Thursday, December 19, 2013

U.S. Senate Approves National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2014 with HIV specific amendment



Today the U.S. Senate passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2014.  Included in this bill is a specific amendment dealing directly with HIV.

The amendment, offered by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), was adopted in June when the U.S House of Representatives passed the bill.  The amendment was taken up by the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and approved on a voice vote.

Section 572 of the bill is titled “Report on the Department of Defense Personnel Policies regarding members of the Armed Forces with HIV or Hepatitis B.”  It directs the Secretary of Defense to report back to the Armed Services Committees in both houses of Congress, no later than 180 days after the President signs the bill, on DoD policies addressing enlistment or commissioning, retention, deployment, discharge and disciplinary policies regarding individuals with HIV or HEP B conditions.

The bill’s language is an important victory for service members who have been prosecuted, jailed and discharged because of outdated, fear-based policies that serve no purpose other than to discriminate against and unfairly punish service members with stigmatized health conditions.  

The law directs “an assessment of whether the policies reflect an evidence-based, medically accurate understanding of how these conditions are contracted, how they can be transmitted to other individuals, and the risk of transmission.”

I urge Secretary Hagel to use this opportunity to advance the Armed Forces to modern medical times and recognize the waste and damage discrimination, under the guise of discipline, causes to the entire force.

Service Members in all branches of the armed services have been prosecuted, convicted, discharged and forced to register as sex offenders based solely on an allegation and their HIV status. Many outside legal experts have noted the lack of complete investigations, ignorance of current science and inconsistent legal processes when dealing with HIV-related cases. 

I personally have suffered such an injustice and was prosecuted, convicted and served nine months at Leavenworth federal corrections facility based on my HIV positive status.  Had I been HIV negative, there would have been no basis for charges and I would today still be serving my country.

Instead, I have been humiliated, incarcerated, am required to register as a sex offender and my 26 year military career is in tatters.  After serving my country for my entire adult life, I am today unemployed and, because of a criminal record, virtually unemployable.  Not because I committed any crime, but because I have HIV.

Monday, December 9, 2013

PLEASE Support Senate Bill to Stop HIV Discrimination..CALL YOUR US SENATOR

Sen Coons HIV Discrimination Bill

Its 2013...HIV is not a death sentence...Its been defined as a chronic disease...
Yes there is no CURE yet...but its a virus...not a crime.

As a person who was prosecuted SOLELY based on my HIV status...sent to jail for 272 days...labeled as a felon and sex offender for a crime I did NOT commit...I am literally begging anyone who reads this to PLEASE see the virus for what it is...a virus.

I've had dozens of converstions with people about the whole disclosure "issue" ... I got it...its emotional...but for those of us that did not commit a crime...our status was publically known by friends, family and Army supervisors...the fact that I am HIV+ was "the" sole reason the Army, specifically MG Michael Lennington, COL Cory Bradley and CPT Jordan Stapley pressed charges against me.

They had ZERO evidence of any physical contact, that they labeled as sexual contact...

They had the sworn statement of a clinical sociopath, a meth drug user, who, under oath, admitted to Lying to investigators, lying to prosecution, stealing paswords from my home and hacking into my email account...Those are FACTS in the Record of Trial...

Yet a senior military judge, with zero physical evidence...zero medical evidence...defense eye witnesses...said I was guilty...NOT of infecting anyone, but rather some mystery of "exposure" to HIV...

I've lost everything...I cant get a job.

26 years of my service to the Nation has been erased.  No retirement...No Access to medical coverage or the HIV meds that keep me alive...Its all gone...and I AM INNOCENT!

This Fear, Stigma and Discrimination MUST STOP!

Our Nation is better then this...Our Armed Forces are better then this!!

PLEASE...CALL your Senator and ask them to support SEN Coons and The REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act

Friday, November 29, 2013

Another discussion about false allegations and why people lie...We all know this happens

http://www.hngnews.com/sun_prairie_star/news/regional/article_32c3ec54-56a6-11e3-92ca-0019bb30f31a.html

“You have these people that would do anything to save their own hide,” he says. “You can understand why they would provide false information.”

We all know people LIE, so why is it so hard to believe that a man or a woman would lie about an assault to protect themselves?

The FBI has an entire Branch that studies why people lie about criminal acts...Universtities have entire programs dedicated to Psychological Forensics.

My frustration is growing with the radicals that refuse to even acknowledge the False Allegations are real.  They constantly point to bogus charts that supposedly show how "rare" it is...

Well here is my challenge to them...If you care about TRUTH and JUSTICE so much, then just one single event of a false allegation putting an Innocent man or woman in prison and ruining their lives should drive you crazy with anger...

We cant tolerate a mistake to happen...If you would at least join the campaign to ensure that our legal processes conduct Fair and Thorough investigations...yes questioning BOTH sides equally to ensure that a crime occurred then we will truly help and protect everyone...

For those of us who have lived this nightmare...Lost everything...been labled as a violent sex offender with ZERO evidence, no investigation and Facts denied...then and only then can you understand why WE will never stop talking about this "rare" occurrence.

Walk in my shoes...Live what my family goes through every single day.  Then come talk to me!

Sunday, November 24, 2013

War on Sexual Assault now attacks the Constitution

Article 32 Process may go away

WE cannot allow this to happen...

We all agree that there is a serious problem with UCMJ and particularly with how the Armed Forces handle, and fail to handle Sexual Assault, but none of us can afford or allow our rights to be taken away.

Please forgo your emotional response and READ how this will happen.

The Constitution guarantees the right to a "grand jury" process to review and question both accused and accuser...all in the process that the Founding Father's knew MUST be in place to ensure equal Justice.

As emotional and painful as the process of questioning a complaining witness may be, it is necessary for ALL involved to be sure we have evidence of a crime.  My heart goes out to any true victim of an assault, but you MUST agree that it is a necessary part of the process.

If just one individual is prosecuted due to false allegations then we are ALL guilty, and it has happened!!!

No one individuals rights are more precious than anothers...We MUST ensure that EVERYONE is protected and allowed equal protection under the Law.

TO my Brothers and Sisters who wear the uniform and have worn the uniform...We all swore to Defend the Constitution...Not a political party...not an individual...but the RIGHTS guaranteed to us all by the spirit of the words on that precious document.

I beg you all to READ and UNDERSTAND whats at stake.

We owe it to each other and to our future.

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Bring in the Civilians! Civilianize the entire JAG Corps...Why not?

DOD Budget stalls over Sexual Assault

The entire DOD Budget, known as the National Defense Authorization Act or NDAA, is now stalled over amendments...one of which is my NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's "Military Justice Improvement Act.

Guess what...its because her amendment "sucks" !!  I'm tired of being ignored by her and her myopic extreme feminist point of view.  Not only does it not fix the problem it takes away the ability for a fair appeal under the law.

I have been vocal and as public as possible about supporting her "intent" but she refuses to pull her head out of the hole and see the STRATEGIC ISSUE...UCMJ is BROKEN.

My record of trial...not my emotionally compromised opinion...proves that the system is utterly broken.

No Investigation was conducted outside of a cubicle
No Evidence of any kind - medical or physical that an assault took place
A complaining witness under oath admits to stealing passwords, hacking into email accounts, lying to investigators and lying to the prosecution
Physical witnesses are called liars by the Military Judge
Evidence is denied by the Military Judge

These are facts from an official record of trial

Sexual Assault is just one of the many issue under UCMJ that has destroyed lives of men and women because of its failures and flaws.

I will say it again...I have ZERO TOLERANCE for any proven assault against any service member, but here in lies the rub..."PROVEN"

WE can all agree that under our Rule of Law, especially for what we all call "serious crimes" (rape, murder, assault, etc...) that we conduct a THOROUGH and FAIR investigation to ensure and VALIDATE that a CRIME did in fact take place before we throw people into court.

The Armed Forces cant get it right. 

SO its 2013, lets put civilian oversight into the application of the law.  Why not?

The Commander will still be in place, but he or she will be under serious scrutiny to do the right thing, but take the lawyers out of uniform.  Take them out of the Evaluation system...Take them out of any relationship with the commander other than as advisor.

The presence of Rank and a uniform "muddies the waters" in each and every situation NOT on the battle field.

Lets meet half way with SEN MacCaskill and hold the Commander responsible.


Tuesday, November 19, 2013

HIV-disclosure law sparks unique legal battle in Florida - Florida - MiamiHerald.com

HIV-disclosure law sparks unique legal battle in Florida - Florida - MiamiHerald.com

I think this is going to really start a legal dialog not just about recognizing same sex realtions, but the HIV discussion

The barbaric laws criminalizing HIV as a weapon and the cowards in the US Army who charged me with "exposure" NOT infection, but some vague undefined use of the word exposure...

Mind you, in my case the sociopath, complaining witness, NEVER even says that we had sex...never once did he say I penetrated him...so HOW did I expose him to HIV?

His story changed 4 times under oath and he admitted to lying, stealing and hacking into my email

So as I have asked before, How did a military judge, a person who is supposed to be the "Gate Keeper" of justice say the word guilty?

This case I hope can be a sign that our legal system is going to start to look at itself...how the allow words to be used and misapplied in order to promote stigma and fear rather than Truth and Justice.

Friday, November 15, 2013

This is Ken Pinkela - Public Comments 6 June 2013 to the Secretary of the Army Clemency Board Hearing

I can never thank Gene enough for his love and support as my best friend, neighbor and brother.
Public testimony to the Secretary of the Army Clemency Board on 6 June 2013 - 

"My name is Myles K.,  most often referred to as “Gene”.    I am very much honored to speak on behalf of Lt Colonel Kenneth Pinkela, his friends and his entire family.  I have known Ken for nearly 20 years as a friend, a neighbor and most importantly as extended members of each other’s families.   Today , my comments are supported by an innumerable amount of people who have written letters on his behalf, including our former President,  Jimmy Carter who having personally known Ken and his family was quick to write  a letter of support to General Linnington to bring attention to Ken’s circumstances.
Before going any further, I understand the purpose of this board.  I understand that its purpose is not to retry the case or argue the verdict.   However, I also know that the board is unfamiliar with Ken’s life prior to the court case, including the circumstances of investigation which led up to this verdict.
The first thing that I implore the board to understand is that to this day there still remains a painful stigma associated with being and HIV+.   After, Ken’s diagnosis, I very quickly realized that, despite being an open minded and well educated individual, I had to abandon a prejudice that I did not know I held.  So for those of who might possibly hold that same prejudice, let me state this clearly.  Ken’s HIV+ conversion was well documented as resulting from a Good Samaritan Act.  Ken came to the assistance of  an injured and profusely bleeding individual after a diving accident in Hawaii.  Ken’s diagnosis was not attributed to unprotected sex or wreckless promiscuity. ( PAUSE) Please allow that to sink in for a moment, because it speaks volumes to Kens character and integrity, not only in how he became HIV+ but how it demonstrates his willingness to come to the aid of a person in dire need, despite the risk to his own well being.
I am not surprised at Ken’s act of bravery when it came to rendering assistance.  If you were to know Ken, as I do, you would know that he has a clear and passionate understanding between right and wrong.  On three separate occasions I personally witnessed this.  On one occasion, a woman screamed for help in the Pentagon City Mall, she had just been robbed by a sizable individual at a cash machine.  Ken helped to tackle the individual until he was subdued and then stayed with woman calming her until the police arrived.  Like most others that day, he could have just stood, watched and hoped for the best, but he didn’t, he jumped into action.
On another occasion on Connecticut Avenue, we witnessed an individual throw a brick through a car window and steal a gym bag.  Again, Ken tackled the robber and although he got away, Ken was able to retrieve the belongings and waited for the police to arrive as well as the owner of the car to return the belongings to him.   Finally in his most heroic act, I witnessed Ken, barefoot, chase down a drunk driver who after crashing his jeep into multiple cars and also destroying personal property, attempted to flee the scene.  
This is the Ken Pinkela, that his neighbors, his family and his loved one’s all know and have supported through this most difficult time.  You would be extremely hard pressed to find just one individual who knowing Ken with any level of intimacy, would believe the verdict that has been rendered against him, nor would they believe that he deserves a dismissal from the army.
Now, let me speak to what I witnessed and again, I know I speak with confidence for his family and his friends.  From the day Ken was first diagnosed, I saw a man who was initially devastated by the news, which is very easily understood, but what I saw more importantly is a man who accepted his HIV + status, and instantly became a vocal and unrelenting advocate for people with HIV.  Ken embraced counseling with a passion, he routinely reached out to others who were HIV+ and having learned the various modes of transmission, coached others to protect themselves and to “not take chances”.
 He did this because he did not want others to go through the shock that he had to endure.  When Ken could have become a silent victim of his HIV+ status, he instead stood up bravely and publicly acknowledged his status and gave it a “face”.  He did so selflessly, openly and honestly.   Having witnessed this personally,  I am at an absolute loss as to how a court or an individual can find that he would deliberately with hold this information from another and act with any malice that could put another person at risk.  I witnessed when Ken refused to let another individual put a band aid on a wound he received in his front yard.  Despite understanding that the simple act of placing a Band-Aid on a cut finger would not cause transmission of HIV, he simply didn’t want to take the risk.   I cannot imagine that same man willfully engaging in unprotected sex.
Again, please remember that I have the benefit of knowing Ken.  Being his neighbor I have been in his home many times.   While I can’t use this board to debate the specifics of the court case, I can inform the board of information prior to the trial.  There was no attempt by the Army’s criminal investigation unit to protect Ken’s rights, by surveying the scene where the incident was supposed to have occurred.  They did not visit the home. They did not walk into the bathroom and find that there is more than ten feet of slippery marble flooring where it would be impossible to assault an Army Ranger in the shower, subdue him and drag him across that floor.   They also did not notice that there are no less than three possible exits from the room where he was accused of forcing himself upon this trained Army Ranger.   They did not raise a red flag or pursue charges against an accuser who openly admitted under Oath  to having hacked into Ken’s email account and the account shared by both he and his wife.  They did not pursue charges against the accuser who again, under Oath admitted to lying to both the Criminal Investigation Division and the trial counsel.  
At this point, I would simply ask each member of the Board to remember the term TNTC.   It stands for Too Numerous To Count.  (PAUSE)
I was with Ken, when he received a text message one evening, which basically threatened him and blackmailed him.  At first Ken, thought the whole thing was a joke in very poor taste, but as the texts continued, he realized that there was something very wrong.  He sought my counsel in a venting style and I remember him saying,  “Oh my God, this kid is really twisted he’s trying to black mail me, followed by, “I need to get in touch with my boss tonight." I cautioned Ken, to take a deep breathe and to wait until morning, in case this was some form of a prank. Having known Ken,  I honestly thought that someone was just pulling his leg and went overboard in playing a mean spirited game.   The very next day, Ken in the front yard Ken told me he was on his way to see his boss.  Not understanding the Army, I asked him to wait a day and get a clear head, but he insisted that it was not something he could wait on.  That’s the Ken I know, the Ken who follows the rules even when inconvenient or painful or in this case a source of humiliation.
So,  I remain in the unenviable position of trying to demonstrate to all of you,  that Ken Pinkela is a man worthy of Clemency , a man who  should not be dismissed from the military and a man who should be allowed to retire after almost 26 years.  He deserves to be treated with the same the same integrity that he demonstrated while in the Army.   I am trying to demonstrate to all of you,  that a lifetime of achievement in the Army has been undermined and jeopardized by one individual whose motivation I will never understand.   And it’s simply not easy.   So I need to ask you to remember a time, where out of the blue, you were accused of something you didn’t do.  How did you prove something DIDN’T happen?  I need to appeal to your sense of  compassion and fairness.  This trial was described by the press as a case where it was “He said – He said” and in many ways that is true.  It was a trial that without any physical evidence came down to who was more convincing, not necessarily truthful, but “convincing.”    I need you to ask yourself, are you sure that the next person who visits your home wont  you of a crime many months later?  I am not sure of this any longer, and neither are people who have witnessed what has happened to Ken’s life. 
Would you know if the next person to enter your home, had a medical history, or CDC report that stated, “Too numerous To Count” in regards to the number of sexual partners with whom he or she had unprotected sex??  Ken certainly didn’t know before he let the accuser into his home, and now he is an anguished man, desperately trying to hold on to what little he has left-- His dignity and his retirement.  Please remember, that if Ken is dismissed from the military, he loses his medical benefits, he loses access to medicines that will keep him alive.  He has very little chance of obtaining those benefits in the private sector, because since he is considered a sex offender, he is likely unemployable.  In addition to his health, Ken will lose his home and every single thing he has worked hard to achieve in his life.  He will in fact become a burden on the society that he fought to protect in the theater of war.
I have heard that it is often customary for an individual convicted of a crime, to acknowledge guilt as an expectation of their parole hearing.  I am not sure whether that is a valid statement, but on behalf of all of the people who I represent here today,  his family, friends and, we all support Ken in his refusal to dishonor himself and admit guilt to a vile act that he did not commit.  While Ken clearly entered the Army as a person of integrity, he wholeheartedly embraced the concept of Honor, and it is because of that Honor, not arrogance, that he cannot humble himself to take the easy way out.  He has always held fast to his convictions.
I ask all of you to consider what I have said, to consider Kens record before and after this event, including his stellar behavior and performance while in prison.  I ask you to recommend clemency and to prevent his dismissal from the military."


  


















Sunday, November 10, 2013

Pede appointed Army Court of Criminal Appeals chief judge - Hope?

Pede appointed Army Court of Criminal Appeals chief judge - Belvoir Eagle: News

This may not mean much to many of you, but tho those of us harmed by the very US ARMY that we gave our lives to and the broken process of UCMJ - will this appointment bring any new leadership and hope to the falsely accused and wrongfully prosecuted?

Its true that the Chief Judge is just one of many...the individual associate judges bring their personalities to the bench...We can at least "HOPE" that there is an adult conversation and active leadership is guiding the direction the bench should go in their responsibility to protect the "Good order and Conduct of the US ARMY and the Rights of the Accused"

If I could say one thing to the new Chief - "Sir, I had a reasonable expectation that a fair and thorough investigation would have taken place, and that, the Trial Judge in my case would have allowed ALL evidence to be presented to allow for a full and fair defense...that did NOT happen."
As the gate keeper of Justice, I can only hope and pray that you will LEAD from your position and bring the fairness and balance of the LAW to our Army.
The process is broken Sir and the process to fix it begins with you admitting to the failures and Leading change.

My family and I  along with so many others are living with Hope and Prayers that we will get the Justice that we deserve.

LTC KENNETH PINKELA

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

HIV man acquitted after unprotected sex...Let the discussion begin

 
This is going to FORCE a discussion about HIV as a crime. 
 
He had consensual sex and NONE of the women are HIV positive!  READ that again!  So what did he do wrong? 
 
Yes, he is HIV+ and yes he had unprotected sex...just like millions of human do everyday...He is on medication and is undetectable...so what CRIME did be break and don't use the unprotected sex BS argument any more...EVERYONE has natural sex - if we didnt we would not be on the planet...Get over it...
 
Lets focus on the virus and what crime did he commit?  Each partner has a role and part to play in with whom they have sex and what type of sex...condom..no condom...whips...chains...whatever...
 
If the public health officials want to spread the "TEST and know your status" then they have to support, at least to stop "Take the TEST and not risk arrest"  That RISK is precluding your public health strategy more then many will acknowledge.
 
The HIV medical community has embraced the fact that we can control the disease if people know their status, and this strategy is panning out to be true.
 
PEP and PrEP are all over the news and communities...The question about an undetectable viral load is still a hot topic.
 
So how about the Public Health community getting on board and aggressively supporting the end of criminalization HIV The virus is not a crime.
 
Let the lawyers prove malicious intent in these cases...STOP telling putting people in jail for having sex!And lets not forget...STOP prosecuting men and women for FALSE ALLEGATIONS!!!

Monday, October 28, 2013

FEAR - STIGMA - HATRED - JAIL - walk in my shoes then talk to me

"So why, then, don't more people come out about being HIV-positive? No one is more familiar with the perils of living with HIV, in terms of everything from social stigma to draconian criminalization laws, than I am."
 
 
I went to jail for 272 days because I am HIV+... they trumped up charges and a bullshit story from a sociopath Lieutenant that admitted to stealing passwords, lying to the prosecution and to investigators and to hacking into an email and website...and you say you are more familiar with criminalization laws?
 
I enjoy what you write Mark and support your advocacy 110%, but please don't tell those of us that you are more familiar with criminalization until you spend time in jail and are required to register as a sex offender for 25years to life...
 
I was open about my status to the people I love in my life and my chain of command, but the Army "believed" an admitted liar, theft and hacker...all because I am HIV+...
 
They went as far as calling physical witnesses liars and denying FACTS about the complaining witness having years of bareback sex that he admitted to...
No Physical evidence or Medical evidence was ever presented by the prosecution...
 
So you want to know why people are still afraid of telling others about their HIV status...
FEAR - STIGMA - HATRED = JAIL Those are pretty powerful reasons to stay silent and its a sad reality.
 
Its not just a gay community issue...its a HUMANITY issue...HIV knows to boundaries, but yet humans have decided to make living with HIV a potential crime...
 
HIV is NOT a CRIME the Wrongful prosecution of HIV is.
 
 

Friday, October 18, 2013

Preserving Error is a Key to Defending the Truth

Preserving Error a key to victory

"A trial is intended to be a win at the trial level. Good trial lawyers never litigate just for an appeal, but at the same time must remember to preserve error for appellate review in case."

As any true strategic thinker will tell you, you can take many if not all of the Rules of War and apply them to everyday life.

The battle in the courtroom is no different.

In this link, attorney Phil Cave, actually demonstrates the "requirement" of any good attorney to not just litigate the trial but also think strategically and prepare for the "deep fight"

Many of us in uniform, know the practise well...Sometimes it is a strategic benefit to "lose" the initial engagement or battle...The enemy will normally expose operational flaws and weaknesses for you to use later in your preparations and planning...These "insights" given to you by the enemy will allow you to ultimately "Win the War."

I may have lost the initial battle at trial, but I believe that I am in a very strong position to WIN THE WAR and regain my name and honor.

The unbelievable actions and mistakes the US Army made against me will not go unnoticed by a 3-member panel of military appellate judges.  I don't just have the hope, but I truly Believe that they like so many others who have read my record of trial, will in fact get very upset and professionally embarrassed that this case even took place...and do the right thing to preserve justice and overturn my trial decision with prejudice.

If you are facing a courts martial, it is up to you to work with your attorney's and not only prepare the "near term battle" but you MUST prepare for the "Deep Fight" to win the war.

Thank you Phil Cave for your vision and professional support of the innocent men and women in the Armed Forces.

"False Allegations" on the net...

False Allegations of sexual assault

Just click the link to see the 770,000 hits on False Allegations of Sexual Assault

How about just "false allegations" and you get the 17,400,000 hits!

False Allegations

My point, again, is that False Allegations are REAL! 

Look at the latest news from San Diego
Bob Filner Pleads Guilty

I will not stop telling the FACTS that the US Army Criminal Investigation Command unit at Fort Myer, VA did NOT complete or conduct an investigation about the false allegations made against me.
They chose not to investigate the Lieutenant making the allegations against me.
They chose not to investigate and/or validate the physical evidence fabricated about my home by the complaining witness.
They chose to ignore medical evidence
They chose to ignore published evidence from the complaining witness on the Internet about his distrust and dislike of the US Army in his "emancipation from the Army" posting on FACEBOOK
They chose to ignore the years of risky sexual activity he posted all over the Internet on multiple sex websites, and
They chose to ignore his own testimony about the number of sexual encounters he had during the same year time frame as the allegation
TNTC - To Numerous To Count

Why MG Linnginton would you accept a recommendation from your staff, when you knew the allegations were false?

How could the military judge find anyone guilty with ZERO physical or medical evidence?

HOW can you live with yourselves knowing that you destroyed a mans life/career and family?

In the end...Your actions will have caused more harm to the Army and to the Armed Forces then any false allegation against me...

I am Innocent and you know it. 

I will not stop until my name is cleared and you are held accountable for your actions.

Saturday, October 12, 2013

The High Costs of Wrongful Convictions

The High Costs of Wrongful Convictions

The emotional damage cannot be quantified...

Its difficult for many to truly understand How this can happen in the United State of America.
A Nation founded on principles of Liberty and Justice for All...and yet some how we have allowed ourselves to drift away from these core principles.  Yes "we" all have allowed this to happen, and "we" can force it to change.

When basic, and expected steps in the process of mainting law and order go this far astray...we must stand up and protest with all the energy and conviction that the founding fathers did in establishing these principles.

These are not just empty words to me or my family.  I believe them and swore to defend them with my life.

When the Army I love can turn its back on the oath we all swear to uphold and NOT conduct a complete investigation, deny direct evidence related to the allegation, call witnesses liars just because they are your family and were in the house, believe an admitted liar, theft, hacker and sex addict (all admitted under oath), present no medical evidence or physical evidence that a crime occurred and find a man guilty??  Then I submit to you that there is an deeper problem at hand.

This article is just one way to spin the dollars involved in wrongful prosecutions...These malicious acts,  in the name of justice, do more harm then any perceived good to our Nation as a whole.

I AM INNOCENT

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Scientist tackle HIV from unusual angles to find cure - MedCity News

Scientist tackle HIV from unusual angles to find cure - MedCity News

We can only hope that the medical science community can maintain this energy and excitement in these new approaches.

HIV is a chronic manageable disease...not a death sentence as the Army seems to believe in their wrongful prosecutions.

False allegations and ignorance are an evil combination especially in the hands of biased fear based commanders and staff judge advocates.

When there are FACTS to prove that a complaining witness has been having risky sex for years, in his own testimony and admission to the CDC and eye witnesses that it was impossible that he was ever alone with anyone in the home, then why how can you live with yourself and your decision?

HIV is not a crime...

Monday, October 7, 2013

US Army ignores its own guidance on the conduct of investigations

Legal Guidance to Commanders FM 27-1

It may have been released in 1992, but its still relevant and dare I say "Common Sense" !

If we, as an Army, take time to write regulations and guidance then it is the professional responsibility of all Commanders to adhere to that guidance.


This is a direct quote from Chapter 3 -
 
"You must ensure that all reported offenses are quickly and thoroughly investigated. You may conduct the preliminary inquiry yourself or direct someone else to do so. (See MCM, R.C.M. 303.) In serious or complex criminal cases, you should seek the help of law enforcement personnel.

When collecting information that may prove or disprove allegations of misconduct, investigators should ask three primary questions:

• Was an offense committed?

• Was the suspect involved in the offense?

• What is the character and military record of the suspect?

Investigators must always remain impartial.

"A one-sided investigation may result in an injustice to the accused and an embarrassment
to the command."  

SO I have to ask...Why didn't my Command (or so many other Commands) follow written Army Guidance? 

What was MG Linnington so afraid of , that he couldn't even have the professional courage to ensure that a thorough and complete investigation of the allegations took place?

It is now a part of my record of trial.
 
You did not conduct a complete investigation.
You did not investigate the Lieutenant making the disgusting allegations against me.
You ignored FACTS that your own SJA staff discovered about the complaining witness.
You ignored the sworn testimony of the complaining witness at the Article 32 - of his admitting to lying to CID, lying to the prosecution, stealing passwords from my home, hacking and identity theft to my email and a website, presenting false information about another person...All under Oath.

You prosecuted my because I am HIV +  that is a fact.  If I was HIV - there was no case or allegation.

If you had followed Army Guidance and conducted a true investigation, you would have found that the complaining witness is a liar and you had the FACTS to prove it, but you failed...You took the easy way out...

You chose to "CYA" and send it to a wold in judges robes...No evidence whatsoever...just a story from a liar and some how that man with the robes on said the word guilty.

I am innocent and you know it and so does the complaining witness.

I will remain unwavering in my LIFE to show the truth about the broken UCMJ process and the abortion of justice carried out by the Military District of Washington Command.

The Appellate Judges are going to see the FACTS that were hidden and disallowed by both the prosecution and the military judge.

The Appellate Judges are going to also see FACTS about the complaining witness of what he did the night before he testified at trial...better yet his family is going to see what he did and so will the world. 

I plead Not Guilty because I am NOT GUILTY.
















 



Sunday, October 6, 2013

Legal ignorance about HIV - Fear and prejudice alive and well in Iowa

Iowa HIV case and the ignorance about HIV

I was on the phone with my friends at The SERO Project while monitoring the Iowa Appeals Court website this week waiting and hoping that Iowa would have shown a level of maturation in both law and humanity in its opinion involving Nick Rhoades...

Sadly they did not...the Iowa Appeals Court blindly hid behind their barbaric HIV statute and failed to recognize the valid science and facts in this case.

I am still angry and very upset for Nick, but I know he will get through this.  I hear he has been able to raise enough money to move out of the state and start a new life.

I am also really angry at some of the down right mean comments I've been reading to the coverage of this case...but I guess there will always be those closeted fear mongers sharing their stupid opinions on everything

All in all, this case confirms EXACTLY what many HIV advocates and Public Health officials have been saying for a very long time... HIV Criminalization is causing real harm to public health...

Let me explain...I spoke to a blog writer just yesterday and I asked him this question...

"What "good" comes from prosecuting a person with HIV for just being HIV + ?"

Think about the question...What does the public get from prosecuting and incarcerating a person for having HIV?

Let me expand on on my question...Unlike any other "criminal statute the element of intent is not found...Every other criminal charge in this country has to prove some element of intent.

Take Nick's case...there was no litigation that he maliciously, with intent, infected a person with HIV.

Nick's case is about not telling a person you have consensual sex with that you have a virus...
He used a condom during intercourse and there is no orgasm during oral sex.  So no exposure as defined by the worlds medical community occurred

So, the facts say that he DID NOT expose or infect anyone...but because he didn't say 3 words, "I am HIV +" he is now a convicted felon and sex offender!  Are you serious? 

Nick is still HIV +.  He is healthy and undetectable.  No person was ever harmed by Nick Rhoades.

SO what did we all get from this "successful" prosecution?


All of the science and public health data tells us that HIV today is still, for the large majority, transmitted by the unknowing, untested population around the world...

Sadly, there have been a few very sick individuals that have maliciously and with intent infected people...

Those are the people the law should go after, but NOT because of the virus, but rather for their ACT!

When are we going to stop criminalizing sex?

HIV is not the crime.

Having SEX is not a crime.

The real crime is the wrongful prosecution and waste of public resources prosecuting these cases.

I invite you to read and educate yourself on HIV at The SERO Project http://seroproject.com/

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

HIV is NOT a death sentence!

HIV is not death sentence

Before the introduction of antiretroviral therapy in the 1990s, an HIV diagnosis meant death within a few years. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an estimated 1.1 million people are living with HIV in the United States, but thanks to better treatments, people with HIV are now living longer — and with a better quality of life — than ever before.
Today, a 20-year-old diagnosed with HIV can live well into his or her 70s with proper treatment. HIV is still serious; there is no effective cure or vaccine.

Not only has treatment improved, but the drugs themselves are coming with fewer side effects. This is important considering HIV patients take multiple drugs simultaneously and these drugs, after a few years, have to be alternated with other medications to keep the virus from developing a resistance. Less than 10 years ago it was common for HIV patients to run out of drug options. Today, with new developments, there is little reason the viral load cannot be managed — transitioning HIV from a fatal disease to a chronic condition when properly treated

Please take time to read the link and educate yourself on HIV

HIV does not discriminate like the humans it infects do

HIV is not a crime

HIV stigma must stop

HIV criminalization is pure discrimination

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Barbaric: It is 'worth the risk' to punish innocent college men in order to nab more sex offenders

Community of the Wrongly Accused: Barbaric: It is 'worth the risk' to punish innocen...: (May 2012)

I am not going to comment (I am literally sick to my stomach) 

What the hell are we teaching in our homes, and in universities and colleges, that students would say something like this?

Just read this and ask yourself what you would do if falsely accused? 


The University of Maryland's student newspaper is running a story today about how the university lowered its standards for finding students guilty of sexual misconduct earlier this semester, in compliance with new federal "Dear Colleague" mandate. The story includes this stunning quotation: "[F]reshman electrical engineering major Steph Winter said letting someone guilty of a serious crime go unpunished would be more harmful than finding an innocent person guilty. It’s obviously one of the big side effects, if it could result in an innocent person being found guilty,” she said. “But I think sexual assault is such a big issue that it’s worth the risk.”

This sentiment flips on its head a long-settled principle of law famously expressed by the celebrated English jurist William Blackstone: it is "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." (Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765.)

In fact, the debate about whether it is just to punish the innocent in order to insure that the guilty are punished has been settled since the time of the Book of Genesis. The Bible recounts that when God was deciding what to do about the evil in Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham put this question to him: "Are you really going to sweep away the innocent with the guilty?" After repeated probing by Abraham, God made it clear he would not destroy the guilty if it meant destroying the innocent with them.

In modern times, "Blackstone's formulation," or as it is sometimes called "The Blackstone ratio," has been imprinted on the DNA of our jurisprudence. Our Supreme Court, in various ways, has underscored that it is one of the pillars undergirding our jurisprudence.

Justice William O. Douglas, a liberal icon for much of the 20th Century, stated: "It is better, so the Fourth Amendment teaches, that the guilty sometimes go free than that citizens be subject to easy arrest." Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 104, 80 S. Ct. 168, 172 (1959).


Justice Harlan once wrote: "I view the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case as bottomed on a fundamental value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free." In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970)(Harlan, J. concurring).

Somehow, this formulation has been cavalierly turned on its head in the current debate over the "Dear Colleague" letter.


Is the pain of a rape survivor in seeing his or her rapist go free in any sense comparable to the injustice inflicted when the state deprives an innocent person of his liberty? The question scarcely survives its statement.

"Terrible as it is for a victim to see a rapist escape punishment, it is far, far worse for an innocent person to be convicted of a sex crime." Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, S. Taylor, K.C. Johnson (2007).

Take, for example, Dwayne Dail, who was convicted of a rape he did not commit as a teenager and spent the next 18 years in prison. While in prison Mr. Dail was repeatedly and brutally victimized by the same crime that he, himself, did not commit. His life was shattered, and it is fair to assume he will never be whole after his unspeakable ordeal. Can anyone seriously assert that the pain of the rape victim in Mr. Dail's case was in any sense lessened by having this innocent man destroyed?

Rape victims whose misidentification of their perpetrators lead to wrongful convictions often develop deep psychological trauma when they learn what they've done. Actual rape victims have no interest in punishing the innocent and are often among the most vocal critics of false rape accusers because they know that every rape lie diminishes the integrity of every legitimate rape claim. I have put the question to one of the nation's most prominent victims of clergy sex abuse, and his unhesitating answer was that he hates false accusers because of what they do to real victims.

While an individual is capable of doing terrible things to another individual, including rape, neither the state, nor an institution of higher learning acting at the behest of the state, should ever fall to the level of a criminal and reasonably risk doing a terrible thing to another human being. Convicting an innocent man of rape, or expelling an innocent man for rape, is not an acceptable risk in the name of nabbing more offenders.


Beyond that, punishing the innocent undermines public confidence in the way rape claims are prosecuted. This not only works an injustice to the wrongly accused, it does no favors for rape victims. When juries and the people who decide college disciplinary hearings believe that the system allows the innocent to be punished, they are all the more wary about punishing men and boys for rape charges, even those who deserve to be punished.

A wrongful acquittal is a terrible thing, of course. But a wrongful acquittal is never, ever the equivalent of a wrongful conviction, and to suggest otherwise is morally grotesque.

Dictators throughout history have justified the ruthless imprisonment, torture, and murder of the innocent to insure that the "guilty" (who always happen to be their enemies) are vanquished. It is a monstrously barbaric -- and, we might add, singularly un-American -- practice.

The reason Blackstone's formulation retains its validity is self-evident. It is the very hallmark of a civilized society.

Saturday, September 28, 2013

When HIV turns into a Prison sentence

 
Only one thing is true in my case...I am HIV positive...
That's why the Army prosecuted me...The Army even said "You are HIV positive so it must have been you..." There was NOTHING fair about the nearly 4+ years this went on before the bogus trial.
Members of Congress want to pay lip service and say they want to "protect" victims of sexual assault...Well so do I !!
I want to protect any real victim of any assault...especially in my Army...an Army I served for 26 years and still love, but I want those same Members of Congress to stand by me and the other REAL victims of a broken process and false allegations that could have and should have been investigated with the full resources and diligence of any crime.
 
Disclosure, non-disclosure, sex, no sex, true, false...It does not matter...this is PURE discrimination based on a VIRUS...a virus!
 
This Stigma and Wrongful prosecution MUST END!

The Armed Forces and civilian courts have turned their backs on the very justice they are supposed to defend.

When an Army Lieutenant can admit to lying, stealing, hacking, confess to years of risky sexual behavior, blackmail threats and admit to knowing my HIV status...All under oath...and be seen as a "victim"...What in God's name is wrong with our system?

No investigation was ever completed...
The defense had physical witnesses
No medical or physical evidence
Just a "story" that changed 4 times on the record
PLEASE stand with Nick, Sean, Robert, myself and so many others you will see mentioned in this video/story.
Our Nation and our Armed Forces are better then this...
 

Friday, September 27, 2013

The ignorance, fear and stigma that surrounds HIV is more deadly then then the virus itself

Film Showcase HIV Criminalization Laws...

Powerful steps to get the issue out in front of people...

One of the most shocking points to drive home is that a person can be prosecuted even if no actual transmission occurs..

I can personally confirm this is the practise of the United States Army...

I was not charged with infecting anyone, but rather they use a cowardice approach and charge myself and others with "exposure"  Regardless of HIV disclosure, viral load, physical witnesses for the defense and medical/physical evidence.

I need to repeat my position on this whole UCMJ Sexual Assault issue...
I have ZERO TOLERANCE for any proven assault..of any kind.  Our Armed Forces deserve equal and fair treatment under the Law as promised by the very Constitution we all swear to support and defend.

How any Commander's and Staff Judge Advocate can go forward with any prosecution without a full investigation is a crime in and of itself.

If a complaining witness, like the one in my case, admits to 12 pages of risky sexual activity on his CDC form...admits to lying to prosecution, lying to federal investigators, stealing passwords and Hacking into an email and website...under oath...How can you press charges against a person and How in God's name does a military judge say the words guilty...

I'll tell you...3-letters...HIV

Monday, September 23, 2013

New Study Show Statistical Factors Behind Wrongful Convictions…and how it relates to me

http://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2013/03/11/new-study-show-statistical-factors-behind-wrongful-convictions/

As I continue to tell my own story, I am amazed and appalled daily by the number of cases that I find about wrongful convictions destroying lives in this country all in the false name of "justice".

I have found the professionals with the "Wrongful Convictions Blog" are one of the best groups to put things into perspective in an academic and legal tone.

"From the quantitative and qualitative analysis, Gould and his team determined that prevention begins at the police station starting with the interrogation and investigation of alibis. This is followed by several opportunities along the way to identify the innocent before they are wrongfully convicted. For example, if forensic testing was conducted earlier and the results became available sooner to investigators innocent suspects could be freed. But faulty identifications, absence of early forensic test results, and inadequate investigation of alibis leads to what Gould characterizes as a “perfect storm” of errors made worse by collective tunnel vision."

10 Factors Identified in Wrongful Convictions - I can directly relate to a number of the factors this study lists and many others...
  • State death penalty culture/state punitiveness-there is a terrible environment in the armed forces revolving around any sexual assault and a genertion of weak commanders not willing to stand up and stop cases in fear of Congessional oversight and the sake of their own career.  You are guilty until proven innocent under UCMJ...this is not a play on words...we are adminstratively "flagged" - think scarlet letter - everything is stopped in your career until you are proven innocent.

  • Strength of prosecution’s case - actually the Army's case was very weak (over a dozen attorney's have reviewed the Record of Trial)

  • Prosecution withheld evidence (Brady violation) - One of the most disgusting acts by uniformed Army JAG officers.  They withheld evidence about an immunity deal, physical evidence, medical evidence and evidence that the complaining witness was having risky anonymous bareback sex via his own admission, a witness and his personal CDC form.

  • Forensic evidence errors - there was ZERO, literally ZERO, forensic evidence in my case...the Army CID unit at Fort Myer, VA did not complete the investigation...they did not investigate my home and the most remarkable act..they did not investigate the complaining witness.  They "believed" him.

  • Strength of defendant’s case - even with many denied motions by the military judge, we had physical witnesses, medical and physical evidence.  We even had the under oath testimony of the complaining witness admitting to stealing passwords from my home, "hacking" into my email and a website, lying to federal investigators, lying to the prosecution and lying to federal agency officials...All at the Article 32 hearing!

  • Age of defendant - 45 years old

  • Criminal history of defendant - ZERO

  • Intentional misidentification-complaining witness admits to Identity theft "hacking" and presenting false information to the prosecution

  • Lying by non-eyewitness - witnesses testified truthfully in my case!  They testified that the complaining witness knew months before meeting the first of only two times-ever...the he knew I was HIV+.  This fact alone is huge, he even tells CID in the initial statement that he knew I was HIV+ before being introduced to him as a mentor.  Yet, the military judge believes that he drives 800 plus miles overnight from Alabama to Virginia to have unprotected sex with my whole family in the house!  Are you serious?

  • Family witness testified on behalf of defendant-This is just sad, but in my case the complaining witness testifies that my entire family was in the house!  My mother was "the" lead witness because she was there!  Sad that your family is seen as a negative in our justice system.
It makes my skin crawl every time I write about this, but I will continue to tell the story

The facts, both presented and not presented, tell the story...I am Innocent!

The UCMJ system is BROKEN
Sexual Assault allegations MUST be investigated fully
False Allegations are REAL
HIV is NOT a crime

We continue to pray and hope that the appeal process will right this wrong.

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

AN ANALYSIS OF THE HISTORY, CHALLENGES, AND SUGGESTED CHANGES TO THE "NEW" ARTICLE 120

http://www.afjag.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-111121-039.pdf

Page 269-291

I believe its very important to anyone who is following my case and the other cases of False Allegations of sexual assault under UCMJ, to have as much information as possible.

BG Nevin is a retired US Army JAG officer and as a General Officer offers a perspective unique to his career and experience. 

From my point of view, as an officer who was falsely accused and literally railroaded by the broken UCMJ system specifically surrounding Article 120 and the terrible environment of personal interpretations of the Military Rules of Evidence by rogue military trial judges, this legal review is a must read for all parties.

"As this issue exemplifies the tension between an accused’s right to a fair trial and the military necessity of combating a corrosive internal threat, expect the issue of Article 120 to receive continued attention from the military’s appellate courts."

So with regards to my case:

1. None of the required elements of an assault were ever presented
2. The complaining witness testifies multiple times that "everything" was consensual (even though I maintain NOTHING happened and had FACTS and WITNESSES to support)
3. Direct Evidence of years of risky sex by the complaining witness was denied by the military judge

With just these 3 FACTS alone, How could a judge find a person guilty?

 

NEITHER A MODEL OF CLARITY NOR A MODEL STATUTE: AN ANALYSIS OF THE HISTORY, CHALLENGES, AND SUGGESTED CHANGES TO THE "NEW" ARTICLE 120

BrIGADIER GENERAL (RET.) JACK NEVIN

 
Brigadier General (Ret.) Jack Nevin (B.A., Washington State University; J.D., M.S., M.B.A., Gonzaga University) Pierce County, Washington, District Court Judge, 1997-present; Adjunct Professor, Comprehensive Trial Advocacy and Military Law, Seattle University School of Law; Adjunct Professor, Kessler Edison Trial Techniques Program, Emory University School of Law; Lecturer, U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of Justice; Lecturer, Humanitarian Law, Catholic University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland; Brigadier General (Ret.) U.S. Army Reserve Judge Advocate General’s Corps.

Lieutenant Joshua R. Lorenz, USN (B.A., Gustavus Adolphus College; J.D., magna cum laude, Seattle University School of Law) serves as a trial counsel at Region Legal Service Office Mid-Atlantic, Norfolk, Virginia.

This article is based upon a paper submitted by LT Lorenz in satisfaction of the requirements of the Seattle University School of Law seminar, Military Law, taught by Judge Nevin. LT Lorenz deserves credit for the thesis and content of this article.

L
IEUTENANT JOSHUA R. LORENZ


I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................... 270

II. SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE U.S.MILITARY........................................... 271

A. Women in the Military.................................................................. 272

B. Statistics on Instances of Military Sexual Assault ........................ 273

C. Effects of Sexual Assault in the Military...................................... 275

III. C
ONGRESSIONAL RESPONSE: THE "NEW" ARTICLE 120..................... 277

A. Congressional Request for Options .............................................. 277

B. The "New" Article 120 ................................................................. 279

IV. A
PPELLATE CHALLENGES AND JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS ............. 280

A. United States v. Crotchett ............................................................. 281

B. United States v. Neal..................................................................... 282

C. United States v. Prather................................................................ 283

V. SUGGESTED CHANGES......................................................................... 287

A. Redefine the Use of Consent in Article 120(r) ............................. 287

B. Amend the Affirmative Defense Procedures in

Article 120(t)(16).......................................................................... 288

VI. C
ONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 291

270 The Air Force Law Review Volume 67

I. INTRODUCTION

Consider the following scenario: John is 21 years old and enlisted in the military after three years of post-high school unemployment. Sarah is 18 and enlisted immediately after graduating from high school to earn money for college. Both are assigned to the same unit. Both live in the same dormitory-style barracks on a base in the U.S. The base and the nearby small town lack many outlets for entertainment. Most young servicemembers assigned to the base spend their free time drinking while watching movies or playing videos games in their barracks rooms.

John, Sarah, and a group of their friends often hang out in the barracks on weekends. One Saturday night, a group has been drinking for several hours in John’s room. Their friends depart, leaving John and Sarah alone together for the first time. Both are drunk, but Sarah is almost incoherent after consuming nearly half of a bottle of vodka herself. She lies down on John’s bed. John follows shortly after.

The next day, something is wrong. Sarah texts her friend that she cannot remember what happened, but that she thinks she might have been raped. She cannot remember the details, but does recall brief images from last night: images of John on top of her of him having sex with her. She woke up in the morning unsure of what to do or whom to contact. Her friend suggests talking to the sexual assault response coordinator on base. Sarah does, and feels she remembers enough to conclude that she did not consent to sex with John. She reports the incident.

A criminal investigation is initiated. Sarah provides a statement to investigators, and John is questioned under rights advisement. There are no other witnesses to the incident in question, although several servicemembers tell investigators that both John and Sarah had been drinking heavily. The investigators present their findings to John and Sarah’s chain of command. After several previous instances involving allegations of sexual misconduct in the unit that went unpunished for various reasons, the commander feels pressure from his superiors to correct a perceived climate of tolerance of such behavior within his command.

The commander brings criminal charges against John and the case is referred to a court-martial. The charges allege that John either had sex with Sarah by force or threat of harm, or while she was unable to consent because she was severely intoxicated. Prior to trial, John provides notice that he intends to claim that either Sarah agreed to the sex, or that even if she did not, he incorrectly but reasonably believed that she had. No other witnesses or evidence corroborates either party’s story: the trial will turn on the court’s assessment of the credibility of either Sarah’s or John’s version of events.
The "New" Article 120 271 Sexual assault is a particularly malicious and tragic crime, intentionally inflicted on a victim who often suffers lasting physical and psychological wounds. As Justice White observed in Coker v. Georgia, "[s]hort of homicide, [rape] is the "‘ultimate violation of self.’"272 The Air Force Law Review Volume 67

military society and effectiveness as an additional reason for changing the criminal legislative scheme in an effort to more effectively address the problem.

A. Women in the Military

An analysis of military sexual assault and associated military justice responses should start with understanding the gender demographics of the U.S. military. The active-duty military population in the Department of Defense totals approximately 1.4 million members,
7 of which 14 percent are women.8 Despite this relatively small proportion as compared to the general U.S. population, the numbers of women in the military have consistently increased over the last 40 years. After World War II, legal limitations on the roles of women in the military returned after years of women filling crucial roles supporting the war effort.9 In the 1950s and 1960s, women comprised just over one percent of the active duty population, eventually reaching two percent by the end of Vietnam.10 The end of mandatory conscription in 1973 required a diversification and increase in the roles of female servicemembers in the all-volunteer force, as the military faced a shortage of qualified men to fill previously male-only positions.11 However, despite the slow but steady increase in their numbers, by 2003 women were still prohibited from working in 30 percent of available positions in the U.S. Army.12

7 See Armed Forces Strength Figures for April 30, 2011, available at http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/ms0.pdf.

8 See Department of Defense Female Active Duty Military Personnel by Rank/Grade, Sept. 30, 2010, available at http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/rg1009f.pdf.

9 See David R. Segal & Mady Wechsler Segal, Population Reference Bureau, America's Military Population, POPULATION BULL., Dec. 2004, at 27.

10 See id.

11 See id.

12 See id.

13 Jessica L. Cornett, Note, The U.S. Military Responds to Rape: Will Recent Changes be Enough?, 29 WOMENS RTS. L. REP. 99, 100 (2008).

14 Id. at 102-103.

As a result of the historical overrepresentation of men in its ranks, the U.S. military may be, according to one sociologist, "the most prototypically masculine of all social institutions."13 However, this male dominance does not necessarily directly correlate with a prevalence for sexual assault. One author has postulated that the "inherent implication of inequality" due to grossly unequal representation of the sexes in the military population, could provide some explanation for the "disproportionate rates of unwanted sexual behavior experienced by women in the military" as compared to civilian society.14 While this imbalance and women’s inability to participate fully in all military occupational fields likely contributes to a culture that may increase their experience of unwanted sexual conduct, a The "New" Article 120 273 274 The Air Force Law Review Volume 67 The "New" Article 120 275 Therefore, the rate of sexual assaults per thousand servicemembers in these locations is approximately 0.94, less than half of the 2.0 rate per thousand reported for the overall DoD. This lower rate is likely due to the "arduous conditions" that make "data collection very difficult" in theater, and is at odds with well-documented reports of sexual assaults in Iraq and Afghanistan.276 The Air Force Law Review Volume 67 The "New" Article 120 277 A proper examination of recent Congressional responses to the problem of military sexual assault must include an assessment of these competing interests. 278 The Air Force Law Review Volume 67

recognizing that the provisions in the UCMJ that dealt with sexual assault required modification for improvement.

A subcommittee of DoD’s Joint Service Committee (JSC) for Military Justice took up the task of developing recommendations to go to Congress. The JSC is comprised of representatives of the major stakeholders in the DoD’s uniformed and civilian legal community, and is responsible, in part, for reviewing the Manual for Courts Martial (MCM) and proposing updates to the UCMJ.
46 The subcommittee reviewed the then-current UCMJ, MCM, several federal criminal statutes, and the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code, and, ultimately presented DoD’s recommendations to Congress in March 2005.47

46 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DOD DIR. 5500.17, ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE JOINT SERVICE COMMITTEE (JSC) ON MILITARY JUSTICE (2003), available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/550017p.pdf.

47 Sex Crimes and the UCMJ: A Report for the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice at 1 (Feb. 2005) available at http://www.defenselink.mil/dodgc/php/docs/subcommittee_reportMarkHarvey1-13-05.doc, [hereinafter Sex Crimes and the UCMJ].

48 Id.

49 Id. at 2.

50 Id.

51 Id.

52 See id. at 85.

53 See Lieutenant Colonel Mark L. Johnson, Forks in the Road: Recent Developments in Substantive Criminal Law, ARMY LAW., Jun. 2006, at 27 (referencing discussions with a House Armed Services Committee attorney who served as a member of a drafting committee for the new sexual assault legislation).

The subcommittee unanimously recommended against any changes to the UCMJ. Its members could identify no military sexual misconduct that could not be effectively prosecuted under the existing UCMJ and MCM.48 Furthermore, the JSC subcommittee asserted that any "rationale for significant change [would be] outweighed by the confusion and disruption that such change would cause."49 Finally, the subcommittee emphasized that given the "well-developed, sophisticated jurisprudence" in the military justice system, changes in the UCMJ or other regulations would not likely result in any significant increase in prosecutions of sexual offenses.50

However, the subcommittee further stated that "if higher authorities direct a UCMJ change to substantially conform to [federal criminal law]," one of potential changes it had considered represented the option "that best takes into account unique military requirements."51 This option would divide sexual misconduct into degrees according to various aggravating factors.52 Despite the fact that the subcommittee explicitly advocated no change in existing law as necessary or prudent to deal with the problem of military sexual assault, this option soon formed the basis of the amendments to Article 120 that Congress later enacted.53 The "New" Article 120 279

B. The "New" Article 120

Contrary to the primary recommendation of the DoD subcommittee, the 2006 National Defense Authorization Act included a complete rewrite of Article 120.
54Unfortunately for those seeking to understand Congress’ intent, the available legislative history provides little explanation of the specific reasons or purposes for the complete revision.

54 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-163, 119 Stat. 3137 (2006) [hereinafter 2006 NDAA].

55 See H.R. Rep. No. 109-089, § 555 (2005) (noting that the amended Article 120 would include both "a series of graded offenses relating to rape, sexual assault and other sexual misconduct" and "a precise description of each offense.").

56 See H.R. Rep. No. 109-360, § 552 (2005).

57 151 Cong. Rec. H3912-02, 3920 (2005).

58 Id.

59 See 2006 NDAA supra note, at 54.

60 See id.

61 See 10 U.S.C. § 920, (a) – (h) (2011).

62 10 U.S.C. § 920(t)(1).

63 10 U.S.C. § 920(t)(2).

For example, the report of the House Committee on Armed Services’ version of the NDAA included only one paragraph summarizing the rewrite of the article. 55 Furthermore, the Conference Report on the combined House and Senate bill noted that the Senate version of the NDAA bill did not include a revision to Article 120.56 Additionally, floor debate in Congress contains only a single apparent reference to the rewrite. Representative Loretta Sanchez of California noted that the rewritten Article 120 provided for a "modern complete sexual assault statute that protects victims [and] empowers commanders and prosecutors."57 Furthermore, she stated that the amended statute "affords increased protection for victims by emphasizing acts of the perpetrator rather than the reaction of the victim during the assault."58

The President signed the 2006 NDAA and its Article 120 rewrite into law on January 6, 2006.59 According to the statute, the new Article 120 would not go in to effect until October 1, 2007.60 The revised article now specifies 14 categories of sexual assault offenses, including rape, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated sexual contact, and abusive sexual contact.61

Understanding the categories of offenses under the revised article requires first examining the definitions of "sexual act" and "sexual contact." The statute defines a "sexual act" as contact between the penis and vulva or penetration of a genital opening of another by hand, finger, or other object with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade, or to arouse or gratify sexual desire.62 It defines "sexual contact" as the intentional touching of another with the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade, or to arouse or gratify sexual desire.63 After initially identifying the nature of the conduct between the perpetrator and the victim, determination of the 280 The Air Force Law Review Volume 67 The "New" Article 120 281

Armed Forces, has now considered and decided several of these challenges. The resulting decisions have caused significant uncertainty and concern in the military justice system. Agreeing with the early critics, those decisions have concluded that in some (and perhaps most or even all) cases, the new statute impermissibly and unconstitutionally shifts part of the burden of proof to the accused.

According to challengers, the revised article’s definitions of force, "substantially incapacitated," and consent, combined with the removal of the previous element of lack of consent which the government had to prove, now unconstitutionally require an accused who raises the affirmative defense of consent to disprove an element of the alleged crime for which the government must satisfy the ultimate burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Challenges such as this embody the aforementioned dangers of legislative overreach and have been addressed in
United States v. Crotchett,70 United States v. Neal,71 and United States v. Prather.72

70 United States v. Crotchett, 67 M.J. 713 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2009)), rev. denied, 68 M.J. 222 (C.A.A.F. 2009).

71 United States v. Neal, 68 M.J. 289 (C.A.A.F. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 121 (2010).

72 United States v. Prather, 69 M.J. 338, reconsideration denied, 70 M.J. 30 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

73 See Crotchett, 67 M.J. at 714.

74 See id.

75 See id.

76 See id.

77 See id.

A. United States v. Crotchett

The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (N-M.C.C.A) tackled an iteration of the burden shifting challenge in Crotchett. In that case, the government charged a Sailor with aggravated sexual assault under Article 120(c), claiming that the alleged victim was substantially incapable of communicating her willingness to engage in sexual intercourse with the accused.73 At trial, the accused raised the affirmative defense of consent.74 After hearing arguments, the trial court dismissed the charge and specification against the accused, ruling that the prosecution would violate the accused’s Fifth Amendment right to due process by unconstitutionally shifting the burden of proof to the defense to disprove an essential element of the offense.75 Specifically, this essential element was the alleged victim’s substantial incapacity to communicate her unwillingness.76In short, the accused argued that in order to show that the alleged victim consented to intercourse, he would have to show that she did have the capacity to communicate her willingness, which is the logical opposite of the government’s element.

The appellate court reversed the ruling of the trial court. 77 In analyzing the lower court’s ruling, the appellate court acknowledged an "apparent overlap of defense and government burdens" when the affirmative 282 The Air Force Law Review Volume 67 The appellate court distinguished these burdens by parsing what specifically the parties must prove in order to meet their respective burdens, either when raising an affirmative defense or when proving the elements of the offense. The "New" Article 120 283 The accused argued that for the government to prove the element of force, it must necessarily also prove lack of consent, because "[o]ne does not submit if willing, one need not be overcome if willing, and one does not resist that which one wants."Thus, the accused advocated that asserting an affirmative defense of consent required him to disprove lack of consent (i.e., by showing that there was consent), which thereby improperly shifted the burden of proof from the government to him. 284 The Air Force Law Review Volume 67 During this discussion, defense counsel requested that the military judge instruct the members in accordance with the Military Judges’ Benchbook,which suggested treating consent as a traditional affirmative defense.The military judge denied the defense request and issued instructions that "generally tracked the statutory scheme, including the shifting burdens consistent with Article 120(t)(16)…with respect to the affirmative defenses."After the accused was convicted of aggravated sexual assault in violation of Article 120(c)(2), on review the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals found no violation of the accused’s due process rights.The "New" Article 120 285 Similar to prior criticisms of the second burden shift scheme,the court noted that the problem is structural: if a trier of fact has found that an affirmative defense is proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it is legally impossible for the government to disprove that affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt.In a separate opinion, Judge Baker went further in his criticism of Article 120(t)(16), calling the second burden shift unenforceable and unconstitutional if literally followed.286 The Air Force Law Review Volume 67 The trial judge ruled in the accused’s favor, and dismissed the abusive sexual contact charge as unconstitutional. In his ruling, the judge stated that C.A.A.F. in Prather had held the entire Article 120 to be constitutionally unenforceable, and that he lacked authority to sever (t)(16) or to provide curative instructions – because, he said C.A.A.F. in the subsequent case of United States v. Medina had prohibited such a remedy, and he held it would render the remainder of the statute incoherent and invade and contravene Congressional intent.The "New" Article 120 287

Air Force’s appellate court subsequently followed in a case with similar facts. Prather and Boore do much to clarify the legal landscape and map the course to constitutionally adjudicate Article 120 cases where the accused raises the affirmative defense – while preserving the remainder of the statute and legislative scheme. However, only Congressional action to clarify and enhance Article 120 will avert continuing difficulty and potential confusion in the military courts in this area.

V. SUGGESTED CHANGES

Article 120 requires amendments to ensure a constitutional application of the article and to reduce confusion during sexual assault prosecutions. Two such changes include (1) a redefinition of consent in Article 120(r) and (2) an amendment of the procedures used when raising the affirmative defense of consent under Article 120(t)(16).

A. Redefine the Use of Consent in Article 120(r)

One suggested change is a legislative redefinition of the use of consent in Article 120(r). This unnecessarily confusing provision provided the textual support for the burden shifting challenges in
Crotchett, Neal, and Prather. According to the current statute, "consent and mistake of fact as to consent are not an issue, or an affirmative defense, in a prosecution under any other subsection, except they are an affirmative defense for the sexual conduct in issue in a prosecution" for several offenses under Article 120, such as rape and aggravated sexual contact.122

122 10 U.S.C. § 920(r).

123 Neal, 68 M.J. at 301-02.

124 Id. at 304.

Refining what is meant by "consent" will clarify Congress’ intent regarding the treatment of evidence of an alleged victim’s permission, as introduced by either the accused or the government. In Neal, the court declined to broadly interpret the phrase, rejecting the interpretation that would never allow the use of consent evidence except when the accused meets his initial burden to establish an affirmative defense.123 According to the Neal court, although the government need not prove lack of consent, evidence regarding consent should be allowed in order to "not preclude treating evidence of consent as a subsidiary fact potentially relevant to a broader issue in the case, such as the element of force."124

Despite the court’s interpretation in Neal, Congress should undertake to clarify the evidentiary role of consent. If the revised article intends to emphasize the acts of the perpetrator rather than the reaction of the victim, restricting use of consent evidence would protect against investigating what a victim allegedly did or said during a sexual assault. 288 The Air Force Law Review Volume 67

Such a limitation of consent would run counter to the Article 120(r) analysis in Neal, but would more effectively fulfill Congress’ apparent intentions.

Therefore, a simple legislative fix would better articulate Congress’ desire regarding the use of consent in Article 120(r). Congress may amend Article 120(r) to read "evidence of consent and mistake of fact as to consent is not to be admitted in a prosecution under any subsection, except for the purpose of an affirmative defense…." If enacted, this change would resolve the different interpretations presented in Neal and would protect victims from embarrassing revelations.

B. Amend the Affirmative Defense Procedures in Article 120(t)(16)

A second recommended refinement of the article involves the procedural aspects of the use of affirmative defenses under Article 120(t)(16). According to this section, raising an affirmative defense in a sexual assault prosecution triggers a two-step process. First, "[t]he accused has the burden of proving the affirmative defense by a preponderance of evidence."
125 Second, "[a]fter the defense meets this burden, the prosecution shall have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the affirmative defense did not exist."126

125 10 U.S.C. § 920(t)(16).

126 10 U.S.C. § 920(t)(16).

127 See id.

128 See Hoege, supra note 69 at 12.

129 Id.

Specifically, Congress should clarify (1) who determines whether the accused has met his initial burden, and (2) when during the trial the accused must meet that first burden. However, the statute provides no guidance as to whether the military judge or the panel of members decides that question, or the timing of that decision. While the statute does require that the accused must prove consent existed by a preponderance of the evidence,127this choice of a burden of proof standard is a clear indication the determination is a question of fact for the fact-finder.

According to one author, neither C.A.A.F. nor any of the service appellate courts has endorsed splitting this fact-finding role between the military judge and panel. 128 Furthermore, if the members bear the responsibility to determine whether the accused met his burden, the second step of the process is nonsensical "as the fact-finder would be asked to consider whether or not reasonable doubt exists in the identical evidence the fact-finder just used to conclude that, more likely than not, the defense exists."129The illogical nature of Article 120(t)(16) formed the basis of the Prather court’s condemnation of the burden shifting scheme.

C.A.A.F. has yet to definitively endorse an instruction for the procedures provided in Article 120(t)(16). C.A.A.F. declined to address the Article 120(t)(16) instruction issue in Neal, noting that while the trial judge The "New" Article 120 289 However, in Prather the court noted that, at least in the circumstances presented, there existed no plausible instruction (presumably including those suggested in the Benchbook) that would cure the "constitutional and textual difficulties" found in applying the burden shifting scheme.Additionally, in United States v. Medina, C.A.A.F. held that it was harmless error for a military judge, without a legally sufficient explanation, to give an instruction consistent with the Benchbook’s instruction. 290 The Air Force Law Review Volume 67

the change, when applying an affirmative defense to an Article 120 offense, military judges must now state on the record:

This court is aware of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces cases interpreting the statutory burden shift for Article 120, UCMJ, affirmative defenses. Although Article 120(t)(16) places an initial burden on the accused to raise these affirmative defenses, Congress also placed the ultimate burden on the Government to disprove them beyond a reasonable doubt. The CAAF has determined the Article 120(t)(16) burden shift to be a legal impossibility. Therefore, to constitutionally interpret Congressional intent while avoiding prejudicial error, and applying the rule of lenity, this court severs the language "The accused has the burden of proving the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence. After the defense meets this burden," in Article 120(t)(16) and will apply the burden of proof in accordance with the recommended instructions in the Military Judges’ Benchbook, DA Pam 27-9.
137

137 DA PAM 27-9, supra note 9796, Approved Change 11-02 (Article 120 Affirmative Defenses), available at http://www.caaflog.com/wp-content/uploads/BB-change.pdf.

138 Medina, 69 M.J. at 465, n.5.

Thus, the Benchbook approach simply disregards the first burden shift, in an effort to comply with both C.A.A.F.’s constitutional holdings and the statute Congress enacted. This highlights one obvious and simply solution: Congress can further modify Article 120(t)(16) to delete what the Benchbook instruction has severed.

Given this murky state of affirmative defense procedures and C.A.A.F.’s concession that a fix for the scheme "clearly rests with Congress,"
138the statute should be amended to provide clarity and increased protections for both alleged victims and the accused. For example, rather than require that the accused prove an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, Congress should amend the statute to treat an affirmative defense under Article 120 as any other affirmative defense, thereby allowing its consideration by the trier of fact if the accused can show some evidence that would support the defense. Once the accused has met this "some evidence" initial burden, the government would then be required to disprove the affirmative defense, and prove the required elements of the offense, beyond a reasonable doubt.

This scheme, consistent with the long history of military justice affirmative defense procedures, is similar to course of action suggested by the Military Judges’ Benchbook. Congressional codification of those procedures in Article 120(t)(16), or at least legislative recognition that an affirmative defense under Article 120 should be employed consistent with The "New" Article 120 291

other areas of the UCMJ, should properly balance the due process rights of the accused against a desire to facilitate sexual assault prosecutions.

VI. C
ONCLUSION

The military justice system alone will not solve the problem of military sexual assault. The pervasiveness of the issue, evidenced by the increasing instances of sexual assault and the long history of gender inequity in the military, demonstrates the need for additional measures beyond a revised military sexual assault statute. Regardless, the 2007 rewrite of Article 120 represents a positive effort and first step towards improving the military legal system’s protection of victims, and mitigating the effect of sexual assault on unit cohesiveness, trust, and overall military readiness. The purposes for enacting the rewrite reflect Congress’ attitude towards the military sexual assault problem and should be at the forefront when considering additional revisions and interpretations as to the role of consent in sexual assault courts-martial. As this issue exemplifies the tension between an accused’s right to a fair trial and the military necessity of combating a corrosive internal threat, expect the issue of Article 120 to receive continued attention from the military’s appellate courts.