Lawsuit filed against USAFA Superintendent

[Pima]

Sprog, I was a Realtor, trust me for the majority of Americans we are one step below lawyers and one step above car salesman.

That being stated, I have seen n my own profession, just like patent was stating there are some who actually hurt the profession.

There are parasites that prey on them. You also right they will run to us when they need help...usually they seek us (good sign of their ethics code).....yet, there are some that seek them (not such a good sign).

Again, this has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with this lawsuit. It does not help any candidate, cadet or AD member discussing lawyers or discussing Merit V Standing in regards to the lawsuit,

Luigi, you are correct the plaintiffs are instructors, both AD and civilian. I was incorrect after 12 pages to confuse it. Please hit me with 1000 wet spaghetti noodles now!

However, it appears to me we are losing site of why this site exists. IMPO it doesn't exist to argue out legal standings or with other posters re: their interpretation/understanding of the law...this is not a Law forum, you don't need to show that you passed a bar to be here. It exists to assist candidates, cadets, AD and people entwined in their lives.

My point will continue to be decision is made, and we should now move onto the next step of what is next. I am not here to jump over the nickels (issues) to pick up the pennies (semantics/legalese terms).

If this is all about arguing over pennies, we will just be spinning wheels and nobody will be helped.

The two of you can attack me all day long about the picayune things I state, but none of that has anything to do with the fact of what's next for the AFA regarding this lawsuit.

If you want to argue with me over my mis-steps, pm me. If you want to discuss the AFA and what may or will be their next legal issue, than do so.

Again, can we please get this back on track about the legal case and stop with attacking posters on off track issues? Surely if you truly care about the outcome of any future cases you will bring it to the next level like Sprog and Patent did...how now this case can take a twist or turn.

Will we now see, some of these John Doe officers come out and prove that they didn't get promoted due to religious beliefs or were hit with a remote?

I have several friends who were there, one that is still there, honestly the one there probably can try to tie his being passed over due to Commanders with a religious issue. Yet, a good attorney would be able to show that in his early career he already mis-stepped multiple times.

I have sat at squadron coffees where the Commander's wife, opened and closed with a prayer...always saying in JC's name, my Lord. I have seen the negatives. I see where some may feel it, but again to take it against Gould alone is preposterous. If you understand the hierarchy in the military you would understand that any direct fear comes from the immediate commander, 3 Star is not your immediate commander.

There is a rule of thumb in the military...higher up the more silent it becomes. Look at a base...Flight...Squadron DO...Squadron CC...DDOG...DOG and than Wing.

The assumption here is that all of the John Doe's had one on one time with Gould, and that Gould was informed from bottom up he knew.

Want to sue...probably would have been better to start lower down...again how do OPR's and PRF's work? Gould signs off, but he is signing off from a trust issue of the Vice Wing King, the DOG...they sign off on trust of the CC, who signs off on the FCC. Fact is Gould probably never knew John Doe 1,2,3, or 4 at all before this case.

Which brings me back to the comment...are their careers not ruined because of this case?

 

[Luigi59]

The two of you can attack me all day long about the picayune things I state,

I've just read back the last 5 pages and cannot find anyone attacking you.

Correcting you, yes.

Questioning you, yes.

Attacking you? Nope.

As for the next steps in this (or any new) lawsuit? I think that sprog and patentesq are correct, this will go on, this will continue to be a thorn in USAFA command, as none of the legal issues raised about USAFA's endorsement of a religious event have been answered by the court.

Which brings me back to the comment...are their careers not ruined because of this case?

If they are, they WOULD have standing and a HUGE action against the USAFA.

 

[patentesq]

Again, this has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with this lawsuit. It does not help any candidate, cadet or AD member discussing lawyers or discussing Merit V Standing in regards to the lawsuit,

Suggesting that the legal profession is saturated with folks who are "lower" than car salesman is unhelpful and diverges from the OP. The ONLY issue now that is DIRECTLY on point to this case is the Merit v. Standing discussion.

I think Just_A_Mom's OP is very good. A lawsuit filed against a service academy has every right to be discussed in the "Off Topic" board as any other off topic issue.

The warnings about personal attacks against any individual poster or their profession are very good. It is equally offensive to make bad statements about the legal profession as it would be if Code Pink logged on to SAF and started bashing the military profession. It is simply not appropriate. It certainly is NOT "on topic" like discussing the ruling on standing in this lawsuit.

 

[sprog]

Suggesting that the legal profession is saturated with folks who are "lower" than car salesman is unhelpful and diverges from the OP. The ONLY issue now that is DIRECTLY on point to this case is the Merit v. Standing discussion.

I think Just_A_Mom's OP is very good. A lawsuit filed against a service academy has every right to be discussed in the "Off Topic" board as any other off topic issue.

The warnings about personal attacks against any individual poster or their profession is very good. It is equally offensive to make bad statements about the legal profession as it would be if Code Pink logged on to SAF and started bashing the military profession. It is simply not appropriate. It certainly is NOT "on topic" like discussing the ruling on standing in this lawsuit.

My colleague is right. The only issue is the standing issue. This is a thread about a court case that involves USAFA, and unless the plaintiffs do not excercise their right to an appeal, the matter is far from a res judicata. It is certainly appropriate to discuss what will be litigated at the next level in the Federal Courts.

If the plaintiffs appeal, they will be appealing the ruling that they lack the standing to sue. That is the only matter addressed by the District Court. They will try to convince the Appeals Court that the District Court erred in determining that they suffered no injury-in-fact by not attending the prayer luncheon. If the Court of Appeals reverses the standing ruling, USAFA will be back in District Court to continue the litigation. If the Court of Appeals affirms the District Court, the plaintiffs might do a cert. petition to the Supreme Court. If they do, and if the Supremes decline, it's dead. Subsequent claims on that issue are precluded. If the Supremes hear it, and give a rule on constitutional standing and reverse the District Court, we have new national precedent (which lower Courts follow due to the doctrine of stare decisis), and the case gets remanded for trial on the merits.

No one is attacking anyone. My comments about the legal profession were made because I felt a hint of anti-lawyer bias in certain posts (and I'm not speaking to anyone in particular here). I think it is worthwhile to ponder, and all of this discussion is helpful to anyone interested in USAFA or the Air Force. As a former Air Force officer myself, I find it very interesting.

 

[patentesq]

Excellent post, sprog! Thanks for leading us back on topic!

I, too, find this case very interesting.

 

[Pima]

I agree about the fact that if these plaintiffs can prove that Gould promoted only members who attended church over non-church goers it will be an issue.

Again, they will need to prove that Gould went to that particular church due to the way OPRS and PRFS work.

That will be very hard.

To me, and I am not an attorney, I would have gone after the CC's. Easier to prove that the Commanders hurt their careers for religious purposes. From there they can prove that OPR/PRF's get signed off with an omnious dominous at higher levels based on trust from that Commander.

It could show a pattern of how the AF on a whole has allowed religion to become an issue in promotion.

This touches me very closely. I saw a CC promote FCC's over others because they had one thing in common...belonged to their religion. 4 FCC's out of 4 and each one of them attended the same church as the CC. May have no connection at all, but from a legal standpoint that would have been damning.

The Wing King had no clue at all. That is the AF operational system. They are de-centralized. They do not go to the 3 Star to get approval for someone within the squadron for FCC. The Wing King...i.e. Gould, deals with placing CCs.

Again, you would need to prove Gould promoted John Doe's boss on purpose to that position to force his religious beliefs down everyone's throat, thus he harmed John Doe.

Back to the harm issue:

1. "Plaintiff R. David Mullin is an associate professor of economics at the AFA and hasbeen so employed for thirteen years."

Gee, how hard is that for cadets and anyone else to figure out who he is?

2. "John Doe#1 is a commissioned Air Force officer assigned to an AFA academicdepartment. He is also a graduate of the AFA and has spent quite a number of years oncampus as a cadet and on the faculty and staff"

Gee...again, this is a small campus, they know their instructors. It is not like they have 1000 teachers.

3."John Doe #2 is a civilian faculty member at AFA who is an associate professor and hasbeen there for approximately one decade"

Again, they have just been told they are civilian and there for @10 yrs. More importantly an associate prof...that makes the pool of who is it much smaller

4.John Doe #3 is an active duty military employee of the AFA, stationed AFA for a numberof years. He interacts with cadets on a daily basis in an academic environment"

This is probably the most obscure description, but a cadet would know that still this description now will rule out many AFA instructors.

Creating the who is it?

5."John Doe #4 is a commissioned officer at the AFA. He is on the faculty and operateswithin the academic environment on a daily basis interacting with students, staff, facultyand the command administration regularly"

Okay so this person is in other words, AFA grad who is in the hierarchy because they are not Jon Doe 3 only interacting with cadets, but they also are connected to command administration

Basically, this lawsuit just placed a target on their backs. Life is not going to be easy for them, and to me that means as some Plain Jane, that their careers were harmed because they were whistle blowers...maybe I am wrong, but isn't there legislation regarding that? Couldn't they also argue that due to a bottom up philosophy (OPR/PRF) they were injured?

Just saying, I can see ways they could have brought this case with a great attorney compared to a luncheon where they had multiple religious speakers.

 

[Pima]

Patent please re-read my post

I was a Realtor, trust me for the majority of Americans we are one step below lawyers and one step above car salesman.

I actually defended your field and insulted mine...I stated you were above Realtors and used car salesman...you read...

Suggesting that the legal profession is saturated with folks who are "lower" than car salesman is unhelpful

Back on topic.

 

[patentesq]

Patent please re-read my post

I was a Realtor, trust me for the majority of Americans we are one step below lawyers and one step above car salesman.

I actually defended your field and insulted mine...I stated you were above Realtors and used car salesman...you read...


Back on topic.

I'm an idiot. Sorry, Pima!

(Although . . . I have met plenty of realtors who are MUCH sharper than many lawyers!!! You are one of them! But then that's a topic for another thread . . .)