Elizabeth M. BerecinManaging Editor
20 Comments
William Cassara
2/2/2021 02:09:32 pm
CAAF: File a writ. Also CAAF: Denied.
Reply
The Eyes of Texas
2/2/2021 03:00:47 pm
Today Secretary Austin fired Trump advisory board members.
Reply
The Eyes of Crystal City / National Landing
2/2/2021 03:20:59 pm
Indefensible that they didn't bother to explain themselves.
Reply
1984
2/3/2021 10:27:29 pm
I know the feeling. I had a great Coram Vobis petition a few years back based on a Brady violation. The government failed to disclose the star witness (and victim's) criminal record for writing personal checks.
Reply
The Mighty JAG-rafess of the Holy Hadrojassic Maxarodenfoe
2/4/2021 03:27:51 pm
CAAF never explains denials of writ-appeals. While we may find that frustrating, its nice to see that they aren't going out of their way to change their procedures just because this case has media attention.
Reply
Lord Adavorakentrakledar
2/6/2021 11:20:18 am
OK, that's just about the best CAAFlog username I've seen in my life.
Eyes o TX
2/3/2021 10:34:50 am
CAAF's contention is that they are not concerned with how much UCI is in the system, but what it effect is when it occurs. They are eating themselves with this move.
Reply
Anon MJ
2/3/2021 03:49:14 pm
I suppose that if Bergdahl were to appeal into the Article III courts, which I hope he does, he may draw a similar relief as al-Nishiri. CAAF, and more so, ACCA were very short-sighted in this. Why give an Art III court the opportunity to craft UCI and comment on the lack of independence of military judges? And as for CAAF, why rubberstamp a sophmoric ACCA only to face a likely rebuke elsewhere.
Reply
BJA
2/3/2021 06:05:30 pm
Other than its role in blocking servicemembers from appealing to the Supreme Court, why does CAAF exist?
Reply
1984
2/3/2021 10:14:04 pm
They didn't explain themselves. But in all honesty, this was a guilty plea. They could have dug up Judge Roland Freisler from the Nazi People's Court.
Reply
Donald G Rehkopf
2/4/2021 10:20:05 am
To paraphrase an old (and politically incorrect) saying:
Reply
Brenner M. Fissell
2/4/2021 11:41:12 am
Hopefully this aria will be sung in US District Court--but will it be drowned out by the sound of Burns v. Wilson? btw, can he get habeas since he is not in custody, or is it coram nobis?
Reply
The Mighty JAG-rafess of the Holy Hadrojassic Maxarodenfoe
2/4/2021 03:23:12 pm
Neither. You're correct that habeas isn't available because he isn't in custody. District courts lack the ability to issue a writ of coram nobis because they lack original jurisdiction to adjudicate courts-martial. The only remaining viable writ is certiorari.
1984
2/4/2021 06:14:41 pm
He can't.
Brenner M. Fissell
2/4/2021 03:38:40 pm
The plaintiff, who is no longer in custody, collaterally attacks his conviction asserting that this Court may review the CAAF's decision pursuant to its federal question jurisdiction. Collateral attacks on court-martial proceedings are not confined to habeas petitions. Kauffman v. Secretary of the Air Force, 415 F.2d 991 (D.C.Cir.1969). A district court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a non-custodial plaintiff's collateral attack based on federal question jurisdiction. Sanford v. United States, 586 F.3d 28, 31 (D.C.Cir.2009). Thus, while habeas review is appropriate for convicted military personnel who are still in custody, for non-custodial individuals such as plaintiff, federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is the appropriate avenue for a service member to seek collateral review of the outcome of a military court-martial proceeding. United States ex rel. New v. Rumsfeld, 448 F.3d 403, 406 (D.C.Cir.2006) (holding that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the petitioner's collateral attack under § 1331) (“New II ”); Williamson v. Sec'y. of Navy, 395 F.Supp. 146, 147 (D.D.C.1975) (same).
Reply
1984
2/4/2021 06:21:39 pm
Is BB able to file a Tucker Act Claim to attack his court-martial? It's been within 7 years since discharge. Although the "full and fair consideration" bar sucks.
Reply
Eyes o TX
2/4/2021 05:51:13 pm
Ok, let's try this again.
Reply
Eyes of Texas
2/7/2021 03:07:05 pm
Just noticed this:
Reply
1984
2/8/2021 09:31:19 pm
Yes. The case name is (name of the accused) vs. United States.
Reply
Eyes of Texas
2/9/2021 04:06:41 pm
Crazy.
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Links
CAAF -Daily Journal -Current Term Opinions ACCA AFCCA CGCCA NMCCA Joint R. App. Pro. Global MJ Reform LOC Mil. Law Army Lawyer Resources Categories
All
Archives
April 2022
|