Rulings from federal judges and military judges I suspect are career motivated. What say ye campfire legal eagles. GW
Redmond
� 2010 WorldNetDaily
Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin
FT. MEADE, Md. � A career officer in the U.S. Army acting as a judge in the prosecution of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin today ruled that the military is no place for Barak Obama's presidential eligibility to be evaluated.
Army Col. Denise R. Lind today ruled in a hearing regarding the evidence to be allowed in the scheduled October court-martial of Lakin that he will be denied access to any of Obama's records as well as any testimony from those who may have access to the records.
With her decision, Lind mirrored a number of federal judges who have ruled on civil lawsuits over Obama's eligibility. They have without exception denied the plaintiffs' access to any requested documentation regarding the president's eligibility.
Lind ruled that it was "not relevant" for the military to be considering such claims, that the laws allegedly violated by Lakin were legitimate on their face and that the chain of command led up to the Pentagon, and that should have been sufficient for Lakin.
Paul Rolf Jensen, Lakin's civilian attorney, said the case would continue. But he said the courts now have denied his client the opportunity to present his defense.
Jensen had argued that under U.S.C. Rule 46, a defendant put on court martial has the right to call any and all witnesses and obtain any evidence in his or her defense.
Lind, who took 40 minutes to read her decision to the court, disagreed.
She 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
Rulings from federal judges and military judges I suspect are career motivated. What say ye campfire legal eagles. GW
Redmond
� 2010 WorldNetDaily
Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin
FT. MEADE, Md. � A career officer in the U.S. Army acting as a judge in the prosecution of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin today ruled that the military is no place for Barak Obama's presidential eligibility to be evaluated.
Army Col. Denise R. Lind today ruled in a hearing regarding the evidence to be allowed in the scheduled October court-martial of Lakin that he will be denied access to any of Obama's records as well as any testimony from those who may have access to the records.
With her decision, Lind mirrored a number of federal judges who have ruled on civil lawsuits over Obama's eligibility. They have without exception denied the plaintiffs' access to any requested documentation regarding the president's eligibility.
Lind ruled that it was "not relevant" for the military to be considering such claims, that the laws allegedly violated by Lakin were legitimate on their face and that the chain of command led up to the Pentagon, and that should have been sufficient for Lakin.
Paul Rolf Jensen, Lakin's civilian attorney, said the case would continue. But he said the courts now have denied his client the opportunity to present his defense.
Jensen had argued that under U.S.C. Rule 46, a defendant put on court martial has the right to call any and all witnesses and obtain any evidence in his or her defense.
Lind, who took 40 minutes to read her decision to the court, disagreed.
She 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
They know, what many have suspected.
So much for justice. If you cannot call any and all parties concerned in your defense, how do you proceed? sounds like the old Soviet courts and show trials to me.
They know, what many have suspected.
Exactly..
As I've said from the get-go; no judge will take this on.. They'll find every legal avenue to squirm out of it; after all, they have families..
Here is the "legal" argument Prosecutors used against Lakin's request to show the BC and school records, looks like a legit argument to me.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38982059/ns/us_news-life/The judge ruled Thursday that the records and any other evidence or witnesses pertaining to Obama's birth will not be admitted. Prosecutors have argued that Obama's birth certificate shouldn't be part of the case, especially since the order for Lakin to deploy to Afghanistan didn't come directly from the president, The Associated Press reported.
As Commander In Chief, all orders ultimately come from the POTUS. The buck stops there. This is a travesty. You have to prove he is NOT eligible, but you can't have access to any records that may prove it. Hmmmmmm......
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Seems pretty clear to me, no gray areas OR wiggle room....
I couldn't find a current article on Fox but here is one from last week with legal experts predicting this outcome.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/23/birther-army-doctor-court-martial-yield-new-document/But others say Lakin's novel approach is doomed to fail, and legal experts say he apparently made his decision to proceed to a court-martial without the advice of experienced counsel.
One military attorney said Lakin had advice from a lawyer, Paul Rolf Jensen, but that Jensen had �only three months' experience in military law as a clerk in the 1980s� and was not an expert in military law. Jensen did not return a phone call seeking comment, but military experts called Lakin's effort a tragedy and waste.
�He is likely to lose everything and accomplish nothing,� one attorney lamented. �No military judge will say that (obtaining documents) of the president is necessary to prove the charges,� said Philip D. Cave, a Washington attorney and director of the National Institute of Military Justice.
Cave said that the validity of Lakin's orders, under military law, does not depend on the president but on the chain of command. �He will be convicted and is in jeopardy of dismissal,� he said.
Dismissal, for a military officer, is the same as a dishonorable discharge for an enlisted servicemember.
�We all feel saddened,� said David Price, a former captain and 25-year veteran of the Navy Judge Advocate General�s office, now in private practice.
�He was issued an order to deploy and didn�t. End of issue,� he said. He said the military has dealt with these types of cases since Vietnam, when soldiers tried to make larger political issues the basis of their trials, and is experienced at keeping the proceedings free of politics.
Price also said that if the case does finally get to a general court-martial and a judge is asked to approve discovery requests by the defense, it is unlikely that it would be allowed to encompass the presidency. He said this wasn�t because of a conspiracy, but because the case is relatively simple and doesn�t require it.
Gary Myers, a former military lawyer who now heads a Washington firm specializing in military law, says he "just shook my head" when he heard about the case �I think [Lakin] is out of his mind� for thinking he could challenge the president this way, he said.
�It is grandstanding.�
Why did you not underline and bold the part about the Constitution and obeying orders of the President. Without the President being legal, Which the Constitution has guidelines on, it all falls apart. miles
I think that anyone that aides and abets this coverup should be tried for treason. miles
Without the President being legal, Which the Constitution has guidelines on, it all falls apart. miles
Wishfull thinking but it doesn't work that way....
So, what has to happen? Does the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have to disobey an order? Can it be some other General?
Get the [bleep] out of office in 2012, clean up the mess afterwards.
Might even make em a lame duck in November, though I'm not holding my breath....
Wishfull thinking but it doesn't work that way....
I realize that is does not work that way, but it should. Without the President being legal, anything done in his name should be illegal. I am not saying that he is not legal, I am saying that it should be known without a doubt whether he is or is not. Anybody covering up the evidence if he is found to be illegal should be tried for treason. miles
On par with the defendant claiming he cannot be prosecuted because the prosecution cannot prove to an ontological certainty that he, the defendant, exists.
Get the [bleep] out of office in 2012, clean up the mess afterwards.
Might even make em a lame duck in November, though I'm not holding my breath....
You can talk about voting him out all you want, but the fact is that 0bama is not Constitutionally qualified to be President.
So, you vote him out. what then?
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Seems pretty clear to me, no gray areas OR wiggle room....
Yeah, especially that first part about "..to support and defend the Constitution...". If Ob@m@ is not Constitutionally qualified due to birth, renunciation, or fraud, he is ineligible to issue orders, and anyone who took that oath is duty bound to question his legitimacy. Being able to call upon anyone you wish as part of your defense, especially if it is relevant to your case is a cornerstone of the law, at least as I understand it. I'm sure that Sean, Bob, Steve, or Joe will be happy to correct me if I am mistaken.
Along with any hard core union hacks that support this outrage as well IMO.
The key is "if it's relevant to the defense." The judge ruled it's not relevant (and that's what folks have been predicting all along).
Think about it this way: Dude refuses to deploy because it's "Bush's illegal war." Should he be able to litigate - to a jury - whether the war is illegal, and thus argue that his deployment is an illegal order? The courts have routinely held that if you get an order to deploy, you deploy, and that the underlying national/international reasons for the deployment are not relevant.
Just like a lot of junior soldiers get sucked in by the anti-war crowd, I think this doc got sucked in by the anti-Obama crowd, and now he's going to face the music.
Fruit of the poisoned tree. A lawful order cannot stem from the issuance of a prior, precedent unlawful order.
Then again, we can't have that ruling, as it's logical and would require the Kenyan to be indicted.
Fruit of the poisoned tree?
The exclusionary rule forbids the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is an extension of the exclusionary rule, and is used to exclude not judge the illegally obtained evidence, but anything later derived or discovered from it. There are exceptions to these rules.
While I understand the analogy to a chain of orders, I've never heard of it being directly applicable. It's about evidence, not about the substance of an element of the offense.
Again, if military courts (up to their ultimate appellate court, the US Supreme Court) are going to let the Kenyan argument in, then they would have to let in every other argument as well: it's Bush's illegal war; it's the UN and therefore unconstitutional; I'm not medically fit to deploy; I'm going to get PTSD; my sergeant is mean to me; etc.; all of which have continually been upheld as NOT relevant in a refusal to deploy case. On sentencing, maybe, but not on the merits. Even on sentencing, the underlying issue would not be litigated - just that the accused/defendant would get to explain why he refused to deploy.
Don't construe anything in this post as being either for or against the Kenyan/birther/etc movement(s). I'm just saying that Doc has made some poor choices.
Yeah, just a friendly dig at VA over a slip of the tongue (fingers?).
You will obey your Fuhrer or be shot at dawn!!!!
This makes the Nuremberg trials a laughing joke.
I would not join the military today for all the money in the world. Nothing against the military but when the civilians are illegal, the orders they give are illegal, and we fight illegal wars well there isn't much reason to be in the military as a citizen soldier.