Main Menu

Lakin’s lumps

LTC Terry Lakin and his civilian counsel Paul Jensen took their lumps at the pre-trial hearing today on charges that Lakin refused to deploy with his unit to Afghanistan because he could not be sure his orders were legal because President Obama had not proved to his satisfaction that he was eligible to be President and Commander in Chief. The military judge stated as a matter of law, that Lakin would not be allowed to offer issues of Obama’s eligibility in his defense because Lakin is obliged to follow orders anyway. The judge reminded Lakin that the authority for the military chain of command derives from the power of Congress under the Constitution. This means no school records, no birth certificate and no depositions from Hawaii Department of Health officials.

Any competent military attorney could have told LTC Lakin that this was going to happen. One continues to ask, pondering the blank and impassive Lakin, WHY?

Dwight Sullivan wrote at the CAAFlog blog:

I hear very good things about LTC Lakin’s detailed [military] defense counsel, MAJ Kemkes.  While obviously I have no way of knowing for sure, we can very safely assume that he advised LTC Lakin that there is no way his request for discovery would be successful and that he should explore available avenues to protect himself from the consequences of his deliberate decision to disobey orders on a basis that the law will not recognize as a defense.

Military attorney Phil Cave attended the proceeding and wrote a detailed report at the Military Law and Justice blog. Phil described attorney Jensen as “beaten down” following the Judge’s ruling about which Phil said:

The military judge’s findings and rulings seemed also to put a stake through the heart of LtGen McInerney’s affidavit and its relevance to the trial (by inference this would include MG Vallely and MG Curry).

Learn more:

97 Responses to Lakin’s lumps

  1. avatar
    James September 2, 2010 at 8:42 pm #

    This little girl judge needs a spanking.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 2, 2010 at 9:09 pm #

    James has left a comment on this article that I find so offensive that if I were to publish it, I would feel obliged to ban him forever. So James, do you want this to be your last word here, or shall I just delete it?

  3. avatar
    Arthur September 2, 2010 at 9:28 pm #

    Why James! You naughty, naughty boy . . . I think I shall pull down your britches, put you over my knee, and give you the most severest of spankings. Really! To compromise the reputation of the birthers by writing offensive twaddle? Dr. C. has been ever so kind to you — and now this! What will you mother say, let alone Pastor Manning?! It’s off to bed and no supper for you, young man. Quick, march! And I hope in your prayers you ask Our Dear Lady Liberty for forgiveness.

  4. avatar
    James September 2, 2010 at 10:05 pm #

    I”ll stand by it Doc. Judge Denise Lind is a complete traitor to the US Constitution. She deserves a fine spanking. I hope somone takes Judge Lind and gives her nice good spanking over their knee. Our courts have corrupt nazi judges and it appears they are in our military courts as well. Today, we saw that female corrupt nazil judges exist too. On the morning of Lakin’s court martial in October, Lakin and his legal team should get sprayed good and well by a skunk. I don’t know if the trial would be postponed but it would a fitting smell to describe Judge Denise Lind’s courtroom – Foul foul smelling.

  5. avatar
    misha September 2, 2010 at 10:21 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: James has left a comment on this article that I find so offensive that if I were to publish it, I would feel obliged to ban him forever. So James, do you want this to be your last word here, or shall I just delete it?

    I believe in free speech. Publish it, and then ban him for boorish behavior.

  6. avatar
    jamese777 September 2, 2010 at 10:31 pm #

    Being a James myself, my humble opinion is let’s have some compassion for James. He just took a huge blow on the Lakin issue and he’s hurting.
    Its really hard when people tell you for weeks that your side is going to lose and then you do lose just like they said you would.

  7. avatar
    Dave September 2, 2010 at 11:01 pm #

    There’s nothing wrong with having a Plan A that is likely to fail, as long as you have a really good Plan B. Jensen has been sharing Plan A with us from the beginning, but I’ve always wondered, what is Plan B? From the way Jensen kept assuring his listeners that it would be a colossal injustice if Plan A failed, I’ve suspected that Plan B had something to do with stoking outrage. But what is that outrage supposed to do? Is the military supposed to mutiny? Are hordes supposed to descend on Congress and force impeachment proceedings? I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. Or maybe Jensen will issue another press release to let us know what it is.

  8. avatar
    James September 2, 2010 at 11:12 pm #

    Yes, a lot of people are angry right down now that Denise Lind has denied Lakin his right to a FAIR trial. Lakin had advised supporters to show respect to Denise Lind because she would have seen the obvious and allow discovery. But, now the Denise Lind has served her country a great miscarriage of justice, not many will have much respect for her any more. I guess the Obots will still love the lady.

  9. avatar
    Majority Will September 2, 2010 at 11:18 pm #

    Dave: There’s nothing wrong with having a Plan A that is likely to fail, as long as you have a really good Plan B. Jensen has been sharing Plan A with us from the beginning, but I’ve always wondered, what is Plan B? From the way Jensen kept assuring his listeners that it would be a colossal injustice if Plan A failed, I’ve suspected that Plan B had something to do with stoking outrage. But what is that outrage supposed to do? Is the military supposed to mutiny? Are hordes supposed to descend on Congress and force impeachment proceedings? I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. Or maybe Jensen will issue another press release to let us know what it is.

    I’m guessing Jensen will try to sneak a pit bull into the courthouse and then shriek, “MISTRIAL” when caught.

  10. avatar
    Dave September 2, 2010 at 11:22 pm #

    Majority Will:
    I’m guessing Jensen will try to sneak a pit bull into the courthouse and then shriek, “MISTRIAL” when caught.

    OK, well, then they’d be well advised to have an especially sound Plan C.

  11. avatar
    Majority Will September 2, 2010 at 11:27 pm #

    Dave:
    OK, well, then they’d be well advised to have an especially sound Plan C.

    Plan C involves Carrot Top, fat free yogurt and an experimental cloning technique.

  12. avatar
    James September 2, 2010 at 11:28 pm #

    He better sneak a skunk in the courthouse, it much more fitting – Foul Foul Smelling Courtroom.

  13. avatar
    Reality Check September 2, 2010 at 11:31 pm #

    Phil Cave was a guest on my show tonight. He had some interesting comments on the hearing today. It sounds like it was a complete defeat for Lakin. In Phil’s words “he got cut off at the knees.”.

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/rcr/2010/09/03/reality-check-radio.mp3

  14. avatar
    Gregory September 2, 2010 at 11:50 pm #

    misha:
    I believe in free speech. Publish it, and then ban him for boorish behavior.

    If James’ post is at all libelous, then I believe that Dr C. (now knowing the contents of the post) has assumed a legal obligation not to publish it – otherwise Dr. C. himself could be sued for libel. In any event, I would argue that Dr C. has a moral obligation not to publish lIbelous or defamatory posts that come to his attention.

    Just my thoughts.

  15. avatar
    Sef September 2, 2010 at 11:59 pm #

    Dave: There’s nothing wrong with having a Plan A that is likely to fail, as long as you have a really good Plan B. Jensen has been sharing Plan A with us from the beginning, but I’ve always wondered, what is Plan B? From the way Jensen kept assuring his listeners that it would be a colossal injustice if Plan A failed, I’ve suspected that Plan B had something to do with stoking outrage. But what is that outrage supposed to do? Is the military supposed to mutiny? Are hordes supposed to descend on Congress and force impeachment proceedings? I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. Or maybe Jensen will issue another press release to let us know what it is.

    Doesn’t Kemkes have a duty to the country to see that something like that doesn’t happen?

  16. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett September 3, 2010 at 12:04 am #

    I say publish and be damned

  17. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett September 3, 2010 at 12:05 am #

    (is also a James) 😉

  18. avatar
    misha September 3, 2010 at 12:18 am #

    J. Edward Tremlett: I say publish and be damned

    Agreed. Then ban for boorishness.

  19. avatar
    BatGuano September 3, 2010 at 12:30 am #

    is james one of the birthers that just posts but never replies to comments ? if that’s the case then….. bring the carnage.

  20. avatar
    Gregory September 3, 2010 at 12:40 am #

    misha:
    Agreed. Then ban for boorishness.

    Isn’t banning someone from posting anything in the future a greater infringement of free speech, then deleting a single message that makes (as I understand it) no meaningful contribution to the discussion?

  21. avatar
    misha September 3, 2010 at 1:03 am #

    Gregory: Isn’t banning someone from posting anything in the future a greater infringement of free speech, then deleting a single message that makes (as I understand it) no meaningful contribution to the discussion?

    Good point. Unfortunately, I’m not a Talmudic scholar like my grandfather.

    I’ll leave it to the good doctor. – or James, if he is more than hit and run.

  22. avatar
    John Reilly September 3, 2010 at 1:32 am #

    Banning James is not an infringement of free speech. Dr. Conspiracy is not the Congress, which is the entity barred by the Constitution from infinging upon free speech; nor is he a state, barred under the incorporation by the 14th Amendment of certain rights in the Bill of Rights. As Dr. C owns this site, he can make his own rules, and I, for one, vote for more civility. I am tired of folks telling me that I am a traitor if I don’t share their views, and that is the m.o. of James, Ms. Taitz, Mr. Beck, and the rest of them. If their view cannot survive the rigor of debate on its own merits, that view cannot be helped by name-calling.

  23. avatar
    Lupin September 3, 2010 at 1:58 am #

    Would it be possible for Dr C to “report” (paraphrase and edulcorate) the substance of James’ post — then ban him. That way we would know why.

  24. avatar
    misha September 3, 2010 at 2:04 am #

    Lupin: edulcorate

    I just learned a new word. Thanks.

  25. avatar
    NbC September 3, 2010 at 2:07 am #

    Gregory: Isn’t banning someone from posting anything in the future a greater infringement of free speech, then deleting a single message that makes (as I understand it) no meaningful contribution to the discussion?

    Free speech applies to government infringement. You and I are guests here and Dr C has the right to restrict access to anyone.

    I am not privy to the message that James wrote. But I like the approach: James can either inform Dr C that he is sorry or that he wants the message to be posted but then face being banned.

  26. avatar
    Gregory September 3, 2010 at 3:22 am #

    NbC:
    Free speech applies to government infringement. ….But I like the approach: James can either inform Dr C that he is sorry or that he wants the message to be posted but then face being banned.

    I agree that free speech is not the issue here. I was only trying to understand Misha’s position – in particular, how censoring one message would infringe (his concept) of free speech – while, at the same time, banning all future posts from the same individual would not constitute – by the same reasoning – a much more serious infringement.

    I agree that Dr. C should have full control of the content on his (excellent) web site. But I do have trouble understanding why it makes sense to punish James because Dr. C. agreed to publish his offensive message. In my view, either James’ message meets Dr. C’s editorial standards or it does not. So I don’t see how James’ post can be deemed fit to publish – but only as long as James is subsequently banned – while the exact same post is not fit to publish otherwise.

    Such a dichotomy would tell me the editorial standard for judging posts on this board is not a single standard, consistently applied, but rather a standard that is effectively open to negotiation on a case-by-case basis.

    Or look at it this way: if James is banned, would the ban be punishment for writing the post and (as far as he concerned) already publishing it? If so, he should be punished now (in whatever way Dr. C sees fit). Or, would James be banned in order to prevent him from making similarly offensive posts in the future? But if that is the case, then how bad can future offensive posts really be, if Dr. C was willing to publish the offensive post that got him banned in the first place? To me, the issue again is consistency. As I see it, offensive posts should either be OK on this board or they should not be OK. And if they are not OK, then they should never be OK.

    I agree it’s Dr. C’s call. I’m really just arguing that the two decisions: whether to publish James’ post and whether to ban James (or otherwise take some other action) should be independent decisions; and the choice in each case should be entirely up to Dr. C.

    PS. I am curious to know what James’ post actually says. So maybe if there were a way to let us all read it without having to publish it, then everyone would be happy :-).

  27. avatar
    misha September 3, 2010 at 3:45 am #

    We have a problem: free speech does not give one the right to cry “fire,” in a crowded theatre.

    The NYT moderates all comments. They will not publish comments that are off topic, or abusive. The fact is, this blog is privately owned, and Dr. C can do as he wishes. On my blog, I do not allow a platform for rabble rousers. They can blow off steam at Stormfront.

  28. avatar
    Gregory September 3, 2010 at 4:01 am #

    misha: We have a problem: free speech does not give one the right to cry “fire,” in a crowded theatre.

    Sure it does – as long as there is a fire in the theater.

    Furthermore, as Alan Dershowitz pointed out in an article I read many years ago, Oliver Wendell Holmes’ often-quoted example really has nothing to do with speech at all. Someone yelling “fire” is simply an old-fashioned fire alarm. Nowadays one could achieve the same effect simply by pulling down a lever – and thereby set off a false fire alarm without having said anything at all.

  29. avatar
    BatGuano September 3, 2010 at 7:09 am #

    james posted his thoughts on the lakin trial in another blog, i assume it’s similar to the one in moderation here. i’ll avoid posting the link out of respect for doc. although offensive i think it should be posted. it’s an excellent example of the depths of stupidity the birther mind will go.

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2010 at 7:46 am #

    James: I”ll stand by it Doc. Judge Denise Lind is a complete traitor to the US Constitution.

    Your choice. Folks like you judge someone not by their qualifications, their history, or their commitment to the law, but by their willingness to chuck everything aside to cater to the birther’s mania. This is the same kind of thing we saw with Judge W. O. Carter in California: decorated Marine veteran, branded coward just because he wouldn’t let Orly Taitz have her way. It’s crazy. I’ll put up with crazy, but not the level of disrespect you showed by calling a military judge a “little girl that needs a spanking.”

    You are not welcome here.

  31. avatar
    Bovril September 3, 2010 at 8:00 am #

    Since yer man James has exeunt sinister, I’ll attach the link from, not the content of, the example noted above of his frothing bitterness on this subject

    http://court-martial-ucmj.com/lakin-2/ltc-lakins-defense-crushed-in-detail/#comments

    Oh, and you get to see Yguy get slapped down again as a bonus extra….8-)

  32. avatar
    Sef September 3, 2010 at 8:04 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Your choice. Folks like you judge someone not by their qualifications, their history, or their commitment to the law, but by their willingness to chuck everything aside to cater to the birther’s mania. This is the same kind of thing we saw with Judge W. O. Carter in California: decorated Marine veteran, branded coward just because he wouldn’t let Orly Taitz have her way. It’s crazy. I’ll put up with crazy, but not the level of disrespect you showed by calling a military judge a “little girl that needs a spanking.”You are not welcome here.

    Having now seen the comment, it only points out James’ boorishness & misogyny. I would expect that if there were a one-on-one physical encounter between James & the Judge “we would not have James to kick around any longer”.

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2010 at 8:07 am #

    Gregory:I agree that Dr. C should have full control of the content on his (excellent) web site. But I do have trouble understanding why it makes sense to punish James because Dr. C. agreed to publish his offensive message. In my view, either James’ message meets Dr. C’s editorial standards or it does not. So I don’t see how James’ post can be deemed fit to publish – but only as long as James is subsequently banned – while the exact same post is not fit to publish otherwise.

    Such a dichotomy would tell me the editorial standard for judging posts on this board is not a single standard, consistently applied, but rather a standard that is effectively open to negotiation on a case-by-case basis.

    James chose to stand by his comment, that the military judge in the Lakin hearing was a “little girl that needed a spanking.” I find that deeply offensive in many ways. I don’t have time to fully address the question Gregory raises this morning. Part of the answer involves the judicial concept of “prior restraint.” Part has to do with the difference between editing and banning. James’ remark would probably pass the editorial policy test. It does not pass the “community standards” test (which is wholly decided by your benevolent dictator). If James insists on saying things like that, then I don’t want him as part of the community.

    The editorial policy expresses a set of expectations. It is negotiable, and many messages which violate it get through (including Arthur’s ironic message that James should be spanked).

  34. avatar
    Dave September 3, 2010 at 8:24 am #

    Sef:
    Doesn’t Kemkes have a duty to the country to see that something like that doesn’t happen?

    There’s been some discussion on CAAFlog a while back on what a JAG would have to do in this kind of dreadful position. They are the experts, and I am not, but my summary would be that his duty is to give good advice to his client, and he’s probably be well advised to carefully document the advice he gives. If the client doesn’t take his advice, that’s not his fault.

    As for duty to country, if you mean about the civilian lawyer trying to turn this into political action (as I speculate), no, I don’t think it’s his duty to stop that. I mean, if they were planning something illegal I’m sure he’d have a duty to report that, but as long as it’s legal I’m sure it’s his duty to hold their plans in confidence.

  35. avatar
    Arthur September 3, 2010 at 8:27 am #

    OK, I want people know that I when I wrote my initial post describing James getting a full English-breakfast spanking, I didn’t know that his offensive post was one in which he recommended the judge should get a spanking. I don’t know what motivated James sadistic fantasizing; I’m just turned on by spanking birthers.

  36. avatar
    Lupin September 3, 2010 at 8:28 am #

    I actually found the odious James’ reference to a well known Germanic dictatorial and genocidal political party (how is that for a periphrase?) more offensive than his blurting out of his sexual fetish.

    I entirely support Dr. C’s decision to ban someone who can only aspire to rise to the level of a bathroom stall obscene graffiti scribbler.

  37. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 3, 2010 at 8:52 am #

    James: I”ll stand by it Doc. Judge Denise Lind is a complete traitor to the US Constitution. She deserves a fine spanking. I hope somone takes Judge Lind and gives her nice good spanking over their knee. Our courts have corrupt nazi judges and it appears they are in our military courts as well. Today, we saw that female corrupt nazil judges exist too. On the morning of Lakin’s court martial in October, Lakin and his legal team should get sprayed good and well by a skunk. I don’t know if the trial would be postponed but it would a fitting smell to describe Judge Denise Lind’s courtroom – Foul foul smelling.

    Corrupt nazi judges? Really? I’ve looked at these judges and seen pictures of them nowhere have I seen them wearing the insignia of the third reich. There are no rings, pins, etc. Maybe my eye sight isn’t so good lately.

  38. avatar
    mrnopants September 3, 2010 at 10:27 am #

    these folks have the same depth of character as they do depth of knowledge…….of anything really…….they are the seeds of humanity’s destruction and the sooner our side decides to attack them with the same vitriol as they possess, they sooner they will STFU…….we just better be willing to go to the mat against these twits because they will stop at nothing to destroy our country bit by bit……..James needs an ass whoopin…just like the rest of these message board tough guys…….screw em……LOSER.

  39. avatar
    JoZeppy September 3, 2010 at 10:53 am #

    James: I”ll stand by it Doc. Judge Denise Lind is a complete traitor to the US Constitution. She deserves a fine spanking. I hope somone takes Judge Lind and gives her nice good spanking over their knee. Our courts have corrupt nazi judges and it appears they are in our military courts as well. Today, we saw that female corrupt nazil judges exist too. On the morning of Lakin’s court martial in October, Lakin and his legal team should get sprayed good and well by a skunk. I don’t know if the trial would be postponed but it would a fitting smell to describe Judge Denise Lind’s courtroom – Foul foul smelling.

    Here’s a little clue for you….when you have a huge line of people, who actually studied and know the law on a particular subject, tell you something is going to happen a particular way, and on the other hand, you have a bunch of hacks and wannabe telling you the opposite, when things happen exactly like the people who know the law predicted, it’s not because of corrupt judges. It’s because that what the law is.

    Don’t you find it strange that the “lawyers” that end up consistently wrong are a mail order lawyer, a dog bite lawyer, a DWI lawyer, and a professional poker player?

    There is something foul smelling in the court rooms….it’s the now two year old garbage pseudo-legal arguments that these sorry excuses for lawyers keeping dragging out.

  40. avatar
    Black Lion September 3, 2010 at 10:57 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Corrupt nazi judges? Really? I’ve looked at these judges and seen pictures of them nowhere have I seen them wearing the insignia of the third reich. There are no rings, pins, etc. Maybe my eye sight isn’t so good lately.

    Bob, James is just a bit upset. You have to remember all over every birther site he has been crowing that this would be the so called “game changer” and Lakin was the case that would bring down the “usurper”….

    From AGJ…

    James Says:
    September 1st, 2010 at 5:41 am
    Judge To Rule Thursday On Defense Request For Deposition Of Hawaiian Officials And For Written Discovery Of All Of President’s School And College Records.

    This is BIG BIG BIG!

    Will September 2, 2010 be Obama’s unlucky day???

    James Says:
    September 1st, 2010 at 5:45 am
    Every military official who supports LTC Terry Lakin, active or retired should submit an affidavit in support of Lakin.

    LTC Terry Lakin is entitled to discovery into Obama’s records.

    Because Lakin’s case is a criminal one, Lakin’s right to discovery can not be easily dismissed as it has been in the civil cases.

    So in reading these posts it is easy to see why James is so upset. He once again show how misinformed about the law the birthers are.

    http://americangrandjury.org/general-obama-records-critical-to-our-republic

    As an aside from the following comment you can see how much the birthers had invested in the hope the Lakin case would be the one….

    live oak Says:
    September 1st, 2010 at 12:31 pm
    I have a question for Bob, william, Larry Meyer, Heather, Regina, and all those with military background who care to give an answer,
    Just for the sake of argument: If the judge grants discovery tomorrow, how long will it take to get Kenya boy out of the WH, arrested, and justice to be served? Hawaii will likely not be able to produce any real documents…there will be lawyers fighting back…How long before we see real results? Is it going to take another few weeks, months with the back and forth arguing like in the civilian courts? Will they just go get Kenya Boy, arrest him and be done with it? What will happen next? Can they just go get him? (Sam thinks it could take a couple of months to get through this. I hope he is wrong, and he hopes he’s wrong as well.)
    My thanks to all of you who respond to my question.

  41. avatar
    richCares September 3, 2010 at 10:57 am #

    “James needs an ass whoopin…just like the rest of these message board tough guys…….screw em……LOSER”
    .
    I second that!

  42. avatar
    Gordon September 3, 2010 at 11:10 am #

    Poor James, so typical of Birthers. Each successive legal beat down is met with the same tinfoil suspicions about the judge.

  43. avatar
    BatGuano September 3, 2010 at 11:19 am #

    James: Yes, a lot of people are angry right down now that Denise Lind has denied Lakin his right to a FAIR trial. Lakin had advised supporters to show respect to Denise Lind because she would have seen the obvious and allow discovery.

    “the obvious” ??? every single UCMJ expert has been saying this is EXACTLY what is going to happen. even before lakin officially refused an order it was being reported that any “obama eligibility” defense would not be admissible .

  44. avatar
    Arthur September 3, 2010 at 11:20 am #

    richCares: “James needs an ass whoopin…just like the rest of these message board tough guys…….screw em……LOSER”
    .
    I second that!

    As much as I want people like James to shut up and go away, violence, either real or imagined, isn’t something I can get behind. Let’s stick to reason and evidence (and the liberal use of mockery and ridicule), and leave thoughts of violence to the impotent, ignorant boobs whom we find so offensive.

  45. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 3, 2010 at 11:22 am #

    And with that I’m off to Caaflog to see what crap the birthers are spewing

  46. avatar
    Reality Check September 3, 2010 at 11:28 am #

    I won’t get into the James saga other than to say that I am amazed that he seems to be dead serious.

    The APF site is completely in denial that anything happened yesterday – nary a word other than that they removed the “hearing in progress” header sometime over night. For those saying that the Judge has not allowed Lakin to present a defense that is just not true. All the defense has to do is prove that his order to deploy was illegal separate from anything to do with the President. I know that sounds difficult, damned difficult, but Lakin should have considered this possibility a bit more before he refused to deploy. I think this is called having to lie in the bed you made.

  47. avatar
    Black Lion September 3, 2010 at 11:29 am #

    Well speaking of ingornant birthers, here is the Post and Fail view of what happened with Lakin, from avowed birther old Arnie Rosner….

    “Admiral Mullen, this is not the outcome expected from a military organization led by a champion of apolitical neutrality, a champion who has frequently stated his love of country, the Constitution and his obligation to the people of the United States of America.

    In my opinion, Admiral, in the court of public opinion, the Army has been tried in this matter by its own hand and found guilty. Guilty of political bias! Guilty of misprision of felony! And guilty of conduct unbecoming members of the U.S. military.”

    ……..

    Since it is apparent that the Army has no ability to effectively deal with such a political issue and the national security is at stake, it would seem urgent and essential that this matter be moved to a neutral, unbiased jurisdiction composed of disinterested public citizens, citizens convened as a citizens’ grand jury as guaranteed under the provisions of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, and a grand jury totally free of any influence or direction from a judicial system which has also proven itself incapable of administering constitutional ethical justice.”

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/09/02/have-our-armed-forces-turned-against-us/

    So not only is Arnie upset when the outcome that was predicted by everyone with any sort of legal training happened, he now wants a jury composed of disinterested citizens to judge the traitor Lakin. In other words I guess he would like to see the fake grand jury, American Grand Jury, and the super duper grand jury all judge Lakin. Really? These people are beyond delusional…

  48. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 3, 2010 at 11:35 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): And with that I’m off to Caaflog to see what crap the birthers are spewing

    Yep there’s yguy over there over and over again claiming Obama is a usurper and still not understanding how that term can’t apply to someone lawfully certified by congress

  49. avatar
    Black Lion September 3, 2010 at 11:36 am #

    From the comments in the Post and Fail article we see their new theory….The Army knows that the President is ineligible….Interesting….

    jetstream says:
    Thursday, September 2, 2010 at 10:22 PM
    Army Col. Denise R. Lind said opening up such evidence could be an “embarrassment” to the president, and it’s up to Congress to call for impeachment of a sitting president.

    How does she know the evidence would be embarrassing? Why would impeachment be necessary unless he was NOT eligible? Why wouldn’t the evidence prove he is a natural born citizen?

    Does this mean that the military already knows he is not eligible?
    ——————-
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I personally believe it does. And since when does “embarrassing” qualify as a reason not to make records public? A furor was created shortly before the 2000 election about a DUI ticket which George W. Bush received more than 30 years before.

    ch says:
    Thursday, September 2, 2010 at 11:11 PM
    Why is eligibility a “political” question…I am getting tired of this game. It is a legal question, a question for courts, a criminal question, for not only fraudulently campaigning, posting fake birth certificates, making false claims about parents, but also signed affidavits by detectives that he has used other social security numbers. Since when is a “crime” a political question? Since when does Congress decide constitutional law? This seesaw balance of power is sitting heavy on the ground. Holder needs to be taken to court also, for playing games with our laws. He is equally responsible for this charade. They want everybody to think it is a “political” question to be settled by Congress….are you kidding. How on earth could the political party that created the scam, and is in control of Congress, settle a question about their imposter? What Constitution would be designed this way. Our is not! The tap dance of the artful dodger. Dr. Lakin is a hero……and has proven Obama is not eligible……because Obama cannot defend himself in a court of law, and refuses to provide the easiest and simplest of documentation. Checkmate…..thank you, Dr. Lakin. All orders are invalid, until we have a legitimate Commander in Chief.

    Tom the veteran says:
    Friday, September 3, 2010 at 8:10 AM
    Can some legal eagle out there, who actually knows law, please tell us if Lt. Col. Lakin will finally have “standing” once the kangaroo court finds him guilty? If this great Patriot is allowed to go to jail, before Obama, then our Republic is truly lost.

    For God and Country

  50. avatar
    Black Lion September 3, 2010 at 11:38 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Yep there’s yguy over there over and over again claiming Obama is a usurper and still not understanding how that term can’t apply to someone lawfully certified by congress

    What else is new? Yguy has never been able to provide any evidence of his paranoid delusions….He avoids the evidence issue and attempts to move the goalposts to requiring that some mythical document called the long form is the only proof, but could never explain what on it would make it more evidentary than the COLB….Yguy equals epic fail….His lack of legal knowledge is amusing though….

  51. avatar
    AnotherBird September 3, 2010 at 11:41 am #

    Reality Check: All the defense has to do is prove that his order to deploy was illegal separate from anything to do with the President.

    And, in the real world that is what would have happened. Lakin and his supports were trying to find a way that he had “standing” with Obama. He bluffed himself in to a humiliating defeat.

    James is just a person blinded by his distaste of Obama, refuses to acknowledge all the birther cases that have been dismissed. I wish that their was a list of the 70 odd cases, that have been quoted. That is includes the appeals to.

  52. avatar
    Sef September 3, 2010 at 11:47 am #

    AnotherBird: I wish that their was a list of the 70 odd cases, that have been quoted. That is includes the appeals to.

    What about http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/docket/ ?

  53. avatar
    Daniel September 3, 2010 at 11:53 am #

    Hey James, quick question here…

    Why is it that they’re only corrupt traitor nazi judges……. when YOU lose?

  54. avatar
    Daniel September 3, 2010 at 11:56 am #

    AnotherBird:
    And, in the real world that is what would have happened. Lakin and his supports were trying to find a way that he had “standing” with Obama. He bluffed himself in to a humiliating defeat.

    Gee, it’s almost like the system has safeguards in place to prevent someone from manufacturing a stage by committing a crime in order to advance a political agenda….

  55. avatar
    Sef September 3, 2010 at 11:58 am #

    Daniel: Hey James, quick question here…Why is it that they’re only corrupt traitor nazi judges……. when YOU lose?

    Why aren’t they calling out the people who actually wrote the laws that the judges are enforcing?

  56. avatar
    Rickey September 3, 2010 at 11:58 am #

    Gordon:Poor James, so typical of Birthers. Each successive legal beat down is met with the same tinfoil suspicions about the judge.

    What I find interesting is that James and his ilk actually believed that there was a good chance that Lakin was going to get his discovery. This despite the fact that they were told over and over again about the de facto officer doctrine, the definition of an unlawful order, the opinions of the JAG experts at CAAFLOG, etc.

    Adios, James. I guess your time here as a punching bag has finally come to an end.

    As an aside, I note that the Safeguard Our Constitution site has yet to report on the hearing. On the bright side, this should hold down the cost of Lakin’s defense since his defense team won’t be traveling to Honolulu for depositions.

  57. avatar
    Sef September 3, 2010 at 12:01 pm #

    AnotherBird: Lakin and his supports were trying to find a way that he had “standing” with Obama

    Lakin should have gone to the WH & complained that Bo bit him. Then Jensen would have been on familiar ground.

  58. avatar
    Lupin September 3, 2010 at 12:09 pm #

    Rickey: What I find interesting is that James and his ilk actually believed that there was a good chance that Lakin was going to get his discovery. This despite the fact that they were told over and over again about the de facto officer doctrine, the definition of an unlawful order, the opinions of the JAG experts at CAAFLOG, etc.

    James, yguy and their odious ilk cannot and indeed will never accept that a man like Obama (hint hint) might legitimately be president. To them, there has to be a fraud somewhere. That is the only fact that can explain the Obama presidency. They will deny reality to the end because it conflicts with their worldview.

  59. avatar
    BatGuano September 3, 2010 at 12:13 pm #

    Daniel: Why is it that they’re only corrupt traitor nazi judges……. when YOU lose?

    there has yet to be a need to name the winning judges.

  60. avatar
    AnotherBird September 3, 2010 at 12:20 pm #

    Daniel:
    Gee, it’s almost like the system has safeguards in place to prevent someone from manufacturing a stage by committing a crime in order to advance a political agenda….

    Shhhh … anyone with not disillusioned like birthers would have realized that …

  61. avatar
    jamese777 September 3, 2010 at 12:29 pm #

    Does anyone know for certain whether Military Judge Colonel Denise Lind actually said that allowing discovery with regard to Obama’s birth records would be “an embarrassment” to the President. What is the context for her statement, if she actually said it?
    It seems the birthers are now seizing on that supposed comment as proof that the US Army knows that Obama has something to hide in Hawaii. That is the latest tack at the Post and Email and at worldnetdaily.
    The birthers ability to parse language is eternal.

  62. avatar
    Sef September 3, 2010 at 12:29 pm #

    AnotherBird: Lakin and his supports were trying to find a way that he had “standing” with Obama.

    The birthers don’t seem to realize that it’s the plaintiff or prosecutor that needs standing, not the defense. In a criminal case the government can attain standing during the arraignment. Lakin waived his, so he automatically granted the government standing. Fools!

  63. avatar
    Lupin September 3, 2010 at 12:37 pm #

    jamese777: Does anyone know for certain whether Military Judge Colonel Denise Lind actually said that allowing discovery with regard to Obama’s birth records would be “an embarrassment” to the President. What is the context for her statement, if she actually said it?

    Let me take a wild guess.

    As you know William the Conqueror imported an awfully large number of French (or Latin-derived) words into the English language. You still eat “veal” (veau), not calf, and from voirdire to oyez, your legalese is full of French words — sometimes a little old-fashioned, but still recognizably French.

    Anyway, “embarrass” means to block the way, to create an obstruction, and I’m pretty sure one of our learned colleagues here will soon point out that this is precisely the legal meaning that the Judge was using.

  64. avatar
    Reality Check September 3, 2010 at 12:48 pm #

    jamese777: Does anyone know for certain whether Military Judge Colonel Denise Lind actually said that allowing discovery with regard to Obama’s birth records would be “an embarrassment” to the President. What is the context for her statement, if she actually said it?

    I asked Phil Cave that on the show last night and he said that was definitely not what Judge Lind said. Her comment was part of a general discussion on the political question doctrine and that one branch of government can’t butt into the business of the other to embarrass them.

    it was predictable that birther shills like Sharon Rondeau and WND would seize upon this one comment taken out of context. There was nothing else for them in this devastating decision for birferism.

  65. avatar
    Rickey September 3, 2010 at 12:52 pm #

    Lupin:
    Anyway, “embarrass” means to block the way, to create an obstruction, and I’m pretty sure one of our learned colleagues here will soon point out that this is precisely the legal meaning that the Judge was using.

    I don’t pretend to be “learned,” but elsewhere it’s being pointed out that the legal sense of “embarrass” as used by the judge is that the judiciary has no business getting involved in the affairs of the other branches of government.

    Gorefan has posted some helpful information on “embarrass” in the “LTC Lakin Pre-trial Motions” thread.

  66. avatar
    jamese777 September 3, 2010 at 12:53 pm #

    Reality Check: I asked Phil Cave that on the show last night and he said that was definitely not what Judge Lind said. Her comment was part of a general discussion on the political question doctrine and that one branch of government can’t butt into the business of the other to embarrass them. it was predictable that birther shills like Sharon Rondeau and WND would seize upon this one comment taken out of context. There was nothing else for them in this devastating decision for birferism.

    Thanks. That is exactly what I thought. Your clarification is most helpful.

  67. avatar
    HORUS September 3, 2010 at 1:12 pm #

    Gregory: Isn’t banning someone from posting anything in the future a greater infringement of free speech,

    This is the Doc’s website, he can censor ANYONE he wants to and there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it!

    First Amendment does not extend to Private Property.

  68. avatar
    Gregory September 3, 2010 at 1:26 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The editorial policy expresses a set of expectations. It is negotiable, and many messages which violate it get through (including Arthur’s ironic message that James should be spanked).

    I think you have provided a fair and considered response. I see your point that the decision of whether to publish or not – should depend in some part on the post’s context, and that includes the past contributions of the poster.

    I learn a lot from this board. Thanks!

  69. avatar
    Phil Cave September 3, 2010 at 1:42 pm #

    I have decided to remove similarly obnoxious personal attacks from my blog by “James.” Sorry James, but the public square is entitled to a respectful discourse.

    On the issue of why the judge ruled? It is being alleged that she did so to avoid the President embarrassment. Having been present I would disagree that’s what she did. Her references were part of a long document.

    What I recommend is this. The written document she read, from which these alleged quotes come from is now available to Jensen and LTC Lakin. Why not post them on APF for all to see so that we can read and agree or disagree. Or will this be another instance of non-disclosure.

  70. avatar
    nbc September 3, 2010 at 2:08 pm #

    What I recommend is this. The written document she read, from which these alleged quotes come from is now available to Jensen and LTC Lakin. Why not post them on APF for all to see so that we can read and agree or disagree. Or will this be another instance of non-disclosure.

    Excellent point…

    Funny how some argue that the President has something to hide by not showing to their satisfaction that he is natural born…

  71. avatar
    Gregory September 3, 2010 at 2:13 pm #

    HORUS: This is the Doc’s website, he can censor ANYONE he wants to and there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it!First Amendment does not extend to Private Property.

    I don’t think anyone was arguing that the First Amendment forces Dr. C. to publish James’ post. I think we are all in agreement that Dr. C is well within his rights not to publish the message, if he so chooses. A I see it, the question was not whether Dr. C. must publish the message, but whether he should publish the message.

    I think that the point that Misha was making (and the one to which I was responding) was that free speech (specifically, allowing diverse opinions to be heard) is on the whole, beneficial, and should be allowed – even on private websites. And it easy to find support for this argument: just compare the quality of the discussions on this web site with those found on a typical Birther website (where any post that does not support their cause is routinely deleted).

  72. avatar
    Phil Cave September 3, 2010 at 2:21 pm #

    The issue is not whether speech should be permitted. I have taken the view that private blogs should be as free as possible. I agree that many blogs and sites, especially APF and its ilk remove any comment that is not supportive. Not only is that closing down discussion it’s also misleading the reader. But they can do it.

    I think the issue rather is the civility of that speech. I learned long ago that speech that is uncivil may get a reaction, but it doesn’t open up a reasoned or productive discussion. We just end up moving from talking head shows to now the yelling head shows.

  73. avatar
    Black Lion September 3, 2010 at 2:45 pm #

    More derangement and birther unrest, from the so called “Conservative Monster”…

    “I predicted yesterday that Lt Col. Lakin was going to be denied the right to a fair trial, because I know that the system is corrupt and some very powerful people are behind this cover up. The media has a tight lid on it and the truth will never see the light of day. This is what happens when you have a communist regime in power. Also, it is not a good sign when you have to appeal to obtain evidence.”

    http://theconservativemonster.com/2010/09/02/judge-denies-lt-col-lakin-a-fair-trial.aspx

    It seems like our friend, knowing that Lakin had no legal chance at all, used that to claim that the “fix was in”…And then he makes a call out to the Beck supporters….Really…

    And in the comments…

    fedup wrote:
    This judge should be executed for high crimes and treason. I think we should start a panel to have this judge removed along with all the other corrupt bastards in our courts. There goes the courts.

    Steve Cooper wrote:
    They are protecting this conspiracy with everything they got. Bottom line, McCain was vetted and Obama was NOT, because he is hiding something and they got caught. McCain has gotten Soros money in the past and he was the perfect candidate to help cover up Obama’s ineligibility. The key here is McCain NOT demanding a senate hearing to declare Obama eligible and a natural born citizen like the Democrats demanded be done for McCain. This is where the cover up began.

  74. avatar
    Black Lion September 3, 2010 at 2:48 pm #

    I guess Lakin and Jensen will be on a talk radio show…

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/09/ltc-terry-lakin-and-attorney-paul.html

    “LTC Lakin and atty Jensen will be on the Barry Farber radio show tonight, Sept. 3, at 8PM EST. The show feed is located at CRN here and Talk Radio Network here. Once the podcast is up I will update this post with the link.”

  75. avatar
    Majority Will September 3, 2010 at 3:44 pm #

    Black Lion: More derangement and birther unrest, from the so called “Conservative Monster”…“I predicted yesterday that Lt Col. Lakin was going to be denied the right to a fair trial, because I know that the system is corrupt and some very powerful people are behind this cover up. The media has a tight lid on it and the truth will never see the light of day. This is what happens when you have a communist regime in power. Also, it is not a good sign when you have to appeal to obtain evidence.”http://theconservativemonster.com/2010/09/02/judge-denies-lt-col-lakin-a-fair-trial.aspxIt seems like our friend, knowing that Lakin had no legal chance at all, used that to claim that the “fix was in”…And then he makes a call out to the Beck supporters….Really…
    And in the comments…fedup wrote:
    This judge should be executed for high crimes and treason. I think we should start a panel to have this judge removed along with all the other corrupt bastards in our courts. There goes the courts.Steve Cooper wrote:
    They are protecting this conspiracy with everything they got. Bottom line, McCain was vetted and Obama was NOT, because he is hiding something and they got caught. McCain has gotten Soros money in the past and he was the perfect candidate to help cover up Obama’s ineligibility. The key here is McCain NOT demanding a senate hearing to declare Obama eligible and a natural born citizen like the Democrats demanded be done for McCain. This is where the cover up began.

    Fedup is begging for a visit from the FBI.

  76. avatar
    SluggoJD September 3, 2010 at 3:47 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Your choice. Folks like you judge someone not by their qualifications, their history, or their commitment to the law, but by their willingness to chuck everything aside to cater to the birther’s mania. This is the same kind of thing we saw with Judge W. O. Carter in California: decorated Marine veteran, branded coward just because he wouldn’t let Orly Taitz have her way. It’s crazy. I’ll put up with crazy, but not the level of disrespect you showed by calling a military judge a “little girl that needs a spanking.”You are not welcome here.

    Long overdue!

  77. avatar
    Expelliarmus September 3, 2010 at 3:59 pm #

    jamese777: Does anyone know for certain whether Military Judge Colonel Denise Lind actually said that allowing discovery with regard to Obama’s birth records would be “an embarrassment” to the President. What is the context for her statement,

    The judge likely was referring to or quoting directly from the US Supreme Court case of Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), which lays out the test for determining whether a matter is a non-justiciable political question:

    It is apparent that several formulations which vary slightly according to the settings in which the questions arise may describe a political question, although each has one or more elements which identify it as essentially a function of the separation of powers. Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non judicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.

    My guess is that the Judge either read aloud the above quote, or that she listed all the elements from Baker v Carr that were applicable to the Lakin case. (i.e., (1) textually demonstrable commitment to Congress, (2) lack of judicially discoverable standards for resolution, (3) impossibility of deciding without initial non-judicial policy decision, (4) impossibility of court’s independent resolution without disrespecting Congress, (5) need for unquestioning adherence to political decision already made, and (6) potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements.)

  78. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 3, 2010 at 4:35 pm #

    Black Lion: I guess Lakin and Jensen will be on a talk radio show…http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/09/ltc-terry-lakin-and-attorney-paul.html“LTC Lakin and atty Jensen will be on the Barry Farber radio show tonight, Sept. 3, at 8PM EST. The show feed is located at CRN here and Talk Radio Network here. Once the podcast is up I will update this post with the link.”

    So, we can safely assume LTC Lakin is not locked up in the psych ward or is he doing the interview from Walter Reed Re-education and Rehabilation Community Outreach?

  79. avatar
    Bovril September 3, 2010 at 5:02 pm #

    That’s not Sven……….there is humor and fact based at that….

  80. avatar
    jamese777 September 3, 2010 at 5:21 pm #

    Expelliarmus: The judge likely was referring to or quoting directly from the US Supreme Court case of Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), which lays out the test for determining whether a matter is a non-justiciable political question:My guess is that the Judge either read aloud the above quote, or that she listed all the elements from Baker v Carr that were applicable to the Lakin case. (i.e., (1) textually demonstrable commitment to Congress, (2) lack of judicially discoverable standards for resolution, (3) impossibility of deciding without initial non-judicial policy decision, (4) impossibility of court’s independent resolution without disrespecting Congress, (5) need for unquestioning adherence to political decision already made, and (6) potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements.)

    Thanks for your insight and research.

  81. avatar
    DP September 3, 2010 at 5:36 pm #

    Daniel: Hey James, quick question here…Why is it that they’re only corrupt traitor nazi judges……. when YOU lose?

    Now, isn’t that an unfair question, given that they’ve never won?

    LOL.

  82. avatar
    Kbell September 3, 2010 at 5:52 pm #

    It’s just wrong to call a 49 year old man “Kenya boy” . It says a lot about the person that made that post.

  83. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 3, 2010 at 8:13 pm #

    Expelliarmus:
    The judge likely was referring to or quoting directly from the US Supreme Court case of Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), which lays out the test for determining whether a matter is a non-justiciable political question:
    My guess is that the Judge either read aloud the above quote, or that she listed all the elements from Baker v Carr that were applicable to the Lakin case.(i.e., (1) textually demonstrable commitment to Congress, (2) lack of judicially discoverable standards for resolution, (3) impossibility of deciding withoutinitial non-judicial policy decision, (4) impossibility of court’s independent resolution without disrespecting Congress, (5) need for unquestioning adherence to political decision already made, and (6) potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements.)

    Your cited case starts with:

    MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

    This civil action was brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 to redress the alleged deprivation of federal constitutional rights. The complaint, alleging that, by means of a 1901 statute of Tennessee apportioning the members of the General Assembly among the State’s 95 counties, [n1] “these plaintiffs and others similarly situated, [p188] are denied the equal protection of the laws accorded them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by virtue of the debasement of their votes,” was dismissed by a three-judge court convened under 28 U.S.C. § 2281 in the Middle District of Tennessee.

    You’re quoting from an opinion written concerning a civil suit. Lakin’s case is a criminal matter and he has a right to a defense, even if it embarrasses the CiC.

    The convening authority can drop the charges or allow the defendant to defend himself against the charges. See The Right to Present a Defense by Mark Mahoney.

  84. avatar
    AnotherBird September 3, 2010 at 8:14 pm #

    “Embarrass”

    Lupin: Anyway, “embarrass” means to block the way, to create an obstruction, and I’m pretty sure one of our learned colleagues here will soon point out that this is precisely the legal meaning that the Judge was using.

    It is amazing the amount of research is done on these conspiracy theories. This isn’t the first time that birthers want to isolate a word and restrict it to one meaning. There is terminology in science, law, and other fields that would confuse the regular public. However, this isn’t any reason not to search for the means of a word in a dictionary to verify the context the word is used in.

    Here is a usage of “embarrass” I found:

    the state of the rivers will embarrass the enemy in a considerable degree.

    I wounder how birthers would interpret this correct usage of the word. They would most likely ignore it or shift the argument.

  85. avatar
    jamese777 September 3, 2010 at 8:25 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Your cited case starts with:You’re quoting from an opinion written concerning a civil suit. Lakin’s case is a criminal matter and he has a right to a defense, even if it embarrasses the CiC.The convening authority can drop the charges or allow the defendant to defend himself against the charges. See The Right to Present a Defense by Mark Mahoney.

    He has a right to defend himself against the charges that were brought against him. Both the Investigating Officer for the Lakin Court martial, Captain Dan Driscoll and now the Military Judge Colonel Denise Lind have ruled that Barack Obama has absolutely nothing to do with Lakin’s failure to get on a plane at Baltimore-Washington Airport and fly to Charlotte, North Carolina and absolutely nothing to do with Lakin’s failure to present himself at his Commanding Officer’s office as ordered.
    The word “embarrassment” in a legal context has nothing to do with personal embarrassment.

  86. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) September 3, 2010 at 8:25 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    Your cited case starts with:
    You’re quoting from an opinion written concerning a civil suit. Lakin’s case is a criminal matter and he has a right to a defense, even if it embarrasses the CiC.The convening authority can drop the charges or allow the defendant to defend himself against the charges. See The Right to Present a Defense by Mark Mahoney.

    Yes Lakin has a right to a defense but he apparently decided to waive that right when he let a dog bite lawyer handle his case

  87. avatar
    Phil Cave September 3, 2010 at 8:28 pm #

    The judge was specifically referring to Baker v. Carr.

    SvenMagnussen:
    Your cited case starts with:
    You’re quoting from an opinion written concerning a civil suit. Lakin’s case is a criminal matter and he has a right to a defense, even if it embarrasses the CiC.The convening authority can drop the charges or allow the defendant to defend himself against the charges. See The Right to Present a Defense by Mark Mahoney.

  88. avatar
    misha September 3, 2010 at 8:35 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): he apparently decided to waive that right when he let a dog bite lawyer handle his case

    Wade Blasingame, line 1. Line 1 for Wade Blasingame.

  89. avatar
    AnotherBird September 3, 2010 at 8:57 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: You’re quoting from an opinion written concerning a civil suit. Lakin’s case is a criminal matter and he has a right to a defense, even if it embarrasses the CiC.

    Please open a dictionary.

    Thankfully, the courts to operate in the mysterious void that birthers want everyone to believe that they do. Whether or not it is a civil suit “I believe” doesn’t work. Second the law is the law, procedures may be different but the principles are the same. The bizarreness of birther arguments makes it near impossible to think up an adequate analogy.

  90. avatar
    Phil Cave September 3, 2010 at 9:52 pm #

    Please read United States v. New.
    http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/2001Term/99-0640.pdf

    I and others who know and practice military law as our daily business have been citing this case along with others for why LTC Lakin will lose,

    Please read the discussion of the “political question” doctrine. New was also a basis for the military judge’s ruling in Lakin, as well as Baker v. Carr.

    Discussion starts at page 33, just after a reference to the lack of self help as a justification for New’s actions.

    And I quote as did Lakins’ military judge:

    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.”

    The birther blather is rife with LTC Lakin being justified because of his “belief.” They are so utterly wrong. His beiief is not a defense anymore than the eligibility issue.

  91. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP September 4, 2010 at 12:27 am #

    SvenMagnussen:
    Your cited case starts with:
    You’re quoting from an opinion written concerning a civil suit. Lakin’s case is a criminal matter and he has a right to a defense, even if it embarrasses the CiC.The convening authority can drop the charges or allow the defendant to defend himself against the charges. See The Right to Present a Defense by Mark Mahoney.

    Criminal case – The People of Kansas vs. Scott Roeder. Roeder was NOT allowed to use Dr. Tiller’s abortion procedures in his defense.

  92. avatar
    AnotherBird September 4, 2010 at 4:25 am #

    SvenMagnussen: The convening authority can drop the charges or allow the defendant to defend himself against the charges. See The Right to Present a Defense by Mark Mahoney.

    Sven it seems that you didn’t even read the full 167 pages of the document. A quick way would be to search for either “relevant evidence” or just “relevant.”

    I think it is time to listen to people concerned about the principles of the law, instead of those politicking. Phil Cave or Dr. Conspiracy would be a good start. (one who practice military law, and one who does enormous research).

  93. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny September 4, 2010 at 8:52 am #

    James should really be sent to Brookfield. Robert Donat would know what to do with him. Of course, he would leave Greer Garson to do the job.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytjvRanq4s

    “Bend over, close your eyes and think of what made America great.” Presidents like Arthur and Eisenhower.

    Oh, and if you feel a constitutional building of magazines coming on. start thinking it’s not Greer Garson, but Margaret Thatcher naked on the beach on a cold morning.

    And now I feel embarrassed for getting in Arthur’s way and disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.

  94. avatar
    Sef September 4, 2010 at 11:48 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: James should really be sent to Brookfield

    And leave him in the middle of the floating bridge?

  95. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny September 4, 2010 at 7:23 pm #

    Sef: And leave him in the middle of the floating bridge?

    Why not? On the other hand, he is arguably there already – switching from one side of the argument (birther) to the other (dualist) – of course there is no Indonesian side.

    I was of course referring to Mr Chips’ cane at the imaginary Brookfield in the film. Strangely enough, there now seem to be REAL Brookfield colleges. One in Ireland, one in the Philippines (I can hear gamelan music). Only the Philippine may possibly still have a Mr Chips with a cane.

  96. avatar
    Sef September 4, 2010 at 8:24 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny:
    Why not? On the other hand, he is arguably there already – switching from one side of the argument (birther) to the other (dualist) – of course there is no Indonesian side.I was of course referring to Mr Chips’ cane at the imaginary Brookfield in the film. Strangely enough, there now seem to be REAL Brookfield colleges. One in Ireland, one in the Philippines (I can hear gamelan music). Only the Philippine may possibly still have a Mr Chips with a cane.

    I was referring to the one in VT.

  97. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny September 5, 2010 at 3:28 am #

    Sef: I was referring to the one in VT.

    I know you were.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmTHxx2YO5w&feature=related

    It is not the only floating bridge in the world, by the way – all over the former Soviet Union there are pontoon bridges left by the Soviet Army, which are now used by civilians and are basically floating bridges. But the Vermont bridge is the one that captures the imagination, because of the amount of water that splashes up during the ride.

    I have never been there – but you can now compare the bridges and the rides over them on YouTube.

    Bridges, britches. Let’s leave the real world and return to James’ fanatsy world.