New World Order
See other New World Order Articles
Title: LTC Lakin’s Court-Martial Nears
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/
Published: Dec 6, 2010
Author: None
Post Date: 2010-12-06 13:45:24 by Skip Intro
Keywords: None
Views: 97288
Comments: 116
LTC Terrence Lakin’s court-martial opens next week on December 14 at Fort Meade, Maryland. I saw a photo online recently of Lakin with his beautiful family, which I won’t post here for the sake of their privacy. But I felt very sad looking at it. Lakin’s irresponsible actions gambled with their future security and family reputation. I wonder if the GOP ops behind this miserable fiasco, like Margaret Hemenway and Paul Rolf Jensen, or World Net Daily, for that matter, ever give a thought to what they have done to these kids. All the Birthers out there, every single one, who pushed this man farther and farther to self-immolation should be ashamed, including, more recently, his own brother. It would be one thing if LTC Lakin had continued with the Birther defense. Lakin must have realized the damage he was doing to his family and to the service and himself, or he wouldn’t have fired the American Patriot Foundation and hired a non-Birther lawyer, one of the best in the military law business, to represent his interests over the Birther movement’s interests. It’s a shame the Birther movement continues to exploit Lakin in defiance of his legal strategy. No sympathy here for LTC Lakin–he deserves what he gets–but for his children. And for the armed forces, who have better things to worry about than half-assed, unpatriotic conspiracy movements. Col. Dwight Sullivan of CAAFlog described on The Fogbow how the military sentencing process works in a plea bargain: In the military, the convening authority (the commanding general or other high ranking official who decided to prosecute the case) actually enters into a contract with the defendant (called an accused in military justice parlance). The convening authority agrees that if the accused pleads guilty and does whatever else he or she agrees to do, then the convening authority will reduce the accused’s sentence to an agree-upon limit. The case then goes to court-martial, where the accused pleads guilty and goes through a “Care inquiry,” during which the accused is required to convince the military judge that he or she is actually guilty. This is a lengthy process during which the accused basically has to explain in his or her own words why his or her conduct satisfied every element of the offenses to which he or she has pled guilty. Once the military judge finds the accused guilty in accordance with the pleas, the case then moves immediately into a sentencing hearing. There are no presentence reports — sentencing is an adversarial evidentiary process, much like a contested trial. At the end of the sentencing case, the sentencer (it could be the military judge alone or a panel of service members) deliberates and then announces a sentence. (For members, it generally takes a 2/3 vote for the sentence, though there are some exceptions to that rule.) Then the accused gets the lighter of the sentence adjudged or the sentence as agreed to with the convening authority. So the defense can, as we say, “beat the deal” by getting the sentencer to adjudge a more lenient sentence than that in the contract (called a PTA for pre-trial agreement) between the convening authority and the accused. During the defense’s sentencing case, the accused can elect to either testify under oath or make an unsworn statement to the court-martial. If the accused testifies under oath, he can be (and almost invariably will be) cross-examined by the prosecutor. If the accused makes an unsworn statement, he isn’t subject to cross-examination, though the prosecution in its rebuttal case is allowed to rebut any statements of fact made during the unsworn statement, but not opinions. Military case law construing the right to make an unsworn statement holds that the accused can say just about anything he wants. In practice, because the case law is so expansive, a military judge almost never precludes the accused from saying something because she knows that if she does, there’s a pretty good chance she’ll get reversed on appeal. So, if LTC Lakin so chooses, there could indeed be an “open mike afternoon” at his court-martial during which he would have the option of delivering a birther manifesto. He would almost certainly be allowed to do so if he wants. (Of course, the sentencing authority — be it Judge Lind or a panel of Army colonels — will then be free to consider that as a matter in aggravation when determining the appropriate sentence.) Col. Sullivan intends to attend the trial, so we can look forward to his reports on CAAFlog. A very interesting interview he had recently on Reality Check is well worth listening to. If he does attend the court-martial, Reality Check will be lucky again to have him as a guest to discuss it. Don’t miss the show next week.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-40) not displayed.
.
.
.
#41. To: sneakypete (#34)
now Pete, you know as well as I do, that only 1/10 of the U.S. army are fighting men. for the rest, it's just a job corps.
Long live the Taliban Freedom Fighters!
The U.S. Army is a teamwork organization with what is called a head to tail ratio. What that means is some fight, and others logistically support those actively fighting in any theater of operation the U.S. Military is deployed in. I'm surprised you feel you need to lash out with the obvious. Because this is the nature of the beast, and no one disputes this.
Yep. The person making the claim, in this case the Lt colonel, bears the burden of proof here. There is no legal spin to this basic judicial concept.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
I repeat: the U.S. army is the biggest collection of cowards in the history of armed forces.
Long live the Taliban Freedom Fighters!
No, he has to prove his claim that POTUS wasn't born in America is based in fact. He hasn't, and its my view he simply can't. The guy fucked up here big time, sneaky. You know it.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
He listened to the wrong people.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
Lakin is being judged on what he did, that is the relevant evidence that must be produced in court. Even if Obama were an illegal immigrant, or whatever birthers claim at the moment, and if the order came directly from Obama, himself, rather than drown the chain of command in support of a policy established by the previous POTUS, according to the de facto officer doctrine, the order would still be legal.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
Like always, you birthers have it ass backwards. Lakin is the one where the burden of proof falls. You've been drinking the Goldi Kool-Aid too long.
There is no legal spin to this basic judicial concept. Sneaky, when Badeye and I agree there is nothing left for you but to face the fact that you are wrong.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
You really do miss the "good old days" of Stalinism and the USSR,don't you?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Nothing exposes the hypocrisy AND the stupidity of you lefties than this issue. You are all foaming at the mouth and DEMANDING the defendant PROVE his innocence. Here is a clue for you. In America it is the PROSECUTION that is supposed to prove their case,not the defense. Fries your fritters doesn't it,comrade?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Actually I think you would be more at home in the old USSR where the law de jour was the product of expedience.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
No, you idiot. He has to defend himself against the charges filed against him. They're real simple, so simple I'm surprised you can't follow them. Did he disobey a direct order? Yes or No? That's the way it works.
These people must be hurting themselves, what with all the spin and twist needed to see it any other way. It would seem to me that if he's being charged with failure to follow a lawful order, he is the defendant, and the prosecution has to prove the order was lawful. Basic, straightforward, and simple.
And the sheep will bleat their submission, Burma Shave.
No he doesn't skip. All he has to do is sit there with his arms folded and tell the prosecution, "prove your charge against me".
And the sheep will bleat their submission, Burma Shave.
Well, that's true. He can do that and he'll be convicted in record time. There's no question whatever that he disobeyed a direct order. If he hadn't, he'd be in Afghanistan now.
The prosecution is charging him with disobeying a LAWFUL direct order. The burden of proof that the order was LAWFUL is on the prosecution. Now how does the prosecution do this, since it appears that just about every record of Obama's life has been sealed? Seems to me the prosecution is the one in a bind here. But Justice has long ago left our courtrooms, replaced by wormtongues, arguing not justice, but the law. Cicero had it correct when he wrote, "But the most foolish notion of all is the belief that everything is just which is found in the customs or laws of nations."
And the sheep will bleat their submission, Burma Shave.
And then wonder when the locust will arrive....(grin)
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Good luck with that. Try and think about this for a minute. According to you, every single order given to every single service member could be challenged in court for this reason. I suggest you spend some time reviewing the UCMJ on what the term "lawful order" means, then try again.
That's because you are an idiot. I have said it before and I will say it again,I hope Lucy sues you when she becomes an adult for defaming her all over the internet by telling people you are her mother.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Was it a lawful order? Yes,or no? IF it was a lawful order,the prosecution should have no trouble PROVING that,right,numbnuts?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
What could be more obvious? Other than the blind devotion of the idiots to their Chocolate Messiah,that is.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Yeah, they could. And could be a large part of the reason why "unlawful" orders are not usually given. We have swerved yet again into arguing what is law, not what is "just". Again, I direct you to Cicero, "But the most foolish notion of all is the belief that everything is just which is found in the customs or laws of nations." That being said, the military is not a democracy, nor a Republic. It is a dictatorship. Pure and simple. It is not necessarily "just".
And the sheep will bleat their submission, Burma Shave.
ROFLMAO! Good one! And to think that some people claim you have no sense of humor!
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
No,dummy,ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION. You know,that "goddamn piece of paper" you and Boy Jorge hold in contempt.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Well pete, now you know how the sheep feels after the wolves have voted on what's for dinner.
And the sheep will bleat their submission, Burma Shave.
OK Pete. Acording to THE CONSTUTION, everytime a captain orders a change in course the helmsman can refuse until he has his day in court. Same goes for a mess cook, a supply sergeant, a field commander. No one has to obey any orders at all until they are proven to be legitimate by a court. Is that the way you see it? Again, I suggest you and Woody take the time to read the UCMJ on the subject. All I can do is try to explain it to you. Unfortunately, I can't understand it for you too.
Skip, I think that's a "straw man". Your argument is akin to saying, "All guns should be confiscated because everyone who has one could shoot someone." I don't see any evidence of whole scale "refusal of orders until the orders are proven at a courts martial to be lawful" going on anywhere. Do you? When the prosecution proves that the order was lawful, the guy is guilty as charged. When an unconstitutional law is written and passed, it is null and void, and carries no force of law. That is why the "unconstitutionality" of a law can be used as a defense. Basically, without access to all the records that have been sealed, it's impossible for either side in this to prove its case. And if the prosecution can't prove its case, the guy walks. Don't you think it a bit unjust to demand the defendant prove something that, under current circumstances (the proof he needs is "sealed") is impossible to prove, while giving a pass to the prosecution on having to do the very same thing? If it were possible to prove under current circumstances, the prosecution would do it, and win.
And the sheep will bleat their submission, Burma Shave.
The piece you're missing is that Obama's birth has nothing to do with Lakin's guilt or innocence anymore than my citizenship does.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
Who says that?!?!?!
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
Can I kiss your crimson colored ass?
Well,if the president has ordered the fleet to change direction and go into a hostile zone,the answer is "YES,if it is not clear that the president is legally holding the office." This has never came up before because no other president has ever refused to show their birth certificate. I doubt it would have even occurred to any previous president to refuse to prove he were legally qualified to hold that office. No one has to obey any orders at all until they are proven to be legitimate by a court. Presidents don't issue orders to clean the floors. They issue orders to move masses of troops into harms way.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Buy you books,send you to schools,and even give you a diploma,and you are still incapable of adding 2+2. Obama's birth has EVERYTHING to do with Larkins innocence or guilt. If Barry Soetoro was not legally elected,he can't legally order Larkin to do a damn thing.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
No. A simple bow will suffice.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Coming from Meg, that's probably an invite for some kind of bath house hangout.
It is more than likely many of our presidents didn't have birth certificates. ...it wasn’t until 1853 that the United Kingdom made it mandatory to register certified birth records for each citizen. In the 1900s, the United States followed suit. Prior to that time, birth records were generally written down by doctors, midwives, or priests. Documents were not certified or recorded by the government, and it was very common for documents to be lost or destroyed. Therefore, there was no “official record” of any citizens until they reached adulthood and started paying taxes or joined the military. birthdetails.com/blog/his...rth-records-certificates/ Obama published his Certificate of Live Birth on the internet, I can't recall any other president ever publishing the same, anywhere, ever. No one has to obey any orders at all until they are proven to be legitimate by a court. Man, I bet guys drafted and sent off to Vietnam wish they'd thought of that.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
Obama was legally elected by popular vote, again by the electoral college, and accepted without challenge by Congress.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
Man, I bet guys drafted and sent off to Vietnam wish they'd thought of that. Are you saying Kennedy and Johnson were frauds? Who knew, coming from a leftard.
Man, I bet guys drafted and sent off to Vietnam wish they'd thought of that. Are you saying Kennedy and Johnson were frauds? Would you have denied those draftees a court order legitimizing their orders? Remember, Sneaky sez ain't no one got to obey an order lessin the court sez so. (psst - the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States presided over Obama's oath taking.>
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
What? Are you saying Kennedy beat Nixon legitimately? Hell, everybody knows old Joe Kennedy stole that election for John. Of course that means LBJ was illegitimate too. And that means that Viet Nam was an illegitimate war. Better watch out Eric or the John Birch Society will revoke your lifetime membership, you lefty bastard.
It was obvious without question that Johnson and Kennedy were US born. Not so with the Kenyan.
Comments (82 - 116) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#42. To: continental op (#41)
#43. To: lucysmom (#37)
Lakin is responsible for his court-martial. He is the person who failed to comply with a lawful order. Obama's place of birth is irrelevant.
#44. To: Ferret Mike (#42)
#45. To: sneakypete (#39)
Really? He now has to prove he is innocent?
#46. To: Ferret Mike (#38)
He did not chose his battles wisely. Bottome line.
#47. To: sneakypete (#40)
Now,I know you lefties get wood at the thought of a all-powerful government that makes our decisions for us,but do you REALLY want to get a government court the ability to find someone guilty without having to produce any evidence of his guilt?
#48. To: sneakypete (#40)
PROVE it was a lawful order,dummy.
#49. To: Badeye, sneakypete (#43)
The person making the claim, in this case the Lt colonel, bears the burden of proof here.
#50. To: lucysmom (#47)
Even if Obama were an illegal immigrant, or whatever birthers claim at the moment, and if the order came directly from Obama, himself, rather than drown the chain of command in support of a policy established by the previous POTUS, according to the de facto officer doctrine, the order would still be legal.
#51. To: Skip Intro, *Hypocrisy and Hypocrites* (#48)
Like always, you birthers have it ass backwards. Lakin is the one where the burden of proof falls. You've been drinking the Goldi Kool-Aid too long.
#52. To: sneakypete (#50)
You really do miss the "good old days" of Stalinism and the USSR,don't you?
#53. To: sneakypete (#51)
You are all foaming at the mouth and DEMANDING the defendant PROVE his innocence.
#54. To: sneakypete (#51)
You are all foaming at the mouth and DEMANDING the defendant PROVE his innocence.
Seeing the others as fools,
Not knowing nor even caring,
They've become no more than tools.
#55. To: Skip Intro (#53)
No, you idiot. He has to defend himself against the charges filed against him.
Seeing the others as fools,
Not knowing nor even caring,
They've become no more than tools.
#56. To: Wood_Chopper (#55)
No he doesn't skip. All he has to do is sit there with his arms folded and tell the prosecution, "prove your charge against me".
#57. To: Skip Intro (#56)
There's no question whatever that he disobeyed a direct order.
Seeing the others as fools,
Not knowing nor even caring,
They've become no more than tools.
#58. To: lucysmom (#49)
Sneaky, when Badeye and I agree there is nothing left for you but to face the fact that you are wrong.
#59. To: Wood_Chopper (#57)
The burden of proof that the order was LAWFUL is on the prosecution.
#60. To: lucysmom (#52)
Actually I think you would be more at home in the old USSR where the law de jour was the product of expedience.
#61. To: Skip Intro (#53)
Did he disobey a direct order? Yes or No?
#62. To: Wood_Chopper (#54)
It would seem to me that if he's being charged with failure to follow a lawful order, he is the defendant, and the prosecution has to prove the order was lawful. Basic, straightforward, and simple.
#63. To: Skip Intro (#59)
Try and think about this for a minute. According to you, every single order given to every single service member could be challenged in court for this reason.
I suggest you spend some time reviewing the UCMJ on what the term "lawful order" means, then try again.
Seeing the others as fools,
Not knowing nor even caring,
They've become no more than tools.
#64. To: lucysmom, Badeye (#49)
Sneaky, when Badeye and I agree there is nothing left for you but to face the fact that you are wrong.
#65. To: Skip Intro (#59)
According to you, every single order given to every single service member could be challenged in court for this reason.
#66. To: sneakypete (#64)
Sneaky, when Badeye and I agree there is nothing left for you but to face the fact that you are wrong.
Seeing the others as fools,
Not knowing nor even caring,
They've become no more than tools.
#67. To: sneakypete (#65)
#68. To: Skip Intro (#67)
OK Pete. Acording to THE CONSTUTION, everytime a captain orders a change in course the helmsman can refuse until he has his day in court. Same goes for a mess cook, a supply sergeant, a field commander.
Seeing the others as fools,
Not knowing nor even caring,
They've become no more than tools.
#69. To: Wood_Chopper (#68)
Don't you think it a bit unjust to demand the defendant prove something that, under current circumstances (the proof he needs is "sealed") is impossible to prove, while giving a pass to the prosecution on having to do the very same thing?
#70. To: sneakypete (#64)
And to think that some people claim you have no sense of humor!
#71. To: sneakypete (#35)
Still smarting over me proving the first slave holder in the English-speaking New World was a black man,ain't ya? Your whole belief system must have been shaken by that one,Buckwheat.
#72. To: Skip Intro (#67)
OK Pete. Acording to THE CONSTUTION, everytime a captain orders a change in course the helmsman can refuse until he has his day in court. Same goes for a mess cook, a supply sergeant, a field commander.
#73. To: lucysmom (#69)
The piece you're missing is that Obama's birth has nothing to do with Lakin's guilt or innocence anymore than my citizenship does.
#74. To: meguro (#71)
Can I kiss your crimson colored ass?
#75. To: sneakypete (#74)
Can I kiss your crimson colored ass?
#76. To: sneakypete (#72)
This has never came up before because no other president has ever refused to show their birth certificate. I doubt it would have even occurred to any previous president to refuse to prove he were legally qualified to hold that office.
#77. To: sneakypete (#73)
If Barry Soetoro was not legally elected,he can't legally order Larkin to do a damn thing.
#78. To: lucysmom (#76)
No one has to obey any orders at all until they are proven to be legitimate by a court.
#79. To: no gnu taxes (#78)
No one has to obey any orders at all until they are proven to be legitimate by a court.
#80. To: no gnu taxes (#78)
Are you saying Kennedy and Johnson were frauds?
#81. To: lucysmom (#79)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]