A Loss by Technicality? Again? London Steverson Fears It.
My civil complaint was airtight. It generated so much heat that a Task Force was formed to question [RADM VS], shortly after. The complaint went up the chain from the Civil Rights office at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, to my appropriate district, to the Commandant’s office to the Civil Rights Department of the Department of Homeland Security. At that juncture, they ignored the complaint and cited that an appellant can not pursue civil remedy by questioning the findings of a Court-Martial.
If they read the document, they would see that my complaint had little to do with a Court-Martial, but rather the Coast Guard’s disparate treatment of two CGA football teammates, one black and one white. In December 2005, two cadets faced the possibility of Court-Martial. In my case, they went all out, citing a volume of evidence sure to send me to a brig for life. In the other cadet’s case, he admitted raping a friend of mine [KS] in a Captain’s Mast. He was given a general discharge and allowed to play football elsewhere. While under investigation, he finished the football season and his course work. While under investigation, I was cleaning decks and bilges. The order to avoid contact and communication with any cadet, set in December 2005, coupled with my new course in seamanship and the precedent of a Cadet Court-Martial perpetuated Cadet Corps fear and the sense of my sure guilt. Three months into this unprecedented agenda, [SR] was called forward by the Corps’ Regimental Commander with the help of the only cadet who I told about my relationship with [SR] ([SR] was dating another cadet with whom she is now married.)
They were justified in treating me differently than Cadet MB because of the trumping up of convulluted, ill-conceived and far-fetched charges and then citing the sheer number of them as the reason for that treatment. That is why I filed the Civil Complaint, they knew that the multiplicious and unfounded (Source: Article 32 Officer) charges would not hold up in a court of law.
That volume of evidence that they cited was just a number of charges. They preferred and later referred 22. The testimony behind many of those charges were so preposterous that the media cut against the grain and cited “preposterous testimony.” I lost three sex-related charges, stemming from one now-officer, each of which are under scrutiny by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
The Department of Homeland Security avoided ruling on the merits of my complaint by citing “that I was seeking relief for the result of the GCM.” Rather, I argued that the way the Coast Guard Academy approached the GCM, stacked the deck against the innocent until proven guilty legal precedent. I would have certainly appeared more innocent in pre-trial confinement. I was offered the choice between Munro Hall and Pre-Trial confinement at 2:00 AM on December 5, 2005 before I knew why my company officer, then-CDR Pulver and Coach Ray Laforte were in my room. I wouldn’t find out until the charge sheet was sent, via facsimile, two months later.
I faced court-martial without the ability to seek witnesses, verbally defend myself or correct harmful misconceptions by seniors, peers and subordinates. I’ve outlasted a one-sided media gag-order and a pre-trial hearing where my exculpatory evidence was not admittable for trial because the only piece of evidence against me, the complaining witness’s credibility, could not be cross-examined. [SR] invoked her right to avoid incrimination during that pre-trial hearing, so that she would not have to admit to UCMJ violations related to a previous incident of false reporting.
All of this is to say, the Coast Guard Civil Rights department avoided addressing this damning evidence of pre-trial manipulation by citing a procedural technicality. The Government’s Counsel seeks the same out, in the CAAF appeal. According to the USCG, every single law-abiding court in America, with the exception of CAAF, has Congressional authority/jurisdiction to mandate Day 60’s fall on the next business day after a Sunday filing deadline. After the breadth of legal experience that I have seen in the past four years, I’d be naive to dismiss the probability of the Government succeeding, once again.
Listen to the CAAF hearing to listen to the Government’s jurisdictional argument (Here)
Read London Steverson’s interpretation of the hearing (Here)