Posted on 12/16/2010 1:17:21 PM PST by Cardhu
To me the only thing that matters is the evidence. If all three branches of government, both political parties, all media, and half of FR are all caught with their hand in the cookie jar, it is what it is.
The evidence is all that matters to me. And there is evidence that all 3 branches of government have broken or ignored the laws, evidence that the DNC certification was willful perjury, and evidence that the media was threatened by Soros.
Doesn’t matter to me whether half of FR is in on it because they’re private citizens who can think whatever they want. However, there’s also evidence of (presumably) private citizens altering historic documents at multiple libraries. They matter to me because there’s evidence they committed crimes.
See, this is the reason that the German propagandists said people will believe a big lie rather than a small one. With a small lie, we look at the evidence and that decides it. If the lie is so big people begin doubting the evidence and base their epistemology on a desire for things to not be so bad, or a fear that if they believe this big thing - even if there is direct proof of it - it means they’re crazy.
The size of the lie so intimidates people that they disbelieve what the evidence says. It becomes an EMOTIONAL issue rather than a factual issue. And only the emotional realm allows the kind of manipulation that folks like the German propagandists depend on.
The communists actually do the same thing - they seek to bombard and overwhelm honest people with SO MUCH big, heavy stuff that the people can never either wrap their minds around it or get their boots on to fight before the lie has already made it around the world 5 times, along with 10 other lies twice as bad. That’s exactly what the Obama coup has been doing to America, and we are all both shell-shocked and wondering what we can even do against such a lawless shock and awe maneuver.
The facts are the facts, and we have to let them be the facts, regardless of where the chips fall.
And that right there is the biggest birther lie of all. We want Obama out of office as much as any birther. The difference between us is that we respect the law while birthers do not.
The American system of justice has flaws but it is still the best system on Planet Earth. Perverting it for the sake of Obama is not worth the consequences we may face. Obama can be taken down with a good old-fashioned political dog fight and shrewd legal maneuvring prior to his re-election.
That Obama was certified on the ballots in 2008 shows that he caught the electorate with its pants down. It won't happen again.
And that right there is the biggest birther lie of all. We want Obama out of office as much as any birther. The difference between us is that we respect the law while birthers do not.
The American system of justice has flaws but it is still the best system on Planet Earth. Perverting it for the sake of Obama is not worth the consequences we may face. Obama can be taken down with a good old-fashioned political dog fight and shrewd legal maneuvring prior to his re-election.
That Obama was certified on the ballots in 2008 shows that he caught the electorate with its pants down. It won't happen again.
Not legal grand juries.
They’re not facts until a governing authority says they’re facts.
Regarding the alleged manipulation of microfilms, I’ll tell you the same thing I told Lucas Smith. Gather your evidence, get certified/notarized copies of it, and then mail it, return-receipt-requested, to every member of Congress and every major media organization. If it’s legitimate evidence, someone in the media will decide it’s in their best interest to publish it or any one of the numerous political opponents of Obama will investigate it. A “secret” that good will not be kept.
They’re not facts until a governing authority says they’re facts.
Regarding the alleged manipulation of microfilms, I’ll tell you the same thing I told Lucas Smith. Gather your evidence, get certified/notarized copies of it, and then mail it, return-receipt-requested, to every member of Congress and every major media organization. If it’s legitimate evidence, someone in the media will decide it’s in their best interest to publish it or any one of the numerous political opponents of Obama will investigate it. A “secret” that good will not be kept.
The Wikipedia entry for General Lee continues:
He retreated directly into Washington and his troops, who were advancing, and Washington dressed him down publicly. Lee responded with "inappropriate language" (insubordination), was arrested, and shortly thereafter court-martialed. Lee was found guilty, and he was relieved of command for a period of one year.General Lee's acts FAR worse than Colonel Lakin's could ever be construed to have been, yet General Lee got off light in comparison to Colonel Lakin.It is not clear that Lee had made a bad strategic decision: he believed himself outnumbered (which he in fact was: British commander Sir Henry Clinton had 10,000 troops to Lee's 5,440), and that a retreat was reasonable. However, he disobeyed his orders, and he publicly expressed disrespect to his Commander-in-Chief. Furthermore, Washington had wanted to test the abilities of Lee's troops, since they were among the first to be trained in European tactics by Baron von Steuben.
Lee tried to get Congress to overturn the court-martial's verdict [but that effort failed]
General Lee was relieved of command for a year but continued to serve.
As you well know, IANAL, so I may be spewing misinformation on this one because I haven't researched it. But ... a judge must interpret the law. So her decision was an interpretation of applicable law. No, judges may not make up their own law. If she is guilty of doing so, her decision on the law will be reversed upon appeal. Accountabilty for errant judical rulings is addressed when a higher court reviews the lower court's ruling(s).
One of the attorneys on the Sanity Squad will correct my errors if necessary.
As you well know, IANAL, so I may be spewing misinformation on this one because I haven't researched it. But ... a judge must interpret the law. So her decision was an interpretation of applicable law. No, judges may not make up their own law. If she is guilty of doing so, her decision on the law will be reversed upon appeal. Accountabilty for errant judical rulings is addressed when a higher court reviews the lower court's ruling(s).
One of the attorneys on the Sanity Squad will correct my errors if necessary.
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.
I believe he said that because for him to say otherwise would be contempt of court.
I am not JUST repeating the same things. I am also presenting references and asking for clarification or rebuttals, which nobody except Buckeye Texan is giving me. I appreciate his willingness to actually engage. Obviously he’s not a lawyer, to his credit.
Here is what the footnote I referenced says (again, it’s the footnote on p 160 at http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/mcm2000.pdf :
“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.”
Rule 801(e)(1)(A) says:
” (A) Finality of rulings. Any ruling by the military
judge upon a question of law, including a motion for a finding of not guilty, or upon any interlocutory question is final.”
With that in mind - that a judge’s rulings of law or interlocutory questions are final - I found the part which seems to me to explain why the above statement is used. It’s at II-76, on page 126 at http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/mcm2000.pdf (emphases mine):
“Questions of the applicability of a rule of law to an undisputed set of facts are normally questions of law. Similarly, the legality of an act is normally a question of law. For example, the legality of an order when disobedience of an order is charged, the legality of restraint when there is a prosecution for breach of arrest, or the sufficiency of warnings before interrogation are normally questions of law. *****It is possible, however, for such questions to be decided solely upon some factual issue, in which case they would be questions of fact. *****For example, the question of what warnings, if any, were given by an interrogator to a suspect would be a factual question.
A question is interlocutory unless the ruling on it would
finally decide whether the accused is guilty. ******Questions which may determine the ultimate issue of guilt are not interlocutory. **** An issue may arise as both an interlocutory question and a question which may determine the ultimate issue of guilt. An issued is not purely interlocutory if an accused raises a defense or objection and the disputed facts involved determine the ultimate question of guilt.”
So if the lawfulness of the order involves whether the person who had to authorize it actually held the position to do so - held the position lawfully and Constitutionally, as required by Article 92(1) - ultimately determines the issue of guilt, then it is not interlocutory.
And if the lawfulness of the order hinges on a factual issue (such as whether the President ever “qualified” by Jan 20th as required by the 20th Amendment), then it is an issue of fact, not of law.
So in the instance where the sole issue that decides guilt is the facts surrounding whether the authorizing person actually holds the position to be able to authorize the order, it is an issue of fact rather than law and it is not an interlocutory question. Thus Rule 801(e)(1)(A) doesn’t apply to it, and it is not stated that the judge’s ruling must be final.
That’s why I think there’s that footnote that I referenced, and it seems to me that the instance I described in the preceding paragraph shows the exception that the footnote refers to.
It is exactly Lakin’s situation.
What did Congress do with Lucas Smith’s evidence?
Title 28 of the U.S. Code - The Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sup_01_28.html
On Judicial Misconduct and Discipline
http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/sassower_01a.htm
I wish I knew.
When is her ruling on the lawfulness of the order (ignoring 4 different instances where the legal code disagreed with her) allowed to be appealed?
Also could you guys take a look at the post I just posted, regarding the lawfulness of orders (in exactly the case that Lakin has) being an issue of fact not law, and not interlocutory - which raises the issue of whether the judge’s ruling is final according to Rule 801?
I’m really not feeling well right now. I don’t know if it’s my blood sugars or if I’m getting the flu, but I think I’ll take a break for a while. If you respond and it takes me a while to get back to you I’m not ignoring you. Maybe it’s the fumes from dyeing fabric for a dress I’m going to sew for my daughter.
If Lakin’s defense attorney felt that Judge Lind was wrong on the law, he would not have convinced Lakin to plead guilty.
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.
Reminiscent of the film 'Groundhog Day'.
Everything's okay, Frantzie! We have Fox, who is given to us by the wonderful Prince Al Waleed! What a wonderful and heartwarming thing for this great man to do. Let's just sit down and watch a little television, my friend. It will be okay.
Puckett argued the technicality that Lakin could have taken another means of transportation to Atlanta, but witness 5 for the government introduced Lakin’s motive believing Obama was not Constitutionally qualified. Because the prosecution did not control their witness, the Defense could bring in any appeal the question of Obama’s eligibility if they choose to. This happened on day 1 of the trial and before the conviction. The government used witness 5’s testimony to help convict Lakin on the charge of missing movement. The Government messed up.
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.