|
|
Post by larrywalker on Apr 14, 2010 15:42:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by cbk on Apr 15, 2010 11:59:57 GMT -5
Larry, this is only ONE of the many reasons this question should be settled one way or another. I can't speak for the soldier who refuses to deploy. The real reason could be because of Obama's questionable right to be president or because he just doesn't want to go. But there are so many things just left up in the air, so to speak, because the question of Obama's citizenship is not settled. And that's just plain stupid. We are sticking our collective heads in the sand and thinking we are solving a problem. We aren't! And eventually the truth will come out. And if it turns out that Obama wasn't legal to run for President all hell will break lose.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tommy Thompson on Apr 16, 2010 18:16:22 GMT -5
notice that this report comes from MSNBC and they just can't help themselves to throw in (incorrectly)
we're looking at this too. we don't think it will go anywhere but it does show that there are people out there who are really taking this seriously. I wish him luck.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tommy Thompson on Apr 22, 2010 22:14:39 GMT -5
I copied and pasted this from one of our attorney posters who is always negative about everything at obamacrimes. He's responding to a question from Jalford who is asking details about this case. I find his remarks interesting:
jalford...first, as I "think" I previously stated, military law is not my area of expertise. It really is a highly-specialized field, especially where civilian attorneys are concerned, and there are many in the country who do specialize in it.
That said, yes, it is somewhat puzzling why he would choose a PI attorney whose only experience in military law, from his own site, is that he "worked in the chambers of the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces as a judicial research assistant to Chief Judge Robinson O. Everett." I noticed on the "case site" which is separate and where donations are asked for, that he now lists that same experience as a "law clerk to Chief Judge Everett." I have no idea which is correct, but they are two entirely different things, neither of which gives one trial experience. Frankly, I lean toward more believing the "research assistant" as that was on his PI site before it was known he had agreed to represent LTC Lakin...just my .02, though.
It would "appear" from reading and listening to his PR person, Margaret Hemenway (daughter in law of John Hemenway of the Hollister case) that he may have been influenced in that decision by Margaret and/or John. Regardless of whether or not that's true, it (in my opinion and it would seem yours) a shall we say, less-than-prudent decision. While I'm sure he has been afforded military counsel (JAG) as well, there's no public indication, at least, that he's either consulted with or agreed to accept that representation. To not do so would be foolish, but...
As far as the burden, I am assuming it is incumbent on the military to prove he violated the UCMJ in relation to the 4 charges brought. I think that one is a no-brainer. His stated defense is that he does so based on the fact those orders violated are unlawful, based on his belief that Obama is not a legit CiC. It then becomes (based on my research and it would be so in civilian court) to present evidence supporting that defense.
The kicker comes with what a general courts-martial rules are with relation to how one may provide that evidence (but it certainly has to be more than anything presented in public to date that is credible. What is "admissible" before a general courts-martial is another thing, and the rules of evidence and procedure I do know differ somewhat from civilian rules and procedure. I am trying to bone up on those and do research, including talking with a long-time friend of mine with 19 years experience as a JAG officer. He obviously won't comment on the case at hand, but has been "somewhat" helpful in a general sense.
I've done some research, and the first glaring thing that comes to me from the UCMJ is the de facto officers doctrine, which I believe will be very difficult to overcome, which essentially states that all orders are presumed lawful (with some caveats, of course) but none of which touch on this type of unlawful order assertions. It goes even further in stating that the orders of the CiC are presumed lawful, and IF, even IF, at a later time it would be proven they were unlawful, orders given during the period during which they were presumed lawful would stand as lawful. (Keep in mind I'm in the research period, but this would seem to me, in this instance, to be one (probably of many) that would be almost insurmountable.
Just thinking out loud here, as I type, there are many other problems I can see as to his defense of disobeying deployment. 1) it seems to be a "selective" disobeyance (obeying some while disobeying others - an untenable position, IMO. 2) having served 18 years, he's served under several presidents/CiCs, and I'm relatively certain he's never seen their documents either, but never had questions (maybe a weak argument but relevant). 3) he continued to obey orders until ordered to deploy, again selective obeyance, and probably a myriad of others if I had the time to sit and think for a few minutes.
I assume the question everyone wants answered is will he be granted discovery of President Obama's birth record. I have to say, based on my research thus far, the answer would be no. I'm not going to assert that as a definite at this time, but that is the way I am leaning, as are a couple of others more experienced in the field I have spoken with, and there are several reasons, some of which are listed above, but I need more information to make a more definitive statement. And, as it goes up the ladder of appeal (which I feel it will) that may change also. It's just hard to be definitive in that regard at this point and also without knowing exactly what he intends to present in his defense, but I can say it better be something big time to even approach him being able to have the discovery everyone is asking for.
Being the cynic I am, I'm highly doubtful he possesses such, or he'd bring it forth without risking his military career, loss of his civilian medical license, potentially his pension, and considering the seriousness of missing movement, the potential of "hard time."
That's really all I have time for right now, but I'm sure this will be discussed more in the future, and perhaps I (and others) will have gained more knowledge on the subject. I suspect this process will be ongoing for a few months.
I know that all probably sounds very vague, but it's really the best I can do at this time.
|
|
|
|
Post by cbk on Apr 23, 2010 6:34:37 GMT -5
I'm sure this man is a legal eagle Tommy. And he's probably right in his opinion. Lawyers love to debate such things as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin etc.
But what we need right now is just plain old horse sense. Millions of people in this country want to see Obama's birth certificate to assure themselves that he's a legal president. Yet he keeps it a secret. He not only keeps that a secret, but keeps almost EVERYTHING about his past a secret.
As that old rag used to say; Inquiring people want to know!
|
|
