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 ...
Well, I hate to break it to you, but most Sergeants tend to do that.
I can tell you for a fact that in my time on the firing line, I told more than one honorable young lad to “shut up” in far less polite terms than that, with no regard at all for their “feelings and needs.” More regard, though, for their physical well-being than they may have realized.
I was at a parade, talking with fellow soldiers while we were all waiting; that hardly rises to the level of firing-line safety; furthermore, what of the others who were grousing about political crap (maybe they got a free-pass because they were E5s or on the Good-ole-boy list).
As I’ve already said on this board, one of the reasons I stayed quiet was so I could just get out. I did not want to be torn between my oath (doing the right thing) and following questionably legitimate orders. I know that many, many people in the military are in somewhat the same position and in some ways I was better off: as an enlisted I could say “I’ve got no authority, all I got to do is follow orders...” [simplified, but fairly accurate.]
Officers have no such excuse. Their oath is to the Constitution only and it makes no mention of any government official because it recognizes that [in theory] they ARE officials and, as such, it is their obligation to carry out the constitution.
Insofar as the Officer Chain-of-Command goes the situation in AZ is just as much evidence of their malfeasance toward the Constitution as the rest of the Executive branch.
That certainly makes it sound like the U.S. Attorney General saw no distinction between "native-born" and "natural born," contrary to what some have assured us.
What’s interesting here is that Sen. Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, confirms that a “natural born” citizen is the child of American citizen parents.
Parents — that’s two. That’s BOTH parents.
You make the same logical error as many others who wrestle with this issue. Saying that A implies B (two American citizen parents > natural born citizen) does not mean that B requires A. Look up "sufficient" vs. "necessary" conditions.
Obama is not Indonesian? His name is Soebarkah. Its on his mothers passport. He was adopted and became an Indonesian citizen.
Wake up Mr. Rogers, reality is calling. Your president swore allegiance to another Country. No amount of insults toward me will change that fact. Only a fricking moron would think he didn't. Your not a fricking Moron, are you?
Knock it off with the logic or I’ll make you join the Sanity Squad. :)
Lieutenant Colonel Lakin is charged with Article 87 (missing movement) and Article 92 (failure to obey a lawful order) violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It will be up to a military panel (jury) composed of fellow service members to decide whether or not he did in fact violate those two articles. His reasons for allegedly violating a lawful order and missing movement will be taken into account in sentencing IF and I repeat IF he is convicted by a jury of his military peers.
Here are the specifics of Article 92.
Article 92: Uniform Code of Military Justice
“Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Elements.
(1) Violation of or failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation.
(a) That there was in effect a certain lawful general order or regulation;
(b) That the accused had a duty to obey it; and
(c) That the accused violated or failed to obey the order or regulation.
(2) Failure to obey other lawful order.
(a) That a member of the armed forces issued a certain lawful order;
(b) That the accused had knowledge of the order;
(c) That the accused had a duty to obey the order; and
(d) That the accused failed to obey the order.
(3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.
(a) That the accused had certain duties;
(b) That the accused knew or reasonably should have known of the duties; and
(c) That the accused was (willfully) (through neglect or culpable inefficiency) derelict in the performance of those duties.
Explanation.
(1) Violation of or failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation.
(a) General orders or regulations are those orders or regulations generally applicable to an armed force which are properly published by the President or the Secretary of Defense, of Transportation, or of a military department, and those orders or regulations generally applicable to the command of the officer issuing them throughout the command or a particular subdivision thereof which are issued by:
(i) an officer having general court-martial jurisdiction;
(ii) a general or flag officer in command; or
(iii) a commander superior to (i) or (ii).
(b) A general order or regulation issued by a commander with authority under Article 92(1) retains its character as a general order or regulation when another officer takes command, until it expires by its own terms or is rescinded by separate action, even if it is issued by an officer who is a general or flag officer in command and command is assumed by another officer who is not a general or flag officer.
(c) A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it. See the discussion of lawfulness in paragraph 14c(2) (Article 89).
(d) Knowledge. Knowledge of a general order or regulation need not be alleged or proved, as knowledge is not an element of this offense and a lack of knowledge does not constitute a defense.
(e) Enforceability. Not all provisions in general orders or regulations can be enforced under Article 92(1). Regulations which only supply general guide-lines or advice for conducting military functions may not be enforceable under Article 92(1).
(2) Violation of or failure to obey other lawful order.
(a) Scope. Article 92(2) includes all other lawful orders which may be issued by a member of the armed forces, violations of which are not chargeable under Article 90, 91, or 92(1). It includes the violation of written regulations which are not general regulations. See also subparagraph (1)(e) above as applicable.
(b) Knowledge. In order to be guilty of this offense, a person must have had actual knowledge of the order or regulation. Knowledge of the order may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
(c) Duty to obey order.
(i) From a superior. A member of one armed force who is senior in rank to a member of another armed force is the superior of that member with authority to issue orders which that member has a duty to obey under the same circumstances as a commissioned officer of one armed force is the superior commissioned officer of a member of an-other armed force for the purposes of Articles 89 and 90. See paragraph 13c(1) (Article 89).
(ii) From one not a superior. Failure to obey the lawful order of one not a superior is an offense under Article 92(2), provided the accused had a duty to obey the order, such as one issued by a sentinel or a member of the armed forces police. See paragraph 15b(2) (Article 91) if the order was issued by a warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer in the execution of office.
(3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.
(a) Duty. A duty may be imposed by treaty, statute, regulation, lawful order, standard operating procedure, or custom of the service.
(b) Knowledge. Actual knowledge of duties may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Actual knowledge need not be shown if the individual reasonably should have known of the duties. This may be demonstrated by regulations, training or operating manuals, customs of the service, academic literature or testimony, testimony of persons who have held similar or superior positions, or similar evidence.
(c) Derelict. A person is derelict in the performance of duties when that person willfully or negligently fails to perform that person’s duties or when that person performs them in a culpably inefficient manner. “Willfully” means intentionally. I t refers to the doing of an act knowingly and purposely, specifically intending the natural and probable consequences of the act. “Negligently” means an act or omission of a person who is under a duty to use due care which exhibits a lack of that degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances. “Culpable inefficiency” is inefficiency for which there is no reasonable or just excuse.
(d) Ineptitude. A person is not derelict in the performance of duties if the failure to perform those duties is caused by ineptitude rather than by willfulness, negligence, or culpable inefficiency, and may not be charged under this article, or otherwise punished. For example, a recruit who has tried earnestly during rifle training and throughout record firing is not derelict in the performance of duties if the recruit fails to qualify with the weapon.
Lesser included offense. Article 80—attempts
Maximum punishment.
(1) Violation or failure to obey lawful general order or regulation. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.
(2) Violation of failure to obey other lawful order. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.
Note: For (1) and (2), above, the punishment set forth does not apply in the following cases: if in the absence of the order or regulation which was violated or not obeyed the accused would on the same facts be subject to conviction for another specific offense for which a lesser punishment is prescribed; or if the violation or failure to obey is a breach of restraint imposed as a result of an order. In these instances, the maximum punishment is that specifically prescribed else wherefore that particular offense.
(3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.
(A) Through neglect or culpable inefficiency. Forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 3 months and confinement for 3 months.
(B) Willful. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.
Ha Ha - Ms Rogers claiming that Young Steinkauler was a natural born citizen is correct, but for the wrong reason. Steinkauler was not only born on US soil which dingbat thinks is the only requirement - is that both of his parents were US citizens when he was born, which made him a natural born citizen.
His school registration and his mothers passport indicate he was an Indonesian citizen.
As far as Mr Rogers is concerned, If a man kisses a foreign flag day and night and wants to be my president, he and anyone who says he’s a natural born citizen, Mr. Rogers included, can kiss my butt. You got that Mr. Rogers?
Did Lolo Soetero adopt Obama as his child and was Soebarkah naturalized as an Indonesian citizen? It certainly looks that way. I recall Ann Soetoro on her passport application said she would stay in Indonesia indefinitely.
So this begs the question does Obama/Soebarkah still have an Indonesian citizenship, and did he apply to schools as an Indonesian citizen? No wonder Obama/Soebarkah had his LA lawyers squash the subpoena that would have opened his Occidental school records.
So who is the "Nut" here in light of these questions? The real Nut is the one calling people nuts who think Obama still has or had an Indonesian citizenship.
To me, the most disgusting aspect of these defenders of Barry the Bastard is the obvious disregard for whether their little _resident is Constitutionally eligible. They don’t actually want an answer to the issues because they don’t consider the Constitutional eligibility to be that important, or they want it set aside for their chosen one. And the rest of the moldy old paper has about that same respect level to these obamanoids. Oh, they’ll lie and say they respect the Constitution, but in reality their ardent apologetics for the Bastard says otherwise.
Meanwhile, he's racking up points with an unfair advantage and biased officials.
Meanwhile, he's racking up points with an unfair advantage and biased officials.
Ad hominem and childish insults are your forte.
The only thing left to wonder is if you are a volunteer or paid to be a troll.
The military is full of young people. Their nature is to chafe against its rigidity. I did the same when I was young, but as one ages, one develops a different perspective on why things are the way they are. What seemed like an insufferable affront back when often loses its sting and perceived urgency in later light.
Right, you’re not easily fooled by any of the lip service they may spout as you observe their continuous Obot behavior.
His head in his colon looks to be permanently implanted.
I did have a conversation with my son. And I don't give a crap what these people say. My son is worth more than an election prop to keep an Islamic Indonesian President in silk underwear. And if Lakin is found guilty without having a defense, I don't want my son in that army. No way.
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.