Lt. Col. Lakin Military Court, Amicus Curiae, Cody Robert Judy

From Cody Robert Judy’s website:

“Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Amicus Curiae in Defence of Lt.Col. Lakin

Cody Robert Judy
No. West
UT. 84
(801)497-
_____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE HONORABLE MILITARY COURT
U.S. ARMY (Plaintiff)
v. Amicus Curiae under UCMJ
LAKIN (Defendant)
Cody Robert Judy- Amicus Curiae LTC Driscoll
______________________________________________________________________________
daniel.driscoll@amedd.army.mil
cc: www.personalinjuryattorneylaw.com info@jensenlawyers.com att: Jenson & Associates- c/o Attorney Paul Rolf Jensen

Re: Amicus Curiae on behalf of the defendant Lakin

Amicus Curiae Concern for Defendant in the matter of U.S. Army v. Lakin in the matter wherein Lakin was charged:

“With one specification of a violation of Article 87, Missing Movement and four specifications of a violation of Article 92 (three specifications of Failure to Obey a Lawful Order, and one Specification of Dereliction of Duty),” said Chuck Dasey, spokesman at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, where Lakin is assigned.

*Motion to file leave of Amicus Curiae is respectfully submitted if applicable in UCMJ
______________________________________

Reasons why the Amicus Curiae from Cody Robert Judy is applicable to this Court:
______________________________________
• Cody Robert Judy was a candidate in the 2008 elections for President of the United States, who has filed litigation in two Federal Courts regarding the qualifications of Sen. John McCain, and Sen. Barack Hussein Obama who now occupies the White House. Here are the following Internet Link in support:
• http://www.codyjudy.us/crj4ussenatorut_031.htm Judy vs. McCain
• http://www.scribd.com/doc/22288917/Judy-v-Obama Judy vs. Obama

Cody Robert Judy also recently testified in the CIA Columbia Obama Trial as an injured presidential candidate, who by being in the same Presidential race as Obama has standing, and who swore to tell the truth at the trial where a 10 Amendment Court was held, a Jury selected, Defendant’s were served and given the chance to defend themselves, 6 days of trial witnesses and evidence were produced, and the Jury rendered a guilty verdict on 17 accounts ranging from fraud to sedition on Barack Hussein Obama, Michael Sovern, and Columbia University. The closing arguments are here:

• http://atlah.org/atlahworldwide/?p=8342
• http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2010/100519/ftpgObamaTrial.html (News)
• http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2010/05/12-cia-columbia-jury-are-chosen-and-13.html
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBJihJBePcs 31 sec. video witness Michelle Obama

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 32 Investigation, paragraph 1, reads:

(a) No charge or specification may be referred to a general court-martial for trial until a through and impartial investigation of all the matters set forth therein has been made. This investigation shall include inquiry as to the truth of the matter set forth in the charges, consideration of the form of charges, and recommendation as to the disposition which should be made of the case in the interest of justice and discipline.

a. While the Federal Courts have an interest in procuring justice in the matter, the technicalities of those courts and whatever rulings have or have not transpired do not apply to facts and information relevant to this matter. So it is that this court may also consider whatever evidence it seems true and faithful to the U.S.C.

(b) Your statement in paragraph 6 making a unilateral ruling on the role Congress may or may not play in any eligibility determination is incorrect. Obama has been sued prior to his (presumably) legally becoming President since he had never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold that office and in fact lied on his Declaration of Candidacy. Your pretense that somehow Congress could impeach a person ineligible to hold office actually is contrary to what would happen in the matter of an ineligible person who was sitting in the presidential seat of authority as a usurper.

(c) The Frame Work necessary to straighten the executive branch should be recognized by this court as a matter of jurisprudence, and if there exist evidence that would release the charges by statutes of compliance towards duty, that should be considered equitably. If there is one advantage of a military court, it is that of examining evidence and testimony minus the political fever at large. Now I challenge this court to hear my testimony, and to examine the evidence herein as a matter of defense for Lt. Col. Lakin as I do have direct standing in the matter which surrounds the issues with which he is so charged with, and I offer myself as witness for his behalf feeling it would be beyond my ability to withhold my testimony as a natural born citizen of the United States who has standing in the 2008 Presidential Election, in the defense of the same military which is sworn to protect me and uphold the United States Constitution.”

Read more:

http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2010/06/amicus-curiae-in-defence-of-ltcol-lakin.html#comment-form