Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    alt.america    |    Everything American I think    |    102,769 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 102,550 of 102,769    |
|    Phil Yagoda to trumpistan@gmail.com    |
|    Re: Was Kerry's original discharge less     |
|    28 Aug 23 08:08:51    |
      [continued from previous message]              > if "Geek, Esq." is indeed even a lawyer, and by his own admission he       > jumped to a conclusion before he'd even read Lipscomb's article closely,       > and now continues to defend that conclusion without bringing any new       > source material to the table — I rather doubt that Geek has those       > qualifications either. Indeed, as stated in my introduction to this post,       > the reason I put this post up to begin with was to provide wider access to       > the relevant statutes (which are otherwise very hard to track down), and       > to solicit and encourage the exchange of further pertinent information.       >       > ----------------------       >       > Update (Wed Oct 13 @ 5:25pm): Okay, lots going on in the comments. I       > want to thank, and commend, everyone who's commented or emailed me,       > definitely including the skeptics.       >       > Since my previous update, one speculative but innocuous scenario has       > occurred to me that I ought to mention here, rather than just in comments.       > Perhaps in 1978, the DoD or the Navy Department was doing a mass review of       > its reserves rolls trying to winnow out those who'd been completely       > inactive for a long time. It is conceivable, I suppose, that they'd have       > convened a board of officers for the purpose of approving unconsented-to       > honorable discharges of officers with more than three years' service,       > which section 1163(a) would seem to require absent specific consent from       > the affected individuals. That's obviously speculation, but it might       > explain a reference in the Claytor letter to section 1163 that would not       > necessarily imply a previous involuntary discharge on a less-than-       > honorable basis.       >       > Again, however, it seems that the cleanest way for all this to be cleared       > up would be for Sen. Kerry to sign Standard Form 180.       >       > https://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2004/10/was_kerrys_orig.html              Do svidaniya.                      --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca