First Sir Cloudesley gets his own Facebook page. Then JO’C names him CAAFlog’s Most Valuable Commentator. Now he’s quoted in a law review article. I’m not kidding. Look at footnote 88 in Major Tyesha E. Lowery’s new Army Lawyer article, The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same: Has the Scope of Military Appellate Courts’ Jurisdiction Really Changed since Clinton v. Goldsmith?, Army Law., March 2009, at 49, 54.

MAJ Lowery writes, “There is nothing precluding a former servicemember whose case is final under Article 76 from petitioning a court of criminal appeals for extraordinary relief.” In support, she offers this footnote: “Posting of Cloudseley Shovell to CAAFlog, (June 23, 2008, 14:00 EDT) (Denedo ‘opens the doors of the CCAs to all manner of extremely stale claims, because now CCAs have continuing jurisdiction over all cases meeting the Art. 66(b) threshold, no matter how old, no matter how thoroughly reviewed, and no matter how final. All you need is an appellant who is still alive.’).”

[Alas, the article misspells the good admiral’s name.]

14 Responses to “The cult of Sir Cloudesley Shovell”

  1. H Lime says:

    Sir Cloudesley: ready yourself for a deluge of Facebook friend requests. If CAAFlog only knew the true extent of your cult’s influence. Muahahah.

  2. Anonymous says:

    The door’s open to extremely stale / stupid / whatever petitions because it’s a COURT. It doesn’t mean the judges are going to act.

  3. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    I find it ironic (or maybe just funny, I can never use that word correctly) that Sir C. S. is quoted for the “alive appellant” standard.

  4. Anonymous says:

    And the answer to whether CAAF understands Clinton v. Goldsmith is an emphatic YES. Cited by the majority in Denedo, and to my knowledge CAAF has not tried to enjoin the President from dropping someone from the rolls.

  5. Phil Cave says:

    Yes, Mike, isn’t it ironic that a pseudonym from a dead person who once was alive and who died in a shipwreck is now cited for a legal proposition.
    And he was British no less.

  6. John O'Connor says:

    My affinity for Sir Cloudesley notwithstanding, it’s emblematic of military controlled journals that you would cite to a pseudonymous blogger as authority for what would be allowed under a statute or case holding. Military law journals way too often insist on over-citation, as if the author is not allowed to have any ideas unless someone else had them first.

  7. Toussaint-Guillaume Picquet de la Motte says:

    I will only be impressed if he is cited as authority in an argument at CAAF.

    Apres moi, le deluge!

  8. Anonymous says:

    Id. id. id. id. id. id. Id. id. id. id. id. id. Id. id. id. id. id. id. Id. id. id. id. id. id. Id. id. id. id. id. id. Id. id. id. id. id. id. Id. id. id. id. id. id. Id. id. id. id. id. id. Id. id. id. id. id. id. Id. id. id. id. id. id. Id. id. id. id. id. id. Id. id. id. id. id. id. (see Id.) Id. id. id. id. id. id. Id. id. id. id. id. id. Id. id. id. id. id. id. Clinton v. Goldsmith Id. id. id. id. id. id.Id. id. id. id. id. id. CAAFlog Id. id. id. id. id. id. Id. id. id. id. id. id. Denedo Id. id. id. id. id. id.

    where do I submit the above, well-researched article for publication?

  9. Anonymous says:

    The only thing “new” is the pub date. This scholarship is about 7 months beyond relevant. I’m sure this is no fault of the author. What’s the typical lag time (for this journal or any other military-specific j’s) between submission and publication?

  10. John O'Connor says:

    For regular law reviews, the lag can be 10 months. The best time to submit is around march, and that will get you in Issue 1 or 2 of the next year’s volume. That usually has publication coming out very late in the year or early the next year.

  11. Cloudesley Shovell says:

    Only now shall my true power be revealed . . .

    I’ve heard it said that all publicity is good publicity, as long as they spell your name right. Oh well. If you wreck your flagship onto the Isles of Scilly, I guess you cannot expect everything to go your way.

    Yrs most humbly, etc.,

  12. Truman Capote says:

    15 Minutes

  13. Andy Warhol says:

    Truman Capote, you are a plagiarist.

    It was I who coined the phrase “15 minutes of fame.” Not you.

    We now have a trifecta of the dead.

  14. Anonymous says:

    And, Which Way Is the Wind Blowing?

    SCOTUS in its Shinseki v. Sanders decision of 21 April, used some interesting language vis-a-vis Denedo’s arguments:

    It is the Veterans Court, not the Federal Circuit, that sees sufficient case-specific raw material in veterans’ cases to enable it to make empirically based, nonbinding gener-alizations about “natural effects.” And the Veterans Court, which has exclusive jurisdiction over these cases, is likely better able than is the Federal Circuit to exercise aninformed judgment as to how often veterans are harmed by which kinds of notice errors. Cf. United States v. Hag-gar Apparel Co., 526 U. S. 380, 394 (1999) (Article I court’sspecial “expertise . . . guides it in making complex determinations in a specialized area of the law”).

    Slip Opn, 14-15