802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER (a) The following persons are subject to this chapter: (1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it. (2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipman. (3) Members of a reserve component while 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. (4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay. (5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force. (6) Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve. (7) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial. (8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces. (9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces. (10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field. (11) Subject to any treaty or agreement which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. (12) Subject to any treaty or agreement t which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons within an area leased by or otherwise reserved or acquired for use of the United States which is under the control of the Secretary concerned and which is outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. (b) The voluntary enlistment of any person who has the capacity to understand the significance of enlisting in the armed forces shall be valid for purposes of jurisdiction under subsection (a) and change of status from civilian to member of the armed forces shall be effective upon the taking of the oath of enlistment. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person serving with an armed force who-- (1) Submitted voluntarily to military authority; (2) met the mental competence and minimum age qualifications of sections 504 and 505 of this title at the time of voluntary submissions to military authority: (3) received military pay or allowances; and (4) performed military duties: is subject to this chapter until such person's active service has been terminated in accordance with law or regulations promulgated by the Secretary concerned. (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- (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. (3) Authority to order a member to active duty under paragraph (1) shall be exercised under regulations prescribed by the President. (4) A member may be ordered to active duty under paragraph (1) only by a person empowered to convene general courts-martial in a regular component of the armed forces. (5) A member ordered to active duty under paragraph (1), unless the order to active duty was approved by the Secretary concerned, may not-- (A) be sentenced to confinement; or (B) be required to serve a punishment of any restriction on liberty during a period other than a period of inactive-duty training or active duty (other than active duty ordered under paragraph (1)).
-----Original Message----- From: LRS Scout [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 12:15 PM To: cf-community Subject: RE: DUI Checkpoint Refusal And it uses hospitalization but the va looks at any treatment as such. On Jul 8, 2013 1:13 PM, "LRS Scout" <[email protected]> wrote: > You get a retired Id card at anything over 30% to use the px and get > on base. You're using the va so you're pretty much nailed no matter what man. > On Jul 8, 2013 1:10 PM, "LRS Scout" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I just did >> >> Retired from active component or retired from reserve component >> seeking treatment >> >> 4 & 5 >> On Jul 8, 2013 1:08 PM, "Eric Roberts" >> <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Show me the regs that say you are governed by UCMJ... >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: LRS Scout [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 12:01 PM >>> To: cf-community >>> Subject: RE: DUI Checkpoint Refusal >>> >>> >>> That's what I found quickly >>> >>> The 30% came from my field examiner. >>> >>> You think I wanted to take my blog down or i just "agreed" to? Its >>> coming back though. F it They agreed to do stuff I agreed to take it down. I did >>> what I said. Enough. I'm literally bleeding out of my ass and covered >>> in yellow sores that are probably mrsa again. I was just turned away >>> at the clinic and threatened with arrest for cursing on the way to >>> the door. We have no va hospital here. >>> >>> Why can the fbi have my records without a warrant? Because I use the >>> va. >>> Why can they take my stuff? Because I'm a vet and retired at 100%. >>> But only unemployable not even full 100% so nothing like medical for >>> my kids or anything. >>> >>> Screw them and screw you man. You off all people should know better. >>> The vets are just the easiest to impact because we already signed >>> away our rights >>> >>> What's gonna happen under Obama care? Who are later administrations >>> going to target with applications like prism? Who is already in >>> custody under the terms of the ndaa? >>> >>> Why are you all asleep at the wheel? >>> >>> Stop letting them kill the republic. >>> >>> Will you wake up when I'm dead in the gutter? Either from something >>> treatable or a cops bullet? >>> >>> Or for speech. >>> On Jul 8, 2013 12:40 PM, "Eric Roberts" < >>> [email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > Please show me the regs that say that Tim...until then, I am going >>> > to say you are full of it... >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: LRS Scout [mailto:[email protected]] >>> > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 11:17 AM >>> > To: cf-community >>> > Subject: RE: DUI Checkpoint Refusal >>> > >>> > >>> > You need to look into that >>> > >>> > If you get compensation or pension above 30% You're still property >>> > >>> > How do you think the va justifies all the shit they do? >>> > On Jul 8, 2013 12:13 PM, "Eric Roberts" >>> > <[email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > > >>> > > Umm...no...you are not ruled by the UCMJ to get money from the VA... >>> > > >>> > > -----Original Message----- >>> > > From: LRS Scout [mailto:[email protected]] >>> > > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:58 AM >>> > > To: cf-community >>> > > Subject: Re: DUI Checkpoint Refusal >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > It is I'm many places and in the UCMJ which I still have to live >>> > > by because I get va monies On Jul 8, 2013 11:54 AM, "Scott Stroz" >>> > > <[email protected]> >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > > Adultery is a violation of honor and a social contract, should >>> > > > that be a crime, too? >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 11:38 AM, LRS Scout >>> > > > <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Its a violation of honor and the social contract. >>> > > > > On Jul 8, 2013 11:29 AM, "Scott Stroz" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > How are you the 'victim'. If I simply stand in your >>> > > > > > driveway and do not impede you in any way. In what way are >>> > > > > > you a >>> 'victim'? >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > So everyone should be able to drive how ever fast they >>> > > > > > want, where they want, whenever they want? Even in a >>> > > > > > school zone when school is letting >>> > > > > out? >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Passing a stopped school bus with flashing red lights is >>> > > > > > OK with you so long as no one gets harmed? >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > At least you are consistent, I will give you that. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Why should perjury be a crime, but not the others? If I >>> > > > > > lie under oath, >>> > > > > and >>> > > > > > no one is harmed as a result, who is the victim? >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 11:23 AM, LRS Scout >>> > > > > > <[email protected]> >>> > > wrote: >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > I'm the victim if you enter my land. My rights have been >>> > infringed. >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Medical? If it's fraud and you're saying you're >>> > > > > > > something you're not >>> > > > it >>> > > > > > > should be a crime. The assaults we're seeing on >>> > > > > > > alternative medicine >>> > > > > and >>> > > > > > > medical care are wrong. My body is my own and I should >>> > > > > > > be able to do >>> > > > > with >>> > > > > > > it as I see fit. >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > I don't think we should have speed limits. >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > I think there should be warning lights but not crimes. >>> > > > > > > Why should I >>> > > > sit >>> > > > > > at >>> > > > > > > a red at 2am with no one in sight? >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > All of those but perjury shouldn't be crimes, unless and >>> > > > > > > until >>> > > > > negligence >>> > > > > > > occurs. >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Lying under oath should be a crime. Take the fifth but >>> > > > > > > don't lie >>> > > > under >>> > > > > > > oath. >>> > > > > > > On Jul 8, 2013 11:12 AM, "Scott Stroz" >>> > > > > > > <[email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > So, 'entering your land' is a crime - albeit >>> > > > > > > > 'victim-less', but >>> > > > > driving >>> > > > > > > > while intoxicated is not? >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > If I practiced medicine without a license and only >>> > > > > > > > helped people >>> > > > and >>> > > > > > not >>> > > > > > > > one person was harmed in any way, is that a crime? >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > Here are a few other 'victimless crimes' that should >>> > > > > > > > only be >>> > > > > prosecuted >>> > > > > > > > when/if an accident/harm occurs as a result: >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > Speed limits >>> > > > > > > > Stopping for a red light Stopping for a stop sign >>> > > > > > > > Passing a school bus with red flashing lights Passing >>> > > > > > > > another vehicle without a 'dotted line' >>> > > > > > > > Building code violations Purjury >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > And those are the just the ones I thought of in the >>> > > > > > > > car on the way >>> > > > > home >>> > > > > > > > from a client site. >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:11 AM, LRS Scout >>> > > > > > > > <[email protected]> >>> > > > > wrote: >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > The first is a property crime as soon as they enter >>> > > > > > > > > your >>> > land. >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > The second is a crime, but with waivers and the like >>> > > > > > > > > shouldn't >>> > > > be. >>> > > > > > > > > On Jul 8, 2013 9:09 AM, "Scott Stroz" >>> > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> >>> > > wrote: >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > If someone picks a lock on your home, does not >>> > > > > > > > > > damage the lock >>> > > > at >>> > > > > > > all, >>> > > > > > > > > > touches nothing but the floor as they walk through >>> > > > > > > > > > your house, >>> > > > > then >>> > > > > > > > > leaves >>> > > > > > > > > > without taking or damaging anything...has a crime >>> > > > > > > > > > been >>> > > > committed? >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Based on your previous answers, we should assume >>> > > > > > > > > > you will >>> > > > answer >>> > > > > > 'no' >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > If a person without a medical license practices >>> > > > > > > > > > medicine, is it >>> > > > > > only >>> > > > > > > a >>> > > > > > > > > > crime when/unless someone gets hurt form their actions? >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Based on your previous answers, we should assume >>> > > > > > > > > > you will >>> > > > answer >>> > > > > > > 'yes' >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:05 AM, LRS Scout >>> > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> >>> > > > > > > wrote: >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > We didn't? >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > Ask Louis Farrakhan. >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > Ask a meeting of the sons of confederate >>> > > > > > > > > > > soldiers, a meeting >>> > > > of >>> > > > > > the >>> > > > > > > > > > > hibernians, or a native American. >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > Ask me. No crimes, no warrant, they came in my >>> > > > > > > > > > > home, they >>> > > > laid >>> > > > > > > hands >>> > > > > > > > on >>> > > > > > > > > > me >>> > > > > > > > > > > and they took my property. >>> > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 8, 2013 8:59 AM, "Justin Scott" < >>> > > > [email protected] >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > wrote: >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously you are court I'm how these things >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > are >>> > > > currently >>> > > > > > > > > > implemented, >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm saying is wrong, its immoral. >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > When I was active with the Libertarian Party a >>> > > > > > > > > > > > decade ago I >>> > > > > > might >>> > > > > > > > > have >>> > > > > > > > > > > > agreed with you. Since then I have seen too >>> > > > > > > > > > > > many people >>> > > > die >>> > > > > > from >>> > > > > > > > > drug >>> > > > > > > > > > > > overdoses or killed by drunk drivers to >>> > > > > > > > > > > > continue with that >>> > > > > line >>> > > > > > > of >>> > > > > > > > > > > > reasoning. That kind of thinking was better >>> > > > > > > > > > > > suited to >>> > > > > > > > > > > > 250 >>> > > > > > years >>> > > > > > > > ago >>> > > > > > > > > > > > when we didn't have the individual ability to >>> > > > > > > > > > > > so easily >>> > > > > inflict >>> > > > > > > > that >>> > > > > > > > > > > > much damage on ourselves or one another. >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:365345 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
