Change Of Address In A Non-Criminal Case: Fill & Download for Free

You are required to disobey them.Contrary to what many think, military members are not expected to go guns blazing and commit any war crime or illegal act they are ordered to commit void of thought, remorse or legal liability. In fact, it has been proven that "just following orders" is not a plea that holds up in a military court martial with cases going back to 1799. In modern cases this has proven still true as all military members are expected to maintain a rational understanding of their legal obligations and the limits of a lawful order.The Vietnam War presented the United States military courts with more cases of the "I was only following orders" defense than any previous conflict. The decisions during these cases reaffirmed that following manifestly illegal orders is not a viable defense from criminal prosecution. In United States v. Keenan, the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed in order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal."This doesn't mean that an order given can be denied on the suspicion that it is illegal. Take the case that you are given a mission that is highly dangerous. If you were given an order where there is a good chance you will die, would you believe that to be a lawful order? Well it's the military. They are.In October 2004, the Army announced that they were investigating up to 19 members of a platoon from the 343rd Quartermaster Company based in Rock Hill, South Carolina, for refusing to transport supplies in a dangerous area of Iraq. According to family members, some of the troops thought the mission was "too dangerous" because their vehicles were unarmored (or had little armor), and the route they were scheduled to take is one of the most dangerous in Iraq. According to reports, these members simply failed to show up for the pre-departure briefing for the mission. Can they be punished for this? They certainly can. An order to perform a dangerous mission is lawful, because it's not an order to commit a crime. Under current law, and the Manual for Courts-Martial, "An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime."One item I found interesting was that in cases like this, should it be found that one or more of the soldiers in question led the others to disobedience they might just face a new charge - mutiny. Want to know a cool thing about mutiny? That is an offense that can carry the death penalty, even in peacetime. Don't get too excited, I'm not aware of any cases of anyone being executed for mutiny since a few sailors on the USS Somers in 1842.The same logic goes for a person refusing to follow orders on the grounds that they "disagree with a war on a moral level". Any lawful order, no matter how dangerous or uncomfortable is the obligation of the servicemember to carry out.Returning to the basic question:A military service member is obligated not to follow that order. He or she should inform the officer that this is an illegal order and let it be known that they will not comply. Customs and courtesies dictate that you should make some statement to the effect of:With all due respect, sir, I believe that to be an unlawful order, and I respectfully decline to obey it.Such a statement is meant to give an officer, unknowing of his offense opportunity to clarify or belay the order, and gives you a chance at not being disciplined for insubordination.If for any reason this step isn't an option then it isn't necessary, but, assuming that the officer isn't acting out of mal-intent, it does give an otherwise law abiding officer the chance to correct himself. At this point the officer will either change or belay their order, or it gets ugly. Officers have many tools at their discretion. As in a civilian corporation, your boss can put a great deal of pressure on you to make your life harder. Just as any other authority figure, there will be those who will try persuade a service member, threaten or intimidate or otherwise harass the non-compliant service member. This can include charges on various UCMJ articles usually around insubordination, non-judicial punishments (which can vary in severity), or make life difficult off the record through harsh work schedules, peer pressure from the unit or any other manner of unpleasantness you can rationally imagine.Military personnel do have a choice when facing any form of punishment in the military. They can refuse this punishment in lieu of a Military Court Martial. What they are asking for is to be tried in a military court of law for their own crime. What they are effectively doing is getting the chance to get the entire business out in the open where, if they have made the correct choices, they will be acquitted and that officer will likely have a great deal of explaining to do, probably in the form of a Court Martial themselves.The much easier thing to do is to address their chain of command. Typically if something that your superior instructs you to do seems wrong, the golden rule in the military is to take it higher up and higher up again if necessary through your chain of command. Most commands are great about this sort of thing because they want to nip something in the bud when it flares up rather than have their unit plastered all over the nightly news. In the Marine Corps there is a process called Request Mast that is offered to all Marines and Sailors to have a direct opportunity to speak with any company level officer in their direct chain of command all the way up to their commanding General. That is seriously high up there. They are given this right to report to higher situations that they believe to be illegal or beyond reasonable danger to troops as well as to report other serious grievances to the commanding officers. In the Marine Corps and Navy request mast can even make possible to speak to officers even higher than the commanding General and even the Secretary of the Navy, however, this will require the General to forward it into the hands of their superiors. I believe there is a similar process in the army, but since I came from the Marines I can't describe it or give information on where to find it.Yet another option is to seek legal counsel. Judge Advocate General (JAG) officers are available to give legal counsel to anyone who believes they may have been implicated in a crime, given illegal orders or becomes aware of illegal activity in the military. The JAG officers are charged with aiding soldiers in identifying and rectifying situations like this with the fullest capabilities of military law. In the same line is the Department of Defense Inspector General. The DoD IG is an independent, objective agency that provides oversight related to the programs and operations of the United States Department of Defense. One of the key responsibilities of the DoD IG is to protect America’s warfighters by conducting criminal and civil investigations in support of crucial national defense priorities. Persons believing themselves to be under threat of a crime such as this are also protected by the Department of Defense Whistleblower Program. Access to JAG and IG are not just available while in the United States. They deploy officers overseas and to conflict zones to aid deployed troops anywhere on the globe.Closing ThoughtsThe Marines have a saying that the Marine Corps is a perfect organization made of imperfect people. Imperfect people will, from time to time, make very poor choices and present with some very hard ones. If you are in a situation as a member of the United States military and you are given an unlawful order or face any event that you find to be illegal, you are in for a rough day. At the very least you will annoy your commanding officer for being corrected by you and at the worst you may have to get Court Martialed to prove your innocence. However, there are numerous programs and policies available to support you, protect you and see you through this situation. For that reason not only do you not have to follow an illegal order given to you, you are obligated not to.Thanks for reading!For more answers like this check out Jus in Bello - Ethics in War by Jon Davis and follow my blog War Elephant for more new content. Everything I write is completely independent research and is supported by fan and follower pledges. Please consider showing your support directly by visiting my Patreon support page here: Jon Davis on Patreon: Help support in writing Military Novels, Articles, and Essays.

It’s probably worth quoting these sorts of phrases in their entirety, if we want to be accurate and ask honest questions.Here’s what the ACLU actually said on twitter. Took me about 30 seconds to find the quote, by the way:The proposed rule would make schools less safe for survivors of sexual assault and harassment, when there is already alarmingly high rates of campus sexual assaults and harassment that go unreported. It promotes an unfair process, inappropriately favoring the accused and letting schools ignore their responsibility under Title IX to respond promptly and fairly to complaints of sexual violence.That scans a bit different, right?Now, the ACLU is talking about a change to rules in how schools respond to allegations of sexual assault under Title IX. One thing this immediately tells us is that “prison” isn’t in the cards here: your university isn’t going to lock you in a library sub-basement or execute you if a disciplinary hearing doesn’t go well. If someone is referred to the police for criminal charges, they would obviously be entitled to the normal criminal justice process.Notably, the ACLU definitely did not say anything about “due process” generally. They are quite clearly talking specifically about the process of handling sexual assault and harassment allegations within universities.My understanding is that one objection is to the requirement that “[c]olleges and universities would be required to hold a live hearing where cross-examination would be conducted through the parties' advisors.” (Secretary DeVos: Proposed Title IX Rule Provides Clarity for Schools, Support for Survivors, and Due Process Rights for All)So one issue here is whether, in a non-criminal proceeding outside of the Fifth Amendment, a potential victim of sexual assault will be required to subject himself or herself to a presumably adversarial cross-examination about the details of whatever encounter provoked the complaint, and perhaps more. An additional potential issue might be that, in an adversarial process with attorneys, victims may need to hire an attorney in order to make a successful Title IX complaint, at which point it seems like civil litigation starts making more sense.Speaking of which, another change, which the more detailed ACLU statement addresses more specifically, is that the changes allow schools to adopt higher standard of proof for sexual assault hearings than civil courts: “clear and convincing” versus “preponderance of evidence.” This means that a student who has won a civil action for battery in front of an actual jury could “lose” their case in front of a school administrator.Additionally, the changes adopt a more stringent definition of sexual harassment, mirroring what is required to receive monetary damages in court.Are these changes a good thing or a bad thing? I would frankly need to do more research to arrive at a well-considered position on a matter of university administration, but I can say with some confidence that the statement from the ACLU probably rates a bit less pearl-clutching than seems to be happening.

Court can order delivery of summons in multiple ways. As a last resort, newspaper advertisement may be given and then warrants will be issued (first bailable and non-bailable, if bailable warrant is not complied to) to cause the appearance of the accused in the criminal case.