologists, physical therapists and psychologists.
Finally, doctors at Johns Hopkins figured it out, diagnosing dystonia, a rare neurological condition with no cure brought on by infections, brain trauma or, as is believed in her case, reaction to medication. It causes body jerks and abnormal or repetitive movements.
"A simple conversation with two people -- you and I could converse on the couch, and if the phone were to ring it would send her into a violent convulsion," said her husband, Brendan Jennings.
Strangely enough -- as she can't walk forward five feet without stumbling -- with some effort, she can perform one of her life's passions: running. And she walks backward with ease -- oddly empowering, now. After her ordeal began, "My insurance wasn't going to pay for another hospital visit. Matter of fact, they called us as we were driving to Johns Hopkins not to offer a specialist but instead to offer a hospital bed and a wheelchair for our house. I told them I wanted to know what was happening to me and that I didn't want to be in a wheelchair."
Her reaction is one in a million, doctors said.
"I would've much rather won the lottery and bought that ticket instead of gotten the flu shot if I knew that risk existed," she said.
Know the Difference between Cold and H1N1 Flu Symptoms
Fever
Fever is rare with a cold.
Fever is usually present with the flu in up to 80% of all flu cases. A temperature of 100°F or higher for 3 to 4 days is associated with the flu.
Coughing
A hacking, productive (mucus- producing) cough is often present with a cold.
A non-productive (non-mucus producing) cough is usually present with the flu (sometimes referred to as dry cough).
Aches
Slight body aches and pains can be part of a cold.
Severe aches and pains are common with the flu.
Stuffy Nose
Stuffy nose is commonly present with a cold and typically resolves spontaneously within a week.
Stuffy nose is not commonly present with the flu.
Chills
Chills are uncommon with a cold.
60% of people who have the flu experience chills.
Tiredness
Tiredness is fairly mild with a cold.
Tiredness is moderate to severe with the flu.
Sneezing
Sneezing is commonly present with a cold.
Sneezing is not common with the flu.
Sudden Symptoms
Cold symptoms tend to develop over a few days.
The flu has a rapid onset within 3-6 hours. The flu hits hard and includes sudden symptoms like high fever, aches and pains.
Headache
A headache is fairly uncommon with a cold.
A headache is very common with the flu, present in 80% of flu cases.
Sore Throat
Sore throat is commonly present with a cold.
Sore throat is not commonly present with the flu.
Chest Discomfort
Chest discomfort is mild to moderate with a cold.
Chest discomfort is often severe with the flu.
Swine Flu Prevention
Prevent Swine Flu - Good Advice
Neti pots and sinus rinse kits are available at the drug store and relatively inexpensive….under $15.
Dr. Vinay Goyal is an MBBS,DRM,DNB (Intensivist and Thyroid specialist) having clinical experience of over 20 years. He has worked in institutions like Hinduja Hospital , Bombay Hospital , SaifeeHospital , Tata Memorial etc. Presently, he is heading our Nuclear Medicine Department and Thyroid clinic at Riddhivinayak Cardiac and Critical Centre, Malad (W).
The following message given by him, I feel makes a lot of sense and is important for all to know
The only portals of entry are the nostrils and mouth/throat. In a global epidemic of this nature, it's almost impossible to avoid coming into contact with H1N1 in spite of all precautions. Contact with H1N1 is not so much of a problem as proliferation is.
While you are still healthy and not showing any symptoms of H1N1 infection, in order to prevent proliferation, aggravation of symptoms and development of secondary infections, some very simple steps, not fully highlighted in most official communications, can be practiced (instead of focusing on how to stock N95 or Tamiflu):
1. Frequent hand-washing (well highlighted in all official communications).
2. "Hands-off-the-face" approach. Resist all temptations to touch any part of face (unless you want to eat, bathe or slap).
3. *Gargle twice a day with warm salt water (use Listerine if you don't trust salt)... *H1N1 takes 2-3 days after initial infection in the throat/ nasal cavity to proliferate and show characteristic symptoms. Simple gargling prevents proliferation. In a way, gargling with salt water has the same effect on a healthy individual that Tamiflu has on an infected o ne. Don't underestimate this simple, inexpensive and powerful preventative method.
4. Similar to 3 above, *clean your nostrils at least once every day with warm salt water. *Not everybody may be good at Jala Neti or Sutra Neti (very good Yoga asanas to clean nasal cavities), but *blowing the nose hard once a day and swabbing both nostrils with cotton buds dipped in warm salt water is very effective in bringing down viral population.*
5. *Boost your natural immunity with foods that are rich in Vitamin C (Amla and other citrus fruits). *If you have to supplement with Vitamin C tablets, make sure that it also has Zinc to boost absorption.
6. *Drink as much of warm liquids (tea, coffee, etc) as you can. *Drinking warm liquids has the same effect as gargling, but in the reverse direction. They wash off proliferating viruses from the throat into the stomach where they cannot survive, proliferate or do any harm.
Lawyers for the group filed a temporary restraining order (TRO) in a Washington federal court against government medical regulators they claim rushed H1N1 vaccines to the public without adequately testing their safety and efficacy.
"None of the vaccines against H1N1 have been properly tested," attorney Jim Turner, one of half a dozen lawyers working on the case.
The class action suit was brought on behalf of a group of doctors, nurses and other medical personnel in New York, where health care professionals who see patients are required to be vaccinated against H1N1, Turner said.
If the complaint is upheld, it would stop the roll-out of the H1N1 vaccine nationwide, said Turner, who accused public health officials of hyping the swine flu outbreak but failing to back up their stance with adequate testing of the vaccine.
"Officials have said the virus is so much like the ordinary flu virus that they don't need to do special new drug testing on it because it's just the same old virus with a minor change to it," said Turner.
"We're saying, if that's the case, then all the hype about this thing being a worldwide threat is misplaced and they've stampeded the state of New York into taking an action they never would have taken if it were just another flu."
Last week, some 2.4 million doses of nasal spray vaccine made of greatly weakened, but live, H1N1 virus were delivered to state and local health authorities around the United States.
This week, even larger stocks of injectable vaccine were delivered and administered to people in groups deemed to be at particular risk from swine flu, including children and health care professionals.
US public health officials want to vaccinate tens of millions of Americans by year's end against swine flu, which has claimed more than 4,500 lives worldwide since an outbreak of H1N1 was first reported in Mexico in April.
WASHINGTON REDSKIN'S CHEERLEADING HOPEFUL DEVELOPS NEUROLOGICAL PROBLEMS AFETR FLU SHOT.
ASHBURN, Va.(10/14/2009) -- Desiree Jennings thought it would be a good idea to get the seasonal flu shot. Her job offered incentives for it, and she didn't want to get sick.
Ten days after she got the shot at a Reston Safeway, she did get sick.
"I got flu-like symptoms -- nausea, vomiting, body aches, fever -- then was lethargic for a week and started blacking out," said Jennings, an AOL employee and Washington Redskins ambassador hoping to one day be a cheerleader for the team, the Loudoun Times-Mirror reported.
Doctors couldn't figure out why her ability to speak and walk were so adversely affected. She saw neurologists, physical therapists and psychologists.
Finally, doctors at Johns Hopkins figured it out, diagnosing dystonia, a rare neurological condition with no cure brought on by infections, brain trauma or, as is believed in her case, reaction to medication. It causes body jerks and abnormal or repetitive movements.
"A simple conversation with two people -- you and I could converse on the couch, and if the phone were to ring it would send her into a violent convulsion," said her husband, Brendan Jennings.
Strangely enough -- as she can't walk forward five feet without stumbling -- with some effort, she can perform one of her life's passions: running. And she walks backward with ease -- oddly empowering, now. After her ordeal began, "My insurance wasn't going to pay for another hospital visit. Matter of fact, they called us as we were driving to Johns Hopkins not to offer a specialist but instead to offer a hospital bed and a wheelchair for our house. I told them I wanted to know what was happening to me and that I didn't want to be in a wheelchair."
Her reaction is one in a million, doctors said.
"I would've much rather won the lottery and bought that ticket instead of gotten the flu shot if I knew that risk existed," she said.
Know the Difference between Cold and H1N1 Flu Symptoms
Fever
Fever is rare with a cold.
Fever is usually present with the flu in up to 80% of all flu cases. A temperature of 100°F or higher for 3 to 4 days is associated with the flu.
Coughing
A hacking, productive (mucus- producing) cough is often present with a cold.
A non-productive (non-mucus producing) cough is usually present with the flu (sometimes referred to as dry cough).
Aches
Slight body aches and pains can be part of a cold.
Severe aches and pains are common with the flu.
Stuffy Nose
Stuffy nose is commonly present with a cold and typically resolves spontaneously within a week.
Stuffy nose is not commonly present with the flu.
Chills
Chills are uncommon with a cold.
60% of people who have the flu experience chills.
Tiredness
Tiredness is fairly mild with a cold.
Tiredness is moderate to severe with the flu.
Sneezing
Sneezing is commonly present with a cold.
Sneezing is not common with the flu.
Sudden Symptoms
Cold symptoms tend to develop over a few days.
The flu has a rapid onset within 3-6 hours. The flu hits hard and includes sudden symptoms like high fever, aches and pains.
Headache
A headache is fairly uncommon with a cold.
A headache is very common with the flu, present in 80% of flu cases.
Sore Throat
Sore throat is commonly present with a cold.
Sore throat is not commonly present with the flu.
Chest Discomfort
Chest discomfort is mild to moderate with a cold.
Chest discomfort is often severe with the flu.
Swine Flu Prevention
Prevent Swine Flu - Good Advice
Neti pots and sinus rinse kits are available at the drug store and relatively inexpensive….under $15.
Dr. Vinay Goyal is an MBBS,DRM,DNB (Intensivist and Thyroid specialist) having clinical experience of over 20 years. He has worked in institutions like Hinduja Hospital , Bombay Hospital , SaifeeHospital , Tata Memorial etc. Presently, he is heading our Nuclear Medicine Department and Thyroid clinic at Riddhivinayak Cardiac and Critical Centre, Malad (W).
The following message given by him, I feel makes a lot of sense and is important for all to know
The only portals of entry are the nostrils and mouth/throat. In a global epidemic of this nature, it's almost impossible to avoid coming into contact with H1N1 in spite of all precautions. Contact with H1N1 is not so much of a problem as proliferation is.
While you are still healthy and not showing any symptoms of H1N1 infection, in order to prevent proliferation, aggravation of symptoms and development of secondary infections, some very simple steps, not fully highlighted in most official communications, can be practiced (instead of focusing on how to stock N95 or Tamiflu):
1. Frequent hand-washing (well highlighted in all official communications).
2. "Hands-off-the-face" approach. Resist all temptations to touch any part of face (unless you want to eat, bathe or slap).
3. *Gargle twice a day with warm salt water (use Listerine if you don't trust salt)... *H1N1 takes 2-3 days after initial infection in the throat/ nasal cavity to proliferate and show characteristic symptoms. Simple gargling prevents proliferation. In a way, gargling with salt water has the same effect on a healthy individual that Tamiflu has on an infected o ne. Don't underestimate this simple, inexpensive and powerful preventative method.
4. Similar to 3 above, *clean your nostrils at least once every day with warm salt water. *Not everybody may be good at Jala Neti or Sutra Neti (very good Yoga asanas to clean nasal cavities), but *blowing the nose hard once a day and swabbing both nostrils with cotton buds dipped in warm salt water is very effective in bringing down viral population.*
5. *Boost your natural immunity with foods that are rich in Vitamin C (Amla and other citrus fruits). *If you have to supplement with Vitamin C tablets, make sure that it also has Zinc to boost absorption.
6. *Drink as much of warm liquids (tea, coffee, etc) as you can. *Drinking warm liquids has the same effect as gargling, but in the reverse direction. They wash off proliferating viruses from the throat into the stomach where they cannot survive, proliferate or do any harm.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Mixed Race Couple Denied Marriage License in NOLA.
NEW ORLEANS – A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.
"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."
Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said.
Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.
"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," Bardwell said. "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."
If he did an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.
"I try to treat everyone equally," he said.
Bardwell estimates that he has refused to marry about four couples during his career, all in the past 2 1/2 years.
Beth Humphrey, 30, and 32-year-old Terence McKay, both of Hammond, say they will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.
Humphrey, an account manager for a marketing firm, said she and McKay, a welder, just returned to Louisiana. She plans to enroll in the University of New Orleans to pursue a masters degree in minority politics.
"That was one thing that made this so unbelievable," she said. "It's not something you expect in this day and age."
Humphrey said she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell's wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples. Bardwell suggested the couple go to another justice of the peace in the parish who agreed to marry them.
"We are looking forward to having children," Humphrey said. "And all our friends and co-workers have been very supportive. Except for this, we're typical happy newlyweds."
"It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009," said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzmann. "The Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1963 that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry." (Loving v Virginia)
The ACLU sent a letter to the Louisiana Judiciary Committee, which oversees the state justices of the peace, asking them to investigate Bardwell and recommending "the most severe sanctions available, because such blatant bigotry poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the administration of justice."
"He knew he was breaking the law, but continued to do it," Schwartzmann said.
According to the clerk of court's office, application for a marriage license must be made three days before the ceremony because there is a 72-hour waiting period. The applicants are asked if they have previously been married. If so, they must show how the marriage ended, such as divorce.
Other than that, all they need is a birth certificate and Social Security card.
The license fee is $35, and the license must be signed by a Louisiana minister, justice of the peace or judge. The original is returned to the clerk's office.
"I've been a justice of the peace for 34 years and I don't think I've mistreated anybody," Bardwell said. "I've made some mistakes, but you have too. I didn't tell this couple they couldn't get married. I just told them I wouldn't do it."
"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."
Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said.
Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.
"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," Bardwell said. "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."
If he did an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.
"I try to treat everyone equally," he said.
Bardwell estimates that he has refused to marry about four couples during his career, all in the past 2 1/2 years.
Beth Humphrey, 30, and 32-year-old Terence McKay, both of Hammond, say they will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.
Humphrey, an account manager for a marketing firm, said she and McKay, a welder, just returned to Louisiana. She plans to enroll in the University of New Orleans to pursue a masters degree in minority politics.
"That was one thing that made this so unbelievable," she said. "It's not something you expect in this day and age."
Humphrey said she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell's wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples. Bardwell suggested the couple go to another justice of the peace in the parish who agreed to marry them.
"We are looking forward to having children," Humphrey said. "And all our friends and co-workers have been very supportive. Except for this, we're typical happy newlyweds."
"It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009," said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzmann. "The Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1963 that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry." (Loving v Virginia)
The ACLU sent a letter to the Louisiana Judiciary Committee, which oversees the state justices of the peace, asking them to investigate Bardwell and recommending "the most severe sanctions available, because such blatant bigotry poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the administration of justice."
"He knew he was breaking the law, but continued to do it," Schwartzmann said.
According to the clerk of court's office, application for a marriage license must be made three days before the ceremony because there is a 72-hour waiting period. The applicants are asked if they have previously been married. If so, they must show how the marriage ended, such as divorce.
Other than that, all they need is a birth certificate and Social Security card.
The license fee is $35, and the license must be signed by a Louisiana minister, justice of the peace or judge. The original is returned to the clerk's office.
"I've been a justice of the peace for 34 years and I don't think I've mistreated anybody," Bardwell said. "I've made some mistakes, but you have too. I didn't tell this couple they couldn't get married. I just told them I wouldn't do it."
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Federal Judge Refuses to Take New Criminal Cases.
A federal judge in Milwaukee has taken the unusual step of refusing to accept new criminal cases and recusing himself from existing ones, in a move observers say is about politics, impropriety and, possibly, hurt feelings.
Federal Court Clerk Jon Sanfilippo says the way he sees it, the reason Judge J.P. Stadtmueller is refusing criminal cases "really springs from one case."
Sanfilippo, the only person at the federal courthouse in downtown Milwaukee who was willing to talk about the situation, says it all started after a ruling in July by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Prosecutors thought Stadtmueller showed bias in a gun case and took the rare move of asking the appeals court to remove him, which it did. Stadtmueller accused the U.S. attorney's office of judge-shopping.
The judge declined repeated requests for interviews; neither his colleagues on the federal bench nor the interim U.S. attorney for Milwaukee would comment.
Sanfilippo says since that ruling, Stadtmueller stopped taking new criminal cases from the government and recused himself from 22 existing ones. He is still taking civil cases, however.
"He believes that he's acting appropriately under the circumstances, trying to provide a situation where there's no problem in terms of perception," Sanfilippo says, "and as this has been unfolding, he's been very adamant about making sure he has a full caseload."
Frustration Over Types Of Cases
Before Stadtmueller was given a lifetime appointment to the federal bench in 1987, he ran the U.S. attorney's office in Milwaukee. Over the years, he has criticized the type of cases his successors have brought to federal court.
When Stadtmueller was a prosecutor, most federal cases involved white-collar crimes. Now, there are many more gun and drug cases, and the judge's frustration is apparent in court documents.
In taking Stadtmueller off the gun case, the appeals court ruled that he broke judicial rules by suggesting a plea bargain.
Stadtmueller had questioned the government's decision to bring the case to federal court, calling it "an embarrassment to the justice system." Documents also show Stadtmueller sought to avoid a conviction that would have sent the defendant to prison for at least 15 years.
'A Better Way'
Robin Shellow, a criminal defense attorney in Milwaukee, says she has seen a growing concern among judges over the federalization of street crime.
"In virtually every criminal sentencing in a drug case, Judge Stadtmueller remarks on the number of people who are in federal prisons on that particular day," she says.
Shellow says she has represented dozens of youths who were convicted of gun crimes and sent to prison for life.
"I think that has got to weigh heavily on judges who have been around for a long time and who are saying there's got to be a better way," she says.
But is that his job?
Janine Geske, a law professor at Marquette University and a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, says each judge has his or her own method of determining how best to achieve justice in the court.
"Judge Stadtmueller had the position in the U.S. attorney's office, and I'm sure it's tough when he sees things that he thinks, if he had been in that position, he would have done differently," Geske says.
Amid the speculation, Stadtmueller has not publicly explained why he is passing on criminal cases.
This could go on for a while. All the federal criminal cases in Milwaukee are now distributed among three judges instead of four. Stadtmueller told the court clerk he will resume taking criminal cases once a permanent U.S. attorney for Milwaukee is appointed.
That, however, could be months away
Federal Court Clerk Jon Sanfilippo says the way he sees it, the reason Judge J.P. Stadtmueller is refusing criminal cases "really springs from one case."
Sanfilippo, the only person at the federal courthouse in downtown Milwaukee who was willing to talk about the situation, says it all started after a ruling in July by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Prosecutors thought Stadtmueller showed bias in a gun case and took the rare move of asking the appeals court to remove him, which it did. Stadtmueller accused the U.S. attorney's office of judge-shopping.
The judge declined repeated requests for interviews; neither his colleagues on the federal bench nor the interim U.S. attorney for Milwaukee would comment.
Sanfilippo says since that ruling, Stadtmueller stopped taking new criminal cases from the government and recused himself from 22 existing ones. He is still taking civil cases, however.
"He believes that he's acting appropriately under the circumstances, trying to provide a situation where there's no problem in terms of perception," Sanfilippo says, "and as this has been unfolding, he's been very adamant about making sure he has a full caseload."
Frustration Over Types Of Cases
Before Stadtmueller was given a lifetime appointment to the federal bench in 1987, he ran the U.S. attorney's office in Milwaukee. Over the years, he has criticized the type of cases his successors have brought to federal court.
When Stadtmueller was a prosecutor, most federal cases involved white-collar crimes. Now, there are many more gun and drug cases, and the judge's frustration is apparent in court documents.
In taking Stadtmueller off the gun case, the appeals court ruled that he broke judicial rules by suggesting a plea bargain.
Stadtmueller had questioned the government's decision to bring the case to federal court, calling it "an embarrassment to the justice system." Documents also show Stadtmueller sought to avoid a conviction that would have sent the defendant to prison for at least 15 years.
'A Better Way'
Robin Shellow, a criminal defense attorney in Milwaukee, says she has seen a growing concern among judges over the federalization of street crime.
"In virtually every criminal sentencing in a drug case, Judge Stadtmueller remarks on the number of people who are in federal prisons on that particular day," she says.
Shellow says she has represented dozens of youths who were convicted of gun crimes and sent to prison for life.
"I think that has got to weigh heavily on judges who have been around for a long time and who are saying there's got to be a better way," she says.
But is that his job?
Janine Geske, a law professor at Marquette University and a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, says each judge has his or her own method of determining how best to achieve justice in the court.
"Judge Stadtmueller had the position in the U.S. attorney's office, and I'm sure it's tough when he sees things that he thinks, if he had been in that position, he would have done differently," Geske says.
Amid the speculation, Stadtmueller has not publicly explained why he is passing on criminal cases.
This could go on for a while. All the federal criminal cases in Milwaukee are now distributed among three judges instead of four. Stadtmueller told the court clerk he will resume taking criminal cases once a permanent U.S. attorney for Milwaukee is appointed.
That, however, could be months away
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Injunction To Stop Mandatory Flu Vaccinations.
Preliminary Injunction to Halt Mandatory Flu Vaccination in the U.S. Has Been Issued (sic, appears imminent)
by Barbara Minton, Natural Health Editor
(NaturalNews) A Preliminary Injunction to stop mandatory vaccinations has been issued in the United States District Court of New Jersey. This comes after a federal lawsuit opposing forced vaccines was filed in that court by Tim Vawter, pro se attorney, on July 31st with the federal government as defendant. When the judge signs the Preliminary Injunction, it will stop the federal government from forcing anyone in any state to take flu vaccine against their will. It will also prevent a state or local government from forcibly vaccinating anyone, and forbid any person who is not vaccinated from being denied any services or constitutional rights. Vawter's filings included a Complaint, and several pages of evidentiary Exhibits.
Vawter's legal papers have been written not only for filing in federal court, but additionally so they can be looked at by activists around the world for ideas on filing lawsuits in their own countries to help stop forced vaccinations. Vawter believes that as the truth of the dangers of flu vaccines continues to become known, banning the forced use of them will eventually succeed on a worldwide basis. He cautions people to avoid fear and keep themselves focused on the task of blocking forced vaccination.
Preliminary Injunction will immediately halt mandatory vaccinations in the U.S.
The Court, having heard the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and read the papers in its support, states in the Preliminary Injunction that it appears the federal government has engaged in some amount of negligence with regards to failure to properly investigate the safety of the flu vaccines scheduled for use in late 2009-2010, and the evidence submitted does warrant a more thorough investigation into the safety of the flu vaccines.
The Court ordered that the government shall be forbidden from forcing any person to be required to take any influenza vaccination against that person's free will and free choice. The government will not allow any state or local government, or any party, to force any person to be required to take any influenza vaccination against that person's free will and free choice.
It is further ordered that the government shall not deny any constitutional rights to any person who has not received a flu vaccine, nor allow any doctor, company, or other party to deny any of these people services such as medical care, attending school, or similar services or freedoms, nor can the government allow any doctors, companies, or other parties, to deny any of these people their constitutional rights. The only exception to this, where a person who does not get a flu vaccination might be denied certain services, shall be after it is shown in a court of law, with clear and convincing evidence, on an individual case-by-case basis, where due process and a right to a defense is allowed. Only then can a person be denied a particular service because the person did not receive a flu vaccine.
U.S. government sued for gross negligence and violation of the Constitution
In his Cause of Action, Vawter charged that the federal government has engaged in gross negligence by funding and promoting flu vaccines that are proven to be dangerous and manufactured with little oversight. The vaccines scheduled for use in late 2009 and 2010 contain heavy metals including thimerosal mercury, which have been proven to cause autism in children with lowered immune systems, and other dangerous and toxic ingredients. The federal government has stated it will force these flu vaccines onto the American public against their will, under a document signed by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
He further charged that the vaccine makers stand to earn billions of dollars selling vaccines, and are already spending tens of millions advertising a "Phase 6 Pandemic" that the evidence shows does not really exist. The federal government has not required the World Health Organization (WHO) to show evidence of such a pandemic. There has been no collection of facts, sworn testimony, witnesses being questioned, hearings being held, or lie detector tests being given when preposterous statements have been made. The WHO declared a massive "Phase 6 Influenza Pandemic", even though only a few hundred people worldwide had so far died of this swine flu virus, and when far more people die each year of regular flu.
Vawter noted there is a preponderance of evidence to show that the federal government so poorly trained its employees that they eagerly agreed with the unsubstantiated claims of the WHO in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Forced vaccination would violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the government to enter homes and force people to be vaccinated, or to forcibly remove people to another location for vaccination. It would also violate Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights by depriving people of liberty without due process of law.
Vawter charged that the federal government has engaged in gross negligence by failing to properly investigate factual evidence submitted by esteemed medical professions over many years which proves flu vaccines have caused serious damage to people. The CDC has stated that thimerosal mercury is being used in the new flu vaccines being prepared.
The government has failed to investigate profiteering. Billions of dollars in vaccine sales can cause organizations to falsify threats so as to cause unwarranted public hysteria leading to forced vaccinations.
The government is guilty of gross negligence because its employees failed to properly investigate the release of a case of live swine flu virus. One of the main companies the government deals with, Baxter Vaccines, was apparently involved in the transporting of live bird flu virus that was released on a public train earlier this year. A lab technician with the Swiss National Center for Influenza in Geneva had traveled to Zurich to collect eight ampoules, five of which were filled with the H1N1 swine flu virus. However, failure of the dry ice in their container allowed pressure to build up, and the ampoules exploded as the train was pulling into a station.
The highly reputable UK newspaper "the Telegraph" reported on July 2nd that flu vaccines tested on homeless people caused twenty-one of them to die.
Vawter charged there is a preponderance of evidence to show that government will not provide people being vaccinated with a list of the vaccine ingredients and possible negative side effects before they are vaccinated. Most of the public will not know this flu vaccine contains thimerosal mercury.
Vawter submitted an Order to force the government to publish vaccine ingredients and side effects, and to give this information to everyone who takes a flu vaccine, and do so at least 3 days prior to their vaccination. A denial of this order would violate Plaintiff's rights to demand the government obey the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by requiring it to engage in freedom of speech. The First Amendment not only allows a citizen to have freedom of speech himself, but it allows a citizen to demand his government engage in freedom of speech when it is promoting the use of such as these vaccinations to the public.
The government proclamation stating a person cannot sue for any damages he receives from the flu vaccine, completely bypasses the congress and the court system in violation of the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution which grants the right to sue to recover for damages. Vawter submitted an Order to deem unconstitutional any proclamation, rule or similar law that forbids people from suing for damages resulting from the vaccines of 2009 and 2010.
Vawter is seeking damages of $100,000.00 as the result of suffering depression, extreme anxiety and emotional duress when his nephew began life as a healthy, happy baby boy, only to come down with autism after being given baby vaccines that contained thimerosal mercury. For years his nephew has struggled with this incredibly debilitating, preventable condition. According to Vawter, a claim may be submitted not only by his nephew, but by others who have suffered damages from vaccinations.
Vawter claimed that several rules and proclamations detailed in the lawsuit are unconstitutional and claimed that if they are not stricken and amended, he and other people who may not be aware of the offenses or who may be unable to sue, will suffer pending "injury-in-fact" damages. As attorneys and law firms join this lawsuit, recovery requests will reveal the names of additional people who have suffered injuries so they can be contacted about recovering damages, as the law allows.
Motion for Preliminary Injunction claims some vaccines may contain live virus
Although much of the Preliminary Injunction is a reiteration of information contained in his lawsuit, there are a few additions of note. Vawter includes in his grounds the fact that since the manufacturing of flu vaccines involves first destroying a live flu virus, there is a possibility that live flu virus will be in some of the vaccines, causing even more damages to people who receive it, and spreading the virus.
He asked the Court to use federal law enforcement to initiate its own civil and criminal investigation into flu vaccine safety issue, as federal law allows for this.
He noted the days when Hitler's Nazi doctors forcibly gave shots containing adjuvants to innocent people, and reminded that Nazi ideology was stamped out precisely because of those atrocities. He claims it is unwise for the U.S. government to follow in the same path as the Nazis. America is a nation of civil laws, not a dictatorship that gives proclamations bypassing the courts and congress to demand forced vaccinations containing hazardous ingredients known to cause damages.
The forced vaccination debacle of 1976 that the government had to halt because it was injuring more people than it was protecting shows vaccine makers should not be allowed to force their vaccines on people who have no recourse. The prohibition against lawsuits by the injured gives the green light to vaccine makers to include thimerosal mercury in their new flu vaccines. When the Order deeming the forbidding of lawsuits as unconstitutional is given, any defendant will have to present factual proof in federal court, not just hearsay or advertising slogans, as so why the Constitution says it is okay to forbid people from suing to recover damages resulting from flu vaccine.
Medical professionals argue flu vaccines harm not just certain people but almost everyone who receives them. Yet the government has ignored factual evidence proving this, and instead listens to a profit run group of vaccine manufacturers who stand to earn billions of dollars as the government orders forced vaccinations on the public for the coming flu season.
The government has published a chart listing the WHO's "Phase 6 Influenza Pandemic" as being equal to an earthquake measuring 8.0 on the Richter Scale. This chart is preposterous because there are no factual criteria required for an "Influenza Pandemic" to be declared by the United Nations' WHO. The United Nations is a collective of numerous nations, most of whom have very different laws than the U.S. has, and where their leaders can simply declare or proclaim things to be so without judicial review, and their population must obey.
Glaxo Smith Kline stands to make $4 billion from its two flu vaccine drugs. CEO Andrew Witty has said his company has been preparing for a flu pandemic for thee years and has spent over $1 billion to expand its factories. Executives from Glaxo, Baxter, Novartis, and Sanofi Pasteur had seats at the advisory group that on July 13th recommended mandatory H1N1 vaccination for everyone in all 194 countries belonging to the WHO.
The fear mongering involved with this Phase 6 alert has been intense. An example being spread by interested parties is the story of a girl in England purported by the WHO to have died of swine flu because she was not vaccinated. A more thorough investigation later revealed the girl actually died of septic shock due to tonsillitis. The WHO, CDC and numerous vaccine companies have been extensively advertising dire yet apparently concocted warnings of flu pandemics. Yet only a small number of people worldwide have died from the new flu virus.
When influential TV newscasters questioned the WHO proclaiming a "Phase 6 Influenza Pandemic" without factual evidence to prove it, the WHO responded by simply stopping their tracking of swine flu cases, a bizarre behavior on the part of an organization designated to be the main hub for information gathering on the disease.
Copies of the Vawter's actual files can be viewed at:
http://www.safetylawsuits.com/compl...
http://www.safetylawsuits.com/motio...
http://www.safetylawsuits.com/preli...
This case DOES exist, and I was able to pull up (through PACER) the following docket report. Preliminary Injunction has definitely been filed (see Item #2 on the docket), but not granted, YET. Hearing on the Preliminary Injunction has been scheduled for Sept. 19, 2009.U.S. District CourtDistrict of New Jersey [LIVE] (Trenton)CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:09-cv-03803-JAP-TJBVAWTER v. FEDERAL GOVERNMENTAssigned to: Judge Joel A. PisanoReferred to: Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. BongiovanniCause: 18:241 Conspiracy Against Citizen Rights Date Filed: 07/31/2009Jury Demand: NoneNature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: OtherJurisdiction: U.S. Government DefendantPlaintiff TIM VAWTERpro se, and on behalf of others who may be unaware of the offenses or unable to sue represented by TIM VAWTER30 W. MAIN STREETSUITE 321FREEHOLD, NJ 07728(732) 294-4784PRO SEV.DefendantFEDERAL GOVERNMENTDate Filed # Docket Text 07/31/2009 1 Complaint Received. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Summons, # 3 Application IFP)(eaj) # 4 Text of Proposed Order) (Entered: 07/31/2009) 07/31/2009 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction To Forbid Forced Flu Vaccinations by TIM VAWTER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(eaj) (Entered: 07/31/2009)08/07/2009 3 Letter from Tim Vawter with Exhibit H. (Exhibit H is a DVD and has been forwarded to Chambers) (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Tim Vawter)(gxh) (Entered: 08/07/2009)08/14/2009 4 Letter from Tim Vawter requesting that his IFP application be reviewed with emergency, enclosing $350.00 filing fee if IFP application is not granted today, and requesting Summons to be issued. (Attachments: # 1 Letter from Richard B. Myers to Tim Vawter, # 2 Basic Moral Education Manual)(gxh) (Entered: 08/14/2009)08/14/2009 COMPLAINT against FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, filed by TIM VAWTER. (Filing fee $350 - receipt number 300 375993.) (Refer to docket entry 1 for the Complaint.)(gxh) (Entered: 08/14/2009)08/14/2009 5 SUMMONS ISSUED as to FEDERAL GOVERNMENT with answer to complaint due within 60 days. (gxh) (MAILED TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF) (Entered: 08/14/2009)08/18/2009 Set Deadlines as to 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Motion set for 9/21/2009 before Judge Joel A. Pisano. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (lk) (Entered: 08/18/2009)PACER Service CenterTransaction Receipt 08/26/2009 00:04:08PACER Login: ma3575 Client Code: Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 3:09-cv-03803-JAP-TJB Start date: 1/1/1970 End date: 8/26/2009Billable Pages: 1 Cost: 0.08
Mary Ann Hartzler 8/26
by Barbara Minton, Natural Health Editor
(NaturalNews) A Preliminary Injunction to stop mandatory vaccinations has been issued in the United States District Court of New Jersey. This comes after a federal lawsuit opposing forced vaccines was filed in that court by Tim Vawter, pro se attorney, on July 31st with the federal government as defendant. When the judge signs the Preliminary Injunction, it will stop the federal government from forcing anyone in any state to take flu vaccine against their will. It will also prevent a state or local government from forcibly vaccinating anyone, and forbid any person who is not vaccinated from being denied any services or constitutional rights. Vawter's filings included a Complaint, and several pages of evidentiary Exhibits.
Vawter's legal papers have been written not only for filing in federal court, but additionally so they can be looked at by activists around the world for ideas on filing lawsuits in their own countries to help stop forced vaccinations. Vawter believes that as the truth of the dangers of flu vaccines continues to become known, banning the forced use of them will eventually succeed on a worldwide basis. He cautions people to avoid fear and keep themselves focused on the task of blocking forced vaccination.
Preliminary Injunction will immediately halt mandatory vaccinations in the U.S.
The Court, having heard the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and read the papers in its support, states in the Preliminary Injunction that it appears the federal government has engaged in some amount of negligence with regards to failure to properly investigate the safety of the flu vaccines scheduled for use in late 2009-2010, and the evidence submitted does warrant a more thorough investigation into the safety of the flu vaccines.
The Court ordered that the government shall be forbidden from forcing any person to be required to take any influenza vaccination against that person's free will and free choice. The government will not allow any state or local government, or any party, to force any person to be required to take any influenza vaccination against that person's free will and free choice.
It is further ordered that the government shall not deny any constitutional rights to any person who has not received a flu vaccine, nor allow any doctor, company, or other party to deny any of these people services such as medical care, attending school, or similar services or freedoms, nor can the government allow any doctors, companies, or other parties, to deny any of these people their constitutional rights. The only exception to this, where a person who does not get a flu vaccination might be denied certain services, shall be after it is shown in a court of law, with clear and convincing evidence, on an individual case-by-case basis, where due process and a right to a defense is allowed. Only then can a person be denied a particular service because the person did not receive a flu vaccine.
U.S. government sued for gross negligence and violation of the Constitution
In his Cause of Action, Vawter charged that the federal government has engaged in gross negligence by funding and promoting flu vaccines that are proven to be dangerous and manufactured with little oversight. The vaccines scheduled for use in late 2009 and 2010 contain heavy metals including thimerosal mercury, which have been proven to cause autism in children with lowered immune systems, and other dangerous and toxic ingredients. The federal government has stated it will force these flu vaccines onto the American public against their will, under a document signed by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
He further charged that the vaccine makers stand to earn billions of dollars selling vaccines, and are already spending tens of millions advertising a "Phase 6 Pandemic" that the evidence shows does not really exist. The federal government has not required the World Health Organization (WHO) to show evidence of such a pandemic. There has been no collection of facts, sworn testimony, witnesses being questioned, hearings being held, or lie detector tests being given when preposterous statements have been made. The WHO declared a massive "Phase 6 Influenza Pandemic", even though only a few hundred people worldwide had so far died of this swine flu virus, and when far more people die each year of regular flu.
Vawter noted there is a preponderance of evidence to show that the federal government so poorly trained its employees that they eagerly agreed with the unsubstantiated claims of the WHO in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Forced vaccination would violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the government to enter homes and force people to be vaccinated, or to forcibly remove people to another location for vaccination. It would also violate Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights by depriving people of liberty without due process of law.
Vawter charged that the federal government has engaged in gross negligence by failing to properly investigate factual evidence submitted by esteemed medical professions over many years which proves flu vaccines have caused serious damage to people. The CDC has stated that thimerosal mercury is being used in the new flu vaccines being prepared.
The government has failed to investigate profiteering. Billions of dollars in vaccine sales can cause organizations to falsify threats so as to cause unwarranted public hysteria leading to forced vaccinations.
The government is guilty of gross negligence because its employees failed to properly investigate the release of a case of live swine flu virus. One of the main companies the government deals with, Baxter Vaccines, was apparently involved in the transporting of live bird flu virus that was released on a public train earlier this year. A lab technician with the Swiss National Center for Influenza in Geneva had traveled to Zurich to collect eight ampoules, five of which were filled with the H1N1 swine flu virus. However, failure of the dry ice in their container allowed pressure to build up, and the ampoules exploded as the train was pulling into a station.
The highly reputable UK newspaper "the Telegraph" reported on July 2nd that flu vaccines tested on homeless people caused twenty-one of them to die.
Vawter charged there is a preponderance of evidence to show that government will not provide people being vaccinated with a list of the vaccine ingredients and possible negative side effects before they are vaccinated. Most of the public will not know this flu vaccine contains thimerosal mercury.
Vawter submitted an Order to force the government to publish vaccine ingredients and side effects, and to give this information to everyone who takes a flu vaccine, and do so at least 3 days prior to their vaccination. A denial of this order would violate Plaintiff's rights to demand the government obey the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by requiring it to engage in freedom of speech. The First Amendment not only allows a citizen to have freedom of speech himself, but it allows a citizen to demand his government engage in freedom of speech when it is promoting the use of such as these vaccinations to the public.
The government proclamation stating a person cannot sue for any damages he receives from the flu vaccine, completely bypasses the congress and the court system in violation of the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution which grants the right to sue to recover for damages. Vawter submitted an Order to deem unconstitutional any proclamation, rule or similar law that forbids people from suing for damages resulting from the vaccines of 2009 and 2010.
Vawter is seeking damages of $100,000.00 as the result of suffering depression, extreme anxiety and emotional duress when his nephew began life as a healthy, happy baby boy, only to come down with autism after being given baby vaccines that contained thimerosal mercury. For years his nephew has struggled with this incredibly debilitating, preventable condition. According to Vawter, a claim may be submitted not only by his nephew, but by others who have suffered damages from vaccinations.
Vawter claimed that several rules and proclamations detailed in the lawsuit are unconstitutional and claimed that if they are not stricken and amended, he and other people who may not be aware of the offenses or who may be unable to sue, will suffer pending "injury-in-fact" damages. As attorneys and law firms join this lawsuit, recovery requests will reveal the names of additional people who have suffered injuries so they can be contacted about recovering damages, as the law allows.
Motion for Preliminary Injunction claims some vaccines may contain live virus
Although much of the Preliminary Injunction is a reiteration of information contained in his lawsuit, there are a few additions of note. Vawter includes in his grounds the fact that since the manufacturing of flu vaccines involves first destroying a live flu virus, there is a possibility that live flu virus will be in some of the vaccines, causing even more damages to people who receive it, and spreading the virus.
He asked the Court to use federal law enforcement to initiate its own civil and criminal investigation into flu vaccine safety issue, as federal law allows for this.
He noted the days when Hitler's Nazi doctors forcibly gave shots containing adjuvants to innocent people, and reminded that Nazi ideology was stamped out precisely because of those atrocities. He claims it is unwise for the U.S. government to follow in the same path as the Nazis. America is a nation of civil laws, not a dictatorship that gives proclamations bypassing the courts and congress to demand forced vaccinations containing hazardous ingredients known to cause damages.
The forced vaccination debacle of 1976 that the government had to halt because it was injuring more people than it was protecting shows vaccine makers should not be allowed to force their vaccines on people who have no recourse. The prohibition against lawsuits by the injured gives the green light to vaccine makers to include thimerosal mercury in their new flu vaccines. When the Order deeming the forbidding of lawsuits as unconstitutional is given, any defendant will have to present factual proof in federal court, not just hearsay or advertising slogans, as so why the Constitution says it is okay to forbid people from suing to recover damages resulting from flu vaccine.
Medical professionals argue flu vaccines harm not just certain people but almost everyone who receives them. Yet the government has ignored factual evidence proving this, and instead listens to a profit run group of vaccine manufacturers who stand to earn billions of dollars as the government orders forced vaccinations on the public for the coming flu season.
The government has published a chart listing the WHO's "Phase 6 Influenza Pandemic" as being equal to an earthquake measuring 8.0 on the Richter Scale. This chart is preposterous because there are no factual criteria required for an "Influenza Pandemic" to be declared by the United Nations' WHO. The United Nations is a collective of numerous nations, most of whom have very different laws than the U.S. has, and where their leaders can simply declare or proclaim things to be so without judicial review, and their population must obey.
Glaxo Smith Kline stands to make $4 billion from its two flu vaccine drugs. CEO Andrew Witty has said his company has been preparing for a flu pandemic for thee years and has spent over $1 billion to expand its factories. Executives from Glaxo, Baxter, Novartis, and Sanofi Pasteur had seats at the advisory group that on July 13th recommended mandatory H1N1 vaccination for everyone in all 194 countries belonging to the WHO.
The fear mongering involved with this Phase 6 alert has been intense. An example being spread by interested parties is the story of a girl in England purported by the WHO to have died of swine flu because she was not vaccinated. A more thorough investigation later revealed the girl actually died of septic shock due to tonsillitis. The WHO, CDC and numerous vaccine companies have been extensively advertising dire yet apparently concocted warnings of flu pandemics. Yet only a small number of people worldwide have died from the new flu virus.
When influential TV newscasters questioned the WHO proclaiming a "Phase 6 Influenza Pandemic" without factual evidence to prove it, the WHO responded by simply stopping their tracking of swine flu cases, a bizarre behavior on the part of an organization designated to be the main hub for information gathering on the disease.
Copies of the Vawter's actual files can be viewed at:
http://www.safetylawsuits.com/compl...
http://www.safetylawsuits.com/motio...
http://www.safetylawsuits.com/preli...
This case DOES exist, and I was able to pull up (through PACER) the following docket report. Preliminary Injunction has definitely been filed (see Item #2 on the docket), but not granted, YET. Hearing on the Preliminary Injunction has been scheduled for Sept. 19, 2009.U.S. District CourtDistrict of New Jersey [LIVE] (Trenton)CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:09-cv-03803-JAP-TJBVAWTER v. FEDERAL GOVERNMENTAssigned to: Judge Joel A. PisanoReferred to: Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. BongiovanniCause: 18:241 Conspiracy Against Citizen Rights Date Filed: 07/31/2009Jury Demand: NoneNature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: OtherJurisdiction: U.S. Government DefendantPlaintiff TIM VAWTERpro se, and on behalf of others who may be unaware of the offenses or unable to sue represented by TIM VAWTER30 W. MAIN STREETSUITE 321FREEHOLD, NJ 07728(732) 294-4784PRO SEV.DefendantFEDERAL GOVERNMENTDate Filed # Docket Text 07/31/2009 1 Complaint Received. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Summons, # 3 Application IFP)(eaj) # 4 Text of Proposed Order) (Entered: 07/31/2009) 07/31/2009 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction To Forbid Forced Flu Vaccinations by TIM VAWTER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(eaj) (Entered: 07/31/2009)08/07/2009 3 Letter from Tim Vawter with Exhibit H. (Exhibit H is a DVD and has been forwarded to Chambers) (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Tim Vawter)(gxh) (Entered: 08/07/2009)08/14/2009 4 Letter from Tim Vawter requesting that his IFP application be reviewed with emergency, enclosing $350.00 filing fee if IFP application is not granted today, and requesting Summons to be issued. (Attachments: # 1 Letter from Richard B. Myers to Tim Vawter, # 2 Basic Moral Education Manual)(gxh) (Entered: 08/14/2009)08/14/2009 COMPLAINT against FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, filed by TIM VAWTER. (Filing fee $350 - receipt number 300 375993.) (Refer to docket entry 1 for the Complaint.)(gxh) (Entered: 08/14/2009)08/14/2009 5 SUMMONS ISSUED as to FEDERAL GOVERNMENT with answer to complaint due within 60 days. (gxh) (MAILED TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF) (Entered: 08/14/2009)08/18/2009 Set Deadlines as to 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Motion set for 9/21/2009 before Judge Joel A. Pisano. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (lk) (Entered: 08/18/2009)PACER Service CenterTransaction Receipt 08/26/2009 00:04:08PACER Login: ma3575 Client Code: Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 3:09-cv-03803-JAP-TJB Start date: 1/1/1970 End date: 8/26/2009Billable Pages: 1 Cost: 0.08
Mary Ann Hartzler 8/26
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Cadet vs Captain. No More Court-Martials at CGA.
(8/22/2009) New London - Nine 3/C cadets have been expelled from the U.S. Coast Guard Academy for using or possessing cocaine or marijuana.
Drug use was the most serious offense, but several of the nine third-class cadets also broke academy rules prohibiting underage drinking, fraternizing and stealing.
The academy's leadership decided not to court-martial the eight male cadets and one female cadet because the drug use was “personal use,” said Capt. John Fitzgerald, commandant of cadets.
”Some of it was one time, and I think we had one cadet that used it up to three times,” Fitzgerald said Friday. “In the Coast Guard, if we have someone who tests positive for drugs in a urinalysis or admits to personal drug use, it is handled in the same way. They are administratively separated” from the service.
Eight of the cadets admitted to the allegations against them. Fitzgerald found the ninth cadet guilty based on other evidence, including eyewitness statements. The academy did not release the names of the cadets because of federal privacy laws.
The investigation began June 29 after academy staff heard rumors about drug use. Fitzgerald asked the Coast Guard Investigative Service to look into the matter and a drug-sniffing dog was brought into the Chase Hall barracks. No drugs were found, but investigators determined that nine cadets used or possessed cocaine and/or marijuana during the 2008-09 school year while on leave and once on academy grounds, as well as this summer when the academy's training vessel, the Coast Guard barque Eagle, stopped for a port call in Charleston, S.C.
Seven of the nine also got into trouble for underage drinking, and two of the nine were found guilty for fraternizing with an enlisted female on the Eagle, Fitzgerald said. One of the male cadets had a sexual relationship with the enlisted female while the other male cadet went on liberty with them, he added. The enlisted female was restricted to the ship for a month and is still a part of the crew, according to a crewmember.
Some of the cadets were caught stealing liquor from the exchange store on campus, Fitzgerald said. They were also accused of taking over-the-counter drugs from the store, but that charge was not proven, he added.
Hearings for seven of the cadets were held July 30. The other two hearings, or “captain's masts,” were held Aug. 12.
Two cadets were considering whether to appeal their disenrollment to Coast Guard Headquarters. Six have already left the academy, and the other was expected to leave soon, Fitzgerald said.
They have been given general discharges from the Coast Guard, which means they will not be eligible for most veterans' benefits, including tuition assistance or voluntary military service in the future. They also have been barred from academy grounds.
One of the Coast Guard's core missions is to stop illegal drugs from entering the country through maritime routes. To have future Coast Guard officers using drugs, Fitzgerald said, is “inconsistent with everything we stand for.”
The investigation revealed other acts of misconduct by cadets. One had a relationship with a subordinate cadet, which is against academy rules, and knew about the nine cadets' misbehavior but did nothing to address it, Fitzgerald said. That cadet was disenrolled as well.
Two cadets were accused of cheating in summer school and one was accused of lying while training on the Eagle. All are third-class cadets, and their cases have not yet been adjudicated, Fitzgerald said.
Earlier this week, Fitzgerald took away all of the third-class cadets' Friday-night liberty privileges for two weeks and their casual recreation gear - khakis with a polo shirt - which means they have to wear uniforms until at least Thanksgiving.
”We had some honor offenses with this class, the drug incidences were primarily in this class, and there was not a good attitude by some members of the class in summer school,” he said. “I wanted to re-emphasize that they need to work together as team to be a credit to the academy.”
The CGIS investigation has concluded, but an internal investigation into the more minor acts of misconduct is ongoing.
The academy conducts random urinalysis during the year.
The Class of 2012 started with 295 members but has dropped to 254 because of cadets not meeting academic or physical requirements, violating academy rules or choosing to leave. An average class size at graduation is 220.
”I wouldn't want these incidents to characterize the academy or that class,” Fitzgerald said. “I'm disappointed by what happened, both as commandant of cadets and as a Coast Guard officer, but most cadets are doing well. What I want is for the ones who are doing really well to ensure that the ones who are bringing them down come back up to standard.”
THE DAY newspaper had a follow on story that gives greater details on the nine Third Class Cadets booted for drug use that included cocaine. Captain John Fitzgerald told The Day that the Academy decided not to Court Martial the nine Cadets since drug usage was “personal usage.” What? All nine individually bought their cocaine from a dealer and then used it for “personal use?” Fitzgerald is apparently saying that the Academy believes all nine lined up like kids in a candy store and made individual purchases of their drug of choice.
The cocaine that Captain Sullivan used was for personal use as well and went to a General Court Martial. Before the pundits chime in we do recognize that there is a difference between the accountability of a Cadet and a Captain. But I would remind you that Cadet’s become Captain’s and sending the message that drug use at CGA can result in Brig time or a federal conviction has much greater impact. These nine Cadets are eligible to attend a state college in Connecticut for free.
Imagine that, 9 kids on full free rides at CGA that would have accrued them an active duty service commitment, can now get a free ride on the state and then go on with their lives.
(ATTACHMENT 1)
ALAMEDA, Calif.(8/20/08) - CAPT Mike Sullivan, a senior officer on the Coast
Guard's Pacific Area staff has been charged with
wrongfully using cocaine and has been temporarily
reassigned to a non-supervisory position.
CAPT Michael Sullivan, who had been serving as
Pacific Area's Chief of Response, was charged with one
specification of wrongful use of cocaine under Article
112(a) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and one
charge of obstruction of justice under Article 133 of
the UCMJ.
Vice Adm. David Pekoske, the Coast Guard Pacific Area
Commander, has directed that the charges against
Sullivan be investigated in accordance with Article 32
of the UCMJ. Such an investigation is required before
charges could be referred for trial to a general
court-martial.
An Article 32 hearing is a preliminary hearing in
which an investigating officer inquires into the truth
of the matters set forth in the charges and recommends
disposition of the charges. The accused member and his
counsel are present and have the right to question
witnesses at such a proceeding. A date has not yet
been set for the Article 32 hearing.
If found guilty of both charges, Sullivan faces a
potential maximum sentence of a dismissal from the
Coast Guard, 10 years confinement and forfeiture of
all pay and allowances.
Capt. Michael Sullivan, formerly commanding officer of the USCGC Morgenthau (WHEC), has 26 years of service in the Coast Guard.
CAPT Sullivan, the Pacific area's Chief of Response since May 2007, supervised the operation of 20 major Coast Guard cutters and directed law enforcement units that protect ports and fisheries and fight drug trafficking and illegal immigration.
CAPT Sullivan earlier commanded three cutters, and his assignments have included acting as the Coast Guard's liaison to the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon.
The Coast Guard's Pacific area, based in Alameda, extends from South America to the Arctic Circle and west to the Far East.
Are we comparing apples to oranges? Did the Commandant of Cadets exercise sound judgement? In the post-Webster Smith court-martial environment, was this a good decision, or a politically correct decision? Or was this a practical decision. After a cost-benefit analysis, would it have been worth the time and the money to convene another General Court-martial at the Coast Guard Academy? The court-martial of Webster Smith drained the coffers and took all the wind out of their sails. It also consumed a considerable number of man-hours, with the investigation, trial, appeal, and press conferences.
Or, perhaps, the Coast Guard has lost faith in its Law Specialists. Perhaps, the Operators and Line Officers can no longer rely with confidence on the advice they receive from their Law Specialists. If CDR Sean Gill had been advising the Commandant of Cadets and the Academy Superintendent, what do you suppose he would have recommended?
A writer at the Blog Coast Guard Report made a piercing analysis. I agree with him.
QUOTE:
My only concern is that there seems to be a disconnect between what the Coast Guard sees as serious enough to take someone to Court Martial as opposed to NJP. My thought is that someone who does drugs has no place in my service or any service. They should be hammered home via Court Martial. Those who do drugs endanger their shipmates lives, no doubt about it. Someone who is willing to do a line of cocaine as a recreational drug “for personal” use, certainly has little concern for their own safety let alone their shipmates. They are the definition of unsafe. According to the reports I read this weekend, at least one Cadets took his drug of personal choice on board the Barque Eagle. No doubt that Cadet endangered lives by doing so.
Now lets compare your position that sending these Cadets out the door at NJP vice Court Martial is in keeping with fleet practices, which I agree it is. But in my mind a sailor who does drugs and risks the safety of their crew has no place in the service and we can’t and shouldn’t take the chance on rehabilitating them and returning them to service. On the other hand, we have seen an incredible number of Coasties go to Court Martial for misuse of their Government Travel Card. In one case I reported on several years ago, a Black Chief Petty Officer with over 20 years of untarnished service was taken to Court Martial for 3K in unauthorized charges which he immediately paid back. He drummed down to First Class and sent packing out the door.
This is not an isolated case, I have been contacted by numerous Coasties in similar scenarios. A Coastie or member of any branch of the service who’s only crime against humanity is misuse of a government travel card may be worth trying to salvage. NJP may be the more appropriate route. Certainly I’m aware of cases where the member involved used the travel card to procure services that went beyond accidental or emergent self need. Summarily drumming every Coastie who misuses a travel card out by Court Martial while sending those who procured, used and stored cocaine on a naval vessel does not compute.
Now before any of you start casting stones about my mention of the Chief being Black, I did that for a reason. His command in Elizabeth City, NC at the time only held Black Coasties to the standard of NPJ and Court Martial. Whites who committed more serious infractions were summarily left alone. The Command Climate was one of fear and retaliation which later landed this unit in the spot-lite on Civil Rights violations. Tenant commands at the base had long given up on working with the leadership at the base.
The current Commanding Officer of this unit spent the first year of her tour repairing not only the damaged command climate, but rebuilding bridges with other tenant commands. First hand reports confirm that the command has been healed, and bridges rebuilt.
UNQUOTE.
Judge London Steverson
London Eugene Livingston Steverson (born March 13, 1947) was one of the first two African Americans to graduate from the United States Coast Guard Academy in 1968. Later, as chief of the newly formed Minority Recruiting Section of the United States Coast Guard (USCG), he was charged with desegregating the Coast Guard Academy by recruiting minority candidates. He retired from the Coast Guard in 1988 and in 1990 was appointed to the bench as a Federal Administrative Law Judge with the Office of Hearings and Appeals, Social Security Administration.
Early Life and Education
Steverson was born and raised in Millington, Tennessee, the oldest of three children of Jerome and Ruby Steverson. At the age of 5 he was enrolled in the E. A. Harrold elementary school in a segregated school system. He later attended the all black Woodstock High School in Memphis, Tennessee, graduating valedictorian.
A Presidential Executive Order issued by President Truman had desegregated the armed forces in 1948,[1] but the service academies were lagging in officer recruiting. President Kennedy specifically challenged the United States Coast Guard Academy to tender appointments to Black high school students. London Steverson was one of the Black student to be offered such an appointment, and when he accepted the opportunity to be part of the class of 1968, he became the second African American to enter the previously all-white military academy. On June 4, 1968 Steverson graduated from the Coast Guard Academy with a BS degree in Engineering and a commission as an ensign in the U.S. Coast Guard.
In 1974, while still a member of the Coast Guard, Steverson entered The National Law Center of The George Washington University and graduated in 1977 with a Juris Doctor of Laws Degree.
USCG Assignments.
Steverson's first duty assignment out of the Academy was in Antarctic research logistical support. In July 1968 he reported aboard the Coast Guard Cutter (CGC) Glacier [2] (WAGB-4), an icebreaker operating under the control of the U.S. Navy, and served as a deck watch officer and head of the Marine Science Department. He traveled to Antarctica during two patrols from July 1968 to August 1969, supporting the research operations of the National Science Foundation's Antarctic Research Project in and around McMurdo Station. During the 1969 patrol the CGC Glacier responded to an international distress call from the Argentine icebreaker General SanMartin, which they freed.
He received another military assignment from 1970 to 1972 in Juneau, Alaska as a Search and Rescue Officer. Before being certified as an Operations Duty Officer, it was necessary to become thoroughly familiar with the geography and topography of the Alaskan remote sites. Along with his office mate, Ltjg Herbert Claiborne "Bertie" Pell, the son of Rhode Island Senator Claiborne Pell, Steverson was sent on a familiarization tour of Coast Guard, Navy and Air Force bases. The bases visited were Base Kodiak, Base Adak Island, and Attu Island, in the Aleutian Islands.[3]
Steverson was the Duty Officer on September 4, 1971 when an emergency call was received that an Alaska Airlines Boeing 727 airline passenger plane was overdue at Juneau airport. This was a Saturday and the weather was foggy with drizzling rain. Visibility was less than one-quarter mile. The 727 was en route to Seattle, Washington from Anchorage, Alaska with a scheduled stop in Juneau. There were 109 people on board and there were no survivors. Steverson received the initial alert message and began the coordination of the search and rescue effort. In a matter of hours the wreckage from the plane, with no survivors, was located on the side of a mountain about five miles from the airport. For several weeks the body parts were collected and reassembled in a staging area in the National Guard Armory only a few blocks from the Search and Rescue Center where Steverson first received the distress broadcast.[4]. Later a full investigation with the National Transportation Safety Board determined that the cause of the accident was equipment failure.[5]
Another noteworthy item is Steverson's involvement as an Operations Officer during the seizure of two Russian fishing vessels, the Kolevan and the Lamut for violating an international agreement prohibiting foreign vessels from fishing in United States territorial waters. The initial attempts at seizing the Russian vessels almost precipitated an international incident when the Russian vessels refused to proceed to a U. S. port, and instead sailed toward the Kamchatka Peninsula. Russian MIG fighter planes were scrambled, as well as American fighter planes from Elmendorf Air Force Base before the Russian vessels changed course and steamed back
Drug use was the most serious offense, but several of the nine third-class cadets also broke academy rules prohibiting underage drinking, fraternizing and stealing.
The academy's leadership decided not to court-martial the eight male cadets and one female cadet because the drug use was “personal use,” said Capt. John Fitzgerald, commandant of cadets.
”Some of it was one time, and I think we had one cadet that used it up to three times,” Fitzgerald said Friday. “In the Coast Guard, if we have someone who tests positive for drugs in a urinalysis or admits to personal drug use, it is handled in the same way. They are administratively separated” from the service.
Eight of the cadets admitted to the allegations against them. Fitzgerald found the ninth cadet guilty based on other evidence, including eyewitness statements. The academy did not release the names of the cadets because of federal privacy laws.
The investigation began June 29 after academy staff heard rumors about drug use. Fitzgerald asked the Coast Guard Investigative Service to look into the matter and a drug-sniffing dog was brought into the Chase Hall barracks. No drugs were found, but investigators determined that nine cadets used or possessed cocaine and/or marijuana during the 2008-09 school year while on leave and once on academy grounds, as well as this summer when the academy's training vessel, the Coast Guard barque Eagle, stopped for a port call in Charleston, S.C.
Seven of the nine also got into trouble for underage drinking, and two of the nine were found guilty for fraternizing with an enlisted female on the Eagle, Fitzgerald said. One of the male cadets had a sexual relationship with the enlisted female while the other male cadet went on liberty with them, he added. The enlisted female was restricted to the ship for a month and is still a part of the crew, according to a crewmember.
Some of the cadets were caught stealing liquor from the exchange store on campus, Fitzgerald said. They were also accused of taking over-the-counter drugs from the store, but that charge was not proven, he added.
Hearings for seven of the cadets were held July 30. The other two hearings, or “captain's masts,” were held Aug. 12.
Two cadets were considering whether to appeal their disenrollment to Coast Guard Headquarters. Six have already left the academy, and the other was expected to leave soon, Fitzgerald said.
They have been given general discharges from the Coast Guard, which means they will not be eligible for most veterans' benefits, including tuition assistance or voluntary military service in the future. They also have been barred from academy grounds.
One of the Coast Guard's core missions is to stop illegal drugs from entering the country through maritime routes. To have future Coast Guard officers using drugs, Fitzgerald said, is “inconsistent with everything we stand for.”
The investigation revealed other acts of misconduct by cadets. One had a relationship with a subordinate cadet, which is against academy rules, and knew about the nine cadets' misbehavior but did nothing to address it, Fitzgerald said. That cadet was disenrolled as well.
Two cadets were accused of cheating in summer school and one was accused of lying while training on the Eagle. All are third-class cadets, and their cases have not yet been adjudicated, Fitzgerald said.
Earlier this week, Fitzgerald took away all of the third-class cadets' Friday-night liberty privileges for two weeks and their casual recreation gear - khakis with a polo shirt - which means they have to wear uniforms until at least Thanksgiving.
”We had some honor offenses with this class, the drug incidences were primarily in this class, and there was not a good attitude by some members of the class in summer school,” he said. “I wanted to re-emphasize that they need to work together as team to be a credit to the academy.”
The CGIS investigation has concluded, but an internal investigation into the more minor acts of misconduct is ongoing.
The academy conducts random urinalysis during the year.
The Class of 2012 started with 295 members but has dropped to 254 because of cadets not meeting academic or physical requirements, violating academy rules or choosing to leave. An average class size at graduation is 220.
”I wouldn't want these incidents to characterize the academy or that class,” Fitzgerald said. “I'm disappointed by what happened, both as commandant of cadets and as a Coast Guard officer, but most cadets are doing well. What I want is for the ones who are doing really well to ensure that the ones who are bringing them down come back up to standard.”
THE DAY newspaper had a follow on story that gives greater details on the nine Third Class Cadets booted for drug use that included cocaine. Captain John Fitzgerald told The Day that the Academy decided not to Court Martial the nine Cadets since drug usage was “personal usage.” What? All nine individually bought their cocaine from a dealer and then used it for “personal use?” Fitzgerald is apparently saying that the Academy believes all nine lined up like kids in a candy store and made individual purchases of their drug of choice.
The cocaine that Captain Sullivan used was for personal use as well and went to a General Court Martial. Before the pundits chime in we do recognize that there is a difference between the accountability of a Cadet and a Captain. But I would remind you that Cadet’s become Captain’s and sending the message that drug use at CGA can result in Brig time or a federal conviction has much greater impact. These nine Cadets are eligible to attend a state college in Connecticut for free.
Imagine that, 9 kids on full free rides at CGA that would have accrued them an active duty service commitment, can now get a free ride on the state and then go on with their lives.
(ATTACHMENT 1)
ALAMEDA, Calif.(8/20/08) - CAPT Mike Sullivan, a senior officer on the Coast
Guard's Pacific Area staff has been charged with
wrongfully using cocaine and has been temporarily
reassigned to a non-supervisory position.
CAPT Michael Sullivan, who had been serving as
Pacific Area's Chief of Response, was charged with one
specification of wrongful use of cocaine under Article
112(a) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and one
charge of obstruction of justice under Article 133 of
the UCMJ.
Vice Adm. David Pekoske, the Coast Guard Pacific Area
Commander, has directed that the charges against
Sullivan be investigated in accordance with Article 32
of the UCMJ. Such an investigation is required before
charges could be referred for trial to a general
court-martial.
An Article 32 hearing is a preliminary hearing in
which an investigating officer inquires into the truth
of the matters set forth in the charges and recommends
disposition of the charges. The accused member and his
counsel are present and have the right to question
witnesses at such a proceeding. A date has not yet
been set for the Article 32 hearing.
If found guilty of both charges, Sullivan faces a
potential maximum sentence of a dismissal from the
Coast Guard, 10 years confinement and forfeiture of
all pay and allowances.
Capt. Michael Sullivan, formerly commanding officer of the USCGC Morgenthau (WHEC), has 26 years of service in the Coast Guard.
CAPT Sullivan, the Pacific area's Chief of Response since May 2007, supervised the operation of 20 major Coast Guard cutters and directed law enforcement units that protect ports and fisheries and fight drug trafficking and illegal immigration.
CAPT Sullivan earlier commanded three cutters, and his assignments have included acting as the Coast Guard's liaison to the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon.
The Coast Guard's Pacific area, based in Alameda, extends from South America to the Arctic Circle and west to the Far East.
Are we comparing apples to oranges? Did the Commandant of Cadets exercise sound judgement? In the post-Webster Smith court-martial environment, was this a good decision, or a politically correct decision? Or was this a practical decision. After a cost-benefit analysis, would it have been worth the time and the money to convene another General Court-martial at the Coast Guard Academy? The court-martial of Webster Smith drained the coffers and took all the wind out of their sails. It also consumed a considerable number of man-hours, with the investigation, trial, appeal, and press conferences.
Or, perhaps, the Coast Guard has lost faith in its Law Specialists. Perhaps, the Operators and Line Officers can no longer rely with confidence on the advice they receive from their Law Specialists. If CDR Sean Gill had been advising the Commandant of Cadets and the Academy Superintendent, what do you suppose he would have recommended?
A writer at the Blog Coast Guard Report made a piercing analysis. I agree with him.
QUOTE:
My only concern is that there seems to be a disconnect between what the Coast Guard sees as serious enough to take someone to Court Martial as opposed to NJP. My thought is that someone who does drugs has no place in my service or any service. They should be hammered home via Court Martial. Those who do drugs endanger their shipmates lives, no doubt about it. Someone who is willing to do a line of cocaine as a recreational drug “for personal” use, certainly has little concern for their own safety let alone their shipmates. They are the definition of unsafe. According to the reports I read this weekend, at least one Cadets took his drug of personal choice on board the Barque Eagle. No doubt that Cadet endangered lives by doing so.
Now lets compare your position that sending these Cadets out the door at NJP vice Court Martial is in keeping with fleet practices, which I agree it is. But in my mind a sailor who does drugs and risks the safety of their crew has no place in the service and we can’t and shouldn’t take the chance on rehabilitating them and returning them to service. On the other hand, we have seen an incredible number of Coasties go to Court Martial for misuse of their Government Travel Card. In one case I reported on several years ago, a Black Chief Petty Officer with over 20 years of untarnished service was taken to Court Martial for 3K in unauthorized charges which he immediately paid back. He drummed down to First Class and sent packing out the door.
This is not an isolated case, I have been contacted by numerous Coasties in similar scenarios. A Coastie or member of any branch of the service who’s only crime against humanity is misuse of a government travel card may be worth trying to salvage. NJP may be the more appropriate route. Certainly I’m aware of cases where the member involved used the travel card to procure services that went beyond accidental or emergent self need. Summarily drumming every Coastie who misuses a travel card out by Court Martial while sending those who procured, used and stored cocaine on a naval vessel does not compute.
Now before any of you start casting stones about my mention of the Chief being Black, I did that for a reason. His command in Elizabeth City, NC at the time only held Black Coasties to the standard of NPJ and Court Martial. Whites who committed more serious infractions were summarily left alone. The Command Climate was one of fear and retaliation which later landed this unit in the spot-lite on Civil Rights violations. Tenant commands at the base had long given up on working with the leadership at the base.
The current Commanding Officer of this unit spent the first year of her tour repairing not only the damaged command climate, but rebuilding bridges with other tenant commands. First hand reports confirm that the command has been healed, and bridges rebuilt.
UNQUOTE.
Judge London Steverson
London Eugene Livingston Steverson (born March 13, 1947) was one of the first two African Americans to graduate from the United States Coast Guard Academy in 1968. Later, as chief of the newly formed Minority Recruiting Section of the United States Coast Guard (USCG), he was charged with desegregating the Coast Guard Academy by recruiting minority candidates. He retired from the Coast Guard in 1988 and in 1990 was appointed to the bench as a Federal Administrative Law Judge with the Office of Hearings and Appeals, Social Security Administration.
Early Life and Education
Steverson was born and raised in Millington, Tennessee, the oldest of three children of Jerome and Ruby Steverson. At the age of 5 he was enrolled in the E. A. Harrold elementary school in a segregated school system. He later attended the all black Woodstock High School in Memphis, Tennessee, graduating valedictorian.
A Presidential Executive Order issued by President Truman had desegregated the armed forces in 1948,[1] but the service academies were lagging in officer recruiting. President Kennedy specifically challenged the United States Coast Guard Academy to tender appointments to Black high school students. London Steverson was one of the Black student to be offered such an appointment, and when he accepted the opportunity to be part of the class of 1968, he became the second African American to enter the previously all-white military academy. On June 4, 1968 Steverson graduated from the Coast Guard Academy with a BS degree in Engineering and a commission as an ensign in the U.S. Coast Guard.
In 1974, while still a member of the Coast Guard, Steverson entered The National Law Center of The George Washington University and graduated in 1977 with a Juris Doctor of Laws Degree.
USCG Assignments.
Steverson's first duty assignment out of the Academy was in Antarctic research logistical support. In July 1968 he reported aboard the Coast Guard Cutter (CGC) Glacier [2] (WAGB-4), an icebreaker operating under the control of the U.S. Navy, and served as a deck watch officer and head of the Marine Science Department. He traveled to Antarctica during two patrols from July 1968 to August 1969, supporting the research operations of the National Science Foundation's Antarctic Research Project in and around McMurdo Station. During the 1969 patrol the CGC Glacier responded to an international distress call from the Argentine icebreaker General SanMartin, which they freed.
He received another military assignment from 1970 to 1972 in Juneau, Alaska as a Search and Rescue Officer. Before being certified as an Operations Duty Officer, it was necessary to become thoroughly familiar with the geography and topography of the Alaskan remote sites. Along with his office mate, Ltjg Herbert Claiborne "Bertie" Pell, the son of Rhode Island Senator Claiborne Pell, Steverson was sent on a familiarization tour of Coast Guard, Navy and Air Force bases. The bases visited were Base Kodiak, Base Adak Island, and Attu Island, in the Aleutian Islands.[3]
Steverson was the Duty Officer on September 4, 1971 when an emergency call was received that an Alaska Airlines Boeing 727 airline passenger plane was overdue at Juneau airport. This was a Saturday and the weather was foggy with drizzling rain. Visibility was less than one-quarter mile. The 727 was en route to Seattle, Washington from Anchorage, Alaska with a scheduled stop in Juneau. There were 109 people on board and there were no survivors. Steverson received the initial alert message and began the coordination of the search and rescue effort. In a matter of hours the wreckage from the plane, with no survivors, was located on the side of a mountain about five miles from the airport. For several weeks the body parts were collected and reassembled in a staging area in the National Guard Armory only a few blocks from the Search and Rescue Center where Steverson first received the distress broadcast.[4]. Later a full investigation with the National Transportation Safety Board determined that the cause of the accident was equipment failure.[5]
Another noteworthy item is Steverson's involvement as an Operations Officer during the seizure of two Russian fishing vessels, the Kolevan and the Lamut for violating an international agreement prohibiting foreign vessels from fishing in United States territorial waters. The initial attempts at seizing the Russian vessels almost precipitated an international incident when the Russian vessels refused to proceed to a U. S. port, and instead sailed toward the Kamchatka Peninsula. Russian MIG fighter planes were scrambled, as well as American fighter planes from Elmendorf Air Force Base before the Russian vessels changed course and steamed back
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Black and Disorderly, A Cop's Call?
Deciding when a person's behavior constitutes disorderly conduct is one of the broadest and most undefined areas of law enforcement where police officers have wide latitude. In law enforcement, there are few situations that are clear cut.
As Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. now knows all too well, the misdemeanor charge can be used to corral people who are simply uncooperative or rude. State statutes are designed to help police officers maintain authority, and they are so broadly worded that divining what constitutes disorderly conduct is left up to the discretion of individual officers. "It's probably the most abused statute in America," says Eugene O'Donnell, a professor of law and police studies at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City.
Perhaps not surprisingly, a good chunk of disorderly conduct charges end up being dropped, as happened in the case against Gates, who was arrested on his porch July 16 after yelling at the officer who responded to a report of a possible break-in at the Harvard scholar's home in Cambridge, Mass. Gates, who is Black, accused Sgt. James Crowley, who is white, of being a racist and also cast aspersions about the cop's "mama". "Mr. Gates was given plenty of opportunities to stop what he was doing. He didn't. He acted very irrational. He controlled the outcome of that event," Crowley said.
Talking trash by itself isn't a punishable offense — unless, it seems, you draw a crowd while doing it, which is part of the allegation against Gates. That's why in the wake of the Gates incident, cops are holding firm on the need for lots of latitude in issuing disorderly conduct charges. President Barack Obama, who said earlier this week that Cambridge police had "acted stupidly," called Crowley Friday to make nice, though he stopped short of issuing the apology that Massachusetts police unions sought and maintained that he still thought "there was an overreaction."
"Disorderly conduct is a fluid concept," says Tom Nolan, a criminal justice professor at Boston University who spent 27 years in uniform at the Boston Police Department. "Unlike a lot of other crimes, this really calls for the use of discretion in a way that armed robbery or more serious felony crime doesn't. The less serious a crime, the more officer discretion you use," he says, adding "discretion is judgment that we hope is based on wisdom, experience and training."
Disorderly conduct has its roots in the mid-19th century, when police officers needed a way to quell street brawls that erupted frequently between recent immigrants and already established residents, often regarding labor issues. Crowds would gather and cops needed to restore order in public places. According to the Cambridge police report, Gates exhibited "loud and tumultuous behavior, in a public place" that "caused citizens passing by this location to stop and take notice while appearing surprised and alarmed."
The issue of whether or not Gates — first in his home and later on his front porch — was in a public place has sparked plenty of debate, including in the blogosphere. Crowley's account of the incident included the detail that "at least seven" passers-by had stopped to rubberneck. Sam Goldberg, author of Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog, thinks the report includes that detail in order to bolster the case that this altercation was playing out publicly. "It's as if he was saying, 'Look, he was really causing a disturbance,'" says Goldberg, a criminal defense attorney at the Cambridge-based firm of Altman & Altman.
Jon Shane, who spent 17 years as a police officer in hardscrabble Newark, N.J., said that had he been the cop called to Gates' house, he would have left Gates and his huffy comments alone once he was sure Gates was the homeowner. He admits he may well have been offended by the professor's alleged bluster, but that's just part of the job, so much so that there's a term in police vernacular devoted to situations like this: contempt of cop.
"In contempt of court, you get loud and abusive in a courtroom, and it's against the law," says Shane, now a professor of criminal justice at John Jay who specializes in police policy and practice. "With contempt of cop, you get loud and nasty and show scorn for a law enforcement officer, but a police officer can't go out and lock you up for disorderly conduct because you were disrespectful toward them." The First Amendment allows you to say pretty much anything to the police. "You could tell them to go f--k themselves," says Shane, "and that's fine."
Like Shane, there are plenty of cops and ex-cops who think Professor Gates' behavior didn't warrant the disorderly conduct charge, and there are those, like Nolan, who feel it did.
"Police pride themselves on resolving issues, and 99% of the time it occurs without arrests happening," says Nolan. "You are not going to win any accolades bringing in anyone for a street disturbance. It's a waste of time because in order to bring this situation to a conclusion, you've got hours of paperwork ahead of you."
"You do it because you have no other tool at your disposal," he says of disorderly conduct. "There really isn't any other choice."
(7/29/2009-BOSTON)White Police Officer Calls Prof Henry Gates a jungle monkey.
Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis placed Police Officer Justin Barrett, 36, on administrative leave pending the outcome of a termination hearing.
"Commissioner Davis was made aware of a correspondence with racist remarks and removed the officer of his gun and badge."
The email describes Harvard Professor Doctor Henry Luis Gates, who was arrested and briefly detained earlier this month at Harvard, near Boston, as a "banana-eating jungle monkey" .
The city's mayor, Tom Menino, was quoted referring to Barrett as a "cancer in the department" and calling on him to be fired.
Gates became the center of a national debate on racism when he was charged with disorderly conduct after arguing with police sent to investigate a suspected burglary at his home near Harvard University.
President Barack Obama became embroiled in the uproar when he said police acted "stupidly."
But the email has reignited the controversy and dealt Boston's police a severe image blow just when they and the White House were hoping to calm tensions.
The email allegedly written by Barrett lambasts Gates for getting into an altercation with police.
"I am not a racist, but I am prejudice towards people who are stupid," reads the alleged diatribe -- containing frequent grammatical and spelling errors -- against Gates and local newspaper the Boston Globe.
"He has indeed transcended back to a bumbling jungle monkey."
Globe columnist Yvonne Abraham supported Gates' actions, asking readers, "Would you stand for this kind of treatment, in your own home, by a police officer who by now clearly has no right to be there?"
In Barrett's e-mail, which was posted on a Boston television station's Web site, he declared that if he had "been the officer he verbally assaulted like a banana-eating jungle monkey, I would have sprayed him in the face with OC (oleoresin capsicum, or pepper spray) deserving of his belligerent non-compliance."
Barrett used the "jungle monkey" phrase four times, three times referring to Gates and once referring to Abraham's writing as "jungle monkey gibberish."
He also declared that he was "not a racist but I am prejudice [sic] towards people who are stupid and pretend to stand up and preach for something they say is freedom but it is merely attention because you do not get enough of it in your little fear-dwelling circle of on-the-bandwagon followers."
Barrett's comments were taken out of context, said his attorney, Peter Marano.
Officer Barrett did not call professor Gates a jungle monkey or malign him racially," Marano said. "He said his behavior was like that of one. It was a characterization of the actions of that man."
According to a statement from Boston police, Commissioner Edward Davis took action immediately on learning of Barrett's remarks, stripping the officer of his gun and badge.
As Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. now knows all too well, the misdemeanor charge can be used to corral people who are simply uncooperative or rude. State statutes are designed to help police officers maintain authority, and they are so broadly worded that divining what constitutes disorderly conduct is left up to the discretion of individual officers. "It's probably the most abused statute in America," says Eugene O'Donnell, a professor of law and police studies at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City.
Perhaps not surprisingly, a good chunk of disorderly conduct charges end up being dropped, as happened in the case against Gates, who was arrested on his porch July 16 after yelling at the officer who responded to a report of a possible break-in at the Harvard scholar's home in Cambridge, Mass. Gates, who is Black, accused Sgt. James Crowley, who is white, of being a racist and also cast aspersions about the cop's "mama". "Mr. Gates was given plenty of opportunities to stop what he was doing. He didn't. He acted very irrational. He controlled the outcome of that event," Crowley said.
Talking trash by itself isn't a punishable offense — unless, it seems, you draw a crowd while doing it, which is part of the allegation against Gates. That's why in the wake of the Gates incident, cops are holding firm on the need for lots of latitude in issuing disorderly conduct charges. President Barack Obama, who said earlier this week that Cambridge police had "acted stupidly," called Crowley Friday to make nice, though he stopped short of issuing the apology that Massachusetts police unions sought and maintained that he still thought "there was an overreaction."
"Disorderly conduct is a fluid concept," says Tom Nolan, a criminal justice professor at Boston University who spent 27 years in uniform at the Boston Police Department. "Unlike a lot of other crimes, this really calls for the use of discretion in a way that armed robbery or more serious felony crime doesn't. The less serious a crime, the more officer discretion you use," he says, adding "discretion is judgment that we hope is based on wisdom, experience and training."
Disorderly conduct has its roots in the mid-19th century, when police officers needed a way to quell street brawls that erupted frequently between recent immigrants and already established residents, often regarding labor issues. Crowds would gather and cops needed to restore order in public places. According to the Cambridge police report, Gates exhibited "loud and tumultuous behavior, in a public place" that "caused citizens passing by this location to stop and take notice while appearing surprised and alarmed."
The issue of whether or not Gates — first in his home and later on his front porch — was in a public place has sparked plenty of debate, including in the blogosphere. Crowley's account of the incident included the detail that "at least seven" passers-by had stopped to rubberneck. Sam Goldberg, author of Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog, thinks the report includes that detail in order to bolster the case that this altercation was playing out publicly. "It's as if he was saying, 'Look, he was really causing a disturbance,'" says Goldberg, a criminal defense attorney at the Cambridge-based firm of Altman & Altman.
Jon Shane, who spent 17 years as a police officer in hardscrabble Newark, N.J., said that had he been the cop called to Gates' house, he would have left Gates and his huffy comments alone once he was sure Gates was the homeowner. He admits he may well have been offended by the professor's alleged bluster, but that's just part of the job, so much so that there's a term in police vernacular devoted to situations like this: contempt of cop.
"In contempt of court, you get loud and abusive in a courtroom, and it's against the law," says Shane, now a professor of criminal justice at John Jay who specializes in police policy and practice. "With contempt of cop, you get loud and nasty and show scorn for a law enforcement officer, but a police officer can't go out and lock you up for disorderly conduct because you were disrespectful toward them." The First Amendment allows you to say pretty much anything to the police. "You could tell them to go f--k themselves," says Shane, "and that's fine."
Like Shane, there are plenty of cops and ex-cops who think Professor Gates' behavior didn't warrant the disorderly conduct charge, and there are those, like Nolan, who feel it did.
"Police pride themselves on resolving issues, and 99% of the time it occurs without arrests happening," says Nolan. "You are not going to win any accolades bringing in anyone for a street disturbance. It's a waste of time because in order to bring this situation to a conclusion, you've got hours of paperwork ahead of you."
"You do it because you have no other tool at your disposal," he says of disorderly conduct. "There really isn't any other choice."
(7/29/2009-BOSTON)White Police Officer Calls Prof Henry Gates a jungle monkey.
Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis placed Police Officer Justin Barrett, 36, on administrative leave pending the outcome of a termination hearing.
"Commissioner Davis was made aware of a correspondence with racist remarks and removed the officer of his gun and badge."
The email describes Harvard Professor Doctor Henry Luis Gates, who was arrested and briefly detained earlier this month at Harvard, near Boston, as a "banana-eating jungle monkey" .
The city's mayor, Tom Menino, was quoted referring to Barrett as a "cancer in the department" and calling on him to be fired.
Gates became the center of a national debate on racism when he was charged with disorderly conduct after arguing with police sent to investigate a suspected burglary at his home near Harvard University.
President Barack Obama became embroiled in the uproar when he said police acted "stupidly."
But the email has reignited the controversy and dealt Boston's police a severe image blow just when they and the White House were hoping to calm tensions.
The email allegedly written by Barrett lambasts Gates for getting into an altercation with police.
"I am not a racist, but I am prejudice towards people who are stupid," reads the alleged diatribe -- containing frequent grammatical and spelling errors -- against Gates and local newspaper the Boston Globe.
"He has indeed transcended back to a bumbling jungle monkey."
Globe columnist Yvonne Abraham supported Gates' actions, asking readers, "Would you stand for this kind of treatment, in your own home, by a police officer who by now clearly has no right to be there?"
In Barrett's e-mail, which was posted on a Boston television station's Web site, he declared that if he had "been the officer he verbally assaulted like a banana-eating jungle monkey, I would have sprayed him in the face with OC (oleoresin capsicum, or pepper spray) deserving of his belligerent non-compliance."
Barrett used the "jungle monkey" phrase four times, three times referring to Gates and once referring to Abraham's writing as "jungle monkey gibberish."
He also declared that he was "not a racist but I am prejudice [sic] towards people who are stupid and pretend to stand up and preach for something they say is freedom but it is merely attention because you do not get enough of it in your little fear-dwelling circle of on-the-bandwagon followers."
Barrett's comments were taken out of context, said his attorney, Peter Marano.
Officer Barrett did not call professor Gates a jungle monkey or malign him racially," Marano said. "He said his behavior was like that of one. It was a characterization of the actions of that man."
According to a statement from Boston police, Commissioner Edward Davis took action immediately on learning of Barrett's remarks, stripping the officer of his gun and badge.
Driving While Black (DWB). A Victimless Crime?
Does "Cambridge-Gate" tell us anything about the state of race relations in America? Or was the arrest of prestigious Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. just an isolated incident that's been blown out of proportion?
The dueling perspectives are revealing. President Obama originally said the Cambridge police acted stupidly. The officers – ironically, the lead one teaches a class about racial profiling – insist they followed protocol.
In "post-racial" America, discussing uncomfortable racial encounters, especially by law enforcement, can seem like whining or victimhood.
Unfortunately, our racial discourse too often dissolves into generalities, conflations, and misunderstanding.
The fact that the nation, including President Obama, interrupted an urgent debate about healthcare reform to reflect on this particular arrest speaks volumes about how race continues to matter in our society. Just this afternoon, Obama told the press he had called Sgt. James Crowley (the arresting officer) to clarify his remarks and suggested he'd like to share a beer with him and Professor Gates at the White House.
Gates's story resonated with me – a Black law and medical school professor – and I wish it had not, because it recalls my pain in similar encounters.
I remember the time I was pulled over in Indiana about seven years ago. The gum-chewing officer demanded to know: "What's the situation here?"
A look of disbelief blossomed into terror across the faces of my two white colleagues from Europe, as I explained to the officer that the men were colleagues and I was driving them to the airport. Unsatisfied with that answer, he went to the passenger side of the car, to confirm this from my Italian colleague. Only then did he let us proceed.
Or there was last year in Chicago, when I was pulled over after leaving the Mercedes Benz repair shop. The officer came to my car wanting to know whether the car was mine. I explained that it was and that I was on my way to work at the University of Chicago. Yet he continued to ask, several times, whether the car belonged to me. Each time, I answered "Yes." The irony is that he was holding the registration papers, insurance card, and my driver's license. What more proof could I offer?
My frustration deepened precisely because the officer had verification of my ownership. His further delay wasted his time and mine. I refuse the cloak of victimhood, but after he pulled away, I called my husband – a white professor – and wept long and hard.
Perhaps the incident that troubles me most deeply, and which remains difficult to talk about, occurred 10 years ago, my daughter was in pre-school.
We were pulled over at night, after being followed for (I would later learn) 31 miles by an unmarked car driven by an officer not in uniform. When I asked for his identification, the man hurled racial epithets and screamed "I am the police," while beating on my car with his flashlight.
Fortunately, for my daughter and I, my friend, a white social worker whose seat had been in full recline, sat up and began screaming. When the officer saw her he stopped beating my car. I immediately called the police. As the officers arrived, we were told to drive off.
It was my friend who followed-up, filing the police complaint. It was a terror that she will not forget. I recently looked at the internal investigation report to prove to myself that it wasn't just a horrible dream.
We will never know exactly what happened at Gates's home July 16. But in a city full of noisy college students, police regularly deal with loudness and tumultuous behavior. So doesn't it seem odd that officers chose to arrest a slight, gray-haired man who relies on a cane to walk – after they confirmed it was his home?
Despite some of my experiences, I know that most officers are well-meaning and sophisticated; they deal with emotionally-charged situations in homes all the time and often provide relief. Think of the reaction when a mom finds out her child has been injured or assaulted.
In the spirit of helpfulness, why not search the home for a burglar, to protect Gates, whom they knew belonged there?
Black professors expect that if they work hard, accumulate multiple degrees, write prolifically, defy low expectations, and exceed the highest standards, they'll be insulated from stereotypes and maltreatment. But fair or reasonable treatment is not a societal goal reserved for only the well-educated. Everyone deserves at least that, even in Cambridge.
Michele Bratcher Goodwin is a professor of law and a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Minnesota.
(By Michele Bratcher Goodwin)
Well, well, well … another “racial incident” is upon us. This time, we’re in an uproar over the arrest of Henry Louis Gates (Black) by Sgt. James Crowley (white) for disorderly conduct after a heated argument about whether Gates had broken into his own house in Cambridge, Mass. Incidents like this should be an excuse to have a nuanced discussion about race in America. It's an excellent opportunity for people to hear about why Black men feel so threatened by police. Hell, it would be a great time for a bit of B-roll─just a taste of the famous incidents that have seared a distrust of the police into African-Americans, for better or for worse. It could start with the use of high-pressure water hoses and dogs on children in Birmingham, Ala., in 1963, and continue through the high-profile murders of black folks, such as Emmett Till, by people who were not convicted but who confessed to the crime in Life magazine. Maybe it could mention that of the 240 postconviction DNA exonerations in the U.S., 142 have been of African-Americans. And though it may be controversial, perhaps throw in the exoneration of four white officers for the beating of Rodney King in 1992.
Now, I know that none of these things have much to do with what happened at Professor Gates’s house, except that they have everything to do with it. It’s important for people to know that Black distrust of the cops didn’t form in a vacuum. And you know, it wouldn’t hurt to get a little background on what local and national police procedure actually is under these kinds of circumstances.
For instance,(1) if a cop asks you to step outside, do you have to? (No. No. A thousand times NO!)
(2) Do the police have a right to come inside your house?
NO! Not without your permission, unless they have a warrant sign by a neutral and detached magistrate, or have probable cause to believe that a crime is in progress.
(3) Is it illegal to yell at the police? (No.)
But it is appropriate for cops to investigate 911 calls. That’s what we pay them to do. We don’t escape racially charged situations by silence or ignorance. And we clearly don’t escape “the third rail of race,” as the press likes to call it, by sticking to our talking points no matter the circumstances. Let’s just run through those talking points and see how we could have made some headway but didn’t:
1. The president should have kept his mouth shut until he knew all the facts. This is a popular rebuttal in situations like this, when directly answering the point raised would force you to possibly admit some wrongdoing, and, for some reason, when race is concerned it’s impossible to be even 1 percent wrong. When Dennis O'Connor, president of the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association, was asked at today’s press conference what the proper procedure is for arresting people for disorderly conduct, the question was thoroughly ducked by an association attorney who said, “Having spent 30 years in the business, any law professor will tell you that one of the most difficult crimes to define is disorderly [conduct], but when a police officer makes a decision on the street, he doesn’t have time to explore 20 years of precedent.” That’s not an answer that indicates they’re confident Gates had been disorderly, but to answer that wouldn’t have served their point.
2. It was Gates who brought race into it. As if. As Gates, editor of the African American National Biography, would tell you, I’m sure race was a factor before his white female neighbor picked up her phone to dial 911. The cutting-edge research of UCLA’s Matthew D. Lieberman shows that large majorities of both Blacks and whites exhibit an automatic threat response when shown a picture of an African-American man with a neutral facial expression. That doesn’t mean we’re all racist, but it sure as heck indicates that we’re not race-neutral either. Nobody, especially police, can say that race is never, ever a fact in their decision making. Unconscious racial bias plagues us all. It was at least a partial motivation for the neighbor when she thought to call the police, and it was clearly uppermost in Gates’s mind when Sergeant Crowley knocked on his door.
3. The police are always motivated by racial animus when they investigate crime. They aren’t─there are tons of fabulous police officers who put themselves in harm's way to protect the citizens of their municipality. Once you begin to generalize wildly about all cops, you lose the argument that some cops do use racial profiling to target and harass African-Americans. The great thing about nuance is that it allows your point to be made and not immediately dismissed out of hand. Black people don’t commit all the crime in the United States, but they do commit some crime, so it’s not wacky for a cop to suspect that an African-American may have actually done something wrong. Forgive the sarcasm, but I’m just sick and tired of the conversation being hijacked by hardliners trying to convince us that it’s an either/or thing: either all black people are innocent and simply victims of police harassment and entrenched poverty, or all police officers are hardworking saints making snap decisions that are always right.
The wild reaction to President Obama’s comments indicates how far we still have to go when it comes to race relations. We use every incident that brings race to the forefront as proof that our previous positions were correct. This is why the American people are so weary of racial incidents; they're all sound and no substance. We elected an African-American president, for gosh sakes─we can handle nuance.
The dueling perspectives are revealing. President Obama originally said the Cambridge police acted stupidly. The officers – ironically, the lead one teaches a class about racial profiling – insist they followed protocol.
In "post-racial" America, discussing uncomfortable racial encounters, especially by law enforcement, can seem like whining or victimhood.
Unfortunately, our racial discourse too often dissolves into generalities, conflations, and misunderstanding.
The fact that the nation, including President Obama, interrupted an urgent debate about healthcare reform to reflect on this particular arrest speaks volumes about how race continues to matter in our society. Just this afternoon, Obama told the press he had called Sgt. James Crowley (the arresting officer) to clarify his remarks and suggested he'd like to share a beer with him and Professor Gates at the White House.
Gates's story resonated with me – a Black law and medical school professor – and I wish it had not, because it recalls my pain in similar encounters.
I remember the time I was pulled over in Indiana about seven years ago. The gum-chewing officer demanded to know: "What's the situation here?"
A look of disbelief blossomed into terror across the faces of my two white colleagues from Europe, as I explained to the officer that the men were colleagues and I was driving them to the airport. Unsatisfied with that answer, he went to the passenger side of the car, to confirm this from my Italian colleague. Only then did he let us proceed.
Or there was last year in Chicago, when I was pulled over after leaving the Mercedes Benz repair shop. The officer came to my car wanting to know whether the car was mine. I explained that it was and that I was on my way to work at the University of Chicago. Yet he continued to ask, several times, whether the car belonged to me. Each time, I answered "Yes." The irony is that he was holding the registration papers, insurance card, and my driver's license. What more proof could I offer?
My frustration deepened precisely because the officer had verification of my ownership. His further delay wasted his time and mine. I refuse the cloak of victimhood, but after he pulled away, I called my husband – a white professor – and wept long and hard.
Perhaps the incident that troubles me most deeply, and which remains difficult to talk about, occurred 10 years ago, my daughter was in pre-school.
We were pulled over at night, after being followed for (I would later learn) 31 miles by an unmarked car driven by an officer not in uniform. When I asked for his identification, the man hurled racial epithets and screamed "I am the police," while beating on my car with his flashlight.
Fortunately, for my daughter and I, my friend, a white social worker whose seat had been in full recline, sat up and began screaming. When the officer saw her he stopped beating my car. I immediately called the police. As the officers arrived, we were told to drive off.
It was my friend who followed-up, filing the police complaint. It was a terror that she will not forget. I recently looked at the internal investigation report to prove to myself that it wasn't just a horrible dream.
We will never know exactly what happened at Gates's home July 16. But in a city full of noisy college students, police regularly deal with loudness and tumultuous behavior. So doesn't it seem odd that officers chose to arrest a slight, gray-haired man who relies on a cane to walk – after they confirmed it was his home?
Despite some of my experiences, I know that most officers are well-meaning and sophisticated; they deal with emotionally-charged situations in homes all the time and often provide relief. Think of the reaction when a mom finds out her child has been injured or assaulted.
In the spirit of helpfulness, why not search the home for a burglar, to protect Gates, whom they knew belonged there?
Black professors expect that if they work hard, accumulate multiple degrees, write prolifically, defy low expectations, and exceed the highest standards, they'll be insulated from stereotypes and maltreatment. But fair or reasonable treatment is not a societal goal reserved for only the well-educated. Everyone deserves at least that, even in Cambridge.
Michele Bratcher Goodwin is a professor of law and a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Minnesota.
(By Michele Bratcher Goodwin)
Well, well, well … another “racial incident” is upon us. This time, we’re in an uproar over the arrest of Henry Louis Gates (Black) by Sgt. James Crowley (white) for disorderly conduct after a heated argument about whether Gates had broken into his own house in Cambridge, Mass. Incidents like this should be an excuse to have a nuanced discussion about race in America. It's an excellent opportunity for people to hear about why Black men feel so threatened by police. Hell, it would be a great time for a bit of B-roll─just a taste of the famous incidents that have seared a distrust of the police into African-Americans, for better or for worse. It could start with the use of high-pressure water hoses and dogs on children in Birmingham, Ala., in 1963, and continue through the high-profile murders of black folks, such as Emmett Till, by people who were not convicted but who confessed to the crime in Life magazine. Maybe it could mention that of the 240 postconviction DNA exonerations in the U.S., 142 have been of African-Americans. And though it may be controversial, perhaps throw in the exoneration of four white officers for the beating of Rodney King in 1992.
Now, I know that none of these things have much to do with what happened at Professor Gates’s house, except that they have everything to do with it. It’s important for people to know that Black distrust of the cops didn’t form in a vacuum. And you know, it wouldn’t hurt to get a little background on what local and national police procedure actually is under these kinds of circumstances.
For instance,(1) if a cop asks you to step outside, do you have to? (No. No. A thousand times NO!)
(2) Do the police have a right to come inside your house?
NO! Not without your permission, unless they have a warrant sign by a neutral and detached magistrate, or have probable cause to believe that a crime is in progress.
(3) Is it illegal to yell at the police? (No.)
But it is appropriate for cops to investigate 911 calls. That’s what we pay them to do. We don’t escape racially charged situations by silence or ignorance. And we clearly don’t escape “the third rail of race,” as the press likes to call it, by sticking to our talking points no matter the circumstances. Let’s just run through those talking points and see how we could have made some headway but didn’t:
1. The president should have kept his mouth shut until he knew all the facts. This is a popular rebuttal in situations like this, when directly answering the point raised would force you to possibly admit some wrongdoing, and, for some reason, when race is concerned it’s impossible to be even 1 percent wrong. When Dennis O'Connor, president of the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association, was asked at today’s press conference what the proper procedure is for arresting people for disorderly conduct, the question was thoroughly ducked by an association attorney who said, “Having spent 30 years in the business, any law professor will tell you that one of the most difficult crimes to define is disorderly [conduct], but when a police officer makes a decision on the street, he doesn’t have time to explore 20 years of precedent.” That’s not an answer that indicates they’re confident Gates had been disorderly, but to answer that wouldn’t have served their point.
2. It was Gates who brought race into it. As if. As Gates, editor of the African American National Biography, would tell you, I’m sure race was a factor before his white female neighbor picked up her phone to dial 911. The cutting-edge research of UCLA’s Matthew D. Lieberman shows that large majorities of both Blacks and whites exhibit an automatic threat response when shown a picture of an African-American man with a neutral facial expression. That doesn’t mean we’re all racist, but it sure as heck indicates that we’re not race-neutral either. Nobody, especially police, can say that race is never, ever a fact in their decision making. Unconscious racial bias plagues us all. It was at least a partial motivation for the neighbor when she thought to call the police, and it was clearly uppermost in Gates’s mind when Sergeant Crowley knocked on his door.
3. The police are always motivated by racial animus when they investigate crime. They aren’t─there are tons of fabulous police officers who put themselves in harm's way to protect the citizens of their municipality. Once you begin to generalize wildly about all cops, you lose the argument that some cops do use racial profiling to target and harass African-Americans. The great thing about nuance is that it allows your point to be made and not immediately dismissed out of hand. Black people don’t commit all the crime in the United States, but they do commit some crime, so it’s not wacky for a cop to suspect that an African-American may have actually done something wrong. Forgive the sarcasm, but I’m just sick and tired of the conversation being hijacked by hardliners trying to convince us that it’s an either/or thing: either all black people are innocent and simply victims of police harassment and entrenched poverty, or all police officers are hardworking saints making snap decisions that are always right.
The wild reaction to President Obama’s comments indicates how far we still have to go when it comes to race relations. We use every incident that brings race to the forefront as proof that our previous positions were correct. This is why the American people are so weary of racial incidents; they're all sound and no substance. We elected an African-American president, for gosh sakes─we can handle nuance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
