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

[fireman15]

“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.”

You are the one who doesn't seem to get it here. The legal ruling on Col. Lakin’s case is really more in the periphery. There is a slight chance that progress could be made legally here, but the real threat to Obama is that a good man will be suffering because he refuses to release documents that most people would consider to be innocuous. Nothing resonates more than the story of a Martyr. This is probably more true today than it has ever been. If you don't get that you should rename yourself stupid_old_conservative.

If Col. Lakin were to actually find himself behind bars even Katie Couric and Ellen DeGeneres would be trying to get interviews. It would be complete disaster for Obama.

[Red Steel]

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.

No I have not. I stated that Orly got Judge Carter and Judge Lamberth to state that the proper avenue to pursue a qou warranto against someone who illegally holds federal office is through the DC courts. I comprehend plenty. Standing, the political question, and jurisdiction. Once those are overcome, the eligibility case(s) can proceed on the merits to a rightful conclusion.

You're incapable of basic logic on this issue for two obvious reasons.

I stated logic clearly in post 12 in that other thread to you...you dumb-butt troll, which I gave you in a link. Maybe you're too dense to understand it.

One, you're unversed in how the law actually works. Two, you're completely irrational on this subject.

You are full of nonsense. I just told you above what the problems are.

You buy into every single loser of a case that rolls down this pike, because your emotional desire

Not hardly. I hope they don't pay your to write such silly tripe.

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.

If you haven't noticed lately or are too obtuse to see that Obama is about to lose Congress this November. I think clearly enough to see that you shine Obama turds.

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.

Every eligibility case is another case for you to troll.

Just like every army officer who makes the correct, and obvious, legal ruling on the Lakin case will be.

Huh? Every army officer? We will see how this all turns out in the end. There's no time limit to expose Obama.

Because you can't deal with the simple legal realities of these cases.

I deal with them quite well.

[Red Steel]

If Col. Lakin were to actually find himself behind bars even Katie Couric and Ellen DeGeneres would be trying to get interviews. It would be complete disaster for Obama.

CON and fool is not much of a strategic thinker. I doubt if he sees the significance.

[Non-Sequitur]

I thought you should see the legal definition...

And what was the action that Obama took that caused Lakin to be court martialed?

[Godebert]

Sell your cowardly defeatist snake oil somewhere else.

[Godebert]

Very good analysis.

[centurion316]

In 1991, CPT (Dr.) Yolanda Huet-Vaughan decided that she didn’t want to deploy to the Gulf because she contended that she got to decide which wars she wanted to support. She went to Leavenworth. Lakin will as well. She was used by the left to score political points and Lakin is being used by the right for the same purpose. Both are idiots, commissioned officers don’t get to play in politics and if they want to do so, they need to wait until they have resigned their commissions. That’s the way that the military has to work.

[SnakeDoctor]

Denial is far more cowardly than simple reality.

SnakeDoc

[BP2]

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.

Hmmm, “the plaintiff will have only suffered self-inflicted injury from his own illegal actions” ....

Do you mean like when Susan B. Anthony was arrested for Voting? (BTW, she NEVER paid the fine):

OR ...

Do you mean the "self-inflicted injury" Rosa Parks brought upon herself? (BTW, it was the 3 arrested plaintiffs of
Browder v. Gayle that Civil Rights attorneys actually chose to push to the SCOTUS, not Rosa Park's case):

Oftentimes the only way to challenge an injustice is to test it in court. SOMEONE must be the sacrificial lamb, and lead the way for OTHER brave souls who help correct this injustice. Gaining Injury along the way is part of our legal process. Any ACLU lawyer will tell you this; YOU should know this too, troll.

Please explain YOUR "comprehension of the basic legal issues involved", especially regarding Injury.

I don't think you have a grasp on the subject, despite what your laughable talking points might say ...

[imfleck]

Lakin should be imprisoned. He’s broken military law and should pay the consequences. It really is as simple as that.

[BP2]

> Lakin should be imprisoned. He’s broken military law and should pay the consequences.
> It really is as simple as that.

No, there's a lot more twists and turns that, especially if you've been paying attention to the events leading to the so-called Certifications by the DNC and Congress of Obama's Constitutional Eligibility under Art II, § 1, Clause 5 in 2008 and January 2009.

But the biggest one is obvious: How can Lakin have “broken military law” when his deployment orders stem from an illegitimate, de facto CinC?

Please state your case as to why you think Obama IS legitimate.

Your beliefs on this matter aren't by any chance based upon THIS, are they?

[imfleck]

This decorated LTC has broken military law. He deserves to be punished appropriately.

Besides, I really don’t think President Obama is too interested one way or the other about this case...

[imfleck]

The burden of proof is not mine to show that President Obama is legitimate, it’s already been done as you’ve indicated. The fact that the birthers aren’t satisifed with that certification places the burden of proof back on their shoulders - it’s theirs to prove differently and that hasn’t been done by ANYONE who is a legitimate authority. Not one.

Who directly gave him the order to deploy, the CinC? Doubt it. This (perhaps treasonous, we are at war after all...) LTC is on the wrong side of the UCMJ and needs to be punished accordingly.

[BP2]

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.

Uh, first of all, I don't see Orly's name listed on any of Lakin's filings. Where do you see it?

Uh, second of all, I didn't realize you trolls kept a “track record”.

However, WE keep track of the troll activity here. And let me tell you lucysmom tired_old_conservative ... your track record here on Free Republic is very unimpressive:

Perhaps you should stick with trolling on Yahoo or CNN ... you're out of your league here on FR.

[so_real]

This decorated LTC has broken military law.

Did he? I'm not convinced.

In 1799 President Adams wrote an order and distributed it through the Secretary of the Navy to the captains of the armed fleet ordering them to seize all vessels bound to, or from, French ports in light of the Napoleonic Wars. The Danish ship the Flying Fish was seized having left a French port. The ship owners successfully sued U.S. Navy Captain Little for trespass. Our Supreme Court stated in the opinion of the court that officers obey unlawful orders at their own liability.

Chief Justice Martial stated "I was strongly inclined to think that where, in consequence of orders from the legitimate authority, a vessel is seized with pure intention, the claim of the injured party for damages would be against that government from which the orders proceeded, and would be a proper subject for negotiation. But I have been convinced that I was mistaken, and I have receded from this first opinion."

So, you see, the burden lies with the officer to ascertain the lawful nature of the orders issued, and to follow or not follow them accordingly. The prosecution does not have to prove that Obama is a natural born citizen, but they do have to prove that Lakin made no effort to ascertain the lawful nature of the orders and that instead his intent was purely dereliction of duty. Lakin is *required* to vet the legality of the orders received and doing so is not a crime. Having his superiors ignore or block this vetting does not release him from the requirement of performing it.

So what is he guilty of? What punishment is appropriately deserved? If his legal team stops attacking Obama directly, and instead focuses on evidencing Lakin's willingness to comply with lawful orders and the requirement laid upon him by the Supreme Court to ascertain that legality for himself and at his own personal peril, I say he wins hands down. But that's just my humble opinion.

[El Sordo]

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

I think that is Red’s intention.

All part of his Master Plan.

[Non-Sequitur]

... you're out of your league here on FR.

Still a legend in your own mind, I see?

[melancholy]

Ping..................

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

[centurion316]

Your citation is correct, commissioned officers have always been held liable when executing illegal orders. This has been especially true in the arena of Admiralty law, prize taking, etc.

That does not apply in this case. Obama is issuing legal orders, he has been duly sworn and installed in his office. Should he later be determined to be ineligible, the orders that he has issued, the laws that he has signed will not be vacated. So Lakin is on shaky ground despite whatever emotional expectations we may attach to his forlorn hope.

[BP2]

> Who directly gave him the order to deploy, the CinC? Doubt it. This (perhaps treasonous, we are at war after all...)
> LTC is on the wrong side of the UCMJ and needs to be punished accordingly.

Hmmm, last time I checked, it was B. Hussein Obama that was sworn in on Jan 20 & Jan 21, 2009, as president...

Also, I recall that it was B. Hussein Obama in Fall 2009, after much stalling, that decided to deploy 30K troops to Afghanistan. I don't think it was Lakin's commander that made that "command decision".

Please share if you've heard otherwise that Command Authority for deployments stems from a local or Army CC:

Also, I didn't know we were "at war." I didn't realize Congress voted as such back in 2001.

HOWEVER, Congress DID vote to approve the UCMJ in 1950.

Whatcha think, imfleck ... do you think it EVER crossed their minds in 1950 when Congress created the UCMJ that a Usurper might some day be elected by an uninformed Electorate to Command the Armed Forces?

I've looked at the Congressional debates on the UCMJ. Trust me, there was no such discussion among the members of Congress. It didn't really cross there minds. THEREIN lies the very reason Lakin is Oath-Bound to "test" the UCMJ — his Oath of Office is INCONSISTENT with the UCMJ.

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

However ...

As a significant portion of the UCMJ comes from the 1949 Army Manual for Courts-Martial, and the Army Officer's Oath (effective 1959) specifically does NOT include the words "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States", unlike the Army Enlisted Oath (effective 1962) ... that should give you some indication as to where the Department of the Army "commands" an Army Officer's ultimate allegiance to be placed.

Hint: That would NOT be from the orders of a local commander, Secretary of the Army, nor even the UCMJ ...