Posted on 11/30/2010 11:42:20 PM PST by rxsid
The same question that can be asked of Obama's eligibility. His legitimacy or illegitimacy as president is irrelevant to the charges that Lakin is facing.
Trials that take years to complete...
Trials which are not public...
Trials wherein the accused is never given the charge or its nature...
Trials wherein the accusing witnesses are not presented [ie no cross-examination]...
and
Trials wherein the accused is not allowed defense council...
Those would all, likewise, be violations of the 6th amendment.
Authority is defined as the right to direct soldiers to do certain things. Authority is the legitimate power of leaders to direct soldiers or to take action within the scope of their position. Military authority begins with the Constitution, which divides it between Congress and the President. The President, as commander in chief, commands the armed forces, including the Army. The authority from the Commander-in-Chief extends through the chain of command, with the assistance of the NCO support channel, to the squad, section or team leader who then directs and supervises the actions of individual soldiers. When you say, “PFC Lee, you and PFC Johnson start filling sandbags; SPC Garcia and SPC Smith will provide security from that hill,” you are turning into action the orders of the entire chain of command.
From:
Army Studyguide
So, if the Constitution assigns the position of Commander-in-Chief to the President and requires the president to have some certain qualifications, then if the person claiming the position of President does not qualify then any orders issued from that position are invalid... Furthermore, by turning those invalid orders into actions you are participating in rebellion against the highest lawful authority in the country: the Constitution. In fact, in that case there is one, and only one, sort of order which is valid: A direct order to enforce the Constitution as written.
People said that there would be a Constitutional Crisis if a) the USSC removed the President, b) the Armed forces removed the president, or c) the people themselves removed the President. But they neglect to consider the other way, there *is* a Military Crisis if we allow an illegitimate president to remain sitting! VIRTUALLY ALL ORDERS ARE INVALID IN THAT CASE.
They are pretty much spelled out.
“...the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...”
If a judge closes a courtroom to the public, there you go. If you're trial keeps drifting out ad nauseum for no good reason, or specifically to increase the chance of conviction by some sleight of hand, there you go.
...by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...”
Coercion of the defendant to waive their right to a jury trial, there you go. Distortion of jury size or rules in a manner clearly intended to maximize the chances of conviction, there you go.
“...to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation...”
Self explanatory. If the offense is not accurately and clearly described consistent with the requirements of jurisdiction statues, such that the accused cannot properly prepare a defense, there you go.
“...to be confronted with the witnesses against him...”
If the defendant is not afforded the opportunity to cross examine the state's witnesses against him/her, there you go.
“...to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor...”
If the prosecution says you shot Fred at 8:27 PM on June the 22nd, you have witnesses who say you were drunk and throwing up in their bathroom from 8:00 PM to 9:00 PM, and they are not allowed to testify, there you go.
“...and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
Don't let you have a lawyer or appoint a narcoleptic heroin addict two months past the bar to defend you, there you go.
What people here simply refuse to acknowledge is the fact that there is a clear legal basis in statute, enacted by Congress per the Constitution, for the orders Lakin received to be lawful regardless of whether Obama legitimately holds the office of President. Therefore, that issue is not relevant to the charge in question, and he has no Constitutional right to compel witnesses on that subject. He has the right to compel any witnesses who can substantiate that (a) he did not receive the orders in question, (b) the orders were countermanded, (c) extraordinary circumstance prevented him from carrying out those orders, or (d) will testify to his good character and conduct. No judge has denied or will deny him the right to such witnesses.
Hate to break it to you, but the Army Study Guide is neither statute nor case law precedent.
Hate to break it to you but if somebody is going to make an Article 92 claim they have to use the definitions included in Article 92 - above and beyond anything else.
>Hate to break it to you, but the Army Study Guide is neither statute nor case law precedent.
Well-then, why don’t you google up the relevant FMs, TMs, and/or UCMJ material and refute me with some sort of sources/references?
PS - “Case Law,” by definition, is not the law: it is NOT passed through the legislature and *should* therefore have no effect on future rulings. “Precedent” is nothing more than “making the law of none effect” with ‘traditions.’
PPS - Do you really want me to bust out the actual law and apply it to this case? Because I guarantee you I could raise Seven Shit Storms by simply reading, applying definitions, and using reasoning.
How about if they charge you with one crime but only allow you to defend yourself of something else? Would that be a violation?
Suppose they charge you with stealing a gun. But they won’t let you present evidence that the gun you supposedly stole is actually one you bought - calling it “irrelevant” because even if it you bought the gun instead of stealing it, you still would be guilty of not registering it. Suppose they refused to let you call the witness who sold you the gun because as long as you’re guilty of SOMETHING it doesn’t matter whether you did the crime they actually accused you of.
So they accuse you of stealing but only allow you to defend yourself on the issue of whether or not you registered the gun, since it’s still a question of whether you should have that gun. EVEN IF you didn’t steal it as you were accused, you STILL shouldn’t have the gun so the only question to be resolved at trial is whether or not you have the gun, the judge says. They convict you of stealing because they won’t allow you to show the “irrelevant” receipt for the gun and the only testimony they allow you to give is an admission that you haven’t registered the gun yet.
What would that be?
Judge Lind already did. Google it yourself. Lakin’s attorney has stated he agrees with her determination, as does everyone else competent in the subject matter.
This stinks.
Furthermore, I would think that if the military is training people using that manual that is sort of like rules of engagement. If the military is training people to believe that all authority derives from the Constitution and on down through the CINC - and then finds somebody guilty because they act on that belief..... isn’t that entrapment?
If they’re going to look for precedents it seems to me that they need to look for precedents regarding Rules of Engagement, because the instruction that is given dictates the behaviors that are acceptable. The military can’t give ROE and then convict somebody because they actually followed those ROE. Or at least it sure seems wrong if they’d do that. Is there something about that, to protect the soldiers who are obeying the ROE?
Any attempt to analogize that bizarre example to Lakin is, however, faulty. As even Lakin’s current attorney has acknowledged, Obama’s qualification as President has no impact on whether the orders in question were lawful. I know some people don't what to believe that, but it's a legal fact.
No true Scotsman. Right. Anybody who disagrees must just not be competent.
Lakin’s counsel was switched because some of the retired military leaders realized Lakin would never get a fair shake from the military under Obama’s coup. They were very up-front about that.
What the new counsel says is about as genuine as the kid who is still seething, being held back by Dad, and spits out to his little sister, between tight lips, “OK. You were right. GRRRR”
Regardless of appeals or court hearing, we are all men here, and we know the score. We have a President who refuses to come clean with the constitutiuons requirements. We see a dishonest filthy piece of shit occupying the oval office. 2012 we get to flush the stinking crap out of the White House, thank god.
Could a brigade commander today, right now, issue lawful orders to deploy troops for combat operations in Germany, or would he/she be “acting beyond their authority”? Why?
I thought I told you, I DO NOT ACCEPT PRECEDENT AS HAVING EQUAL AUTHORITY TO THE LAW.
Well.... I’m not a man, but I doubt anybody holds it against me too much because I agree wholeheartedly with what you said.
Rush said something about “What part of hell no don’t they understand?”
Another way of saying it might be, “Read my middle finger. No more lawless thuggery.”
Of course, I’m too much of a lady to say it that way, but.... lol
I don’t know how we talk any louder than we are. I don’t think they could be more deaf if they were dead.
Who mentioned precedent, moron? Are you too stupid to look it up?
An even better way of saying it:
“Read the barrel of my .357*, no more lawless thuggery.”
*insert your favorite firearm here.
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.