Posted on 12/16/2010 1:17:21 PM PST by Cardhu
Lakin Sentenced
1545: Sentence announced. Dismissal, confinement for 6 months, total forfeitures.
The other part of your problem is that people whose births were originally registered on long forms can still get copies of these long forms. Their generally used for genealogical purposes because they list information about the parents and not just the child. If it was necessary for such documentation in order to resolve a question, such documentation can be provided. It’s silly to believe otherwise.
At least you understand the issue now. But states do, in fact, vary as to what they will produce anymore. And no one but you is even talking about a jpg. If a state passes a law requiring birth documentation for the ballot, the candidate in question will have to produce a certified document from his state, or more likely simply authorize the originating state to transmit such a document to the relevant requesting state official. And yes, everyone with a functioning brain stem knows that has not happened to date with Obama.
And again, those are your interpretations of the legal record. Actual courts are on record disagreeing with them, so it's kind of silly to believe your personal opinion is fact. But as I said, pass a law in a given state triggering a legal test of the issue, and then the matter will be clearly documented.
Just an added note regarding conspiracies.
Hillary Clinton responded to the claims of her husband’s extracurricular activity by saying it was the plot of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to destroy her husband. I have no doubts that a lot of us right-wingers wanted to bring Clinton down, but she would have had the public believe that some right-winger planted Bill Clinton’s semen on Lewinsky’s blue dress. That was the conspiracy theory that was never mocked by the public and was disproven by all the evidence - although our stinkin’ Senate refused to uphold perjury and obstruction of justice law because they said it was just about - tee hee - sex. Funny nobody said that about Abu Ghraib...
So that was a conspiracy theory that was publicly proclaimed by Hillary Clinton - for which she received no rebuke from anybody but us right-wingers.
Around the same time that this was going on, mostly because AG Janet Reno refused to investigate potential national security leaks as requested by the Cos Report, a military intelligence project called Able Danger was initiated. Able Danger did computer sorting and analysis of open-source documents, looking for points of correlations that would point to suspicious activity. They noted suspicious activity on two fronts.
One was a hub of suspicious activity roughly organized around Brooklyn and a guy named Mohammad Atta. Able Danger alerted the Pentagon and tried to alert the FBI and CIA about the need to watch that group for potential terrorism.
Another was a hub of suspicious activity centered around Stanford University, connecting the Chinese military with SecDef Perry.
Because the DOD considered the connection with SecDef to be “laughable”, they discarded all the data collected by Able Danger and suspended their support for that operation, and later went on (and continue to this day) to gag the members of Able Danger who knew what was going on.
In order to label Able Danger is non-credible conspiracy theorists, the DOD destroyed the very information that could have prevented 9-11. There was a conspiracy going on, Able Danger had pegged it, but to cover for SecDef Perry the DOD quashed the actionable intelligence.
And once Clinton was out of office, FOIA requests were forced to be honored and it was found that SecDef Perry HAD KNOWN ALL ALONG that the company his own company was selling restricted, sensitive satellite technology to was actually a front company for the Chinese military - exactly the kind of thing that the Cox Report had strongly recommended the DOJ and Janet Reno investigate. SecDef Perry knew it was a front company because a colleague at Stanford University had actually set up the match between Perry and the Chinese military leader’s wife, to make the sale.
IOW, in order to cover the illegal conspiracy of SecDef Perry, the DOD quashed as non-credible the “inaccurate conspiracy theories” of Able Danger. As a result not only Perry’s conspiracy (which compromised US national security interests by giving China forbidden satellite technology) hidden, but a 10-year-long conspiracy that culminated in the deaths of 3,000 innocent Americans on 9-11 was effectively hidden.
Able Danger was 2 for 2 on identifying conspiracies. And it was because of their KNOWN ACCURACY that SecDef Perry’s DOD quashed, disbanded, and sought to defame Able Danger.
A tale of 3 conspiracy theories. Two were correct, deadly, and involved government cover-ups. The other involved - tee hee - sex, was proven wrong, and even though perjury and obstruction of justice were discovered nothing happened to hold the perpetrator accountable to the law anyway.
Only the accurate ones were ridiculed by media and government. The inaccurate one received a pass and is now forgotten. The accurate ones have never been reported in the alphabet networks and so most people have never even heard of Able Danger.
Just because it’s a conspiracy theory doesn’t mean it’s not true. Ask the families of those killed on 9-11.
Should have been Cox Report, not Cos Report.
I understood it from the beginning. I haven't changed my commentary except to painfully explain to you what should have been immediately obvious. But no worries, I'm here to help.
And no one but you is even talking about a jpg.
You do understand that a jpg is the entire reason that any laws are being considered?? Why do I have to keep explaining the obvious to you???
If a state passes a law requiring birth documentation for the ballot, the candidate in question will have to produce a certified document from his state, or more likely simply authorize the originating state to transmit such a document to the relevant requesting state official. And yes, everyone with a functioning brain stem knows that has not happened to date with Obama.
Several folks here show themselves to be lacking, no offense. That's why I pointed this out ... for their benefit as well as yours.
And again, those are your interpretations of the legal record.
Feel free to explain what if any part you think is wrong.
Actual courts are on record disagreeing with them, so it's kind of silly to believe your personal opinion is fact.
I know of one court that sketchily covered this issue, but its opinion is easily dissected. Again, if you think there is something specifically unfactual, by all means, point it out and provide some actual reasoning for your belief. Appealing to unidentified cases under a presumption of infallibility is not a substantive rebuttal.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2644025/posts
If his sentence is approved by the convening authority, Lakin’s case, because it includes dismissal, will be sent for automatic review by the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA), which has the authority to overturn his convictions.
Maj. Gen. Karl Horst, Lakin’s commanding general, could also grant Lakin clemency.
If the ACCA upholds Lakin’s convictions, he can appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF).
If the CAAF agrees to hear Lakin’s appeal but denies it, Lakin can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which rarely grants review for appeals of military justice system decisions.
I don’t imagine that Lakin will pursue many appeals, unless his attorney encourages him to do so.
No, it isn’t.
“Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.” ~Robert Heinlein
This isn't a discussion about military law in the abstract, but rather a discussion about how military law applied to Lakin. The facts of Lakin's case are crystal clear to anyone with even a remedial understanding of military law - the lawfulness of HIS orders were a matter of law to be decided by the military judge. It really can't be anymore straight-forward.
Don’t expect anyone in the judiciary to do anything in 2012. Lakin did what he did because he knows the country is being destroyed and may be totally destroyed. He gets it. The idiot detractors posting here have no clue. Idiot drones brainwashed by TV.
Lakin reminds me of the Germans who tried to stop Hitler while the masses just looked on.
Of possible/tangential interest (since Hitler and the Nazis were mentioned):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af44Slin7lg&feature=related
Particularly the final statements regarding the question of how to deal with propaganda.
I didn’t suggest that all conspiracy theories are crazy or untrue.
But when all three branches of government, both political parties, all media, and half of FR are accused of being in on it ... well that’s just a little too much.
Do I believe Obama is hiding something? Yes, that’s obvious. Do I believe the 4 (maybe 5) honorable justices on the Supreme Court of the United States of America conspired to dismiss petitions for writ of certiorari in eligibility cases? Absoltely, positively, unquestionably, without a doubt ... NO.
(And to those who will surely point me to Justice Thomas’ comment about evading the issue, get a freaking clue.)
And to someone like me with far less than a remedial understanding. So it doesn't take a genius. Obviously.
And to someone like me with far less than a remedial understanding. So it doesn't take a genius. Obviously.
A lot of pro hussein idiots posting on this thread. Our troops are being pawned and killed to amuse islam and the saudi king.
Nov 2008 was a coup but the drooling idiots keep watching TV’s 24x7 propaganda including Prince Al Waleed’s Fox and they think all is well. A country where the citizens have no standing. Naive fools. Lakin gets it and knows what is at stake.
The judge ignored 4 legally-binding references which all agreed that the lawfulness of the orders depends on legal authorization, which for combat deployments must come through the President:
1) Article 90 (ii under “lawfulness”),
2) Article 92 (must not be contrary to the Constitution or laws, and must not be given by someone acting beyond their authority),
3) the Authorization for the Use of Force (AUOF, which gives sole authority to use force in the War on Terrorism to “the President”) and
4) the statute (I’d have to look up that reference; sorry) which authorizes the SecDef to implement combat deployments and movements WITH APPROVAL FROM THE PRESIDENT.
So while generically citing the authority of Congress, Lind ignored 4 different places where Congress makes the lawfulness of combat deployment orders ABSOLUTELY DEPENDENT on the President.
Is there anything that forbids a military judge from making rulings that are contrary to the law, or can she make stuff up wholesale as she goes along? What accountability is there when a judge ignores 4 pieces of actual legislation which contradict her ruling on what the legal requirements are?
Also - I referenced this before but received no response. In cases where the sole issue is whether the person giving the order actually holds the position to be able to give the order, the judge does not necessarily have the authority to rule on the lawfulness of the orders, according to a footnote on p 160 at http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/mcm2000.pdf )
What determines whether the judge has that authority? From what I read elsewhere, it seemed that the salient issue is whether that is the ONLY defense the accused has - in which case the defense of “unlawful orders” is an issue of fact, not of law - and must therefore be decided by vote of the members of the court-martial jury, not by any one person (either the judge or the president/chairman of the jury). I need to find that reference again to make sure I understood it correctly, and hopefully others can clarify this point as well.
Grand Juries across the Nation are currently investigating the many crimes of Barack Hussein Obama, including but not limited to the Crimes of Treason, Criminally Negligent Homicide by ordering the poisoning of the Gulf of Mexico with Corexit, Depraved Indifference Homicide, Identity Theft, Voter Fraud, Voter Intimidation etc. BO will not be alerted in advance of his arrest. He has been given the option of resigning. That is his last notice.
http://dewdropwarriors.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/06/how-to-start-and-lead-citizens-grand.html
I suppose he might try to appeal, but it won't succeed. How could it? They ADMITTED, under oath, that he disobeyed a lawful order. Now he's going to take that back and claim he committed perjury?
Seriously, what are you envisoning here?
I suppose he might try to appeal, but it won't succeed. How could it? He ADMITTED, under oath, that he disobeyed a lawful order. Now he's going to take that back and claim he committed perjury?
Seriously, what are you envisoning here?
A decision of ‘worth’ is individual choice. Take for example’give me liberty or give me death’. I don’t know what Lakin’s personal stand on this is but I will bet he has now established himslf in USA history as a man who tried to verify what our Constitution means.
Why do you think that Lakin's counsel - a man with over 25-years of practical military legal experience - stipulated that Lind was right on the law?
Lind took judicial notice that Obama was sworn into office, ergo Obama IS the President of the United States. It is not the pleasure of the military, to especially include the military legal system, to examine Obama for defects in his authority to wield the power in the office that he so clearly holds; Just like - as New centrally held - it's NOT within the purview of the military and its members to determine of the Commander-in-Chief is acting Constitutionally.
This is why Lakin affirmed under penalty of perjury that the orders he received were lawful.
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.