Tag Archives: jeremy hall

MRFF Files New DoD Lawsuit

Michael Weinstein’s Military Religious Freedom Foundation has asked for two delays in the required timeline to file a response to the DoJ’s motion to dismiss the MRFF’s ongoing lawsuit.  Reasons for the requests included the “number of pages” of supporting material in the DoJ motion, and the requests have been unopposed by the DoJ.

It appears, though, that the law firm representing the MRFF actually had other work keeping them busy: they have now filed a second lawsuit (text).  Like the first, it takes a single “issue” (in this case, the requirement that soldiers attend events in which sectarian prayers are delivered) and lumps in every possible accusation against religion in the military.  Much of the lawsuit is verbatim from other filings.

For example, it once again includes unspecified accusations against Officers’ Christian Fellowship.  It also includes references to the Ft Wood “Free Day Away,” which, as noted, has already been investigated by the Inspector General and found to be in compliance with regulations.  It also still includes complaints about the 523rd Fighter Squadron, which no longer exists, and hasn’t for some time.

Unlike the first lawsuit, it does say that the primary plaintiff, Specialist Dustin Chalker, sought permission Read more

Army Soldier Attempts IG Complaint

According to a Kansas paper, Army Specialist Jeremy Hall (who is currently suing the Defense Department for “religious proselytizing”), was rebuffed in a visit to the IG to complain about “violations of his religious freedoms.”  Weinstein said this “undermines” the DoJ’s move to dismiss, which cited Hall’s failure to use the in-place grievance systems.

According to the article, the visit occurred “earlier this month.”  That would make it appear to be a response to the DoJ motion, which was filed last month, and possibly an attempt to generate content for Hall’s response to the motion, which is due next month.  In addition, Weinstein (a former JAG) appears not to see a conflict of interest with the Army conducting an internal investigation about charges which are currently involved in, or related to, an ongoing federal lawsuit in which it is essentially a defendant.

According to the article, Weinstein also plans to bring up the fact that someone posted a mock Soldier’s creed (that ridiculed soldiers with medical duty waivers) in Hall’s platoon area.  The article lists a previously unknown medical restriction for Hall.  How Weinstein plans to integrate the faux creed about physical fitness into a lawsuit about religion is unclear. The sarcastic modification of military mantras is a fairly common brand of critical cynicism in the military, and is limited neither to the Army’s creed nor physical conditions.

CNN Updates Atheist Lawsuit

CNN’s AC360 blog updates yesterday’s story with information on the government’s move to dismiss the suit.  In a commentary that unapologetically sides with Specialist Hall, CNN’s Randi Kaye notes that Hall, an atheist,

…isn’t seeking money, just religious freedom…

Kaye then expresses shock that the defendant would have the gall to ask for the suit to be dismissed:

[T]he U.S. Government, the very government Hall agreed to serve and risk his life for, wants his lawsuit tossed out.

The only response included in the commentary is Hall’s admission that much of the premise of the government’s motion to dismiss is correct: he did not use any of the in-place military processes to address his griveances, because “nothing ever gets done.”

Government Moves to Dismiss MRFF Lawsuit

In a fairly well written argument, the government has filed a motion to dismiss the ongoing lawsuit against the Defense Department brought by Army Specialist Jeremy Hall and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.  (The response was due, and filed, on the 8th.)  Salient points are below (emphasis added), though many were previously already talked about here.

The short version: he failed to use the systems in place to seek redress; the solutions he requests are already in place; and he does not allege harm by any “institutional bias” for which the only support is a list of vague references.

On the request that Secretary of Defense Gates be required to prevent Constitutional violations by his military subordinates:

Secretary Gates already exercises his authority to prevent constitutional violations through the Army’s existing Equal Opportunity Program — which Specialist Hall failed to invoke…

Read more

CNN “Bumps” Military Atheist Story

It is a fairly common (though sometimes socially unacceptable) practice for internet users who post on forums to add to their own post in order to make its posting date more recent.  This has the effect of “bumping” it to the forefront, where people actually see it, even though there is nothing new to the topic.

CNN has apparently taken on the practice, as they have chosen to headline an essential repeat of their April 28th story on Jeremy Hall’s MRFF lawsuit.

One possible reason for the repeat may be in the source.  Read more

Weinstein Re-files Lawsuit

The AP has released an article describing how Weinstein dropped his lawsuit against the Army (discussed in previous posts 1, 2) so he could re-file it, adding an allegation that Specialist Jeremy Hall, his plaintiff, has been passed over for promotion as a result of the ongoing lawsuit.  The text of the new suit is not yet available.  As noted in the previous commentary, the lawsuit previously listed virtually every Christian ministry to the military as illegal entities, and continued to cite “Constitutional violations” about units that no longer existed.

As reported on the Religion Clause.

Update: Weinstein Lawsuit Case Law

In previous posts (original, update) regarding the MRFF lawsuit against Jeremy Hall’s superior officer and the Defense Department, it has been noted that the American judicial system has been loathe to interfere with the separate judiciary of the military.  It has also been noted that, to this point, it does not appear Hall utilized the in-place grievance systems.

So as not to depend on “urban legend” and rumor, a little research resulted in finding the Supreme Court case of Chappell v. Wallace (1983), which addresses both of these concerns, and is quoted extensively below.

In Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296 (1983), which can be referenced in its entirety here, the US Supreme Court held that superiors could not be sued by their subordinates because Read more

1 2 3