Court-Martial Trial Practice BlogFrom the conclusions of law:
Articles Posted in Uncategorized
More on LTC Lakin from the motions hearing
I posted a tease here, and it didn’t take long for Dwight “My Liege” Sullivan to crack the code.
In other words, Judge Lind used the word “embarrassment” in precisely the political question doctrine context (and using almost exactly the same words) as CAAF in New and the Supremes in Baker v. Carr. And all the breathless birther commentary saying that she was attempting to avoid personal embarrassment to President Obama is just so much guano.
As always one has to admire Dwight’s pithy commentary. OK, here is some more (working from a “bigger” computer, netbooks have some limitations).
Should LTC Lakin be embarrassed?
Some reporting of last weeks Article 39(a), UCMJ, hearing appears to attribute the military judge’s ruling to a desire to save the president embarrassment. I believe this is a gross distortion of a small part of what the military judge said. I was there and heard her read her findings and conclusions which were then made a part of the record of trial and available to the parties. These are the relevant references.
The above is from the discussion of the political question doctrine. The sole use of the word embarrassment is here:
Does the above compute with what World Net Daily or others have said? You decide.
Coast Guard boat crash update
San Diego online reports:
Three San Diego Coast Guard boat crew members will face the military version of a preliminary hearing beginning Tuesday for the Dec. 20 crash that killed an 8-year-old Rancho Peñasquitos boy.
The top charge, involuntary manslaughter, is against Ramos. Howell and Rasmussen are charged with negligent homicide. Coast Guard officials have said it may be the first time in modern memory that any member of the Coast Guard has been charged with manslaughter for actions taken in the course of duty.
LTC Lakin continues to spin
Found at birtherreport.com.
LTC Lakin and Mr. Jensen will be on the Barry Farber radio tonight at 2000.
Apparently the “embarrsassment” language was intended by the judge to alert Congress that they need to begin impeachment proceedings.
LTC Lakin is spinning
The spinning has begun, and yes there’s a pun in there, or at least an attempted one. Based on cherry-picked comments from a number of Lakin supporters it appears that all of this is merely the military judge saving the President “embarrassment.” They are grasping at a straw as a way to explain a complete and utter refutation of what they have been trying to incorrectly advertize as the state of military law, assuming they were present. Some comments about the military judge as an individual have become so personal, so obnoxious, and downright nasty that I have decided to remove or not post such comments. Yes, this is a change from my normal attitude of let what’s said be said and the sayer and his/her worth as a person be evaluated.
PERHAPS SOMEONE COULD BE ENCOURAGED TO MAKE THE WRITTEN FINDINGS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE?
I was present for the “40 minute” reading of her written findings and conclusions. These written findings and conclusions are now part of the record of trial, and are also now available to Jensen, LTC Lakin, and the prosecutors. Perhaps APF could post the findings so we can see just how badly the military judge ruled – APF let’s get those wrong headed arguments of the judge out in the open where the full text can be read and dissected?
LTC Lakin’s defense crushed in detail
I have just returned from watching most of the Article 39(a), UCMJ, hearing. (I left as the last item on the table was a defense request for Alan Keyes and LtGen McInerney.)
To say that the military judge destroyed the defense arguments in detail would not be an overstatement. Although the military judge did politely characterize the defense arguments as an “erroneous view of the law.”
The authority to issue orders does not depend on the qualifications of the President, any suggestion that it does is an erroneous view of the law.
LTC Lakin update
safeguardourconsititution (APF) has an affidavit from LTG T. McInerney in support of LTC Lakin’s discovery request.
Lawyers interested in the legal merits of the issue will likely find themselves dissatisfied with the affidavit. It is a combination of justification for LTC Lakin’s contumacy and reasons why the discovery should be granted. There is no comment on the general failure of most of the rest of the officer corps in continuing to obey unlawful orders. They have not posted the request or motion in support of any request. Once again failing to give full disclosure.
The affidavit appears to also justify the discovery request as a need for public disclosure. This would be IMHO an abuse of process. The purpose of discovery in a criminal proceeding is to aid the defense, not to aid public disclosure for disclosures sake.
Fort Gillem shooting update 2
Attorneys for a disgruntled Army Reserve soldier who fatally shot his supervisor after his vacation was denied say his fasting to meet stringent military weight guidelines left him in a trancelike state.
(This courtroom sketch shows Army Reserve Sgt. Rashad Valmont during military hearing Monday, Aug. 30, 2010 at Fort McPherson, Ga. Attorney William Cassara, not shown, said Valmont was dehydrated, exhausted and delirious when he burst into Master Sgt. Pedro Mercado’s office in nearby Fort Gillem in June and shot him six times. (AP Photo/Richard Miller) (Richard Miller – AP))
The internets
Two items relevant to the internet, privacy, and the Fourth Amendment. Orwell would be . . .
Orin S. Kerr, Applying the Fourth Amendment to the Internet: A General Approach, 62(4) STANFORD L. REV. 1005 (2010).
This Article proposes a general approach to applying the Fourth Amendment to the Internet. It assumes that courts will try to apply the Fourth Amendment to the Internet so that the Fourth Amendment has the same basic function online that it has offline. The Article reaches two major conclusions. First, Fourth Amendment protections online should depend on whether the data is content or non-content information. The contents of communications, like e-mail and remotely stored files, ordinarily should be protected. On the other hand, non-content information, such as IP addresses and e-mail addresses, ordinarily should not be protected. Second, courts should ordinarily require a search warrant if the government seeks to obtain the contents of protected Internet communications. Further, the scope of warrants should be based on individual users rather than individual accounts.