Timothy J. Harrington
38 Madison Road
Dennis, Massachusetts 02638
January 31, 2009
Secretary of the Navy
Council of Review Boards
Attention: Naval Clemency and Parole Board
Washington Navy Yard, Bldg. 36
Washington, D.C. 20374-5023
Gentlemen:
I am submitting this request for clemency on behalf of former Sgt of Marines Lawrence G. Hutchins, III, USMC, currently serving an eleven (11) year sentence at the Detention Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, as a result of the sentence of a General Courts-Martial handed down at Camp Pendleton, California on August 3, 2007. At the present time, Pvt. Hutchins has been confined for a total of thirty-two (32) months. This includes fourteen (14) months pre-trial confinement at the Camp Pendleton Brig.
With all due respect to the panel, I am writing this letter on behalf of the defendant mentioned in the opening. My standing with former Sgt. Of Marines Lawrence G. Hutchins III lies in the fact that I am from the 10th district of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and a member of its community. I am also a former active and reserve Marine. Several of us from around the country have been involved in the independent research and coverage of these reviews and the resulting sentences that our Marines in uniform have had to endure.
This panel, as I understand it, is to review the character and background of Marine Lawrence Hutchins, III for release or parole based on an understanding of his performance and attitude while in custody of the United States discipline facilities and his previous record of active service to his country which includes meritorious promotions, Command comments and entries of recommendations from superior officers. These records have shown this young Marine to be a part of the best the Marine Corps has to offer.
From the beginning of the allegations to the present time, this former Sgt. Of Marines has endured more than should have been asked by his own country. He and his squads pre-trial confinement was beyond the pale and represented the worst his leadership could have bestowed on these Marines, most with multiple tours of duty in Iraq. The UCMJ is clear on the conditions of pre-trial confinement, and former Sgt. Of Marines Lawrence Hutchins III confinement did not meet any of these conditions. This was confirmed when then Lt. General James Mattis during an interview with the San Diego North County Times publication on September 23, 2007 was quoted as saying perhaps the pre-trial confinement was too harsh. This included their health and comfort conditions which was rectified after much intervention on his behalf. Despite all of these indignities, this Marine has maintained throughout his confinement his loyalty, character, attitude and respect for the Corps and as such there would be no reason to expect that it would not differ when returned to the community.
Briefly, one cannot mention the character of this Marine without a review of the GCM. To have a crime, one needs to establish criminal intent and motive. With all due respect to the board, none of this was ever established during the GCM. What was established was that an Iraqi insurgent was killed in a combat operation that was in the standard of the ROE of that mission and day. This is documented fact. Another question is what did this squad have to gain by putting themselves in peril to commit such an act? In all other Government documentation between the Marines and Army if a civilian is mistaken and you have a KIA, they are referred to, as Iraqi Nationals this man was not. You also have no identity of who was the KIA. The Government through their investigation also documents this. The only logical conclusion is self-preservation for this Marine, his squad and other Marines operating in this embattled area. There is no reason to believe that this former Sgt. Of Marines awoke on April 26th with intent of committing any crime. This leads all into the mission, Lt. Phan, Command, and the mission brief. Why did Lt.Phan stay behind at the last minute with the Co. Commander and let his squad go out alone? Every Marine is taught from day one… you all wake up every morning with one purpose in a combat environment — kill the enemy! Who is ultimately held accountable?
The NCIS representatives tainted the GCM from the onset of the investigation. The lead investigator James Connolly has and was at the time of Hutchins courts martial named as a person who was obstructing another investigation of a courts martial and the criminal complaint still stands today and has been renewed in recent days with the U.S. Attorneys office and the FBI. This information was given to the C/A Lt. Gen. Mattis months before the review but was never acted on. This investigator and his work product were dismissed as not being able to be substantiated with evidence. NCIS created a case with evidence that met the allegations of the Iraqis and continued to prosecute former Sgt. Of Marines Hutchins while denying him access to material and/or persons that could have produced a credible defense on his behalf. The testimony, coercion, and simply the perjury by the very persons responsible for the investigation should give this panel enough doubt to set this man free.
I have spent the last four years studying the foundations of Military Discipline (UCMJ) and Constitutional law in regard to these hearings to include, Military Law (discipline) and Precedence by Col. William Winthrop (Vol I and II), Ansell Crowder (Cornell Law) Articles of War and to the changes through a DOD appointed panel of the late 1940’s and the change in the year 1950 of what has now become the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the COMA revolt of the seventies to the lack luster attention of the Congress of the United States on the review of the COX Commission Report of 2001.
We understand under the UCMJ that it represents a penal code and is at odds with the Constitution but cannot and does not by pass the Constitution of the United States or the protections that are granted to every American citizen most especially those who swear to defend it with their life. These protections have been taken away from this Marine. These actions have met all three standards that have been produced by the Supreme Court of the United States of “Attainder”. Congress has the power to oversee the Navy and the Army but do not have the legal power to give precedence to these entities when it comes to Judiciary Power. (See: Winthrop’s Curse and three-part test of attainder published at the JAG hunter). POTUS is the Commander and CHIEF but he does not through his subordinates or himself replace a “jury” which is Common English Law and the foundation of the Constitution.
In closing, I would ask you to think about the reasons why this former Sgt of Marines is being reviewed and the conditions and circumstances on why this is taking place. He has proven to be an outstanding Marine as evidenced by his records. He has followed orders or what could be construed as commander’s intent and still act accordingly and to my knowledge has shown no disdain for his situation while incarcerated. His family needs him; the Marine Corps could use him while those who perjured themselves and testified against him are walking around free today. Those are the same Marines that did disobey a lawful order from the Sgt. and did not return with a person of interest for identification. Where did the I.D. of this person originate from and from whom?
I ask that this panel consider all of the facts and his exemplary conduct. You have the power to correct a massive wrong and render a judgment of this review that should be based solely on the complete factual and pertinent evidence pertaining to former Sgt of Marines, Lawrence Hutchins III.
Respectfully Submitted,
Timothy J. Harrington