This minute order was posted to the Martin v. NCIS docket this afternoon:

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William Q. Hayes: Motion Hearing held on 11/1/2010 re 6 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Carolyn Martin. Evidentiary Hearing set for 11/9/2010 09:30 AM in Courtroom 04 before Judge William Q. Hayes.(Court Reporter Mauralee Ramirez).(Plaintiff Attorney Sean Connor Riordan and John David Blair-Loy). (Defendant Attorney Beth Clukey and Brant Levine).(sxd) (Entered: 11/01/2010)

24 Responses to “Martin v. NCIS evidentiary hearing set for 9 November”

  1. Anon says:

    I guess this retarded case has replaced Lakin as the caaflog case of the moment

  2. John O'Connor says:

    Oh, I yeard for the return of the “thumbs up” option (not really, but sort of).

  3. John O'Connor says:

    I also “yearn” for it.

  4. huh says:

    NO YOUR RETRADED

  5. Anon says:

    Is that what happened to Randy Moss? Retraded?

  6. Norbrook says:

    The correct term is “mentally challenged.” :P

  7. Anonymous says:

    I wonder what the burden/standard of review is. Does the CG at MCRD get any deference in what is executive branch/military CO decision regarding who can enter an installation, etc?

  8. John O'Connor says:

    I would imagine he would get considerable deference under Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828 (1976). That case isn’t on all fours with this one, but it seems like the likely starting point for the analysis.

  9. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Of course, in this case, Ms. Martin hasn’t been prohibited from entering the installation. She’s allowed to enter the installation — it’s only the Law Center that she can’t enter unless she has a purpose that falls within a designated exception. Because the Law Center houses the base’s courtroom, this prevents her from attending presumptively public court-martial proceedings at which she isn’t a witness. It seems likely that a U.S. district court judge will provide less deference in this situation that he or she would to a blanket exclusion from a base.

  10. John O'Connor says:

    “Because the Law Center houses the base’s courtroom, this prevents her from attending presumptively public court-martial proceedings at which she isn’t a witness. It seems likely that a U.S. district court judge will provide less deference in this situation that he or she would to a blanket exclusion from a base.”

    ————–

    I’m not sure why this follows. If she were barred from the entire installation, wouldn’t it be true that “because the [installation] houses the base’s courtroom, this prevents her from attending presumptively public court-martial proceedings at which she isn’t a witness.”

    Now if you’re argument is that the more narrow restriction seems pretextual, that’s a different argument, and if it’s pretext, I suppose the government would lose whether deference is appropriate or not. But I don’t really see why a targeted restriction, one that is limited to the area where the commander thinks the danger of mischief is greatest, woukld be viewed less deferentially than a blanket bar from the base, assuming both orders were made in good faith.

  11. Dew_Process says:

    JO’C – I agree on the pretextual issue completely. But, if one can make any sense out of the pleadings, it sort of seems [at least to me] that is what she’s claiming – the whole issue against her is pretextual.

    I mean, if they can work out “media” arrangements for GTMO, surely they can figure out how to protect their work product at the MCRD Law Center.

  12. Dwight Sullivan says:

    U.S. district court judges will be highly deferential to military commanders’ decisions about whom to allow on their bases and whom to exclude because those decisions involve a wide array of security considerations about which federal judges know little and know that they know little. On the other hand, a federal judge will likely feel that he or she is better placed to make assessments about barring someone under some circumstances from a Law Center that houses a courtroom. It’s possible that U.S. magistrate judges even sit in that courtroom sometimes — I know that’s true of some base courtrooms, though I don’t know whether it’s true of MCRD San Diego’s. When dealing with a partial ban from a Law Center building, a federal judge will likely be less deferential than he or she would be to a blanket ban from a base, which implicates far more wide-ranging concerns.

  13. Frank Marsh says:

    I know Carol Martin. I worked with Carol Martin. I served with Carol Martin. She was and is the hardest working and most dedicated Marine I have ever known. Her integrity is unimpeachable. She is a strong and confident woman who intimidates weak incompetent men who have gotten by
    or succeeded by bullying others. Whether in the “war room” or the “court room” I can think of no better person I would want to fight for me more than her.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Okay Lloyd Bentsen. And I beg to differ.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Frank, are you really Martin’s attorney????? Why did she get out at 14 years? Why did she carry a business card that listed the name of an investigative association when she was the only member of it? Was she always licensed with the state of California when she was working as an investigator? Why would she flash her government background investigator’s credential to get on base when she was working as a defense investigator? Why would she flash that same credential to get into unit spaces and barracks when she was working as a defense investigator?

  16. Socrates says:

    Frank Marsh, she clearly DOES intimidate “weak incompetent men,” forcing them to make anonymous ad hominem attacks. Plus, multiple question marks (????) is the sign of a real zinger of a question. Anon, please STOP. Your attacks (disguised as questions) are too powerful!

  17. Randy Marsh says:

    I love Carol Martin as much as Sharon.

  18. Frank Marsh says:

    Dear Anonymous,

    Thank you for the compliment however; I am no lawyer though I have trained a few Assistant U.S. Attorneys and a couple of Federal Judges. I am a former USMC Intel Officer. I left the USMC after 10 years of honorable service because I like others went on to other challenges like the DEA. I have spent many years in the law enforcement and Intel world teaching Special Agents, Police Officers and Intel Analysts. It is with this knowledge that I can say your communication deeply concerns me.

    Your multiple posts clearly reveal your masculinity was directly threatened by Carol Martin’s professionalism. The level and intensity of your sporadic attacks indicate your path has crossed more than once with Ms. Martin. I would imagine knowing what I know of her skills and the obsessive like nature of your attacks that she bested you in some professional manner where she unmasked some sort of incompetence on your part. From your words I can see you are quick to anger, quick to insult and not in control of your emotions. This saddens me as you clearly have some intellect however you use it to search for reasons to blame others for the shortfalls in your life or cases.

    Anonymous I do not know you. I imagine this was your intention to omit your name. You are hiding behind the “Anonymous” label where you feel safe to launch your cyber bulling and defamation. You mock, ridicule, or accuse others without logic or sound evidence. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. This makes me believe that this is not the first time you have hidden behind something, whether it was a uniform, a title, or a badge… nor do I suspect that it will it be your last.

    This concerns me on multiple levels. If you serve in some military capacity I imagine that you have used your perceived authority not to lead but to dominate others. If you serve in some legal capacity I can only imagine the number of men and women whose lives you have destroyed. You falsely believe your job is about winning and not finding the truth. In this quest to win, I imagine you are a poor loser who will not stop until you have hurt those who have “beaten” you. Towards this end you launch loud visceral attacks against any and all.

    A basic premise of psychology and deception detection is “he who shouts loudest is usually the one guilty of said behavior.” As I review these posts on this site your defensive and angry communication stands out like a windmill on the open plain. In my research I have found those in prison and those with personality disorders often spend a lifetime blaming others for their mistakes. It is with a heavy heart that I know no words of mine or any other comments by the distinguished list of contributors to this site will have any affect on you but to anger you as you see any disagreement as a direct attack upon your identity. Even now, you are searching for ways to counter attack these comments rather than learn from them.

    Based on my analysis of your communication behavior and my confidence in the conduct and behavior in Carol Martin, I trust the court will find in her favor and find your behavior was criminal. It is also based on your behavior that no matter what the court finds I believe you will still try to find ways to hurt a former female Marine who had the nerve to stand up to you. I pray for you.

  19. Weirick says:

    Anon 1106 –

    Assuming arguendo that the answers are – Got out of Marine Corps with a BCD; I’m the only member of the organization; I don’t have a valid CA license; I used my credentials to access these areas – the most effective way to present this to the MJ and member is through “the crucible of cross-examination.”

    Baring the investigator from the courtroom does not seem to be the wisest means of handling the issue. Why not allow her to testify and conduct the above cross-examination? That being said, there may be other reasons the CG barred Martin. This will be fleshed out at the 9NOV10 hearing.

    Note: I have no personal knowledge regarding the answers to any of the above questions; these were just used as illustrations. Also, is this the first case of an organization involved in Military Justice with limited membership?

  20. cgittins says:

    People who hide behind anonymity are, by definition, cowards. If you have the guts to say it, say it ON THE RECORD and stand behind it. My $.02

  21. Anonymous says:

    I guess I struck a nerve, Frank. Boo-hoo.

  22. Not a zombie says:

    Now, now. It appears you are a little too close to Ms. Martin to add any logical discussion to this case. Let the learned discuss it.

  23. Anonymous says:

    BTW. Mr. Gittens/Mr. Marsh, what makes you guys any less of a coward just because you placed your name on your posts? You are calling me a coward from the safety of sitting behind your computer screen. What a joke. You guys are cowards yourselves, although you are masters of irony. In addition, there are many valid reasons people do not place their names on posts, one of which is not wanting their names to appear in some bs affidavit years from now where a DC whines about a post they made on a blog at some point.

  24. John O'Connor says:

    The issue of ananymous posting arises here often, and here’s my two cents:

    I don’t necessarily agree that all anonymous posters are “cowards.” I only post here in my own name, and anywhere else I post my handle is some variation of my name so that it’s obvious who I am. That said, I accept that the specialized and insular nature of this blog community does require some availability of anonymous posting (though my strong preference is for pseudonymous posters instead).

    When an anonymous poster makes a legal or logical argument, I give it pretty much the same weight as I would if the poster used his/her name. In those posts, it’s the idea that matters, not so much the identity of the poster. (the one exception is the “No Man” rule, by which I begin with the assumption that the idea is mindless ;-))

    By contrast, when the post makes positive or negative remarks about a person, such as a judge, counsel, or litigant, I basically ignore the post because the value of those sorts of posts really depends on the identity of the poster, and I don’t have that information. Of course, the same is true when the poster uses his or her name but I don’t know the person. I give a little more credence to that post because the poster associated his/her name with it, but not much more. Ironically, those are the types of posts when anonymous posting is more necessary because of potential adverse career implications, but I ignore them just the same because I can’t assess the sincerity/judgment of the poster.