Civil Courts v. Military Courts:
What's the
Difference
A Conservative Attorney: Linda L.
Kennedy, Attorney, Virginia
With a
Surprising View
I realize that some
of you may not be aware of the deception that the "due process/constitutional
attorneys" are spewing out on our airways, but let me set that record straight
for you on military courts—and I hope you have the guts and integrity to report
it. I have heard of no one who is saying on the air what I have to say
today. Many unfortunate citizens know and agree with what I will be
describing to you. That is why I am writing, because it must be said and
you must hear it from an otherwise, conservative attorney. Additionally, I
had just recently met with a former Attorney General of the United States.
Although he indicated that the judicial system needs fixing, for him it
was all about one political party being right while the other one was wrong.
That is absolutely not the problem.
Because this point of view I am
presenting will be surprising coming from a "conservative" (trained at Pat
Robertson's Regent University School of Law) attorney, I hope you will see how
ridiculous the Military Court v. Civil/Criminal Court's debate actually is
and the legal fiction the distinction between the two creates. The public
should not be fooled by these "scholars" who try to paint a difference between
the two systems which are in all practicality, the same.
Additionally, I
have put myself in grave jeopardy because I dare speak out against the "gods" of
some of the courts, i.e., some of the judges, and their government agencies, for
obvious reasons. It has been and still is professional suicide to say what
I have to say and I have certainly ”walked the plank" more than just a few times
for being so outspoken in a way that is not "big-business friendly." What
I have to say must be said however, for the public's best interest.
Most
of what I am hearing on the air which is of concern to some of the
constitutional attorneys being interviewed, is that the Military Courts may be
unfair because they do not allow for adequate discovery (turning over of
evidence to the opposition so that the defense can prepare a case), they have
quick trials and secretive hearings, they will incorporate biased judges, they
have no juries, and possibly no appeals. The bottom-line is simply:
All of this debate has to do with protecting civil rights. I
want to show you why this debate is moot in practicality, and by not having the
following view as a part of any discussion, is misrepresenting the real problem
to the public. In comparing these courts, we need to actually look at what civil
rights the people are actually receiving and then compare the courts.
Let's not look at the situation in a test tube any longer. Her is
what I am telling you is happening, not only as a scholar, but as a
practicing
attorney who gets to see the inside of a courtroom all day-every
day.
My claim which I can support with volumes of hard evidence including
testimony, transcripts, etc., is that some of our courts are already
unconstitutionally acting as military courts against the people today.
Many
individual plaintiffs that go into our courts (depending on which
courts) get to learn this shocking lesson all by themselves, and then after the
dusts settles, they get to try to pick up the pieces of their lives once
they
have truly experienced the tyranny of our own corrupted system which
ignores our Constitutional Rights daily. Because the reality is kept so secret
from the public at large, and because many news agencies will not inform the
public of the horrendous condition of these courts, the public is totally
unaware of the injustices happening daily; only to find out if they are
unfortunate enough to get caught up in the "vortex" of the judicial system--with
only fleeting hope of ever getting free of it with their shirts still on their
backs!
Our civil rights are not protected now, even though the Constitution
guarantees them, since some of the courts ignore the Constitution regularly when
it actually secretly, quietly, and quickly dismisses our cases,
without so
much as a hearing, without so much as a right to an appeal (rubber stamped
"denied" without so much as an opinion as to why we lost, which then goes into
an "unpublished opinion" file at the discretion of the court so that nobody else
(not even attorneys) know that the case existed, and it does not affect
precedents). These courts openly and willingly allow one side (usually the
defense in civil cases, and the prosecutors in criminal cases) to commit
repeated perjury and allow it to thwart discovery requests (the lawful and
mandatory turning over of documents which allows the opposition to know what the
issues are). If these examples do not fit into the concerns of the
Constitutional "scholars" over the Military Courts what does?
I ask you,
why are so many special interest corporations funding judicial and governmental
officials to go on trips and to hear "pro-corporation" seminars? Doesn't
this sound a little bit like a biased court would result from such junkets?
This is happening regularly within our state and federal systems without
hardly a word from the media. Why else would the Congress be so concerned
over appointments and the personal stands each judge has on issues?
It is because Congress knows that an unbiased and impartial
judiciary is nonexistent when it comes to special interest groups and any poor
plaintiff and/or that attorney that tries to challenge it will pay dearly for
daring to do so.
Would you be surprised to hear from two people who
actually had their judges fall asleep during the trail, only to take the
decision away from the jury once awakened, and then dismiss it without the
benefit of due process? Of course, big business won again. The
special trips and seminars for judges’ payoff. One case was dismissed
after the judge used 19 facts that were not even admitted into evidence (that is
like not allowing for discovery as military courts are professing to do).
This is forbidden by law. Appeal was denied, and the opinion was
unpublished like about 90% of the opinions in the 4th circuit so that nobody is
the wiser. What about a judge that dismisses a defamation claim against an
insurance company saying that the plaintiff should not have filed a suit because
money is more important than reputation anyway and that she should read some
books because everyone knows that. Doesn't it make you wonder which
big business supported those decisions? What about a judge who refuses to
acknowledge "blacklisting" as a law, even though Congress/General Assembly made
such a law to be enforced by the courts? Would you be surprised that in
both of these cases described above, the plaintiff got sanctioned (assessed
fines and fees against them) for daring to bring these cases into court? I
ask you then, in reality how is our present court system any different from the
Military Courts to which so many are taking offense?
Besides me, I know
of only one other attorney who is trying to bring these abuses to light.
She stepped down from a government position because of all of the
corruption for which she did not want a part. She filed suit and clearly
showed the corruption of a particular city's police, attorneys, and judges.
Not only was she sanctioned for daring to bring such a case forward, but
those she exposed placed a gag order on her, every single pleading ever filed is
sealed so that nobody can find out about this corruption, and she is regularly
arrested by that cities police as punishment. To top it off, although the
case was never heard on the merits, she was sanctioned about $18,000 and she has
approximately another $200,000 waiting for her in our wonderful 4th Circuit
Court. That is what happens to those few of us who dare to expose what is
really going on in this corrupt system. Sounds like something we would
describe might happen under the reign of the Taliban doesn't it? Certainly
this is worse than any military court which will at least have some scrutiny
placed on it.
How would you feel if you were judged by a judge who liked
to use the word "nigger" and derogatorily acts in a stereotypically "poor black
from the 1800's manner" after he finds an African American guilty? How
about a judge who proudly claims that he does not find for employees in
employment law cases (how's that for unbiased judges).
Why then is the
issue Military Courts v. Civil/Criminal Courts when, practically, there is no
difference? If you look at the statistics, and open your forum to citizens
who have been a part of actual court proceedings in certain jurisdictions
including federal jurisdictions, you will clearly find that some courts are
treating their supposedly open courts as if they were Military Courts--and
getting away with it daily. I will show you just one Federal Circuit who
routinely violates our Constitutional Rights daily with the blessing of the
Court of Appeals, but only one for brevity sake. Please note that this is
not my only example.
Take the Federal 4th Circuit located in Virginia.
There exists a Title VII statute that allows for a plaintiff in a
"protected class" to file suit against employers who treat them wrongly because
of their race, color, sex, national origin, or religion. Just in the
year 2000 which is the last full year of statistics, the 4th Circuit Court of
Appeals heard 11 cases on appeal from district courts (not counting unpublished
opinions and all the other district court cases which were quietly and secretly
dismissed). Of these cases all 11 were decided in favor of the defendant
(big-business) at the district court level. One of these was even heard by
a jury (Conner v. Schrader-Bridgeort International, Inc., 227 F.3d 179 (4th Cir.
2000)) and the jury found for the plaintiff. Let me explain. Getting
to a jury in the 4th Circuit is almost unheard of in employment law cases
although it is granted as a right under Title VII. In spite of the jury
finding in favor of the plaintiff, the district court judge then proceeded to
take the case from the jury and find for the defendant anyway (How's that for
due process?). Furthermore, of these 11 cases, all had been decided for
the defense on summary judgment (judge refuses to provide for a trial for the
plaintiff), or judgment as a matter of law (judge decides that even though the
jury may have been present, they do not get to decide the case at
all).
Because I have taken part in cases like these and regularly have to
tell my client "don't even bother going to this court for justice," I will
absolutely guarantee you that much of the evidence was obviscated by the defense
and the judge was absolutely no assistant of justice in making the defense turn
over the evidence it was hiding. In fact, if the plaintiff gets his/her
hands on a document of the employers which could prove the truth; one that the
defense is falsely claiming they don't have, the judge then finds that it is
"stolen," and makes the plaintiff return the document to the defense. The
defense then can continually claim that the document does not exist even though
the court knows that is not true and that perjury has been
committed.
Additionally, these judges are repeatedly "wined and dined" by
big business with big corporate interests (Please see "www.Tripsforjudges.com"
for my information here). According to Tripsforjudges.com, judges have
been sent on vacations even as far as Israel by big business. Also the
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE) and the Liberty
Fund pays for this vacations for judges which are coincidentally, very close to
their headquarters for "seminars." One judge even received a trip
for he AND
HIS SON, by businessman Mr. Hank Jones. How's that for
unbiased Judges?
FREE is a nonprofit organization that advocates
reliance on the free market and private property rights, instead of
environmental laws to protect the environment. Obviously, any
tenant, employee, environmentalist, and anyone else challenging the acts of one
of these interests is in for a surprising, and rude awakening. Judges who
attend their lectures are indoctrinated into the emphasis of property rights and
market processes according to big-business interests. FREE gets it’s
funding directly from corporations, foundations of large companies, and from
prominent conservative foundations. FREE receives 1/3 of its budget
directly from corporations such as Shell Oil Company Foundation, Burlington
Resources Foundation, General Electric Fund, Temple-Inland Foundation, and Kock
Oil (Lambe Foundation). Foundations which support FREE are Sarah Scaife,
Carthage Foundations, and the John M. Olin Foundation. These foundations
are among the largest supporters of nonprofits that challenge environmental
regulations in federal court. How's that for unbiased Judges and the
possibility of a citizen of the United States receiving a full and fair hearing
under the law?
Liberty Fund was founded by businessman Pierre F.
Goodrich. The Liberty fund makes grants directly to conservative and
libertarian organizations such as the Cato Institute, the Center for the Study
of Federalism, and the Political Economy Research Center. The Liberty Fund
not only hosts its own seminars for judges, they also fund those of
philosophically aligned groups. The Liberty Fund has over $202 million in
assets and in 1997 alone spent $1.6 million (1/5 of their total budget)
sponsoring meetings and seminars for federal judges and other government
leaders.
If their is any doubt about the biased, unfair, and
unconstitutional nature of the judicial make-up and decisions that would rival
any military court in the land, then consider that all but one of the judges
currently sitting on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals bench has previously
worked with a firm whose primary practice area was civil defense
(big-business).
It is unusual that any attorney, let alone a conservative
attorney would dare to speak out against the judicial system and its supporting
agencies for several reasons, only some being obvious. But for me to sit
in front of some of the news shows night after night, hearing the debate over
the woes of the Military Courts and how we are known for our Civil and Criminal
Due Process Rights, and at the same time picturing in my mind the many people
who have been hoodwinked and even ruined by this so called "just" system, is not
tolerable to me. The Constitution is to be honored in that it does provide
the citizens of this country with due process and other very valuable rights
necessary to keep a society truly free. Unfortunately, as
Thomas
Jefferson and many others have warned, the system is only as good as
those who oversee it. Unfortunately, those who presently oversee it are
"Big-Business" and their advocates. Why else would we be willing to bail
out the insurance industry, some of whom regularly deny otherwise valid claims,
hire fact-witnesses to lie, change doctor reports, etc., at the expense of the
people and with total "selective-ignorance" by the Courts and the State Bars who
oversee attorneys who do this? In fact, these attorneys who do this are
sometimes our next Bar president or Judge. Only those who fight this
system are harassed.
Was the Judge who said money is more important than
reputation really telling the truth? Should I just read some books so that
I too will believe that is the "American Way?" It sure sounds like it, as
it is the present state of affairs which is being selectively ignored by those
who should be speaking for the people. The Constitution still exists for
the protection of the people through due process and other valuable rights.
If we are going to ignore it daily, however, then at least let us not
pretend that there is a difference between Military and Civil/Criminal Courts.
As you can see, the Military or Civil Court debate is moot because the
Military system is already in place and has been in place for years, applied
against our own shocked, but now "court-hardened" citizens. Many of them
are speaking out in frustration, because no media dares to expose this
oppression which is likened to the sad days of slavery in America.
Attorneys also know what I am talking about, but until they value the
people more than their own pocket books and their distinguished professional
careers, then our profession will continue to claim that the "Emperor has
clothes" and that there is a difference between the unconstitutional Military
Courts and the Civil/Criminal Courts by which the people are continually
being
terrorized. As President Bush has said, terrorists need to be
"rooted out." In this case, either the media is with the people or with
those who practice judicial terrorism at the expense of our citizens. Come
on American Media—start telling the whole story; "Let's
Roll."
Sincerely,
Linda L. Kennedy
Attorney at Law,
Virginia
WBFLegal@Aol.com
416 London St
Portsmouth, VA
23704
(757) 397-4500
(757) 397-0060-facsimile
Copyright
December 2, 2001 by Linda L. Kennedy, Attorney, Virginia