Mr. Partington’s counsel today returned to federal district court with this renewed request to extend the TRO staying the Judge Advocate General of the Navy’s suspension of Mr. Partington from practicing in naval courts.  The previously entered stay expired on 2 December.  And as we noted here, Judge Scullin denied a previous request to extend the stay.

Tomorrow is the deadline for the defendants to respond to Mr. Partington’s request for a preliminary injunction.  I’ll try to post the response tomorrow evening.

10 Responses to “Partington seeks to revive TRO”

  1. Cheap Seats says:

    The most troubling parts of the filing are the Trial Defense Counsel affidavits.  The Navy never talked to them?  Another troubling question is there is still nothing about the Code 45 involvement.  Anyone talk to them?  Affidavits?  I’m taking it Mr. Partington couldn’t get anything from them as they are probably sweating future discipline as well.

  2. Just Sayin' says:

    you’re surprised by this?  The “Professional Responsibility” cases do that all the time…if the witness would say something inconvenient to their pre-determined outcome, they don’t interview them.  Hell, I’ve seen them outright destroy exculpatory information.

  3. stewie says:

    So I get folks think the Navy runs their program badly, but what about the Hawaii Bar? Didn’t they look at this and determine something fairly untoward happen?

  4. Just Sayin' says:

    stewie, unfortunately the practice of most states is to simply apply reciprocal jurisdiction without a de novo review.  They look at the result, but not the process.  I don’t think a lot of the states are aware of the military procedures and give the same full faith and credit as they would to a state disbarment, which of course has much more due process and more external oversight.

  5. stewie says:

    Do you know for a fact that’s what happened in this particular case? What about CAAF disciplining him as well? Seems like multiple entities outside the Navy have looked at this.

  6. Just Sayin' says:

    did CAAF come first or second? by whihc I mean did they just waive ahead action already done by JAG?

    The bottom line is, he was diciplined for “false statements” but two people who were never interviewd (but logically should have been) say it wasn’t false.

    he’s not the most sympathetic plaintiff, sure, but this system is jacked.

  7. Dew_Process says:

    See 69 MJ 408 (CAAF 2010), where the Court accepting the Navy TJAG’s “suspension,” says CAAF thereafter issued a “show cause” order as to why he should not be disbarred, then after “considering” Partington’s response to the Show Cause order, only suspended him for 1 year at the CAAF, retroactive to June 2010.  It does not appear that any type of Due Process hearing was held at CAAF, although it’s also unclear as to whether or not Partington requested such.  The same goes for Hawaii.

    But, the utter failure of anyone to have interviewed either of his co-counsel makes this “process” stink.  Not to throw stones, but why didn’t the Navy I.O. who initially “investigated” this, not interview his military trial co-counsel and appellate co-counsel?

  8. Cheap Seats says:

    Smacks of “arbitrary and capricious” to me…

  9. Just Sayin' says:

    the scary thing is, everyone I know who’s gone through a PR Complaint has 3 things in common: They made someone in JAG land look bad, the people running the show failed to follow their own rules (and frequently when the accused tries to point this out as a Due Process violation they are actually told that Due Process arguments are “misplaced” in that forum) and evidence to the contrary is either overlooked, willfully not sought, or in the most egregious cases actually destroyed.
    Cheap Seats, you ain’t just whistling Dixie.

  10. just me says:

    I think the  best that coluld happen would be for this cxasse to go to trial. It would put the spotlight on the Navy JAGC with all of itts warts, the lack of abilityto obtain discovery as matters are hidden behind FOIA, personal priveoeges and all manner of Privaxcy act claims which are interpreted by the folks at Code 13 trhe same  grouipo advancing the comoklaiunt is tasked with ruling on the disclosure to the respondent who has no judicial avenuie to cajhallenger, indfeed there are no instances of judicial oversight and no record of ru. Thefolks at Vlings or decisions hence no precedfent to educate the bar or guide the disciplinary process. Thr folks at  Code 13 are not trained beyond a minimal amount in ethics and have no expertise  to speak of. JAGZ are futher limited in rersponding by the application of secion 1160  Navy Regsi in the tone and scope of their responses, odd concern for people fighting for their ptrofessional lives. Tghe whole system is broken subject to oower abuse and the politics of personal destruction. I know tghat some wiyhtin the system have tried to do the rignht thing even in the face of losiing their own careers.(CAPT PL) but that is not how it should work . This exposure may be the beginning of the end for this abomination to ther ru