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

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

[jy22077]

LTC Terry Lakin IS NOT RECEIVING A FAIR TRIAL!!!! Lakin has been DENIED JUSTICE, DUE PROCESS and a FAIR TRIAL http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/ Lakin needs all the support we can muster.

Everyone needs to email this piece of work and tell him that Lakin has a right to JUSTICE and a FAIR TRIAL. Email away everyone: Daniel J. Dricoll LTC, JA Investigating Officer daniel.driscoll@amedd.army.mil ......http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/images/stories/documents/io_ruling_on_def_request_for_witnessesevid-usvlakin.pdf Let's make sure this email goes viral! www.safeguardourconstitution.com

[Danae]

Ok, is it just me or is there an appeal ..... hangar sized appeal door in this decision? Or is it just me?

[Danae]

I think that’s why this judge punted. Not allowing evidence that proves a claim, the claim made in the case? That has Appeal written all over it.

[Red Steel]

Good post Sola.

[Steve Van Doorn]

so you think they judge is pushing for an appeal?

[Road Warrior ‘04]

...Obama is a phony,...

That statement defeats your argument!

[truth_seeker]

“If every order given by Lakin’s superiors is illegal, then wouldn’t that mean that every order Lakin has give since January 20, 2008 is illegal as well?”

Drill Sargeant orders his basic training E1s to put in a few extra hours on the barracks.

Trainees tell Drill Sargeant: Hey Sarge, we ain’t doing it until we see the President’s birth certificate, college transcripts, passport.

No difference.

Same outcome, too.

[Danae]

It seems obvious that this is a hole big enough to drive a c-130 through. With wings attached. Maybe a Aircraft Carrier dry dock. It seems overwhelmingly to me that its deliberate. He is kicking it up to the next level, and making an appeal route more than just available. More like inevitable.

[BP2]

You're correct, but only on ONE of your three points.

> He is using the wrong argument

No, Lakin's argument is correct. Obama’s Eligibility was not properly vetted.
IF you believe Obama WAS properly vetted, please explain why you think so.

> in the wrong court

That part is correct. But Lakin has no other choice base upon his military status. He MUST first get through the Military Court system to show Injury and Causation in the Federal Court system. That's where this is headed, as the Federal Court system is only able to offer Redressability in a case against the Commander-in-Chief; a Military Court CANNOT offer such Relief.

The flip side is that BECAUSE of his military status, ONCE Lakin is found GUILTY of the charges by the Military Court, he will then have the missing link that has eluded other Eligibility cases against Obama — legal Standing.

> for the wrong reasons.

Lakin took an Oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
But then again, so did Obama.

WHICH man do you think is doing a BETTER job living up to his Oath of Office?

[so_real]

No difference.

Not so. Huge difference. The enlisted personnel swear an oath to "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over" them. The enlisted would find drill sargeant's boot up their arse and justly so. LtCol Lakin's sworn oath is to uphold and defend the Constitution.

[so_real]

Thanks for the perspective, SV.

[Katarina]

Thank you so much.

[Red Steel]

Not so. Huge difference. The enlisted personnel swear an oath to "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over" them.

Not when there is a conflict between upholding the US Constitution and the order. When they receive an unlawful order and/or the order is not Constitutionally lawful, they are compelled not to obey.

[Red Steel]

BP2: The flip side is that BECAUSE of his military status, ONCE Lakin is found GUILTY of the charges by the Military Court, he will then have the missing link that has eluded other Eligibility cases against Obama — legal Standing.

NS, as you don't buy that Lakin will have any standing. I thought you should see the legal definition:

STANDING

• Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.
• Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.^[5]
• Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.[6]

  
  
  LtCol. Lakin will meet all three of the criteria above.

[tired_old_conservative]

“BP2: The flip side is that BECAUSE of his military status, ONCE Lakin is found GUILTY of the charges by the Military Court, he will then have the missing link that has eluded other Eligibility cases against Obama — legal Standing.

NS, as you don't buy that Lakin will have any standing. I thought you should see the legal definition:

STANDING

•Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.
•Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.[5]
•Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.[6]

LtCol. Lakin will meet all three of the criteria above.”

Why do you quote a definition as proof to someone who knows what it means when you obviously do not. If convicted, the plaintiff will have only suffered self-inflicted injury from his own illegal actions. The conviction for those actions is all he will have the right to appeal; any attempt to draw in unrelated matters will meet the same fate it already has.

Anyone who contends otherwise is simply announcing they have no comprehension of the basic legal issues involved.

[Red Steel]

Anyone who contends otherwise is simply announcing they have no comprehension of the basic legal issues involved.

That is you by the trash you post.

Why do you quote a definition as proof to someone who knows what it means when you obviously do not.

I obviously do. You CON are full of your usual blather of BS. Lakin can sue for wrongful dismissal for the underlying fact that Obama is not Constitutionally eligible for office where Lakin suffered particular injury.

If convicted, the plaintiff will have only suffered self-inflicted injury from his own illegal actions.

And if Lakin can prove otherwise or someone else for that matter as I stated above and because Obama and the government's facts were incorrect, he can overturn his conviction.

[Steve Van Doorn]

I do hope you are right.

[tired_old_conservative]

Uh, we (the people who actually know something about the law) told you that exactly this was going to happen. We told you that none of Orly's cases had any chance of success. Our track record on predicting these things is pretty good.

Each time, you have shrieked “trash” and “Obot” and “BS” and the like. Your track record in these cases is awful. That's because you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about and are just venting stupid bar stool blather.

[Red Steel]

Uh, we (the people who actually know something about the law) told you that exactly this was going to happen. We told you that none of Orly's cases had any chance of success. Our track record on predicting these things is pretty good.

Orly is not being discussed here Lakin is. However, at least Orly help pave the way to get a couple judges to go on record that through the DC court circuit is the appropriate place for quo warranto action. She has helped in that regard. This is a process that is likely to take a number of years. There is no time limit as it will go on even if Obama is out of office.

Each time, you have shrieked “trash” and “Obot” and “BS” and the like. Your track record in these cases is awful. That's because you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about and are just venting stupid bar stool blather.

I do know what I'm talking about and I have proved it over and over again. You however, are a 1 tune troll that goes all the way back to your sign-on date on October 3rd of last year.

Here's a new thread for you to troll on. Go ahead. I've just posted on it speaking of logic in post number #12.

Army slams door on Obama details

[fireman15]

“Obamabots obviously should, as these threads rightly are an endless source of hilarity to them. But I was speaking of the majority of conservatives who find the whole issue both weird and counterproductive. You know, “normal” people.”

Despite the media almost completely ignoring this issue and relentlessly ridiculing those who have valid concerns, and despite conservative pundits who are afraid to address it... according to a recent poll conducted by Wenzel Strategies 55% of all Americans, 55% of Independents and 82% of Republicans want Obama to release all of his records. Their are numerous other polls that have had similar results. You are the one who is in the minority. You are not the “normal” conservative on this issue.

And to SnakeDoc your almost gleeful endless reminders that Col. Lakin must be punished are very tiring. You don't seem to get it at all. Of course Col. Lakin knew he was going to get hammered on this. He is a man of unimpeachable character acting as a martyr, this same strategy has brought down tyranny countless times throughout history. It is arguably the most effective most repeated way to topple tyranny. Look at the left's greatest heros, men such as Ghandi, Mandela and Martin Luther King. Whether you think it is going to work is meaningless.

Nearly all great causes have a martyr. In modern American culture victim status is no less important than in other cultures. Col. Lakin is a good man sacrificing himself for a higher purpose. Nothing resonates with people more. And the Obama adminstrations typical attempts to ridicule and villainize him is a very risky strategy. For it will only help to publicise Col. Lakin's plight. Even many of Obama’s supporters will be wondering why he would continue hiding documents that would normally be considered innocuous at the expense of making a martyr out of a doctor. That's the other thing, the guy is a doctor. One of the most admired professions. It couldn't be any better. Obama’s only real hope is to marginalize Col. Lakin.

I do not know where this will end up, but despite the claims of some of those here... just the fact that CNN felt the need to try and diffuse the situation with the risky tactic of trying to crack him and his attorney on air proves that this has been one of the more effective stories thus far on this issue. This guy is a true hero and whether or not his legal battle is successful matters very little. What will matter is if the American people see a good man suffering because Obama insists on keeping the relevant details of his past a secret. So for those of you who want Col. Lakin “punished”... that may just be what he is hoping for. Do I dare say that after going toe to toe with Obama that he might be a viable political candidate?

[tired_old_conservative]

“Orly is not being discussed here Lakin is. However, at least Orly help pave the way to get a couple judges to go on record that through the DC court circuit is the appropriate place for quo warranto action. She has helped in that regard. This is a process that is likely to take a number of years. There is no time limit as it will go on even if Obama is out of office...

I do know what I'm talking about and I have proved it over and over again. You however, are a 1 tune troll that goes all the way back to your sign-on date on October 3rd of last year.”

You have been wrong about every single case, Orly did nothing for quo warranto, it's not going anywhere either because again, you completely fail to comprehend the legal issues.

“Here's a new thread for you to troll on. Go ahead. I've just posted on it speaking of logic in post number #12.

Army slams door on Obama details”

You're incapable of basic logic on this issue for two obvious reasons. One, you're unversed in how the law actually works. Two, you're completely irrational on this subject. You buy into every single loser of a case that rolls down this pike, because your emotional desire to have Obama out other than by the tried and true method of appealing to voters in elections has trumped your ability, or perhaps even your desire, to think clearly. Every single case is the Holy Grail with you guys. Judge Carter was going to be the one until he made a correct, and obvious, legal ruling. Then he was just a sell out, if not overtly criminal. Just like every army officer who makes the correct, and obvious, legal ruling on the Lakin case will be. Because you can't deal with the simple legal realities of these cases.