Posted on 10/13/2019 6:31:16 PM PDT by ransomnote
A controversial legal opinion that determined court-martialing military retirees was unconstitutional has been withdrawn.
The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals will reconsider the case of Stephen Begani, a retired Navy chief petty officer who faced a court-martial after leaving the military. The court also withdrew its July 31 opinion on court-martialing retirees, according to an Oct. 1 order.
The decisions were first reported by Zachary Spilman, the lead contributor for the military justice blog CAAFlog. Spilman is a Reserve Marine officer and lawyer who specializes in military justice.
Navy Lt. Daniel Rosinski, who represents Begani, said he had no comment on the decisions. Spilman called the move to withdraw the court's opinion unusual.
"But, of course, this is an unusual case," he added.
Related: New 'Bombshell' Legal Opinion Says Military Retirees Can't Be Court-Martialed
The government asked the court to reconsider its decision on military retirees' courts-martial, Spilman said. That was no surprise, he added, given some of the pushback he and other legal experts posed after the court the initial opinion this summer.
"I wouldn't be surprised if the result of the court's next opinion is the opposite of the July opinion (and upholds retired jurisdiction), considering the issues I identified in my posts," he said.
This case dates back to 2017, when Begani was charged with attempted sexual abuse of a child about a month after retiring from the Navy.
He was arrested after arriving at a home in Japan, where he worked as a contractor on a Marine Corps. Begani had been communicating with who he believed was a 15-year-old girl. Instead, it was an undercover Naval Criminal Investigative Services agent.
As a member of the Fleet Reserve, Begani was subject to the UCMJ.
MORE AT LINK
(Excerpt) Read more at military.com ...
Rather than a political tool which is improper and illegal political charges, political legal actions are federal or Civil court actions. The military should by matter of legal house keeping, establish, precedent that military cases are UCMJ and political attacks remanded to no military courts.
Let 'em recall me back to active duty ... E-7s are getting a helluva lot more pay now than they were in my day, so then, when they re-retire me, I could draw my retirement pay with respect to the new increased pay scale ...
I doubt whether many “deep staters” are still on retired reserve or fleet reserve status.
No need to go through court martial when a civilian court gives him a felony, he automatically loses all benefits including pensions.
For it to really benefit you, youd need 3 years to get the top 3 highest earning wage.
“No need to go through court martial when a civilian court gives him a felony, he automatically loses all benefits including pensions.”
_________________________________
Would that be from the felony causing the individual to no longer able to serve actively in the military?
On one hand it seems creepy and on the other hand it makes perfectly good sense.
I believe its beyond just being able to serve. Lets say you retire as a chief after 25 years. Twenty years later you rob a bank. Jury finds you guilty of felony theft. Bye pension. Lets say you get a miracle and the jury says misdemeanor and 3 years in jail......you keep the pension. Could the military ask for a review? Perhaps and take it away anyway, but most likely wouldnt go into the weeds that far down the chain. An admiral being more of an interest story might catch some attention in same scenario.
Good explanation. Thank you!
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.