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

Skip to comments.

LTC Lakin's Appeal Denied
U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals ^ | 10/12/10 | Clerk of the Court

Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan

On consideration of the Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and Application for a Stay of Proceedings, the petition is DENIED.

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


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: army; birthcertificate; certifigate; corruption; doubleposttexan; eligibility; jamese777; kangaroocourt; lakin; military; naturalborncitizen; obama; terrylakin; trollbuckeyetexan; trollcuriosity; trolljamese777
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 621-640641-660661-680 ... 2,861-2,880 next last
To: Mr Rogers

“If any” is added because without it, it would be saying that the VP is telling Congress that they have to object.

Gore asked if there were any objections. There weren’t any but they spent 20 minutes with people trying to submit written objections that didn’t qualify.

Did Gore not know what the rule meant?


641 posted on 10/15/2010 6:22:38 PM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 637 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

There was a time within which the call for objections had to be made. It was to be done before Jan 20, 2009. It wasn’t. The process didn’t happen. By what you’re saying, it’s too late now. The time when the legal process should have happened is gone so the game is over. We have no winner because the vote count was never completed.

And not one Obama supporter was able to get the election legally certified. Not one.


642 posted on 10/15/2010 6:26:07 PM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 638 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
I’m assuming you’ve never been either Enlisted or an Officer in the military then...

You assume wrong. I spent most of my adult life as a commissioned Naval officer, active duty and reserve.

...; as the military makes such a big deal about the qualifier “LAWFUL” in its briefings to the enlisted.

Indeed it does. In fact, it goes farther than making a big deal but actually defines it. According to the Manual of Courts Martial, "An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act..." - like reporting to the office of your brigade commander or reporting for duty with another unit - "...may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate." The MCM provides a single qualifier: "This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order such as one that directs the commission of a crime." The MCM also states who will decide if an order is lawful or not: "[t]he lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by a military judge." Nothing gives Lakin the power to decide on his own if an order is lawful or not, absent any obvious criminal aspect to it. It does provide that the order "must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order." And that is the only constitutional clause mentioned, and nothing in the orders that Lakin disobeyed interfered with his constitutional rights. So by any rule or regulation you would care to name, Lakin disobeyed the lawful order of his commanding officer. And he will suffer the consequences.

643 posted on 10/15/2010 6:32:43 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Hey mo-joe! Here's another one for your collection.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
No, your instant replay analogy refutes that. A call may be wrong, but if the determination to review it does not occur when it is allowed, the game goes on and has a victor nonetheless.

The vote count was completed. To deny that is to simply become the same as one of those deadenders denying that Bush was ever President. If it makes you feel better, by all means, but its a proposition that won't be taken seriously in the real word. Advancing it simply impeaches the credibility of whatever evidence it is you believe you have.

644 posted on 10/15/2010 6:33:47 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 642 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

You may want to defer to Shark’s expertise. According to him, when he was in the Reserves he had the absolutely unique experience of having a Sergeant tell him to shut up. It pissed him off. (LOL)


645 posted on 10/15/2010 6:37:55 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative
According to him, when he was in the Reserves he had the absolutely unique experience of having a Sergeant tell him to shut up. It pissed him off.

Well if it happened him today he could just tell the sergeant, "Since Obama is not the legitimate president then your order for me to shut up is an unlawful order and I am not bound to obey it." I'm sure that any NCO would see the logic in that argument.

646 posted on 10/15/2010 6:44:46 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Hey mo-joe! Here's another one for your collection.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 645 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

Which is a legally-required procedure: the call for objections, or the objections themselves? According to the rules what HAD to be done?


647 posted on 10/15/2010 6:49:43 PM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; Lucius Cornelius Sulla
Well, that was intelligent. lol

Especially considering the posters tag line, must be for show cause he/she is here defending the enemy.

648 posted on 10/15/2010 6:51:24 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Moderates manipulate, extremists use violence, but the goal is the same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 635 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

You are wasting your time here with these trolls...there just here to wear you down, eff em.


649 posted on 10/15/2010 6:53:06 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Moderates manipulate, extremists use violence, but the goal is the same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 647 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

Go away, noobie!


650 posted on 10/15/2010 6:57:14 PM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla ('“Our own government has become our enemy' - Sheriff Paul Babeu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 649 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

So then basically it says “if there is any question about the legality of orders then you are to assume they are legal.”

Interesting; what about the order to the soldier who recorded video of the Ft Hood shootings who was given an order to delete them?
Consider that the official investigation wouldn’t have had the time to subpoena the video by the time the order came around, also the laws regarding the destruction of evidence.

Is it therefore reasonable to assume that because the order wasn’t destroying what was officially listed as evidence it was a legal order?


651 posted on 10/15/2010 6:58:14 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

The objections themselves.

It’s conceptually no different than your instant replay analogy. Just because no one asked for the replay review on any given play doesn’t undermine the final game result, even if it looks in retrospect like a play was called wrong.


652 posted on 10/15/2010 7:03:39 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 647 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
The police don't have to officially request that specific evidence be preserved for you to wind up being charged with destruction of that evidence. Destroying obvious evidence at a known crime scene falls well within the definition of an illegal order as discussed by Non-Sequitur.
653 posted on 10/15/2010 7:07:42 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 651 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla

Sure thing Mr Alinsky.


654 posted on 10/15/2010 7:08:42 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Moderates manipulate, extremists use violence, but the goal is the same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 650 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

Yeah, you’re probably right. Except the eff em part. I don’t think I’d want to do that. lol. But my time is probably better spent on other things right now. Thanks for the gentle nudge. =)


655 posted on 10/15/2010 7:12:53 PM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 649 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

You are exactly right.


656 posted on 10/15/2010 7:25:18 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

But you’re supposed to ASSUME that unless the orders are BLATANTLY illegal that the orders are valid, no?
(Besides which, how many young enlisted-grunts are going to know the details about laws regarding evidence?)


657 posted on 10/15/2010 7:35:38 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 653 | View Replies]

Comment #658 Removed by Moderator

To: Las Vegas Ron

>Especially considering the posters tag line, must be for show cause he/she is here defending the enemy.

LOL — Good catch! :)


659 posted on 10/15/2010 7:43:26 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 648 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; Las Vegas Ron
She must be very, very important, if "THEY" are out to get her. It has to be fairly self-bolstering to one's ego to be under the impression that your're one of the few who really knows/understands 'the truth'; that the 'skeptics' either know nothing, are entirely mistaken, or they’re in on it.

But the fact that you say not one freaking word about her work shows that you are a disgusting troll who is here to enable 0thugga’s coup.

Wrong, I didn't say anything because I've found over the years that conspiracy people aren't very good listeners. Also, I notice that mistakenly generating false conspiracy theories on a complete lack of evidence seems to be right up your alley.

660 posted on 10/15/2010 7:44:09 PM PDT by CanaGuy (Go Harper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 495 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 621-640641-660661-680 ... 2,861-2,880 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