SSA Refuses To Tell Claimants The Name Of The Judge Who Will Hear Their Case

Social Security Administration Refuses To Tell Claimants The Name Of The Judge Who Will Hear Their Case

by London Steverson on Tuesday, January 1, 2013 at 9:27pm ·

Something rotten has been developing throughout 2012 in connection with assigning Social Security Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) to disability hearings. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has refused to inform the claimant and his or her representative of the identity of the judge who will be presiding at their hearing. In many SSA Hearing Offices across the USA the claimant is no longer being told the identity of the administrative law judge before the hearing. The Social Security Administration claims that certain representatives have been engaging in the clever practice of “judge shopping” or "forum shopping".  It appears that most of the  “shopping” has taken place in the practice of video hearings. In a video hearing the claimant appears in a Hearing Room in a city near his home in front of a large television screen and the judge is in another city in another hearing room with his own television screen. The hearing is conducted by means of a video telephone conference. There is considerable speculation as to whether this practice actually constitutes due process of law. The claimant never sits in the same room with a real, living and breathing judge. Also, there has been must disagreement as to whether a judge can adequately determine the credibility and the demeanor of a witness over a television screen.
This is how "judge shopping" works.

(Read more at https://www.amazon.com/author/cgachall.blogspot.com)
When an attorney representative learns the name of the administrative law judge, he or she objects to the hearing by video if they want to get another judge assigned. Claimants try to avoid judges that have a record of denying the majority of their cases. On the other hand, they leap at the chance to try a case before a judge considered lenient. That means the judge has a reputation for granting benefits in most of his cases.
Whether you get paid early in the Social Security disability benefits process depends primarily on whether you get assigned the "right" ALJ. That's right; it comes down to "the luck of the draw". That is, unless your representative is skilled in the art of judge shopping. The most extreme types of ALJs occupy both ends of the spectrum. There are some who will reverse and grant benefits to 200 or more claimants a month without holding a hearing. They make what are called “on-the-record” decisions.
Then there are the ALJs who treat every case as a Dred Scott Decision. They over litigate the case. If they find any issue that was not disposed of by the State Disability Determination Service (DDS), they will declare that the case is not ripe for review and not ready for a hearing before an ALJ. Then they will remand the case to the DDS for a finding on that issue. Such a maneuver can add more than 6 months to the already long processing time. Or they might decide that the most recent medical examinations in the record are over one year old and order that you be examined again before scheduling a hearing. Both types of ALJs may even exist in the same hearing office.
While judge shopping is not technically something outside of the prerogatives of a claimant, the practice of shopping for the "right" ALJ has created havoc with the Social Security Administration’s ability to process its cases. The back log of cases waiting to be heard is long and is getting longer. Many claimants have to wait for an extended period, sometimes 5 years or more, just to sit down in front of an administrative law judge. In the past judge shopping only occurred with administrative law judges who had a low case approval rate, and attorneys and para-legal representatives tried to legally avoid them.
To fight this nuisance practice, the Social Security Administration has responded with a  “policy” of refusing to identify the ALJ until the day before or, in some cases, the day of the hearing. Some frustrated lawyers have used the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) to request the identity of the judge. The Social Security Administration has refused citing the Act’s exemption language, and specifically citing two exemptions. The exemptions deal with personal issues and criminal proceedings.
Since no one is seeking personal data on administrative law judges (date of birth, educational history, work history, etc), and typically, Social Security Disability hearings do not involve anything remotely criminal, the exemptions are likely misplaced. Until a ruling is made on the issue, though, the administrative law judge assignment remains a mystery and a bump in the road for the Social Security Disability claimant and his or her attorney representative.
(Read more at https://www.amazon.com/author/cgachall.blogspot.com)
From a game of "Musical Chairs" to "Guess Who's Coming To Court". First, the claimants started to shop for the "right" judge to hear their case; then the Social Security Administration started to withhold the identity of the judge assigned the case until the day of the hearing. This would almost be comical if the stakes were not so high. The Disability Determination Process should be transparent and adhere to the highest principles of fundamental legal due process that American citizens have a right to expect from their Government. The SSA should not play 'cat-n-mouse' with the name of the judge. Such childish behavior does not generate respect for the legal system or the disability process.

Sexual Assaults At Military Academies Up 60 Percent

Sex Assault Reports At Academy Up 60 Percent

Sexual assault reports at the Air Force Academy jumped nearly 60 percent during the last academic year while the prevalence of the crime remained about the same, according to a new Defense Department study.
The results, which mirror the two other service institutions — the Military Academy and the Naval Academy — signal greater victim confidence but show that efforts to reduce sexual assaults among future military leaders have been unsuccessful.
Air Force cadets made 52 sexual assault reports during the 2011-2012 year, up 58 percent from 33 in 2010-2011. They also accounted for 65 percent of the 80 reports made at all three academies, despite sim­ilar student populations.
In 44 of the 80 reports, victims said they were victimized by a fel­low cadet or midshipman, the study said. Twenty-five incidents occurred on academy grounds.
Since sex assault is one of the most under-reported crimes, the military has long relied on an anonymous survey to measure the rate of such incidents, director of the DoD Sexual Assault Preven­tion and Response Office Maj. Gen. Gary Patton said in a news conference with reporters before the release of the report Dec. 21.
Fewer than 15 percent of sexual assault victims in a college envi­ronment report the crime, accord­ing to the study. That number stands at around 11 percent at the service academies.
At the Air Force Academy, far more are making reports — about 28 percent of victims, Col. Stella Renner, vice commandant of cul­ture and climate, said in a tele­phone interview.
“While we hate to see we have sexual assaults, we are very proud we have a strong reporting cli­mate,” Renner said.
That shows cadets feel more comfortable asking for help after they are victimized and that there is increased trust in the system, she insisted.
“We’re seeing cases where vic­tims who have come forward in the past are bringing in other people they know of who may have had a situation they haven’t reported yet. Nobody’s going to tell on you. It’s private. You can start healing and moving on,” Renner said.
Reporting has been on the uptick at all three academies since 2008 and increased by 23 percent overall from the last academic year, Patton said.
“Any sexual assault is bad, and our goal is always to eliminate sexual assault,” he said. “The more we know about the incidents that do happen, the more we can help victims become survivors, [gain] insight into what’s going on” and prosecute perpetrators.
But both Patton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta expressed concern at what they described as a persistent problem and a lack of progress in combating it.
“There is not enough progress in preventing sexual harassment and assaults,” Patton said.
In a memo, Panetta directed the institutions to find new ways to “integrate sexual assault and harassment prevention into the full spectrum of academy life and learning” and ordered them to report back March 29.
The DoD report followed a year of high-profile sex scandals in the military, from the resignation of CIA director and retired Army Gen. David Petraeus to the inves­tigation of more than two dozen military training instructors at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland.

There was no statistical increase in incidents of sexual assault at the Air Force Academy from 2010-2011, Renner said. Sexual harass­ment decreased significantly there but remained unchanged at the Military and Naval academies, the study showed.
Victims who did not make a report indicated in the anonymous survey that they took care of the incident themselves, that they did not want anyone to know about it and did not want people gossiping about what had happened to them.
Those who chose to make a report said they needed help deal­ing with an emotional event, that they wanted to stop the offender from hurting others and that they wanted to see justice served.
Reports of sexual assaults fall into two categories: restricted and unrestricted. Unrestricted reports involve law enforcement and the chain of command of the victim and the accused. Restricted reports afford victims privacy while making support services available to them.
Twenty-one of the 52 reports at the Air Force Academy were unre­stricted, Renner said.
She said the academy plans to study each of the reports. “We’ll continue to work and see if there are other things we need to consid­er. We look for trending informa­tion to see if there might be some­thing we can do from a police [change], lights, locks on doors.” Next year, the academy plans to begin bystander intervention train­ing. The training teaches cadets how to identify potentially danger­ous situations and intervene safely.
Teresa Beasley, sexual assault response coordinator at the Air Force Academy, called it “a good way ahead. I think they want to help each other,” she said of cadets. “This will give them the skills to do that.” Beasley said the academy has worked hard to raise awareness around campus. “Whenever you raise awareness, reports go up,” she said. “I consider anyone that walks in a victory.”                   (By Kristin Davis)

Air Force Times
January 7, 2013

Guns Dont't Kill People. People Kill People.

IF guns don't kill people, BUT people kill people, THEN what kind of people kill people? What kind of people are ready, willing and able to kill people? People with no love of God in their hearts and no knowledge of God in their head.
The debate that is raging misses the point. All the legislation in the world will not stop cold-hearted people from killing each other. A heart without God is cold.
Our education system and our politicians have failed us. Our children are not taught about God or the sacredness of human life. God is leaving us to our own devices. We were created with the ability to choose, and we have chosen to shut God out of our schools, city halls, and our homes. He has not rejected us; we have abandoned him. Now, we are killing each other. If there were no guns, we would choose the most convenient and available method to kill. We are a blood thirsty people, without God. We have become spiritually and morally bankrupt. We would rather be politically correct than morally correct.
We live in an embarrassing, politically correct culture that exalts and rejoices in the bizarre; aggressively promotes an “anything goes” value system.
We will scratch around the margins of the violent mass killings, looking to government to solve the problem, but we will accomplish nothing. We will be doing little more than rearranging the furniture on the deck of the Titanic. Without God, we can do nothing.

On the morning of December 14th, evil descended in full force on Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. Our eyes beheld a profound scene of weeping, and grieving families. Our hearts are broken; our words are too feeble to comfort the children who witnessed the bloodshed.   The mothers and fathers who kissed their children and said," See you when school is over", have come too soon, to pick up a lifeless child. The pain is deep, and will ravage their lives forever. It will scar our nation for some time. We thank all who came into this helpless situation to rescue, counsel, and comfort, for they were God's heart, hands and feet in this tragedy.

I am reminded of a similar scene described by the words of the prophet Jeremiah long ago:

 "...a voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because her children are no more."

Like the Psalmist, I raise my voice to God and ask, "Why have you abandoned the children and teachers?" Yet a small voice in the midst of my anguish, reminds me that God was weeping, and in deep mourning that day as well. With outstretched loving hands, He received the souls from Sandy Hook Elementary school. He is wrapping Himself around the grieving families, and will remain so as long as they hunger for comfort.

There’s something terribly wrong. Something stinks. Something is rotten in America.
Something is causing young loners to pick up guns and slaughter people.
Cops, psychologists, sociologists, politicians and various other talking heads will jabber incessantly about why they think a young man snapped and killed a bunch of bubbly young children who were looking forward to Santa Claus.
They will offer their opinions on what they think can be done to stop future psychotics from committing mass murder. They all will be guessing.
Some blabbermouths already are using the Connecticut school massacre to promote their anti-gun agenda even though more gun laws won’t prevent a psychotic from getting a gun and killing us.
Others will say we need even more security in schools. While this may be true, other mass slaughters have occurred at restaurants, shopping malls, churches and movie theaters. Violence can strike anywhere at any time.
Some will argue we don’t have enough mental health treatment programs, while others will argue that we can’t violate the privacy and civil liberties of the mentally ill.
Others will blame video and computer games and the entertainment industry. They will argue that a constant stream of graphic violence turns some disconnected young men into bug-eyed, raving lunatics who commit mass murders.
They will all be scratching around the margins of the problem, possibly afraid to admit the truth, rather than cutting to the heart of the matter.
The heart of the matter is that our Humpty Dumpty culture has taken a great fall.
Like an iceberg, we only periodically see the psychotic manifestation, the tip of our shattered culture, but what lies just beneath the surface is a gigantic cultural cancer that is rotting America from within.
The ugly and dangerous truth is that we live in an embarrassing, politically correct culture that exalts and rejoices in the bizarre; aggressively promotes an “anything goes” value system; and vilifies, condemns and mocks traditional societal values and customs at every opportunity.
We’ve embraced a culture of contempt that attacks the very institutions that make for a healthy and strong society, and then we’re shocked when it spirals out of control. The only thing I’m shocked about is that anybody is shocked.
More laws and more restrictions won’t fix our culture. The problem we face is much deeper and more insidious. What ails us is a spiritual bankruptcy of cultural values that actually matter. More laws and restrictions can’t cure that.
Until we admit what’s at the heart of the matter, we will continue to put a Band-Aid on gaping wounds and try to convince ourselves we’ve done something meaningful.

As with most things, the cure to this mess begins and ends with the family. Traditional family values have been under siege for decades by our culture of contempt. In the absence of a solid family, the whole thing slowly unravels and rots.
Our greatest fear should be that we’ll scratch around the margins by looking to government to solve the problem  . With the best of intentions, our government will hold commissions, write lengthy reports and pass a new law or two. Like we always do, we’ll then move along, convinced that we’ve done good and pretending we actually accomplished something.
Meanwhile, somewhere in America, another bug-eyed young man is planning the next massacre.

(Nugent, Ted, Connecticut Killings A Result of Moral Decay, Washington Times,19 Dec. 2012, Commentary, p. B1)

ObamaCare Is Dead In The Water

ObamaCare was a poorly conceived and is a constitutionally deficient statute. The Supreme Court's ruling upholding the law has simply made it worse. In the future, that decision is likely to be seen as a prime reason that the federal court judges should just judge and never legislate—even in the cause of rescuing an otherwise unconstitutional law from oblivion.
In the ObamaCare ruling, the Supreme Court correctly held that Congress could not impose the individual mandate as a constitutional regulation of interstate commerce and that Congress could not constitutionally use its spending power to coerce the states to expand Medicaid.
Rather than strike down the law, however, the court construed the insurance-purchase mandate and its penalty as a "tax" on the failure to have health insurance. The justices also interpreted the Medicaid-expansion requirements as optional—permitting states to opt out of these provisions while staying within the traditional Medicaid program. Given that interpretation, the court's majority upheld the statute as constitutional.
The court's determination to preserve ObamaCare through "interpretation" has exacerbated the law's original flaws to the point that it has become palpably unworkable. By transforming the penalties for failing to comply with the law's requirements into a "tax," the court has given the public a green light to ignore ObamaCare's requirements when it is economically beneficial. Law-abiding individuals, who might otherwise have complied with the law's expensive purchase mandate to avoid being subjected to financial penalties, can simply now choose to pay a tax and not sign up for coverage. There is certainly no stigma attached to simply paying a tax, and noncompliance with the law's other requirements—such as those imposed on employers—is arguably made more attractive on the same basis. This effect fundamentally undercuts Congress's original purpose, which was to expand health-care coverage to the greatest number of people, not to improve federal revenues.
Similarly, having reviewed the likely costs and benefits, states are now taking advantage of the court-granted flexibility. Seven states, including Texas, Mississippi and Georgia, have so far opted out of the Medicaid-expansion provisions, and eight (with more certain to come) are refusing to create the insurance exchanges, leaving this to a federal bureaucracy unequipped to handle these new administrative burdens. As a result, a growing number of low-income Americans will be unable to obtain the free or cost-effective insurance that Congress originally meant them to have, although they remain subject to the mandate-tax.
On December 7, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie vetoed legislation establishing a state-run health insurance exchange. This was just after he had visited President Obama at the White House to discuss Superstorm Sandy cleanup costs. Governor Christie said he blamed President Obama for failing to provide answers that he needed to make a fiscally sound decision on the best way to comply with the ObamaCare law.
States have until December 14th to decide whether to establish a state-based exchange. They have more time to decide whether to partner with the federal government or to let federal bureaucrats design and run the state exchange. ((Santi, Angela, Christie Vetoes ObamaCare, Washington Times, Dec. 7, 2012)
Policy problems aside, by transforming the mandate into a tax to avoid one set of constitutional problems (Congress having exceeded its constitutionally enumerated powers), the court has created another problem. If the mandate is an indirect tax, as the Supreme Court held, then the Constitution's "Uniformity Clause" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) requires the tax to "be uniform throughout the United States." The Framers adopted this provision so that a group of dominant states could not shift the federal tax burden to the others. It was yet another constitutional device that was simultaneously designed to protect federalism and safeguard individual liberty.
The Supreme Court has rarely considered the Uniformity Clause's reach, but it cannot be ignored. The court also refused to impose meaningful limits on Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce for decades after the 1930s, until justices began to re-establish the constitutional balance in the 1990s with decisions leading up to the ObamaCare ruling this summer. And although the court has upheld as "uniform" taxes that affect states differently in practice, precedent makes clear that a permissible tax must "operate with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found," as held in the Head Money Cases (1884). The ObamaCare tax arguably does not meet this standard.
ObamaCare provides that low-income taxpayers, who are nevertheless above the federal poverty line, can discharge their mandate-tax obligation by enrolling in the new, expanded Medicaid program, which serves as the functional equivalent of a tax credit. But that program will not now exist in every state because, as a matter of federal law, states can opt out. The actual tax burden will not be geographically uniform as the court's precedents require.
Thus, having transformed the individual mandate into a tax, the court may face renewed challenges to ObamaCare on uniformity grounds. The justices will then confront a tough choice. Having earlier reinterpreted the mandate as a tax, they would be hard-pressed to approve the geographic disparity created when states opt out of the Medicaid expansion. But that possibility is inherent in a scheme that imposes a nominally uniform tax liability accompanied by the practical equivalent of a fully off-setting tax credit available only to those living in certain states. To uphold such a taxing scheme would eliminate any meaningful uniformity requirement—a result that the Constitution does not permit.
(The Opening For a Fresh ObamaCare Challenge, Rivkin, David B. and Casey, Lee A.p; WSJ, Dec. 6, 2012)

How the Supreme Court Doomed the Affordable Care Act to Failure

January 9, 2013
The Supreme Court's surprise ruling on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has left many observers wondering about the implications of the ruling on the law itself, says Thomas A. Lambert, the Judge C.A. Leedy Professor of Law at the University of Missouri Law School.

• In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the ACA is constitutional.
• In writing the opinion, Chief Justice Roberts, argued that the individual mandate is nothing more than a tax.
• However, the Court struck down the provision that would deny Medicaid funding to states that did not expand their Medicaid roles.

Together, the ruling has a profound impact on the health care market and is likely to raise premiums and the cost of medical care. For example, the cost of paying the tax for not having insurance is not steep enough to encourage young, healthy individuals to enter the health care market. These individuals would rather take the risk and pay the penalty because it would be cheaper than acquiring health insurance.
This is problematic considering that the infusion of younger and healthier individuals is necessary to spread risk in the market and lower overall premiums. In addition, the decision also limits Congress's ability to increase the penalty.
Proponents of the ACA argue that the subsidies in the bill will entice younger people to purchase insurance. However, the subsidies are too small and out-of-pocket costs for insurance will be much higher than simply paying the tax.
Additionally, the efforts to reduce medical costs are likely to fall short of achieving their goals. The ACA has aimed at doing the following:

• Increased funding for eliminating waste, fraud and abuse.
• Price controls on Medicare charges.
• Emphasis on preventative care.

There are other measures as well but none of them attack the root of health care inflation: the lack of competition in providing medical services. If consumers were put in a position to pay more for their health care, there would be more emphasis on finding an affordable insurance plan. As a result, insurance companies and other medical services would compete to lower their prices and attract new customers.
( Thomas A. Lambert, "How the Supreme Court Doomed the ACA to Failure,")

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and Don't Issue An ID Card.

With repeal last year of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law, many military people, including senior leaders, assumed that married gay and lesbian couples had gained not only job security but also equality in allowances, benefits and access to family support programs. That assumption is wrong.
Since the law took effect 14 months ago, the Department of Defense has kept in place policies that bar spouses of same-gender couples from having military identification cards, shopping on base, living in base housing or participating in certain family support programs.
Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, says Army Lt. Col. Heather Mack, 39, "simply just prevented me from losing my job. It didn't do anything else."
Mack's spouse, Ashley Broadway, also 39, can shop in stores on nearby Fort Bragg, N.C., only in the status of "caregiver" for their son, Carson. Lacking a military dependent ID card, Ashley has been challenged by checkout clerks when her shopping cart includes items such as deodorant that clearly aren't needed by their two-year old.
If Mack is reassigned, the couple will have to pay Ashley's travel and transportation costs out of pocket. Mack draws housing allowance at the higher "with dependents" rate only because of their child. Marriage alone for same-sex couples, though recognized as legal by 11 states and the District of Columbia, doesn't qualify a military sponsor for married allowances or civilian spouses for entry onto bases.
 If Mack were killed during her next deployment, Ashley would not qualify for full "spousal" survivor benefits, even though, by paying higher premiums, she could be covered as an "insurable interest."  And as a surviving widow, Ashley would not qualify for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation from the Department of Veterans or be eligible to receive the folded flag off the coffin in the graveside ceremony, Mack says, because to the military and the VA, Ashley would not be next of kin despite spending a career together.
A heterosexual soldier "who meets someone on a Friday night and Saturday gets married would have full benefits," Mack says. "But you have partners who have been together 15 years or more and they can't even go on base and shop…That's a quality of life issue."

Some disparities of treatment for same sex couples won't end unless Congress repeals the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as solely between a man and woman, or unless the U.S. Supreme Court rules that DOMA is unconstitutional. The high court was expected to announce soon if it will review and rule on conflicting opinions on the constitutionality of DOMA by appellate courts in recent years.
The Obama administration views the law unconstitutional and won't allow Justice Department attorneys to defend it in court. By default, the government's defense of DOMA is being led by the general counsel for the Republican-led House of Representatives.
While the law remains in effect, it prohibits extension of many federal benefits, including military allowances, travel reimbursements and health coverage to same-sex spouses. But Stephen L. Peters II, president of the gay and lesbian advocacy group American Military Partner Association, says the Department of Defense has authority to do much more than it has to date to support service members and spouses of same-sex marriages.
It could give gay and lesbian spouses access to base housing, commissaries and exchanges, base recreation facilities and legal services. It could direct the services to open more family support programs to them and to offer relocation and sponsorship at many overseas duty stations. The services could also extend dual-service couple programs to same-sex marriages thus ensuring these couples too get co-located on reassignments.
No DoD official would be interviewed on this issue. The department instead issue a statement explaining that a work group continues to conduct "a deliberative and comprehensive review of the possibility of extending eligibility for benefits, when legally permitted, to same-sex domestic partners."  Benefits are being examined "from a policy, fiscal, legal and feasibility perspective" and "laws and policies surrounding benefits are complex and interconnected."  The work group, it says, has been striving "to fully understand the scope and interconnectivity."

Life in service is better for gays and lesbians since repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. But the department's unresponsiveness to qualify-of-life concerns raised by same-sex married members for the past year, unrelated to DOMA, continue to impact not only families but readiness, Peters argues.
"It's not like the Pentagon doesn't know which benefits it can extend…These have been repeatedly pointed out," he says. "Not only has the Pentagon failed to take action but its silence on the issue is deafening."
Mack, assistant chief of staff for the 1st Theater Sustainment Command at Bragg, is pregnant and due to deliver their second child in January. This time Ashley won't have to pose as her sister to be present at the birth in the post hospital. After maternity leave, Mack expects to deploy again.
She believes commanders would be pressuring policymakers on quality-of-life challenges for same-sex couples if they knew more about them. Mack's own boss was surprised before Mack's promotion in October to be told the Army treats married lesbians like her as if they aren't married.
"He said, ‘That's not true. With repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, you get all the benefits.'  I said, ‘No. Any gay or lesbian soldier, regardless of their marital status, is considered a single soldier.'  He had no clue," Mack says.
As a lieutenant colonel, Mack knows she is better able to afford $500 a month in extra health insurance for Ashley, and to cover her travel costs when the family is reassigned. Enlisted members can't afford to handle these disparities, and that's something leaders can't ignore, she says.
If these spouses could at least be issued ID cards, and gain access to base amenities, she says, it would go a long way to improving quality of life.
By Tom Philpott
(Tom Philpott has been breaking news for and about military people since 1977. After service in the Coast Guard, and 17 years as a reporter and senior editor with Army Times Publishing Company, Tom launched "Military Update," his syndicated weekly news column, in 1994. "Military Update" features timely news and analysis on issues affecting active duty members, reservists, retirees and their families. Tom also edits a reader reaction column, "Military Forum." The online "home" for both features is Military.com.)

Gen. Petraeus Could Face Court-martial.

The Army could force retired Gen. David Petraeus back into uniform to face charges if ongoing investigations turn up evidence of an earlier timeline for the start of his affair with Paula Broadwell, military law experts said.
“As a regular officer, you’re subject to court-martial jurisdiction forever,” said Michael Noone, a Catholic University law professor and a retired Air Force colonel and judge advocate general.
“Theoretically, Petraeus would be subject to court-martial for any offenses discovered after he leaves service,” and could be called back to duty to answer for them although the prospect was unlikely.
The most obvious offense that Petraeus could face would be adultery, a violation of Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but adultery charges in the military are rare and rarer still as stand-alone offenses.

Petraeus has been as careful in admitting to the affair as he was careless in becoming involved with Broadwell, a West Point graduate and lieutenant colonel in the Army reserves.

http://www.amazon.com/CONDUCT-UNBECOMING-Officer-Lady-ebook/dp/B006VPAADK
Through former military aides, Petraeus has put out word that the sexual relationship with Broadwell did not begin until after he retired from active duty and became CIA director in September 2011, although she was closely involved with him for several years while working on her book “All In: The Education of David Petraeus.”
And even if proof emerged of a sexual relationship before Petraeus retired, the military would be unlikely to pursue it. “The chances are low, if any, of that happening,” Cave said. “I’m not convinced that would change things dramatically.”
“But if evidence of abuse of status or the misuse of government funds” to further the relationship with Broadwell came to light, “that would be an extraordinary change in the landscape,” Cave said.
The FBI investigation of the affair is still open. It began with a complaint from Florida socialite Jill Kelley to an FBI friend about allegedly threatening emails she was receiving. The emails were eventually traced to Broadwell, who apparently saw Kelley as a rival.
The email trail then led to Marine Gen. John Allen, who succeeded Petraeus as overall commander in Afghanistan. Allen had exchanged a large volume of email with Kelley.
Allen’s nomination as head of U.S. European Command has now been put on hold while the Defense Department’s Inspector General investigates the Allen-Kelley emails, which have been described by a defense official as possibly “inappropriate and flirtatious.”
The Inspector General’s office of the CIA is also investigating whether Petraeus may have disclosed classified information to Broadwell during their involvement.
Despite the ongoing investigations, the consensus of several military law experts was that there was little appetite to pursue a case against Petraeus.
“Sure, in theory he could be brought back into the military, but that’s not going to happen,” said Gary Solis, a Marine Vietnam veteran and a former JAG who is now a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. “Nobody is going to charge David Petraeus.”

Rats Deserting A Sinking Ship

Edit

Rats Deserting A Sinking Ship

by London Steverson on Friday, November 9, 2012 at 8:33pm ·

David Petraeus, the man at the helm of the CAI, the nation's largest intelligence agency, stepped down as director on Friday 9 November 2012, saying he had an extramarital affair.
The resignation comes at a difficult time for the agency and Obama administration, which has been under intense scrutiny from Republican lawmakers for the September attack on a U.S. facility in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans -- including the Ambassador Christopher Stevens and two CIA contractors -- dead.

 Petraeus and other top U.S. intelligence officials were scheduled to speak next week at a closed-door session of the Senate Intelligence Committee about the Benghazi incident as well as intelligence and security in the region. . Petraeus gave the orders that sent a CIA team flying into Benghazi in a vain attempt to rescue Americans. Two members of that team were killed on that mission.

His reputation was potentially tarnished by the controversy over the terror attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in September.
Some Republicans have privately said they were disappointed in Petraeus for sticking as long as he did to the initial intelligence assessment that the attack erupted from a spontaneous protest against an anti-Islam video on the Web.

For many weeks the White House had come under intense pressure for the attack, before it finally emerged that the CIA had actually played a central role in the episode. Two of the Americans killed were identified as undercover agents for the CIA, and the vast majority of Americans on the ground that night turned out to be with the agency.
In a Wall Street Journal article a week before the election, several administration officials pointed to Petraeus specifically and accused him of mishandling the controversy, by appearing to be aloof and delivering misinformation to the White House in the early days after that attacks.
Congress intends to continue to investigate the incident.
Petraeus was expected to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee next week on the Benghazi attack.

Petraeus took over as head of the CIA in September of 2011 following his tour as head of allied forces in Afghanistan.
His sudden resignation came as a surprise, just days after President Barack Obama won a second term.

The resignation comes at a sensitive time. The administration and the CIA have struggled to defend security and intelligence lapses before the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others. It was an issue during the presidential campaign that ended with Obama's re-election Tuesday.

The CIA has come under intense scrutiny for providing the White House and other administration officials with talking points that led them to say the Benghazi attack was a result of a film protest, not a militant terror attack. It has become clear that the CIA was aware the attack was distinct from the film protests roiling across other parts of the Muslim world.

The CIA director's bombshell took former military colleagues by surprise.

In addition to Petraeus, two other top-level administration officials, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, are also expected to soon leave the Obama administration.
Attorney General Eric Holder said on Thursday 8 November he's also weighing whether he will remain for Obama's second term.

Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, lauded Petraeus as a "true American patriot."
Petraeus and his wife, Holly, live in Virginia. He has been married for 38 years to Holly Petraeus, whom he met when he was a cadet at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. She was the daughter of the academy superintendent. They have two children, and their son led an infantry platoon in Afghanistan.

Here is the full text of Petraeus' letter:

HEADQUARTERS Central Intelligence Agency

9 November 2012
Yesterday afternoon, I went to the White House and asked the President to be allowed, for personal reasons, to resign from my position as D/CIA.  After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair.  Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours.  This afternoon, the President graciously accepted my resignation. As I depart Langley, I want you to know that it has been the greatest of privileges to have served with you, the officers of our Nation's Silent Service, a work force that is truly exceptional in every regard.  Indeed, you did extraordinary work on a host of critical missions during my time as director, and I am deeply grateful to you for that.

Teddy Roosevelt once observed that life's greatest gift is the opportunity to work hard at work worth doing.  I will always treasure my opportunity to have done that with you and I will always regret the circumstances that brought that work with you to an end.
Thank you for your extraordinary service to our country, and best wishes for continued success in the important endeavors that lie ahead for our country and our Agency.
With admiration and appreciation,
David H. Petraeus