Some questions posed by the McManus Motion to Dismiss

Big phony, or costume party with political point to make?

[Cross-posted from The Burn Pit]

OK, let’s start with the videos so that everyone who doesn’t know what I am talking about can be brought up to speed on this.

OK, so you get the idea. Now, as you know, the 9th and 10th circuits have already found the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional. I’m not going to go into the legal arguments again, you’ve read them here repeatedly. And McManus’ lawyer argued the same thing everyone else has. But what interests me in this filing is not the legal reasoning, which as I said is pretty much boilerplate, but rather his statements about why McManus did it. Anyway, let’s read through what he had to say.

First, from the motion to dismiss:

The photograph of Mr. McManus was taken at a political event that celebrated the election results of Mayor Annise Parker, Houston’s first openly homosexual mayor. Mr. McManus is openly homosexual and has a military background. His selection of attire on the evening in question was intended as a celebration of a triumph of the gay rights movement as well as a commentary/protest on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” controversy that is the current topic of legislative debate. Mr. McManus’ possession and display of the military items in this case were a form of political expression.

From the MEMORANDUM OF LAW:

Mr. McManus possessed and wore a military uniform and medals as a form of protest and public comment. Mr. McManus is a proud veteran, who served his country in the Army. A few months before he was to be honorably discharged, Mr. McManus, compelled by personal reasons, courageously decided to reveal his sexual orientation to his superiors. After stating that he is gay, Mr. McManus was subsequently relieved of his duty. As a person who had directly suffered institutional discrimination on account of his sexuality, the election of Annise Parker, Houston’s first openly gay mayor, was a particularly poignant moment for Mr. McManus, a benchmark on the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community’s path toward equality. Mr. McManus chose to attend the party on December 12, 2009 in part to celebrate the LGBT community’s progress. He also took the opportunity to comment to other gay rights supporters about the continuing discrimination that LGBT people suffer, particularly with respect to participation in the armed forces. Mr. McManus wore an army uniform and medals to the mayor’s victory party in order to protest both his discharge from the army and the continuing exclusion of LGBT Americans from the military under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Mr. McManus’ possessing and wearing of a military uniform and medals were a form of political expression. In effect, therefore, Mr. McManus has been arrested, and is now being prosecuted, for celebrating a triumph of the gay rights movement, while concomitantly drawing attention to the continuing exclusion of gay men and lesbians from the military under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Three questions are posed by this defense:

1) If he was proud of his service, and wanted to make a point by wearing the uniform, why not wear the one he earned?
2) If he had wanted to make his point, and have a venue to do so, why didn’t he tell that to the TV folks when they came to his house?
3) If this was in fact just a political costume to shed light on the plight of gay folks serving in the military, what then does he contend his lies were about in the various other mediums?

I’d like to go through each of them seperately.

WHY NOT HIS OWN:

Now, some of the medals this guy was wearing that night: a British Commander of the British Empire, Distinguished Service Cross, Flying Cross, Silver Star, Purple Heart, Pathfinder Badge, SAS insignia, CIA insignia, Bronze Star and Combat Infantryman’s Badge. Want to know what he actually earned:

SOURCE.

Now, assuming that he wore the uniform for the reason he stated, to point out the manifold injustice of DADT, why not wear his own uniform? Doesn’t the crazy addition of all these medals not take away from the point he was making, and not add to it? Bear in mind that McManus left the military prior to DADT even being implemented. Back then it was “Just Don’t Do It” or whatever the policy was that stated that homosexual lifestyles are incompatible with military serivice.

According to his own filing, “Mr. McManus is a proud veteran, who served his country in the Army” and yet he created a fictional person to serve the purpose here. Why? It defies logic truly if one accepts his premise that he wanted to make a political point.

2) WHY DIDN’T HE MAKE THAT POINT WHEN KTRK CAME TO HIS HOUSE?

Watch the first video again, paying special attention to the part that starts at 2:50 through 3:15. Now, that is McManus, he just shaved off his goatee. Notice what he is wearing, a CIA hat with a Brigadier Generals star on it. And he denies that is him. Well, it was. So, was he wearing the CIA hat with the star as another form of protest? And if so, why is it he denied it was him?

Assuming again that all of this charade was done to draw attention to his feelings on DADT, wouldn’t that have made a great opportunity to explain it to the news crew? I’m sure that by this point he was well aware that bloggers were tracking him, and thus he was likely playing damage control. How do I know that he knew we were on his trail? Simple, because I sent him a message earlier that day on Facebook, asking him if he wished to comment. Suddenly that Facebook page went hidden. Things that make you go hmmmmm….

3) SO, WHAT ABOUT LINKEDIN, FACEBOOK, MYSPACE ETC, WHY THE CHARADE THERE?

Again, look at the claim from the filing:

His selection of attire on the evening in question was intended as a celebration of a triumph of the gay rights movement as well as a commentary/protest on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” controversy that is the current topic of legislative debate.

How then does he explain these other statements found spread across the internet?

From his LinkedIn page (now taken down, however I have copies):

Personal Security Detail at 110th United States Congress, 1st Session
0-5 / LTC at US Army
Bodyguard / Interpreter / Intelligence Officer at Department of Defense / Departmenf of the Army
John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School

I have still found nothing on him being a PSD, but it wasn’t mentioned in the video, and we do know that he worked in the Mayor’s office, so maybe he just inflated that. However, he was not an “intelligence officer”, he spelled “Department” wrong, he was never a boydguard, was not an O-5 LTC, and never attended the JFKSWCS.

Here is his complete file on assignments in case you don’t believe me.

More from LinkedIn:

0-5 / LTC
US Army
(Government Agency; 10,001 or more employees; USA; Military industry)

1984 — 2004 (20 years )

Been ALL around the world. I have seen the elephant.

Bodyguard / Interpreter / Intelligence Officer
Department of Defense / Departmenf of the Army
(Military industry)

November 1984 — November 2004 (20 years 1 month)

Interpreter / Bodyguard: PSD (Personal Security Detail) for several different General Officers (0-7 thru 0-10) Speaker of 9 languages. Been ALL OVER the world. Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence Officer: Situation-specific Intelligence gathering and analysis. Advisor to the Commander-In-Chief (1995-1999) regarding S.E. Asian Affairs, with a specific focus on Thailand, Cambodia & Laos.

I have no idea what elephant he saw in Germany, but all the rest of it is pure hookum.

Yet more from that profile:

Defense Language Institute
BA , German. Tested out of French, Italian & Thai , 1984 — 1985

Activities and Societies: 1985 Soldier Of The Year, U.S. Army – Defense Language Institute
Special Operation Forces w/ a speciality in Personal Protection Details, Intelligence and PSYOPS (Psychological Operations)

Well, he did go to DLI, so we have a nugget of truth in the mountain of elephant dung, but the rest of this is again phony. No Special Ops training. Also, if you are an Officer, you are not eligible to be “Soldier of the Year.”

OK, how about this iReport thing from CNN:

After 20 years in the U.S. Army, I was forced to retire due to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that forbids gay men and women from serving openly in the US Military.

At the HRC (Human Rights Campaign) Equality Ball at the Mayflower Hotel, those of us who have been a vocal force against this damaging and unconstitutional policy are quite confident that our new Commander-in-Chief President Barack Obama will sign an Executive Order to abolish the “DADT” policy. Yes We Can!
Peace,

Michael Patrick McManus, Lieutenant Colonel, US Army, Retired

His lawyer admits that he did not serve 20 years, was not a colonel, etc., yet there it is.

Here is a bio he provided to another website:

Capt. McManus came out of the closet as a gay man publicly on Saturday May 29, 1993 at a Memorial Weekend Requiem in San Francisco honoring the Unknown Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual Soldiers. The event was sponsored by the San Francisco Area chapter of the GLAAD and endorsed by many organizations, including the Alexander Hamilton Post of the American Legion.

McManus chose the San Francisco requiem event as the time to come out publicly because he “can no longer be a part of an organization that promotes and supports such blatant discrimination. It is time for people to realize that sexual orientation is a fundamental part of a person’s identity, just as being Asian or African-American.”

Capt. McManus [in 1993] planned on being vocal about the military’s gay and lesbian ban. He served in the U.S. Army Reserves and holds a top secret security clearance. Still fighting the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, Michael retired from the US Army in Feb. 2008 at the rank of LTC (Lieutenant Colonel).

So, while all this other evidence doesn’t really change the case, it does tell us all we need to know about Michael Patrick McManus: he’s an inveterate liar. He lies about everything.

If he wore the uniform to show the injustice of DADT, what exact purpose was served by all these other lies, which just so happen to match his phony uniform? Was it some deep background to make his political point more meaningful? Or was it a sign of a man who needed the respect of folks around him, and hit upon a scheme of faking military valor? Bear in mind that he’d already been arrested for this once when he faked being a military officer and a Federal Air Marshall.

Frankly, I think the man is deeply, deeply disturbed. But I am hoping that the Federal Court will see through these flimsy excuses and find the Stolen Valor Act constitutional so that we can have this decided by the Supreme Court.

Thanks for an anonymous reader at This Ain’t Hell for the legal filing. Most of the information contained herein about McManus’ phony on-line persona can be found at this post.

Category: Politics