Posted on 12/15/2010 12:54:18 PM PST by OldDeckHand
He had some bad legal advice. He should have deployed under protest and filed a suit for mandamus or other relief. I would really hate to see him lose his pension after 17 years, but as a physician, I suspect he probably could live well enough without it.
Such profundity ...... /S
I disagree with your opinion, it includes those children of citizens born across the seas or outside the United States if their parents are citizens as natural born citizens in the language of the time.
It also makes the distinction that children with non resident fathers are not citizens. And I humbly submit that English law that defines a King's subject does not apply to citizens of the United States since it is not written into our laws.
I never called you a lawyer did I?
I asked for your opinion about the prosecution using evidence the defense was ordered not to use in their defense...
if you don’t want to voice your opinion then don’t...
Really? And exactly nhow was evidence entered and proved. By what standard?
Can one man completely jeopardize a mission in a unit the size of Lakin’s?
Why not have every person in Lakin’s unit, and the unit of the left and the unit on the right testify as well? Surely there was some ripple effect fo injustice suffered.
Where does the ripple effect end?
Major Dobson incriminated himself—he was not ready for duty, nor was he ready to handle a mass casualty situation. If Major Dobson was not ready, or did not remember his training(for surely he had trained for just this eventuality) he was not the right man for the mission.
So who takes responsiblity for that?
That is not Lakin’s fault.
There is such a thing as redundancy in the military, even at Lakin’s level.
The "evidence" was entered as witness testimony. They jury panel can weigh the witnesses credibility themselves, just like it works in ANY criminal trial - civilian or military.
"Can one man completely jeopardize a mission in a unit the size of Lakin’s?"
Again, that's up to the jury panel to weigh. They're all 0-6s, so my guess is that they'll say yes.
"Why not have every person in Lakin’s unit, and the unit of the left and the unit on the right testify as well? Surely there was some ripple effect fo injustice suffered."
Why? It's seems the damage was enough from just the few witness the government did call. Defense had an opportunity to rebut, and could have called virtually anyone they wished.
"Major Dobson incriminated himself—he was not ready for duty, nor was he ready to handle a mass casualty situation. If Major Dobson was not ready, or did not remember his training(for surely he had trained for just this eventuality) he was not the right man for the mission."
To borrow a quote from Don Rumsfeld, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had.
The reason Dobson wasn't prepared is precisely because Lakin's last-minute exit did not allow him the requisite time to prepare. This isn't Dobson's fault, it's Lakin's. Lakin trained for this assignment. Command was counting him to deploy. Whatever the inadequacies of mission capability may have been, they are the direct result of Lakin's actions and no one else's.
In case of national emergency, you might deployed in a day. What is the requisite time to prepare? Dobson said he had to handle a mass casualty situation a few days into the mission.
Was Dobson prepared or not? Had he never trained for this type of situation? Was he not in country a few days at the FOB before this incident happened?
And what the result of that? Dobson testified his opinion that he was not as ready as he could be for that situation, a situation he was already trained for.
In war, people get shot, killed, taken out for whatever reason. If Lakin died, what was Dobson going to do? Say, "all you wounded fellas--hold on--I need a few days to get my act together?"
Yes, the jury can consider many things as much as they wish. If I was a juror, I would not even consider this without independent verification from other witnesses of Dobson's insinuation.
I sure hope you’re wrong in your thinking that the flimsy Ankeny case could be a sterling, enduring legal precedent.
How about including the links for that
and the other data you post?
Course not we loved it when Carter pardoned all the draft dodgers that went to Canada.
It was soap opera dramatics .. just like civilian trials .. laying it on thick. Think John Edwards type of witness
performance.
But the important thing is how the jury of officers see it.
he pleaded guilty to one of the charges. In a normal case a deal would would happen. It does get interesting to watch when some people change their tune for no apparent reason and it turns out later that some charges got dismissed in exchange.
So you are telling me that this of all the cases out there had no “Command Influence” in it? The JAG was told what to do at high levels as the fix is in. No one will touch Obama’s BC with a 10 foot pole. Living Constitution, don’t ya know.
Despicable .. simply too repugnant and reprehensible
to know of a FReeper who one hopes loves this country
and cherishes what the Founders designed and deigned.
You’re conservative ?
RE: a stipulation - I believe a legal stipulation can be sworn to under oath, if it is so required.
Does Lieberman’s legal citizenship status state he is a dual citizen with Israel as the other or is this an
unwritten tradition with no legal ramifications?
Was Lieberman’s status with Israeli citizenship raised as
as critical issue?
If so and if essential to his candicacy, what do you think he would’ve done ?
I’m still reeling from your Atta position .. it makes me
completely nauseous .. I have no desire of further engagement with you tonight.
The government's fifth (out of six) witness testified to Lakin's motives that it was over Obama's lack of being eligible for presidential office. No "Evidence in Aggravation" here.
From a different witness blogger:
"The Government Introduces Obama’s Ineligibility
Recall that the government would rather bury LTC Lakin on a bunch of piled on charges than address the issue of Obama’s ineligibility. In what can be termed as a little ‘divine intervention’ the fifth government witness actually stated the reason why LTC Lakin refused his orders–Obama’s eligibility. You should have seen the prosecution shut that lady down right away! “next”… "
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/standing-with-lt-col-terry-lakin/#more-4919
Did ACLU Sullivan reports this?
Agreed. Nice shafting job by Dobson and his wife,IMHO.
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects
191 posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 6:06:50 PM by Mr Rogers
Why don’t you man up, rogers ole boy, and admit that you are wrong and not knowledgeable enough of the law, any law, to answer any of my questions or refute any of my legal arguments?
Thank you for posting the essay supporting the FACT that BO, by his own admission, was born a British subject and consequently BO is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, and NOT QUALIFIED to be POTUS.
Here’s another assignment for you, Rogers, ole boy. See if you can find a single case that refutes the FACT the BO is subject to the Original Jurisdiction of SCOTUS for lawsuits contesting his illegitimate pResidency.
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/07/taking-aka-obama-directly-before-scotus.html
CAAflog’s dillies are now on .. Blog Talk Radio
It didn’t just start .. I had to click where it says open in your default player or another window and play it thru my computer.
Apparently, some troop Edwards said something negative
at the hearing. Haven’t gotten the gist.
Now, they’re choking down giggles and chortles about some witness they’re labeling a ‘birther.’
Oh yes .. they’re having a barrel of laughs here.
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.