Qolio
|
  |
| Joined: 28 Sep 2014 |
| Total Posts: 1754 |
|
|
| 05 Oct 2016 03:36 PM |
IN THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL COURTS,
INJUNCTION CONCERNING Michael_Castellan
Whereas Michael_Castellan is currently serving as O9-O10 in the United States Military https://www.roblox.com/groups/group.aspx?gid=2750566 And is also a member of the United States House of Representatives. https://www.roblox.com/My/Groups.aspx?gid=761917
Whereas this is explicitly and very blatantly against the Constitution, in more specifics Amendment 19, Section 1 of the Constitution, which states the following:
"1. Employment in more than one civil office shall be prohibited. In addition, holding a civil office and having a high-ranking position in the military shall be prohibited."
"2. A civil office is defined as a Cabinet-level, directorial, or Congressional position, as well as federal judges and supreme court justices. In addition, positions that must be approved by the Senate, except ambassadorial and military judicial positions, shall be deemed civil offices."
The following is ordered:
Michael_Castellan resign from his position as O9-O10 in the United States Military or from his position as an United States House of Representatives.
The aforestated invidiuals have approximately 24 hours after this order has been issued to comply fully with the contents of this order or a contempt citation can follow at the discretion of the Court.
Effective immediately.
Signed,
The Honorable Federal Judge Qolio
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 05 Oct 2016 03:38 PM |
back at it again
𝒮𝒾𝑔𝓃𝑒𝒹, 𝓡𝓮𝓹. 𝓙𝓮𝓭𝓑𝓪𝓻𝓽𝓵𝓮𝓽𝓽 𝑅𝑒𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒶𝓉𝒾𝓋𝑒 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Qolio
|
  |
| Joined: 28 Sep 2014 |
| Total Posts: 1754 |
|
|
| 05 Oct 2016 03:39 PM |
My bad. I spelled his username wrong in the title.
It's Michael_Castellan.
Signed,
Federal Judge Qolio
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 05 Oct 2016 03:40 PM |
| His other injunction was hated on so he did it on someone who was named in the comments, lmao what..? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Qolio
|
  |
| Joined: 28 Sep 2014 |
| Total Posts: 1754 |
|
|
| 05 Oct 2016 03:41 PM |
@Edward
What are you even talking about?
Michael is illegally holding 2 civil offices. It's my job to correct that. And I plan to fulfill my duties.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Oct 2016 03:45 PM |
| i'm not holding a job in nUSM, that is just my retirement paygrade |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Qolio
|
  |
| Joined: 28 Sep 2014 |
| Total Posts: 1754 |
|
|
| 05 Oct 2016 03:47 PM |
@michael
Doesn't matter. You're in that rank when the constitution prohibits it.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Oct 2016 03:49 PM |
| the rank is Lieutenant General-General, the pay grade is the amount of money payed to them (O9-O10). I am not a General, I am honorably discharged as it says on my Veteran Affairs application. So I just have the pay of O10, not the rank of General. but if there's still a problem with that i'll go get demoted real quickly. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Qolio
|
  |
| Joined: 28 Sep 2014 |
| Total Posts: 1754 |
|
|
| 05 Oct 2016 03:51 PM |
Yes...there is a problem with that
Hence why I wrote the injunction.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Ozzymen
|
  |
| Joined: 26 May 2011 |
| Total Posts: 7115 |
|
|
| 05 Oct 2016 03:52 PM |
Michael is completely right, the who E1-O10 thing is just paygrades, each branch has it's particular ranks, so in the Navy O10 would be an Admiral with the paygrade of O10 and in the Army it'd be General with the paygrade of O10.
- Signed, SPT. Ozzymen
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Oct 2016 03:53 PM |
| also on a side note, one can't resign from O9-O10 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Qolio
|
  |
| Joined: 28 Sep 2014 |
| Total Posts: 1754 |
|
|
| 05 Oct 2016 03:53 PM |
@Ozzy
Regardless if he's right. The constitution prohibits it. My job is to ensure that people don't break it.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Oct 2016 03:55 PM |
Constitution states you cannot be in the paygrade of O9+ In another civil office, Qolio is right, You must be put down to at least O8 Michael.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Oct 2016 03:57 PM |
And since its ROBLOX and you don't get paid for it, you cannot play off having the pay of a general, As some actually would in real life.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Oct 2016 03:57 PM |
| thank you for explaining that in military terms to me @mr underwood. I'm asking to be demoted now |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Ozzymen
|
  |
| Joined: 26 May 2011 |
| Total Posts: 7115 |
|
|
| 05 Oct 2016 03:57 PM |
Well you shouldn't have a problem with that is the thing, this is the type of ruling that would go from this court to the court of appeals, to the Supreme Court, and we never have rules from the Supreme Court like we do in real life- not saying we have no Supreme Court rules, just saying.
In this scenario if Michael is a retired NUSM JCS and has the veteran affairs benefits and paygrade pay still while be retired, he could essentially stay at O9-O10 as he doesn't currently hold a civil office status but instead a paygrade for his retirement benefits from the veteran affairs and executive branch for his service.
Who are you to trump on that? It doesn't break the constitution in the above found scenario?
I'd take this to the Supreme Court Michael and try to get a ruling on the overall matter of whether a paygrade status is considered rank when it differs from rank and isn't rank or a civil office position as stated in the constitution.
*please keep in note that the constitution COVERS paygrades, but that is the overall essence of the military and it's ranks in that paygrade criteria, NOT the paygrade itself*
- Signed SPT. Ozzymen
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Ozzymen
|
  |
| Joined: 26 May 2011 |
| Total Posts: 7115 |
|
|
| 05 Oct 2016 03:59 PM |
He does receive pay benefits at LV from being on the NUSM team, same for all the other cities, different teams on different levels receive different pay. Please do not spread false rumors!
At least I'm fairly certain agencies and NUSM make a higher pay than the regular go-to citizen, as they hold a job.
- Signed SPT. Ozzymen
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Qolio
|
  |
| Joined: 28 Sep 2014 |
| Total Posts: 1754 |
|
|
| 05 Oct 2016 04:01 PM |
The VA benefits should not allow the person to break the constitution.
In fact, they've got no authority to allow that to happen.
In the event that this would happen again, and I'm sure it would; people need to be aware that O9-O10 is defined as a civil office by the constitution. And there's no legal way to be in 2 civil offices or not. Even if it's a rank that was granted for "retirement".
The order stands.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 05 Oct 2016 04:03 PM |
i'ed like to ask where it says that in the Constitution that o9-o10 is a civil office.. but it's fine now anyways.
[SERVICE CHIEF] bobherry changed user Michael_Castellan's rank from [O9-O10] to [O7-O8]. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Qolio
|
  |
| Joined: 28 Sep 2014 |
| Total Posts: 1754 |
|
|
| 05 Oct 2016 04:04 PM |
@Michael
NINETEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION
SECTION 1. Employment in more than one civil office shall be prohibited. In addition, holding a civil office and having a high-ranking position in the military shall be prohibited.
SECTION 2. A civil office is defined as a Cabinet-level, directorial, or Congressional position, as well as federal judges and supreme court justices. In addition, positions that must be approved by the Senate, except ambassadorial and military judicial positions, shall be deemed civil offices.
SECTION 3. A high-ranking position in the military is defined as being an officer of rank O9 or above, being a joint chief of staff or its chief. While service secretaries, their deputies or under-secretaries, and service chiefs are not military positions, for the sake of this amendment they will be treated as a high-ranking military position.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Ozzymen
|
  |
| Joined: 26 May 2011 |
| Total Posts: 7115 |
|
|
| 05 Oct 2016 04:07 PM |
"SECTION 3. A high-ranking position in the military is defined as being an officer of rank O9 or above, being a joint chief of staff or its chief. While service secretaries, their deputies or under-secretaries, and service chiefs are not military positions, for the sake of this amendment they will be treated as a high-ranking military position."
Please look at the rank O9 or above, this states rank and does not state paygrade. Paygrades are not ranks, ranks are for specific positions in each branch, if I was a General, I'd receive the pay of O10 as that is the PAYGRADE of what you make.
When it says rank O9 or above, it is clarifying that if you're the RANK of THAT paygrade, meaning IN SAID BRANCH, you cannot hold another civil office. This is saying this is civil office.
He is RETIRED and in real life, people do receive veteran benefits, he holds the PAYGRADE still of O9 but DOES NOT hold the rank of Lieutenant General in the Army, as he's retired from JCS.
I hope I put this in simple terms, the Supreme Court could overturn this, would they? I don't know, when will we get some realism, and have our Supreme Court interpret this for us.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Oct 2016 04:07 PM |
| notice how it says 'rank' O9 which is Lieutenant General |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|