Google

Friday, September 08, 2006

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)

Labels:

5 Comments:

Blogger ichbinalj said...

Commandant underscores Coast Guard core values
By RAY HACKETT
Norwich Bulletin


NEW LONDON — The role of the U.S. Coast Guard today is far different,
and
much more complicated, than it was in 1971 when Ensign Thad W. Allen
graduated from the Coast Guard Academy.

And as such, the military service that operates under the auspices of
the
Department of Homeland Security has launched a task force study of
academy
life to redefine how best to prepare the next generation of junior
officers
to meet the challenge.

“We need to understand what we expect when you come out of here,” Adm.
Thad
W. Allen, commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, told more than 900
academy
cadets Friday. “At the very bottom, it comes down to leadership and
core
values.

“And those values are honor — that’s the commitment you make to
yourself;
respect — that’s the commitment you make to others; and devotion to
duty —
and that’s the commitment I think you made to your country when you put
on
those blue uniforms,” Allen said.

Allen, who took charge of the service as its top uniformed officer in
May,
was at the academy one day after the official announcement of the
formation
of the task force. Its charge is to examine the climate and culture
among
cadets, moving beyond what mainly had been an internal evaluation of
race
and gender policies.

Allen told cadets the task force will examine all aspects of cadet life
at
the academy to make the necessary changes to better equip these future
officers to deal with the challenges they’ll face.

The role of the Coast Guard today is more than just search and rescue
and
drug interdiction, the two main staples of the service for decades. It
now
plays a major role in homeland security, as the military arm of the
newly
formed federal agency.

During a question and answer portion of his presentation with cadets,
the
commandant was asked if there also was increased funding for the
service for
more resources or if the service will continue to be asked to do more
with
less.

“No matter how much of a dollar we get,” he said, “we’ll spend it
better
than any other federal agency.”

Allen 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.

Former cadet Webster Smith was convicted earlier this year on a sexual
assault charge against a female cadet and is serving a six-month
sentence in
a Navy brig.

When asked about talk of creating a Homeland Security College, similar
to
the Navy’s War College in Newport, R.I., Allen said he fully supports
the
concept of advanced education in homeland security issues, and the
academy
would be an ideal choice for such a school.

“But more important than location,” he said, “is what would the core
curriculum be? That’s what we in the department are trying to develop.
All I
can tell you is that it is a concept that is actively being discussed,
and I
think the academy has great potential.”

Reach Ray Hackett at 425-4225 or rhackett@norwichbulletin.com

2:29 AM  
Blogger watchdog2 said...

But in his sophomore year he endured racial discrimination from an opposing team that was ultimately a contributing factor in his leaving the college.

Seventy years ago, Fitch was at the center of a racial incident regarding a basketball game at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London. On Jan. 28, 1934, just before game time, Coast Guard officials entered a protest against Fitch, arguing that because half of the Academy's student body was from southern states, they had a tradition "that no negro players be permitted to engage in contests at the Academy."

In their own protest, Fitch's teammates threatened to leave the basketball court if he was not allowed to play. They joined him in warming up, shooting, and passing to get ready. Meanwhile, officials for both schools argued, delaying the start of the game for several hours.

Coast Guard relented, and the game was played. Connecticut won, 31 to 29.

But Harrison Fitch did not see a minute of court time. John Heldman, CSC's head coach, kept him on the bench, and never explained why. Heldman was already under fire from students and alumni, after compiling a record of only losing seasons since he began as coach in 1931. He would hold on for another year, but resigned after losing the first two games - one to the alumni team - in the 1935-36 season.

Writing in the Feb. 13, 1934 issue of the Connecticut Campus, sports editor Jules Pinsky said, "In every (basketball) contest in which Fitch played, there were unpleasant references to Fitch's (skin) color." Out of 14 rivals, only Brown University and the University of New Hampshire were cited by Pinsky as not participating in using racial epithets against Fitch.

Following the Coast Guard game, Ray Guyer, CSC's athletic director, and his counterpart at Coast Guard issued a joint statement indicating that the relationship between the two schools "was not impaired and that in the future any student would be eligible to participate in athletic events" between them.

Fitch left CSC at the end of the academic term, transferring to American International College in Springfield, Mass. After earning his degree, he worked in research for Monsanto Corp. He married Hazel Brandrum in 1939, and they had two sons: Harrison Brooks and Charles.

An article about Harrison Fitch Sr. appeared in the Advance six years ago. Charles Fitch came across it recently on the Internet, and sent a copy to Brooks.

When he read in the Feb. 9, 1998 Advance article that "it is not known what happened to Fitch" after he left UConn, Brooks called the editor.

Brooks Fitch says his father never talked about the Coast Guard incident, but he did indicate over the years that he had a good experience at CSC, and enjoyed his relationship with other members of the basketball team. His transfer to American International was due to financial constraints, as well as the racial incident in New London.


Over the years, his father remained a fan of Connecticut basketball, and watched men's and women's games on television up until he died in the early 1990's.

Brooks Fitch, now living in Dallas, says he visits the Storrs campus whenever he gets the chance. And whenever the opportunity arises, he says, he encourages African American students to apply to the University.



UConn The Web People

UCONN HOME

11:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

New London — The U.S. Coast Guard's civil rights director is reviewing former Coast Guard Academy cadet Webster Smith's complaint that the academy's two highest-ranking officers treated him differently than they treated other, white cadets accused of sexual offenses.
Smith, who is black, was expelled from the academy after his June court-martial for extortion, sodomy and indecent assault. He has been released from a Navy brig after serving nearly five months of a six-month sentence.

Smith filed the complaint in July against Rear Adm. James C. Van Sice, superintendent of the academy, and Capt. Douglas Wisniewski, the commandant of cadets at the time, who has since been transferred. Van Sice will leave the academy to become director of personnel management at Coast Guard headquarters later this month.

Smith filed the complaint with the Office of Civil Rights at the academy. It has since been forwarded to H. Jerry Jones, the Coast Guard's civil rights director, whose office is in Washington, D.C.

Chief Warrant Officer David C. French, a spokesman for the academy, said the complaint could not be resolved at the lowest level of command.

“JoAnn Miller tried to work with all of the involved parties to resolve it,” French said, referring to the academy's former director of civil rights and equal opportunity, who has since retired. “But there was no resolution, so it was sent up to headquarters. I don't know where it is in the process at this point.”

“The complaint is based on the fact that Webster was treated differently compared to how others were treated for offenses against the Coast Guard Academy,” Smith's father, Cleon Smith, of Houston, Texas, said by phone Wednesday.

In May, Webster Smith had filed a grievance against Wisniewski while the sexual-assault charges were being investigated. Smith contended that Wisniewski had unfairly isolated him from his peers as early as December 2005, when the allegations against him first surfaced.

Smith was first charged Feb. 9, and at one point faced about two dozen charges. The number of charges was reduced to 11 after the early stages of the investigation. He was convicted of three charges in June.

In his grievance letter, Smith wrote that Wisniewski wrongfully refused to allow him to attend class, talk to his peers or complete his military training while under investigation.

“I submit that these charges were crafted to make me appear as a sexual predator and justify my continued separation from the corps of cadets,” Smith wrote in the grievance letter, which, despite accusing Wisniewski, had to be filed with and adjudicated by Wisniewski, who rejected it.

2:21 PM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

COAST GUARD TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINT FILED BY WEBSTER SMITH.
Discrimination played role in court-martial, Smith says.
By Jennifer Grogan

Published on 12/14/2006
The U.S. Coast Guard's civil rights director has found that a former Coast Guard Academy cadet's discrimination complaint against two academy officials warrants further investigation.
Webster Smith, a black man expelled from the academy following his court-martial for sexual assault, had complained in July that Rear Adm. James C. Van Sice, superintendent of the academy, and Capt. Douglas Wisniewski, the commandant of cadets at the time, had treated him differently than they treated other, white cadets accused of sexual offenses.

Wisniewski has since been transferred.

Cmdr. Jeff Carter, chief of media relations for the Coast Guard, said Wednesday that H. Jerry Jones, director of the Office of Civil Rights at Coast Guard headquarters in Washington, D.C., dismissed all but one of the 17 claims Smith raised in his discrimination complaint.

Accepted for investigation, Carter said, was Smith's statement that he was discriminated against and treated differently because of his race when he was court-martialed for the same kinds of acts for which non-minority cadets received administrative punishment.

“We're just beginning, and we'll await the results of the investigation before we make a determination of whether we should take any action,” Carter said.

Smith was sentenced to six months in a Navy brig for extortion, sodomy and indecent assault and was released after serving nearly five months. He filed his complaint with the Office of Civil Rights at the academy, which forwarded it to Jones at Coast Guard headquarters.

Jones finished his review of the complaint Dec. 7, and a determination was made to assign the claim to an investigator at JDG Associates Inc., a consulting firm, according to its Web site, “specializing in equal employment opportunity, human resources, and civil rights.”

Carter said JDG has 45 days to complete an investigation. He said the claim was assigned to an outside consultant because there are few equal opportunity investigators at headquarters.

A separate investigation is under way involving Van Sice, who is leaving the academy Jan. 5 to become director of personnel management at Coast Guard headquarters. Carter has said a task force investigating the climate and culture among cadets at the academy learned about information involving Van Sice that required additional review beyond the scope of the task force's charter.

Vice Adm. Robert J. Papp directed Rear Adm. Larry Hereth, commander of the Fifth Coast Guard District in Portsmouth, Va., to look into the information.

Van Sice will be replaced by Rear Adm. J. Scott Burhoe, the current Coast Guard director of governmental and public affairs

9:31 AM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

The best Christmas present the Coast Guard could give to the Lawyers from the WilmerHale law firm for former Coast Guard cadet Webster Smith would be to rule against them.
It has occurred to me that the best payment the Law Firm could get for representing Webster Smith would be another chance to make history. Taking this case pro bono, it is obvious that they will not receive any direct financial compensation for their services; but, they already have more money than they can spend.
Far more than money, a chance to make history by arguing the case before the Supreme Court would be just compensation.
I believe that they have followed this case from day one. They had a premonition of its precedent setting nature. When would another case of this unique nature come along? Not in a thousand years.
Like God up in Heaven, hoping that Pharoah would not give in and let the Hebrews go free, just so He could give the world repeated displays of his awesome power, WilmerHale may be secretly in its heart of hearts hoping the Coast Guard is as perverse as some have said that they are. That would give WilmerHale a chance to make it to the Supreme Court to argue a really very simple and easy case of the wrongful prosecution of the first Black Cadet at the Coast Guard Academy.
Now, that is a trophy worth more than a million dollar retainer. That would add a modern and impressive new paragraph to their website. They would continue to stroll down the corridors of History as the nation's preeminent civil rights law firm.
Knowing the Coast Guard as I do, I think that they are about to give WilmerHale the number one item on their Christmas Wish List.
Of course, I could be wrong and the Coast Guard just might get religion and do the right thing.
Time will tell.

12:39 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home