Military justice blogs are to blogs
as military music is to music.
On Monday, the D.C. Circuit issued this order accepting this amicus brief from the ACLU of Hawaii and the ACLU of the National Capital Area.
Also on Monday, the D.C. Circuit issued this order denying Partington’s motion for summary reversal.
The views expressed on this blog are offered in the contributors' personal capacities. They do not speak for, and their views should not be imputed to, any other organization, agency, or entity. The views expressed in this blog are those of the individual authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of any military service, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. Click here for important disclaimers.
rooting for Partington here, if for no other reason than OJAG’s “Professional Responsibility” process is an abortion.
The ACLU amicus makes a taut presentation that (1) a lawyer has a constitutionally protected interest in practicing law, and (2) disciplinary action by a particular court requires due process. So, now we have two essential predicates to what Partington’s attorney must prove to win: these Navy actors actually denied him due process.
the fact the Navy PR process was involved should make a prima facie case there was no due process.