Update! Officer challenging Obama's eligibility can't see evidence

Originally posted by Emilymary
Under what circumstances would you deem 'discovery' to be not 'fishing' as you put it.
Explpain!

I have explained. Lakin is the defendant being charged with:

1. Missing a movement
2. Disobeying an Officer

Discovery in THIS case would include evidence that proved:

1. Lakin DID get on the plane
2. Lakin DID obey his superiors

That's it. That's ALL the evidence that would be relevant in this case.

[edit on 9/5/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

Just admit it!!!!

Everyone that claims Mr Barack Obama is not eligible to be president are just racist bastards

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


An officer is required to decide whether or NOT an order is lawful.

So, for you to say that what he is asking is NOT relevant is telling.

It is telling me you want to obfuscate the question and push an agenda.

Sorry, if Obama is ineligible and therefore is not president, all orders that emanate from the Oval Office are NOT lawful orders.

Anyone that follows them can be brought up on charges.

I am SURE someone has already told you this in better legal terminology, but I guess you just sidestep that point right?

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Sorry, if Obama is ineligible and therefore is not president, all orders that emanate from the Oval Office are NOT lawful orders.

And that is what Lakin has to prove, that Obama is not the POTUS. Obama is not the one on trial, so he has to show nothing.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
An officer is required to decide whether or NOT an order is lawful.

Yes. And his superiors decided. That's why he's facing court martial.

So, for you to say that what he is asking is NOT relevant is telling.

The judge said that. Not I.

Sorry, if Obama is ineligible and therefore is not president, all orders that emanate from the Oval Office are NOT lawful orders.

There's that "IF" word again... But you're mistaken. Obama has been declared our president and the military CinC. He IS the president. Whether or not he was mistakenly placed in that position is another matter entirely, but NOTHING can take back the fact that NOW and at the time of Lakin's orders, Obama was and is our president.

Anyone that follows them can be brought up on charges.

Wrong again. They are protected by the FACT that Obama has been declared our legal president and IS our lawful president.

For Obama fans to fully get the point here, let's just put the shoe on the other foot.
Let's just assume that a few years back, there was a soldier who refused to go to Iraq because he claimed that George W. Bush was not legitimately elected by the American people. Let's say that to defend himself in his court martial, he asked to see various state's voting records so that he could prove that the election was stolen by Bush operatives, and not just in Florida. And then let's say that the military decides that such election documents are "not relative" to military service.
How would that make you feel? Can you begin to see the injustice here, in the present day case against a soldier who challenges the president's legitimacy?

Many of us knew this was going to happen. This thread from April shows that Lakin would have been better off with some ATS members representing him than Jensen.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

As I said in the other thread, all the court-martial has to prove is that Lakin disobeyed the law. They don't have to allay his suspicions by proving that Obama was born in the US and therefore is legally the president. I'm no lawyer, have never taken one law class and I know that. If Lakin is trying to do this to pull out Obama's documents, he's going to be highly disappointed.

The analogy I used in the other thread is... If a man kills his wife because he believes she's cheating, they don't have to prove to him that she wasn't cheating. He still disobeyed the law.

reply to post by jibeho

I know some of you will certainly cheer this decision but Lakin is entitled to defend himself.

Applaud the inevitable and absolutely correct decision, yes.
Cheer? Not really, no. It is sad to watch LTC Lakin destroy the fine career he had followed until now.

This comment made by the judge just has me scratching my head. She doesn't want to be the one to go there obviously.

The explanation is simple: the witnesses Jenkins wanted to call had no bearing on the charges against Lakin, thus had no contribution to his defense. Eye witness accounts indicate that Jenkins was visibly shaken when he realized that the defense he had planned had nothing to do with the charges that LTC Lakin faced.

Sure it could! It could also be an embarrassment to our nation. But shouldn't this man be allowed to take necessary measures to build his defense?

You are misunderstanding both the word 'embarrassment' and the context in which Judge Lind use it. She was discussing the propriety of the Military Court Martial interfering in the political field, which would be the case if Lakin were allowed to vet the President. This is exactly the same problem for the civilian judiciary and why no one has been able to get standing. In both cases, one branch of the government (the military or the judiciary) sticking its nose into the affairs of another branch of government against the provisions of the Constitution is known as 'embarrassment'.

In any walk of life, giving advice out side of your area of responsibility is an embarrassment to the receiver of your advice, because it is embarrassing for them to tell you to mind your own d*mn business.

Not one single judge has allowed any cases of this nature to go to the discovery phase. I'm sure that there is a reason.

You are right and that reason is given above. It simply isn't the Court's business to make political decisions about the eligibility of the President. It is Congress' business to do that, and they have already done so.

As Hank Williams said, "if you mind your own business, then you won't be minding mine". Judge Lind is making it plain that her Court will be minding its own business, as has every civilian court, including the Supreme Court, in which it has come up.

Originally posted by mr. toddly
How would that make you feel? Can you begin to see the injustice here, in the present day case against a soldier who challenges the president's legitimacy?

I'm sorry if you feel bad, but that doesn't change the way the legal system in this country works.

I can tell you with 100% surety that if a soldier refused to deploy for any reason, I would support a court martial.

When people join the military, they agree to follow orders. If they are absolutely CERTAIN that the order is illegal (like shooting unarmed children), then I would support them to not follow that order. But they would have to provide PROOF that the order was illegal. Lakin has provided no such proof. His military superiors gave him an order and he thought he could USE it to get to Obama's papers. Oops! He's WAY wrong. And he will pay the price.

Originally posted by Sky watcher
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

He had an ORDER TO APPEAR. The order is null and void because it comes from the top down, meaning from Obama to him. Obama is not an American and this would not be an issue if he was, everyone knows he is a wolf in sheep's clothing and since Congress and the Courts fail to do their job real Americans will do it for them.

If Obama screws us one more time, gunshots are going to be heard all across this country and we will see a massive uprising like the world has never seen.

I'll tell you what. If this happens, project jimmy is going to put down his drink and join the un to fight America. He said as much.

Birthers are the best!

Did emilymary Google Bary Soetoro in order to prove that Obama is Indonesian?? BWAHAHAHAHA

Cmon emilymary. Just go clean your hood and take a nap before the cross burning. I think you're overtired. hahahahah 161,000 hits. ahahahahahahahaha

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Right or wrong, Lt. Col. Larkin is clearly acting upon the dictates of his own conscience, and it seems to be his argument that he is acting upon the oath he took to uphold and defend the Constitution. It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove mens rea, that is to say, they must prove that Lt. Col. Larkin acted knowing that he was committing a crime.

LTC Larkin is charged with failure to deploy and failure to report.
He has clearly stated that he knew exactly what he was doing, and he has said so both before and since he comitted that crime. The prosecution won't have much trouble proving intent and knowledge.

The only thing he has been misled about is that his strategy might lead somehow to the equivalent of a military coup by finding that anyone in the military chain of command has the right to approve or disapprove the eligibility of the President.

He has said that he willfully disobeyed at least two lawful direct orders from his superior officer because he believed that the President may be ineligible. However, according to United States v New

In Huet-Vaughn, we reaffirmed the idea that personal belief that an order is unlawful cannot be a defense to a disobedience charge, holding: “The duty to disobey an unlawful order applies only to a positive act that constitutes a crime that is so manifestly beyond the legal power or discretion of the commander as to admit of no rational doubt of their unlawfulness.”

Furthermore, the orders LTC Larkin disobeyed did not come from the President, nor did the orders to issue the orders come from a Chain of Command that can be said to depend on the legitmacy of the President for its lawfullness. As Judge Col Lind pointed out, it is Congress that has the 'power to raise and support armies' and the appointment of officers is ultimately their responsibility, not the President's.

The officers were legit, the orders were legit, the orders could not be taken by anyone as an illegal act. LTC Larkin, by his own admission, willfully disobeyed those orders. The defense needs to address those charges and stop trying to make a political statement.

ETA: Conversely, if Larkin believes he is commissioned in the military under an unlawful Commander in Chief, the honorable thing to do may very well be to resign his commission and leave the military, rather than stay and defy orders.

That is the most true thing you have said. If LTC Lakin no longer has the calling for the military, he should have left it with his dignity and pension intact. He is now going to exchange that for a redeployment to Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas for a couple of years and a dishonorable discharge. I find that a rather sad end to a career with nothing but distinction in it until now.

reply to post by jibeho

In this particular case, I am amazed that a judge can simply say basically find another defense to the defendant. Lakin is not the one filing the complaint here. The charges are against him.

So, is the court suggesting that he simply fabricate a new defense? Lie?

No, the court is suggesting that he come up with a defense that addresses the charges against him.

If you show up in court for running a red light, and your lawyer brings a defense about why you haven't paid your taxes, your lawyer isn't doing his job.

Originally posted by rnaa
United States v New

“The duty to disobey an unlawful order applies only to a positive act that constitutes a crime that is so manifestly beyond the legal power or discretion of the commander as to admit of no rational doubt of their unlawfulness.”

Thank you for this!!! Great post!

I find that a rather sad end to a career with nothing but distinction in it until now.

I agree. It's incredibly sad.

I think we should be able to read Lind's actual ruling, but I can't find it. I'd love to see what she actually said, instead of depending on WND.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

And if he had evidence to prove his position (that the president is unlawful) we'd be having a very different discussion right now, but he has NO EVIDENCE. His thoughts and fears are not evidence. He would have to provide evidence of his reason for it to be taken in a legal manner.

No, actually, we wouldn't.

Because it is not within the authority of the Court Martial (nor any civilian court) to judge the qualifications of the President of the United States.

Nor is it within the authority of any soldier to disobey an order given by a superior officer, unless obedience would lead to the commission of an illegal act.

Failure to deploy to war zone, is desertion in the face of the enemy, and is looked upon rather dimly by the military, especially by those who had to deploy in his stead.

reply to post by rnaa


Yes, I learned my mistake during my research for this thread, but couldn't edit my posts. You're right.

I corrected myself here.

[edit on 9/5/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Lakin is not asking to be proven wrong, and even in a military trial the burden of proof still belongs with the prosecution, and all service members are presumed to be innocent.

In fact, LTC Lakin has just about said those exact words. He said he'd be glad to go to Afghanistan if he is proven wrong and Obama is eligible.

It's too late now, dude.

reply to post by butcherguy

No, he does not have proof, you are certainly correct on that point.
He wants the birth certificate, as proof that his Commander in Chief is valid in his position as POTUS.

The fly in your ointment is that the military has no role in deciding the eligibility of the POTUS. That is Congress job. Congress says Obama is President. For the military and the officers in the military that is end of story.

If a person is on trial, and the prosecution holds exculpatory evidence, they are bound to provide it to the defense.
This evidence would strengthen the prosecutions case, and do wonders for Obamas credibility. Why not just play that card(the BC) and put it all to rest? Shut everyone up, put the defendant in Leavenworth or drum him out with dishonor!

Why hide what is good? That is all I am wondering about. Seems weird to me.

The prosecution does not 'hold Obama's records' and Obama's records are not 'exculpatory'. Whether or not Obama is eligable to hold the office of POTUS has no relevance on the fact of whether LTC Lakin did or did not miss his ordered movement.

If you run a red light, whether or not the light was installed while you were out of town, or you were talking on you mobile phone when the light changed have no relevance to the fact of you running a red light. Did you run it or not? Then going to court over it and deciding to argue about how unfair your taxes are isn't going to get you very far.

[edit on 5/9/2010 by rnaa]

reply to post by spikey

As i understand it, the defendant is not in court to bring a case against Barack Obama,

right

rather he is attempting to exercise his legal right to call witnesses and materials which happen to include among them the documents you cite as positive proof of Barack Obama's place of birth, to aid in his defense.

wrong.

He is in court to defend himself against missing a movement. A movement that would have seen him deployed to Afghanistan.

The prosecution is being nice by not charging him with desertion in the face of the enemy, in my opinion.

reply to post by ripcontrol

The man has a right in military law to question the origin of his orders. He has a moral and legal obligation to insure his orders are legal.

No he doesn't.

He has a moral and legal obligation to ensure that following an order will not lead to an illegal act.

Neither deploying to Afghanistan or doing his duty are illegal acts; his orders were lawful.

It is not in the job description of anyone in the Military to question the legitimacy of their superior officers, let alone that of the Commander in Chief.

In any case, LTC Lakin's orders came from his CO, not from Obama.