Military law isn't the same as civil law, while in, you are subject to ucmj and all local laws. I'm positive there's just extra testing before you can be "registered military lawyer".
But obviously why it's relevant is because we're all hoping this ends up in military courts. This is treason.
I went to the site and in one of the comment the Military Code was cited:
"Rule 502. Qualifications and duties of personnel of courts-martial
(a) Members.
(1) Qualifications. The members detailed to a court-martial shall be those persons who in the opinion of the convening authority are best qualified for the duty by reason of their age, education, training, experience, length of service, and judicial temperament. Each member shall be on active duty with the armed forces and shall be:
(A) A commissioned officer;
(B) A warrant officer, except when the accused is a commissioned officer; or
(C) An enlisted person, except when the accused is either a commissioned or warrant officer.
Again Sidney CANNOT PROSECUTE in a Military Tribunal setting, period."
Could someone with the appropriate expertise say whether and if so how this is incorrect? (I hope it is, but I also believe in research and sauce.)
EDIT: Even if she's not qualified to prosecute before a military tribunal, it may be moot provided she has top-flight military lawyers on her team.
Yes, it is.
And what do you know, coincidentally, Sidney Powell is a registered military lawyer.
Just all a big coincidence.
https://themarshallreport.wordpress.com/2020/11/23/sidney-powell-is-registered-as-a-military-lawyer-and-is-the-only-one-who-can-prosecute-treason-at-a-tribunal/
You can just search for "Sidney Powell Military Lawyer" .........
Military law isn't the same as civil law, while in, you are subject to ucmj and all local laws. I'm positive there's just extra testing before you can be "registered military lawyer".
But obviously why it's relevant is because we're all hoping this ends up in military courts. This is treason.
Insane google skills. Not everyone has them.
The best Google skills are knowing not to use Google
I went to the site and in one of the comment the Military Code was cited:
"Rule 502. Qualifications and duties of personnel of courts-martial
(a) Members.
(1) Qualifications. The members detailed to a court-martial shall be those persons who in the opinion of the convening authority are best qualified for the duty by reason of their age, education, training, experience, length of service, and judicial temperament. Each member shall be on active duty with the armed forces and shall be:
(A) A commissioned officer;
(B) A warrant officer, except when the accused is a commissioned officer; or
(C) An enlisted person, except when the accused is either a commissioned or warrant officer.
Again Sidney CANNOT PROSECUTE in a Military Tribunal setting, period."
Could someone with the appropriate expertise say whether and if so how this is incorrect? (I hope it is, but I also believe in research and sauce.)
EDIT: Even if she's not qualified to prosecute before a military tribunal, it may be moot provided she has top-flight military lawyers on her team.
Found this. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/253
I haven’t seen any confirmation of this. It’s larp faggotry until otherwise noted.