Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge to Lakin: Find another defense
World Net Daily ^ | Sept. 2, 2010 | Thom Redmond

Posted on 09/02/2010 2:24:49 PM PDT by Smokeyblue

A career officer in the U.S. Army acting as a judge in the court-martial process for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin today ruled that the military is no place for Barak Obama's eligibility to be president to be evaluated.

Army Col. Denise R. Lind today ruled in a hearing regarding the evidence that will be allowed in the scheduled October court-martial for Lakin that he will be denied access to any of Obama's records as well as any testimony from those who may have access to those records.

SNIP

Lind, who took 40 minutes to read her decision to the courtroom, disagreed.

She said opening up such evidence could be an "embarrassment" to the president and anyway, it should be Congress that would call for impeachment of a sitting president.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: army; birthcertificate; certifigate; eligibility; lakin; military; naturalborncitizen; obama; terrylakin; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-298 next last
To: colorado tanker
Lakin is throwing away a distinguished career and at the end of the day will have nothing to show for it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

He will have self respect. At one time that meant something.

41 posted on 09/02/2010 4:27:02 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue

What a coward, and moreover, he’s entitled to whatever defense he wants as long as its legal, and this one is.

Sorry, judge, I like this defense just fine. Sorry if it embarrasses your boss, but then there is no law against that. He’s doing a fine job by himself anyway.


42 posted on 09/02/2010 4:29:07 PM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

Not only did the Prez not violate any law, the judge does not have the power to relieve him of his Commander in Chief duties as granted under the Constitution.


43 posted on 09/02/2010 4:33:44 PM PDT by Jacquerie (There isn't a single problem threatening our republic that cannot be attributed to democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
Army Col. Denise R. Lind would have willingly supported both Hitler and the 911 Atrocities. Then again, he is helping the creators of both.

The predictable bile of the so-called patriots. Everyone who disagrees with their ignorance of the law is evil. It doesn't get much more narrow-minded and pathetic than that.

44 posted on 09/02/2010 4:36:29 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

Yep, I am sickened by this. So message to all troops...

Has anyone considered what would happen if there was a revolt in the military? I mean those cozy judges wouldn’t care, right? As long as they don’t “embarass” the President.

I mean I physically feel nauseous.


45 posted on 09/02/2010 4:40:25 PM PDT by autumnraine (America how long will you be so deaf and dumb to the chariot wheels carrying you to the guillotine?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BabaOreally

Uniform Code of Military Justice

*867. ART. 67. REVIEW BY THE COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS

(a) The Court of Military Appeals shall review the record in--

(1) all cases in which the sentence, as affirmed by a Court of Military Review, extends to death;

(2) all cases reviewed by a Court of Military Review which the Judge Advocate General orders sent to the Court of Military Appeals for review; and

(3) all cases reviewed by a Court of Military Review in which, upon petition of the accused and on good cause shown, the Court of Military Appeals has granted review.

(b) the accused may petition the Court of Military Appeals for review of a decision of a court of Military Review within 60 days from the earlier of --

(1) the date on which the accused is notified of the decision of the Court of Military Review; or

(2) the date on which a copy of the decision of the Court of Military Review, after being served on appellate counsel of record fro the accused (if any), is deposited in the United States mails for delivery by first class mail to the accused at an address provided by the accused, or, if no such address has been provided by the accused, at the last address listed for the accused in his official service record. The Court of Military Appeals shall act upon such a petition promptly in accordance with the rules of the court.

(c) In any case reviewed by it, the Court of Military Appeals may act only with respect to the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority and as affirmed or set aside as incorrect in law by the Court of Military Review. In a case which the Judge Advocate General orders sent to the Court of Military Appeals, that action need be taken only with respect to the issues raised by him. In a case reviewed upon petition of the accused, that action need be taken only with respect to issues specified in the grant of review. The Court of Military Appeals shall take action only with respect to matters of law.

(d) If the Court of Military Appeals sets aside the findings and sentence, it may, except where the setting aside is based on lack of sufficient evidence in the record to support the findings, order a rehearing. If it sets aside the findings and sentence and does not order a rehearing, it shall order that the charges be dismissed.

(e) After it has acted on a case, the Court of Military Appeals may direct the Judge Advocate General to return the record to the Court of Military Review for further review in accordance with the decision of the Court. Otherwise, unless there is to be further action by the President or the Secretary concerned, the Judge Advocate General shall instruct the convening authority to take action in accordance with that decision. If the court has ordered a rehearing, but the convening authority finds a rehearing impracticable, he may dismiss the charges.

* 867a. ART. 67a. REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT

(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. The Supreme Court may not review by a writ of certiorari under this section any action of the Court of Military Appeals in refusing to grant a petition for review.

(b) The accused may petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor and without filing the affidavit required by section 1915(a) of title 28.

46 posted on 09/02/2010 4:44:26 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
This was predictable. Lakin is throwing away a distinguished career and at the end of the day will have nothing to show for it.

This is not over and done with. The lines have been clearly drawn and people know now they have got to stand up and take sides. Lakin will be the catylst that incites men and women to confront what has really happened in this country. He is a very brave man and has sacrificed, by his action, what he had for his country. I salute him.

47 posted on 09/02/2010 4:46:28 PM PDT by this is my country
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: panthermom

He isn’t suing, he’s fighting a criminal conviction for disobeying orders. He’s being denied evidence to justify his stance because it might embarrass someone. So this guy should spend time in JAIL, MILITARY JAIL to avoid “embarrassing” someone.

I am having trouble understanding how even those who laugh at us ‘birthers’ could deny that this is getting ridiculous.


48 posted on 09/02/2010 4:48:33 PM PDT by autumnraine (America how long will you be so deaf and dumb to the chariot wheels carrying you to the guillotine?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

It is my interpretation that NBC means 2 parent citizens, plain and simple. NO dual citizenship. It defies logic to interpret any other way.


49 posted on 09/02/2010 4:49:10 PM PDT by panthermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: this is my country
I agree Lakin is a brave man and is doing this out of honorable motives.

The bottom line, however, is that Obama's place of birth has nothing to do with the lawfulness of the orders he disobeyed and that is how the courts will come out on this.

50 posted on 09/02/2010 4:50:54 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

This whole thing is getting bizarre. I would think that as citizens it would be US that would have the right to make sure we were not duped!


51 posted on 09/02/2010 4:55:36 PM PDT by panthermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Palter

You are correct. The only way he can be legally removed before 2012 is for articles of impeachment to be passed by the House and two thirds of the Senate to vote to convict. Aint gonna happen even if the GOP wins the Senate because they wont have 67 votes to convict. Simple as that.


52 posted on 09/02/2010 5:01:35 PM PDT by mono
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye; LucyT; pissant; BP2; Candor7; Red Steel; David; AJFavish; patriot08; SatinDoll; ...
The judge is making things up to support her ruling.

This sounds like a ruling from the USSR.

She's bought.

I wouldn't necessarily go that far, but let's just say she was told what to do, and - in sharp contrast to the courage shown by Lt. Col. Lakin - followed her orders, despite the fact they were of dubious legality.

53 posted on 09/02/2010 5:05:58 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
Not only did the Prez not violate any law, the judge does not have the power to relieve him of his Commander in Chief duties as granted under the Constitution.

As I understand it (IANAL), whether Obama violated any law strictly speaking is not the issue before the court. The issue before the court is whether or not Lakin violated the law.

54 posted on 09/02/2010 5:08:01 PM PDT by SteveH (First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

Whether she was bought with money or intimidation she has sold out her fealty to the law.


55 posted on 09/02/2010 5:10:36 PM PDT by TigersEye (Greenhouse Theory is false. Totally debunked. "GH gases" is a non-sequitur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
He’s being denied evidence to justify his stance because it might embarrass someone.

His 'stance' and its justification is of no interest to the court, nor should it be. Motivation is not relevant, any more than the motivation of a bank robber is relevant. The question is, did he commit the crime he's charged with? The answer is yes.

56 posted on 09/02/2010 5:13:58 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

Not to mention he got the judge’s gender wrong.


57 posted on 09/02/2010 5:15:14 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: panthermom

...not about impeachment, about eligibility...

Yes, but the only remedy at this point for ineligibility is impeachment. Catch 22. He was certified by the electoral college and sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and he is POTUS whether he was eligible or not. The fact that he is POTUS means he was eligible. It may be maddening to you, but that is the law and the only legal remedy is impeachment where you will not find 67 Senators to vote for removal.


58 posted on 09/02/2010 5:15:28 PM PDT by mono
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

It’s not “just” a birth certificate. It is any kind of proof that proves whether the guy in the White House is actually eligible or not.

And if there had been such questions with previous presidents, the situation would still have been the same.

This “there was no law in 2008” means nothing.


59 posted on 09/02/2010 5:16:19 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SteveH

Correct. I responded to #39.


60 posted on 09/02/2010 5:18:02 PM PDT by Jacquerie (There isn't a single problem threatening our republic that cannot be attributed to democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-298 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson