Marine veteran faces hearing on discharge status for wearing uniform at protest rally

Originally posted by zeeon
Here comes the beginning of the dissmal of our 1st amendment rights.

Huh? Since when is Military Law comped by civilian liberties? Oh I get it, when it serves the purpose of those who choose to defy it. I suppose the contract and your signature isn’t relevent either. Oh wait! Maybe it is if you want to cash in on your G.I. Bill, Veteran Benefits, Retirement Package, Burial Plot/Funeral Costs, Credit Union Membership, and VA Loans.

As a Veteran and Active duty military

IMPOSSIBLE!!!! You absolutely CANNOT be a Veteran and Active Duty at the same time. But then, you should know this. Dude, I’m not saying that you aren’t in the military. You may just be a product of your training and education. You’re Navy, right? Be sure to take advantage of your career resource center prior to your departure, you’ll need it.

I am SHOCKED that some officer has the balls to try and take away this Marines earned Honorable Discharge and infringe on his earned rights of freedom of speech and peaceful assembly.

I don’t believe that his ‘freedom of speech’ rights were ever an issue (although I STRONGLY believe they should be, given he is still a Marine and bound by the contract he signed) .

Part of his eight year contract requires him to remain in possesion of, and maintain, his service uniform, his military Identification Card, and notify the service if he changes his address.

BTW, eight years is the norm for USMC. Army used to be six and I know the Navy had a few different options. The soldier chooses how to serve those eight (six, etc.) years in his contractural obligation. His contract has many, many different components (but, you should know this) depending on his ASVAB scores, education, and other misc. factors.

FWIW, my DH served four of his eight years active. The other four, he worked 'active reserve' while attending college full time. I'm proud to say that one year he was awarded "USMC Reservist of the Year". So, for four years, he worked 3 days a week during school semesters and full time during school breaks.

The very day his eight year term ended, he was 100% finished with his contractural obligation. No Ready Reserve, no more obligation. In fact he worked 10 hours, in uniform, the day before his EOS (EOS, being his EIGHT YEAR OBLIGATION end date).

However a Marine, or other service member, chooses to carry out his eight year contract is up to him. Eight years is eight years, not seven years and nine months.

Once a party to an agreement breaks said agreement (or nulls the agreement by not completing his portion), the agreement is no longer valid. The agreement can then be renegotiated or cancelled. I don't see the big deal here. This guy voided his portion of the contract, making the contract null. Whether the USMC decides to renew the contract or institute a new contract is entirely their choice, since they are not the party that broke it.

Whether they choose to renew, or enter into a new contract, with the soldier may be up for moral debate; but certainly isn't a legal debate or issue. The military court/Judge that is allowing this soldier to even have a hearing is certainly not a requirement, rather a gift. He should embrace it, but as history as shown, he'll rebel nonetheless.

BTW, 'Other Than Honorable' isn't the same as a soldier who gets discharge with a drug felony. That'll be 'Dishonorable'. Also, 'OTH' is only temporary and can be appealed after a certain amount of time. Ask John Kerry how that's done.


Hey, Shots! Where are you?

[edit on 2-6-2007 by SourGrapes]

What is it you guys don't get about

The Marine Corps is investigating whether Kokesh might have violated a rule prohibiting troops from wearing uniforms without authorization. Kokesh was honorably discharged following a combat tour in Iraq, but he remains part of the Individual Ready Reserve, a pool of former active duty service members in unpaid, non-drill status.

WAS (past tense for all you geniuses out there) HONORABLY DISCHARGED.

SourGrapes, the drilling reserves are not the same as the inactive reserves.
Secondly how can you not being a veteran and active duty?
A Veteran is not just an old man who served in a foriegn war. It's anyone, active duty or not, who has served in the military during a war, etc.

Secondly, I'm getting really sick of the character assassinitation - all because I'm defending someone. You guys keep spouting the same crap all the time - you keep pretending that he was STILL under active duty obligations - THE FACT OF THE MATTER is that he was in-active reserve - non drilling, non training, non paid, status - and I SERIOUSLY doubt the UCMJ has legal jurisidiction here.

Muaddib took the time to post multiple articles about uniform violations. If I remember correctly - didn't they either go to NJP or Court Martial?
How come that is not happening to our Marine? Because THEY CANT. He's DISCHARGED, HONORABLY. Changing that is the only thing they can do.

And All you active duty military should freaking know that you can get your discharged changed after being discharged OTH / General / Dishonorable (people who get kicked out for drugs, other things). So it's not impossible for a panel to change someone's discharge negatively also.


[edit on 2-6-2007 by zeeon]

Originally posted by zeeon
I have provided you with proof that the DOD doesn't have legal jurisidction over this former Marine (on the basis that he is inactive reserves).

See right there you are wrong; you have not furnished any proof regarding the wearing of the uniform you tried to use another Reg to make a wrong point. In addition, he is not a former marine yet and would not have been one until the middle of June, therefore he is bound by all rules and regulations of the UCMJ. Grady furnished the appropriate regulations that apply here and you can only interpret them one-way, he was wrong by wearing the uniform at a political function. While not as important is the fact while wearing that uniform he still did not wear it properly therefore he was wrong two ways he was out of uniform and using it improperly at the same time.

I'm seriously surprised that most of you (especially those who did a 10 second lookup on google, posted a part of a UCMJ that they most likely don't even understand, then recieved 5 star rating for their post!) wouldn't (and don't) take the time to do some real research for this obvious injustice.

lol that is a good one. Hey Grady and other Ex military personnel (myself include) throw all your military service and expertise out the window.
Seems we now have a self appointed (guardhouse lawyer) who thinks he is an expert on the UCMJ, yet it is very clear he knows nothing about what he is talking., I mean come on you do not use a regulation pertaining to another subject to prove a point, you have to use the regulation that pertains in this case uniforms (Thanks Grady Good Job you did) tis he who did the ten minute stint on google guys.


Oh and to the original poster they do not need to court martial him, he could be given an article 15 hearing and change his type of discharge .

Persons facing an OTH discharge are guaranteed, by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the right to be tried by court-martial, however, many choose administrative discharge rather than face the possibility of a court-martial conviction (and thus the stigma of the Bad Conduct Discharge that often follows)

Source

[edit on 6/2/2007 by shots]

Originally posted by zeeon


The Marine Corps is investigating whether Kokesh might have violated a rule prohibiting troops from wearing uniforms without authorization. Kokesh was honorably discharged following a combat tour in Iraq, but he remains part of the Individual Ready Reserve, a pool of former active duty service members in unpaid, non-drill status.

WAS (past tense for all you geniuses out there) HONORABLY DISCHARGED.

Buzz wrong answer again. Yes he was discharged but he had not fulfilled his complete militray obligation of 8 years so he was still in the militray just not on active duty therefore still subject to the UCMJ.

Odd you are trying to pick on some of the hardened ATS members here like Sour Grapes and I think you also took a dig at Grady both Marines no less not me though I flew a desk for the AF training combat crews.

Originally posted by zeeon
What is it you guys don't get about

The Marine Corps is investigating whether Kokesh might have violated a rule prohibiting troops from wearing uniforms without authorization. Kokesh was honorably discharged following a combat tour in Iraq, but he remains part of the Individual Ready Reserve, a pool of former active duty service members in unpaid, non-drill status.

WAS (past tense for all you geniuses out there) HONORABLY DISCHARGED.

Great, then the discussion is over. since he's served his contract. Oh wait, he hasn't completed his service.

Whether he was given any type of discharge is irrelevant, provided he is STILL in the military.

SourGrapes, the drilling reserves are not the same as the inactive reserves.
Secondly how can you not being a veteran and active duty?

I guess I wasn't clear in my prior post.

Yes, I am aware that active and inactive reserves are different. My point is that my DH signed up for eight years in the USMC, just as the soldier in this particular discussion. The way a soldier CHOOSES to complete his eight years is up to him and his command. The soldier in the article CHOSE to be inactive (Ready Reserve) for the remainder of his eight year term. My DH, OTH, worked on and off for the Reserve unit during his last four years. This isn't to say that he was 'drilling' reserve. He wasn't. Sometimes he worked for 6 weeks straight, at 40 hours per week. Sometimes, he didn't work at all for months. No weekend duty, no reporting. Anyone can do it, provided they are Ready Reaserve eligible and there's an open billet to fill.

Eight years is eight years, whether the organization (USMC in this case) chooses to give the 'contractor (soldier) unpaid leave. Basically that's what this is, 'unpaid leave'.

Had this whole scenario happened on June 19th, he'd be in the clear. June 19th and he is a full-fledged civilian.

A Veteran is not just an old man who served in a foriegn war. It's anyone, active duty or not, who has served in the military during a war, etc.

A Veteran is ANYONE who's successfully completed their military service contractural term and was honorably discharged or retired. Whether we are at war during the soldiers' dates of service isn't a factor in the definition of a veteran.

Secondly, I'm getting really sick of the character assassinitation - all because I'm defending someone. You guys keep spouting the same crap all the time - you keep pretending that he was STILL under active duty obligations - THE FACT OF THE MATTER is that he was in-active reserve - non drilling, non training, non paid, status - and I SERIOUSLY doubt the UCMJ has legal jurisidiction here.

I think you're taking this whole debate waaaay to personal. You're not defending the guy, you are trying to persuade others to your conclusion. We are mearly debating a few points. Many of these 'points' are fact and not aguable.

Fact: He was not Active military (we agree on this one) and isn't held to the same rules and regulations of an active duty member
Fact: He is Ready Reserve until June 18th, so he IS held to the same rules and regulations as every soldier that is in the IRR)

Muaddib took the time to post multiple articles about uniform violations. If I remember correctly - didn't they either go to NJP or Court Martial?
How come that is not happening to our Marine? Because THEY CANT. He's DISCHARGED, HONORABLY. Changing that is the only thing they can do.

I do have a question about the uniform. I know the USMC does not wear the flag and other insignia on their utilities, like the other services. However, do they wear the USMC and Name badges over their pockets while in Iraq? I thought they kept names, ranks, etc. off their uniforms when at war.

And All you active duty military should freaking know that you can get your discharged changed after being discharged OTH / General / Dishonorable (people who get kicked out for drugs, other things). So it's not impossible for a panel to change someone's discharge negatively also.

We are in total agreement on this one.

I'm still unsure about the whole 'discharge' thing. Whether they get it at the end of active service, or the end of their contractrual service. I suppose a DD214 is required when becoming 'inactive'. Either way, just because a soldier has been 'discharged' from active duty doesn't mean he's been discharged from the service (contract).


FWIW:

www.blackfive.net...

When you sign a contract to enlist or get a commission, it is generally for EIGHT years. You perform four years of Active Duy, then you have four left in the Reserves or National Guard. The branch of the Reserves and National Guard that does not have soldiers perform monthly or annual training is the Individual Ready Reserve. It's usually where the dead weight is put - where those who don't add value are placed to finish out their obligation. For instance, if you had a work conflict with your Reserve committment, you would be placed in the IRR to finish out your committment. If you were consistently absent from the monthly weekend training, you would get placed in the IRR.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by zeeon]

check this WashPost story

www.washingtonpost.com...

"VFW Backs Vet in trouble over Protest"

.... a Marine Corps spokesman, said Kokesh
is under administrative review because
he wore his uniform at a political event,
which is prohibited.

now we ask Why is he being singled out when there were others
in their military uniforms participating in the street theater, mock engagement, that was a small part of the war protest event...

We come back to what i pointed out in an earlier post/reply

Kokesh brought it upon himself,
when he told a senior officer to (explative here)
Kokesh also told the officer he would not comply with the rules/regulations.

read the link & you'll read that;

another Marine who was in uniform along with Kokesh,
got a call from the same senior officer & told that wearing uniforms
at that event was a violation,,,, That Marine said he was unaware of
breaking rules & would not do it again.
That Marine has not been called to an administrative hearing


Kokesh decide himself to become the lightning-rod

i think crap like that is idiotic. its just some dumbass officer with a beef against him trying to stir the pot so to speak. when i was 18 i lived in havelock north carolina right beside cherry point naval air station .during the summer i was pumping gas in fatigues i picked up at a military suplus shop in town a dumb ass officer come over too me telling me he was gonna put me on report for being in public in my work clothes i told him to get f@3ed he called mps they quickly informed him next time make sure not to harass civilans.

1) Unlike other services, Marines are restricted from wearing cammies in public, off base or in the DC area. There are a few exceptions, recruiting drives, community service, Marine Corps Marathon, etc. Marines are not even supposed to stop for gas off base while in unifrom unless it's an emergency.

2) A unifrom is a uniform wether is has insignia on it or not. And until your obligation (contract) is fullfilled, you must follow the UCMJ and all Marine Corps Orders pertaining to the proper wear of uniforms.

3) I agree that a DH may be a bit overboard, I seriosuly doubt that it will come to that. Either way he still should be held accountable for his actions.

Sporty

Originally posted by proteus33
when i was 18 i lived in havelock north carolina right beside cherry point naval air station .during the summer i was pumping gas in fatigues i picked up at a military suplus shop in town a dumb ass officer come over too me telling me he was gonna put me on report for being in public in my work clothes i told him to get f@3ed he called mps they quickly informed him next time make sure not to harass civilans.

I hope you realize you just proved the officers point. Even you as a civilian were advised it was wrong, granted the officer did not know you had purchased them at a surplus store, yet he still followed military protocol. Now knowing that, did that officer have a beef against you? No of course, not he was just following and enforcing the UCMJ as is this officer.

In an attempt to end the bickering and debating, I present before you proof that this Marine, Kokesh, was not subject to the UCMJ when he protested in uniform during an anti-war protest.
Hopefully the references cited here will be enough to prove to my fellow ATS'rs that this attempt to change Kokesh's discharge to other than honorable by the Marine Corp is a simple act of vengence, and they are attempting to squash other Military veterans from excersing their rights of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of expression.

What are the obligations of IRR Members?

Members of the IRR need to be immediately available for mobilization. Upon activation, members have between 5 and 15 days’ notice to report for active duty. In addition, all IRR members are required to participate in their branch of service’s annual screening process. Also, according to regulation, all members may be required to serve up to 30
days of active duty (AD) each year.

When are IRR members subject to the UCMJ?

Members of the IRR are only subject to the UCMJ under the following circumstances:
• If called to active duty (AD). In the Navy, and potentially in other
branches as well, this means that from the moment one leaves home,
enroute to report for active duty, one is subject to the UCMJ.
• While on inactive duty training (IDT), including muster duty.
• If made the subject of Article 15 or Article 30 proceedings, and called to
active duty for the purpose of dealing with these proceedings (e.g. trial by
court-martial).

Information on IRR

The Marine Corp are under the Department of the Navy (incase anyone didn't know)
So by this you are NOT subject to the UCMJ until one leaves home, ordered to report for active duty.
What about him being called back to active duty to stand charges? Lets Find out -

802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER

(d)(1) A member of a reserve component who is not on active duty and who is made the subject of proceedings under section 815 (article 15) or section 830 (article 30) with respect to an offense against this chapter may be ordered to active duty involuntary for the purpose of-

Article 15 and Article 30 are Non-Judicial Punishment and Formal Charges. Article 32 is Courts Martial Investigation.
Article 2 Continued -

(A) investigation under section 832 of this title (article 32);
(B) trial by court-martial; or
(C) non judicial punishment under section 815 of this title (article 15).
(2) A member of a reserve component may not be ordered to active duty under paragraph (1) except with respect to an offense committed while the member was
(A) on active duty; or
(B) on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal service.

UCMJ

It was stated by the Media, and as far as any of us know, he was in a non duty, non-training, unpaid inactive status. So he was not in an inactive-duty training. Training would indicate drilling / mustering / etc.

So he can't be ordered to Active Duty. Since Kokesh was not in an inactive-duty training status he can't be -

1. Under the Jurisdiction of the UCMJ unless under active duty orders (or travel orders) For an Example of this refer to Jurisidction of the UCMJ In Regards to Reservists
   
2. Ordered to Active Duty *EDIT*: to face charges or violations (he can still be ordered back for regular active duty)
   
3. Can't be subject to Courts Martial because the offense was not comitted while in an active duty, fleet reserve (or active reserve), retiree, or inactive-duty training status. This is observed by the fact that he is not officially being charged with an offense.
   

And, even though he is in the IRR, he still was issued an Honorable Discharge - if you want proof I will provide this, but this should be common sense by now.

This leads me to my ORIGINAL topic of - this is the DOD doing anything they can to punish this *INNOCENT* Marine of using his earned right of Freedom of Speech and Expression.

If this is not *PROOF* Enough, then none of you naysayers will be satisfied. This is denying ignorance. I have done my homework - have you?



[edit on 2-6-2007 by zeeon]

[edit on 2-6-2007 by zeeon]

Originally posted by zeeon

When are IRR members subject to the UCMJ?

Members of the IRR are only subject to the UCMJ under the following circumstances:
• If called to active duty (AD). In the Navy, and potentially in other
branches as well, this means that from the moment one leaves home,
enroute to report for active duty, one is subject to the UCMJ.
• While on inactive duty training (IDT), including muster duty.
• If made the subject of Article 15 or Article 30 proceedings, and called to
active duty for the purpose of dealing with these proceedings (e.g. trial by
court-martial).

Information on IRR

Do you always post the material that shoots your own theory to haties? Again you posted only the section you thought applied when in fact the one I higlighted applies he is being recalled to active duty for the hearing as I understand it ergo he is subject to the UCMJ.

[edit on 6/2/2007 by shots]

If you would have read, and understood my entire post, you would know they can't recall him to active duty to stand charges. They can't charge him because he wasn't in an active duty or inactive-duty training status. "Ergo" they can't call him back to active duty for that reason -
Read -

So he can't be ordered to Active Duty. Since Kokesh was not in an inactive-duty training status he can't be -

Under the Jurisdiction of the UCMJ unless under active duty orders (or travel orders) For an Example of this refer to Jurisidction of the UCMJ In Regards to Reservists

Ordered to Active Duty *EDIT*: to face charges or violations (he can still be ordered back for regular active duty)

Can't be subject to Courts Martial because the offense was not comitted while in an active duty, fleet reserve (or active reserve), retiree, or inactive-duty training status. This is observed by the fact that he is not officially being charged with an offense.

(2) A member of a reserve component may not be ordered to active duty under paragraph (1) except with respect to an offense committed while the member was (B) on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal service.

Try reading my whole post before trying to shoot me down. Nice try.

EDIT: To clarify the purpose of the Article 15 and 30 is at some point, if a servicemember is on inactive duty, and it is later found out that in an active duty, or inactive-duty training status, he committed an offence, he can be recalled to stand charges. This is because the charge was committed in an active duty, or inactive-duty training status.

The point I'm making is that they can't do that because Kokesh was neither of those status's.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by zeeon]

Originally posted by zeeon
Try reading my whole post before trying to shoot me down. Nice try.

Oh I already did read it only you see I think I am understanding it while you refuse to get it.

Now if he is not subject to the UCMJ why is he attending the hearing on Monday in Kansas?

Use some common sense he must have a lawyer. Now assuming he has a lawyer why would he attend a hearing if he was not required to do so?

Now you can argue until doomsday but that will not change the fact he is attending the hearing on Monday that alone speaks volumes.
I mean if he is so sure he is not covered by the UCMJ why didn't he just tell them to go to hell? Oh wait he can not do that

Because he has not fulfilled is military obligation of 8 years.

[edit on 6/2/2007 by shots]

Originally posted by SportyMB
2) A unifrom is a uniform wether is has insignia on it or not. And until your obligation (contract) is fullfilled, you must follow the UCMJ and all Marine Corps Orders pertaining to the proper wear of uniforms.

No offence mate and I'm not taking sides in this but....I've always been taught that if you'r missing atleast one piece of uniform your out of it. Ie headgear, badges, buttons, boots, etc. If he removed his badges then surely he's not in rig and as such should be charged for being inproperly dressed....right? Or is my understanding to vague?

Originally posted by shots
Oh I already did read it only you see I think I am understanding it while you refuse to get it.

Now if he is not subject to the UCMJ why is he attending the hearing on Monday in Kansas?

Use some common sense he must have a lawyer. Now assuming he has a lawyer why would he attend a hearing if he was not required to do so?

Now you can argue until doomsday but that will not change the fact he is attending the hearing on Monday that alone speaks volumes.
I mean if he is so sure he is not covered by the UCMJ why didn't he just tell them to go to hell? Oh wait he can not do that Because he has not fulfilled is military obligation of 8 years.

[edit on 6/2/2007 by shots]

He's not going to Courts Martial or NJP "bro". He's going to a panel of advisors, that decide wether or not to change his discharge. THE PANEL IS NOT NJP OR COURTS MARTIAL. NO CHARGES HAVE BEEN FILED, BECAUSE THEY CANT FILE CHARGES.

The only thing they can do is change his discharge. Did you know, that if you get kicked out for using drugs, and recieve an admin, or OTH, you can request to have it changed to honorable after a certain amount of time? It may or may not happen, but you can request it. That act, and the panel Kokesh is attending are one and the same.

The lawyer is a civilian lawyer btw. Not JAG Lawyer. Why? Because it's not NJP or Courts Martial ! OMG!

And you call ME the Guardhouse Lawyer? Take alook in the mirror. Now who's reaching? Your the one refusing to admit you were wrong.

ADD: Oh yeah, and as a matter of fact, he did tell someone to go to hell. The officer who questioned him on it.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by zeeon]

Originally posted by zeeon
He's not going to Courts Martial or NJP "bro". He's going to a panel of advisors, that decide wether or not to change his discharge. THE PANEL IS NOT NJP OR COURTS MARTIAL.

How do you know what kind of panel it is? Read your own source article it states a Military Panel.

Now unless they have changed things which I doubt; he either gets a court Martial or can if he choose to elect trail by an adminstravie panel. Article 15 or 30 might be a 32 hearing but do not think so in this case.. Note the use of the term panel the article does not state court martial it clearly saates panel and that is exactly what the source article calls it a miltary Panel.

And again I ask you if he is so sure the military can not touch him why is he even going to Kansas?

I also do not know why you brought up JAG since he has hired his own private attorney as he is allowed.

Maybe we are miscommunicating here.

I understand he is still under a military obligation. That obligation is under the IRR. Under the IRR, and in his current status, he is not subject to the UCMJ. That is what I'm saying.

Because he under military obligation, the only thing the Marine Corp / DOD can do is change his discharge status.

This is what I'm saying is f'd up. If he didn't fall under the UCMJ, then he's not guilty of anything and doesn't deserve an OTH.

Does that help to clairfy things?

ADD: I understand the administrative panel (or advisors as I've seen it written by the media) has the power to change his discharge, and this is what i'm saying is messed. It's all because he made the marine corp look bad - not because he broke the UCMJ.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by zeeon]

Originally posted by zeeon
I understand he is still under a military obligation. That obligation is under the IRR. Under the IRR, and in his current status, he is not subject to the UCMJ. That is what I'm saying.

But he is subject to the UCMJ as long as he HAS NOT FUFILLED HIS MILITARY Oblication that is what you refuse to understand.

Up until the time they give him his final discharge (that is when he no longer can be recalled i.e. when he has completed his full contract term the military can charge him because the bottom line here is he is still in the reserves which fall under miliary control.

Originally posted by zeeon


Because he under military obligation, the only thing the Marine Corp / DOD can do is change his discharge status.

[ If he didn't fall under the UCMJ, then he's not guilty of anything and doesn't deserve an OTH. ]

this is what the "Administrative Hearing" is for

a 'committee' or 'tribunal' acting under the Authority of the UCMJ
will review the circumstances & figure out an interpetation of his
status, offense, his declaration of refusal to comply with regulations.
(which implies he knew, at least after the fact, that he was acting in
contempt & disregard of Marine policy)



the 'Administrative Hearing" could act in the extreme
and downgrade the character of his period of service
to an (Administrative Discharge) General or General under Honorable conditions...


But , another factor to consider is that the Administrative Hearing
could change his ~ReEnlistment Code~ (an 'RE' Number found on DD-214)
so that he may never again serve in any branch of military, or by a
screening process...be culled from any jobs in law enforcement or requiring secuity clearances for the rest of his life.

The discharge itself is just half the equasion, the RE Code carries a lot of
info too.


thanks,

*** Unless I don't have all the correct / acurate information pertaining to Kokesh's actual status (I've been going off of media reports for information pertaining to Kokesh ) then I don't see how they can do anything but alter his discharge. ***

I'm not retracting anything I've posted yet - but time will tell I guess. I'm curious to see how this plays out.

I for one am steadfast in my belief, that given the information presented on the web by the media regarding Kokesh, that nothing will happen to him, based on the research i've done.



[edit on 2-6-2007 by zeeon]