Posted on 04/22/2010 2:54:33 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Lieutenant Colonel Terrence L. Lakin was charged today with four violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Articles 87 and 92.
(Chargesheet at the link in PDF format.)
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
When American soldiers are bravely putting their lives on the line for our country, and someone has the self-centered gall to refer to it as “Obama’s War” instead of “America's War,” who indeed is appealing “to the baseness that lies deep in their hearts?”
> Twenty seven years experience in the the military
So, as a military retiree, aren’t you just a little pissed that Obama regularly bows to the leaders of foreign nations and is spending you military retirement
pension on his social redistribution?
You must know Obama’s spending is UNSUSTAINABLE and you will likely
LOSE your pension plan when he forces us into a soverign default.
Doesn’t that bother you that an inEligible POTUS will be the reason you will
likely lose your military retirement pention?!
Sorry, but this is bammies war, he took responsibility when he changed the ROE, he is not fighting for America, his intention is to defeat it, hence the Cicero quote.
If you want to stand behind a POTUS that puts our men in the sights of an enemy and with no recourse to defend himself, and then call it America's war, then you are truly misguided and an idiot traitor.
I don't have to tell that to 'myself' CON. It's a distinct possibility if the court violates the rights of the accused which is reason to overturn any conviction.
But do try to control the venom directed against honorable judges and military officers when it doesn't work out that way.
Oh please, stop with your false self-righteous BS. You're so full of it.
“The court can only apply the law to the facts within the scope of its jurisdiction. the court has no jurisdiction over the eligibility of Obama so it cannot deny Lakin discovery of Obama’s HI vital records on the basis that this might result in Obama being declared ineligible. That is not within the power of the court-martial.”
Non sequitur. His defense is that the order was unlawful. The only ground for a finding of an unlawful order is that the order, not the person, is violative either of the UCMJ or the law of armed conflict. I don’t see him being able to overcome the presumption. In other words, this isn’t the right venue or the right set of circumstances to stand on the ineligibility question.
Colonel, USAFR
“Lakin is not asking the court to rule that Obama is ineligible. That, in my view, is false framing. Lakin is asking the court to find him innocent of disobeying a lawful order.”
That seems like a distinction without a difference.
Whatever it is Lakin is asking, to a military judge in a military court of law, is irrelevant with respect to Obama's eligibility. I don't know how more plainly I can put it.
Regardless of what I say (or anyone else says), or what supporting case law or relevant statute is cited, people who wish to believe Lakin has "a fighting change" will believe it. This will all be settled relatively soon, presuming of course Lakin doesn't change tack and move for alternative disposition. The chances of Lakin being granted discovery on anything having to do with Barack Obama's alleged ineligibility is zero. The chances of Lakin prevailing on appeal of such a denial of discovery, is zero.
If you can find a JAG officer who wishes to go on record and argue that Lakin has even a minimal chance of prevailing at trial, and on the law, please cite him as I would LOVE to read his reasoning.
"I expect Lakin will claim he is innocent because, as he has stated, in good conscience he has concluded that Obama’s active suppression of discovery of his HI vital records betrays consciousness by Obama of evidence of his own ineligibility. "
Lakin can plead not guilty, guilty or he can move to argue an affirmative defense and proffer some reason why he disobeyed the order. But, the hearing to determine the order's lawfulness will be something that will be decided in the absence of the jury panel. As a matter of law, it is a decision that is left to the military judge. The jury panel will then be instructed that the orders were lawful, presuming that is what the military judge finds - that is a remarkably safe bet. I would add that motivation is not an element that needs to be established to obtain a conviction on an Art. 87 spec. The four elements needed to be proven by the government to establish guilt on Art. 87 are...
(1) That the accused was required in the course of duty to move with a ship, aircraft or unit;Essentially, similar to Huet-Vaughn, Lakin's motivation to include his belief that Obama is not an eligible president is immaterial.
(2) That the accused knew of the prospective movement of the ship, aircraft or unit;
(3) That the accused missed the movement of the ship, aircraft or unit; and
(4) That the accused missed the movement through design or neglect.Paragraph 11(b) Part IV, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2005 ed.). The accused’s motive not to deploy and his belief about the lawfulness of the Iraq war are not elements of the offense. Motive is, therefore, irrelevant on the merits. United States v. Huet-Vaughn. 43 M.J. 105, 114-115 (1995).
"the court has no jurisdiction over the eligibility of Obama so it cannot deny Lakin discovery of Obama’s HI vital records on the basis that this might result in Obama being declared ineligible. That is not within the power of the court-martial."
It can and it will deny discovery - not for the reason that you posit - but, because Obama's eligibility is immaterial to Lakin's orders. Any JAG with 5 minutes of experience could tell you this. Why Lakin didn't consult with competent military counsel, is a mystery.
"Case law seems to indicate that Lakin is entitled to obtain discovery of facts which will exculpate himself, for example lack of contemporaneous evidence that Obama was born in HI. "
Case law says no such thing. Before discovery motions are granted, trial counsel must agree that the discovery is relevant and material. If TC disagrees, then the defense counsel may appeal to the military-judge and then move for interlocutory appeal. They will all affirm the military judge's order, easily (or refuse to hear the appeal, more likely).
I'm not an appellate attorney, but I believe this is where things get a little tricky for Lakin and his counsel. If he wants to preserve MJ order denying the discovery motions of Obama's record for appeal, I think he has to change his plea to "not-guilty". I could be wrong, perhaps someone with more appellate experience could comment. In any event - with either a plea of non guilty, or some kind of affirmative defense, defense counsel will not be allowed to raise Obama's alleged ineligibility in front of the jury panel.
This really is not that complicated. There are some potential pitfalls for the military judge with respect to particular jury instructions in these affirmative defense cases especially when pleas are changed mid-trial, as the Watada case underscores, but those should be easily avoided with a competent judge.
And your military experience is?
Never ran across someone dumb enough to do that, no.
My dislike of Obama and my dissatisfaction with his policies would fill volumes. But that doesn't mean that I believe Lakin has a case. And just because I don't think Lakin has a case doesn't mean I support Obama. Something you people can't seem to understand.
|
> Never ran across someone dumb enough to do that, no. Do you mean dumb enough to believe THIS ... an image on a computer monitor — the same thing EVERYONE else in America saw as "proof" of Barack Hussein Obama II's "natural-born Citzen" status?
The truth about Obama's birth certificate (FactCheck.org)
|
“Did you notice Hawaiian legislature is writing something that would refuse to acknowledge request for his Birth Certificate.
“
I think the other 49 States ought to just simply declare by legislative vote that Obama is NOT the President as he has failed to provide any proof os him being a natural born citizen.
Are you saying that the legality of the chain of command through which an officer has authority to issue orders makes no difference to the legality of the order itself?
If I gave orders to a military person to do something not criminal, and they told me to go suck a lemon because I am not legally in authority over them, would they be guilty of disobeying lawful orders? Or does the lawfulness of the order depend on the person REALLY having the authority to give the order in the first place?
Also, if Obama signed an executive order saying all our troops were to get out of Afghanistan and Lakin’s immediate superior ordered him to go to Afghanistan anyway, would it be a lawful order to Lain because it came from Lakin’s immediate superior? Or would the immediate superior’s order itself be unlawful because it was in defiance of the chain of command above him? IOW, is any “superior officer” really free to give commands based entirely on their own authority, or are all orders only lawful when they are in compliance with the orders from each higher step in the chain? Is any link in that chain really a stand-alone entity, or does the link actually connect somehow?
What if Lakin already has the evidence that Obama is not only ineligible but that he is guilty of felonies?
Is the military judge going to go on the record saying it makes no difference to anything?
Is that military judge then going to report those crimes to the proper authorities, and if he doesn’t will he himself be guilty of misprision of felony?
Come to think of it, would everybody in the trial be guilty of misprision if they failed to report the felonies to proper legal authorities? Would they have a duty to report it all the way up the chain of military authority? Or does the military have any way, itself, to hold its CIC accountable to either the civilian or military laws or rules?
What would happen to General Casey, for instance, if everybody in the chain of command knew he was guilty of forgery, perjury, misprision of felony, and extortion? How would the military handle that knowledge?
Once the evidence of crimes committed by people within the chain of command is known by someone within that chain, what is the responsibility of each of those people?
If Joe Soldier reported to a superior that the HDOH has confirmed that Factcheck is a forgery and that Obama committed a felony in inviting the public to rely on that forgery and failing to report it as a forgery.... what would the military have to do about it?
Legally speaking, who cares - at least as far as Lakin's predicament is concerned.
Lakin is charged with missing movement and disobeying orders. Neither charge has any relevance - as a matter of military law - to Barack Obama.
"Is the military judge going to go on the record saying it makes no difference to anything?"
The military judge is going to rule that whatever alleged crimes Obama may or may have not committed, bears no relevance to Lakin's particular situation.
"Is that military judge then going to report those crimes to the proper authorities, and if he doesn’t will he himself be guilty of misprision of felony?",
No, and no. He's not going to allow such allegations because of their irrelevance, and judges enjoy judicial immunity.
The hypotheticals you posit are so completely far-fetched, I'm not sure how to respond.
The short answer is no, to pretty much all of them.
A judge who knows of a felony has no responsibility to report it?
What about the other people in the trial? Do they?
Heck, if I sent my information to General Casey, would he have a responsibility to report it? Isn’t it always a question of who knew what and when?
And regarding the chain of command, why was anybody looking up the chain of command to see if the Abu Ghraib behaviors were either condoned or commanded higher up the chain of command - if the only link in the chain that matters is the one directly above the behavior in question? Wouldn’t the judge say - as you say any judge would say in Lakin’s case - that the higher links in the chain are absolutely and totally irrelevant and nobody can be allowed to go on a fishing expedition?
I hate to tell you this, but they may well be reality. You only say they are far-fetched because you don’t really believe that we have domestic enemies.
Tell yourself the truth. What domestic enemies did you ever think you would really - like in real concrete actions - have to defend this nation from? Jaywalkers?
Also, it doesn’t matter what he allows to be spoken in the courtroom. If Lakin or anybody else is allowed the free speech to say what we already know, SOMEBODY in the military has knowledge that US law requires them to report to the proper authorities. Or are military members exempt from obeying US laws?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
