[Seizethecarp]

I found this interesting link/post when I searched “UCMJ discovery”. It seems to this non-lawyer that discovery of Obama’s HI vital records would potentially both be exculpatory for Lakin and impeaching for Obama’s CIC status. My reading of the UCMJ post below is that it might even be the duty of the prosecution to obtain Obama’s vital records.

It also seems to me that the military court is duty bound to act under the presumption that Obama’s HI vital records will conform to his representations, and under that presumption Obama would have nothing to hide, as an honorable CIC sworn to uphold the Constitution, and would have no basis to obstruct a request from the court directly to HI Vital Records.

Obama does not have the DOJ obstructing discovery in a court-martial. HI statutes authorize HI DOH to release Obama’s vital records to any proper court request, if I remember correctly.

http://court-martial-ucmj.com/discovery/discovery/

Discovery
December 31, 2009

Discovery obligations apply to court-martial motions practice, for example when there is to be a suppression hearing.

The government has a mandatory duty to disclose evidence in its possession that is favorable to the defense, “either because it was exculpatory or of impeachment value . . . .” . The government breaches the duty established by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny, including Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), when it withholds such evidence, either willfully or inadvertently, and the withheld evidence is found to be “material.” Id. In the context of non-disclosed impeachment evidence, materiality is assessed in terms of whether the reliability of the witness in question may well be determinative of the outcome of the proceedings. See Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987). That is, the evidence must be such that “there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985)). Stated otherwise, “the relevant question is: ‘when viewed as a whole and in light of the substance of the prosecution’s case, did the government’s failure to provide . . . [the] Brady impeachment evidence to the defense . . . lead to an untrustworthy [result]. . . .” (some citations omitted).

United States v. Best, No._________, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119802, at *19–20 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 23, 2009).

“Mandatory duty” is what I usually refer to as a self-executing duty that does not require the defense to make a discovery request. Trial counsel at court-martial sometimes state that they didn’t (or don’t) have to give “Brady” discovery until there’s a defense request, or until the MJ has arraigned and docketed. Not so. Also, it is my view that the prosecution has an affirmative obligation to seek out Brady-plus discovery.

Best stands for the proposition that Brady and impeachment evidence should be disclosed prior to a suppression hearing if the information relates to a prosecution witness who will be testifying.

[BP2]

> I found this interesting link/post when I searched “UCMJ discovery”.

Good find.

Another problem that vexes Obama is the double-edge sword contained within the INFAMOUS UCMJ Article 66(c) when Lt Col Lakin’s case goes to Appeal:

In any case reviewed by it, the Court of Military Appeals may act only with respect to the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority and as affirmed or set aside as incorrect in law by the Court of Military Review.

This section of the UCMJ means many things to many people, including the interpreted legal convention that the Military Appeals Court cannot consider evidence outside the record in conducting its legal and factual sufficiency ... especially a COPY of a birth certificate off the internet. And yet, that's EXACTLY what Obama’s house of cards is based upon (shown at BOTTOM of post).

UCMJ Article 66(c) also can complicate Obama's ability to keep his secret, depending on how this is prosecuted and if Lt Col Lakin's case is remanded outside of the Military Court system, such as to the Court of Criminal Appeals for additional fact-finding. This from the case of "United States v. White" (2001):

Unlike civilians, military prisoners have no civil remedy for alleged constitutional violations. United States v. Palmiter, 20 MJ 90, 93 n. 4 (CMA 1985), citing Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296 (1983), and Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950). Thus, they must rely on the prison grievance system, Article 138, UCMJ, 10 USC § 938, the Courts of Criminal Appeals, and this Court [the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces] for relief.

As such, the UCMJ can also act as an expressway to the SCOTUS in these circumstances,
as expressed by UCMJ Article 67(a) ("REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT"):

(a) Decisions of the Unites States Court of Military Appeals are subject to review by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari as provided in section 1259 of title 28.

The truth about Obama's birth certificate (FactCheck.org)
–by Jess Henig, with Joe Miller

Jess Henig has an M.A. in English Literature.
Joe Miller has a Ph. D. in Political Philosophy.