National Institute of Military Justice
  • Home
  • About
    • Officers
    • Board of Directors
    • Fellows
  • Orders Project
    • Contact Us
    • Who We Are
    • Sourcebook
  • Trans Rep. Project
  • CAAFlog
  • Global Reform
  • Library
    • Amicus Briefs
    • Position Papers & Letters
    • Reports
    • Gazette
    • Miscellaneous
    • General Military Law
  • Links
    • State Codes
    • Non-DoD Organizations
    • Foreign Systems
  • Prizes
  • Contact Us
  • Donate
  • Home
  • About
    • Officers
    • Board of Directors
    • Fellows
  • Orders Project
    • Contact Us
    • Who We Are
    • Sourcebook
  • Trans Rep. Project
  • CAAFlog
  • Global Reform
  • Library
    • Amicus Briefs
    • Position Papers & Letters
    • Reports
    • Gazette
    • Miscellaneous
    • General Military Law
  • Links
    • State Codes
    • Non-DoD Organizations
    • Foreign Systems
  • Prizes
  • Contact Us
  • Donate

CAAFlog

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

11/8/2023

 
6 November 2023, Journal entry.

​No. 23-0163/AF. U.S. v. Matthew P. Leipart. CCA 39711. On consideration of a motion by Movant K.C. to compel all counsel of record to comply with C.A.A.F. R. 39 (2023) by serving her counsel with a copy of any pleading or other paper, it is noted:
 
(1) C.A.A.F. R. 39(a) requires service of pleadings and other paper on "all counsel of record, including amicus curiae counsel";
 
(2) under C.A.A.F. R. 16(a), a counsel becomes a counsel of record by filing a notice of appearance or making another filing "in the representation of a party to an action before the Court";
 
(3) Movant is not a party to the action before the Court, as the term "party" is used in C.A.A.F. R. 8(b), because when this Court granted Appellant's petition for review under Article 67(a)(3), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(3) (2018), the Court recognized only two parties: Appellant (Technical Sergeant Matthew P. Leipart) and Appellee (the United States);
 
(4) Movant's counsel therefore does not represent Movant as a party to an action before the Court and therefore cannot be a counsel of record;
 
(5) Movant has not filed a brief as amicus curiae under C.A.A.F. R. 26(a), and therefore Movant's counsel is not amicus curiae counsel; and
 
(6) Movant and her counsel are therefore not entitled to service under C.A.A.F. R. 39(a).
 
Accordingly, it is ordered that said motion is denied.

Comments are closed.
    Disclaimer: Posts are the authors' personal opinions and do not reflect the position of any organization or government agency.
    Picture
    Co-editors:
    Phil Cave
    Brenner Fissell
    Links

    ​SCOTUS
    CAAF

    -Daily Journal
    -2025 Ops
    ​
    ACCA
    AFCCA
    CGCCA
    NMCCA
    JRAP
    JRTP


    UCMJ

    Amendments to UCMJ Since 1950 (2024 ed.)

    Amendments to RCM Since 1984 (2024 ed.)

    Amendments to MRE Since 1984 (2024 ed.)
    ​
    ​
    MCM 2024
    ​
    MCM 2023

    MCM 2019
    MCM 2016
    MCM 2012
    MCM 1995

    ​
    UMCJ History

    Global Reform
    Army Lawyer
    JAG Reporter
    ​
    Army Crim. L. Deskbook

    J. App. Prac. & Pro.

    Archives

    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022

    Categories

    All
    ByTheNumbers
    Case2Watch
    CrimLaw
    Evidence
    Fed. Cts.
    Habeas Cases
    IHL/LOAC
    Legislation
    MilJust Transparency
    NewsOWeird
    Opinions ACCA
    Opinions-ACCA
    Opinions AFCCA
    Opinions CAAF
    Opinions CGCCA
    Opinions NMCCA
    Readings
    Sentenciing
    Sex Off. Reg.
    Sexual Assault
    Supreme Court
    Unanimous Verdicts

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly