Monday, April 07, 2008

Reconideration denied in Denedo

Code 46 has now completed the first requirement on the road to an SG cert petition -- it has unsuccessfully petitioned CAAF for reconsideration of its Denedo decision. See Denedo v. United States, __ M.J. ___, No. 07-8012/NA (C.A.A.F. Apr. 4, 2008). It will be interesting to see whether the SG seeks to offer the Supremes some kind of package deal on Denedo and Lopez de Victoria.

4 comments:

John O'Connor said...

To me, the bigger question is whether the services can sell Lopez de Victoria to the SG as a natural package deal with Denedo.

I could see the SG being interested in Denedo but less so in Lopez de Victoria.

DB Cooper said...

I agree with JOC that Denedo is a virtual invitation for certiorari. The jurisdictional question in Lopez de Victoria was a close call, but I agree with other posters that CAAF got it right. It is also difficult to accept that any court could operate in a given area for over 22 years (Since Tucker) and then suddenly realize that it lacked jurisdiction all along. Denedo, however, was a significant departure from CAAF’s jurisdictional framework that still leaves me scratching my head.

Anonymous said...

This one's headed for the big show...no doubt about it. CAAF could be lookin' at a smackdown on this one. Denedo's only hope is that his attorney's repertoire includes the diamond cutter. If Ric Flair attends the argument at SCOTUS, don't be surprised if you here a "WWWWhhhhhooooo!!!!" It's that kind of case.

Anonymous said...

Clearly anonymous meant "hear" and "Wwwwwoooooooo!!!". It's hard to hit the correct keys when you're wearing handcuffs.