Posted on 12/17/2010 6:27:27 AM PST by FS11
If his sentence is approved by the convening authority, Lakin’s case, because it includes dismissal, will be sent for automatic review by the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA), which has the authority to overturn his convictions.
Maj. Gen. Karl Horst, Lakin's commanding general, could also grant Lakin clemency.
If the ACCA upholds Lakin’s convictions, he can appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF).
If the CAAF agrees to hear Lakin’s appeal but denies it, Lakin can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which rarely grants review for appeals of military justice system decisions.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Mike
...until after the truth about The Won comes out.
Obama may have won this battle at LTC Lakin’s expense. But obama has lost the war.
Lakin is a hero. His sacrifice is not for naught.
The courts have denied us the fundamental common law right to quo warranto; the Congress has not challenged the eligibility of the Kenyan usurper; it is unsurprising then that it falls to a decorated veteran to say quo warranto, is Obama eligible to command our armed forces?
Winston Churchill wrote in his magisterial History of the English-Speaking Peoples about quo warranto and how powerful a device it was in the hands of Charles II: "The Whig corporations were asked by writs of Quo Warranto to prove their title to their long-used liberties. These titles were found in many cases, to the satisfaction of the royal judges, to be defective. Under these pressures large number of hitherto hostile corporations threw themselves under the mercy of the Crown..."
We have been denied that same common law right by our courts.
A decorated veteran has now said: "Show us where you are eligible to serve as our Commander-in-Chief", and the Kenyan usurper has responded with utter contempt for this man's concerns and this man's honorable service to our country.
The corrosive effect on military morale caused by any question about the very eligibility of the Commander-in-Chief to serve in that position is profound. History shows that such corrosion is utter poison in the veins of any country.
The Kenyan usurper has had years to present clear and convincing evidence of his natural born citizenship. He has failed to do so, and it is evident that he cannot.
Remember Micheal New ?
Are you aware he testified under oath that the orders were legal, and that he was wrong not to obey?
Dryfuss and Devil’s Island come to mind.
Unfortunately due to Lakin’s guilty I agree. He should have pled Nolo Contendere.
Regardless the Eligibility Movement will continue in Civilian Courts and BO will be legally removed.
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/07/taking-aka-obama-directly-before-scotus.html
The American people will benefit from what LTC Lakin has done—the American people are now even more certain this person in the White House has no qualification to be there. THE TRUTH WILL OUT
WE HAVE A RIGHT EVEN AN OBLIGATION TO DEMAND PROOF
THE CONSTITUTION MATTERS
That’s his medical opinion
Bookmark
No, I do not think they shoud be sued...
It is clear that BO’s pResidency is illegitimate.
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/05/aka-obama-ineligible-if-he-was-born-on.html
Neither does a Jury member have this power, not yet a Lawyer.
Whatever you think Lakin testified to, he didn't testify that something was legal. How could he?
The American people will benefit from what LTC Lakin has done—the American people are now even more certain this person in the White House has no qualification to be there. THE TRUTH WILL OUT
WE HAVE A RIGHT EVEN AN OBLIGATION TO DEMAND PROOF
THE CONSTITUTION MATTERS
11 posted on Friday, December 17, 2010 8:48:17 AM by yldstrk
We have already benefited by the public attention to the fact that BO is an illegitimate pResident. It is a pity that Lakin capitulated and pled guilty. He should have pled Nolo Contendere.
LTC Lakin’s second group of attorneys sandbagged him, big time.
By pleading guilty to the charges, Lakin’s chances of appeal are slim and none. Had he contested the charges in a Court-Martial...he had some chance of being acquitted. And, he would have had more of a case in appeal, since he was prohibited from providing a defense by the judge.
Looking at his sentence, the only risk he had in going to trial was getting some more confinement time. Even in his guilty plea, he got confinement, dismissal, and loss of all future benefits
Obviously, the second group of lawyers were protecting Obama, not their client.
Dryfuss and Devil’s Island come to mind.
9 posted on Friday, December 17, 2010 8:47:30 AM by Don Corleone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair
The Dreyfus affair (French: affaire Dreyfus) was a political scandal that divided France in the 1890s and the early 1900s. It involved the conviction for treason in November 1894 of Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a young French artillery officer of Alsatian Jewish descent. Sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly having communicated French military secrets to the German Embassy in Paris, Dreyfus was sent to the penal colony at Devil’s Island in French Guiana and placed in solitary confinement.
No, it was not a Supreme Court ruling - but Lakin testified that his lawyer told him the orders were legal, that he now agrees, and wishes he had obeyed them.
He plead GUILTY to disobeying orders, which required him to accept the idea that his orders were lawful.
Now, how many members of Congress have stated that the military should disobey all orders? Has ANY court ever said that? And how many of these cases has the Supreme Court taken?
I would love to see Obama impeached, but until then, he is the President of the US. Anyone claiming otherwise is delusional.
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.