In the next two weeks, Army senior leaders expect to distribute a new policy governing how the absent without leave status is applied to a soldier who doesn’t report for duty, according to Army Chief of Staff James McConville.
I think not.
Whoever, being an officer of the Army or Navy, or other person in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, orders, brings, keeps, or has under his authority or control any troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held, unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; and be disqualified from holding any office of honor, profit, or trust under the United States.
18 U.S.C 592.
Please vote, but, Military Times notes,
Two Army Reserve soldiers who appeared in uniform during the Democratic National Convention in August will not be disciplined for politicking in uniform, but their supervisor will.
On Thursday, officials said they had determined the two soldiers were not at fault for the mistake.
Para. 99 (Article 134, Extramarital sexual conduct) is now with us and extends the UCMJ further into morals offenses.
b. Elements.
(1) That the accused wrongfully engaged in extramarital conduct as described in subparagraph c.(2) with a certain person;
Navy Times tells us that “A Florida-based U.S. Navy command master chief was relieved from his leadership position at Naval Ordnance Test Unit last month, according to officials.”
While it appears, the case is proceeding within the state legal system, there’s a possibility it becomes a military justice issue (and certainly an adverse administrative issue).
The allegations seem to cover assault, theft, resisting arrest.
Motions to recuse a military judge or sua sponte recusal are becoming more frequent in military justice.
We have the “Spath Issue,” the now “Keane Issue,” both from the Commissions. I and several others are litigating appeals based on one military judge in the Army.
Each of the cases relate to disclosure of information so the parties can voir dire and if appropriate, challenge the military judge.
The oral argument for Briggs and Collins is now scheduled for 13 October.
With the start of the new season the Supremes have issued its first Orders List comprising five pages-worth–mostly denials.
An observer poindts to,
In Kaur v. Maryland, No. 19–1045, Justice Sotomayor’s 5-page statement begins and ends this way:
Online at CAAFlog.
This is my attempt to put events of the week in one place rather than have to navigate many sites.
Cheers.
A veteran’s group is planning to meet at Austin City Hall Thursday afternoon for what it is calling a public trial of Fort Hood leadership over the recent deaths of U.S. Army Spc. Vanessa Guillen and other soldiers stationed at the military base.
The group, Vets for the People, is part of the Working Families Party, a progressive grassroots political party, according to the organization’s website. The event is scheduled to start 5:30 p.m. Thursday at Austin City Hall, according to the organization’s Facebook event page.
“We refuse to accept what little the Army and Department of Defense have done to hold Fort Hood leadership accountable and to investigate themselves. We are tired of politicians who refuse to hold them accountable,” the veterans organization said in a news release. “We will no longer allow abuse and deaths like that of Vanessa Guillen and other soldiers to go unanswered.”
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
