Wearing Canadian Forces uniform in civil court

When Major-General Dany Fortin wore his uniform (specifically, his 3A order of dress) to a civil court of criminal jurisdiction, where he was answering a charge of alleged sexual assault, it sparked a bit of controversy.  Or, at the very least, there were some efforts to characterize this as a controversial act.

And, as has become typical of matters that touch upon allegations of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Forces, some scrutiny by national news media has led to a degree of governmental hand-wringing and reassurances that 'the military will review its policy'.

Often, when such controversies arise - or are generated - it can lead to decision-making and policy-making that is not entirely transparent, clearly articulated, reasonable, or justified.  It often leads to a panicked attempt to be 'seen to be doing something'.

In this linked article, "Wearing Canadian Forces Uniform in Civil Court", I offer some observations on both the specific issue of whether a CF member should be permitted to wear his or her uniform (or, alternatively, prohibited from wearing it) as well as the nature of policy-making in such circumstances. 

Espionage charged

How about a little espionage for lunch today, and to make it more interesting, allegedly by someone in Army green? An Army major at Ft. Bragg was just indicted (along with his civilian wife, both doctors) on eight criminal counts involving attempting to pass on federally protected medical information dealing with Ft. Bragg patients to someone they thought worked at the Russian Embassy (actually an FBI undercover agent). Furthermore, they allegedly tried to share "information about U.S. medical capabilities in war conditions" to the Russians. 

Note the forum:  the Army could have initiated court-martial proceedings against the Army major, given his military status and the expansiveness of the military penal code. But efficiency supports utilizing the Article III federal forum for both (given the two defendants, one civilian). And frankly, so does merit and professionalism of the systems -- it is smart to go with the DOJ A-team regarding accountability for these serious allegations, and leave the dysfunctional military justice system to continue trying to fix its racially disparate prosecutions and improve its bungling of sexual assault and other cases.

New judges named to New Zealand's CMAC

Three new judges have been named to the Court Martial Appeal Court of New Zealand. Details here.

Nearing the End o' Term

The October 2021 Term of Court at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ends at midnight, Friday, September 30, 2022. Thus far, the court has handed down decisions in only 25 cases decided on full opinion. All argued cases have been decided, according to the data on the court's website. It is possible -- but highly unlikely -- that one or more additional cases arising on motion, petition for extraordinary writ, or writ-appeal petition will be the subject of a published opinion in the next two days,* but the Term is almost certainly a done deal.

This year's tally equals the record low set two Terms ago. Over the last decade, the number of cases decided on full opinion hit a high of 41 in the October 2016 Term.

As of today, the court has incurred obligations of $13,067,417, with $3,496,723 of available funding still unobligated, according to government data. Leaving aside the petition and other dockets, which of course account for a portion of the court's resources, this comes to $522,696.68 per case.

With the end of the Term, the court will have been operating for 14 months with only four full-time judges due to the Senate's continuing inexcusable failure to act on the nomination of Senior Judge Scott W. Stucky's successor, Col. (ret) M. Tia Johnson. During that time, the court has called upon its numerous senior judges to fill out the bench for cases in which discretionary review has been granted, but it has not called upon them to function on whether to grant review, a failure that disadvantages petitioners. Denial of a petition for grant of review precludes access to the Supreme Court of the United States.

* Oct. 1 Postscript: there were none. On to the October 2022 Term . . . 

Transparency and the Bonhomme Richard court-martial

ProPublica has sued for records from the ongoing general court-martial arising from the fire aboard the aircraft carrier USS Bonhomme Richard. The news organization's complaint seeks a temporary restraining order and other relief. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Details here.