DOCSLIB.ORG

Vol. 30 No. 2 2017-2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Vol. 30 No. 2 2017-2018 REGENT UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 30 2017-2018 NUMBER 2 CONTENTS ARTICLES A NONPARENT'S ABILITY TO INFRINGE ON THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF PARENTING: RECONCILING VIRGINIA'S NONPARENTAL CHILD CUSTODY AND VISITATION STANDARDS The Honorable David W. Lannetti 203 RICHARD A. POSNER, CIRCUIT JUDGE, SITTING BY DESIGNATION IN THE DISTRICT COURTS Jordan T Smith 259 THE DISAPPEARING CIVIL TRIAL: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF LAW PRACTICE Graham K Bryant Kristopher R. McClellan 287 DUE PROCESS: A CASUALTY OF THE WAR ON TERROR? Nicholas Hunt 345 SYMPOSIUM: THE EXPANSION OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE 21ST CENTURY HOW THE CHANGES IN TECHNOLOGY ARE SHAPING THE LAW AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN AMERICA The HonorableRobert Humphreys 371 A RISING TIDE LIFTS MOST BOATS: How TECHNOLOGY FLOATS GOOD LAWYERS AND SINKS THE BAD The Honorable Kevin M. Smith 391 NOTES THIS MEANS WAR: A CASE FOR JUST REPARATIONS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF INALIENABILITY Makiba Gaines 433 PROTECTING RELIGIOUS PLURALISM: HOW THE LIBERTY THAT SUPPORTS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE PROTECTS RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS Blaine L. Hutchison 461 REGENT UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW UNIVERSITY OFFICERS PHILLIP D. WALKER, Chairmanof the Board of Trustees B.S., Western Carolina University DR. M. G. "PAT" ROBERTSON, Chancellorand CEO B.A., Washington & Lee; J.D., Yale University Law School; M. Div., New York Theological Seminary MICHAEL V. HERNANDEz, Dean;Professor B.A., University of Virginia; J.D., University of Virginia School of Law L.O. NATT GANTT II, Associate Dean of Academic Affairs; Professor; Co-Director, Center for Ethical Formation & Legal EducationReform A.B., Duke University; J.D., Harvard Law School; M.Div., Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary KIMBERLY R. VAN ESSENDELFT, Assistant Dean of Students Affairs; Principal Lecturer B.A., University of Virginia; J.D., College of William and Mary, Marshall- Wythe School of Law S. ERNIE WALTON, Assistant Dean of Admissions, Lecturer;Academic and Administrative Director, Center for Global Justice, Human Rights, and the Rule of Law B.S., Houghton College; J.D., Regent University School of Law THE HONORABLE PATRICIA L. WEST, (RET.), Associate Dean of Careerand Alumni Affairs; Distinguished Professor of Law and Government B.A., College of William and Mary; J.D., College of William and Mary, Marshall-Wythe School of Law FACULTY THE HONORABLE JOHN ASHCROFT, DistinguishedProfessor of Law and Government A.B., Yale University; J.D., University of Chicago Law School JAMES M. BOLAND, Associate Professor;Director, Legal Analysis, Research and Writing B.A., Wheaton College; J.D., Regent University School of Law JEFFREY A. BRAUCH, Professor;Executive Director, Center for Global Justice, Human Rights, and the Rule of Law; Director, LL.M. Programs B.A., University of Wisconsin at Madison; J.D., University of Chicago Law School BRUCE N. CAMERON, Reed Larson Professor of Labor Law B.A., Andrews University; J.D., Emory University School of Law DOUGLAS H. COOK, Associate Vice Presidentfor Academic Affairs; Professor B.A., Miami University; J.D., The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law DR. JAMES A. DAVIDs, Associate Professor B.A., Calvin College; J.D., Duke University School of Law; Ph.D., Regent University ERIC A. DEGRoFF, Professor B.A., University of Kansas; M.P.A., University of Southern California; J.D., Regent University School of Law JAMES J. DUANE, Professor B.A., Harvard University; J.D., Harvard Law School THOMAS C. FOLSOM, Senior Lecturer B.S., U.S. Air Force Academy; J.D., Georgetown University Law Center CALEB N. GRIFFIN, Assistant Professor B.B.A., Oklahoma Christian University; J.D. Harvard Law School LouIs W. HENSLER III, Professor B.A., Bob Jones University; J.D., University of Chicago Law School HARRY G. HUTCHISON, DistinguishedProfessor of Law B.A., Wayne State University; M.A., Wayne State University; M.B.A., University of Michigan; J.D., Wayne State University Law School; P.G.C.E., University of Bristol (British & European Labour Law) BRADLEY P. JACOB, Associate Professor B.A., University of Delaware; J.D., University of Chicago Law School JANIS L. KIRKLAND, PrincipalLecturer; Director, Wealth Management Concentration,M.A. Program;Acting and Assistant Director, Legal Analysis, Research & Writing Program B.S., College of William and Mary; J.D., T.C. Williams School of Law, University of Richmond LYNNE MARIE KOHM, Professor;John Brown McCarty Professor of Family Law B.A., State University of New York at Albany; J.D., Syracuse University College of Law BENJAMIN V. MADISON III, Professor;Director, Bar Passage Initiatives; Co- Director, Center for Ethical Formation & Legal Education Reform B.A., Randolph-Macon College; M.A., College of William and Mary; J.D., College of William and Mary, Marshall-Wythe School of Law KATHLEEN A. McKEE, Associate Professor;Director, Experiential Learning B.A., State University of New York at Albany; J.D., Columbus School of Law, Catholic University; LL.M., Georgetown University Law Center JAMES E. MURPHY, Lecturer;Director, M.A. in Law Program;Business Affairs Manager B.A., University of Iowa; J.D., University of Oklahoma College of Law MICHAEL P. SCHUTT, Associate Professor;Global Recruiter B.A., Stephen F. Austin State University; J.D., University of Texas School of Law DR. JAY A. SEKULOw, DistinguishedProfessor of Law B.A., Mercer University; J.D., Mercer University School of Law; Ph.D., Regent University RANDY D. SINGER, Attorney-in-Residence B.A., Houghton College; J.D., College of William and Mary, Marshall-Wythe School of Law CRAIG A. STERN, Professor;Director, Honors Program B.A., Yale University; J.D., University of Virginia School of Law GLORIA A. WHITTICO, Associate Professor;Director, Academic Success Program A.B., College of William and Mary; J.D., University of Virginia School of Law ADJUNCT FACULTY CHARLES P. CARDWELL B.A., University of Maryland-College Park; J.D., Washington College of Law, American University LAURA B. HERNANDEZ B.A., Houghton College; J.D., T.C. Williams School of Law, University of Richmond THE HONORABLE ROBERT J. HUMPHREYS B.A., Washington and Lee University; J.D., Widener University School of Law JOSHUA L. JENKINS B.A., University of Arkansas; J.D., Regent University School of Law THE HONORABLE D. ARTHUR KELSEY B.A., Old Dominion University; J.D., College of William and Mary, Marshall- Wythe School of Law JESSICA KRENTZ B.A., The University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire; J.D., Regent University School of Law HEE EUN LEE B.A., Vassar College; M.A., Syracuse University; J.D. Syracuse University College of Law JAMES A. METCALFE B.A., U.S. Naval Academy; J.D., College of William and Mary, Marshall- Wythe School of Law THE HONORABLE HENRY COKE MORGAN, JR. B.S., Washington and Lee University; J.D., Washington and Lee University; LL.M., University of Virginia ANTHONY S. MULFORD B.A. University of Nebraska; J.D., Regent University School of Law THE HONORABLE H. THOMAS PADRICK, JR. B.A. Old Dominion University; Virginia State Bar Law Reader Program CORRYNN J. PETERS B.S., Liberty University; J.D., Regent University School of Law STEPHEN P. PFEIFFER B.A., Carroll College; J.D., Regent University School of Law GLENN S. REYNOLDS B.A., Evangel University; M.A., Assemblies of God Theological Seminary; D.Min., Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; J.D., Regent University School of Law KIMBERLY K. SHAFTNER B.S., Wittenberg University; M.D., Ohio State University College of Medicine; J.D., Regent University School of Law HUGO R. VALVERDE B.S., College of William and Mary; M.E.M., Duke University; J.D., Regent University School of Law LAW LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION MARGARET L. CHRISTIANSEN, Electronic Services and Digital Initiatives Librarian B.S., William Woods College; J.D., Regent University School of Law; M.S.I.S., Florida State University MARIE S. HAMM, Director, Law Library Dual B.S., Mount Olive College; J.D., Regent University School of Law; M.L.S., Syracuse University WILLIAM E. MAGEE, Assistant Directorfor Public Services B.A., Old Dominion University; J.D., Regent University School of Law; M.S.L.S., Catholic University REGENT UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW ISSN 1056-3962. The Regent University Law Review is published at Regent University and is produced and edited by the students of the Regent University School of Law under the supervision of the faculty. The domestic subscription rate is $10.00 per issue. Third-class postage paid at Virginia Beach, Virginia. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Editor- in-Chief, Law Review, Regent University School of Law, Virginia Beach, VA 23464-9800. Absent receipt of notice to the contrary, subscriptions to the Law Review are renewed automatically each year. Claims for issues not received will be filled for published issues within one year before the receipt of the claim. Subscription claims for issues beyond this limitation period will not be honored. All articles copyright C 2018 Regent University Law Review, except where otherwise expressly indicated. For permission to reprint an article or any portion thereof, please address your written request to the holder of the copyright. For any article to which Regent University Law Review holds the copyright, permission is granted to reprint any portion of the article for educational use (including inclusion in a casebook intended primarily for classroom use), provided that: (1) in the case of copies distributed in class, students are charged no more than the cost of duplication; (2) the article is identified on each copy according to THE BLUEBOOK: A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATION (20th ed. 2015); (3) proper notice of copyright is affixed to each copy; and (4) Regent University Law Review is notified in writing of the use. Regent University Law Review accepts unsolicited manuscripts by email addressed to the Editor-in-Chief. Citations in submitted manuscripts should use footnotes and conform to THE BLUEBOOK: A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATION (20th ed. 2015). Address all correspondence to Editor-in-Chief, Regent University Law Review, Regent University School of Law, 1000 Regent University Drive, RH 252C, Virginia Beach, VA 23464.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Military Tribunals: the Quirin Precedent
    Order Code RL31340 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Military Tribunals: The Quirin Precedent March 26, 2002 Louis Fisher Senior Specialist in Separation of Powers Government and Finance Division Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress Military Tribunals: The Quirin Precedent Summary On November 13, 2001, President George W. Bush issued a military order to provide for the detention, treatment, and trial of those who assisted the terrorist attacks on the two World Trade Center buildings in New York City and the Pentagon on September 11. In creating a military commission (tribunal) to try the terrorists, President Bush modeled his tribunal in large part on a proclamation and military order issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1942, after the capture of eight German saboteurs. This report describes the procedures used by the World War II military tribunal to try the eight Germans, the habeas corpus petition to the Supreme Court, and the resulting convictions and executions. Why was the tribunal created, and why were its deliberations kept secret? How have scholars evaluated the Court’s decision in Ex parte Quirin (1942)? The decision was unanimous, but archival records reveal division and disagreement among the Justices. Also covered in this report is a second effort by Germany two years later to send saboteurs to the United States. The two men captured in this operation were tried by a military tribunal, but under conditions and procedures that substantially reduced the roles of the President and the Attorney General. Those changes resulted from disputes within the Administration, especially between the War Department and the Justice Department.
    [Show full text]
  • A Counterintelligence Reader, Volume 2 Chapter 1, CI in World
    CI in World War II 113 CHAPTER 1 Counterintelligence In World War II Introduction President Franklin Roosevelts confidential directive, issued on 26 June 1939, established lines of responsibility for domestic counterintelligence, but failed to clearly define areas of accountability for overseas counterintelligence operations" The pressing need for a decision in this field grew more evident in the early months of 1940" This resulted in consultations between the President, FBI Director J" Edgar Hoover, Director of Army Intelligence Sherman Miles, Director of Naval Intelligence Rear Admiral W"S" Anderson, and Assistant Secretary of State Adolf A" Berle" Following these discussions, Berle issued a report, which expressed the Presidents wish that the FBI assume the responsibility for foreign intelligence matters in the Western Hemisphere, with the existing military and naval intelligence branches covering the rest of the world as the necessity arose" With this decision of authority, the three agencies worked out the details of an agreement, which, roughly, charged the Navy with the responsibility for intelligence coverage in the Pacific" The Army was entrusted with the coverage in Europe, Africa, and the Canal Zone" The FBI was given the responsibility for the Western Hemisphere, including Canada and Central and South America, except Panama" The meetings in this formative period led to a proposal for the organization within the FBI of a Special Intelligence Service (SIS) for overseas operations" Agreement was reached that the SIS would act
    [Show full text]
  • Operation Pastorius WWII
    Operation Pastorius WWII Shortly after Adolf Hitler declared war on the United States, just four days after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, he was eager to prove to the United States that it was vulnerable despite its distance from Europe, Hitler ordered a sabotage operation to be mounted against targets inside America. The task fell to the Abwehr (defense) section of the German Military Intelligence Corps headed by Admiral Wilhelm Canaris. The job was right up the Abwehr’s alley. It already had conducted extensive sabotage operations against the Reich‘s European enemies, developing all the necessary tools and techniques and establishing an elaborate sabotage school in the wooded German countryside near Brandenburg. Lieutenant Walter Kappe, 37, a pudgy, bull-necked man, was given command of the mission against America, which he dubbed Operation Pastorius, after an early German settler in America. Kappe was a longtime member of the Nazi party, and he also knew the United States very well, having lived there for 12 years. To find men suitable for his enterprise, Lieutenant Kappe scoured the records of the Ausland Institute, which had financed thousands of German expatriates’ return from America. Kappe selected 12 whom he thought were energetic, capable and loyal to the German cause. Most were blue-collar workers, and all but two had long been members of the party. Four dropped out of the team almost immediately; the rest were organized into two teams of four. George John Dasch, the eldest at 39, was chosen to lead the first team. He was a glib talker with what Kappe thought were American mannerisms.
    [Show full text]
  • And the Congress Shall Have Power To
    AND THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO . : THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE D.C. CIRCUIT COURT’S PER CURIAM DECISION IN BAHLUL V. UNITED STATES Clarke D. Cotton* I. INTRODUCTION Today, Amagansett, New York Is an attractIve East Hampton neighborhood.1 A get-away for the rich and powerful, there are typically more vacatIoners than resIdents In the town at any gIven tIme.2 Among the many mansions that populate Amagansett is a historic Coast Guard station that sits just off Atlantic Avenue beach.3 In 1966 the station was moved to a prIvate resIdence to protect and preserve Its features.4 In 2007, the station was moved back to its original spot off Atlantic Avenue beach and, now, is protected as a historical landmark.5 This Is the station that Coast Guardsman John C. Cullen sprInted to In 1942 to warn of a most extraordinary finding: a group of Nazis had landed on AmerIcan soil with explosives in hand, they were here to do our country harm.6 Thirty-five miles outside of Berlin, Germany, laid a camp in which eight Nazi soldiers were trained in the use of explosives, fuses, and detonators.7 These men received their InstructIon from Lt. Walter Kappe and focused on destroying railroads, factories, and other strategic U.S. milItary and Infrastructure targets.8 The eight soldiers were divided into two groups. The first was led by Edward John Kerling, and included Werner ThIel, Hermann Neubauer, and Herbert Hans Haupt.9 Kerling’s * AssocIate Member, 2016-2017, University of Cincinnati Law Review 1. John Rather, If You’re Thinking of Living in Amagansett, L.I.; A Down to Earth Hamptons Alternative, N.Y.
    [Show full text]
  • Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) 63 S.Ct
    Todd, Jonathan 1/22/2014 For Educational Use Only Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) 63 S.Ct. 2, 87 L.Ed. 3 Attorneys and Law Firms 63 S.Ct. 2 Supreme Court of the United States **6 *6 Colonel Kenneth C. Royall, A.U.S., of Raleigh, N.C., for petitioners. Ex parte QUIRIN. Ex parte HAUPT. *11 Mr. Francis Biddle, Atty. Gen., for respondent. Ex parte KERLING. Opinion Ex parte BURGER. Ex parte HEINCK. *18 Mr. Chief Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Ex parte THIEL. Court. Ex parte NEUBAUER. These cases are brought here by petitioners' several UNITED STATES ex rel. QUIRIN applications for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in this v. Court, and by their petitions for certiorari to review orders of COX, Brig. Gen., U.S.A., Provost Marshal of the the District Court for the District of Columbia, which denied Military District of Washington, and 6 other cases. their applications for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in that court. Nos. -- Original and Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7-July Special Term, 1942. | Argued July The question for decision is whether the detention of 29, 30, 1942. | Decided July 31, 1942. petitioners by respondent for trial by Military Commission, | Extended opinion filed Oct. 29, 1942. appointed by Order of the President of July 2, 1942, *19 on charges preferred against them purporting to set out their Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus. violations of the law of war and of the Articles of War, is in conformity to the laws and Constitution of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Ex Parte Quirin: the an Zi Saboteur Case and the Tribunal Precedent Andrew Buttaro
    American University National Security Law Brief Volume 6 | Issue 1 Article 3 2016 Ex Parte Quirin: The aN zi Saboteur Case and the Tribunal Precedent Andrew Buttaro Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/nslb Part of the National Security Law Commons Recommended Citation Buttaro, Andrew "Ex Parte Quirin: The aN zi Saboteur Case and the Tribunal Precedent," American University National Security Law Brief, Vol. 6, No. 1 (2016). Available at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/nslb/vol6/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University National Security Law Brief by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Vol. 6, No. 1 The Nazi Saboteur Case 37 Ex Parte Quirin: The Nazi Saboteur Case and the Tribunal Precedent Andrew Buttaro* I. Introduction Late on a moonless night in June 1942, the metal hull of a German submarine scraped the sandy bottom of the Long Island coast.1 The captain, realizing he could proceed no farther, pivoted the vessel parallel to shore to allow for rapid escape in the event of detection.2 A team of four Nazi commandoes emerged from the hatch, and two sailors inflated a rubber boat to ferry them ashore.3 The crew pushed off, trailing a line to guide the sailors’ return after the landing.4 The raft, heavily laden with explosives and gear, found the beach through a thick fog and the four saboteurs scurried ashore.5 The commandoes were instructed to change into civilian dress after disembarkation and bury evidence of their arrival.6 Their mission—for which they had undergone weeks of specialized training in Germany—was to surreptitiously enter the United States and destroy industrial targets deemed valuable to the American war effort.7 Things went awry from the first step on American soil.
    [Show full text]
  • CI Reader Volume II
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1Counterintelligence In World War II ................................................................................... 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 The Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) .................................................................................................. 3 Storm on the Horizon ....................................................................................................................... 3 Contributing to Victory.................................................................................................................... 4 A New Kind of Conflict ................................................................................................................... 4 A Continuing Need .......................................................................................................................... 5 Colepaugh and Gimpel ............................................................................................................................ 5 The Custodial Detention Program ........................................................................................................ 17 President Roosevelts Directive of December 1941 ............................................................................. 21 German Espionage Ring Captured .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 10 – Secret Deals And
    Chapter 10 Secret deals and war War is the ultimate economic example of creative destruction. Expansionist countries and avenging nations will expend vast sums of money, employ their top engineers and look to their brightest scientists to achieve a victory. Losing nations or underdeveloped countries that were in the way will turn to people skills when technological means are lacking in a desperate attempt at survival. World War II touched every corner of the world – from icy arctic coasts to dense tropical jungles, and from advanced laboratories to gigantic assembly lines. For the U.S. aluminum industry, which is sometimes credited with winning the war for the Allies, the war meant protecting bauxite supplies, building huge processing facilities, reallocating electrical power from civilian use to defense purposes, and turning out hundreds of thousands of aircraft that delivered the bombs to the enemy’s homeland. During World War I, increased demand by the U.S. government made expansion of the U.S. aluminum industry a necessity. Prior to the war, the biggest user of aluminum was the automobile industry. But numerous research projects during the war extended the areas of demand in the economy, which led to new markets and alloys. No other metal received more scientific attention during the war than aluminum. The biggest use of aluminum was production of ammonal, a mixture of aluminum powder and ammonium nitrate which was used to manufacture munitions. Other military uses included fuses, fayers, castings for engines, personal equipment, mess equipment and as a deoxidizer in steel production. According to a postwar report by Bernard Baruch, the chairman of the War Industries Board, “Not enough aluminum could be produced to supply the war needs of ourselves and the Allies and at the same time supply normal civilian requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Timeline of the 20Th Century Part I Through 1950 (References and Links Start on P. 743) 1900 January 1 * First Date in John
    Timeline of the 20th Century Part I through 1950 (References and links start on p. 743) 1900 January 1 * First date in John dos Passos' USA trilogy (The 42nd Parallel). [1] * British protectorates of Northern and Southern Nigeria established. [1] * Compulsory education in Netherlands goes into effect. [1] January 2 * E Verlinger begins manufacturing 7-inch single-sided records (Montréal). [1] * Gustave Charpentiers opera "Louise" premieres in Paris. [1] January 3 * Edwin George Monk composer, dies at age 80. [1] * Gerhart Hauptmanns "Schluck und Jau" premieres in Berlin. [1] * Perihelion Passage. [1] January 6 * Boers attack at Ladysmith, about 1,000 killed or injured. [1] * Maurice Ravel's "Albaradode Gracioso" premieres in Paris. [1] January 10 * Lord Roberts and Lord Kitchener reach Capetown. [1] January 12 * Freeland Colony founded in US. [1] January 14 * Giacomo Puccini's opera "Tosca" premieres in Rome. [1] January 18 * Jan Blockx's "Tÿl Uilenspiegel" premieres in Brussels. [1] January 20 1 * John Ruskin English writer/critic (Dearest Mama Talbot), dies of influenza at age 81. [1] * R D Blackmore English novelist (Lorna Doone), dies at age 74. [1] * Richard D Blackmore English novelist (Lorna Doone), dies at age 74. [1] January 24 * Battle at Tugela-Spionkop, South Africa (Boers versus British army). [1] January 26 * Henrik Ibsen's "Naar vi Dode Vaaguer" premieres in Stuttgart. [1] January 27 * Social Democrat Party of America (Debs' party) holds first convention. [1] January 29 * Boers under Joubert beat English at Spionkop Natal, 2,000 killed. [1] January 30 * Vittorio Bersezio [Carlo Nugelli], Italian playwright, dies at age 71.
    [Show full text]
  • EX PARTE QUIRIN ET AL.; N1 UNITED STATES EX REL
    EX PARTE QUIRIN ET AL.; n1 UNITED STATES EX REL. QUIRIN ET AL. v. COX, PROVOST MARSHAL n2 n1 No. , Original, Ex parte Richard Quirin; No. , Original, Ex parte Herbert Hans Haupt; No. , Original, Ex parte Edward John Kerling; No. , Original, Ex parte Ernest Peter Burger; No. , Original, Ex parte Heinrich Harm Heinck; No. , Original, Ex parte Werner Thiel; and No. , Original, Ex parte Hermann Otto Neubauer. n2 No. 1, United States ex rel. Quirin v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 2, United States ex rel. Haupt v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 3, United States ex rel. Kerling v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 4, United States ex rel. Burger v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 5, United States ex rel. Heinck v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 6, United States ex rel. Thiel v. Cox, Provost Marshal; and No. 7, United States ex rel. Neubauer v. Cox, Provost Marshal. Nos. , Original, Nos. 1-7 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 317 U.S. 1; 63 S. Ct. 2; 87 L. Ed. 3; 1942 U.S. LEXIS 1119 July 29-30, 1942, Argued July 31, 1942, Decided. Per Curiam decision filed, July 31, 1942. Full Opinion filed, October 29, 1942. PRIOR HISTORY: MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS; CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. The Court met in Special Term, on Wednesday, July 29, 1942, pursuant to a call by the Chief Justice having the approval of all the Associate Justices. The Chief Justice announced that the Court had convened in Special Term in order that certain applications might be presented to it and argument be heard in respect thereto.
    [Show full text]
  • The United States and the Concentration Camp Trials at Dachau, 1945-1947 Greta Louise Lawrence Peterhouse This Dissertation Is S
    The United States and the Concentration Camp Trials at Dachau, 1945-1947 Greta Louise Lawrence Peterhouse This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy November 2016 i Declaration of Originality This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. I further state that no substantial part of my dissertation has already been submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It does not exceed the prescribed word limit for the relevant Degree Committee. iii Summary of Dissertation: The United States and the Concentration Camp Trials, 1945-1947 After much debate during the war years over how best to respond to Nazi criminality, the United States embarked on an ambitious postwar trial programme in occupied Germany, which consisted of three distinct trial sets: the International Military Trial at Nuremburg, the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, and military trials held at the former concentration camp at Dachau. Within the Dachau military tribunal programme, were the concentration camp trials in which personnel from the Dachau, Mauthausen, Buchenwald, Flossenbürg, and Dora-Mittelbau concentration camps were arraigned.
    [Show full text]
  • The Quiet War: Nazi Agents in America," the Gettysburg Historical Journal: Vol
    Volume 10 Article 7 2011 The Quiet aW r: Nazi Agents in America Robert Kellert Gettysburg College Class of 2012 Follow this and additional works at: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/ghj Part of the Social History Commons, and the United States History Commons Share feedback about the accessibility of this item. Kellert, Robert (2011) "The Quiet War: Nazi Agents in America," The Gettysburg Historical Journal: Vol. 10 , Article 7. Available at: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/ghj/vol10/iss1/7 This open access article is brought to you by The uC pola: Scholarship at Gettysburg College. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of The uC pola. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Quiet aW r: Nazi Agents in America Abstract In the summer of 1942, the East Coast bore witness to an aberration when a German submarine appeared in the waters off Long Island, seemingly countless miles from the bitter fighting and utter carnage engulfing Europe.1 Only four days later, another submarine unexpectedly surfaced, this time near Ponte Vedra Beach off the coast of Florida.2 The nitU ed States, historically protected from its enemies abroad by the vast stretches of the mighty Atlantic, now found itself exposed to the Unterseeboote that had once provoked the superpower into world war.3 The ubms arines harbored agents of the notorious German spy organization known as the Abwehr; and while these agents‘ ultimate capture epitomized the failure of many German intelligence operations in the United States, their activity reaffirmed American fears of Nazi spies and American subversives within.
    [Show full text]