7 December 2004

Dear Mr. Raspberry,

I read the subject article in today's Washington Post with great interest. You obviously represent what is proper in a court of law during a criminal trial. I wonder if you would be inclined to speak out on behalf of a U.S.Navy sailor found guilty of killing a homosexual while defending himself from anal rape by a clearly homophile judge in San Francisco. Seaman Recruit Steven R. Nary, USN, was found guilty in a trial that didn't take place until almost 3 ½ years after he was illegally removed from a U.S. Naval ship (the USS Carl Vinson) and incarcerated in a civilian jail.

The trial judge allowed homosexuals in the courtroom to display signs in support of the alleged victim. He then further influenced the outcome by taking the jury and others in the courtroom to lunch before the verdict was reached.

This outrageous courtroom behavior has never been addressed nor violations of the sailor's Constitutional Procedural Due Process been given an objective review by any court. Suspicion focuses on a cover-up because of the Navy's negligence in not initially protecting the sailor from a local hostile environment and the politically sensitive aspects of the case since the presiding Judge Ryan is now the U.S. Attorney for San Francisco. Only a public outcry led by someone like you can correct this judicial malfeasance. I would be pleased to discuss this case further at your convenience.

Vincent S. Averna,
CAPTAIN, JAGC, USN (RET.)

(Vincent S. Averna is one of a Few Good Men in the US Navy's Judge Advocate Corps. The movie, A FEW GOOD MEN, is based on a case that Averna reviewed as a Navy Judge Advocate at the Guantanumo Navy Base in Cuba.)

For Three and half years, U.S. Navy sailor Steven Nary was denied