New military cert petition filed
A new military cert petition now shows up on the Supremes’ docket: Ehlers v. United States, No. 10-390. It’s odd, though. The Supremes don’t appear to actually have cert jurisdiction over the case. CAAF denied Sgt Ehlers’ petition for review on 23 April. 69 M.J. 89. CAAF then denied Sgt Ehlers’ reconsideration petition on 23 June 2010. 69 M.J. 190. That equals no cert jurisdiction.
Sgt Ehlers is represented both on appeal and for cert purposes by a civilian counsel–Michael D.J. Eisenberg. I’ll try to get a copy of the cert petition.
Here’s a link to NMCCA’s unpublished opinion in the case.
If you want to know the truth about my son case and what the military has done to him and his family, you might want to visit my daughter-in-law’s blog. The website is
http://www.militaryinjustices.blogspot.com.
My understanding is that Eisenberg made his debut in military matters in U.S. v. Sanchez del Carpio, which involved 2 rape convictions (different victims). He argued in part that his client did not receive a fair trial because officer members could not be fair.
I wonder… is Ehlers justified in asking for a refund?
One wonders if there is any family relationship to Roland and Walter Ehlers.
Roland and Walter were brothers who landed on Omaha Beach, 6 June 1944. Roland, the older brother, was killed on the beach. Walter, in another unit, did not learn of his brother’s demise for several days. He was awarded the Medal of Honor for actions in Normandy shortly after D-Day.
No relationship.
It looks like he was a contractor at NMCCA during the dark days:
http://www.eisenberg-lawoffice.com/AttorneyProfile.html
Mrs. Ehlers, it’s hard to decipher from the blog whether this alleged injustice was perpetrated by the military, or by the witnesses who testified against your son.
Without credible, exculpatory evidence, what’s a prosecutor to do? Should he investigate the matter, or simply take that evidence at face value – which, if not credible, is nothing.
A review of the case, and then of that blog (particularly the entry “Revenge is sweet…”), is quite upsetting. A 4 year old girl was sexually molested while her father was on deployment and her mother pregnant. All because they lived next door and were trusting of their neighbor, a SGT in the USMC.
And yet, despite all of this, that family apparently continues to be hounded to duty station after duty station with seemingly spurious complaints and allegations by relatives of the man who was found guilty of doing horrific things to their child. The child (now 12) even remains a focus of derision, as evidenced by this passage:
“I’ve also seen that the alleged victim, age 12 this year and possibly instructed by her mother, recently removed all pictures of her posing with other men and their families from her public myspace page (which by the way, now reads that she is 23 years old-apparently she is aging quite rapidly).”
I can understand an unwillingness to believe a loved one could do such a thing. But it makes it no less distasteful.
I find it interesting that you believe the girl’s family. If you read the blog carefully, you would notice that the little girl father comment perjury and made false official statement. We have proof that he never took is daughter to the emergency room. If he had done so, this investigation would have been handled quite differently.
What it all comes down to, an ex-wife getting with people is can malinpulate into making false accusations and destroy a marine’s life.
I believe it because he stands convicted of the offense.
If his appeal merits success, then I wish it for him. But, until such an occurence, I stand by my belief that the true victim in this matter is still just a little girl.
W,
I want the world to know what this family has done and what the United States Marine Corps allowed them to get away with. You say distasteful, I say everyone is entitled to their opinion-even if it’s wrong.
You have not lived this for the last 3 years, I have. I have documentation of the child’s father, a RP2 in the Navy, lying under oath at court and on the stand as to what really happened the night he allegedly took his child to the hospital. I contacted the Beaufort Naval Hospital and receieved a response stating that the family was never there. Also the Family Advocacy Program under DoDD 6400.1 was never contacted as well as the Department of Social Services. Both require mandatory reporting.
I also have documentation from a witness that the mother, Stacey, told her daughter to blame my husband. My husband’s ex-wife, Gloria, was also accused of witnessing the alleged assault by the child, yet when Gloria testified at court she stated that she never witnessed anything and that the child was lying.
Special Agent Muelenberg testified that he filled in all the information on the drawing that was submitted into evidence against Edwin. This would be considered tampering with evidence, would it not?
Also Special Agent Muelenberg stated that Edwin failed his polygraph on May 25, 2005-yet when I contacted NCIS Headquarters (numerous times) they stated that they are unable to locate the polygraph band to this day this has never turned up. We paid for him to have an independant polygraph set up by LtCol Colby Vokey, whom I had a 2 hour conversation with in December 2007. Guess what? Edwin passed all 4 polygraphs given. He was not lying. I did not need a polygraph to tell me that he is innocent.
The child in question, changed her story numerous times on video and also at court. The alleged victim, even told the military judge that she could not remember anything. Does this sound like a child tramatized by my huband? A child who admitted on video to being coached and thanking the NCIS agent for telling her what he (meaning Edwin) did to her? I think not.
This child has spent the last 3 years with her father, and if the facts are right, he is the one who did this to her back then and continued to do so until she was out of his age range.
Our 4 year old son believes my husband is dead because he does not remember him. He only has a picture to remember his father. He makes balloon people and says that this is his daddy.
Chew on this and tell me how distasteful you think this is. Which child is tramatized. I’m hoping that the only taste your get is disgust for the lies this family told and that the father is continuing on with their happy family unit.
As far as my blog, I never forced you to read it. I don’t need to lie to hide anything. The Skovranko’s have lots to hide and lots of reasons to lie.
All,
I have reviewed many of your comments. They are disappointing.
I respect that what Mr. Ehlers has been convicted of happens to be very unpopular in the civilian world and a taboo in the military. But I happen to not only take pride in my work but also take on unpopular cases that many in the legal community and JAG really don’t want to discuss let alone pursue a zealous defense. Perhaps if you actually took the time to review the legal issues presented along with facts involved then you would apologize for your caustic comments.
However, I am here for the client not you.
Mr. Eisenberg:
When taking pride in your work, did you take the time to read Article 67a(a)(2) (10 U.S.C. 867a(a)(2)? This section states, “The Supreme Court may not review by writ of certiorari under this section any action of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in refusing to grant a petition for review.” Most competent attorneys would recognize this clear jurisdictional bar to your Supreme Court petition.
Once you’ve read this section, please kindly refund the Ehlers family their money.
Mike,
I agree. Thank you. The truth will come out and when it does, lots of people will eat their words.
OK, I’ll bite. Is the Supreme Court bound by Article 67a? I realize that an Article 1 court’s Jx might be statutory, but that can’t be so with SCOTUS, can it?
The short answer is yes, the Supreme Court is bound by Article 67a.
Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution limits the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction (as opposed to its original jurisdiction) to those case permitted by “Regulation” of Congress. Article 67a is a statute passed by Congress that limits the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction in military justice cases. It also cross references to 28 U.S.C. 1259, which echos the limitation.
There has been a proposal called the Equal Justice for our Military Act (EJMA) floating around for awhile that would change this, allowing cert. petitions even when CAAF denied review, but I don’t think it ever left committee.
Thanks. Very helpful.
I did take the time (I believe it was 2 seconds) to realize that there is no jurisdiction for a cert petition where CAAF denies review.
Oh, and to be clear, I’m not opining on whether the accused is in fact guilty of the offenses of which he was convicted. I don’t see an issue that, if jurisdiction existed, would have any chance of securing Supreme Court review, but that’s different from opining on innocence or guilt. The main, and obvious, point is that all of this is moot because the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ.
Mr. Eisenberg:
There are many folks who post on the CAAFlog who take on “unpopular” cases; just as there are many JAG defense counsel who mount very credible and zealous defenses [e.g., MAJ John Gregory in the SSG Martinez fragging case]; and there are many here who set the highest standards as advocates for the Government.
I suspect that the collective concern here is that in filing a cert petition where there is clearly no SCOTUS jurisdiction reflects poorly on military justice practitioners in general.
I have read the cert petition and NMC CCA’s opinion – perhaps you can explain to us the how or why a Petition for a New Trial was done pro se, versus by retained counsel? They are complicated enough for experienced military practitioners considering the procedural and legal hurdles that exist – not to mention the fact that when a client does so pro se while being represented by retained counsel, the “appearance” of a lack of merit certainly exists.
Regardless of which side of the aisle the lawyers on this blog happen to sit on in any given case, none of us likes to lose. But sometimes when we do the better course of action for our client is to let a new pair of eyes review the file and proceed accordingly.
I make no judgment on the guilt or innocence of your client – there are plenty of false confessions and wrongful convictions out there as precedent. But, if there are objective “facts” such as are claimed which support the issues raised, with due respect, a cert petition is not the place to assert such.
What is truly unsettling about this case to me is that the appellate counsel hired by the family cannot find his ass with both hands. If he took money to file that dreck without even an argument that it was jurisdictionlly permitted, he is either completely uincompetent or a crook. I’ll leave it to those reading the PEtition to guess which . . . . No military justice training or experience equals IAC. That Petition is a perfect example.
The Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2010, H.R. 569 did leave the House Judiciary Committee over the summer via a favorable report to the full House and has been placed upon the Union Calendar as item no. 312. To view the House Judiciary report go here.
It is my understanding that the full House will take up H.R. 569 in a floor debate and vote on it in the lame duck session after the November mid-term election. FYI, in the last Congress a similar bill (H.R. 3174 – 110th Congress) was passed by the House under the suspension calendar (two-thirds of the House approved it by voice vote) but the Senate failed to act in the waning days of the 110th Congress.