Our thanks to Bryn for this. Extracts:
The opinion, delivered by Judge Margaret A. Ryan, said the four admirals who played a role in assembling the officer and enlisted jury pool produced an illegal “gender-based court stacking.” She suggested that the admirals’ role amounted to unlawful command influence, which military law analysts see as the enemy of fair trials for service members.
The court ruling said the trial judge “failed to conduct even a rudimentary investigation” into defense attorneys’ complaints of an unfair jury.
It also said the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals failed in its duty to protect against unlawful command influence as it “rationalized the error away as a benign effort to seek inclusiveness.”…
The high court judges harshly criticized all involved, implying that their goal was to win a conviction.
“The salient facts paint a clear picture of court stacking based on gender in an atmosphere of external pressure to achieve specific results in sexual assault cases,” the ruling read. “Against that backdrop, purposefully selecting a panel that is seventy percent female, most of whom are victim advocates, from a roster of officers that was only twenty percent female and a pool of enlisted that was only thirteen percent female, smacks of a panel that was ‘hand-picked’ by or for the Government.”
The judges used the word “absurdity” in their assessment of assembling a jury pool of 70 percent women based on inclusiveness. “As a matter of common sense, 70 percent is not statistically or otherwise ‘representative,’” their ruling read.
Ten jurors were selected, and seven of them were women. Of those jurors, five women and two men heard evidence, deliberated and rendered a verdict. Of those five women, four were assigned as advocates for victims of sexual misconduct.
Justice for Men & Boys 
This is something that hasn’t dawned on most men as yet. Women, when they are in control, will mostly run things for the benefit of women, such as Jo Swinson’s advocating for misogyny laws, and Harman’s constant pressing for more law changes to benefit women. I’m not sure whether the stupid and cowardly male politicians in parliament are too stupid to notice what is going on, or too gutless to oppose it.
LikeLike
‘I’m not sure whether the stupid and cowardly male politicians in parliament are too stupid to notice what is going on, or too gutless to oppose it.‘
I don’t think it matters what they are: they wouldn’t be where they are if male voters weren’t stupid or somnolent. When, or if, male voters wake up and start voting a as class male politicians of the sort we have at present, in the main, won’t be returned. It’s not stupid and cowardly politicians who matter; it’s stupid and sleeping male voters.
LikeLike
A victor for common sense. Well done Judge Margaret A. Ryan.
LikeLike
No mocking irony or impish satire for this one.
Here is a case of the worst possible, most culpable official corruption.
A more deliberate, planned and conived at attempt to overturn not just the legal nicities of due proceedure, but to pervert and and destroy any and every last principle of anthing approaching justice.
A conspiracy so foul as to deserve it’s comparison to a stenching and malicious cancer, made all the worse by being enacted by those in official positions of power on whom society depends.
It’s unclear what is going happen now, but dishonorable discharges and long prison terms must surely be the only result.
Oh yes, and let’s not forget the blockbuster film that has now to be made as a damning, shameful and permanent public record of what happens when feminist corruption and malfeasance take over.
LikeLike
An honest judge. Not many around. Agree with wisemanner that when women are in control, they tend to do everything to benefit women. I don’t see that as a democratic attribute..
LikeLike
There are a few videos on YouTube of similar miscarriages of justice from US military and naval courts martial, where military and naval law is used to secure prosecutions when the desired outcome is highly unlikely in a civil court, even in trials for murder. I’m not sure of the position in the ‘U’K – where the boundary between military and naval jurisdiction and civil criminal law lies, however, I think that the former should only apply to service related offences that are not crimes in the civil sphere. Courts martial should not be able to try cases that are not principally a matter of good order and discipline.
LikeLike
‘ … purposefully selecting a panel that is seventy percent female, most of whom are victim advocates …
Ten jurors were selected, and seven of them were women. Of those jurors, five women and two men heard evidence, deliberated and rendered a verdict. Of those five women, four were assigned as advocates for victims of sexual misconduct.‘
Mark Pearson has just put up a post on Facebook (note to moderator: please excuse the embedding)
What struck me in Mark’s account was the incident in which a woman stared intensely at him with hate filled eyes: she was a victim’s advocate too.
While it would be much easier to advocate excluding women from any position of power or authority I think it fairer to advocate very careful screening of female candidates for such posts, and rapid removal of any who show a lack of balance or disinterest in their work.
LikeLike
A typical example of the kind of judicial engineering that occurs when you let feminists start influencing case outcomes. Glad that this female judge didn’t feel the pressure to confirm with “the sistas” the way that a man would have.
LikeLike