Posted on 12/17/2010 6:27:27 AM PST by FS11
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
All Resident Obama had to do is show a real birth certificate.
That would have nothing to do with Larkin. And he already has.
LTC Lakin’s second group of attorneys sandbagged him, big time.
By pleading guilty to the charges, Lakin’s chances of appeal are slim and none. Had he contested the charges in a Court-Martial...he had some chance of being acquitted. And, he would have had more of a case in appeal, since he was prohibited from providing a defense by the judge.
Looking at his sentence, the only risk he had in going to trial was getting some more confinement time. Even in his guilty plea, he got confinement, dismissal, and loss of all future benefits
Obviously, the second group of lawyers were protecting Obama, not their client.
18 posted on Friday, December 17, 2010 8:56:53 AM by UCFRoadWarrior
Lakin should have pled Nolo Contendere to all charges and remainded silent and not capitulated. He would have gotten the same sentence. His “lawyers” presented no reasonable defense for the man. They must have known that the prosecution had witnesses to prove that he intentionally missed movement. By pleading him guilty and having him capitulate on 3 counts of disobeying lawful orders, he was set up for “certain conviction” on the missing movement charge.
Outside of public defenders who literally fell asleep during murder trials, I have never seen a more eggregious case of incompetent counsel than Lakin’s.
LTC Lakin’s second group of attorneys sandbagged him, big time.
By pleading guilty to the charges, Lakin’s chances of appeal are slim and none. Had he contested the charges in a Court-Martial...he had some chance of being acquitted. And, he would have had more of a case in appeal, since he was prohibited from providing a defense by the judge.
Looking at his sentence, the only risk he had in going to trial was getting some more confinement time. Even in his guilty plea, he got confinement, dismissal, and loss of all future benefits
Obviously, the second group of lawyers were protecting Obama, not their client.
18 posted on Friday, December 17, 2010 8:56:53 AM by UCFRoadWarrior
Lakin should have pled Nolo Contendere to all charges and remainded silent and not capitulated. He would have gotten the same sentence. His “lawyers” presented no reasonable defense for the man. They must have known that the prosecution had witnesses to prove that he intentionally missed movement. By pleading him guilty and having him capitulate on 3 counts of disobeying lawful orders, he was set up for “certain conviction” on the missing movement charge.
Outside of public defenders who literally fell asleep during murder trials, I have never seen a more eggregious case of incompetent counsel than Lakin’s.
“Whatever you think Lakin testified to, he didn’t testify that something was legal. How could he?”
On the contrary. I suggest you read the UCMJ. Every soldier from Private to General has the resources to know what is legal or not when it pertains to military orders and circumstances. ignorance of the UCMJ is not an excuse to disobey.
This is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT about removing Obama from office.
It **is** about the Rule of Law and the Constitution!
If Obama is a natural born citizen then he has every right to be occupying the White House. If he is NOT a natural born citizen then he is a criminal and a usurper.
If Obama is not a natural born citizen he is a usurper. Anyone claiming otherwise is delusional.
mlo~ That would have nothing to do with Larkin. And he already has.
Source please?
Obama has never said that the BC that appeared on fact check is his accurate and true BC.
Nor has he ever said he provided said document.
Your multiple repetitions of what you know full well is not true does NOT make it true.
Not quite sure what you mean here, was that perhaps intended for another thread or reply/FReeper?
All members of the military are required to request clarification of orders perceived to be unlawful and must refuse to obey unlawful orders—e.g. an order to shoot that prisoner is clearly illegal and must NOT be followed, must ask, what chu sayin’ sir? and if sir bellows I said shoot him, you better believe shooting him is NOT the answer. If someone known to be a SP4 puts on a COL’s uniform and starts issuing orders: Take that position—no one is required to follow that order—you starting to get the picture?
You will be vindicated someday. Hang in there.
God bless.
Never. Never voluntarily.
Even if it shows he is a citizen, if the facts as asserted are accurate, he is not, and can never be, a Natural Born Citizen.
Regardless of the physical location of his birth, he claims that both of his parents were not American citizens at the time of his birth.
Problem is, even though we "know" this, without the release of his true and accurate birth certificate, we can't "prove" it in a court of law.
INDEED.
how much you want to bet that once the DREAM ACT is passed and Obama signs it, that , voila ! he releases his birth certificate.
Never. Never voluntarily.
Even if it shows he is a citizen, if the facts as asserted are accurate, he is not, and can never be, a Natural Born Citizen.
Regardless of the physical location of his birth, he claims that both of his parents were not American citizens at the time of his birth.
34 posted on Friday, December 17, 2010 9:30:46 AM by null and void
I agree, but there is sufficient evidence already available to prove that BO’s pResidency is illegitimate.
He’s a hero to me. I think of him as the Rosa Parks of all of us that don’t seem to have standing to challenge this A$$hats eligibility.
Evidence admissible in a court of law?
Where?
All we really have is hearsay, politicians’ bloviations, and photoshooped internet images.
The Eternal Code of the bully.
Evidence admissible in a court of law?
38 posted on Friday, December 17, 2010 10:00:41 AM by null and void
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.