DOD refuses gay man re-enlistment because of DADT, in defiance of court order

[FreeState]

http://gay.americablog.com/2011/07/dod-again-refuses-to-let-pietrangelo.html

Just got another email from Jim Pietrangelo. Pentagon recruiters are still turning him away because he's gay, which is in direct violation of a federal court decision that the Pentagon said it would abide by.

Not to beat a dead horse, but you should know that there is a disconnect between the Pentagon's late-breaking announcement that it will start accepting Gays into the Military and the reality on the ground. Fifteen minutes ago (4:45 p.m. EST), I called the Los Angeles Central Army Recruiting station back--one of the stations I had previously been rejected by because I am Gay--and they in no uncertain terms stated that they cannot enlist Gays and have received no change in policy from the Pentagon to do so.

Indeed, the recruiter astonishingly told me I couldn't even begin the application process because I am Gay, much less could I be actually accessed.

I think at best what the Pentagon is doing is pretending that they are not enforcing DADT by saying Gays can fill out the paperwork, but not letting them actually join once the paperwork is finished. It's like when Dan Choi tried to reenlist in Times Square right after the Injunction was issued in October 2010. His recruiters let him fill out the paperwork, but held it until the stay happened, and then they threw the paperwork in the circular file. Starting today, the Pentagon is going to hold up the paperwork on Gay applicants--if they let them fill the paperwork out in the first place--and sit on their paperwork until the Obama Administration decides to certify repeal.

Just days ago...
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0711/070611-dontask-donttell.htm

The Defense Department is taking steps to "immediately" comply with a court ruling to end the enforcement the "don't ask, don't tell policy," a Pentagon spokesman said on Wednesday.

"We will of course comply with orders of the court, and are taking immediately steps to inform the field of this order," said Pentagon spokesman Marine Col. Dave Lapan in a written statement. The Pentagon is reviewing the latest court ruling with the Justice Department, Lapan said.

A three-judge panel in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the military's policy banning gay people from serving openly - "don't ask, don't tell" - must be lifted, the Associated Press reported.

President Obama signed a bill repealing the controversial law in December, but the repeal did not take immediate effect, pending certification that the repeal would not harm the military's readiness.

[Tx4obama]

1. Who said it was 'in defiance of court order'.

Be sure to read the line in the excerpt in the 2nd section of the OP...

Quote: "We will of course comply with orders of the court, and are taking immediately steps to inform the field of this order," said Pentagon spokesman Marine Col.

----

So, just because if some of the folks have not yet been informed or there was a snafu in them not being informed - does not mean anyone is defy the court's order.

The court lifted the stay on Wednesday, that gave the Pentagon only Thursday and Friday to get the word out.

Take a deep breath and relax.
Not all recruiting offices and recruiters are watching every detail like some of us on DU are.
Once everyone gets the word and reads their emails then things should go more smoothly.

p.s. I also see that the American Blog article doesn't state the 'date/day' that Jim Pietrangelo called. If it was Wednesday (the day the stay was lifted) then that would have been before the DOD probably even had time to compose an email and get it out to the recruiting offices.

Edited to add:
And considering the American Blog article was written by John Aravosis it wouldn't be a big surprise to me if he 'intentionally' left out the information regarding the 'day' that Pietrangelo called the recruiting office.

There isn't such as thing as a magic wand - sometimes things take a day or two to get completely communicated.

[FreeState]

2. It happened today - and yes if you don't follow a court order your in defiance of the court

The post clearly says he received the email today and the email says I just tried and the time.

Defiance of a court order is not excused by poor leadership.

Edited to add your personal attacks on the source are unnecessary.

[Tx4obama]

3. No, it couldn't have happened today.

Aravosis posted his article 7/09/2011 11:46:00 AM (Saturday)

In the article Pietrangelo says he called 4:45 p.m. EST (Which couldn't have been Saturday)

There is nothing there about when Pietrangelo 'sent' the email, or when Aravosis actually found the email in his inbox and decided to read it.

So, the incident would have had to have taken place on Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday.

[FreeState]

4. It was posted Saturday (it was just reposted) so that's the confusion on the date, so it was

Friday. Regardless they are still in defiance of the order regardless of the reason why. Hopefully they get it straightened out soon because it certainly doesn't look good when they announce they are immediately taking steps on the 6th and on the 9th the immediate step have not been implemented. You may feel that's fine, I as a member of the class of people that are being discriminated against by our own government do not.

[Tx4obama]

5. Probably it was on the 7th (Thursday)

See here where the reference of 4:45pm is first posted on 7/08/2011 03:25:00 PM

http://gay.americablog.com/2011/07/pentagon-halts-dadt-will-accept-gay.html

Looks like that email was posted THREE different times on American Blog.

---

Timothy Beauchamp at 7/08/2011 03:25:00 PM first said: "Jim Pietrangelo writes that he just tried AGAIN to enlist ... "

then Aravosis parroted the same thing on another day.

So, Pietrangelo called about re-enlisting on Thursday which was only a tad over 24 hours after the court lifted the stay - that is not that much time for the DOD to get the word out.

It would be something entirely different if it happens in the upcoming week.


Edited to add the word 'hours'

[FreeState]

7. Just sent him a message I'll update If I hear back n/t

[Tx4obama]

6. You have to keep in mind the judge would have to officially notify the DOD of the court's order.

So, until the DOD is formally informed of the court order - what ever rules govern that procedure - the DOD would not be in defiance of the order.

You'd have to find out what the rule/law is that pertains to court notification.

[Fearless]

9. Umm... to quote...

"The Pentagon will comply with the court order and is taking immediate steps to inform commanders in the field, said spokesman Col. Dave Lapan.

The next step: the official end to "don't ask, don't tell."

Defense officials said the chiefs of the military services are scheduled to submit their recommendations on the repeal to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Friday. As soon as the Pentagon certifies that repealing the ban will have no effect on military readiness, the military has 60 days to implement the repeal."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/06/dadt-repeal-court-order-_n_891591.html


Unless of course you expect me to believe that the Pentagon didn't tell the DOD or that anyone in the DOD didn't even so much as turn on CNN in the past week... well, I find that pretty hard to believe!

[Fearless]

10. Also the ruling was on the 6th... and the Defendant is the DOD!

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2011/07/06/20110606_Order.pdf


So if you're saying that neither the court nor the Plaintiff took the time to make a phone call to the DOD within THREE DAYS... I find that staggeringly hard to believe.

[Tx4obama]

12. I don't know where you are getting the 3 days at.

That email Pietrangelo sent to American Blog would have had to have been sent on July 7th.
That would be around 30 hours after the Court lifted the stay.

Btw, Phone calls are not legal notification from The Court.

[Tx4obama]

13. The Defendant (the DOD/Leon Panetta) was not at the Court when the judge lifted the stay.

So, the Court would have to legally notify the Defendant/Leon Panetta - before the Court could hold the DOD in contempt due to not honoring a Court Order.

Bottom line, I do not think the Court will hold the DOD in contempt due to someone trying to enlist within 30 hours of when the stay was lifted.

If you find out when Leon Panetta was legally notified by The Court then please let me know.

Edited to add: Leon Panetta

[Fearless]

16. The case was seen on the 6th. The man tried on the 8th. The link comes from the 9th.

6-7-8... Three days.

Do you believe that the court wouldn't notify the Defendant within 72hrs?

[Tx4obama]

11. I was referring to the legality of the matter.

Until a court officially issues a legal notification to the DOD - no one could be legally held in defiance of the Court's Order.

I am sure everyone heard about the lifting of the stay on CNN, MSNBC, etc - but that does not equate to official legal notification from a Court.

A Court is not going to hold someone in non-compliance of an Order until after the Court has issued legal notification and the Court has documentation that the notification was received. That is how it works in the court system.

That is all I was trying to say ;)

Edited to fix typos.

[Fearless]

17. The ruling was on the 6th. The email was on the 8th. The blog link was posted on the 9th.

So from the 6th to the 8th... no one... no one contacted the Defendant. No one... no one... not the lawyers making money off the DOD, not the Secretary of Defense, not anyone in the Defense Department thought to make the connection between the M$M story which was broadcast on all major networks and the fact that maybe they should call the court (if indeed the court had miraculously forgotten to tell them previously)?

:wtf:

[Tx4obama]

18. When you want to discuss the actual 'official legal notification' then let me know

There is no point of talking about who called who or what someone saw on TV. That is NOT legal notification from The Court.

It is not the responsibility of the Defendant/Leon Panetta to call the Court, it is the responsibility of the The Court to OFFICIALLY notify the Defendant via the Court's normal procedure of doing so.

Bottom line: The Court will not hold a Defendant in contempt of a Court Order until after a Defendant has been officially notified of the Court Order and the Court has documented confirmation that he Defendant has been legally notified.

[Fearless]

20. And I'm sure that legal notification won't take 72 hours to do. As I said if you read.

[Recursion]

14. Doctrine like that wouldn't be changed in an email, IMO

They'll have a 24 hour admin standdown and do some sort of briefing. Bureaucratic inertia is pretty strong.

[Tx4obama]

19. Yeah, but I betcha the recruiters out on the field

that are spread out all around the country (not sitting at the recruitment offices) would probably be notified by email.
After the briefing they would have to have a way to get the word out to everyone.

[xchrom]

8. Recommend

[SidDithers]

15. Unreccomend...nt

Sid