See other 4play Articles
Title: A Female Officer's Vendetta Against A Hero
Source:
militarycorruption.com
URL Source: http://www.militarycorruption.com/mullahy.htm
Published: Nov 17, 2005
Author: steppenwolf
Post Date: 2005-11-17 18:22:32 by Steppenwolf
Ping List: *Russian Oligarchs* Subscribe to *Russian Oligarchs*
Keywords: Officers, Vendetta, Against
Views: 500
Comments: 23
MILITARYCORRUPTION.COMTM Fighting for the truth . . . exposing the corrupt THE UNSUNG HERO OF THE USS IOWA EXPLOSION - HOW THE NAVY FAILED TO PUNISH A FEMALE OFFICER'S VENDETTA AGAINST HIM It was one of the most heroic acts in the annals of the U.S. Navy, and if it had occurred in wartime, Petty Officer John Mullahy would have won the Congressional Medal of Honor. Instead, he was the victim of a vendetta so vicious and unrelenting, his Navy career and life was ruined. His enemy, now-retired USN Capt. Patricia Rios, daughter and only child of Vice-Admiral John Barrow (now deceased), is alleged to have gone to great lengths to "punish" Mullahy for what he calls "refusing to obey an illegal order." After an extensive investigation by http://MilitaryCorruption.com, we have concluded Mullahy acted properly and was "guilty" of no more than arousing the hatred of an officer who would go to any length to harass and harm him. All efforts to contact Rios or obtain a comment from Navy officials were unsuccessful. EXTRAORDINARY HEROISM Our story begins in the waters off Puerto Rico. The date, April 19, 1989. Aboard the USS Iowa, sailors in Turret 2 of the battleship's 16-inch guns prepared to fire during a training exercise. Suddenly, a flash and a huge explosion rocked the ship. Quickly, other explosions followed. Fires raged. If the flames reached the powder magazine, the entire ship could be lost! Deep in the bowels of Turret 2, Gunner's Mate Mullahy, a fearless Irishman from Boston, who'd made the Navy his career, rescued three of his shipmates trapped behind a jammed hatch. Totally disregarding the extreme danger, and refusing to evacuate the area to save his own life, Mullahy single-handedly battered open the hatch with a wrench and dragged the three sailors to safety. But that wasn't all. Knowing the IOWA would be utterly destroyed if the fires reached the ship's magazine, Mullahy found his way through numerous smoke-filled compartments to the damage control center. There, he quickly activated the sprinkler system to Turret 2 and the powder magazine flats. That act of heroism kept the IOWA from blowing up. Finding Lt. Blackie passed out on the floor, Mullahy, without benefit of a gas mask and nearly collapsing from fumes and smoke, carried the unconscious man to forward battle station, saving the officer's life. Mullahy continued to help men escape the blast area and even volunteered for casualty identification duty. He worked for 36 straight hours without sleep. In those critical moments after the explosion, Mullahy stared death in the face and didn't blink. For his heroism that day, Mullahy was meritoriously promoted and awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Medal for bravery. One would think the Navy public relations "machine" would roll into "high gear" and, still to this day, be cranking out press releases about how Mullahy's courageous actions saved the IOWA and her crew. But no, the Navy brass prefer to keep silent about a genuine hero they allowed to be destroyed. "REFUSING AN "ILLEGAL ORDER" Three years earlier, in 1986, then Petty Officer 1st Class Mullahy was stationed at a 73-acre Navy ammunition depot at Cartagena, Spain. At first all went well. Mullahy's boss, then-Lt. Cdr. Patricia Rios was very pleased with his excellent work. In a document obtained by http://MilitaryCorruption.com, - Mullahy's "enlisted efficiency report" for 86Jan06 to 86Nov30 - Rios couldn't praise her veteran NCO enough: "HIS PERFORMANCE HAS BEEN SUPERIOR. A SELF-STARTER, HE HAS TAKEN THE INITIATIVE TO UPGRADE ALL ASPECTS OF AMMUNITION STORAGE, ACCOUNTABILITY AND HANDLING AT THIS ACTIVITY AND HAS DONE A REMARKABLE JOB. "HE RECEIVED COMMENDATORY COMMENTS FROM THE EXPLOSIVE SAFETY BOARD, CINCUSNAVEUR AMMUNITION OFFICER AND CTF-63 WEAPONS OFFICER FOR HAVING HAD A POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE UNIT'S PERFORMANCE AND FOR IMPROVING READINESS. HIS INNOVATIVENESS, COGENT SUGGESTIONS AND DRIVE TO EXCEL MAKE HIM A VALUABLE ASSET TO THIS COMMAND. "PETTY OFFICER MULLAHY DEMONSTRATES THE REQUISITE QUALITIES OF A SUCCESSFUL LEADER AND IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED FOR RETENTION AND ADVANCEMENT TO CHIEF PETTY OFFICER." Sound good? It should. Mullahy was one of the top petty officers in the Navy. But soon, all these deserved words of praise would be forgotten in the anger of a bitter and hate-filled vendetta. One day in 1987 at the San Javier Airport, Rios ordered Mullahy to spray paint over all "explosive" markings and place the explosive devices - from a U.S. C-130 aircraft - in his personal pick-up truck. According to his sworn statement, Mullahy refused because of a number of reasons. First of all, Lt. Cdr. Rios had "forgotten" to get "diplomatic clearance" from the Spanish Government for the explosives-laden aircraft to land. Then, in direct violation of treaty agreements between the United States and Spain, she ordered Mullahy to move the explosives over Spanish roads WITHOUT informing the local authorities and obtaining an escort. The trip, from San Javier to Cartegena was approximately 35 miles, plenty of time for an accident to occur. Mullahy knew it was a dangerous and illegal command, and true to his "by-the-book" training, he refused the order. When Rios reacted angrily, the veteran petty officer reported the matter to a Capt. Kennedy at CINCNAVEUR in London. Rios was subsequently "called on the carpet," and when she returned to Cartegena, Mullahy said, "all hell broke loose." This wasn't the first time Rios had violated regulations, Mullahy said. "I remember once she ripped up incident reports when explosives were dropped or otherwise needed to be inspected. It was as if she realized she was a screw-up but was going to cover it up at all costs," he said. Mullahy told http://MilitaryCorruption.com of a 1988 incident in which a pallet of 8-inch howitzer ammunition was dropped while being taken off the USS Milwaukee. Two sailors marked the ammunition as "unusable" and prepared a report. But Rios allegedly ordered one of the sailors to "change the markings" to indicate the ammunition was ready for use, then tore up the report and threw it in the trash. Rios allegedly told the sailor he was not "a team player." REVENGE Now, Mullahy could do nothing right! At least according to Rios. She was determined to get even. In direct contrast to her earlier signed evaluation, she now "blistered" the petty officer in the next one: "PETTY OFFICER MULLAHY . . . LACKS THE MOTIVATION, COMMITMENT, SENSITIVITY AND MORAL STANDARDS TO BE A LEADER," she wrote in June 1988. Her report said Mullahy ". . .IS NOT COMPLETELY TRUSTWORTHY, POMPOUS AND HIS DISLOYAL ATTITUDE HAS UNDERMINED MORALE. HE IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ADVANCEMENT OR RETENTION." Next, Mullahy tells http://MilitaryCorruption.com Rios started "digging" through his records and finding what she claimed was "theft of government funds." Mullahy's first wife had abandoned him while he was at sea years earlier. She divorced him in the States without sending him, or the Navy, any notice. And he had no way of finding her for three years. "I wasn't sure of my marital status," Mullahy said. "During that time, I continued to receive a housing allowance at a 'with dependant' rate. On more than one occasion, I tried to have the allotment stopped, but was advised to continue to receive it since I had no record of my divorce." Mullahy was told by one Navy lawyer the divorce was "probably invalid" because it occurred while he was at sea. The Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act protects servicemen from judicial proceedings they are unable to attend. But that didn't faze Rios. She brought up her once favored noncom on charges and suddenly Mullahy was facing a court-martial. He was refused the opportunity to "pay back" the disputed funds. What happened next will forever be a blot on the U.S. Navy's so-called system of "military justice." A NIGHTMARE OF INJUSTICE The day after he returned from his honeymoon with his second wife, a Spanish national, Mullahy was sent to Naval Station Rota on Technical Arrest Orders. Under Navy regulations, the maximum time TAO's are valid is six months. Mullahy was held on them for eight. Rios extended her harassment to Mullahy's wife. She was denied a dependent's ID card and all Exchange and Commissary privileges. Later, she was given just "24 hours" to "vacate" her husband's military housing - in effect, putting the young woman out on the street. Two days before his court martial in June 1988, the Navy arbitrarily changed his defense counsel. Also, on the day the proceedings were to begin, Mullahy was told none of the officers who advised him about the housing allowance could be found to testify in his defense. In addition, his civilian lawyer was barred from entering the base. The "fix" was in. The veteran petty officer, who was given no counseling, was taken "directly to court-martial" when similar "offenses" were dealt with by a "captain's mast" or some form of non-judicial punishment. "It was clear that Rios and her family connections, with her daddy being a vice-admiral and all, made my chances to survive a court martial slim-to-none," he said. Mullahy was advised to plead "guilty," with the "warning" that if he was "convicted" (and the conviction rate against enlisted sailors was around 98 per cent), he could get two years in the brig and a dishonorable discharge. With 17 outstanding years of service behind him, Mullahy chose to plead "guilty," even though he knew he was innocent, and accept a two-grade bust in rank and five months in the Philadelphia brig. But the Navy was not done torturing the petty officer. In what the Navy now acknowledges was it's own "error," Mullahy was ordered to "repay" cash advances he had legitimately received for food and housing while awaiting his court-martial. Meanwhile, Rios allegedly contacted all of the petty officer's creditors and told them because of his court-martial, Mullahy was now a "felon." The result was devastating. "Ford took my truck. I was three payments ahead with Sears and J.C. Pennys. Those and my bank credit cards were cancelled. I was financially ruined. Rios even opened my mail in my absence, for what reason I will never know," Mullahy said. NO LET UP In 1991, two years after the IOWA explosion, now restored to his original rank of Petty Officer 1st Class, Mullahy retired from the Navy. But the vendetta continued unabated. And the Navy was not about to discipline or punish the daughter of an admiral. This, despite a 1989 Inspector General's report that found, in part, Lt. Cmdr. Patrica Rios "MADE DELIBERATE EFFORTS TO RUIN THE CAREER AND REPUTATION OF GUNNERS MATE JOHN M. MULLAHY JR." Incredibly, Rios was PROMOTED twice after that. John Mullahy, a certified hero, doesn't even get to be a chief petty officer! In the years since Mullahy left the Navy, the campaign of slander and harassment got worse. It reached its zenith in the mid 1990's when Ms. Andremda Tommasi, an official translator for the 6th Fleet and a close friend of Patricia Rios, got up at an official Navy function in Cartegena and slammed retired PO1 Mullahy. In front of the mayor of Cartegena, U.S. Ambassador to Spain and the Commander of the U.S. 6th Fleet, Tomassi declared: "I AM THE U.S. NAVY REPRESENTATIVE AND THIS IS THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY AND THE NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE - THAT JOHN MULLAHY WAS A SUSPECT IN THE MASS MURDER OF 47 MEN IN GUN TURRET #2 ON THE USS IOWA." Incredible! Now Mullahy was being publicly accused of MURDER, when he actually saved his ship and the lives of the men aboard her! The NIS later denied Tommasi was their "official representative" and when they investigated WHERE the translator had received her outrageously false information, they were told it came from . . . "Captain Patricia Rios!" Within hours of Tommasi's libelous statement, two days before Christmas 1994, Mullahy was fired from his local job. The commanding officer of the Naval Station at Rota, Spain (where Tommasi was assigned) sent a letter of apology for the defamatory statements, but that did nothing to restore Mullahy's reputation in Cartegena where he and his Spanish wife made their home. Three years later, just prior to Christmas 1997, someone reported to the Navy that Mullahy was "dead" and his pension checks stopped. It took months for the retired petty officer to straighten out that mess. HOW TO RECTIFY THIS OUTRAGE Anyone having an ounce of decency and a sense of justice reading the above account would know there MUST be action taken to clear retired PO1 John Mullahy's name, his military record and a financial remedy must be arrived at to compensate him, at least in part, for his pain and suffering. At the very least, the incoming secretary of the Navy should order Mullahy's court-martial "expunged" from his records and the petty officer promoted to at least the rank of Chief Petty Officer (E-7), which assuredly a man with Mullahy's experience and years of service would have attained under normal conditions. His retirement pension should reflect the change of rank, retroactive back to the time he left the Navy. Mullahy is anything but an ordinary sailor. The highly-decorated Vietnam veteran was a hero in 1975 when he threw himself on a live grenade near the Subic Bay Naval Station, Philippines, saving the lives of four of his comrades. All during his 20 years in the United States Navy, Mullahy excelled in every assignment he was given. This nation should be proud that men like John Mullahy still exist. Isn't it time to render him JUSTICE? Don't we owe him at least that much? HOW YOU CAN HELP Telephone and E-mail all the members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. Appeal to the Secretary of the Navy. Write President Bush. Sen. John Warner of Virginia, is a former Secretary of the Navy and a good and decent man. Let him know how you feel about this injustice. Download and print out copies of this article and send them to your local news media. Support our sister web sites CAMI, (Citizens Against Military Injustice) at http://www.militaryinjustice.org and USCOVA (United States Council On Veteran's Affairs) http://www.uscova.org . If you have loved ones in the Navy, send them a copy of this story. Ask them to pass it around. Finally, if you feel shame for what the Navy and this country has done to retired PO1 John Mullahy, please E-mail him at JOHNMU@teleline.es . Let him know how much you appreciate his military service. EDITOR'S NOTE: while retired Capt. Patricia Rios and any U.S. Navy officials have yet to contact http://MilitaryCorruption.com, with any comment on the Mullahy case, we offer them equal space on these pages to respond to any allegations made. Copyright © 2002 by MilitatryCorruption.Com, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Poster Comment: This is a crime ,the Capt.Rios should go to prison.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Steppenwolf (#0)
Mullahy knew it was a dangerous and illegal command, and true to his "by-the-book" training, he refused the order. When Rios reacted angrily, the veteran petty officer reported the matter to a Capt. Kennedy at CINCNAVEUR in London. Rios was subsequently "called on the carpet," and when she returned to Cartegena, Mullahy said, "all hell broke loose." This wasn't the first time Rios had violated regulations, Mullahy said. "I remember once she ripped up incident reports when explosives were dropped or otherwise needed to be inspected. It was as if she realized she was a screw-up but was going to cover it up at all costs," he said. USN Capt. Patricia Rios, daughter and only child of Vice-Admiral John Barrow (now deceased), Making this very public is his best course of action.
Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war. – Donald Rumsfeld
Keel haul would be more appropriate for the femiNAZI bitch!
"It is common to assume that human progress affects everyone – that even the dullest man, in these bright days, knows more than any man of, say, the Eighteenth Century, and is far more civilized. This assumption is quite erroneous...The great masses of men, even in this inspired republic, are precisely where the mob was at the dawn of history. They are ignorant, they are dishonest, they are cowardly, they are ignoble. They know little if anything that is worth knowing, and there is not the slightest sign of a natural desire among them to increase their knowledge." H.L. Mencken
Thanks for posting this as I was unaware of this injustice.
THE MULLAHY GENERAL COURT MARTIAL OUTRAGE By Fred Nixon Contents: 1. Change of Counsel 2. Civilian Counsel 3. Military Defense Counsel (MDC) #1 4. Jeopardy and Double Jeopardy 5. The Alford Plea 6. Military Defense Counsel (MDC) #2 Pretrial 7. Military Defense Counsel (MDC) #2 Post Trial (SJA Reco) 8. Recourse 9. Conclusion PART 1 – CHANGE OF COUNSEL Arbitrary Change of Military Defense Counsel After formation of attorney-client relationship I will use the following abbreviations to refer to attorneys in the case: MJ Military Judge TC Trial Counsel (Prosecuting Attorney) SJA Staff Judge Advocate (Counsel to Convening Authority) MDC-1 Military Defense Counsel #1 MDC-2 Military Defense Counsel #2 CC Civilian Counsel http://www.militarycorruption.com/mullahy.htm At MilitaryCorruption.com, an article states in part: QUOTE TWO DAYS BEFORE HIS COURT MARTIAL IN JUNE 1988, THE NAVY ARBITRARILY CHANGED HIS DEFENSE COUNSEL. Also, on the day the proceedings were to begin, Mullahy was told none of the officers who advised him about the housing allowance could be found to testify in his defense. IN ADDITION, HIS CIVILIAN LAWYER WAS BARRED FROM ENTERING THE BASE. The "fix" was in. CLOSE QUOTE [emphasis added] To start, I am going to look at the first part of this. Two days before his court-martial in June 1988, the Navy changed Mullahy's defense counsel. Was this arbitrary? CHANGES OF DETAILED COUNSEL AFTER FORMATION OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP See Revised Manual of Courts-Martial, page II-49, Rule 505(d)(2)(B) • An authority competent to detail such counsel MAY EXCUSE OR CHANGE SUCH COUNSEL ONLY: Under R.C.M 506(b)(3); • Upon the request of the accused or application for withdrawal by such counsel under R.C.M. 506(c); or • FOR OTHER GOOD CAUSE SHOWN ON THE RECORD. NOTE: R.C.M. 506(b)(3) excuses detailed military counsel if the accused is represented by individually selected military counsel. R.C.M. 506(c) provides that, "except as otherwise provided in R.C.M. 505(d)(2) and subsection (b)(3) of this rule, defense counsel may be excused only with the express consent of the accused, or by the military judge upon application for withdrawal by the defense counsel for good cause shown. ACCUSED’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL See Revised Manual of Courts-Martial, page II-50, Rule 506 The accused has the right to be represented before a general or special court- martial by civilian counsel if provided at no expense to the Government, and either by the military counsel detailed under Article 27 OR MILITARY COUNSEL OF THE ACCUSED’S OWN SELECTION, IF REASONABLY AVAILABLE. REQUESTED COUNSEL WHEN THERE IS AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP See JAG Manual. Page 1-41, paragraph 0131(d)(2) When there is an attorney-client relationship regarding any charge pending before the proceeding, then the requested counsel should ordinarily be made available to act as individual military counsel without regard to whether he or she would otherwise be deemed "reasonably available" as defined in subsection (b)(4), above, unless there is "good cause" to sever that relationship, and provided that requested counsel is certified in accordance with article 27(b), UCMJ. If requested counsel is not certified in accordance with article 27(b), UCMJ, the commander shall promptly deny the request and so inform the accused, in writing, citing this provision. Military Law in a Nutshell, 2 Ed., 1996, Charles A. Shanor and L. Lynn Hogue, West Publishing, p. 225-6 Once an attorney-client relationship has attached, the "reasonably available" standard ceases to apply; once appointed, counsel may be severed from the case only if the accused so demands or "good cause" is shown for severance based on extraordinary problems. United States v. Taylor (N.C.M.R. 1977). Routine transfers, financial, logistical, or administrative burdens are not sufficent "good cause." The test is met, however, when original counsel leaves the service or becomes ill. In Military Criminal Justice, Practice and Procedure, 5 ed., by David A. Schlueter, at page 351, footnote 124, it states, "124. See, e.g., United States v. Allred, 50 M.J. 795 (N.M.Ct.CrimApp 1999) (reversible error to replace defense counsel without good cause....)" Nobody can rationally assert that a lawyer-client relationship had not been formed between John Mullahy and MDC-1. SUMMARY In the absence of good cause, shown on the record, the replacement of defense counsel is prohibited and constitutes reversible error. Any "arbitrary" replacement of defense counsel constitutes reversible error. CONCLUSION OF THIS PART As there were enough JAG attorneys involved in this to form a basketball team, how did they all remain unaware of this violation of the rules? If a radioman could see it, why couldn't they? In my humble opinion, that could not happen, and did not happen. Rather, it appears to be a calculated decision, impelled by an untold event happening in the background. They thought they could get away with it. It seems that they did. The Navy was not going to tell. The Navy felt it could control the military attorneys. The Navy evidently felt the need to remove MDC-1 from the case outweighed any concern about violating procedural rules. What had happened? And what of the civilian attorney? That is the subject I shall visit next. Part 2 – CIVILIAN COUNSEL http://www.militarycorruption.com/mullahy.htm At MilitaryCorruption.com, an article states in part: QUOTE TWO DAYS BEFORE HIS COURT MARTIAL IN JUNE 1988, THE NAVY ARBITRARILY CHANGED HIS DEFENSE COUNSEL. Also, on the day the proceedings were to begin, Mullahy was told none of the officers who advised him about the housing allowance could be found to testify in his defense. IN ADDITION, HIS CIVILIAN LAWYER WAS BARRED FROM ENTERING THE BASE. The "fix" was in. CLOSE QUOTE [emphasis added] My first email to John Mullahy, on April 2, 2001, contained the following: QUOTE It [the MILCOR article] also said your civilian lawyer was barred from entering the base. It doesn’t say if the lawyer came from the States or was local from Rota. I only know of one lawyer in Rota who sort of held himself out to be an attorney at U.S. law. That would be Manuel Mazo. On the chance that it was Manuel Mazo, I note that he was dual-national and certainly was an attorney at Spanish law. I am much less certain that he was licensed to practice U.S. law. CLOSE QUOTE John Mullahy's response on the same day, contained the following: QUOTE As for the attorney Manual Mazo passed the Bar in Maryland and was there for all the meetings with my Navy Lawyer and for what ever reason was not allowed on the base the morning of my Court Martial. CLOSE QUOTE When one goes to the office of Manuel Mazo in Rota, Spain, the plaque on the gate does not say, "Abogado," in Spanish, it says, "Attorney at Law," in English. He told me he was an attorney in New York. I have verified his status in Maryland and New York. Nobody named Manuel Mazo, or Manuel Mazo III, has ever been admitted to practice law in either state. Below, I give you the information which will allow you to verify this with a quick phone call to the Maryland and New York authorities. I followed up and obtained verification of status in writing from each state. In short, as I had strongly suspected, the lead counsel for John Mullahy appears to have had no license to practice U.S. law. At the time I met Mazo, I was a civilian employee headed to an administrative board hearing. I prepared a brief for all witnesses, with proposed questions, and citations to the record. It was large and meticulously detailed. When I showed it to Mazo, he asked to keep it to review it. When I returned the next day, the brief had unaccountably vanished, never to be seen again. On the other side of my case, the SJA was the same person who oversaw the Mullahy persecution. I believe the removal of MDC-1 was anything but arbitrary. Such removal is reversible error and they must have known that. I believe that MDC-1 was removed because he found out either that Mazo had no license to practice U.S. law and did not know what he was doing, or that he found out Mazo had improper contact with the SJA, or both. When he reported that to his boss, he was removed from the case. There would be several considerations: • Embarrassment. • The jury had been selected. Jeopardy had attached. On mistrial, Mullahy would walk. • Any previous case tainted by Mazo would be reopened. • Any improper contact could be career ending. General Court Martial, Defense Counsel or Associate Defense Counsel See Revised Manual of Courts-Martial, page II-43, Rule 502(d)(1) • To be certified by the Judge Advocate General concerned under Article 27 (b), a person must be a member of the bar of a Federal court or the highest court of a State. The Judge Advocate General concerned may establish additional requirements for certification. • When the accused has individual military or civilian defense counsel, the detailed defense counsel is "associate counsel" unless excused from the case. See R.C.M. 506(b)(3). Clearly, Manuel Mazo was the LEAD COUNSEL in the case. By regulation, the detailed military counsel, either MDC-1 OR MDC-2, was restricted to acting as associate counsel. General Court Martial, Qualifications Of Individual Military And Civilian Defense Counsel See Revised Manual of Courts-Martial, page II-43, Rule 502(d)(3) Individual military or civilian defense counsel who represents an accused in a court-martial shall be: • A member of the bar of a Federal court or of the bar of the highest courts of a State; or • If not a member of such a bar, a lawyer who is authorized by a recognized licensing authority to practice law and is found by the military judge to be qualified to represent the accused upon a showing to the satisfaction of the military judge that the counsel has appropriate training and familiarity with the general principles of criminal law which apply in a court martial. I would certainly like to see the showing Mazo made to the MJ that he had, "appropriate training and familiarity with the general principles of criminal law which apply in a court martial." This info on Mazo came from the American Embassy in Madrid. Please note that no American education is listed. The Spanish legal system is so different from the American system that it is unrecognizable. (The link is for a list of attorneys in Spain who speak English). http://www.embusa.es/cons/attorney.html Found under: AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITY OF ANDALUCIA City of Rota City of Jerez de la Frontera Manuel Mazo Manuel Mazo Rota. Avenida de San Fernando 94, Rota, Cadiz. Tel: (956) 34-22-38 and (956) 32-39-51. Mobile: (619) 57-66-61 General law practice, civil, criminal and real estate investments. U.S. Citizen. Studied at the University of Seville. Languages: Spanish and English. Jerez de la Frontera Manuel de la Quintana 1, 11405 Jerez de la Frontera, Cadiz Tel: (956) 33-04-59 (956) 33-08-99 Mobile: (619) 57-66-61 General law practice, civil, criminal and real estate investments. U.S. Citizen. Studied at the University of Seville. Languages: Spanish and English. TO CHECK THE STATUS OF AN ATTORNEY: FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND: Goto www.courts.state.md.us/ble/ Scroll to the bottom and select FAQ (frequently asked questions) Select Attorney Information Select "How do I check to see if an attorney is in good standing in the state?" This provides you with a phone number (401) 260-1500 Call the number. (M-F, 0830-1630 Eastern Time) Ask to know if anyone named Manuel Mazo or Manuel Mazo III has ever been granted a license to practice law in the state of Maryland. Service is very fast and you should not need to spend more than a couple of minutes. This may be done anonymously. They neither need nor ask any personal information from you. They can give you an address for the Maryland Court of Appeals. It is: Court of Appeals Clerk's Office 361 Rowe Boulevard Annapolis, MD 21401 If you write to them, and enclose a 5 dollar fee, they will give you written confirmation of the status of any person. They give you a written response, signed by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals, with a raised embossed seal verifying its authenticity. FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK Goto www.courts.state.ny.us/aru.htm Attorney Registration Unit Phone: (212) 428-2800 Phone service is fast. Written service is free but not as fast as Maryland. In writing: State of New York Office of Court Administration Attorney Registration P.O. Box 29327 New York, NY 10087 PART 3 – MILITARY DEFENSE COUNSEL (MDC) #1 http://www.militarycorruption.com/mullahy.htm At MilitaryCorruption.com, an article states in part: QUOTE TWO DAYS BEFORE HIS COURT MARTIAL IN JUNE 1988, THE NAVY ARBITRARILY CHANGED HIS DEFENSE COUNSEL. CLOSE QUOTE [emphasis added] Absent "good cause," documented on the record, NOBODY had the authority to order MDC-1 to sever his lawyer-client relationship with John Mullahy and withdraw from the case. Even if his commanding officer ordered him to withdraw, the legal duty of MDC-1 went to his client. Any such order was unlawful on its face. The term for what MDC-1 appears to have done is, "abandonment of client." This breach of ethics can and does lead to disbarment of attorneys. Military Law in a Nutshell, 2 Ed., 1996, Charles A. Shanor and L. Lynn Hogue, West Publishing, p. 225-6 Once an attorney-client relationship has attached, the "reasonably available" standard ceases to apply; once appointed, counsel may be severed from the case only if the accused so demands or "good cause" is shown for severance based on extraordinary problems. United States v. Taylor (N.C.M.R. 1977). Routine transfers, financial, logistical, or administrative burdens are not sufficient "good cause." The test is met, however, when original counsel leaves the service or becomes ill. In Military Criminal Justice, Practice and Procedure, 5 ed., by David A. Schlueter, at page 351, footnote 124, it states, "124. See, e.g., United States v. Allred, 50 M.J. 795 (N.M.Ct.CrimApp 1999) (reversible error to replace defense counsel without good cause....)" CHANGES OF DETAILED COUNSEL AFTER FORMATION OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP See Revised Manual of Courts-Martial, page II-49, Rule 505(d)(2)(B) An authority competent to detail such counsel MAY EXCUSE OR CHANGE SUCH COUNSEL ONLY: • Under R.C.M 506(b)(3); • Upon the request of the accused or application for withdrawal by such counsel under R.C.M. 506(c); or • FOR OTHER GOOD CAUSE SHOWN ON THE RECORD. NOTE: • R.C.M. 506(b)(3) excuses detailed counsel if the accused is represented by individual counsel. • R.C.M. 506(c) provides that, "except as otherwise provided in R.C.M. 505 (d)(2) and subsection (b)(3) of this rule, defense counsel may be excused only with the express consent of the accused, or by the military judge upon application for withdrawal by the defense counsel for good cause shown. PART 4 – JEOPARDY AND DOUBLE JEOPARDY http://www.militarycorruption.com/mullahy.htm At MilitaryCorruption.com, an article states in part: QUOTE TWO DAYS BEFORE HIS COURT MARTIAL IN JUNE 1988, THE NAVY ARBITRARILY CHANGED HIS DEFENSE COUNSEL. CLOSE QUOTE [emphasis added] Presumably, everyone is familiar with the legal term, "double jeopardy." Less well understood is when, exactly, the first jeopardy attaches or occurs. Once jeopardy has attached, if there is a mistrial due to certain misconduct on the part of the prosecution, there is no retrial. That would be double jeopardy. The defendant walks. In a case being pushed by an admiral, that is a very undesirable result. Had jeopardy attached in the Mullahy case? Had there been a mistrial, would Mullahy have walked? In an email of April 18, 2001, John Mullahy stated: QUOTE The jurors were picked by command. My second lawyer showed me the list of officers and said that's why I did not have a chance! CLOSE QUOTE It appears that a jury had, in fact, been impaneled. Black’s Law Dictionary: "Impanel. The act of the clerk of the court in making up a list of the jurors who have been selected for the trial of a particular cause. All the steps of ascertaining who shall be the proper jurors to sit in the trial of a particular case up to the final formation." Law Dictionary, 2 Ed., Stephen E. Gifis: "Impaneling. The process by which jurors are selected and sworn in to their task, 119 N.E. 916; the listing of those selected to serve on a particular jury." When Jeopardy Attaches. Criminal Procedure, Warren R. LaFave and Jerold H. Israel, page 900, paragraph 24.1(c). In a case to be tried by a jury, jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn, that is, when the entire jury has been selected and has taken the oath required for service at trial. The effect of this rule is illustrated by Downum v. United States and Serfass v. United States. In Downum a mistrial was declared without sufficient reason just after the jury had been sworn but before any testimony had been taken, and thus retrial was impermissible. But in Serfass a termination by the judge which was arguably an acquittal did not bar a later trial because the defendant had sought a jury trial but the jury had not yet been selected. It seems that jeopardy had attached in the Mullahy case, and this appears to have played a major part in impelling the actions of MDC-2. PART 5 – THE ALFORD PLEA In an email of April 21, 2001, I said: QUOTE Did anyone ever pitch the term "Alford Plea" at you? Possibly it was misnamed "Alfred Plea." Does that ring any bell at all? I heard it in 1990 during an administrative board hearing. I was just wondering if they ran it at you a couple of years earlier. In general, it pertains to pleading guilty while claiming innocence. The book I am reading says you did something like that and I am just curious if they pitched that term at you. CLOSE QUOTE On April 22, 2001, Mullahy responded: QUOTE That is what was said to me the first day with the new lawyer and Mazo was present, He [MDC-2] said we can't win here, but WILL win in the appeal! CLOSE QUOTE I guess they failed to explain that a successful appeal would probably have to overturn the 1970 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25. It is a first-degree capital murder case. The Supremes overruled the appeals court stating it, "was in error to find Alford's plea of guilty invalid because it was made to avoid the possibility of the death penalty." Although Alford said he didn't do it, the plea was held valid and binding. The threat of the death penalty was considered not to be coercion. So sayeth the 9 wise men. In 1970! SELECTIONS FROM THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN ALFORD QUOTE Alford took the stand and testified that he had not committed the murder but that he was pleading guilty because he faced the threat of the death penalty if he did not do so. [Note 2] * * * 2. After giving his version of the events of the night of the murder, Alford stated: "I pleaded guilty on the second degree murder because they said there is too much evidence, but I ain't shot no man, but I take the fault for the other man. We never had an argument in our life and I just pleaded guilty because they said if I didn't they would gas me for it, and that is all." * * * Q. [by Alford's attorney]. And you authorized me to tender a plea of guilty to second degree murder before the court? A. Yes sir. Q. And in doing that, that you have again affirmed your decision on that point? A. Well, I'm still pleading that you all got me to plead guilty. I plead that other way, circumstantial evidence; that the jury will prosecute me on – on the second. You told me to plead guilty, right. I don't – I'm not guilty but I plead guilty. CLOSE QUOTE Regarding Alford's Plea, the Supreme Court stated that, "we hold that the trial judge did not commit constitutional error in accepting it." It is extremely difficult to successfully appeal a guilty plea. This is especially true when there is an unfavorable U.S. Supreme Court decision which has set precedent. Legal advice which counsels the client to plead guilty and win on appeal seems legally insane, unless the purpose is actually to wrongfully influence the client to plead guilty, in a situation where such a plea is against the best interest of the client. The only evident purpose for counseling such a plea, in such manner, appears to be unlawful command influence. PART 6 – MILITARY DEFENSE COUNSEL (MDC) #2 PRETRIAL MDC-2 should have known that reversible error existed from replacement of MDC- 1. As he showed the jury list to Mullahy, MDC-2 should have known that jeopardy had attached. Before counseling his client about an Alford plea, MDC-2 had a duty to familiarize himself with the Alford case. Via email, John Mullahy and I had the following exchanges: [FN] Was [MDC-1] prepared to go to trial? [JM] Yes and no, could not locate witnesses, did not have a lot of time. [FN] Was [MDC-1's] replacement dead set against proceeding to trial? [JM] The only thing. MDC-2 had a duty to inform his client of the reversible error, the attachment of jeopardy, the legal import of an Alford plea. Instead, MDC-2 advised Mullahy only to plead, plead, plead, and that his situation at that level was hopeless. He showed Mullahy the witness list and advised him to plead guilty, and assured him that he would win on appeal. MDC-2 apparently: • acted in the interest of the Navy • acted against the interest of his client • failed to properly inform his client • misinformed his client • wrongfully influenced his client to plead guilty MDC-2 apparently protected the Navy and the Legal Services office from embarrassment, and protected prior cases tainted by participation of CC. Part 7 – MILITARY DEFENSE COUNSEL (MDC) #2 POST TRIAL (SJA RECO) R.C.M page II-149, para 1106(f)(2) states: QUOTE (2) Counsel for the accused. The accused may, at trial or in writing to the staff judge advocate or legal officer before the recommendation has been served under this rule, designate which counsel (detailed, individual military, or civilian) will be served with the recommendation. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH DESIGNATION, THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE OR LEGAL OFFICER SHALL CAUSE THE RECOMMENDATION TO BE SERVED IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER OR PRECEDENCE, AS APPLICABLE, ON: (1) CIVILIAN COUNSEL; (2) individual military counsel; (3) detailed defense counsel. * * * Discussion When the accused is represented by more than one counsel, the military judge should inquire of the accused and counsel before the end of the court-martial as to who will act for the accused under this rule. CLOSE QUOTE DISCUSSION: The instruction is crystal clear. In the absence of such designation, the SJA SHALL CAUSE THE RECOMMENDATION TO BE SERVED ON CIVILIAN COUNSEL IF SUCH COUNSEL EXISTS. The SJA was required to cause the recommendation to be served on Mazo before he could forward it to Convening Authority. The word shall signifies a lack of discretion. It was received 9/27/88 and answered 9/28/88 by MDC-2. The one-day turnaround leads me to believe it was served on MDC-2. Absent specific designation, MDC-2 acted as Lead Counsel without authority to do so. Unless Mullahy specifically designated MDC-2 to be served with the recommendation, the recommendation was illegally forwarded to the Convening Authority. The power to act on it would not vest in the Convening Authority until it is properly forwarded via Mazo, the civilian counsel. PART 8 - RECOURSE The case is currently assigned for review at the Navy IG. If they wanted to get rid of the court martial, they could do so neatly and cleanly. For example, they could find that the replacement of counsel was an inadvertent error, but reversible error nevertheless. In the interest of justice and fairness, and considering the subsequent heroics of the accused, the matter will not be reheard. And the court martial is gone. Should recourse be denied at Navy IG, the following is further legal recourse as it is outlined in the Manual of the Judge Advocate General. JAG MANUAL (JAG 5800.7C of 3 Oct 90 w/CHGS 1 - 3) Go to Navy Jag home page www.jag.navy.mil Go to reading room Go to Navy JAG Instructions Go to JAG Scroll down to JAG 5800.7C Open PDF file (pages 1 to 411) Go to page 111 (Application for Relief continues to p.112) Binocular icon provides a search function. It does not appear to find headings such as "0162 APPLICATION FOR" Search on "application for" and it will find the text appearance of that phrase. You can use the search to find whatever else interests you as well. I recommend downloading the whole manual prior to searching or the search takes eternity (unless you have broadband capability). Article 69(b), UCMJ, provides that, "The findings or sentence, or both, in a court-martial case not reviewed under subsection (a) or under section 866 of this title (article 66) may be modified or set aside, in whole or in part, by the Judge Advocate General on the ground of • newly discovered evidence, • fraud on the court, • lack of jurisdiction over the accused or the offense, • error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused, or • the appropriateness of the sentence." An application by the accused for such a review • must be filed in the Office of the Judge Advocate General within 2 years of the convening authority's action on the sentence, • unless the accused establishes good cause for failure to file within that time. Submission Procedures. If the applicant is no longer on active duty, the application may be submitted directly to the Judge Advocate General. This continues with the specific content required (a 16-point list), and the signature requirement. I provide a complete quote of Article 69(b), UCMJ, below. ///////////// 0162 APPLICATION FOR RELIEF-ARTICLE 69(b) a. General. Article 69(b), UCMJ, provides that "The findings or sentence, or both, in a court- martial case not reviewed under subsection (a) or under section 866 of this title (article 66) may be modified or set aside, in whole or in part, by the Judge Advocate General on the ground of newly discovered evidence, fraud on the court, lack of jurisdiction over the accused or the offense, error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused or the appropriateness of the sentence." An application by the accused for such a review must be filed in the Office of the Judge Advocate General within 2 years of the convening authority's action on the sentence, unless the accused establishes good cause for failure to file within that time. b. Time limitations. In order to be considered by the Judge Advocate General, an application for relief must be placed in military channels if the applicant it on active duty, or be deposited in the mail if the applicant is no longer on active duty, on or before the last day of the 2-year period beginning on the date the sentence is approved by the convening authority. An application not filed in compliance with these time limits may be considered if the Judge Advocate General determines, in his sole discretion, that "good cause" for failure to file within the time limits bas been established by the applicant. c. Submission Procedures. Applications for relief may be submitted to the judge Advocate General by letter. If the accused is on active duty, the application shall be submitted via the applicant's commanding officer, the command that convened the court, and the command that reviewed the case under article 64(a) or (b), UCMJ. If the original record of trial is held by the command that reviewed the case under article 64(a) or (b), UCMJ, it shall be forwarded as an enclosure to the endorsement. If the original record of trial bas been filed in the National Personnel Records Center (see section 0154b), the endorsement will include all necessary retrieval data (accession number I box number I and shelf location) obtained from the receipt returned from the National Personnel Records Center to the sending activity. This endorsement shall also include information and specific comment on the grounds for relief asserted in the application, and an opinion on the merits of the application. If the applicant is no longer on active duty, the application may be submitted directly to the Judge Advocate General. d. Contents of Application. All applications for relief shall contain: (1) full name of the applicant; (2) social security number and branch of service, if any; (3) present grade if on active duty or retired, or "civilian" or "deceased," as applicable; (4) address at time the application is forwarded; (5) date of trial; (6) place of trial; (7) command title of the organization at which the court-martial was convened (convening authority); (8) command title of the officer exercising article 64 review authority over the applicant at the time of trial if applicable); (9) type of court-martial which convicted the applicant, and sentence adjudged; (10) general grounds for relief, which must be one or more of the following: (a) newly discovered evidence; (b) fraud on the court; (c) lack of jurisdiction over the accused or the offense; (d) error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused; (e) appropriateness of the sentence. (11) an elaboration of the specific prejudice resulting from any error cited. Legal authorities to support the applicant's contentions may be included. and the format used may take the form of a legal brief if the applicant so desires; (12) any other matter which the applicant desires to submit; (13) relief requested; (14) facts and circumstances to establish "good cause" for a failure to file the application within the time limits prescribed in subsection b, if applicable; and, (15) if the application is signed by a person other than the applicant pursuant to subsection e, an explanation of the circumstances rendering the applicant incapable of making application; (16) the applicant's copy of the record of trial will not be forwarded with the application for relief, unless specifically requested by the Judge Advocate General. e. Signatures on application. Unless incapable of making application, the applicant shall personally sign the application under oath before an official authorized to administer oaths. If the applicant is incapable of making application, the application may be signed under oath and submitted by the applicant's spouse, next of kin, executor, guardian, or other person with a proper interest in the matter. In this regard, one is considered incapable of making application for purposes of this section when unable to sign the application under oath due to physical or mental incapacity . PART 9 – CONCLUSION In an email, John Mullahy stated: QUOTE When I went to the House Armed Services Comm . . . my escort from the Office of Leg. Affairs was CMDR McLeran and he told me on the steps of the Pentagon on 13 December 1989. . .when he signed my Court Martial papers that he knew I was innocent and that it was personal, but Rios was a fellow officer and I was not a hero yet. I will NEVER forget that as long as I live. CLOSE QUOTE At the time of the Mullahy court martial, CDR McLeran was the head of the Navy legal services office in Rota, Spain. MDC-1 AND MDC-2 worked under CDR McLeran. John seemed pleased that he was given such a ranking legal officer as an escort. I see it a little differently. Should MDC-1 have shown up near Mullahy, CDR McLeran would have recognized him instantly, and vice versa. MDC-1 would have received an instant, unspoken, reminder to keep his mouth shut. I have not discussed the facts of the case. It clearly appears to be a bogus and malicious prosecution. The facts of the case appear on various online sites, including: MilitaryCorruption.com [MILCOR] http://www.militarycorruption.com/ Committee on Veteran's Affairs [COVA] http://www.uscova.org/mullahy.htm Citizens Against Military Injustice [CAMI] http://www.militaryinjustice.org/ Overturning Mullahy's conviction on the grounds that it was not voluntary would require him to overturn a Supreme Court decision. Overturning Mullahy's conviction of the grounds that he was not guilty is extremely difficult, if not impossible. One may show that Mullahy, subsequent to the court martial, showed great heroism. He will then be a hero with a felony conviction on his record. What IS susceptible to attack is the process. Do your homework, determine precisely what hoops the Navy was required to jump through, and see if they complied. Determine what actions are prohibited, and see if the Navy committed a prohibited act. Search for corruption of the process itself. Show that the process was so unfair that it violated Constitutional law and could produce no valid result. In this case, it helps to find that corruption of process before the plea of guilty. That is what I have striven to do: show corruption of process. I believe that I may have succeeded, but that will be for others to judge. But then all of this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
from the original article-- in retrospect, a mistake?
and it's disgusting how one person with a vendetta can destroy another's career and life. despicable corruption and injustice.
bookmarked for later. thanks.
If anyone would like more info I will be glad to post other documents on this subject
Meet the military that resides just underneath the outer mask.
yes it was a huge mistake
Thanks Christine
I stumbled on MILITARYCORRUPTION.COM a few years back and read every case posted there. I was shocked at the cases involving the murders of officers who were about to expose some form of corruption and the blatant coverups and failures to investigate highly suspicious circumstances. The Tom Cruise film A FEW GOOD MEN showed how a well connected officer (Col. Nathan Jessup, played by Jack Nicholson) is protected and how guilt or innocence is not a factor as he was being groomed for the position of Director of Operations for the National Security Council. According to this website the film's premise is quite plausible. My reading of real cases reaffirmed the old axiom that "military justice is to justice what military music is to music." I only hope that newbies who are considering enlistment are given the link to read. Telling the military (or the FBI according to antipolygraph.org) that they're wrong is like telling a mother that she has an ugly baby.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Yeah, right.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Sorry Christine I tried to do what you did on that site, but when I post them they come out thumbnails
you have to click large version, then right click on the document, select properties, and copy and paste the url here.
this is not working
UPDATE FROM www.militarycorruption.com /mullahy3.htm HERO OF USS IOWA EXPLOSION STILL DENIED JUSTICE TWENTY YEARS LATER - RETIRED NAVY PETTY OFFICER 1ST CLASS JOHN MULLAHY'S LIFE RUINED BY FEMALE OFFICER'S VENDETTA AGAINST HIM - WE ASK CHIEF OF NAVAL OPNS MIKE MULLEN TO ORDER FULL INVESTIGATION "IT'S NEVER TOO LATE TO RIGHT A WRONG." SAILOR DESERVES RETROACTIVE PROMOTION TO AT LEAST CHIEF PETTY OFFICER (E-7) PLUS BACK PAY AND FULL BENEFITS Twenty years after retired Petty Officer First Class John Mullahy saved the USS Iowa from blowing up, the hero sailor still is denied justice in what we at http://MilitaryCorruption.com consider to be one of the most egregious cases of abuse we have seen in the U.S. Navy. This brave man, who risked a fiery death and the ultimate sacrifice in saving the lives of the ship's crew, deserves to have his record cleared. And we are calling upon Chief of Naval Operations Mike Mullen to order a full investigation into the abuses inflicted on John Mullahy. It's never too late to right a wrong. We first ran the story you are about to read here in the Spring of 2001. It is just as relevant, if not more so, today. With an update at the end, including an interview with the former gunner's mate, now living in Thailand, we urge all active duty, Naval Reservists, veterans, and Navy retirees to send a copy of this story to your U.S. senators and congresspersons. John Mullahy is an American hero. He deserves justice - now! THE UNKNOWN HERO OF THE USS IOWA EXPLOSION - HOW THE NAVY FAILED TO PUNISH A FEMALE OFFICER'S VENDETTA AGAINST HIM It was one of the most heroic acts in the annals of the United States Navy. If it had occurred in wartime, Petty Officer 1st Class John Mullahy would have been recommended for the Congressional Medal of Honor. Instead, he was the victim of a vendetta so vicious and unrelenting, his Navy career and life was ruined. His enemy, now-retired USN Capt. Patricia Rios, daughter and only child of (now-deceased) Vice-Admiral John Barrow, is alleged to have gone to great lengths to "punish" Mullahy for what he calls "refusing to obey an illegal order." After an extensive investigation by Military http://Corruption.com, we have concluded Mullahy acted properly and was "guilty" of no more than arousing the hatred of an officer who would go to any length to harass and harm him. EXTRAORDINARY HEROISM Our story begins in the waters off Puerto Rico. The date, April 19, 1989. Aboard the USS Iowa, sailors in Turret 2 of the battleship's 16-inch guns prepared to fire during a training exercise. Suddenly, a flash and a huge explosion rocked the ship. Quickly, other explosions followed. Fires raged. If the flames reached the powder magazine, the entire ship could be lost! Deep in the bowels of Turret 2, Gunner's Mate Mullahy, a fearless Irishman from Boston, who'd made the Navy his career, rescued three of his shipmates trapped behind a jammed hatch. Totally disregarding the extreme danger, and refusing to evacuate the area to save his own life, Mullahy single-handedly battered open the hatch with a wrench and dragged the three sailors to safety. But that wasn't all. Knowing the Iowa would be utterly destroyed if the fires reached the ship's magazine, Mullahy found his way through numerous smoke-filled compartments to the damage control center. There, he quickly activated the sprinkler system to Turret 2 and the powder magazine. That act of heroism kept the battleship from blowing up. Finding Lt. Blackie passed out on the floor, Mullahy, without benefit of a gas mask and nearly collapsing from fumes and smoke, carried the unconscious man to forward battle station, saving the officer's life. Mullahy continued to help men escape the blast areas and even volunteered for casualty identification duty. He worked for 36 straight hours without sleep. In those critical moments after the explosion, Mullahy stared death in the face and didn't blink. For his heroism that day, Mullahy was meritoriously promoted to petty officer first class and was awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Medal for Bravery. One would think the Navy public relations office would roll into high gear and crank out press releases about Mullahy's courageous actions which saved the Iowa and her crew. But no, the Navy brass prefer to keep silent to this day about a genuine hero they allowed to be destroyed. REFUSING AN ILLEGAL ORDER Three years earlier, in 1986, John Mullahy was stationed at a 73-acre Navy ammunition depot at Cartagena, Spain. At first all went well. Mullahy's boss, then-Lt. Cdr. Patricia Rios, was very pleased with his excellent work. In a document obtained by http://MilitaryCorruption.com - Mullahy's "enlisted efficiency report" for 86Jan06 to 86Nov30 - Rios couldn't praise her petty officer enough. "HIS PERFORMANCE HAS BEEN SUPERIOR. A SELF-STARTER, HE HAS TAKEN THE INITIATIVE TO UPGRADE ALL ASPECTS OF AMMUNITION STORAGE, ACCOUNTABILITY AND HANDLING AT THIS ACTIVITY AND HAS DONE A REMARKABLE JOB. "HE RECEIVED COMMENDATORY COMMENTS FROM THE EXPLOSIVE SAFETY BOARD, CINCUSNAVEUR AMMUNITION OFFICER AND CTF-63 WEAPONS OFFICER FOR HAVING HAD A POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE UNIT'S PERFORMANCE AND FOR IMPROVING READINESS. HIS INNOVATIVENESS, COGENT SUGGESTIONS AND DRIVE TO EXCEL MAKE HIM A VALUABLE ASSET TO THIS COMMAND. "PETTY OFFICER MULLAHY DEMONSTRATES THE REQUISITE QUALITIES OF A SUCCESSFUL LEADER AND IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED FOR RETENTION AND ADVANCEMENT TO CHIEF PETTY OFFICER." Sound good? It should. Mullahy was one of the top petty officers in the Navy. But soon, all those deserved words of praise would be forgotten in the unreasoning anger of a bitter and hate-filled vendetta. A COMMANDER WHO "CUT CORNERS" One day in 1987 at the San Javier Airport, Rios ordered Mullahy to spray paint over all "explosive" markings and place the explosive devices - from a U.S. C- 130 aircraft - in his personal pick-up truck. According to his sworn statement, Mullahy refused because of a number of very good reasons First of all, Lt. Cdr. Rios had "forgotten" to get "diplomatic clearance" from the Spanish Government for the explosives-laden aircraft to land. Then, in direct violation of treaty agreements between the United States and Spain, she ordered Mullahy to move the explosives over Spanish roads without informing the local authorities and obtaining an escort. The trip from San Javier to Cartegena was approximately 35 miles, plenty of time for an accident to occur. Mullahy knew it was a dangerous and illegal command, and true to his "by-the- book" training, he refused the order. When Rios reacted angrily, the veteran petty officer reported the matter to a Capt. Kennedy at CINCNAVEUR in London. Rios was subsequently "called on the carpet," and when she returned to Cartagena, Mullahy said, "all hell broke loose." This wasn't the first time Rios had violated regulations, Mullahy said. "I remember once she ripped up incident reports when explosives were dropped or otherwise needed to be inspected. It was as if she realized she was a screw-up, but was determined to conceal that and cover it up at all costs," he said. Mullahy told http://MilitaryCorruption.com of a 1988 incident in which a pallet of 8- inch howitzer ammunition was dropped while being taken off the USS Milwaukee. Two sailors marked the ammunition as "unusable" and prepared a report. But Rios allegedly ordered one of the sailors to change the markings to indicate the ammunition was "ready for use," then tore up the report and threw it in the trash. Rios allegedly told the sailor he was not a "team player." REVENGE Now Mullahy could do nothing right, at least according to Rios. She was determined to punish him and get even. In direct contrast to her earlier signed evaluation, she now "blistered" the petty officer in the next one: "PETTY OFFICER MULLAHY . . . LACKS THE MOTIVATION, COMMITMENT, SENSITIVITY AND MORAL STANDARDS TO BE A LEADER," she wrote in his June 1988 enlisted evaluation. "(MULLAHY) IS NOT COMPLETELY TRUSTWORTHY, POMPOUS AND HIS DISLOYAL ATTITUDE HAD UNDERMINED MORALE. HE IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ADVANCEMENT OR RETENTION." Next, Mullahy told a http://MilitaryCorruption.com investigator, Rios started "digging" through his records and finding what she claimed was "theft of government funds." Mullahy's first wife abandoned him while he was at sea years earlier. She divorced him in the United States without sending him, or the Navy, any notice. And the sailor had no way of finding her for three years. "I wasn't sure of my marital status," Mullahy said. "During that time, I continued to receive a housing allowance at a ' with dependant' rate. On more than one occasion, I tried to have the allotment stopped, but was advised to continue to receive it, since I had no record of my divorce." Mullahy was told by one Navy lawyer the divorce was "probably invalid" because it occurred while he was at sea. The Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act protects service members from judicial proceedings they are unable to attend. But that didn't faze Rios. She brought up her once favored petty officer on charges and suddenly Mullahy was facing a court-martial. He was refused the opportunity to "pay back" the disputed funds. What happened next will forever be a blot on the Navy's so-called system of "military justice." A NIGHTMARE OF INJUSTICE The day after he returned from his honeymoon with his second wife, a Spanish national, Mullahy was sent to Naval Station Rota on technical arrest orders. Under Navy regulations, the maximum time TAO's are valid is six months. Mullahy was held on them for eight. Rios extended her harassment to Mullahy's wife. She was denied a dependent's ID card and all exchange and commissary privileges. Later, she was given just "24 hours" to "vacate" her husband's military housing - in effect, putting the young woman out on the street. Two days before his court martial in June 1988, the Navy arbitrarily changed PO1 Mullahy's defense counsel. Also, on the day the proceedings were to begin, Mullahy was told none of the officers who advised him about his housing allowance could be found to testify in his defense. In addition, his civilian lawyer was barred from entering the base. The "fix" was in. The veteran petty officer, who was given no legal counseling, was taken directly to court-martial while similar "offenses" are usually dealt with by a "captain's mast" or some form of non-judicial punishment. "It was clear that Rios and her family connections, with her daddy being a vice- admiral and all, made my chances to survive a court-martial slim-to-none," he said. Mullahy was advised to plead "guilty," with the warning that if he was "convicted" - and the conviction rate against enlisted sailors was around 98 per cent at the time - he could get two years in the brig and a dishonorable discharge. With 17 outstanding years of service behind him, Mullahy chose to plead "guilty," even though he knew he was innocent, and accept a two-grade bust in rank plus five months in the Philadelphia brig. But Rios and her pals were not done torturing the petty officer. Her cruelty knew no bounds. In what the Navy now acknowledges was it's own "error," Mullahy was ordered to "repay" cash advances he had legitimately received for food and housing while awaiting his court-martial. Meanwhile, Rios allegedly contacted all the petty officer's creditors and told them because of his court-martial, Mullahy was now a "felon." The result was devastating. "Ford took my truck. I was three payments ahead with Sears and J.C. Pennys. Those, and my bank credit cards, were cancelled. I was financially ruined. Rios even opened my mail in my absence, for reasons I will never know," Mullahy said. NO LET UP In 1991, two years after the Iowa explosion, now restored to his original rank of petty officer 1st class, Mullahy retired from the Navy. But the vendetta continued unabated. And the Navy was not about to discipline or punish the daughter of an admiral. No matter what she had done. This despite a 1989 Inspector general's report that found, in part, Lt. Cdr. Rios "MADE DELIBERATE EFFORTS TO RUIN THE CAREER AND REPUTATION OF GUNNERS MATE JOHN M. MULLAHY JR." Incredibly, Rios was promoted twice after that. John Mullahy, a certified hero, didn't even get to retire as a chief petty officer. In the years since Mullahy left the Navy, the campaign of slander and harassment got worse. It reached its zenith in the mid-1990's when Ms. Andremda Tommasi, an official translator for the 6th Fleet and a close friend of Patricia Rios, got up at an official Navy function in Cartagena and slammed retired PO1 Mullahy. In front of the mayor of Cartegena, U.S. Ambassador to Spain, and the commander of the U.S. 6th Fleet, Tommasi declared: "I AM THE U.S. NAVY REPRESENTATIVE AND THIS IS THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY AND THE NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE - THAT JOHN MULLAHY WAS A SUSPECT IN THE MASS MURDER OF 47 MEN IN GUN TURRET # 2 ON THE USS IOWA." Incredible! Now Mullahy was being publicly accused of possible "murder" when he actually saved the ship and the lives of the crew aboard her! The NIS later denied Tommasi was their "official representative." When they investigated where the translator had received her outrageously false information, they were told it came from none other than Capt. Patricia Rios. Three years later, just prior to Christmas 1997, someone reported to the Navy that Mullahy was "dead." His pension checks stopped. It took months for the retired petty officer to combat that lie and straighten out the mess. AN INTERVIEW WITH MULLAHY IN THAILAND Since our initial story ran eight years ago, and the follow up: WE GET ACTION FOR HERO OF USS IOWA, as well as our story on the inaccurate TV movie "A GLIMPSE OF HELL," we found retired PO1 John Mullahy living in Thailand where he does volunteer work for various orphanages and is founder and first president of the U.S. Navy League in Thailand. Here, in his own words, is what has happened to him in the intervening years: "Since your story WE GET ACTION etc. ran on http://MilitaryCorruption.com, (which was just a smokescreen by the Navy IG), I never heard from them again. "Rios and Tommasi didn't let up harassing me, even after Capt. Simms, the commanding officer at Rota, Spain sent me a letter of apology dated 4 May 1995. My situation in Spain, where I retired, went downhill steadily after Tommasi's statement about me being a murder suspect. "Because her remarks were repeated on Spanish television, in the newspapers, and spread throughout the country, I was refused employment in Cartagena and everywhere else. Shopkeepers asked me not to come into their place of business. I was denied entry to restaurants and when my children went to school, I was told I could not even come and pick them up or drop them off. It was a living hell! "I will always be grateful to the Iowa's skipper, Capt. Mossally, who in retirement, wrote to General Electric on my behalf and got me a job with one of their subcontractors UTE in Madrid. I was hired as an equipment maintenance engineer for LEXAN 2. That lasted less than six weeks, as all the other workers, poisoned by the falsehoods spread in the local media about me, were afraid to work beside me. So I was let go. "I then separated from my wife and children in June 2001, so my kids would at least have a chance of growing up without being pegged as having a "mass murderer" father. It got so bad that I found myself the only U.S. Navy retiree living in Spain denied access to MWR facilities! "Later on, I got a job in Saudi Arabia as a weapons and explosives advisor and finally moved to Thailand where I do all I can to help orphaned children and lend support and advice to my fellow veterans here. What you guys do on http://MilitaryCorruption.com is wonderful, and I will never forget you were there for me when most everyone else turned their back and walked away." HOW TO RECTIFY THIS OUTRAGE Anyone having an ounce of decency and a sense of justice, after reading the above account, realizes action must be taken to clear PO1 John Mullahy's name, his military record, and a financial remedy arrived at to compensate him, at least in part, for his pain and suffering. With the help of CNO, Adm. Mike Mullen and the Secretary of the Navy, Mullahy's service record could be corrected and an investigation begun into how and why he was treated so unfairly. We realize nothing will be done to Rios, at least not in this world, so we are not asking the Navy to penalize her for any wrong-doing. Nothing is to be gained by putting the top brass and politicians in a such a delicate spot. But something can be done to give Mullahy the justice he has so long been denied. For example, a man with his years of experience and accomplishment would at the very least attain the rank of chief petty officer E-7 prior to reaching minimum retirement at twenty years service. We are asking for Mullahy to be advanced to that grade (retroactively) and consideration given for him to be retired at one pay grade higher - E-8 - which we think a man of Mullahy's skill and ability may well have attained if he had not been victimized by such a vicious and hate- filled commander. Mullahy is anything but your typical sailor. The highly-decorated Irish- American was a hero in 1975 when he threw himself on a live grenade near the Subic Bay Naval Station, Philippines, saving the lives of four of his comrades. During his twenty years in the Navy, John Mullahy excelled at every assignment. His retirement deprived the Navy of an outstanding petty officer. This nation should be proud that men of Mullahy's high character still exist. HOW YOU CAN HELP Telephone and e-mail all the members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. (See our LINKS LIST on the MCC home page.) Appeal to the Secretary of the Navy. Write President Obama and both U.S. senators from Mullahy's home state of Massachusetts: Sens. John Kerry and Edward Kennedy. Let them know what you feel about what was done to this man. Download and print copies of this article and send it to your local news media. Use the green tab on the bottom right hand side of this story to "e-mail" a copy to a friend or elected official. If you are a veteran and in the American Legion, DAV, and VFW, get your members together to send a letter on behalf of your Post to show your support for John Mullahy. If you have loved ones in the Navy, please e-mail them this story and ask them to pass it around. Post it on bulletin boards, discuss it at meetings, do whatever you can for this good man. One more thing. If you feel shame for what the Navy and Rios did to Mullahy, despite his loyal and courageous service to our nation, please take a minute and drop him a line at: z5ch2@hotmail.com. Let him know he is not alone, that his fellow Americans appreciate and respect his selfless service to our country. All of us at http://MilitaryCorruption.com render a salute to you, John Mullahy, a true American hero. [EDITOR'S NOTE: We would like to offer any U.S. Navy spokesperson or retired Capt. Patricia Rios space on these pages to respond to any allegations made in our carefully-researched and thoroughly-documented story. As the largest investigative military web site in the world, we reserve our journalistic right to comment on any such statements.] Related Stories WE GET ACTION FOR HERO OF USS IOWA - BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL INSPECTOR GENERAL TELLS MULLAHY HIS CASE GOING TO (NAVINSGEN) IG "FOR REVIEW" "A GLIMPSE OF HELL" TV MOVIE EXPOSES NAVY COVER-UP BUT DOESN'T TELL THE WHOLE STORY
bump to the top
The smooth criminal transition from Bush/Cheney to Obama
Bump
According to his sworn statement, Mullahy refused because of a number of reasons. First of all, Lt. Cdr. Rios had "forgotten" to get "diplomatic clearance" from the Spanish Government for the explosives-laden aircraft to land. Then, in direct violation of treaty agreements between the United States and Spain, she ordered Mullahy to move the explosives over Spanish roads WITHOUT informing the local authorities and obtaining an escort. The trip, from San Javier to Cartegena was approximately 35 miles, plenty of time for an accident to occur.
#2. To: Steppenwolf (#0)
This is a crime ,the Capt.Rios should go to prison.
#3. To: Steppenwolf (#0)
#4. To: Steppenwolf (#0)
#5. To: Z5CH2 (#4)
With 17 outstanding years of service behind him, Mullahy chose to plead "guilty," even though he knew he was innocent, and accept a two-grade bust in rank and five months in the Philadelphia brig.
#6. To: Z5CH2 (#4)
#7. To: Z5CH2 (#4)
#8. To: All (#4)
#9. To: christine (#6)
and it's disgusting how one person with a vendetta can destroy another's career and life. despicable corruption and injustice.
#10. To: christine (#5)
#11. To: All (#10)
#12. To: All (#11)
#13. To: Z5CH2, ALL, Investigating Officer Report (#10)
< p> 
#14. To: christine (#13)
#15. To: Steppenwolf (#0)
#16. To: Steppenwolf (#0)
Sen. John Warner of Virginia, is a former Secretary of the Navy and a good and decent man.
Lord Acton
#17. To: All (#14)
(Edited)
#18. To: All (#17)
#19. To: Z5CH2 (#18)
#20. To: christine (#19)
(Edited)
#21. To: All (#20)
#22. To: Z5CH2 (#21)
#23. To: christine (#22)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest