United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Colorado Supreme Court: Employers can fire for off-duty pot use
Source:
The Denver Post
URL Source: http://www.denverpost.com/marijuana ... ms-lower-court-rulings-medical
Published: Jun 15, 2015
Author: Alicia Wallace
Post Date: 2015-06-15 14:23:07 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 14258
Comments: 80
Lawyer for Dish Network employee fired after using medical pot to treat muscle spasms calls ruling "devastating". Brandon Coats, right, with his mother Donna Scharfenberg sitting by his side, Sept. 30, 2014. The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday affirmed lower courts' rulings that businesses can fire employees for the use of medical marijuana — even if it's off-duty. The 6-0 decision comes nine months after the state's highest court heard oral arguments in Brandon Coats' case against Dish Network. Coats, who had a medical marijuana card and consumed pot off-duty to control muscle spasms, was fired in 2010 after failing a random drug test. Coats challenged Dish's zero-tolerance drug policy, claiming that his use was legal under state law. The firing was upheld in both trial court and the Colorado Court of Appeals. DOCUMENT: Colorado Supreme Court affirms ruling When the case went to the state Supreme Court, legal observers said the case could have significant implications for employers across Colorado. They also noted that the ruling could be precedent-setting as Colorado and other states wrangle with adapting laws to a nascent industry that is illegal under federal law. As such, the question at hand is whether the use of medical marijuana — which is in compliance with Colorado's Medical Marijuana Amendment — is "lawful" under the state's Lawful Off-Duty Activities Statute. That term, the justices said, refers to activities lawful under both state and federal law. "Therefore, employees who engage in an activity, such as medical marijuana use, that is permitted by state law but unlawful under federal law are not protected by the statute," Justice Allison H. Eid wrote in the opinion. The justices said the court will not make a new law. Current Colorado law allows employers to set their own policies on drug use. Coats' attorney Michael Evans, of Centennial-based The Evans Group, called the decision "devastating." "For people like Brandon Coats, there really isn't a 'choice,' as MMJ is the only substance both he and his (Colorado-licensed) physicians know of to control his seizures due to his quadriplegia," Evans said. "He has to have it. " A silver lining of the decision, Evans said, is that it provides clarity in a "scary, gray area" of state law. "Today's decision means that until someone in the House or Senate champions the cause, most employees who work in a state with the world's most powerful MMJ laws will have to choose between using MMJ and work," Evans said in a statement. Six of the seven justices decided on the case. Justice Monica Marquez recused herself because her father, retired Senior Judge Jose D.L. Marquez, was on the Court of Appeals panel that upheld Coats' firing. Sam Kamin, a law professor at the University of Denver, said the justices' decision comes as no surprise. "It's easy to make too much of this decision," he said. "It really comes down to interpreting this one word in this one statute." As a matter of statutory interpretation, the court got it right, he said. But for Coats and medical marijuana advocates, this is a blow, Kamin said. Coats was a "dream plaintiff" in that marijuana served as medicine, he said. Coats was rendered a quadriplegic by a car accident and used marijuana to control leg spasms. The cause likely would land in the hands of the state legislature, Kamin said. "I think (Coats') case is very sympathetic, and I think his case would be quite compelling before the legislature," Kamin said. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-40) not displayed.
.
.
.
#41. To: sneakypete (#39)
Be interesting to see how this Navy Chaplain's complaint turns out: www.breitbart.com/big- gov.../11/naval-chaplain-files-formal-complaint-over-christian- persecution/ His situation is a good example of how "progressives" cooperate like social wolves hunting their prey.
www.breitbart.com/big- gov.../11/naval-chaplain-files-formal-complaint-over-christian- persecution/ Bad link. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I was thinking more along the lines of tobacco, alcohol, guns (not to ingest, of course), etc. Back in the day when I cared about such things, some Texas companies refuse to hire or employ after the policy was adopted, any tobacco users (cigar, cigarette, snuff, chaw, et al). And it was legal to make such things a condition of employment. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
In the Army no one is allowed to use any tobacco products inside installation buildings or in public places. Like most work places, there is a designated smoking/chew/chaw area. Well some corporations know the most time wasted at work are during smoke breaks and internet goof off time. Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
If the money in the SS account belongs to the person who is drawing it, isn't it supposedly earned? Isn't that what SS is supposed to be about? Of course, since SSDI is easy enough defrauded, I can see where you are going with this. SSRI is supposed to be funded from your contributions, so I see little reason to test a retiree for a plant addiction when they earned the money they are being paid back (after all, SS really is the GrubberMint forcing you to loan them money then give it back to you at a diminished return). By the way, I am in no way endorsing SS, just stating obvious facts.
No, SS is an entitlement. http://www.creators.com/lifestylefeatures/business-and-finance/your-social- security/social-security-is-an-entitlement.html Social Security Is an Entitlement Q: It really gets my goat when I hear politicians refer to Social Security as an entitlement. I worked all my life and paid Social Security taxes all my life. How can they call that an entitlement? A. They can call it that because Social Security is an entitlement — literally. And I think you've got to blame popular culture, not politicians, for abusing the term. Social Security is an entitlement in not only the literal but also the legal sense of the term. Social Security is Title II of the Social Security Act. Medicare is Title XVIII — and other programs make up other titles of the Social Security law. So that's where the root word "title" comes from. Once you meet all the qualifications for Social Security benefits (having enough work credits, being the right age, etc.) then you are considered eligible for benefits. But when you actually file a claim for benefits and get approved, you are legally entitled to those benefits. So that is what makes Social Security an entitlement program. And for that matter, any other government program for which you have to meet certain eligibility criteria and then sign an application and get approved for benefits is also an entitlement program. But popular culture, frankly mostly Fox News and the Tea Party folks, have given the term a bad name. They have started using the word to imply some kind of government handout, like welfare or food stamps. Actually, welfare and food stamps are also entitlement programs because you have to meet certain eligibility criteria and file a formal application to become entitled to those benefits, too. It's just too bad the name has been given such a stigma. There is nothing wrong with being an entitlement program. It's just a legal term.
Actually, the reason given was insurance costs. Employers claimed they couldn't afford the premiums to cover the liabilities. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
It is a legally correct ruling. Pot is unlawful. It is not made legal by state law. It is made not criminal under state jurisdiction. Within Federal jurisdiction, it is as illegal as ever. The state can repeal any state statute that criminalizes possession and use under state law. It cannot lawfully pass an affirmative statute to the effect that pot is legal, in direct conflict with controlling federal law. It could, perhaps, pass a statute that the state employment protection applieds to activity not unlawful pursuant to state statute. Prohibition could not be repealed in a state, by virtue of state law, when it was prohibited within federal jurisdiction. The states did not have to enact state laws prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages, but they could not lawfully enact legislation making such sale lawful within the state jurisdiction. An attempt to hold that a state statute overrides a federal statute will invite the Feds to come in and prove otherwise. A state may get away with not enforcing a federal statute, but it is unlikely the Feds would stand by as a state declared that its law had nullified a federal law. The statute was originally passed in 1990 to protect smokers (of tobacco). http://www.lpdirect.net/casb/crs/24-34-402_5.html (1) It shall be a discriminatory or unfair employment practice for an employer to terminate the employment of any employee due to that employee's engaging in any lawful activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours unless such a restriction: (a) Relates to a bona fide occupational requirement or is reasonably and rationally related to the employment activities and responsibilities of a particular employee or a particular group of employees, rather than to all employees of the employer; or (b) Is necessary to avoid a conflict of interest with any responsibilities to the employer or the appearance of such a conflict of interest. (2)(a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, the sole remedy for any person claiming to be aggrieved by a discriminatory or unfair employment practice as defined in this section shall be as follows: He or she may bring a civil action for damages in any district court of competent jurisdiction and may sue for all wages and benefits that would have been due him or her up to and including the date of the judgment had the discriminatory or unfair employment practice not occurred; except that nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the person from the obligation to mitigate his or her damages. (b)(I) If the prevailing party in the civil action is the plaintiff, the court shall award the plaintiff court costs and a reasonable attorney fee. (II) This paragraph (b) shall not apply to an employee of a business that has or had fifteen or fewer employees during each of twenty or more calendar work weeks in the current or preceding calendar year. Coats v. Dish Network, [footnotes omitted] [excerpt] I. ¶5 We take the following from the complaint. Brandon Coats is a quadriplegic and has been confined to a wheelchair since he was a teenager. In 2009, he registered for and obtained a state-issued license to use medical marijuana to treat painful muscle spasms caused by his quadriplegia. Coats consumes medical marijuana at home, after work, and in accordance with his license and Colorado state law. ¶6 Between 2007 and 2010, Coats worked for respondent Dish as a telephone customer service representative. In May 2010, Coats tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol ("THC"), a component of medical marijuana, during a random drug test. Coats informed Dish that he was a registered medical marijuana patient and planned to continue using medical marijuana. On June 7, 2010, Dish fired Coats for violating the company's drug policy. ¶7 Coats then filed a wrongful termination claim against Dish under section 24-34-402.5, which generally prohibits employers from discharging an employee based on his engagement in "lawful activities" off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours. § 24-34-402.5(1). Coats contended that Dish violated the statute by terminating him based on his outside-of-work medical marijuana use, which he argued 5 - - - - - was "lawful" under the Medical Marijuana Amendment and its implementing legislation. ¶8 Dish filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Coats's medical marijuana use was not "lawful" for purposes of the statute under either federal or state law. ¶9 The trial court dismissed Coats's claim. It rejected Coats's argument that the Medical Marijuana Amendment made his use a "lawful activity" for purposes of section 24-34-402.5. Instead the court found that the Amendment provided registered patients an affirmative defense to state criminal prosecution without making their use of medical marijuana a "lawful activity" within the meaning of section 24-34-402.5. As such, the trial court concluded that the statute afforded no protection to Coats and dismissed the claim without examining the federal law issue. ¶10 On appeal, Coats again argued that Dish wrongfully terminated him under section 24-34-402.5 because his use of medical marijuana was "lawful" under state law. Dish likewise reiterated that it did not violate section 24-34-402.5 because medical marijuana use remains prohibited under federal law. ¶11 In a split decision, the court of appeals affirmed based on the prohibition of marijuana use under the federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) (2012) (the "CSA"). Looking to the plain language of section 24-34-402.5, the majority found that the term "lawful" means "that which is 'permitted by law.'" Coats, ¶ 13, 303 P.3d at 150. Applying that plain meaning, the majority reasoned that to be "lawful" for purposes of section 24-34-402.5, activities that are governed by both state and federal law must "be permitted by, and not contrary to, both state and federal law." Id. at 1 14, 6 - - - - - 303 P.3d at 151. Given that the federal CSA prohibits all marijuana use, the majority concluded that Coats's conduct was not "lawful activity" protected by the statute. The majority therefore affirmed the trial court's decision on different grounds, not reaching the question of whether the state constitutional amendment created a constitutional right for registered patients to use medical marijuana or an affirmative defense to prosecution for such use. Coats, ¶ 23, 303 P.3d at 152. ¶12 In dissent, Judge Webb argued that the term "lawful" must be interpreted according to state, rather than federal, law. He argued that the majority's interpretation failed to effectuate the purpose of the statute by improperly narrowing the scope of the statute's protection. Id. at ¶ 47, 303 P.3d at 156 (Webb, J., dissenting). Finding that the Medical Marijuana Amendment made state-licensed medical marijuana use "at least lawful," Judge Webb concluded that Coats's use should be protected by the statute. Id. at ¶ 56, 303 P.3d at 157 (Webb, J., dissenting). ¶13 We granted review of the court of appeals' opinion and now affirm. The term "lawful" as it is used in section 24-34-402.5 is not restricted in any way, and we decline to engraft a state law limitation onto the term. Therefore, an activity such as medical 7 - - - - - marijuana use that is unlawful under federal law is not a "lawful" activity under section 24-34-402.5. Accordingly, we affirm the opinion of the court of appeals. II. ¶14 We review de novo the question of whether medical marijuana use prohibited by federal law is a "lawful activity" protected under section 24-34-402.5. DuBois v. People, 211 P.3d 41, 43 (Colo. 2009). ¶15 The "lawful activities statute" provides that "[i]t shall be a discriminatory or unfair employment practice for an employer to terminate the employment of any employee due to that employee's engaging in any lawful activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours" unless certain exceptions apply. § 24-34-402.5(1) (emphasis added). An employee discharged in violation of this provision may bring a civil action for damages, including lost wages or benefits. § 24-34-402.5(2)(a). ¶16 By its terms the statute protects only "lawful" activities. However, the statute does not define the term "lawful." Coats contends that the term should be read as limited to activities lawful under state law. We disagree. ¶17 In construing undefined statutory terms, we look to the language of the statute itself "with a view toward giving the statutory language its commonly accepted and understood meaning." People v. Schuett, 833 P.2d 44, 47 (Colo. 1992). We have construed the term "lawful" once before and found that its "generally understood meaning" is "in accordance with the law or legitimate." See id. (citing Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1279 (1986)). Similarly, courts in other states have construed "lawful" to mean "authorized by law and not contrary to, nor forbidden by 8 - - - - - law." Hougum v. Valley Memorial Homes, 574 N.W.2d 812, 821 (N.D. 1998) (defining "lawful" as used in similar lawful activities provision); In re Adoption of B.C.H., 22 N.E.3d 580, 585 (Ind. 2014) ("Upon our review of the plain and ordinary meaning of 'lawful custody,' . . . 'lawful' means 'not contrary to law.'"). We therefore agree with the court of appeals that the commonly accepted meaning of the term "lawful" is "that which is 'permitted by law' or, conversely, that which is "not contrary to, or forbidden by law." Coats, ¶ 13, 303 P.3d at 150. ¶18 We still must determine, however, whether medical marijuana use that is licensed by the State of Colorado but prohibited under federal law is "lawful" for purposes of section 24-34-402.5. Coats contends that the General Assembly intended the term "lawful" here to mean "lawful under Colorado state law," which, he asserts, recognizes medical marijuana use as "lawful." Coats, ¶ 6, 303 P.3d at 149. We do not read the term "lawful" to be so restrictive. Nothing in the language of the statute limits the term "lawful" to state law. Instead, the term is used in its general, unrestricted sense, indicating that a "lawful" activity is that which complies with applicable "law," including state and federal law. We therefore decline Coats's invitation to engraft a state law limitation onto the statutory language. See State Dep't of Revenue v. Adolph Coors Co., 724 P.2d 1341, 1345 (Colo. 1986) (declining to read a restriction into unrestricted statutory language); Turbyne v. People, 151 P.3d 563, 567 (Colo. 2007) (stating that "[w]e do not add words to the statute"). ¶19 Coats does not dispute that the federal Controlled Substances Act prohibits medical marijuana use. See 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). The CSA lists marijuana as a Schedule I 9 - - - - - substance, meaning federal law designates it as having no medical accepted use, a high risk of abuse, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Id. at § 812(b)(1)(A)-(C). This makes the use, possession, or manufacture of marijuana a federal criminal offense, except where used for federally-approved research projects. Id. at § 844(a); see also Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005). There is no exception for marijuana use for medicinal purposes, or for marijuana use conducted in accordance with state law. 21 U.S.C. § 844(a); see also Gonzales, 545 U.S. at 29 (finding that "[t]he Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail," including in the area of marijuana regulation). Coats's use of medical marijuana was unlawful under federal law and thus not protected by section 24-34-402.5. ¶20 Echoing Judge Webb's dissent, Coats argues that because the General Assembly intended section 24-34-402.5 to broadly protect employees from discharge for outside-of-work activities, we must construe the term "lawful" to mean "lawful under Colorado law." Coats, ¶¶ 46-47, 303 P.3d at 156 (Webb, J., dissenting). In this case, however, we find nothing to indicate that the General Assembly intended to extend section 10 - - - - - 24-34-402.5's protection for "lawful" activities to activities that are unlawful under federal law. In sum, because Coats's marijuana use was unlawful under federal law, it does not fall within section 24-34-402.5's protection for "lawful" activities. ¶21 Having decided this case on the basis of the prohibition under federal law, we decline to address the issue of whether Colorado's Medical Marijuana Amendment deems medical marijuana use "lawful" by conferring a right to such use. IV. ¶22 For the reasons stated above, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals. JUSTICE MARQUEZ does not participate. 11 - - - - -
There is no money in an SS account. The incoming money goes into the General Fund. Each month money is drawn from the General Fund to fund the current expenses for that month. The extra funds remain in the General Fund and are spent. The SS Account contains nothing but Federal bonds or IOUs. If the General Fund goes bust, the SS Fund has nothing but worthless paper. The SS Account has nothing but the full faith and credit of the government.
www.breitbart.com/big- gov.../11/naval-chaplain-files-formal-complaint-over-christian- persecution/ by AUSTIN RUSE11 Jun 2015 Chaplain Wes Modder spends his days basically alone in the base chapel. He is no longer allowed into his office. By order of his commanding officer, he is not allowed even to speak to the sailors in his unit. If anyone from his unit comes into the chapel, he may not speak with them. His commanding officer, Captain Jon Fahs, has taken this unusual step because of complaints lodged against Modder by a handful of sailors who claim he is “unable to function in a pluralistic and diverse Navy.” Modder ran into the buzzsaw of political correctness related to human sexuality. Fahs requested various actions against Modder, including taking him off the promotions list, separating him for cause, and initiating a board of inquiry. None of that has happened yet and, in the meantime, Modder sits alone unable to help his fellow sailors. Modder was not even allowed to minister to his unit personnel after a recent suicide in the unit. Modder and his lawyers at the Liberty Institute have taken the highly unusual step of filing a complaint against his commanding officer. According to Modder’s lawyer Mike Berry, it is almost unprecedented for a subordinate officer to file such a complaint. An Article 138 complaint allows a subordinate to circumvent the chain of command and complain to higher-ups about a superior officer who has done something wrong. The Article 138 complaint would force his commanding officer to let Modder do his job and to do it in line with his endorsing denomination. Modder’s Article 138 complaint will go to Admiral John Richardson, Director for Naval Reactors, who is also President Obama’s nomination for Chief of Naval Operations and a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. [snip]
They started the "Non-Smoking" in government facilities in the early 80s. Glad I retired before they said you couldn't chew either, I would have been one unhappy puppy without being able to have a chaw of Beechnut when doing paperwork.. :) Once I quit playing ball on a regular basis the urge to have a chaw has disappeared, I wonder why? Did you know you can "load up the ball" in slowpitch just like fastpitch? :) LOL... “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
You should have pinged Jameson to your post he would find that interesting. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
I also remember (when Colorado first decided to make pot legal) making the comment that employers would still be free to fire/piss test employees even though pot was now legal there. I also remember getting very few comments by some of the pro pot posters about that comment of mine. So they either didn't want to think about what I said or they already knew what I said would come true, but that hasn't stopped them from whining about stuff like this now. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Sad,but true. The Dims have been raiding the so-called SS Trust Fund and putting "IOU's" in it from the beginning. Where do you think they got the money from to finance all their social engineering programs? They sure as hell didn't tax themselves (the rich) to pay for it. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I have no idea how his commanding officer can get away with that. He should complain to whatever organization runs the religious cult he belongs to,and have them sue the Navy. You can bet your ass the Navy would never try it if he were a Catholic Priest,a Rabbi,or a Muslim cleric. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
You had me right there, before all the supporting legal boilerplate and cites. Hard to see what other ruling anyone expected. Seemed like a Hail Mary case but we knew someone just had to try a case like this, sooner than later.
Excellent research. Thanks for clarifying.
Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
Chan did a great lay down of the actual ruling and supporting law. Go up thread a bit if you were not pinged.
Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
I do. This would certainly not be a one-off occasion. And not only can the CO get away with it, there is not much Modder can do about it but throw himself at the feet of the CO and beg for mercy. Please note that Navy discipline functions differently than other services even though they all function under the UCMJ. In the Army, if the CO decides to award you non-judicial punishment (NJP) at "Office Hours," you can decline the penalty and demand a court-martial. Sailors on ships at sea cannot decline the NJP at what is called "Captain's Mast" in the Navy. 2012 Manual for Courts-Martial, page V-2: Except in the case of a person attached to or embarked in a vessel, punishment may not be imposed under Article 15 upon any member of the armed forces who has, before the imposition of nonjudicial punishment, demanded trial by court-martial in lieu of nonjudicial punishment. That sort of power can create a god complex. It's why we say that the closest thing we have to a god is the captain of a naval ship at sea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wes_Modder Modder stepped in it and his assistant officer prepared and brought the case against him. The LTJG was in a prime position to document events and prepare the case. Modder, a member of the Pentecostal Assemblies of God denomination, has been removed from his post at NNPTC and temporarily reassigned to Naval Support Activity Charleston as a staff chaplain while Navy Personnel Command reviews Fahs’ recommendations. In a Feb. 17 memo to Navy Personnel Command, Fahs said that a command investigation, which was conducted following complaints from several sailors, found that Modder: Modder and his attorney, Mike Berry, denied that the chaplain said or did anything inappropriate, and filed a religious accommodation request with the Navy last week. Modder cannot prevail on a religious accomodation request to counsel homosexuals that they should pray away the gay. The CO finds a threat to good order and discipline. Defendant denies it. CO wins. Fahs said Modder failed in his duty to “be sensitive to the religious, spiritual, moral, cultural, and personal differences” of his fellow sailors, and demonstrated an “inability to comfort and counsel in a manner that was respectful of the counselee while maintaining dignity and professionalism.” [...] Modder has served in the Navy for 19 years. He stands to lose substantial retirement benefits if a potential board of inquiry forces him into early retirement before he reaches 20 years of service. The military here is clearly trying to set an example. Modder may have told the CO that he intends to keep doing what he has been doing. In that case, it is like challenging the CO to a dick measuring contest. Below is the 2014 DoD policy change. There is always the stuff about good order and discipline and unit cohesion. http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/130017p.pdf DoD Instruction 1300.17, February 10, 2009; Incorporating Change 1, Effective January 22, 2014. SUBJECT: Accommodation of Religious Practices Within the Military Services Paragraph 4, b thru e: Red font indicates new content added in 2014 and with strikeout, deleted content. c. DoD has a compelling government interest in mission accomplishment, including the elements of mission accomplishment such as military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, health, and safety, on both the individual and unit levels. An essential part of unit cohesion is establishing and maintaining uniform military grooming and appearance standards. d. In so far as practicable, a Service member’s expression of sincerely held beliefs (conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs) may not be used as the basis of any adverse personnel action, discrimination, or denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment. (1) In accordance with section 2000bb-1 of Title 42, United States Code (Reference (e)), requests for religious accommodation from a military policy, practice, or duty that substantially burdens a Service member’s exercise of religion may be denied only when the military policy, practice, or duty: (a) Furthers a compelling governmental interest. (b) Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. (2) Requests for religious accommodation from a military policy, practice, or duty that does not substantially burden a Service member’s exercise of religion should not be evaluated under the standard established in paragraph 4e(1). Under these circumstances, the needs of the requesting Service member are balanced against the needs of mission accomplishment. Only if it is determined that the needs of mission accomplishment outweigh the needs of the Service member may the request be denied. - - - - - His "cult" or whatever would not have standing to sue. He can waste his time trying. He should be prepared to be his own lawyer or have very deep pockets. Even if he had a good case, the Navy can litigate it from now until all avenues are exhausted or his finances are exhausted. And suit canot be brought in court until all administrative remedies have been exhausted. The process could take years. He cannot argue first amendment rights. He must argue against, “inability to comfort and counsel in a manner that was respectful of the counselee while maintaining dignity and professionalism.” Maybe the CO acted just because he hates Modder's "cult," or fundamentalists in general, but that would be a challenge to prove.
He can certainly argue his religious freedom has been denied. Maybe the CO acted just because he hates Modder's "cult," or fundamentalists in general, but that would be a challenge to prove. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
He can certainly argue his religious freedom has been denied. Maybe the CO acted just because he hates Modder's "cult," or fundamentalists in general, but that would be a challenge to prove. While it isn't absolute "proof",he can argue that his CO has a record of NOT pursuing similar actions against other religious sects as an indication that he and his faith were discriminated against. I'm probably not the most religious guy you will ever meet,but even I can see this seems to be what has happened. Fair is fair. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Smoking dope isn't a religion dopey. I remember when the commies (lefitsts like yourself) wanted to ship in drugs to America to make us stupid and complacent. Birds of a feather.
He can't win the argument. Who is he arguing to? The Navy. The CO found, “inability to comfort and counsel in a manner that was respectful of the counselee while maintaining dignity and professionalism.” It is alleged he cannot properly perform the function of his job. That is what he must overcome.
He needs to provide relevant evidence that he can properly perform his job. He can argue that he is an aggrieved party and other stuff, but he would be doing it as a civilian without a military pension. His CO is a Captain (O-6 in the Navy) and it appears clear that he wants to get rid of Modder. It looks like they are going to hold a board and just push him out the gate. If the Board finds he should go, he may find himself gone. This is not a judicial matter, it is an administrative matter. It's not like he is getting a trial. And the military justice system is to promote good order and discipline. It's part of that federal law enforcement that I came to know and love. /sarc The CO is not demonstrating his fairness. He is demonstrating his power. Who is going to reverse him?
60 years of strategic Demoralization inflicted upon the American McSheeple, that's how.
The right to face your accusers doesn't exist among the zealot social-engineers implementing/inflicting their Transhumanist/Postgenderist agenda upon humanity. It's all about manufactured perception.
They are engaged in administrative actions. There are no criminal charges. The military justice system features more protections under the "zealot social-engineers" of today than under the military law of yesteryear. It still differs from the civilian justice system. Berry is also preparing a response to Fahs’ recommendations to Navy Personnel Command for punishing Modder.
Typed by a man with a brain the size of a pea. Ever heard of Rastafarianism? Besides,it's better to smoke dope than to be a dope. Get somebody to splain that to you. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
He can't win the argument. Who is he arguing to? The Navy. That is the argument he can use when he is suing the Navy for damages for discrimination. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
He should be able to get some of the sailors that came to him while they were both on AD to testify for him. The CO is not demonstrating his fairness. He is demonstrating his power. Who is going to reverse him? Anybody up the military food chain that is of equal or higher rank. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I do understand the way the system currently works. Thank you for taking the time to try to explain it anyways. Pericles, on the other hand, may have trouble tying his shoes, let alone understand a simple concept as a masterfully executed GrubberMint pyramid scheme designed in the same manner as many public employee pension funds are handled now. Force Paul to pay into a GrubberMint-sponsored pension plan fund all of his working life. Paul retires. There are no funds to pay Paul as promised. Rob Peter to pay Paul; tell Peter it is his "civic duty" to keep getting to robbed because soon he will be in Paul's position. Promise a better payout for Peter when he retires. Plan on reducing his payout while enjoying a Peter-funded $200,000 "conference" on how well you are running the GrubberMint-sponsored pension plans.
Suing the Federal government, in Federal court, for damages. There is a concept with high hopes (even assuming the allegation is true). http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-42/chapter-21/subchapter-vi/section-2000e-2/ §2000e–2. Unlawful employment practices (a) Employer practices It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer— (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. I assume that would have to be the nature of the complaint you envision. It will be impossible to establish the factual predicate that the Navy acted because of Modder's religion. He was referred to a board of inquiry because of his job performance. The limited prospects for squeezing any money out of the Navy would mean that there would be very little prospect of acquiring an attorney on a contingent fee basis. He would have to foot the bill. It would be in the tens of thousands of dollars with little prospect of getting anything in return. (This is true whether an argument has merit or not.) He cannot rely on a claim that the CO caused his (prospective at this time) separation. His CO referred it to a board of inquiry which will report its findings and, assuming the board finds separation to be indicated, it will go to the Navy bureaucracy to issue an actual separation order. The prospective named respondent in a civil suit being the Secretary of the Navy as head of the agency, not Modder's commanding officer. The recommendation goes to a Separation Authority. He would have to show that the Separation Authority discriminated against him. It's like the Godfather. They use buffers. The CO referred it to a Board of Inquiry for investigation. Good luck suing for that, or for following the findings and recommendations of the Board. If Modder gets separated, that will be decided by the Separation Authority, based on the findings of the Board of Inquiry and recommendation of the CO, and a Discharge Review Board. I believe the Separation Authority will be a flag officer. A Board of Inquiry is an administrative fact finding body and follows Hearing procedure, and does not follow the military Rules of Evidence with a few exceptions as described below. Arguments may be made after the testimony and statements of the parties, if any. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/l/aadischarge1.htm http://www.npc.navy.mil/bupers-npc/reference/milpersman/1000/1900Separation/Documents/1920-210.pdf MILPERSMAN 1920-210, Types of Discharge for Officers At 4: Ultimate determination as to the type and character of separation of an officer shall be made by the Separation Authority. It is emphasized that a. certificates of discharge shall be issued from the Navy Department alone (under no circumstances shall a ship or station issue any form of certificate of discharge to a member separated from the service as a warrant or commissioned officer). b. certificates shall be issued only following separation from the service and not upon release to inactive duty. SECNAVINST 1920.6c, Administrative Separation of Officers ¶ 7b ¶ 13d Encl 1, ¶ 34 a. See paragraph 13.d. of basic instruction. b. Officers (not below the grade of major general or rear admiral) to determine, based on a record review, that an officer shall be required to show cause for retention in the military service. http://www.jag.navy.mil/library/instructions/5830_1A.pdf JAGINST 5830.1, Procedures Applicable to Courts and Boards of Inquiry At 2: At 9-10: a. Rights of a Party. A person duly designated a party before a Court or Board of Inquiry shall be advised of and accorded the following rights: (1) To be given due notice of such designation. (2) To be present during the proceedings, except in accordance with paragraph 9b below and when the investigation is cleared for deliberations. (3) To be represented by counsel. (4) To be informed of the purpose of the investigation and provided with a copy of the appointing order. (5) To examine and object to the introduction of physical evidence and written statements. (6) To object to the testimony of witnesses and to cross-examine witnesses. (7) To request that the Court or Board of Inquiry obtain documents and testimony of witnesses or pursue additional areas of inquiry. See paragraph 11f below. (8) To introduce evidence. (9) To not be called as a witness, but to testify at his request. (10) To refuse to self-incriminate. If a party is suspected of an offense, to be informed of the nature of the accusation and advised that he does not have to make any statement regarding the offense of which he is [9] - - - - - accused or suspected; and that any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him in a trial by court-martial. See paragraph 12d below. (11) To make a voluntary statement, sworn or unsworn, oral or written, to be included in the record of proceedings. (12) To make an argument at the conclusion of the presentation of evidence. (13) To be properly advised concerning the Privacy Act. (14) To challenge members of the Court or Board of Inquiry for cause stated to the court or board, Article 135(d), UCMJ. See paragraph 10f below. At 11: At 15: At 15-16: a. Rules of Evidence. Proceedings under this instruction are administrative and not judicial. Therefore, the Military Rules of Evidence (M.R.E.), other than M.R.E. 301, 302, 303, 412 and 501-507, will not be followed. See JAGMAN 0214 and paragraph 13 of this enclosure as to the standard of proof required to support findings of fact. b. Objections to Evidence. Any member, the counsel for the court or board, a designated party, counsel for a party, or the president may object to the Court or Board of Inquiry considering any evidence. The reason for the objection will be stated on the record. [15] - - - - - c. Rulings. A Court or Board of Inquiry is an administrative Fact-Finding Body and, as such, it is inappropriate except as detailed in this paragraph for the president to rule on objections to evidence. Rather, the objection should be noted for the record. The president may rule, subject to objection detailed in paragraph lid below, on the following matters: (1) Relevancy. Any information relevant to the investigation may be brought before the Court or Board of Inquiry. Relevant information means information having a tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. The president may rule that evidence is not relevant and exclude its consideration by the court or board. (2) Military Rules of Evidence. The president will make rulings on evidentiary objections to the Court or Board or Inquiry when the objection is based upon the following M.R.E.: 301, compulsory self-incrimination; 302, mental examination; 303, degrading questions; 412, relevance of victim's behavior or sexual predisposition; 501-504, dealing with privileges; 505, classified information; 506, Government information other than classified information; and 507, informants. In ruling on objections, the president will be guided by this instruction and the discussion of the above rules in MCM, 2005. d. Objections to Rulings. Should counsel for the Court or Board of Inquiry, a party or counsel for any party, object to a ruling, the objections will be noted for the record. Should a member object to the president's ruling on any matter, a vote shall be taken in closed session and the decision of the majority shall govern. The court or board may discuss the matter in closed session prior to voting. The president and all members will vote on the issue. In the case of a tie vote, the decision of the president shall govern. The objection and the results of the vote will be noted for the record. At 19: a. Report by the Court or Board. After all the evidence, statements, and arguments have been received, the Court or Board of Inquiry shall declare the inquiry closed. The president and members will then consider the evidence, statements, and arguments, and the instructions contained in the appointing order shall be carefully re-examined and scrupulously followed. At the request of the court or board, counsel for the court or board shall assist in the preparation of the findings of fact, opinions, and recommendations, or any part thereof. In so acting, counsel merely assists the court or board in the transcription of its report. Counsel for the court or board, and counsel for any party, are prohibited from taking part in any deliberations. The report of findings of fact, opinions, and recommendations shall become a part of the record. Dissenting views are authorized if the findings of fact, opinion, or recommendations are not unanimous. See enclosure (6).
You should do something because it is the right thing to do,regardless of your chances of winning. You damn sure won't win if you surrender without fighting back. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
As the ratio of donors to beneficiaries decreases, the system explodes. http://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html The ratio of workers to beneficiaries has progressively deteriorated from 16.5:1 in 1950 to 2.9:1 in 2010. At 3:1, for an average of $12k/yr (plucked out of the air) in benefits, each worker needs to contribute $4k/yr. If that progresses to a 2:1 ratio, each employee would have to contribute $6k/yr. Eligibility requirements will increase and benefits decrease, assuming the debt does not overwhelm the economy and just kill it dead.
The number of payers increased ~4X in that time, and the number of payees increased ~240X in the same period. A pyramid scheme so out of proportion yet so legally sucessful it would make ol' Bernard Madoff proud!!! What would be interesting to find would be the total amount taken in the name of SS vs. the amount disbursed in the name of SS... I tire of doing such disappointing research.
You damn sure won't win if you surrender without fighting back. With limited resources, you have to try to fight the battles you have a chance of winning. Modder has to try to get the Board of Inquiry to find in his favor so he can complete his 20 years. In this sort of battle with the Navy, victory is surviving. Note that the Board hearing is administrative and the familiar rules of evidence do not apply. They list rules that apply as the exceptions. Hearsay is not one of those exceptions. The burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence, not clear and convincing or beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not a punative action, it is not punishment. Procedurally, it is difficult for the person is the cross hairs. But he must focus on the Board as trying to reverse a separation on appeal is worse. His job as a chaplain, is to provide spiritual and emotional support. It is not to convert anyone to his personal religious beliefs. He is there to offer support, not to save them from perdition. A rabbi could offer support to a Catholic without condemning him for having bacon with his eggs. A single pregnant servicewoman does not seek the support of a chaplain to hear about the evils of pre-marital sex. A chaplain cannot counsel a muslim on the evils of Islam. A Christian might not take too kindly to a muslim chaplain counseling them on Sharia and halal. The chaplain must be able to offer comfort and support to all. It is not unChristian to comfort a gay person without confronting them with unwelcome condemnation of their lifestyle. He is not a chaplain for Christian fundamentalists. He is a chaplain for all. If the nature of his religious beliefs prevents him from effectively performing that duty, that will not get him a religious exemption, a First Amendment defense, nor a cause for civil action. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplain http://www.nacc.org/resources/job_chaplain.asp National Association of Catholic Chaplains http://www.ehow.com/facts_4967763_what-duties-chaplain.html
Here's for last year. There is about $2.7T in "asset" reserves in the SS fund, which would appear as a $2.7T debit in the general fund. It is just a game with numbers which will always add up to a government asset/debit of zero. Note also that the rate of return on a dollar paid in fell to "92 cents for workers who reached age 65 in 2010," and is projected to fall to "84 cents for workers who will reach age 65 in 2030." And it will keep falling. And they want to reduce the automatic cost of living adjustment. http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/assets.html Operations in quarter Operations in fiscal year 2014 * Operations in calendar year 2014 * A 2013 Heritage Foundation report shows deficits.
He is not a chaplain for Christian fundamentalists. He is a chaplain for all. If the nature of his religious beliefs prevents him from effectively performing that duty, that will not get him a religious exemption, a First Amendment defense, nor a cause for civil action. I agree with all of that. What I don't agree with is the Navy forbidding him from seeing sailors that want to see him. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I hear you, but it's not happening. When the local command recommended separation, he was required to remove Modder from his command. I seriously doubt they will let him near anyone or let anyone near him, at least during duty time. I have seen where they instruct other workers not to talk to the target. They do their best to cut off any source of internal information. During working hours, he might be in a room someplace, reading the bible, or occupied with some meaningless makework task. They will not allow him to comfort or counsel anyone. They are alleging he is unfit to do that. If he did it without incident, that could be used to combat the separation.
I'm guessing they have never done this to a Jewish or a Muslim Chaplin. Granted,Jews aren't real big on recruiting,but I think we can all see the hypocrisy here. Some pigs are indeed "more equal" than other pigs. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#42. To: VxH (#41)
Be interesting to see how this Navy Chaplain's complaint turns out:
#43. To: redleghunter (#37)
(Edited)
It does. For they know people abuse even legal prescription drugs.
#44. To: cranky (#43)
Back in the day when I cared about such things, some Texas companies refuse to hire or employ after the policy was adopted, any tobacco users (cigar, cigarette, snuff, chaw, et al).
#45. To: Pericles (#19)
We should check the SS takers also?
#46. To: TheFireBert (#45)
#47. To: redleghunter (#44)
Well some corporations know the most time wasted at work
#48. To: redleghunter, cranky, SOSO, liberator, CZ82, TooConservative, sneakypete (#6)
¶9 The trial court dismissed Coats's claim. It rejected Coats's argument that the Medical Marijuana Amendment made his use a "lawful activity" for purposes of section 24-34-402.5. Instead the court found that the Amendment provided registered patients an affirmative defense to state criminal prosecution without making their use of medical marijuana a "lawful activity" within the meaning of section 24-34-402.5. As such, the trial court concluded that the statute afforded no protection to Coats and dismissed the claim without examining the federal law issue.
24-34-402.5. Unlawful prohibition of legal activities as a condition of employment
¶4 We granted certiorari and now affirm. The term "lawful" as it is used in section 24-34-402.5 is not restricted in any way, and we decline to engraft a state law limitation onto the term. Therefore, an activity such as medical marijuana use that is unlawful under federal law is not a "lawful" activity under section 24-34-402.5. Accordingly, we affirm the opinion of the court of appeals.
#49. To: TheFireBert, Pericles (#45)
If the money in the SS account belongs to the person who is drawing it, isn't it supposedly earned?
#50. To: sneakypete, VxH (#42)
Be interesting to see how this Navy Chaplain's complaint turns out:
Bad link.
NAVAL CHAPLAIN FILES FORMAL COMPLAINT OVER CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION
#51. To: redleghunter (#44)
In the Army no one is allowed to use any tobacco products inside installation buildings or in public places. Like most work places, there is a designated smoking/chew/chaw area.
#52. To: nolu chan, Jameson (#49)
There is no money in an SS account. The incoming money goes into the General Fund. Each month money is drawn from the General Fund to fund the current expenses for that month. The extra funds remain in the General Fund and are spent. The SS Account contains nothing but Federal bonds or IOUs. If the General Fund goes bust, the SS Fund has nothing but worthless paper. The SS Account has nothing but the full faith and credit of the government.
#53. To: redleghunter (#35)
have a zero tolerance drug policy. They test their employees.
#54. To: nolu chan, TheFireBert (#49)
There is no money in an SS account. The incoming money goes into the General Fund. Each month money is drawn from the General Fund to fund the current expenses for that month. The extra funds remain in the General Fund and are spent. The SS Account contains nothing but Federal bonds or IOUs. If the General Fund goes bust, the SS Fund has nothing but worthless paper. The SS Account has nothing but the full faith and credit of the government.
#55. To: nolu chan (#50)
Chaplain Wes Modder spends his days basically alone in the base chapel. He is no longer allowed into his office. By order of his commanding officer, he is not allowed even to speak to the sailors in his unit. If anyone from his unit comes into the chapel, he may not speak with them.
#56. To: nolu chan (#48)
Pot is unlawful. It is not made legal by state law. It is made not criminal under state jurisdiction. Within Federal jurisdiction, it is as illegal as ever.
#57. To: nolu chan (#48)
#58. To: CZ82, nolu chan (#53)
#59. To: sneakypete (#55)
I have no idea how his commanding officer can get away with that.
3. Right to demand trial
On December 6, 2014, Modder's temporary lieutenant junior grade officer and assistant brought two Equal Opportunity representatives and a five-page complaint against him. The complaint was on the grounds of discrimination of sexual orientation and different standards of respect including that of pre-marital sex. Unbeknown to Modder, his assistant was a married homosexual.
Last month, NNPTC commander Capt. Jon Fahs requested that Navy chaplain Lt. Cmdr. Wesley Modder be “detached for cause.” Fahs also recommended Modder be denied promotion and made to show cause for retention in the Navy.
Congressional law and Defense Department regulations require the military to accommodate the religious beliefs of servicemembers to the extent practical and prohibits the military from taking disciplinary action against servicemembers or chaplains for expressing their religious views unless their actions and speech threaten “good order and discipline.”
“In your case, I find that your ability to express your religious beliefs during pastoral counseling has not been restricted or substantially burdened,” Fahs said. “The decision to relieve you from your duties is based on your failure to uphold … the professional standards of conduct and the guiding principles of the Chaplain Corps.”
b. In accordance with section 533(a)(1) of Public Law 112-239 (Reference (d)), as amended, unless it could have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, and good order and discipline, the Military Departments will accommodate individual expressions of sincerely held beliefs (conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs) of Service members in accordance with the policies and procedures in this instruction. This does not preclude disciplinary or administrative action for conduct by a Service member requesting religious accommodation that is proscribed by Chapter 47 of Title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice), including actions and speech that threaten good order and discipline.
e. It is DoD policy that rRequests for religious accommodation shall will be resolved in a timely manner and should will be approved when accommodation would not adversely affect mission accomplishment, including military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, health and safety, or any other military requirement. For requests for religious accommodation when accommodation would adversely affect mission accomplishment: He should complain to whatever organization runs the religious cult he belongs to, and have them sue the Navy.
#60. To: nolu chan (#59)
He cannot argue first amendment rights.
#61. To: nolu chan (#59)
He cannot argue first amendment rights.
#62. To: sneakypete (#61)
While it isn't absolute "proof",he can argue that his CO has a record of NOT pursuing similar actions against other religious sects as an indication that he and his faith were discriminated against.
#63. To: sneakypete (#60)
He can certainly argue his religious freedom has been denied.
#64. To: sneakypete (#61)
While it isn't absolute "proof", he can argue that his CO has a record of NOT pursuing similar actions against other religious sects as an indication that he and his faith were discriminated against. I'm probably not the most religious guy you will ever meet,but even I can see this seems to be what has happened.
Fair is fair.
#65. To: sneakypete (#55)
I have no idea how his commanding officer can get away with that.
#66. To: nolu chan, sneakypete (#64)
(Edited)
It's not like he is getting a trial.
#67. To: VxH, sneakypete (#66)
The right to face your accusers doesn't exist among the zealot social-engineers implementing/inflicting their Transhumanist/Postgenderist agenda upon humanity.
Berry [Modder's attorney] said that he and Modder will appeal Fahs’ decision to deny the religious accommodation request with the commander of Navy Region Southeast. If that appeal is denied, Modder will have the option of launching additional appeals further up the chain of command.
#68. To: A K A Stone (#62)
Smoking dope isn't a religion dopey.
#69. To: nolu chan (#63)
(Edited)
He can certainly argue his religious freedom has been denied.
#70. To: nolu chan (#64)
He needs to provide relevant evidence that he can properly perform his job.
#71. To: nolu chan (#49)
There is no money in an SS account. The incoming money goes into the General Fund. Each month money is drawn from the General Fund to fund the current expenses for that month.
#72. To: sneakypete (#69)
That is the argument he can use when he is suing the Navy for damages for discrimination.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES - 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (2012)
Administrative Separations. Administrative separations cannot be awarded by a court-martial and are not punitive in nature. Enlisted personnel may be administratively separated with a characterization of service (characterized separation) or description of separation (uncharacterized separation) as warranted by the facts of the particular case.
3. Determination of Name and Character of Total Separation.
b. Officers being processed for separation for cause shall be processed expeditiously. Such officers should receive sufficient supervision to preclude adverse effects on the good order and discipline in their unit. Further, when local processing has been completed and separation has been recommended, the officer concerned shall be physically separated from the command whenever possible by means of leave, temporary reassignment, or other methods while processing is being completed by the chain of command.
d. The Chief of Naval Personnel (CHNAVPERS) and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (DC (M&RA)) are designated as the Show Cause Authority for the Navy and the Marine Corps respectively, and are delegated the authority to review records to determine whether an officer should be required to show cause for retention in the Naval Service and to convene BOIs as provided in enclosure (8). CHNAVPERS may further delegate this authority to Commander, Navy Personnel Command (COMNAVPERSCOM) and Officers Exercising General CourtMartial Jurisdiction (OEGCMJ) with a Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) assigned. The CMC may further delegate this authority to the Director, Marine Corps Staff. Show Cause Authority may be further delegated within the Marine Corps to generals and lieutenant generals in command. Additionally, CHNAVPERS and DC (M&RA) are delegated the authority of approving Resignation/Discharge Orders and certificates in routine matters. CHNAVPERS may further delegate this authority to Commanding Officer, Naval Reserve Personnel Center (NAVRESPERSCEN) .
34. Show Cause Authority. Any of the following when expressly designated by SECNAV:
b. Board of Inquiry. A Board of Inquiry is an administrative, factfinding body authorized by reference (b), consisting of one or more commissioned officers.
9. Party to an Investigation.
(b) Spectators and publicity. Neither the public nor the news media will be permitted to make an audio or video recording, broadcast or televise, or take photographs of the court or board proceedings. A party may tape record proceedings only with the prior approval of the convening authority.
n. Arguments. After the testimony and statements by the parties, if any, counsel for the court or board and counsel for the parties may present argument if they so desire. The impartial role of the counsel for the court or board shall not be abandoned. If counsel for the court or board presents argument, his remarks should be in the nature of a summation of the evidence rather than partisan advocacy. Counsel for the court or board has the right to make the opening argument and, if any argument is made on behalf of a party, the closing argument in rebuttal. If multiple parties have been designated, their counsel shall present argument in the reverse order of seniority, the most junior party presenting the first argument. The court or board may set any reasonable limitation on the length of arguments.
11. Evidence.
14. Written Report by the Court or Board of Inquiry.
#73. To: nolu chan (#72)
Suing the Federal government, in Federal court, for damages. There is a concept with high hopes (even assuming the allegation is true).
#74. To: TheFireBert (#71)
Force Paul to pay into a GrubberMint-sponsored pension plan fund all of his working life. Paul retires. There are no funds to pay Paul as promised. Rob Peter to pay Paul; tell Peter it is his "civic duty" to keep getting to robbed because soon he will be in Paul's position. Promise a better payout for Peter when he retires. Plan on reducing his payout while enjoying a Peter-funded $200,000 "conference" on how well you are running the GrubberMint-sponsored pension plans.
#75. To: nolu chan (#74)
#76. To: sneakypete (#73)
You should do something because it is the right thing to do,regardless of your chances of winning.
Military chaplains provide pastoral, spiritual and emotional support for service personnel, including the conduct of religious services at sea, on bases or in the field.
The chaplain is a full member of the healthcare team who provides for the pastoral needs of patients/residents/clients, families, and staff Specifically, the chaplain, through professional training and certification, assists patients/residents/clients to understand more fully life's events as they relate to their spiritual and emotional well-being. From the patient's/resident's/client's life experience, the chaplain may offer prayer or reflection.
A chaplain's job is to facilitate the spiritual health and growth of their parishioners. Chaplains are most popular in the military, but may be assigned to other organizations, such as hospitals and prisons.
#77. To: TheFireBert (#75)
ending December 31, 2014
[In billions]
Income $222.6
Outgo 215.7
Difference 6.9
[In billions]
Income $877.4
Outgo 850.3
Difference 27.1
* The period from October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2014.
[In billions]
Income $884.3
Outgo 859.2
Difference 25.0
* The period from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014.
#78. To: nolu chan (#76)
His job as a chaplain, is to provide spiritual and emotional support. It is not to convert anyone to his personal religious beliefs. He is there to offer support, not to save them from perdition. A rabbi could offer support to a Catholic without condemning him for having bacon with his eggs. A single pregnant servicewoman does not seek the support of a chaplain to hear about the evils of pre-marital sex. A chaplain cannot counsel a muslim on the evils of Islam. A Christian might not take too kindly to a muslim chaplain counseling them on Sharia and halal. The chaplain must be able to offer comfort and support to all. It is not unChristian to comfort a gay person without confronting them with unwelcome condemnation of their lifestyle.
#79. To: sneakypete (#78)
What I don't agree with is the Navy forbidding him from seeing sailors that want to see him.
#80. To: nolu chan (#79)
I have seen where they instruct other workers not to talk to the target. They do their best to cut off any source of internal information. During working hours, he might be in a room someplace, reading the bible, or occupied with some meaningless makework task. They will not allow him to comfort or counsel anyone. They are alleging he is unfit to do that. If he did it without incident, that could be used to combat the separation.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]