Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

LTC Lakin's Appeal Denied
U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals ^ | 10/12/10 | Clerk of the Court

Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at caaflog.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: army; birthcertificate; certifigate; corruption; doubleposttexan; eligibility; jamese777; kangaroocourt; lakin; military; naturalborncitizen; obama; terrylakin; trollbuckeyetexan; trollcuriosity; trolljamese777
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 2,851-2,880 next last

1 posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:14 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Totally corrupt country.


2 posted on 10/13/2010 3:08:21 PM PDT by Frantzie (Imam Ob*m* & Democrats support the VICTORY MOSQUE & TV supports Imam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
So an American officer is compelled to bow before a criminal usurper?

Blame it on the Congress that let it go down, and the Supreme Court justice who swore in the Indonesian-British Colonial national. The Army's just following their heresy.

3 posted on 10/13/2010 3:08:45 PM PDT by Regulator (Watch Out! Americans are on the March! America Forever, Mexico Never!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
LTC Lakin sought a judicial solution to a political problem.

Poor judgment on his part.

4 posted on 10/13/2010 3:09:05 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Providence punishes national sins with national calamities. George Mason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Kick it up to the next level to the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces if possible.


5 posted on 10/13/2010 3:10:35 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

He doesn’t have to bow. I’d say that’s the exact opposite of what Lakin is doing.


6 posted on 10/13/2010 3:11:19 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
LTC Lakin sought a judicial solution to a political problem.

Funny that we got member(s) of Congress who say it is problem for the Courts.

7 posted on 10/13/2010 3:12:34 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

8 posted on 10/13/2010 3:15:17 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Is the Court Martial still scheduled for November 4th then?


9 posted on 10/13/2010 3:18:58 PM PDT by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
"Totally corrupt country."

No, it isn't.

But isn't it wonderful of birthers to try to make everyone think so.

10 posted on 10/13/2010 3:20:58 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
Whoops, I should have looked first.

From: http://www.caaflog.com/category/ltc-lakin/

“In other Lakin news, Phil “My Liege” Cave attended today’s Article 39(a) session and reports here that Judge Lind accepted Paul Rolf Jensen’s removal as LTC Lakin’s counsel. Neal Puckett entered an appearance in the case. And the trial dates were moved to 14-16 December.”

11 posted on 10/13/2010 3:22:04 PM PDT by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

Need to photoshop a jackass’ head onto the judge...


12 posted on 10/13/2010 3:25:20 PM PDT by DirtyHarryY2K (The Tree of Liberty is long overdue for its natural manure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mlo

+1


13 posted on 10/13/2010 3:29:41 PM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

LTC Lakin still got a delay about 1 and 1/2 months with the change of attorney .


14 posted on 10/13/2010 3:32:36 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Larkin’s attorney should file a motion to delay any further proceedings until after the Nov. 2nd elections. I bet the mood of the courts will change dramatically!


15 posted on 10/13/2010 3:36:14 PM PDT by 23 Everest (A gun in hand is better than a cop on the phone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

OT. The neighbor who denied me a box of free cigars came over to chat today. A Steelers’ fan stepped foot on my property. Grrrrrr.


16 posted on 10/13/2010 3:36:20 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

OT. The neighbor who denied me a box of free cigars came over to chat today. A Steelers’ fan stepped foot on my property. Grrrrrr.


17 posted on 10/13/2010 3:36:29 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Not surprising. Let the Court Martial continue and appeal the conviction.


18 posted on 10/13/2010 3:37:13 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Hey mo-joe! Here's another one for your collection.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlo

Hey Marxist, shouldn’t you be over at DU or Kos and kids?


19 posted on 10/13/2010 3:37:21 PM PDT by 23 Everest (A gun in hand is better than a cop on the phone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Anyone who expected some other outcome just does not understand how the law works and will continue to be disappointed as this plays out. Those who have encouraged LTC Lakin to pursue this fool’s errand are going to walk away scot free to tilt at the next windmill and Lakin’s career will be destroyed.


20 posted on 10/13/2010 3:37:36 PM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 23 Everest

Nope. The law is clear. His orders were lawful regardless of Obama’s status.


21 posted on 10/13/2010 3:38:23 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
So an American officer is compelled to bow before a criminal usurper?

No, just obey the orders of his superior officers.

22 posted on 10/13/2010 3:38:57 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Hey mo-joe! Here's another one for your collection.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
Those who have encouraged LTC Lakin to pursue this fool’s errand are going to walk away scot free to tilt at the next windmill and Lakin’s career will be destroyed.

LTC Lakin has move well beyond his career and he pursued this all by himself.

23 posted on 10/13/2010 3:40:09 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Exactly. It’s pathetic that a good man was convinced to pursue this.


24 posted on 10/13/2010 3:40:14 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 23 Everest
Larkin’s attorney should file a motion to delay any further proceedings until after the Nov. 2nd elections.

If memory serves the court martial is due to begin in mid-December.

I bet the mood of the courts will change dramatically!

I'll bet it doesn't.

25 posted on 10/13/2010 3:41:42 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Hey mo-joe! Here's another one for your collection.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 23 Everest
Hey Marxist, [mlo] shouldn’t you be over at DU or Kos and kids?

Yeah, it should be.

26 posted on 10/13/2010 3:42:01 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Nope. The law is clear. His orders were lawful regardless of Obama’s status.

Yes they were, however he has to serve the Constitution first!


27 posted on 10/13/2010 3:42:31 PM PDT by 23 Everest (A gun in hand is better than a cop on the phone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: 23 Everest
"Hey Marxist, shouldn’t you be over at DU or Kos and kids?"

Hey, I'm not the one disparaging our country. It's you birthers that post anti-American comments like the one I replied to.

And for the record, I'd be willing to bet you are more of a Marxist than I am.

28 posted on 10/13/2010 3:43:05 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
Is the Court Martial still scheduled for November 4th then?

Mid-December, according to Lakin's website.

29 posted on 10/13/2010 3:43:50 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Hey mo-joe! Here's another one for your collection.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Just like the men who served under Lt. Calley?


30 posted on 10/13/2010 3:44:13 PM PDT by 23 Everest (A gun in hand is better than a cop on the phone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 23 Everest
Just like the men who served under Lt. Calley?

Believe it or not, there is a difference between being ordered to murder civilians and being ordered to report to your brigade commander's office.

31 posted on 10/13/2010 3:46:02 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Hey mo-joe! Here's another one for your collection.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: 23 Everest

Right, and the legal rational argued by the courts about the ‘de facto officer doctrine’ does not cover Obama in this case.


32 posted on 10/13/2010 3:46:10 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

>Nope. The law is clear. His orders were lawful regardless of Obama’s status.

He has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution; to leave the question of Obama’s eligibility unresolved would be dishonorable and Conduct Unbecoming an Officer.

...Or do you want to argue that a military officer has no interest or obligation to see the Constitution followed?


33 posted on 10/13/2010 3:49:04 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
He has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution; to leave the question of Obama’s eligibility unresolved would be dishonorable and Conduct Unbecoming an Officer.

What is honorable about refusing to obey the orders of your brigade commander and two other superior officer?

34 posted on 10/13/2010 3:52:08 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Hey mo-joe! Here's another one for your collection.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: mlo

What the hell are you talking about? I’m disparaging this country?

Wasn’t it your favorite, Hillary Clintoon that said it was patriotic to disagree with any administration. The sheep are not going to take this crap anymore. That’s why I’m a member of the TEA PARTY.


35 posted on 10/13/2010 3:52:44 PM PDT by 23 Everest (A gun in hand is better than a cop on the phone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

No. I wouldn’t argue that. But a military court martial can’t resolve that question. It’s irrelevant as far as they’re concerned.


36 posted on 10/13/2010 3:56:58 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
You make my argument. He was ordered to go over with his men and kill/murder people.
37 posted on 10/13/2010 3:57:53 PM PDT by 23 Everest (A gun in hand is better than a cop on the phone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

So distinguish your proposition from the Nuremburg defense. I’m just trying to understand. Whenever these Lakin threads come up, someone always raises the question of whether “just obeying orders” theory works for this situation, and no one ever seems to address head on how it is that at Nuremburg the defendants were held responsible for wrong-doing despite their otherwise legitimate orders. If that’s the case, simply reciting the same canard they used for their defense as if it were a stand-alone universal truth seems highly suspect. There must be a better, more complete answer out there than some hypothetically unconditional obligation to always follow the orders of a superior officer.


38 posted on 10/13/2010 3:59:21 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer
Whenever these Lakin threads come up, someone always raises the question of whether “just obeying orders” theory works for this situation, and no one ever seems to address head on how it is that at Nuremburg the defendants were held responsible for wrong-doing despite their otherwise legitimate orders.

So are you claiming Lakin was being ordered to commit genocide?

39 posted on 10/13/2010 4:01:42 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: 23 Everest

No. He wasn’t ordered to kill anyone.


40 posted on 10/13/2010 4:01:42 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

“Those who have encouraged LTC Lakin to pursue this fool’s errand are going to walk away scot free to tilt at the next windmill and Lakin’s career will be destroyed.”

Lakin will lose, but I cannot feel too much sympathy for him. It would take either an amazing ego or amazing stupidity to have expected any other outcome. If someone is leading an army of fools, he needs to ask himself why only fools follow him?


41 posted on 10/13/2010 4:01:42 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 23 Everest; Non-Sequitur

“He was ordered to go over with his men and kill/murder people.”

That speaks volumes about the mindset of some birthers...I’ve been to Afghanistan, and flew a lot of sorties over Iraq, and can’t recall getting orders to murder anyone.


42 posted on 10/13/2010 4:04:39 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

Lakin wasn’t ordered to commit murder.


43 posted on 10/13/2010 4:04:43 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

I bet it does. And there is more to it than being ordered to his commanders office.

Personally, what LT Calley did was deplorable. However, what is the difference if the US Govt made the decision on a much larger scale? If we got rid of the stupid rules of engagement, sure there would be lot’s of civilians killed, but we would have solved this issue years ago, thereby saving many more lives on both sides.


44 posted on 10/13/2010 4:06:22 PM PDT by 23 Everest (A gun in hand is better than a cop on the phone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

No, I’m not. Although that theory might enter the discussion later, presently I am merely asking whether it is appropriate to set forth the duty to obey one’s superior officer as universal and unconditional, when it is well-known that there are conditions that warrant disobedience. Nuremburg certainly represents one class of such conditions, but if there is one there might be others. It just seems illogical to state the proposition as an absolute, when we know it isn’t.


45 posted on 10/13/2010 4:06:48 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer
Whenever these Lakin threads come up, someone always raises the question of whether “just obeying orders” theory works for this situation, and no one ever seems to address head on how it is that at Nuremburg the defendants were held responsible for wrong-doing despite their otherwise legitimate orders.

The Manual of Courts Martial states, "An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime." Mass murder is a crime. Shooting unarmed civilians is a crime. Robbing a bank is a crime. All are violations of international law and being ordered to do any of those acts is not a legitimate order. Being ordered to report to your brigade commander is not a crime, it is a performance of one's military duty. The Nuremburg Defense does not apply.

46 posted on 10/13/2010 4:06:48 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Hey mo-joe! Here's another one for your collection.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

You must have amnesia. Clearly “move out” equals “kill everyone in sight.”

/s


47 posted on 10/13/2010 4:07:08 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

That’s because you were really flying tankers. And don’t call me a birther, shirley. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.


48 posted on 10/13/2010 4:08:30 PM PDT by 23 Everest (A gun in hand is better than a cop on the phone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: 23 Everest
I bet it does. And there is more to it than being ordered to his commanders office.

No there isn't. Obama could be unmasked as a fraud and removed from office tomorrow and Lakin would still be guilty of disobeying orders, missing movement, and conduct unbecoming.

Personally, what LT Calley did was deplorable. However, what is the difference if the US Govt made the decision on a much larger scale? If we got rid of the stupid rules of engagement, sure there would be lot’s of civilians killed, but we would have solved this issue years ago, thereby saving many more lives on both sides.

I'm not sure quite how to answer that.

49 posted on 10/13/2010 4:10:02 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Hey mo-joe! Here's another one for your collection.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer
There must be a better, more complete answer out there than some hypothetically unconditional obligation to always follow the orders of a superior officer.

Although I am a lawyer, I am not a military lawyer, so someone with more expertise may correct me. Having said that, my understanding is that, under the UCMJ, it is a defense to a prosecution for disobeying orders that the order was illegal. In a court martial, the judge (not the jury) decides if the order was legal or illegal; if the judge decides it was legal, the jury decides if the defendant disobeyed it.

50 posted on 10/13/2010 4:10:09 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 2,851-2,880 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson