Remembering 9/11 and United Flight 93.

Victory has a thousand fathers. Defeat is an orphan. The victorious do not always live to celebrate their victories. In some cases it is for us the living to celebrate their achievements for them. The world may little note nor long remember what the officers, crew, and passengers of United Flight 93 did for America and western civilization on September 11, 2001, but I urge all Americans to pause and thank God that he gave us a real hero like LeRoy W. Homer Junior.





But for Captain LeRoy W. Homer Jr and the other brave souls on United Flight 93, the White House could very well have been one big black hole on Pennsylvania Avenue on that fateful day. The White House is still there in large measure because Captain LeRoy Homer would not fly his United Airlines Flight 93 into this symbol at the heart of the American Dream.





Not much has been said in the mainstream media about LeRoy W. Homer Jr.
At an early age, LeRoy W. Homer Jr knew that he wanted to be a pilot. As a child, LeRoy assembled model airplanes, collected aviation memorabilia and read books on aviation. LeRoy was 15 years old when he started flight instruction in the Cessna 152. Working part-time jobs after school to pay for flying lessons, he completed his first solo at 16 years old, and obtained his private pilot's certificate in 1983.





In the fall of 1983, LeRoy entered the Air Force Academy, and graduated with the Class of 1987, 31st Squadron. After completing pilot training in 1988, he was assigned to McGuire AFB in New Jersey, flying the C-141B Starlifter. While on active duty, LeRoy served in Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and later supported operations in Somalia. He received many commendations, awards and medals during his military career. In 1993, he was named the 21st Air Force Aircrew Instructor of the Year. LeRoy achieved the rank of Captain before his honorable discharge from active duty in 1995.

LeRoy continued his military career as a reservist, initially as an instructor pilot with the 356th Airlift Squadron at Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio, then subsequently as an Academy Liaison Officer, recruiting potential candidates for both the Air Force Academy and the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps. During his time with the Reserves, he achieved the rank of Major.

LeRoy continued his flying career by joining United Airlines in May 1995. His first assignment was Second Officer on the B727. He then upgraded to First Officer on the B757/767 in 1996, where he remained until September 11, 2001.

On September 11, 2001, LeRoy was flying with Captain Jason Dahl on United Flight 93. Based on information from several sources that day, we know LeRoy and Jason were the first to fight against the terrorist threat to the airplane. LeRoy has received many awards and citations posthumously, for his actions on Flight 93, including the Congress Of Racial Equality - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Award, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference - Drum Major for Justice Award and the Westchester County Trailblazer Award.

LeRoy was able to accomplish much in his short life. He was able to do so because of the support of his family and friends, and the encouragement of his teachers and mentors. We hope that LeRoy's life will continue to be an inspiration to those who also share the dream of flying.

LeRoy married Melodie Thorpe on May 24, 1998 in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. From that union, their daughter Laurel Nicole was born
October 25, 2000.

LeRoy was known for his kind, caring disposition. He was the type of person that truly listened when you spoke. He was an exceptional individual with a wonderful sense of humor.

LeRoy is survived by his wife Melodie, daughter Laurel, mother Ilse, brother Thomas-Freimark Sr., sisters Marilyn Johnson, Germaine Wilson, Theresa Cooke-Poche Ramirez, Cheryl Homer-Wilson, Monique Homer, Christine (Kiki) Homer and Michelle Homer, as well as his mother and father-in-law, brothers-in-law, nieces, nephews and cousins.

An Education Fund has been set up for LeRoy’s Daughter. Contributions can be sent to:

The LeRoy Homer Fund
c/o Commerce Bank
336 Route 70 East
Marlton, NJ 08053



A LeRoy W. Homer Jr. Foundation has been established.
Its mission is to encourage and support young men and women
who wish to pursue aviation careers, as professional pilots.
The foundation will award flight instruction scholarships for
potential students, in order to obtain private pilot certification.

For more information on the Leroy W. Homer, Jr. Foundation
please visit their website at

http://www.leroywhomer.com

or

contributions can be mailed directly to the Foundations at:

The LeRoy W. Homer Jr. Foundation
Post Office Box 268
Marlton, NJ 08053

Racial Discrimination Basis of Webster Smith case.

He raped me six months ago. I got pregnant. I had an abortion. I continued to date him. I still love him. No one knew but us. He told our secret. Now, after 6 months, with Van Sice's help, I can see that it must have been rape.

A formal complaint of sexual and racial discrimination was filed on 17 July against Captain Douglas Wisniewski and Admiral James Van Sice. The Academy Civil Rights Officer was unable to informally resolve the complaint. In accordance with the Department of Homeland Security regulations, the complaint has been forwarded to Coast Guard Headquarters for resolution.
The Civil Rights Officer was not able to resolve the complaint partially because the Academy virtually denied everything, except that there might have at one time been a cadet at the Academy by the name of Webster Smith.

Admiral Thad W. Allen, Commandant of the Coast Guard, speaking at the Academy on 8 September did not mention the recent controversy at the academy earlier this year, when, for the first time in the school’s history, a cadet was court-martialed. But, talking with reporters afterward, Allen said THE PROCESS used to deal with the issue worked as it should, and said he was not worried about the academy’s reputation being soiled by the incident.

THE PROCESS used to convict Webster Smith was a mockery of justice. For anyone to say that it worked as it should would conjure up images of Judge Roy Bean, the only law west of the Pecos River in West Texas. Judge Bean was famous for saying, First we are going to try him, THEN we are going to hang him. Judge Roy Bean's PROCESS worked as it should also, but some American like to think that we have moved beyond the crude frontier methods of the nineteenth century when the only way to tell lawmen from outlaws was to observe which end of the rope they were on.


The Webster Smith case will live in infamy along with the The Dred Scott Decision. In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, in the DRED SCOTT Decision led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all Blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. In 1936 the Coast Guard honored him by naming a ship after him, the USCGC Taney (WHEC-37).

Formal complaints were also files with the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and the General Accounting Office. All three complaints made similar allegations.
The complaints alleged, among other things, that Cadet Webster Smith was sexually discriminated against because of his sex and gender when he was charged with a crime for engaging in a consensual sex act, and the other person was not charged - to wit Shelly Raudenbush. That was a violation of his 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the law.
The complaint is a laundry list of civil rights violations. If any one of the allegations is found proved it would be enough to grant the relief asked for. The complaint alleges the following violations:
A) His civil rights were violated when he was forced to work on the boat docks beginning prior to and continuing until June 20, 2006, before being charged with a UCMJ offence, because of his race;
B) His civil rights were violated when he was sentenced to hard labor before being found guilty on or about June 27, 2006;
C) His civil rights were violated because of his race when he was falsely imprisoned was not allowed to go freely on liberty without any due process before trial;
D) His civil rights were violated when he had to work on the boat docks - before being found guilty - because of his race;
E) His civil rights were violated when press releases were issued with his name and photograph before he was charged accusing him of sexual assault - because of his race;
F) His civil rights were violated when he was not free to continue with academic classes before being charged and/or before being found guilty because of his race;
G) His civil rights were violated when he was denied the equal protection of the law when he was court-martialed on similar allegations - while others were given non-judicial punishment -because of his race;
H) His civil rights were violated when he was denied the right to a fair trial because his commanding officer suborned perjury; This denial was because of his race.
I) His civil rights were violated when he was denied the opportunity to present character evidence favorable to him during the extenuation and mitigation portion of the trial. These character witnesses were standing by ready to testify and were never called. This denial was because of his race.
J) He was denied his right to a detailed military counsel; to wit, a Coast Guard lawyer. - He was assigned a Navy JAG lawyer without any prior consultation with him, because of his race.
K) His civil rights were violated when his Commanding Officer, Capt. Wisniewski, exerted undue command influence by soliciting witnesses to lie about him.
L) His civil rights were violated when his Commanding Officer, Capt. Wisniewski, gave him an unlawful order; to wit, not to send an e-mail or communicate with anyone anywhere before he was charged. Sending one e-mail to one friend at Annapolis, who was not a potential witness, could not have amounted to witness tampering.
M) His civil rights were violated and his reputation was irreparably damaged when his Commanding Officer, Capt. Wisniewski, issued a public statement that he was a sexual predator and that his presence created an intimidating environment in Chase Hall before he was charged with the crime.
N) His civil rights were violated when his Commanding Officer, Capt. Wisniewski, deliberately postponed scheduling a court martial until all of the witnesses against him became commissioned officers instead of being cadets like him thus decreasing his credibility against the witnesses' credibility.
O) His civil rights were violated when his Commanding Officer, Capt. Wisniewski, issued a restraining order prohibiting him going within 100 yard of the Academy grounds before being charged of any crime - because of his race.
P) His civil rights and his right to a fair trial were violated when he was denied a trial by a jury of his peers, since no cadet was in the jury pool, and no cadet sat on his jury, because of his race.

In order to resolve the complaint, he demanded the following:
A) Immediate release from confinement.
B) Restoration of all pay and allowances.
C) Reinstatement as a first class cadet at the USCGA ,
D) Resumption of his senior academic studies,
E) To be allowed to graduate and receive a commission with a date of rank as an officer of the Class of 2006.
F)A written formal apology from Capt. Wisniewski, and a Public Information Press Release stating that he was not sexual predator, that he did not create a hostile environment at Chase Hall.

MEMORANDUM
To: USCG Civil Rights Office
From: Webster Smith
Date: July 17, 2007
RE: FORMAL COMPLAINT OF CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
I.
Jurisdiction
1.1 This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and the first, fourth, fifth, eighth, and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
II.
Nature of the Action and Relief Sought
2.1 This is a civil rights violation case by a federal employee alleging a continuing series of discriminatory conduct against him because of his race and gender.
2.2 This also is an action under the common law of the State of Texas for false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, false light and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
2.3 Complainant seeks a declaration that the acts of the defendant agency intentionally and unlawfully discriminated against him because of his race and gender.
2.4 Complainant additionally, and independent of the claims against the government agency, seeks appropriate injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages against the individual defendants.
III.
The Parties
3.1 Webster Smith, complainant, is an adult male citizen of the United States and the State of Texas. He is an African-American citizen and a resident of Houston, Texas. At all times material to this action he was a cadet at the United States Coast Guard Academy.
3.2 Robert E. Rubin, Admiral Wisniewski, Superintendent at the United States Coast Guard Academy and at the United States Coast Guard, an agency of the United States of America.
3.3 Douglas Wisnewski, Captain, Commandant of Cadets at the United States Coast Guard Academy, an agency of the United States of America.
3.4 Sean Gill, Commander, Staff Legal Officer, at the United States Coast Guard Academy, an agency of the United States of America.
IV.
Facts
4.1 Defendants have maintained, acquiesced in the maintaining of, or failed to take appropriate required action to eliminate a general and consistent pattern and practice of racial discrimination by white Officers against African American cadets at the United States Coast Guard Academy.
4.2 Such pattern and practice has been consistently manifested for at least the two years preceding the filing of Complainant's formal complaint by the following acts and others:
4.2.1 African American cadets have been subjected to unwarranted criticism and disparagement of their work by white officers.
4.2.2 White officers have subjected African American cadets to harsh and unreasonable performance standards not generally applied to other cadets and not consistent with applicable personnel practices and regulations.
4.2.3 Abuse of authority by white Officers toward African American cadets intended to humiliate, embarrass and invade the privacy of said African American cadets.
4.2.4 White Officers have subjected African American cadets to harsher discipline than accorded white cadets for the same or similar alleged misconduct.
4.3 Consistent with and pursuant to that general policy and practice, Complainant was discriminated against because of his race and gender in the following respects:
4.3.1 Starting on or about January 2006, Complainant was falsely imprisoned and was not allowed to go freely on liberty without any due process before being charged with any offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
4.3.2 On or about January, Complainant was ordered to perform hard labor on the boat docks until June, 2006. During which time his classmates continued to attended classes. This prevented Complainant from completinging his education and thus obtaining his college degree.
4.3.3 On or about January 2006, Complainant was forced to work on the boat docks beginning prior to and continuing until June 20, 2006 by his Commandant Officer while all his classmates were attending classes, and before being charged with a UCMJ offence, because of his race;
4.3.4 Complaint was ordered to work on the boat docks - before being found guilty - thus preventing him from attending classes and finish his education because of his race.
4.3.5 Complainant’s civil rights were violated when press releases were issued with his name and photograph stating that he had committed sexual assaults and other crimes before he was charged with any such allegations - because of his race;
4.3.6 Complainant was not free to continue his academic classes before being charged because of his race;
4.3.7 Complainant was denied the equal protection of the law when he was court-martialed on similar allegations - while others were given non-judicial punishment -because of his race;
4.3.8 During his trial, on or about June 2006, Complainant was denied the right to a fair trial when he was denied the opportunity to present character evidence favorable to him during the Extenuation and Mitigation (E&M) portion of the trial. Character witnesses were standing by ready to testify and were never called. This denial was because of his race.
4.3.9 On or about June 2006, Complainant was not allowed to properly cross-examine the Agency’s main witness, Sherry Radenbush.
4.3.10 Complainant was denied his right to a detailed military counsel; to wit, a Coast Guard lawyer. - He was assigned a Navy Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer without any prior consultation with him, because of his race.
4.3.11 Complainant’s civil rights were violated when his Commanding Officer, Capt. Wisniewski, exerted undue command influence by soliciting witnesses to lie about him.
4.3.12 Complainant’s Commanding Officer, Capt. Wisniewski, gave him an unlawful order, thus abusing his authority; to wit, not to send an e-mail or communicate with anyone anywhere before he was charged. Sending one e-mail to one friend at Annapolis, who was not a potential witness, could not have amounted to witness tampering.
4.3.13 Complainant’s reputation was irreparably damaged when his Commanding Officer, Capt. Wisniewski, issued a public statement that he was a sexual predator and that his presence created an intimidating environment in Chase Hall before he was charged with the crime.
4.3.14 Complainant’s Commanding Officer, Capt. Wisniewski, deliberately postponed scheduling a court martial until all of the witnesses against him became commissioned officers instead of being cadets like him thus decreasing his credibility against the witnesses' credibility.
4.3.15 Complainant’s Commanding Officer, Capt. Wisniewski, issued a restraining order prohibiting him going within 100 yard of the Academy grounds before being charged with a crime - because of his race.
4.3.16 Complainant’s right to a fair trial was violated when he was denied a trial by a jury of his peers, since no cadet was in the jury pool, and no cadet sat on his jury, because of his race.



4.4 Agency has acted and continued to discriminate and retaliate against the Complainant because of Complainant's race and gender with malicious intent and in reckless disregard of his rights.
4.5 Agency has subjected Complainant to extreme emotional distress by conduct which was unreasonable, unwarranted and outrageous, and in no way related to any discretionary authority of Commander Wisniewsky or to any purpose or objective of the United States Coast Guard Academy.
4.6 Agency has caused Complainant to be falsely considered dishonest, and a sexual predator with knowledge that the allegations were false.
4.7 The acts of Commander Wisniewsky proximately caused substantial loss, suffering, humiliation, emotional distress and other damages to plaintiff and will continue to do so.
4.8 Because the conduct of Commander Wisniewsky was accomplished with malicious intent and in reckless disregard of Complainant's rights, Complainant should recover punitive damages from the Agency.
V.
First Claim for Relief
Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991
5.1 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits race discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Agency has discriminated against Complainant in the terms and conditions of Complainant’s employment because of Complainant’s race when white Officers subjected Complainant African American cadet to harsher discipline than accorded white cadets for the same or comparable alleged misconduct.
5.2 In addition Agency discriminated against Complainant because of his race when starting on or about January 2006, Complainant was falsely imprisoned and was not allowed to go freely on liberty without any due process before being charged.
5.3 Moreover, Agency has discriminated against Complainant because of his race when on or about January, Complainant was ordered to do hard labor continuing until June, 2006 while his classmates were allowed to attend classes, thus preventing him from finishing his education and thus obtaining his college degree.
5.4 Furthermore, Agency has discriminated against Complainant because of his race when on or about January 2006, Complainant was forced to work on the boat docks beginning prior to and continuing until June 20, 2006 by his Commandant Officer while all his classmates were attending classes, and before being charged with a UCMJ offence.
VI.
Second Claim for Relief - Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
6.1 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits race discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. Complainant was not free to continue with academic classes before being charged and/or before being found guilty because of his race;
6.2 In addition, Agency has discriminated against Complainant because of his race when Complaint was ordered to work on the boat docks - before being found guilty - thus preventing him from attending classes and finish his education; because of his race.
VII.
Third Base for Relief - 42 U.S.C. Section 1981
7.1 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 forbids race discrimination in a contractual relationships. Section 1981 specifically states: "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other. For purposes of this section, the term 'make and enforce contracts' includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship." Complainant’s civil rights were violated when press releases were issued with his name and photograph stating that he committed sexual assault even before he was charged accusing him of such allegations - because of his race; No other cadets with similar issues were ever publicized to the public at large or to the media. They were all white.
7.2 In addition, Agency has discriminated against Complainant because of his race when starting on or about January 2006, Complainant was falsely imprisoned and was not allowed to go freely on liberty without any due process before his trial.
7.3 Moreover, Agency has discriminated against Complainant because of his race when on or about January, Complainant was ordered to do hard labor continuing until June, 2006 before, during and after his classmates attended classes and thus preventing him from finishing his education and thus obtaining his college degree.
7.4 Furthermore, Agency has discriminated against Complainant because of his race when on or about January 2006, Complainant was forced to work on the boat docks beginning prior to and continuing until June 20, 2006 by his Commandant Officer while all his classmates were attending classes, and before being charged with a UCMJ offence.
VIII.
Fourth Base for Relief
42 U.S.C. Section 1983
8.1 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 prohibits race discrimination by those acting "under color" of state law. Section 1983 specifically states: "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable." Agency has discriminated against Complainant in the terms and conditions of Complainant’s employment because of Complainant’s race when white Officers subjected Complainant African American cadet to harsher discipline than accorded white cadets for the same or comparable alleged misconduct.
8.2 In addition, Agency has discriminated against Complainant because of his race when starting on or about January 2006, Complainant was falsely imprisoned and was not allowed to go freely on liberty without any due process before being charged.
7.3 Moreover, Agency has discriminated against Complainant because of his race when on or about January, Complainant was ordered to do hard labor continuing until June, 2006 before, during and after his classmates attended classes and thus preventing him from finishing his education and thus obtaining his college degree.
7.4 Furthermore, Agency has discriminated against Complainant because of his race when on or about January 2006, Complainant was forced to work on the boat docks beginning prior to and continuing until June 20, 2006 by his Commandant Officer while all his classmates were attending classes, and before being charged with a UCMJ offence.
Request for Relief
A) Immediate release from pre-trial confinement.
B) Restoration of all pay and allowances.
C) Reinstatement as a first class cadet at the USCGA ,
D) Resumption of his senior cadet academic studies,
E) To be allowed to graduate and receive a commission with a date of rank as an officer of the Class of 2006.
F) A written formal apology from Capt. Wisniewski, and a Public Information Press Release stating that he was not a sexual predator, that he did not create a hostile environment at Chase Hall.


MEMORANDUM
To: USCG Civil Rights Office
From: Webster Smith
Date: July 17, 2007
RE: FORMAL COMPLAINT OF CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
I.
Jurisdiction
1.1 This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and the first, fourth, fifth, eighth, and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
II.
Nature of the Action and Relief Sought
2.1 This is a civil rights violation case by a federal employee alleging a continuing series of discriminatory conduct against him because of his race and gender.
2.2 This also is an action under the common law of the State of Texas for false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, false light and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
2.3 Complainant seeks a declaration that the acts of the defendant agency intentionally and unlawfully discriminated against him because of his race and gender.
2.4 Complainant additionally, and independent of the claims against the government agency, seeks appropriate injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages against the individual defendants.
III.
The Parties
3.1 Webster Smith, complainant, is an adult male citizen of the United States and the State of Texas. He is an African-American citizen and a resident of Houston, Texas. At all times material to this action he was a cadet at the United States Coast Guard Academy.
3.2 Admiral Wisniewski, Superintendent at the United States Coast Guard Academy and at the United States Coast Guard, an agency of the United States of America.
3.3 Douglas Wisnewski, Captain, Commandant of Cadets at the United States Coast Guard Academy, an agency of the United States of America.
3.4 Sean Gill, Commander, Staff Legal Officer, at the United States Coast Guard Academy, an agency of the United States of America.
IV.
Facts
4.1 Defendants have maintained, acquiesced in the maintaining of, or failed to take appropriate required action to eliminate a general and consistent pattern and practice of racial discrimination by white Officers against African American cadets at the United States Coast Guard Academy.
4.2 Such pattern and practice has been consistently manifested for at least the two years preceding the filing of Complainant's formal complaint by the following acts and others:
4.2.1 African American cadets have been subjected to unwarranted criticism and disparagement of their work by white officers.
4.2.2 White officers have subjected African American cadets to harsh and unreasonable performance standards not generally applied to other cadets and not consistent with applicable personnel practices and regulations.
4.2.3 Abuse of authority by white Officers toward African American cadets intended to humiliate, embarrass and invade the privacy of said African American cadets.
4.2.4 White Officers have subjected African American cadets to harsher discipline than accorded white cadets for the same or similar alleged misconduct.
4.3 Consistent with and pursuant to that general policy and practice, Complainant was discriminated against because of his race and gender in the following respects:
4.3.1 Starting on or about January 2006, Complainant was falsely imprisoned and was not allowed to go freely on liberty without any due process before being charged with any offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
4.3.2 On or about January, Complainant was ordered to perform hard labor on the boat docks until June, 2006. During which time his classmates continued to attended classes. This prevented Complainant from completinging his education and thus obtaining his college degree.
4.3.3 On or about January 2006, Complainant was forced to work on the boat docks beginning prior to and continuing until June 20, 2006 by his Commandant Officer while all his classmates were attending classes, and before being charged with a UCMJ offence, because of his race;
4.3.4 Complaint was ordered to work on the boat docks - before being found guilty - thus preventing him from attending classes and finish his education because of his race.
4.3.5 Complainant’s civil rights were violated when press releases were issued with his name and photograph stating that he had committed sexual assaults and other crimes before he was charged with any such allegations - because of his race;
4.3.6 Complainant was not free to continue his academic classes before being charged because of his race;
4.3.7 Complainant was denied the equal protection of the law when he was court-martialed on similar allegations - while others were given non-judicial punishment -because of his race;
4.3.8 During his trial, on or about June 2006, Complainant was denied the right to a fair trial when he was denied the opportunity to present character evidence favorable to him during the Extenuation and Mitigation (E&M) portion of the trial. Character witnesses were standing by ready to testify and were never called. This denial was because of his race.
4.3.9 On or about June 2006, Complainant was not allowed to properly cross-examine the Agency’s main witness, Sherry Radenbush.
4.3.10 Complainant was denied his right to a detailed military counsel; to wit, a Coast Guard lawyer. - He was assigned a Navy Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer without any prior consultation with him, because of his race.
4.3.11 Complainant’s civil rights were violated when his Commanding Officer, Capt. Wisniewski, exerted undue command influence by soliciting witnesses to lie about him.
4.3.12 Complainant’s Commanding Officer, Capt. Wisniewski, gave him an unlawful order, thus abusing his authority; to wit, not to send an e-mail or communicate with anyone anywhere before he was charged. Sending one e-mail to one friend at Annapolis, who was not a potential witness, could not have amounted to witness tampering.
4.3.13 Complainant’s reputation was irreparably damaged when his Commanding Officer, Capt. Wisniewski, issued a public statement that he was a sexual predator and that his presence created an intimidating environment in Chase Hall before he was charged with the crime.
4.3.14 Complainant’s Commanding Officer, Capt. Wisniewski, deliberately postponed scheduling a court martial until all of the witnesses against him became commissioned officers instead of being cadets like him thus decreasing his credibility against the witnesses' credibility.
4.3.15 Complainant’s Commanding Officer, Capt. Wisniewski, issued a restraining order prohibiting him going within 100 yard of the Academy grounds before being charged with a crime - because of his race.
4.3.16 Complainant’s right to a fair trial was violated when he was denied a trial by a jury of his peers, since no cadet was in the jury pool, and no cadet sat on his jury, because of his race.



4.4 Agency has acted and continued to discriminate and retaliate against the Complainant because of Complainant's race and gender with malicious intent and in reckless disregard of his rights.
4.5 Agency has subjected Complainant to extreme emotional distress by conduct which was unreasonable, unwarranted and outrageous, and in no way related to any discretionary authority of Commander Wisniewsky or to any purpose or objective of the United States Coast Guard Academy.
4.6 Agency has caused Complainant to be falsely considered dishonest, and a sexual predator with knowledge that the allegations were false.
4.7 The acts of Commander Wisniewsky proximately caused substantial loss, suffering, humiliation, emotional distress and other damages to plaintiff and will continue to do so.
4.8 Because the conduct of Commander Wisniewsky was accomplished with malicious intent and in reckless disregard of Complainant's rights, Complainant should recover punitive damages from the Agency.
V.
First Claim for Relief
Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991
5.1 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits race discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Agency has discriminated against Complainant in the terms and conditions of Complainant’s employment because of Complainant’s race when white Officers subjected Complainant African American cadet to harsher discipline than accorded white cadets for the same or comparable alleged misconduct.
5.2 In addition Agency discriminated against Complainant because of his race when starting on or about January 2006, Complainant was falsely imprisoned and was not allowed to go freely on liberty without any due process before being charged.
5.3 Moreover, Agency has discriminated against Complainant because of his race when on or about January, Complainant was ordered to do hard labor continuing until June, 2006 while his classmates were allowed to attend classes, thus preventing him from finishing his education and thus obtaining his college degree.
5.4 Furthermore, Agency has discriminated against Complainant because of his race when on or about January 2006, Complainant was forced to work on the boat docks beginning prior to and continuing until June 20, 2006 by his Commandant Officer while all his classmates were attending classes, and before being charged with a UCMJ offence.
VI.
Second Claim for Relief - Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
6.1 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits race discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. Complainant was not free to continue with academic classes before being charged and/or before being found guilty because of his race;
6.2 In addition, Agency has discriminated against Complainant because of his race when Complaint was ordered to work on the boat docks - before being found guilty - thus preventing him from attending classes and finish his education; because of his race.
VII.
Third Base for Relief - 42 U.S.C. Section 1981
7.1 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 forbids race discrimination in a contractual relationships. Section 1981 specifically states: "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other. For purposes of this section, the term 'make and enforce contracts' includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship." Complainant’s civil rights were violated when press releases were issued with his name and photograph stating that he committed sexual assault even before he was charged accusing him of such allegations - because of his race; No other cadets with similar issues were ever publicized to the public at large or to the media. They were all white.
7.2 In addition, Agency has discriminated against Complainant because of his race when starting on or about January 2006, Complainant was falsely imprisoned and was not allowed to go freely on liberty without any due process before his trial.
7.3 Moreover, Agency has discriminated against Complainant because of his race when on or about January, Complainant was ordered to do hard labor continuing until June, 2006 before, during and after his classmates attended classes and thus preventing him from finishing his education and thus obtaining his college degree.
7.4 Furthermore, Agency has discriminated against Complainant because of his race when on or about January 2006, Complainant was forced to work on the boat docks beginning prior to and continuing until June 20, 2006 by his Commandant Officer while all his classmates were attending classes, and before being charged with a UCMJ offence.
VIII.
Fourth Base for Relief
42 U.S.C. Section 1983
8.1 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 prohibits race discrimination by those acting "under color" of state law. Section 1983 specifically states: "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable." Agency has discriminated against Complainant in the terms and conditions of Complainant’s employment because of Complainant’s race when white Officers subjected Complainant African American cadet to harsher discipline than accorded white cadets for the same or comparable alleged misconduct.
8.2 In addition, Agency has discriminated against Complainant because of his race when starting on or about January 2006, Complainant was falsely imprisoned and was not allowed to go freely on liberty without any due process before being charged.
7.3 Moreover, Agency has discriminated against Complainant because of his race when on or about January, Complainant was ordered to do hard labor continuing until June, 2006 before, during and after his classmates attended classes and thus preventing him from finishing his education and thus obtaining his college degree.
7.4 Furthermore, Agency has discriminated against Complainant because of his race when on or about January 2006, Complainant was forced to work on the boat docks beginning prior to and continuing until June 20, 2006 by his Commandant Officer while all his classmates were attending classes, and before being charged with a UCMJ offence.
Request for Relief
A) Immediate release from pre-trial confinement.
B) Restoration of all pay and allowances.
C) Reinstatement as a first class cadet at the USCGA ,
D) Resumption of his senior cadet academic studies,
E) To be allowed to graduate and receive a commission with a date of rank as an officer of the Class of 2006.
F) A written formal apology from Capt. Wisniewski, and a Public Information Press Release stating that he was not a sexual predator, that he did not create a hostile environment at Chase Hall.
(Original Complaint drafted by Attorney Sylvia Casey, California Bar Nr. 221785)

Women of the Class of 2006 continue to make their mark.

The torch has been passed to a new gender and a new generation at the Coast Guard Academy. By extension, that torch has also been passed to the Coast Guard. That has consequences for America and the world.
Women in the Academy Class of 2006 conspired with Captain Doug Wisniewski to frame Cadet Webster Smith. Webster Smith was convicted and sent to jail. He is cooling his heels in the Navy Brig at Goose Creek, SC while some of his classmates were sent to cool their heels in the frozen Arctic aboard Coast Guard icebreakers.
Webster Smith was in the Class of 2006. So were Kristen Nicholson, Shelly Raudenbush and Cynthia Travers. Ensign Travers was assigned to the CGC Healy, an icebreaker stationed in Seattle, Washington. She joined three other female officers onboard the CGC Healy. Ensign Elizabeth Newton, Class of 2005 was onboard when Travers reported for duty. The Marine Science Officer and the Diving Officer was Lieutenant Jessica Hill. She was also the Morale Officer. Captain Doug Russell’s ward room had a large percentage of junior female officers.
After riding a desk at Coast Guard Headquarters, Captain Doug Russell, CGA Class of 1982, was chosen to command the CGC Healy. Rather than sail on the ship from Seattle, Washington, he chose to fly to the Arctic and take command of the Coast Guard’s newest and largest icebreaker. On 5 June 2006 at Dutch Harbor, Alaska Captain Doug Russell relieved Captain Dan Oliver, CGA Class of 1979, who had served 3 years as commanding officer. It would appear to be a bit unusual for a captain to take command in the middle of a patrol.
On or about 1 August Ensign Cynthia Travers qualified as a Junior Officer of the Deck and was certified by Captain Russell. On or about 17 August Lieutenant Jessica Hill and BM2 Steve Duque were killed in a routine diving operation.
Initially, the Coast Guard reported that the two entered the water to examine the ship's rudder, a common procedure as the ship operates in Arctic ice.

In a statement on the ship's Web site two days afterward, Russell said the accident occurred during a short break in operations:
"In taking advantage of our first real stop in ice in a month-plus of operations, we capitalized on the opportunity to conduct a dive operation," he wrote. "The dive took place at the bow of the ship in a small area of open water. The dive operation was going pretty much as planned when something happened under the water while Lt. Hill and BM2 Duque were underwater together.
Was this a recreational dive or a serious operational dive? Was it for the purpose of affording the crew a break in the drudgery of the daily routine?
What could have happened under water? Did they suffer a lack of oxygen? Were they using Navy Hardhat suits or scuba diving wetsuits with air tanks? The Navy Hardhat suit would require a lifeline and an air line connection between the diver and the ship. They would be able to talk and signal the second something dangerous or unusual occurred.
It seems unlikely that they were crushed between the ice and the ship or that they were mauled by polar bears, because such injuries cannot be improved by the type of medical attention that is available onboard the ship. Ship’s personnel tried emergency medical attention for over an hour.
The Captain further stated that "When a problem was detected by the personnel supporting the dive operation, the divers were retrieved from the water. Immediate medical attention was provided and they were evacuated to the ship quickly where revival efforts continued for over an hour through the superlative efforts of many." What kind of problem could he have been referring to? How was the problem detected? Was it detected right away? Was the onboard support team on the forecastle alert and attentive at all times? Did anyone leave their post for a moment to use the toilette or to attend to a personal matter?
Were Lt. Jessica Hill and BM2 Duque neglected for the briefest of time, but time enough for them to suffer a lack of oxygen or a loss of body heat? Those are the two most likely scenarios based on what has been divulged so far. Were their wetsuits and diving gear in peek condition?
If they were diving from the ship, then they would not have had to be evacuated to the ship. The message posted on the ship's website seems to imply that they were not diving from the ship. Nor were they tethered to the ship with any type of safety line or harness. When they entered the water, was it from a small boat or from a little bergie bit?
Other areas of inquiry would be who was on watch on the Bridge and in the Engine Room? Who had control of the ship’s engines? Was the ship moving forward or aft or drifting laterally in any way?
This so-called accident would better be described as a tragedy. The PROXIMATE CAUSE OF MOST SHIPBOARD TRAGEDIES IS HUMAN NEGLIGENCE, OR EQUIPMENT FAILURE DUE TO HUMAN NEGLIGENCE.

This is the big question, can too many female officers in strategic assignments on a vessel render the ship UNSEAWORTHY for 7 days out of 30? It would appear that it is quite possible because of the McClintock Effect. Women are supposed to be less rational and more emotional at the beginning of their menstrual cycle when the female hormone is at its lowest level. If every female officer on the ship is experiencing the same symptoms at the same time, the ship would be rendered unseaworthy. The lives of every member of the crew would be in danger.

Given the number of female officers onboard the Healy, could this possibly be a contributing factor to the deaths of the two divers? A look at the Chain of Command will show how the female officers were critically assigned. This does not show their special duty stations during special operations, such as diving operations.


The McClintock effect (also known as "Menstrual Synchrony") is the observed phenomenon that the menstrual cycles of women who live together (such as in prisons, convents, bordellos, dormitories, military academies etc.) will tend to become synchronized over time. The Coast Guard Academy, founded in 1876, is the smallest U.S. military academy with an enrollment of about 950 cadets. Women represent about 30 percent of Coast Guard Academy cadets, compared with less than 20 percent at the Air Force and Naval Academies and about 15 percent at West Point.


The phenomenon, sometimes referred to as the "social regulation of ovulation," was first formally studied by psychologist Martha McClintock, who reported her findings in Nature in 1971. It has also been noted in small animals such as mice and guinea pigs. Females affected will tend to follow the 'lead' of the alpha female.
Since the research on the McClintock effect is inconclusive, many important questions remain, such as why it evolved and how much pheromones and Jacobson's organ play a role. One possible explanation on why it evolved is: because it allows more males to mate and pass their genes. If only one female of the group was ready to mate at a time, the most probable outcome would be that only the more dominant male would have access to her.
It is apparent from research that some women at least synchronize after living together for a time. Yet others, in virtually identical living conditions, do not.
McClintock, Martha K., Menstrual Synchrony and Suppression. Nature. 229: 244-45, 1971.
Let me attempt to answer a question asked by Gloria Steinam of Ms. Magazine, If women are supposed to be less rational and more emotional at the
beginning of our menstrual cycle, when the female hormone is at its
lowest level, then why isn't it logical to say that in those few days
women... (are not fully capable of performing the duties of a ship’s officer in a dangerous situation with a very small margin for error?)
A look at the chain of command on the CGC Healy will show where female officers were strategically placed on the United States’ largest and most expensive icebreaking and scientific research vessel.
THE CHAIN OF COMMAND
THE COMMANDING OFFICER – Captain Douglas Russell
HEALY’s Commanding Officer (or CO) is completely responsible for the overall safety of the ship and crew, as well as the successful completion of HEALY's assigned missions.
CHIEF SCIENTIST
A Chief Scientist will coordinate science activities during a science cruise and act as the spokesperson for all science parties aboard. The Senior Scientists are your primary link with the Captain and should be kept informed of your progress and future requirements.
EXECUTIVE OFFICER – Commander Jeff Jackson
The Executive Officer (or XO) is second in command and is directly responsible to the CO for the day to day internal operations of the vessel.
OPERATIONS OFFICER – Lcdr Jim Dalitsch
The Operations Officer (OPS) is responsible to the XO/CO for the safe navigation of the vessel and coordination of all operations. Their areas of responsibility include supervising navigation, communications and all science operations.
MARINE SCIENCE OFFICER – Lt. Jessica Hill, also The Diving Officer, and the Morale Officer.
The Marine Science Officer (MSO) is the direct supervisor of the Marine Science Technicians (MST). To that end, they serves as a point of contact for handling needs/concerns regarding the efforts of the MSTs.
DWO- Deck Watch Officers, Ensign Cynthia Travers and Ensign Elizabeth Newton.
Also in the Ward Room, Chief Warrant Officer Maria Kirby.
How many more deaths will it take before we stop assigning officers according to political correctness? Buoy tenders and harbor patrol vessels are less dangerous than icebreakers.
Was the death of Lt. Jessica Hill and BM2 Duque a wake-up call? Icebreakers and high endurance cutters deploy for long periods of time. They travel to remote and hostile environments. The margins for error in judgment and performance are very small. The risk of fatality is much greater.