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."