With all of the hype about Google in China it appears they have decided to change their logo to avoid Chinese intelligence agents.
Google’s explanation is rather odd.
Early last month the mayor of Topeka, Kansas stunned the world by announcing that his city was changing its name to Google. We’ve been wondering ever since how best to honor that moving gesture. Today we are pleased to announce that as of 1AM (Central Daylight Time) April 1st, Google has officially changed our name to Topeka.
Fox11.com reports that:
Major Hasan is on his way from hospital to Belton jail where he will be housed at an approximate cost of $206K.
He is wheelchair bound – question, is he a flight risk?
Here’s a case from New Jersey of some interest, Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 2010 N.J. LEXIS 241 (March 30, 2010).
[W]e find that Stengart had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the e-mails she exchanged with her attorney on Loving Care’s laptop.
Stengart plainly took steps to protect the privacy of those e-mails and shield them from her employer. She used a personal, password-protected e-mail account instead of her company e-mail address and did not save the account’s password on her computer. In other words, she had a subjective expectation of privacy in messages to and from her lawyer discussing the subject of a future lawsuit.
eNews Park Forest reports.
Last August, Travis Bishop refused to serve in Afghanistan. Having filed for Conscientious Objector (CO) status, Bishop, based at Fort Hood, Texas, in the US Army’s 57th Expeditionary Signal Battalion, was court-martialed and sentenced to 12 months in a military brig. He was released from the brig today.
Bishop served his time in Northwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility at Fort Lewis, Washington. This military brig is notorious for being a particularly difficult jail to serve time.
The Supreme Court has issued an opinion in Padilla v. Kentucky, which addresses the duty to inform a client of the collateral consequences of the conviction on their immigrant status. I have posted on this in connection with United States v. Miller, 63 M.J. 452 (C.A.A.F. 2006) and other cases: here, here, here, and here. Here’s a link to Padilla on SCOTUSWiki. There are important consequences for military practitioners because as I have pointed out, there are thousands of green-card holders serving in the military. Here are a some highlights – more later.
Because counsel must inform a client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation, Padilla has sufficiently alleged that his counsel was constitutionally deficient. Whether he is entitled to relief depends on whether he has been prejudiced, a matter not addressed here.
So, to what extent does Padilla impact Denedo? Here is the SCOTUSWiki link to the Supreme Court litigation in Denedo. Here is a link to Denedo v. United States, 66 M.J. 114 (C.A.A.F. 2008). Here is a link to United States v. Denedo, in which N-MCCA denied Denedo relief again.
Family Security Matters reports:
A decorated active duty Army medical officer, Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin (selected for promotion to Colonel), is calling upon his chain of command and his Congressional delegation to force President Obama to release his original birth certificate. He is the highest ranking officer to go public over this controversy and in late February, was notified that he is subject to near-term deployment to Afghanistan.
A website, SafeguardtheConstitution.com, outlines his efforts to seek the truth and prepare for his legal defense. You can make a tax deductible (?) contribution to his defense fund here.
KWTX.com reports that:
Defense attorney John Galligan said Tuesday he’s asking the Army to delay the hearing that will determine whether Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan will be tried by a military court for the Nov. 5 shooting rampage at Fort Hood’s Soldier Readiness Center that left 13 dead and 29 injured.
ACCA has issued an opinion in United States v. Trigueros, 68 M.J. ___ (A. Ct. Crim. App. 2010). [Post updated to address a CAAFLog point, to add some links, and try to fix some formatting.]
This case involves the common problem of discovery of a victims mental health records. There are two troubling aspects to this case: the trial counsel never made any effort to determine whether or not information responsive to a specific discovery request was available, and when the prosecution has access – as they frequently do – how can it not be a violation of Article 46, UCMJ, for them to fail to turn over the information.
On 9 May 2007, trial counsel responded to the defense discovery request, stating in relevant part “[t]he Government is not aware of the existence of any such documentation regarding the records of the victims, Mrs. [JLC] and Mrs. [SCR].” In fact, trial counsel had not asked Mrs. SCR whether she had attended mental health counseling before responding to the defense discovery request.
Two items came across my screen at about the same time.
The FayObserver reports that:
The judge in the court-martial of Army Master Sgt. Timothy Hennis rejected defense calls for a mistrial this morning.
Human Events reports that:
One of three Navy SEALs facing a court martial announced at a rally Saturday that he has passed a polygraph test, casting doubt on the Pentagon’s case against him.
Rep. John Shadegg (R.-Ariz.) who attended and spoke at the rally, told HUMAN EVENTS that “while the lie detector test results won’t be admissible in a court of law and their jury will never know that he passed, it is nonetheless important for the American public to know.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
