Google

Monday, July 09, 2007

SMITH v USCG, DHS, et. al.

http://www.amazon.com/CONDUCT-UNBECOMING-Officer-Lady-Conviction/dp/1460978021



SMITH v USCG, DHS, et. al.
Case Nr. HS-06-USCG-0052430MHCGA
Cadet Webster Smith v USCG; DHS; Admiral James Van Sise, Superintendent, U S Coast Guard Academy; Captain Douglas Wisniewski, Commandant Of Cadets, U S Coast Guard Academy.
Complaint of Racial Discrimination. 17 July 2006.
Jurisdiction: Commandant Instruction 5350.11
EEO Investigating Officer, Susan C. Holmes
Report of Investigation:

A formal complaint of sexual and racial discrimination was filed on 17 July against Admiral James Van Sice and Captain Douglas Wisniewski.
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.

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 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 Admiral James Van Sice, 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)




Former CGA Cadet,Caitlin Stopper

Caitlin Stopper, said:

"Webster Smith and I, at least on the surface, have nothing in common. Our gender, ethnicity, geography, and religion could not be any more opposite. However, we were both raised in loving and dedicated families of faith who taught us that the key to leadership is a strong moral character; and that every American should do whatever they can to forward the cause of liberty and freedom provided by our Constitution."

"Where it counts, Webster Smith and I do have similarities. We were both victims of injustice at the hands of our fellow shipmates and superiors farther up the chain of command. Webster and I are proof that there are serious fundamental flaws in the Coast Guard Officer Corps as well as within the cadet ranks at the Academy in New London, Connecticut. We are, underneath everything, shipmates. As anyone will tell you, the ties that bind shipmates are thicker than blood. Iron may rust, and wood may decay, but shipmates are forever. However, that is not the reason why I stand behind Webster. I stand behind him as we are both victims of injustice and have become, through our adversity, crusaders of justice."

AFFIDAVIT of James Van Sice:

AFFIDAVIT of Douglas Wisniewski:

Labels:

7 Comments:

Blogger ichbinalj said...

- Former CGA Cadet,Caitlin Stopper, said:

Webster Smith and I, at least on the surface, have nothing in common. Our gender, ethnicity, geography, and religion could not be any more opposite. However, we were both raised in loving and dedicated families of faith who taught us that the key to leadership is a strong moral character; and that every American should do whatever they can to forward the cause of liberty and freedom provided by our Constitution.
I accepted my appointment to the Coast Guard Academy in 2004 because I wanted to do my part to defend the Constitution of the United States from foreign threat and encroachment. Little did I know that I would witness the threat and encroachment upon our precious Constitution from within the United States Coast Guard itself. Sexism, racism and homophobia are still rampant at USCGA. This creates a culture of resentment, distrust and apathy within the Corps of Cadets. America has found itself in a day in age where terrorist attacks loom on the horizon. This great country cannot afford to be placing less than satisfactory officers on its borders to protect its citizens. The thick and pervasive attitude of white male supremacy that exists at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy shuns and disposes of those whom America deserves to have serving and protecting them. This distorted code and double standard of justice is putting America’s welfare at risk.

8:41 PM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

Caitlin Stopper, said:

The American people deserve to have Webster Smith, a highly competent and strong leader, on our shores protecting the freedoms and liberties that others have given their lives for. Ironically, the very Constitution that Webster wanted to defend and protect was unable to protect him from civil rights abuses and malicious intents at the hands of his superiors and fellow shipmates.
Where it counts, Webster Smith and I do have similarities. We were both victims of injustice at the hands of our fellow shipmates and superiors farther up the chain of command. Webster and I are proof that there are serious fundamental flaws in the Coast Guard Officer Corps as well as within the cadet ranks at the Academy in New London, Connecticut. We are, underneath everything, shipmates. As anyone will tell you, the ties that bind shipmates are thicker than blood. Iron may rust, and wood may decay, but shipmates are forever. However, that is not the reason why I stand behind Webster. I stand behind him as we are both victims of injustice and have become, through our adversity, crusaders of justice.

8:42 PM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

FEMALE CADET ACCUSES MEXICAN POLICE OF FORCING HER TO PERFORM UNNATURAL ORAL ACT UPON HIM.


A third-class female cadet, a sophomore, USCGA Class of 2010, and a male enlisted man claimed two policeman assaulted them after they came ashore from skinny-dipping at the beach during the pre-dawn hours in Veracruz, Mexico.
It appears that female 3/c Cadet Jane Doe and the enlisted man were swimming while the two policemen hid behind some rocks and surprised them out of the ocean.
Cadet Jane Doe said the police officers attempted to handcuff them, and forced her to perform oral sex on one of them.
The Eagle docked Friday in Veracruz and left on Monday. Cadet Jane Doe and the enlisted man are still in Mexico working with authorities. The ship, CGC EAGLE, is continuing on its summer training program. It is due to arrive in Miami on July 27 as its next port call.


What standard will be used to dispose of this case? The Webster Smith Standard, where the female cadet gets no discipline? Or, will it be the Shelly Raudenbush Standard where the female cadet gets immunity from prosecution, no charges for fraternizing with an enlisted man? Or the Cadet John Miller Standard where the local authorities take care of resolving the case and the cadet is returned to duty with a warning to be more discrete next time?

Either way, the female cadet corps has the Wisniewski Curse? Or, perhaps it is the Shelly Raudenbush Curse? Either way, the Coast Guard albatross is still there around the neck of the Coast Guard Academy. Until the Webster Smith travesty is resolved fairly, and Webster Smith is given his Commission and his degree, and his record is wiped clean, the cadets will continue to suffer these terribly embarrassing incidents.

The torch has been passed to a new Gender, and the females continue to get a free ride with no ethical accountability.

3:36 PM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

Jasmine Virginia said:
"Which crime are you referring too? A third class cadet with an enlisted crew member swimming naked on the beach or the fact that American citizens, a young man and a young girl were left in Mexico. These are alleged charges and we don't know the entire story, maybe the 3c female cadet and enlisted crew member are facing charges is the reason they could not leave Mexico on the Eagle when it left for Miami. I think The Coast Guard Personnel would never have left these precious Americans in the hands of a foreign government if they could have released them from custody. Let us pray for their safe return."
Jasmine
virginia

11:20 PM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

The U.S. Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals has scheduled oral arguments in the Case of The Appeal of the Court-martial Conviction of Cadet Webster Smith for January 16, 2008 in Arlington, Virginia.

A legal brief filed by his lawyers claims the convictions should be thrown out because the defense team was not allowed to fully cross-examine one of his accusers during Smith's court martial. They say that meant the jury didn't hear testimony that the accuser, a female cadet, Shelly Raudenbush, had once had consensual sex with a Coast Guard enlisted man and then called it sexual assault.
Lt. Cmdr. Patrick M. Flynn, the government's lawyer for the appeal, said 27 November that the jury "heard enough" and the trial judge was within his rights to impose reasonable limits on the cross-examination.
"They didn't need to hear the additional details the defense is arguing they should have been allowed to hear."

Lawyers from the WilmerHale law firm for former Coast Guard cadet Webster Smith also contend in their legal brief “The excluded cross-examination would have devastated Shelly Raudenbush's(the accuser's) credibility, on which the government's case depended completely, making it all but certain that the outcome in this pure credibility contest would have been different."

4:19 PM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

This entry was posted by cgreports.wordpress.com on June 11, 2009 at 6:26 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
QUOTE: "We were notified today that Webster Smith, the first cadet to ever be courts-martialed at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy has had his site blocked by the U.S. Coast Guard. Smiths website “Friends of Webster” is not accessible inside the Coast Guard domain. We reviewed the site and couldn’t find anything in our cursory review that would warrant being blocked."
UNQUOTE
See-http://cgreport.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/webster-smith-former-u-s-coast-guard-academy-cadet-blocked-inside-coast-guard-domain/

5:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the 60s-80s when we talked about "managing diversity", we really meant race and gender. Sadly, we still find ourselves well short of optimizing either or both of those elements. Both the enlightened intellectual and the practical project leaders of today see huge value in making certain his or her team is composed of members who bring not only gender and racial diversity but also a wide spectrum of skills and capabilities to the table. We want variations in expertise and age and MATURITY and ideas and CULRURE and any other factors of consequence that could help get the project done well. For too long we have celebrated what we had in common. That's OK, but the fault lies in pretending that we have everything in common. WE SURELY DO NOT and the better leader knows that and acts on that knowledge.

9:06 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home