Posted on 12/10/2018 10:18:07 PM PST by ransomnote
SCOTUS was asked to rule on the proper appointment of a judge in the appeal phase. The verdict (guilty, 2 years brig, dishonorable discharge) was not in question before the court.
SCOTUS ruled on a “process” question and returned the appeal back to the CCA FOR READJUDication using the properly appointed members.
Upshot for Ortiz? Delaying the inevitable.
Still, no precedent for appealing a UCMJ verdict to the SCOTUS...BUT...review is established. That’s where future arguments will hang their vagaries on, when a case presents itself.
Brian Cates @drawandstrike 13 hours ago, 8 tweets, 2 min read Read on Twitter Nice of the Daily Caller to bury the lede: the US Attorney in charge of the investigation into the Clinton Foundation just revealed there's a grand jury seated and having a case presented to it.
QOVFEFE™
Obama tried to get Rev Wright to stay quiet ‘by paying him $150,000 during the 2008 campaign’
citizenfreepress.com ^ | 12/11/18 | Kane
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3712238/posts
bwahaha!!
old article about the Moose... always enjoyable..
I believe you gents are talking about two different proceedings. Military Courts-martial proceedings are appealable to the USSC. Military tribunal verdicts are not reviewable by the civilian court system, but the verdict can be reviewed by a 3 judge panel.
I read that and slid right by, saying to myself, “Cletus, everybody knows that!”
Didn’t we?
Two different deals, #445
Yes, the slimy POS said that. Now you know why there is an Electoral College.
Not that you didn’t know.
The Yellow Jersey crowd does not seem to be intimidated by France Police. I think an insane Muslim will not deter them.
If a false flag the government might be trying to persuade other French citizens to consider them in the same class as gun wielding Muhammadan scum instead of patriotic heroes manning the barricades against government oppression. Still, I do not think a Muslim requires too much reason to jihad and I suspect the French people will know the difference.
I was getting that feeling myself as I read into Ortiz.
Cletus, perhaps we are conflating courts martial with military tribunals - two different things - for two different purposes. Similar process to a point, but with far, far less review/appeal authority as the defendants are enemy combatants instead of citizens or lawful enlistees.
That is my gut instinct, Patriot!
Market
A nice thought to take to bed!
So, where do we land? If Brennan is found guilty of violations of UCMJ in a duly convened tribunal, can he appeal that verdict to SCOTUS? I say no. Can he appeal the process (trying a civilian in a military tribunal under UCMJ)? I think so as long as he sues for certiorari/habeas corpus before the tribunal begins.
SCOTUS can hold up such a tribunal for them to render a decision.
Great Oracle Bags. Congratulations on hitting the 100th Edition, a major milestone!!!!!!!!! :)
You might think about binding the Oracle into a hardcopy for future historians to explore and learn.
The Oracle is more than a synopsis of Q drops, it’s a road map to how we FreeQ’s all got to where we are.
Great Job, we need moar.
KEK
Don’t remember it, but I’ve been very busy.
Saw it and thought I’d share it.
Grand jury hearing a case against the Clinton Foundation seems very likely to indict.
“All I want for Christmas...”
“Santa Baby, just slip an indictment under the tree
For me, been an awful good boy
Santa Baby, so hurry down the chimney tonight“
#nohomo
He won't be tried by UCMJ. If Brennan is tried by military tribunal, his sentence can be looked at by 3 judge panel. Not the USSC. UCMJ isn't applicable. LOAC controls this if they do it the way I think they will.
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.