S.O.S. (Stories of Service) - Ordinary people who do extraordinary work
From the little league coach to the former addict helping those still struggling, hear from people from all walks of life how they show up as a vessel for service and drive for transformational change. Hosted by Theresa Carpenter, a 29-year active duty U.S. naval officer who found service was the path to unlocking trauma and unleashing your inner potential.
S.O.S. (Stories of Service) - Ordinary people who do extraordinary work
Inside 500 Military Cases of False Allegations with Investigator Mike Conzachi | S.O.S #213
The military justice system is failing our warriors through a perfect storm of bias, incompetence, and political pressure. In this eye-opening episode, Mike Konzachi—Army veteran, retired homicide detective, and private investigator—pulls back the curtain on how false allegations destroy military careers.
After nearly three decades in specialized law enforcement units and investigating over 500 military cases, Konzachi delivers a scathing assessment of military investigative practices. "The objective is not to learn the truth of what occurred, but to gather sufficient evidence that will sustain a conviction," he reveals, highlighting a fundamental flaw in the approach to military justice.
We explore the shocking realities behind these cases: investigators who fail to collect basic evidence like cell phone records, prosecutors who suppress exculpatory evidence, and commanding officers whose careers are threatened if they don't push cases to court-martial regardless of merit. Konzachi walks us through how this broken system emerged, from politically-motivated survey manipulation to congressional pressures that prioritize conviction rates over truth and fairness.
What makes this conversation particularly powerful is that it comes from someone who loves the military. Konzachi shares fond memories of his service with the elite 82nd Airborne Division, making it clear his criticism stems from a desire to protect the institution, not tear it down. His advocacy has resulted in over 100 formal complaints to oversight bodies including the Department of Justice, FBI, and United Nations.
For anyone concerned about justice, due process, or the wellbeing of our service members, this episode provides crucial context for understanding one of the most significant issues facing our military today. Subscribe now and share this episode to help bring attention to these warriors who need our support.
🔗Learn more on false accusations within the military - https://www.theresatapestries.com/fal...
Visit my website: https://thehello.llc/THERESACARPENTER
Read my writings on my blog: https://www.theresatapestries.com/
Listen to other episodes on my podcast: https://storiesofservice.buzzsprout.com
Watch episodes of my podcast:
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheresaCarpenter76
Good evening and welcome to the Stories of Service podcast. As you guys know, I have been covering in a series of episodes the issue with false the clients who have been impacted. I believe that we have to start what was affectionately termed by Walk the Talk Foundation as left of bang. We have to start where things go wrong initially, and I believe that by looking at the investigative system. There is no better place to understand how these things happen. So today I have Mike Konzachi. Mike, how are you doing today? Good, awesome, well, thank you so much for being here and, as I said, this to me has been the most egregious issue that I've covered on the Stories of Service podcast. I've said this in a couple videos. There is nothing I have done other than maybe the G-Wrap issue where people were falsely titled. That even comes close to what has happened here, and there are a lot of reasons why this happened and we're going to talk about it tonight. It comes down to bias, incompetence and abuse of the court system, and so today I'm talking with Mike Kansachi.
Speaker 1:He is an Army veteran, retired law enforcement officer and seasoned private investigator, and today we're going to talk about the harsh realities and widespread systematic failures within military justice. He is a former member of the elite 82nd Airborne Division and transitioned from the military service to nearly three decades in law enforcement, where he served in specialized units such as narcotics and robbery and in the homicide departments. Following a forced retirement due to injury, he began working as a private investigator, first in general criminal defense and later focusing almost exclusively on false allegations of domestic violence and sexual assault within the US military. He has personally investigated over 500 military cases, many involving severe misconduct, bias and a rush to conviction, and his work has led to over 100 formal complaints submitted to bodies including the Department of Justice, fbi, public corruption units, state bar associations, military inspector generals and even the United Nations. And today he plays an active advocacy role, testifying before and submitting letters to the now disbanded DAC iPad committee and calling for the formation of a military conviction, integrity and accountability unit. Welcome again, mike.
Speaker 2:Thank you.
Speaker 1:So first off, I always ask my guests where were you born and raised and what inspired you initially to join the Armed Forces?
Speaker 2:Well, I was born, raised south side of Chicago, which at that time was a little gritty, but not certainly not like it is now A little gritty but not certainly not like it is now but came out to Southern California as a teenager parents and finished up high school. My father was in the Army. I had a couple of uncles that were in the Army. My father served in Korea and there was always a sense of patriotism. You know not to sound cheeky, but my father did have a big flagpole in the front yard and you know we raised the flag every day and it just kind of had that kind of developed at a young age, that sense of service. And shortly after high school I went in the Army. And shortly after high school I went in the Army when I tested the testing was different back then. At that time Vietnam was still going on. I didn't go there, but Vietnam was still going on, the draft was still in effect.
Speaker 2:But I chose to enlist and when I went to did my testing, which was called the A-fees at that time I scored high enough to get any job in the military that I wanted. And I recall the recruiter asked me what I wanted. I said well, I want infantry. He goes well, what do you mean? What do you want infantry for? You can have any job that you want. I go, okay, great, I want infantry and I want to jump on airplanes. And so that's what I did. I got into 82nd Airborne and I'll never forget that. It had such a tremendous impact on me personally that after I had finished job school and I had gone up to Division 82nd Airborne and I remember the first day, the first morning there, the whole division ran PT, the whole division ran.
Speaker 2:PT and so we go out, you know, by company, the battalion and the streets in front of the 82nd. You know everybody's running, the whole division's running and we're running. We got the guide on, we're singing cadence and here I am just to turn. I think at that point I just turned, 19 teenager still, and while I was running and we're singing cadence and clapping, I looked around and I looked at you know, all the guys around me and I went these guys are sharp. And I said, wow, I'm part of this. And it just had a very, very positive effect on me at that time.
Speaker 1:I love it.
Speaker 2:And that's just kind of where you know I still have friends today that I served, you know, with the 82nd, and you know lifelong friends, like a lot of people in the military have. So that's kind of what that started Now and then I went into law enforcement, but at that time we're talking early mid 70s there was a lot of, there were a lot of TV shows that you know. You had Dragnet and Police Story and Adam 12. And all those TV shows depicted police officers in a very positive light, that they were sharp, squared away in shape. That they were sharp, squared away in shape, they could handle anything that they came across. You know there was they used the acronym had at the time, you know, pig, which we took to say you know, pride, integrity, guts, and so there was a lot of, especially a lot of military at that time, like everybody wanted to get on LAPD. I mean, that was just they were recording all over the country.
Speaker 2:Okay, and at that particular time and when I applied, the selection process was very, very strict, strict. They would test 100 guys and maybe three would make it for further testing. So it was a very selective, a very hard thing to get into and the process, you know, took some time to get through the background investigation and the psychological testing and the medical and the physical fitness before you even get in the academy. I recall that when I went to go do my psychological testing, it took like all day long in the psychologist's office and there was like a 700-question test and a 300-question test and then I had to do ink blots and I had to draw a picture of my house as a child, uh, and then a a extensive interview with the psychologist. It was all day long. It was very taxing and when I got done and when I got done with that, I was so mentally exhausted I bet that I drove away and I thought I'm thinking to myself I failed, I failed it, I failed it. Oh my gosh, what am I going to do?
Speaker 2:now and so a few days ago, and for like three days, um, I thinking I feel that I'm not going to get in, you know, and then the background investigator called me up.
Speaker 2:He goes oh yeah, hey, you know, when I scheduled it for your medical exam and I go, I passed the psych, he goes. Oh yeah, yeah, no problem, you know. So the selection standards at the time were very strict and I wanted serving my time in the military, one of the things I wanted to do. I didn't come from, you know, a family that had a lot of uh wealth per se and I wanted to get a college degree. And I knew that there was one uh wave with the, the old gi bill, which you know. I decided I'll serve my time in the military, get out, go to get my degree, get on the police department. And that's what I did.
Speaker 2:And during the, when I was in, you know, vietnam was still going on, in fact I left. I left the army probably a month after the fall of Saigon. Saigon Now, during that time in history there was not a lot of favorable being in the military. The military, soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines they were not really pawned favorably. I considered and thought. At one point in time I had a company commander talk to me about possibly going into West Point Prep School, which then would lead me to West Point, and you know there's a small percentage of all the branches do this with some of the enlisted ranks.
Speaker 1:I did it. Yeah, they'll go into the academies and or not the academy, but or they go in enlisted to officer. Yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and so that that was something I thought about. But I really had my heart set on doing what I did and that is I served my time in the Army. I did so much in the time that I was in. I went to all kinds of training, some kind of on the lower end special ops training, jungle warfare, long-range reconnaissance patrol training, jungle warfare, long-range reconnaissance patrol a lot of those kind of specialized type training schools.
Speaker 1:And I volunteered for everything, and I think that's what makes your story so unique is that you didn't get burned by the military and you had a very good career and enjoyed your time in service, and that's what makes what you're doing now and what you decided to do later after the serving with the police department so unique. So tell me a little bit about the transition. So you worked in the police department and I know you worked on narcotics, you worked on homicides. Then you were also a detective in the police department, correct?
Speaker 2:Yes, yes. And then how many years did you do that for, with all the investigative assignments? Probably close to two decades. Wow, 20 years, you know. Yeah, so a lot. Most of my time was in specialized investigative assignments. You know I had a lot of time in patrol too, which you know I love doing and I, you know, got into. I really was fortunate that I got to do and work assignments that probably maybe only 1% of cops across the country get to do, and you know I was fortunate and got to do that and was fairly successful. I got hurt at the end there, just shy of my 30, to the point where I was not medically qualified to continue in that occupation.
Speaker 1:Can we go back to you said you did some of the things that only 1% of the people within the police department got to do. Can you give me one example of that?
Speaker 2:Well, I mean, with all of the assignments that I worked gangs, general investigations, surveillance team, crime impact team, street narcotics, major narcotic task force, robbery, homicide, homeland security investigations a lot I mean I got to work a lot.
Speaker 2:Yeah, you know, got to do a lot of different types of investigative assignments. Probably most of it probably maybe 18, 19 years, whatever it was narcotics and homicide. So you know, a lot of times in some other agencies, you know, some guys don't. They either don't want to get into investigations or maybe they don't like working. You know narcotics and that aspect of it. So I was very fortunate that I got to do it all basically. And then I got banged up in the end, got hurt and had some surgeries and you know I could read the writing on the wall Right. So I retired.
Speaker 2:And then I had a friend who started a private investigation company and had a few guys working for him and we'd get a few cases in here and there. And then it's kind of started out with some family court false restraining orders started to look at some of those cases. Training orders, uh, started to look at some of those cases, um, and then there it started to kind of develop from there and there were a couple of national, uh advocacy groups uh that had me do some investigations. Then when they saw my, my, written, they fell all over themselves and we got to get this guy here and it just kind of then went from some of the false allegation which I still do not very many in civilian courts that it went into the military. And of course you know, like Tim was saying, you know I love the military, I love the army.
Speaker 1:Yeah, tim is also. Tim Parlatore is also very, very patriotic, and that's who we're talking about, and he, he too, wanted to find a way to give back and to serve again, and it's nice to see that he was able to join the Navy Reserves as a 05. And so now he's able to do that and still continue to practice as a lawyer and run his firm. So tell me a little bit about what your initial impressions were based on your two decades of experience doing investigative work for these national organizations in a private capacity. What was sort of your early impressions of the investigative procedures for the military, based on your experience?
Speaker 2:Wow, yeah, well, you know, tim kind of covered it pretty well, but the I looked at some of these cases and I just would shake my head and go how can this happen? Just would shake my head and go how can this happen? Why didn't they do this, why didn't they do that? Overall, there were cases that were done correctly and properly, but that was the exception. The general rule was that they were lacking in investigative substance. What do you mean?
Speaker 1:Give me some examples of some things that you would see like some common errors.
Speaker 2:Well, like with false allegations domestic violence, sexual assault, False allegations, domestic violence, sexual assault there were things that should have been done that were not done. I will give an example. This goes also with civilian cases. You take a look at people today and what's one thing that so many people do and spend so much time on and with in their daily lives?
Speaker 1:Talking on their phone texting.
Speaker 2:Bingo, Okay, and I mean a few hours ago I was at the grocery store and there were men and women, but half of them were on their phones.
Speaker 1:Of course.
Speaker 2:And so one of the things that's lacking is, when you're doing these kinds of investigations, you need to gather everything. All the evidence, all the evidence, okay, and now, especially with social media, all the evidence. Have some horrific crime and then they go and look social media presence, text messaging, you know, internet searches. There's a lot of things that the military doesn't do or has not done, or I question as to why they didn't do this Right, and one of the things that's lacking is looking at cell phones.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 2:And here's an excuse. This occurred in a civilian case and this particular agency law enforcement and prosecutorial agency had received, I think, a little over $5 million federal grant specifically to investigate domestic violence, sexual assault. And they did not. The person the alleged victim revealed in one of her recantations of what occurred said she was incapable of calling out on her cell phone, couldn't get a signal and that's why she didn't, you know, try to get somebody to help her. Well, it took months and months where the prosecutors fought diligently against fighting for discovery on that individual's cell phone. Now, during this time period where this alleged victim claimed to be unable to contact anybody, once, a forensic download of the cell phone was eventually conducted and discovered, we go to find out that there's, you know, over 150 text messages and phone calls and conversations with people that never said well, you know, I was raped and I was being held captive nothing.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 2:So one of the things when you the Lockheed part is you know we're in the 21st century, here now, and I mean what person now doesn't have a cell phone?
Speaker 1:Everyone does.
Speaker 2:You know, it's just.
Speaker 1:Other than my parents. My parents seriously don't, but they're a rarity.
Speaker 2:Yeah yeah, it's rare uh that uh is uh uh being overlooked or not purposely looked at uh in the military.
Speaker 1:And let's talk about that the not purposely so. Tell me a little bit about where you like when you started, when did? What year did you initially start working with the military? What year did you initially start working with the military?
Speaker 2:And when did you start to observe that there was a bias towards getting a conviction in the case of an allegation? Well, you know, there's probably been over 10 or 12 years now. But let me just give kind of an example, and what I do is I look, I work sometimes backwards and look to see what were some of the events that led up to this. What are the motives? Okay, the motivations Exactly why. And as an example, let's say just a hypothetical situation, we have an airplane crash and the National Transportation Safety Board goes out and they begin their investigation and they say, okay, this plane crashed because the wing fell off. Okay, great, we know that. Why did the wing fall off? Okay, you work backwards and you look at okay, well, there was a structural problem, there was a problem in the assembly of this aircraft. The metallurgical makeup of the bolts and rivets that held the wing on were defective. You keep working backwards to see how the problem, what was the beginning of the problem? The problem with the plane crashing was the wing fell off. But why did the wing fall off? So the approach that I take personally is I work backwards and see what are some of the motivations.
Speaker 2:Here's one, a military case that I did a little bit of work on case that I did a little bit of work on.
Speaker 2:But there was a woman who was married's co-workers, a fellow pilot, and you know he was charged and court-martialed and I think he eventually won his appeal.
Speaker 2:And this occurred in an Uber ride coming back from a night out of dinner and having some drinks, and nobody looked until later on down the road that the woman that made the allegation had tons of social media Facebook, instagram tons where she hated the base, the military base that they were on.
Speaker 2:It was in the middle of nowhere. There was really nothing to do there, so it wasn't like in a big city, it wasn't near a big city like Washington DC or New York or Miami or LA, but it was in the middle of America, middle of nowhere, and she just hated being there and she communicated this with a whole bunch of people on social media. You know I hate it here. This place sucks. I've got to find a way to get out of here. Well, she found a way and that was to make a false allegation and then they were able to get an expedited transfer to a more favorable duty station and nobody in the investigative stage ever considered looking into that part where the motivation obviously was there, that they knew that if they made this type of allegation they'd be able to get an expedited transfer somewhere else more favorable to their liking. And that's what happened.
Speaker 1:And you bring up a great point, mike, that I just want to hone in on, and that's game theory. So when you are the victim or the alleged victim, a lot of people don't understand, like why, would anybody lie?
Speaker 1:I mean, that's the general consensus of society. Who hasn't looked into these issues? Why would anyone go through the trouble and put themselves out there if the allegation wasn't true? But you brought up a very good point that there are incentives within the US military that are baked into being an alleged victim, and it's not only an expedited transfer or a preferred duty station. There's other benefits as well. From what I'm learning, there's guaranteed military sexual trauma claim when you go through your VA disability benefits process. There's special victim advocates, which are additional attorneys that will be assigned to you, which will unfairly go against the accused, who has to resource their own defense unless they want to go with the defense lawyer that's assigned to them, that's got 100 other cases going on and who, like you say, may not be very experienced to begin with say may not be very experienced to begin with.
Speaker 2:Yes, that's a very good point. There are a lot of things In my experience looking at the motivations for making false allegations. The scenarios in which these things happen most frequently is a high conflict divorce uh, most frequently is a high conflict divorce Okay, where someone is attempting to get uh custody or property.
Speaker 2:Uh, that's probably at the top of the list. Yeah, I didn't even name that Good point. Yeah, the probably, the probably. The second one is the breakup of a either. Uh, one is the breakup of a either of a long-term relationship or a short-term relationship.
Speaker 1:So it's retaliation they want to punish that person for, for a perceived wrong right.
Speaker 2:I mean it's called splitting, where one day the individual and then something happens and then all of a sudden the next day they hate them and the of course. Then there's financial incentives, and of course there's financial incentives and of course there's the VA benefits for PTSD due to military sexual trauma, which I'm going to tell you something. This was told to me by a former military JAG prosecutor face-to-face in person, and he said that this has become a scam and he says that this is very frequently. And he says that this is very frequently. Now this happens mostly with first-time enlistment enlisted Okay, not always, I mean, there's officer ranks involved in it too, but mostly your lower-ranking first-time enlisted, which is usually female. They will go into family advocacy and they will say I want to make a restricted report.
Speaker 2:I was sexually assaulted six months ago and I'm experiencing symptom A, symptom B, symptom C, which anybody can find online. And I'm experiencing symptom A, symptom B, symptom C, which anybody can find online. You could do a Google search right now and look up military sexual trauma symptomology, and there's Facebook pages. There's a gaggle of information, so all you got to do is look at something on the internet.
Speaker 1:Yes, yes, there's a gaggle of information, so all you got to do is look at something on the internet yes, I was going to say I was forwarded actually a Facebook group for women who want to make MST claims without any evidence, and I think that and I always have to do this and I don't know how much I have to emphasize this, but I'll emphasize it once again and that is this by no means says that there's no victims that are legitimate. This by no means are we saying that there aren't legitimate cases. I've had tons of them on my podcast or ones I believe were legitimate, but the problem exists when there is a bias towards one side, either side. This is what happens, sadly. There'll be baked in incentives that were probably designed with good intentions but now have been abused, and that's what it sounds like happened.
Speaker 2:Yeah, absolutely, and I fully agree with you 100%. There are legitimate cases. I've had cases brought before me in which someone claimed that they were falsely accused or innocent and once I started looking into some of the facts it went no, uh, you weren't falsely accused and, according to the reading of the uh, the appropriate section in the ucmj. Sorry, sorry, you did this.
Speaker 1:And that was one of the concerns I had, too, when I was talking with Darren and Arvis and about Save Our Heroes, which I know you've worked for and is a advocacy organization. I'll be talking to the president next week, actually, doug James. Doug James, and that was my concern too, is how do you guys know whether or not these cases are legitimate? And, as an advocacy organization helping people, you've got to know that you're spending your time and your effort on people that really, legitimately, have been wronged. And that comes down to, as you said was the case properly investigated?
Speaker 2:Well, you know kind of an analogy that I can give you on that.
Speaker 2:Let's say, your knee hurts and you go to your general MD and you tell the doctor, hey, my knee hurts. And the doctor takes a look at it, does a little examination and then decides okay, you need to go see an orthopedist. So he makes an initial assessment and not something that he would handle specifically. It would send you to a specialist. It would send you to a specialist so when these various cases would come in that's what I do is an assessment initially, and sometimes it's too late. I mean, sometimes you get calls or I get contacted by people who have already been convicted, have served their time in Leavenworth and have gotten out. Now they want to try to straighten out their record.
Speaker 2:So you take an initial assessment and then I look at it and go okay, well, you know, maybe I need to take a little more deeper dive into this. Well, you know, maybe I need to take a little more deeper dive into this. And there's also patterns. Okay, just like going to your general MD and then he looks at your knee and he may have looked at 100 other knees before and kind of saw the same thing and maybe in his initial assessment said okay, well, maybe you have a torn meniscus or maybe a tear on your ACL or something that would then give him an indicator to send you off to a specialist, would then give him an indicator to send you off to a specialist. So that's kind of what with a lot of these organizations and nonprofits and advocacy groups. You get a little bit of an initial assessment and then you can kind of tell pretty much early on, and this comes, you know, teresa, it comes from experience too.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 2:Right, yeah, I mean, I don't know how many thousands of people I've interviewed over. You know over 40 with experience where you can kind of you can get kind of a gut feeling or a gut instinct that you know maybe there's more to the story that I need to look at or maybe this is something that I can't help somebody with. So there's, it comes with experience. And then you look at, you know well, what happened. Okay, how did it start? Um, there's a lot of, there's a lot of indicators.
Speaker 2:Uh, there, now I do something different, and I'm probably the only one in the country that does this and I go above and beyond, and I think a lot of the the, the attorneys that do military criminal defense, would agree that basically, in a lot of these cases of false allegations or wrongful convictions, there is usually some form of indifference, incompetence or misconduct official misconduct In the case because you look at something like this and when you have these missing facts, anybody with any level of common sense will sit there and say, well, how did this result in a conviction?
Speaker 2:You're missing this, you're missing that, you're missing this. You didn't look at that, you're missing this, you're missing that, you're missing this. You didn't look at that no-transcript. So I'll take a look at some of this and then I will see okay, well, this is a screw up here, this is a screw up there, and then where and identify what that is, whether that's unlawful command influence, prosecutorial misconduct or incompetence or indifference on the part of the military investigators, or official misconduct by someone in the chain of command or the JAG Corps that ignored or did not seek out exculpatory evidence or fail to disclose it to the defense.
Speaker 1:Right, and what's really sad about this is the fact that you and I can have this conversation at this level, and I'm a 05 commander. I've been in for nearly 30 years. I've seen all kinds of working environments and dirty games people play, but a lot of times these are happening to people in their 20s who are inexperienced, who may be only on their own for a few years. They've come across the wrong person or married the wrong person or wronged the wrong person and now they're facing an accusation that is already going to be treated with difference to the alleged victim victim. And now they are one of a zillion other people facing these same issues with a inexperienced or very junior defense attorney and the only way that they can be guaranteed justice is if they pay for it.
Speaker 1:And I just think that's all a lot of times, especially when I did my interview with Darren Lopez, who I know is watching right now, he thought that the allegations against him were just so ridiculous and lacked so much evidence and there were so many holes in the case that he thought there's no way I need to hire outside counsel and he had a good defense attorney. I've read his case and his defense attorney, from what I could tell, asked the right questions and he still was convicted. He still lost his appeals. He still lost his appeals, and so that's the part that I really do hope we take a better look at. And you had this opportunity with the DAC iPad, which was this committee that was run by the Department of Defense. I'm not sure who sat on that committee, but these were people who were dedicated to trying to fix the due process system, and then they disbanded.
Speaker 2:Well, not all were there to fix the problem. There were a few there that wanted to keep this going the way that it was. So not everybody there was dedicated to trying to fix the problem. There were some that either denied that the problem existed or had no interest in trying to reform the process. And this goes back to I'm going to say I mean this boils down really realistically to common sense. I mean, it's just, you know, as a patrol officer and working by myself, I got a call of a woman screaming at this motel and I got there and it was a rape in progress and there were three guys and my backup was still a little time out. So I'm going up by myself with three suspects. I was able to take two suspects into custody right there and the third one got away that night. We got him later and this was at night. So our rape investigator was not on duty at home for the day. Our rape investigator was not on duty for the day and this was a legitimate, caught him in the act and you know the arrest was got a little rough, but I was able to take two guys into custody by myself before the backup could get there and then went through the investigation, we learned who the third one was and we got to him later. But they did common sense. They called the ambulance. They took the victim to the hospital for the SART exam the sexual assault exam A younger woman got in there.
Speaker 2:Our rape investigator had been notified. He was on his way in from home and while she was in there and I said, look, we're going to have our sexual assault investigator coming over here and interview you. I said, however, if you would like and it's up to you, if you would like to tell me what happened, you can. If you would prefer to wait for the, the rape investigator, you can do that too. And she decided that she would talk to me and I was very professional, non-judgmental, and I got some very good information, very detailed information on what occurred.
Speaker 2:And then the uh, the rape investigator showed up and, um and uh, you know, he contacted me at the hospital and said you know what happened and I was briefing him on on, uh, what had occurred. And I said okay, and I talked to her and I got the statement of what occurred and the times where they were at first names, all of that. And then the rape investigator looked at me and said, gee, you did everything for me, right, you know? And I mean I had some training in. You get some training in the academy on sexual assault, you get some supplemental training, but not like the sexual assault investigators. But it came down to common sense and professionalism. So there's some cases that I've seen, military cases that are handled correctly and properly and with professionalism and thoroughness, and there's a lot that are not.
Speaker 1:Right, and I think my the reason we're having this conversation is because that's the exception and not the norm. And I've had Jocelyn on my podcast, I've had Tim parlatory on my podcast, I've had our Arvin Owens, arvis Owens, I've had Darren Lopezens, I've had Darren Lopez and as I dig into this as further as I am, I'm realizing that this is a real problem within the military that needs to be dealt with and it goes back to the investigative process. It's the administrative process. That's a whole, nother thing with the IG. It starts there. It goes into how are we providing resources on both sides that are fair? And it is also the meddling of Congress and the biases of the individual legislators and where they fall on the issues of sexual assault and domestic violence and how they want to meddle in this issue. And instead of this being a process that's fair, this is a process that, if you have the money to pay for fairness, you maybe have a shot at it.
Speaker 1:But one of your colleagues shared with me the other night that there was literally one case law that saved him. That saved his whole case was the fact that he had an attorney that knew this particular case law. If he hadn't had an experienced attorney that understood how to use this one tactic, his case would not have been dismissed and he was facing 50 years. And that's just what floors me. I have a mother, holly Yeager, who has been writing me, and her son to this day is still sitting in the brig and wants to write me a letter and thank me, and I'm thinking to myself.
Speaker 1:I'm just one very small military podcaster trying to have these conversations about these issues, and I really want to see some major momentum from the military podcaster community, because I believe that we've come to a place where the public is no longer trusting the mainstream media.
Speaker 1:We don't trust the CNNs and the MSNBCs, not to say that they don't sometimes do a wonderful job, but we see how biased they are when we read an article from Fox versus an article from MSNBC and we see the lens by which they cover stories and we say, no, this isn't where we're going to find truthful information, and so they're turning to people like myself, the public, to get these stories because they're not being shown elsewhere.
Speaker 1:And I think it's going to take a real concerted effort from the grassroots level of people like yourself, more of those who have been impacted, more of these defense attorneys more of the family members to speak out, because this isn't right, what is happening to our warriors.
Speaker 1:But the positive spin on this is that under Pete Hegseth, who I believe was the victim of a false allegation and was extorted for it I've read the police report, I've watched the Megyn Kelly show and I believe that that is what happened to him and I believe somebody who has been so personally impacted by this issue would be the first person to understand how important reform on this issue is needed. So I'm hopeful that when the TJAGs get confirmed and when the examination of the no walking on eggshells policy gets further fleshed out, that we're going to start to see some major changes within the due process system. And when we do, I'm hoping that even those on other sides of the political aisle because I don't care, this is not a partisan issue will understand that the pendulum was swung in a direction that unfairly punished those who were accused of these crimes.
Speaker 2:Exactly. Well, you go again, you take that point and again work backwards and going back. I think it was 2012, the subcontractor for the Department of Defense, one that constructs and administers these surveys had constructed the survey, sent it out and then came up with a report as to the results. Now, anybody with common sense is going to sit there and tell you especially you know, if you took some type of statistics in college that anybody can write a survey in such a manner as to achieve an end result that they want.
Speaker 1:Absolutely.
Speaker 2:And you can look it up. I was the I think I was the first person that filed a freedom of information act request to this uh 2012 survey. I think it's that. It's it's online now you can find it online. It's online now you can find it online. But this survey, you know, you go back and you work backwards and the survey was 500 questions. Many of the questions were three and four part and it was very confusing. It was designed that way to extract a desired result.
Speaker 1:Absolutely. I trust zero studies from DOD. I do. I just know that they're politicized and I know that they are being driven by an agenda and because I understand how studies and surveys and statistics can be manipulated. If you give me a study, I'm just going to say who funds, who's funding it?
Speaker 2:going to say who funds who's funding it and what was it exactly? Well, you know, you go back and you look at the study and they sent it out to probably maybe a little over a hundred thousand service members um, maybe 30 000, 31, 32 000 actually responded out of what? One and a half million people in uniform. So they got these responses. But the way that the questions were asked were very, very complicated, where there would be a question and then there would be the second part of the question would be. Well, if you answered yes to question six, then did a, b and C happen now in question six a and six B and six C? I, I mean it was very uh, I mean you had to be very focused to do this correctly.
Speaker 2:Then, once they got the responses back and there were even questions that were on uh, about uh examples of uh, sexual harassment, uh or sexual assault of some form that the individual experienced before they went in the military and then after they got out of the military. So when you're looking at this, you're going going, okay, I see the writing on the wall, and so then they extrapolated these results and they figured basically okay, well, we have 1.5 million people in uniform and we have this, this percentage, and that percentage and that percentage and lo and behold, that means, then, that there were 26,000 cases of sexual assault in the armed forces in fiscal year 2012. It basically, in plain common sense terms, the DOD pulled a number out of their ass.
Speaker 1:And it served them well, because they also Congress somebody's daughter, I was told, even commissioned a documentary, which I've seen, by the way, the Invisible War, and that documentary, which had showings at the pentagon and everywhere else, was also part of this campaign and the numerous sexual assault trainings that we all had and other ways. We were all conditioned to believe that the DOD was turning a blind eye to every sexual assault case and just allowing people to retire scot-free. And don't get me wrong, there were cases where that did happen. I believe that there were cases where that happened. But I also believe that by exaggerating the problem and swinging the pendulum the other way, you unfairly punished a lot of warriors that would have otherwise served their nation honorably and they would have been a wonderful asset to the Department of Defense, and that's a shame.
Speaker 1:And what I do hope is that people are starting to understand what happened, because I can tell you I think I told you this on the phone the other day I thought I was going to get a lot of crap from those that are more left of center, because, let's just face it, that's usually the people from a partisan standpoint that are more likely to be on the side of center because, let's just face it, that's usually the people from a partisan standpoint that are more likely to be on the side of victims which, again, I think this is a nonpartisan issue, but okay and I thought that a lot of those people were going to give me a hard time about covering this issue and I've gotten crickets from them and I believe that is because we can show the receipts, we can show where this happened, we can show cases that are as plain as day, like Keith Berry's, for an example, where there's just a smoking gun that this person was unduly influenced by the head jag to force a conviction.
Speaker 1:And I can tell you I talked to somebody the other day whose husband is about to take command and this is the reason he's terrified to take command Because, god forbid, he gets a sexual assault case and he feels forced to have to take it to court-martial Because, god forbid, he drops it and doesn't see any evidence. It'll be on him and he will get that pressure and then this person now will not move forward in their career because of the fact that they dropped a sexual assault case that didn't have evidence.
Speaker 2:Let me touch on that because you've been a very good point. It's something that should should bring up and uh doug will tell you because he was one of the people that went to dc uh to lobby the senate. There were several people that they made a couple, two or three trips uh to dc to lobby the senate. It's very difficult to get honest answers from the Senate, in particular the Senate Armed Services Committee, and this is one of those kind of dirty little secrets that really isn't a secret that a lot of people in the chain of command, including convening authorities, know and realize. Now let me ask you a question. When you got promoted? Okay, you're in 05 now, correct?
Speaker 1:Mm-hmm.
Speaker 2:Okay, you're in 05 now, correct, mm-hmm. Okay. So when you were in 04, you had time and grade. You had excellent evaluations, so you were automatically put on the list for promotion to 05.
Speaker 1:Correct.
Speaker 2:That list, then these lists. They come up periodically, they go to the Senate Armed Services Committee and then they go to the Subcommittee of Personnel in the Senate Armed Services Committee and if there are no hiccups in your career, if there's no bad evaluation investigation you're dramatically promoted.
Speaker 2:Okay, now backups in your career, if there's no bad evaluation investigation Criminal case, right. Okay, now, and I don't know if this is still the case, you know Hegseth may have changed it, but this was in effect for a long time. It still might be in effect, which I don't know when the names get sent to the Senate Armed Services Committee subcommittee and personnel and then they go to the Senate and then they pass through for the promotions that the rules were. This is what Doug was trying to change, along with some other people. The rules were and they still may be in effect, that one person in the senate armed services committee could give a down vote to someone and they didn't have to provide their name, nor did they have to provide a reason that's just crazy.
Speaker 1:That's just crazy.
Speaker 2:That's just crazy.
Speaker 2:Now, any case involving sexual misconduct of any type, if that case does not result in a referral to court martial, then that case automatically gets sent to the JAG of that branch and the secretary of that branch for review. So when you're talking about the people in the legislature and some people in the Senate Armed Services Committee have previously advised some of these service secretaries that they want the names of people who did not refer a sexual assault case to court-martial and the ones that didn't when their name came up, the subcommittee and personnel for promotion.
Speaker 1:That's how this happened, yep. So now that it's been taken I don't know if you're current on the rules and there's a lot of people that are joining us today that could probably also chime in in the comments but now that it's been taken, sexual harassment and sexual assault and domestic violence have all been taken out of convening authorities, is my understanding and now the NCIS or the CID and the OSI they are doing those investigations. So does that mean that every single case just automatically goes to court, marshal, or now can NCIS, osi and CIDid? Are they empowered to drop a case that doesn't have evidence?
Speaker 2:no, they, they don't. Now we have the office, uh, what they call the office of uh special investigations or special yeah, okay, which are the the jack? No, they the investigators. They, they have not nothing to do with whether or not somebody gets charged.
Speaker 1:Okay so who now decides whether or not a case goes to court-martial or not?
Speaker 2:if it's not the convening authorities. Well, it's still the convening authority, but what they've established now is the.
Speaker 1:Office of Special Trial Counsel. Thank you, yep.
Speaker 2:Right, and they so. Those are the ones that supposedly are supposed to have the most knowledge and experience, but it's still the convening authorities decision.
Speaker 1:Oh, I didn't understand that. Okay, I thought that because that was what the Gillibrands and all the people were advocating for is to take the decision-making about this. Okay, so here's see, he says OSTC does decide. So that means now a commanding officer, a convening authority, doesn't have the right to decide if a case goes to court martial or gets dropped. It's now up to the Office of Special Trial Counsel to make that decision. Is my understanding?
Speaker 2:That's my understanding too, but it's also from what I've heard that there's also a I don't know if it's a a comment, a suggestion, a uh right, I mean it's hard to think like the convening authority, who knows the service member who works with a service member has no say.
Speaker 1:So it makes me wonder how effective and how operational the Office of Special Trial Counsel is, and that'll probably be something that I'm sure I'll have to cover on a future show. And, yeah, convening authorities can still provide pressure and I would think that that would be the case. And I know the Office of Special Trial Counsel was only stood up, I want to say, as of this past January, for one year is my understanding. It hasn't been that long that it's been into effect.
Speaker 1:Just recently. That's what they've done and so it would be interesting to talk to somebody like a defense attorney who has covered some of these cases to see that. But going back to the investigative piece, because we're going to kind of wrap up here in a little bit, I know we were over the hour, which I knew was going to happen, but what suggestions would you have going forward if you were, if you could play god and fix the system from the investigative side? What are some of the baby steps, some of the initial steps that you think dod could do to make this system better?
Speaker 2:well, you got to get people, uh, doing the investigation. You've got to change the culture when it comes to domestic violence, sexual assault. A lot of this has to do with their training. There is an immediate affirmation that someone making an allegation, that the someone making an allegation, that the the investigative direction is from somebody who is telling the truth and therefore, because we have been trained the truth and therefore because we have been trained to believe that the person is telling the truth, then we only need to look for evidence that supports the allegation. Okay, Mm-hmm.
Speaker 2:That we don't need to look into the whole the whole story that we don't need to look into the whole. The whole story Right, okay, and if we find something exculpatory, then we just ignore it. Because, the objective is not to learn the truth of what occurred, but to the objective is to gather sufficient evidence that will sustain a conviction, and that's not how law enforcement whether you're law enforcement in the military or anywhere should operate.
Speaker 1:Correct.
Speaker 2:It's counter common sense.
Speaker 1:Yes, it is. It is and that's the first thing that has to happen is the culture change, and that's where I do believe the media can play a huge role in changing the culture and helping to educate the public on what has happened and start to happened and start to solve some of these issues with indifference, incompetence and misconduct, because these issues are symptoms of a larger problem which, like you said, is a cultural bias that seeped within the military. Just like there has been ideologies that have seeped into the military, this is a bias that has seeped into the military, which I believe will change and has the ability to change in the best possible way under the current administration, because I do believe that they see what is going on and they understand it and they truly want to fix it. So I agree, it's a cultural change. I would also say, based on what you're telling me, that we also need better investigators. We need investigators that are ethical and that do their job properly.
Speaker 2:Well, like Tim brought up, you know, we, we have, uh, like you brought up, the example of the Navy. I mean, we've got the best pilots, we've got the, the, the best seamen who can, uh, safely navigate our oceans.
Speaker 2:We have the best medical professionals that patch up some of these guys that are severely injured, then you get to the investigative part of something that could affect an individual for the rest of their life, possibly their freedom. You've got a guy that's been working the bag checkout at Walmart for the past two years, investigating a major crime we actually have.
Speaker 1:Holly Yeager on it. She says what does it mean when your falsely accused son's phone is completely destroyed, while in the hands of the prosecutor and the investigators don't bother collecting her two phones? This is exactly what you were talking about earlier. Exactly, these are the kinds of things that we have to see change. We have to see change and, mike, I really can't thank you enough for taking the time to explain to the people who are watching this podcast or the people who might take the replay later, because I really do want to speak to those decision makers at the highest levels of the US military and help to usher in this change.
Speaker 1:I became a public affairs officer and, by the way, I am speaking in my unofficial off-duty capacity but I became a PAO because I wanted truth and transparency and I wanted to fix problems and I wanted to tell the Navy story, and we have a beautiful and wonderful service that is being disserviced by the justice issue and also by certain issues within military medical.
Speaker 1:That's a whole nother conversation that I'm going to have that we shouldn't be doing. There are some things we do very well in medical, like you said, with battle dressings and battle injuries, but there are other things like child labor and childbirth, that we should probably be letting the private side take care of, and we might not have as many medical problem practice cases if that, if that, if and when that does happen one day. So I believe this is the same thing. It's it's a piece to our military that needs to be fixed and needs to be cleaned up, and I believe that what you're doing is God's work. It really is, and I was thinking, as you were talking earlier, I'm like we need to duplicate Mike. There needs to be 50 Mikes working on these cases.
Speaker 2:I've heard that before also. Well, I mean a very good point. You know, we brought up the surveys and all that, and what we do is we have created this false epidemic by gerrymandering and manipulating statistical data in the manner that it's done. When the government that it's done, yep, which, when the when the government says something's an epidemic. What is what happens?
Speaker 1:Oh, we started flooding resources to it and and and. That's that's not the right answer either, and so that's why stories like I mean shows like mine exist is. I'm not going to get into the extremes or the spin, I'm just going to bring the guests on who who tell the truth and who expose the issues that need to be exposed. So, mike, I want to thank you so much for taking some time out of your day to talk with us and to share this issue. I will continue to cover this issue from other angles and other aspects, because it's just so important and we can't let the pressure spin down and let the public not have an opportunity to understand how much this is hurting the people who have stood up to protect our freedom and our nation. So thank you very much, mike. I appreciate it.
Speaker 2:Sure, anytime you want to do this again or go in a little bit more detail, just let me know.
Speaker 1:Absolutely. I think we could have probably talked for about two hours just about your police experience and some of the things that you saw while you were a homicide detective. But thank you so much for covering this issue and thank you so much for being on the show, and I will go solo layout and then meet you backstage shortly.
Speaker 2:Okay, you want me to stay on right now?
Speaker 1:Yeah, just stay on for a second Awesome. Thank you so much, everybody. I really appreciate your time and thank you If you've stayed on for a second Awesome. Thank you so much, everybody. I really appreciate your time and thank you if you've stayed on for a little extra to get the end of this show. I will have another two shows next week. I was adding shows because this is how much I knew this subject needed to be covered. It needed to be covered now. So next week I will be having Doug James on the show. He was a former president of Save Our Heroes and he has also done a great deal of work and advocacy on this side, so he will be talking about the many cases that he has seen with this issue, and so, with that, that's all I've got for tonight. Thank you all for watching the show. As I always close these calls, please take care of yourselves, please take care of each other and enjoy the rest of your evening. Bye-bye now.