Order dtd 10/19/2007 Extending Stay of Court Martial Proceedings

Watada Stay Order dtd 10/5/2007   

       NOTE:   In his ruling on October 5th, Judge Benjamin Settle indicated that on October 19th he will review the responses from the army and the defense attorneys regarding the emergency stay of Lt. Watada's court martial proceedings; however, this does NOT mean there will be an actual court hearing on that date. 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

  Petitioner's Emergency Motion for Stay of Court Martial Proceedings

  Judge Settle's Nov 8, 2007, Ruling

       PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FAVORS LT WATADA
 

  “. . . This case concerns an alleged violation of the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause, which cannot be said to fall within a set of affairs that are peculiar to the jurisdiction of the military authorities. . . . The same Fifth Amendment protections are in place for military service members as are afforded to civilians. . . . To hold otherwise would ignore the many sacrifices that American soldiers have made throughout history to protect those sacred rights." 
                                                 -- Judge Benjamin Settle >>>

At approximately 3:39 PM (PST), Nov 8, 2007, Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (sitting in Tacoma, WA) issued a Preliminary Injunction in favor of 1Lt Ehren Watada.

In his decision, Judge Settle made the following significant points:

1.  The remedy sought by Lt Watada -- a writ of habeas corpus in a pretrial setting -- is rare but appropriate;

2.  Lt Watada will suffer irreparable injury if relief is denied;

3.  Lt Watada is likely to succeed on the merits;

4.  Military Judge Head abused his discretion in rejecting the Stipulation of Fact;

5.  Even if Judge Head did not abuse his discretion in rejecting the Stipulation of Fact, there was still a lack of "manifest necessity" for declaring the mistrial;

6.  Judge Head failed to adequately consider possible alternatives;

7.  The balance of potential harms weighs in Lt Watada's favor; and

8.  The public interest favors granting relief.

According to Lt. Watada'sattorneys, this is an enormous victory, but it is not yet over. This has not yet ripened into a permanent injunction, though the judge did indicate that the attorneys have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.

The judge's order did not indicate what the next steps will be; nor did it give the parties a briefing schedule. However, he did state that no trial proceedings could occur until his further order or until this injunction is modified or dissolved by himself or by a higher court.

Watada attorneys, Jim Lobsenz and Ken Kagan infer that the burden is now on the government to come forward and ask the court to modify or dissolve the injunction. Beyond that, the attorneys do not speculate on what will occur next.

Lobsenz and Kagan are enormously gratified at the care with which Judge Settle approached the matter. It is not over, but they believe they have come a long way toward achieving their goals for Lt Watada in this litigation.