Judicial/Legal Matters
January 15, 2002
The deposition witnesses quoted below provided testimony under oath that supported key elements of CMR's legal defense. All retired officers indicated that they were speaking for themselves and not for the Navy. Contrary to testimony given by Plaintiff Carey Lohrenz in December of 1999, all agreed that for many years there was extensive public debate in Congress, the Navy, and the media regarding the issues of women in combat and possible double standards in training. This was especially so in the aftermath of the 1991 Tailhook scandal and the 1994 death of Lt. Kara Hultgreen. They also agreed that Elaine Donnelly was sincerely concerned about the issue of safety and high standards in naval aviation. ADM. STANLEY ARTHUR, USN (RET) - APRIL 28, 2000 Adm. Stanley Arthur, former Vice Chief of Naval Operations, made several statements under cross-examination by CMR attorney Kent Masterson Brown regarding the intense controversy surrounding women aviators. Due to restrictive regulations interpreted by a Navy JAG, (which CMR has challenged in court) Adm. Arthur was not permitted to testify about the Navy's "decision making process" regarding the two women. Among other things, Adm. Arthur confirmed that: • His own promotion to become Commander in Chief Pacific (CINCPAC) was withdrawn in the face of political criticism, because he had supported male aviation instructors who washed out then-Lt. Rebecca Hansen from advanced helicopter training. . . Read More

January 15, 2002
BACKGROUND: On April 22, 1996, a lawsuit was filed in the Washington D.C. U.S. District Court against the Center for Military Readiness--an independent, non-partisan, 501(c)(3) educational organization that specializes in military personnel issues--and CMR President Elaine Donnelly. The plaintiff is Lt. Carey Dunai Lohrenz, who was trained to fly the F-14 in the same class as the late Lt. Kara Hultgreen. On October 25, 1994, Lt. Hultgreen died while attempting to land on the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. With the help of Susan Barnes, a feminist activist and Denver-based attorney associated with former-Rep. Patricia Schroeder, Lohrenz accused Elaine Donnelly of libel and defamation, and blamed CMR for her inability to succeed in carrier aviation. At issue is the 1995 CMR Special Report: Double Standards in Naval Aviation, which included actual training records released as a last resort by Lt. Patrick J. Burns, one of Lohrenz' instructors. . . Read More

January 15, 2002
CMR attorneys are pleased to announce that a Motion for Summary Judgment was filed on October 24, 2001, with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in order to end the harassment lawsuit filed against CMR in April of 1996. Speaking at the 6th Annual CMR Celebration in Washington D.C. on October 18, CMR attorney Frank Northam of Webster, Chamberlain & Bean gave a concise overview of the baseless litigation, and expressed total confidence that attorney Susan Barnes and her client, former F-14 pilot Carey Lohrenz, would be unable to continue their case following this Motion. The oversized filing was supported by voluminous documents, testimony, and affidavits that completely refute bogus charges that were brought in a failed attempt to silence CMR. Lead attorney Kent Masterson Brown has petitioned the Court for Summary Judgment because Plaintiff Lohrenz and attorney Barnes do not have the facts necessary to support their case. . . Read More

January 15, 2002
There have been many delays in the case of Lohrenz v. Donnelly and CMR, filed in April of 1996. First the Plaintiff, former F-14 pilot Carey Dunai Lohrenz, tried unsuccessfully to get the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to impose a "gag order" on Elaine Donnelly during the litigation. In 1999, the Office of the Navy Judge Advocate General (JAG) began to interfere in the deposition process, even though the Navy is not a party to the litigation. Among other things, the Navy JAG asserted the right to deny or delay access to certain naval officers and personnel, whether active duty or retired. They also claimed the right to choose expert witnesses for CMR, to impose limitations on the officers’ testimony that were backed by threats of punishment, and to monitor all conversations between CMR attorneys and potential witnesses. . . Read More

See previous articles on this topic here:
More background information and historic documents on this topic may be available in the 'Essential Resources' section of this website, or in a previous edition of CMR E-Notes, archived here.