Dignity & Respect: A Training Guide on Homosexual Policy
A United States Army publication on the proper handling of issues around homosexuality under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell rule.
NOTE: This page is no longer being updated!
This guide contains primary materials on the U.S. military’s policy on sexual orientation, from World War I to 2013. This page was created in February 2020 to reorganize the materials for archival purposes, with some new content for context. However, information on this Libguide is not being updated.
Able A: 847 F. Supp. 1038 (E.D.N.Y., April 4, 1994), affirmed by 44 F.3d 128 (2d Cir., Jan. 3, 1995).
Able B: 1995 WL 116322 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 14, 1995).
Able C: 880 F. Supp. 968 (E.D.N.Y., March 30, 1995), vacated and remanded by Able D.
Able D: 88 F. 3d 1280 (2d Cir., July 1, 1996), vacating and remanding Able C
Able E: 968 F. Supp 850 (E.D.N.Y, July 2, 1997).
Able F: Docket No. 97-6205(2d Cir., September 23, 1998).
Court Papers
Jane Able, U.S. Army
U.S.D.C. for the Eastern District of New York, Civ. Action No. 94 Civ. 0974.
– Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief; March 7, 1994.
– Affidavit of David Braff; March 4, 1994.
Plaintiffs’ Trial Brief.
Court Papers
Reply to Response to Motion to Transfer to Court of Federal Claims (Apr. 21, 2011)
Reply to Response to Motion to Amend Complaint (Apr. 21, 2011)
Response to Motion to Transfer to Court of Federal Claims (Apr. 14, 2011)
Response to Motion to Amend Complaint (Apr. 13, 2011)
Motion to Amend Complaint (Mar. 16, 2011)
Motion to Transfer to Court of Federal Claims (Feb. 11, 2011)
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief for Violations of the United States Constitution and Administrative Procedures Act (N.D. Calif. 10-5627) (December 13, 2010)
(challenging discharge)
489 F. Supp. 964 (E.D. Wis. 1980).
Bilokumsky v. Tod
263 U.S. 149 (1923).
Bowers v. Hardwick
478 U.S. 186 (1986).
Cammermeyer v. Aspin
850 F. Supp. 910 (W.D. Wa. 1994).
City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power v. Manhart
435 U.S. 702 (1978).
Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center
Court Decisions
528 F.3d 42, 2008 WL 2332526, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 12357 (1st Cir. 2008), affirming 429 F.Supp.2d 385 (D. Mass. 2006).
Court Papers
Brief Amicus Curiae of the National Legal Foundation, in support of Defendants-Appellees Supporting Affirmance (Jan. 4, 2007)
Reply Brief of Appellant James E Pietrangelo, II (Jan. 2, 2007)
Brief of the Appellees (Dec. 22, 2006)
Brief of Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellants (Nov. 22, 2006)
Brief of Amicus Curiae Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. in Support of All Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Supporting Reversal (Nov. 22, 2006)
Brief of Amicus Curiae. Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants (Nov. 22, 2006)
Brief of Amici Curiae Retired Military Officials Supporting Appellants (Nov. 20, 2006)
Amicus Curiae Brief of American Sociological Association and Social Science Professors for Appellants and Supporting Reversal (Nov. 20, 2006)
Brief of Amici Curiae Constitutional Law Professors in Support of Appellants (Nov. 15, 2006)
Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants in No. 06-2313 (Nov. 13, 2006)
Brief of Appellant James E Pietrangelo, II (Nov. 6, 2006)
Complaint (Dec. 6, 2004)
Court Decisions
920 F. Supp. 1510 (N.D. Cal. 1996), affirmed by 124 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 1997), and 155 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 1998); certiorari denied by 525 U.S. 1067 (1999).
Court Papers
Andrew Holmes, California National Guard; Superior Court for the State of California, City and County of San Francisco, No. CV 987009 [Proposed] Judgment, June 29, 1998
Court decisions, depositions, etc.
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (10-56634)
Order Denying Appellee’s Petition for En Bank Rehearing (Nov. 9, 2011)
Apellee’s Petition for En Banc Rehearing (Oct. 13, 2011)
(Per Curiam) Opinion (Sep. 29, 2011)
Response of Appellee to Suggestion of Mootness and Motion to Vacate the District Court Judgment (Sep. 28, 2011)
(Appellants’) Suggestion of Mootness and Motion to Vacate (Sep. 20, 2011)
Notice of Oral Argument [on Sep. 1, 2011] (per the 9th Circuit’s Sept. 1, 2011 entry on the docket sheet for the case: “ARGUED AND SUBMITTED TO ARTHUR L. ALARCON, DIARMUID F. O’SCANNLAIN AND BARRY G. SILVERMAN”)
Appellants’ Citation of Supplemental Authorities (Aug. 26, 2011)
Appellee’s Citation of Supplemental Authorities (Aug. 23, 2011)
Order Re: Motion for Reconsideration (Jul. 22, 2011)
Appellants’ Reply in Support of Motion for Reconsideration (Jul. 22, 2011)
Appellee’s Response to July 11, 2011 Order to Show Cause (Jul. 21, 2011)
Appellee’s Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration (Jul. 21, 2011)
Appellants’ Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration (Jul. 18, 2011)
Order [Temporarily Reinstating Stay] (Jul. 15, 2011) (Kozinski, C.J.; Wardlaw, J.; Paez, J.)
Order [from Court to Appellant (U.S. Government) to State Position as to Constitutionality of 10 U.S.C. section 654, as well as to Parties to Show Cause Why the Case Should Not Be Dismissed as Moot]
Order (9th Cir., Jul. 11, 2011) (10-56634) (Molly C. Dwyer, Clerk of Court)
Order [Lifting Stay]
___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir., Jul. 6, 2011) (10-56634) (Kozinski, C.J.; Wardlaw, J.; Paez, J.)
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (04-08425)
Memorandum Opinion
Not reported in F. Supp. 2d (C.D. Cal., Sept. 9, 2010) (04-08425) (Phillips, J.)
Amended and Final Memorandum Opinion
716 F. Supp. 2d 884 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 12, 2010) (04-08425) (Phillips, J.)
Stopped here!!!
Civil Minutes — General
Not reported in F. Supp. 2d (C.D. Cal., Oct. 19, 2010) (04-08425) (Phillips, J.)
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (10-56634)
Appellant’s Supplement to CORRECTED Emergency Motion (Jul. 18, 2011)
Appellee’s Response (Jul. 15, 2011)
Appellant’s CORRECTED Emergency Motion (Jul. 15, 2011)
Appellant’s Emergency Motion Under Circuit Rule 27-3 for Reconsideration of Order Lifting Stay of Worldwide Injunction (Jul. 14, 2011)
Appellee’s Reply to Response (May 27, 2011)
Appellant’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Vacate Stay (May 20, 2011)
Appellee’s Motion to Vacate Stay (May 10, 2011)
Reply Brief for the Appellants (Apr. 28, 2011)
Amicus Brief of Lambda Legal Defense et. al. (Apr. 4, 2011)
Amicus Brief of the Asian American Justice Center et. al. (Apr. 4, 2011)
Amicus Brief of the Palm Center (Apr. 4, 2011)
Amicus Brief of Forum on the Military Chaplaincy, et. al. (Apr. 4, 2011)
Amicus Brief of Servicemembers United (Apr. 4, 2011)
Amicus Brief of Service Members Legal Defense Network (Mar. 31, 2011)
Log Cabin Republicans Request for Judicial Notice (Mar. 28, 2011)
Amicus Brief by Foundation for Moral Law (Mar. 4, 2011)
Amicus Brief by The Church of God of Prophecy Chaplaincy Ministries, et al (Mar. 4, 2011)
Amicus Brief by The National Legal Foundation
Appellants’ Opening Brief (Feb. 25, 2011)
Order Denying Motion to Hold Appeals in Abeyance and Resetting Briefing Schedule (Jan. 28, 2011)
Order Temporarily Suspending Briefing (Jan. 18, 2011)
Order Granting in Part Joint Motion to Expedite (Dec. 1, 2010)
Order Temporarily Staying District Court’s Order (9th Cir., Oct. 20, 2010) (10-56634) (O’Scannlain, Trott & W. Fletcher, Cir. Judges)
Order Granting Stay (9th Cir., Nov. 1, 2010) (10-56634) (O’Scannlain & Trott; W. Fletcher dissenting)
U.S. SUPREME COURT (10A465)
Order Denying Application to Vacate Stay (U.S., Nov. 12, 2010) (10A465)
COURT PAPERS, ETC.
U.S. SUPREME COURT (10A465)
Application to Vacate Order Staying Judgment and Permanent Injunction (Nov. 5, 2010)
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (10-56634)
Appellants’/Cross-Appellees’ Reply to Response to Motion to Hold Appeals in Abeyance (Jan. 14, 2011)
Appellee’s/Cross-Appellant’s Amended Response to Motion to Hold Appeals in Abeyance (Jan. 13, 2011)
Appellee’s/Cross-Appellant’s Response to Motion to Hold Appeals in Abeyance (Jan. 10, 2011)
Appellants’/Cross-Appellees’ Motion to Hold Appeals in Abeyance (Dec. 29, 2010)
Joint Motion to Expedite Appeal (Nov. 24, 2010)
Motion of Log Cabin Republicans to Expedite Briefing and Oral Argument Schedule (Nov. 19, 2010)
Note to Public Access Users (as to docket activity in case number 10-56634)
Request for Oral Argument by Appellee Log Cabin Republicans (Oct. 25, 2010)
Lambda Legal Defense Amicus Brief Opposing Stay (Oct. 25, 2010)
Palm Center Amicus Brief Supporting Log Cabing Republicans (Oct. 25, 2010)
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network Amicus Brief Supporting Log Cabin Republicans (Oct. 25, 2010)
Servicemembers United Amicus Brief Supporting Log Cabin Republicans (Oct. 25, 2010)
Department of Defense (Secretary of Defense & Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness) Directives (Oct. 21, 2010)
Preliminary Response of Appellee Log Cabin Republicans to Government’s Request for Temporary “Administrative” Stay (Oct. 20, 2010) (10-56634)
Government’s Emergency Motion for Stay (Oct. 20, 2010) (10-56634)
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (04-08425)
Defendants’ Ex Parte Application for the Entry of an Emergency Stay (Oct. 14, 2010).
Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities (Oct. 14, 2010).
Declaration of the Counsel for the Defendants, United States and the Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates (Oct. 14, 2010).
Declaration of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (Oct. 14, 2010).
Various 2009-2010 court papers are available from the Log Cabin Republicans website
Log Cabin Republicans’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus Appendix of Exhibits to the Petition for Writ of Mandamus Filed Concurrently (Jul. 24, 2008)
Log Cabin Republicans’ Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Nith Circuit (Jul. 22, 2008)
Civil Minutes – General (May 23, 2008)
Declaration of John Doe (Jun. 11, 2007)
Civil Minutes – General (Jun. 08, 2007)
Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Jul. 7, 2006)
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (Jun. 30, 2006)
Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Jun. 12, 2006)
First Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief for Violations of the United States Constitution (Apr. 28, 2006)
Declaration of John Alexander Nicholson (Apr. 28, 2006)
Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice (Mar. 21, 2006)
Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Reply in Support of Ito Motion to Dismiss (Jan. 31, 2005)
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Jan. 10, 2005)
Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Dec. 13, 2004)
Complaint (Oct.12, 2004)
Court Decisions
883 F. Supp. 539 (W.D. Wash. 1995).
Court Papers
Mark A. Philips, U.S. Navy
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 95-35293, Civ. Action No. CV-93-11154-WD
United States District Court for the District of Washington at Seattle, No. C93-154
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue; December, 1994 [Includes Memorandum in Support of Motion]
Order on Motions for Summary Judgment; March 17, 1995
United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
No. 95-35293, Civ. Action No. CV-93-11154-WD
Appellant’s Opening Brief; August 14, 1995
Brief for Appellees; October 27, 1995
Reply Brief of Appellant; November 9, 1995
Court decisions
Richenberg A: 909 F. Supp. 1303 (D. Neb. 1995).
Richenberg B: 73 F.3d 172 (8th Cir. 1995) (denying plaintiff’s petition for an injunction pending appeal).
Richenberg C: 80 F.3d 915 (4th Cir. 1996).
Richenberg D: 97 F.3d 256 (8th Cir. 1996).
Court Papers
Richard F. Richenberg, Jr.
U.S.D.C. for the District of Nebraska, Civ. Action No. 8:CV95-393
United States District Court for the District of Nebraska,
Civ. Action No. 8:CV95-393
Amended Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
Board of Inquiry Proceedings, conducted on 12-13 July 1994, at Naval Legal Service Office Mid-Atlantic, Norfolk, VA
Transcript of Board of Inquiry Proceedings
Recommendations of the Board of Inquiry; June 21, 1994
[Note: For transcript of Board of Inquiry Proceedings, please see Advocacy Materials below]
Court decisions
Selland A (challenging separation under Old DOD Policy): 832 F. Supp. 12 (D.D.C. 1993) (granting preliminary injunction; suit later withdrawn by consent of the parties).
Selland B (challenging same separation under the Statute): 905 F. Supp. 260 (D. Md. 1995).
Court papers
Richard D. Selland, U.S. Navy
U.S.D.C. for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 93-1924-LFO and Board of Inquiry Proceedings in the Case of Lieutenant, Junior Grade, Richard D. Selland, United States Navy
United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 93-1924-LFO
Memorandum of U.S. District Judge and Order, September 28, 1993
Board of Inquiry Proceedings in the Case of Lieutenant, Junior Grade, Richard D. Selland, United States Navy
Report of Board of Inquiry, held on 12-13 July 1994.
Board of Inquiry Proceedings, held on 12-13 July 1994, at Naval Legal Service Office Mid-Atlantic, Norfolk, VA
Privacy Act Statement for Respondent, dated 13 July 1994
Notification of Administrative Show Cause Proceedings, 28 March 1994. From: Chief of Naval Personnel
Statement Regarding Fitness Report of 7 June 1992, dated 10 March 1993
Exhibits
Memo re: Statement Regarding Fitness Report of 92Jun07-93Feb28; First Endorsement on Ltjg Richard D. Selland, SC, USN. From Commander, Submarine Squadron Six to Chief of Naval Personnel
“Compromise Enables Gay To Remain In Navy,” by Kerry DeRochi, Virginian Pilot, March 16, 1994, Page D3
Declaration of Dr. Gregory M. Herek, July 1994 Board of Inquiry Regarding Lt.J.G. Richard Dirk Selland, USN
Report of Fitness of Officer Richard Dirk Selland, #3884953, undated
Report of Fitness of Officer Richard Dirk Selland, #3963232, undated
Report of Fitness of Officer Richard Dirk Selland, #4024199, undated
Report of Fitness of Officer Richard Dirk Selland, #7036637, undated
Memo re: Notice of a Notification Procedure Proposed Action. From Commander, Submarine Squadron Six to Ltjg Richard Dirk Selland, SC, USN
Memo re: Notification of Administrative Separation Processing. From Chief of Naval Personnel to Ltjg Richard D. Selland, USN
Memo re: Ltjg Richard D. Selland, SC, USN. From Chief of Naval Personnel to Secretary of the Navy
Letter of General Counsel of the Department of Defense to Attorney General Janet Reno
Declarations
Court decisions
Court Papers
Joseph C. Steffan, U.S. Navy
U.S.D.C. for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 88-3669 and United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 91-5409
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Civil Action No. 88-3669
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Civil Action No. 89-5476
Brief for the Appellees; September 1990
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Civil Action No. 91-5409
Thomasson B: 80 F.3d 915 (4th Cir. 1996), affirming Thomusson A.
Court Decisions
Opinion and Order U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Jan. 22, 2002)
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Civil Court Action No. 1:97CV01653 (PLF) (December 1998)
Court Papers
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:97CV01653 (PLF)
Plaintiff’s Complaint, July 22, 1997
Defendants’ Answer, October 23, 1997
Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, November 5, 1997
Scheduling Order, November 6, 1997
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, December 15, 1997
Declaration of Jim A. Turner in Support of Plaintiff’s Request For Discovery, January 14, 1998
Declaration of John R. Popish in Support of Plaintiff’s Request For Discovery, January 15, 1998
Plaintiff’s Rule 56(F) Motion, January 15, 1998
Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of his Rule 56(F) Motion, January 15, 1998
Rule 56(F) Declaration of Allan B. Moore, January 15, 1998
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Material Facts and Plaintiff’s Statement of Genuine Issues, January 15, 1998
Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Rule 56(F) Motion and Reply in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, February 13, 1998
Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Local Rule 108(H) Statement, February 13, 1998
Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of his Rule 56(F) Motion, March 2, 1998. [Attachment B: McVeigh v. Cohen]
Declaration of Imani Gandy in Support of Plaintiff’s Request for Discovery, March 2, 1998
Opinion and Order of Judge Freidman, April 9, 1998
Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery, April 27, 1998
Plaintiff’s Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery, April, 1998
Court Order, May 14, 1998
Court Order, June 3, 1998
Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of His Cross-Motion and In Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, July 31, 1998
Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgement, September 18, 1998
Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of His Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement, October 9 ,1998
Plaintiff’s Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of His Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, December 2, 1998
District Court Decision and Order, December 1998
Defendant’s Statement Regarding Plaintiff’s Notice of Supplemental Authority, December 16, 1998
Court’s Opinion and Order, December 23, 1998
Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of His Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration, January 8, 1999
Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration, January 21, 1999
Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of His Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration, January 29, 1999
District Court Order, February 2, 1999
Plaintiff’s Request for a Status Conference, August 6, 1999
Assistant Secretary of the Navy, BECRAFT Decision, August 20, 1999
Court Order, September 17, 1999
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, September 23, 1999
Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, October 4, 1999
Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of his Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and In Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, December 15, 1999
Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Counter-Statement of Disputed Material Facts, December 15, 1999
Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement and Reply in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement, February 16, 2000
Plaintiff’s Reply Memorandum in Support of His Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement, March 10, 2000
Plaintiff’s Notice of Supplemental Authority in Connection with his Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, December 19, 2000
Opinion and Order U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (1/22/2002)
Notice of Appeal (2/14/2002)
Opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces of August 23, 2004: 60 M.J. 198 (C.A.A.F. 2004).
Supplemental final brief of the United States of September 22, 2003.
Amicus Curiae Brief of American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), et al. in support of Appellant Eric P. Marcum of October 2, 2003.
Amicus Curiae Brief of Social Scientists and Military Experts –” on the following narrow but significant issue raised by the government: Whether decriminalizing private, consensual sodomy in the military will undermine unit cohesion, good order, and discipline or bring discredit on the military” — of October 2, 2003 (“Based on their substantial expertise, amici have concluded that the government’s claim that decriminalizing private, consensual sodomy in the military would undermine unit cohesion, good order and discipline or would discredit the armed forces is incorrect and unsupported by social scientific data.”).
Court Decisions
Watkins A: 551 F. Supp. 212 (W.D. Wash. 1982), reversed by 721 F.2d 687 (9th Cir. 1983).
Watkins B: 847 F.2d 1329 (9th Cir. 1988), vacated by Watkins C.
Watkins C: 875 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1989) (en banc), vacating Watkins B, certiorari denied by 498 U.S. 957 (1990).
Court Papers
Perry J. Watkins, U.S. Army
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit No. 85-4006, D.C. No. CV 81-1065R
Brief for the Appellees; December, 1985.
Supplemental Brief for the Appellees; August, 1986.
Brief of Amici Curiae; August, 30, 1988.
Court Decisions
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit:
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington:
Amended Judgment (Oct. 11, 2011)
Memorandum Opinion, 739 F. Supp. 2d 1308 (W.D. Wash., Sept. 24, 2010) (06-05195) (Leighton, J.)
Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law, 2010 WL 3814010 (W.D. Wash., Sept. 24, 2010) (06-05195) (Leighton, J.)
527 F.3d 806, (9th Cir. 2008), affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding 444 F.Supp.2d 1138 (W.D. Wash. 2006).
Court Papers
Ninth Circuit:
Western District of Washington:
Notice of Appeal by Defendants Department of the Air Force et al (Nov. 23, 2010)
Reply Brief of Appellant (Jan. 29, 2007)
Brief Amicus Curiae of the National Legal Foundation (Jan. 19, 2007)
Brief for the Appellees (Jan. 3, 2007)
Brief Of Amicus Curiae Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. In Support Of Appellant And Supporting Reversal (Oct. 25, 2006)
Brief of Amicus Curiae Servicemembers Legal Defense Network in Support of Appellant Major Margaret Witt and Reversal (Filed With Consent of Both Parties) (Oct. 25, 2006)
Brief of Amici Curiae International Commission of Jurists and the Center for Constitutional Rights in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant and Reversal (Filed with Consent of Both Parties) (Oct. 24, 2006)
Brief of Appellant (Oct. 16, 2006)
BOARD OF INQUIRY PROCEEDINGS: HEARING TRANSCRIPT
ADVOCACY TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH MATERIALS
©Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305.