Poll: Should retired Gen Mike Flynn face a court martial for the act of sedition?

[HumblePie]

Because it’s literally a fact. The UCMJ only applies to people in the IRR when they have returned to active status.

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.roa.org/resource/resmgr/LawReviews/2013/13164-LR.pdf

So repeat after me: THE IRR IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE UCMJ. After you do that, please explain why membership in an entity not subject to the UCMJ would make someone subject to the UCMJ.

You literally linked the RESERVISTS document. Which is NOT THE IRR from the formal 5 military branches. If you join the reserves during your IRR, you are no longer IRR but reserves.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes you insane moron. While you are on Inactive ready reserves you are still PART OF THE MILITARY. As part of the military you are subject to the UCMJ. WTF are you so stupid on this for? That is literally how they can recall you back to active during that time frame even if you are not retired. That is why you are still required to maintain your uniform and be combat ready during that time frame as best as you can. Which is why you maintain your rank and are brought back as that rank. Again, I point to the quote above in the military article I linked as to why the appeals court explicitly stated why they had jurisdiction in those two cases.

No. When they recall you to service you are immediately returned to active status and are then subject to the UCMJ. You are not subject to the UCMJ when in the IRR and not activated.

 

[fskimospy]

Basically every single google result I can find says that the IRR is not subject to the UCMJ until they are recalled, what the fuck is wrong with this guy?

As far as I can tell he invented a fake requirement for retirees to have some reserve status in order to be subject to the UCMJ. Then he decided that retirees in the navy and marines are entered into the IRR, which is also false. (They are part of a separate reserve)

Because he needs his invented requirement to be true, he decided the IRR is subject to the UCMJ because otherwise his argument falls apart.

 

[HumblePie]

No. When they recall you to service you are immediately returned to active status and are then subject to the UCMJ. You are not subject to the UCMJ when in the IRR and not activated.

Yes and no. You are if they bring Article 15 or 30 proceedings to you. It is not the full force of the UCMJ, but you are still subject to it as an IRR. It is a grey subject. The main point you missed though is that the Fleet and Land status is LIKE IRR, but is unique to Navy and Marines. It is entirely something different and the appeals court said because of that status they had jurisdiction for offenses made by those two members as part of that status. Hence the whole thing Wolfe pointed out with Dinger with 3 of the 4 original charges brought for actions taken during that time frame.

 

[fskimospy]

You literally linked the RESERVISTS document. Which is NOT THE IRR from the formal 5 military branches. If you join the reserves during your IRR, you are no longer IRR but reserves.

If you believe the IRR is subject to the UCMJ when not in active status please provide a single, solitary source that says this.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes and no. You are if they bring Article 15 or 30 proceedings to you. It is not the full force of the UCMJ, but you are still subject to it as an IRR. It is a grey subject.

It is not a grey subject. The IRR is not subject to the UCMJ unless they are activated either for duty or some sort of training. Period.

The main point you missed though is that the Fleet and Land status is LIKE IRR, but is unique to Navy and Marines. It is entirely something different and the appeals court said because of that status they had jurisdiction for offenses made by those two members as part of that status. Hence the whole thing Wolfe pointed out with Dinger with 3 of the 4 original charges brought for actions taken during that time frame.

No, the appeals court did not say that. In fact, they said the exact opposite and said that one of the offenses they upheld occurred entirely after the 30 year period you claim is relevant.

More importantly, they make the blanket statement that all retired members of the military are subject to the UCMJ, without qualification.

 

[HumblePie]

Perhaps. I would rather be a harsh, insulting prick than a piece of shit liar and fake soldier/patriot. When is the last time you were *honest* in a discussion here? Ever?

Your insults are only distraction, and like everything else you say on these boards...are entirely worthless, dishonest, and laughable. At least when I call you a lying c*nt...it's because you are factually a lying c*nt.

Fuck you loser. You are also a lying pos. For reference for those that care, this is a picture of my service connected VA disability card. There is only one way to get one of these. Been active duty and do something to be granted disability during the line of duty.

 

[HumblePie]

It is not a grey subject. The IRR is not subject to the UCMJ unless they are activated either for duty or some sort of training. Period.


No, the appeals court did not say that. In fact, they said the exact opposite and said that one of the offenses they upheld occurred entirely after the 30 year period you claim is relevant.

More importantly, they make the blanket statement that all retired members of the military are subject to the UCMJ, without qualification.

Wrong again. Here is the latest court documents on Larrabee of Larrabee vs Braithewith on the district court.

https://www.illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Maurer.pdf

Let me quote the salient portions for you.

First, we should be clear that the court’s logic and holding in Larrabee may be limited to cases in which a retired enlisted serviceman in the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve commits misconduct after retirement. The opinion equates Larrabee’s status to that of a retired member of the regular components,36 but the statute under Judge Leon’s scrutiny is not Article 2(a)(4) (“Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay”) but rather 2(a)(6) alone (“Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve”).37

The Judge for the case, as well as for Dinger, cited that Fleet and Marine Reserve, which is similar to IRR while being also considered retired status as well. That was the reasoning for the jurisdiction. That being a unique status given to Navy and Marine members who retire before 30 years. That is what the CAAF judge cited. When it comes to retiree's outside that timeline or of other branches, claims for jurisdiction of the UCMJ would run afoul of the toth decision. Such a thing has NEVER been adjudicated. Every successful application of the UCMJ being used against a non active duty military member were from when that person committed actions while they were active in the military still or in those two rare cases like Dinger and Larrabee when they were inside that 30 year time frame. It is again a special status ONLY for Marine and Navy retirees and does not extend to Air Force or Army.

 

[fskimospy]

Wrong again. Here is the latest court documents on Larrabee of Larrabee vs Braithewith on the district court.

https://www.illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Maurer.pdf

Let me quote the salient portions for you.

The Judge for the case, as well as for Dinger, cited that Fleet and Marine Reserve, which is similar to IRR while being also considered retired status as well. That was the reasoning for the jurisdiction. That being a unique status given to Navy and Marine members who retire before 30 years. That is what the CAAF judge cited. When it comes to retiree's outside that timeline or of other branches, claims for jurisdiction of the UCMJ would run afoul of the toth decision. Such a thing has NEVER been adjudicated. Every successful application of the UCMJ being used against a non active duty military member were from when that person committed actions while they were active in the military still or in those two rare cases like Dinger and Larrabee when they were inside that 30 year time frame. It is again a special status ONLY for Marine and Navy retirees and does not extend to Air Force or Army.

1) This is a district court ruling and only the Supreme Court can overrule this appeals court. So no, a decision by an inferior court is meaningless.

2) Your repeated statements that this has never been applied to conduct outside of your made up 30 year distinction is explicitly refuted by the court of appeals. Emphasis mine:

Of the offenses to which the appellant pleaded guilty, two were committed solely while he was a member of the Fleet Marine Reserve and one was committed solely after his transfer to the retired list.

This has been pointed out to you repeatedly so you should stop making false statements. The court affirmed a conviction and sentence for an offense that took place entirely after the 30 year period.

I assume you've been furiously googling the IRR and the UCMJ though so are you prepared to admit you're wrong about the IRR being subject to the UCMJ? Let me guess - no.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Yay, yet another thread ruined by two desserts arguing endlessly. One is a lying sack of shit and the other knows it but still decides to respond to every single post of theirs.

 

[darkswordsman17]

If all he said was "I was in the military, I'm right and you're wrong" then yes that would be a fallacy, but that is not what he did. There's literally pages and pages of him and others showing you the documentation and the reasons you're wrong, direct personal experience is just icing on the cake. Stop trying to hide behind calling out a fallacy that you don't even understand.

That dumbfuck doesn't understand what (add it to the list of things he doesn't) a fallacy actually is. The dumbest part is he's much like so many other stupid motherfuckers that have shit their brains out on this board, screaming about fallacies while they're the ones plopping them out more than anyone.

 

[Pohemi]

Fuck you loser. You are also a lying pos.

Project some more, clown.

For reference for those that care, this is a picture of my service connected VA disability card. There is only one way to get one of these. Been active duty and do something to be granted disability during the line of duty.

I have my father's as well, want to see it? Photo evidence from a confirmed, constant liar doesn't mean shit.

 

[HumblePie]

Project some more, clown.

I have my father's as well, want to see it? Photo evidence from a confirmed, constant liar doesn't mean shit.

You are the one projecting since you are the one throwing that insult out without fact first. Called me a liar for not being in the military and I gave you nice irrefutable photographic proof. So that makes you the one projecting as always.

 

[HumblePie]

1) This is a district court ruling and only the Supreme Court can overrule this appeals court. So no, a decision by an inferior court is meaningless.

2) Your repeated statements that this has never been applied to conduct outside of your made up 30 year distinction is explicitly refuted by the court of appeals. Emphasis mine:


This has been pointed out to you repeatedly so you should stop making false statements. The court affirmed a conviction and sentence for an offense that took place entirely after the 30 year period.

I assume you've been furiously googling the IRR and the UCMJ though so are you prepared to admit you're wrong about the IRR being subject to the UCMJ? Let me guess - no.

No amount of truth is going to convince you on this.

But back to the main point. Can a retiree be court martialed for political speech? Answer that.

 

[purbeast0]

This thread reminds me of the jelly of the month club.

 

[allisolm]

HumblePie and fskimospy. JUST STOP! PLEASE! GIVE US A BREAK! Take it to PMs or wherever you want as long as we don't have to see it. No more posting in this thread. Either of you. I think my eyes are bleeding after reading all that.

 

[dank69]

You are the one projecting since you are the one throwing that insult out without fact first. Called me a liar for not being in the military and I gave you nice irrefutable photographic proof. So that makes you the one projecting as always.

Irrefutable? Prove that card doesn't belong to someone you know.

I don't have a dog in this fight and don't really care about it. I just want you to understand why it is pointless to try to prove anything about yourself on the internet while remaining anonymous.

 

[fskimospy]

No amount of truth is going to convince you on this.

Oh man the irony here is thick.

But back to the main point. Can a retiree be court martialed for political speech? Answer that.

Yes.

They could not have that specific political speech provision mentioned earlier used against them as they are not active duty but they could be court martialed under other articles. I don't think the sedition one would stick but this seems to be an excellent time to use article 134 as advocating for the military to break their oaths and engage in a violent overthrow of the Constitutionally elected government is pretty fucking contrary to good order and discipline and most certainly brings discredit on the armed forces.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

HumblePie and fskimospy. JUST STOP! PLEASE! GIVE US A BREAK! Take it to PMs or wherever you want as long as we don't have to see it. No more posting in this thread. Either of you. I think my eyes are bleeding after reading all that.

Watch the stolen valor video I posted earlier. Appears it does not belong to this situation but you’ll enjoy it.

 

[JD50]

No amount of truth is going to convince you on this.

I'm just curious, but do you think that the reason people stop engaging with you so often is because you've won the argument? I think if you asked around you'd be rather disappointed.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I'm just curious, but do you think that the reason people stop engaging with you so often is because you've won the argument? I think if you asked around you'd be rather disappointed.

I thought it was his arrogant abrasiveness coupled with appeal to authority (IK,R?). The race realist links probably didn't help much.

 

[hal2kilo]

Again, Simple Tart's just not worth it.

 

[woolfe9998]

wrong thread

 

[darkswordsman17]

I thought it was his arrogant abrasiveness coupled with appeal to authority (IK,R?). The race realist links probably didn't help much.

Nah, its mostly that normal people don't keep arguing with someone that consistently is shown to be a liar who then just makes the same nonsensical argument over and over, whilst at every turn they're proven to be a full of shit moron then goes "aha! you fell right into my quickasshole that gobbles up all who dare to argue with it!" I don't know about fskemopy, but I sure as shit don't have the desire to endlessly argue with clownfucking dipshits like that.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Did this dude lie AGAIN about his profession?

Ah hell, makes me almost want to see what he posted now, but I know it wouldn't be worth it so I won't. I'm gonna laugh when we find out that he's really been working as a "witch hunter" and giving police departments satanic panic training.