IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES ) ) ) PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION ) ) ) ) ) USCA Misc. Dkt.

No. 12-801/NA ) Crim. App. Dkt. No. 20080010 )

Edwin A. Ehlers II, Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Appellee

TO THE JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES: The Court is requested to reconsider its order for the denial of the habeas writ for extraordinary relief in this case for the following reason(s): On February 3, 2012, Appellant petitioned this court under a habeas writ for extraordinary relief. According to Rule 10(a) (3)(b), under the Rules of Practice and Procedure for the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, a docket number will be assigned upon receipt of the record from the Judge Advocate General for cases of mandatory review. In all other cases, a docket number will be assigned upon receipt of the initial pleading. This court acknowledges, in the docketing notice and order sent to Appellant, that the petition for extraordinary relief was filed under rule 27(b) on February 3, 2012 but was not placed on a docket and not given the docket number until February 23, 2012. The court is required to follow their own rules, case they have not. Without any explanation as petition for extraordinary relief was denied or why took so long to receive the required docket number, was automatically denied. yet to the the in this why the petition petition

The Court erred in its decision not to entertain the petition for extraordinary relief under the principles of Stare Decisis, to stand by this Courts previous (and numerous) decisions which fall under United States v. Fosler. The Doctrine of Precedents declares that cases must be decided the same way when their material facts are the same. Obviously it does not require that all the facts should be the same, but the legally material facts may reoccur and it is with these that the doctrine is concerned. The Ratio Decidendi of the numerous cases decided in this Court previously shows that the military justice system has failed in many areas, but most importantly where the language of the charges are concerned. This Court, beginning with Fosler, brought to the attention of the military justice system that the charges written under Article 134, UCMJ that fails to state an offence requires relief. This legal fact, is also bolstered by the Supreme Courts holdings in United States v. Resendiz-Ponce and Russell v. United States. This Court cannot simply decide the same question for relief one way and then decide the opposite way for another case. If a group of cases involves the same point, the parties expect the same decision. It would be a gross injustice and negligence on the Court, to decide alternate cases on opposite principles. To decide differently would raise a feeling of resentment and would also be an infringement, material and moral, on the Appellants rights to due process. Adherence to precedent must then be the rule, rather than the exception if Appellants are to have faith in the even-handed administration of justice in the courts. Liberty to decide each case, as the Court thinks right, without regard to principles laid down in previous similar cases, would only result in completely uncertain law in which no citizen would know his or her rights or liabilities until they knew what Judge their case would come to. The paradigm case of injustice is that in which there are two similar individuals in similar circumstances and one of them is
2

treated better or worse than the other. In this case, the cry of injustice rightly goes up against the responsible agent or group; and unless that agent or group can establish that there is some relevant dissimilarity after all between the individuals concerned and their circumstances, he or they will be guilty of gross negligence. This is unethical and with respect it may be submitted that it is also unethical and intellectually dishonest for a Judge, in deciding that a case should not be granted relief, to simply ignore a precedent case which stands in the way of the decision that the Judge wants to make. There should be an honest effort to play by the rules which are clearly established for the benefit of not only the Courts but also to correct injustices when brought to the attention of the courts. If a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.1 Note the admonition in this last paragraph to judges clearly states that until the U.S. Supreme Court overrules its earlier decisions, the lower court must follow the upper court precedent. In the United States, courts seek to follow precedent whenever possible, seeking to maintain stability and continuity in the law. Devotion to Stare Decisis is considered a mark of judicial restraint, limiting a Judge's ability to determine the outcome of a case in a way that he or she might choose if it were a matter of first impression. Inconsistency with the responsibility placed on the Courts to make reasoned decisions in cases and to uphold their own precedents and those precedents decided by higher courts, is ethically irresponsible and would call to question the impartiality of the Judges making those decisions. It is also not good judicial policy to allow fraud, dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation; of making false statements of material fact before a Judge to go uncorrected by the Courts when brought to their attention.
1

Rodriguez de Quijas, supra, at 484, 109 S.Ct., at 1921-22

3

Is it the threat of reversal that this court has an aversion to? Or is it that this Court believes that looking at the evidence presented by Appellant, all of which was discovered AFTER the trial (which was denied to the defense by the prosecution in violations of Brady), would not only seriously undermine the entire military judicial proceedings but also call to question the ethics of all judges who have looked at this case previously and denied relief? This court, as an appeal Court in the Federal Judicial system has the obligation to uphold the mandates made by this Court as well as the Supreme Court under Stare Decisis. This Court also has the obligation to seek justice where justice was denied by improving the case outcomes that come before the court where this is plain and obvious error. Appellant has supplied more than enough factual evidence to support his claims of injustice at the hands of the military judicial system. Now it is up to this Court to act on the evidence supplied and accept the writ for review. This court cannot simply deny a writ whose holdings are in the interest of justice. An independent court serves the interest of justice and promotes confidence in the judicial system. If this Court chooses not to give Appellant the full deliberative process, to which he is entitled by the U.S. Constitution, then this Court has seriously undermined the interest of justice in denying Appellant judicial relief from a conviction unsubstantiated by evidence and further infringed upon the rights that were denied at trial and under appellate review. ____________________________________ Angela M. Ehlers

CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I certify that copies of the foregoing was mailed first class, certified mail via USPS to: Clerk of the Court United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 450 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20442-0001 Certified mail: 70082810000226967082 and Appellee: The Judge Advocate General 1322 Patterson Ave., Suite 3000 Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066 Certified mail: 70082810000226967075 On March 3, 2012.

__________________________ Angela M. Ehlers