Facts are facts?
Really?! Where?
Please present your “FACTS”.
Oh yeah ... that picture again, of that “document” ...
... that has never appeared in a courtroom ...
... Only a picture of it, on your computer monitor ...
Posted on 04/22/2010 2:54:33 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Lieutenant Colonel Terrence L. Lakin was charged today with four violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Articles 87 and 92.
(Chargesheet at the link in PDF format.)
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
This particular situation seemns substantially more promising than the Lakin fiasco.
IIRC Blago want Soetoro - that's his real name - to testify FOR him, and that seems to be a pickle!
So if the motion is granted and Soetoro does NOT do that, what then?
Blago - his narcissistic projection or not - seems very self-assured when he goes on camera, that he has a "trump card" somewhere!!
Will be very interesting to follow!!!
Facts are facts?
Really?! Where?
Please present your “FACTS”.
Oh yeah ... that picture again, of that “document” ...
... that has never appeared in a courtroom ...
... Only a picture of it, on your computer monitor ...
Article 138 is one of the most powerful rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), but it is one of the rights least known and least used by military personnel. Under Article 138 of the UCMJ, “any member of the armed forces who believes himself (or herself) wronged by his (or her) commanding officer” may request redress. If such redress is refused, a complaint may be made and a superior officer must “examine into the complaint.”
Article 138 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) gives every member of the Armed Forces the right to complain that he or she was wronged by his or her commanding officer. The right even extends to those subject to the UCMJ on inactive duty for training.
From Wiki....:
When Brown was hanged after his attempt to start a slave rebellion in 1859, church bells rang, minute guns were fired, large memorial meetings took place throughout the North, and famous writers such as Emerson and Thoreau joined many Northerners in praising Brown.[3]
Historians agree John Brown played a major role in starting the Civil War.[4] His role and actions prior to the Civil War as an abolitionist, and the tactics he chose, still make him a controversial figure today. He is sometimes memorialized as a heroic martyr and a visionary and sometimes vilified as a madman and a terrorist. Some writers, such as Bruce Olds, describe him as a monomaniacal zealot, others, such as Stephen B. Oates, regard him as “one of the most perceptive human beings of his generation.” David S. Reynolds hails the man who “killed slavery, sparked the civil war, and seeded civil rights” and Richard Owen Boyer emphasizes that Brown was “an American who gave his life that millions of other Americans might be free.” For Ken Chowder he is “at certain times, a great man”, but also “the father of American terrorism.”[5]
Brown’s nicknames were Osawatomie Brown, Old Man Brown, Captain Brown and Old Brown of Kansas. His aliases were Nelson Hawkins, Shubel Morgan, and Isaac Smith. Later the song “John Brown’s Body” (the original title of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic”) became a Union marching song during the Civil War.
I was responding to another poster. But since you asked, the 'fact' in question is the fact that yes, I'm here because I find the stuff you post to be so damned funny. Sorry if that offends you but there it is.
Goodnight, butterdezillion! You sound like a complete idiot. Do you realize that?
The Congress of the U.S. didn’t certify your election as POTUS and you weren’t sworn into the office of POTUS by the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, but guess who was? That’s why his orders are presumed lawful down the chain of command. He’s the sitting President of the U.S. until and unless he is impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.
It’s really not that complicated.
> I’m here because I find the stuff you post to be so damned funny
yeah, that picture of Obama’s so-called birth certificate ...
that IS a riot, isn’t it?!
Obama’s pretty funny, too ...
... fooling the American public like that in 2008.
ha ha ha < /sarc>
Now you're getting it. Everyone loves a good laugh.
Who is authorized by the Supreme Law of the Land to interpret the Supreme Law of the Land? (Hint: Not LTC Lakin.) So until the political entity who is granted Constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution actually interprets the eligibility clause to which you refer, guess who is the sitting POTUS and CIC?
> Now you’re getting it. Everyone loves a good laugh.
Yep. And when you’re standing in a soup line after Obama announces
America can’t meet its obligation to pay that 27-year Military Retirement
pension you claim, the joke will be on you too.
Clearly, US v. Nixon gives the Judiciary subpoena power over POTUS in a criminal trial. That is settled law. If Obama was unable to quash subpoena and then refused to testify (or give a deposition), then Clinton v. Jones would indicate that the Judge has the authority to find Obama in contempt. Of course, Clinton v. Jones dealt with civil and not criminal litigation, but I imagine it would still apply.
The military obtained their "answer" from the designated civilian authorities that Obama is eligible when the Congress certified his election and Chief Justice Roberts swore him into the office of POTUS. Until and unless those civilian authorities reverse that "answer," it stands and the military is obligated to accept their decision whether or not the military agrees.
Does it suck? Yes. Is it fair? Maybe not. Is it the law? Yes.
BTW, B.T. that is a title YOU have earned here long ago without any competition!!!
Article 138 is one of the most powerful rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), but it is one of the rights least known and least used by military personnel. Under Article 138 of the UCMJ, “any member of the armed forces who believes himself (or herself) wronged by his (or her) commanding officer” may request redress. If such redress is refused, a complaint may be made and a superior officer must “examine into the complaint.”
Article 138 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) gives every member of the Armed Forces the right to complain that he or she was wronged by his or her commanding officer. The right even extends to those subject to the UCMJ on inactive duty for training.
Oh, I’d say you’re in stiff competition for any such title, precious.
ROLMAO!
I wouldn't even try to challenge you!!
You are the superior Freeper/Cassius Clay for that title and you sure have earned it well!!!
Being certified and sworn is not what the Constitution says is the requirement. Being natural born, old enough, and a resident long enough is.
And we know for a fact that none of those things were even CHECKED - because Hawaii law says that a legal determination has to be made by an administrative or judicial person or body when an amended certificate is involved. That is precisely what Obama has been spending big bucks to PREVENT.
Nancy Pelosi’s certification for Hawaii was absolutely perjury. Even if she had looked at everything herself (which she didn’t) she couldn’t make a ruling on it because she is LEGISLATIVE, not administrative or judicial.
So what she says in “certifying” the election means absolutely diddly-squat legally or otherwise, because we already know that she perjured herself in that whole process.
Could you please explain the meaning of that???
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.