"At anytime within two years after approval by the convening authority of a court-martial sentence, the accused may petition the Judge Advocate General for a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence or fraud on the court. If the accused's case is pending before a Court of Military Review or before the Court of Military Appeals, the Judge Advocate General shall refer the petition to the appropriate court for action. Otherwise the Judge Advocate General shall act up on the petition."
It can't be any more clear and anyone who has served in the military knows that everything has an exception...the TRUTH should never have a timeline or restraint.
Fraud on the Court is universally accepted as follows:
Fraud on the court occurs when the judicial machinery itself has been tainted, such as when an attorney, who is an officer of the court, is involved in the perpetration of a fraud or makes material misrepresentations to the court. Fraud upon the court makes void the orders and judgments of that court.
In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."
The actions taken by US Army personnel named by the primary witness in US V Pinkela, did in fact restrict and wrongfully influence COL Michael Hargis, while sitting as judge alone, to not perform the impartial functions of the court.
Not only are the actions of the Us Army prosecution legally insufficient, but with a thorough legal review, under Article 73, your office will find that the case is factually insufficient and deserving of a review and complete dismissal.
I submit the public letter signed by Elliott Scott Henney as grounds for your direct intervention and professional legal review of the entire case proceedings of US v Pinkela as documented in the Record of Trial and all Defense appellate briefs to date.
Primary Witness calls for Article 73 Review and Dismissal