Judge blocks Trump’s Pentagon from demoting Mark Kelly over 'illegal orders' video

[WEATHER53]

Its relevant that: 1) he retired; 2) he literally restated the law, just like Hegseth did.

Now Kelly should sue for for $10 Billion dollars, just like Trump is.

Retired dies not mean disengaged and released. He receives a pension and other military benefits so he can’t freelance and direct them to ignore orders .

 

[Zincwarrior]

Retired dies not mean disengaged and released. He receives a pension and other military benefits so he can’t freelance and direct them to ignore orders .

Kind of does, evidently.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2026cv0081-37

"Unfortunately for SecretaryHegseth, no court has ever extended those principles to retired servicemembers, much lessa retired servicemember serving in Congress and exercising oversight responsibility overthe military. This Court will not be the first to do so!"
B. First Amendment RetaliationBeing safely assured that Senator Kelly raises a "strong likelihood" that his claimsare justiciable, I now move to the merits. Senator Kelly advances two frameworks for FirstAmendment review: viewpoint discrimination and retaliation. Here, the retaliationframework fits like a glove.The "First Amendment prohibits government officials from retaliating againstindividuals for engaging in protected speech." Lozman v. Riviera Beach, 585 U.S. 87, 90(2018). To demonstrate First Amendment retaliation, Senator Kelly must show (1) he"engaged in conduct protected under the First Amendment"; (2) Defendants "took someretaliatory action sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness in [his] position fromspeaking again"; and (3) there is "a causal link between the exercise of a constitutionalright and the adverse action taken against him." Are/ v. Lynch, 833 F.3d 242, 258 (D.C.Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).

 

[WEATHER53]

Kind of does, evidently.

The judge has no authority to achieve a”kinda does” and the TDS Trump smear is the Only Goal here and in fact USSC precedent has been “kinda doesn’t”
You guys are flying on hope wishes and TDS feelings once again

 

[Zincwarrior]

The judge has no authority to achieve a”kinda does” and the TDS Trump smear is the Only Goal here and in fact USSC precedent has been “kinda doesn’t”
You guys are flying on hope wishes and TDS feelings once again

See the case. Again the judge disagrees.
First, the issues presented are fit for immediate judicial review. The "fitness" prongasks "whether the issue is purely legal, whether consideration of the issue would benefitfrom a more concrete setting, and whether the agency's action is sufficiently final." Cobell,802 F.3d at 21 (quoting Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. US. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 440F.3d 459, 463-64 (D.C. Cir. 2006)). That test is satisfied. The issues presented-the extentof the First Amendment's application to retired servicemembers, and whether theRetirement Grade Proceeding constitutes First Amendment retaliation-are "purely legal."Id. And for purposes of deciding these constitutional questions, Defendants' actions are"sufficiently final." Id. After all, the Letter of Censure and Retirement Grade Proceedingrest entirely and exclusively on Senator Kelly's "public statements," which have beendetailed at length in the Complaint. See Letter at 2; Notification at 1 ("The factual basissupporting this action is a Secretary of War letter of censure .... "). No "more concretesetting" is needed to adjudicate the fundamental First Amendment issues presented.Cobell, 802 F.3d at 21
The same rationale does not hold true for retired servicemembers-and certainlynot those in Senator Kelly's position. While still members of the military community,retired servicemembers are also part of the "civilian community" and are not fullyimmersed in the "specialized society" of the active armed forces. Parker, 417 U.S. at 743.Speech from retired servicemembers---even speech opining on the lawfulness of militaryoperations--does not threaten "obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps" in the4 Defendants uncovered one case involving punishment against a military retiree for speech: Closson v. US.ex rel. Armes, 7 App. D.C. 460 (D.C. Cir. 1896). Closson involved a habeas petition from a retired U.S.Army captain who was arrested and subjected to court-martial after sending a "letter of an offensivecharacter" to a high-ranking general. Id. at 461. However, the petition challenged only the manner of theretiree's arrest and conditions of confinement. Id. at 472-77. The retiree did not assert, and our Circuit didnot analyze, any violation of the First Amendment. Indeed, the content of the letter is barely discussed. Id.at 477. Given the lack of First Amendment analysis-not to mention the case's vintage, predating mostapplicable First Amendment precedent on protected speech-I find Closson unpersuasive and inapplicable.21same way as speech from active-duty soldiers. Goldman, 475 U.S. at 507. Nor can speechfrom retired servicemembers "undermine the effectiveness of response to command" asdirectly as speech from active-duty soldiers. Parker, 417 U.S. at 759 (quoting UnitedStates v. Priest, 45 C.M.R. 338, 344 (1972)). As such, the military cannot claim the same"legitimate interest in prohibiting" speech by retired veterans. Millican, 744 F. Supp. 2dat 308.

 

[berg80]

Free speech does not exist in the military

"Secretary Hegseth relies on the well-established doctrine that military
servicemembers enjoy less vigorous First Amendment protections given the fundamental obligation for obedience and discipline in the armed forces," Leon wrote.

"Unfortunately for Secretary Hegseth, no court has ever extended those principles to retired servicemembers, much less a retired servicemember serving in Congress and exercising oversight responsibility over the military. This Court will not be the first to do so!"

There was never any chance the case would be successful. That is, unless Eileen Cannon was presiding.

Because there has been an unprecedented firehose of attempted abuses of power by the regime this matter will be forgotten soon enough. The "no bill" by the grand jury and now the judge's decision in favor of Kelly should be reverberating in the national media for days and days. Discussed as an example of trump's efforts to intimidate and or silence critics. It has no doubt had the desired effect despite the recent rulings. Which is the insidious, damaging cost to the nation's freedoms from trumpery.

 

[struth]

Its relevant that: 1) he retired; 2) he literally restated the law, just like Hegseth did.

Now Kelly should sue for for $10 Billion dollars, just like Trump is.

Th fact he’s retired isn’t relevant because the military code of justice still has jurisdiction over him as I have already stated repeatedly and so has the scotus

Not sure how his rights were violated like trumps

But if you want to go down this road that this rogue court did Gen McCrystal should sur as well because Obama has no right to fire him for expressing his first amendment rights and giving his opinion of then VP Biden

 

[WEATHER53]

See the case. Again the judge disagrees.
First, the issues presented are fit for immediate judicial review. The "fitness" prongasks "whether the issue is purely legal, whether consideration of the issue would benefitfrom a more concrete setting, and whether the agency's action is sufficiently final." Cobell,802 F.3d at 21 (quoting Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. US. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 440F.3d 459, 463-64 (D.C. Cir. 2006)). That test is satisfied. The issues presented-the extentof the First Amendment's application to retired servicemembers, and whether theRetirement Grade Proceeding constitutes First Amendment retaliation-are "purely legal."Id. And for purposes of deciding these constitutional questions, Defendants' actions are"sufficiently final." Id. After all, the Letter of Censure and Retirement Grade Proceedingrest entirely and exclusively on Senator Kelly's "public statements," which have beendetailed at length in the Complaint. See Letter at 2; Notification at 1 ("The factual basissupporting this action is a Secretary of War letter of censure .... "). No "more concretesetting" is needed to adjudicate the fundamental First Amendment issues presented.Cobell, 802 F.3d at 21
The same rationale does not hold true for retired servicemembers-and certainlynot those in Senator Kelly's position. While still members of the military community,retired servicemembers are also part of the "civilian community" and are not fullyimmersed in the "specialized society" of the active armed forces. Parker, 417 U.S. at 743.Speech from retired servicemembers---even speech opining on the lawfulness of militaryoperations--does not threaten "obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps" in the4 Defendants uncovered one case involving punishment against a military retiree for speech: Closson v. US.ex rel. Armes, 7 App. D.C. 460 (D.C. Cir. 1896). Closson involved a habeas petition from a retired U.S.Army captain who was arrested and subjected to court-martial after sending a "letter of an offensivecharacter" to a high-ranking general. Id. at 461. However, the petition challenged only the manner of theretiree's arrest and conditions of confinement. Id. at 472-77. The retiree did not assert, and our Circuit didnot analyze, any violation of the First Amendment. Indeed, the content of the letter is barely discussed. Id.at 477. Given the lack of First Amendment analysis-not to mention the case's vintage, predating mostapplicable First Amendment precedent on protected speech-I find Closson unpersuasive and inapplicable.21same way as speech from active-duty soldiers. Goldman, 475 U.S. at 507. Nor can speechfrom retired servicemembers "undermine the effectiveness of response to command" asdirectly as speech from active-duty soldiers. Parker, 417 U.S. at 759 (quoting UnitedStates v. Priest, 45 C.M.R. 338, 344 (1972)). As such, the military cannot claim the same"legitimate interest in prohibiting" speech by retired veterans. Millican, 744 F. Supp. 2dat 308.

Nice details all official looking like but only the USSC can override what has come to him and not a local area judge acting solo rogue

 

[Mac-7]

"Secretary Hegseth relies on the well-established doctrine that military
servicemembers enjoy less vigorous First Amendment protections given the fundamental obligation for obedience and discipline in the armed forces," Leon wrote.

"Unfortunately for Secretary Hegseth, no court has ever extended those principles to retired servicemembers, much less a retired servicemember serving in Congress and exercising oversight responsibility over the military. This Court will not be the first to do so!"

There was never any chance the case would be successful. That is, unless Eileen Cannon was presiding.

Because there has been an unprecedented firehose of attempted abuses of power by the regime this matter will be forgotten soon enough. The "no bill" by the grand jury and now the judge's decision in favor of Kelly should be reverberating in the national media for days and days. Discussed as an example of trump's efforts to intimidate and or silence critics. It has no doubt had the desired effect despite the recent rulings. Which is the insidious, damaging cost to the nation's freedoms from trumpery.

So if Kelly is no longer military that means he has no special insight either

 

[Zincwarrior]

Th fact he’s retired isn’t relevant because the military code of justice still has jurisdiction over him as I have already stated repeatedly and so has the scotus

Not sure how his rights were violated like trumps

But if you want to go down this road that this rogue court did Gen McCrystal should sur as well because Obama has no right to fire him for expressing his first amendment rights and giving his opinion of then VP Biden

Court disagreed.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Nice details all official looking like but only the USSC can override what has come to him and not a local area judge acting solo rogue

Good luck.

 

[meaner gene]

oh, sorry you weren't very clear.

Yes, this activist judge basically undid the rule of law, ignored the SCOTUS and US Constitution, and said that Kelly was above the law

The number of years ago he retired, is not really relevant to the law

More like he's saying that nobody should be punished for stating what the law is.

 

[meaner gene]

Th fact he’s retired isn’t relevant because the military code of justice still has jurisdiction over him as I have already stated repeatedly and so has the scotus

That jurisdiction is based on their being recalled to active service due to war or other national emergency.

Retired U.S. military personnel can be involuntarily recalled to active duty, generally up to age 60, with potential extensions to age 65-70 for specialized skills or high-ranking officers during national emergencies,

Retired Personnel (Involuntary): Generally up to age 60.

Retired Personnel (Extended/Emergency): Up to age 65 (requires SecDef approval) or age 70 (requires POTUS approval).

Ready Reserve/IRR: Generally subject to recall if they have not reached age 60,


Senator Kelly is 61 years old

 

[g5000]

Retired dies not mean disengaged and released. He receives a pension and other military benefits so he can’t freelance and direct them to ignore orders .

But he can direct them to ignore UNLAWFUL orders.

Why do you assholes keep redacting that word?

 

[g5000]

People were sentenced to death at Nuremberg for obeying UNLAWFUL orders.

"I was just following orders" was NOT, and IS not, a legal excuse.

Dipshits.

 

[meaner gene]

Nice details all official looking like but only the USSC can override what has come to him and not a local area judge acting solo rogue

You confuse the supreme court decision about district judges making rulings that cover all 12 circuits.
This decision has no national application. So it doesn't rise above the courts of original jurisdiction.

 

[meaner gene]

... he can’t freelance and direct them to ignore orders .

But he can direct them to ignore UNLAWFUL orders.

Why do you assholes keep redacting that word?

Because that's the only way for it to actually be a violation of UCMJ.

 

[struth]

Court disagreed.

Yes, as mentioned this rogue court disagreed with the scotus and undermined the rule of law

 

[struth]

More like he's saying that nobody should be punished for stating what the law is.

Nobody was

Moreover that is not what the court said

 

[struth]

That jurisdiction is based on their being recalled to active service due to war or other national emergency.

Retired U.S. military personnel can be involuntarily recalled to active duty, generally up to age 60, with potential extensions to age 65-70 for specialized skills or high-ranking officers during national emergencies,

Retired Personnel (Involuntary): Generally up to age 60.

Retired Personnel (Extended/Emergency): Up to age 65 (requires SecDef approval) or age 70 (requires POTUS approval).

Ready Reserve/IRR: Generally subject to recall if they have not reached age 60,


Senator Kelly is 61 years old

That is not what the scotus said the bases of jurisdiction is

Try again, go back and read my prior post on it

 

[Zincwarrior]

Yes, as mentioned this rogue court disagreed with the scotus and undermined the rule of law

We will see.