FOIA request for Judge Lind’s ruling
I’ve submitted an electronic FOIA request for a copy of Judge Lind’s discovery ruling in the Lakin case. I’ll post anything I receive. In the meantime, if anyone has his or her own copy of the ruling, please shoot us a copy at caaflog@caaflog.com.
“Let me remind you, it’s not good for the country. It’s not good for the country, if he is qualified to be POTUS, that these rumors swirl. And if he is not, it’s not good for the country that he is Commander In Chief.” – Judge David O. Carter, Federal District Court of California.
Yes, it will interesting to read to Judge Lin’s ruling as it took her 40 minutes to explain her justification for stripping away LTC Terry Lakin’s constitutional rights.
The White Paper: Courts Martial Defense for LTC Terrence Lakin
By J.B. Williams and Timothy Harrington
World Net Daily, which has been following the Lakin trial step-by-step from the beginning, is reporting:
FT. MEADE, Md. – A career officer in the U.S. Army [Col. Denise R. Lind] 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.
According to the WND report, presiding authority Col. Denise R. Lind used the following arguments to deny LTC Lakin proper access to a defense, summarized in the following three paragraphs taken from the 40 minute long reading of her decision:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Lind ruled that it was:
a. “not relevant” for the military to be considering such claims,
b. that the laws allegedly violated by Lakin were legitimate on their face, and that
c. the chain of command led up to the Pentagon, and that should have been sufficient for Lakin.
——————————————————————————–
We find foundational flaws in Col. Lind’s decision, which Lakin’s defense team must seize upon in order to alter the current course of this trial.
1 – Lind’s authority is derived from the same place as LTC Lakin’s and all other members of the United States Military – from the supreme command of the office of Commander-in-Chief, the President of the United States.
2 – Lind is attempting to use her authority under her Commander-in-Chief to break the military chain of command, isolating the Commander-in-Chief of the US Military specifically, exempting the President from his position of authority in the chain of command, without which, Lind herself has no authority to convene the Courts Martial.
3 – Lind then reaches outside of the US Military Justice system to the Civil Court, relying upon civil court precedent to deny Lakin any access to discovery and thereby, a proper defense guaranteed him by the US Constitution and UCMJ, Uniform Code of Military Justice. Civil Court precedent has no legal standing in a UCMJ criminal proceeding. In fact, the UCMJ is based upon the Articles of War (aka War Articles) and is a “penal system” unlike the US Justice System – as explained by Col. William Winthrop in Military Law and Precedents. As a result, precedents set in courts outside of the UCMJ are without legal standing in any UCMJ proceeding.
4 – Not even in the UCMJ can the United States government deny the accused his/her right to a trial, complete with discovery of related evidence. Yet Lind attempts to do so, under the authority derived from her Commander-in-Chief. If the chain of command is broken, then Lind herself has no authority.
5 – Lind’s statement that the legality of the Commander-in-Chief is “not relevant” in matters of military command is false on its face. As stated in a sworn affidavit filed by LTG Thomas G. McInerney executed on August 20, 2010 – “In refusing to obey orders because of his doubts as to their legality, LTC Lakin has acted exactly as proper training dictates. – By thus stepping up to the bar, LTC Lakin is demonstrating the courage of his convictions and his bravery. – That said, it is equally essential that he be allowed access to the evidence that will prove whether he made the correct decision.”
6 – Lind attempts to break the chain of command at The Pentagon level, which she claims has no issue with the current Commander-in-Chief and that this should be good enough for Lakin. Yet she cannot break this chain of command without eliminating her own authority, and Lakin’s oath requires that he decide for himself whether or not his orders are legal, as affirmed in LTG McInerney’s sworn affidavit.
7 – At issue is not whether or not LTC Lakin refused orders, but rather whether or not he “unlawfully” refused orders. If his orders were not “lawful,” including but not limited to, emanating from a “lawful” chain of command which begins with a lawful Commander-in-Chief, then Lakin must be found NOT GUILTY of “unlawfully” refusing orders.
At the heart of the matter is whether or not his orders to deploy were “lawful.” LTC Lakin has questioned whether or not his deployment orders were “lawful” on the basis that he believes that the Commander-in-Chief from which those orders are issued, may not be “lawful,” therefore making any orders from the top of military command “unlawful.”
To determine whether or not Lakin is correct in his decision to refuse orders, it is paramount to discover with certainty whether or not his orders were issued by a “lawful” command.
As we know, Article II – Section I requires that only a “natural born citizen” of the United States can hold the office of President, Commander-in-Chief. In this regard, a fatal misstep in the Lakin defense has opened the door for the illegitimate statements now being made by Col. Denise R. Lind.
LTC Lakin failed to directly assert that Barack Hussein Obama is NOT legal in his command on the basis that we know with certainty that he is not a “natural born citizen,” – and that LTC Lakin is “lawfully” refusing to follow orders on this basis. Instead, LTC Lakin only asked the “birth place” question and tied that question to whether or not Mr. Obama could and would present an official “birth certificate” proving once and for all that he was indeed born in Hawaii, making the wrong assumption that if he could and would provide proof of said birth via an official birth certificate, which has never been released to date.
The fatal error revolves around the reality that Obama’s birth place is of no consequence in the matter of his status as a “natural born citizen” eligible for high Command of the US Military under Article II – Section I of the Constitution. Although there is no shortage of opinions on the subject of what the term “natural born citizen” means, there is no honest debate on the matter either.
Every Supreme Court Justice knows exactly what the term “natural born citizen” means, where it came from, why it exists in Article II requirements for the office of President and that Barack Hussein Obama is NOT a “natural born citizen,” indeed ineligible for the office he currently holds.
They know that LTC Lakin is right to “lawfully” refuse orders from an illegal Command.
We know this on the basis of the following critical facts:
1 – The term “natural born citizen” is derived from the Law of Nations. An international treaty establishing a set of rules used to establish a “nation,” the issue of nation and citizen sovereignty, and internationally recognized definitions of universal terms, including the term “natural born citizen.”
2 – The Law of Nations is specifically mentioned in the US Constitution as an enumerated power of Congress under Article I – Section VIII – Item X – “To define and punish offenses against the Law of Nations;” (Note that in the original Constitution, Law of Nations is capitalized, referring specifically to THE Law of Nations.)
3 – From Emerich de Vattel’s 1758 book on The Law of Nations, Chapter 19 § 212. – Of the citizens and natives – Vattel establishes – “in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
4 – In a letter from Founder John Jay to then President of the Constitutional Convention George Washington, Jay stated – “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”
5 – It was later learned that President George Washington had actually taken out Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations from the local library in order to study proper implementation of law in our newly formed nation, and never returned that book.
On the basis of known history and facts behind the Constitutional term “natural born citizen” which is based upon “natural law” explained in the Law of Nations as stated referred to in the US Constitution, the proper assertion is not at all related to the actual “birth place” of Barack Hussein Obama, II. The ongoing search for a Hawaiian birth certificate has no bearing on the subject of “natural born citizen” status for Barack Hussein Obama, II.
The only relative question is:
Was Barack Hussein Obama’s birth father a legal citizen of the United States of America at the time of his birth, no matter where in the world he may have been born?
Without a birth father who was a legal citizen of the United States at the time of his birth, Barack Hussein Obama, II cannot be a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, he is not without divided national loyalties, and cannot serve as President of the United States or Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military as a result, creating a national security and a full blown Constitutional crisis.
According to the two autobiographical books by Barack Hussein Obama, II – his birth father is Barack Hussein Obama, a British subject at the time and a legal citizen of Kenya. According to public family history, Barack Hussein Obama was at no time in his life a legal citizen of the United States.
On this basis alone, LTC Lakin is right (and lawful) in refusing to accept orders from an illegal command. The US Constitution and the Law of Nations, upon which our sovereign nation was formed, are very clear on the matter.
As a result, the need for LTC Lakin to gain access to the Hawaiian birth records for Barack Hussein Obama, II is eliminated.
LTC Lakin need only assert the following:
On the basis of Article II – Section I of the US Constitution, supported by Article I – Section VIII – Item X concerning the Law of Nations and the term “natural born citizen,” – I hereby refuse any and all illegal orders issued by the illegal Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military, President Barack Hussein Obama, on the basis that he does not meet Constitutional requirements for the office he currently holds and must further hereby demand that he be removed from office and immediately relieved of Command of the United States Military. I further assert that due to the illegal status of existing Military high Command that this Court Martial has no authority under which to proceed.
Under this assertion, there is no need for access to the birth records of Barack Hussein Obama, II, unless Mr. Obama chooses to respond by stating that Barack Hussein Obama is not his real birth father, in which case Mr. Obama is admitting to fraud during his pursuit of the Oval Office.
In the event that the UCMJ chooses to challenge the historically accurate definition of the term “natural born citizen” described herein, the US Supreme Court is the only court in the land with proper authority to rule on the true meaning of the term “natural born citizen” – as stated by the Constitutional protections that LTC Lakin has sworn a lifetime to protect and defend.
With this assertion is place, LTC Lakin does not have to prove that his assertions are true and accurate. As Commander-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama must prove that Lakin’s assertion is false in order to proceed with the government prosecution of LTC Lakin on the grounds that he has “unlawfully” refused orders.
In short, Mr. Obama must prove that his orders are in fact “lawful.” If Obama is either unable or unwilling to do so, then LTC Lakin is in fact NOT GUILTY of “unlawfully” refusing orders.
This particular case is not about one soldier refusing deployment orders. It is about a nation allowing a precedent to stand which makes it possible for any individual with any foreign allegiance to hold the highest office in this land, with no obligation whatsoever to demonstrate or prove national loyalties before holding the office of President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief.
This case is about whether or not the US Constitution stands as the official Law of this land.
NOTE: Past challenges on the term “natural born citizen” have been improperly argued upon cases revolving around the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment relates to “immigration” and “naturalization” laws, not “natural law” used to establish “natural born citizenship” status of an individual. Therefore, any and all cases pertaining to Fourteenth Amendment arguments are moot on the matter of “natural born citizen” claims.
Researched and Prepared By:
J.B. Williams and Timothy Harrington
The United States Patriots Union, LLC
Researched and Reviewed By:
The United States Bar Association
————————————
“Let me remind you, it’s not good for the country. It’s not good for the country, if he is qualified to be POTUS, that these rumors swirl. And if he is not, it’s not good for the country that he is Commander In Chief.” – Judge David O. Carter, Federal District Court of California.
John,
It is sufficient to dispatch that analysis to point out that it misquotes the Constitution. Its authors didn’t even bother to go back and read what Article I, Section 8, clause 10 actually says. The authors you quote render it–in quotation marks–“To define and punish offenses against the Law of Nations;” Here’s what it actually says: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.” I tried to point out this mistake on the website that posted that analysis, but at last check its administrators have declined to publicly post my comment.
Note the authors’ absurd argument that the Framers must have meant offenses against Vattel’s book because they capitalized “Law of Nations.” The Framers also capitalized “Piracies and Felonies”; do you imagine that they were also incorporating by reference some other book by that name?
I have no idea what “The United States Bar Association” is. But any analysis that misquotes the Constitution in the course of offering a revisionist interpretation of it carries zero credibility.
Exactly. They also ignore that Vattel’s book wasn’t widely distributed in the US at that time – it hadn’t been translated, either, but some of the founding father’s did read French – and that the standard of “common law” was English, not Swiss, and the usual text was Blacks. What that particular phrase in the Constitution was for was to give Congress the responsibility/ability to write laws for acts that took place off-shore, enforce treaty obligations, and define punishments. It had nothing to do with an obscure text.
Slow down! There’s already two guano posts, and the popcorn isn’t ready!
And on another note, still no chafing dish, Col. Sullivan? Really? I used to be Infantry. I understand the mindset that a canteen cup and a candle should suffice, and maybe even not the candle as it’s a heat signature, but I shouldn’t have to remind a Lawyer of all people that the guests are from polite society, like Judge Mathews, late of the Air Force. They expect more. It’s not like I’m asking for white linen table cloths, you know.
I’m having surgery tomorrow, so I’ll be offline for a while, and I just want to make sure the details are handled, that’s all.
So long as there’s a decent golf course, we’re fine. It goes in first, you know. Okay, maybe second, after the runways, if you need to bring in heavy equipment to build the golf course, but otherwise …
My son has a book called Pirates, on his shelf beside one called Dinosaurs and another titled Airplanes, I’ll see what it says about offensive conduct. There’s another book on our shelf by Theodor Seuss Geisel, but he liked to be called Dr. Seuss, so that’s what everyone called him. Another guy, George Walker Bush, he liked to be called George W. Bush or sometimes just W, so people called him that too. Interesting how John doesn’t call him President Obama, or just Barack Obama. I wonder why?
Lots of words. My favorites are the ones that assert that Judge Lind’s “authority is derived from the same place as LTC Lakin’s and all other members of the United States Military – from the supreme command of the office of Commander-in-Chief … without which, Lind herself has no authority to convene the Courts Martial.”
Leaving aside the problems of phrasing, the authors nicely sum up the dilemma: if LTC Lakin is right, then Judge Lind has no authority to order the discovery he seeks. If she does have the authority, LTC Lakin is wrong … and therefore has no defense.
Birfers, they are really good….at irrelevant copy ‘n paste
John wrote: “precedents set in courts outside of the UCMJ are without legal standing in any UCMJ proceeding.” I wish I knew that before! Silly federal court precedence…
OMG. This group’s entire argument, a/k/a colon emptying entry, is so totally wrong on so many levels. The one I excised is just one of oh, so many.
I am so thankful of a nation that permits such freedom of thought and expression, no matter how mundane or pedantically nonsensical. At one time I had a mild interest to what these folks touted. No more. Thanks John for steering me back toward sanity.
@ Christopher Mathews 0929:
Wanting things they can’t have and throwing a tantrum about it–it’s not just for six-year-olds any more.
I’ve said before, and will say it again, that this whole thing is primarily about a black man sitting in the oval office and that as soon as we all understand this we can begin to appreciate the internal calculus by which these people are working, and know that this will not end so long as President Obama is president. No legal theory, no fact, no law, no consensus of the rest of us will ever change that, and no matter how many times they are defeated, they will just come back again with something even more bizarre than the last time.
“…from the supreme command of the office of Commander-in-Chief … without which, Lind herself has no authority to convene the Courts Martial.”
Since when do military judges convene courts-martial? I must have missed that part of the UCMJ.
That’s one of the problems I alluded to above. The authors are using terms of art without any apparent understanding of their meaning.
In Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England”, Book 4 Chapter 5 is titled: “Of Offenses against the Law of Nations”
He lists three. The third is piracy and piracy is described as “robbery” upon on the high seas that if committed on land would be “felonies”.
I wonder where the Framers got Article I, Section 8, clause 10.
Tsk. Are you suggesting that the Framers, former English colonists used to the English legal system, would use a standard text on English law in writing the Constitution? An unheard of concept! Next thing you know, you’ll be stating that the Earth circles the Sun, and that it’s actually a sphere, not a platter.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard of the “Federal District Court of California.” Where do its judges sit?
So we are to believe Dr. Seuss was born Ted Geisel??? Have you seen the long form BC??? I thought not.
Just wondering why a layman would come to a military law blog, populated mostly by military lawyers, to argue military law? Just sayin’…
I don’t know about that Earth circling Sun or being a sphere stuff, but there do seem to be alot of English Law terms in the Constitution.
Besides the obvious ones (ex post facto, bills of attainder), there is the whole concept of impeachment (per Alex Hamilton, based on the British Impeachment procedures) and the term “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” (Warren Hastings was impeached in England in 1787 for high crimes and misdemeanors, Col Mason during the debates on the constitution – “Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason.”)
And of course, the term “natural born” comes from English Common Law.
Ya got 1 at Malibu, 2 at Venice Beach, another at Santa Barbara, couple at Big Sur this time of year.
You know, like the usual places dude.
Well, Judge Carter is in the Southern Division of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, which is the largest federal judicial district as measured by population. Originally, there was just the District of California, then Northern and Southern Districts, then they were merged, split asunder again, and finally in 1966 we got the current structure of Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Central Districts.
Judge Carter’s courtroom is in Santa Ana; other SD courtrooms are in Los Angeles and Riverside.
I do hope John will tell us where the Constitution provides the rights that COL Lind has allegedly stripped from our “hero”! I must have been sleeping the afternoon my government teacher talked about the little-known right to discovery of facts not relevant to the charges. Or maybe I went fishing :-)
For the same reason so many of the Birthers have come here, I suspect–to find out if there’s anybody who practices military law who might agree with them, and if not, then to tell the people here how much they don’t know about the law and military (as a couple of them, notably yguy, have done.)
Disclosure–I am not a lawyer.
don’t forget La Jolla and Leo Carrillo…
Poor Man’s Nachos – a bit of Tabasco sprinkled over C-ration Cheeze and Crackers (sleeze and shingles among other terms) with the cheeze melted over a burning C-ration carton. Oh, those were the days. John Wayne candy bars did make a mean mole though – especially with the caramel chips in it.
I was recently in La Jolla where I saw Theodor Geisel’s house while kayaking. Ah, the law is a seamless web.
Because unlike Orly Taitz, they couldn’t find an unaccredited online law school that would grant them a degree? :-)
Maybe they didn’t have Microsoft Word and email skills (a required question in the first section of the online application, no doubt used to help separate the wheat from the chaff!)
I could just see Sean Penn reprise his character Jeff Spicoli for the new movie “Fast Times at Ridgemont Federal Courthouse”
brilliant…
Here are my two favorite Judge David O. Carter quotes:
“Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits put on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the people”–over sixty nine million of the people.
Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the Constitutional role and jurisdiction of this court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.”–US Federal District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al.”
October 29, 2009
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al.,” October 29, 2009
For those who may not know, Judge Carter is a US Marine Corps Lieutenant (RET) who won the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart at the Battle of Khe Sahn in Vietnam.
Full disclosure: I was a “sea lawyer” 30 years ago, as well as a USMC Lance Corporal fire controlman.
“Let me remind you, it’s not good for the country. It’s not good for the country, if he is qualified to be POTUS, that these rumors swirl. And if he is not, it’s not good for the country that he is Commander In Chief.” – Judge David O. Carter, Federal District Court of California.
Why do the Birfers grasp at straws like this? The good Judge stated something quite obvious, then he read the pile of rabid assertions followed by the Oily Circus. No wonder he blew them out of the court toot sweet.
Small world! I was in La Jolla last night for dinner at Azul on Prospect Street. I only saw a Waygu Burger but Audrey Geisel, the widow is a big name in the arts here in San Diego.
J.B. Williams hosts a right-wing website where he describes himself as “…a dirt road scholar with a degree in BS from the school of hard knocks, formal education seems a poor substitute for common sense, something that ain’t so common anymore in America.” So we can fairly well conclude that he does not have even a mail-order law degree.
Timothy Harrington is a frequent contributor to birther websites, where he refers to himself as “Sergeant of the Marines.” He is a pal of the infamous “Jaghunter” Walter Fitzpatrick.
And Judge Carter tossed out the birther suit he was discussing.
Please visit the “United States Bar Association” website.
http://www.unitedstatesbarassociation.com/barinfo1.php
Anyone with $25 can join.
Not to agree with that analysis, necessarily, but Marshall butchered A3S2C2 in Marbury v Madison a helluva lot worse than that.
And the President of the United States Bar Association, Barbara Ketay, isn’t even an attorney. It looks like she is a paralegal.
http://www.unitedstatesbarassociation.com/libertyandyou/about.htm
I predict another “Super King Kamehameha yguy Smackdown” very soon…
Is that a misappropriation of the Presidential Seal on their site?
Dwight:
I don’t want to rain on your parade, but how could the militaryb officials to whom you have directed your FOIA request even respond, given that the President is ineligible for his post and their powers derive from the Commander in Chief?
Perhaps you should have submitted the request to Senator McCain.
“Let me remind you, it’s not good for the country. It’s not good for the country, if he is qualified to be POTUS, that these rumors swirl. And if he is not, it’s not good for the country that he is Commander In Chief.” – Judge David O. Carter, Federal District Court of California.
If Obama is ineligible I wonder why that would be BAD for the country? (Nevermind that Judge Carter dismissed the case but I believed dismissed it due to some threat or coersion. Those who attended the Carter hearings said that Judge Carter was Gun Ho about getting to bottom of this contraversy. However, in a matter of weeks the brakes were put on the case and Judge Carter’s demeanor changed 180.)
Judge Lind also said the Lakin’s orders came from the Pentagon and that should been sufficient for Lakin.
First, the orders may have come the Pentagon but their authority to carry them out came from the Commander In Chief which is Obama.
I didn’t know that Pentagon ordered 30,000 troops to deploy to AF?
I didn’t know that the Pentagon fired General McCrystal?
Addition, why would Lind assume that Lakin would been satisfied with an answer from the Pentagon regarding the lawfulness of his orders when Lakin has spent nearly a year trying to determine the authority behind his orders which is the eligibility of the Command in Chief. Lind was clearly trying to confuse the issue and taint the facts of the case which ultimately concluded with a DIRECT plea from Lakin himself to Obama as to lawfulness of his orders by establishing Obama’s eligiblity to serve as the Commander in Chief.
How many of you who espouse the view that LTC Lakin has the right to demand the CINC prove his eligibility have actually served in the military? I’m guessing none because I don’t recall ever learning about that part of the basis of military discipline when I went through any of my military training.
What was that Judge Carter quote again?
“Let me remind you, it’s not good for the country. It’s not good for the country, if he is qualified to be POTUS, that these rumors swirl. And if he is not, it’s not good for the country that he is Commander In Chief.” – Judge David O. Carter, Federal District Court of California.
If what Judge Lind says is true, why would Obama’s ineligiblity be BAD for the country?
That is likely because there is no evidence that either of the clowns that wrote this silly piece are lawyers. The United States Bar Association is some crank group that allows non-lawyers to join and that advocates federal judges be limited to a 10 year appointment. True Constitutionalists! Is it any wonder that they would choose a deceptive name for their ridiculous organization?
John: If having “rumors swirling about the President” is bad for the country, then how about you be a patriot and stop furthering them?
I’m no lawyer, but I’m thinking you’re not the one who’s fishing here…
I’d love him to sit through my Consitutional History Class only to find out that Marshall was almost exactly on point in Marbury. Then again, you have to read old English cases for starters and they use funny that English.
Well it just goes to show how many hits you can get when you troll with a Shoff’s Triple Birfer® lure.
JO’C, so far the Army’s FOIA folks must be protecting themselves against any such argument — so far I’ve heard nothing from them, not even an acknowledgement that the request was received.
So am I correct in assuming that by repeating something often and forcefully, it becomes true???
If I did that, would I find out that Marshall didn’t misquote A3S2C2?
Unless the Cornell site misquoted Marshall, the answer to that is a definite no.
Perhaps you are speaking in geological terms – which doesn’t do much for those craving entertainment in the here and now, I daresay.
I grant your FOIA… LOL
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37116443/United-States-v-LTC-Terry-Lakin-Ruling-on-Motions-Discovery-%E2%80%93-September-2-2010
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/09/united-states-v-ltc-terry-lakin-ruling.html
my favorite quote from the same ruling, in reference to plaintiff alan keyes’ viability for the oval office:
“plaintiffs received only four-hundredth of one percent of the vote. the court may have already met this entire group of voters at the hearings on this matter.”
Victory is ours!