2:04-cv-08425 #160

Case 2:04-cv-08425 Document 160 Filed 04/12/10 2 Pages
Case 2:04-cv-08425 Document 160-1 Filed 04/12/10 8 Pages
EXHIBIT 8
EXHIBIT 9
EXHIBIT 10
Terry Hamilton Los Angeles, CA
March 13, 2010
Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN DIVISION
LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ROBERT GATES, Secretary of Defense, Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-04-8425 (VAP) (Ex)
Deposition of TERRY HAMILTON, taken in the above-entitled matter before Lindsay Pinkham, Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 3716, Certified Realtime Reporter within and for the State of California, taken at the offices of WHITE & CASE, 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1900, Los Angeles, California 90071, on Saturday, March 13, 2010, commencing at 10:00 A.M.
March 13, 2010
Page 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q (Recess 11:07 to 11:14 a.m.) BY MR. FREEBORNE: Mr. Hamilton, putting aside
Mr. Nicholson and John Doe, are you aware of any other members of the Log Cabin Republicans who have been harmed by Don't Ask, Don't Tell? A I've heard stories. I don't know that I can
recall the exact names of people. Q Well, do you know the names of any of the
individuals? A I don't think so. I think it's difficult to
determine which ones were telling the story during the time of Don't Ask, Don't Tell or the time before Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Q Now, we looked earlier at Exhibit 36, which is And I believe you
the survey that you conducted.
testified that you purposely made that survey anonymous. Correct? A Q Yes. Would there be any way to determine the
identities of the individuals that are referenced in Exhibit 36? A Q I don't believe so. Did you undertake any effort to determine one
way or the other the truth of the statements that we see in Exhibit 36?
March 13, 2010
Page 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q No. Let me ask you to look at Exhibit 36, and I
direct your attention to a few pages, and they've been identified as LCR 1 through 17. If you look at page 5,
do you see the fifth member there identified as veteran under the heading, "What is your military service status?" and then there's another column which asks, "Have you been negatively impacted by the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy?" this veteran says "Yes, in other ways"? A Q person? A Q No. Let me ask you to turn to page 6. And again, Do you see that? I do. Any way to determine the identity of that
the veteran referenced in the fifth -- basically, the fifth category down, veteran, then under the column, "Have you been negatively impacted by the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy?" service." A Q See that? Yes. Any way to determine the identity of that "Yes, it was used to terminate my
individual? A Q No. Turn to page 15 with me, and I'm looking at the
March 13, 2010
Page 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q No. Okay. Now, when I was looking through the
currently serving members -- well, strike that. Are you aware of a circumstance in which a Log Cabin Republicans member has made a statement that he or she is gay or lesbian and that statement has been used for a purpose other than to show a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct or acts? A Q Could you repeat the question, please? Have you read Judge Phillips's June 9 order
granting in part and rejecting in part the government's motion to dismiss in this case? A Q I believe so. Are you aware that she ruled that with respect
to the First Amendment claim, that the Log Cabin has the right to pursue a claim in which statements have been used for a purpose other than an admission under the policy? A Q Yes. And my question to you is, are you aware of any
member of the Log Cabin Republicans that would fit within that category? A Q Other than what I've seen in the survey, no. And do you see anything in the survey that
would suggest that?

March 13, 2010
Page 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A survey. MR. WOODS: I'm also going to object to the I'd have to go back and reread the whole
question on the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion. Q BY MR. FREEBORNE: Why don't you take a moment
to read through the survey and see if you see any of those individuals. A Q category? A I'm trying to remember what the category is. (Examining document.) Do you see anyone that fits within that
It was about speech, I understand. Q In which a statement has been used as evidence
of something -- has been used for a purpose other than as an admission under the policy. MR. WOODS: Same objection. Calls for a legal
conclusion or interpretation of Judge Phillips's order. You can answer the question. THE WITNESS: Well, I believe in a broad
interpretation of speech, and every last one of these that I read could fit under free speech, as far as I'm concerned. Q That's my personal opinion. But my question to you, do
BY MR. FREEBORNE:
you see anything in the survey in which the military has

March 13, 2010
Page 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 used someone's statement for a purpose other than an admission that the member is likely to engage in homosexual acts? A I really don't know how to answer that
question, because it's so insidious that in my opinion, it could be used in all sorts of different ways, and probably -- I don't know. Q My question to you is, do you see anything in
the survey in which it has been used for a purpose other than what I just described? MR. WOODS: Same objection.
You can answer. THE WITNESS: It seems to me, as I was reading
through this and trying to keep your question in mind, was that if they answered the question yes, in other ways have you been negatively impacted, that that meant that they had not been terminated already. So
obviously, someone who is currently serving is still operating under these situations, where they have to either lie or prevent the truth from coming out. And I
don't know what the government or the military might use, or whether they have used it, based on those statements. Q It's not clear to me. But in the circumstance you were just
Right.
describing, a statement has not even been made; right?

March 13, 2010
Page 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A another. Q Let's go back. I missed a few, and I just want I don't know that I can answer that one way or
to be sure that we're clear. Again, on Exhibit 36, take a look at page 4, the second member that we see on that page, veteran, under the column, "Have you been negatively impacted by the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy?" terminate my service." A Q A Q Yes. Any way to identify that person by name? No. Okay. Let's turn to page 8. Do you see the "Yes, it was used to
Do you see that?
veteran that's the second line from the bottom, again, "Yes, it was used to terminate my service," in response to the question, "Have you been negatively impacted by the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy?" A Q A Q Yes. Any way to identify that person by name? (Examining document) No. In fact, you set up this survey so that there
would be no way to go back and identify the individual; right? A Q That is true. And you didn't make any distinction between
March 13, 2010
Page 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 over a period of about a week or so. Q Is there a particular type of survey tool that
you used, a software program or something of that sort? A Q A Q Yes. What is it called? It's called SurveyMonkey. And do you have any reason to believe that the
comments that were provided in response to the survey under the column, "Tell us what happened" are not true? A Q No. Do you have any reason to believe that the
answers to any of the questions on the survey that you received are not true? A Q No. You were asked some questions about whether
there was anything in the survey that related to the First Amendment claims in this case. that? A Q I do. Rather than ask you to look through all 17 Do you recall
pages of this survey response, let me ask you to look on page 1, please, the next to last entry, which refers to a veteran who says he or she was negatively impacted and that the policy was used to terminate the service. you see that one?
Do
March 13, 2010
Page 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q I do. And the actual comments here, under the column,
"Tell us what happened," say this: "I was actually discharged twice, once for annulling my marriage to a woman; the second time, I spoke out against former chairman of the joint chiefs General Peter Pace when he was quoted as saying that gays were immoral in 2007." Having now focused on that particular response to the survey, do you believe that that response may at least fit into the category of the First Amendment claims in this case? A Q I do. Then directing your attention to page 4 of the
survey response, the second item there under the column, "Tell us what happened," is rather lengthy, but it basically has to do with a naval flight officer that served for over six years who appears to have been discharged once it was discovered that he listed himself as gay on a MySpace page. A Q I do. Do you think that, in your opinion, as a Do you see that?
nonlawyer, might fit into the First Amendment category

March 13, 2010
Page 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. FREEBORNE: Q Going back to Exhibit 36 and first the veteran FURTHER EXAMINATION that you were questioned about before, now that you've had a chance to focus on that one this particular? A Yes. MR. WOODS: That's all I have.
that Mr. Woods just directed you to, any way to identify that person? A Q No. Any way to learn about, to flesh out the
explanation that we see in, "Tell us what happened"? A Q No. Same question on page 4, the veteran that
Mr. Woods just made reference to, the Facebook veteran. Do you see that? A Q A Q I do. Any way to identify that person by name? No. Any way to learn more about the circumstances
of that particular veteran's discharge? A Q No. Going back to the first veteran that Mr. Woods
just walked you through, he said that he was discharged

March 13, 2010
Page 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 twice, once for annulling his marriage to a woman. you see that? A Q I do. And then a second time for speaking out against Do you see that? Do
the chairman of the joint chiefs. A Q I do.
Do you agree that it calls for speculation to
say that he was discharged because of a statement that he made about his sexual orientation? MR. WOODS: Go ahead. THE WITNESS: Well, I'm not a lawyer, so I Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
don't know whether that calls for speculation or not. Q BY MR. FREEBORNE: Well, is another plausible
reading that he spoke out against the chairman of the joint chiefs and perhaps was discharged because of that reason? A Q A Q A Q I don't believe so. Why? It's just my belief. Okay. Nothing more than that.
Nothing more. Okay. And with respect to the veteran that we
see on page 4, again, summarizing, who listed his sexual orientation as gay on a publicly available Facebook
March 13, 2010
Page 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 page, where in there do you see that the statement was used for a purpose other than to show that that particular service member was likely to engage in homosexual acts? A Quite frankly, I don't know how to respond to Could you rephrase it in a different
your question. way, please? Q
Well, I think we've already established,
you're aware of Judge Phillips's ruling in this case that she will allow the First Amendment claim to go forward in this case if Log Cabin can point to a member in which the member has made a statement that he or she is gay or lesbian, and the military has used that statement for a purpose other than to show -- other than as an admission that that service member is likely to engage in homosexual acts. MR. WOODS: Correct? You've
I object to the question.
misstated the judge's order.
She never said that the
Log Cabin Republicans were required to prove that it has a member in that particular category. the record dramatically. MR. FREEBORNE: MR. WOODS: I don't believe so. You're misstating
Then point me to, please, a portion You keep saying that, You're misstating
of her order where it says that.
but that is not what her order says.

March 13, 2010
Page 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 way. answer? MR. WOODS: If you preface it with the preface it, and I object to it, and I'm going to instruct the witness not to answer any questions prefaced by a false statement that you're making about the judge's July order. MR. FREEBORNE: You're instructing him not to
that misstates her order, yes, I will. Q BY MR. FREEBORNE: Well, let me put it this
Are you aware of any member of the Log Cabin
Republicans who has made a statement that he or she is gay and that the military has used that statement for a purpose other than as an admission that that service member is likely to engage in homosexual acts? A question. Q Okay. And that would include the service I'm going to have to answer "no" to that
member that we see on page 4 of Exhibit 36, the second veteran there? A I don't know how to answer that. You've
phrased it negatively and requested a positive answer, I believe. Q So I guess the answer in a general way is no. You're not aware of a member that fits within
that category? A I personally am not aware.

March 13, 2010
Page 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q Q Okay. Now, do you believe that the second
veteran that we see on page 4, that Mr. Woods just walked you through, fits within that category? MR. WOODS: conclusion. MR. FREEBORNE: He seemed very comfortable Objection. Calls for a legal
offering that testimony a second ago in response to your question. So I'm asking the same question. THE WITNESS: Do I believe? Why? Yes, I believe.
BY MR. FREEBORNE:
Based on everything I read there. And what do you read there that leads you to
the conclusion that he fits within that category? A speech. Q My question is, anything in that narrative in I believe that personal places like MySpace are
which the service member says, the military used my statement, for a purpose other than the admission that we just discussed? A No. MR. FREEBORNE: THE REPORTER: I have no further questions. Do you put any kind of
stipulation on the record? MR. FREEBORNE: to read and sign.

I assume the witness is going
EXHIBIT 11
1 TONY WEST Assistant Attorney General 2 ANDR BIROTTE, Jr. United States Attorney 3 VINCENT M. GARVEY PAUL G. FREEBORNE 4 W. SCOTT SIMPSON JOSHUA E. GARDNER 5 RYAN B. PARKER U.S. Department of Justice 6 Civil Division Federal Programs Branch 7 P.O. Box 883 Washington, D.C. 20044 8 Telephone: (202) 353-0543 Facsimile: (202) 616-8202 9 E-Mail: paul.freeborne @usdoj. gov 10 Attorneys for Defendants United States of America and Secretary of Defense 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN DIVISION 13 LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS, ) No. CV04-8425 (VAP) (Ex) 14 ) Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANTS EVIDENTIARY 15 ) OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS v. ) APPENDIX AND STATEMENT 16 ) OF GENUINE ISSUES IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ) OPPOSITION TO 17 ROBERT GATES, Secretary of Defense, ) DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT 18 Defendants. ) ) 19 ) ) 20 ) ) 21 22 23 Plaintiff submitted to the Court 3,094 pages of documents in its APPENDIX 24 OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS OPPOSITION 25 TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Plaintiffs 26 Appendix). Many of the documents in Plaintiffs Appendix, however, are 27 inadmissible, and the Court should not consider them in ruling on Defendants 28
DEFENDANTS' EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S APPENDIX AND STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH P.O. BOX 883, BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044 (202) 353-0543
-1-
1 Motion for summary judgment. See Orr v. Bank of America, 285 F.3d 764, 773 2 (9th Cir. 2002) ("A trial court may only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a 3 motion for summary judgment.")(cited in Judge Phillipss Stand Order). 4 The deficiencies in Plaintiffs Appendix also taint PLAINTIFFS 5 STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR 6 SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Plaintiffs Statement of Issues), as many of the 7 purported genuine issues that Plaintiff identifies rely on inadmissible documents. 8 For the Courts convenience, Defendants have created an appendix that identifies 9 (1) documents from Plaintiffs Appendix that are inadmissible, (2) the reasons that 10 the listed documents are inadmissible, and (3) the specific issues from Plaintiffs 11 Statement of Issues that rely on each inadmissible document. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DEFENDANTS' EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S APPENDIX AND STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH P.O. BOX 883, BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044 (202) 353-0543
Documents From Plaintiffs Appendix (App.) App. 0839-0887: PERSEREC Report Entitled: Nonconforming Sexual Orientation and Military Suitability
Reasons the Document is Inadmissible
App. 1100-1128: Homosexuality and the Israel Defense Force App. 1129-1280: Gays in Foreign Militaries 2010: A Global Primer
This report constitutes an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted and is, therefore, inadmissible hearsay. In addition, this document is a draft that was never adopted by the Department of Defense (DoD) because DoD personnel found the report to be flawed and outside the scope of the approved research. See App. 1293-1294. Accordingly, this report is not an admission by a party-opponent. This report constitutes an out-of-court 43, 46 statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted and is, therefore, inadmissible hearsay. This report constitutes an out-of-court 40 statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted and is, therefore, inadmissible hearsay.
Genuine Issues that Cite to this Document 8
-2-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
App. 1281-1292: Attitudes of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Toward Gay and Lesbian Service Members App. 1330-1359: Draft of PERSEREC report by Michael McDaniel
This report constitutes an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted and is, therefore, inadmissible hearsay. This report constitutes an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted and is, therefore, inadmissible hearsay. In addition, as this document is clearly marked as a draft, it is not a statement from a party-opponent. This document states explicitly that it does not address the militarys homosexual conduct policy, and it is, therefore, not relevant to Plaintiffs claims: This work does not deal with the Department of Defense policy that excludes homosexuals from military service. The exclusion policy is separate from those policies that apply to a civilian being investigated for a clearance. App. 1366 This report constitutes an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted and is, therefore, inadmissible hearsay. This report constitutes an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted and is, therefore, inadmissible hearsay. In addition, this document states on its face that it does not represent the position of the Department of the Army: Note: The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents. App. 1493 This report constitutes an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted and is, therefore, inadmissible hearsay.
35
App. 1360-1405: PERSEREC report entitled Homosexuality and Personnel Security
App. 1406-1491: Successful Integration of Stigmatized Minorities Into The U.S. Army App. 1492-1558: U.S. Army Research Institute (AIR) Research Report 1657
49
App. 1730-1754: Comparative International Military Personnel Policies
53
DEFENDANTS' EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S APPENDIX AND STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
-3-
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH P.O. BOX 883, BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044 (202) 353-0543
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
App. 1791-1806: February 2, 2010 transcript of Admiral Mike Mullens and Secretary of Defense Robert Gatess testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee App. 1807-1876: November 2000 report by Aaron Belkin and R.L. Evans entitled The Effects of Including Gay and Lesbian Soldiers in the British Armed Forces App. 1877-1888: 2003 Report by Aaron Belkin entitled Dont Ask, Dont Tell: Is the Gay Ban Based on Military Necessity App. 1889-1928: September 2000 report by Aaron Belkin and R.L. Evans entitled The Effects of Including Gay and Lesbian Soldiers in the Australian Armed Forces App. 1929-1935: 2009 article by Col. Om Prakash entitled The Efficacy of Dont Ask, Dont Tell App. 1936-1973: 2010 report by Gary Gates entitled Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Men and Women in the U.S. Military: Updated Estimates
In his testimony, Admiral Mullen prefaced his comments with the following statement: Mr. Chairman, speaking for myself and myself only... . App. 1795. Because he was not speaking on behalf of the Government, Admiral Mullens testimony from that point forward is not an admission by a party-opponent and constitutes inadmissible hearsay. This report constitutes an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted and is, therefore, inadmissible hearsay.
9, 44, 88
41, 43, 46
This report constitutes an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted and is, therefore, inadmissible hearsay. This report constitutes an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted and is, therefore, inadmissible hearsay.
41
43, 46
153
115, 116, 121, 122
-4-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
App. 1982-2013: March 24, 1995 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The First Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass App. 2014-2049: 1996 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Second Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass App. 2050-2089: 1997 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Third Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass App. 2090-2168: 1998 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Fourth Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass App. 2169-2253: 1999 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Fifth Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass App. 2254-2340: 2000 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Sixth Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass
This report constitutes an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted and is, therefore, inadmissible hearsay.
20
21
22
23
24
25
-5-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
App. 2341-2443: 2001 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Seventh Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass App. 2444-2500: 2002 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Eighth Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass App. 2501-2561: 2003 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Ninth Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass App. 2562-2617: 2004 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Tenth Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass App. 2618-2621: February 24, 2010 Los Angeles Times article entitled Navy Moves to Allow Women on Submarines
26
27
28
29
This article constitutes inadmissible double hearsay. See e.g., Green v. Baca, 226 F.R.D. 624, 637 (C.D. Cal 2005) ("Generally, newspaper articles and television programs are considered hearsay under Rule 801(c) when offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Even when the actual statements quoted in a newspaper article constitute nonhearsay, or fall within a hearsay exception, their repetition in the newspaper creates a hearsay problem. Thus, statements in newspapers often constitute double hearsay.).
11
-6-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
App. 2773-2775: August 28, 2000 New York Times article entitled Military Reserves are Falling Short in Finding Recruits App. 2776-2777: March 31, 2010 Washington Post article entitled A Dont Ask, Dont Tell Rules Complicate Survey of Troops on Policy Change App. 2778-2820: Balancing Your Strengths Against Your Felonies: Consideration for Military Recruitment of Ex-Offenders App. 2821-2836: Report entitled A Review of the Armed Forces Policy on Homosexuality App. 2837-2878: Effects of the 1992 Lifting of Restrictions on Gay and Lesbian Service in the Canadian Forces: Appraising the Evidence App. 2879-2881: March 14, 2007 Washington Post article Bigotry That Hurts Our Military App. 2937-2945: January 30, 2010 transcript of CNN Interview with William Cohen
This article constitutes inadmissible double hearsay.
72
92
114, 117, 119, 120
42
47
156
This transcript of a CNN interview constitutes inadmissible double hearsay.
157
-7-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
App. 2946-2993: September 15, 2004 report by Nathaniel Frank, Ph. D. Gays and Lesbians at War: Military Service in Iraq and Afghanistan under Dont Ask, Dont Tell App. 2994: March 29, 2010 article in Roll Call entitled Wesley Clark Backs Cunningham in North Carolina App. 2995-3093: August 1992, Update of the U.S. Army Research Institutes Longitudinal Research Data Base of Enlisted Personnel App. 3094: February 3, 1020 New York Times article entitled Powell Favors Repeal of Dont Ask, Dont Tell
113
158
137
152
Inadmissible Documents Cited in Plaintiffs Genuine Issues But Not Included in Its Appendix Log Cabin Military Survey of Membership, produced by Plaintiff as bates Nos. LCR 001-017 and included as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Terry Hamilton This survey is a compilation of outof-court statements introduced as evidence to prove the truth of the matters asserted and is, therefore, inadmissible hearsay. 137
-8-

2:04-cv-08425 #160

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2:04-cv-08425 #160

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 2:04-cv-08425 Document 160 Filed 04/12/10 2 Pages

Case 2:04-cv-08425 Document 160-1 Filed 04/12/10 8 Pages

Case 2:04-cv-08425 Document 160-2 Filed 04/12/10 152 Pages

Case 2:04-cv-08425 Document 160-3 Filed 04/12/10 15 Pages

Terry Hamilton Los Angeles, CA

March 13, 2010

) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-04-8425 (VAP) (Ex)

Terry Hamilton Los Angeles, CA

March 13, 2010

individuals? A I don't think so. I think it's difficult to

the survey that you conducted.

Terry Hamilton Los Angeles, CA

March 13, 2010

Page 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q No. Let me ask you to look at Exhibit 36, and I

Terry Hamilton Los Angeles, CA

March 13, 2010

Page 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q No. Okay. Now, when I was looking through the

would suggest that?

Terry Hamilton Los Angeles, CA

March 13, 2010

you see anything in the survey in which the military has

Terry Hamilton Los Angeles, CA

March 13, 2010

You can answer. THE WITNESS: It seems to me, as I was reading

describing, a statement has not even been made; right?

Terry Hamilton Los Angeles, CA

March 13, 2010

Do you see that?

Terry Hamilton Los Angeles, CA

March 13, 2010

Terry Hamilton Los Angeles, CA

March 13, 2010

nonlawyer, might fit into the First Amendment category

Terry Hamilton Los Angeles, CA

March 13, 2010

just walked you through, he said that he was discharged

Terry Hamilton Los Angeles, CA

March 13, 2010

the chairman of the joint chiefs. A Q I do.

Do you agree that it calls for speculation to

Nothing more. Okay. And with respect to the veteran that we

Terry Hamilton Los Angeles, CA

March 13, 2010

your question. way, please? Q

Well, I think we've already established,

I object to the question.

misstated the judge's order.

She never said that the

of her order where it says that.

but that is not what her order says.

Terry Hamilton Los Angeles, CA

March 13, 2010

Are you aware of any member of the Log Cabin

that category? A I personally am not aware.

Terry Hamilton Los Angeles, CA

March 13, 2010

Page 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q Q Okay. Now, do you believe that the second

stipulation on the record? MR. FREEBORNE: to read and sign.

I assume the witness is going

Case 2:04-cv-08425 Document 160-4 Filed 04/12/10 9 Pages

Reasons the Document is Inadmissible

Genuine Issues that Cite to this Document 8

App. 1360-1405: PERSEREC report entitled Homosexuality and Personnel Security

App. 1730-1754: Comparative International Military Personnel Policies