Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 1 of 43 EXHIBIT mm min {Weekend to-do list Read ?White Fragility" I'M-mm Send Message 418 .ull LTE a Addition 18W HI Soweto Gospel Choir - A Amazing Grace Soweto Gospel Choir Send Message .ul LTE I Addition 18w Soweto Gospel Choir - Amazing Grace Soweto Gospel Choir Send Message Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 5 of 43 EXHIBIT Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 6 of 43 Law Offices of Jeffrey E. McFadden, LLC 312 Prospect Bay Drive East Grasonville, MD 21638 (410) 490-1163 jmcfadden@jmcfaddenlaw.com TO: Superintendent DATE: 20 August 2020 US. Naval Academy FROM: Jeffrey B. McFadden SUBJ: MIDN l/C Chase Standage, Request for Reconsideration of Certain Findings of Guilt in Deputy Commandant Adjudication Held 6 August 2020 Pursuant to COMDTMIDNIN ST 1610.2H Sections and 3.4b., MIDN l/C Chase Standage, USN, through counsel, respectfully requests that Superintendent, US Naval Academy, reconsider and overturn ?ndings of guilt by the Deputy Commandant as to the following Administrative Conduct System charges lodged against him: 02.04 6k Violation of COMDMIDNNOTE 5720 04.21 6k Violation of UCMJ Article 133 (Conduct Unbecoming) MIDN Standage is a young white midshipman of exceptional character who has been the friend and roommate of a black midshipman for three years and has never exhibited a shred of racial animus towards anyone. MIDN Standage is an aerospace engineer with an impeccable performance record that led to his selection for the VGEP program following graduation. He is an accomplished pilot, whose singular goal since the age of 16 has been to serve his Country as a Navy ?ghter pilot. And yet he now faces condemnation as a ?racist? for making the mistake of responding to heated exchanges on social media concerning issues of national concem, as well as positions taken both by a female black conservative and pronouncements by the President and Commander-in-Chief, positions with which agrees and, as an American citizen, with which he has the right to agree. These exchanges took place over a frightening one-week period in June 2020, during which MIDN Standage sat in the home of his parents, both career Los Angeles Police Department of?cers; American heroes who, in the midst of the Los Angeles riots, were in danger of losing their lives and their family?s lives to tens of thousands of protestors, many of whom were deemed by the President, the US. Attorney General, and a resolution introduced in the US. Senate, to be domestic terrorists. The subject matter of these exchanges included a black conservative woman?s views as to the roots of economic disparities among various demographics; whether the US. military should be employed to combat the domestic terrorists destroying Los Angeles and other US. cities; the Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 7 of 43 police shooting ofa black woman; and the Navy Football Team. In the adjudication from which this appeal is taken. the Deputy Commandant made clear to MIDN Standage that there existed only ONE correct and acceptable position (some orwhich included implicit criticisms ofthe President) with respect to each of these issues. The Deputy Commandant further made clear that MIDN Standage's deviation from that position rendered his social media posts racist. unprofessional, and athreat to good order and discipline. Ignoring the law governing COMDMIDNNOTE 5720 and UCMJ Article 133, the Deputy Commandant trampled MIDN Standage's First Amendment rights, found him guilty of both offenses. and forwarded him for separation, For his own part, the Commandant has made clear to the Brigade the he, and they, must embrace the Anti-Racist movement's core principal that passivity in the face of"racism" is unacceptable, or as the activists like to say, "silence is violence." His daughter -social media biography includes (All Cops Are Bastards) and the abolishment or the us. Customs and immigration Service. Among other things. in her tweets and retweets she endorses allegiance to cheers someone saying, "Fuck the police," and agrees that the President ofthe United States, "Mango Mussolini," should go fuck himself. And, like Herod's daughter, she has called for MIDN Standage's head. The conduct and statements of the Commandant and Deputy Commandant amount to blatant and unconstitutional Viewpoint discrimination by the Naval Academy. At issue is the Academy's monolithic adoption of, and insistence upon, unilateral positions with respect to vitally important issues ofpublic concern and the extent to which any or all ofthose issues evoke the specter ofracism, as framed and defined by movements such as Black Lives Matter and Antir Racism. These movements demand recognition as the sole arbiters of what does or does not constitute "racial insensitivity" or "racism" in this Country, and insist that any position contrary to their pronouncements -- even passive silence is inherently racist and must be condemned. Those tenets have been embraced by this Command and have made their pernicious assault on the First Amendment manifest through the conduct and statements of the Commandant (directly and indirectly through his family) and the Deputy Commandant, both generally and specifically with respect to this case. Given the Commandant's clear inability to serve as an impartial arbiter of this appeal, MIDN Standage is very respectfully requesting that the Superintendent serve as Reviewing Authority in the first instance. The reasons and bases for this appeal are further set forth helow. STATEMENT OF FACTS Background Chase Standage is 21 years old and hales from Moorpark, California. His mother, Amy Maureen Standage, is a 25-year veteran of the Los Angeles Police Department in its Hollywood Division; she currently works in Community Relations. MIDN Standage's father, Kevin Kenneth Standage, is a 30-year Veteran ofthe LAPD and is an Assistant Chief Pilot in its Air Support Division. Among his many law enforcement experiences, Kevin experienced, first hand, Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 8 of 43 the Los Angeles riots of 1992. MIDN Standage?s great?grandfather was a Marine and fought at Guadalcanal in WWII. His grandfather ?ew E-2 Hawkeyes in the Navy before becoming a career corporate pilot. MIDN Standage attended Moorpark High School, where he excelled in academics, athletics, and the Navy Sea Cadet program. He graduated 4 out of 469 with a 4.46 GPA and was a four?year member of the National Honor Society. He lettered in both varsity cross country and track. His accomplishments in the Sea Cadet program were exceptional. In 2015, he won the ?Blue Jacket of the Year? Award. In 2016, he was the Trident Patrol Squadron Cadet of the Year, the Paci?c Southwest Region 11 Cadet of the Year, and was nominated to be the NSCC National Cadet of the year. He was also the Valedictorian of the Petty Of?cer Leadership Academy. Following in his father?s and grandfather?s footsteps, and with his sights ?rmly ?xed on a career as a Navy pilot and test pilot, MIDN Standage soloed at the age of 16, received his Private Pilot?s Rating at 17, earned his Advanced Ground Instructor and Instrument Ratings at 19, and obtained his Commercial Rating at 21. His endorsements include High Performance, Complex, Tailwheel, Spin, and High-Altitude. He is also a quali?ed PADI open-water SCUBA diver and a member of the American Institute of Aerospace Engineers. Consistent with his desire to be the best Navy pilot possible, MIDN Standage passed on an ROTC scholarship at MIT in favor of the Naval Academy and chose Aerospace Engineering as his major. He currently carries a 3.8 CQPR and has been selected for the VGEP program at the University of Maryland. His academic order of merit is 169, and his overall order of merit is 267. He was an instructor for USNA Ground School Powered Flight in 2018 and 2019, serving as block lead during the second stint. He continued to instruct during the Spring Semester of 2020. And he scored a perfect 9?9-9 on his ASTB. On top of these exceptional efforts, MIDN Standage managed to ?nd time to work on the SEDS (Society for the Exploration and Development of Space) ?ThinSat? satellite from 2017 to 2019. With the exception of a minor civilian clothes infraction adjudicated at the company level, MIDN Standage?s conduct and honor records are spotless. The Los Angeles Riots of June 2020 The following statement is provided by MIDN Standage?s mother, Sergeant Amy Standage, LAPD: On May 30, 2020, all able bodied LAPD Of?cers were of?cially mobilized. From that point on, days off were cancelled until the civil unrest was done and order was restored to the city. The of?cial mobilization and unrest continued until June 10, 2020. I was deployed for 12 days straight, and worked 13?1 8 hours each day. In all, I worked over 71 hours of overtime in 12 days, in addition to my 80 hours of normal work schedule. Additionally, I was scheduled to work prior to and immediately following the mobilization period. In addition to the violent rioting seen within the city, there were groups protesting daily in front of my police station, and at one point, they even threatened to overtake the station. There were certain days where the Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 9 of 43 protesters declared that they were going to hit the neighborhoods and homes where white people live. There were also plans to raid of?cers? homes while we were mobilized and not able to protect our families. This made us feel even more vulnerable than before. A greater number of us speci?cally feared for our children, who were at home unprotected at this time. Although things have slowed down in the past couple of weeks, we still feel threatened by the innumerable individuals who seek harm against us and our families. Stress coupled with fear and exhaustion were my daily diet. I lost 10 during this time. Additionally, pre?existing stress-based medical issues ?ared up to painful levels. I saw very little of my family, and was typically only home for a shower before getting whatever sleep I could. In all my years as a police of?cer, I have never felt so personally threatened as we do today, and this feeling is well shared across the department. Assistant Chief Pilot Kevin Standage?s supervisor issued the following commendation, which graphically depicts the extraordinary efforts made by Officer Standage and his fellow pilots: Several controversial police events throughout the country resulted in nationwide protests demanding police reform during the weeks of May 27 through June 10, 2020. The City of Los Angeles was not immune to these protests which drew large crowds of up to 60,000 people. Unfortunately, some the elements among the protesters chose to take advantage of the situation by attacking of?cers with rocks, bottles, bricks, urine and other means. Looting, arson and vandalism to both City and private property were also occurring at various locations throughout the City. Air Support Division (ASD) quickly realized they would be an integral part of the Department?s command and control response over these incidents and pockets of civil unrest. Air Support Division established a control center in the watch commander?s of?ce to track deployed personnel, the status of downlink capable helicopters, manage overtime and monitor fatigue of the aircrews; a critical component in aviation. Additionally, due to the complex nature of the ?eet of helic0pters ASD ?y?s [sic], contact was made with General Services Division (GSD) and Information Technology Agency (ITA) who employs the City?s helicopter mechanics and aviation technicians. They were made aware of the need to have round the clock coverage at Hooper Memorial Heliport and Van Nuys Airport hangar in order to maintain the ?eet of helicopters and to complete necessary maintenance and troubleshooting to ensure ASD could meet the needs of ground personnel. This was one of the most critical elements of pre-planning. It was not uncommon for several marches/protests to be occurring simultaneously, and ASD was expected to be overhead to provide critical Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 10 of 43 information to the Incident Commanders and command posts as well as ful?ll their mission to provide support to patrol operations. This resulted in ASD aircrews ?ying above and beyond their weekly average, and they did so without a single maintenance over?ight or safety mishap. To put this into perspective, during an average week, ASD will ?y approximately 260 hours including Special Flights surveillance and training ?ights. During this two-week period, even with training canceled, ASD aircrews ?ew nearly 600 hours a week, more than double the average. To do so without any mishaps demonstrates the professionalism of the entire ASD crew and the dedication and attention to duty of ITA and GSD personnel. While over incidents, ASD aircrews were called upon to give continual updates on crowd movements, crowd size estimates, and downlink images to command posts. When trouble started, ASD aircrews were utilized to provide critical information to ground personnel where looting and/or other unrest were occurring. There were several instances where ground personnel were overwhelmed and outnumbered. ASD aircrews provided crucial directions to responding personnel to get them to the of?cers in need of help. During one incident near Fairfax and Melrose Avenues, ground assets were task saturated and were attempting to control several pockets of unruly protestors content on looting and destroying property as well as causing harm to the of?cers. A voice came over the radio announcing, ?air unit, take over!? Air Support aircrews began to strategically deploy blocking forces to limit their ability to wreak havoc, and provide responding personnel with ingress and egress options when responding to the area. Air Support watch commanders received numerous unsolicited phone calls from supervisors and of?cers alike commending the aircrews and the way they assisted with the operations. This was just one example of many instances where ASD aircrews assisted ground personnel at a time when they were in dire need/of assistance. As the saying goes, ?there is no better sound than the sound of an airship arriving overhead when you need help.? Air Support Division?s ability to ?y as many hours as they did and seemingly be in several places at once was only made possible by the tireless efforts of GDS and ITA personnel keeping the ?eet airworthy. MIDN Standage was alone at his parents? house in Moorpark, California throughout this period as his parents dealt with these crises. The Naval Academy Culture War It bears emphasis and repeating that MIDN Standage takes full responsibility for his posts and apologizes for them. But it is equally essential to understand the broader context within which that conduct, and MIDN Standage?s fear for his parents? safety, occurred: a visceral and vicious culture war currently taking place in the Brigade of Midshipmen, one that not only mirrors the broader culture war at which the Country currently ?nds itself, but one that is Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 11 of 43 exacerbated by the unprecedented external stressor of the coronavirus pandemic and many midshipmen?s reckless abuse of social media. Even a cursory review of samples of the social media posts made at the hands of current and former Naval Academy midshipmen starkly, if not shockingly, re?ects, among other highly troubling attributes, 0 Extreme animosity towards police and law enforcement, including mockery, insults, and the advocacy of defunding the police or committing violent acts against them. We attach examples of this category of posts as Exhibit B, but one such retweet by a midshipman currently at the Academy1 pointedly illustrates these sentiments: lash Retweeted 3,1 kate :3 blm! - Jul 3 ,7 7? Shia said fuck the police and I'm here for it 9 FUCK YOUR POLICE DEPT. 199K 0 Calls for the removal of all white politicians (Exhibit C) Mockery, desecration, and destruction of federal and state statues and monuments (Exhibit 0 Shooting whites who confront black protestors (Exhibit E) - Endorsing rioting, looting, and a revolution (Exhibit F) 1 ?Jash? identi?es himself in another post as a Naval Academy athlete. See Exhibit 1. 2 The retweet showing several people ??ipping the bird? to the Presidents memorialized on Mount Rushmore was posted by ENS Tysonia Gorrick, USNA Class of 2019. ENS Gorrick was the subject of a Preliminary Inquiry after her graduation into alleged cyber?bullying of a female classmate who was ultimately separated from the Academy. ENS Gorrick was counseled after the investigation concluded; apparently the counseling made no impression on her. Indeed, she recently posted a retweet endorsing cyber-bullying. Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 12 of 43 Insulting, denigrating, or using racial epithets against whites, women, gays, and blacks who are conservative or support President Trump (Exhibit One such egregious example is a post by MIDN Marcus Wiggins, who is MIDN Standage?s company CMEO of?cer and who provided a witness statement expressing his opinion as to the offensiveness of MIDN Standage?s tweets: mark ?5 Jul ?lL?l 44-; this is an accurate picture of a chicken eating at KFC Rob Smith 2% SLYi'ohemiilioi'i. Jul 13 I'm Black. I'm Gay. I'm a Veteran. I'm voting for Donald Trump in 2020, and Idon't care what ANYONE thinks about it. I?m the left?s worst I'm Just getting started. Advocating MIDN Standage?s separation from the Naval Academy and threatening violence or death against him and other ?racist mids.? (Exhibit 0 Extreme animosity between varsity athletes, particularly the football team, and non- athletes, whom the athletes refer to as (Non-Athletic Regular Persons). The number of such posts and the level of animosity and resentment re?ected in them caused the Commandant to weigh in on the issue, which only served to generate more visceral comments. The posts are too numerous to include in their entirety, and thus we only provide a representative sample. (Exhibit 1) The Adjudication Before the Deputy Commandant MIDN Standage?s adjudication before the Deputy Commandant was nothing of the kind; as is often the case, the Deputy was not interested in getting to the truth. Having pre-deterrnined 3 These posts include utterly baseless, libelous, and in?ammatory allegations concerning a member of the Class of 2021 who was relieved of his duties as Class President and who is a client of undersigned counsel. it is another example of how midshipmen with an axe to grind will not hesitate to take to social media to create intentionally false accusations that have no basis in fact. 4 Of note, ?Big Will? is the SEL of the Navy Football Team. Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 13 of 43 MIDN Standage?s guilt, the Deputy spent his time demonstrating to MIDN Standage 1) how the Deputy, as the representative of the Command, was in sole possession of the truth and thus the only acceptable position -- as to every subject matter of MIDN Standage?s tweets, 2) how MIDN Standage was wrong as to each such position, and, 3) because he was wrong, why his speech was prejudicial to good order and discipline and not protected by the First Amendment. Simply stated, the adjudication was an exercise in blatant viewpoint discrimination.5 Among the most notable ?truth statements? were the following: COMDTMIDNOTE 5720 states that NO unprofessional posts are tolerated at any level.6 0 The Deputy Commandant claimed to have found MIDN Standage?s pro?le and bio (including his association with the Naval Academy) on Flickr and You Tube, proof that MIDN Standage had ?extensive social media in?uence.? Both assertions proved to be wrong. He was then forced to revert to the argument that, because anyone could find MIDN Standage?s Instagram account on Google, one could reasonably make the logical leap that his Twitter posts were made on behalf of the Department of Defense. 0 The officers who shot Breonna Taylor are guilty. When MIDN Standage explained that, or wrongly, he viewed the incident through the lens of his parents, the Deputy retorted as to why his parents would shoot an innocent person. 0 As to MIDN Standage?s tweets concerning wealth disparity, MIDN Standage explained that ?they? referred to anyone, regardless of race, and that the statements were a reaf?rmation of the American Dream. The Deputy rejected that explanation out of hand, accused MIDN Standage of lying, and said that any logical person would think MIDN Standage was a racist and that the Department of Defense is racist. The fundamental problem with the Deputy Commandant?s ?logical person? comment is that the tweet MIDN Standage posted was in support of Candace Owens, a black, conservative commentator. Ms. Owens originally posted an 8-minute video narrative describing how she and her family each made a life for themselves by merit of hard work and the American Dream. In the video, she denied the notion that people need outside government assistance in order to see the merits of their work. She was repeatedly and savagely attacked in the comments and replies section of Twitter. MIDN Standage?s tweet was in response to one such attacker, not the tweet cut and pasted into the screenshot. Thus, Ms. Owens, a black person, would not deem MIDN Standage a racist for agreeing with her position and for criticizing someone who did not. 7 Of course, the person who provided the screenshot of MIDN Standage?s text cut and pasted the tweet to 5 We discuss the illegality of this discrimination in Part below. 6 We discuss the legal baselessness of this assertion in Part 11] below. 7 People like Jason L. Riley, a prominent black journalist who frequently writes for the Wall Street Journal, is not ?logical? in the Deputy Commandant?s book either, because he wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal that is consistent with MIDN Standage?s position. See Jason L. Riley, The False Income-Equalin/ Narrative, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 29, 2015 at We suspect MIDN Wiggins would view Ms. Owens and Mr. Riley as two of the chickens who eat at KF C. Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 14 of 43 avoid disclosing any if this essential context. Indeed, many of the tweets at issue suffer from the same deliberate screenshot editing, making it appear as though MIDN Standage was replying to the tweet directly above, when in fact he was not. 0 The Deputy concluded that MIDN Standage advocated ?indiscriminate military actions? against U.S. citizens, using the terms ?terrorists? and ?protestors? interchangeably (even though MIDN Standage?s tweets do not) scof?ng at the notion that ANTIFA was a ?terrorist? organization just because the Commander in Chief declared them to be so.8 He challenged MIDN Standage to cite ?speci?c legislation that says they?re a terror group.? Although MIDN Standage could not do so, on July 18, 2020, Senator Bill Cassidy introduced a Senate Resolution calling for the ?groups and organizations acting under the banner of Antifa to be designated as domestic terrorist organizations.?9 Moreover, and as MIDN Standage stated during the adjudication, U.S. Attorney General William Barr declared on May 31, 2020 that the U.S. Department of Justice would view protests by ANTIFA as ?acts of domestic terrorism.?10 0 The Deputy scoffed again at the idea that the Commander-in-Chief sets the standard for the conduct of the military he commands, referring to our submission to the Deputy on MIDN Standage?s behalf as ?that funny little document.? 0 The Deputy became particularly vehement and long-winded as to the supremacy of the Navy Football Program over virtually any other aspect of the Naval Academy?s mission. Not interested in the particulars of MIDN Standage?s tweet on the subject, and ignoring the fact that, as with every other one of his tweets, MIDN Standage was responding to someone else?s comment on the subject, the Deputy reasoned that because the Superintendent originates service commitment waivers for football players to compete in professional football, MIDN Standage?s tweet, which does not mention the Superintendent, waivers, or professional sports, was nonetheless insubordinate and thus a Violation of good order and discipline as set forth in COMDTMIDNNOTE 5720. He then went on to assert that The football team is one of the most important things on the Yard. The football players are some of the Academy?s best and most important midshipmen. 3 Here the Deputy Commandant appears to be taking his cue from senior retired admirals and generals, such as ADM Mike Mullen and GEN James Mattis, who deem it appropriate publicly to criticize the Commander-in-Chief and undermine his authority. 9 ?0 See Case 1 Document 122 Filed 10/20/20 Page 15 of 43 Football players matte the sacrifice to gain weight, compromise their body fat, and get waivers so that Navy can win. It is vitally important that the Naval Academy in Navy l-nothall. Foothzill players represent the Aeatlerny well, unlike MIDN Standage. Ironically. this rant, which, like most of the Deputy's purpnnedjustifications for his findings. has no legal significance, served only to prove exactly what .VIIDN Standage and many other midshipmen had the audacity to comment on. Social Media Parts by the Commandant'x Daughter and Mother We are challenging Commandant's role in the process based, in part, on the following social media posts by the Commandant's daughter and mother. In the screenshot directly below, the identifying photograph de 'ets the Commandant's daughte_ her brother, and the Commandant. Her "bi ays "acab" and "abolish ice." stands for "All Cops art: Bastards." and is the US, Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The post also shows that-- has 17 followers. One ofthose followers is her father, the Commandant. Another one 01' her followers is the Commandant's mother, -- Meme. In the next screenshot,--retweets three posts: It) Case 1 Document 122 Filed 10/20/20 Page 16 of 43 The first post is by "Pufftl-ie Magic Haler," "ho says, "Everyone should he declaring themselves antifascisl in solidarin with antifat Unless you're with the fucking fascists," Apparently. is endorsing solidarity wilh ANTIFA, whom the President has deemed to be a terrorist organization. The second post is by "mamie lhe dog" and says, "Oh son'y I meant fuck the police." Ms-'s retweet ofthis posl is consistent with her seltzdescriptmri, The third post Ms. _relwectcd is by "Anonymous," which is an AN TIFA hacker collective. It ends with. "Do us a favor and go fuck yourself Mango Mussolini." "Mango Mussolini" is reference tn the President in three retweers, rhe Commundam's daughler endorses allegiance to ANIIFA cheers someone saying, Fuck the police," and agrees (hat the President oflhe United Smles Mango Mussolini," should go fuck himselfi the Maqu: Anonymous ii mini. In the next sereenshot, Ms.-vieighs in on the guilt and fate of MIDN Standage: ll Case 1 Document 122 Filed 10/20/20 Page 17 of 43 lueiv't . lIl/DCh "Slal'trls As the next reflecls, dislike of MIDN Standage is with her dislike of men generally. her agreement with the sentiment that men not existing is greater than men exisling and retweeting the statement, "kill all m3n," mum I .t i it; Him Mug She also attempted to follow MIDN Standage on [nslagmm. l2 Case 1 Document 122 Fxled 10/20/20 Page 18 of 43 Confirm De'ete samt Follow This Account is Private The Commandanl's mmher, who goes by me 'Iwmcr handlc supports her granddaugluer's views as MIDN Standage: 13 Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 19 of 43 Some of these views appear to be having an impact on, have been impacted by, or are consistent with, the Commandant?s views. On Friday, 14 August, 2020, the Commandant held a Commandant?s Call, in which he stated, ?We have evidence that there are pockets of midshipmen that don?t have good belief structures We need to educate ourselves about we need to move from ?not? to ?anti.? ?Not racist? is passive. To be anti-racist, we must take the offensive and confront others.? This is the credo of the Anti-Racist Movement: ?silence is violence?!1 -- anyone who does not actively and af?rmatively agree with the kind of in?ammatory, seditious, anti-police, polemical, racist prolix espoused by the Commandant?s daughter and the authors of the posts contained in Exhibits through is a racist. The pernicious if not Marxist/Stalinist/Maoist implications of this ideology were pointedly expressed by one of the country?s leading scientists. In an Op-Ed piece published in the Wall Street Journal on July 12, 2020 and entitled The Ideological Corruption of Science, theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss decried the effects of the ?anti-racist? movement on freedom of thought in the scienti?c community. He wrote, In the 19803, when I was a young professor of physics and astronomy at Yale, deconstructionism was in vogue in the English Department. We in the science departments would scoff at the lack of objective intellectual standards in the humanities, epitomized by a movement that argued against the existence of objective truth itself, arguing that all such claims to knowledge were tainted by ideological biases due to race, sex or economic dominance. It could never happen in the hard sciences, except perhaps under dictatorships, such as the Nazi condemnation of ?Jewish? science, or the Stalinist campaign against genetics led by Tro?m Lysenko, in which literally thousands of mainstream geneticists were dismissed in the effort to suppress any opposition to the prevailing political view of the state. Or so we thought. In recent years, and especially since the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, academic science leaders have adopted wholesale the language of dominance and oppression previously restricted to ?cultural studies? journals to guide their disciplines, to censor dissenting views, to remove faculty from leadership positions if their research is claimed by opponents to support systemic oppression. In June, the American Physical Society (APS), which represents 55,000 physicists world-wide, endorsed a ?strike for black lives? to ?shut down in academia. It closed its office?not to protest police violence or racism, but to ?commit to eradicating systemic racism and discrimination, especially in academia, and science,? stating that ?physics is not an exception? to the suffocating effects of racism in American life. 1? See, e. 14 Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 20 of 43 While racism in our society is real, no data were given to support this claim of systemic racism in science, and I have argued elsewhere that there are strong reasons to think that this claim is spurious. The APS wasn?t alone. National laboratories and university science departments joined the one?day strike. The pre-eminent science journal Nature, which disseminates what it views as the most important science stories in a daily newsletter, featured an article titled ?Ten simple rules for building an anti? racist la Krauss concludes as follows, As ideological encroachment corrupts scienti?c institutions, one might wonder why more scientists aren?t defending the hard sciences from this intrusion. The answer is that many academics are afraid, and for good reason. They are hesitant to disagree with scienti?c leadership groups, and they see what has happened to scientists who do. They see how researchers lose funding if they can?t justify how their research programs will explicitly combat claimed systemic racism or sexism, a requirement for scienti?c proposals now being applied by granting agencies. Whenever science has been corrupted by falling prey to ideology, scienti?c progress suffers. This was the case in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union?and in the U.S. in the 19th century when racist views dominated biology, and during the McCarthy era, when prominent scientists like Robert Oppenheimer were ostracized for their political views. To stem the slide, scienti?c leaders, scienti?c societies and senior academic administrators must publicly stand up not only for free speech in science, but for quality, independent of political doctrine and divorced from the demands of political factions. A Commandant intent on turning an Academy with one of the greatest science and engineering programs in the country into the next ?anti-racist la and ideological reeducation camp should not be part of MIDN Standage?s adjudication process. Indeed, it is supremely ironic that MIDN Standage faces separation for expressing ?political? views that were nothing of the kind, while the Commandant is imposing an oppressive political ideology on the Brigade of Midshipmen that seeks to chill free speech and punish any midshipman who does not actively ?get with the program.? '2 The command climate the Commandant seeks to establish raises the most serious questions about MIDN Standage?s ability to receive a fair adjudication at the Naval Academy. 12 For a compelling critique of the Anti-Racism movement?s ?bible,? How to Be an Anti-Racist, and it?s author, lbram X. Kendi, see See also George F. Will, Most of Today ?3 Intelligencia Cannot Think, at lea-ana?693df3d7674a storv.html. 15 Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 21 of 43 ARGUMENT I. CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE COMDTMIDNIN ST Section 5.2.a requires that the Adj udicating Authority ?[c]onduct a fair and impartial hearing.? Surely, the same holds true for the Reviewing Authority. In any other administrative separation or military justice proceeding, including a Midshipman Discharge Board, the respondent/accused has a right to challenge a fact-?nder or reviewing authority on the basis of actual or implied impartiality. ?3 For reasons of fundamental fairness, particularly in the circumstances presented here, permitting a Reviewing Authority (the Commandant), to consider and weigh evidence given the backdrop of his daughter?s and his mother?s social media posts, posts he follows and apparently done nothing to discourage, and further given his efforts to impose the Anti-Racist ideology on the Brigade, would constitute a clear violation of MIDN Standage?s due process rights. The Commandant, as well as his legal advisors, should recuse themselves, and this appeal should be reviewed in the ?rst instance by the Superintendent. II. MIDN STANDAGE UNCONDITIONALLY APOLGIZES TO ANYONE WHO WAS OFFENDED BY HIS POSTS AND STANDS READY TO PARTICIPATE IN A DIGNITY AND RESPECT REMEDIATION PROGRAM. We attach as Exhibit A MIDN Standage?s personal statement. The statement conveys not only his heartfelt apology for his actions, 14 but a mature and candid recognition that what he intended by the posts is simply beside the point, because what matters is how others might perceive the posts, react to them, and be harmed by them. Making no excuses, and exhibiting genuine efforts at self-re?ection and self-remediation, MIDN Standage realizes that he overreacted to the stresses and fears to which his parents? defense of the Los Angeles riots gave rise and exercised poor judgment in manifesting those overreactions through a medium far too subject to in?ammatory, irresponsible, and sometimes outrageous commentary. He wishes to assure his chain of command and his shipmates that he stands ready to participate in the Respect and Dignity Remediation Program. ?3 See, e. USNAINST.1610.6, Encl. 2, Paragraphs 1, SECNAVINST 1920.6C, Encl. 8, Subparagraph 6.f; 1910-516, Paragraph 2.h (script for preparation of Record of Proceedings); RCM 912(0(l)(N). The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has held, ?The two purposes of ROM. 912(f)(1)(N) are protect the actual fairness of the court-martial and to bolster the appearance of fairness of the military justice system in the eyes of the public.? US. v. Leonard, 63 MI. 398, 402 (C.A.A.F. 2006). ?4 MIDN Standage stands ready to issue a public apology if the Command deems it appropriate. 16 Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 22 of 43 NONE OF THE POSTS CONSTITUTES AS CONTEMPLATED BY COMDTMIDNNOTE 5720. COMDTMIDNNOTE 5720 is a restatement of the Hatch Act. ?5 The Act regulates partisan political activities by employees in the executive branch of the federal government. ?Political activity? is de?ned as ?activity directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political of?ce, or partisan political group.?16 Thus, while proscribing such partisan political activities as soliciting, accepting, or receiving political campaign contributions; running for election to a partisan political of?ce; and soliciting or discouraging participation in political activity of any person who either has an application for a grant or contract before the agency in question or the subject of an audit by such agency, the Act expressly preserves an employee?s ?right to vote as he chooses and to express his opinion on political subjects and candidates.?17 COMDTMIDNNOTE 5720 tracks the language of the Hatch Act. While it prohibits midshipmen from engaging in the same types of ?partisan political activities? proscribed by the Act, it permits a midshipman to express, on social media, his or her opinion on ?political subjects.? The question presented here is whether any of MIDN Standage?s social media posts constitute ?political subjects? within the meaning of the Hatch Act, Directive 1344.10, or COMDTMIDNNOTE 5720. They do not. If the regulatory de?nition of ?political activities? is ?activity directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political of?ce, or partisan political group,? the de?nition of ?political subjects? must follow suit. In other words, the ?political? ?subject? or ?issue? must be tied to the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political of?ce, or partisan political group. Thus, a social media post commenting on a political candidate?s or a partisan political group?s position on law enforcement would constitute a ?political subject,? while commenting on law enforcement itself would not. To hold otherwise would render the term ?political subject? meaningless and would subject Virtually any subject of public debate the restrictions of the Hatch Act, directive 1344.10, and COMDTMIDNNOTE 5720. As the FIR makes clear, the subject matters of MIDN Standage?s posts were law enforcement, civil unrest, socio-economic disparities, and the Navy Football Team. None of the posts refers to a political party, a political candidate, or a partisan political group. If the kinds of speech in MIDN Standage?s posts were to constitute ?political subjects? as circumscribed by the Note, virtually every midshipman at the Naval Academy would be in violation of it. Political Science and Economics majors would have to provide 5720-compliant disclaimers before posting or re-posting messages concerning political philosophy, political economics, macroeconomics, microeconomics, socio-economics, cultural anthropology, cultural ?5 5 U.S.C. ?7321 et seq. While the NOTE references Directive 1344.10, that Directive is simply the Department of Defense?s implementation of the Hatch Act. 16 5 C.F.R. ?734.101. 17 5 U.S.C. ?7323(c). 17 Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 23 of 43 con?ict, and the impact of the coronavirus on various U.S. demographics. Similar restrictions would exist regarding discussions around all of the Academy?s ethics courses. Absent a disclaimer, History majors would not be permitted to discuss the Civil War, the Jim Crow Era, the concept of ?separate but equal,? or the Civil Rights Act of 1964.18 If the de?nition of ?political subjects? were as broad as the Command advocates, many, if not all of the posts and re-posts attached as Exhibits through I would constitute Violations of the Note. It is more than obvious that the vast majority of the posts were made by midshipmen or former midshipmen, given their repeated references to the Navy, the Naval Academy, the Naval Academy football team. While a few of the posts do, in fact, speak to political candidates or partisan political groups, most of them do not. Finally, the PIO asserts a second basis for her position that at least some of MIDN Standage?s posts violated COMDTMIDNNOTE 5720: the posts were ?unprofessional and prejudicial to good order and discipline.?19 We discuss that argument in the section that follow. IV. EXERCISING FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS ON SOCIAL MEDIA IS NOT CONDUCT UNBECOMING OR PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ORDER AND DISCIPLINE. A. Criminalization of Free Speech Under Article 133 or 134 Violates the First Amendment. We note at the threshold that the PIO never expresses the opinion in her AGMAN report that any of MIDN Standage?s posts constituted conduct unbecoming in violation of Article 133 of the UCMJ. Rather, she cites only the ?good order and discipline? language set forth in COMDTMIDNNOTE 5720. To the extent that the Command seeks to criminalize MIDN Standage?s posts under the UCMJ, the Article that more closely tracks the opinions is Article 134, the General Article,20 rather than Article 133. At the end of the day, the distinction is without legal signi?cance, for the reasons that follow. ?8 Moreover, MIDN Standage?s Twitter account never identi?ed him as a Naval Academy midshipman or a member of the US. Armed Forces, and MIDN Standage so testi?ed at his hearing. The assertion that because MIDN Standage identi?ed himself as such in is lnstagram account, it is reasonable to infer that he did so on his Twitter account is neither reasonable nor correct. ?9 PIR, pp.3-4. 20 Article 134 provides, Though not speci?cally mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court. As used in the preceding sentence, the term ?crimes and offenses not capital? includes any conduct engaged in outside the United States, as de?ned in section 5 of title 18, that would constitute a crime or offense not capital if the conduct had been engaged in within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, as de?ned in section 7 of title 18. 18 Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 24 of 43 In United States v. Wilcox,21 a private ?rst class in the US. Army was convicted by a general court-martial of, among other things, violating Article 134 by advocating anti? government and disloyal statements, and racial intolerance. The US. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces held that, in the absence evidence that the speech constituted dangerous speech which interfered with or prevented the orderly accomplishment of the mission or presented a clear danger to loyalty, discipline, mission, or morale of the troops, the communications at issue constituted protected speech under the First Amendment and could not be criminalized under the General Article on a ?prejudice to good order and discipline? theory. The Court ?rst turned to the issue of whether ?racially charged? speech is protected under the First Amendment, and had little dif?culty af?rrning that legal principle:22 Appellant?s various communications on the Internet?which, while repugnant, are not criminal in the civilian world, see Brandenburg, 395 US. at 447, 89 18276y (holding that even advocacy of racist violent speech is protected speech if it is not likely to incite or produce such violence)?did not constitute unprotected ?dangerous speech? under the circumstances of this case. No evidence was admitted that showed the communications either ?interfere with or prevent[ed] the orderly accomplishment of the mission,? or ?present[ed] a clear danger to loyalty, discipline, mission, or morale of the troops.? Brown, 45 M.J. at 395 (citations omitted). Further, while one might colloquially describe the ideas expressed by Appellant as obscene, they are not legally obscene as de?ned by First Amendment jurisprudence. See Miller, 413 US. at 24?25, 93 2607 (requiring that the material contain a depiction or description of sexual conduct in a patently offensive way to be considered obscenity). Neither can they be classi?ed as unprotected ??ghting words.? See Chaplinsky, 315 US. at 572, 62 766 (de?ning ??ghting words? as ?those which by their very utterance in?ict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace?). Consequently, we conclude that Appellant?s speech is protected speech under the First Amendment and must now turn to an analysis of whether the Government has shown a reasonably direct and palpable connection between the speech and the military mission or military environment. The leading cases involving the intersection of Article 134, UCMJ, and 2' 66 M.J. 442 (CAAF, 2008) 22 We do not for one moment concede that any of the posts at issue were ?racially charged? or ?racially motivated.? The point of the analysis here is simply to point out that, even if that argument could be made, the speech is protected by the First Amendment. 19 Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 25 of 43 the First Amendment have involved facts adduced at trial that showed that the appellant at least attempted to direct his speech to servicemembers. See, e. g, Parker, 417 U.S. at 761, 94 2547 (?nding a violation of Article 134, UCMJ, when servicemember ?publicly urge[d] enlisted personnel to refuse to obey orders?); Brown, 45 M.J. at 398 (holding that organizing a unit-wide meeting to advocate desertion violated Article 134, Priest, 21 C.M.A. at 572, 45 C.M.R. at 346 (?nding direct and palpable connection to good order and discipline when the appellant distributed an extremist newspaper at the Pentagon and Navy exchange); Daniels, 19 C.M.A. at 533?35, 42 C.M.R. at 135?37 (concluding that there was a direct connection to good order and discipline when the appellant assembled all African?American members of his unit and attempted to convince them to not ?ght in ?the white man?s war?). Because in those cases the speech was directed to servicemembers, the effect of the speech on the military mission was both palpable and obvious.23 No such evidence exists in this case. MIDN Standage was not responding to military members or seeking a military audience. He was not fomenting dissent or the adoption of extremist views by any military unit, let alone the Brigade of Midshipmen. To the contrary, his views were expressly directed to non-military members of the general public.?24 The holding of Wilcox is as apposite to any proposed charge under Article 133 as it is to the outcome of the case as to Article 134. B. The Deputy Commandant?s and Commandant?s Words and Actions Make Clear That the Command is Engaged in Blatant Viewpoint Discrimination. In Rosenberger v. Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995), the University of Virginia?s Student Activity Fund (SAF) refused to allocate some of its funds to a student-organized Christian newspaper. Finding the SAF ?3 action to be a violation of the First Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court declared: When the government targets not subject matter but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant. Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of 23 Id. at 449-50 (footnotes omitted). 24 The single exception is his comment about the Navy Football Team. It suf?ces to say that the question of whether the preferential treatment given to members of that team across every aspect of Academy life weighs more heavily on unit cohesion and morale than any particular midshipman?s resentment of such treatment is an issue not worthy of further discussion. The enormous number of Jodel posts decrying such disparate treatment only reinforces the point. Moreover, many of the posts included in the Exhibits to this submission are directly addressed to members of the Brigade of Midshipman and clearly call for action (revolution, violence against police, violence against whites) completely at odds with unit cohesion and good order and discipline. Some directly criticize the President, which constitute clear violations of recently-issued NAVADMIN 213/20, a copy of which we attach as Exhibit J. 20 Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 26 of 43 content discrimination. The government must abstain from regulating speech when the speci?c motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction. Id. at 829. The dissent?s assertion that no viewpoint discrimination occurs because the Guidelines discriminate against an entire class of viewpoints re?ects an insupportable assumption that all debate is bipolar and antireligious speech is the only response to religious speech. Our understanding of the complex and multifaceted nature of public discourse has not embraced such a contrived description of the marketplace of ideas. If the topic of debate is, for example, racism, then exclusion of several views on that problem is just as offensive to the First Amendment as exclusion of only one. It is as objectionable to exclude both a theistic and an atheistic perspective on the debate as it is to exclude one, the other, or yet another political, economic, or social viewpoint. Id. at 831 (emphasis added). The Deputy Commandant made clear during the adjudication that, with respect to each of the subject matters of MIDN Standage?s tweets, there was only one acceptable viewpoint, and it was the Deputy Commandant?s. For his own part, the Commandant espouses Anti-Racism, many of the advocates of which claim that any speech, including no speech at all, that does not actively adopt and agree with the pronouncements of the movement is fundamentally racist. As Professor Krauss pointedly states in his article on the corruption of science, it is dif?cult, if not impossible, to imagine a greater affront to the free speech protections of the First Amendment. To be clear, whether the Command takes the position that ?racism? is a pernicious evil that needs to be eradicated is not the viewpoint at issue here; that is a laudable assertion of a command ethic. Rather, it is the Command?s monolithic insistence as to what constitutes racism, a subject of enormous debate across the Country, and its insistence that people like MIDN Standage are not entitled to weigh in on that issue without being branded as a racist, that is the viewpoint discrimination at issue here. Such discrimination is all the more apparent where, as here, midshipmen who clearly associate themselves with movements such as Black Lives Matter, Anti-Racism, or even ACAB and ANTIFA, are afforded greater protections by the Command in the interests of encouraging ?dialogue,? irrespective of how racist, in?ammatory, insubordinate, or anti-law enforcement that speech is, while any contrary View is not only intolerable, but condemned as racist itself, and, as the present case makes all too clear, can result in condemnation, punishment, and the specter of separation from the Naval Academy. C. The Standard Against Which MIDN Standage?s Conduct Must be Measured is Set by the Commander in Chief and MIDN Standage?s Peers and Was Not Otherwise Known to MIDN Standage. Under the fundamental due process principle of notice, military courts recognize that, with respect to the criminalization of conduct under Article 133, ?to pass constitutional muster, [the accused] must have reasonably known, based on service customs or standards of conduct, 21 Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 27 of 43 that [the] acts [at issue] were punishable. That custom or standard too must stand on its own without regard to whether the conduct also amounts to any speci?c offense [under the United States v. Livingstone.25 Here, there is absolutely no evidence that MIDN Standage must have ?reasonably known? that his posts, based on ?service customs or standards of conduct? were punishable. To the contrary, the social media environment in which MIDN Standage was making his posts embraced ?service customs or standards of conduct? set by the Nation?s Commander-in- Chief. Indeed, one or more of MIDN Standage?s posts directly responded to assertions made by the President. It cannot be the case that the Naval Academy is prepared to punish one of its midshipmen for a standard of conduct that materially deviates from the social media standard established by the Commander?in?Chief. As for MIDN Standage?s peers, it simply cannot be contended, given the tenor, vulgarity, aggressiveness, and animus pervading the world of midshipman social media, that MIDN Standage should be held to, or should have been aware of, a standard of constitutionally? protected discourse that materially differs from that applicable to those peers. D. The Personal Views and Opinions as to How the Posts Should Be Interpreted is Not Evidence and is Not Within the Scope of a Investigative Responsibilities. To justify her assertion that some of MIDN Standage?s posts were ?unprofessional and prejudicial to good order and discipline,? the PIO offers her own personal and subjective views as to the ?callousness? or ?insensitivity? of the posts or what the posts ?imply? or ?seemingly imply.? That is not evidence, because the P10 is not a fact witness, and the assertion of her own personal Views as to the effect the posts have on her falls outside the scope of her investigative authority. What is evidence, however, is the witness statements that include comments about the posts. These statements are included in the PIR but never discussed by the PIO, perhaps because most of them run contrary to the own subjective opinions. We commend each and every one of those witness statements to the Superintendent for his consideration. V. THE CULTURAL ISSUES ROILING THE ACADEMY TODAY MUST BE ADDRESSED BY MILITARY LEADERSHIP, NOT BY THE IMPOSITION OF A POLITICAL IDEOLOGY OR UNILATERAL PUNISHMMENT. The PIR states that MIDN Standage?s posts were ?rst brought to the Command?s attention through the CMEO process. Notably, the Student Guide for the Command Managed Equal Opportunity Manager?s Course (the ?Student Guide?) begins by underscoring the leadership imperative underlying the resolution of con?ict within the command, whether that con?ict be bases on race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other potentially divisive issue. The 25 78 MJ. 619, 626 2018). 22 Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 28 of 43 first substantive page of the Student Guide, Understanding the Command Managed Equal Opportunity Program, provides that ?[t]he Navy has a variety of resources available to Sailors ?ling or handling both informal and formal complaints in response to unprofessional behavior. The Informal Resolution System (IRS) is the recommended ?rst step in con?ict resolution.?26 The ?Introduction? to Topic 4-1 in the Student Guide could not be more clear as to why the IRS is the recommended first step: Resolving con?ict is a fundamental leadership responsibility. Unresolved con?ict is not only contrary to good order and discipline but it also erodes unite cohesiveness and destroys morale.27 The sampling (and it is only a sampling) of social media posts attached as exhibits to this submission starkly illustrate the magnitude of the powder keg the Academy and the Brigade currently sit atop. Clearly, the cultural divides that plague the Brigade are at toxic levels, exacerbated by the uncertainties attendant to the COVID pandemic, including food and housing shortages and the fear of contracting the virus. Something has gone terribly wrong with the Academy?s bedrock principles of unit cohesion, camaraderie, and fostering a military culture that prides itself on taking care of its people. Undersigned counsel has repeatedly heard from midshipmen clients and other midshipmen that the Brigade is not a cohesive unit in which people have each others? backs. Rather, it is a wolf pack, whose stronger members advance themselves not on their own merits, but by attacking the weak and tearing them down through the kinds of in?ammatory narratives that pervade the midshipmen social media. Such con?ict is exactly what long-standing principles of military leadership are intended to address. Such military principles cannot and should not give way to partisan, political movements, ideologies, and sloganeering that suppress, rather than foster, open communication between military members and label a large group of ?passive? midshipmen as ?racist? because they do not endorse ANTIFA or fucking the police. For precisely that reason, separating MIDN Standage or singling him out as an ?aberration? of current Academy culture is an indefensible ?ction and will not resolve these fundamental con?icts. As the CMEO program itself mandates, leadership must be brought to bear to bridge the enormous cultural divides at work here. The answer is not unilateral punishment, but leadership-driven communication. As MIDN Standage pointedly notes in his personal statement, in times of crisis, he reverts to and takes comfort in his own cultural norms and too often views countervailing views as an assault on those nouns. But he stands ready not only to work through those issues in a Dignity and Respect Remediation program, but to make a fundamental part of that program the commencement of a Brigade-wide dialog in a concerted and sincere effort that seeks to understand, as well as to be understood. 26 Student Guide, p. ix (emphasis added). 27 Id, p. 4-1-1 (emphasis added). 23 Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 29 of 43 VI. MIDN OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE RECORD AND EXCELLENT CHARACTER WARRANT RETENTION. A. MIDN Standage?s Performance Has Been Consistently Outstanding and Unblemished. MIDN Standage?s performance speaks for itself. He is a high performer and high achiever who has made an enormous investment, since the age of 16, in becoming a naval aviator. He carries a 3.8 CQPR in a very dif?cult major, and has devoted countless hours of his time to instruct and mentor other midshipmen in the Academy?s powered ?ight program. With the exception of a very minor conduct infraction adjudicated at the company level, MIDN Standage?s conduct and honor records are unblemished. Simply stated, no aspect of MIDN Standage?s performance indicates that he is anything other than a model midshipman. B. MIDN Standage is Not a Racist. Each witness questioned by the PIO was expressly asked if MIDN Standage had ever made any racist comments or exhibited any racist tendencies.28 The answers were uniformly in the negative. To the contrary, the vast majority of witnesses attested to MIDN Standage?s kind and respectful treatment of all of his shipmates, irrespective of their race; indeed, several noted that his roommate who is one of his best friends is black. As virtually every one of these same witnesses stated, MIDN Standage?s Tweets were not a matter of racial animus; they were a matter of unconstrained, momentary passion and insensitivity. The former may well render a midshipman not suitable for commission; the latter does not. Like so many midshipmen, MIDN Standage is a ?ne young man whose communication skills and cultural awareness and sensitivities may not yet be fully developed. But that is precisely the mission of the United States Naval Academy. Respectfully submitted, Jeffrey B. McFadden Law Of?ces of Jeffrey B. McFadden, LLC 28 MIDN Wiggins recalled MIDN Standage making an uncomplimentary comment about the Navy Football Team (which MIDN Standage steadfastly denies), but did not know whether the comment had anything to do with race. The recollection only serves to illustrate the extent to which race can be inappropriately injected into almost any comment by anyone in the currently charged environment that is Bancroft Hall. Indeed, MIDN Standage?s Tweet about the football team, which had nothing to do with race (even juxtaposed with a picture of MIDN Fomey, who was white) has nonetheless somehow found its way into this conduct case. 24 Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 30 of 43 EXHIBIT Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 31 of 43 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND CHASE STANDAGE, Midshipman First Class, United States Naval Academy, Civil Action No. Plaintif? vs. KENNETH J. BRAITHWAITE, Secretary of the Navy; and SEAN S. BUCK, Vice Admiral, Superintendent, United States Naval Academy; Defendants. DECLARATION OF MIDN CHASE ROBERT STANDAGE, USN 1. My name is Chase Robert Standage. I am a Midshipmen First Class at the United States Naval Academy. 1 am above the age of 18 and am competent to testify as to the matters set forth below. I make this Declaration in support of my Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 2. Each of the events described is, unless otherwise indicated, based on my ?rst- hand knowledge and occurred during my enrollment at the Naval Academy. 3. I am 21 years old, and was born and raised in Southern California. My upbringing was greatly shaped by the fact that both of my parents are career law enforcement of?cers with the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). Combined, they have over ?ve decades of experience in this ?eld. My mother is a Sergeant II at North Hollywood Division, and currently specializes in the area of community relations. My father is the Assistant Chief Pilot for Air Support Division, which has the largest ?eet of law enforcement aircraft in the world. Each Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 32 of 43 is devoted to their ?eld, and throughout my childhood there have been countless days where they put in far more hours than were asked of them in order to get the job done and keep the community safe. 4. Drawn to both aviation and a sense of service, I chose to take a path towards the Navy from a young age. My grandfather was a Naval Aviator, who ?ew the E-2C Hawkeye and was selected as one of the top aviators on his aircraft carrier. After his Navy career, he and my dad would ?y corporate jets around the world together, and I was there to witness from the car seat and stroller. My family made every effort to attend the airshows in our area, and I grew to love the sound of jet-blast and roar of the P-51?s Merlin engine. 5. This upbringing played a heavy in?uence into my career choice. While in high school, I began ?ight training at the age of 15, soloed an aircraft at 16, and earned a Private Pilot?s License at 17. Simultaneously, I joined the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps and dedicated myself to the maximum extent possible. I graduated ?rst in my Petty Of?cer Leadership Academy Class and led the Honor Division at the Recruit Training Command at MCB Camp Pendleton, was the honor cadet of the Basic Airman Training at Whidbey Island, was selected as the Trident Patrol Squadron Cadet of the Year and Paci?c Southwest Region 11 Cadet of the Year (2016), and was nominated as the NSCC National Cadet of the Year (2017). 6. In high school, I maintained a 4.44 GPA, and graduated 4 of 466 in my class. I deveIOped a great deal of interest in science and engineering, and took three years of college physics after convincing my school to foster the creation of an upper?level college physics class for my third year. I was also selected as my school?s delegate to the California Boys? State Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 33 of 43 conference in 2016. Out of the classroom, I ran four years of cross-country and track, and lettered in Varsity for both. 7. When it came time to select a college, I was accepted to MIT, USC, Purdue, and University of Michigan by December of my senior year. I also had an NROTC scholarship that would have paid full tuition, room, and board to each school. However, I chose to wait to hear back from the Naval Academy before making any decisions. In March, I received an offer of appointment from the Academy, and accepted it, thereby turning down NROTC at MIT. At the time, I felt that the Academy was truly right for me, and I was driven by a sense of service and purpose to pursue an education at a service academy rather than a regular college. 8. Upon my arrival at the Academy, I validated 24 credits, and was able to get an early start in the Aerospace Engineering major. This has proven invaluable, and has allowed me to pursue my dreams within the major. In my junior year at the Academy, I was able to take Flight Test Engineering, which is a class normally reserved for seniors. However, the class solidi?ed my interests and set Test Pilot School as a new and solid goal on the horizon of my Navy career. My success in the major also set me up for the incredible opportunity of the Voluntary Graduate Education Program (VGEP), which allows me to start an early Masters Degree in Aeronautical Engineering at the University of Maryland in January 2021, the Spring semester of my senior year. 9. Outside of the classroom, I continued my running career, and expanded my envelope to run with the Academy?s Marathon team. I also maintained a high-A average on all of my Physical Readiness Tests, and have never quit in my pursuit of athletic excellence. Additionally, I joined several organizations, most notably the Students for the Exploration and Development of Space (SEDS) and the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 34 of 43 (AIAA). Through SEDS, I was able to embark as a freshman on a two-year project to build a micro?satellite known as ThinSat that would launch onboard an Antares Rocket and study the Earth?s ionosphere in lowuorbit. 10. In my free time, I have also been able to continue my ?ying career. Since arriving at the Academy, I have earned my Instrument, Commercial Pilot, and Advanced Ground Instructor Ratings. I have also earned endorsements for complex, high-performance, tailwheel, high-altitude, and emergency maneuver aircraft operations. At the Academy, I was able to use my ground instructor rating to teach over two summers for the Academy?s Powered Flight Program, which aims to take rising seniors from never ?ying before to soloing an aircraft in under three weeks. During the regular academic year, I also teach ground school classes for Midshipmen who are interested in earning their Private Pilot?s License. Lastly, all of this enabled me to achieve the maximum score of 9?9-9 on my Aviation Selection Test Battery exam, which is a tool used by the service selection committee to determine suitability for ?ight training in the Navy. 11. I am now less than one month away from my service selection, the day on which all seniors at the Academy make their request for the warfare specialty in the Navy or Marine Corps they wish to join when they are commissioned as of?cers. 1, of course, will request Naval aviation. 12. Over the Summer of 2020, many cities in our country were the sites of civil unrest. It seemed to me that one of the primary targets of such violence were the police departments in those cities, and that the primary victims of the destruction caused by the protests were the local communities in those cities. With respect to the riots in Los Angeles, my parents, as LAPD of?cers, were at the forefront of those riots. Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 35 of 43 13. In late May, all of LAPD was ?maximum deployed,? which meant that every of?cer was to work a minimum of 12-hour days, with no days off, for the foreseeable future. The reality was that most of?cers were working l4-hour days, carrying up to 50 pounds of gear in wool uniforms in the middle of an especially hot Los Angles summer. This state of maximum deployment went on for two weeks. 14. In June 2020, I was living at home and taking a USNA summer school class remotely. That month, more than 300 police of?cers around the country were hospitalized, many critically, for injuries sustained during the riots. Several were even killed; some after being ambushed and assassinated. In addition, LAPD had more than 90 patrol cars set on ?re and demolished beyond repair. Many of these patrol cars took the ?rst blows when the officers were inside, and were completely destroyed as of?cers abandoned the cars in fear for their lives. 15. Groups like ANTIFA declared an open war on the LAPD and on police departments in other cities around the country. Third parties staged bricks throughout cities for these groups to use as weapons. Gas stations were used to ?ll ?ve-gallon tanks for the creation of Molotov Cocktails. Bomb squads were spread thin across cities in order to safely deal with improvised explosive devices, some of which were notably placed in residential neighborhoods. The symbology of the movement was clear, as intended, with slogans such as ?All Cops Are Bastards and ?Kill All Pigs,? with symbols such as the infamous for anarchy, and images of pigs, representing police, being impaled and roasted. 16. At this same time, current and former Naval Academy midshipmen sported the same slogans and symbols. It seemed to me that they were actively endorsing the destructive behavior of this anti-police, anti-government movement. Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page parents? home in early June, I feared for my parents? lives, and they feared for mine. The rioters in Los Angeles said that they intended to go after the families of police of?cers as well as the of?cers themselves. On any given evening, I did not know whether either or both of my parents would come home alive. 18. Between June 1 and June 13, 2020, during the height of civil unrest in Los Angeles and around the country, I made a number of posts (tweets) on Twitter, all of which were responses to in?ammatory statements people were making in support of the rioters and against the police. The subject matter of these tweets included the President?s decision to treat some of the most militant and violent protestors as domestic terrorists, the President?s suggestion that military force might be necessary and appropriate to combat those terrorists, the shooting of Breonna Taylor, calls for the defunding of police departments, a Candace Owens video about her views on economic opportunities for black people, and the Navy football team. 19. My single tweet about the football team caused certain members of the team to go on a crusade against me and triggered months of harassment. On June 15, 2020, the day certain members of the football team launched their campaign against me, and before I returned to the Academy, I was contacted by Staff Sergeant Williams, the Navy Football Senior Enlisted Leader, who told me that I was un?t to return to the Academy. He then proceeded to tweet about me and to respond to numerous tweets about me. Staff Sergeant Williams pledged to the team that I would not make it back to the Academy. At that point, I completely stopped all social media activity out of fear of Command reprisal. 20. The screenshots of my tweets given to the Preliminary Inquiry Of?cer (PIO) clipped out important context from the rest of the conversation. Other screenshots provided to the PIO were altered and marked up to hide details. The original host tweet from Candace Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 37 of 43 Owens was quickly taken down by Twitter in an attempt to silence her voice and those who defended her. 21. Since returning to the Academy in August, I have had a series of harassing confrontations occur from other midshipmen and people around the Academy. For months, I have experienced online harassment from dozens of midshipmen and commissioned of?cers, at all stages of the investigation and adjudication processes. Many of these confrontations were reported, but no noticeable actions were taken against the perpetrators to mitigate the harassment. While many incidents were merely harsh words, others called for physical violence against me upon my return to Bancroft Hall. One post suggested that I should be killed. 22. One Twitter user dug up a video from my junior year of high school of me standing in front of my house with my home address clearly in view. I do not know where they obtained the video. The video was posted without context and was cropped as to only include the portion with my address. This user has harassed me both before and after this incident. 23. I received multiple threats over my phone after someone posted my number on Twitter. This occurred right after I had a phone conversation with football player MIDN Myles Fells on June 15, which he subsequently posted about online. These threats were documented and handed off to law enforcement. I have since changed my phone number. 24. Internally at the Academy, I had reported a large number of these incidents to the Chain of Command via my attorney and my squad leader, MIDN Tom Savarese. 25. These include a series of incidents involving a football player in my company, MIDN Marcus Wiggins, who was also a witness against me in the Preliminary Inquiry. These threats and harassment have continued to the present day. Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 38 of 43 26. I was confronted in person on my second day back at the Academy while out for a run by two individuals (one of them identi?ed to me as MIDN Madeline Cooke, president of the Midshipmen Black Studies Club). They tried to block my path and start something, but I ignored them and kept running. MIDN Juliana Valencia, a company mate, made signi?cant confrontations via Twitter. She was told to delete the tweets and to stop harassing me. Shortly after, she mockingly tweeted that someone snitched on her and that the Command could not tell her what to do, after which she just changed her username. This was brought up to my of?cer chain of command by MIDN Savarese, but nothing happened. 27. The threats continued even after being reported, including the MIDN Wiggins incidents reported to the Superintendent?s Staff Judge Advocate on 24 August 2020. MIDN Wiggins has harassed me as recently as 13 October. Several midshipmen and of?cers, (such as MIDN Kolbi Greene and ENS Mike Martin) have continued to mock me via Twitter, especially with regard to the legal process that was ?led. Overall, midshiprnen continue to harass me online with little to no repercussions from the Command. 28. The actions of many members of the Brigade of Midshipmen, as well as those of commissioned of?cers with connections to the Academy, have directly led to harassment from outside the Academy well. Most notable were the multitude of threats I received via phone when my phone number was posted online. I ?led a police report through the LAPD, which was then routed through my local police department in Moorpark. Detectives were assigned to the case in order to determine the identity and threat level of the callers. LAPD was on standby to place a protective unit outside my house. 29. In addition, various members of the Brigade reached out to the local newspaper, the Capital Gazette, to insist that I had made ?agrantly and overtly racist tweets. In a manner Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 39 of 43 that is strictly prohibited, they went around the chain of command and to the media. That has led to a substantial number of articles being published around the entire country, maintaining a narrative of racism against me. I ?rmly believe that those articles have in?uenced the investigation and my adjudications; they have also caused me and my family an incredible amount of stress. The media spread of the story, which failed to include any screenshots of my actual statements and instead put words into my mouth, has caused a massive amount of harm and damage to my reputation. 30. Throughout the investigative process, I have had little assistance and have received little support from my chain of command, as they have instead taken an opposing side to me. Almost immediately after the incident broke, various members of the chain of command, including the Commandant, Superintendent, and my Company Of?cer, addressed the members of the Brigade via email about the importance of taking an active stance in battling racism. I believe the Brigade took this as permission to have free reign in harassing me, actions that have gone completely unaddressed. 31. I have been ridiculed by various members of the Brigade online for my decision to retain counsel. They said it was pathetic that I would attempt to defend myself and my rights, and are angered that I am exercising my constitutional rights rather than give in to the crowd pressure to resign or to confess to things I have not done. 32. Throughout the adjudication process, I was treated as someone who was unmistakably guilty and unredeemable. This started at the Deputy Commandant level, when the Deputy ridiculed my defense of stress and pressure due to the nature of my parents? work. Instead, he painted his own narrative of what is right and what is wrong, who is guilty and who is not. He refused to accept the words and executive decisions of the Commander-in?Chief with Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 40 of 43 regard to domestic terrorism, and asserted that it was ridiculous that I would pay heed to the President?s leadership. When I referenced information contained in my written response to the Preliminary Inquiry Report, he referred to it as a ?funny little document.? To the Deputy Commandant, I was guilty before I ever stepped foot back on the Academy, and nothing was going to change his mind. 33. After my opening statement, which I had put extensive thought into, the Deputy seemed disgruntled and stated, ?That was nice, but it sounds a whole lot like what I already read.? The Deputy claimed that since he found out I have Flickr and YouTube accounts, I must have extensive social media in?uence. The two accounts have a total of 8 followers, and contain no material related to the Naval Academy. He then made the leap that if someone on Twitter had wanted, he or she could seek out and ?nd my private Instagram account, which has USNA material on it, and then reasonably deduce that my statements are the of?cial thoughts and opinions of the This was his rationale for concluding I had violated the disclaimer requirement of COMDTMIDNOTE 1720. 34. With regard to Breonna Taylor, the Deputy stated that she was innocent and that the of?cers were guilty. He said that the of?cers were completely in the wrong, and so I am in the wrong. When I mentioned that I View police actions through the lens of my own parents, he attacked me by asking if my parents just shoot innocent people. 35. As for my defense of the American Dream, the Deputy accused me of lying and told me that any logical person would think I am racist and that, by deduction, the Department of Defense is racist. 36. When the questioning came to my words against ANTIFA, the Deputy asked me if I really thought that they were a domestic terrorist group, dismissing the idea as a radical Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 41 of 43 notion. At that point, I stated that ?the Commander in Chief declared them a terror organization on May 30.? He then countered with, ?So if the Commander in Chief says it, it must be true?? I added that the Department of Justice also classi?ed ANTIFA as a terrorist organization, and is currently investigating over 300 terrorist incidents from June and July. At that point, the Deputy told me to ?cite the speci?c legislation that says they?re a terrorist group.? When I could not cite the legislation, he settled the issue by saying, ?Exactly, so you?re just advocating indiscriminate military action against United States citizens.? 37. Turning his attention back to the President, the Deputy told me to ?Explain how if the Commander-in-Chief says something, that makes it okay for the military to say.? I replied that the President, as our Commander-in-Chief, sets the standard of conduct for the military, and that further details were available in the legal submission from my attorney. It was at that point that the Deputy laughed and called the submission a ?funny little document.? 38. The Deputy then proceeded to give a lO-minute speech regarding the Command?s stance on the football team. He asserted that the team is one of the most important things on the Yard, the football players are some of our best and most important midshipmen, (0) players make the sacri?ce to gain weight, compromise their body fat, and get waivers so that we can win, it is vitally important that we WIN in Navy Football, the team represents the Academy well, unlike me, and this is also why the Navy allows service members to compete in the Olympics. 39. In the introduction of character statements, the Deputy began with a written submission by MIDN Savarese, my squad leader, roommate for three years, and best friend, who also happens to be a black midshipman. MIDN Savarese was unable to attend the adjudication in person because, two days prior to the adjudication, his Nuclear Warfare Service Selection Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 42 of 43 interview was scheduled for the exact time of my adjudication. While reading MIDN Savarese?s submitted statement, the Deputy laughed to himself and seemed to be amused by some parts of it. 40. My next adjudication, before the Deputy Superintendent and Chief of Staff, CAPT James Bates, seemed to have been just as predetermined as my adjudication with the Deputy Commandant. Although his previous denial of my appeal stated that I was punished not for what I said, but howl said it, the entire tone of the adjudication was that he clearly had a problem with what I had said. 41. In my adjudication before the Superintendent, the Superintendent questioned my decision to retain counsel and asked me, ?What did your attorney tell you to tell me here today?? He then stated that my decision to submit an appeal and legal argument to defend my constitutional rights was the ?wrong move in [his] professional opinion.? 42. The Superintendent also questioned me about the character of my parents, asking me if my statements in the tweets were just echoing the words of my parents and if they ever expressed the desire to cause death and violence to civilians. 43. Finally, he asked me plain and simply if I ?hate the football team.? When I replied with, ?No sir,? he told me that wasn?t the answer that he was looking for and for me to try again. He even used my own academic success against me, by claiming that I couldn?t have been under so much stress if I was still pulling off A-level grades, and stating that, ?We have enough smart of?cers in the military; what we need now are of?cers of character.? 44. The Superintendent made his decision to forward me for separation on September 23, 2020. I was pulled out of class on Friday, September 25, by my Senior Enlisted Leader, YNC Booth, and was ordered to immediately start the checkout process, even though I had not Case Document 12-2 Filed 10/20/20 Page 43 of 43 received the Superintendent?s Memorandum Report and had not been given the opportunity to respond to it. She told me that class was not my priority, and that my only priority is leaving the Academy. When I raised concern regarding the disregard for the procedures outlined by the Administrative Conduct Instruction, she stated that they wanted the process to be accelerated and that I was to be removed from the Academy and my studies ASAP. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 20, 2020 Chase Robert Standage