WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? CAOS or CALM SEAS?! ALL AHEAD FULL with all deliberate speed.

Personally, I prefer the old days when what happened at the Academy, stayed at the Academy.Staff officers treated all cadets the same. Any conduct that required more than a few demerits and some extra duty was considered the results of a failure in leadership. There was security in our obscurity.
That was before staff officers put their immediate interests above the reputation of the Academy and the future careers of the cadets. That was before press conferences were held to castigate cadets in the public media. Now the word has gone forth; the torch has been passed. It was on Doug Wisniewski's watch as Commandant of Cadets. The picture and profile of Cadet Webster Smith has been beamed over the internet from Aztec shores to Artic zone, to Europe and the Far East. The name and reputation of the Coast Guard Academy has been sullied. What an unnecessary tragedy!
What was sent out as a trickle has come back as a flood. Solomon was right. He that soweth the wind shall reap a whirlwind. Any man who troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.
Webster Smith, U.S. Coast Guard, and Lamar Owens, U.S. Navy, are both senior black cadet football players. Both were charged with rape. Both were found not guilty. Both have expressed a sincere desire to remain in the service on active duty. They have apologized for their college fraternity-like pranks. In an Ivy League world we could move on. http://www.time.com/time/quotes/0,26174,1209244,00.html
Military academies do not graduate scholars. They graduate leaders of men. Smith and Owens have completed four years of Academy training. The few academic credits, if any that they missed can be completed on-line. They have fulfilled the requirements to receive their commissions.
The lesser charges that they were found guilty of were add-on and catch-all charges to ensure that the Government could get a conviction for something. Those charges are not serious enough to disqualify them from being commissioned officers.
When Webster Smith walks out of Goose Creek, South Carolina Naval Brig, he should be commissioned and sent to the fleet. Unfortunately, it looks like he will serve the entire length of his sentence. Not counting the pre-trial restraint, he has already served one month of a six month sentence. The Convening Authority, Admiral James Van Sice, will not take action on his court-martial for another six months. He is too busy. His staff is over-worked. Webster Smith can wait.
The mills of the legal gods grind slowly. There is so much that has to be done before Admiral Van Sice gets a chance to sign his name on the Convening Authority Action Report. The court reporter is using antiquated equipment. A record that should take no more than two days to transcribe could take months. Admiral Van Sice will wait until he has the entire package. That must consist of the authenticated transcript of the trial record, a recommendation from his staff legal officer, and any petitions for clemency from Webster SmithÂ’s attorney. In the mean time, Webster Smith is cooling his heels in the Navy Brig.
What happens to Webster Smith when he is release from the Navy brig? Does he go back to working on the docks until Admiral Van Sice has received the complete package? Since he has the right to continuing representation by his lawyers throughout the post-trial and appellate process, it would be reasonable to assume that he will remain on active duty until the entire process has run its course. Word is that his legal team has been beefed-up by some super heavy weight lawyers. If they were good enough for Adam Clayton Powell and Richard Nixon, they should be good enough for Mister Smith. Also, a civil rights complaint has been filed to take care of any issues that do not lend themselves to a purely legal solution.
The United States Court of Military Review, under Article 66 of the UCMJ, shall review all cases of trial by court-martial in which the sentence as approved by the Convening Authority extends to dismissal of a cadet from the Coast Guard, and/or a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge, unless the accused waives appellate review.
The Court may act only with respect to the findings and sentence as approved by the Convening authority. However, The Court may also review such other matters and take such other action as it deems to be proper under substantive law. The determination of any matter referred to the Court shall be according to the opinion of a majority of the judges participating in the decision.
Webster Smith may be represented before the Court by appellate counsel detailed in accordance with Article 70(a), or by civilian counsel or both. If he does not waive appellate review pursuant to Rule for Court-martial 1110, he has 10 days after service of Admiral Van Sice's Convening Authority action to advise Admiral Van Sice in writing that he requests assignment of military appellate defense counsel under Rule 10(a). The Court may request a military counsel when none has been assigned. Moreover, assigned military appellate counsel will continue to represent Webster Smith after appearance of civilian counsel unless Cadet Smith excuses him. The Court will regard civilian counsel as primary counsel.
Cadet Smith's appellate counsel will file with the Court in a brief an assignment of error setting forth separately each error asserted. Oral arguments may be heard at the discretion of the Court upon motion by either party. Such a motion must be made when the party's pleading is filed.
The Court may in its discretion reconsider its decision within 30 days after service of that decision on the accused or his appellate counsel. Decision of the Court of Military Review may be appealed to the Court of Military Appeals.
The Coast Guard Court of Military Review is made up of Coast Guard Officers. It has the power to decide matter of both fact and law. The Court of Military Appeals is made up of five civilian judges, appointed to 15 year terms. It decides only issues of law. All of its decisions are reported in the Military Justice Reporter and create precedent. It's decisions may be appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court. It is the highest court in the land. The appeal and the buck stops there.
Since Webster Smith's court-martial sentenced him to dismissal from the Coast Guard, that part of the sentence providing for dismissal may not be executed until approved by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Also, the Secretary may commute, remit, or suspend the sentence, as he sees fit. However, if Webster Smith exercises his rights to appellate review the Secretary cannot act until there is a final judgement as to the legality of the proceedings by the Court of Military Review and 60 days have passed after that and no appeal has been taken to the Court of Military Appeals.
Admiral Van Sice could save everyone a lot of time and trouble. He has the authority to suspend the execution of any sentence or part thereof. This entire mess could be over in a matter of months. Otherwise, Cadet Webster Smith could be lieutenant junior grade Webster Smith before the the entire package lands on the desk of the Secretary of Homeland Security.
If everyone plays by the rules, when the dust settles, Webster Smith could be Ensign or Lieutenant Webster Smith. This episode will be little more than a bad dream. Joanne Miller will be truly the Grand Lady of Academy Civil Rights. Van Sice can go back to brewing his beer with his picture on the label. Wisniewski will have decided what he plans to do in his next career, perhaps Dean of Students at Moorehouse. The Coast Guard Academy will have some super memorabilia for its ten million dollar museum.

Navy out-flanks Coast Guard. Go Navy!!

Jury recommends no punishment for Navy Cadet Lamar Owens

WASHINGTON — A military jury recommended no punishment Friday for former U.S. Naval Academy quarterback Lamar S. Owens Jr., who was acquitted of raping a female midshipman but convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and disobeying a lawful order.

Academy superintendent Vice Adm. Rodney Rempt must now decide whether to punish Owens for violating academy rules, including prohibitions against having sex on campus and fraternizing with a member of his company, and violating a written order that he stay away from the vicinity of his accuser.


“We’re going to have a discussion and the admiral will evaluate this case anew,” said Reid Weingarten, Owens’ civilian attorney.

Owens did not speak to reporters. Weingarten said “We are thankful to God that justice was done.”

The 22-year-old senior from Savannah, Ga., could have received anything from a written reprimand to dismissal on the two charges. Prosecutors had recommended a two-year sentence.

Owens’ mother burst into tears when the decision was announced. His father leaned over a dividing wall and hugged him.

The five Naval Academy officers that served as his jury on Thursday found that Owens had consensual sex with a junior midshipman in her room at the academy’s Bancroft Hall on Jan. 29. His accuser had claimed Owens entered her room uninvited and raped her after she blacked out.

Both Owens and his accuser testified that they had several drinks at separate locations in Baltimore and Annapolis in the hours before their early morning encounter, but other witnesses have said the young woman was seen having as many as nine drinks at a restaurant and later at an Annapolis bar favored by midshipmen.

Earlier Friday, Owens told the court he hoped to remain in the service.

“I still want to be a Naval officer,” Owens told the panel of five officers convened for his court martial. “I deeply regret the unwanted attention that I brought to the Naval Academy,” Owens said.

A senior, Owens expected to enter the Navy as an ensign assigned to surface warfare duties, but he was not allowed to graduate with his classmates in May. He has the credits to qualify for an economics degree. His status is in limbo until Rempt decides on his future, Owens’ attorney said.

Last season, Owens led Navy’s football team to an 8-4 record that included victories over military academy rivals Air Force and Army and a victory in the Poinsettia Bowl over Colorado State. He was the team’s most valuable player.
July 21, 2006
By Derrill Holly



AVAST! ALL BACK FULL!! Says Navy Secretary Donald Winter.

Although Owens was acquitted of rape, he was found guilty of lesser charges and will be expelled with no degree and must repay the school more than $90,000, Navy officials said Thursday, April 12.
Navy Secretary Donald C. Winter called Lamar Owens Jr.'s conduct unsatisfactory and ordered him discharged.
The cost of Owens' education was put at $136,000, but Winter reduced his debt by one-third, to $90,797.75 in recognition of his noteworthy professional conduct during the time he served as a midshipman following his anticipated graduation date, the Navy said in a written statement.
The academy superintendent, Vice Adm. Rodney Rempt, had recommended that Owens repay nothing.
Kimberly Owens, Lamar Owens' mother, reacted angrily to the news. She said Owens is the first midshipman in the Academy's 162-year history to be criminally prosecuted for having sex in the Naval Academy's dormitory, even though academy officials testified that violations of the rule are fairly common.
"I would not recommend anybody go to the Naval Academy, especially anybody of color," she added.
Owens, who identifies herself as a feminist, said she was not impressed by arguments that Rempt's actions have led to an improved climate at the academy for women.
"You are giving them a way out, but they want to be treated equally," she said. "I can't say, treat me equally, but have a get out-of-jail-free card in my back pocket. And that card is to be able to cry false rape."

In China when a convicted criminal is sentenced to be executed, he is tied to a chair in a stadium and killed with a bullet to the brain. The government charges the cost of the bullet to the family of the executed criminal. They make the family pay. Who is more enlightened?
The Secretary of the Navy is not as enlightened as one would have hoped. He has overruled the Annapolis Superintendent, Admiral Rodney Rempt, and he has ordered that Cadet Lamar Owens must repay $90,000.00 for his training. He has the nerve in the face of a cry in some quarters for reparations for the descendents of the African slaves, to ask the sons and grandsons of slaves and sharecroppers to repay more than the entire family makes in five years. In many cases Black college students today are the first in their families to even go to college. The Secretary of the Navy, Donald C. Winter, is needlessly grandstanding. He wants to make the family pay.This is a flea-flicker play by the Navy Secretary, but there is a great counter play. You see, Lamar Owens won a lot of games for the Navy; and, he filled a lot of seats. Also, he had one of Washington, DC’s best Super Lawyers representing him at his court-martial. Lamar Owens would do well to get his “million dollar baby” attorney, Reid Weingarten, to sue Annapolis and the Naval Academy Alumni Association for a percentage of the proceeds from all of the football games that he played in, and for the concessions and parking and souvenirs and the free publicity that he generated as their star quarterback. He was exploited. He was used. Annapolis did not do him any favors. They pursued him. He earned more money for Annapolis and the Navy than he was allocated to pay for his marginal education.

Runaway Jury, ran from reality.

For a pure ice-water jolt to the senses few juries in recent years have surprised me as much as the Webster Smith court-martial jury. The verdict is in on the jury. We know that, at least, seven of the nine members were brain-dead. One was certifiably insane.

(THIS POST HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY REMOVED FOR REVIEW by the author.)

How many football players does it take to rape girl?

How many big burly football players does it take to rape a dainty distance runner? The answer is THREE. TWO to watch, and ONE to pile-on.

This is a true story, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Webster Smith; except, of course, it demonstrates most vividly that the military justice apparatus at the Coast Guard Academy under Captain Doug Wisniewski was running on two separate and very unequal tracks. White rapists were allowed to resign, and their victims were harassed out of the Academy; whereas, innocent Black cadets were framed, prosecuted, and sent to jail on perjured testimony. The accusers received plush assignments and other rewards for having done the dirty deed.

Doug Wisniewski, you can run, but you can't hide. Your sins will find you out. Heaven help us if someone of your ilk believes that you are the stuff of which admirals are made.

One night a dainty little distance runner, a delicate flower from the Garden State, was studying with her classmate in his room when without warning she was pounced on and savagely raped by three beefy bullies. Only one actually did the dirty deed, but the other two vicarious varmints are equally culpable. They not only failed to assist this damsel in distress, but they refused to raise a hue and cry for help. And against every human instinct for compassion, when questioned later, they lied about the incident. They were so distracted in their little 12 foot by 12 foot room that they were totally unaware that this delicate little flower had been deflowered.

The big bad burly football player who actually did the dirty deed, let's call him Mister Big, or MB for short. He was so brazen as to actually threaten the delicate flower and her two roommates with physical violence if they breathed a word about what he had done. The poor little innocent roommates of the delicate flower were so stressed that they were driven to take prescription medication. They even had to be referred for mental health counseling to cope with the somatic manifestations of the stress brought on by MB's threat.

Our delicate flower received no charity from her fellow cadets. She became a pariah. She was branded and taunted by some of the other athletes. She had to face daily taunts of "What's the matter; don't you like rough sex?" Can you imagine such treatment from the cream of the crop? She was ridiculed and branded a slot, harlot, loose woman, and not only by the other cadets. She was dragged out of bed one night about midnight in only her pajamas, and she was hauled before a CPO and a LT and called a bunch of dirty names. One can only imagine that this is how we treat victims of sexual assault these days. Also, Doug Wisniewski did not call it rape; nor did he call it sexual assault. He called it non-consensual sexual activity. That way, he would not have to court-martial anyone. Anyone White, that is. You see, court-martials are reserved for the Black cadets. That is the kind of justice Doug Wisniewski believed in.

The Academy has replaced Doug Wisniewski with a female Commandant of Cadets. Also, they want to get female officers involved in the rape investigation and counseling process as early as possible. Doug was replaced by Judy. Doug said this and now Judy agrees that there is an atmosphere of fear and intimidation at the Academy, and that some female cadets are hesitant to come forward with assault allegations.

Well, for once, Doug has said something that I agree with. But, the big question is, who are they afraid of? From what happened to our delicate flower after her rape, it is clearly obvious that they are afraid of the Academy staff officers. This is incredible. Little did the news media realize when Doug Wisniewski said that there was an atmosphere of fear and intimidation at the Academy, that the female cadets were afraid of the officers. They were not afraid of Webster Smith. They were afraid of Doug Wisniewski and his staff officers. They were so afraid that they were willing to be used to court-martial Webster Smith, after MB had been allowed to slip away with nary a slap on the wrist.

So, what did they do to our delicate flower? They assigned a female staff officer to interview her. The interview turned into an interrogation. The investigation became an inquisition. The female staff officer inferred that the delicate flower was responsible for her own rape. She, as much as, accused her of provoking the incident. When the interview became a custodial interrogation, the delicate flower was not provided with legal counsel; nor was she given any Article 31 warnings. She was forced to make a statement, which she did not write. She signed a statement that the female staff officer had written and she was not provided with a copy of the statement. That statement went straight to Doug Wisniewski, and he used it in an Article 15 NJP proceeding to expel a first class cadet two weeks before he was to graduate in the Class of 2006.

Can you imagine that? The only senior cadet who was showing any trained initiative and leadership, who was actually doing Doug Wisniewski's job for him, was charged with fraternization and expelled two weeks before graduation. The system is on its head. It has turned upside down. Finally, the inmates are in charge of the asylum.

What happened to our delicate flower the night of the rape? She was treated at a medical facility. She was taken off base, of course. We must always leave room for plausible deniability. Yes, she received expert civilian medical care. The evidence of the rape was sent to the Connecticut Crime Laboratory. The lab report went to the New London PD. Doug Wisniewski sent a couple of his boys over when the Chief of Police was not in, and they confiscated the forensic evidence and took it back to the Academy. Perhaps, they screamed federal supremacy or something and walked out with the evidence.

What did Doug Wisniewski do with the forensic evidence? Heaven only knows. It certainly was not used to make an air-tight case against MB. This would have been a slam-dunk case to prosecute. But, no, Doug Wisniewski had Webster Smith in isolation waiting for a court-martial with only rumors and lies as evidence. So, in December 2005 Doug takes MB to a Captain's Mast NJP and lets him resign from the Academy. He probably thinks he is home free, but he is not.

Now, our delicate flower is left in the hot house. All of the other female cadets saw what the Administration was doing to our delicate flower trying to get her to resign. They became afraid and intimidated. Female cadets from freshmen to senior cadets were intimidated. They were more than happy to say or do anything that Doug Wisniewski and the lieutenants asked of them. They were more than happy to caucus and implicate Webster Smith.

Morale was in the toilet. Esprit de Corps had gone out the window. Where ever Doug wanted to lead, they were willing to follow, just don't get on their case. This is the atmosphere that is created when you single out some one for special treatment, when justice is not administered fairly and equally. All the cadets are suspicious of each other. And they are all afraid of the Administration. The women are afraid to report incidents of any nature for fear of being forced to resign. The men are afraid that innocent incidental contact with a female cadet will lead to charges, false statements, and possible court-martial. That is the legacy of Doug Wisniewski. Congratulations, Doug. You done good.

The White Lie that cannot stand scrutiny.

A stick points in one direction …until you walk around to
The Other Side!
“The Coast Guard Academy vs. Cadet Webster Smith.”

What you are about to read is the truth. Other than where identified as speculative, the details of this communication are the facts and are without dispute. Any twisting, spinning, or other orchestrated contortions are merely attempts to further the Coast Guard’s (speculative) cover up that will yet be exposed. The United States Coast Guard and specifically certain senior officers who were/are in the direct Chain of Command of the Superintendent of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, Admiral Van Sice, acted to violate the civil rights of Cadet Smith by circumventing the rules of due process in order to silence Cadet Smith and discredit him.

Cadet Smith was ordered not to participate in normal academic and military pursuits from December 4th 2005, and informed that he was the focus of an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct involving him and several complaining female cadets. He was to be kept apart from the corps of cadets during the initial investigation because he was a perceived threat to the female (other) cadets.
1. Anyone would agree that at the beginning stages it would be prudent to isolate even a perceived sexual predator from those that he may prey upon. From either side of the “stick” the view would be the same to any reasonable person.
2. However, the view quickly begins to change when one looks at the phrase perceived threat and examines the facts. What gave the perception… in the beginning it was the unsubstantiated reports of the female cadets. The facts are these…
o None of the complaining witnesses stated that they were fearful of Cadet Smith.
o None of the complaining witnesses stated that he (Smith) had ever forced himself on them.
o None of the complaining witness stated that Cadet Smith had in any way threatened them.
3. When is the perceived threat no longer a threat? … The Answer … WHEN NO ONE IS THREATENED!


The Coast Guard’s actions at this juncture should have been to allow Cadet Smith to continue going to class and to attend class while the claims of regulation violations were continued to be investigated.
Instead the Coast Guard
1. reinforced the order by directing Cadet Smith to perform manual labor during the academic class periods and
2. lodged him off the academy grounds, reinforcing that he was not to have any communication with other cadets; which included:
a. physical contact;
b. telephone,
c. email,
d. instant messaging, or
e. conventional mail correspondence.

Official charges were not made until February 8th 2006. This means that from December 4th 2005 to February 8th 2006, the Coast Guard held to the perceived threat. The Fact is there was NO THREAT!
Not only was there no threat but (and this is another FACT) two of the girls never mentioned any sexual activity during the original interview with Coast Guard Investigation Agents.

You may ask, why would they do that?
The answer is simple… to cover or protect someone(s) or something. Who or what becomes the question. The disposition of the original sexually-based charges will help elucidate.

The below chart contains all sexually-based charges brought in the original charge sheet dated February 9th 2006, compiled from the investigation into the original witness allegations.
The numbered columns represent the disposition at each judicial forum… with the furthest right entry being the final disposition of that particular charge.

1. Article 32 hearing (equivalent of a civilian Grand Jury hearing)
2. Admiral Van Sice’s recommendation for disposition based on the results provided to him by the Article 32 hearing officer’s report and recommendation.
3. Court Martial jury verdict

As you can see, without exception, all of the original sexually-based allegations were either dismissed prior to the court martial due to the hearing officer’s recommendation or resulted in a not guilty verdict at trail. Again, these are the facts and they are a matter of court record. These were the charges that were used to keep Webster out of school, and keep him from continuing his education. Not only were they used to justify the Coast Guard actions in isolating Cadet Smith, they were used to vilify him in the media. Time does not allow me to list the negative press reports, leaks and attempts to paint Cadet Smith as a sexual predator. A trip to Goggle will support my point of view; make sure you look at the articles prior to the results of the Article 32 hearing … the spin changed after those results. The hearing took place in March 2006.
. 1. 2. 3.
Charge 3 Art 120- Rape Rape on June 4, 2005 Dismissal GCM Not Guilty
Charge 4 Art 125- Sodomy- Spec1 Commit sodomy on may 13, 2005 Dismissal Dismissal
Charge 4 Art 125- Sodomy- Spec2 Commit sodomy on November 12, 2005 GCM GCM Not Guilty
Charge 5 Art 128- Assault- Spec 1 Grab arm and kiss on May 10, 2005 GCM GCM Not Guilty
Charge 5 Art 128- Assault- Spec 2 Kiss and touch on May 10, 2005 Dismissal Dismissal
Charge 5 Art 128- Assault- Spec 3 Grab her buttocks on May 10, 2005 Dismissal Dismissal
Charge 5 Art 128- Assault- Spec 4 Rub leg with hands on November 26, 2005 Dismissal Dismissal
Charge 6 Art 134- Indecent Assault- Spec 1 Assault with intent to commit sodomy- force her to look at penis on November 5, 2005 Dismissal Dismissal
Charge 6 Art 134- Indecent Assault- Spec 2 Unlawful entry of her room on may 10, 2005 Dismissal Dismissal
Charge 6 Art 134- Indecent Assault- Spec 3 Unlawful entry of her room on November 26, 2005 Dismissal Dismissal
Charge 6 Art 134- Indecent Assault- Spec 4 Unlawful entry of her room august thru October NJP GCM Not
Guilty
Charge 6 Art 134- Indecent Assault- Spec 5 Indecent assault- sticking his finger in her vagina on may 10, 2005 Dismissal Dismissal
Charge 6 Art 134- Indecent Assault- Spec 6 Indecent assault- sticking his finger in her vagina on May 13, 2005 Dismissal Dismissal
Charge 6 Art 134- Indecent Assault- Spec 7 Indecent assault- sticking his finger in her vagina on November 7, 2005 Dismissal Dismissal
GCM = General Court Martial = Trial
NJP = Non Judicial punishment

The above charges were formulated from the original allegations (by the way, Cadet Smith denied any wrong doing throughout the ordeal). Reviewing the facts thus far we have:
1. Allegations of sexual misconduct
2. No statements that included any communication of physical threats or force
3. No statements that included any communication that any female cadet was fearful of Cadet Smith
4. No statements by Cadet Smith implicating himself
5. The final disposition of the original charges as tabled above
6. Webster Smith being kept out of class and away from the corps of cadets for months

I will assume that certain reader’s are asking themselves WHERE WAS THE THREAT! That was the same question that Cleon Smith, Cadet Smith’s father (Class of '78 USCGA) asked the then Commandant of Cadets Douglas Wiseniewski, one week prior to February 9th and the official charging of his son. To be specific the elder Smith was very upset and challenged Wiseniewski demanding that he be told what the threat was that his son represented. Wiseniewski refused to respond to Smith. At which point Smith told Wiseniewski that he believed his son was being railroaded and that “you leave me no choice but to escalate this matter”. Wiseniewski informed Smith that he would no longer communicate to him and that any information on his son’s case would be provided by the Coast Guard legal department.

We can now add that it was obvious to the elder Smith and to his circle of advisors that something was terribly wrong and that the Academy had ulterior motives.

But what were their motives:

Could it be?
1. That the alleged rape victim was schedule to assume the “Top Cadet” Leadership Position; and that she was approved by the Academy command staff. That when confronted with the true story of her being pregnant over the summer months they needed to justify this by saying she was raped. Although this ended up being the story she told, she initially did not provide this information when question by Coast Guard Investigators.
a. The fact is she had consensual sex with her long term boyfriend Cadet Webster Smith during the summer and became pregnant.
b. The fact is after their break up she warned him never to tell anyone about her pregnancy.
c. The fact is she found out just days before the allegation were made that he (Smith) had spoken to a command staff officer about her pregnancy.
d. The fact is the alleged incident took place in June and no report was made until December, and on the heels of her finding out that Smith had spoken to a command officer.
2. Could it be Cadet Smith’s consensual sexual intercourse with the Academy Dean of Academic’s daughter? By the way the Dean and the Commandant of Cadets were classmates in the Class of '79. Do not bother to look for her on the charge sheet, somehow she was left out.
3. Could it be the threat posed by Cadet Smith was not what he did … but rather… WHO HE DID!

I will leave the reader to determine what he or she believes is true. By the way the jury obviously did not believe any of the above sexual charges were true. However, the Coast Guard has done an extremely good job of painting Cadet Smith as a rapist and sexual predator. Even though none of the above charges were proven and the majority were dismissed out-right, prior to trial.

Moving forward … On March 8th the Coast Guard added 5 additional sexually-based charges (this comes a full one month after the original charges and three months after the original allegations).

Added charges 3/8/06 1. 2. 3.
Article 125- Sodomy Commit sodomy on October 19, 2005 GCM GCM Guilty
Article 127- Extortion Suppression of rumor for sexual favor on October 19, 2005 GCM GCM Guilty
Article 127- Extortion Suppression of rumor for sexual favor on November 12, 2006 GCM GCM Not Guilty
Article 134- Unlawful Entry Unlawful entry of her room on October 19, 2005 Dismissal Dismissal
Article 134- Indecent Assault Indecent assault- sticking his finger in vagina on October 19, 2005 GCM GCM Guilty
GCM = General Court Martial =Trial

Key to numbered columns:
1. Article 32 hearing (equivalent of a civilian Grand Jury hearing)
2. Admiral Van Sice’s recommendation for disposition based on the results provided to him by the Article 32 hearing officer’s report and recommendation.
3. Court Martial jury verdict

From the chart above we see that the Coast Guard was finally able to come up with some charges that they were able to get guilty verdicts on. They were sexual in nature and the specific acts are as listed. The guilty verdicts all involve the same female cadet (not one of the original complainants), a single incident, and the verdict was solely based on victim’s testimony of the events vs. the accused testimony of the events.

Those events surrounded a sexual liaison involving nude picture taking, and mutual oral sex. The government’s case was that Cadet Smith had potentially damaging information on his female classmate that he utilized to extort sexual favors from her. The facts are that Cadet Smith did receive information about his female cadet classmate … what was that information …
• That she was having a sexually relationship with an enlisted person … which is against cadet regulations.
• Cadet Smith defended her against these allegations when he heard others discussing the scandal.
• After being informed of additional information, Cadet Smith later he confronted her.
• The accuser then confessed to Cadet Smith the truth.

These points are in agreement by both parties.

He says he did not extort sexual favors from her, and that the sex that took place was consensual. The complainant states she never told him that she did not want to have sex with him. She went along with the picture taking and did not report the incident until sometime after the original charges had been filed. The two cadets were friends before and after the alleged incident. It was not until (speculation) the Coast Guard compelled (extorted – under threat of prosecution) her testimony that she came forward.

The question is what direction do you see the stick pointing!

Mr. Smith goes to jail. After a Kangaroo Court-martial..

After his kangaroo court-martial, Cadet Web Smith was taken to the U.S. Navy brig at the Submarine Base in Groton, Connecticut on 28 June 2006.

He should have been granted an 8 day deferment of the sentence. This is normally a routine thing. However, this was not a routine case, by any means. Even the vilest military convicted offender is given some time alone with his family to say good-bye. Webster Smith was not. Webster waited in a secure room under double security guards while his written Request for Deferment was presented to Admiral James Van Sice. The Admiral sat in his ivory tower with Commander Sean Gill, his military advisor, and drank coffee. Then he summarily denied the routine request without any justification whatsoever. This has never been done before. Admiral Van Sice received bad advice from his legal advisor.

As soon as Van Sice's signature was on the denial order, two flat-footed agents from the Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) ordered Cadet Smith's parents to vacate the premises. Mild mannered Webster Smith was handcuffed and paraded up and down the corridor like Jesus being paraded between Caiaphas and Pontius Pilate for all the rabble to gawk and marvel. Poor Webster Smith was made a spectacle. Thoroughly humbled and suitably constrained, he was offered for inspection to Kristen Nicholson and Shelly Raudenbush, the two principal witnesses against him. Then, still in handcuffs, he was paraded in front of the news media for a photo opportunity. This was cruel and inhuman punishment. This was truly a new low even for the likes of James Van Sice. This single act more so than preferring groundless charges shows clearly the character of Admiral James Van Sice. He is not only a rabid racist, and a confirmed bigot, but he is also just plain mean spirited.

Originally he was supposed to be transferred on 10 July to a Federal prison for military officers in South Carolina. It did not happen, nor has the Admiral signed off on the Report of the Court-martial. The delay has not been explained. The new plans are to transfer him to the South Carolina prison on 19 July. That day might not be accurate either, unless the Admiral intends to deliberately violate Commandant Instruction M5350.4B, The Civil Rights Manual, which requires the Academy Civil Rights Officer to attempt to resolve informally a civil rights complaint within 5 days of receiving it. JoAnn Miller, the Academy Civil Rights Officer, plans to retire on 28 July. This will be her last hot potato. If she lets Web Smith get out of town before she can attempt an informal resolution, then she will have to spend the remainder of her tour of duty commuting between New London and South Carolina.
If Admiral James Van Sice does not develop some spine and some sense and put an end to this shameful episode in Coast Guard History, this case will prove to be his Stalingrad. This case will live on in infamy.
A kangaroo court is a proceeding that denies proper procedure in the name of expediency. It is a fraudulent or unjust trial where the decision has essentially been made in advance, usually for the purpose of providing a conviction. It is also an elaborately scripted event intended to appear fair while having the outcome predetermined from the start. It is a show trial with a reasonable outcome.

As in the case of Web Smith, it is conducted largely in the open. An accounting of private conduct is done in public. The proceedings appear to be fair, and the sentence is apparently legitimate. The convening authority goes out of its way to be open and fair, but it is nothing more than a show trial. It results in a judicial lynching; such as, Stalin's kangaroo trials of his "enemies", and the Romanian military court which sentenced Nicolae Ceausescu to death.

To expect this travesty of justice to have a positive affect upon the Coast Guard Academy is tantamount to asking for good fruit to come from a poisonous tree. It will not happen. It will not result in gender equality. It will not make female cadets take responsibility for their own actions. It will not result in more female staff officers at the Academy. Having a female Commandant of Cadets is nice but it is little more than window dressing. It will not turn female coeds at a secular college into female cadets or future Coast Guard officers. It will not cause the Coast Guard to change its policy on releasing the statistics they keep on the number of reported sexual assaults on base.

All of the other military academies have released their statistics on sexual assaults reported. The public has access to those statistics. The Coast Guard has not released the number of assaults reported, or how they were disposed of. There have been many, up to and during the time Webster Smith was in pre-trial confinement. All of the others have been quietly disposed of. From 1993 until the spring semester of 2005, the Coast Guard had confirmed only 10 reported incidents of sexual misconduct, according to information provided by the Coast Guard Academy to the Navy Times. Of those, six incidents resulted in dismissal of the accused and two ended in resignation. In the remaining two cases, there was insufficient evidence to pursue charges. The Coast Guard Academy has 982 students, nearly 30 percent of whom are women.

Only Webster Smith has been persecuted and then prosecuted to the fullest extent possible under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So far, we have only heard of the most exceptional cases that get reported in the media. The Coast Guard guards its sexual assault statics like the nuclear missile launch codes. It is arguable whether they would release the statistics pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA). Of course, they would be subject to a subpoena as part of discovery in a discrimination law suit. Or the NAACP Legal Defense, Inc Fund or the Department of Justice could just ask for them. Now that U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., has proposed a federal review of the Coast Guard Academy's sexual assault policies and the Government Accounting Office (GAO) is taking closer cognizance of the Coast Guard Academy, I am sure that they will keep a close eye on the statisics.

Many people have been wondering why the other officer service academies have not rushed to court-martial any of the male cadets accused of sexual assault charges. From 2000 to 2003, the Naval Academy reported investigating 13 incidents of sexual misconduct. Of those, at least four were substantiated and resulted in punitive actions against the midshipmen involved. Not one of them resulted in taking a cadet to a General, Special, or a Summary Court-martial. The Naval Academy has about 4,300 students.

There has been no rush to judgement at West Point, Annapolis or Colorado Springs. After observing the Coast Guard fiasco, I am truly glad that the other service academies have used cooler heads and have steadier hands on the helm. They do not conspire against their cadets. They realize that they have been given a sacred trust. They manage their fragile and developing future leaders with integrity. They do not sacrifice cadets on a silver platter to further the ambitious career goals of an overzealous and unprincipled senior officer.But the military services aim to uphold a higher standard, said Naval Academy Superintendent Vice Adm. Rodney Rempt in a press release following the release of the Defense Department task force's final report in August 2005. "The public trusts that the service academies will adhere to the highest standards and that we will serve as beacons that exemplify character, dignity and respect. We will increase our efforts to meet that trust" Rempt said.

Thank God there are still officers out there with a high sense of honor and loyalty to the traditions of their services. If the Coast Guard does not do everything within its power to right this wrong before Web Smith serves another day of confinement, it will be a long time before the Coast Guard will be able to hold up its head and march in step with the other proud and principled members of the nation's armed forces.

Since 1790 the Coast Guard has been the head and not the tail. It has been the lead agency in the Treasury Department, the Transportation Department, and now the Department of Homeland Security. It is still the lead agency, but the rescue and recovery actions in wake of Hurricane Katrina gave the Department a black eye. Most of the victums of the hurricane were Black. There were rumors that that was the main reason, among othrs, the rescue efforts were so slow. The Department's actions are under much closer scrutiny. The Black community has seen how Captain Doug Wisniewski mercilessly brutalized Cadet Web Smith, a fragile young lad under his care. If people like Doug Wisniewski and his ilk are promoted to Admiral, can the Black community expect to be treated even worse the next time they must rely on Homeland Security and the Coast Guard for help.

The U.S. Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals has scheduled oral arguments in the Case of The Appeal of the Court-martial Conviction of Cadet Webster Smith for January 16, 2008 in Arlington, Virginia.
A legal brief filed by his lawyers claims the convictions should be thrown out because the defense team was not allowed to fully cross-examine one of his accusers during Smith's court martial. They say that meant the jury didn't hear testimony that the accuser, a female cadet, Shelly Roddenbush, had once had consensual sex with a Coast Guard enlisted man and then called it sexual assault.
Lt. Cmdr. Patrick M. Flynn, the government's lawyer for the appeal, said 27 November that the jury "heard enough" and the trial judge was within his rights to impose reasonable limits on the cross-examination.
"They didn't need to hear the additional details the defense is arguing they should have been allowed to hear."
The defense also is asking the court to set aside Smith's convictions on two lesser charges of failing to obey an order and abandoning watch.

JUSTICE lies bleeding in the streets, while tyranny runs rampant at Coast Guard Academy!

Before cadet Webster Smith was court-martialed an Article 32 Investigation was conducted. It is the military equivalent of a grand jury. The Article 32 Investigating Officer was Commander Anderson. After hearing all of the evidence, he made a recommendation to the Convening Authority that the charge of rape NOT be referred to a General Court-martial. That was like a Grand Jury that refused to indict. It refuses to return a true bill of indictment. The District Attorney, at that point, would be foolish to waste the taxpayers' money pursuing charges that are not legally supportable and that he cannot prove. The only reason for going ahead in spite of the failure to indict would be if he had a personal vendetta against the accused or a political motive. The Article 32 Investigating Officer did not feel that there was sufficient evidence to support the charge. Admiral Van Sice and Captain Doug Wisniewski rejected the recommendation of the Article 32 Investigating Officer and referred the charge of rape to a General Court-martial. Admiral Van Sice and Captain Doug Wisniewski are not concerned about wasting the taxpayers' money; nor are they worried about being re-elected. They are secure in their position, but they are blinded by rage and other more revolting motives. They are in a position of public trust, but a reasonable person would have to question their judgement. All of the cadets at the Academy are in their care for safekeeping and nurturing. They did not hesitate to sacrifice this young cadet for some sinister ulterior motive. Who were they trying to impress? Judge Paul Weil wrote a long time ago in one of his decision that the Coast Guard has a long history of not dealing fairly with its Black personnel and officers. No one told Web Smith's parents that before they entrusted their precious son to the Coast Guard Academy's Commandant of Cadets.
The Article 32 Investigating Officer was correct. At the Trial Cadet Webster Smith was found not guilty of raping his girlfriend, Cadet Kristin Nicholson. He was found guilty of extorting sexual favors from Cadet Shelly Raudenbush. These charges were added at the last minute, but Cadet Raudenbush lied through her teeth. It was alleged that Web Smith was holding a secret over Raudenbussh that she was afraid would ruin her career if revealed. At the Trial no one seemed to want to know what the so-called secret was. Well, the secret was that she was having torrid sex with a Navy enlisted man in Virginia the previous summer.
Webster Smith never revealed her secret, not even to this very day. He has not even told his mother and father. They have not been able to speak to him since the trial. He is being held incumunicado, except for his lawyers. He did not extort her for sexual favors. She extorted him and lied about it under oath.

On 19 October 2005 Shelly Raudenbush sent Web Smith 3 text messages. Each time she asked him to come to her room. The first time he came to her room, she reminded him of their conversation in Virginia the previous summer, when they fantasized about taking nude photos of each other. Web did not bring a camera to her room, but she was ready with her camera. They took nude photos of each other with her camera, and he left. There was no touching and there was no sex.
When Web Smith returned to his room, she text messaged him a second time, and asked him to come back. When he arrived the second time, Raudenbush offer to give Web a back massage. When she had finished, Web offered to return the favor. They both had their clothes on, but she later alleged that he touched her breast. They did not engage in any sexual acts. Web went back to his room.
Cadet Raudenbush sent him a third text message asking him to come back to her room a third time. She said her legs were sore. Web massaged her legs and they both got turned on resulting in Web performing oral sex on her. When he was finished he stood up to leave. That is when she reached out and grabbed him by his belt and pulled him back to her. She unzipped his fly and took out his penis. He stopped her. He told her that she did not have to do that just because he had serviced her. She said "Yeah, right!" And she proceeded to perform oral sex on him. Then he left. That does not sound very much like extortion. Extortion should be made of sterner stuff.
That was on 19 October 2005. Nothing was ever mentioned concerning the events of that night until March of 2006, six months later. When Shelly Raudenbush was told that her friends needed her help, she told of the events of that night. They told her that they were looking for anyone who had had any sexual involvement with Web Smith. The events were turned around just enough so that it would seem that Web Smith had taken advantage of her. He had not. He was a victim of a malicious campaign of lies. A conspiracy had been hatched. The foul deed was in the making. Poor trusting good friend Webster Smith was being duped.
At a Pre-trial hearing, before the Jury was seated, when Cadet Raudenbush was called to testify in a motion's session, she pleaded the 5th Amendment. She refused to testify on the grounds that she might be incriminated. Later, at trial, she testified, and she lied. No one reported that she was given her Article 31 (right against self-incrimination) Rights, but she testified. What happened between the Pre-trial Hearing and the trial in front of the jury? Did she make a deal with the Prosecutor and the Convening Authority?
No on reported that she was given a grant of immunity. No written Grant of Immunity was admitted into evidence, or shown to the jury. What happened? Even the lies she told incriminated her.
The charges involving her are the only charges that Web Smith was found guilty of, except for one other. That was disobedience of an order. The order was not to send any Email messages to his friend at Annapolis. He sent one Email to his friend. For that he was found guilty of disobedience of an order. That seems awfully petty.
These childish pranks had landed him in jail. The lies of an unscrupulous woman and sending an Email to a friend ended his career and sent him to jail. It ruined a perfect life. He had never received as much as one demerit in his life. All through Navy Prep School he had not received one demerit. All through three and a half years at the Coast Guard Academy, he had not received one demerit. He was on the Regimental Command staff the previous summer.
When he ran afoul of Captain Doug Wisniewski his military career was over. A few lies, a few innocent but promiscuous young females, and a very angry, ruthless, and powerful Captain was all it took. This was an abuse of process. To go against the Article 32 Officer's recommendation was an abuse of discretion. To suborn frightened young girls to give biased and slanted testimony was an abuse of the prestige of the Academy. To use the Military Justice apparatus for your own personal vendetta was an abuse of process.

The U.S. Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals has scheduled oral arguments in the Case of The Appeal of the Court-martial Conviction of Cadet Webster Smith for January 16, 2008 in Arlington, Virginia.
A legal brief filed by his lawyers claims the convictions should be thrown out because the defense team was not allowed to fully cross-examine one of his accusers during Smith's court martial. They say that meant the jury didn't hear testimony that the accuser, a female cadet, Shelly Roddenbush, had once had consensual sex with a Coast Guard enlisted man and then called it sexual assault.
Lt. Cmdr. Patrick M. Flynn, the government's lawyer for the appeal, said 27 November that the jury "heard enough" and the trial judge was within his rights to impose reasonable limits on the cross-examination.
"They didn't need to hear the additional details the defense is arguing they should have been allowed to hear."
The defense also is asking the court to set aside Smith's convictions on two lesser charges of failing to obey an order and abandoning watch.

VENGENCE IS MINE says Doug Wisniewski. I SHALL REPAY.

It was not only a failure in leadership that led to the court-martial of cadet Webster Smith at the Coast Guard Academy. It was a character flaw in Doug Wisniewski, the Commandant of Cadets. He declared war on Webster Smith and waged a personal vendetta against him.
Webster Smith was going to graduate in the Class of 2006. Doug Wisniewski had graduated in the Class of 1979. He was 27 years senior. He had 27 years of experience in the officer corps. He had a gross disadvantage over Webster Smith. They were hardly evenly matched.
Cadet Kristin Nicholson (KN) was the Regimental Commander of the Cadet Corps. That was like being the Admiral Chester Nimitz or the General Dwight D. Eisenhower of all of the troops. Kristin Nicholson (KN) was personally chosen by Doug Wisniewski.
Webster Smith was the most popular football player and athlete on the campus. All the girls loved him. He could have had his pick of any girl on the campus. He chose Kristin Nicholson. She was not his on-again, off-again girlfriend. She was his steady. They were an item. She spent the Christmas Holidays with Web and his family in Houston, Texas. She and Webster brought in the New Year together. They started the year off right. They started it together.
A good start ended tragically. Kristin Nicholson got pregnant. She was taking birth control pills and Web used a condom; yet, she got pregnant. When he found out Doug Wisniewski went wild. He was furious. He went ballistic. He declared war on Webster Smith. He was out to destroy Webster Smith. He marshalled all of the forces at his disposal. As a senior captain, as Commandant of Cadets, and as a member of the Class of 1979 with friends and classmates strategically placed all over the Coast Guard, he had considerable resources.
First, he he separated Webster and KN; then he isolated Webster. He issued an order that Webster could not go within 100 yards of his living quarters. Then he moved him out of the barracks. Then he assigned him to hard labor indefinitely. Instead of going to class he was to report to the boat dock and scrub the decks every day. He was punished for months without being charged with a crime. He was punished for months without ever being sentenced. His father was denied access to him.
Then Doug Wisniewski began issuing press releases to the news media. He wrote and placed articles in the Coast Guard Alumni association Bulletin to support his position. He would not let Webster's father see him. He would not let Webster attend classes. Then he questioned every female at the Academy who had had sex with Webster and conspired to put him away. He also call in every white female cadet who had expressed displeasure at seeing an inter-racial couple. They conspired together until they weaved a web of lies.
Doug Wisniewski decided that he was going to drive Webster Smith out of the Coast Guard, and he used a General Court-martial to do it. Ironically, the one charge he was counting on to do the job, fizzled. He had no physical evidence of rape. It was like trying to prove a murder case without having a dead body.
While he was trying to prove that Webster smith raped his girlfriend, a real rape occurred in Chase Hall. A white male cadet raped a white female cadet. She was taken to the hospital and there was objective documented physical evidence of rape. This was a classic textbook case of a prima facie case of rape. It would have been a slam-dunk to prosecute, but Doug Wisniewski was fixated on the persecution of an innocent man. So, what does Doug Wisniewski do about the real rape? He allows the white cadet to quietly resign from the Academy and slip away into the night. What a contrast! Web Smith was inhumanely whisked from his bed, led from his room in the barracks in the middle of the night by a phalanx of Security Guards; and, the white cadet who savagely raped a cadet was allows to quietly slip away into the night. Well, he has not slipped away into everlasting darkness. Justice will be looking for him. He and Doug Wisniewski will have to account.
The American justice system has all the justice money can buy. There is still a bit of justice in military justice. A nine member jury panel found Webster Smith "not guilty" of rape. There was no other reasonable conclusion. Reason people could not disagree that the Government had not carried its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Webster Smith had commited the acts that he was unjustly charged with.
Doug Wisniewski, however, did not put all of his eggs in one basket. Through the process of multiplicity, he manufactured a laundry list of charges and subpoenaed enough jealous females whose stories changed with every change in the wind. Doug Wisniewski managed to get a conviction on some other trumped up charges that will be thoroughtly debunked in due course, right here.
When Doug Wisniewski left the Academy and went to Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington DC, he left a skunk at the picnic. Webster Smith had been segregated from the barracks. The press had been briefed. The plot was set. The conspiracy had been hatched. The lawyers had been picked. Wisniewski went to Washington to watch.