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

Harvey Armstrong

Administrator
  • Content Count

    1,278
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Harvey Armstrong last won the day on May 16

Harvey Armstrong had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

390 Excellent

About Harvey Armstrong

  • Rank
    Probably a staff member..

Recent Profile Visitors

1,687 profile views
  1. Harvey Armstrong

    Wisconsin Johnson - USCG Application

    @Wisconsin Johnson The word count is still 100 for those sections, please update your app and add considerable more detail. There is a word requirement for every question. On the enlistment template, you can see the word requirements at the beginning of every question. You cannot simply delete the word count.
  2. 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!
  3. 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)
  4. 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.
  5. Harvey Armstrong

    Petition for Extraordinary Writ in Re: Roaldo DiCaprio v. United States

    Your Honor. The United States is available for oral arguments on that time and day, Sunday, 21st March 2021, 6PM PST.
  6. Harvey Armstrong

    Petition for Extraordinary Writ in Re: Roaldo DiCaprio v. United States

    Your Honor, The aforementioned request is essentially asking that the court overturn their previous order in the lower court to stay the case. Further, this request disregards many immediate and ongoing issues in the case that would consequently be deliberated as they continue to happen. This further presses the United States' ability to adequately prepare, consider, and respond to both matters concurrently as well as other commitments in the state and federal courts. We also do not see any actual problem that this causes to "harmony of judicial rulings in this great Union," if such is a problem.
  7. Harvey Armstrong

    Petition for Extraordinary Writ in Re: Roaldo DiCaprio v. United States

    Your Honor, Unfortunately, I am entirely unavailable on March 17th. I am available on the 19th through the 22nd, from 2PM to 8PM PST. If it needs to be sorted by the 17th, we can go with the original course of multiple writs that the court originally ordered, although I am not sure the respondents to this petition would be interested as they were against it originally; however, they may favor this as it would make for a speedier trial in terms of how soon it is finished.
  8. Harvey Armstrong

    Petition for Extraordinary Writ in Re: Roaldo DiCaprio v. United States

    Your Honor, The United States notes the rules regarding surreply, such as that from the plaintiff: "§ 4. Surreply Brief. The Respondent(s) may request leave from the Court to file a surreply brief. Such a request shall present good cause to the Court as to why such a brief is necessary. If the Court accepts leave, it shall specify in the order the maximum length of the supplemental briefs and the timing for filing." Given that the plaintiff has not requested such leave, nor given good cause as to why it is necessary, only that they said "Please let this comment serve as a notification of intent to file a counter-rebuttal soon", the United States submitted the reply, for the court to either accept both surreplies, or dismiss both and only retain the brief in opposition as well as reply to that brief, as they please. In their request above, they have alluded to the initial opportunity to make a brief in opposition, however, this is not granted leave to file surreply.
  9. Harvey Armstrong

    Petition for Extraordinary Writ in Re: Roaldo DiCaprio v. United States

    Your Honor, Sur-surreply. This is not the precedent that would be set, nor would that be the situation. The precedent that might be set is that a good faith belief by the Respondent is reason enough to continue a case. It also pertains to the consideration of obvious ex parte communications. This does not mean that a person employed in an office could, for instance, make an unauthorized reply that is still routine and proper in form, then be considered counsel, then not be considered utilizing ex parte communications. This is a stretched belief. The plaintiff submitted what they "thought" would be enough, then made assertions further in the complaint to that which has no evidence, and then allowed for "routine procedure for the rest?" What is the routine or the procedure then, an immediate demand by every party who is a defendant that the other party preserve their evidence? A so-called routine erasal of video which pertains to the situation in question, and would be highly relevant to the United States' defense, is more approaching evidence tampering. Should the exhibits have been able to have been uploaded to YouTube, as they asserted was possible, they should have done so, it is not necessary that the respondent have to demand the other party to save this exhibit, before our motion for discovery was submitted. Finally, this is different from what they have said in the past. Opposing asserted "to my best knowledge your honor, I am unaware of any full video that encompasses the entire situation," when clearly one did exist and was "routinely" erased. First, that the legal research does not depend on other parties as would exist in the investigation. Second, it is only to case law and responding to the arguments of a simple post, versus speaking with their own client, the US Government, thoroughly investigating an entire US military station, consulting witnesses and questioning them, many who of which have their own rights against self-incrimination or other problems with further time constraints, preparing evidence from multiple sources, and fully fact-finding, then responding to each and every fact at debate, have immensely different time requirements. Again, reiterating. 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. 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. And if a 48 hour window is reasonable, why are 24 hour deadlines permitted? Or 1 hour deadlines? Then why are such deadlines enforced on a matter of which was thought to have been already completed, and even when trying to hold on-time to such, the correction said to have been too late even when it is to have been missed by 1 minute? Why is the judge's ruling being prepared much before the deadline has even passed, without the judge possibly knowing what the response would be? 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. This has no substantial purpose other than to embarrass. Simply that the same number of submissions were made in one case is not important. Firstly, one petition was received, this one. Second, the pro se litigant filed a multitude of briefs seeking relief from a single lower court order. They made 32 filings in the Supreme Court in two years to this one order, about equivalent to two months here. The United States' submissions are way more than to just a single order. The action of the Supreme Court was necessitated due to the inappropriate and repeated volume of filings over several years. Again, plaintiff avoids that which petitions are for from a single lower court order, not multiple orders, and with one petition duly received, the other two applications. There also is no disruption to orderly consideration of cases, as there are no others in this court, the consideration of this case is the one which should not be disrupted. The plaintiffs assertions that the United States should not be permitted to file further petition sets dangerous precedent. As laid out in their opposition brief, the United States has not "failed to respond" to the Show Cause order, the response has now been submitted. Further, responding to the proceedings with dates for trial is a routine part of court proceedings, also completed already. Neither of these are remedies, but the former brought on by the court, the latter an administrative matter. Finally, as outlined in the past by the United States, continuing with trial risks irreparable harm/injury, such as constitutional rights, which the plaintiff has not responded to. The United States notes the rules regarding surreply, such as that from the plaintiff: "§ 4. Surreply Brief. The Respondent(s) may request leave from the Court to file a surreply brief. Such a request shall present good cause to the Court as to why such a brief is necessary. If the Court accepts leave, it shall specify in the order the maximum length of the supplemental briefs and the timing for filing." Given that the plaintiff has not requested such leave, nor given good cause as to why it is necessary, only that they said "Please let this comment serve as a notification of intent to file a counter-rebuttal soon", the United States submit this reply, for the court to either accept both surreplies, or dismiss both and only retain the brief in opposition as well as reply to that brief, as they please.
  10. 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.
  11. Harvey Armstrong

    Petition for Extraordinary Writ in Re: Roaldo DiCaprio v. United States

    Your Honor, Reply. First, that the assertions of Mr. Warhorse are not legitimate. Mr. Warhorse is mistaken. The following is the ruling from the trial judge: "Respondent stated that Mr. Warhorse was not a counsel in this matter of controversy and thus his response stating that there would be a contestment [sic] should theoretically not apply. As Respondent counsel reasoned, however, "the response was unauthorized insofar as Mr. Warhorse being permitted to make such a response, however the response was sufficient, routine and proper in form, and was kept." As Mr. Armstrong admits this was routine, proper form, and that he wished to keep it, the court shall DENY this motion for Summary judgement by the Plaintiff as it is obvious the Respondent wishes to contest the issues of the case and only did not respond because they believed the previous response sufficient. We are not in court to play legal gocha's [sic]. We are here to determine who is at fault. A good faith belief by the Respondent is reason enough to continue this case." This ruling appears to be in favor of the United States, as it denies the motion for summary judgment by the Plaintiff, specifically refuting the above quote from opposing's opposition to the application. Opposing counsel previously stated that the judge made "correct rulings in each of these issues," including the aforementioned "issues of ex parte communications." Now is it that the trial judge made the correct rulings or not? Why does opposing argue otherwise on those issues? Why does opposing now disagree with the court's ruling? And why is opposing even raising the issue, as the specific issue about the Motion for Summary Judgment is not raised in the application nor the writ? Is such a "mini-writ" through which the Public Interest may be concerned? A so-called "routine erasal" of vital video to a case, especially that which may show the actual events and not conjecture after the fact, is acting in bad faith. Should the exhibits have been able to have been uploaded to YouTube, they should have done so, it is not necessary that the respondent have to demand the other party to save this exhibit, before our motion for discovery was submitted. The plaintiff has ignored previous argument about this. We reiterate that arbitrary 48 hour deadlines for everything do not take into consideration how long something may take. Responding to a) the arguments of an application, versus b) speaking with their own client, the US Government, thoroughly investigating an entire US military station, consulting witnesses and questioning them, many who of which have their own rights against self-incrimination or other problems with further time constraints, preparing evidence from multiple sources, and fully fact-finding, then responding to each and every fact at debate, have immensely different time requirements. The 48 hours is not time which it takes to notice it on the website, but the time given to actually deal with it. Should the honorable court use 48 hour deadlines to respond to arguments, why are 24 hour deadlines permitted? Or 1 hour deadlines? Then why are such deadlines enforced on a matter of which was thought to have been already completed, and even when trying to hold on-time to such, the correction said to have been too late even when it is to have been missed by 1 minute? Why is the judge's ruling being prepared much before the deadline has even passed, without the judge possibly knowing what the response would be? This is an argument which quickly falls in. It is the lack of adequate time, as both sides are allowed reasonable time to prepare, but time shortages most often affect the defendant/respondent, and a lack of adequate time as the root cause that renders an attorney unable to represent the client as per the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, not the attorney's fault there was not enough time. There was no argument to that counsel was ineffective due to their own doing, this is an uncalled conclusion. We have not "failed to exhaust remedies": we have not "failed to respond" to the Show Cause order, the response is being written and it is not yet due. Further, responding to the proceedings with dates for trial is a routine part of court proceedings. Neither of these are remedies, but the former brought on by the court, the latter an administrative matter. Finally, as outlined in the past by the United States, continuing with trial risks irreparable harm/injury, such as constitutional rights, which the plaintiff has not responded to. There are only four members of the Supreme Court BAR, myself one of them. Opposing is not one of them, obviously having been granted permission to respond for their party in this matter. Where plaintiff refers to case law: In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180 (1989) pertains to a pro se petitioner, not an attorney. In this case, since 1971, they made 73 other filings with this Court, including 19 for extraordinary relief. This is not the same as this matter. Further: "Paupers filing pro se petitions are not subject to the financial considerations that deter other litigants from filing frivolous petitions." Ibid. This petition is not pro se. In re Demos, (500 U.S. 16) (1990) pertains to another pro se petitioner, not an attorney, who filed a multitude of briefs seeking relief from a single lower court order. They made 32 filings in the Supreme Court in two years to this one order, about equivalent to two months here. This is also not relevant to this matter. The ruling was that the petitioner, as filing pro se or without permission, would have to pay a "docketing fee." Plaintiff has stretched case law to fit their argument. Demos does not outline nor say this in this way, nor could it "only be construed to be calculated" to do so. This is a strongly worded and dangerous claim made by the plaintiff, with no backing other than that quickly responded to above. The plaintiff has not responded to all of the issues that were raised, nor are they "easily disputable" or "fail to show clear wrongdoing," this is failed to be demonstrated. [With regard to the citing of Kerr v. United States District Court for the Northern District, (426 U.S. 394) and Will v. United States, (389 U.S. 90)]
  12. 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.
  13. Harvey Armstrong

    Emergency Application for Prelim. Inj. In Roalda DiCaprio v United States

    Your Honor, Reply. I put it to this that which the plaintiff has not made reference to: 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. 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 micromanages the handling of the cases (as they are doing now just to handle all this first), 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. Filing writ does not equate as being the same as conducting things like internal investigating. Most of these things which take time are out of counsel's control and not our own doing, such as trying to interview witnesses who have their "own rights against self-incrimination or other problems delaying the proceedings." These are not our own doing, but simply how long things take. They are also not delays, but just the time it takes for things to happen. There are some shared issues but many are new or different, there are a multitude of different issues raised and a different remedy/relief is called for. I refer to this: 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 micromanages the handling of the cases (as they are doing now just to handle all this first), 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 rulings on the case are not my own doing, they are that which the trial judge has made, and extensive reasoning is given as to why they are erroneous in many aspects. We did not bring on those actions on ourselves, the trial judge did so. The seriousness of the situation, referred to in extensive detail in writ and in this injunction application, has warranted myself to personally make an application for injunction, when it was not so before where it could have been handled by subordinates. We have made reference to lower remedies in even this exact application, for good reason: "we are filing this motion now to avoid any delay in this Court's review if the lower court does not grant an immediate stay or other avenues of remedy, to prevent irreparable injury." Further, there will be irreparable injury in the absence of the injunction and such has been referred to in the application which was not addressed, such as Sixth Amendment constitutional rights and damage to reputation. Opposing asserts the United States must accept the errors, accept the situation in the lower court, and continue fruitless efforts in the lower court, even if irreparable harm is faced. The United States facing irreparable harm is precisely the reason the application for injunction has been made. Arbitrary 48 hour deadlines for everything do not take into consideration how long something may take. Responding to a) the arguments of an application, versus b) speaking with their own client, the US Government, thoroughly investigating an entire US military station, consulting witnesses and questioning them, many who of which have their own rights against self-incrimination or other problems with further time constraints, preparing evidence from multiple sources, and fully fact-finding, then responding to each and every fact at debate, have immensely different time requirements. The 48 hours is not time which it takes to notice it on the website, but the time given to actually deal with it. Should the honorable court use 48 hour deadlines to respond to arguments, why are 24 hour deadlines permitted? Or 1 hour deadlines? Then why are such deadlines enforced on a matter of which was thought to have been already completed, and even when trying to hold on-time to such, the correction said to have been to late even when it is to have been missed by 1 minute? Why is the judge's ruling being prepared much before the deadline has even passed, without the judge possibly knowing what the response would be? We ask that the court refer to our replies to that argument in the same thread. There are many more reasons besides the deadlines given, with 11 other questions raised in the writ to sum up all topics in debate. This is not proven nor mentioned beyond simply asserting as such. The plaintiff further does not demonstrate why public interest is not served, and even if any arguments were given as to why it is not, why public interest of "speedy process" (a defendant's right) is more important than irreparable harm, or, for example, violation of constitutional rights.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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