Lakin not allowed witnesses, documents, explanation at court-martial Dec. 14!

www.greeleygazette.com ^ | 11/30/2010 | Jack Minor

[butterdezillion]

lol.

That reminds me of my son’s t-shirt that says, in big letters, “I know karate”

And then in teeny letters below, “and a few other Japanese words”.

I know nachos grande. lol

Yeah, sort of lacking in substance and cohesion.

[butterdezillion]

The program was nice. Pre-schoolers are so cute. And I love playing Christmas hymns and carols. They wanted to line up the kids for photos afterwards so I played background music while they did that and it was festive and cheery.

Playing piano is the best therapy in the world when I’m down, especially if it’s hymns. Rich stuff.

It’s been a long time since I read “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” and I only got about half-way through before more pressing things relegated it to the back burner. My back burner has so much stuff on it I’ll never catch up with all of it.

The church office used to have a Dennis the Menace clipping which said, “The Lord has a certain number of things He wants us to get done on this earth. At this rate I’ll never get to die.” lol

[butterdezillion]

The law which LEGALLY defines what constitutes a lawful order is Article 92. It says an order is lawful if it is not contrary to the Constitution or laws and is not given by someone acting beyond their authority.

According to LAW (SJ Res 23) only the President has the authority to decide to use force. If a Constitutional president has not decided to use force, then nobody can use force. Anybody who does is acting beyond their authority.

That means that if the SecDef orders combat deployments without a Constitutional president’s decision to do so, he acts beyond his authority and his order is unlawful. Without a lawful order from the SecDef the joint chiefs would be acting beyond their authority if they gave orders to implement the unlawful order of the SecDef. And on down the line.

I am not talking about whether people have to obey the orders. I am talking about whether they are “lawful” according to the definition of Article 92 - the Article Lakin is accused of violating. That is where you get the definitions that LEGALLY apply to Lakin’s case.

I’ve shown you the LAWS, not the structure. Others have argued on the basis of the structure, and their arguments are worthy. I’m addressing it from the actual laws, and those laws are clear. I showed you the Constitution which gives authority to Congress and the POTUS. I showed you SJ Res 23 where Congress gives the authority to use force to the President alone. You showed me Article 10 of the US Code and then I pointed out that it TWICE says (just in the one section I posted here) that the SecDef implements the decisions of the President and that the President is the head of the chain of command.

Lind wants to argue that Congress somehow allows the chain of command to operate independently of the President. That may or may not be true regarding routine maintenance, but I have shown the laws which clearly state that combat operations are ABSOLUTELY dependent on the authority of the President. Neither you, Lind, nor anybody else has presented laws which contradict or supersede the laws I cited.

I’ve asked you repeatedly for the laws Congress passed saying that the decision to use force can lawfully be made by somebody besides the President. I’m still waiting. You say I’m misinterpreting. What law am I misinterpreting? I’m asking for the LAW which does what you and Lind say has been done. If it’s out there somewhere just point it out.

You highlighted the part saying that the SecDef has authority over the Dept of Defense. The charge nurse has authority over the nurses on the hospital floor but that doesn’t mean that she can write prescriptions. Only the doctor or PA’s are legally authorized to do that. What the charge nurse can do is make sure that the prescriptions written by the proper authorities (doctors and PA’s) are properly dispensed, as ordered, to the patients in the hospital.

Likewise, the SecDef is in charge of getting the DOD to carry out the president’s orders. The SecDef is NOT in charge of making the decisions that only the President, by law, can make. If the SecDef were to “dispense” a prescription that an unqualified impostor posing as a doctor made, that prescription would still be illegal. If the charge nurse doesn’t know the “doctor” is a fake she would order the nurses to dispense it. They, likewise, would dispense it because they didn’t know it was an illegal prescription. And the only way you would ever find out that the prescription was illegal is if somebody along the line said, “Hey, I don’t think this ‘doctor’ is licensed to prescribe this.”

That’s what Lakin did. For that he was charged with refusing to dispense a lawful prescription. The judge says it doesn’t matter whether the doctor qualifies to order that prescription; the prescription is lawful anyway because the charge nurse told the nurse to dispense it.

It’s just screwy. The logic is totally warped. It’s not lawful to fill a prescription that was written by somebody not qualified to prescribe.

You talk about how crippling it would be if the whole chain depended on one link (the top one) which could be crippled at some point and then everything would turn to mush. But that’s why there is a clearly delineated order of succession to the presidency. That is to insure that we always know who is to act as President if that top position in the chain of command would be killed or incapacitated.

The reason it is so important is precisely because the whole chain of command DOES depend on the CINC - if not for everything then at LEAST for the emergency things like combat operations and martial law. If the SecDef could just do everything even if the head was chopped off, then it would not be so critical to have such a long line of succession for the presidency, because the SecDef could do anything the CINC could do and there would thus be no emergency to worry about.

Anyway, have a great time with your grandkids.

[butterdezillion]

How are de facto officers ever discovered to be fakes, if nobody can question their qualifications?

Lakin was willing to disobey an order so that there would be a LEGAL question of whether the order he disobeyed was lawful or not. The only way to know if it was lawful or not is by seeing if it is contrary to the Constitution or law, or whether it was issued by someone acting beyond their authority. If a valid President did not order combat operations, then the SecDef and everybody below him in the chain of command acted outside their authority in the orders resulting in a deployment order for Lakin. So the lawfulness of Lakin’s orders absolutely depends on whether a valid President made the order.

The presumption may well be that the “de facto officer” is valid, but the Constitution says that a person has a right to compel witnesses to testify in his favor. The legitimacy of the POTUS is critical to the question of whether Lakin’s order was lawful. For the judge to deny him the right to compel witnesses who can prove the POTUS illegitimate (and thus clear the accused of the charges against him) is a violation of due process and the Sixth Amendment.

It is a travesty.

[Red Steel]

Lind's conclusion in the Defense's motion to discovery, paragraph #5.

Any suggestions Lind? Again Lind, the unlawful order in question originated from the White House, and therefore, all orders that support said order, even if "on the face of it", that it appears to be lawful. The order on the face of it doesn't make it lawful. The order has been challenged in your court where you have failed to redress the issue by obfuscation, and where you elect to take the easy way out. Lind, it is your conclusion that is erroneous.

An excerpt from pg 818 of "Military Law and Precedents" by Winthrop:

"...But while a military inferior may be justified in not obeying an order as being unlawful, he will always assume to do so on his own personal responsibility and at his own risk. Even where there may seem to be ample warrant for his act, he will, in justifying, commonly be at a very considerable disadvantage, the presumption being, as a rule, in favor of the legality of the order is an executable mandate, and the facts of the case and reasons for the action being often unknown in part at least to himself and in the possession only of the superior.

In the great majority of cases therefore it is found both safer and wiser for the inferior instead of resisting an apparently arbitrary authority, to accept the alternative of obeying even to his own detriment, thus also placing himself in the most favorable position for obtain redress in the future.

On the other had, should injury to a third person, or damage to the United States, result from the execution of an order by a subordinate, the plea that he acted simply in obedience to the mandate of his proper superior will be favored at military law, and a court-martial will almost invariably justify and protect an accused who has been exposed to prosecution by reason of his unquestioning fidelity to duty, holding the superior alone responsible."

-end snip-

- - - - - - - -

What is said in this excerpted is a mouthful. In para. 2 of the excerpt, it explains the reason that "on the face of it" why Obama is not challenged by more officers since it is the safest avenue to take to accept his orders other than put yourself at risk, which blows apart the silly argument why other active duty personnel have not come forward to challenge Obama's legality. Through the grapevine we know numerous active duty officers question the Constitutional legality of Obama to hold office and give lawful orders.

And moreover, in para. 3, the officers who take Obama's orders "on the face of it" will be looked on more favorably as they were just following orders.

We know that the Lind has dishonestly and erroneously cut Obama out of chain of command for the follow up deployment orders to a war zone because she said that the Pentagon is where Lakin's order originated, but again we know that is an erroneous judgment.

Furthermore, Lind's court is a miscarriage of justice in an effort to protect a politician who was treated like crowning king when he was elected to be president. And no election overrides or amends the US Constitution, which has been disingenuously and falsely argued on this thread.

LTC Lakin in Lind's court has been cut off from basic jurisprudence of defense rights and so left bare:

"Based on the evidence available, his conviction is certain," Puckett told WND. "He has no affirmative defense for the offenses he committed."

"There is not much left to do" in defense of his client, Puckett said. Lakin's previous defense counsel, Paul Jensen, already "sought discovery of documents, and to introduce evidence and expert witnesses, but the judge shut down all those efforts."

And from the Greeley Gazette article,

Lakin not allowed witnesses, documents, explanation at court-martial Dec. 14!

An absolute miscarriage of justice.

[little jeremiah]

I can hardly stand reading these threads, Red Steel.

When is there going to be a huge surge of people protesting this?

[Red Steel]

The screws to Obama will be applied a lot more in 2011. Any of the state eligibility laws that pass next year which I have hardly a doubt that they won’t — Obama is 1 and done. You’ll need no other proof when Obama hangs it up where he knows after those law(s) have passed and are signed into law that he is not eligible for presidential office.

[OneWingedShark]

...if this, and the USSC’s evasion of the issue, is exemplary of our system then who’s to say there will even be an election? After all, applying this cas’s logic Obama can simply assume that all votes are for him and the USSC could deny the standing of any “mere citizen.” {After all, if we can ignore/’evade’ the issue of the Constitution’s requirements regarding the President we can also disregard requirements about elections, search&seizure, armed-civilians, bills of attainder, ex post facto law, anything!}

“Because we can.” & “Shut Up!” are the reasons our government gives when questioned on authority, legitimacy, or legality.

[Red Steel]

When is there going to be a huge surge of people protesting this?

Most shrug their shoulders because of the two-headed government and media monster's effort to protect Obama from honest inquiry. That's a lot to overcome in 2 short years.

[Red Steel]

If the government overtly turns into an oligarchical and authoritarian dictatorship in the brazen open, it will get very interesting in these United States.

[OneWingedShark]

I don’t think it’ll be overly overt, but I don’t think it will be particularly hidden if it does.
What happened to ACORN, especially regarding voter & voter-registration fraud? Virtually nothing, right?

What’s happened to the Congress who pushed TARP through, who pushed ObamaCare through, who has openly laughed & ridiculed people asking them to Constitutionally justify their actions? Who lie/cheat/steal on taxes? (Hell, who drunkenly drive off a bridge and leave their passenger to drown!?) Who gave aid and comfort to America’s enemies, it could be argued in Viet Nam, but in the here-now it is in full view with their pushing illegal-alien amnesty? Jack Shit.

What’s happened to the Supreme Court which declared that it’s A-OK for the government to take your property and give it to some other private entity? Who has denied ‘standing’ to every Citizen who doubts Obama’s eligibility? Who allows/condones no-knock warrants and SWAT raids of personal homes> Who takes the Constitution and declares that what it says is not what it says, as in Caulder v. Bull in 1798 and in the two centuries hence culminating in the repudiation of any state sovereignty declaring that the states could not punish the murder of their youngest citizens, the unborn, in Roe v. Wade. (There’s also the “judicial review” of laws, which appears not a single place in the Constitution.)

What’s happened to the Executive branch who declares that full-auto firearms are not allowable to the general population despite the unambiguous language of the 2nd amendment? that allows & encourages their police to violate every provision of the 4th amendment? (The warrants are to ISSUE upon probable cause, not to be EXCEPT on probable cause.) That pursues a “War on Drugs” through a federal prohibition on substances... which, the last time we did that, took a Constitutional Amendment; the “war on Drugs” has no Constitutional backing as Prohibition did.

My point, rather long-winded the introduction might be, is that a government as laid out by the Constitution would be an utterly alien thing to the experience of the American Citizen. So much so that they would likely think it ‘Anarchy’ and clamor for even a tyrannical government to be over them.

[Non-Sequitur]

WHAT law or regulation was passed by Congress that would give Lakin’s brigade commanders authority - at 8:30 this morning - to lawfully order Lakin to report to X in order to deploy to Iran for combat operations?

Another patented butterdezillion irrelevancy. Lakin wasn't ordered to deploy to Iran, or any other foreign country. He was ordered to report to his brigade commander's office and ordered to report for duty in Kentucky. Both are in the continental U.S.

[Non-Sequitur]

1. Our President is a deceitful lying scumbag. We ask for birth documents and he dodges the request, claiming he has provided them. He hasn't. We all know that.

No argument here.

2. Our Constitution has birth requirements for the presidency, and our president refuse to release all birth documents. He consistently shows contempt for the constitution and the people.

Again true, but in fairness none of our prior presidents have done so either.

3. We have a Constitution that requires that the president respect the constitution in order to show respect for the people. He doesn't. He's a complete scumbag, unworthy of any reciprocating respect that might be due to him.

Again, no argument on the basics of your comment.

4. To summarize, our President is a lying deceitful POS who has no respect for the People of the United states.

No argument here, either.

Yes Seq, Mr. Lakin will be hung by Obmas jury. Go celebrate the scumbags victory with some champagne. Savor the taste.

Now it falls apart. Lakin made foolish decisions and will pay the penalty for them, as any officer who violates Army regulations should. A belief that Lakin deserves what he is going to get does not automatically equate with support for Obama, except in your world.

[butterdezillion]

Is there anything in the Code of Military Conduct that would make brigade commanders’ orders for use of force in Iran “unlawful” if the President had not ordered the use of force pursuant to SJ Res 23? If so, what?

My question is about how the CMC and Congressional law interact with each other. Does the definition of “lawfulness” for general orders and regulations apply to all orders?

For reference, the CMC section on Article 92 begins on page 300 at http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/mcm2000.pdf

Also, I respecfully ask you to cease and desist from ignoring the information you requested from me and I provided - Lakin’s actual orders and the charges against him which acknowledge that what Lakin disobeyed was a Temporary Change of Station from Walter Reed to Afghanistan, beginning by reporting to KY. There was never an independent order to report to KY; it was part of the TCS order.

[Non-Sequitur]

Is there anything in the Code of Military Conduct that would make brigade commanders’ orders for use of force in Iran “unlawful” if the President had not ordered the use of force pursuant to SJ Res 23? If so, what?

Is it even possible to keep you focused on reality? Just for a moment? If and when a brigade commander decides for themself to invade a country without approval then we can talk. But idiotic scenarios such as this have absolutely nothing to do with the charges Lakin is facing or the validity of the orders he disobeyed.

Also, I respecfully ask you to cease and desist from ignoring the information you requested from me and I provided - Lakin’s actual orders and the charges against him which acknowledge that what Lakin disobeyed was a Temporary Change of Station from Walter Reed to Afghanistan, beginning by reporting to KY. There was never an independent order to report to KY; it was part of the TCS order.

And I would ask you to confine yourself to the charges Lakin is facing and not invent scenarios on your own.

[butterdezillion]

He’s faced with disobeying a lawful order. Lind says it is totally irrelevant to the lawfulness of Lakin’s orders whether the President has chosen to use force in Afghanistan, as required by SJ Res 23. So I’m asking if that would also be the case if Lakin’s commanders had ordered him to go to Iran without a President choosing to use force in Iran.

It’s absolutely relevant. I’m saying if you say the President is really irrelevant to determining the lawfulness of brigade commanders’ deployment orders, then put your money where your mouth is, and say it would be irrelevant in a DIFFERENT situation where deployment orders are given that are not authorized by the President.

If somebody was charged with disobeying the lawful orders to invade Iran (or provide support for combat operations in Iran), would Lind say it didn’t matter whether or not the President had authorized the use of force in Iran?

And more importantly, what part of the MCM would be used to decide whether orders to invade Iran were indeed “lawful” orders or not? If somebody was charged with that the military would have to presume that the order was lawful, and the soldier would have to prove that the order wasn’t lawful. Correct? Exactly what in the Article 92 portion of the MCM would provide the legal basis for saying that invading Iran without the President’s order to do so is “unlawful”?

[Non-Sequitur]

Violating the law has its consequences, and Mr. Lakin is no more above the law than they were.

Which is why, if memory serves, his court martial starts next week.

Mr. Lakin will be in jail and his president will still be a man who has held foreign citizenships. His president will still be a scumbag who hates America.

Both men are responsible for their own actions, aren't they?

[Non-Sequitur]

Lind says it is totally irrelevant to the lawfulness of Lakin’s orders whether the President has chosen to use force in Afghanistan, as required by SJ Res 23.

It is.

So I’m asking if that would also be the case if Lakin’s commanders had ordered him to go to Iran without a President choosing to use force in Iran.

And I'm pointing out that it's an idiotic question since Lakin's brigade commander did not order him to invade Iran or anywhere else. He ordered Lakin to report to him in his office. Please try and stay in the real world.

I’m saying if you say the President is really irrelevant to determining the lawfulness of brigade commanders’ deployment orders, then put your money where your mouth is, and say it would be irrelevant in a DIFFERENT situation where deployment orders are given that are not authorized by the President.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that Lakin was ordered to report to his brigade commander's office, not deploy? Which makes your odd-ball scenario completely irrelevant.

[Red Steel]

He’s faced with disobeying a lawful order. Lind says it is totally irrelevant to the lawfulness of Lakin’s orders whether the President has chosen to use force in Afghanistan, as required by SJ Res 23. So I’m asking if that would also be the case if Lakin’s commanders had ordered him to go to Iran without a President choosing to use force in Iran.

Just to be clear. SJ Res. 23 is irrelevant to the orders given by Obama as commander in chief to be carried out. The joint resolution is only a backing - an authorization to use force - from Congress to the Executive to make war in Afghanistan. It is not a forced requirement, or is it an order that compels the Executive to carry out those orders. That decision solely rests with the president to make war and to give war deployment orders . You won't get any confirmation from that idiot NS.

What should not be relevant to this case to the extent which is Lind's main concern is to protect Obama. She has denied Lakin of due process by the rail-roading in her kangaroo court by disregarding Article 46 and rule 701 of the Manual for Court Martial:

[PA-RIVER]

If I were being mugged on a street and you were across the street, and you had the ability to save me but had to jay walk to prevent it, what would you do? You have no phone, and if you assist me, it's an even fight and they will run away. Break the law, or let me get beat to a pulp?