Captain James Bahr & Admiral Sean Buck VIOLATED 5th Amendment To DESTROY Sailor’s Career!

Ray Hrdlicka – Host – Attorneys.Media

Welcome to Part 2 of Save the Sailors Career

Let’s recap to bring everyone up to speed. A Navy Captain, Commanding Officer James Bahr at the Naval Academy Preparatory school in Rhode Island, and Admiral Sean Buck, Superintendent of the United States Naval Academy, violated the fundamental constitutional rights of my son Grant Hrdlicka, an enlisted sailor, distinguished Naval Nuclear Power Training Command graduate, that’s the Navy’s Nuke School, who was slated to enter the Naval Academy this school year after attending the Preparatory School in Rhode Island last year.

What constitutional violation you ask?

The 5th Amendment…Due Process…the right to speak to counsel.

That’s right. Those two Commands punished Grant and continued to punish him until he recently changed duty stations, for simply asking to speak to an attorney before making a written or an oral statement regarding a disciplinary matter, which was his one and only disciplinary matter.

The punishment?

Grant received far greater punishment than any other student at the Preparatory School…but most importantly, denying Grant admission into the Naval Academy, even after he completed the entire school year with all advanced classes.

Now, to put things into perspective, here are facts supported by the Navy’s own documents:

Dozens of other sailors…get that? Dozens of other sailors with disciplinary actions were admitted to the United States Naval Academy, some with two, TWO disciplinary violations and/or with academic deficiencies, meaning they did not have passing grades.

Approximately a dozen students with very similar disciplinary actions (two with nearly an exact match) were allowed to continue…appointed…to the United States Naval Academy.

Grant was the only Naval Academy Preparatory School student to be denied admission to the United States Naval Academy with only one disciplinary action, without any other disqualifying academic deficiencies.

Now with those facts…. facts in mind, here is the most obvious difference:

Grant was the only student to attempt to exert his right to consult with an attorney.

Now that you’re caught up, let me tell you more of the story. Hopefully you have watched Part One already.

Now, Grant and the other midshipman candidate self-reports their violation. He signs paperwork for an adjudication, the lowest form of disciplinary action. The Preliminary Inquiry Officer wants to interview Grant about the violation. Grant says he wants to speak to an attorney before making a written or an oral statement. He tries to contact JAG, military lawyers…the Judge Advocate General, but is told it may be two weeks before he could talk to anyone, so he starts looking for a consultation with a private attorney.

Now, Command hears that Grant wants to speak to an attorney. We can only assume from the Preliminary Inquiry Officer, right? Grant is approached by the 2nd Company Chief Andrew Ashcom who tells him that Command says it’s not going to be an adjudication but changed to a Captains Mast if he involves an attorney. Grant is shocked. Can’t believe it. Additionally, Ashcom calls Grant a pussy for being “unable to accept responsibility for his actions”.

Think about this a second….since when does the act of talking to an attorney indicate unwillingness to accept responsibility for one’s own actions? Doesn’t this reek of coercion. Intimidation. Oppression. Grant calls me. I can’t believe it. The private attorney can’t believe it. So Grant goes back to Ashcom a couple of hours later and confirms the threat. Once again, verbatim, Ashcom says “if you want to involve lawyers, it’s not going to be an adjudication”.

Subsequently, the adjudication is canceled, and Grant is charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the UCMJ and processed to Captains Mast. Now, Grant has to resign paperwork for the Captain’s Mast. And who is the witness in the room glaring at him? None other than Ashcom himself…the same person who issued those threats from Command regarding harsher punishment if Grant involves an attorney. Glaring at him. Grant signs the paperwork and because of that intimidation, does not involve an attorney for the Captain’s Mast.

Every subsequent action of two Commands, Naval Academy Preparatory School and the United Stated Naval Academy itself, every violation they committed of the Constitution, the Administrative Procedures Act, the Whistleblowers Retaliation Act, the Navy’s own regulations, and the disparate treatment of Grant versus every other student at NAPS, the Naval Academy Preparatory School, originated from Grant’s request to exert his constitutional right to an attorney, the same right every military and civilian has enshrined in the Constitution.

As I stated in Part One, this video is not about the Navy in general. Grant believes in the Navy, service to country, and wants to be an integral part of the Navy and have a career as a USNA commissioned officer. It’s only about the abuse of a sailor by a few people who believe they are above the rule of law. They can do anything they want, and nothing can stop them. That’s what this video series is about.

The next video, Part 3, we will give you a look inside the Captain’s Mast so a light can be shined on those abuses.

Go to our petition page at Attorneys.Media/SaveTheSailor. Sign your name to the appropriate petition, Retired Military, Donors to the USNA, Lawyers, Elected Officials-Staff, and the General Public. Show your support to correct the actions of those few people, military personnel in command authority, who not only abuse their rank, but violate the Constitution and other areas in our nations rule of law.

See you in Part 3