Wednesday, January 23, 2008

A cryptic reconsideration denial

I need help form our vast army of Army lurkers. Yesterday, CAAF denied the appellant's petition to reconsider CAAF's order of 16 November 2007 in United States v. Elfayoumi. United States v. Elfayoumi, __ M.J. ___, No. 07-0346/AR (C.A.A.F. Jan. 22, 2008).

But CAAF's 16 November order granted review of Elfayoumi's case. CAAF granted review of "whether the military judge abused his discretion when he denied the defense counsel's challenge for cause against Major [L.G.], a panel member, for implied bias."

Why would the appellant seek reconsideration of that order? My speculation is that at least one additional issue was included in the supp and the appellant asked CAAF to reconsider its denial of one or more additional issues. But that's just a guess. So could one of the Army of One please fill us in?

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

The one assigned issue was granted. However, the appellant also raised a passel of Grostefons - evidence sufficiency, IAC, lack of jurisdiction, all white panel, and some generic Leavenworth prison complaints - and none of these were granted. Guess the appellant wanted reconsideration of those.

Sherlock said...

I know who you are, anonymous. Tread lightly.

Anonymous said...

Report anonymous to the DC bar.

Anonymous said...

Army of One just reports the facts. What, you can't handle the truth.

Anonymous said...

Colorado bar. Just ante up $10,000:

A Chicago lawyer who is being criticized, along with his law firm, in an anonymous Internet blog supposedly authored by a fellow attorney has offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who can provide him with the identity of "Troll Tracker."

The anonymous blogger, who claims to be "just a lawyer; interested in patent cases but not interested in publicity," has criticized Raymond Niro and his 30-lawyer IP boutique, Niro Scavone Haller & Niro, for representing clients who own patents but don't necessarily make products. Instead, the firm earns licensing fees from users of the patented technology—and potentially sues users if they don't pay up, explains the Chicago Tribune.

Although Troll Tracker claims a First Amendment right to criticize the firm anonymously on the blog, Niro says the blogger should take responsibility for his or her views. Plus, he points out, knowing the identity and affiliations of the blogger likely would affect the way that readers perceive the Troll Tracker's critique.

"I want to find out who this person is," says Niro, who initially offered a $5,000 reward in last month's issue of the IP Law & Business trade magazine, and has since upped the ante to $10,000. "Is he an employee with Intel or Microsoft? Does he have a connection with serial infringers? I think that would color what he has to say."