Anthony Morris III... Did he really serve in Vietnam? Something doesn't quite add up...

by Calebs Airplane 76 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • kepler
    kepler

    Back in the same period in question, went on leave from where I was serving to see a friend who had a summer job in the UK. On a summer Sunday I boarded a train from London after arriving at Heathrow, headede for Cornwall. I discovered I had a pence left in my pocket and had left my friend's address back at the base across the Channel. When I got to the sea coast town, I inquired with the constabulary:

    "Well, he's an American; he's working with a clay mining operation ... and he's staying at a bed and breakfast..."

    The local police could have been watching Monty Python. They were rolling on the floor. My friend was effectively anonymous.

    When I gave up searching and decided to try to negotiate a place to stay, the first B&R I walked into was the one where he was staying.

    -----------------------------------

    In continuing to research this question, I am encountering the same situation. Medics serving at Long Binh with conscientious objections were about as numerous as bed and breakfast guests in St. Austell. But there was a complicated CO case that made its way to the Supreme Court with many parallels to the Morris account as we understand it:

    435 F.2d 299

    • bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/435/435.F2d.299.25773_1.html

      Joseph PARISI, Appellant, ... Richard L. Goff, San Francisco, Cal. (argued), Douglas M. Schwab, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant. .... First, Parisi asserts that denial of an application for conscientious objector discharge without a basis in fact is ...

    In this instance, it is not clear whether army medic ever reached Vietnam in 1969, but some of the details of the case were similar.

    At the very least, they could have had an effect on the outcome of the similar Morris petition, Mr. Morris and Mr. Parisi are NOT the same individual. Two terms of incarceration were involved. In the first, while Parisi's conscientious objection appeal was under review, Parisi refused to board a transport aircraft to his Vietnam assignment. Whether for Long Binh or elsewhere I have not been able to determine. Nor can I determine from the record as yet whether Parisi's religious convictions were of a distinctly different nature than those of Mr. Morris.

    I will not attempt to recap the legal arguments here. But it is a definite lead.

  • james_woods
    james_woods

    Pure speculation of course - but I am wondering this: Did Anthony Morris III have JW contact or influence prior to joining the military in 1968?

    Could that account for him joining as a medic, and later claiming CO status to get discharged?

    Could that account for his rapid "conversion" to a JW pioneer in 1970?

    The implication of such a possibility is that he could have joined up to avoid going to prison, then got out of it by claiming to be a CO, and then fast-tracked himself into being a really, really good little pioneer boy.

    Speculation, as I said - but reading this thread I too find something strange about this history.

  • Gayle
    Gayle

    are both of his sons at Bethel, or just one?

  • tiki
  • kepler
    kepler

    I am attaching some supplementary material - incrementally.

    I don't think I have sufficient time or research acumen to finish this job on my own, but I think it is important issue to study.

    1. For those on this forum who are genuine conscientious objectors, and I have no doubt that there are many, the data provided by this case might be interesting to contemplate. The Joseph Parisi case remains a precedent setting case. It might have been that Joseph Parisi determined the outcome of the Anthony Morris case, or the Joseph Parisi case is the Anthony Morris case. While some of the details in the Parisi case do not mesh exactly with our "hearsay" record, it's amusing to think that someone of Italian descent ends up as "Anthony Morris III". But several monarchs and consorts named George or Albert spoke better German than English...

    Some of the numbers below attached to extensive footnotes - particularly 1. The appeal attached below states the defense department argument headed toward the US Court of Appeals, naming attorneys involved.

    To summarize, Parisi appealed to the chain of command not to deploy to VN war zone because of his CO convictions, but the appeal was still pending when he was ordered to depart. Not boarding the plane placed him in a judicial limbo. Beside dealing with Parisi, the judicial system had to work out a legal position for all the similar cases.

    --------------------------------------------------------

    435 F.2d 299

    Joseph PARISI, Appellant, v. Major General Phillip B. DAVIDSON et al., Appellees.

    No. 25773. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

    December 3, 1970.

    Richard L. Goff, San Francisco, Cal. (argued), Douglas M. Schwab, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

    Steven Kazan (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., James L. Browning, Jr., U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.

    Before HAMLEY, ELY, and CARTER, Circuit Judges.

    ELY, Circuit Judge:

    1

    This is an interlocutory appeal, under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), from an Order of the District Court, staying habeas corpus proceedings brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 until trial and final determination of court-martial charges then lodged against the appellant.

    2

    The complex history of the case is set out in detail in the margin.1 Briefly, Parisi is an army private who alleges that his application for discharge as a conscientious objector was denied by the army without a basis in fact for the denial. His petition was first presented to the District Court in November, 1969, but proceedings were stayed pending his administrative appeal to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records [ABCMR].2 A partial preliminary injunction also issued, prohibiting Parisi's assignment to any duties which required materially greater participation in combat activity or training than was being required of him in his then duties.

    3

    Before the ABCMR's decision, however, Parisi was ordered to Viet Nam, where he was to perform noncombatant duties similar to those which had been assigned to him and which he had been performing in this country. After unsuccessful attempts to win a stay of his redeployment order both from our court and from the Circuit Justice, Parisi chose, with all attendant risks, to disobey a military order to enplane for Viet Nam. Charges were then immediately filed against him, under U.C.M.J. art. 90, for failure to obey a lawful order.

    4

    Prior to the date set for court-martial, the ABCMR notified Parisi that it had ruled against his appeal. The District Court promptly ordered the Government to show cause why a writ should not then issue. In its return, the Government, requested the stay Order in question, on the grounds that to permit concurrent federal court proceedings would constitute an unwarranted interference with the military court system.

    5

    The question is not an easy one, but we have concluded that habeas proceedings were properly stayed pending the final conclusion of Parisi's military trial and his appeals therefrom.

    6

    The military, no less an agency of the federal government than the federal court system, has the equal responsibility to act consistently with the Constitution and laws of the United States.3 While civilian courts are available to correct, in a proper case, abuses by military authorities,4 they must be careful to avoid unwarranted interference with internal military matters.

    7

    "[J]udges are not given the task of running the Army. The responsibility for setting up channels through which such grievances can be considered and fairly settled rests upon the Congress and upon the President of the United States and his subordinates. The military constitutes a specialized community governed by a separate discipline from that of the civilian. Orderly government requires that the judiciary be as scrupulous not to interfere with legitimate Army matters as the Army must be scrupulous not to interfere in judicial matters."

  • kepler
    kepler

    The first footnote mentioned above :

    Joseph Parisi was drafted on August 22, 1968. According to the inservice conscientious objector application he filed with the Army on May 22, 1969 (pursuant to Army Regulation (AR) 635-20), Parisi had doubts at the time of his induction about his feelings toward military service. However, his beliefs did not coalesce into conscientious objection until he was well down the road of basic training and initial duty assignment (psychological social work and counseling). His application, which was made prior to issuance of any order for redeployment to a combat station, also stated that his Army experiences to that point led him to the firm conviction that participation in any form of military activity conflicted irreconcilably with his Christian beliefs

    The initial interviews mandated by AR 635-20 uniformly terminated in Parisi's favor; the base Chaplain, the base psychiatrist, and the special hearing officer (as well as Parisi's immediate supervisor) all attested to the sincerity and religious nature of Parisi's conscientious objection to military service. According to the record, the Commander of the Army hospital at Parisi's base as well as the Commanding General of his training center also recommended approval of the application, although they did not interview Parisi personally. However, Parisi's immediate commanding officer, Captain Hubman, recommended disapproval, with the notation, "Consider application contrary to paragraph 3b(3) AR 635-20." This paragraph provides that conscientious objector applications will not be favorably considered when:

    "(3) Based on essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views, or on a merely personal moral code."

    Captain Hubman had not interviewed Parisi nor had he engaged in any conversations with Parisi about the latter's religious beliefs and convictions.

    In November, 1969, the Department of the Army denied Parisi's application. That office noted two reasons for its decision: (1) that Parisi's professed beliefs became fixed prior to entering the service, and (2) that Parisi was not truly opposed to all war due to his religious beliefs, as demonstrated by his attempts thus far to support it.

    Parisi then applied to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for review of the denial of his discharge. Shortly thereafter, on November 28, 1969, he applied to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for a writ of habeas corpus. He therein sought discharge from the Army as a conscientious objector.

    In his habeas petition Parisi claimed that there was no basis in fact for the grounds cited by the Department of the Army in denying his application for a discharge. In addition, Parisi sought a preliminary injunction pending disposition of the proceeding to prevent respondents from: (1) requiring him to obey an order of August 8, 1969, to undergo training preparatory to being transferred to Viet Nam for duty; and (2) transferring him outside the jurisdiction of the District Court where the proceeding was commenced.

    On the day the petition was filed, the District Court, after a hearing, entered an Order enjoining respondents from assigning Parisi to any duties which required materially greater participation in combat activity or training than was being required of him in this then present duties. This Order was to remain in effect pending decision by the ABCMR on Parisi's application to it for discharge as a conscientious objector.

    The district court order recites that the court would retain jurisdiction of the case until the ABCMR made its decision. The Order also denied Parisi's application for a preliminary injunction against his transfer out of the Northern District of California. On December 4, 1969, Parisi took an interlocutory appeal (No. 25,133 in this court) from the Order denying his requested preliminary injunction.

    About this time, Parisi received orders to process out of his then duty station at Ford Ord. California, and, following training, to report to the Overseas Replacement Station at Oakland, California, on December 31, 1969. This was later changed to the United States Army Personnel Center, Fort Lewis, Washington. Parisi then moved in this court for an order staying his deployment outside the Northern District of California pending disposition of his appeal.

    Three other judges of our court denied the motion on December 10, 1969, "on condition that Respondents produce Appellant in this district if the appeal results in his favor." On December 29, 1969, the Circuit Justice denied a similar application for a stay.

    Parisi reported, on December 31, 1969, as directed, to the United States Army Personnel Center, Fort Lewis, Washington. At that time he requested an opportunity to file a second application for discharge as a conscientious objector. As required by AR 635-20, he was given seven days to complete his application. However, on January 6, 1970, Parisi advised the authorities at the Personnel Center that he no longer wished to make out an application. Accordingly, he was booked for transportation overseas.

    Parisi then refused to obey a military order to board a plane for Viet Nam. He was immediately charged with violating Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 890, and was confined to the Post Stockade, pending disposition of the charge against him.

    On March 2, 1970, while Parisi's court-martial was pending, the ABCMR notified Parisi of its rejection of his application for relief from the Army's denial of his discharge request. Four days later the District Court, pursuant to Parisi's habeas petition, entered an Order requiring respondents (appellees in this appeal) to show cause why a writ should not be issued. The United States responded by moving in the District Court for a stay of the habeas proceedings pending exhaustion of Parisi's military judicial remedies.

    At this point Parisi suggested to a panel of judges of our court that the first interlocutory appeal he had taken from his habeas proceeding (No. 25,133 in this court, above) should be dismissed as moot. As noted, the ABCMR had by this time denied him relief, and, since he was incarcerated at Fort Lewis, there was no remaining need for an injunction to keep him in this country. We entered the requested Order, dismissing the first appeal, on March 17, 1970.

    On March 31, 1970, responding to the Government's motion that it abstain pending completion of Parisi's court-martial proceedings, the District Court entered an Order staying its consideration of Parisi's habeas petition until there was a trial and a final judgment in the military courts on the court-martial charges.

    The District Court did not stay the court-martial proceedings pending our consideration of the interlocutory appeal, nor have we done so; consequently, in the interim between the date of the district court order, March 31, 1970, and the date of our acceptance of the appeal, April 24, 1970, Parisi was, on April 8, 1970, court-martialed and convicted of the charge against him. He is presently confined in the United States Army Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, serving a sentence of two years at hard labor, with dishonorable discharge. We have been advised that his appeal before the Court of Military Review is now pending.

  • kepler
    kepler

    A continuation.

    The summation of the supreme court's ruling on the Joseph Parisi case is lengthy. And I am not a lawyer or even a legal issues reporter. I'm not sure I can spell enough legal terms to go ahead with this. Suffice it to say that the principal issue was "habeas corpus" or "you have the body" - and that phrase is why I fear to tread in the realm of interpretation.

    In American history Lincoln's annullment of "habeas corpus" is one of the most famous cases - and holding of war on terror suspects in the present day is another. The contradictory nature of the expression though, is that the annullment means that the authorities could hold a suspect without holding a "writ" to hold for trial. All of the permutations? See a lawyer.

    The case of Joseph Parisi had three points that could tie it to the case or experience of Anthony Morris.

    1. Joseph Parisi was an army enlistee/draftee who declared himself a conscientious objector while serving

    2. His case grew out of Vietnam war era service (1968-1970) and subsequent court hearings ( early 1970s)

    3. The matter was settled in terms of application "habeas corpus" guidelines.

    It should not be surprising that many such cases can be found on line. There is a filing system, but I haven't cracked the code. XXX F.2d XXX such as the Parisi files indicated above.

    Using the search criteria of conscientious objector, habeas corpus and vietnam, it was possible to locate at least a dozen such cases such as the the Joseph Parisi case. But none of these included the name of Anthony Morris or fit his description or the 1984 account in Awake any better.

  • OUTLAW
    OUTLAW

    Anthony Morris was in the.. OK..So I had a Sex Change..

    USA Ballerina Army.. Is that a Big Deal?

    .......................... ...OUTLAW

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    I also wonder about how he got to pioneer so fast(1971) if he was born 1950 and went into the armed service at 18 (1968), maybe because his parents were rich he probably didn't have to earn a living washing window part time while he pioneered.

    He could of been born early in the year say jan. and went into the army early in 1968 got out early 1970 and got to pioneer very late in year 1971 giving almost 2 years from discarge to appointment which would allow for the 6month waiting period after baptism to regular pioneer.

  • EdenOne
    EdenOne

    Maybe I'm stumbling in semantics here, but how could he be serving in a medical capacity at the age of 18 ?

    Eden

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit