Officer to Army: See you in court, is the title of a posting to World Net Daily. The piece also links to the new video release. I did not see a new confession, merely a continuance of his supposed reasons for his contumacy.
He cited a long list of "reasonable arguments" raising questions about whether Obama was born on American soil.
Assuming arguendo that there are reasonable questions about President Obama’s citizenship, the questions remain irrelevant to LTC Lakin’s court-martial.
The AFCCA has issued its opinion in the relook at United States v. Rose. The court comes to the same conclusion that the defense counsel advice to the client about sex offender registration was wrong and IAC. The initial decision at AFCCA is here, and CAAF’s 28 October 2009 journal entry and order is here.
The statements of the appellant’s civilian defense counsel clearly attempt to minimize the seriousness of the indecent assault charges and assure the appellant that he would not have to register as a sex offender. In his testimony at the DuBay hearing, Mr. NC, the appellant’s civilian defense counsel, repeatedly used such phrases as “fairly innocuous” and “just foolery” to describe the sexual assault offenses. Mr. NC claimed lack of memory on many points but, in response to questions from the military judge, did recall concluding that sex offender registration was “not really a credible concern.” Consistent with this testimony, the appellant testified that when he directly asked Mr. NC if sex offender registration would be required Mr. NC told him: “I don’t see why it would be with the allegations that were brought against you. I don’t see why that would be a registerable offense.”
Bottom line it appears AFCCA believes the defense counsel considered the statements as “affirmative misrepresentations . . . concerning significant collateral consequences.” Slip op. at 5. Rose was tried in 2005.
Uh, why is this news, as reported by Military.com? Or, when has this not been a problem?
The commander of Fort Bragg has barred the wife of an 82nd Airborne Division colonel from nearly all interaction with her husband’s brigade and the unit’s families after an investigation found her influence "detrimental to the morale and well-being of both."
Um, the colonel’s wife who treats the O-6 parking spots as hers?
CAAFLog blogged a while back about the declining numbers in Courts-Martials held. Navy Times reports this as a possible explanation for lower Navy numbers:
The overall number of sailors facing courts-martial has dropped dramatically during the past several years, Navy records show.
General courts-martial for the most serious offenses have fallen by nearly half, from 172 in 2005 to 94 last year. Court cases for lesser crimes have fallen by even more, according to data provided by the Navy’s judge advocate general.
Navy Times reports that:
Two Navy chiefs will be forced to retire after helping an enlisted sailor cheat on an advancement exam, officials from the aircraft carrier George Washington told Stars and Stripes on Thursday.
CAAF’s daily journal for 10 June 2010 indicates that CAAF has allowed NIMJ to file a brief on behalf of appellant (I abstained from participation in producing said brief), and allowed NACDL to file an amicus pleading but denied NACDL leave to file an “oversized brief.”
No. 10-0337/AR. U.S. v. David ANTAR. CCA 20080836. Review granted on the following issue:
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY ACCEPTING APPELLANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY AND NOT REOPENING THE PROVIDENCE INQUIRY WITHOUT QUESTIONING BOTH APPELLANT AND HIS TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL REGARDING APPELLANT’S BIPOLAR DISORDER, HIS EXTENSIVE HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS, AND POSSIBLE MENTAL RESPONSIBILITY DEFENSE.
The decision of the Army Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for reconsideration of the aforementioned issue in light of United States v. Harris, 61 M.J. 391 (C.A.A.F. 2005).[See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
Here is the daily journal entry for Navy TJAG certification of United States v. Hutchins.
No. 10-5003/MC. U.S., Appellant v. Lawrence G. HUTCHINS, Appellee. CCA 200800393. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issues:
WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING, INTER ALIA, THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE SEVERED THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP WITH CAPTAIN BASS?
The CGCCA has issued a per curiam opinion in United States v. Sapp., a SPCM tried at U.S.C.G. Training Center Yorktown.
Before this court, Appellant has assigned two errors: (1) This court should consider the unreasonable and unexplained post-trial delay in determining the sentence that should be approved under Article 66(c); and (2) the promulgating order contains three errors. We grant sentence relief for post-trial delay and otherwise affirm. . . .
Notable delays in post-trial processing are found in the fifty-nine days apparently taken by the military judge to authenticate the record, the seventy-seven days taken after receipt of the authenticated record to produce the SJAR and send it to defense counsel, and the twenty-eight days between Convening Authority action and sending the record to Headquarters. The Memorandum forwarding the record gives no meaningful explanation for these delays, attributing them only to “administrative processing.”
Yesterday AFCCA issued an order in an Article 62, appeal, in United States v. Harris. There is a rather odd, perhaps bizarre, chronology. What next is the question?
Appellant charged.
Additional charges added.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog