Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 29 Oct 2005 01:55:00 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote in
.com: Frank Gilliland wrote: Got lots of work today so I'll only make a few comments: On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:17:50 -0400, wrote in : Markie...He WAS tried and found guilty! Twice! Indicted, tried and CONVICTED! your source? Me, but Dudly didn't have all the facts. I pled guilty at the first court-martial and so was never tried. Yes, Frankie...TRIED. You had the benefit of representation, stood before the court, and had your opportunity to say your piece. Wrong. A trial is used to determine guilt. I pleaded guilty so there was no trial; i.e, I was never "tried". You couldn't learn that much with a quick google search? That's pathetic. snip Mind you that the Marines would much rather send a "junior trooper" to Office Hours, whichn in the Marine Corps are Article 15 proceedings. In other words, letting the commander of the unit handle the incident at the lowest echelon. Something I would only advise a soldier to try if they are guilty of something but likely he reufsed Art 15 as I did many times And that's exactly what I did for the second infraction. Ahhhhh...Let's MINIMALIZE it and call it an "infraction". You are not charged with "infractions" at a court martial. It's an "offense". Call it a 'crime' if you want -- makes no difference to me. I forced a summary court-martial so the facts regarding the case would be a matter of record. It would have been a matter of record in an Artcle 15 proceeding, too. Wrong again, Dudly. The proceedings and evidence are not recorded for an Article 15, only the 'crime' and punishment. Dumb, Frankie...really, REALLY dumb. Well, maybe you should take that up with the attorney who was appointed to my case and made that recommendation. snip He WAS found guilty. not according to him not after apeal was it but that does not count with you For once Dudly is right. No "for once", Frankie. I've had you nailed for weeks now. Sorry it's made things a bit uncomfortable for you. Whatever you say, Dudly. There were no appeals and both convictions stand. The vindication of my second infraction....(SNIP) "Vindication" only in that you allow yourself that "warm fuzzy" for it. It has no legal bearing. Wrong yet again, Dudly: It had enough "legal bearing" to change the status of my discharge. And it was your second OFFENSE..."infractions" are dealt with at Article 15. You, by your own admission, blew that off. More semantics..... gee, I'm devastated. Really. And I mean that. (UNSNIP)...was the result of a seperate entry made as the result of a review that I requested after my discharge. The violation leading to the conviction was found to have "mitigating circumstances that should have been considered [by the presiding officer] but were not," and that I "was denied evidence, and the opportunity to gather and present certain evidence" relevant to my defense. The conviction was not overturned (since it was not an appeal) but my conduct marks were adjusted accordingly, and my discharge upgraded to Honorable. See..that's where we part ways, Frankie...My service never had to be UPGRADED to Honorable...It was that way all along. Uh-huh. Sure thing, Dudly. That's why you claimed to have been discharged for medical reasons, huh? Probably because you are in the early stages of Alzheimer's...... snip Yet another snip-job -- too bad you can't address your failures. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Frankie of Silliland: A Coward Who Lied To And Stole From His Country Lectures About "Integrity" | Policy |