Posted on 09/04/2010 5:55:53 AM PDT by Smokeyblue
The military judge who curiously noted without explanation that uncovering evidence about President Obama's birth records could prove "embarrassing" and denied an officer the right to obtain potentially exculpatory evidence in a court-martial simply has forgotten the Constitution, the supreme rule of the United States.
So says Judge Roy Moore, who battled the politically correct climate as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court a decade ago and ultimately was removed from office by a state panel that refused to review the constitutionality of a federal court order.
SNIP
"Lt. Col. Lakin has every right to question the lawfulness of the orders of the commander in chief. He's not only the commander in chief, he dictates the whole war effort, as shown by the recent firing of [Gen. Stanley McChrystal]," Moore said.
It doesn't matter, he said, that orders come from a colonel, or a general or even the Pentagon.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Battle-scarred judge says Lakin decision ignores Constitution
'Highest law in this country is not Supreme Court, not commander in chief'
‘Highest law in this country is not Supreme Court, not commander in chief’
...and that is the very subject of the thread, to state the obvious.
Battle-scarred judge says Lakin decision ignores Constitution
And there you have it.
Judge Moore said:
“No order in the military can be issued without the authority that backs the order. The president didn’t give the order, but he is the authority that backs the order,” he said.
government has been ignoring the constitution for a very long time.
When will we have a transcript of precisely what was stated in court?
When will Lakin’s attorney appeal this decision, and to which court will it be appealed?
“Col. Lakin seems to be drawing some pretty important people to his side on this.”
I hope more will be speaking out.
“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”
government has been ignoring the constitution for a very long time.
...and way too many people are enjoying the results.
Every officer of government, at every level, in every branch, swears before God to defend the Constitution of the United States. And that doesn’t mean defending a piece of paper. It means defending its principles and requirements.
Practically our entire political and legal class, and now apparently many in the military as well, have been passing the responsibilities that oath entails off to someone else.
That being true, I don’t know why anyone would be surprised that the Constitution is now unprotected and ignored. It’s no wonder at all that the rights and liberty it is supposed to protect are melting away and the federal system of divided self-government it should protect is crumbling.
Charter of the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg)
August 8, 1945
ARTICLE 8
The fact that the defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determine that justice so requires.
This is a major reason to determine that an order is legal. If the Commander in Chief is not legal, then his orders are not legal, then any soldier maybe subject to criminal proceedings.
Thank you for your OPINION.
How was he able to document the eligibility of the other Presidents he served under? Their birth certificates are hidden, too.
(a) The Court of Military Appeals shall review the record in--
(1) all cases in which the sentence, as affirmed by a Court of Military Review, extends to death;
(2) all cases reviewed by a Court of Military Review which the Judge Advocate General orders sent to the Court of Military Appeals for review; and
(3) all cases reviewed by a Court of Military Review in which, upon petition of the accused and on good cause shown, the Court of Military Appeals has granted review.
(b) the accused may petition the Court of Military Appeals for review of a decision of a court of Military Review within 60 days from the earlier of --
(1) the date on which the accused is notified of the decision of the Court of Military Review; or
(2) the date on which a copy of the decision of the Court of Military Review, after being served on appellate counsel of record fro the accused (if any), is deposited in the United States mails for delivery by first class mail to the accused at an address provided by the accused, or, if no such address has been provided by the accused, at the last address listed for the accused in his official service record. The Court of Military Appeals shall act upon such a petition promptly in accordance with the rules of the court.
(c) In any case reviewed by it, the Court of Military Appeals may act only with respect to the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority and as affirmed or set aside as incorrect in law by the Court of Military Review. In a case which the Judge Advocate General orders sent to the Court of Military Appeals, that action need be taken only with respect to the issues raised by him. In a case reviewed upon petition of the accused, that action need be taken only with respect to issues specified in the grant of review. The Court of Military Appeals shall take action only with respect to matters of law.
(d) If the Court of Military Appeals sets aside the findings and sentence, it may, except where the setting aside is based on lack of sufficient evidence in the record to support the findings, order a rehearing. If it sets aside the findings and sentence and does not order a rehearing, it shall order that the charges be dismissed.
(e) After it has acted on a case, the Court of Military Appeals may direct the Judge Advocate General to return the record to the Court of Military Review for further review in accordance with the decision of the Court. Otherwise, unless there is to be further action by the President or the Secretary concerned, the Judge Advocate General shall instruct the convening authority to take action in accordance with that decision. If the court has ordered a rehearing, but the convening authority finds a rehearing impracticable, he may dismiss the charges.
(a) Decisions of the Unites States Court of Military Appeals are subject to review by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari as provided in section 1259 of title 28. The Supreme Court may not review by a writ of certiorari under this section any action of the Court of Military Appeals in refusing to grant a petition for review.
(b) The accused may petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor and without filing the affidavit required by section 1915(a) of title 28.
*ping*
When it says, “... the Court of Military Appeals may act only with respect to the findings and sentence AS APPROVED BY THE CONVENING AUTHORITY...”, does this mean the Colonel can't appeal unless the judge ruling on this case gives his O.K.?
“The Court of Military Appeals shall take action only with respect to matters of law.”
Would opening/submitting any records (school, birth, military, passport, etc.) that confirms Obama is qualified to be president qualify as “matters of law”?
It is reassuring that Lt. Col. Lakin has a possible recourse if this judge does not rule in his favor.
The Pentagon has him by the balls the entire government is corrupt.
It is quite obvious that Obama was not born in the USA....there is no reason to deny LTC Lakin discovery regarding Obama’s birth status
The more the courts deny release of his BC, you can pretty much be assured Obama is not American born. The more the prosecution fights the release, you know its bad for Obama
Statement of Fact: Obama was not born in the US
Also Lakin can appeal to the US Supreme Court if his Military Appeals ruling goes against him.
Now, a question I have (and do not have time to look thru my old Manual of Courts-Martial)....can Lakin and his attorneys challenge a ruling through the appelate courts in regard to not being allowed to get discovery on Obama Birth evidence?
What is so telling about Lakin’s case is that they are refusing his defense...and to use discovery in the case. This case would easily be overturned on appeal
bfl
Sorry but I can’t give you definitive answers as I’m not qualified to do so. I know next to nothing about the UCMJ.
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.