LTC. Terry Lakin Sentenced

CAAFLOG ^ | December 16, 2010 | Christopher Mathews,

[Cardhu]

Lakin Sentenced

1545: Sentence announced. Dismissal, confinement for 6 months, total forfeitures.

CAAFLOG

[Sibre Fan]

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.

May a state constitutionally pass a law requiring candidates to provide different/more birth documentation than is required by the U.S. State Department to demonstrate citizenship? For example, the U.S. State Department accepts COLBs (or similar documents) from some states, but not from others. Stated differently, if a COLB from State X or a Long Form Certificate from State Y is sufficient to prove U.S. citizenship for purposes of the federal government, may State Y say "we don't accept that COLB or that Long Form" as sufficient to prove U.S. citizenship for purposes of placing a candidate on the ballot; we require [different documentation]?

[OldDeckHand]

"I believe he said that because for him to say otherwise would be contempt of court."

It is impossible to have an intellectual conversation about the law with someone who believes that the only way to avoid a finding of contempt is to violate Article 131.

[LorenC]

Note, howevr, that Lakin plead not guilty to the charge of missing movement. Perhaps, he did so because his attorney intends to argue upon appeal that the Judge was wrong on the law and that the superior who issued the order didn’t have the authority to issue it and/or that Lakin didn’t have a duty to obey it. We’ll have to see why he plead not guilty on that one.

Based on the testimony that was given, it appears to me that the defense strategy on that charge was to argue that Lakin was not guilty because he hadn't been given an explicit order to be on that plane. That the process had been just informal enough that Lakin could justifiably say he hadn't consciously disobeyed a direct order.

That defense strategy ended up falling apart when the prosecution put on a witness who stated that she had given exactly that order to Lakin.

[ExSoldier]

Oh sure the appeal is automatic but the grounds they'll be looking for in overturning concern improper courtroom procedures or actions of the court officers in the disposition of the case, not on the evidence (unless tainted) results or sentence.

[OneWingedShark]

>You are incredibly naive. There is no law. The law they make up on the fly applies to us. NO LAW applies to them. Useful idiots. You have NO standing serf. You are playing their game like a good little sheep.

No kidding.
The supreme court *spit* is the most lawless of ALL the governmental branches — for they have the audacity to claim that the Constitution is EXACTLY what they say it is (i.e. their decisions are superior to the Constitution).
There are actual examples of the high-court altering the Constitution (insofar as “legal interpretation” goes) such as:

1 — Roe v. Wade; this is perhaps the least-subtle declaration that the Supreme Court’s ‘law’ [declarations] trump the Constitution. The Constitution says, in Amendment 10, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Yet, despite this, the Court declared that the Constitution had “penumbras” & “emanations” which which prohibited the States from having law in effect to consider abortion as murder [of their own unborn Citizens, no less].

2 — Kelo v. New London; In this decision the court declared that larceny was perfectly acceptable so long as it had the government-stamp-of-approval “eminent domain.” The 5th Amendment prohibits the taking of private property FOR PUBLIC USE without just compensation — yet the court declared that the PROJECTED increase in tax revenue by some other tenant qualified as “public use.” Using such logic on gun laws would yield that all people are prohibited persons because “it may be projected that they could, at some point, commit a felony;” using it on vehicles would mean that every person that drives could be convicted of ‘vehicular manslaughter’ because it could be ‘projected’ that such driver might one day drink-and-drive and kill somebody. IOW it justifies government action on supposition rather than on fact.

And the sad thing about it is that most Americans BELIEVE it.
They believe that the Constitution says what the supreme court says that it says!
I can prove, undeniably, that the Constitution is NOT what the Supreme Court says that it is.

In 1798 the Supreme Court declared, in the case of Caulder v. Bull, that the Constitution’s prohibition against Ex Post Facto Law applied ONLY to criminal law or “that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law.” [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_v._Bull ] The Congress, taking advantage of this pronouncement, passes ex post facto tax laws claiming that they are “regulatory” or “administrative” in nature and not criminal; however, when violations of these same laws are tried they are tried in CRIMINAL court.

Since something cannot be both true and false simultaneously the question must be asked: are tax-laws part of criminal-law?
If they are then Congress’s retroactive laws MUST be considered invalid by the Supreme Court’s ruling; if they are not then ALL criminal tax-law convictions MUST be null and void.

This dilemma does not exist at all if, when the Constitution says “no ex post facto law,” it really DOES mean NO such law.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Well, there you go. I knew not about that which I was blathering. :)

[OneWingedShark]

>Let’s just sit down and watch a little television, my friend. It will be okay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yoRWXrZVzA&feature=channel
— sadly, it’s saner than the actual TV broadcast it mimics...

[El Sordo]

Re. #560

This is another good post that we might remember as an example of you getting a reasonable and polite perspective from an apparently knowledgable indiviudal.

[Red Steel]

When I said it was appealable. That was a terse and unqualified statement.

Oh sure the appeal is automatic but the grounds they'll be looking for in overturning concern improper courtroom procedures or actions of the court officers in the disposition of the case, not on the evidence (unless tainted) results or sentence.

Lets take a look at the MCM.

To repeat - "Error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused."

We see that Judge Lind can be challenge on appeal about her decision to not allow any witnesses and evidence under the very liberal rules of discovery of UCMJ Article 46. In my post 580, it has been reported that witness 5 for prosecution introduced Lakin's motive to why he chose to miss his mandatory flight and missing movement. Obama's eligibility is now fair game.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Sarah Obama is a witch? Who knew?!

So if Sarah Obama put a spell on W, then when the libtards holler “Bush’s Fault,” it’s really Sarah’s fault? Well, that explains things.

I tried to access the docs at Justia that you provided for the Aryan Nation lawsuit but it was restricted. Is it on Scribd?

[BuckeyeTexan]

Sarah Obama is a witch? Who knew?!

So if Sarah Obama put a spell on W, then when the libtards holler “Bush’s Fault,” it’s really Sarah’s fault? Well, that explains things.

I tried to access the docs at Justia that you provided for the Aryan Nation lawsuit but it was restricted. Is it on Scribd?

[BuckeyeTexan]

At #589, Red claims that because the prosecution introduced Obama’s eligibility as Lakin’s motive for disobeying the order to which he plead not guilty that Obama’s eligibility is now fair game on appeal.

True? Not true?

[BuckeyeTexan]

In General Washington’s time, the military needed every available warm body.

[Red Steel]

True? Not true?

True from one witness blogger at the trial who goes by DrKate (Vandevier?). I'm sure Mr. Obot CAAFLOG Sullivan likely ommited it on his website.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Oh, I wasn’t implying that you lied. I was questioning whether or not your legal theory is accurate.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Oh, I wasn’t implying that you lied. I was questioning whether or not your legal theory is accurate.

[Diverdogz]

Obama's eligibility is now fair game.

Oh Yeah, LT COL Terry Lakin and Orly Taitz have Obama right where they want him. The ol' Rope-A-Dope strategy. Lakin is in a real position of power behind the walls of Leavenworth.

...Oh wait, the charges have nothing to do with Obama's eligibility and everything to do with Lakin's failure to follow orders of his superior officers.

[Lurking Libertarian]

“Ordinarily the lawfulness of an order is finally decided by the military judge. See R.C.M. 801(e). An exception might exist when the sole issue is whether the person who gave the order in fact occupied a certain position at the time.”

I am a lawyer but not a military lawyer. Having said that, I read that to mean that if the issue is whether the person who gave the order was actually General So-and-So or an imposter, that is a question of fact for the panel, but if it is undisputed that the named person gave the order, the question of whether the order was legal was a pure question of law for the judge. This goes to the basic rule that judges decide law and juries decide facts.

Here, the orders came not from Obama but from LTC Lakin's immediate superior. In any event, Obama is certainly "in fact occupying the position" of President at this time. (This goes back to the "de facto" vs. "de jure" debate we had on another thread). The question Lakin tried initially to raise was whether Obama was legally entitled to be President, not whether he in fact is President, so his defense raised an issue of law for the judge.

By the way, you are off in the weeds on that business about "final" and "interlocutory" rulings. That distinction goes to when the ruling can be appealed; it has nothing to do with who gets to make the ruling.

All of this is of course moot now, because LTC Lakin pleaded guilty to disobeying orders and swore under oath that the orders were legal, that he knew they were legal and that he had been advised by his lawyer that they were legal. And no, he would not have been in contempt of court to say otherwise; he could have stuck to his position, pleaded not guilty, and preserved the issue for appeal that way. He of course had to agree with the judge if he wanted her to accept his guilty plea, but he didn't have to plead guilty. He chose to do that.

[El Sordo]

I always loved what one officer said about Washington's swearing.

Brigadier General Charles Scott, years later, was asked if he had ever heard Washington swear.

His alleged response:

“Yes sir, he did once,” Scott replied. “It was at Monmouth and on a day that would have made any man swear. Charming! Delightful! Never have I enjoyed such swearing before or since.”

I understand there is some disagreement as to whether or not Scott was present at that moment. But it's still funny.

[Red Steel]

Just clarifying where the info came from, and ODH and I have already had this discussion.