A docket entry today in the case of Martin v. NCIS, 3:10-cv-01879-WQH -AJB, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, sets 9 November as the deadline for the defendants’ answer.

We previously discussed the case here.  An ACLU press release explains:

A former Marine and federal contract investigator is challenging the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) for retaliating against her because she is an effective defense investigator for Marines and sailors in courts-martial and other proceedings.

Carolyn Martin, who served in the Marine Corps for fourteen years in intelligence and administrative capacities, was seized for hours without justification, harassed at her home, and falsely “charged” with a federal felony. A staff judge advocate has unlawfully barred her from the courtroom and defense counsel offices at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot.

. . . .

The San Diego ACLU is suing on Martin’s behalf, claiming that the NCIS retaliated against her for First Amendment-protected speech, including engaging in factual investigation and analysis, interviewing clients and witnesses, communicating her findings to her clients and defense attorneys, testifying in proceedings, and related activities, and for interfering with her access to court proceedings. The NCIS is also being charged with violating the Fourth Amendment by its unreasonable seizure, and with Fifth Amendment violations for unreasonably interfering with her ability to obtain employment. Moreover, the order barring Martin from the MCRD courtroom violates the First Amendment.

The complaint filed on Ms. Martin’s behalf is available here.  Her motion for preliminary injunction is available here.  The brief in support is available here.

5 Responses to “Deadline set for defendants’ answer in Martin v. NCIS”

  1. Anonymous says:

    “effective defense investigator”

    One of her clients ignored his lawyer’s advice to take a 3 year deal and he ended up getting 18 years. I can only wonder if that was partly her doing.

  2. SueDB says:


  3. Anonymous says:

    I think Anon 0827 is saying that people who actually worked cases she was involved in don’t have a very high opinion of her ability and ethics…which is one reason she was “seized” and “obstructed,” to use her words. The technical term is “debarred.”

  4. Not Hap Ames says:

    Where’s Hap Ames?

  5. fwb says:

    Anonymous makes 2 totally unsubstantiated smears against Martin.
    How long is the average timespan for CAAFlog participents to put 2 plus 2 together, and realize the likelyhood her antagonist/stalker on base is the same in cyberspace?
    Who on the base considers himself so insulated by power that he can ignore any threat of supoena?
    How long will this NCIS/SS taint on the base take to scrub off?
    Look how long Chicago has been emblematic of gangland opression.
    Some stains never go away.