By Larry W. Bryant
Chapter 75. "Bryant's 'Bleak House'" Reaches Another Milestone
yes, Cheezeyburton's
detention camps await us,
just as surely does
their regimen of torture --
run by thugs from Smackwater
(2/1/08)
[Author's Note: In the early winter of 2007-08, the U. S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia decided to deny the appellees'
motion for summary affirmance of a lower court's ruling that DoD
censorship of several of my whistleblower-solicitation ads submitted
(since the spring of 2003) for publication in various military-base
weekly newspapers does not violate my First Amendment rights.
(Novelist Charles Dickens would've been happy to hear this protracted
echo of British jurisprudence.) The appeals court's decision thus
keeps the case alive for further litigation. In his Jan. 28, 2008,
opening brief, my attorney, Jonathan L. Katz of Silver Spring, Md.
(Marks & Katz, LLC -- see http://www.markskatz.com/militarycases.htm
), relies, in part, on a key First Amendment victory of 1992 achieved
in the same court that, back on March 12, 2007, ruled against me.
That earlier case, Stewart v. District of Columbia Armory Board,
happens to have, in Katz's words, "correctly held that the
government-controlled RFK Stadium could not prohibit religious
displays by fans while still allowing other fans to exhibit
non-religious displays (e.g., 'Go Redskins' banners). That is
precisely what is happening here [in the circumstances of Larry W.
Bryant v. Rumsfeld/Gates et al.]. CEN [commercial enterprise
newspapers, such as the Army's weekly "Pentagram"] regulations permit
a flood of paid advertising, and try to carve out a small category
that may not advertise, and then Appellees claim that CENs remain
private fora; that does not jibe with the law or logic." Katz
concludes from this analysis that ". . . seeing that CENs'
advertising pages are public fora, then [the legal doctrine of]
strict scrutiny applies here [citing the controlling 2004 case of
ACLU v. Mineta]. Seeing that the CEN regulations, as written and
applied to Appellant, discriminate against viewpoint, they must be
stricken as violative of the First Amendment." During our expected
oral argument's hearing, I expect Mr. Katz to cite at least two
specific instances where the military public affairs officials
objected to my ad submission "Blow the Whistle on the
Battle-of-Baghdad Cover-up!" -- not because they viewed the ad as
being "political" but because they simply disliked the text's
message/tone: (1) The "Pointer View" newspaper published by the U.
S. Military Academy in West Point, N. Y. Here, via an Oct. 7, 2004,
snail-mail letter to me from USMA public affairs specialist Joseph V.
Tombrello, is the academy's hard-nosed pronouncement: "Your ad below
does not clear our review process as it appears to be in conflict
with the official DoD position on the matter."; (2) The "Capital
Flyer" newspaper published by Andrews Air Force Base, Md. Here, I
learned, from a snail-mailed response to my Nov. 2, 2004, FOIA
request for access to all records pertaining to my ad's submission,
that, once again, officialdom had objected not to the ad's
"political" nature but to its VIEWPOINT, as revealed by the following
exchange of e-mail among USAF officials: (a) The first of these
incriminating missives comes from Brad A. Swezey, deputy chief of
Andrews's 89th Airlift Wing Public Affairs -- addressed, on Oct. 12,
2004, to Master Sergeant Paul A. Fazzini, AMC [Air Materiel Command]
newspaper consultant at Scott AFB, Ill.: "Paul, have any other papers
run into this [ad submission]? Our inclination is not to run it.
Your thoughts?"; (b) And, at 11:19 A.M. on Oct. 12, 2004, Paul
replies to Brad: "Subject: Re: Ad Review -- Sir, as I read the
headline [of LWB's submitted ad] I'm moved to see right off the bat
the ad is anti military. I also did some Google searching to see
some other info about Ghost Troop and the information these folks are
projecting. The group's message clearly goes against the
establishment (DoD). I'd recommend you not run the ad." I presume
that this appellate litigation will take several more months to
resolve the case. If I prevail, I also expect that the government
will call upon the U. S. Supreme Court to reverse the three-judge
appeals court's ruling. So, we're talking several more months of
watching the slow wheels of justice grind to a (precedent-setting)
conclusion. Who knew?]
PIZAZZO [unbuttoning her sweater with one hand while, with the other,
passing out a photocopy of a letter she's received from a 9th grader
in Gaithersburg, Md.]: Fellas, this young lady's telling us that
she's learned from her civics teacher that we've been holding these
morning jam sessions in which the five of us discuss some of the
gravest matters in public-policy management. Any comment?
CHEEZEY [slumping in his chair]: Hmmm . . . besides the issue of how
in the world could that teacher have found out about us -- does this
mean that our yet-to-be apprehended mole lives in or near
Gaithersburg? -- this kid's inquiry puts us in a Catch-22 position.
BU$CH [snatching a long, white hair from his right eyebrow]: How so, Dick?
CHEEZEY: Well, if we acknowledge that we do in fact conduct these
sessions, then we might face a flood of FOIA requests for access to
their transcription. If we lie by saying "there ain't no
transcription," then some damned Deep Throat might leak the truth
about them. And -- who knows? -- Kongress, in its newfound boldness,
might move to subpoena all records pertaining to the sessions. Of
course, we could declare "executive privilege" to stifle that
intrusion, but . . ..
PUKASY [interrupting]: It seems to me that all we have to do is to
completely ignore the student's letter.
GRATES: Of course, Mike, we realize you've become a professional
stonewaller in your new role as attorney generalizer. But: did you
fully read little Suzie's postscript to her letter? The part where
she intends to organize a student-led demonstration some Saturday
near her school to protest any negative response she might receive
from us as regards her term paper's theme: "White(wash House-Blessed
Torture Program"? And, to her, a non-reply would fall into the
category of "negative."
BU$CH: Yeah. That's all we need, for sure -- a student-led march
that could mushroom into a cloud of protest across all of academia.
PUKASY: Aw, you know, Dubya, it'll never come to that. The Iraqnam
era isn't entirely the same as the Vietnam one.
PIZAZZO: Okay, guys. I'll draft up a gently worded kiss-off reply
to Suzie, for y'all to review at our next meeting. Meantime, Mike,
how about wiretapping that teacher to see if he slips up on whoever
his source has been?
PUKASY: Will do, Dora. It's just a matter of time before the Oral
Leaker gets his due. Now, then, here's another item of new business:
our U. S. attorney for the District of Columbia has received a copy
of Larry W. Bryant's opening brief appealing Judge Kollar-Kotelly's
March 12, 2007, ruling against Bryant's seditious campaign to
undermine military authority via those whistleblower-solicitation ads
of his.
BU$CH: Well, what I want to know is . . . where's he getting the
dough to fund all this ridiculous litigation. Let's sic the I.R.S.
on 'im pronto! As we all know, legal representation doesn't come
cheap, so I wouldn't be surprised if this pest is getting some kind
of external financial support. If so, we know how to put pressure on
such a source -- don't we? . . . heh-heh. Funding of ANY sedition
should be a capital offense, right?
PIZAZZO: Speaking of "capital offense," have y'all heard the latest
development in that Vermont town's radicals' effort to have Dick and
Dubya indicted and arrested should they ever show their faces in that
jurisdiction? Brattleboro's governing body has agreed, in response
to a local citizens petition, to put the indictment-arrest proposal
on a ballot initiative several weeks from now. Imagine that: if the
measure passes, we'll have a whole town of seditionists nipping at
our ankles. Say, Dubya, I'm updating my passport for unlimited
visits to Paraguay, starting with a visit to your retirement compound
there this fall. Please save a guest room for me!
http://www.bushbusiness.com/Bryant_OP.htm
http://www.petitiononline.com/arrest/petition.html
http://tinyurl.com/29veps (re Veterans Against Torture.com; and Squadron13.com)
http://tinyurl.com/3at8mz:
http://www.thecriticalvoice.org
Archives
Citizen's Arrest against Bush
|
