Here is a Stars and Stripes piece on the now delayed SSGT John Russell court-martial with the victim’s family’s perspective.  Russell’s case was delayed a year when he was found incompetent to stand trial for the shooting deaths of fellow servicemembers outside a combat stress clinic in Iraq where he was being treated. Analysis of the PTSD issues by NIMJ’s own Prof. Gene Fidell. 

Extended commentary here on General John Allen’s resignation after a DoD IG investigation cleared him.

A review by the nation’s largest banks in connection with the housing crisis settlement they reached with federal regulators found hundreds of foreclosures violated the SSCRA:

When regulators forced them to take a close look at their loans,JPMorgan, Wells Fargo and Bank of America,the largest loan servicers,each discovered about 200 military members whose homes were wrongfully foreclosed on in 2009 and 2010,according to the people with direct knowledge of the findings. Citigroup had at least 100 such foreclosures. The foreclosures violate the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act,a federal law requiring banks to obtain court orders before foreclosing on active-duty members.

Full Dealbook coverage here.

3 Responses to “Military Justice News for Mar. 4, 2013”

  1. Some Army Guy says:

    Stars & Stripes has an article on the CA overturning the court-martial conviction in Aviano — and even quotes a NIMJ/CAAFlog commenter:
     
    http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force-pilot-s-sex-assault-dismissal-sparks-cries-for-reform-1.210371

  2. Tami says:

    And here’s a perfectly good and rational explanation for why the CA disapproved the findings and sentence–to eliminate possibility of appellate court overturning for UCI.
     
    Not that it’s required (and would probably raise complaints of invading commander’s deliberative process), but it would be nice if the CA had explained why he tossed the case out.
     
    http://www.stripes.com/news/brigadier-general-takes-stand-in-aviano-sexual-assault-case-1.195550

  3. k fischer says:

    Some Army Guy/Tami,
     
    “The decision was contrary to the recommendation of his staff legal adviser.”  
     
    Does anyone know if that statement is true and where Nancy Montgomery got this information?  Because, if true, that makes even a defense hack like me have a not-so-warm-and-fuzzy-feeling about this case.  Call me crazy, but a person who is alleged to have peeked over a bathroom stall to view a subordinate’s wife urinating sounds like the kind of guy that would crawl into bed with a woman and cop a feel.  
     
     
    At the very least in today’s post-Invisible War, women-in-combat military, if you are going to disregard the advice of your SJA and dismiss a case where his/her Trial Counsel got a conviction, jail time, and a dismissal against a field grade Officer by a 6-member panel that was moderated by a military judge, then you might want to have a better explanation than “there wasn’t proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”   I’d really like to read the record of trial to include clemency and would like to have been a fly on the walll when the SJA met with the GCMCA on this case..