LTC Lakin's Appeal Denied

U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals ^ | 10/12/10 | Clerk of the Court

[BuckeyeTexan]

On consideration of the Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and Application for a Stay of Proceedings, the petition is DENIED.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Good, see ya.

I’m not the only only one here who has noted your posts.

[Celtic Cross]

Once again, you attempt to intimidate me with dark insinuations. Who else has noted my posts? You wife and your dog?

Ho-hum.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Once again, you attempt to intimidate me with dark insinuations

You call that intimidation?

You should take Angles advice and "man up"

[Red Steel]

That post was in response to rogers at #884

Yes, I know it was. Ms Rogers was confused. ;-)

[Las Vegas Ron]

;-)

[Celtic Cross]

I think you mean to say;

"You should take Angles' advice and 'man up'"

Note the apostrophe.

[Tex-Con-Man]

"Hu hu hu hu... 'Ms.' Rogers Hu hu hu...."

[El Sordo]

I cannot access it either.

There was an objection made in 2004, but it was well known that it was going to happen.

1992, and 1996 transcripts might be interesting to read too.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

We are defining the “ROOT” meaning here, not the function of the term. Do you not agree that there is a “FUNCTION” to the term.

I can't answer that because I don't understand what you're asking. But I think that when it comes to understanding a legal decision, it's the function of the word that's important. It doesn't matter what distinction Athens made between citizen and subject, any more than it matters that the root or origin of citizen is in the word city. Surely you're not suggesting that only city-dwelling Americans can be President.

So the question the court was addressing was what the function of the word subject was in English common law and what that can tell us about the function of the word citizen in American law. Their conclusion seems to be that they have effectively the same (precisely similar) function. You're arguing, in effect, that a bird and a butterfly can't both fly because their wings evolved differently.

[OneWingedShark]

The US Supreme Court has said the meaning is found in common law. Not Vattel, but common law.

You don’t get a vote. It has been decided.

Until you understand that, your side will do nothing but lose, lose, lose. Times close to 100 now...

Ah, and here you show your true nature by siding with the most Tyrannical and Lawless of the branches of our government: The Judicial^*. Not only do they ignore the Constitution when it suits them, but the proclaim and declare themselves to be above it, that it means what they say it means, and then they tell everyone else that they fall under the Constitution.
Consider, if you will, what the Supreme Court has said regarding this simple sentence:
          "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
So important did the founders think the prohibition, to prevent unpredictable and arbitrary governmental conduct that they imposed the prohibition upon the states as well in Article 1, Section 10.

1. The Supreme Court has ruled that the prohibitions against Ex Post Facto laws apply only to criminal law; Calder v. Bull in 1798.
2. The Tax Code [tax law] may be retroactively changed, that is in an ex post facto manner, due to the above.
3. The violations of the tax code are punished in Criminal Court, even if the portions were changed retroactively.

Add to this one instance things like Keelo v New London, wherein the Judiciary shows the utmost contempt for property rights and allows Government-sponsored larceny by ignoring the Fifth Amendment's "for public use" phrase. The expansion of the "exigent cases" wherein "Law Enforcement" needs no warrant in order to search or seize property. The absolute failure of the Judiciary to apply, as written, the law against Conspiracy Against Rights against such organizations as Universities which qualify for their prohibitions against BOTH the freedom of speech AND the Right to Keep and Bear Arms [though part of this lies on the heads of Prosecutors as well].

QED.

 

^*Many make a big deal about how there are supposed to be "checks and balances" the government via its branches, but what is a check on the Judicial?

[Las Vegas Ron]

Note the apostrophe.

Note the advice.

[Mr Rogers]

EXCEPT the argument in WKA is sound. It is based on original intent. I like the reasoning in the dissent better, but I think the decision accurately reflects what the Founder intended.

And no, when they wrote “natural born citizen”, they were not thinking about a translation of Vattel that would be made 10 years in the future. If they wanted to follow Vattel, they would have - and written, “native” or “natural citizen” or “indigenous”. Not “natural born citizen”, echoing as it did the common law term “natural born subject”.

Toss out as many red herrings as you wish, but WKA stands solid on its own merits.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

[STARWISE]

*snip*

“History shows us that a popularly elected, but ineligible, chief executive in the executive branch of a government can be legally and constitutionally removed from office, e.g., Governor Thomas H. Moodie of North Dakota was a prime example.

After he was sworn in and serving as Governor, the North Dakota State Supreme Court ordered Governor Moodie removed from office, after it was determined that he was constitutionally and legally ineligible to serve in the office to which he was popularly elected.”

http://history.nd.gov/exhibits/governors/governors19.html

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/10/new-ad-kerchner-v-obama-petition-for.html

____________________

1935: North Dakota Governor Thomas H. Moodie

• After the election, it was alleged that Moodie did not meet the constitutional residency requirements for holding office.

• The attorney general brought a challenge to Moodie’s eligibility for office in the state Supreme Court.

• The House narrowly passed an impeachment resolution that did not mention specific charges and authorized a committee to formulate the charges. Reports indicated that the charge would be a misdemeanor in office—that he took office with knowledge that he was not qualified.

• The attorney general blocked a plan to elevate the lieutenant governor, ruling that impeachment was not complete until the House presented the Senate with articles of impeachment.

• Impeachment proceedings halted when the state Supreme Court took up the case. The court later removed Moodie as unqualified for office.

• On the last day of session, the House voted to expunge the impeachment resolution and all references to it from the journal (“The Gubernatorial Controversy in North Dakota,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 29, No. 3, p. 418 (June 1935)).

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/04/impeachment-of.html

[jamese777]

There have been nine attempts to have the Supreme Court of the United States rule on appeals of lower court decisions on Obama eligibility/natural born citizen lawsuits.

Justices Souter, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Ginsberg have all had petitions submitted for those Justices to carry the ball with the other Justices.

In case anyone is unaware of how the Supreme Court operates, it takes four of the nine Justices to agree to hear an appeal before the full court. When four Justices agree to hear an appeal, the technical term is “Granting a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.”

The nine appeals that have been denied are:
1)Berg v Obama denied on January 21, 2009
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08a505.htm
2)Beverly v The Federal Elections Commission denied on March 1, 2010
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-794.htm
3)Craig v US, denied on October 5, 2009
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08-10817.htm
4)Donofrio v Wells, denied on December 8, 2008
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08a407.htm
5)Herbert v Obama, denied on November 9, 2009
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-6777.htm
6)Lightfoot v Bowen, denied on January 29, 2009
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08a524.htm
7)Rhodes v MacDonald, denied a stay on August 16, 2010
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10a56.htm
8)Schneller v Cortes, denied a stay on September 8, 2009
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08a592.htm
9)Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz, denied on December 15, 2008
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08a469.htm

[little jeremiah]

Las Vegas Ron is an honest citizen who is concerned about the marxist coup taking place.

You, OTOH, are taking the opposite side, apparently.

These threads are stuffed with people whose motives are dark and spend hours daily supporting the thug squatting in the White House.

There are two sides, and only two sides, on this issue.

Real conservatives who think this issue is going nowhere do not spend any time on these threads; they use their time fighting the commie/muslim/homosexual/ineligible/thug in chief in other ways.

So it is clear as the ringing of a silver bell that anyone who haunts these threads fighting against real conservatives who are trying to find the truth are enemies of the United States of America.

[danamco]

My freepmail was relating to this post, ssshh!!!

[butterdezillion]

My congressman’s office is going to send me a copy of the transcript from the Congressional Record. I’ve looked all over and the only footage I can find is of the objection to Ohio’s electoral votes.

Turns out that my computer claims I have no audio device or its driver now; the driver was apparently deleted from my computer since yesterday when I was able to listen just fine. Everything’s plugged in; the power is fine; the speaker makes a pop sound when turned on...

Guess I must just be imagining things again, huh? (wink) I wonder if it’ll be fixed if I restart the computer.

[OneWingedShark]

>EXCEPT the argument in WKA is sound. I like the reasoning in the dissent better,

But I’ve just shown how the Supreme court can take something that is unmistakable, the prohibition against Ex Post Facto law, and twist it into saying something completely different.

>but I think the decision accurately reflects what the Founder intended.

Again, quoting the Supreme Court as the evidence of the intent of the Founders is NOT sound reasoning, especially when even such a plain-language prohibition was disregarded.

>Toss out as many red herrings as you wish, but WKA stands solid on its own merits.

How is it a red herring to point out that the Supreme Court can, and has, made rulings contrary to the meaning of the Constitution?

[danamco]

I have!!!

[OneWingedShark]

> That’s why we fight wars, you and your kind will lose, God is Supreme, he will reign in the truth.

Indeed! That’s why I can take comfort that when Jesus comes back His Just rule will break the nations like pottery with a Rod of Iron.