Posted on 08/28/2009 8:21:55 PM PDT by rxsid
You're describing a special court-martial. It's one of the three kinds of courts-martial, with the other two named summary and general. Depending on the seriousness of the infraction or UCMJ violation, the accused will face either a summary court-martial for the least serious offenses, a special court-martial for moderate offenses and a General court-martial for the most serious offenses. If an officer is facing any offense that either dismissal or confinement may be an appropriate outcome, then a general court-martial is what must be convened. That's not necessarily the case for an enlisted man, who may be confined (up to 12 months) or discharged (BCD not dishonorable) by a special court-martial.
The military justice system is absolutely an adversarial system. I'm not sure if you misheard, or your memory has migrated a little since the early 70's. I can't imagine anyone describing a court-martial as anything other than adversarial. Expecting a summary court-martial (which more closely resembles an administrative hearing), there's a defense, a prosecution and a judge (or a panel of judges). Certainly, there are some difference between a civilian court and a court-martial, many of them significant, but the basic principles still apply - right to present a defense, call and cross-exam witness, present evidence, right to appeal etc., etc.
First, you presume that this good doctor won't actually report for duty. I'm not entirely sure that she won't. If she doesn't, her CO will initiate a preliminary investigation, which would be followed immediately by something called an Article 32 hearing, which somewhat resembles a civilian grand jury, with a difference being Capt. Rhodes would be allowed to present a defense, and generally the defense is given great latitude in exploring their case.
Having said that, there's no military judge that is going entertain a "the President isn't eligible to be President" defense, let alone grant a discovery motion for Obama's personal birth records; not in the Article 32 hearing, and not at trial either. Would that become an issue for appeal? Sure. Would that appeal go anywhere? Probably not, but it's not a foregone conclusion.
Incidentally, I'm not sure what you're asking with respect to mixing of federal and local jurisdiction. If you're asking about the mechanism for arrest if the Captain doesn't report, it's the same for any AWOL service member who's located in and amongst the civilian population - an arrest warrant will be issued by a civilian authority, it will be executed by the local civilian police who would hold the Captain for collection/transfer by the appropriate military authorities.
Hope that helps.
You see, you STILL don’t get that he very likely wasn’t a British Citizen..so yes, you are still beginning..unless you have already found that out and aren’t disclosing it.
Do the research ..or don’t do it. If you want to be accurate DO IT..and you will discover what I did . I have posted about this ad nausem for weeks..and have no desire to continue spelling it all out.
I have made you aware of the issue.
Do your own research.
Any lawyer who is pulling in clients on the basis that Obama was a UK citizen and so not an NBC..... who does not research this ...is bordering on malpractice.
Here’s a question for you.
If someone is being court martialed for an offense unrelated to this issue..wouldn’t that person have standing to question Obama’s ability to court martial him/her?
Confusing. We're you hearing evidence just to discharge (involuntary separation) the service member stemming from his civilian conviction, or was he charged with an UCMJ violation relating to his civilian conviction - like perhaps a violation of Article 86.
You mean if a service member was facing a court-martial for battery or theft at the base exchange, could he/she argue that the court-martial wasn't "legal" because Barry might not be Constitutionally eligible for the office?
Not in my estimation. The President is virtually never the convening authority in a court-martial, although - as CIC - it's certainly his prerogative to convene a court-martial. It's usually some much lessor officer. My estimation of that argument going anywhere, is zip. But, a creative question, nonetheless.
Does the President have to sign off in any way on a court martial?
What if the court martial is related to something Obama signed off on as a change in law.
For example, if there was something similar to this:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-86629295.html
Executive Order 13262—amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States.
This concept would be similar to what criminals would likely try in a regular court system(if they have an aggressive lawyer) for a law signed by Obama.
No. I think the last time a President actually convened a court-martial was back the late 19th century. Most are convened by officer well below concerned secretary.
However, the President is required to approve some sentences, specifically capital cases. You may remember a case last year where Bush had to approve the execution of a Ft. Bragg soldier convicted of a spree killing. It's rare as it's the first military execution approved since the '70s. I think it would take a case of that substance for any judge, or appellate court to even think about entertaining such a challenge to the President's legitimacy.
Wouldn't that be true of any person affected by any law Obama has signed since coming into office - and there's been plenty?
We can imagine all kinds of theoretical circumstances where someone might be personally affected by a piece of Obama-signed legislation. Would that give them "standing" to challenge Obama's legitimacy as President. I think it probably would, but as I've said before, my opinion on the matter doesn't mean squat. You'd have to find a jurist who's willing to listen to that argument. To date, that jurist has made himself very scarce.
A constitutional scholar whom I respect immensely, but disagree with passionately politically - Jonathan Turley - has made similar comments. He believes that some of these cases shouldn't have been rejected on standing, and should have been heard on the merits. Of course, he's convinced that they'll be rejected on the merits. But, be that as it may, he still believes a least a couple - including Cooke's - should have been fully litigated.
You have zero proof that his parents were not legally married. Otherwise, I would assume if you did...you would offer it up as help to attorney's Donofrio and/or Apuzzo (forget about me, this thread or even FR in general). Have you done that? I accept that you could have, and that they simply haven't divulged the info in 'cyperspace.' But I kinda doubt it.
All you offer up is that he "very likely" wasn't British at birth.
Again, what's your advice on a game plan...or have you one?
Are you one of those that claim that Obama Sr never married Kezia? That is the only way you can possibly believe that the marriage in Hawaii was legal.
Go to Apuzzo’s site and see if he is claiming that Obama was a UK citizen. What he using for that claim..if he is making that claim.
Don’t rely on people with an agenda for info. Do your own research.
the reason I hedge my comments is because UK citizenship law is extremely complex....all signs so far point to him not being a UK citizen..unless you prove that SR was domiciled in Hawaii and a certain part of the law is applicable - IMO, that section doesn’t apply and Sr was never domiciled in Hawaii.
Oh, and not only does Apuzzo claim Barry was born a British subject...but is currently a British citizenship! I'm not 100% convinced yet, that the latter is the case due to the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963. However, the amended act may have "overturned" the previous relevant parts.
It is clear that we disagree on this.
Have you bothered to check into Luo tribal custom?
Using the facts as we know them at this time..he very likely is not a US citizen.
now go ask Apuzzo,
Some poster came on to this site claiming this guy has 20 years practicing immigration law. If that is Apuzzo’s claim, why does he not list it with Martindale-Hubbell or Justia.com?
Given the facts as we know them at this time, what is the citation of the law he is using to get around the fact that the marriage to Ann was Void Ab Initio.
A marriage Void Ab Initio can be attacked collaterally even after both parties are dead. Kezia is still alive. How is he going to prove that she is a liar when she says they were married?
oops, that is suppose to read not likely a UK citizen.
Assuming that the marriage did a) take place in Maui and b) Sr. was still legally married to his first wife in Kenya:
"Polygamy laws do not apply to Aliens who are temporarily visiting the United States, provided that polygamy is lawful in their country of origin."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Bigamy+%28in+Civil+Law%29
As we know, Sr. wasn't permanently domiciled here.
Can you prove that Stanley had no knowledge of the first wife (thus making it Bigamy)?
I see the pattern as well. I usually ignore it. But when I see so many of my fellow FReepers falling for their “expertise”, I feel I have to say something.
I notice he/she is still posting on this thread. I guess ODH believes if he/she ignores my calling out his lie, then it really didn’t happen.
If someone pointed out an obvious lie made by me or if I posted some wrong info on a thread, I would acknowledge it and apologize.
Different size egos I guess.
There's the difference between you and I. You suffer fools, I don't.
Did you lie on this thread?
Did you run away to bed when I pointed the lie out to you and everyone?
Have you admitted you lied?
Here are the correct answers (because you refuse to own up: YES, YES, AND NO.
The evidence is right here on this thread. First few pages.
In black and white.
Case closed.
as I said, you are just at the beginning...Keep researching.
Test Apuzzo’s research skills. Ask him if the marriage to Ann in Hawaii was valid contract in Kenya, the US, or the UK.
The answer is NO.
Here is a hint. Kenya didn’t recognize a mix of customary and statutory marriages.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.