BREAKING NEWS!!! JUSTICE HAS BEEN DENIED!!!!!

www.safeguardourconstitution.com ^ | 06/02/2010 | www.safeguardourconstitution.com

[KC Burke]

What are the odds that Obama’s going to do that?

I made a quick call to your Doctor and we have agreed that it is best for you to stop taking those four medications in conjunction with each other. The side effects may get even worse than what are now occuring in the hallucination and pollyanna dream stage.

[Steve Van Doorn]

By that statement. The question of the level immorality needs to be established.

In other words if there is no blood drawn the courts will not recognize the issue. Upholding the constitution is not a high enough immorality for the courts to recognize the issue.

The question does the military uphold the constitution or only report to the president? The swearing in process our soldiers make is irrelevant.

[SnakeDoctor]

It was intended as a rhetorical question. The odds of Obama taking that course are incalculably small.

SnakeDoc

[SnakeDoctor]

My analysis is the same regardless of the level of immorality in the orders ...

A soldier has precisely two choices (1) follow orders, or (2) refuse orders and be punished for insubordination. There is no third option wherein a soldier can refuse orders and emerge unscathed.

In the case of Nuremburg, the ruling was that a soldier under those specific circumstances was obligated to choose option 2. In this case, the LTC believes he should take option 2 as well. That is his choice to make ... but he cannot refuse an order an expect not to be punished for insubordination.

SnakeDoc

[KC Burke]

LOL — I know, I know. I just had to grab a corner of your wording and give it a twist for fun.

[SnakeDoctor]

Haha. Sorry. I couldn’t really believe anyone thought that I was actually suggesting that Obama would fall on a sword for anyone.

SnakeDoc

[Steve Van Doorn]

Maybe I wasn't clear.

that is fine all levels of immoral laws must be followed or punished. I understand that Lakin should be punished.

But the courts need to recognize immoral laws if they don't we are looking at a tyrannical system in the making.

In other words Lakin should be punished for disobeying orders but should also get a chance to make his case of immorality.

[BP2]

> Not that amazing. None of the denied information was
> relevant to the charges Lakin is facing.

How about that ... you’re actually right about something, but for all of the wrong reasons.

The information is most certainly relevant. It was put forth by FactCheck LOL!

But Lakin will NOT find justice in a Military Court any more than Obama would be brought to justice by Eric Holder for offering of political jobs for Sestak, Romanoff and possibly other candidates to drop out of Congressional races.

In the case of Obama’s Congressional payola scheme, justice will have to wait until the GOP takes Congress next year, unless one of the States launch investigations and/or a Grand Jury is formed to probe the circumstances. We all know that Eric Holder and the Justice Department will protect Obama because of political influence and he has to “protect the office of the president.”

While it is not in the charter of the Military Court system to “protect the office of the president,” they simply don’t have the power to do what’s being asked by Lakin’s attorney.
Plainly stated: the military “works for” Obama.

Furthermore, they don't have the power to investigate their "boss" in this manner, i.e., to question the "wisdom" of elected officials in "certifying" Obama's Eligibility. The JAGs will protect the office, even though many have great disdain for the man.

Lakin will in all likelihood be found guilty; I see no other outcome from this Courts Martial.
UCMJ Article 66(c) will help ensure that he loses in the Court of Military Appeals, as well.

Lakin knows this and is prepared to go "all the way" with this case.
Lakin KNOWS he won’t find justice in the Military Court system.

`
"United States v. White" (2001) tells you all you need to know about where this case is heading:

Unlike civilians, military prisoners have no civil remedy for alleged constitutional violations. United States v. Palmiter, 20 MJ 90, 93 n. 4 (CMA 1985), citing Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296 (1983), and Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950). Thus, they must rely on the prison grievance system, Article 138, UCMJ, 10 USC § 938, the Courts of Criminal Appeals, and this Court [the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces] for relief.

As such, UCMJ Article 67(a) explains the rest:

(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.

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Well, it’ll be nice seeing Galarraga tooling around Lakeland next spring in his new Corvette!

[so_real]

subject to review by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari

And ... in the meantime ... I will make sure everyone I know is aware that Mr. Obama would rather see a decorated Lt.Col. imprisoned than to provide evidence he is qualified for the office he holds. If the pres__ent chooses to destroy Lt.Col. Lakin, let him too be destroyed in the hearts and minds of the citizens Lakin protects and doctors. Spread the word to all your friends too, and encourage them to do the same. President, or not, the man is mule's behind for not coming to the defense of a patriot.

[Grunthor]

Exactly how was that “thought” an answer to my question?

[SnakeDoctor]

That isn’t the purpose of the inquiry. Obama isn’t on trial ... and to allow such a precedent would be very damaging in that it would allow any peacenik soldier to put military policy on trial simply by refusing to deploy. Do we really want war objectors to force a court to arbitrate the justifications for the Iraq War (for instance) just because he refused to deploy.

The only question is whether the LTC disobeyed the orders of his superiors. There are precedents to consider here, and allowing a junior officer to bring moral questions to superiors (including the CIC) through these trials would make a circus of the thing.

SnakeDoc

[so_real]

Do we really want war objectors to force a court to arbitrate the justifications for the Iraq War (for instance) just because he refused to deploy.

Enlisted personnel swear an oath to obey the orders of their superiors. Officers do not swear to obey their superiors -- they swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". This is a measure of protection designed to prevent the military body from being used as a pawn of the Executive branch of government. Even the libs respect the importance of that. Officers are the "thinking men" and cannot use blind obedience as a valid excuse for inappropriate activity. In answer to your question, yes ... assuming the objectors are officers and are objecting on Constitutional grounds ... I do want the court to arbitrate for truth and justice. It's their job. But if the objectors are not officers or the grounds for disobeying orders are not Constitutionally founded -- it'll be a short trial indeed.

[SnakeDoctor]

>> But if the objectors are not officers or the grounds for disobeying orders are not Constitutionally founded — it’ll be a short trial indeed.

Courts rarely work so well. If you open the door, you open the door.

SnakeDoc

[centurion316]

I have expressed my views on LTC Lakin on this forum before.

Charge him.

Try him.

Convict him.

Send him to Leavenworth.

He is using the wrong argument, in the wrong court, for the wrong reasons. He is an idiot.

That said, Obama is a phony, a usurper, a liar, a man with a sordid past to hide; and a third generation Marxist intent on destroying this country. Lakin is not helping to hasten his demise and I have no sympathy for him. For all of his criminal past and activities, Obama was lawfully placed on the ballot, elected by the Electoral College, and sworn into office by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He is the lawful and legitimate President of the United States notwithstanding that he was unlikely to be eligible for the office in the first place.

[STARWISE]

~~Ping!

Ruling

http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/images/stories/documents/io_ruling_on_def_request_for_witnessesevid-usvlakin.pdf

[Red Steel]

Go LtCol. Lakin. The people who are for truth and justice are behind you.

[SunkenCiv]

LOL!

[Sola Veritas]

This was an article 32 hearing, not the actual court martial. Also, the officer conducting it was a JAG one. A JAG is going to follow the law and procedures exactly by the book. He/she will not think outside the box.

In the court martial, the “jury” will be LINE officers (meaning REAL soldiers) and not JAG lawyers. IF they feel that LTC Lakin was not allowed to properly defend himself, they may rule him not guilty....the stupid rules be damned.

I am a reserve line officer and I don’t hold JAG types in high regard, although I do pity them because of the positions they are placed in. Ultimately, were I sitting on a court martial, I would not vote to convict anyone that wasn’t allowed a full defense...regardless of what a military judge or other JAG type say is a “full” defense. Line officers are more likely to be interested in truth than just mere legal rules. Intent would matter to me, even if the JAG types say it doesn’t. I have confidence that other Line types will feel this way as well. It just depends on how impartially the court board is selected.

[seekthetruth]

Thanks so much for the information. I was hoping that there would be a chance for Lakin to actually defend himself and show that he followed the proper chain of command to get his very simple questions answered, to no avail.