In the class, they learn: 1) if a female has one drink of alcohol and has sex, then she was sexually assaulted/females cannot consent to sex after one drink; 2) If a woman engages in sexually activity, even kissing between a husband and wife, but did not give a verbal “yes” at every step, then they did not consent; and 3) if you claim that you were sexually assaulted, even if someone touches your butt on the dance floor, then you will get an automatic transfer to your base of choosing and will likely get military disability payments for the rest of your life. You get the benefits, even if your claim is proven to be false in a courtroom.
Military Attorney Michael Waddington was interviewed as a guest on the “Success Today” TV show, which will air on NBC, ABC, CBS and FOX affiliates across the United States
Yahoo Entertainment News – December 29, 2014
Orlando, FL –Military defense attorney, Michael Waddington, recently finished filming an episode of the television show, “Success Today,” which will air nationwide on ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC affiliates across the country in early 2015. “Success Today” features an interview format, hosted by TV personality Bob Guiney, from the TODAY Show and The Bachelor, interviewing some of the leading business, legal and financial minds from around the world.
“I was honored to be a guest on the show,” Michael remarked. “Many people are fascinated by the little-known world of military justice, which has a lot of interesting criminal cases, with an international twist. From war crimes to espionage, my job is always exciting, it’s like the movie ‘A Few Good Men,’ on steroids.”
In the interview, Michael talks about how he grew his law firm into one of the premier military defense firms in the world.
First, we take on select clients that we believe in and cases that are interesting and challenging, then, we fight like gladiators to get the best outcome possible.
The episode also discusses why Michael is passionate about defending military service members. “My father always taught me to stick up for the underdog and to speak up for those without a voice. It’s in my blood. I get a thrill out of fighting for someone who is facing overwhelming odds and winning,” he explained.
His practice focuses on defending military service members at court martial and administrative separation boards. He has successfully defended military personnel in Europe (Germany, Italy, England, Spain), the Middle East, the Pacific (Hawaii, Korea, Japan), and throughout the United States.
The eye-opening “Real Costs of a Court Martial,” hosted by renowned criminal attorney Michael Waddington, presents the hard truths and available options for those facing military justice.
The Boston Globe – December 10, 2014 — Premier defense law firm Gonzalez & Waddington, LLC released “Real Costs of a Court Martial Conviction & Discharge,” a not-to-be-missed close-up look at what can happen if you’re found guilty in a military court case. Required viewing for any service member facing charges or under investigation, this comprehensive and highly informative program leaves no doubt about the potential consequences of losing a case. Even more importantly, it offers hope and presents a course of action for anyone in this desperate situation.
“It’s extremely important for people in this position to understand that they have options,” says Michael Waddington, a partner in Gonzalez & Waddington and one of the most recognized military defense lawyers in the U.S. “Hiring the right attorney can mean the difference between getting on with your life and losing everything you have. It’s not a choice to be made lightly. That’s why we created this video—to let people know what they’re facing and what they can do about it.”
“Real Costs of a Court Martial Conviction & Discharge” is a detailed, easy-to-understand primer that goes to great lengths to include everything that a service member needs to know about the costs of a guilty verdict and the benefits of having an experienced attorney on their side. It should be seen by anyone facing criminal charges in the military.
Michael Waddington, a partner in Gonzalez & Waddington, LLC, is recognized as one of the top criminal attorneys in the country. Recently named a Fellow by the prestigious, invitation-only American Board of Criminal Lawyers, he was also included in the “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in the USA” by The National Trial Lawyers Association. A best-selling author and contributor to the American Bar Association’s “The State of Criminal Justice,” he has successfully defended military personnel in Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, the Pacific, and throughout the United States.
Editor’s note: Marc J. Randazza is a Las Vegas-based First Amendment attorney and managing partner of the Randazza Legal Group. He is licensed to practice in Arizona, California, Florida, Massachusetts and Nevada. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
(CNN) — Pundit Glenn Reynolds recently wrote: “So as I understand it, Atticus Finch is now the bad guy in “To Kill A Mockingbird,” because he doubted a story about rape.” How right he was.
A story with a rape allegation carries an immediate electric charge. In Jim Crow’s South, lynchings often came with a story of the victim having raped a white girl. With the energy of such a story, it wasn’t too hard to whip up a fury strong enough to leave a man hanging from a tree. The “rape propaganda” was necessary to garner the emotions necessary to press the real, dark, agenda.
Al Sharpton took a page out of the old South’s playbook and brought us Tawana Brawley, who accused six white men of raping her. The story of white on black crime resonated, and it helped to promote a social justice agenda, but Tawana Brawley was no more a rape victim than two white women in Scottsboro, Alabama, who falsely accused nine black teenagers more than 80 years ago.
What do these stories have in common? Someone had an agenda, and they knew that a rape story would put it on a rocket powered toboggan.
And, therein lies the origin of today’s “rape culture” frenzy. This is not to say that there are not unreported and unprosecuted sexual assaults. I have dear friends who suffered such injustice, and I believe their stories with every drop of blood in my body. I’ll bet that nearly everyone knows someone who has a verifiably true story. But, is that really “rape culture?” What does that silly phrase mean? It means the same thing as Jim Crow stories of rape meant. It means the same thing that Tawana Brawley meant. It means that someone has an agenda, and they want to harness the emotional power of rape to promote it.
This brings us to the University of Virginia. When Sabrina Erdely’s Rolling Stone story about a gang rape in a UVA frat house hit the presses, it went viral. Why? It was like a horror movie. I’ll admit that when I read it, my own prejudices rose up, and I believed “Jackie” (the victim in the story). I thought of my friends who had been harmed and couldn’t even begin to doubt that “Jackie” was telling the truth.
Why wouldn’t I believe her? The antagonists were a bunch of over-privileged white fraternity jerks from UVA, it seemed. The victim was yet another young woman who had had justice withheld. The story confirmed what I wanted to believe: that the elite run roughshod over the rest of us. It proved so much, and I “knew” which side was right. And it confirmed the bias of left-wing academics who have collectively decided that the “war on boys” must have more victims, because everything with a penis is a rapist.
As the story burned, cries of “rape culture” started to sound less like fairy tales and more like factual reports. All of a sudden, embattled sexual harassment policies on college campuses started to look good, perhaps unquestionable.
Opinion: UVA story always had ‘red flags’
Rolling Stone: Our trust was misplaced
Allegations of rape at UVA
These policies that have been attacked by those who still believe in that quaint notion known as due process, and the tide started to turn. The Boston Globe recently ran the story of Patrick Whitt, who found himself falsely accused, and immediately judged guilty by mere suspicion.
But then we had Jackie. Rape culture was real, after all!
And then someone dared to question the story. Even I was aghast. How could he? This account was not published in some rag — this was Rolling Stone, a publication of editorial ethics. Some schools of feminist thought consider questioning a victim to be utterly taboo. If she said it, then it must be true. Such is the mentality of those who would lynch Atticus Finch, or at least call for his disbarment, if he were practicing in modern day America.
“Jackie” may not be Mayella Ewell, “Mockingbird’s” faux victim. I wasn’t there in that UVA frat house. But Jackie supposedly was. Nevertheless, the “journalist” who brought us the story has now been revealed to have been, at least, lazy and willfully blind to the holes in Jackie’s story. She claims that she never asked the men in the story for their account of events because of an agreement with Jackie.
And therein lie so many problems.
This is the kind of “believe the victim” mentality that is so darkly infecting academia. “Presumed guilty” is the new standard. Patrick Whitt is the new Tom Robinson, the black man accused of the rape in “To Kill a Mockingbird.” Due process loses, ethics are out the window, because there is an agenda, and it needs the fuel of a rape story.
And who loses?
The casualty list is still being compiled. Terrible journalism or not, maybe Jackie was telling the truth. Maybe she was lying. If she was lying, the UVA Greek system already paid a terrible price. If she was telling the truth, she won’t ever be believed now. Why? Because Sabrina Erdely was so utterly void of journalistic ethics that she committed “journalistic malpractice.” Because now, nobody will believe Jackie.
And after Erdely’s lazy journalism, the next girl who reports a rape might find it to be that much more difficult to get to justice.
I don’t know what Erdely’s agenda was, but it wasn’t responsible journalism. Responsible journalism is hard. It isn’t public relations. A responsible journalist digs for the truth, she doesn’t just take her subject’s agenda and run with it. That isn’t journalism, that’s “gossip,” and like all gossip, it doesn’t do anything positive for anyone.
The Georgia-based military defense attorney becomes one of the newest members to be inducted into the ABCL, a highly selective honor society for accomplished criminal defense lawyers throughout the United States.
The ABCL is an exclusive, invitation-only society comprised of 200 accomplished criminal defense lawyers from the United States. Members are admitted based on recommendations from current Fellows, their felony trial experience, and reputation within the legal community. Attorneys must have at least 10 years of criminal trial experience and have won at least 35 major felony cases to be considered for admission.
Fellowship in the ABCL joins a long list of accolades Waddington has accumulated over the years. Just earlier this year, he was listed in ‘Super Lawyers: Rising Stars,’ a list of the top 2.5% of lawyers in the State of Georgia, and also in the ‘Top 100 Trial Lawyers in the USA’ by The National Trial Lawyers Association.
Mr. Waddington defends serious criminal cases worldwide. Some of his high profile cases have been reported on by major media outlets including CNN, The Rolling Stone, The New York Times, NPR, The New Yorker, Time, ABC Nightline, Good Morning America, the BBC and have been the subject of books and movies.
“Michael’s achievements are not only a sound testament of his professional aptitude as an attorney, but also of his character and repute among his peers and the legal community,” said Timothy Bilecki, Managing Partner at The Bilecki Law Group, LLLC.
For more information about the American Board of Criminal Lawyers (ABCL), visit: http://www.abcl.us
About Gonzalez & Waddington, LLC:
Mr. Waddington defends serious criminal cases worldwide. Michael Waddington is a criminal defense lawyer defending service members worldwide at court martial and administrative separation boards. He has successfully defended military personnel in Europe, the Middle East (Iraq, Kuwait), Central Asia (Afghanistan), the Pacific (Yongsan Korea, Camp Casey Korea, Okinawa Japan, Yokota Japan), and throughout the United States. Mr. Waddington has been involved in some of the most high profile cases arising from the War on Terror.
Naval Academy Rape Court Martial: Admiral must testify as to why he sent this sex assault case to court martial
This is an interesting development in the Naval Academy rape court martials. The Admiral that pushed the cases forward to trial, against the recommendation of the Article 32 investigating officer, will be forced to explain his decisions to a Military Judge. One issue in this case is whether unlawful command influence (UCI) exists. No doubt the Admiral will be well coached by the prosecutors on how to properly answer the UCI questions at trial and I anticipate that the Military Judge will find that no unlawful command influence exists.
A military judge Thursday ordered the superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy to appear in court next month to answer questions about his decision to put two former Navy football players on trial for an alleged rape.
Putting Vice Adm. Michael H. Miller on the stand is an unusual move that reflects the charged environment over commanders’ handling of sexual assault cases, military law experts said.
Miller has been under intense pressure ever since he charged three former players — Joshua Tate, of Nashville, Tra’ves Bush of Johnson, S.C., and Eric Graham of Eight Mile, Ala. — with the sexual assault of a female midshipman at an April 2012 off-campus party. The alleged victim told investigators that she was drinking heavily that night and remembered little of what happened.
The case quickly attracted national attention amid congressional efforts to overhaul the military’s handling of sexual assault cases. Next week, the Senate is expected to vote on a comprehensive defense policy bill that includes nearly two dozen provisions on sexual assault in the military.
The bill would strip commanders of the power to overturn jury convictions, require civilian review of assault cases that commanders refuse to prosecute, and ensure that anyone convicted of sexual assault would face a dishonorable discharge or dismissal. And it would change the military’s version of a preliminary hearing, known as an Article 32 proceeding, to limit intrusive questioning of victims.
Academy superintendent to oversee use of cadets as informants
By Jeff Schogol Air Force Times Staff writer
Dec. 5, 2013
Air Force Academy Superintendent Lt. Gen. Michelle Johnson will now exercise oversight of the confidential informant program at the academy following a media report alleging that cadets have been victimized by investigators.
She will be aware of the operations, but the Office of Special Investigations will still have command and control of the program, an academy spokesman said.
A former cadet recently told a Colorado newspaper that he was recruited as an informant for the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, told to break the rules to gather evidence of cadet misconduct and then abandoned by OSI when he was no longer of any use to them. Eric Thomas was expelled from the academy, as had been at least one other informant who later spoke to the paper.
Thomas told the Colorado Springs Gazette that he was recruited as a confidential informant in 2010 after being questioned by an OSI agent about attending a party at which cadets used synthetic marijuana. He signed a non-disclosure agreement and was told to go to parties and befriend troublemakers.
Thomas told the newspaper his chain of command was unaware of his role with OSI, so he developed a bad reputation by hanging out with the wrong people. Things came to a head when he was told to track a cadet who had been accused of sexual assault. After attending a party with the cadet, the two got into a fight when Thomas moved to protect a woman he believed the cadet was trying to sexually assault after she had passed out.
OSI did nothing when a discipline board recommended expelling Thomas over the incident, the newspaper reported. In fact, he was told to keep going to parties even though he was restricted to base. Despite playing a pivotal role in investigations, OSI kept quiet about why Thomas was breaking the rules, and eventually Thomas was kicked out of the academy…….
See the full article here https://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20131205/NEWS/312050017/Academy-superintendent-oversee-use-cadets-informantshttps:
/ March 21, 2016 May 9, 2021 / Cases / 2 minutes of reading
U.S. v. Marine O-3 – Marine Forces Reserve, Naval Support Activity, New Orleans, LA – A married female Marine officer accused our client of rape. Our client took and passed two polygraphs. The alleged “victim” did not take a polygraph.
Basically, the female officer cheated on her husband with our client and lied to cover up the affair. The alleged victim had a history of lying and adultery. Because NCIS wants convictions, regardless of the truth, they ignored key evidence and failed to collect evidence that proved our client’s innocence. They also disregarded the two polygraphs.
Mr. Waddington and Capt David Segraves aggressively fought the allegations at Article 32. The NCIS agent was exposed as incompetent and corrupt. The Article 32 officer determined that our client was innocent of rape. The NCIS agent became angry after Article 32. He then launched a personal vendetta against our client, contacted his civilian employer and tried to get our client fired by claiming he was a rapist.
Luckily, we had the two polygraphs and the result from Article 32.
In the end, the rape charges were dropped and our client pled guilty to adultery (the alleged victim was married, not our client) and conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman. As a reward, the alleged victim was given protected “Victim Status” and continues to serve as a Marine Officer. She was never disciplined for adultery or for lying.
Result: ALL SEX CHARGES dropped. The case was sent to a Special Court – Misdemeanor Level – for Adultery and Conduct Unbecoming
Sentence: NO sex offender registration, NO felony conviction, NO jail time, Restriction for 60 days, Forfeitures
/ March 21, 2013 May 1, 2021 / Cases / 2 minutes of reading
U.S. v. Army E-8 – SOUTHCOM, Miami, El Salvador, Fort Sam Houston, TX – Client was a Special Forces soldier accused of violently raping and sodomizing a Salvadoran housekeeper. There was allegedly physical evidence, DNA evidence and numerous eyewitnesses that supported the claim. The El Salvadoran Government wanted our client in jail. To appease the Salvadorans, the American Government spared no expense to win this case. It became an international incident between the US & Salvadorans and Not Guilty was not an option for the US Government.
However, our client took and passed a polygraph and provided evidence to prove his innocence to the US Government. SOUTHCOM disregarded all of his evidence and suppressed it at trial. They wanted to make an example out of this soldier and gain favor with El Salvador by sacrificing one of their own (regardless of his innocence).
To gain an upper hand, the prosecution denied almost all defense witnesses. However, they flew up numerous Salvadoran witnesses and several American witnesses to testify against our client. They also brought a Salvadoran doctor who tested that there was overwhelming physical evidence to prove rape.
To further stack the deck, the Army appointed one of the top Special Victim Prosecutors (SVP) in the Army. Then, they brought in a nationally known civilian prosecutor and expert in sexual assault prosecutions (similar to Nancy Grace) to work with the prosecution and get a conviction.
Mr. Waddington and Capt Dustin Murphy, along with legendary DNA expert, Dean Wideman, mounted a defense for our client with limited resources. We proved that the alleged victim was a hustler and liar, her husband most likely raped her, and that the DNA evidence proved our client’s innocence.
/ March 21, 2013 March 28, 2021 / Cases / 1 minute of reading
Client accused of sexually assaulting a male subordinate soldier. The “victim” claimed to be straight and alleged that our client repeatedly sexually abused and assaulted him. The prosecution portrayed our client as a gay sexual predator. Our client claimed that it was the victim that was harassing and assaulting him.
Mr. Waddington, without military co-counsel, fought the charges at the Article 32 hearing. We were warned that the case was “going forward to trial regardless of what the Article 32 officer recommended.” Undaunted, Mr. Waddington proceeded to fight the charges at Article 32 and confronted the alleged “victim” with devastating text messages and gay porn images that the “victim” took of himself and sent to our client. The lying “victim” thought the images no longer existed because our client’s phone was destroyed. The images were forensically recovered by a private lab for use in defense of our client. At first, the victim denied the images and then, when confronted, he claimed they were taken and sent “by accident.” Another lying Government “victim” was exposed.