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.
Look, if treason is punishable by execution, I want to see some good old-fashioned Constitutional, daddy-dick military justice. That's only if people are found guilty of high crimes. We're long overdue for someone's life being made an example of for crimes against our Republic.
President & Commander in Chief Trump snaps his fingers, we're in for a week-long marathon of military justice with a prejudice.
Duck duck Go , a better choice to thwart the evil of Sundar Pichai .Google used to have : Do no evil " as its corporate motto . That was quietly dropped and now...... here we are .
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.
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.
Look, if treason is punishable by execution, I want to see some good old-fashioned Constitutional, daddy-dick military justice. That's only if people are found guilty of high crimes. We're long overdue for someone's life being made an example of for crimes against our Republic.
President & Commander in Chief Trump snaps his fingers, we're in for a week-long marathon of military justice with a prejudice.
Fire up the Commander in Chief memes, Pedes.
Way overdue
Can’t we just do the traitors like the Italians did to Mussolini?
Nope.
Go back and watch Lindsey Graham's questioning of Kavanaugh.
He specifically asked about civilians being prosecuted by military courts.
Insane google skills. Not everyone has them.
The best Google skills are knowing not to use Google
Bing-o
Duck duck Go , a better choice to thwart the evil of Sundar Pichai .Google used to have : Do no evil " as its corporate motto . That was quietly dropped and now...... here we are .
Sundar Pichai aka the CIA
It was always a ruse to make people trust them more.
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.