BVFS Supreme Court

Mrs Nguyen Thi Hong and Mr Nguyen Van Quy in Hanoi 2007,
both victims of Agent Orange.

A few days after the above picture was taken Mrs Nguyen Thi Hong and Mr Nguyen Van Quy, along with two other colleagues left for the United States for public meetings, and were also present at the Federal Court of Appeals. Just a few weeks after returning home to Vietnam both died from their illnesses, two of the many thousands of Vietnamese victims who have died from the effects of Agent Orange.

US SUPREME COURT BETRAYS VIETNAMESE
VICTIMS OF AGENT ORANGE.

In its ruling of March 2nd 2009, the US Supreme Court decided NOT to hear the petition from American Lawyers acting on behalf of over three million Vietnamese affected by Agent Orange. This ruling, for which no reasons were given, was roundly condemned by organisations and individuals from many countries, not least Vietnam, that had campaigned for many years seeking justice and compensation for both the victims and their families.

The Court’s ruling ended a five-year lawsuit that began in 2004 and had been argued by American lawyers through four US Courts, the last being the Supreme Court.

The ruling has been described as outrageous, amongst other terms, for not only were no reasons given for their decision to reject the appeal, but only seven of the nine Justices took part, two had withdrawn from all proceedings, WHY is the question Len Aldis. BVFS Secretary asked in his letter to the office of the Supreme Court.

The two Justices who withdrew were: The Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice John Paul Stevens, The latter’s son, a young man, died from a cancer said to be associated with Agent Orange. He had served in Vietnam.

In the petition before the United States highest Court, it was left to seven judges to decide on the merits of a case involving over 3,500,000 Vietnamese seriously ill and handicapped by horrific disabilities through Agent Orange. They chose to reject the victims; a better description would be Betray.

Lets look at one of the Justice that did take part, Justice Clarence Thomas. For two years Clarence Thomas was a lawyer in the Pesticide and Agriculture Division of MONSANTO, one of the leading companies who manufactured Agent Orange and a company that in the case before the Supreme Court on which sat Clarence Thomas, now Justice Clarence Thomas….. Can there ever be a clearer case of a Conflict of Interest?

It was said that the lawsuit would never succeed, as it will be dealt with in an American Court, under American Law and before American Judges. An example; during one of the cases the appeals court said Vietnamese plaintiffs could not sue because Agent Orange was used to protect U.S. troops from ambush by Vietcong forces and not as a weapon against people.

Letters expressing our anger and concern at the grave injustice done to the Vietnamese Victims were sent to: President Obama, Office of the Supreme Court, Secretary General of the United Nations, US Ambassador to the UK and Hugh Grant. President, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Monsanto.

NEW ONLINE PETITION.

Letter Sent 4th April 2009

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20500

Ref: US Supreme Court Ruling on US and Vietnamese Victims of Agent Orange

Dear Mr President,

This is the second letter sent to you, the first, dated 4th March did not receive either a reply or an acknowledgement, which is disappointing and would hope that the absence of a reply was due to the many letters you have received following your election. However, I sincerely ask that due to the nature of this letter a reply be sent.

Sadly, I wrote in anger at the disgraceful ruling by the US Supreme Court on March 2nd rejecting the appeal by US Veterans and Vietnamese (over three million) seriously affected by Agent Orange used by US Forces in the war on Vietnam.

That such a ruling can be made despite the evidence is an insult to the victims and their families. A further insult was given when the judges gave no reason for their ruling, an incredible decision. To deny an appeal that requested a trial by jury of the companies that manufactured Agent Orange brings shame on the Supreme Court and on the United States itself.

You may know that in 1984 US veterans sued the same companies for the same injuries and disabilities, and the company settled out of court to the extent of $180 million.

Mr President you were born 4th August 1961 the very month that US Forces began spraying Agent Orange on Southern Vietnam, and was to continue for ten-years. The aftermath of the destruction of the forests through Agent Orange can still be seen today. As the aftermath of the use of Agent Orange can be seen in the people seriously disabled in Vietnam.

What is most painful is the number of young people affected, born many years after the war ended – 1975 – a terrible legacy left by the United States that has travelled into the third generation and close, if not already, to the fourth. Each year during my visits to Vietnam I see the people including the youngsters, due to their disabilities it is not a pleasant sight to see a child crawling along the floor minus a limb, be it a leg, arm or two limbs. You rightly adore your two children; any parent would, as do the parents of a child affected by Agent Orange born in Vietnam.

Can you imagine what the ruling by the Supreme Court has done to these parents? I ask that you read my earlier letter emailed to you from Hanoi on 5th December last year. In it you will read that I wrote asking you “not to wait for any US Court ruling, the victims have waited and suffered long enough.”

Mr President, the US Supreme Court has now given its ruling, against both the US veterans and the Vietnamese victims. Despite the court ruling you have the authority to make a policy that will give financial compensation to the victims of Agent Orange and to their families.

Let me end with a quote by Nguyen Duc born conjoined in 1981 with his twin brother Viet. In November 2006 an American journalist interviewed him and his words – in my opinion - sum up the feelings of all victims of Agent Orange.

“I find it ironic that on one hand you put Saddam Hussein on trial for using biological warfare, but in another country where you sprayed chemicals for warfare, you neglect your responsibility.

The United States must admit its responsibility and compensate the Agent Orange victims in Vietnam. It is your moral obligation. Sooner or later, it has to be done.”

No one could have said it better. Mr President, for the sake of Justice for the Victims, let it be sooner.

Yours sincerely

Len Aldis

Secretary

Letter Sent 24th March 2009

Public Information Office
Supreme Court of the United States
Washington DC 20543
USA

Re: Supreme Court Ruling 2nd March. Docket 08-470

Dear Sirs,

On behalf of the members and supporters of the Britain-Vietnam Friendship Society I wish to express our serious concern at the ruling by the seven justices on the above petition.

We ask that this letter be placed before the person/s concerned that have authority to answer the points we wish to raise that are as follows:

· Of the nine justices, two, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Stevens, took no part in consideration or decision of the petition. No reason was given for their action. This we find surprising given that it was a petition involving over three million Vietnamese Victims of Agent Orange.

· Justice Clarence Thomas did take part in its consideration, and its decision. This we find worrying and of serious concern. For two years Justice Thomas was a lawyer in the Pesticide and Agriculture Division of Monsanto, one of the leading companies responsible in the manufacture of Agent Orange, and a company named in the petition before the Supreme Court.

· We are of the opinion that Justice Thomas should have withdrawn from considering the petition due to his personal knowledge from working for Monsanto, and therefore a possible conflict of interest.

· Our last, but also important concern is that none of the seven Justices gave a reason for their denial of the petition. Again, we find this action from the Justices of the highest court of the United States an incredible decision, and as with the other above points strongly believe that the American and Vietnamese Victims are fully entitled to an answer.

· We consider the decisions of the Justices of the Supreme Court an act of grave injustice to the victims of Agent Orange and to their families.

Your early reply by letter, or email, would be appreciated.

Yours sincerely
Len Aldis
Secretary

Letter Sent 24 March 2009

Mr Ban Ki-moon. Secretary General
United Nations S-378
New York
NY 10017
USA

Ref: US Supreme Court ruling on Vietnamese Victims of Agent Orange

Dear Mr Ban Ki-moon,

On behalf of members and supporters of the Britain-Vietnam Friendship Society, I write to express our serious concern at the ruling on 2nd March this year, by the US Supreme Court. Its ruling, denying the petition for an appeal, on behalf of over three million Vietnamese, suffering from serious illnesses and severe disabilities caused by the spraying over a period of ten-years of 80 million litres of Agent Orange by US Forces on Southern Vietnam, was a grave injustice.

Both during the war and since 1975, when the war ended, many Vietnamese were born with severe disabilities. Many require 24-hour care. I am sure the United Nations has material, including photographs, of the abnormal births that have taken place over these years. If not I would be able to supply these to you.

Since 2004 when the Vietnam Association for the Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin (VAVA) began its lawsuit against the US Chemical Companies, headed by Monsanto and Dow Chemicals, and until the Supreme Courts ruling of 2nd March, many Vietnamese have died, including a few who travelled to appear in the US Courts to give evidence.

With the verdicts of the lower courts going against the Vietnamese, this led them to appeal for a petition to the US Supreme Court; on 2nd March the Court denied the petition. It was a ruling by seven of the Justices – two had withdrawn – from considering the case or making or any decision.

It must be stated that no reasons were given by any of the seven justices why they denied the petition. For the Justices of Supreme Court to take such a decision on an issue that involved over three million people, is outrageous, and we believe a grave injustice.

The use of chemical in war is a War Crime and we wish to bring this to your attention as Secretary General of the United Nations. We also ask that the appropriate bodies of the UN look into the matter of the use of Agent Orange during the US War on Vietnam and the serious consequences it continues to have on the people, forests and land of the country.

It is our sincere hope that the victims of Agent Orange would, through your good offices as Secretary General of the United Nations, receive the Justice they so richly deserve and for which they have waited and suffered for many years.

Yours sincerely
Len Aldis
Secretary

Letter Sent April 2009

Mr Hugh Grant. President and Chief Executive Officer
Monsanto.
800 North Lindbergh Boulevard
St Louis.
Missouri 63167 USA

Ref: US Supreme Court Ruling March 2nd 2009

Dear Mr Grant,

As you will know on March 2nd the Supreme Court gave its ruling in the Appeal submitted on behalf of over three million Vietnamese victims and American victims of Agent Orange, a product manufactured by your company and others.

You will of course be pleased that the ruling of the supreme court went in your favour and your colleagues, a ruling I might add that dealt a terrible injustice to the victims, it also means that unless real justice is obtained, the victims will continue to suffer from their illnesses and severe disabilities until they die, as many thousands have over the years.

Let me also add that the parents and families of your victims also feel the pain and suffering. It cannot be easy for them, as many of these tragic victims need 24-hour attention.

I’m not sure if you have visited Vietnam and seen, as I, and many others have, victims affected by your Agent Orange, be they veterans who served their country in the war, or the many youngsters born years after it ended in 1975. Today, in Vietnam babies are being born with serious abnormalities, showing quite clearly that Agent Orange has travelled into the third generation of Vietnamese. How many more generations will be affected is yet unknown.

When in Vietnam, and especially in Ho Chi Minh City, I call at the Tu Du Hospital to see the young children, and the teenagers. There is no doubt in my mind that anyone who sees these youngsters affected by Agent Orange will not be able to ignore their disabilities and would wish to help them in any way possible.

Your office in Ho Chi Minh City Mr Grant is one I have called at a few times to invite your director to come with me to the Tu Du Hospital to see what I have seen. Unfortunately the director has been away visiting another country. Although he did reply to my request, he stated that due to the then lawsuit it would not be possible to comment or visit Tu Du.

Mr Grant the lawsuit is over, the ruling, as I have said, has gone in your favour. There cannot therefore be any reason for you or the director of your office in Ho Chi Minh City not to visit the Tu Du Hospital. I would hope that you would ask your director to do so and to send you a report on what he has seen, and more importantly to suggest what help that Monsanto can give to help ease the suffering of the victims and their families.

At Tu Du your director will see a young man Nguyen Duc. Duc was born in 1981 conjoined to his twin brother Viet who dies a couple of years ago. In 1988 they underwent an operation to separate them, following which both continued to live and were treated at the hospital.

In November 2006 in an interview with an American journalist Duc stated:
“I find it ironic that on one hand you put Saddam Hussein on trial for using biological warfare, but in another country where you sprayed chemicals for warfare, you neglect your responsibility.

The United States must admit its responsibility and compensate the Agent Orange victims in Vietnam. It is your moral obligation. Sooner or later, it has to be done.”

Mr Grant, no words of mine, or any other, could have summed up the feeling of victims of Agent Orange. Those words, as you will I hope understand, are aimed at both the U.S. Government and you as one of the manufactures of Agent Orange.

I urge you to read again the words of Nguyen Duc and ask yourself the following: Did Monsanto did make Agent Orange? Was it was used in Vietnam?”

If you answer truthfully you will know that despite the ruling of the Supreme Court, you are responsible and have a moral obligation.”

I ask you now, accept your responsibility, accept you have a moral obligation and agree to make amends by paying compensation to the victims of Agent Orange.

Yours sincerely

Len Aldis

Secretary