Posted on 09/16/2010 10:33:25 PM PDT by STARWISE
*snip*
Today’s statement relates specifically to the ongoing courts-martial of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin.
September 3, 2010 – Upon receiving word that LTC Lakin would be denied any and all access to discovery and mitigating evidence needed to provide for a legitimate defense, a White Paper was prepared and released by The United States Patriots Union and The United States Bar Association, advising the Lakin defense team to immediately adjust its defense strategy in accordance with established history and law concerning Mr. Barack Obama’s constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief.
In short, to drop the search for an insignificant birth certificate and focus on the right question at hand. A second White Paper was published last week.
We believe that there are only two potential outcomes of this courts-martial, and that both outcomes bring certain challenges. Our first priority must be to unite in defense of LTC Lakin in an effort to arrive at the best possible outcome for both Lakin and the nation.
*snip*
It is our opinion that the existing legal team representing LTC Lakin should be re-energized and reinforced immediately by a more experienced military legal team.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
"According to Woodward's meeting-by-meeting, memo-by-memo account of the 2009 Afghan strategy review, the president avoided talk of victory as he described his objectives.
"This needs to be a plan about how we're going to hand it off and get out of Afghanistan," Obama is quoted as telling White House aides as he laid out his reasons for adding 30,000 troops in a short-term escalation. "Everything we're doing has to be focused on how we're going to get to the point where we can reduce our footprint. It's in our national security interest. There cannot be any wiggle room."
Obama rejected the military's request for 40,000 troops as part of an expansive mission that had no foreseeable end. "I'm not doing 10 years," he told Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at a meeting on Oct. 26, 2009. "I'm not doing long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion dollars."
Now the illegal alien and usurper/fake C-i-C ordered 30,000 instead of requested 40,000 troops to be sent to the Afghanistan theater, right!!!
Was Lt.Col. Lakin a part of those troops, huh???
And precisely none of that is relevant to my main point about when the first Birther started arguing that “natural born citizenship” requires two U.S. citizen parents.
I’d say you made a good effort at trying to change the subject, but frankly, it was a really obvious and transparent attempt at trying to change the subject.
"U.S. citizens who have written to Israel Insider or have posted on the Internet are not satisfied."
A lot of that "US citizens" stuff is just cover for how Insider got stuff it has. In fact, Israel Insider has a lot more information and documents than we do.
“I called the State and asked if I could get an unfolded copy. No dice.”
“There’s no crease from being folded and mailed. [Hawaii requires printing and mailing, according to Okubo.”
Hmmm...I am curious as to how Polarik got this COLB with no creases (none visible anyway):
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/small-COLBS/Dan-small.jpg
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2084512/posts
I believe that. Russia possibly, too .. and some
of their anti-American nation friends .. maybe even Iran.
BTW, I meant to but forgot to include the date of
that piece.
It’s 6-28-08
You’ve likely seen that there’s a lot on that site.
OFFICERS MIGHT BE PROSECUTORS, BUT THEIR AUTHORITY COMES FROM THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF
by Sharon Rondeau
###
*snip*
Upon the adoption of the Constitution and the division of the powers of the government, the executive power, previously exercised by Congress, was transferred to the President, and with it the function of commander-in-chief…
Among these powers was the authority, properly incident to chief command, of issuing to subordinates and the army at large such orders as a due consideration for military discipline might require, and, among these, orders directing officers to assemble and investigate cases of misconduct and recommend punishments therefor—in other words orders constituting courts-martial.
Winthrop states that several presidents, both during peacetime and war, had used their authority to convene courts-martial (pp. 59-60). He then states:
Meanwhile, indeed, the provision of 1830, now incorporated in the second clause of the 72d Article, had specially devolved it upon the President to appoint the court whenever the military commander, otherwise competent for the purpose, should happen to be the “accuser or prosecutor” of the officer to be tried; but the effect of this, according to recent ruling, was “to limit the authority of commanding officers, not to confer power upon the President.”
And the authority of the President to order such courts, generally and at discretion, as commander-in-chief, continued to be exercised irrespective of such provision. Otherwise indeed it would have resulted that many officers and soldiers, not under the command of a “department” or “army” commander, including general officers, certain officers of the general staff, cadets of the Military Academy, and sundry enlisted men of the Engineer Battalion, or Ordinance or Signal corps, or acting as clerks in the War Department, would, prior to 1874, (or, in the case of the cadets, 1873,) have remained exempt from amenability to military justice, to the serious prejudice of discipline. (page 60)
*snip*
A military officer can not be invested with greater authority by Congress than the Commander-in-chief, and a power of command devolved by statute on an officer of the Army or Navy is necessarily shared by the President…
2. UNDER THE 72d ARTICLE OF WAR. In the second clause of this Article it is provided that when a military commander authorized by the first clause to “appoint” a general court-martial, is the “accuser or prosecutor” of an officer of his command proposed to be brought to trial, the court shall be appointed by the President.”
Cdr. Walter Fitzpatrick (Ret.) generously gave his time to The Post & Email to explain the concept of “attainder,” to whom the authority belongs to convene a court-martial, and the impact of a broken chain of command if indeed Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible to serve as President of the United States.
He discussed in detail how it affects Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who has refused to obey orders based on his contention that Obama may not meet the constitutional qualifications to issue orders. Cdr. Fitzpatrick also discussed the potential results of Col. Denise Lind‘s recent claim that she and the Pentagon have the authority to conduct Lakin’s court-martial without authorization from the putative commander-in-chief.
___________________________________________________
Obama Issues EXECUTIVE ORDER amending COURT MARTIAL RULES!Posted by Admin. II, Dee on September 7, 2010
###
REVISED!
President Obama signed an Executive Order that amends the Manual for Courts-Martial on August 31, 2010.
The cover document is on the White House website, but the text of the changes is still neither there nor on the Federal Register, DoD websites nor the Library of Congress’ Manuals for Courts-Martial as of 10:30 9/7/2010. The amendments take effect on September 30, 2010.
Does anyone have any idea what the changes are that are made by this document? And, will the changes affect Ltc. Terry Lakin’s case?
I’ve checked JAG websites and bloggers don’t seem to know what the changes are either. If you have any information, please add it to this discussion.
(A MEMBER HAS SUPPLIED US WITH A LINK TO THE ANNEX DOCUMENT and the PDF is at the end of the text of the cover document)
Rest here:
Proof it was his order.
Yes, I've heard this a thousand times on this forum, but that doesn't make it true. Lakin can go ahead and try to use this argument, but he shouldn't expect any Judge to take it seriously.
#206 Ping!
he is illegally sitting in the presidents chair plain and simple. we need to toss his sorry ass out. while we are at it biden, clintoon, reid and pelosi and every other jerk in there he appointed.
the point is not to get any judge to take it seriously. The point is to get it to SCOTUS so that SCOTUS is FORCED to define the term under the specific meaning of the Constitution.
In a very real sense, winning or losing a case at any level is irrelevant as both sides are simply going to appeal the decision to a higher court. All lower courts are kicking it for the singular reason that they know this.
Only SCOTUS can define the term legally under the constitution. This is where the case must end up. THAT is the point.
Yep. Lind did another Appeal-able Punt. Not surprised. No court is going to want to decide this. It has to go to SCOTUS.
I gave it a look over a week ago or so. I did not see any of the changes for the MCM that could effect LTC Lakin , however, Obama may have been covering his own butt.
There are changes that limit a military court's ability to try a civilian, as Obama is a civilian, even though he is the purported CiC.
One question not answered either. Is/was Lt.Col. Lakin’s order included in the package of the “illegal” order of the 30,000 servicemen going to Afghanistan???
I heard it with my own ears and saw that with my eyes, from West Point, and not “ONLY” from the brass ranks at Pentagon, hmmm!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY7k9yjQtzo
As typical, this EO regarding modifications to the
UCMJ is full of gobbledlygooky legalese, and we don’t
know if what’s been published is ALL this EO contains,
or if the arrogant resident is employing his typical
smoke, mirrors and deceit and some modifications are
off limits to the public.
And it seems that Clarence Thomas can’t wait to punt it out of court like every other judges have done, cowardly. Judge Carter comes to mind!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7qEH-tKoXA
TY!
I am not proposing this as a defense for Lt. Col. Lakin, just as an underlying fact as to the eligibility of Obama to sit in the Oval Office.
To add on a little there is SCOTUS precedent about lawful and unlawful orders that came from the president.
During the Quasi-war with France, it was found later by the US Supreme Court that President Adams gave an unlawful order to the Navy, and following that order, would be for military commanders who "acted at their own peril."
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm
"The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the "I was only following orders" defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port. However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President's instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders "act at their own peril" when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal."
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.