1. Trial is continued until 4 November 2010 from 13 October 2010. Not sure of the reason. It appears Mr. Jensen asked the judge to hold the case “in abeyance” pending resolution of an (untimely?) writ which has been filed with NMCCA. According to Charlie the defense said the reason for the potentially untimely filing was “for reasons I can’t get into right now[.]” Huuuuuuuum, this has resonance. I think I’ll try this one in a couple of weeks. (Note to DMLHS, this citation to authority has to be on the top ten this year.)

2. Unsurprisingly to those familiar with military justice the judge ruled the orders to be legal.

3. Unsurprisingly the judge ruled that several defense witnesses would not be permitted to testify as experts in constitutional law and obedience to orders. No doubt the prosecution would have had many people who could testify in opposition.

4. The military judge granted a prosecution motion in-limine to preclude “irrelevant” information and testimony about the president and his birth.

Hearing this, the civilian defense counsel remarked that this gutted the defense case, and he had to put on some sort of defense. Apparently, LTC Lakin is chomping at the bit to testify in his own defense, so that might be the sum total of the defense case after today’s rulings.

According to a piece in WorldNetDaily:

“We got absolutely slammed today,” said Paul R. Jensen, lead counsel for the defense. “It’s impossible for us to have a fair trial under these rulings.” “Our arms were cut off last time,” said Jensen. “Our legs are being cut off this time.”

I had opined in a recent radio interview that LTC Lakin had been cut off at the knees by the 2 September 2010 rulings. I guess I was ahead of myself. Seems like he got what’s euphemistically called in some circles as a six-pack.

Still no posting of the Writ on safeguardourconstitution.

As for the rules changes, a big (and quite welcome, in my opinion) change is the new system in which nearly all CAAF pleadings are eligible for electronic filing. Be sure to redact privacy/sensitive information from such filings, as final briefs will be placed on CAAF’s webpage, starting this term. Other changes make the already small needle’s eye to SCOTUS more microscopic for military appeals. While CAAF judges previously granted review of all appeals in which the appellant was serving 30 years or more in confinement, that is no longer the policy. Furthermore, for cases that come back to CAAF after a remand to the CCAs, CAAF will no longer automatically grant review of the case.

Are we getting closer to PACER or some PACER like access for court filings in the same manner as in federal courts? If so, it would be nice to be more than a glacial pacer toward that goal.