Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Harvey Armstrong

  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Harvey Armstrong last won the day on July 31

Harvey Armstrong had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

439 Excellent

About Harvey Armstrong

  • Rank
    Probably a staff member..

Recent Profile Visitors

1,833 profile views
  1. Harvey Armstrong

    Prison Poster Competition

    Made by Drake Wax as far as I am aware
  2. Harvey Armstrong

    Appeal of Court Martial Summary - Harrison Homes

    Here is a relevant piece from procedures which doesn't seem to have been included, this came into effect about 5 months ago
  3. Harvey Armstrong

    Appeal of Court Martial Summary - Harrison Homes

    @harrison kings Your appeal will be heard. Docketed as CGCCA01-0123. @Jack Jefferson is assigned as Appellant Military Judge. So ordered.
  4. Harvey Armstrong


    Jason has a huge point here, outdoor combat is the best when it comes to large groups fighting each other. We had this experience in 3.0 with USCG's USAF and NASA majors, however the layout of external majors usually makes them more difficult for civs (as they can't just camp indoors) so response numbers like +5 are needed. The solution to the major problem is not as simple as making a dice roll, it is a nuanced issue. Overall, majors with external fights are best for everyone, and an honorable mention for majors with well-designed and large layouts like Embassy. When it comes to civs doing major crimes, don't complain that cops don't instantly push into all-internal holds like the Lab that civs do back-to-back over and over, surprise them with a counter push or set up external positions to ambush them. If cops have fair equipment to overcome the significant defender's advantage that is holding an angle on a door/hallway in Arma 3, then cops will push more often. One thing I think can help is a different shield, I was using this shield during majors in Takistan, usually Lab but also Knox and National bank, it is the Ballistic Shield that comes with an M9, it obviously has somewhat more of an advantage because the shield-user can shoot, it is a crappy gun with relatively low clip capacity, firerate, and damage compared to other pistols, but it is something. The shield seems to be wider but also shorter, better for pushes into death hallways but making it fair for civs when cops try to use it going up/down stairs. It was definitely not OP at all, I was really testing the capabilities of the shield so I was very aggressive with it in Takistan and usually lost way more majors than we won, but cops were always ready to push right away, and usually when I showed up we would do a push within just a few minutes instead of making the civs wait a long time while we tried to figure out some tactic or just tried to hold. As time goes on civs will learn to counter the shield even more (eg. holding on right instead of left to have better cover in a hallway from the shield, as the gun is on the right side of the shield), but most importantly cops and civs can expect to push quickly. I found it was worse than the regular shield when going up/down stairs, because of how short it is, and I often got headshotted or shot in the legs if I tried to do that, but it was a slight improvement over the old shield for moving through death corridors. Due to it being short I also got shot more often in the legs while moving at all, and I got shot in the arm as well because of the pistol aiming out the side, but it still gave cops more confidence to push, even sometimes when it didn't help, and so I think changes like adding another shield can increase the pace of internal majors. Careful solutions like that shield, changing up majors to have more external combat, and others will have a better effect instead of a dice roll. The 500m KOS major crime rule returning is already going to encourage more external combat as cops can't move up to the building pre-combat. When it comes to the dice roll, it may dull majors, as any strategy/tactics civs and cops try to attempt or use will just be wasted because once it has been 30 minutes from the civs popping off the major, one side will have to push out. People may come to expect the dice roll and all majors may just take at least 30 minutes as everyone waits for it instead of players taking initiative. This can also really change SERT, CRT, and MSRT tactics as the dice roll gets factored into how majors are done, as cops come to expect the dice roll, it can be tricky for cops to be told to push before 30 mins by spec ops, as simply waiting 30 minutes can mean the civs have to push out, or at 30 minutes cops have to push anyway so then the spec ops plan is put into action. I think a 50/50 dice roll even makes it worse for civs as cops are the ones pushing in about 70-80% of the time after long holds.
  5. Harvey Armstrong


    While many of us may have nostalgic feelings about the 3.0 Kings County map, myself included, nostalgia always means you remember the past in a rosy, positive light. When I looked back on some videos from 3.0, I realized just how flawed the whole map was and how annoying driving on it was. It is true that the 4.0 Kings Peaks map felt like a loop, but this was mainly at the beginning when there was no way to go through the middle, now this is possible due to the middle being opened up. There is a jump bridge, a way to go south from NASA, and a way to go West from the Capitol. Today the 4.0 Kings Peaks map is a pretty good one, the devs have already done a phenomenal job with updates to it so far, it would do better from being tweaked rather than being thrown away wholesale. Not to mention that the novelty of the 3.0 map would wear off quickly and would become dull even faster because many ANZUS players have already played on it for a year, the current 4.0 map isn't as old, factoring in all the changes to the map layout that have already happened.
  6. Harvey Armstrong

    Joining the US Coast Guard

    Applicant Brochure (CLICK HERE)
  7. Harvey Armstrong

    USCG: Enlistment Application [OPEN]

    Applicant Brochure (CLICK HERE)
  8. Harvey Armstrong

    USCG Personnel Department - Payment Request

    @Andrew Scott
  9. Harvey Armstrong

    Purge or Takistan? Community Discussion/Vote

    I played the original Arma 2 Takistan Life, no mods needed, Takistan came default with Arma 2. It is very nostalgic for me and many others, I think it shows that "Combat RP" can be fun when done properly. I played on an unwhitelisted server but with whitelisted BLUFOR/OPFOR, I proposed the faction system for it. It went from just a handful of people playing in unwhitelisted BLUFOR/OPFOR slots to packed whitelisted slots all the time, many people working hard to rank up in BLUFOR/OPFOR, joining special forces, training in vehicles and coordinating attacks, airstrikes, as well as events like War, Joint Ops, and martial law. I mainly was on the BLUFOR side but OPFOR had a lot going for it, the corrupt OPFOR Russian south could let drugs go by for a price or straight up execute you, while the US/NATO BLUFOR forces were more like the straight cop faction and played within the rules. Civs could become terrorists and kill cops, go to the Medic or PMC shop and act in those roles, or simply be a straight up civilian. Finally, the Independent group were straight up terrorists, they spawned at a base and would venture either into the BLUFOR North or OPFOR South and go wild. Despite how it may seem, there was a surprising amount of in-character RP, but it was combat RP. There's a difference between unwhitelisted random cops playing versus whitelisted and trained cops who are in a faction and hierarchy, there is a lot of RP involved in that. I want to share with you some Legendary clips from that time During a war with OPFOR, special forces detonate OPFOR's hangar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emDpvmAEa0Q Myself when I was an "Executive Senior Admin," also commanding all US/NATO forces, took to the skies with one of my Majors and broadcast some "news" https://youtu.be/3WPZHCW9_jI?t=10 What regular "patrol" cops would do (Army National Guard on that server, entry level like DOC etc.) https://youtu.be/9TJZ6eUxVJw?t=9 Manning Rasman Checkpoint, kind of like the aids of watching DOC gate in 3.0, in this video the OPFOR come to the gate with their jet and some admins screwing around https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8sx-IcI3Cg No fair response numbers! Unequal weapons and firepower compared to OPFOR/BLUFOR, let alone their armor and aircraft! And still destroying cops because of ambush and guerilla tactics https://youtu.be/JoNHHREoOYg?t=23 Sending a message to some civs from another server, where the cops believe in "preserving life" and can never shoot anybody, so we avenge those cops https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89Dfm2IhURA OPFOR and BLUFOR operating in the North during joint operations, the Embassy is taken and they assault it https://youtu.be/ecwdrhmkF8s?t=537 Civs doing a major crime https://youtu.be/RRe1OqXCWr4?t=170 OPFOR and BLUFOR executing war criminals by firing line https://youtu.be/ftBHTQLm2OU?t=253 This screenshot shows how different the experience was from what you might be used to: https://i.imgur.com/izIMUIJ.png I hope that our Takistan can have awesome memories made too!
  10. Harvey Armstrong

    Updating the Bar Database

    Your name: Harvey Armstrong Bar no: 4010205 Occupation: Judge Advocate General [Military Court-Martial (Federal) at Station #97] Name: Helious Armstrong Bar no: 4020036 Occupation: Junior Judge Advocate [Military Court-Martial (Federal) at Station #97] Name: Fredrick Armstrong Bar no: 4010226 Occupation: Senior Judge Advocate [Military Court-Martial (Federal) at Station #97] Name: Deshawn Brown Bar no: 4020218 Occupation: Judge Advocate [Military Court-Martial (Federal) at Station #97] Name: Griffin Chauvin Bar no: 4010146 Occupation: Junior Judge Advocate [Military Court-Martial (Federal) at Station #97] Name: Nick Hunt Bar no: 4020035 Occupation: Junior Judge Advocate [[Military Court-Martial (Federal) at Station #97] Name: Jack Jefferson Bar no: 4010215 Occupation: Deputy Judge Advocate General [Military Court-Martial (Federal) at Station #97] President (Bar Association)
  11. An involuntary separation can be requested by Command, JAGC, or SNCOs. It is used as an alternative method to discharging an enlisted member compared to the traditional right of an officer to discharge, for unsatisfactory performance, misconduct, (non-criminal reasons) as provided by regulations and the Uniform Code. The involuntary separation provides a fairer option to enlisted members and allows for all evidence to be considered at a board hearing. The purpose is for quality control, to uphold standards, and encouraging honorable service. If a servicemember has a DOCUMENTED series of at least 3 minor disciplinary infractions, of a nature which have been or would have been disciplined at NJP, or have 2 or more NJPs, or it’s a “serious offense,” you may request them to be processed for administrative separation after NJP. If the request is accepted, an administrative separation board is convened by the JAG. Command and Senior NCOs must identify enlisted members who show a likelihood for early separation and make reasonable efforts to help these members meet Coast Guard standards. Members who do not show potential for further service should be discharged. Consult your judge advocate advisor in JAG before requesting the involuntary separation of a member. Before requesting, consider all the factors that make the member subject to discharge, including: The seriousness of circumstances that make the member subject to discharge and how the member’s retention might affect discipline, good order, and morale Whether the circumstances that are the basis for discharge action will continue or recur Likelihood that the member will be disruptive or an undesirable influence in present or future duty assignments Ability to perform duties effectively in the present and in the future Member’s potential for advancement and leadership Evaluation of the member’s military record including, but not limited to: --- Records of nonjudicial punishment (or nonpunitive measures) --- Records of counseling or probation --- Letters of reprimand or admonishment --- Records of conviction by courts-martial --- Past contributions to the Coast Guard --- PMOS/DMOS assignments --- Awards, decorations, and letters of commendation --- The effectiveness of preprocessing rehabilitation You should NOT request administrative separation as a substitute for disciplinary action. Prior to requesting a member for discharge for unsatisfactory performance and minor disciplinary infractions or a pattern of misconduct, you must give the member an opportunity to overcome deficiencies. -- Efforts to rehabilitate may include, counselings, reprimands, probation, nonpunitive measures, nonjudicial punishment, change in duty assignment, demotion, additional training/retraining -- It is extremely important to properly document rehabilitative efforts and keep copies of these documents [TEMPLATE] Involuntary Separation Request (from Command/JAGC/CGIS/SNCO) - [SERVICEMEMBER RANK AND NAME] Example of a request: (TBD) The proceedings of the involuntary separation follow per Convening Order X-4 and JAGC regulations. Officers cannot be separated, any officer facing a discharge has the right to a board of inquiry. Generally, the acts or conditions on which the discharge is based must have occurred in the current enlistment. Anyone who is involuntarily separated cannot be re-instated (re-enlisted,) and cannot re-apply (to the USCG only) for 30 days.
  12. Harvey Armstrong

    Roaldo DiCaprio v. United States Coast Guard

    Your Honor, It is not legitimate. My subordinate is mistaken. At 3:50 PM PST, I did reply with the statement that we will be objecting to the complaint, and also the elements 1-5 of the discovery. It appears misconstrued together. 31 minutes after your reply to my first reply, an investigation was convened, dated March 9th. I am not personally investigating the matter for impropriety. The entire complaint is being investigated. This investigation was to be completed by the 15th. This was after an informal general review of all civil cases against JAG occurred on March 2 and on March 9, which was still not speedy enough to meet it. All cases were being reviewed, they were not being delayed. I replied about the discovery motion, objecting to the facts at issue, and submitted our motion for discovery. At this stage, I still was not going to handle the case personally and to delegate to the corps as a task to do. The investigation, for one, is also not my own personal investigation, and is also being investigated by the corps. Upon your reply, I realized it was insufficient, and with over 12 distinct elements, to reply with the full facts at issue would be impossible as the investigation has yet to uncover them. To "simply submit your response to the allegations" is easier said than done, as I would have to make certain that the response was accurate and care was taken to fact-find. I deliberated whether to give a shortened answer, such as that in what I eventually replied at 7:06PM PST, " we will be contesting the facts at issue in the FACTUAL BACKGROUND, the FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: MISUSE OF FORCE, the SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE, and the PRAYER FOR RELIEF," or to respond requesting extension, and opted for an extension so that a full answer could be given to please the court and for economy, as it would be partially redundant if it were to be raised twice. I promptly replied, requesting an extension, as the investigation was still happening. At this stage, against my intentions, I took on a part of responding to the case, firstly preparing motions, which I prepared before and submitted within 60 seconds after your reply asking your two questions, then responding to your important questions, such as about authorized responses, counsel of record for the case and the United States, deadline for submission of the contentment of the case passing in full, etc. For instance, not responding to the contentment of the case would mean the prior deadline for the facts at issue would be pointless had the case already been uncontested. I began writing reply, preparing my first and second responses together. At 5:37PM PST I noted and looked at your 1300 response to the aforementioned motions. In hindsight, if they were more important than the matter of the other deadline about contesting the facts at issue (except the matter of summary judgment by plaintiff), this course of action of recusal, evidence, and motion to strike punitive damages might have been better served later on. I hastily prepared my first and second responses together, my first response alone was longer than the show cause order, and submitted them as soon as possible. There should be consideration to the defendant's Sixth amendment rights. Even an extension of an additional hour to a deadline which was already only one hour for a matter which was thought to have already been responded to and with other motions being adjudicated concurrently is not reasonable, and to a request to give "cause for an extension," and explain "specific facts," with a "sworn statement, under oath," is very demanding. A quantitative factor is the varying timezones. I am in PST, the court is in MST, opposing is in EST. The court had given "respond at 6:57MST," and "8PM MST," opposing refers to "9:26" and "11PM" without mention to EST, and I being in PST, am greatly pressed for time in sorting all the aforementioned in the short deadlines given, when I did not even intend to take on the case personally, and the necessary response thought to have already been given early. In reply, I did raise a literal minute after that we will be contesting the facts at issue in the FACTUAL BACKGROUND, the FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: MISUSE OF FORCE, the SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE, and the PRAYER FOR RELIEF. The United States note that neither side may excessively delay the trial for its own advantage, however, this applies more to the respondent, as an unreasonable delay can violate the respondent's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. Also, extensions are often requested and granted because work on other cases has prevented us from devoting the necessary time to the present cases, and courts are often lenient in these situations. As we have to prosecute and defend in the Alaskan State court, as well as fulfill commitments doing the same prosecution and defending along with adjudicating and disposition of federal military court-martials in the United States Coast Guard, this is a commitment which only the USCG's JAG has, not the DA's office nor the Public Defender's office. Since the filing of this original case, numerous commitments in the military court-martial have appeared. While both sides are allowed reasonable time to prepare, time shortages most often affect the defendant/respondent, and a lack of adequate time that renders an attorney ineffective in representing the client may violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Furthermore, the defense has significant burden in trying to maintain the pace of the case. To have the case move from one stage to another, leaving 2 days, presses the United States' ability to adequately prepare, investigate, and consider the matter. This is an incredibly fast pace that only perhaps the plaintiff could maintain, as they only have to speak with their own client, and not thoroughly investigate an entire US military station, by consulting witnesses and questioning them, many who of which have their own rights against self-incrimination or other problems delaying the proceedings, preparing evidence from multiple sources, and fully fact-finding. Finally, the Judge Advocate General does not aim to personally handle cases, they are delegated to subordinates so that they may gain experience and have tasks to accomplish, unless the Judge Advocate General personally micromanage the handling of the cases (as they are doing now to handle the ancillary results of this situation), it is impossible for anyone but the most available, dedicated, and experienced lawyers, which is a very short list including myself, opposing, and the trial judge. The United States is available on the 19th through the 22nd, from 2PM to 8PM PST.
  13. Harvey Armstrong

    Roaldo DiCaprio v. United States Coast Guard

    Your Honor, Respectfully, a clarification. We have submitted to the Supreme Court an emergency application for injunction. If this court denied our request for delay based on the request to delay to the supreme court, we respectfully request a delay if this is the case that it was based on that request, and not the other application. Furthermore, while our request for stay was denied, our petition for writ was received in the supreme court and opposing was ordered to file a brief in opposition by the Supreme Court. If this court denied our request for delay based on the request to delay to the supreme court, we also respectfully request a delay until the aforementioned writ matter is completed, if this is the case that it was based on that request, and not the pending one which is being heard. Further, internal investigation has not concluded. We respectfully request a continuance so that we may comply with the order to provide all materials.
  14. Harvey Armstrong

    Roaldo DiCaprio v. United States Coast Guard

    The United States requests a delay as we have submitted to the Supreme Court, until those are resolved. We seek a brief 48 hour stay of the order, to afford the court a modicum of time to consider, otherwise a delay if other petition denied, and delay if petition is heard. Unless you mean a further and preliminary application here, in which case the United States will file a preliminary one.
  15. Harvey Armstrong

    Roaldo DiCaprio v. United States Coast Guard

    The United States has submitted multiple writs to the Supreme Court, and requests delay until such are heard.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By viewing ANZUSGaming's website you agree to our Terms of Use