tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post6457937093506700184..comments2023-08-24T10:39:23.460-04:00Comments on CAAFlog: A provocative take on PenaDwight Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11657981110237418710noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-100181017145739732007-07-20T14:45:00.000-04:002007-07-20T14:45:00.000-04:00I'm not counsel on either case, but I'll do my bes...I'm not counsel on either case, but I'll do my best to clarify. As the language in the issue suggests, Seawell was sent back to confinement from MSR after a violation of the terms of his MSR. Consequently, he had to stay in confinement after his maximum release date.<BR/><BR/>Pena, as anonymous notes, got out on MSR, but never had to return to confinement. His case dealt with whether being put on MSR in the first place somehow violated the Constitution or UCMJ.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-60068486440146249502007-07-20T07:24:00.000-04:002007-07-20T07:24:00.000-04:00Is there any other site in the world where you can...Is there any other site in the world where you can ask a question about a case and a judge from the panel helps provide an answer? Thank you Judge! We'll all stay on the look out for a new Seawell case. Any AF lurkers with inside information they can share would contribute to . . . The CAAflog gossip on how this case may resolve itself at AFCCA.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-86491830149318470072007-07-20T01:28:00.000-04:002007-07-20T01:28:00.000-04:00Two points:1. AFCCA opinions aren't on a restrict...Two points:<BR/><BR/>1. AFCCA opinions aren't on a restricted site, but there appears to be a problem with the site certificate that can give Microsoft web browsers the willies. I always get a warning message when I surf to the site in MSIE. I always ignore it. Depending on your browser's security settings, you may not have that option.<BR/><BR/>2. Seawell assigned an error about the MSR program at the CCA, but if I recall correctly (and the usual disclaimers about my memory apply -- it's been almost two years since I wrote the AFCCA decision in <I>Seawell</I>), it was the same sort of error addressed in <I>Pena</I>. If he's now arguing something more specific in light of <I>Pena</I>, that might explain why CAAF wants to hear from the lower court.Christopher Mathewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01613318712384842689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-39636411457657631162007-07-19T22:54:00.000-04:002007-07-19T22:54:00.000-04:00Problem solved, but not solved. The AFCCA Seawell...Problem solved, but not solved. The AFCCA Seawell opinion says nothing about Seawell's MSR. So my questions remain . . . .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-18371778848875014642007-07-19T22:49:00.000-04:002007-07-19T22:49:00.000-04:00Looks like the specified question pertains to Seew...Looks like the specified question pertains to Seewell, not Pena. From the concurring opinion to the Seewell remand order it does not look like Pena was re-incarcerated at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-31212874095123077482007-07-19T22:48:00.000-04:002007-07-19T22:48:00.000-04:00Thanks for answering my question Sacramentum, but ...Thanks for answering my question Sacramentum, but I asked the wrong question and can't access Seawell on the AFCCA link you provided. I know we have asked this question before, but why are AFCCA opinions on a restricted site? I think they are trying to avoid CAAFlog scrutiny now that they lost JMTG to the dark side (see yesterday's post from christopher.matthews).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-68977931566604748222007-07-19T22:10:00.000-04:002007-07-19T22:10:00.000-04:00CAAF's Pena case is at http://www.armfor.uscourts....CAAF's Pena case is at <BR/><BR/>http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/2007Term/06-0091.pdf<BR/><BR/>The AFCCA decision in Seawell is at<BR/><BR/>https://afcca.law.af.mil/content/afcca_opinions/cp/seawell-35531.u.pdfSacramentumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11959553858265604586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-16009926768373424312007-07-19T08:19:00.000-04:002007-07-19T08:19:00.000-04:00I don't get the question CAAF specified to the AFC...I don't get the question CAAF specified to the AFCCA. Who disapproved time served on MSR? If it was the CA, why isn't MSR part of the punishment? If it was the DB, isn't "disapprove" an extremely poor choice of words for their action considering the question specified? Does anyone know the facts of Pena? If so please let us know how he will serve time beyond his max release date. <BR/><BR/>If Pena was in fact re-incarcerated after MSR, as the question suggests, let's take this to its logical extension. Mandatory Supervised Release avoids judicial scrutiny at CAAF. But, MSR can result in your re-confinement beyond your release date. Won't this result in a lot more prisoner litigation in USDC? Do they have a right to counsel from a military lawyer? Can the President give CAAF authority to review MSR in the MCM? It is an Executive Branch function so why couldn't the President give the power to review it to CAAF? Or are we already treading too lightly on checks and balances?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-79451797470840483112007-07-19T07:37:00.000-04:002007-07-19T07:37:00.000-04:00My erstwhile NJS colleague Judge Ryan has it exact...My erstwhile NJS colleague Judge Ryan has it exactly right (she must have learned it from some source other than our crim law package). Guert, I swear to God the "they stopped serving me cookies with dinner" case is coming next.John O'Connorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014476389355562158noreply@blogger.com