Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Disgraced, Failed Female Navy Pilot Pursues Vendetta Against Organization that "Outed" Her
Center for Military Readiness ^ | 2/03 | Donnelly

Posted on 02/09/2003 1:49:29 PM PST by pabianice

"...It is regrettable that I had to spend more than $ 500,000 to defend CMR [against] a baseless suit filed by former Navy LT Carey Lohrenz (Lorhenz had been "female quotaed" through Navy flight training and finally relieved of flying duty by her carrier CO after she had so scared the rest of the crew that no one would fly with her. She then sued CMR for releasing the details of her incompetence and grounding for "ruining her career." CMR subsequently successfully defended itself in US District Court).

"...Shortly after out victory... plaintiff Carey Lohrenz, who blames me for her failure to succeed as an F-14 pilot, filed an appeal... Lohrenz's feminist attorney, Susan Barnes of Colorado, is getting high-powered help. We don't know who is financing her effort, but the new attorney for Lohrenz is law professor Rodney Smolla of the University of Richmond in Virginia... who last year appeared before the US Supreme Court to defend the First Amendment rights of cross-burners...Smolla is fighting for the First Amendment right of cross-burners to speak lies and hatred [while denying CMR's right] to speak the truth about Lohrenz and the truth about double standards in naval aviation training..."

I have sent them another contribution. The bums of the Clinton Administration aren't gone; they've just gone underground. And they continue to hate the Navy and the US just as much.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT: CMR WINS DECISIVE VICTORY 8/21/2002 10:44:25 PM

U.S. DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMS FIRST AMENDMENT The Center for Military Readiness is celebrating victory in litigation that President Elaine Donnelly described as "harassment by feminist advocates who misused the Court to threaten my rights of free speech. This victory upholds the right of CMR to question official policies that elevate risks, and to advocate high, uncompromised standards in naval aviation training."

The lawsuit was filed in April 1996 by former Lt. Carey Dunai Lohrenz, who was one of the first two women trained to fly the F-14 Tomcat. In October 1994 her colleague, Lt. Kara Hultgreen, crashed and died while attempting to land on the carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. Lohrenz was removed from carrier aviation in May 1995, due to flawed flying techniques that her superiors described as "unsafe, undisciplined, and unpredictable." With the help of attorney Susan Barnes, a feminist activist, Lohrenz blamed Donnelly for causing her to wash out by publishing the 1995 CMR Special Report: Double Standards in Naval Aviation Training. The 20-page report, backed by 104 pages of training records and related documents, exposed a pattern of low scores and major errors in the F-14 training of both women that may have contributed to the tragic death of Kara Hultgreen.

On Friday, August 16, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia GRANTED CMR’s Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing Lohrenz’s action "with prejudice."

Judge Lamberth also DENIED a cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Lohrenz, who asked the Court to declare her a "private individual" eligible to sue Donnelly and CMR for libel and defamation. Instead, Judge Lamberth found Lohrenz to be a "limited purpose public figure," who was featured in abundant news coverage since 1991. Lohrenz was at the epicenter of a significant public controversy--not just women in combat aviation, but long-standing questions about special treatment in training. That controversy intensified after the death of Lt. Kara Hultgreen.

CMR lead attorney Kent Masterson Brown, of counsel with Webster, Chamberlain & Bean in Washington D.C., hailed the massive, well reasoned 55-page opinion as "A tremendous victory for the First Amendment." Brown noted that, "Even though Judge Lamberth properly considered the evidence ‘in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,’ he found that Elaine Donnelly and CMR acted responsibly and without ‘actual malice’."

In the Court’s opinion, Lamberth found that since "Donnelly [took] care in verifying her facts and sources," he could not rule in favor of the plaintiff, Carey Lohrenz. "Donnelly did obtain portions of plaintiff’s training records, did confirm that the facts contained in those records were correct, and did base her publication on those portions."

The Court acknowledged that some Navy officials disagreed with Donnelly’s conclusions, even as they confirmed that the facts she had obtained from her source were "largely accurate." The opinion affirms that Donnelly had the First Amendment right to question "the Navy’s ‘party line’," especially since experienced aviators who reviewed Lohrenz’s training records told her that they were the worst they had ever seen.

The controversy began in 1994, when one of the women’s instructors, then-Lt. Patrick (Jerry) Burns, expressed his concerns to local commanders about the women’s safety and competence. In the aftermath of the Tailhook scandal, Burns and other instructors were told that the women were going to graduate to the fleet, "no matter what."

Navy public affairs officials led the nation to believe that Lt. Hultgreen’s death was primarily due to engine failure, rather than pilot error. At that point Burns called and then sent a signed letter to Donnelly, asking for her assistance in informing high-level officials of special concessions in training that may have contributed to the death of Hultgreen.

The opinion affirmed, "[T]his Court's review of the letter sent from Lt. Burns to defendant Donnelly clearly reveals the letter as one that would not be immediately suspect or one that would provide "obvious reasons" to doubt its veracity; much to the contrary, the letter is replete with technical vocabulary, dates, scores, and details that appear to validate the experience and knowledge of the author."

Elaine Donnelly expressed great satisfaction that the Court ruled in her favor, just as she predicted it would all along. She noted that "In 1995 I learned that the information I had was 'largely accurate,' but top officials of the Navy had no intention of admitting there was a problem or doing anything about it.

"This victory will strengthen the Navy by discouraging official cover-ups, as well as any repetition of double standards in training that elevate risks and undermine morale."

For more background on Lohrenz v. Donnelly and CMR, see the Issues/Lawsuit Section of CMR’s website, www.cmrlink.org. The Center for Military Readiness is an independent public policy organization that specializes in military personnel issues.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 02/09/2003 1:49:29 PM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pabianice
BTTT
2 posted on 02/09/2003 1:52:29 PM PST by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Elaine Donnelly bump!
3 posted on 02/09/2003 2:03:03 PM PST by dixiechick2000 (I heart "New" Europe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dixiechick2000
Now CMR should concentrate on the disability of women to pull their share of duty in combat training, let alone active combat.
4 posted on 02/09/2003 2:09:56 PM PST by meenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: meenie
You're right, and I would support that whoeheartedly.
5 posted on 02/09/2003 2:14:36 PM PST by dixiechick2000 (I heart "New" Europe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
The Navy's poster girls

By Richard Grenier

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

October 14, 1997

The Navy felt a "race" was on to beat the Air Force and become the first service to place women in a combat aviation squadron. It was very eager for all the good publicity it was sure would ensue if it won the race, establishing the Navy as the shining, exemplary, woman-friendly military service. The Navy was thus in something of a fix when Kara Hultgreen went and killed herself, since if the Navy knowingly sent to the fleet substandard female pilots it bore itself a heavy share of responsibility.

. . . . "I owed it to the Navy," said training officer Patrick Burns, speaking of his sworn testimony to the Naval Inspector General's office on the F-14 training records of Lt. Carey Lohrenz -- who trained right along with Kara Hultgreen -- and has now been removed from carrier flight status on being graded "dangerous" as a pilot. As is the fashion these days Carey Lohrenz is of course now suing the Navy, accusing it of gender discrimination -- although training records disclosed by Lt. Burns show she's a far worse pilot than even Kara Hultgreen, who killed herself in 1994 on her approach to the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.

. . . . The fatal accident came as no surprise to these women's training officers, who from the time the female pilots were sent to the fleet were waiting grimly for an accident to happen. But why did these training officers graduate substandard pilots? Because, testified training officer Burns, they were told by their commanding officer, "You guys don't understand, this is bigger than all of us. These women are going to graduate no matter what."

. . . . The Navy has subsequently felt obliged to do quite a bit of lying, first claiming the Hultgreen accident was due to "mechanical failure" (a claim shown to be quite false). And it was only when Lt. Patrick Burns, knowing the training records of these ladies, decided to provide them to Elaine Donnelly of the independent Center for Military Readiness that the true story began to leak out.

. . . . Asked by the examiners if he knew that making public these women's training records was forbidden by the Privacy Act, Mr. Burns answered that if he were walking down the street and saw somebody's house on fire he wouldn't worry too much about people's privacy concerns when he dragged them out of the flames in their underwear. Having made decisions "in the best interest of the Navy and the nation without regard to personal consequences," exactly as prescribed by the published Core Values of the U.S. Navy, Lt. Burns received last week a special award from the independent Center for Military Readiness. But his forthcoming promotion, he's been told, is "on hold."

. . . . The grand lines of military decisions and events are often concealed from the general public by arcane procedures and a blizzard of military acronyms. But it's hard to miss the Pentagon's general slant on gender issues given a childishly simple fact. Women in the military services are not only allowed but encouraged to strut about wearing their uniforms and decorations before Congress and television cameras whenever advancing the feminist cause. But the Pentagon forbids male active-duty officers like Lt. Burns to appear in uniform when testifying on gender issues (and when interviewed by me), apparently fearful that their uniforms might give the "male" viewpoint too much authority.

. . . . When they appear on television in civilian clothes these male witnesses give the impression of being some sort of Pentagon civilian employee. Whereas, all spiffy in Navy blue and gold, Carey Lohrenz and Kara Hultgreen, with their failing and near-failing grades in flight training, must have appeared the very model of the modern female warrior. How the Pentagon justifies this quite rigid discriminatory policy, so obviously stacking the deck in favor of feminist agitators, has never been explained.

. . . . But it will take more than spiffy uniforms to make up for the miserable training records of Lts. Lohrenz and Hultgreen. With a year-long investigation on "Integration of Women into Carrier Air Wing ll," the Naval Inspector General's office, after stalling for more than two years, has finally released a report including excruciatingly detailed records to substantiate Carey Lohrenz's commanding officer's judgment that her flying was "dangerous," "unsafe," "undisciplined," and "unpredictable." She "scared everyone but herself." Her training records show Lt. Lohrenz to be a far worse pilot than even the late Kara Hultgreen.

. . . . But the Inspector General's report confirms some embarrassing facts: the late Kara Hultgreen was retained in the training program and graduated to the fleet despite a failing grade and four major flying errors (called in Naval Aviation lingo "Downs"), two of which were similar to mistakes she made on the day she died. Lt. Lohrenz earned even lower scores and an astonishing seven "Downs" -- her last failing grade not recorded as it would have categorically prevented her deployment to the fleet.

. . . . But the most disturbing general fact is that America's military services now habitually grovel before congressional feminists. And since the Soviet collapse alleviates outside pressure, our feminists have gone into overdrive in their grand mission to turn our military into a wonderful social experiment proving women are men's equal in absolutely everything. The Navy has something to show for its efforts to accommodate feminists' demands, of course. Naval Aviation already has no fewer than two Poster Girls. One has been removed from carrier flight status as a danger not only to herself but to anyone who came near her. And the other is dead. I suppose you'd have to call it a qualified success.

6 posted on 02/09/2003 2:17:57 PM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Feminists (and the Left in general) only want their speech to be free. The rest of us are supposed to shut up and do what they tell us to do.
7 posted on 02/09/2003 2:29:01 PM PST by jimkress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
...especially since experienced aviators who reviewed Lohrenz’s training records told her that they were the worst they had ever seen.

But when you're a woman in the military, it's always somebody else's fault, right Mizz Lohrenz?

This kind of affirmative-action for women gets people killed. Unfortunately we have so many liberals in government that the military has been forced to do business this way. There's no end to the stories of female enlisted and officers that are just flat-out blindingly incompetent but they get promoted because commanders are scared to pass them over, knowing that the mere accusation of sexual discrimination can end their careers.

8 posted on 02/09/2003 2:35:10 PM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Hell, most women can't even competently pilot around an SUV much less an airplane.
9 posted on 02/09/2003 2:44:14 PM PST by BeerSwillr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
On Friday, August 16, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia GRANTED CMR’s Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing Lohrenz’s action "with prejudice."

Judge Lamberth also DENIED a cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Lohrenz, who asked the Court to declare her a "private individual" eligible to sue Donnelly and CMR for libel and defamation. Instead, Judge Lamberth found Lohrenz to be a "limited purpose public figure," who was featured in abundant news coverage since 1991.

Judge Lamberth is way cool. Put him on the Supreme Court.

10 posted on 02/09/2003 2:44:56 PM PST by TheMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Bump, thanks for posting this.
11 posted on 02/09/2003 2:51:41 PM PST by Jael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Only specially trained men pilots can land a screaming hot jet on a carrier. Women need not apply.
12 posted on 02/09/2003 2:54:09 PM PST by carmelanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
'Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned'. Especially if she's a FEMINAZI with a money hungry lawyer.
13 posted on 02/09/2003 2:56:27 PM PST by fella
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carmelanne
Do you not understand that these women's documented lack of ability proves that they didn't have what it takes?
14 posted on 02/09/2003 2:58:28 PM PST by 185JHP ( "Life is precious, life is sweet...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TheMole
Judge Lamberth is way cool. Put him on the Supreme Court.

Judge Lamberth is indeed way cool. I thought I recognized the name regarding some Clinton issues. Here are links to rulings in the privacy cases of Linda Tripp and Kathleen Willey.

Tripp v. Executive Office of the President, et al., Memorandum & Order (Recusal) (June 14, 2000)

APPEALS COURT LETS STAND JUDGE LAMBERTH RULING THAT BILL CLINTON CRIMINALLY VIOLATED THE PRIVACY ACT IN WILLEY DOCUMENT RELEASE

15 posted on 02/09/2003 3:07:02 PM PST by LBGA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bkwells
ping
16 posted on 02/09/2003 3:16:31 PM PST by snippy_about_it ( Pray for our troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carmelanne
Well, the recent ones seem to be doing very well. The problem with these two is that they were rushed through at Pat Schroeder's behest, to make a political statement. Had the feminists been willing to wait a reasonable time, Kara Hultgreen's death could easily have been avoided.
17 posted on 02/09/2003 3:20:44 PM PST by Mr. Jeeves
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
This kind of affirmative-action for women gets people killed. Unfortunately we have so many liberals in government that the military has been forced to do business this way.

It's not just the military, and not just gender-related AA. Racial affirmative action also will put flaming incompetents into positions they should not hold.

An engineer friend was telling me about such an AA hire who was supposed to be supervising quality control for parts destined for our sub fleet. I don't even want to think about what AA may have done to NASA and the Shuttle program.

18 posted on 02/09/2003 3:22:04 PM PST by SauronOfMordor (To see the ultimate evil, visit the Democrat Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 185JHP
"these women", does not equate to "all women", some percentage of both male and female combat pilots will be excellent flyers, while some other percentage of both male and female combat pilots will be poor flyers. There is no execuse for relaxing standards or rushing unqualified women (or men) through for political grand standing. But that does not detract from realizing that some women can be highly qualified combat pilots.
19 posted on 02/09/2003 3:26:07 PM PST by Republican Party Reptile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: carmelanne
I disagree. There ARE women with the right stuff to be Naval Carrier Aviators. However, just like other elite military groups, there aren't many of them. There aren't name people PERIOD who can do carrier ops, just like there aren't many who can be Special Forces or SEALS. But the one thing all these, and many other elite military outfits share, is a tough, no-compromises approach towards training and achievement. Pencil-whipping people through just to fill a quota is not only dishonest, but gets people killed. . .
20 posted on 02/09/2003 3:30:21 PM PST by Salgak (don't mind me: the orbital mind control lasers are making me write this. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Republican Party Reptile
....There is no execuse for relaxing standards or rushing unqualified women (or men) through for political grand standing. But that does not detract from realizing that some women can be highly qualified combat pilots.

.....or destroying the careers of many excellent male combat pilots [and their superiors] as a result of their bitching about 'tailhook' parties in San Diego..

21 posted on 02/09/2003 3:38:43 PM PST by prognostigaator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: prognostigaator
irrelevant, tailhook is a separate topic from technical qualification.
22 posted on 02/09/2003 3:46:40 PM PST by Republican Party Reptile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BeerSwillr
"Hell, most women can't even competently pilot around an SUV much less an airplane."

How politically incorrect and true.
23 posted on 02/09/2003 3:54:29 PM PST by Pukka Puck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Republican Party Reptile
"But that does not detract from realizing that some women can be highly qualified combat pilots."

Sez you. I don't believe it for a minute.
24 posted on 02/09/2003 3:57:10 PM PST by Pukka Puck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Salgak
"There ARE women with the right stuff to be Naval Carrier Aviators."

Nope, not a one.

Do you also think that there are women who have the right stuff to be SEALS?
25 posted on 02/09/2003 3:59:01 PM PST by Pukka Puck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Pukka Puck
They pilot them just fine. Its just that the terrain and affiliated items get in the way.
26 posted on 02/09/2003 4:04:34 PM PST by esoteric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Pukka Puck
Sez you. I don't believe it for a minute.

women have already flown successfully in fighter combat (WWII, USSR), and currently there are also women combat pilots actively serving in other countries where there is less PC focus and hysteria, (and nobody make a big bruhaha deal out of it one way or the other, unlike here).

Very few men qualify, very few women qualify - but there is no basis for saying NO women can qualify, some already have and do.

27 posted on 02/09/2003 4:08:14 PM PST by Republican Party Reptile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Republican Party Reptile
Paula C. was a wash-out, but was able to become an admiral's aide and a helicopter pilot...

"The sad irony was that Admiral Kelso was known as a "gentleman of the old school" and both he and Garrett had spent some of their time in office trying to formulate ways of improving the status of women in the military and discouraging sexual harassment.

Kelso also tried to open up more opportunities for women in the Navy.

For example, in 1992, Kelso had urged the Senate Armed Services Committee to permit women to fly combat aircraft — a big step forward for ambitious women pilots in the military.

In 1994, the Navy — perhaps shamed into the decision by the Tailhook debacle — agreed to allow women to serve on combat ships. The U.S.S Dwight D. Eisenhower — a carrier — was the first to be outfitted to accommodate the incoming women.

The fallout was blunt and to the point. Coughlin's boss, Snyder, was relieved of duty for ignoring his subordinate's complaints, putting an end to his career.

Three admirals were censured (which also meant, most probably, the end of their careers) for failing to prevent or stop the misbehavior of the junior officers at the convention.

Thirty other admirals received letters of caution to be placed in their permanent records.

Nearly 40 lower ranking senior officers (captains and commanders in the Navy; colonels in the Marine Corp) were fined or otherwise disciplined with letters of censure or reprimand — putting a probable end to their careers as well. "......

Irrelevant or not , a failed female Navy pilot is pursueing a vendetta for money....Paula C. received over 3 million dollars for the pinch on her butt.....

28 posted on 02/09/2003 4:15:40 PM PST by prognostigaator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
The biggest problem for female pilots is that those high-G turns result in early appearance and extreme enhancement of gravitationally induced sag.
29 posted on 02/09/2003 4:18:18 PM PST by jimkress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukka Puck
Do you also think that there are women who have the right stuff to be SEALS?

Until there is a woman who can pass the SEAL course, the answer is none.

Straw man argument though.

Different skill sets and qualifiacations for fighter pilots and Navy SEAL. How many male fighter pilots can qualify for SEAL? Some, sure, but certainly not all, probably not even the majority. Same for how many SEALS can be made into successful combat pilots? Some, sure, but not all.

30 posted on 02/09/2003 4:20:46 PM PST by Republican Party Reptile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: prognostigaator
Agree there is a "fit" issue with women in military culture, esp. combat units. But (1) it is a separate issue from technical competence, and (2) culture do change.

No, I'm not saying to enforce an alien PC culture on the military just for PC and which obviously detract from combat effectiveness. I am saying that given time, culture tend to evolve on its own - both men and women will adapt. Military and warrior culture has NOT remain fixed over the thousands of years where we have had organized military culture - it's just that it evolve at a slow pace that people don't notice the changes.

31 posted on 02/09/2003 4:32:11 PM PST by Republican Party Reptile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BeerSwillr
Hell, most women can't even competently pilot around an SUV much less an airplane.

Have another beer..

"Most" women ?

I'd argue that also applies to "most" men.

But I would agree that it would be a rare woman who could achieve the competency that fighter pilots (themselves a rare breed) achieve.

32 posted on 02/09/2003 10:52:48 PM PST by happygrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BeerSwillr
Hell, most women can't even competently pilot around an SUV much less an airplane.

Cut the crap please. My best instructor was a woman. She is now a senior pilot and instructor with Southwest Airlines. She is that because she was good at her job.

The real problem is that the military has changed and has become politically correct when it comes to gender. The real problem is is political correctness has become more important than competence.

33 posted on 09/19/2011 11:15:50 PM PDT by cpdiii (Deckhand, Roughneck, Mud Man, Geologist, Pilot, Pharmacist. THE CONSTITUTION IS WORTH DYING FOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Isn’t today the first day there’s officially no more ‘outing’ in the U.S. Armed Forces? OK, perhaps another kind of outing.


34 posted on 09/19/2011 11:18:46 PM PDT by EDINVA ( Jimmy McMillan '12: because RENT'S, TOO DAMN HIGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson