Legal Troubles

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Big-E

Banned Member
Well folks, I'm off the boat for good. Not only have I been grounded but a preliminary inquiry" has been called to "investigate Article 88 violations." I was communicating about the locals, not the CINC mind you and I get this notice from JAG of UCMJ violation,

"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. "

I'm on freaking shore leave at the time talking smack about the weird customs over here and bring the Sultan up. Not to go into too much detail a JAG officer caught wind of it. Since when can't we trash talk, in our own company, the locals? It's not like they heard or understood me.

I've been busy preping a defense with my attorney and will proceed on the basis of the 2005 Manual for Courts Martial which bans prosecution of officers for criticism, that is not personally contemptuous, of officials named in Article 88 made in the context of a political discussion. Since the context they charge me with is political I will defend myself on those grounds.

The worst part is I can't come home until this is over... :(
 
Tasman

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Big-E said:
Well folks, I'm off the boat for good. Not only have I been grounded but a preliminary inquiry" has been called to "investigate Article 88 violations." I was communicating about the locals, not the CINC mind you and I get this notice from JAG of UCMJ violation,

"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. "

I'm on freaking shore leave at the time talking smack about the weird customs over here and bring the Sultan up. Not to go into too much detail a JAG officer caught wind of it. Since when can't we trash talk, in our own company, the locals? It's not like they heard or understood me.

I've been busy preping a defense with my attorney and will proceed on the basis of the 2005 Manual for Courts Martial which bans prosecution of officers for criticism, that is not personally contemptuous, of officials named in Article 88 made in the context of a political discussion. Since the context they charge me with is political I will defend myself on those grounds.

The worst part is I can't come home until this is over... :(
Click to expand...
I hope sanity prevails and you get cleared quickly.

Good luck.

Tas
 
W

weasel1962

New Member
Re:

A JAG officer is unlikely to dig into this (they're not that free). If it was just a JAG officer, I'd wouldn't worry too much. Heck, if I'm the JAG CO, I'd think this JAG officer has too much free time if he brings this up.

The bigger worry is if it comes from the top... then you got a bigger problem. That normally signals they want to make an example or someone upstairs is really pissed.

There's probably more to the case from what I'm reading...
 
P

performance

New Member
weasel1962 said:
A JAG officer is unlikely to dig into this (they're not that free). If it was just a JAG officer, I'd wouldn't worry too much. Heck, if I'm the JAG CO, I'd think this JAG officer has too much free time if he brings this up.

The bigger worry is if it comes from the top... then you got a bigger problem. That normally signals they want to make an example or someone upstairs is really pissed.

There's probably more to the case from what I'm reading...
Click to expand...
Sounds like it. Jag officer bringing up an article 88? He has a shitload of influence for a JAG.
 
M

metro

New Member
Big-E said:
Well folks, I'm off the boat for good. Not only have I been grounded but a preliminary inquiry" has been called to "investigate Article 88 violations." I was communicating about the locals, not the CINC mind you and I get this notice from JAG of UCMJ violation,

"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. "

I'm on freaking shore leave at the time talking smack about the weird customs over here and bring the Sultan up. Not to go into too much detail a JAG officer caught wind of it. Since when can't we trash talk, in our own company, the locals? It's not like they heard or understood me.

I've been busy preping a defense with my attorney and will proceed on the basis of the 2005 Manual for Courts Martial which bans prosecution of officers for criticism, that is not personally contemptuous, of officials named in Article 88 made in the context of a political discussion. Since the context they charge me with is political I will defend myself on those grounds.

The worst part is I can't come home until this is over... :(
Click to expand...
Article 101: Go to the media! They'd love to hear this, but I'm not sure our leaders would want to have to answer questions abour ir on, "THE O'Reilly Factor." Let them our Go'vt explain how our territory is actully considered a part of another country.
Regardless, does the person have something he thinks you said in writing? Let whoever? Put in writing as to ecactly what you said that's "contemptious" (obviously the person didn't understand you) about the person. Then google the person, and find out what you could have said which, would redefine "contemptious."

Take it to their embassy here and let them know a person who brought this up has a problem with their country. The person just wants to get a lot about everyone out into the media. "Please ask that quick action is taken to have this dropped, so nobody's reputation is damaged."

That might be the easiest way to get it stopped!

Crazy. God Luck!
 
W

weasel1962

New Member
Re:

Going to the media is a perfect way to get a discharge... Just a question of whether its going to be honorable or not.

There's probably a standing order about not talking to the press. Going to the press probably means an art 92 violation. Any false statement will get hit with a art 107 or 117violation. They could also hit you with an Art 133 violation (as in the case of Lt Watada). If all else fails, art 134 is broad enough to claim that one is bringing the service into disrepute and promoting ill discipline.
 
Last edited:
C

contedicavour

New Member
My oh my it does change from the picture you get of JAG by watching the TV series with the sexy USMC lieutenant colonel and the jolly good fellow ex F14 pilot ...

Good luck...

cheers
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I'm no lawyer, but reading Article 88, unless the officer was talking about a US official as mentioned here... http://www.ucmj.us/uniform-code-of-...shtml#888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS

"888. ARTICLE 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. "

And in in the case of a Governor or legislature of a State, Territory, Commonwealth or possession, was also in the State, Territory, Commonwealth or possession at the time, then Article 88 wouldn't seem to apply. So if the talk was strictly just about the locals while on shore leave during a deployment... I wouldn't think it would actually get a far as a Court Martial. I do have the impression that a preliminary inquiry is similar to a civilian grand jury investigation, where the initial facts are examined to determine whether there is sufficient evidence, etc to warrant an indictment.

You weren't in uniform on the shore leave when this happened, were you?:unknown

Hopefully it doesn't lead into a court martial. If it does, best of luck.
 
M

mic of orion

New Member
Big-E said:
Well folks, I'm off the boat for good. Not only have I been grounded but a preliminary inquiry" has been called to "investigate Article 88 violations." I was communicating about the locals, not the CINC mind you and I get this notice from JAG of UCMJ violation,

"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. "

I'm on freaking shore leave at the time talking smack about the weird customs over here and bring the Sultan up. Not to go into too much detail a JAG officer caught wind of it. Since when can't we trash talk, in our own company, the locals? It's not like they heard or understood me.

I've been busy preping a defense with my attorney and will proceed on the basis of the 2005 Manual for Courts Martial which bans prosecution of officers for criticism, that is not personally contemptuous, of officials named in Article 88 made in the context of a political discussion. Since the context they charge me with is political I will defend myself on those grounds.

The worst part is I can't come home until this is over... :(
Click to expand...

I feel sorry for you, but there is similar rule in UK, military can;t and shall not criticize government, interfere in government affairs and have any comments on government policies.

A C&C of UK Armed forces recently criticized Blair and his Iraq adventure, pointing out what most of us are saying for years, but he was almost dismissed, perhaps he was at later stage when all this hu-ha calmed down, none the less, it is something military is not allowed to do, it has to do with loyalty and issue of military none interferences in to political life of democratic country otherwise we might end up with military dictatorship, Turkey comes to mind in 70's and 80's even now where military calls all the shots.

That said, you are totally right to express your mind, after all you have hart and brain, and you have your mind, if you don't agree with the politics of current US adminstration, perhaps you saying something would show not all military personal blindly follow one tune.

I fear you have uphill struggle and even though I am not familiar with the US legal system especially military justice (if there is such thing in US, I am not holding my breath) I wish you all the best in your upcoming court case. Hope you win, I only wonder, whether it was wise to post your situation here on forums, I feel it can be used as a proof in courts, best way of making sure they do not come across your posts is to post in public internet cafe bars, if you did post this from your home PC, one good advice, find good Hard Drive cleaner which will completely erase your hard drive of any files and format your hard drive as soon as you can, of course make sure you backed your data, as you know courts can confiscate your computer under rules of evidence and subpoena warrant, again I am not a lawyer and I am pretty certain talking to American Civil Liberties Union might give you more idea where you stand, they'll certainly advise you of same that I just did, and might even ask for the court transcripts of your court case as well as request for charges to made public, so the charges brought against you can be overruled in case you loose the case in the military court, in any case I fear your military career might be at the end, Military has (especially in US) tradition of hardline attitude, any liberal tendencies (liberal especially) are dealt with with in best described quango procedures.

I which you good luck what ever you decide to do, keep us informed of your case, I am interested to find how you got on.
 
W

weasel1962

New Member
Re:

Todjaeger said:
I'm no lawyer, but reading Article 88, unless the officer was talking about a US official as mentioned here...... So if the talk was strictly just about the locals while on shore leave during a deployment... I wouldn't think it would actually get a far as a Court Martial. I do have the impression that a preliminary inquiry is similar to a civilian grand jury investigation, where the initial facts are examined to determine whether there is sufficient evidence, etc to warrant an indictment.

You weren't in uniform on the shore leave when this happened, were you?:unknown

Hopefully it doesn't lead into a court martial. If it does, best of luck.
Click to expand...
The problem is once charges are laid, the onus falls on the defence to prove that the words were not used in the context of a US official. Whilst one may claim that one was talking about the locals, proving it might require a little more persuasion than a simple declaration of dual application.

If it was really a private context, applying article 88 does appear to be making a mountain out of a molehill. Its not like anyone is participating in an anti-war demonstration of any kind which should definitely be considered far worse. I think that's how I would fight the charges.

The context in which the charges are based appears to be critical if a prosecution of art 88 is to be successful. If the setting was meant to be a private context (even if overheard by someone not intended), art 88 would logically fail (and make the prosecution look stupid at the same time). Notwithstanding that an officer is "present" in the context of art 88, shore leave (even if in uniform) lends credence.

However, I think the context in Big-E's case may not be as simple as the above. The setting is very likely demonstrably non-private otherwise JAG would have thrown it out the window in the first instance.
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
weasel1962 said:
The problem is once charges are laid, the onus falls on the defence to prove that the words were not used in the context of a US official. Whilst one may claim that one was talking about the locals, proving it might require a little more persuasion than a simple declaration of dual application.

If it was really a private context, applying article 88 does appear to be making a mountain out of a molehill. Its not like anyone is participating in an anti-war demonstration of any kind which should definitely be considered far worse. I think that's how I would fight the charges.

The context in which the charges are based appears to be critical if a prosecution of art 88 is to be successful. If the setting was meant to be a private context (even if overheard by someone not intended), art 88 would logically fail (and make the prosecution look stupid at the same time). Notwithstanding that an officer is "present" in the context of art 88, shore leave (even if in uniform) lends credence.

However, I think the context in Big-E's case may not be as simple as the above. The setting is very likely demonstrably non-private otherwise JAG would have thrown it out the window in the first instance.
Click to expand...
I'd start of first by suggesting Big-E check with his lawyer before providing any more details regarding the case/incident/etc.

Having said that, here are some of my thoughts. What was said is key of course, to determine the nature of the complaint. For example was it something like as follows, "I had docking in any port in New Persia on the Persian Gulf, you can never buy an ice-cold Bud and it's as hot as an oven." If this is what the exchange was like I'd think the JAG was being foolish and wasteful, since there isn't anything relevant to select members of the Executive branch, the collective legislative bodies, or state executive and/or legislative branches.

On the other hand, if by way of example it looked like this... "I hate coming into port in New Persia, our Muppet King George II and Darth Cheney were so stupid getting us involved over here... Then I'd imagine it's easy to see where a contempteous words/speech charge could come from.

Again, I recommend against any additional information being provided without consulting with a lawyer, no sense in making a problem even larger.

Also, for everybody else, I was using the two italicized lines to indicate possible speech, not as an indication of political thoughts or an invitation to start a political discussion. If anyone wants to do something like that, go here --> http://www.worldaffairstalk.com/forums/

Another key thing is what sort of evidence is available about what was said? Is there a recording, or is it the potentially sketchy recollections some naval officers might have of a conversation in a bar, late at night over a pitcher of beer from early last year...

I'm also interested in seeing how this turns out, particularly since at least in the normal civilian US system, there is to be a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Granted, there are whole parts of the country that seem to operate more on the "guilty until proven innocent" basis...

-Regards
 
E

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Big-E said:
Well folks, I'm off the boat for good. Not only have I been grounded but a preliminary inquiry" has been called to "investigate Article 88 violations." I was communicating about the locals, not the CINC mind you and I get this notice from JAG of UCMJ violation,

"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. "

I'm on freaking shore leave at the time talking smack about the weird customs over here and bring the Sultan up. Not to go into too much detail a JAG officer caught wind of it. Since when can't we trash talk, in our own company, the locals? It's not like they heard or understood me.

I've been busy preping a defense with my attorney and will proceed on the basis of the 2005 Manual for Courts Martial which bans prosecution of officers for criticism, that is not personally contemptuous, of officials named in Article 88 made in the context of a political discussion. Since the context they charge me with is political I will defend myself on those grounds.

The worst part is I can't come home until this is over... :(
Click to expand...
Come on Big E - I find it hard to believe that they would even waste their time with this especially during a time of war where emotions are running high. If this did happen like you stated I could possibly see you getting a reprimand and told that you are officer and start acting like one and be a pillar/set the example for your lower enlisted ranks to follow, this - I cannot see them wasting their time.:rolleyes:
 
L

LancerMc

New Member
Sounds like a witch hunt, or someone having nothing to at their job. It's very disappointing for the JAG office to seek such charges over a comment about a foreign location and its leadership. It's not like you don't hear similar comments occasionally on CNN or Fox News. If the military pressed charges every time a soldiers said an ill word about some location or person in country where U.S. soldiers are stationed you would probably have a significant amount of our forces facing similar charges.

Good luck, and I hope you beat this nonsense
 
R

rickusn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
LOL

Once again this guy has the whole board bamboozled.

Hes addicted to and thrives on your outrageous fawning and sympathy.

ROTFLMAO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top