Last Wednesday, CAAF denied a motion to reconsider its denial of Denedo’s motion to file his writ appeal out of time.

Also last Wednesday, CAAF denied a second government motion for an enlargement of time for the Judge Advocate General of the Navy to certify the McMurrin case.  The government then filed a certificate for review at CAAF the following day.

14 Responses to “Interesting CAAF daily journal entries”

  1. anon says:

    Appears that CAAF doesn’t want to hear either case

  2. Late Bloomer says:

    Should we read that much into it? Or is it simply a case of exercising its discretion with respect to time limits?

  3. beef says:

    SCOTUS has jurisdiction in any -CASE- where CAAF has granted relief. Petition for grant vacate & remand.

  4. Anonymous says:

    CAAF – aka, the time nazis. “Let justice be done.”

  5. Anonymous says:

    If CAAF are “time Nazis,” then what are federal and state courts/judges who have shorter time limits and then refer you to the ethics board if you are tardy?

  6. Anonymous says:

    Strict timelines are the best way for the court to control their docket and counsel who practice in front of them. Either you walk the dog or the dog walks you.

  7. J.A Conelly says:

    and to hell with the client whose counsel is simply lazy or otherwise ignorant of the court’s time limits?

    People who wear the uniform deserve better when their tried by the state they serve.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Zombie-Nazis!

  9. Anonymous says:

    So strictly by virtue of their uniform they get greater rights than someone not in uniform?

  10. Cloudesley Shovell says:

    People who wear the uniform deserve better when their tried by the state they serve.

    J.A. Conelly, given the facts of the Denedo case, you are either a master of satire or you have just unintentionally made one of the funniest comments I have ever read.

  11. Anon says:

    Unfortunately, they are forgetting that both lawyers and their clients are humans, not dogs. Unless it’s purely jurisdictional, there should be a “good cause” rule that is liberally enforced when in fact there IS good cause.

  12. J.A Conelly says:

    I don’t know the facts of Denedo’s but if I could remember he was guilty as a sinner. However, I am speaking in general,the next case may actually warrant CAAF’S attention and it would be a shame to end this way.

    To anon 2:43 pm, since when seeking redress in the courts is a greater right? No Anon, but people who wear the uniform certainly deserve a full account and they especially should not be subject to the whim of artificial jurisdictional barriers created by the courts as they are the ones who protects all and may I say”stand on that wall”!

  13. H Lime says:

    J.A. Connelly: I’m intrigued to hear more about these artificial jurisdictional barriers. Which courts created which artificial jurisdictional barriers?

  14. Lifer says:

    Unfortunately, as exposed by J.A. Connelly’s later post, he is not the master of satire.

    And did a new EO come creating sinning as a new 134? If so, I hope the SOL is very, very short.