**UPDATE** – As a number of commenters pointed out when this posting first appeared, Log Cabin arranged “Call to Duty” — a college speaking tour of former armed services members speaking out against DADT. Call To Duty website link here. Unless my eyes are fooling me, there are actual people there with actual names. Names that could have been used in the lawsuit that was dismissed because the US District Judge said Log Cabin failed to identify anyone affected by the policy and lacks standing to maintain the suit on its own.***
Suit challenging ‘don’t ask’ dismissed for lack of names – SFGate.com
A federal judge has dismissed a gay rights group’s challenge to the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy because the group wouldn’t tell the judge the names of the people it was representing.
The Log Cabin Republicans’ refusal to name any of the past or present service members on whose behalf the organization filed the lawsuit means the group has failed to identify anyone affected by the policy and lacks standing to maintain the suit on its own, said U.S. District Judge George Schiavelli of Los Angeles.
The organization’s claims of harm to its members are merely “hypothetical and conjectural,” Schiavelli said in a ruling issued March 22. He said other past and present suits over the same policy have shown that those who believe their rights are violated “will step forward to legally challenge the perceived injustice despite the potential consequences.”
The dismissal is not final, however, as Schiavelli gave the organization until April 28 to file an amended lawsuit naming at least one member harmed by the policy. Patrick Guerriero, president of the Log Cabin Republicans, said Monday the group would reluctantly comply.
The suit was filed anonymously largely to protect plaintiffs who were still in uniform, because “if they came out publicly they would be thrown out of the military,” Guerriero said. He said his organization was talking to current and former service members involved in the case to see which of them would agree to be named publicly.
Once again, Log Cabin fails by trying to go through the courts. When they should instead focus on trying to win the hearts and minds of their fellow Republicans. But, it seems too much to ask Patrick to pull himself away from the gay political cocktail parties in D.C. and go to less fabulous, but more important, Republican gatherings. More important, that is, if Log Cabin really wants to influence the GOP.
-Bruce and Dan
As a first year law student, naming an affected party in a lawsuit is one of the first things we are taught (or at least coming up with a proper third-party to take the case on their behalf (think: how abortion doctors, who are themselves affected by anti-abortion laws, often times sue on behalf of women. They share a “close connection” to another directly affected party)). Enough with the boring legal analysis, just a thought. Thanks guys for bringing this to our attention.
They’re going through the courts because, like liberals, they’re consequentialists, and they believe that the end justifies the means.
And of course, Republican Conservatives would never do that. Snort. (rolls eyes)
Traditional Values Coalition,
American Family Association
the Center for Law and Justice (Pat Robertsons and Sekulow’s group),
The Liberty Counsel,
The Pacific Justice Institute,
The Center for Military Readiness,
yeah, yeah, yeah.
Actually, Patrick, those groups do the opposite of “gay rights” groups; they spend most of their time and money on voter initiatives and very little in the courtrooms.
Why? Because they’ve figured out three things:
— US judges throw out the US Constitution and substitute foreign law if the former doesn’t supply the rule they need
— The best way to block that is to strip the courts of the power to rule in such a fashion.
— Our system gives the power to block the courts to voters.
In short, they spend their money where it will do the most good, not where it will impress a tiny minority of shrill “activists”.
Whether the lawsuit is a good idea or not, I am not sure why former members were unnamed. I can understand why a current member wouldn’t want to be named in the suit, but I don’t see the point in keeping all the names secret.
Excuse me NDT, but in point of fact many of these groups, such as the specific ones below, were formed explicitly to do the legal work, not “Voter Initiatives”.
I don’t disagree with your premise exactly, but just not with these particular groups.
Center for Law and Justice (Pat Robertsons and Sekulow’s group),
The Liberty Counsel,
The Pacific Justice Institute
And the AFA tends to be more of media and talk-show lobbyist I suspect.
But yes, the TVC does do voter initiatives as well. But groups that are more in line with what you are thinking of I think would be Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, and some of the telemarketing groups associated with some of the religious orgs like the New Life Church (Evangelical), 700 club, etc.
Like it or not NDT, these folks are an enormous part of the GOP today. That wasn’t always so.
Like it or not, these people are far more in touch with Americans than the HRC, NLGTF, Code Pink, or any other leftist organization, which is why they often win at the ballot box.
Let’s PAUSE a moment to humbly thank Gryph once again for deigning to make further exceptions to his clear policy against reading and responding to our collectively ‘worthless’ comments that he DOESN’T read due to their totally lacking any value for him.
It’s so good to know that he DOESN’T read our comments, yet here he is taking upon himself the heavy burden of making exceptions all the time, sacrificing himself purely for our benefit.
Such fun! 🙂
I thought LCR had some sort of DADT road show going on with several veterans involved. What about naming them?
The courts!! The courts!!! Oh, no, those evil American courts!!!
TGC — The LCR roadies must have gone into hiding!
Since I talked about Gryph earlier – I have to add something.
I followed his trackback in #3. Ewwwwwwwwwww! What a creepily jealous and derivative post. Last time I visit that blog, LOL 🙂
Gryph – I will freely offer you the following small hint, because I know it you won’t take it anyway…
IF it is really a “yawner” that Bruce/Dan have posted on LCR again… then don’t you think it must be that much more of a “yawner” (saying it most charitably) for you to derivatively post-about-their-post?
If they’re boring – then what does that make you, when you have nothing better to discuss than your hatred of them? Think on it. Bye now.
This is preposterous. It is well known that plaintiffs in a lawsuit can be identified using aliases, such as “John Doe 1,” “John Doe 2,” etc. It is not necessary that the actual names of the plaintiffs be provided in the complaint.
The most obvious example of that is Roe vs. Wade. “Roe” was not the plaintiff’s real name, it was an alias.
Raj, never let it be said that I fail to acknowledge a point well made, so I wonder if you might be right on this one.
I do also have to wonder, however, if LCR failed to use aliases in this particular case.
HollywoodNeoCon — April 7, 2006 @ 10:51 am – April 7, 2006
Presumably, you have access to email. Email them and ask them to send you a copy of the complaint.
The standing issue is so fundamental in federal court that I would be surprised that a lawyer would have overlooked it.
LCR helped organize it, the program is also sponsored by the following:
http://www.calltodutytour.org/our-supporters.php
Of course, instead of actually praising LCR for helping to get this program off the ground, Bruce instead uses it to attack them. With Bruce, LCR simply cannot win. This is obviously a personal, not political issue with him.
Somebody else levelled (or suggested) an accusation that LCR can do no right with Bruce/Dan. And here, Dan rebuts it.
Scoring points about Bruce/Dan’s coverage of LCR being “personal” due to perceived “issues” has been so strangely repetitive with you, Gryph, over a lengthy period of time, that the obsession is yours.
There’s nothing to praise. Military policy is not the domain of the SCOTUS.
Guerriero never told SLDN and other groups that work on this issue day in and day out, that the lawsuit was going to be filed. In fact the day it was announced outraged leaders of SLDN and other groups demanded a meeting with LCR leaders. Guerriero relented to a meeting but only if it was held in the LCR offices.
The leaders then assembled in the LCR office, but Guerriero did not show up! Instead he called in on a conference call, FROM HIS APARTMENT! Four blocks away!! What a coward. And the “members” he claims were not members of Log Cabin the week before – they were “recruited” a few short days before the suit was filed. Don’t believe it? Ask Patrick at the Convention….oh wait you can’t!
Raj you are right that anonymous plaintiffs are found often in the courts, but how and when these can be used are defined by statute, and it is up to the courts to decide whether or not plaintiffs can procceed anonymously.
Apparantly the judges in this case didn’t see the need for the case to procceed anonymously. It may be a bad decision on the part of the judges, but the judges do have the jurisdiction to decide whether or not they think the plaintiffs have made the case that to use their actual names would cause harm.
Just Me — April 7, 2006 @ 10:13 pm – April 7, 2006
Raj you are right that anonymous plaintiffs are found often in the courts, but how and when these can be used are defined by statute
Citation? I found nothing in either 28 USC or the FRCP that might confirm this.
Of course, the disclosure to the defendant of the names of the actual parties plaintiff would be necessary at some point in the proceedings, if only to allow the defendant to take discovery (depositions), but that could be done under protective order.
Raj here is a good blog discussion, with some cited cases.
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/11/of_sex_tapes_an.html
Just Me — April 8, 2006 @ 7:58 am – April 8, 2006
Your article was moderately interesting, but it cited no statutes and it did not did not cite to the FRCP.
Without knowing more about the case, I would suspect that, if LCR really wanted to proceed anonymously, they could file an affidavit or two giving a ground on which at least one of the plaintiffs wanted to remain anonymous, and that the trial court would have allowed it to so proceed. Alternatively, they would have a record for appeal. On the other hand, I suspect that the LRC found at least one of their plaintiffs who was willing to be named–it only takes one–and so they could proceed with the case without having to go through that.
Regardless of how LCR chose to proceed, the subject matter of the post is ridiculous.