all lb

>>17537157

>Potus

300 judges

<Fake News

231 judges

Difference 69 federal judges

>>17537581

>Would military tribunal judges be considered Federal?

I'm gonna go withYES

>Shadow to Sessions by design.

>What ROLE might TG be walking into?

>WAR.

>>17537681

>'War-like' Posture Activated?

>>17537712

>Interesting line of questions?

>Normal?

>Military Law v. Criminal Law.

>https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/sites/trialjudiciary.nsf

The U.S. Army Trial Judiciary

The position of military judge was created in 1969 with the implementation of the Military Justice Act of 1968. Prior to that time, the legal advisor to court-martial panels (juries) was called a law officer, and the law officer did not have the authority and powers of today's military judges.

Military judges presideover general and special courts-martialand powers similar to federal judgesincluding the authority to preside at judge alone trials when an accused elects that option. Military judges instruct court-martial panels on the law and apply the Military Rules of Evidence, patterned closely after the Federal Rules of Evidence.Military Judges,like federal judges,may issue warrants, subpoenas, and judicial orders.

The Army Trial Judiciary currently consists of over 20 active Army military trial judges and over 20 Army Reserve military trial judges, all field grade officers and members of the Judge Advocate General's Corps. All military judges are attorneys who have graduated from an accredited law school and are admitted to practice law in one or more states. They are selected based on their record of service and expertise in criminal law.

The Trial Judiciary is divided into five geographical circuits: the 1st Judicial Circuit in the Northeastern and Middle Atlantic States; the 2d Judicial Circuit in the Southeast; the 3d Judicial Circuit in the Midwest; the 4th Judicial Circuit in the Far West and Far East; and the 5th Judicial Circuit in Europe and Southwest Asia.

In addition to presiding at courts-martial, the Army Trial Judiciary has other significant responsibilities to ensure the quality of the Army judiciary and the fairness of the military justice system to include:

> https://www.mc.mil/aboutus/legalsystemcomparison.aspx

==Comparison of Rules and Procedures in Tribunals that Try

Individuals for Alleged War Crimes==

Military commissions, a form of military tribunal, were born of military necessity. They have taken many forms since their first use in the United States during the Revolutionary War. The Military Commissions Act of 2009 authorizes trials by military commission in accordance with basic principles common to other courts and tribunals that try individuals for violations of the laws of war and other offenses. The chart below compares rules and procedures employed under the Military Commissions Act of 2009 with those used in U.S. military courts-martial andU.S. federal courts (also known as Article III courts).

>>17537818

>>17537818

>Trump at his rally last night said the 2020 election was RIGGED or stolen at least 15 times.

>>17537689 (pb)

>>17538171

>Rachel Levine's father Melvin Levine was a serial pedophile who blew his brains out after getting caught.

>>17537689 (pb)

Richard Levine "tranistioned" to Rachel Levine to hide his history of medical malpractice.

>>12603012

Richard Levine

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_06-cv-04646/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_06-cv-04646-0.pdf

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIAJUANITA WARD, et al.,Plaintiffs,v.MOST HEALTH SERVICES, INC., etal.,Defendants.Civil Action No. 06-4646OPINIONPollak, J.August 8, 2008 Before the court is defendant Dr. Richard Levine’smotion for summary judgmenton plaintiffs’ claims, as well as plaintiffs’ response in opposition and defendant’s reply. For the reasons stated below, the court will deny defendant’s motion. I.Plaintiff Juanita Ward filed suit individually; as surviving spouse of her latehusband Joseph Edward Ward IV; as next friend of the couple’s minor children, Josephand Keshia; and as executrix of her late husband’s estate. The defendants are MostHealth Services, Inc., Most Healthcare Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Most Health”), andRichard Barry Levine, M.D

in the report he received from Most Health describing his test results, was:The chest in the single PA projection demonstrates the trachea, mediastinalstructures and cardiac silhouette to be intact.

<There is no evidence of acuteinfiltrate, congestion or acute pleural reaction. No active disease in the chest isobserved. The osseous and soft tissue structures are intact.SUMMARY: No active disease.Current Classification: Normal.Pl. Resp. Exh. A.

Like the other Dow Reichhold employees, Mr. Ward was given only this report of the radiologist’s findings and was not given the original x-ray film thatformed the basis of the report; the x-ray film itself was retained by Most Health. A yearlater, on May 15, 2004, afterMr. Ward began to suffer symptoms of a lung problem, an x-ray revealed a suspicious mass. Less than two months later, on July 8, 2004, Mr. Ward,age 39, a non-smoker,died of lung cancer.

The doctor who read Mr. Ward’s 2003 x-ray and wrote the above-quoted reportwas defendant Dr. Levine.

Dr. Levine is licensed to practice medicine in Pennsylvania,1where his office and primary residence are located. Dr. Levine had a contract with Most2Health to perform “B-readings” of x-rays, paid on a per-x-ray basis.