What's wrong with the Air Force?

[M2]

From RAF Banter .... If the Americans had to drop the A-Bomb in the 21st century...

[BADFNZ]

On 5/25/2018 at 4:32 PM, spaceman said:

I'm currently TDY for something like 55 days and I'm staying at a motel that costs $93 a night...  I just got the AmEx platinum card that gives you $600 in free points if you put $5k on it in the first 3 months.  55 x $93 = $5115; perfect!!!!!  Who needs a GTC!

Just be sure you have the funds to pay it off at the end of the month because you know it'll take at least 60-90 days for your voucher to pay out.

[HarleyQuinn]

Study: To fix Air Force pilot shortage, look to contractors — and forget about warrant officers

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/06/18/study-to-fix-air-force-pilot-shortage-look-to-contractors-and-forget-about-warrant-officers/

[Orbit]

10 minutes ago, HarleyQuinn said:

Study: To fix Air Force pilot shortage, look to contractors — and forget about warrant officers

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/06/18/study-to-fix-air-force-pilot-shortage-look-to-contractors-and-forget-about-warrant-officers/

Contractors = no need for long term govt healthcare and other expensive shit

 

also..

Uhhhh

[YoungnDumb]

That's as close to smiling as I've ever seen that man, except right before he hooked me as student.

[Boomer6]

10 hours ago, YoungnDumb said:

That's as close to smiling as I've ever seen that man, except right before he hooked me as student.

Dude you're a FAIP, you know better. JJ didn't hook you, he just wrote the gradesheet.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Boomer6
The English language

[YoungnDumb]

Former FAIP (finally), but valid, I'll shack myself accordingly

[Lord Ratner]

Dude you're a FAIP, you know better. JJ didn't hook you, he just wrote the gradesheet.

What?! Every time I hooked a student it was a personal choice to wrong him despite a flawless demonstration of flying ability.

[jonlbs]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/27/air-force-colonel-alleged-abuse-two-young-boys/727056002/

 

[Azimuth]

3 hours ago, jonlbs said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/27/air-force-colonel-alleged-abuse-two-young-boys/727056002/

 

State declined to prosecute, USAF declined to prosecute, so the SVC’s and the man hater Hillibrand is again trying to circumvent the judicial system again by getting their frivolous Art 120 convictions. I hope that Convening Authority planned on retiring at his current grade.

https://mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/unreported-opinions/2017/1015s16.pdf

Edited June 28, 2018 by Azimuth

[17D_guy]

38 minutes ago, Azimuth said:

I hope that Convening Authority planned on retiring at his current grade.

You know...he could have, and could be using it as a "fall on sword" kind of moment point out how ridiculous this whole situation has become.  That would be cool.

[Azimuth]

33 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

You know...he could have, and could be using it as a "fall on sword" kind of moment point out how ridiculous this whole situation has become.  That would be cool.

Which is sad that doing something, well within a Convening Authorities discretion, is now considered "fall on sword" moment. 

[Disco_Nav963]

So from the filing Azimuth posted... The two alleged victims then are presumably the accused's children, and the mother in question is the ex-wife who he has an ongoing custody dispute with and who he accuses of trying to alienate the children from him. That is some pretty significant context that is missing from the USA Today story and the quotes in it from the various members of Congress, Don Christensen (the ex-AF prosecutor that tried to railroad Lt Col Wilkerson at Aviano), and the SVCs.

Not a lawyer... But it appears to me that advocates for the ex-wife, including the AF SVCs, are taking advantage of the fact that the news media has a professional standard of not identifying the alleged victims of sex crimes who don't wish to be identified. They in effect counted on the fact that the press would leave the divorce/custody dispute context out of the discussion to try to win a losing case in the court of public opinion. I don't know if the congressional members quoted knew about that context, but Christensen probably does and the SVCs definitely do. And I kind of have a problem with that.

Prosecutors are supposed to have a professional obligation not to "win," but to see that justice is done. i.e. If a prosecutor finds out that they've probably got the wrong guy, or that their office convicted the wrong guy in the past, they have a professional duty to dismiss the charges or seek to have the previous conviction overturned. How does that work with the obligations of an SVC? Obviously an SVC is supposed to be an advocate for the alleged victim... But in an Air Force that allegedly believes in "Integrity First," surely one has an obligation not to make arguments one knows are specious to try to win in the press when you're losing on the law and might lose on the facts. If this is considered "Okay" by the Air Force, then I have a problem with SVCs as a career field just like I have a problem with OSI. 

[Azimuth]

14 hours ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

So from the filing Azimuth posted... The two alleged victims then are presumably the accused's children, and the mother in question is the ex-wife who he has an ongoing custody dispute with and who he accuses of trying to alienate the children from him. That is some pretty significant context that is missing from the USA Today story and the quotes in it from the various members of Congress, Don Christensen (the ex-AF prosecutor that tried to railroad Lt Col Wilkerson at Aviano), and the SVCs.

Not a lawyer... But it appears to me that advocates for the ex-wife, including the AF SVCs, are taking advantage of the fact that the news media has a professional standard of not identifying the alleged victims of sex crimes who don't wish to be identified. They in effect counted on the fact that the press would leave the divorce/custody dispute context out of the discussion to try to win a losing case in the court of public opinion. I don't know if the congressional members quoted knew about that context, but Christensen probably does and the SVCs definitely do. And I kind of have a problem with that.

Prosecutors are supposed to have a professional obligation not to "win," but to see that justice is done. i.e. If a prosecutor finds out that they've probably got the wrong guy, or that their office convicted the wrong guy in the past, they have a professional duty to dismiss the charges or seek to have the previous conviction overturned. How does that work with the obligations of an SVC? Obviously an SVC is supposed to be an advocate for the alleged victim... But in an Air Force that allegedly believes in "Integrity First," surely one has an obligation not to make arguments one knows are specious to try to win in the press when you're losing on the law and might lose on the facts. If this is considered "Okay" by the Air Force, then I have a problem with SVCs as a career field just like I have a problem with OSI. 

“It’s called a court of law, not a court of truth.”

That’s what I was told during my court martial by one of my attorneys and it’s a very true statement. Lawyers will fight tooth and nail to get evidence “in” or keep evidence “out” under Rules of Evidence. Christensen is a POS who’s on the SJW #MeToo movement trying to get retribution for losing the Wilkerson case. If you ever read the record of trial, his theme was that fighter pilots were rapist frat boys that got to break the rules because that’s the mentality they have.

The SVC position is an odd one. They don’t have legal “standing” in a traditional sense in law since they are neither the prosecution or the defense. They were part of the 2011-2012 knee jerk reaction by the Air Force (and eventually adopted by the military) from fall out of the Wilkerson case and the documentary “Invisible War” where Sen Hillibrand and Sen McCaskill branded a sexual assault epidemic in the military. The SVC position, in theory, is a great resource to a victim about legal rights (self-incrimination, how the military justice system will progress with the case, expedited transfer, etc). However, it’s turned into a personal Kirkland & Ellis law firm for the victim to have the accused prosecuted completely at their personal whim, not what the evidence shows the Government or the Convening Authority. The SVC’s aren’t supposed to align with either side of the adversarial judicial process, but they end up doing so with the Government a lot of the time. Another problem is that a JAG can go straight into being an SVC without ever spending time as trial counsel or defense counsel.

This recent Air Force case U.S. v. Vargas shows that the SVC conspired with the Senior Trial Cousnel (lead prosecutor) and the NAF/SJA to have a certain military judge removed from a docketed trial because of how he has ruled unfavorably, in their own opinion, in previous sexual assault case. Then the actual military judge who knew about the conspiracy to remove the previous military judge, was the one who did eventually remove the military judge from the case and then presided over the case himself. He then declined to be deposed by defense counsel to be challenged to be removed fro the case due to his person involvement.

In the civilian world that would get you removed from the circuit of trying cases, let alone a bar complaint. In the military they just PCS you or a allow you to retire. I believe that non-judicial punishments authority should be Commanders on G-Series orders. However, major criminal activity under the UCMJ (Rape, Murder, Sexual Assault, etc) should be given to the DOJ because of the misjustices that the Military Justice allows to happen since it’s a Commander ran system that are advised from incompetitent attorneys who aren’t doing ethical actions.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Azimuth

[Disco_Nav963]

Yeah... True story, I was stuck at a hotel in Bloomington, Illinois with nothing to do one weekend in 2013, so I no shit read everything about the Wilkerson case that HAF had released via FOIA: the record of the trial, the clemency package that went to Gen Franklin, the videos of OSI interrogating Wilkerson and his wife, etc. Huge freaking "2" on Christensen being a POS. Now, I strongly suspect Wilkerson was guilty of some kind of collateral misconduct under the UCMJ (i.e. adultery and/or swinging), but the AF couldn't prove that to save their lives, and Wilkerson/Mrs. Wilkerson obviously had a disincentive not to admit to it in their defense because to do so would risk his membership in the check of the month club. Doesn't excuse blatant prosecutorial misconduct. Gen. Franklin is one of my all-time heroes for doing the right thing then and falling on his sword in 2013 on another case. Got to hear Mr. Franklin, USAF (Retired), speak at WIC 2 years ago and am still sad I never got the chance to shake his hand.

Made the mistake of weighing in on this current case on the Doctrine Man facebook and am currently getting eaten alive by the "Won't somebody please think of the children!" crowd.

[Azimuth]

Well, after Wilkerson was released from confinement due to his court martial conviction being set aside by Lt Gen Franklin a woman came forward saying that he was the father of their kid, unbeknown to his wife. That was the factor for the SECAF retiring him as a Major (last grade served honorably).

I’ve read a few CAAF and branch Appellate Court opinions where the appellee was acquitted of the major charge(s) like rape, sexual assault, child pornography, etc. Only to be convicted, and punitively discharged, for minor military offenses such as Art 92 failure to follow a lawful order like failing to register their personal firearm while on base or Art 134 conduct unbecoming.

[dream big]

12 hours ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

So from the filing Azimuth posted... The two alleged victims then are presumably the accused's children, and the mother in question is the ex-wife who he has an ongoing custody dispute with and who he accuses of trying to alienate the children from him. That is some pretty significant context that is missing from the USA Today story and the quotes in it from the various members of Congress, Don Christensen (the ex-AF prosecutor that tried to railroad Lt Col Wilkerson at Aviano), and the SVCs.

Not a lawyer... But it appears to me that advocates for the ex-wife, including the AF SVCs, are taking advantage of the fact that the news media has a professional standard of not identifying the alleged victims of sex crimes who don't wish to be identified. They in effect counted on the fact that the press would leave the divorce/custody dispute context out of the discussion to try to win a losing case in the court of public opinion. I don't know if the congressional members quoted knew about that context, but Christensen probably does and the SVCs definitely do. And I kind of have a problem with that.

Prosecutors are supposed to have a professional obligation not to "win," but to see that justice is done. i.e. If a prosecutor finds out that they've probably got the wrong guy, or that their office convicted the wrong guy in the past, they have a professional duty to dismiss the charges or seek to have the previous conviction overturned. How does that work with the obligations of an SVC? Obviously an SVC is supposed to be an advocate for the alleged victim... But in an Air Force that allegedly believes in "Integrity First," surely one has an obligation not to make arguments one knows are specious to try to win in the press when you're losing on the law and might lose on the facts. If this is considered "Okay" by the Air Force, then I have a problem with SVCs as a career field just like I have a problem with OSI. 

At least not as worthless as base SAPR coordinator (actual full time position)

[17D_guy]

4 hours ago, Azimuth said:

This recent Air Force case U.S. v. Vargas shows that the SVC conspired with the Senior Trial Cousnel (lead prosecutor) and the NAF/SJA to have a certain military judge removed from a docketed trial because of how he has ruled unfavorably, in their own opinion, in previous sexual assault case. Then the actual military judge who knew about the conspiracy to remove the previous military judge, was the one who did eventually remove the military judge from the case and then presided over the case himself. He then declined to be deposed by defense counsel to be challenged to be removed fro the case due to his person involvement.

Read the whole thing...what the actual fuck?

Edited June 28, 2018 by 17D_guy

[Azimuth]

9 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

Read the whole thing...what the actual fuck?

That’s the kangaroo court of military justice. Until 2016, the government could use what’s called “propensity evidence.” Which was eluding to the factfinder that you were guilty of a crime because of all of the various crimes you were charged with, not convicted of. Thankfully the CAAF (highest military court of appeals) overruled that practice since it’s blankly violates an accused’s due process.

U.S. vs. Hills

Edited June 28, 2018 by Azimuth

[Azimuth]

14 hours ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

So from the filing Azimuth posted... The two alleged victims then are presumably the accused's children, and the mother in question is the ex-wife who he has an ongoing custody dispute with and who he accuses of trying to alienate the children from him. That is some pretty significant context that is missing from the USA Today story and the quotes in it from the various members of Congress, Don Christensen (the ex-AF prosecutor that tried to railroad Lt Col Wilkerson at Aviano), and the SVCs.

Not a lawyer... But it appears to me that advocates for the ex-wife, including the AF SVCs, are taking advantage of the fact that the news media has a professional standard of not identifying the alleged victims of sex crimes who don't wish to be identified. They in effect counted on the fact that the press would leave the divorce/custody dispute context out of the discussion to try to win a losing case in the court of public opinion. I don't know if the congressional members quoted knew about that context, but Christensen probably does and the SVCs definitely do. And I kind of have a problem with that.

Prosecutors are supposed to have a professional obligation not to "win," but to see that justice is done. i.e. If a prosecutor finds out that they've probably got the wrong guy, or that their office convicted the wrong guy in the past, they have a professional duty to dismiss the charges or seek to have the previous conviction overturned. How does that work with the obligations of an SVC? Obviously an SVC is supposed to be an advocate for the alleged victim... But in an Air Force that allegedly believes in "Integrity First," surely one has an obligation not to make arguments one knows are specious to try to win in the press when you're losing on the law and might lose on the facts. If this is considered "Okay" by the Air Force, then I have a problem with SVCs as a career field just like I have a problem with OSI. 

An SVC is supposed to advise their client of their legal rights, however there has been evidence via case law and appellate opinions that have documented SVC’s concealing evidence from the government (which would subsequently require the government to turn over to the defense via discovery), conspire with the government with trial strategy during the court martial, and other unethical actions that are way outside their charged duties. In my case my accuser’s SVC wanted to observe my accuser work with OSI to wire tap me during a phone call while I was deployed. Thankfully I received some life saving advice on how not to fall into that biased law enforcement trap.

At the end of the day court martial convictions and victim saving are OPR bullets for trial counsel and SVC’s, not acquittals.

[Guardian]

Sorry. Having a little trouble following what we are talking about. What’s going on?

[Disco_Nav963]

24 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Sorry. Having a little trouble following what we are talking about. What’s going on?

General Court Martial Convening Authority (2 star in command of AF District of Washington) did his job and opted not to refer a weak sex assault case for an Article 32 hearing. Outside advocacy org of SJWs then data-dumped a one-sided version of the case, including the accused's name/rank/assignment/age/photo, to Congress and outside media to basically ruin his reputation.

[Guardian]

Crazy.

[HarleyQuinn]

German Air Force in Dire Straits: Chief of Staff

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-military/german-air-force-in-dire-straits-chief-of-staff-idUSKBN1JN318

We thought we had it bad. Maybe it's time our German counterparts thought about joining the airlines?

Edited June 30, 2018 by HarleyQuinn

[one1]

16 hours ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

c. Huge freaking "2" on Christensen being a POS. Now, I strongly suspect Wilkerson was guilty of some kind of collateral misconduct under the UCMJ (i.e. adultery and/or swinging), but the AF couldn't prove that to save their lives, and Wilkerson/Mrs. Wilkerson obviously had a disincentive not to admit to it in their defense because to do so would risk his membership in the check of the month club. Doesn't excuse blatant prosecutorial misconduct. Gen. Franklin is one of my all-time heroes for doing the right thing then and falling on his sword in 2013 on another case.

The fact that so many people, after so much information about this case has been released, still feel this way is incomprehensible to me. Wilkerson had been 100% proven to lie under oath on numerous occasions before and after the trial. He was a proven liar with serious character flaws. I understand doubting the victim in certain circumstances, especially with inconsistencies with the story, but at some point logic dictates that the victim's narrative has more weight than Wilkerson's. Now, with all the additional information that has surfaced about Wilkerson's history of lying under oath, him secretly having another family that he apparently didn't support, once looking into the stall to watch a subordinate's wife urinate in a restroom, and multiple Air Force officers testifying under oath that Wilkerson had serious character flaw... how can you still think that the Air Force was trying to "railroad" Wilkerson? You say the Air Force couldn't prove that Wilkerson was guilty, yet a jury of his peers found him guilty. Do you understand a victim's testimony is evidence?

I get that sometimes people naturally want to give me the benefit of the doubt, but this is too far unless if you think there is some type of conspiracy. Then, to double down and say that Gen. Franklin did the right thing by overturning a conviction and letting a lying sex offender out on the streets shows a lack of understanding on why Congress had to get involved (which only made matters worse). I understand being on Wilkerson's side at the beginning, but now that all the facts are surfaced, it is a shame that anyone in the Air Force still support this guy.    

 

Azimuth,

You have often been a great resource on this forum. When I was enlisted trying to commission you even gave me some great advice that I think helped me get on track...

I don't want to get personal, but you bring up your situation often on the forum. Bottom line, if you have a relationship with a subordinate Airman when you are a SNCO or commit adultery, you shouldn't be surprised if the Air Force kicks you out. You are not a victim. I honestly believe your narrative and you very well could have been falsely accused. It doesn't help your narrative when every time there is a headline in the news about sexual assault in the Air Force, your automatic position is the victim is lying and the Air Force is conspiring. This is especially troubling in very clear cases like the Wilkerson case.

 

Full disclosure, this is a topic that is personal to me and I maybe somewhat biased. I had an Airman that I supervised that was raped and I went through the process trying to be an advocate to her as much as I could. When she told me and we had to make the report, it left a lasting impact on me. Then I had to watch her deal with people in the Squadron whispering. Even after the rapist apologized in the court 18 months later, certain people in our community still spread rumors about her lying. It has been almost 15 years later and this situation is always in the back of my mind when situations like this get public attention.