The Price of Hate has it's own blog now

I've moved these stories over to a new blog, dedicated soley to the purpose of listing the dead kids the religious haters have killed.

Rather than continue to list them here, the new blog is called The Price of Hate and can be found here:  http://thepriceofhate.blogspot.com/

The Price of Hate 3

Meet Asher Brown.  Asher was 13 when he shot himself with his fathers gun in his home on September 27th, 2010. 

From the story:

He shot himself in the head after enduring what his mother and stepfather say was constant harassment from four other students at Hamilton Middle School in the Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District.

Brown, his family said, was "bullied to death" — picked on for his small size, his religion and because he did not wear designer clothes and shoes. Kids also accused him of being gay, some of them performing mock gay acts on him in his physical education class, his mother and stepfather said.

The 13-year-old's parents said they had complained about the bullying to Hamilton Middle School officials during the past 18 months, but claimed their concerns fell on deaf ears. 

David and Amy Truong said they made several visits to the school to complain about the harassment, and Amy Truong said she made numerous phone calls to the school that were never returned.

...

On the morning of his death, the teen told his stepfather he was gay, but Truong said he was fine with the disclosure. "We didn't condemn," he said.

His parents said Brown had been called names and endured harassment from other students since he joined Cy-Fair ISD two years ago. As a result, he stuck with a small group of friends who suffered similar harassment from other students, his parents said.

His most recent humiliation occurred the day before his suicide, when another student tripped Brown as he walked down a flight of stairs at the school, his parents said.

When Brown hit the stairway landing and went to retrieve his book bag, the other student kicked his books everywhere and kicked Brown down the remaining flight of stairs, the Truongs said.

Durham said that incident was investigated, but turned up no witnesses or video footage to corroborate the couple's claims.

Read the story here.   

Another interesting analysis on this and on other teen suicides an be read here. 

RELATED:

The Price of Hate 1
The Price of Hate 2

Confessions of a Gay Soldier

With the DADT issue heating up both in the courts and in the senate this week, I was pointed to this article in the New Republic written by a current active duty soldier.   A quote from the article:

Right now, I feel as if I’m in a state of limbo. Normally people who are personally and professionally affected by a law have a right to stand against it publicly—to speak out, to petition government, to organize and try to influence political decision-makers. But DADT is the one policy that prevents the affected from lobbying openly against it. It mandates my silence.

That's just wrong.

Read the article.  Then call your senators and urge them to support repeal of  DADT.

You can call the US Capitol Switchboard at (202)224-3121 and they can connect you with your Senator's office.

UPDATE 9/20/2010


The New York Times has put up a series of 7 letters from current active and inactive military service members regarding DADT.  Worth the read.  
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/gay-service-members-discuss-dont-ask-dont-tell/?src=twt&twt=nytimes

The Price of Hate 2

Via Joe.My.God

Meet Billy Lucas.  Billy was 15 years old and attended Greensburg High School in Indiana, when he hung himself in his family's barn Thursday, Sept 2, 2010.

From the article:

"He was a teenager who didn't quite fit in. His classmates said Billy Lucas was bullied for being different.

The 15-year-old never told anyone he was gay but students at Greensburg High School thought he was and so they picked on him.

"People would call him 'fag' and stuff like that, just make fun of him because he's different basically," said student Dillen Swango"

 Read the story here.  A memorial facebook page can be found here.

Meet Justin Aaberg.  Justin was 15 years old when he hung himself in his bedroom last July.

From the story:

"Behind that big smile and lots of friends was a shy, loyal 15-year-old boy who loved to play the cello. Justin Aaberg came out as gay when he was 13 and, as his mom found out only after he hanged himself, suffered tremendously inside.

...

In the weeks since she found her son dead in his room on July 9, Tammy Aaberg has heard from many of her son's friends at Anoka High School. They told her Justin Aaberg had been bullied and had recently broken up with his boyfriend.

...

Those same students also opened up about their own experiences, telling her they feel harassed and unsafe as gay and lesbian students.

"These kids, they just hate themselves. They literally feel like they want to die. So many kids are telling me this," said Tammy Aaberg, fighting tears."

Read the story here.


RELATED:

The Price of Hate 1

Religion is like a penis

Ok, so this is from http://einefragevonstil.soup.io/post/74900592/Religion via Joe.My.God and I thought it was hilarious :)

The Price of Hate

Meet Roy A. Jones.  A 17 month old toddler who was beaten to death on August 2, 2010 by his mother's boyfriend for "acting too girly".

Pedro Jones of Southampton (not the boy's biological father), was arrested on charges of first degree manslaughter in Southampton Town Justice Court in connection with the toddler’s death.  The boy was killed, according to police, by Pedro Jones “striking him several times throughout his body with his closed fists and grabbing him by the neck.”

According to Pedro Jones in a police interview, he was “trying to make him act like a boy instead of a little girl.”

Pedro Jones further stated in the document that the incident was an accident, and that, “I never struck that kid that hard before.”

See this link for further details.

Meet Carl Joseph Walker.  Carl was 11 years old when he hung himself by an extension cord in the second floor of his family's home on April 9th, 2009, after being tormented by school bullies who repeatedly called him "gay".

His mother, who had just returned from a church service for her son, said Carl was a Boy Scout who played football and basketball. Walker found her son’s body when she went upstairs to check on him on Monday.

Said his mother: "I just want to help some other child. I know there are other kids being picked on, and it's day in and day out,"


See http://www.thebostonchannel.com/r/19137836/detail.html for more details.

Meet Eric Mohat, age 17.  Eric, a "quiet but likable boy, who was involved in theater and music" was called "gay," "fag," "queer" and "homo" and often in front of his teachers, who did nothing.  Then one bully in school said publicly in class, "Why don't you go home and shoot yourself, no one will miss you".

On March 29, 2007, he took a legally registered gun from his father's bureau drawer, locked himself in his room and shot himself in the head.

The bullying "accumulated over time," Ken Myers, the family's attorney, told ABCNews.com. "In math class, two or three picked on him constantly and mercilessly. Most of it was verbal, but they did some things like sitting behind him and flicking him in the ear, sticking stuff in his hoodie and putting eraser shavings on his head. Out of class they would shove him in lockers."

See http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/story?id=7228335&page=1 for more details.

Meet Jaheem Herrera, an 11 year old 5th grader at Dunaire Elementary School in DeKalb County, Georgia.  On April 16th 2009, Jaheen hung himself with a belt in his closet.

From the story:  "He came home much happier than when he left in the morning, smiling as he handed his mother, Masika Bermudez, a glowing report card full of A's and B's."

"He used to say Mom they keep telling me this ... this gay word, this gay, gay, gay. I'm tired of hearing it, they're telling me the same thing over and over," she told CNN, as she wiped away tears from her face.

"He was a nice little boy," Bermudez said through her tears. "He loved to dance. He loved to have fun. He loved to make friends. And all he made [at school] were enemies."

See the sad story here: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/23/bullying.suicide/

Meet Ronnie Parris.  Ronnie was 3 years old when he died on January 28 2005, of severe brain injuries inflicted by his father, Ronnie Parris Jr.

Apparently his father, concerned that Ronnie "might become gay", slap boxed with his son to "toughen him up, so he wouldn't become a sissy".

The toddler's mother, Nysheerah Paris, testified that her husband thought the boy might be gay, and would force him into a box.

In 2002, the Florida Department of Children & Families placed little Ronnie in protective custody after he had been admitted to the hospital several times for vomiting.

He was returned to his parents Dec. 14, five days after his third birthday. He had been with them six weeks when he died.

See http://tallonzektimes.org/bb/index.php?topic=5479.0;wap2 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Paris for the details.


 ---



These are hardly the only victims.  Search for yourself if you dare.

You hater organizations out there (AFA, FRC, NOM, CWA, ADF, FOtF, and so many others) - you talk so much about looking out "for the children", and "protecting the children" as you push your hate and bigotry.

What about these children?

This is the price of hate.

These stories should not be forgotten, nor should they be allowed to repeat themselves.  Remember them.

Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Yes, I know it's been 2 days since the ruling, so this is hardly breaking news :)  I just did not want to have the last article regarding Day of Decision, Prop 8 sitting there all alone without any resolution.

So, Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the US Constitution, and in a quite concise, sweeping manner.

Currently the decision is stayed temporarily, so no one can run off to get married in California yet.  It's believed likely the stay will be made more permanent until all appeals (including to the Supreme Court) are exhausted, but I'm hoping not.  We'll see sometime next week.

His 136 page ruling is very readable by a non-lawyer and goes into exquisite detail regarding the merits of both the defense and plaintiffs in the case.  Hint: There wasn't a lot of merit in the defense (pro-prop 8) case.

You can find a link to the PDF of the ruling as well as a link to the evidence (including video evidence) here.      

The ruling incorporates 80 findings of fact in the case which will be very important during the appeals process.  The finding of law can be disregarded during appeal, but the findings of fact cannot, unless they are found to be demonstrably false.

Here are a select few I've cut/pasted, but I really encourage you to read the ruling yourself.  The ruling provides a good overview of the evidence and testimony presented - useful if you did not follow the trial as closely as I and others at the The Prop8 Trial Tracker site did :)

So, here are some of the findings of fact:

18. Protect Marriage is a “broad coalition” of individuals and
organizations, including the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints (the “LDS Church”), the California Catholic
Conference and a large number of evangelical churches.

19. Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter.
Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize
marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil
marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently
whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that
recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship
under state law.

21. California, like every other state, has never required that
individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to
procreate.

The defense claimed that the ability to procreate was the fundamental reason for excluding LGBT's from being able to marry.

27. Marriage between a man and a woman was traditionally organized
based on presumptions of a division of labor along gender
lines. Men were seen as suited for certain types of work and
women for others. Women were seen as suited to raise children
and men were seen as suited to provide for the family.

33. Eliminating gender and race restrictions in marriage has not
deprived the institution of marriage of its vitality.

42. Same-sex love and intimacy are well-documented in human
history. The concept of an identity based on object desire;
that is, whether an individual desires a relationship with
someone of the opposite sex (heterosexual), same sex
(homosexual) or either sex (bisexual), developed in the late
nineteenth century.

44. Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic
of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a
person’s identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that
defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents’
assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is
contrary to the weight of the evidence.

46. Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation.
No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual
may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or
any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.

52. Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with
marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive
expression of love and commitment in the United States.

55. Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the
number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit,
have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the
stability of opposite-sex marriages.

58. Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against
gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have
intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays
and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and
lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of
society.

62. Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of
those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples. Prior to
Proposition 8, no religious group was required to recognize
marriage for same-sex couples.

67. Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates
their unequal treatment. Proposition 8 perpetuates the
stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming
long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are
not good parents.

74. Gays and lesbians have been victims of a long history of
discrimination.

75. Public and private discrimination against gays and lesbians
occurs in California and in the United States.

76. Well-known stereotypes about gay men and lesbians include a
belief that gays and lesbians are affluent, self-absorbed and
incapable of forming long-term intimate relationships. Other
stereotypes imagine gay men and lesbians as disease vectors or
as child molesters who recruit young children into
homosexuality. No evidence supports these stereotypes.

77. Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are
sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and
lesbians.

79. The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children
exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or
lesbian. The reason children need to be protected from samesex
marriage was never articulated in official campaign
advertisements. Nevertheless, the advertisements insinuated
that learning about same-sex marriage could make a child gay
or lesbian and that parents should dread having a gay or
lesbian child.

80. The campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to
show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex
relationships.

So, that was a few more than I wanted to include, but actually it was hard to not include them all except the first 15 or so which simply make statements of fact regarding the identities and expertise of the witnesses.

Here is the conclusion part of the ruling, which I thought would be nice to include here:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in
singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.
Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than
enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that oppositesex
couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California
has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and
because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its
constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,
the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Predictably, the religious right is all up in arms about this decision.  One of the most amusing for me was from Maggie Galleger, Chairperson of the mis-named National Organisation for Marriage (NOM).  Who said in part:

If this ruling is upheld, millions of Americans will face for the first time a legal system that is committed to the view that our deeply held moral views on sex and marriage are unacceptable in the public square, the fruit of bigotry that should be discredited, stigmatized and repressed. Parents will find that, almost Soviet-style, their own children will be re-educated using their own tax dollars to disrespect their parents' views and values.

Love the references to Soviet Style, re-education camps, and other nutbaggery.  

Read her whole screed at San Francisco Chronicle if you can stomach it.

In my humble opinion, history was made on August 4th, 2010.  The The Prop8 Trial Tracker has a ton of articles, comments and links if you want to learn more.

Yes, I partied!  :)

Day of Decision, Prop 8

Well today (August 4th), Judge Vaughn Walker will issue his ruling on the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

Of course the folks at the The Prop8 Trial Tracker will be providing up to date information and commentary when the decision is announced.  This should occur within the next 4 hours (1-3pm California time).

Regardless of how the decision goes,  it is expected to be appealed the the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and then most probably onto the US Supreme Court. 

In theory, the decision will be made available electronically from here:  https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/  although it will no doubt show up just about everywhere else soon after.

Definitely an exciting day.  For a great overview of the possibilities, check out: Towleroad's article.

Other resources:

American Foundation for Equal Rights
Equality On Trial on Facebook
Prop 8 Decision Day FAQ
Nationwide Decision Day Events

It's gonna be a party, hopefully :)

How many NOMo's does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Ok, so Papa Foma at the The Prop8 Trial Tracker blog started a light bulb joke about the so-called National Organization of Marriage (NOM) and there were several entries, which I will update here as they come in. :)

The Question:

How many NOMo's does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Answers:

• Well any one of them can do it… just don’t expect the light to come on!!!
• None, god already did it in Genesis when he said “Let there be light”. Besides, lightbulbs are a product of science, and therefore satanic.
• None, we aren’t small enough to fit inside a lightbulb, and screwing outside of marriage is wrong.
• You can’t force us to disclose that! That’s intimidation and harassment!
• Hopefully no more than thirty or so.
• Jesus.
• (from NOM) Don’t answer them they’re mean.
• NOM: Can’t right now… too busy screwing gays!
• None, they’ve got Rent Boys for that!
• Unknown – NOMers fear light, so they have never attempted this feat.
• 2, and they must be a man & a woman. If they are a same sex couple, the light bulb and the Universe will explode.
• Is that covered in Leviticus?

• None – we have no proof the lightbulb was ever out, so it doesn’t need to be changed.
• None…if we all pray hard enough the light bulb will see the error of
  it’s ways and change itself
• None. We prefer living in the dark. 
• It's actually God's choice to put us in the dark. We should not go against His will by changing  the light bulbs ourselves.
• Changing the light bulb would cause serious and irreparable injury to NOM because their lies would be exposed. Therefore, they have sought a stay with respect to the changing of the light bulb. However, it appears more and more that, regardless of the light bulb, people are starting to see NOM/Protectmarriage.com for who they really are. 
• We voted. It doesn’t need changing. Besides, it’s “common sense” that the same light bulb should work for all of us for at least 300 years.
• What lightbulb?
• Any number of men, women, intersex and/or cross-gendered may ‘screw’ in the lightbulb, as the People have had their say on that matter, so long as only combinations of one man and one woman can call it ‘changing the lightbulb.
• Being under a light is a “rite” not a “right”.
• Only a clear majority of seven million Californians have the constitutional right to change the light bulb!!! but instead it has been changed by one biased gay activist judge!!!
• NOM: Change?! 

Day 4, Volume 1 & 2: Federal DADT Trial: Log Cabin Republicans vs. United States

See  http://catissad.blogspot.com/2010/07/federal-dadt-trial-log-cabin.html for a description of what this post is about.

Day 4, July 16, 2010

From: http://online.logcabin.org/day-4-vol-i.pdf and
http://online.logcabin.org/day-4-vol-ii-corrected.pdf

MR. KAHN, Plaintiff atty (LRC)
MR. WOODS, Plaintiff atty (LRC)
MS. FELDMAN, Plaintiff atty (LRC)

MR. SIMPSON, Defense atty (USA)

First witness up for the day is CHRISTOPHER MEEKINS, previously an

attorney for White & Case. the law firm currently representing LRC.

His purpose in testifying here today is two fold - to assist in

providing evidence that LRC in fact does have standing to prosecute

this case, as well as to provide supporting information that an

upcoming plaintiff witness, 'JOHN DOE' is in fact a member of the

Republican party, and a member of LRC.

The defense seems interested in throwing out JOHN DOE's testimony by

indicating that he is not really a member of the LRC, a finding that

would reduce (if not invalidate) LRC's standing to pursue this case.

JOHN DOE is a currently serving individual in the US Army, whose

anonymity is being protected in this case so that he isn't kicked

out for a DADT violation.

The next plaintiff witness is MICHAEL ALMY, formerly a Major in the

USAF, discharged due to DADT.

I will excerpt some of his testimony below.

Q. = MR. KAHN, Plaintiff atty (LRC)
A. = MICHAEL ALMY, plaintiff witness

...

Q. Mr. Almy, did you serve in the U.S. military?
A. Yes, I did.

Q. How long was your active duty career in the U.S. military?
A. Slightly over 13 years.

Q. What years did that encompass?
A. 1993 to 2006.

Q. And in what branch of the military did you serve?
A. The U.S. Air Force.

Q. Were you enlisted or an officer?
A. I was an officer.

Q. And how did you become an officer in the U.S. Air Force
in 1993?
A. I earned my commission through Air Force Reserve Officer
Training Corps when I went through college at Wright State
University.

...

Q. Mr. Almy, why did your active duty career in the Air
Force end in 2006?
A. I was discharged from the Air Force because of the law
we call "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Q. And what was your rank when you were discharged?
A. I was a major.

Q. Mr. Almy, why did you join the Air Force?

A. I joined the Air Force primarily out of a sense of duty. My father
was also a career officer in the Air Force. He retired as a full
colonel. I had several uncles who had also retired from the
military. One uncle had retired from the Army and had service in the
Korean War. Another uncle of mine had retired from the Marine Corps
and had service in World War II, Korea, as well as Vietnam. So growing
up I always had a rich history of military service in my family and
just always knew that I would follow suit.

Q. How long did you intend to serve in the Air Force?
A. I had every intention of staying for 20 years where I was eligible
for retirement or perhaps longer than 20 years.


...

What follows are Mr. Almy's description of his 13 year career in

the Air Force, including promotions, commendations, awards, and various

deployments to Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

...

Q. Thank you. You also mentioned that you were discharged
under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 2006?
A. Correct.

Q. Can you please describe to the Court what led to your
discharge circumstances?

A. Yes. As I mentioned previously, my unit left Iraq towards the end
of January 2005. The unit that replaced mine in Iraq was rotating
in. We had about a two-week transition time. Several weeks after my
unit left Iraq, someone who had been sitting at my same desk, same
computer, somehow private e-mails that I had written to family and
friends during the stress of combat zone, these e-mails were searched
for any type of content or any potential perceived violation of "Don't
Ask, Don't Tell." This was a personal folder. It was labeled
"Friends," so in the sense that there was no business or professional
reason for this particular individual to search this particular
folder. There were approximately 500 e-mails, over 500 e-mails that I
had put in this folder to designate my private, personal e-mail
communications while I was in Iraq.

Again, several weeks afterwards this folder was
searched. Approximately 12 to 15 e-mails were pulled out which were
damaging to myself as far as perceived violations of "Don't Ask, Don't
Tell." These e-mails that were searched in Iraq were forwarded from
the unit that replaced mine in Iraq. They forwarded these e-mails to
my commander back in Germany. And then approximately six weeks after
my unit had returned from Iraq, my commander called me into his
office. The first thing he did was he read me the DOD policy on
homosexuality. When he finished reading that he handed me a stack of
e-mails and asked how did I explain these e-mails.

In other words, he demanded an explanation for these e-mails.
I refused to do so. He pressured me to make a statement to
acknowledge the e-mails, basically to admit that I had
violated "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and again, I refused to do
so. I told my commander at the time I would not make a
statement until I had first consulted with a lawyer.

MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, we object on grounds of lack of foundation
and move to strike Mr. Almy's testimony regarding the circumstances of
the search.

THE COURT: The search of his computer?

MR. SIMPSON: Correct, Your Honor.

MR. KAHN: Your Honor, I think as my questioning goes on, I can
establish that foundation.

THE COURT: All right. Why don't you proceed -- well, I'm going to
strike the testimony regarding how the e-mails were discovered and you
may attempt to lay a foundation.

BY MR. KAHN:

Q. Mr. Almy, what generally were discussed in those
e-mails?
A. These were private communications between family and friends,
personal e-mails written for my own purposes to take my mind off the
stressful combat zone, combat situation. They were written to
approximately three or four people, friends that I had known,
including one person that I had dated briefly.

Some discussion about the proper use of government email accounts.

Soldiers serving in Iraq were permitted (and encouraged) to use their

government provided email accounts for both personal and business

purposes.

Access to private email facilities was not allowed without special

permission from the System Administrators. This was for security

purposes primarily.

...


Q. Besides using the government's e-mail account, was there any way
for a service member to communicate via e-mail other than to apply for
and receive the permission to access their private e-mails as you
testified to?

A. There was no -- no.

...

Q. Did the commander tell you how he received the e-mails?
A. He explained to me that they had been searched in Iraq by the unit
that had replaced mine. They were forwarded to my commander from the
commander of the unit in Iraq.

Q. You testified earlier he pressured you to make a
statement in response to being confronted with these e-mails.
How did he pressure you?
A. We went round and round for approximately 20 minutes. He wanted me
to acknowledge the e-mails or to provide some explanation basically to
say that I had written the e-mails, in essence, acknowledging that I
had violated a perceived violation of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Q. Did he show you the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy?

MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, on the last answer,
objection, move to strike on the grounds of hearsay.
THE COURT: If this was the witness's commander, it
would be a party admission. I'm going to overrule the objection on that basis.
You may continue.

THE WITNESS: The first thing that happened during this meeting was my
commander read me the DOD policy on homosexuality.

BY MR. KAHN:

Q. At the end of this meeting -- well, how did this meeting
end?

A. I was relieved of my duties. In essence, I was fired where I had
led 180 men and women in my directorate. At the end later that
afternoon, my commander called an officer call, there was
approximately 30 to 40 officers in my squadron, called an officer call
through the whole squadron and said Major Almy had been relieved of
his duties, saying basically I had been fired.

Q. How did you react of being relieved of your duties that day?
A. I was completely devastated. I drove myself home. I took my uniform
off. I curled up on the floor of my bathroom in the fetal position and
just balled like a baby for probably several hours.

Q. At that time how long had you been serving in the Air
Force?
A. At that time it was a little over -- near the 12-year
point.
Q. At that time had you ever made a statement to anyone in
the military that you were gay?
A. No, I had not.

Q. Was there any effect on your security clearance as a
result of your meeting with your commander?
A. Approximately three months after I was relieved of my duties, my
security clearance was suspended. I had a TS or top secret SCI
clearance, which is one of the highest level clearances that an
individual can have in the military, and that was restricted. My
access to classified information was suspended at that point.

Q. Can you remind the Court, please, when this was that you were first
relieved of your duties?
A. This was March 14th, 2005.

Q. Did you contest your discharge proceedings?
A. I did. When I was served formal notification of what we call a show
cause letter -- in other words, that means that the Air Force thinks
they have sufficient grounds to discharge me under "Don't Ask, Don't
Tell," I had several options at that point. I could have resigned my
commission and gone quietly, I could have done nothing, in which case
the case against me would have moved forward, I could have made a
statement, or the option that I chose was to invoke my right to an
administrative hearing.

Q. And why is that that you invoked your right to an administrative
hearing?
A. Because I wanted to fight this as much as I could. I maintained
that I had done nothing wrong, that I had not violated the policy
because I never told. In other words, I kept my private life separate
from my professional life.

...

Q. Did you solicit any letters from fellow service members?
A. I solicited and obtained approximately two dozen letters from
service members that I had worked with. Some of these were junior
enlisted or officers who had worked directly for me, some of these
were my peers who had worked alongside me, and some of these were
superior officers who I had worked for.

Q. And what was your purpose in soliciting those letters?
A. The purpose in these letters was to show the Air Force these were
men and women who had worked side by side with me who knew my
professional conduct, who knew my reputation as an officer, who knew
my performance. It was to establish credibility with the Air Force and
show first-hand knowledge of people who knew me and urge that the Air
Force retain me, that I not be discharged from the Air Force.

MR. SIMPSON: Objection, Your Honor, hearsay.
THE COURT: Objection is overruled.
You may answer.

THE WITNESS: Not one person that I asked to write a letter in my
defense objected. In other words, they all supported, they all
wholeheartedly endorsed writing a letter for me, and they all urged
the Air Force that I be retained.

...

Thus begins a long argument from defense as to whether these letters

can be admitted into evidence. Defense does not believe these letters

have the proper 'foundation' or relevance to be admitted.

After some back and forth between defense and plaintiff, the letters

are admitted into evidence, however not for the purposes of

determining the witness's character.

Law, it's an adventure!

...


BY MR. KAHN:

Q. Mr. Almy, as a communications officer in the Air Force, are you
familiar with the permissible uses of e-mail, of government e-mail
accounts?
A. I am quite familiar with them from the standpoint that part of my
duties as a communications officer or in the career field in general,
the communications career field, is to operate and maintain the
network. The system administrators who are in charge who are
maintaining the network on a day-to-day basis fall within the com
squadron, which is what I was a part of. That was my career field. So
as such, I was very familiar with the network as well as the permitted
use of government e-mail.

THE COURT: If I may, when you say "systems administrators," would
someone who was a systems administrator report to you?
THE WITNESS: Yes, they would, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.

BY MR. KAHN:

Q. Given your knowledge in this area, would it have been permissible
for a service member to discuss heterosexual conduct using the exact
same government e-mail account on the exact same government computer?

MR. SIMPSON: Objection, Your Honor, relevance.
THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Yes, it would have been.
MR. KAHN: Thank you.

...

Next witness: ROBERT J. MAC COUN, PH.D., PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS, SWORN

Dr. MacCoun was a behavioral researcher for the RAND Corporation.

We are also going into Volume 2 of the day's testimony.

Q. = MS. FELDMAN, plaintiff atty
A. = ROBERT J. MAC COUN, plaintiff witness

...


BY MS. FELDMAN

Q. Shall we go back to the previous question?
A. Sure. I was mentioning that I've been involved in two different
recent RAND projects. One of which is the -- I'm part of a larger team
that tried to project the tax revenues of the marijuana ballot
initiative and whether some of the claims that have been made were
plausible. And then, the other project is revisiting the issue of
sexual orientation and U.S. military policy for the Pentagon.

Q. Dr. MacCoun, have you previously testified as an expert witness in
court or arbitration proceedings?
A. Yes. I was an expert witness in the Abel trial in 1994, I believe.

Q. What was the nature of the Abel trial?
A. This was the ACLU's challenge to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
policy.

Q. Can you please describe to the court your role in the Abel case?
A. I testified about the unit cohesion.

Q. Were you found to be qualified as an expert in that case?
A. Yes, I was.

Q. Dr. MacCoun, what was your assignment in this case?
A. I was asked to testify about the unit cohesion and the facts of
repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" on unit cohesion.

Q. Have you reached an opinion on whether allowing open homosexual
military service would impair unit cohesion and military performance?
A. Yes, I have.

Q. What was your opinion?
A. In my opinion, it is -- repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would
have negligible effects on unit cohesion and military performance.

...

Therein comes a rather detailed report of how the RAND report (518

pages of it) was put together, who worked on it, how many separate

teams contributed to it, what studies were

involved, etc.

It also discusses the Pentagon's Military Working Group, who in

conjunction to the RAND report were commissioned by Secretary Aspin.


...

Q. Do you know what the military working group was?
A. Secretary Aspin commissioned two studies of the issue: The Pentagon
military working group and the RAND Corporation, as a civilian working
group.

Q. And did the military working group issue a report?
A. They issued a memorandum.

Q. What was the conclusion of the military working group's memorandum?
A. They recommended the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

Q. How long was that memorandum?
A. 15 pages, I believe. Something like that.

15 pages. Further testimony reveals that very little of the RAND

report made it into the Military Working groups recommendations.

Here's some more testimony:

Q. And why is it your understanding that the military working group
knew what conclusions you were reaching?
A. Well, we had shared our preliminary conclusions with them in the
video teleconference and also there were various media reports
describing what's in drafts.

Q. Dr. MacCoun, do you know whether any member of RAND was invited to
testify before Congress in 1993?
A. Not to my knowledge, no.

Read it if you've got a few hours :)

End of Day 4

Day 3, Volume 2 & 3: Federal DADT Trial: Log Cabin Republicans vs. United States

See  http://catissad.blogspot.com/2010/07/federal-dadt-trial-log-cabin.html for a description of what this post is about.

Day 3, Volume 2 & 3

From: http://online.logcabin.org/day-3-vol-ii.pdf and  http://online.logcabin.org/day-3-vol-iii.pdf

After recess, continuing with Joseph Christopher Rocha. This

transcript contains timestamps.

MR. FREEBORNE, Defense atty.

Q. = MS. MYERS. Plaintiff atty (LRC)

A. = THE WITNESS: Joseph Christopher Rocha,


11:05

DIRECT EXAMINATION (cont'd)
BY MS. MYERS:


Q. What did it mean to you to be accepted to the Naval
Academy Preparatory School?
A. It is the single most significant moment of my life. It
guaranteed me admission to the Naval Academy if I kept doing
what I was doing.

Q. And what did it mean to you to have the possibility to
attend the Naval Academy?
A. That was -- well, it's the biggest dream I've ever had.

...

11:10

Q. After you started the Naval Academy Preparatory School, did you
have time to reflect on your experience in the dog-handling unit?

A. It was the first time that I really was able to reflect on what
happened, because I was permanently away and it was over. At the
Naval Academy Preparatory School, what they pressed on us -- they
stressed the most was the years of commitment, that we were looking at
a career, that we were looking at 15 to 20 years. And I evaluated how
I had done nothing wrong, how I had followed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
as closely as possible, yet been subjected to such extreme abuse; and
looking forward to a career at the Naval Academy or as an officer, I
realized that it could just as easily happen again.

Q. Did you have any other concerns about your career as an officer,
knowing that you had this long-term commitment?

A. Having just left a small unit, a small community, it's very
intrusive, I realized at the Naval Academy Preparatory School that the
Naval Academy would be no different and that the officer corps would
be no different. It would be a small group of people who would be
well-informed as to who my significant other was, when I had children,
when I got engaged. I was confident that it was a matter of time
before I was disgraced with a discharge.

So I had to decide whether I would get ahead of the game and get out
as someone who had served honorably in the Middle East or someone who
had been caught as a midshipman or caught as an officer.

Q. And what did you decide to do?
A. I decided to come out.

...

11:28

Q. Do you think that your inability to report the harassment
you experienced because of your fear during the time you were
in the dog kennel unit was directly related to the "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell" policy?

MR. FREEBORNE: Your Honor, same objection. It also
calls for speculation.

THE COURT: The objections are overruled.
You may answer. Do you remember the question?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: I'm confident that, at least
personally, had "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" not been the policy, I
would have felt confident to report the abuse when it
escalated, and not fear reprisal.

Q. And why is that?
A. Because it is against our policy to haze, but as a gay
servicemember, I had no protection.
Q. Do you think that your sexual orientation affected your
ability to perform as a Navy servicemember?
A. No. I'm confident that I performed just as well, and many
times exceeded the performance of my peers.

Q. Would you want to rejoin the military if "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is
no longer the policy?
A. I want nothing more than to continue my career in the armed forces.

...

End of this witness. Next witness for plaintiff coming up.

Aaron Belkin, founder of the Palm Institute, which does research on

issues related to DADT.

Much of his initial testimony discusses his papers, books, research

methodology, peer review, studies of foreign militaries etc.

Over the objections of defense, he is admitted as an expert witness

as a political scientist, social scientist and researcher on the

subject of sexual minorities in the military.

Q. = MS. FELDMAN, plaintiff atty.
A. = Professor Aaron Belkin, witness


...

1:38

Q. Professor Belkin, have you studied the impact of allowing
gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military on unit
cohesion?
A. Yes.

Q. And in your experience, what is the unit cohesion
rationale?
A. This is the idea that gays and straights cannot form bonds of
trust. And those bonds of trust are necessary for the combat
effectiveness of military units. And so if you allow gay and lesbian
servicemembers to acknowledge who they are honestly, then straight
servicemembers would realize that their peers are gay or lesbian, and
any bonds of trust that had developed would soften or disappear, and
new bonds of trust would not -- it would not be possible to perform
new bonds of trust; therefore, readiness, combat effectiveness, would
deteriorate.

...

1:42

Q. Have you reviewed any research on U.S. military service during the
Gulf War?
A. The Randy Shilts work is about that, yes.

Q. And what did that research find?
A. That there was a pattern in which gays and lesbians had been in the
process of being discharged. But once the war started, commanders
deployed gay and lesbian servicemembers to the front lines, so
suspended their discharge proceedings. They served in combat; they
came back; and the discharge proceedings were reinstigated. Shilts did
not find any detriments to performance or cohesion in the Gulf War.

...

1:44
Q. You mentioned Rhonda Evans.
What were you discussing with regard to Rhonda Evans?

A. So Rhonda Evans did a study for the Palm Center where she looked at
the history of gays and lesbians at war in the United States since
World War II, and she found discharges of gays and lesbians always
goes down during wartime.

The reason that that's interesting is because if a unit cohesion
rationale were true, you would suspect that the first thing the
military would want to do once a war starts is increase the number of
gay discharges to make sure that all the units are cohesive. But the
exact opposite thing happened in World War II -- I'm sorry,
Korea-Vietnam and then Gulf War I and -- that's not right --
Korea-Vietnam/World War II.

...

1:46
Q. What was the findings of the Flag & Officer report?

A. Well, they found that when commanders discovered that someone was
gay in their unit and had the choice between following the law and
discharging them and breaking up their team, or violating the law and
keeping their teams together, they chose the latter course, and that
that was actually better for cohesion and performance.

...

2:07
Q. For identification purposes, what is Exhibit 77?
A. It's my study of gays and lesbians in the British
military.

Q. Based on your research of the British military, what was
the impact of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the
British military?
A. It was a nonevent; there was no negative impact on cohesion, morale,
performance, or recruiting -- sorry, cohesion, morale, readiness or
recruiting. I believe that some other recruiters testified that their
jobs had actually become a little bit easier, but we didn't have
statistical data to back that up.

Q. Can you please turn to the following exhibit, Exhibit 78.
For identification purposes, what is Exhibit 78?
A. That is the study of the gays and lesbians in the Israel
defense forces.

Q. Based on your study of gays and lesbians in the Israel
defense force, what was the impact of allowing gays and lesbians to
serve openly in the Israel military?
A. There was no impact.

Q. Would you turn to the next exhibit, please.
For identification purposes, what is Exhibit 79?
A. That's the study of gays and lesbians in the Australian
military.

Q. Based on your research of the Australian military, what
was the impact of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in
the Australian military?
A. There was no impact.

Q. Finally, please turn to the next exhibit, Exhibit 80.
For identification purposes, what is Exhibit 80?
A. That's the study of gays and lesbians in the Canadian
military.

Q. Based on your research of the Canadian military, what was
the impact of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the
Canadian military?
A. There was no impact.

Q. Are you aware of any study finding that a country that
allows gays and lesbians to serve openly have experienced any
detriment to military performance as a result of allowing
homosexuals to serve openly?
A. No.

Heh. Quite a lot of other discussion regarding the experiences of

foreign militaries is provided, as well as more detail on the

concept of Unit Cohesion. As usual, read the transcript if

you want more :)

This concludes Volume 2.

Volume 3 continues with this witness, followed by cross examination

by defense.

That's it for day 3.

Day 3, Volume 1: Federal DADT Trial: Log Cabin Republicans vs. United States

See  http://catissad.blogspot.com/2010/07/federal-dadt-trial-log-cabin.html for a description of what this post is about.

Day 3, Volume 1


From: http://online.logcabin.org/day-3-vol-i.pdf

First witness: Patrick Hunnius, testifying regarding authentication of
the tweet by Admiral McMullen.

MR. WOODS - Plaintiff atty (LCR).
MR. GARDNER - Defense atty (US).

We apparently begin the day with Defense describing why Admiral

Mullen's tweet can not be admitted into evidence due to the fact

Admiral Mullen is not a witness in the case and cannot testify as to

it's authenticity. Patrick Hunnius received the tweet, hence his

unscheduled appearance here.

Admiral Mullen's tweet read as follows:

"Stand by what I said: Allowing homosexuals to serve openly is the
right thing to do. Comes down to integrity."

MR. WOODS: First of all, this issue, of course, came up only yesterday
when the Government refused to stipulate to the authenticity of
Admiral Mullen's tweet. It is our belief, Your Honor, and Mr. Hunnius
will confirm this, that that objection based on lack of authenticity
and foundation is a shockingly outrageous position by the
Government. There is no doubt that this is an authentic tweet from
Admiral Mullen. This is obstructionist tactics to the Nth
degree. Mr. Hunnius will testify -- Please don't stare at me, counsel.

THE COURT: Your comments are going to be directed
to the Court. In fact, you may be seated until Mr. Woods is
completed. And then, if necessary, I will hear from you
again.

MR. WOODS: Mr. Hunnius will testify, Your Honor,
that he received this tweet from Admiral Mullen's website or
from Admiral Mullen's Twitter account which happens to be
linked to the Joint Chiefs of Staff website and also linked
to the Department of Defense website.
When we realized that, Your Honor, we notified the
Government last evening that we would be calling Mr. Hunnius
so that they could not this morning claim they were
surprised. We offered last night, again, the opportunity for
the Government to avoid this testimony and this issue by
stipulating to the --
THE COURT: Please slow down.
MR. WOODS: Sorry. I'm a little upset.

MR. WOODS: We offered the Government the opportunity to stipulate to
the authenticity of Exhibit 330 so that Mr. Hunnius' testimony and
this Court's time would not be necessary this morning on this
issue. We did not receive a response.

So, Your Honor, I'd like to present Mr. Hunnius to testify for the
further foundation that apparently the Government insists on providing
for a tweet made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States of
America.


...

Thus begins an amazing argument from the defense trying to prevent

Adm. Mullen's 'tweet' from being admitted into evidence. Remarkable

really :)

The 'tweet' is finally admitted into evidence.

Next witness, no timestamps in this transcript.

Q. MS. MYERS. Plaintiff atty (LRC)

A. = THE WITNESS: Joseph Christopher Rocha,

[ I had heard of Mr. Rocha's story before in various blogs -
paraphrased. To read it in his own testimony though was quite the
eye-opener. So, here I will provide some introduction and then
snippets of his experiences.
]

...

Q. Were you a member of the United States Armed Forces?
A. Yes.
Q. Which branch were you a member of?
A. The Navy.
Q. How long did you serve in the Navy?
A. Approximately three and a half years.
Q. When did you enlist in the Navy?
A. On my birthday, the 27th of April of 2004.

...

Q. Why did you apply to the Naval Academy?
A. I wanted to a be a Marine Corps officer and the Naval
Academy commissions both.
Q. And why did you want to be a Marine Corps officer?
A. My family has a history of Marine Corps service, and
9/11 had happened during when I was deciding what I wanted to
do with my life, and military service and a military career
is what I had decided.

Q. What was it about 9/11 that made you decide to focus on
a military career?
A. Prior to 9/11 I had gone through several stages of what I wanted to
do with my life. I came from a background of violence and abuse, and I
wanted to find a way that I could help people. So I went through a
phase of wanting to be, say, a police officer or a
firefighter. Ultimately, I decided that in public service I could help
the most amount of people. Then 9/11 happened and I realized -- I had
a change of mind. To me I thought that military service and national
security were more important.

Q. Were you admitted to the Naval Academy at that time?
A. No.
Q. And was that why you enlisted?
A. Yes.

...

Q. When you entered boot camp, how long did you plan to stay in the military?
A. At least 20 years

...

Q. Once you arrived at the Naval Support Activity base, did
you express any interest in any other units?
A. Yes. The first thing I did was to find the on duty
K-9 handler and approach him and ask how I could go about
trying to become a handler.

Q. And why were you interested in becoming a handler?
A. It was the most interesting way to specialize in my job,
and I felt that explosive detection, second to EOD, was
probably the most important job that existed at that time
considering -- considering that most of our service members
were dying by IED and not by gunfire.

...

Q. Did you have to do anything else to qualify as kennel
support?
A. I had to take a written exam. And then once I passed my
interview with Petty Officer Valdivia, I had to do an oral
exam with Chief Toussaint. And then I had to present myself
to the kennel and the kennel would have a vote as to whether
they felt that I should be part of their community.

Q. And who was Chief Petty Officer Toussaint?
A. Chief Petty Officer Toussaint was the kennel master.
Q. And who was Chief Petty Officer Toussaint's direct
supervisor?
A. To my knowledge, it was Lieutenant McPherson, the
regional security officer.
Q. In your experience, is it uncommon for a chief petty
officer to be supervised by a regional commander?

A. To my understanding, there was an entire chain of
command that was missing between the chief of our unit and a
regional officer who oversaw the entire region, yes.
Q. And did you meet and pass the oral exam at that time
with Chief Petty Officer Toussaint?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you meet the other qualifications in order to
qualify for kennel support?
A. Yes.

...

Q. Once you officially became a kennel support member, what
was your goal for the next step in your career?
A. My immediate goal was to earn dog school.
Q. And can you explain what dog school is?
A. The proper term is Military Working Dog School and that
is where we are trained to be able to -- well, to be able to
be either an explosive detection handler, a narcotics
detection handler, and a patrol handler.

Q. At this time did you also have a larger goal in mind?
A. Yes. I continued to aspire to be accepted to the United
States Naval Academy, and I put in an application that year
as well.

Q. And at the time you joined the dog handling unit as a
kennel support member, did you also participate in other
activities with the Marines on the base outside of the dog
handling unit?
A. Yes.

Q. Can you explain what those activities were?
A. I first started working individually with Marines
working out, training with them, and then by gaining their
respect and by them learning who I was and what my intentions
were, which was hopefully to get to the Naval Academy, and more so to become a Marine Corps officer, I was then -- I
began to train in more formal settings with them, combat
training, earning their own requirements with permission of
their chain in command, their martial arts qualifications,
their combat, swimming qualifications, and being allowed to
go out into the desert and train with them.

Q. And you did this because you thought it would help your
admission to the Naval Academy?
A. I did it out of pure interest; I really enjoyed those
things. And I also did it because I did think that it would
look good on my application, and I also wanted to be in top
physical condition if I were to be accepted to the Academy.

Q. Were the other members of the dog handling unit in top
physical condition?
A. No.

Q. Once you became a kennel support member, did you
experience any harassment from other members of the dog
handling unit?
A. Yes.

Q. Can you please describe how the harassment began?
A. I was instructed that I would have to earn my place
amongst that community, that I would have to -- I guess
that's the best way of describing it. And harassment started
with being forced to sing and dance for Toussaint on video
camera. It went on to being ordered to report to the kennel and then being hosed down in full uniform in the middle of
the day by three different hoses.

Q. Would you describe being hosed in the middle of the day
in your uniform as hazing?
A. Yes.
Q. What is hazing?
A. I think that hazing is being given an order that is
unlawful in a fashion to either punish you or humiliate you.
Q. Does the Navy policy permit hazing?
A. No.
Q. Did you report the hazing incident of being hosed down
to Chief Petty Officer Toussaint?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. He was there.

...

Q. Were there other incidents that you would describe as
hazing?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you please give me an example?
A. For my birthday Chief Toussaint called me into his
office and asked me why I hadn't told him it was my birthday.

I'm not quite sure what my response was, but he then ordered
that I bend over one of the desks in his office and he then
called in every handler that was available to, what he said,
give me their best until he was satisfied.

Q. What do you mean by give them your best?
A. Hit me as hard as they could 19 times. And these were
grown men in their mid-30s.
Q. How did that incident make you feel?
A. Well, considering that it was ordered by my chief, it
made me feel helpless and it kind of established that
whatever Toussaint wanted was going to happen.

Q. Did the nature of the hazing begin to change after these
first few incidents?
A. Yes.

Q. In what way?
A. By this time after April it started to become common to
speak of me as being gay. And I found out that Chief
Toussaint was telling the handlers that I was gay, so it
wasn't just in the bottom ranks or within my own peers, but
it was coming from the top. And the hazing began to focus on
the idea that I was gay.

Q. Do you know how the idea that you were gay became spread
through the unit?
A. It was awfully simple. There was a culture of drinking, smoking,
gambling, and soliciting prostitution, and at that age I did none of
those. I was asked if I -- it got to the point where I was asked if I
would sleep with a hooker if they bought it for me that same evening,
and I said no. And that led to the absurdly simple question of, are
you a faggot. And I refused to answer. And I think that was enough for
them. That gave them the benefit of the doubt.

Q. Did you know at that time that you were a homosexual?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you know when you enlisted in the military -- I'm
sorry, in the Navy that you were homosexual?
A. Yes.

Q. Why did you enlist in the Navy knowing about "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell" and knowing that you were homosexual?
A. I had only just discovered that I was gay and I had no
intentions of having a relationship any time soon. And my
desire to serve was far more important to me than my being
gay. And more so, I really did think that the policy would
protect me, and I thought that it was as simple as if I never
told anyone I was gay I could be as successful in my career
as any other service member.

Q. So back to the base in Bahrain, what did you do when you
were accused of being homosexual by the members of the other
dog handling unit?
A. I simply refused to answer them.
Q. Why did you refuse to answer?
A. I had too much honor to say that I was straight and I wasn't, and I
knew that it was against the law to say that I was.


...

After describing other various incidents of harassment

Q. Did you report this incident to anyone?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because this specific incident were first and second
classes. They were the senior handlers in the kennel. And I
knew at this point that not only had Toussaint set the
example but that Toussaint knew what his senior handlers were
doing.

...

Q. Tell me about the worst hazing you experienced relating
to your sexual orientation.
A. The worst hazing I experienced was during the training
scenario at the Department of Defense Dependent School.

Q. And why were you going to the Department of Defense
School?
A. During the summer the Department of Defense Dependent School was a
prime location to train the dogs because of the environments, the many
rooms, and the many different scenarios that we could build there.

Q. What do you mean -- when you say different scenarios
what do you mean? What was a typical training exercise for
the dogs there?
A. A typical training exercise would be that there was, say, a bomb
threat. And the handler would be given a general location and the
handler would then be examined as he performed as though it were real
life. Other scenarios, we would also have to train the dog not only in
detection but also in patrol. So say a scenario would be created where
there was domestic violence in a room that had been reported or maybe
reports of insurgents in the building.

Q. How many dogs did you bring to the training site that
day?
A. I would estimate that there was at least a dozen dogs.
Any dog that was available would have been there.

Q. What happened next?
A. I entered the building with Chief Toussaint and with
another kennel support, Seaman Martinez. And Chief Toussaint
would be the person who would decide what the scenario would
be.

And this day he decided that the scenario would be of me pretending to
perform oral sex on Seaman Martinez. And he instructed how he wanted
it to happen. He had us pull a sofa over and away from the door. He
instructed Seaman Martinez to sit down facing away from the door, to
spread his legs.

He instructed me to get on my knees and position myself in front of
Seaman Martinez's crotch. And as each handler came through, I was
instructed to pretend to perform oral sex on this service member. I
was coached each time as to how to be more gay and more queer.

I was ordered to add hand gestures suggesting wiping semen off of my
face.

And when the handlers came in, I was instructed to jump up and be
queenie and pretend as though we were having a lover's quarrel and
just -- I mean, he coached this to great detail.

Q. How did this incident of harassment make you feel?
A. I don't know that I've ever quite recovered from that. It was
dehumanizing. I felt like an animal. And I simply could not understand
why it was happening.

Q. Did you report this incident?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. At this point I was approximately one month from earning
dog school, and at this point I had gone through so much
harassment and so much hazing and so much abuse that I had to
have something to prove that it was all worth it. And dog
school was that something. I had to get something out of
this.
 
...

Plaintiff wants to introduce a performance review of the witness into the record. Defense objects. After some back and forth, the performance review is admitted as evidence.

Q. Can you please turn to the second page. And whose
signature is on this report?
A. Petty Officer Valdivia.
Q. Are there any other signatures on this report?
A. Yes, Chief Toussaint.
Q. Can you please read the comments on performance section
for the Court?

A. Master-At-Arms Seaman Rocha is a dedicated, extremely
reliable performer who approaches every task with enthusiasm.
Highly motivated. Achieved JQR Level 1 qualifications in
less than 30 days. Volunteered 25 off-duty hours at the
kennel learning the basic knowledge, procedures, and
importance of kennel support duties. His interest and
initiative in the MWD program led to his being hand-selected
for the position as kennel support. Demonstrated
professional initiative while off duty by completing six
college credit units, and is currently enrolled in six
college credit units at Grantham University. Mission
oriented. Meticulously maintained all vital military working
dog --

Q. Mr. Rocha.
A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Can you just read a little bit more slowly, please.
A. I'm very sorry.

Meticulously maintained all vital MWD probably
cause, training and archive folders to maintain 100 percent
proficiency. Dependable and reliable. Responsible for maintaining the
health and welfare of 20 military working dogs stationed at NSA
Bahrain, in addition to transcient MWD's. Ensures the MWD food and
stool charts are accurate and maintains proper medications for each
MWD. Assisted 12 MWD teams with training, vehicle and water craft
inspections, and perimeter patrols, while ensuring the safety of NSA
personnel and visiting ships. Master-At-Arms Seaman Rocha is a proven
performer. He is highly recommended for advancement.


...

Okay, his story does not stop here (it gets worse), but I run the

risk of completely cut/pasting the entire transcript here. Read it

yourself - Of course, I strongly encourage it.

Court is adjourned for recess. The next post (and respective volume of

testimony) takes place afterwards, with this same witness continuing

his testimony.

Day 2, Volume 3: Federal DADT Trial: Log Cabin Republicans vs. United States

See  http://catissad.blogspot.com/2010/07/federal-dadt-trial-log-cabin.html for a description of what this post is about.

Note: This transcript was clearly done by someone else as the format
is a little different (and harder to deal with). There may be some
(more :) formatting errors, sorry. There are also no apparent
timestamps in this volume. This was the last volume of day 2.

From: http://online.logcabin.org/day-2-vol-iii.pdf


MR. SIMPSON, Defense atty.

Q. = Ms. Feldman, plaintiff atty.

A. = ELIZABETH HILLMAN, Ph.D., PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS, SWORN
Currently a professor of law, University of California
Hastings College of law. [Served in the USAF, a space
operations officer and as a strategic analyst in Denver,
later posted to Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Base in Colorado Springs
as an orbital analyst related to the Strategic Defense Initiative.]

Testimony regarding her Masters thesis...

Q. And did any part of your master's thesis relate to the issue of
gays and lesbians in the military?
A. It did.
Q. How did it relate to gays and lesbians in the military?
A. One of the primary concerns by the -- the officers and
civilians who were deciding about women's military uniforms
was making sure women did not appear too mannish, that they
look like men in uniform. And this was -- this was
reflected in the minutes of the boards that met and the
committees and also in the designers' notes as they did
this. And it was -- it was very difficult for the designers
to come up with acceptably feminine uniforms within the
confines of a -- of the -- the functional requirements of
those uniforms.

So what I wrote about in part was how the fear of women looking like
men, which is very closely related to the fear of women being
lesbians, shaped the design of women's military uniforms.

...

Q. How long were you employed at the Air Force Academy?
A. About two years.
Q. Why did you decide to leave the Air Force Academy?
A. Because I realized I was a lesbian and that I couldn't
stay in the Air Force and still maintain the standards of
professionalism that I felt obliged to maintain.
Q. And what do mean by that, you felt that you couldn't
maintain the standards of professionalism?
A. Every day when I walked past the elevator in -- on the
sixth floor of the building where my office was, I saw a
sign that said "Academy core values: Integrity first,
service before self, excellence in all we do." And I felt that I
couldn't be -- I couldn't maintain those values and not -- not be open
about my sexual orientation.

Q. Do you feel that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" prevented you
from remaining a teacher at the Air Force Academy?

MR. SIMPSON: Objection, your Honor. Leading.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.



...

After testimony certifying her an expert in military law and justice.

Q. Can you describe the role of women in the U.S. military
following the end of the draft and moving into the
all-voluntary force?
A. Women rescued the all-volunteer force. Their quality
indicators were higher than the men who enlisted in those
first years without a draft. Women gradually moved into an
increasing number of military occupations, and they also
gradually moved up the promotion chain and were appointed
and earned higher levels of military service and control.
The restriction on women's ability to command men was
lifted, and the rules regarding women not being permitted in
certain jobs were lifted, especially in the 1990s.

...

Q. Professor Hillman, based on your research, how has
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" impacted women in the military?

A. Much more than it has impacted men in the military.
The reason for that is what we just talked about. The
military is a non-traditional career choice for women, and
the appearance of women in military uniform is more
masculine than the appearance of women in many other
professions. For women to join a nontraditional masculine
profession, they are automatically suspect to accusations
that they don't like men, that they wish to be men, that
they are, in fact, lesbians. So women are vulnerable to
charges of lesbianism in a way that men in the military are
not.

Q. And have you studied the percentage of women that have
been discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?

A. Yes.
Q. What percentage of women are discharged from the
military compared to the percentage of total women in the
military?
A. It's two to three times as high as the men who are
discharged. In other words, women are 15 percent of the
total force. Women are, perhaps, 30 percent of the
discharges. But I will say those discharge figures don't
represent the full impact, the disproportionate impact, of
that policy on service women. Because in many ways the
harassment and derision that is associated with accusations
of lesbianism doesn't show up in the actual discharge
figures for the policy itself.

...

Q. You mentioned "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" before. Do you
believe that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" furthers the incident
of sexual harassment against women in the military?

A. Yes.
Q. Why do you believe that's the case?
A. Because it makes it more difficult for women to rebuff
sexual advances of men. Because it makes lesbian-baiting
possible because of the ban on women's open service by women
who might be lesbians and because it creates a hierarchy of
sexual orientation that clearly privileges heterosexuality
over homosexuality.

Q. Can you describe or explain for the court what
lesbian-baiting is?
A. When a women is accused of being a lesbian and is
therefore subject to discharge and censure under the policy.
Q. And you talked about a hierarchy of sexual orientation.
Can you explain what you meant by that?
A. Well, if a wom[a]n didn't have to fear being accused of
being homosexual, then there wouldn't be this potential for
harassment and abuse within the confines of a military
workplace.

...

Q. And why does "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" disproportionately
impact African-American women?

A. That answer is not extant in the literature. But the scholars who
study this surmise that it is because African-American women in many
different workplaces who are in positions of authority are more likely
to be challenged, and they are more likely to be challenged sexually,
in particular. So they are in an even more vulnerable position than
non-African-American female service members.

Followed by cross examination by defense (US Government)

Q. = MR. SIMPSON, defense atty
A. = ELIZABETH HILLMAN, Ph.D., PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS, SWORN


...



Q. Now, I believe you testified regarding "lesbian
baiting."
Are you familiar, Professor, with the hearings
before Congress that occurred before "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
was enacted?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you aware that Judith Stiehm provided testimony
regarding this phenomenon that you've called lesbian
baiting?
A. Yes. And no one listened to her.

Q. Nevertheless, that testimony is included within the legislative
record; correct?
A. Yes. A voice in the wilderness. [Emphasis added]

...

Q. Professor, are you aware that the Department of Defense
has recently issued new regulations regarding "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell"?
A. Yes.
Q. Those regulations -- is it true, that those regulations
limit what constitutes credible evidence of homosexual
conduct?
A. Yes.
Q. Those regulations -- is it true, that those regulations
limit what constitutes credible evidence of homosexual
conduct?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you agree that those regulations make more
difficult the use of lesbian baiting to discharge a female
service member?
A. They might, yes.
Q. Would you agree, Professor, that most discharges under
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" result from a statement?
A. Yes.

Q. Maybe I should go back a little bit on that. This
charge under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" fall either within one
caused by a statement or one caused by conduct, and act;
correct?
A. Yes, although there is a very blurred distinction
between statement and conduct. I do know that the numbers
of discharges that the government attributes to statements
of sexual orientation accounts for the lion's share of
discharges under the policy.
Q. Do you know what that percentage is?
A. I believe it's upwards of three-quarters.
Q. That are attributable to statements?
A. Yes.

Really?! Statements?, would be nice to know the breakdown

between self-statements and 3rd party statements.

What follows was lots of evidence related arguments, time discussions, etc. Court adjourned

at 3:54 p.m