Posted on 11/30/2010 11:42:20 PM PST by rxsid
>Now, please explain to me the meaning of the UCMJ, why it is what it is, and your experience with it.....oh, you do not know, and have no experience with it????
Actually I was enlisted for 9 years so I do have some idea.
The UCMJ is the codification of the military law that, supposedly, applies to all members of the armed forces.
I did get an article 15, with the hearing and everything once.
>then what the hell are you doing giving your opinion on military judical matters????????
It’s quite simple: I have the ability to read and to apply logic.
Furthermore, ALL members of the armed forces swear an oath TO THE CONSTITUTION, the Constitution very clearly states that in ALL criminal prosecutions the accused shall “have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor”* to deny the LTC the ability to produce witnesses in his favor is nothing less than this court declaring that the Constitution does not apply to it.
*Amendment 6.
Lucas Smith is a con-man who tried to scam money first and foremost and has put effectively zero effort into anything that could even remotely challenge BHO while focusing his efforts on trying to enrich himself.
Orly Taitz is a self-aggranizing nut who managed to single handledly poison the well for everyone who wanted the issue taken seriously.
You have no evidence. You only have what you want to think is evidence alongside an almost pathological rejection of anything that doesn't support your point of view.
Even if there was no birth certificate at all that would hold true.
Er, Butter is one of two or three people who, even if I were a staunch “anti-birther,” would command my respect because of the depth and honesty of their research. You should take a look at it yourself before dismissing it.
Why does the Factcheck COLB have a higher number than the Nordyke BC’s even though it claims to have received that number 3 days earlier than theirs?
That’s not a perceived anomaly; that is a real anomaly, based on what the HDOH itself has said. So explain that anomaly to me. Tell me what happened, to create that result.
If this was an episode of CSI the case would already be solved. But all I have asked for is an investigation because of the incompatible claims and because of the laws and rules documentably broken in this whole process.
The standard of evidence you seem to be expecting is that if the killer doesn’t come forward out of the goodness of his heart and tell the whole world that he committed the crime, then all you have are “suspicions, allegations and accustions based on perceived anomalies and your interpretations of people’s comment. Not proof.”
Apply that standard everywhere in your life and you’ll be left spinning in the middle of the room wondering which direction is up.
I’ve watched it from the beginning.
I do not question her honesty or efforts at depth.
I simply disagree with her and think she is drawing unwarranted conclusions and grasping at straws.
That’s not a perceived anomaly; that is a real anomaly, based on what the HDOH itself has said. So explain that anomaly to me. Tell me what happened, to create that result.”
I do not know. But there are a number of rational ways that it could have happened in 1961. Whether or not this is an anomaly depends on an exact knowledge of what was actually done in 1961. You've been presented with a number of possibilities but have chosen to reject them in favor of your conspiracy.
So I say that it remains a perceived anomaly because you are are making the assumption that it should have been done a certain way but have never bothered to show that it actually was done that way. We've discussed this before. If you actually had a few dozen BC’s from August of 1961 and could show that they should be sequential based on birth date and time then you'd have something. But you don't, instead you try to draw a conclusion from a sample of three and the statement of someone who has no knowledge of the process as it was done before she was born. Read up on aliasing errors in data acquisition and you'll hopefully get the idea.
“If this was an episode of CSI the case would already be solved.”
That's because CSI is a TV show where the writers can use whatever trope or deus ex machina they need to wrap things up in 46 minutes.
“The standard of evidence you seem to be expecting is that if the killer doesn’t come forward out of the goodness of his heart and tell the whole world that he committed the crime, then all you have are “suspicions, allegations and accusations based on perceived anomalies and your interpretations of people’s comment. Not proof.””
My standard of evidence is actually evidence.
“Apply that standard everywhere in your life and you’ll be left spinning in the middle of the room wondering which direction is up.”
And yet I seem do be doing surprisingly well...
I remain hopeful that things will clear up for you when you see the Whitehouse, Lord willing, change hands and the nutty idea pendulum swings Left again.
The right to have witnesses is so critical. Somebody once said that a person doesn’t have a right to bring up all kinds of stuff that doesn’t pertain to the charges. When a witness is brought forward at trial and questions are asked that are irrelevant the opposing counsel can object. You don’t stop a witness from appearing because there may be irrelevant questions asked.
This whole farce of a court-martial hinges on Lind ignoring the elements of Article 92, which say that an order is lawful if it is not contrary to the Constitution or laws and is not given by someone acting beyond their authority. Lind said an order is INFERRED to be “lawful” if it must be obeyed. That’s not what the actual law says, and she knows it.
True.
He is not being allowed to show that the order he was given was not lawful because it is - as the elements of Article 92 say - “contrary to the Constitution”.
There is no Constitutional question about the orders he's charged with disobeying.
Lakin’s due process and equal protection rights are being trampled. This is officially a banana republic.
Not even close to being true.
A lot of people here would happily “debunk” their own grandma for fun - it’s how they get their jollies.
And then there are the paid disinformation people, regular leftists, and who knows what else.
Don’t let them bother you.
I don’t know why some of them do what they do.
I suspect some are just people who have fun aggravating others and poking them with sticks. We’ve all known plenty of people like that.
In the context of this issue, those are patently absurd statements.
You want to believe the brother is yet sitting on evidence when there is every reason to believe it was delivered to Lakin's legal team.
There are some, of course, who would like to see the evidence prematurely made available to the public so as to gain additional time to attack its credibility or develop a response.
The time and place at which any such evidence will be offered or presented will depend primarily on the litigation plan; it will not be at some ineffective and premature publicity stunt.
You can have the last word.
Check out “Sampling Sinusoidal Functions” for a graphical presentation of aliasing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing
To say that an order that may be inferred to be lawful must be obeyed is exactly the same thing [implementationally] as saying "any order which is not illegal on-its-face must be obeyed; there can be no questioning or confirmation-requests to the validity of any order."
The underlined part lies at the heart of the matter and, sadly, is ignored by our judicial system. In fact, our judicial system is trained not to read the actual law; this is what case-law and precedence is all about. It is nothing more than the judiciary playing the children's game Telephone with your rights & liberties.
-Lakin’s brother has no information or evidence that in any way affect the matter.
-The trail will come and go without any contribution from Lakin’s brother.
-It is both a human failing and a common movie trope for people to tell themselves that “the truth is out there” and it will come to light when the time is right. But... The world doesn't actually work that way.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in verbal volley with
Puerto Rican born rep, Jose Serrano
~~~~~~~~~
Politics
April 18, 2010
Clarence Thomas: We’re \”Evading\” Eligibility Issues
*snip*
The comments came as part of Thomas’ testimony before a House appropriations panel discussing an increase in the Supreme Court’s budget earlier this week.
Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., actually raised the question first amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.
“I’m still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States,” said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. “That’s another issue.”
Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land’s highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative, but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.
“I’m glad to hear that you don’t think there has to be a judge on the Court,” said Serrano, “because I’m not a judge; I’ve never been a judge.”
“And you don’t have to be born in the United States,” said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural-born citizen but has no such clause for a Supreme Court justice, “so you never have to answer that question.”
“Oh really?” asked Serrano. “So you haven’t answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?”
“We’re evading that one,” answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. “We’re giving you another option.”
http://nation.foxnews.com/justice/2010/04/18/clarence-thomas-were-evading-eligibility-issues
Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7qEH-tKoXA&feature=player_embedded
If the Constitution required Joe Biden to “act as President” but instead *I* chose a Sec Def, conferred with my Sec Def, and gave orders to send additional troops to Iraq - causing the entire military structure to coordinate movements and deployments in implementation of that order.... would you say that the effects of what I did were unconstitutional?
Or does the military have to do whatever any fool who pretends to be CINC tells them to do - all with the Constitution’s blessing? What person would the military NOT have to obey if that person had the audacity to pretend they were CINC and the senior leadership did what he/she said?
And if the senior leadership choosing to obey somebody besides a Constitutional CINC is binding on all the military, then how can those military leaders say they are NOT usurping the power of the Constitution? People keep saying that we don’t want our military deciding Constitutional issues. But when the military structure implemented Obama’s orders AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION which only allows Joe Biden to “act as Presidnet” (if it even allows Biden; depends on whether Congress’ unlawful electoral certification is legally binding) aren’t they taking the Constitution into their own hands? Aren’t they usurping the authority of the judiciary?
If it would be unlawful for them to declare Obama to NOT be the CINC because that would usurp the role of Congress and the courts, then wouldn’t it also be unlawful for them to declare Obama to BE the Constitutionally-acting CINC when court cases are still pending for the courts to decide precisely that? If they don’t know that Obama is authorized by the Constitution to act as CINC, don’t the top leaders have a duty to await the court’s decision?
Lakin picked the wrong hill upon which to fight this battle. That's why his new counsel isn't doing the “Obama defense.” He's doing what his first counsel should have—trying to pare down the charges and plead good service to date.
The best available evidence disputes this.
Whether or not this is an anomaly depends on an exact knowledge of what was actually done in 1961.
Wich makes all the more important to demand full disclosure.
If you actually had a few dozen BC’s from August of 1961 and could show that they should be sequential based on birth date and time then you'd have something.
We don't have a few dozen, but there have been several random BCs posted that show a general sequential numbering system that goes along with the chronological order in which BCs are filed. The procedures as explained by a DOH employee support this numbering pattern, so again, the best available evidence supports the idea that the cert. no. is an anomaly and impossibility. Obama's alleged cert. no. is irrationally out of sequence, and the state of Hawaii REFUSES to affirm that the number belongs to Obama despite having statutory authority to confirm who the number does belong to. Why hide the truth when there's no legal reason to hide it?? So far, you're showing that you're good at making excuses that don't need to be made.
In the process (pun intended) Lakin is denied several Constitutional rights including due process.
Thanks for the ping. What is the meaning of the rule change they just put into effect? I don’t understand the legal ease.
God bless LTC Lakin. May he protect him from all injustice.
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.