Monday, March 9, 2015

How to Win a Social Security Disability Claim? Find The Right Judge.

Disability Claim Denied? Find the Right Judge

Nine percent of the judges who hear appeals grant benefits 90% of the time, costing taxpayers tens of billions.

 
To all parties involved in a trial, the slam of a gavel should indicate that justice has been served. Unfortunately, this is often not the case with Social Security Disability (SSDI and SSI) appeals. A system designed to serve society’s vulnerable has morphed into a benefit bonanza that costs taxpayers billions of dollars more than it should. The disability trust fund will become insolvent in 2016, and Congress would be wise to begin much needed reform.
A disability applicant whose claim is rejected during the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) first two stages ( before State Disability Determination Services)  can appeal the decision to administrative-law judges (ALJ). These judges must impartially balance the claims of the applicant against the interests of taxpayers.
Over the past decade judicial impartiality has declined significantly, as many administrative-law judges uncritically approve most claims. In 2008 judges on average approved about 70% of claims before them, according to the Social Security Administration. Nine percent of judges approved more than 90% of benefit requests that landed on their desks.
Do nine out of every 10 applicants appealing denied claims need societal support? There are reasons for skepticism. The data show that judges who are generous in granting benefits are consistently generous over time—which is suspicious, since each year they should hear a random set of new cases. The more discerning judges—those who award benefits less than 90% of the time—are more unpredictable from year to year.
(Photo: Getty Images/Illustration Works)
If the judges with award rates topping 90% are removed from the data, the rate of denial increases by 2%-3% annually. That amounts to 98,000 claims from 2005-11. Assuming an average lifetime award of $250,000, taxpayers would have saved $23 billion over those six years had the worst judges left the bench. If we lower the threshold to exclude judges with award rates north of 85%, these savings increase to $41 billion.
Former Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue, who took office in 2007, made much-needed changes. Incompetent incumbents saw their influence diluted by new judges drawn from fresh candidate lists. Judicial decisions are now randomly reviewed to ensure that the court remains impartial and fair to taxpayers. Judges were limited to hearing 1,000 cases a year (the figure has since been lowered to 700), and individuals are allowed only one disability application at a time.
Mr. Astrue’s reforms have produced good results. In 2011 judges with award rates exceeding 90% heard a mere 4% of all cases, a 63.6% decline from 2008. But Mr. Astrue’s term expired in 2013, and these changes can easily be undone, either intentionally by future administrators, or unintentionally as bad habits slip back into the system.
His program to increase accountability and judicial turnover should be made permanent. Congress should also institute 15-year term limits for judges, who currently enjoy lifetime tenure, to ensure that fresh legal minds are joining the stale judicial aristocracy. A term of a decade and a half is long enough to insulate judges and prevent undue political influence.
The system faces a huge backlog, made worse by claimants who play adjudication roulette, filing and then withdrawing appeals in hopes of drawing a generous judge. Congress can limit this gamesmanship by allowing only one application per claimant in a three-year period. Because judges must marshal more documentation for a denial than an approval, they have an incentive to grant benefits to keep the system chugging along. The agency can fix this by further limiting the number of cases each judge must decide to 500 from 700.
The system is further complicated because even if a claimant has legal counsel, the judge must advocate on the claimant’s behalf. This dual role should be ended. Most claimants—85%—now have third-party representation. These professionals should be held responsible for getting supporting materials into court expeditiously and completely so the record can be closed in a timely manner.
Even under better legal rules, judges will still face rigid and outdated guidelines for granting benefits. The framework they must follow—known as the Medical Vocational Grid (known as The Listings)—is formulaic to the point of senselessness. For instance, the bar to benefits approval is lower for someone who doesn’t speak English, on the theory that it is difficult to find a job without the language. But that English rule is also applied to claimants from Puerto Rico, where the language of business is Spanish.
These guidelines (in The Listings) also do not give due consideration to actual labor market experience, dictating a looser approval standard for someone with only a high-school degree, even if the person has succeeded in the labor force for decades.
The framework (of The Listings) was developed in the late 1950s, for the previous generation’s workforce, and hasn’t been updated since 1978. Decades ago workers ages 50 or 55 might have been considered retiring, but this is no longer generally the case. Novel job-training programs also make it easier than ever for workers to move into new fields and make up for low levels of education, and new disability criteria would account for these changes.
These solutions would begin to deliver meaningful reform to Social Security disability awards. They can restore dignity and efficacy to a troubled system.
 (BY Mark J. Warshawsky And Ross A. Marchand
(Mr. Warshawsky is a visiting scholar at the Mercatus Center of George Mason University and a former member of the Social Security Advisory Board from 2006 to 2012. Mr. Marchand is a first-year economics graduate student at George Mason University.)


Brian Seel


Yet another data point to support the idea that the safety net should be completely privatized (with our dollars returned to us and taxes lowered so we may support and do the work).

The way you make calls in these cases is with people, in their community, sitting and talking to these people.  Don't make it a faceless claimant identified only by a social security number.  Let them sit in front of their neighbor, who not without compassion, also will get to know them, but also will know that there is a call center 2 miles down the road that is hiring.

The only incentive bureaucrats ever have is to keep the dollars rolling out the door.  It's how we got in this mess in the first place.  


Bill Wald


@Brian Seel Before FDR and SS the safety net was completely privatized. Many old people without a family who could/would care for them starved or froze to death in the winter. That's why SS was started.

These days many American would rather pay to have feral cats sterilized and released than to contribute cash money to help homeless and/or foster children. Many foster children in the US are functionally "homeless." So are many children theoretically with homes.

For the first million years, humans knew the difference between their food and their pets. These days, many Americans don't know the difference between food, pets, and children.


Brian Seel


@Bill Wald @Brian Seel Bill, there is a difference between a privatized safety net in a nation without two pennies to rub together (the Depression era America you speak of) and the wealthiest nation in the history of the world.  Point #1.

Point #2 would be that the system is already far more privatized than you realize.  I've done volunteer work for years with the poor.  The first question you always ask them is what state aid they are receiving.

Inevitably, when budgets are tight, Democratic governors turn off the spigot (they just don't tell you).  I saw many, many legitimate hard cases who the state lacked the werewithal to help and were it not for private charities would have frozen to death.

Point #3, the world of restricted charity you describe is precisely a function of two things.  One a government that claims to be caring for everyone (a lie).  Two, a world where the average taxpayer sends half their income to the government.

Change the paradigm, change the behavior.  
bruce miller


@Bill Wald @Brian Seel
Bill, this article is about fraud and abuse, not denying benefits to people who need them.
Aren't you even a little bit offended by the notion of a government that takes the cash of hard working Americans to dispense it to people who submit fraudulent disability claims?
Joseph Lorenzo


Stacked deck. So lets see: we have the plaintiff, his attorney, the judge who also acts as the plaintiff's attorney on one side and the taxpayer, who is not represented by anyone and not even there, on the other side. Why would anyone be surprised by such a high number of reversals? What I would like to know is how fraudulent were the cases whose appeal was denied?

TOM PAINTER


Take from the Medicare payroll taxes whatever it is that actuaries say could be Social Security Disability's portion and use it to pay into private disability insurance plans, parceling out Social Security beneficiaries randomly to dozens of insurance companies; with no other revenues or "subsidies" for the program going to them.  I doubt they will long permit the present fraud that is taking place.
David Lenihan
This raises the question....Is it possible that judges are being bribed by attorneys to approve cases?  You decide.
Henry Lyczak
The whole 1-800-(I can get you a piece of something for nothing) lawyer circus has got to end.  It is facilitated by lack of adult supervision in our judiciary.  The law is what I interpret it to be based on my own biases.  Of course, Congress could help by writing laws that are clear and specific.  But then, they could not go back to campaign contributors and tell them each got what they paid for.
murray veroff
These disturbing stories indicate that members of congress must also be members of the press. The latter knows and discloses so much more than members of congress. Sad.
david berliner
A bounty system should be created to claw back false claims.
Gregg Larson
So much for an independent judiciary.
Robert Stewart
That people are willing to accept a disability income instead of working and advancing their incomes is blowback to Piketty's thesis.
Bill Wald
@Robert Stewart I know a middle aged person with a Ph.D  who has been on disability for 20 years because of arthritis but can walk their large dog every day.
Mark Weidmann
People seem to not realize that the disability system is an insurance system. All the beneficiaries pay into the disability system through reductions in their pay checks during their their working lives. When they become disabled from working, they are supposed to receive the disability benefits. Anybody working I. The system knows that far too many people who should get benefits are denied, then the other way around. There is nothing in this article that indicates otherwise.
Kevin Brandon
What a joke. The sheer magnitude of the increase in disability awards defies all probability.
Kenneth Gimbel
It would have been informative to learn what percentage of those applying for disability benefits were rejected thus prompting them to resort to administrative law review. Is the system set up to withhold benefits regardless of their merit?  Before insinuating the worst, the author should have presented a complete picture of the process.
Tom Taggart
@Kenneth Gimbel Peripheral contact with the system indicates to me that most applications are denied initially, but then granted on appeal. When the appeal is granted, applicants get "back pay" for about 18 months.  Typically, the attorney representing the applicant on appeal gets 20~25% of this award.
Tom Wallace
There can be no argument that this country needs a solid safety net for those that are less fortunate.
However, we now have a hammock instead of a safety net. That, in the end, removes the needed safety net as there are simply not enough resources to go around.
It's basic economics and very few are taught basic economics, or so it seems.
Tom W
Working today so others don't have to
Mark Weidmann
Problem is the field of economics is an intellectual disaster. Starting with false and empirically unverified assumptions about people and the world, the field of economics then reasons to incorrect, mistaken, and empirically uncertified conclusions. Your statement is in the same vein.
John Pound
@Mark Weidmann We have an $18T national debt & the SSA says disability program runs out of money in 2016.

Which part of that is empirically uncertified conclusion?
JAMES WADDELL
There is rampant fraud in both the Social Security and the Veterans' Administration disability programs and both systems need to be reformed.

That being said, I do believe there should be different standards based on education.  If you are a high school dropout capable of only manual labor, a back injury that would be a minor inconvenience to an office worker may be totally disabling to you.  
Charles Stehney
Detroit Free had a brief story and a link to the Michigan County Disability Database.

Rural Counties and Detroit's Wayne County are reporting higher disability than the national average.  This isn't disability.  This is economic parochialism with Judges trying to bring money back to their local citizens.  Milking Social Security until it collapses.
JAIRO PUENTES
Congress should review the selection of these judges an establish more rigorous standards for disability claims. As a doctor, I see many people who are on disability and work as landscapers or for a family member to evade reporting earnings. There is too much fraud in the system
John Yungton
@JAIRO PUENTES  You could view Congress's salary as another form of disability payments, just from another purse pocket.
Mark Weidmann
The standards are already very rigorous.
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels:

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Ambassador to Hungary Colleen Bradley Bell Arrives In Hungary


New US Ambassador to Hungary Colleen Bradley Bell, pictured above in center, arrived in the Hungarian capital Budapest. The United States’ highest-level diplomatic representation has resumed following an almost two-year period in of absence of an American Ambassador.

(Ambassador Bell being sworn-in in December 2014)
She was received on behalf of the government by Levente Magyar, State Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and External Economic Relations (KKM), at Budapest’s Ferenc Liszt International Airport.
 Mr. Magyar highlighted that the Hungarian government welcomes the ambassador with utmost openness and affection, saying that [the cabinet] “is looking forward to working together with marked optimism”.
The Government is convinced that in the near future, a dialogue will evolve between Hungary and the US which,  will navigate relations in a constructive direction. Economic and military cooperation between the two parties has never been as outstanding and strong as now.
The State Secretary added that with Colleen Bell’s arrival, the United States’ highest-level diplomatic representation has, at long last, resumed, following an almost two-year period in the absence of an US ambassador.


 Ambassador Colleen Bell presented her credentials to President of Hungary János Áder.

After presenting her credentials, Ambassador Bell laid a memorial wreath on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Heroes’ Square, in the name of the people of the United States of America.

  On Tuesday, February 3, 2015, Ambassador Bell and Minister Balog signed an agreement to eliminate dual social security taxation. (See below)


Colleen Bradley Bell (born January 30, 1967) is an American television producer, philanthropist and advocate for the environment, arts and social causes. Bell resided in Los Angeles with her husband, television writer/producer Bradley Bell, and their four children.
 On November 6, 2013, Pres. Obama announced his intent to nominate Ms. Bell as U.S. Ambassador to Hungary. The nomination was controversial and Senator John McCain called her "totally unqualfied". On December 1, 2014, the U.S. Senate voted 50-36 to invoke cloture on Bell's nomination, thus cutting off a Republican-led filibuster. On December 2, 2014, the Senate voted 52-42 to confirm Bell. Bell faced criticisms from Republicans, led by McCain, and commentators over her perceived lack of expertise on Hungary and its current geopolitical situation, as well as for the political nature of her appointment.
Bell was confirmed in December 2014 as the United States Ambassador to Hungary.

(April Foley was President George Bush's Ambassador to Hungary until 2009)
 President Obama’s pick for Ambassador to Hungary, Colleen Bell is a producer for “Bold and the Beautiful” and has raised millions for Obama’s campaign.
 Colleen Bradley Bell, is not only a soap opera producer, she is soap royalty.
Her husband Bradley Bell is scion of soap opera mogul William Bell. The late William Bell worked as a head writer at “Days of Our Lives” before striking gold with his own series “Bold and the Beautiful,” “The Young and the Restless” and the now-defunct “Another World.”
Bell has also served as a Kennedy Center trustee since 2012, alongside Caroline Kennedy, who is U.S. Ambassador to Japan.
 She is somebody that the President has confidence will be able to maintain our relationship with the government and the people of Hungary ... she was chosen because the President has complete confidence in her ability to represent the United States in Hungary.
When describing her qualifications for the job, the newly confirmed U.S. ambassador to Hungary cited a "product" she helped develop that is exported to "more than 100 countries, for daily consumption with more than 40 million viewers."
The product Colleen Bradley Bell produced is the soap opera The Bold and The Beautiful.
The big political donor who becomes an ambassador to a relatively small country is something of a Washington punch line and also a tradition. Presidents have done this for decades. But critics say the Obama administration has taken it too far.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Bell and Mamet each raised at least $500,000 for President Obama's campaign in 2012.
At Bell's confirmation hearing, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., asked her about America's strategic interest in Hungary. The answer that followed could best be described as a word soup.

"Well, we have a strategic interest," she said. "In terms of what are our key priorities, in Hungary. I think our key priorities are to, um, improve upon as I mentioned the security relationship, and also the law enforcement and to promote business opportunities, increase trade ..."
McCain wasn't impressed. He cleared his throat and asked the question again.
"It's really disgraceful," said McCain following the confirmation vote, which fell neatly along party lines.
Especially, he says, because Hungary is in a perilous state politically, teetering between the influence of Western democracies and Vladimir Putin's Russia. As for Bell's qualifications, White House press secretary Josh Earnest grasped for words at yesterday's press briefing.
"Well she certainly is somebody again, that, that is, has, has had her own distinguished private sector career," said Earnest.
According to the American Foreign Service Association, in Obama's second term a little more than 40 percent of ambassador nominees have been political rather than career diplomats. In recent past administrations the share has been less, 30 percent.
When author Kati Marton was 5 years old, growing up in Hungary, the first American she met was the U.S. ambassador. Her parents, journalists, were deemed enemies of the state and jailed, she says.

"Ambassador [Christian M.] Ravndal made a point of looking after my older sister and me who had been left as, well, political orphans," said Marton, recalling a defining moment in her childhood.
She says he visited them, pulling up in a big Buick with an American flag on the front, a deeply symbolic move in Cold War Hungary.
"The American ambassador in countries that are often forgotten by Washington can play an enormous role, a symbolic role, standing in for what America stands for," said Marton.
Marton is the widow of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and says she knows rewarding donors is part of the way Washington works.
This year the American Foreign Service Association, which represents career diplomats, came out with four simple qualifications for an ambassador.
"Relevant international experience," explains Bob Silverman, the group's president. "High-level government or other high-level policy articulation experience, good management skills. Good leadership skills."
He opted not to say whether Bell, Mamet and the other recent donor ambassadors met that standard.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Monday, January 19, 2015

Hungarian Parliamentarian, Jenő Lasztovicza, Dead At Age 53.



Jenő Lasztovicza  was a Hungarian horticultural engineer, politician and member of the National Assembly (MP) for the Tapolca (Veszprém County Constituency IV) from 1998 until his death in early 2015.
He joined Fidesz in November 1994 and was the Party President in his town from 1998 until his death. He secured a seat as an MP in the 1998 parliamentary elections representing Tapolca. He was the deputy chairman of the Tourism Committee in the 1998–2002 term and was also active on the Regional Development Committee. From 15 July 1999 until the change of government in 2002 he held the position of Chairman of the Board of Tourism, the advisory body on tourism of the Minister of Economy. In the 2002 general elections he was elected incumbent MP for Tapolca in the first round on 7 April. He chaired the Committee on Sport and Tourism from the inauguration of the Parliament on 15 May 2002 to 24 October 2006. He secured a seat as an MP in the 2006 elections representing Tapolca again. He was the Vice Chairman of the Committee on Sport and Tourism.
Lasztovicza died on 8 January 2015, aged 53.
The native form of this personal name is Lasztovicza Jenő(21 December 1961 – 8 January 2015).
(The English equivalent of Jenő is EuGene, also written as Eugene.)


 The "Steverson Collection" of English books is now in the Hungarian public library database. It is the largest collection of English language books in Hungary and possibly even Europe, except for England.

The STEVERSON COLLECTION Book Club is for book lovers.

After the Opening Ceremony of the Steverson Book Collection on 23 April, 2009 the American Corner Veszprem was excited to announce the start of the Steverson Collection Book Club.

 The Club's aim is to give the reading public a chance to get acquainted with the vast collection of books in the generous donation from Judge London Steverson and his family. This Book Club is run by book lovers, and is for book lovers. The members are at the heart of all the club does. (Find the Steverson Collection at www.ekmk.hu)



Prominent Hungarian politicians who paid their respects to Jenő Lasztovicza, included President Janos Ader, Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Laszlo Kover, Speaker of the Parliament, as well as several cabinet members and political party representatives.
 
The long funeral was on January 8; He died from serious illness.  Representative Tibor Navracsics, EU commissioner spoke of Lasztovicza Eugene as a winner, who started a family and community in Tapolca, Hungary and USA,California,

Rich contribution to the great common treasury

 

QUOTE: (Literal translation into English)
Tibor Navracsics drew parallels between the life and the life of the content. Mentions "a former biological time, which will be given, and in the end there is the great encounter. Contents of life, however, depends on us, "He stressed though Lasztovicza Jeno short life is given. 'Rich contribution was the great common treasury", so it lives on in the memory of Tapolca and its surroundings.
The new cemetery tapolca arranged ceremony, Archbishop Peter Cook and tapolca vicar Veszprém Gyula Márfi celebrated prior to the funeral service was held at the funeral Tapolca Roman Catholic church.
Lasztovicza Eugene was born on December 21, 1961 Kiskoros. In 1994 he entered the Fidesz party was a Member of Parliament since 1998, as a member and as vice president of several parliamentary committees were active. Between 2006 and 2014, Veszprém County held the presidency of the General Assembly.
Due to the death of a politician-elections should be around Tapolca. The EP elections should be set for Sunday within 120 days of the vacant seats, according to this last Sunday of May 3, when a choice has to be maintained. This should be set to at least 70 but not more than 90 days from the date of the setting and the day of the vote.
UNQUOTE.

Read more at:
 http://veol.hu/tapolca/folytatnunk-kell-a-harcot-mindazert-a-joert-es-szepert-amiert-lasztovicza-jeno-elt-1673026

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, January 9, 2015

The Case Of Webster Smith, Another American Tragedy

The Webster Smith case was a litmus test for justice in America. Every once in a while a case comes along that puts our humanity as a people, and as Americans, on trial. Everything that we profess to stand for as Americans was on trial. Our sense of Justice in America and particularly in the U. S. Military was on trial. This was no ordinary trial. Our humanity was on trial. Our system of justice was on trial. This case dissolved the deceptive façade and exposed certain moral deficiencies in our system of justice.

On Dec. 4, 2005 an officer on duty at the United States Coast Guard Academy (USCGA) received an allegation of sexual misconduct from a cadet, setting off an inquiry by the Coast Guard Investigative Services (CGIS), based in Washington, D.C..
The commandant of cadets, Captain Douglas Wisniewski, took immediate action to initiate the investigation into these allegations.
Sexual misconduct at the USCGA is defined as "acts that disgrace or bring discredit on the Coast Guard or Coast Guard Academy and are sexual in nature,  including lewd or lascivious acts, indecent exposure or homosexual conduct."

But the definition also includes consensual acts that are prohibited on Academy grounds, such as holding hands, kissing in public or having sex.

Cadet First Class Webster Smith was charged with sexually assaulting six female cadets in Chase Hall, the cadet living quarters at the United States Coast Guard Academy, and in other locations.

An Article 32 Investigation was convened on March 21, 2006 to determine whether there was probable cause to convene a court-martial to prosecute the charges. The Investigating Officer received the testimony of seven female cadets who accused Cadet Smith of assaulting them between May and November 2005.
The USCGA Superintendent, Admiral James Van Sice, decided to refer the charges against Cadet Smith to a General Court-martial. In his opening statement to the Jury Panel on June 26, 2006 the prosecutor described Cadet Smith as a manipulative senior who preyed on lonely women.

Cadet  Smith of Houston, Texas pleaded not guilty in the first court-martial of a cadet in Coast Guard Academy history. The charges ranged from rape, sodomy, and extortion to assault of the female cadets.

Cadet Smith was tried before a jury panel of Coast Guard officers including four white men, one white woman, three Black men and a man of Asian descent. The senior member was a captain with command experience. There were no cadets on the panel. Since there were no cadets on the jury panel, it can truly be asked whether he was afforded a jury of his peers. Were the best qualified members appointed to the panel, as the Manual For Courts-martial (MCM) and UCMJ mandate?

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), (10 USC sec.801 et seq.) supplemented by the Manual For Courts-martial (MCM) provides guidance for a commander empowered to convene a court-martial. The UCMJ and the MCM both contain the following sentence:
  "When convening a court-martial the convening authority shall detail as members thereof, such members of the armed forces as, in his opinion, are best qualified for the duty by reason of age, education, training, experience, length of service, and judicial temperament". (UCMJ Art. 25(d)(2).

     I have made this or a similar argument many times while defending service members in courts-martial. None of the members of Webster Smith's jury panel had been a cadet at the USCGA while female cadets were living in Chase Hall. Only one had ever attended the USCGA; none had socialized with female cadet; none had attended cadet athletic parties; none had read the cadet regulations; none had counseled a cadet concerning sexual assault; none had first-hand experience with the four class system; none had indoctrinated female cadets; and none had ever had a girl friend who was the first female brigade commander, who got pregnant, had an abortion, and continued to date the putative father for another six months before she was counseled by Coast Guard lawyers that she might have been raped at some point during her 18 month relationship with the accused in this court-martial.

    If, at least, one cadet had been on that jury, he could have explained to the members during deliberations many of the things that they were completely ignorant of. I contend that the jury did not have a clue as to what living conditions were like in Chase Hall, nor did they know what the social environment was like between Black male upper-class cadets and white female cadets in any of the four classes.

   That being the case, the jury was not composed of the best qualified people available in accordance with the UCMJ and Art 25(d)(2).

On June 28, 2006 after about eight hours of deliberation, the panel found Cadet Webster Smith guilty of indecent assault, extortion in exchange for sexual favors and sodomy, which in military parlance includes oral sex. All those charges involved one of the four accusers.

Cadet Smith was sentenced to be separated form the service and to spend six months in jail at a Navy brig.

This was not a rape case. Many senior Coast Guard officers tried to portray it as such. Webster Smith was not and is not a rapist. The court-martial, with all of its faults, proved that this was not a rape case.

Neither was Webster Smith a sexual predator as he was called. He simply refused to stay on his side of the color-line. Someone felt that a message had to be sent; a lesson had to be taught. Just as East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet; the Coast Guard Academy was not going to become a breeding ground for miscegenation.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the conviction  of Webster Smith, the only Coast Guard Academy cadet ever  court-martialed.

Smith had sought a Supreme Court review based largely on the argument  that he had not been able to question the credibility of one of his  accusers, known only as Cadet SR.

Smith’s attorneys wanted a chance to question the female cadet  because, according to a legal brief, she had lied about the consensual  nature of a previous sexual encounter with an enlisted man, contrary to  Coast Guard rules and possibly jeopardizing her military career. The  female cadet claimed Smith used knowledge of her previous dalliance to  extort sexual favors from her.

“The defense maintained that the two cadets’ sexual encounter was  consensual and that SR was fabricating her accusations because the  encounter occurred in Chase Hall, the Academy dormitory, where sexual  activity is prohibited by cadet regulations,” according to a brief in  the case.

The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces' (CAAF) minority opinion, including Chief Judge C.J. Effron, agreed that  Smith’s attorneys should have been allowed to question the female cadet.  In a dissenting opinion, they said Smith’s “allegation that SR had  previously lied about a sexual encounter” was relevant to the case.

 Why was Cadet 1st Class Webster Smith investigated, charged, tried, and convicted? Why must this talented young man register as a sexual offender for the remainder of his life? Why did he not find any justice in the military justice system? How could his case go through the entire appeal's process and end up at the United States Supreme Court without being granted any relief? Why would Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security refuse to grant clemency in a case that clearly cries out for justice?  (Get the answer. Read:
http://www.amazon.com/CONDUCT-UNBECOMING-Officer-Lady-Conviction/dp/1460978021)
 At this point in history when America had come far enough to elect a Black President why was this shining example of the best and the brightest of the African Americans of his generation denied the equal protection of the law? Why was he relegated to the second rail of military justice? On the second rail one receives "almost equal protection".  Like much else in the law, equal protection is a myth for America's citizens of color. The myth gives one the illusion of fairness.

Could the answer have anything to do with the nature of the criminal justice system or the definition of crime?  Crime is a legal concept, and the law creates the crimes it punishes. But, what creates the criminal law?  Behind the law, above it, and surrounding it is our society. Before the law made certain behavior a crime, some aspect of social reality transformed certain behavior into a crime.

Justice is blind in the abstract. It cannot see or act on its own. It cannot create its own morals, principles and rules. That depends on society. Behind every legal determination of "guilty" lies a more powerful and more basic social and societal judgement, a judgement that this type of behavior is not acceptable. This type of behavior deserves to be prohibited and punished. Our society has long chosen to prohibit and punish interracial sex.

After society makes a social judgement that certain behavior, acts, or conduct is wrong, the criminal justice system goes to work. It refines and transforms the list of prohibited acts and behavior. It interprets the list of acts, and does whatever is necessary to catch, convict and punish the lawbreakers.

Bias is inevitable. Crime and punishment are highly charged, emotional, and political subjects. There is no way to wring prejudice, attitude, or race out of the system.

 The Webster Smith Story Is An American Tragedy.

The Webster Smith Story is an American tragedy. It is not just the story of a Black Coast Guard Academy cadet; it is the story of an American family. It is the story of his mother, Belinda; and his father, Cleon; his wife, Lindsey and their daughter; and of his sister and brothers. It is the story of the friends of Webster Smith. They have all been harmed by the violence directed at their son, brother, husband, father and friend.

At the Coast Guard Academy, Webster Smith was a member of the Eclipse, Track Team, Football team, Regimental Staff, and a Swab summer Staff. He represented the Coast Guard in Washington DC concerning fitness and nutrition programs. He received numerous silver stars and never received a demerit prior the incident and investigation in 2005 that led to his court-martial.

To his classmates, teachers, and coaches Webster Smith appeared to be a magnetic, charming and gifted man, who had risen above his circumstances. Yet, in a moment, as if in the twinkling of an eye, a swift series of events diminished his popularity, vilified his name, and assailed his honor. His image was converted by senior Coast Guard officers from a popular athlete and nice guy to that of a sexual predator and public enemy number one at the Coast Guard Academy.

Webster Smith had dared to dream some big dreams. Like Alex Haley he had dared to believe that he could rise in the USCG to the highest level to which his talents and initiative could take him.

His parents were middle class African Americans. His father, Cleon Smith, was a graduate of the Coast Guard Academy in the Class of 1978 along with Vice Admiral Manson K. Brown.

His mother, Belinda Ingram Smith, believed in God and a good education. After attending college at WSSU for four years she went on to become the first Black female Crime Scene Investigator in the history of the Winston-Salem police Department.

This unbelievable turn about in what had been a Black success story is a singularly American tragedy.

That a cadet so deeply respected and loved by his coaches and classmates could evoke such an outpouring of hate and anger from the senior officers at the Coast Guard Academy is a Coast Guard tragedy and an American tragedy.

All of the female cadets involved with and associated with Webster Smith escaped clean without any consequences for their actions or their behavior. Mother Nature was the only one who exacted a penalty. Natural Law resulted in a pregnancy for his girlfriend. An abortion followed.

If women are equal, they should be treated as equal. Not a single woman was disciplined under the UCMJ or the cadet regulations. All of the female cadets involved in the Webster Smith case graduated and were commissioned as Coast Guard officers. Their testimony at the court-martial painted a picture of female cadets who were untrustworthy, arrogant, and certainly not ladies. Their conduct was unbecoming an officer and a lady. (Read more at www.judgelondonsteverson.com)



These women were witnesses at a public trial yet they were accorded the equivalent of rape shield protection. This was not a rape case. Not one of the women had been raped. There was testimony of consensual sex acts. Some of the consensual sex acts were unlawful because, among other things, they occurred in Chase Hall, or at Academy functions. How could unlawful consensual sex acts result in charges against only one of the participants? It takes two to tango.

Is it wrong for Black people to ask if there is a double standard? Would that amount to paranoia on the part of Black people? Or would that be considered playing the race card simply to inquire? Is it absurd to believe that anything more than pure chance resulted in the court-martial of Webster Smith? The fact that he was court-martialed speaks to a social reality that African-Americans are acutely aware of in America. Race is not a card to be dealt, but it determines whom the dealer is and who gets dealt a losing hand.

According to a 2008 General Accounting Office Report, from 2003 to 2006 there were NO sexual-harassment complaints at the Coast Guard Academy, but there were 12 incidents of sexual assault reported to the Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS), with one incident in 2003, one in 2004, “NONE” in 2005 and 10 in 2006. It is hard to conceive of the facts relied upon by, Captain Douglas Wisniewski, the Commandant Of Cadets when he asserted in 2005 that there was a climate of fear of sexual assault in Chase Hall.

The 10 incidents reported in 2006 would appear to have occurred after the Webster Smith court-martial. Webster Smith was removed from Chase Hall in 2005. Who was doing all of the sexual assaulting in 2006? Why were none of these people brought to justice? They could have been tried along with Webster Smith.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of Webster Smith. The justices declined to hear the case without comment. The decision of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) became the final decision in the case.

Thirteen female cadets and 11 males at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy (CGA) reported anonymously in an April 2008 survey that they experienced “unwanted sexual contact,” ranging from touching to forced sexual acts, during the 2007-08 school year.

More than three-quarters said that alcohol or drugs were involved and that the offender was a fellow cadet.
None of the women sought professional help and only 7 percent discussed the incident with authorities.

When Alexander Hamilton organized the Revenue Cutter Service in 1790 it was established in the Department of the Treasury. Later it became known as the Coast Guard. In 1966 it was placed in the Department of Transportation. Today it is the nucleus of the Department of Homeland Security. Webster Smith's case is currently being reviewed for clemency by the Secretary of the Department of Home Land Security, Janet Napolitano.

Webster Smith would have made an excellent military officer. It is Webster Smith and people like him that I want on the wall as our last line of defense for our American way of life protecting us from the great unwashed horde that is coming. Secretary Napolitano who do you want on that wall?

When the Supreme Court rejected Smith’s petition seeking a  hearing on the case, it effectively made the CAAF’s  decision the final decision in the case.
 (By USALJ-ret. )
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)