CAAF issued this order on Friday:

No. 17-0307/AR. Robert B. Bergdahl v. Jeffrey R. Nance and United States. CCA 20170114. No. 17-0307/AR. Robert B. Bergdahl, Appellant v. Jeffrey R. Nance, Colonel, J.A. Military Judge, and United States, Appellees. CCA 20170114. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition and the motion of Former Federal Judges to file an amicus brief, it is ordered that said motion is hereby denied, and that said writ-appeal petition is hereby denied.

This was Bergdahl’s seventh writ petition, and it sought dismissal of his case because of things said during the presidential campaign (last discussed here).

Bergdahl’s prior trips to Judiciary Square were noted here (#6), here (#5), here (#4), here (#3), here (#2), and here (#1).

5 Responses to “Bergdahl goes 0 for 7 at CAAF”

  1. Concerned Defender says:

    Well when BB is convicted and given serious jail time, the DCs can say they tried and set up lots of appellate issues.  Maybe Trump will pardon BB?

  2. Stop, Just Stop says:

    Open blog-message-post to Gene Fidell:  Stop. Just stop.  
    Some of these motions have been really nifty, especially the last one where you cataloged all of our President’s hilarious stream-of-consciousness rants against your client when he was simply Mr. Trump. Especially like the table with the video links. That was well-researched.  But as 2 writs turn to 4 writs and 4 writs turn to 7, you have slowly but surely moved from zealous advocate to a guy simply avoiding justice.  All this is doing is making everyone sour on the military justice system, and making it that much worse when a panel inevitably takes your clients money and benefits away.  This is embarrassing. Stop. Just stop.

  3. DCGoneGalt says:

    “Maybe Trump will pardon BB?”
     
    Ha.  Hahaha.  Ha.*
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    *  I have just guaranteed it will happen.

  4. Keep Filing, Just Keep Filing says:

    Stop, Just Stop,
    Are you a lawyer?  Serious question b/c I don’t see how you can be with that perspective.  Maybe you’re a judge?  But definitely not a practicing lawyer.

  5. JBodow says:

    I wonder if the 4th and 9th District Courts of Appeals, in analyzing the travel ban, will follow CAAF’s lead when determining Trump’s rants as a candidate are meaningless for purposes of determining “bad intent” in the “No, we’re not banning Muslims” legislation.