The United States today filed this notice of withdrawal of its previous motion to file under seal in Martin v. NCIS, No. 3:10-cv-01879-WQH-AJB.  The notice doesn’t explain why the United States changed its mind concerning sealing the exhibits.

Today the United States also posted its previous filings on PACER.

Here’s a link to the United States’ opposition to the preliminary injunction along with the supporting exhibits.

The United States takes the position that Ms. Martin isn’t per se barred from the MCRD courtroom.  The United States’ opposition states:  “Plaintiff is still permitted to testify in any case in which her testimony is needed and to attend any courtroom proceeding in which her presence is needed.”  A footnote explains:  “This point was clarified during discussions prior to the filing of this opposition, and the United States has offered to stipulate to this fact.”

MCRD SJA LtCol Sean Sullivan states in a declaration (part of Exhibit A here):

11.  Based upon the information received from the federal criminal investigative authorities relating to Ms. Martin’s alleged witness tampering and attempted obstruction of justice, and given the confidential investigatory files maintained at the Law Center, the Acting Commanding General decided to limit Ms. Martin’s access to the Law Center until the conclusion of the criminal investigations.

12.  Specifically, the Acting Commanding General determined that Ms. Martin shall be debarred from the Law Center unless I approve otherwise.  Ms. Martin is not debarred from entire MCRD installation, but only the building 12 Law Center with the exceptions noted in paragraph 13.

13.  I have never, nor do I intend on taking any action to prevent Ms. Martin from accessing any courtroom located on the 2nd deck of the Law Center should she be called to testify as a witness by a party in any judicial proceeding.  Also, Ms. Martin will not be prevented from accessing any courtroom at the Law Center for any judicial proceeding, should defense counsel request her presence and the military judge approves said request.

12 Responses to “The United States reveals its Martin v. NCIS filings”

  1. WarLawyer says:

    Did they realy reveal her client’s name and SSN?

  2. ksf says:

    What a bunch of crap! The stuff that Ms. Martin said to that witness is absolutely 100% true. I say it to my clients all the time because it is true. The Government and investigators constantly attempt to bully witnesses around. In fact, I have a witness who the Government has titled with obstruction and witness tampering–attempt to bully. I had a client who was wrongfully convicted of rape because the Gov’t’s star witness admitted that he “lied to get his deal” on the way back to confinement. New Trial result? Not guilty.

    And it is amazing how the SJA backtracked. I read that letter to mean if you step one foot on Marine Air Base Beufort SC, you will be arrested immediately. Are they going to move the courtroom off post, or is Ms. Martin just supposed to take her chances and come on post to testify?

    And, the whole point of her being barred from base is because she told the truth about NCIS and CID? I hope she gets some of my tax dollars in a huge verdict. Perhaps, this time the Court will “send a message to the Government” and SJA’s will think twice before obstructing justice in the manner this guy has. The Commandant should remove him from his position immediately.

    And WarLawyer’s correct, the US attorney ought to know better than publish the accused’s SSN. To bad COL Parrish isn’t the Federal Judge on this case to give the US Attorney a tongue lashing.

    ksf

  3. Facts are important says:

    KSF, in your righteous indignation, you ignored a key fact. The debarment letter you are so upset about pertains to MCAS Beaufort. In the case at bar, the Plaintiff was debarred from the legal office at MCRD San Diego. The Beaufort debarment letter was an exhibit in support of the Government’s rationale for limiting her access to the MCRD San Diego legal office, and appears to be only one of many reasons why they took the action in question.

  4. ksf says:

    I have amended the statements above to more accurately reflect the reality of this case:

    11. Based upon the information received from the federal criminal investigative authorities THAT MS. MARTIN WAS GATHERING EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE THAT COUNTERED OUR OBJECTIVE OF GETTING A CONVICTION, the Acting Commanding General decided to limit Ms. Martin’s access to the Law Center until the conclusion of the criminal investigations.
    12. WHILE NOTHING IN MY LETTER INDICATES THIS, specifically, the Acting Commanding General determined that Ms. Martin shall be debarred from the Law Center unless I approve otherwise. Ms. Martin is not debarred from entire MCRD installation, but only the building 12 Law Center with the exceptions noted in paragraph 13.
    13. DESPITE THE THREATS CONTAINED IN MY LETTER TO SUBJECT MS. MARTIN TO APPREHENSION AND DETENTION AWAITING TRANSFER TO FEDERAL MARSHALS IF SHE STEPS ONE FOOT UPON MY MARINE BASE, I have never, nor do I intend on taking any action to prevent Ms. Martin from accessing any courtroom located on the 2nd deck of the Law Center should she be called to testify as a witness by a party in any judicial proceeding, PROVIDED SHE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUDACITY TO DRIVE THROUGH THE GATE, BUT RATHER, SHE PARACHUTES ONTO THE TOP DECK OF THE LAW CENTER. Also, Ms. Martin will not be prevented from accessing any courtroom at the Law Center for any judicial proceeding, should defense counsel request her presence and the military judge approves said request.

    I can’t believe an SJA would sign

  5. ksf says:

    Facts are important,

    Could you forward me a copy of the bar letter from MCRD San Diego, then? My righteous indignation still applies with regards to the air station. I read the transcripts from the hearing and it simply does not rise to the level of barring someone from the base. If that is the best evidence the Government has, then they need to settle this case quickly. Talking smack about NCIS and CID is not witness tampering. I’ve heard Commanders who have been selected to sit on panels and Trial Counsel say far worse about Trial Defense Service and Defense Attorneys. Do they get barred for witness tampering? I think not.

  6. W says:

    OK – I’ll bite.

    1. See 18 USC 1512(b)(3). I note that Ms. Martin’s opinion was not requested by the witness. So why would she, a member of the defense team, be telling the witness her opinion on how government agents (from all associated agencies) are bullies and that every person she knows who speaks with them suffers as a result? Unless it were to disuade the witness from speaking to law enforcement on a matter under investigation. And despite her cute caveat “I can’t tell you what to do but…” that is, in my opinion, credible evidence that she was attempting to hinder the communication of relevant information. With no apparent justification or excuse.

    2. I couldn’t disagree more with your sweeping assertions related to NCIS. Sure, there are some bad apples in every organization. But you’re general characterization of them all as devious or bullies is exactly the same mistake Ms. Martin made. Because, quite honestly, they are not – which is exactly the experience the witness in the transcript relates. She entered that interview dreading it based upon Ms. Martin’s alleged statements, and came away struck by how off base those statements were.

  7. John O'Connor says:

    Greer v. Spock

  8. Bridget says:

    JO’C: as much as I hate to disagree with your not so veiled reference:-) this case seem distinguishable from Greer v. Spock. I am not going to pretend any special knowledge of this case, and it will play out. But, USMC SJA’s have been known-once or twice to step outside the lines of propriety. US v Lewis? All said, as I can see MCRD from my office window I will have some interest in how this case plays out. It is of local interest.

  9. John O'Connor says:

    I was sort of being flip with my answer. This case, of course, is not a regulation of general application. But with the terms of the order narrowed so that the investiogator can appear in court, I’m not sure it’s outside a commander’s prerogative to say I have concerns about you having free run of my base in light of what’s been alleged elsewhere. Certainly could turn out differently.

  10. Anonymous says:

    I agree with the commander’s prerogative argument and think her lawsuit is in trouble . . . as is her security clearance. Frankly, think her clients would have the best claim if the commander’s order truly interferes with their defense’s investigation.

  11. ksf says:

    I see your point regarding the client having a better case of UCI or obstruction of the Defense’s investigation. And, the commander’s perogative argument is beginning to make sense, too. However, I think the illegal detention and harrassment part of her lawsuit still has some juice.

  12. Anonymous says:

    All the stuff from Miramar is accurate. She was headed in this direction years ago. The facts alluded to in the Beaufort letter and the allegations from MCRD San Diego are both familiar. Holding herself out as a licensed investigator at a time when she was not, manipulating witnesses, and basically not conducting herself with the requisiste candor. The way it was handled in those cases was to let her hang herself and then crush her on the stand.