UCMJ Tag Archives — Page 8 of 50 — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

Coast Guard boating collision update 3

September 8, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

San Diego Online has this short piece on the Coast Guard boating case and the ongoing Article 32, UCMJ, hearing which began today.

Lawyers for the driver of a Coast Guard boat that killed an 8-year-old San Diego boy in December said the Coast Guard is prosecuting Petty Officer 3rd Class Paul Ramos in order to duck responsibility, and a lawsuit.

“The family is rightly suing the Coast Guard,” said Navy Cmdr. Brian Koshulsky, one of Ramos’ military attorneys. “It’s in the Coast Guard’s interest to blame my client.”

More on LTC Lakin from the motions hearing – IV

September 8, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

And now for the political question doctrine.

See fn. 2., I believe at one point Mr. Jensen was complaining that the military judge wasn’t going to apply any “civilian” cases.

See fn. 3., for the judge’s rather sparse treatment of the de facto officer doctrine.

More on LTC Lakin from the motions hearing – III

September 8, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

And now for some history. Those with some basic familiarity with military law and who have been following the blogs of those with military law experience will recognize the cases cited.

More on LTC Lakin from the motions hearing – II

September 8, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

From the conclusions of law:

More on LTC Lakin from the motions hearing

September 8, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

I posted a tease here, and it didn’t take long for Dwight “My Liege” Sullivan to crack the code.

In other words, Judge Lind used the word “embarrassment” in precisely the political question doctrine context (and using almost exactly the same words) as CAAF in New and the Supremes in Baker v. Carr. And all the breathless birther commentary saying that she was attempting to avoid personal embarrassment to President Obama is just so much guano.

As always one has to admire Dwight’s pithy commentary. OK, here is some more (working from a “bigger” computer, netbooks have some limitations).

Humor in military uniform law

September 4, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here is a link to the 3 September 2010 Federal Register for the recent MCM amendments signed by The President.

And the humor you say – – – –

Hat tip to Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored blog (a not a birther blog).

LTC Lakin continues to spin

September 3, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Found at birtherreport.com.

LtcTerryLakin

LTC Lakin and Mr. Jensen will be on the Barry Farber radio tonight at 2000.

Apparently the “embarrsassment” language was intended by the judge to alert Congress that they need to begin impeachment proceedings.

NMCCA decisions

September 3, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

NMCCA has released a number of decisions. Several have providency issues and issues not raised by appellate counsel.

United States v. Messias. The court set-aside a finding of guilty to because of an inadequate providence inquiry. No sentence relief granted.

While the providence inquiry establishes facts sufficient to demonstrate that the appellant drove on base and that he believed the driving to be wrongful, there are no facts developed which establish either the invalidity of the appellant’s license, if any, or in the alternative, his failure to have a valid license in his possession. We cannot infer either eventuality from this record. We are left with a substantial basis in fact to question this plea and conclude the military judge abused his discretion in accepting this plea on these facts.

MCM amendments

September 1, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here is a link to the Executive Order signed 31 August 2010 with amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial.

LTC Lakin update

August 31, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

safeguardourconsititution (APF) has an affidavit from LTG T. McInerney in support of LTC Lakin’s discovery request.

Lawyers interested in the legal merits of the issue will likely find themselves dissatisfied with the affidavit. It is a combination of justification for LTC Lakin’s contumacy and reasons why the discovery should be granted. There is no comment on the general failure of most of the rest of the officer corps in continuing to obey unlawful orders. They have not posted the request or motion in support of any request. Once again failing to give full disclosure.

The affidavit appears to also justify the discovery request as a need for public disclosure. This would be IMHO an abuse of process. The purpose of discovery in a criminal proceeding is to aid the defense, not to aid public disclosure for disclosures sake.