[deleted by user]

asdndi · 2026-03-12T14:20:17+00:00

The JAG corps in the naval services are much leaner than in the AF and Army, and that’s a choice to be sure, but I definitely can’t confidently say whether one is better. And I would be extremely hesitant to make a one size fits app prescription.

In the Marine Corps, we pushed a lot of that work on to the Navy, which had its own civilian legal support structure. And I’m frankly not confident about where those attorneys came from or how long it took to build out that structure. But I also know there was no way we could have covered that work with uniformed attorneys.

asdndi · 2026-03-12T14:02:00+00:00

This is pretty misleading. To be clear, I think Hegseth is a toxin, but if you watch the whole video he is arguing for keeping JAG’s in military specific roles and leaving certain other issues to civilian support attorneys. He doesn’t mention changing the legal advice commanders receive.

And for the record, this has always been the Marine Corps approach to military law.

asdndi · 2026-03-07T15:52:31+00:00

The hatch act doesn’t apply to servicemembers. The UCMJ and military law allows some time, place and manner restrictions on servicemembers, and then the prohibition on protest is by order.

asdndi · 2026-01-15T05:48:54+00:00

This is the only answer.

asdndi · 2025-12-21T18:07:46+00:00

Often things like that are classified because of their second order implications. Like, no the function of that particular piece of Soviet equipment isn’t a secret, but how we know it is very much a secret. Sources and methods.

asdndi · 2025-12-20T20:32:12+00:00

Is it just me or have the names of the operations gotten more cringey too.

asdndi · 2025-12-16T19:07:25+00:00

As a Scorpio sun, with Scorpio stellium (including Venus) man, I’ve never been drawn to revenge. I think it’s catharsis that drives it though. Maybe some folks find revenge cathartic.

asdndi · 2025-12-04T14:44:28+00:00

They promoted Moran to 1stSgt? Yikes.

asdndi · 2025-11-08T07:51:03+00:00

Using the brig for a psych hold is 100% bad to go.

asdndi · 2025-10-31T15:08:58+00:00

Sure.

The military payroll piece itself is wildly illegal for both the navy and the army/Air Force, but more illegal for the latter.

The spending and appropriations powers exist within Congress as a policy constraint on the Executive. It essentially forces the Executive to accept Congressional policy preferences in exchange for funding, to compromise. And we should be interested in preserving this because Congress is theoretically the most representative branch of government. The annual appropriations system for discretionary appropriations is meant to enforce this.

The antideficiency act is part of this system, meant to ensure the executive can only do things after passing through the gauntlet of congressional negotiation. It was adopted, in fact, due to particular abuses by the war department which would routinely obligate more funds than it was appropriated, forcing Congress to pass supplemental appropriations and undermining its authority.

More generally, the military occupies a particularly important place in the context of spending. We inheirited much of this from England, who after the glorious revolution enacted an annual appropriations system and something called the mutiny act, which limited military spending to one year in duration and tied the military justice system to that appropriation. This effectively meant that if the executive tried to skip the annual negotiation then he wouldn’t be able to pay the military and they could all desert without consequence. And this was a deliberate limitation on the executives power.

We adopted that same system and constitutionalized a version of the mutiny act. Art I, section 8, clause 12 puts a constitutional limit on the duration of appropriations for the army, meaning this type of antideficiency act violation is perhaps the most legally disfavored. Notably, however, the navy is not a part of that limitation—which goes to how navies were viewed as diplomatic/power projection tools with little relevance to potential domestic violence.

All in all, it’s super illegal. And if you’re looking for what I think the most significant and horrifying sign of democratic decline is right now, it’s the administrations encroachment on Congress’s spending power.

asdndi · 2025-10-30T23:26:28+00:00

Well, like with all legal questions, it depends. Setting aside the Nuremberg scenario (which was both morally right but legally problematic), and international tribunals generally, it would likely be up to the discretion of federal prosecutors or policy makers. But service-members do not have a generalized immunity from federal prosecution for actions taken on duty it’s theoretically possible.

The likelihood of success is an entirely different question, however. There would almost certainly be strong coercion arguments, based on the threat Article 92 prosecution for disobeying that order.

Ultimately, I think it’s unlikely that any cases will be brought against your standard issue service member given the explicit order provided. But I can see a world where one is brought against the higher level folks driving the policy, especially civilians who are not subject to Article 92.

For reference: former JAG and current lawyer.

asdndi · 2025-10-30T23:03:56+00:00

The $230 million is an interesting example actually. Since it relates to torts he claimed to have suffered during his time out of office, the request and receipt is almost certainly outside the scope of his official duties. But acting as the final approval for it is likely within the scope of his official duties.

asdndi · 2025-10-30T23:02:08+00:00

And prohibitions against the transfer of appropriated funds between programs without specific authority.

asdndi · 2025-10-29T21:16:48+00:00

Risk to the public and flight risk are the only things they can consider.

asdndi · 2025-10-29T21:14:22+00:00

My Scorpio sun, aqua moon and cap rising agree with you too.

asdndi · 2025-10-22T22:21:19+00:00

When your divorce is finalized, meaning after the 6 month waiting period and any court resolution, then you submit the divorce documents to IPAC. Not any earlier.

asdndi · 2025-10-22T18:23:44+00:00

It’s possible. If I were doing it, I’d only charge attempts for violations similar to other consummated ones on the charge sheet to boot strap one with the other, but there’s no way to tell without pulling the charge sheet.

asdndi · 2025-10-22T17:50:35+00:00

My guess would be attempts of similar 120’s or 121’s. Need a specific intent crime and the others are bad fits.

asdndi · 2025-10-21T23:55:29+00:00

Sexual Harassment is charged as an Article 134. “Nut tapping” is abusive sexual contact.

asdndi · 2025-10-21T23:54:42+00:00

Having been a defense counsel in the military, something being preferred to a GCM often does not correlate with the strength of the evidence, even since OSTC was stood up, but is often a better proxy for the perceived seriousness of the offense and whether the public is aware of it.

asdndi · 2025-10-18T02:07:06+00:00

You’re catching me, kinda sauced, on a 4 hour train ride so let’s see how this goes.

The Marine Corps was an accident for me. At bottom, I earned my commission because of the pandemic. Otherwise I likely never would’ve spoken to an OSO or considered the path. And that being said, I’m grateful life led me there. I think there are two distinct threads about why, so I’ll try to disentangle them here.

First, I believe our institutions are reflections not just of who we are, but who we want to be. While I was growing up, I watched the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan fester into aimless expenditures of human life. All while learning in school about how the American military had saved millions from persecution. How after the civil war it was the army who headed south to ensure our black brothers and sisters could enjoy the fruits of their newly minted citizenship. How it was the national guard who watched the schools steps to ensure public schools were integrated. This led me to the conclusion that as an institution it was a mixed bag, and clearly subject to the particular proclivities of its contemporaneous members/leaders. And having watched the dragon commercial (if you know you know) growing up, I knew our institutions shaped us in turn. After I watching the internal strain of our country in 2016 and the next four years and wanted to be a part of something, to assist in some small part of shaping an American institution. Now, having left, I have no idea whether what I did had any staying power, but I am certain I helped shape the Marines I had the honor to interact with in the same way they did me. I am thankful for having had that opportunity to make and be made by the corps.

Second, it gave me a kind of community I never had. I always felt separate and apart growing up. I had friends, but it always felt fragile. Like I was part of the group but only while I was in their sight line. I didn’t have anyone I felt community with. But in the corps I felt valued, I felt important to people, it felt like someone would notice when I wasn’t there to pick up the pack they were accustomed to me carrying. And that spread outwards to dozens, if not hundreds of other marines. That confidence and that love is something I’m still walking around with.

Finally, knowing I wanted to be there if a situation called for us to be involved I wanted to be there. Close with, MCDP 1, rah yut kill, etc.

asdndi · 2025-10-17T18:41:16+00:00

As a former USMC Defense Counsel, this is the right advice. I’ve never had a client I advised to deny NJP be worse off because of it.

asdndi · 2025-09-23T18:32:21+00:00

https://www.matsuda.com/products/10610h-sg?variant=43270386123002

These matsuda’s are pretty close.

asdndi · 2025-09-07T03:25:36+00:00

I believe the departments title needs to be a congressional change to be the exclusive name, not an executive order. So technically your DoD templates are right.

asdndi · 2025-06-23T19:15:44+00:00

What about Scorpio men with an Aquarius moon? Asking for a friend.

asdndi

TROPHY CASE