I DECIDED TO RESEARCH WHETHER THAT STATEMENT WAS TRUE OR FALSE.
IS GITTENS BOUND TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE TO THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AS PROVIDED BY THE MARINE CORPS IN MCO 5803.1C?
MCO 5803.1C FOUND HERE http://sja.hqmc.usmc.mil/jar/files/JAGINST%205803_1C.pdf STATES:
4. Applicability a. This instruction applies to all "covered attorneys" as defined herein. b. "Covered attorneys" include: (2) The following non-U.S. Government attorneys, referred to, collectively, as "covered non-USG attorneys" throughout this instruction: all civilian attorneys representing individuals in any matter for which JAG is charged with supervising the provision of legal services. These matters include, but are not limited to, courts-martial, administrative separation boards or hearings, and disability evaluation proceedings.
IS GITTENS IS REPRESENTING AN INDIVIDUAL IN A MATTER FOR WHICH JAG IS CHARGED WITH SUPERVISING THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES, I.E. A COURT-MARTIAL? IF YES, THEN HE IS A COVERED ATTORNEY AND THE INSTRUCTION APPLIES TO HIS CONDUCT.
WHAT ARE YOU SUBJECTED TO WHEN YOU ARE A COVERED ATTORNEY?
4. RULE 8.4 MISCONDUCT a. It is professional misconduct for a covered attorney to: (1) violate or attempt to violate these Rules, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
SO, IF A COVERED ATTORNEY KNOWINGLY VIOLATES MCO 5803.1C, THEN HE HAS COMMITTED AN ACT OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT.
THE JACKSONVILLE DAILY NEWS REPORTS THAT GITTENS CAME UP WITH THE MEDIA BLITZ AS A STRATEGY:
"There was a strategy," said Charles Gittins, Pantano's civilian counsel who, according to his resume, is a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve. "It's something we developed together - that is, his military lawyers, myself and his family."
By reaching out to the media, Pantano's defense succeeded at making his case fodder for philosophical debate. At best, they succeeded at manipulating public opinion. FROM JACKSONVILLE DAILY NEWS, APRIL 25, 2005
PLEASE READ WHAT MCO 5803.1C SAYS ABOUT PRETRIAL PUBLICITY:
RULE 3.6 EXTRA-TRIBUNAL STATEMENTS a. A covered attorney shall not make an extrajudicial statement about any person or case pending investigation or adverse administrative or disciplinary proceedings that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the covered attorney knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding or an official review process thereof. b. A statement referred to in paragraph a ordinarily is likely to have such an effect when it refers to a civil matter triable to a jury, a criminal matter, or any other proceeding that could result in incarceration, discharge from the naval service, or other adverse personnel action, and the statement relates to: (1) the character, credibility, reputation, or criminal record of a party, suspect in a criminal investigation, victim, or witness, or the identity of a victim or witness, or the expected testimony of a party, suspect, victim, or witness; or (7) the credibility, reputation, motives, or character of civilian or military officials of the Department of Defense.
DID MR. GITTENS VIOLATE RULE 3.6 PARAGRAPH B(1) BY REFERRING TO THE CHARACTER, CREDIBILITY, REPUTATION, OR CRIMINAL RECORD OF A WITNESS IN THIS CASE?
Mr. Gittins said his client reported the shootings to superiors and remained in combat for weeks afterward. It was not until an enlisted man, whom Mr. Gittins described as "disgruntled" after being relieved from two jobs, complained to commanders that an investigation began. WASHINGTON TIMES, FEBRUARY 14, 2005.
In light of the literally wild events of yesterday in the Ilario Pantano case, Charles Gittins, attorney for Pantano, sent me this statement through email this morning:
Well, yesterday the Government case sort of “blew up” like the IED’s being used against our Marines and soldiers in Iraq. The evidence yesterday demonstrated the “Marinethatknows” was a perjurer and serial orders violator. He was read his rights, asked to speak to a lawyer, and now is not likely to testify further without being granted immunity from prosecution himself.
FYI — when my client was confronted with the allegation that he unlawfully killed two Iraqi’s, he didn’t ask for a lawyer — he told the truth: that he killed these guys because they were bad guys and he believed they were going to try to attack him and that he told them to “stop” in Arabic before he did it. My client followed the Rules of Engagement exactly and his killing of the Iraqis was justified and lawful under the ROE. FROM WEBSITE ENTITLED EUPHORIC REALITY FOUND AT: http://euphoria.jarkolicious.com/journal/category/2-lt-ilario-pantano/
DID GITTENS VIOLATE RULE 3.6, PARAGRAPH B(7) BY COMMENTING ON THE CREDIBILITY, REPUTATION, MOTIVES AND THE CHARACTER OF MILITARY OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR BRINGING FORTH THESE CHARGES?
Despite intense criticism of the charges by Pantano's supporters, the case has steadily worked its way up the chain of command--suggesting either its merit or the unwillingness of Marine commanders to halt such a sensitive inquiry. "It is sad but true that the military leadership is likely to let a case go to trial even if the facts do not merit it because they want to cover their asses," says Gittins. TIME MAGAZINE ARTICLE MARCH 7, 2005.
Gittins: I think it’s going to have a terrible effect on recruiting and on retention. You know, military people trust, and they’re required to trust, that if they’re put in a position where they have to make those split second decisions that they’ll be backed up by their leaders. Unfortunately that’s more the exception than the rule. The leaders run for cover and save their own careers and the low – it’s usually the lowest guy on the totem pole, who’s also the least culpable, who ends up holding the smelly bag. INTERVIEW WITH CHUCK MUTH ON FEBRUARY 15, 2005
ER: What precedent would something like this have on a wartime military, and military law in general?
CG: There is no precedent; that is what makes the Marine Corps decision to charge Ilario with Premeditated Murder such an abomination. INTERVIEW WITH EUPHORIC REALITY WEBSITE WEBMASTER ON 14 APRIL 2005.
RATHER THAN PLACE A SPIN ON THE APPLICATION OF THIS REGULATION BASED ON THESE STATEMENTS CUT AND PASTED OUT OF THE INTERNET, I WILL ALLOW YOU TO CAN MAKE YOUR OWN JUDGMENT.
SO, WHAT DOES ONE DO WITH SUCH INFORMATION IF THEY BELIEVE THAT A COVERED ATTORNEY HAS VIOLATED THESE RULES?
MCO 5803.1C, PARAGRAPH 5 c. Inquiries into allegations of professional misconduct will normally be held in abeyance until any related criminal investigation or proceeding is complete. However, a pending criminal investigation or proceeding does not bar the initiation or completion of a professional misconduct investigation stemming from the same or related incidents or prevent the JAG from imposing professional disciplinary sanctions as provided for in this instruction.
DO THE OTHER COVERED ATTORNEYS INVOLVED WITH THIS CASE HAVE A DUTY TO REPORT AN ACT OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT?
RULE 8.3 REPORTING PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT a. A covered attorney having knowledge that another covered attorney has committed a violation of these Rules that raises a substantial question as to that covered attorney's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a covered attorney in other respects, shall report such violation in accordance with the procedures set forth in this instruction.
IN MY OPINION, VIOLATIONS OF THESE RULES TEARS AT THE FABRIC OF THE CORPS' ENFORCEMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE. I HOPE THAT A COVERED ATTORNEY, AS I AM NOT ONE, CONSIDERS WHETHER THESE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY HAVE BEEN BROKEN IN THIS CASE BY MR. GITTENS AND MAKES AN APPROPRIATE RESPONSE.
MR. GITTENS HAS STATED ABOUT THIS COURT-MARTIAL:
It'll have an adverse effect on other military members who could find themselves in a similar situation," Gittens said. "If they hesitate - thinking 'holy s---, I'm going to be another Pantano' - only to get killed, who's going to explain that to mom and dad?" JACKSONVILLE DAILY NEWS, APRIL 25, 2005
WHO HAS CAUSED THIS ADVERSE AFFECT? WHO WOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THIS CASE, IF THESE EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENTS WERE NOT MADE? SHOULD STATEMENTS LIKE THIS HAVE BEEN MADE UNDER THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY?
ONCE AGAIN, YOU MAY DECIDE.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THE CAPITAL LETTERS, BUT MY VISION IS POOR AND IT IS THE ONLY WAY FOR THIS OLD MAN TO SEE WHAT HE HAS WRITTEN.
J. ROSS
PUT ON YOUR GLASSES.
Momof2marines, is that you again?