All Day -- Every Day
by Linda L. Kennedy, Attorney at Law
and Virginia JAILer

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.
- Linda L. Kennedy, Attorney at Law

Dear Media:

I realize that some of you may not be aware of the deception that
the "due process/contstitutional 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

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

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

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.
Here 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 pay off.  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 that decision?  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 city's 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 "" for my information here).  According to, 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
these 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 its 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 there 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."


Linda L. Kennedy
Attorney at Law, Virginia
416 London St.
Portsmouth, VA  23704
(757) 397-4500
(757) 397-0060-facsimile

Copywrited December 2, 2001 by Linda L. Kennedy, Esq., Virginia