Posted on 12/16/2010 1:17:21 PM PST by Cardhu
“I wish I knew.”
I imagine they got a good laugh. Assuming they got past the part of his being in Africa for a spot of hunting living dinosaurs.
No. Motive is not a requisite element of Article 87. It doesn't matter why the accused violated Art. 87, just "That the accused missed the movement through design or neglect".
Clearly, there was ample evidence provided from Lakin himself that demonstrates he missed movement through design.
Of course, he can raise any issue he wishes (as a practical matter). However, that doesn't mean ACCA will find such an argument persuasive. I suspect (if raised) it will be dismissed exactly for the reason I illustrate - it's wholly irrelevant to his guilt.
Oh wait... where did I say the chances of success in an appeal that Lakin would get his sentence mitigated by using Obama’s eligibility? What it would do is keep the pressure on this society to honestly vett Obama about his past and keep or crystallize the issue in the public’s conscious.
Post #598.
I present this as an additional example of a polite perspective from an apparently reliable and knowledgeable individual.
Right but it is an in to the appeal. It is a hail mary pass unless new evidence comes to light. Actually, they can bring anything up but likely ignored. However, the big picture is about Obama's eligibility and proving Obama ineligibility would help clear Lakin's name.
Thanks for the anecdote!
Don't you think the Supreme Court in 1798-- less than 10 years after the Constitution was ratified and when the Supreme Court included at least one Justice who had signed the Constitution--might have had some idea of what the Constitution meant?
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.
Most tax laws are not criminal. There are a few criminal provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. (I used to defend people against such charges.) All of the criminal provisions of the Internal Revenue Code require proof that the defendant not only violated the tax law but also that the defendant knew that was he was doing was illegal (see, for example, Cheek v. United States), so no, no one can be criminally prosecuted for violating a tax law change that was passed after he did the act he was prosecuted for.
This dilemma does not exist at all if, when the Constitution says “no ex post facto law,” it really DOES mean NO such law.
It doesn't say "no law that is retroactive in effect"; it says "no ex post facto law." "Ex post facto law" was a technical term which had a specific meaning under British common law, and the authors of the Constitution used that technical term because they wanted to adopt that well-known meaning. (Much as they used the words "Natural Born Citizen" because they wanted to adopt the meaning of the British common law term "natural born subject.")
Not quite so. Even Washington was reluctant to use irregulars like the militias.
In any case, an MD like Lakn is worth his weight in gold. Most of those in service are weighed in silver, maybe a silver-copper alloy, a billon. It takes many years to train an MD, and only a select few make it through training. To have one with experience at a war zone? Even more.
The penalty applied to Lakin is IDIOTIC in that regard. Shoot your own leg off idiotic. Doctor Lakin BEGGED to return to service.
>Don’t you think the Supreme Court in 1798— less than 10 years after the Constitution was ratified and when the Supreme Court included at least one Justice who had signed the Constitution—might have had some idea of what the Constitution meant?
Irrelevant.
Either the Constitution means what it says OR it does not; if it does not — well then I don’t want to hear you complain about a violation of the Constitution, EVER, because the Constitution cannot be violated if it does not mean what it says.
Where can I send the evidence and have it qualify as “new evidence”? Who do I need to talk to, and how? It would be new evidence if the court hasn’t received the evidence that the HDOH has made a statutory admission that Obama’s BC is amended and that they thus have no legally valid BC for him, and that they have indirectly confirmed in 3 different ways that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery.
The fact that even his age remains legally undeterminable without the HI BC being presented as evidence should speak to the issue of whether he met the 20th Amendment requirement of “qualifying” before being allowed to “act as President” - and the orders down the chain of command can’t be “contrary to the Constitution” in order to meet the “lawfulness” criteria for Article 92(1).
So that, for instance, if the President had not taken the oath office and could not therefore execute the duties of the office, then any orders he gave before taking the oath of office would not be lawful. If he had ordered the surge at 12:01pm on Jan 20th but didn’t take the oath until 12:05, the orders for the surge all down the chain of command would be unlawful according to the criteria of Article 92(1).
In similar fashion, if he ordered the surge at 12:01 on Jan 20th but hadn’t qualified until (never, still waiting....) the authorization for the surge would be unlawful and all the orders implementing it as well.
If they’d like evidence regarding the falsification of historical documents (newspaper microfilms) in 5 different libraries throughout the country I’d be happy to give them that too. Shows the deception involved to cover up for him, which wouldn’t be necessary if there was no problem with his documents.
And I’d be happy to give them what I’ve got concerning Nancy Pelosi most probably perjuring herself to sign the certifications of nomination by which Obama got onto the ballots in every state.
The Constitution means what it says. It doesn't necessarily mean what you want it to say.
It says "No ex post facto Law," which was a technical legal term that had a well-established legal meaning in 1789.
I suppose you can send it to Lakin, his brother Greg, or his defense or to all of them.
I cited case law. It's not an abstract concept and could or should have been applied to the Lakin case.
“Don’t you think the Supreme Court in 1798— less than 10 years after the Constitution was ratified and when the Supreme Court included at least one Justice who had signed the Constitution—might have had some idea of what the Constitution meant.”
They were all in the tank for Obama.
George Soros used his magic time machine-- the same one he used to plant false birth announceent in the Hawaii newspapers-- to go back in time and threaten the justices.
As an aside, you need to make sure people understand this is just your opinion. There's no evidence that anyone wanted to adopt the meaning of the British common law term 'natural born subject.'
>It says “No ex post facto Law,” which was a technical legal term that had a well-established legal meaning in 1789.
Please expound and explain that then. Also be sure to include why the translation [of] “after the fact” is generally inappropriate.
Reading comprehension is not the strong suit, I see. I didn't say it was an abstract concept, I said we weren't discussing military law in the abstract. We were, and are, discussing military law as applied to Lakin's particular circumstances.
If you believe that citation is relevant to Lakin's case, then yes, I am absolutely convinced you really are Paul Jensen.
Lakin made a huge mistake. He should have kept you on board, and avoided Puckett. It's clear that your superior grasp of military law would have prevailed at trial, and stuff.
Not the dumb time machine canard again. The birth announcement did not contain a place of birth and didn't prove anything. Nobody would have needed to go back in time, even if they could. Honestly.
What part of 'this could have been applied to Lakin's case' are you not understanding. M-e ... t-y-p-e ... s-l-o-w-e-r ... f-o-r ... y-o-u??
Did that help??
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.