Here courtesy of Obama Conspiracy Theories is the Congressional Research Service legal opinion on, well . . . . . . ..
Members of Congress Memo–What to Tell Your Constituents in Answer to Obama Eligibility Questions
Pilotonline reports that the court-martial for the former XO of the USS SAN ANTONIO is underway at Norfolk.
Navy Lt. Cmdr. Sean Kearns’ court-martial on a charge of negligence in his duties as executive officer of the ship San Antonio began Monday – but he’s not the only one on trial.
The proceeding – related to the death of a sailor during a deployment last year – could give the already bruised San Antonio ship program yet another black eye. . . .
My good friend Bill Cassara and I have done a lot of BAH/TCS fraud cases at court-martial under the UCMJ over the years. Typically the case involves a lot of documents from DFAS. The prosecution then calls a witness from DFAS to lay a foundation for the documents and then has the witness testify as to what the documents mean in terms of monies claimed and paid compared to the legal entitlements. Because these documents are of many pages the witness typically prepares a chart which summarizes the documents and the bottom lines. There is nothing wrong with that so long as the underlying documents are admissible (usually as business records and documents prepared and submitted by the accused), the chart is an accurate representation of the documents, and the witness who prepared the chart or summary is available for cross-examination.
The case of United States v. Hemphill, 514 F.3d 1350 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 8, 2008) (Nos. 06-3088, 06-3089, 07-3016), noted by federalevidence.com, reminds us of this point.
Cross-examination might expose errors or inconsistencies in the chart. At which point the parties can refer to the original documents if necessary. Assuming the errors or inconsistencies are identified and cross-examined on the testimony is then judged as to its weight not admissibility.
A reader on Military.com asks this question:
Q: I’m 18 years active duty with the US Navy. I was an E-6 from 2000–2009 but got busted for UCMJ violation to E-5. I fall under the High-3 plan for retirement and a lot of my friends are saying that when I retire, I will get the E-6 retirement pay, but then again, some of my friends are saying I will not — which is true?
The answer given is:
Here is an upublished opinion in the Court of Appeals, First Circuit, State of Louisana, in State v. Davis.
Note, this case was a court-martial tried under the Louisiana Code of Military Justice (a National Guard case).
La. R.S. 29:101-242, applies to all members of the state military forces when not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and while in a duty status or under a lawful order to be in a duty status. The processing of charges and all proceedings, including trial, may be conducted without regard to the duty status of the accused. La. R.S. 29:102(A) and (C).
NBC Washington reports:
Manassas resident Gene McKinney, 59, was arrested last week and charged with attempted malicious wounding for an incident that happened in Pentagon City on October 25.
McKinney allegedly picked up commuters from a slug line that Monday morning. He was driving north toward Washington when his passengers demanded to be let out of the car because he was driving erratically, according to arlnow.com.
Mercury News is reporting that United States v. Wuterich is delayed until 24 January 2011, pending a resolution of their issue of defense counsel representation. AP reports the same, as does The Canadian Press.
The up and down case of United States v. Hayes, has been decided again by NMCCA. Appellant has gained a new sentencing hearing because the NMCCA is convinced the judge was not impartial when adjudging a sentence. This is another one of those cases which arose because of comments during a bridging the gap talk with the MJ.
United States v. Moore, decided 28 October 2010.
Appellant alleges, inter alia, that assault with intent to commit rape is not a lesser-included offense of rape under United States v. Jones, 68 M.J. 465 (C.A.A.F. 2010) and that his conviction should be set aside. We agree, and provide relief in our decretal paragraph. Because we decide the case on the basis of this assignment of error, we do not consider appellant’s other allegations.
Also a quick note about “notice.”
Air Force Times reports:
Military officials say a survey of U.S. troops and their families is finding that a majority don’t care whether gays are allowed to serve openly and think “don’t ask, don’t tell” could be done away with.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
