NBM3 reports here on his blog that the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy today amended and favorably reported on H.R. 569, the Equal Justice for Our Military Act, whose original text is available here.  NBM3 reports that the subcommittee adopted three amendments, two concerning when the bill takes effect and one to authorize SCOTUS to adopt a deadline for the filing of a cert petition where CAAF has denied a supp or petition for extraordinary relief.  NBM# also reports that the subcommittee’s vote in favor of the bill as amended was unanimous.

2 Responses to “Bill to expand SCOTUS cert jurisdiction over military justice cases amended and favorably reported out of House subcommittee”

  1. MJW1 says:

    Genius marketing. With a name like that, who could be against it? If it was called the “Norbert Basil Maclean III I want another round of appeals in an attempt to overturn my guilty plea general court-martial conviction, because Ii can’t work as an attorney in the US with this conviction, while I hang out in Australia and maintain contacts on the Hill Act” it probably would not been unanimous.

  2. Norbert Basil MacLean III says:


    First, if HR 569 is enacted it will not be retroactive. Thus it won’t apply to my case. When I first proposed the legislation back in 2004 it was to provide “future” sailors, soldiers, marines, airmen/women and guardsmen/women the opportunity to petition SCOTUS. My original letter in 2004, which proposed the legislation, to the House Armed Services Committee never asked for it to be retroactive nor for it to apply to my individual case.

    Second, as to your reference to Australia: I happen to be fifth generation Australian on my mother’s side — I am an Australian citizen as well as an American citizen. I moved home to Sydney in 2007 not because of any lack of employment in the United States due to the court-martial conviction but because I wanted to spend time with my Aussie side of the family. I’ve also wanted to get in touch with my Aussie heritage which I’m very proud of. On a more personal note: My mum died of cancer when I was nine and I wanted to get to know — and spend time with — her brothers (my uncles) in Australia. As I’ve gotten older I’ve had an increasing need to try to know my mum (since she died at an early age) through her sibblings and where she grew-up.

    Third, I’d be happy to debate HR 569 with you on the merits. I have a 202 area code telephone number in the States which will forward to Australia via Skype. Feel free to email me at norb.maclean@yahoo.com.au and I will email you back with my telephone number.

    Lastly, I don’t want any American citizen (or legal resident) who serves the great country of the United States of America in uniform to be denied an opportunity to petition the nation’s highest court. Mate, it is rather simple — it is about a fair go and having full procedural due process for those that serve in our Armed Forces. That’s why I have fought so hard to get this legislation passed. My life is now in Australia but I’m also still an American — enactment of HR 569 won’t affect me or my case. But if SCOTUS’s door can be opened for future servicemembers then all these struggles over the years have been well worth it.