Current Actions
The
Latest Court Transcript
In
The Virginia Driving Case
|
Leadership Biographies |
|
Login |
Recent Actions
of Interest
McDonald
v. Alabama
Department
of
Public
Safety
Links of Interest
About the Coins Being Sold To Raise Funds
Phone: (757) 850-1245
ACLS
P.O. Box 4096
Hampton, Virginia
23664-0096
Web
Master
Web Design by
David Alan Carmichael
Oct. 4, 2004 - Update
September 29, 2004 Joint Status Report -
- The Court has ruled that the Plaintiff has fulfilled his burden of proof that his discharge was indeed involuntary, contrary to the opposite claim made on the discharge papers. The Court also ruled that the Plaintiff (Carmichael) in this situation had a firm right to continue service at least until January, 1999. The remaining issue regarding the U.S. motion for dismissal is, "whether the Navy can show that it would have taken the same action after following proper procedures". Carmichael v. United States, 298 F3d. 1367 (Fed Cir. Aug. 12, 2002). .
Now we are getting somewhere...
-
The United
States (Defendant) wants to submit a motion for summary judgment on the
record (as supplemented by depositions).
-
Carmichael
(Plaintiff) moves, in-turn, to file a cross motion for summary judgment
on the record (as supplemented by all evidence discovered subsequent to
the Navy creating the record). The Plaintiff reserves the right
to
a trial on the record if there remains any disputed facts.
- The
parties
agree on of timeline for the United States to file its summary judgment
motion by Nov. 30th, the Plaintiff will file a response and a cross
motion
for summary judgment by January 15th, the United States will reply and
respond by February 28th, and the Plaintiff's reply will come by March
30, 2005. We won't see an oral argument until April 2005 at the
soonest.
This is all still contingent of the Court agreeing to the Joint Status
Report proposals.
MORE INTRIGUE - What is the United States up to?
At the beginning of discovery, the Plaintiff asked for all cases of religious accommodation requests by Navy personnel from the time the SECNAVINST 1730.8 Accommodation of Religious Practices instruction was published in 1988, through the time Carmichael was discharged. The United States provided one example. We asked for items that related to paragraph 9. of the instruction. The United States example was from paragraph 8.
Fortunately, we found a case that nearly parallels our case, and it happened to be occurring at the same time. We asked the United States to provide the documents regarding a religious accommodation request to waive the DNA submission requirement. We gave them the service member's name and other military personnel identification. This is the response of the United States:
"we have not been able to find anything"
Somehow, after this guy's case went through Administrative Separation Board processing, Board for Correction of Naval Records processing, Inspector General Investigation processing, scrutiny all the way up to the Secretary of Defense, and inspired an entire new section as a revision to SECNAVINST 1730.8 (Now 1730.8A), the Navy "ha(s) not been able to find anything."
We
continue to
see how vital it is that we hold our magistrate servant accountable to
the law.
In the King's service,
David
Alan
Carmichael