Lakin not allowed witnesses, documents, explanation at court-martial Dec. 14!

www.greeleygazette.com ^ | 11/30/2010 | Jack Minor

[83Vet4Life]

So that corrupt CJ Roberts can toss it out again? Great plan.

[El Sordo]

“If all military authority for orders originate with the commander-in-chief, and the person claiming to be commander-in-chief is not legitimate, then all subordinate orders are invalid.”

So the military is effectively disbanded?

Everybody go home?

[Candor7]

No plan, it will go to the the Supreme Court.

[El Sordo]

“As a former prosecutor in Hawaii he may have relevant insights as to the birth documentation practices employed by that state, and particularly with reference to specific instances.
One could also expect he has had an ongoing flow of information from friends and prior colleagues.”

As he has apparently kept a lid on it for over the past two years, he is clearly part of the conspiracy.

[Non-Sequitur]

No plan, it will go to the the Supreme Court.

It's got a couple of appeals and a few years to go through before Lakin can even think of the Supreme Court ruling.

[OneWingedShark]

>>“If all military authority for orders originate with the commander-in-chief, and the person claiming to be commander-in-chief is not legitimate, then all subordinate orders are invalid.”
>
>So the military is effectively disbanded?

In a very real & legal way, yes.
What you’re seeing now is a desperate appeal to positional power/authority:
“We’re your superior officers, so you have to obey our orders!” {Errr... I seem to remember Nuremberg...}*
It’s even in the civilian-side, demonstrated quite well when Nancy Pelosi was asked what *Constitutional* authority the Congress had to mandate healthcare and she laughed asking “are you serious?”.

The question is whether or not the people will be sated with an appeal to illegitimate authority or not.
If they are accepted, then out Republic dies then and there; if they are not accepted, well, then things get interesting.

*The 6th Amendment says this:
In *all* criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to [..] have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses
in his favor [..]

By not allowing witnesses in this trial it is clear that this CANNOT [legitimately] be a criminal trial; furthermore, it reveals that those conducting the trial are NOT concerned with upholding the Constitution. {Violations of the UCMJ (Military Law), which covers insubordination, missing movement, and all the other charges against the LTC are considered crimes under the UCMJ.}

>Everybody go home?

Many people would have a visceral “NO!” reaction, but yes.
It may surprise you, but we did NOT have a regular/professional army until AFTER WWII. Having, and paying for, a professional/regular army encourages its use by those who control it, the added ‘inertia’ of raising an army to overcome by military powers is actually a good way to keep the army from being used abroad unnecessarily (i.e. World Police).

[frog in a pot]

As he has apparently kept a lid on it…

It doesn't seem prudent to assume he has kept a lid on it.

The better view is to conclude he is smart enough to have distributed copies of his material to trustworthy individuals and groups, pending events.

(Note to the Machine: “Ooops”)

[FreeAtlanta]

Sounds like "are you using air that a Senator or more worthy citizen could be using?" Yes.

Quilty, bang.

Wrong is wrong. Larkin is a hero.

[STARWISE]

.. Ping!

From the lib military jag site, CAAFlog

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

LTC Lakin voir dire
December 1, 2010

A thought as we get closer to trial. As the Greeley Gazette article

http://goo.gl/irOQZ

and the current postings at such places as PostandEmail, safeguardourconstitution, and wing nut daily, demonstrate there is a great deal of criticism about Judge Lind.

Some of that criticism has been harsh and excessive. Other than a statement from LTC Lakin’s lawyer that the judge was right, there has been no public disavowel from LTC Lakin. I don’t know he required to do so, except in an effort to get clemency. But . . . .

Will the new defense counsel voir dire the military judge and challenge her or ask her to recuse herself?

If this is to be a members trial, then I think she can clearly say the right words in response to a voir dire and not recuse herself and not to have been found in error on appeal.

But, what if LTC Lakin elects a judge alone trial? Maybe that’s different (unless it is part of a PTA)? Implied bias can be a reason to challenge a military judge just as much as members.

Remember the Marine case from some years ago, where the SJA got heavily involved in trying to remove the MJ because of her alleged relationship with the defense counsel.

http://court-martial-ucmj.com/lakin-2/ltc-lakin-10/

_____________________________________________

Sidebar:

~~~~~~~~~

Federal Rule of Evidence change
December 1, 2010

An important change to the Federal Rules of Evidence begins today. That means, absent Presidential action, the rule will take affect in the military no later than 18 months from now. This is a significant change requiring the prosecution to corroborate statements against penal interest.

On December 1, 2010, a new amendment to the Federal Rules of Evidence takes effect.

http://federalevidence.com/blog/2010/december/new-fre-amendment-fre-804b3-declarations-against-interest-takes-effect-today-part?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FederalEvidenceReview+(Federal+Evidence+Review+-+Highlighting+Recent+Federal+Evidence+Cases+and+Developments)

The rule concerns the admission of statements against interest under FRE 804(b)(3) has been amended so that the corroborating circumstances requirement for admission of a declaration against interest applies to statements against penal interest introduced by the government as well as those by the defendant in criminal cases. This requirement previously applied to statements introduced by the defendant.

http://court-martial-ucmj.com/evidence/federal-rule-of-evidence-change/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Prayers for Ltc Lakin, his legal team, and the brave warriors who persevere fighting for truth.

[El Sordo]

The better view is that if someone has actual evidence, there is nothing to gain from sitting on it.

The longer information sits, the less relevant or effective it becomes.

[cvq3842]

That’s my understanding of the meaning of Natural Born Citizen as well.

Col. Lakin may well have decided that he would rather sit in jail than follow orders he believes to be invalidly issued. I can’t read his mind, but I assume he has prepared himself for that possible outcome.

I am very disturbed by what is going on in my country . . .

[joe fonebone]

WOW.....you got all that garbage, negated my veteran status, called me everything but an american, over two questions....well, answer the 2 questions I asked...was he ordered to deploy, and did he deploy?... UCMJ ( the military justice system ) says he is guilty, automatically, without excuse.....what do you think of the UCMJ, general??? or is it admiral???? you must be a high ranking military officer to hold such opinions based upon 2 questions.....

[joe fonebone]

pretty good response ( sarcasm on ) Now, please explain to me the meaning of the UCMJ, why it is what it is, and your experience with it.....oh, you do not know, and have no experience with it???? then what the hell are you doing giving your opinion on military judical matters????????

[joe fonebone]

"Sounds like "are you using air that a Senator or more worthy citizen could be using?" "
No, what it is is " I joined the military with a free will, signed a contract, and agreed to abide by the UCMJ ( If you do not know what the UCMJ is, you have no business even posessing an opinion in this matter ) and I hereby, and with great extravigance, refuse to abide by the UCMJ....So, just let me be, give me my money, and that is that............WRONG PAL........he disobeyed orders to deploy, disregarded the UCMJ, put his fellow soldiers, both superiors and subordinates, in grave danger by refusing to do so....he is guilty, and deserves prison time...

[FreeAtlanta]

Larkin is a brave hero who is figuratively taking a bullet for his fellow military brothers and sisters. He isn’t a coward who is afraid to deploy. He has proven that time and again.

This man of honor (I don’t think you are able to recognize that) planned and notified his superiors well ahead of deployment that he wanted proof that we have a commander in chief.

What is putting our men and women in danger is having them serve possibly illegal orders.

It would take a simple order to the Hawaii Government to release his “embarrassing” (the judge on the Larkin trial) birth certificate to end all this. Lt. Col. Larkin would have then deployed.

So, who is the coward and the person putting his men in danger? Lt. Col. Larkin or Barack “the yellow spine” Obama?

[butterdezillion]

He faces the charge of disobeying a lawful order.

He is not being allowed to show that the order he was given was not lawful because it is - as the elements of Article 92 say - “contrary to the Constitution”.

Lakin’s due process and equal protection rights are being trampled. This is officially a banana republic.

[butterdezillion]

At this point the only value in coming forward with evidence at all is to 1) help the public realize how untrustworthy Obama and all his enablers are; and 2) to get a criminal investigation of the crimes committed by Obama and his enablers.

SCOTUS is evading this issue. Period. We’re not going to get justice out of them. My theory is that Soros has told them he will collapse the world economy if they make a right decision. Seems like the retired military folks who provided Lakin with counsel who is just going to drop the eligibility issue rather than get a bad precedent from compromised judges might possibly be thinking the same kind of thing. Obviously they don’t think that either the military or the civilian appeals process can be trusted to give a right decision on eligibility, and they must have a reason to think that.

Justice Thomas himself has said that they are “evading” the eligibility issue. Nothing for a conservative justice to boast about so he must have had a different reason for bringing up the issue in the context of discussing Sotomayor.

So in a very real way Lakin’s brother could choose not to publicly disclose any evidence he has because he doesn’t want to “throw pearls before swine”, choosing to save it for a prosecuting attorney to use instead.

[rxsid]

I believe the fundamental question here is, and what LTC Lakin is asking is:

Was he lawfully ordered to deploy.

Not whether or not he was "ordered to deploy" which is clearly not in doubt as evidenced by his orders having been publicly posted a while back, I believe, here (a pdf)

The missing word, "lawfully", is the key here.

Ironically, LTC Lakin was required to bring copies of his birth certificate. I wonder what the Army's reaction would have been, had he placed a .jpeg of his short form on a web site and told them that these two can vouch for it's authenticity:

Jess Henig has an M.A. in English Literature.
Joe Miller has a Ph. D. in Political Philosophy.

I'm sure the Army would have been OK with that because the Army is clearly OK with being lead by a CinC who did just that (allegedly).

[El Sordo]

And yet after two plus years, no one has come forward with anything.

Perhaps, just perhaps, there is nothing for anyone to bring forward?

[butterdezillion]

Are you calling me a nobody? I’ve come as far forward as I know how to come, and I’ve come with statements from the HDOH itself, showing that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery and that Hawaii has no valid birth certificate for Obama. What exactly are you looking for if not that?

I could stand on the Statue of Liberty naked waving my information for all to see, and after they all threw up they’d STILL ignore me. lol

And regardless of what you think of Lucas Smith or Orly Taitz, the fact of the matter is that they did everything they could to bring forward what could be authentic documents totally destroying Obama’s claims - but couldn’t get anybody in the government/courts to even try to authenticate them.

IOW, we’ve got plenty of evidence but nobody earnest enough to check it out.

And that is why this is really about the rule of law, as I’ve said all along. When a person can’t even get more than a yawn when they sign an oath on penalty of perjury, the judicial system is stone-cold deaf, and NOTHING could ever get a response from them.

Doesn’t that bug you? An online image that’s never been authenticated (and has actually been indirectly confirmed by HI government officials as a forgery in 2 different ways!) gets all the legal weight in the world but a 3-D, in-person document with signatures and seal and an oath that it is genuine gets nothing.

You tell me exactly what evidence would do any good at this point. Everything hinges on WHO has the evidence. And the people in power are playing keep-away from the rest of us, holding the ball beyond our reach while they stick out their tongues and say, “Nyeah. I have the ability to serve justice but I’m not going to. Too bad, so sad for you, loser!”

How is that in any way acceptable to you?