My wife tried to use the military
Power
Of
Attorney while I've been deployed. The lawyer that represents the seller claims that the exemption presented by the USC doesn't apply to 'substantive' law, because the when the USC used 'substance' in the wording it meant form/procedure. For that reason, and maybe others, the lawyer advised her client not to accept the military POA. Sounds crazy, right? It is. It's an all or nothing deal when it comes to military POAs. If they choose to accept a POA, they must accept a military POA. The exemption is even included in the military POA.
The lawyer tried to claim that state law superceded federal law. When I chose to disagree, she tried claim that substance didn't apply to substantive and meant the opposite.
I will be talking to the JAGO when I return. 2 reasons: So nobody else has to deal with this lawyer, and because base legal decided to agree with the lawyer.
I dropped it because:
My wife wanted me to.
The lawyer is female and wrong. (bad, yes?)
The base legal officer is female and wrong. (agrees with lawyer)
There was no way I could make any headway from another continent across an ocean.
One more thing:
I used both the legal definition and regular definition, which agreed with each other. When the lawyer claimed otherwise, I asked her to cite statute, case, reference, or statutory definition, that supported her claim. Not only did she refuse, she she told me to go look up things to prove my side. I couldn't reply without seriously flipping out, so I didn't reply. She said she wouldn't answer anyways, soo... fooey.
If you all are interested, I'll copy and paste our email exchange.