Judicial Accountability Watch Service
Thomas Nast
IF THOMAS NAST WERE ALIVE TODAY, WHAT WOULD HE WRITE, DRAW AND SAY ABOUT THE ON GOING COVERUP OF THE CORRUPTION IN THE NARY NAVY CASE?
A Federal & Military Due Process Censored Whistleblower notice to William H. Rehnquist the US Supreme Court Chief Justice, his Associate Justices, His Clerk of the Supreme, Former Chief Judge Procter Hug, current Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder, her Court 9th Circuit Federal Judges, their court administrators, their docket clerks, and staff attorneys
The basic issue in this eight and a half year old case is the defiance by the local San Francisco, California state appellate and the California State Supreme Court judges headed by Ronald Geore, his law clerks and his staff attorneys who defied clearly stated and repeated federal civil and military black letter law. The upstart judges also violated the sixth ammednment of the US Constitution, in their judicial ignauration oath to uphold and obey all federal court decisions ruled upon by the US Supreme Court on down to the US District Courts, the federal military courts and US Court of Claims. These corrupt and arrogant judges did not! This is what they defied:
a. As designated in the US Constitution, the supreme authority over the military is Federal not a local district attorney, local state court judge, or even
b. The California judges and San Francisco District Attorney displayed their defiance and contempt for the Separation of Powers
c. Right up to the California state supreme court, when the San Francisco District Attorney and the California Judges were repeatedly put on certified and written notice of their non jurisdiction over a federal military person by filings in the federal courts, these usurpers contemptuously proceeded not only to illegally try sailor Nary, but to further rig and cover-up third rump courtroom proceedings with
d. . False Evidence
e. Concealment of exculpatory evidence
f. . Forgery by District Attorney Hallinan and his employees, Peter Cling and John M. Farrell of a federal military title 32 Code of Federal Regulations form no. 720.6 that San Francisco County District Attorney Terrance Hallinan used to get sailor Nary out of armed confinement and off a US Navy ship then ported in Alameda County
I. Concealed the longtime political connections of Juan Pifarre, the sexual predator, to Terence Hallinan, Mayors Art Agnos and Willie L. Brown, City Attorney Louise Renne and these other San Francisco Politicians: Rosario Anaya, Jose Medina, Susan Leal, Carole Migden, Roberta Achtenberg, Kevin Shelley, Raquel Medina, Larry Del Carlo etc.
II. Concealed Juan Pifarre's May 1, 1969 connection to Los Siete, the San Francisco barrio bandits, who brutally shot and killed San Francisco Police Inspector Joseph Brodnick
III. Concealed Juan Pifarre's sexual proposition and lewd acts towards a San Jose undercover vice cop in a San Jose, California public toilet. Captain Ron Utz, of the San Jose Police Department confirmed this felony
IV. Concealed Juan Pifarre's illegal employment in a San Jose local government agency. He was disqualified because he was an illegal alien from Argentina
V. Concealed Juan Pifarre's communicable disease status: HIV, AID, HEPITITIS, and TB AND VD.
VI. Concealed Juan Pifarre's illegal alien status
VII. Concealed Juan Pifarre's financial analyst status and foreign offshore banking connections
VIII. Concealed Juan Pifarre's bogus marriage to Sharon Gold Martinas, a storage locker wife
IX. Concealed federal Ambassadorial applicant, James C. Hormel's 1997 near million dollar bribe of local San Francisco judge Ann Bouilane, one of the corrupt judges in the rigged case
X. Concealed Juan Pifarre's connection to terroism against American military, civilian and diplomatic personnel and advisors in South America
XI. Concealed Juan Pifarre's connection to Colonel Osorio, the American, who went to El Salvador to teach and train terrorists to overthrow the El Salvadorian Government
The federal laws, federal military regulations, federal district, federal appellate and US Supreme Court rulings and constitutional findings and certified evidence was repeatedly cited in the eight years of federal and congressional filings by US Navy sailor Steven Nary. But the San Francisco and California state court Judges chose to ignore two hundred years of law that
(The) Constitution (and the federal law and regulations that flows from its authority) was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention in clear there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition. Martin [282 U.S. 716, 732] v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet. 410; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U.S. 139 , 6 S. Ct. 649; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662 , 9 S. Ct. 651; Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1 , 27 S. Ct. 6; Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U.S. 628 , 45 S. Ct. 614; The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 , 49 S. Ct. 463; Story on the Constitution (5th Ed.) 451; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations (2d Ed.) pp. 61, 70.
Over twenty four hundred federal civil and US Military court cases were researched for US Navy Sailor Steven R. Nary. Selected relevant and authoritative sections will be quoted in the supplemental section of the legal citations on this web page.
A. Definitions.
1. Jurisdiction: "The power to hear a case and to render a legally competent decision." R.C.M. 201(a)(1), Discussion.
B. Solorio v. United States, 483 U.S. 435 (1987). The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction in a court-martial is based solely on the status of the accused as a member of the armed force. Essentially, if the member is on active duty, the service has jurisdiction.
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON (R.C.M. 202).
A. General Rule: Article 3(a) was amended to authorize court-martial jurisdiction in all cases in which the service member was subject to the UCMJ at the time of the offense and is subject to the UCMJ at the time of trial. This change effectively eliminates a break in service as a jurisdiction-defeating event.
B. Enlistment Contract: The key question to ask is does the member have a valid enlistment contract. Under In re Grimly, 137 U.S. 147 (1890), military status is created by a valid contract.
C. The codification of In re Grimley: Article 2, UCMJ.
1. Article 2, paragraph (b) states that the voluntary enlistment of any person who has the mental capacity to understand the significance of enlisting in the armed forces shall be valid for purposes of jurisdiction under subsection (a) of this section, and a change of status from civilian to a member of the armed forces shall be effective upon the taking of the oath of enlistment.
2. Subsection (c) further provides that notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person serving with the armed force who--
(a) Submitted voluntarily to military authority;
(b) met the mental competence and minimum age qualifications of sections 504 and 505 of this title at the time of voluntary submission to military authority;
(c) received military pay or allowances; and
(d) performed military duties
TERMINATION OF JURISDICTION: DISCHARGE.
A. GENERAL RULE: A valid discharge terminates jurisdiction. In order to terminate court-martial jurisdiction by the early separation of a service member, there must be the delivery of a valid discharge certificate, a final accounting of pay, and completion of the clearing process required by appropriate service regulations. United States v. King, 27 M.J. 327 (C.M.A. 1989). The discharge certificate must be issued pursuant to competent orders and delivered to the person concerned. R.C.M. 202(a); United States v. Melanson, 53 M.J. 1 (2000); United States v. Howard, 20 M.J. 353 (C.M.A. 1985); United States v. Scott, 11 U.S.C.M.A. 646, 29 C.M.R. 462 (1960). See United States v. King, 37 M.J. 520 (A.C.M.R. 1993), aff'd, 42 M.J. 79 (1995); United States v. Batchelder, 40 M.J. 655 (N.M.C.M.R. 1994), aff'd, 41 M.J. 337 (1994).
B.Exceptions. Article 3, UCMJ:
1. The accused was subject to the UCMJ at the time of the offense and is subject to the UCMJ at the time of trial.
2. The discharge was fraudulently obtained.
3. (Discharge was fraudulently obtained by Sheriff Michael Hennessey, who signed for a certified, return receipt letter intended for sailor Nary, which was mailed by the US Navy Judge Advocate. Four years later, Hennessey and his corrupt attorney, James Hannigan refuses to account for that certified mail.)
4. The person is in deserter status.
W. Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents 90 (2d ed. 1920 Reprint)(second emphasis added).
Under Article 2(a)(1) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 802()(1), the armed forces have jurisdiction over military personnel "awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment . . .." RCM 202(c)(1), Manual for Courts-Martial, United Stated (1995 ed.), provides that, after jurisdiction over the individual is established, "such jurisdiction shall continue for all purposes of trial, sentence, and punishment, notwithstanding the expiration of that person's term of service . . .. " The same rule also provides that a service member "may be held on active duty over objection pending disposition of any offense for which held and shall remain subject to the code during the entire period." (Emphasis added.)
Court-martial jurisdiction exists to try a person as long as that person occupies a status as a person subject to the code . . .. Thus, a service member is subject to court-martial jurisdiction until lawfully discharged or, when the service member's term of service has expired, the government fails to act within a reasonable time on objection by the service member to continued retention.
MAJOR ISSUE: Violations of the Fourth Amendment -US Constitution Right-- Sailor Steven R.Nary 11 was unlawfully discharged by the US Navy through the fraudulent handling by Sheriff Michael Hennesey, San Francisco County of a mandatory notification sent by the US Navy by US Post Office Certified mail.
Hennessey/ Hennessey's employee signed for that letter and sent back to the US Navy through the US Mails, the certified green receipt.
A. Since Hennessey secretly and illegally shipped sailor Nary of San Francisco County to a state prison without first formally requesting the permission of the 9th circuit Appellate Court, where the case was since July 1999 pursuant to Federal Rules of Procedure no. 23 and number 30 Hennessey should have sent the certified letter back through the US Post Office, with the stamped notation: "No Longer Here." Instead both Hennessey and his attorney, Hannigan have arrogantly refused to account for that letter.
B. Sheriff Michael Hennesey's arrogant interference with US mail caused the US Navy to illegally discharge Nary because he, Nary failed to respond to a certified notification that
(a) he had no knowledge of that letter being sent by the US Navy
(b) Nary wasn't' even at the address at the time that Hennessey's employee signed for the certified letter
(c) When Hennessey was challenged for his responsibility for that certified letter, he arrogantly refused to account for his felonious malfeasance regarding the US mail
A US Navy sailor, retired federal military line officers and military veterans don't understand how the 9th circuit federal courts district, appellate courts as well as the US Supreme Court will not uphold clearly stated federal civil and military law, federal military regulations, congressional authority over the military;
Judicial and political cognoscente are also appalled and perplexed that the US Supreme court and its federal district courts don't even follow clearly stated black letter law and decisions.
Judicial, Military, Media and Political cognoscente don't understand how the US Supreme Court and its subordinate federal district and appellate courts
- Can give full judicial review, to the legal briefs and pleadings of accused foreign terrorists, who claimed that their human rights were violated
- Provide licensed, ethical and competent attorneys to these accused terrorists
- Could ignore the irrefutable facts that under habeas corpus 28 US Code ss 2254 (7) that the applicant,a federal military person was denied a full, fair and adequate hearing in a local ( San Francisco) court proceeding that itself was void abinitio or void from the very beginning.
- Ignore a local San Francisco court and its corrupt judges and district attorney, who covered up for an illegal alien, sexual predator, who also supported terrorism against American military personnel serving abroad.
