|
The
War Profiteers - War Crimes, Kidnappings & Torture |
|
The Massacre of Mahmudiya - The Rape and
Murder of Abeer Qasim Hamsa |
|
|
|
United States of America vs. Steven Dale
Green - The Appeals Process File |
|
|
|
U.S. vs. Steven D. Green U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Case No.: 09-6123 (09-6108) Filed on September 18th, 2009 March
15th, 2010 - Reply Brief for
Appellant February
25th, 2010 - Brief for the United
States November
30th, 2009 - Brief for Appellant September
18th, 2009 - Notice of Appeal March 15th, 2010 - Reply Brief for Appellant “[…] A. Green’s discharge was invalid. […] “The government views a service member’s discharge
to be complete when a discharge certificate […] and final pay are ready for
him. […] Green acknowledged that those two components of the discharge
process were met. […] The discharge, however, is not complete until the service
member undergoes a mandatory clearing process. […] As Green noted in his
original brief […], the clearing process is not simply an administrative task
but is an essential element of a valid discharge and is therefore essential
to establishing in personam jurisdiction. […] Therefore, insisting on
compliance with the components of the clearing process identified on pp.
44-49 of Green’s brief is not ‘hypertechnical’ […] because Army Regulations
(AR) make it clear that the military, i.e., the government, has the burden of
ensuring compliance with all aspects of clearing process. […] “The government also seems to suggest […] that Green
waived any challenge to the validity of his discharge by his offer to
re-enlist and subject himself to the UCMJ. But Green’s willingness to re-enlist
was not a concession of the validity of his discharge. As far as the Army was
concerned the discharge was valid. If the Army accepted Green’s request to
re-enlist, it might be argued that his reenlistment waived any defects in the
discharge process but the Army’s rejection of the re-enlistment offer
rendered that point moot. Thus, Green can still challenge the validity of his
discharge in this appeal. “The government argues […] that Green is not
entitled to relief even if the Army failed to strictly comply with all of the
requirements of the clearing process because he was neither prejudiced
thereby nor deprived of his substantial rights. But as Green demonstrated in
his original brief […], he was indeed prejudiced and deprived of substantial
rights because his prosecution in a civilian court resulted in grossly
disparate treatment from his co-accused who were prosecuted by court-martial.
For the reasons set forth in his original brief and in this brief, Green’s
discharge was invalid and at the time he was accused of the Iraq crimes he
was subject to the UCMJ. “Conclusion “For the foregoing reasons, appellant Steven Dale
Green, respectfully submits that he is entitled to the relief requested in
his original brief. […]” February 25th, 2010 - Brief for the United States “[…] In this appeal, Green does not dispute that he
devised a plot to murder an innocent family of Iraqi civilians or that he
carried out his senseless murderous plot in cold blood. Nor does he raise a
single assignment of error regarding the fairness of the ensuing criminal
trial that sought to hold him criminally accountable for those acts. Instead,
Green launches an array of legal challenges to the very legitimacy of the
federal government’s effort to hold him accountable, assailing the
constitutional validity of the MEJA statute itself - a law that Green does
not seem to appreciate was specifically enacted to prevent the absurdity of
allowing people like him to escape any prosecution solely because they
happened to have been discharged from the service before their criminal
conduct was uncovered - as well as the prosecution’s exercise of its
discretion to charge him under that law. “Green’s arguments do not withstand scrutiny, and
they provide no basis for disturbing his convictions or his resulting life
sentences. Indeed, as we will demonstrate, Green’s arguments evince a
deep-seated and fundamentally flawed view of the source, nature and breadth
of the prosecutorial discretion constitutionally entrusted to the Executive
Branch. […]” November 30th,
2009 - Brief for Appellant “[…] Argument I - MEJA is unconstitutional because
it violates the separation of powers and the non-delegation doctrine.
Congress as the Legislative Branch of government has improperly delegated its
constitutional powers to the Executive Branch by allowing the Executive to
have the unfettered discretion to decide whether person, who commits a crime
while a member of the Armed Forces, is to be tried by the military under the
UCMJ or in district court under MEJA. Moreover, the disparate treatment of
Green and the more severe punishments he faced as compared to his military
co-accused violated Green’s rights to equal protection and due process. “Argument II - Green was improperly subjected to
prosecution in district court under MEJA because his discharge from the Army
was invalid. The ‘clearing process’ that is an essential component of a
soldier’s separation from the miliary failed to comply with Army Regulations
thereby rendering Green’s discharge invalid and subjecting him to prosecution
under the UCMJ rather than MEJA. […]” September 18th,
2009 - Notice of Appeal “[…] This appeal has been docketed as case number
09-6123 with the caption that is enclosed on a separate page. “Even if the defendant filed the notice of appeal,
Sixth Circuit Rule 101(a) requires that counsel continue representation on
appeal until specifically relieved by this Court. […] “[…] At this stage of the appeal, the following
forms should be downloaded from the web site and filed with the Clerk's
office by October 2, 2009. […]” The 2009 Steven Green
Case File |
|
Back
to the Mahmudiya Massacre Main Index Back to the
Second Gulf War/Iraq Invasion II |