If you ever thought you would be intimidated in your
personal life, imagine what it is like to be intimidated in a courtroom by
those who are sworn to protect and defend our Constitution. People have heard of the everyday
“bully”. People have even heard of the
typical child-on-child bully. Pretty
much a common past time for any parent, right?
What if instead of being a bully, we just redefine what this is altogether? So let’s paint the scenario.
Imagine you are going through a divorce in the average
Family Courthouse. Now in the two party
placeholders lay a spouse and a military service-member. Who files for divorce first is really irrelevant
in this scenario. Now, imagine if EVERY
time you go to court in that nice little primped up outfit of yours, on the
opposite side of the courtroom stands a tall person, oh NOT in a suit, but
instead in his dress uniforms. That’s
right, you read that accurately- in their military uniform.
The common argument among those who have served is that it
“is not really a big deal if a person wears their uniform because hey they’re
just going to court, right?” Wrong!
Although not every branch of the military deals with this
specific scenario in the same way, there are indeed regulations for each in
addition to any added memorandums that can be issued by a base command to
regulate upon their own base service-members- to enhance the regulation not
hinder it.
Let’s clear this up so there is no mistaking. A little Google Searching does amazing things
when you know how to properly utilize a “Boolean operator”. Thank you GOOGLE!
According to Judge Daniel Hill, 6th Judicial District 2,
State of Oregon, the following is a general understanding and is commonly
acceptable by most jurisdictions of courts:
“Generally speaking, the promulgated military rules provide
that for someone authorized to wear the uniform, that they may not wear the
uniform where such may tend to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces or the
uniform. That is a military rule though and outside the court’s consideration,
and the question boils down to whether there is a statutory right to wear the
uniform, whether that right is current as someone who is on active duty at the
time, and whether wearing the uniform violates ethics rules as an effort to
sway the judge or jury, that being then the effect wearing the uniform will
have on the proceeding. For the Active Component (AC), someone in active duty essentially has status and a statutory right to wear the uniform, and then the
question really becomes whether that creates a condition of an effort to sway
the judge or jury that violates the ethics rules, and whether that condition is
so persuasive to require the judge to not allow wearing of the uniform in
court. Ordinarily you would allow the AC service member to appear in uniform.”
**Generally, a duty status means a “drill” or ―battle assembly, ―individual duty
training‖ paid status, on orders status with or without pay for points only,
Annual Training, or some other ―pay‖ status. The service member may or may not
have written orders, and getting their representation under ―oath‖ subject to
penalty of perjury, on the record, is advised. 7 While not analyzed herein,
someone in the Coast Guard, though a Homeland Security organization (unless
made part of the Department of Defense for wartime service), formerly part of
the Department of Transportation, likely would have the same analysis as a AC
or Federal RC. 8 399.155 Unlawful wearing of uniform or insignia. No member of
the organized militia shall wear, when on or off duty, any uniform or any
device, strap, knot or insignia of any design or character used as a
designation of grade, rank or office, such as are by law or regulation, duly
promulgated, prescribed for the use of the organized militia, without the
permission of the commanding officer. [1961 c.454 §75(3)] 9 A ―commander‖ is
not the service member’s ―supervisor‖ except in limited situations. At no time
can an Enlisted Service member (someone not an ―officer‖) approve the wear of
the uniform under Oregon Statute. This statute is not subjective like the DoD or service prohibition pertaining to wearing the uniform in a service
discrediting manner, it is objective and if the Oregon National Guard (ONG)
member does not have permission then they don’t have permission and it is a
violation of statute. 10 162.365 Criminal impersonation. (1) A person commits
the crime of criminal impersonation if with intent to obtain a benefit, to
injure or defraud another or to facilitate an unlawful activity, the person
does an act in the assumed character of: (a) A public servant; or (b) An active
member or veteran of the Armed Forces of the United States. (2) It is no
defense to a prosecution for criminal impersonation that: (a) The office,
position or title that the person pretended to hold did not in fact exist; or
(b) The unit of government that the person pretended to represent did not in
fact exist. (3)(a) Criminal impersonation is a Class A misdemeanor. (b)
Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, criminal impersonation is a
Class C felony if the public servant impersonated is a Peace officer, judge or
justice of the peace. [1971 c.743 §211; 1993 c.243 §1; 1997 c.395 §2; 2003
c.577 §12; 2007 c.510 §1] 11 Active
Duty includes for this discussion both Title 10 federal authority for full time
service members and members of the reserves in Active Guard Reserve (AGR)
status. 12 Generally speaking, for the purposes of this memorandum, the wear of
the uniform in court is limited to service and dress uniforms and not battle
fatigues, such as the Battle Dress Uniform, now replaced with the Army Combat
Uniform for the Army, and fatigue like uniforms of the other services. See, AR
670-2, para 30-2, 30-3, 30-4. 13 See, Naval regulation 61001, Chapter 6,
Section 10. 14 Reserves of the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines, are part time
service members, and Title 10 federal status when in a duty status. 15 Members
of the National Guard are Title 32, State Status, subject to their state code,
not federal authority, and include the Army National Guard and the Air National
Guard. 16 Duty status in the reserves tends to mean that the service member is
in a drilling status (the customary two days per month but is served in periods
of 4 hours, each period called a MUTA and can be more than 1, and usually eight
or less at a given time), or an ―order‖ status providing either for ―pay‖ or
for ―points‖ for retirement. Typically, for other than travel orders, a service
member may not be in actual possession of a physical written order reflecting
status, and the representation of status must be generally accepted. 17 Sec.
772. When wearing by persons not on active duty authorized (a) A member of the
Army National Guard or the Air National Guard may wear the uniform prescribed
for the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard, as the case may be. (b)
A member of the Naval Militia may wear the uniform prescribed for the Naval
Militia. (c) A retired officer of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps
may bear the title and wear the uniform of his retired grade. (d) A person who
is discharged honorably or under honorable conditions from the Army, Navy, Air
Force, or Marine Corps may wear his uniform while going from the place of
discharge to his home, within three months after his discharge. (e) A person
not on active duty who served honorably in time of war in the Army, Navy, Air
Force, or Marine Corps may bear the title, and, when authorized by regulations
prescribed by the President, wear the uniform, of the highest grade held by him
during that war.**
– Excerpted from a “Judicial Conundrum; 2010”.
The general argument as you can see as summarized by one
judge alone weighs multiple arguments.
So, let’s generalize here.
Should someone who has willfully served and earned be able
to wear the attire. Yes, they
should. Should someone who has retired be able to wear
their honors and medals proudly on their uniform? Sure, no harm, right? Hmmmm
let’s keep going
Should someone who has not completed their service be able
to wear their uniform wherever they please, however they please, simply if they
feel like it? Getting hotter but let’s
break that down a bit so we don’t get you confused.
Should a service-member on his way to a lunch break off-base
be able to wear their uniform in that process and immediately return to work on
base? Maybe- but is there a branch or
base regulation that says they have to change first, or no? If not, then the average response would say
sure seems fair.
And then maybe wear their uniforms to and from work coming
and going from home, right? Absolutely, unless a regulation says otherwise.
Now, this is where it gets sticky. Let’s not focus on those local discounts to
the military which average 10% to military members and families “with a
military ID”.
Should a military member be able to wear their uniform to
Traffic Court for a ticket they received? Hmmmm…NOW WE ARE GETTING THERE! Common sense would dictate the obvious answer
of no. Sure anyone can get a speeding
ticket on the way to work, or maybe even have to go to court before they report
for duty. Yeah that sounds entirely
plausible, absolutely. But what is more
plausible is that you are using the perception of that uniform to now get out
of the ticket. Military Bias and
Privilege then begins here.
If the government can regulate whether you can even chew gum and walk in your uniform at the same time, then you can imagine how silly some of the regulations might sound, but actually operate to maintain proper order and decorum of every service member.
Examples:
You must have your cover (hat) at all times when in uniform
You cannot hold hands in displays of affection with your partner when in uniform, nor can they try to do it in return- that’s a general PDA no-no in uniform.
Drinking alcoholic beverages or Unofficial, personal contact such as entertainment, dining, recreation, dating, or other intimacy
When the sounds blow for the anthems on base, service-members are to stop and stand at attention and salute while anyone else hold their hand over their heart, even something they can get into trouble for if the spouse standing next to them forgets to do. Think I am joking? Go walk around a base for a day and see how they operate. Bet you might even find a few giggles when you see that all spouses usually stand to the left to avoid getting hit when their spouse is saluting.
You can’t even conduct your own personal business after-hours to pay so much as a cell bill- SORRY YOUNG MAN – THIS IS A REGULATION NO-NO:
What about in towns and villages that surround Military
Bases? Does it seem like a common practice? Not as much as one might think
actually. What about major cities like San Diego? Nope -not allowed there either- sorry everyone. Lived there for 6 years and everyone I knew fought tirelessly to remain in compliance because of one reason: everywhere you turn, someone can inform on you. Point being- it's just easier to apply common sense; just go change your clothes and avoid the hassle altogether. It just is not worth it.
Should a service member be allowed to stand in divorce courthouse, wearing a uniform? As seen below, let alone for hours in the actual courtroom itself:
DRESS BLUES IN A DIVORCE?
What if an officer has already notified the court and insists base command was notified of this repeatedly? Should a spouse who is currently labeled a "Victim of abuse" on base have to contact anyone at all to literally beg them under regulations to take control of that service member and have them prohibited from wearing that uniform again in court? One notification by policy is typically enough to constitute a direct violation of instruction under the Uniform Code of Military Justice under an Article 15 (Minor Violation). Should anyone be allowed to use the implied privilege of the uniform to sway any judge's impressions of the proceedings? That answer is a nonsensical ABSOLUTELY NOT!
"According
to the Reprimand and Admonition Handbook Military Justice Section Office of the
Staff Judge Advocate XX an LOR is issued to
"reprove and correct subordinates for their departure (on or off duty)
from norms of performance, conduct, bearing, behavior, or integrity." It
is intended as a corrective or rehabilitative measure. My concern here is that
he has not corrected his behaviors and has repeated them, yet, no further
action against him has been done, or not to my knowledge, and the behavior
continues and worsens. I have reported all of the ongoing incidents to Family
Advocacy, I.G., security forces, my lawyer, and XXfirst shirt
XX and XX. Family Advocacy informed me that they did advise my
husband’s commander regarding my husband’s collateral misconduct; however, it
still continues and is increasing. This too falls under U.C.M.J Articles 90-94
with respects to willfully disobeying commands. XX was issued a no
contact order by command in March of this year, yet, violates it weekly... I would like for my husband to discontinue in
emotional maltreatment to include: following me while driving and trying to run
me off the road, setting off my car alarm with my set of keys he has, stop
stalking me, stop passing around pictures XXin an
attempt to isolate me...I would
like him to stop wearing his military uniform in our divorce proceedings. This
is clearly prohibited as outlined in 10
USC 771. Also, to be found in Title 10 armed forces, subtitle A under general
military law, Part II personnel, chapter 45 the uniform, and section 771 as to
the unauthorized wearing of military uniforms. XX comes into court representing
the military in this horrendous divorce with other bystanders not involved in
our hearings due to an open court room. These unknown people that are waiting
for their hearings are watching a man in uniform slander the service, make
false claims, and act in appropriately. At a recent hearing, he stood staring
coldly and laughing at my aunt, a family friend and I for twenty minutes
outside the court room. This made us all scared and uncomfortable. We told my
lawyer about this incident. This is not the only public abuse that has happened
while he is full blues at the court house. I would like him to stop
speaking on your, and other leaderships behalf's to the judge. I believe that
either you or a credible member representing the United States Air Force should
speak to the court as to the actions you require him to take and his orders. I
also believe that someone from USAF should be accompanying him to the hearings
to assure that he is truthful, not speaking for command, and assuring he is
representing the military in its best light."
The above is excerpted from a Letter pleading to A Base Commander to have the spouse stop engaging in prejudicial military privilege acts which are unduly harming and impacting the proceedings in her family court case. Word got out that the Commander in question was later on asked if said spouse had ever contacted him, of which the answer given was no. When evidence of the letter was shown and proof of receipt of same letter, well, let's just say what the Air Force will not say:
That commander is no longer there in that position. Rather convenient, don't you think?! No conspiracy theories necessary, only common sense from those close enough to the base to know. This one base has a unique way of removing or reassigning people to other duties, which conveniently in turn redirects the focus away from those who may have committed any wrong doing, or maybe even implied fault on those who have attempted to speak out. When too many coincidences begin to happen, then common sense dictates it is no longer a coincidence but the appearance of----wait for it---COVER UP--yes I just said it. Anyone NOT in the military is dispensable to this type of personality. Too bad that too many civilians have now seen too much, made reports themselves, and due to what I believe as incompetence to assert and enforce the law on victims of crimes, people have had enough and are speaking out as to what they have seen, witnessed and experienced.
However, when some continue to break the rules, should they see consequences? The Office of Special Investigations for the Air Force doesn't seem to take these matters serious enough even when a person resorts to social media platforms to speak loudly about all they have witnessed. If it wasn't bad enough the spouse was doing it for months, without penalty, he went and had "his buddies" do it for him, thereby giving the court false perception that the military in an official capacity was supporting him. The sad truth is THIS MAN stalks his wife weekly, attempts to engage in what we will just call here as "Intimate Terrorism". Things most people can't possibly understand are things this woman fears the most. Fears I have seen and fears I have seen personally exploited and used by this man to further strike fear.
IN UNIFORM SUPPORTING A PEER
They should both actually be at work because neither of them is on the court docket
a.k.a. "WITNESS INTIMIDATION"
Now of course, no laws were broken in the taking of these pictures as the court session had not yet commenced. Once any court proceedings begin, the fair game phone use rule goes buh-bye and all devices are to be shut off as instructed by a bailiff. If it hadn't been for the obvious constant stares, glares, and beady eye look-downs in the presence of domestic violence advocates, maybe it wouldn't have been so obvious why they were there. After all, they were only looking at one person the entire time when they were not at attention facing forward in their seats. But I am guessing by the lack of response and the Social Media Platform method of contact made, Office of Special Investigations has ignored this violation. The communication might as well not exist at all because it seems like no one is noticing or caring. This woman is a victim and yet they permit these two people to walk into a courtroom like this? yeah- no. I am not okay with that. I've seen this time and time again with this courtroom specifically and especially with THIS victim.
Should we be paying attention to who should actually be wearing a uniform at all or when? What if they're at work at a Base Visitor Center sitting behind the desk, eating fast food, or playing "Big Soda" on the computer? Real professional for a military base, right? Ketchup stain? *wink wink*
Just maybe we shouldn't be putting such blind faith in someone simply because they wear one hat by day and another in their private life.
Lompoc Record Highlights an Airman does such a good job in his community that he attained the role of "Mayor for a day". What they don't realize is that the moment Mr. Lopez puts his uniform on, he is thoroughly documented and witnessed as a Security Forces Officer that refuses to uphold base regulations that protect victims who run inside the Visitor Center to seek Refuge from their abuser when fear is immediately struck in them. I'm a civilian so when I think of moral justice from the average standpoint of any person, I simply look at all people as having the same equal protection of the laws of this country. I however, have yet to see a single day of witnessing encounters where Lopez is involved and doesn't have some sarcastic, snippy, snarky remark to make in defense of his "buddies".
Some may think or ask maybe I'm too personal with this situation. For most people, that might fall true because of how long I've known them. However, most people weren't raised the way I was.
I grew up around the Military: Navy, Coast Guard, Marines,
Air Force, Army not so much except with the occasional trip down to the
facility down off 12th in Oakland, California. What I can tell you for sure though is even
“Sand-Crab Brats” are capable in learning and observing more about professional
decorum than even the average ACTUAL brat.
When you grow up with the military environment surrounding you, a person
learns a lot about the world. You also
learn how to sit back, observe, and learn how to respond instead of immediately
reacting to something. You see, growing
up around the military almost my entire life, I was taught one key phrase by
Commander Anthony Bozzuto of NAS Alameda “Honor and Integrity begin within
yourself, not because of something or someone”.
So, my apologies, but I would disagree. I would contend that ANY wear if not wearing
in the official capacity of their duty, the member should not be anywhere in
their official uniforms (or the uniform of the day). Abuse comes in many forms and when peers are utilized to psychologically terrorize an already hurt soul- well there's a 6x9 in Leavenworth that I'm sure anyone would be willing to free up for creepers like these who don't deserve to wear the uniform at all. Too harsh? How about not harsh enough.
Real people face this same obstacle elsewhere in the world everyday. If not this person, then someone else. It is against regulations, it is illegal, and the downright moral turpitude it requires to possess and exhibit say only one thing to a person such as myself:
You have to be a really disturbed individual to not find something wrong with this.
Had enough? I'm just getting started.
Don't mistake what I say: I have the utmost respect for the uniform-ANY uniform. I was taught that one must honor the uniform they wear or don't wear it at all. Bring stain and shame then give it up because someone else more deserving will appreciate it more and will represent with pride. I come from a long family history of service to this country so excuse me if I find myself disgusted by abhorrent behavior that I personally do not agree represents the very fortitude of our armed forces. In addition, I am pretty certain that our fore-fathers did not find humor in ridiculing victims of abuse and to the very contrary, lent out a hand in quarter to shelter from harm. That is what the uniform is supposed to represent, not the callous giggles that find humor in the smallest weakness of the average human being.
My next segment will reveal the ongoing peer attacks from other service members who ultimately share in the "shit-show" of boys club giggles and just what lengths a person will go to in order to protect "a friend". Maybe then someone in these stories will make you question the true character behind the uniform. Let's just say this: Anyone in a uniform is capable of abusing the perception of what it stands for- for those who fight and for those who have fallen.
Comments
Post a Comment