Posted on 10/04/2010 11:30:46 AM PDT by Red Steel
The American Patriot Foundation is pleased to announce that LTC Lakin has repositioned his forces, has retained new legal counsel, and is extremely grateful that the Foundation will be dedicating the critical next few weeks before his planned court-martial on November 3-5, to focusing entirely on public affairs, strategic communications/messaging and coalition-building and that their support will continue seamlessly as the new attorney prepares for trial.
The website of the Foundation is being re-designed to reflect this new focus and emphasis. Contrary to the impression left by some blogs and internet commentary, LTC Lakin is consistent in continuing on the same path that he announced publicly six months ago when he released his first YouTube video-- and consistent with his military training, to continue to request assurance from Pentagon leadership that his military orders, including his deployment orders to Afghanistan, are legal-- authorized at the highest level by a Commander-in-Chief who is Constitutionally eligible, per Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. As a medical officer and not a lawyer or Constitutional scholar, LTC Lakin is not laying claim to be the sole arbiter of the President's Constitutionality in attempting to determine, without any genuine evidence to make such a determination, the President's "natural born" citizen status. The burden of proof rests solely on Barack Obama to demonstrate to the American people and to the U.S. Armed Forces that he commands, that he is lawfully serving in his current capacity as head of the Executive Branch of the federal government.
The Army prosecutors have made this determination of the Commander-in-Chief's eligibility under the Constitution impossible-- by denying discovery- and essentially denying LTC Lakin the customary due process rights that defendants in American courts enjoy when facing criminal charges, and in LTC Lakin's case, a jail sentence of several years at Fort Leavenworth prison.
The Foundation is pleased to continue to support LTC Lakin, a decorated and outstanding officer with 18 years of service in the Army, as he persists in his pursuit of the truth, the rule of law, and in support of his sworn oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Terry is gratified by the many people who have stayed in constant touch with him through the website and deeply appreciates their support, their guidance and suggestions, and their prayers.
I can only hope you are reading OIP op ltr 90-23 and knowing, that you and I both have plenty of tangible interest in viewing Obama’s vital records. I don’t know if you are paid or just desperate to refute this issue, but if you are reading ltr 90-23...
...you see it and you know it. And you’ve always known there really isn’t anything wrong with asking to view his original birth certificate. He’s supposed to be 35 years old at the time he enters office. No one else is charged with making sure he is—so I have a tangible interest in making sure myself. So do you.
Why should there be anything wrong with asking? There isn’t. BFD. Now you know.
OIP op ltr 90-23 is a slap in the face of *ugh* ‘antibirthers.’ The people DO have rights it turns out. Only Dr. Fukino stands in the way of a reasonable request to inspect.
I don’t think the NBC issue is a sound reason to inspect his records. But, I think verifying his date of birth is. You know it is, too, whether you admit it out loud or not. YOU. KNOW. IT.
In this life, there are age requirements. You have to prove your age in a heck of a lot of those cases. It’s NOT a big deal, dude. Seriously, it’s not. I’ve had to show ID, I can assure Obama—he’s going to be okay afterward. We will only respect him more if he sucks it up and proves he is 35.
“as someone else noted, there is a clear, well-established legal basis for Lakin’s orders being lawful even if Obama was suddenly determined to be a space alien”
I’m not an attorney so I haven’t been paying much attention to posts rife with legalese to say how the POTUS being constitutionally unqualified is irrelevant. I don’t comprehend the logic, so I don’t dwell on it.
However, I have seen numerous posts of military texts, etc. that make it very clear that all military authority, to include my reserve commission, derive there ultimately authority from the POTUS as CINC. I don’t see any “logical” (to a layman) way around that. An order to deploy definitely comes from the POTUS through SECDEF. The “Pentagon” is a direct agent of the POTUS. So, LTC/Dr. Lakin’s questioning of the validity of a deployment order, based upon a tainted root source, seems valid and logical to me. I believe if all (citizens & military) were to know the history of LTC Lakin’s effort to determine POTUS validity that were rebuffed, I believe a majority of Americans (in and out of the military) would be supported of the LTC. Unfortunately, he is being painted a “loon” and “birther” instead of receiving proper unbiased media coverage. Goodness, the coward Watada received better press that LTC Lakin has.
IF the congress, courts, etc. had of done their jobs correctly, then LTC/Dr. Lakin would never had to place himself in such a precarious position. Personally, I wished a movement amoung conservative candidates for congress in November would begin that demands that President Obama complies with the LTC’s information requests and that all charges against the LTC be dropped IF the information provided shows the POTUS invalid/questionable and the LTC would then deploy as ordered.
I will be curious to see what his new legal team will do.
“Thank you for your service. Refreshing to hear from the people in the “Know” compared to the old guards of “Benedict Arnolds” posting differently here!!!”
I thank you. However, I haven’t deployed and don’t deserve the praise those young men and women that have do. I stay in the rear and guard the baggage.
Also, don’t be too hard on those that want to see LTC/Dr. Lakin zotted because he refused orders. Although in LTC/Dr. Lakin’s instance I disagree with them, I truly think that many are sincerely concerned about maintaining military discipline. I cannot condemn the desire to maintain discipline. Just in this case, I think an exception needs to be made.
The certified copy from the State of Hawaii, which Obama has already shown, is more than enough.
A jpeg image is not and can not be certified in any way. The Department of Health only certifies HARD COPIES. Not jpegs.
Besides, I sent it to them myself and they said they would not verify anything in that jpeg and they cited HRS 338-18.
“ONLY Obama’s original vital records are proof of age.
The certified copy from the State of Hawaii, which Obama has already shown, is more than enough.”
Why are you trying to obfuscate the point that you DO NOT have to go to court to establish tangible interest?
Is it that you don’t understand or are purposely obfuscating? What kind of Obot are you?
I see no reason why Obama-gate, Natural born citizen-gate, certifi-gate should not be afforded the exact same process that has been used historically to legally resolve major American scandals that have touched the presidency.
But I’m about results. It doesn’t have to be an “either/or” situation, MissTickly’s preferred method to resolution or my preferred method, it can certainly be “both” methods being used by different people.
I do find it strange however that in the three and a half years since Barack Hussein Obama II announced his candidacy for the presidency that not a single, original copy of a long form Hawai’i birth certificate ordered since 2001 has been posted on the internet, just to prove that it is possible to obtain one.
3. The defense asserts that the President, as Commander in Chief under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, is the source of all military authority. In fact, the President, as Commander in Chief, and Congress share authority over the military. Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution empowers Congress to raise and support armies, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces, to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, and to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. Congress has exercised this authority by enacting Article 10 of the United States Code and by giving the Secretary of Defense and the Service Secretaries statutory authorities and responsibilities. See 10 U.S.C. 113, 3013, 5013, and 8013. In 10 U.S.C. 3013, Congress designated the Secretary of the Army as responsible for and with authority necessary to conduct all affairs of the Department of the Army, including (among others) the following relevant functions, recruiting, organizing, supplying, equipping, training, servicing, mobilizing, demobilizing, and administering (including the morale and welfare of personnel). The statute further empowers the Secretary of the Army to assign, detail, and prescribe the duties of members of the Army and to prescribe regulations to carry out his functions, powers, and duties, under this Title.
4. The Secretary of the Army has promulgated numerous Army Regulations pursuant to his authority under 10 U.S.C. 3013.1 These Army Regulations provide an independent authority for military officers to issue lawful orders. Authorization for officers to issue lawful mil itary orders may be based on law, regulation, or custom of the service. MCM, pi. IV, paragraph 14.c.(2)(a)(iii). The authority of military officers to issue lawful orders and the concomitant duty of military service members to obey such lawful orders does not depend on whether the President is qualified under the Constitution to hold office.
5. Any suggestion by the defense that the authority of military officers to issue any lawful orders ceases to exist jf a serving President is found to be unqualified by the Constitution to hold office is an erroneous view of the law, Similarly, any suggestion by the defense that if a President is found to be unqualified by the Constitution to hold office, service-members have no duty to follow any orders issued by their military superiors is equally erroneous.
The statutory authority summarized in those paragraphs is not some new off-the-cuff opinion. It is a firmly established legal fact. No one is going to overturn that. It's why this whole thing is simply wrong-headed unless Lakin wants to be a martyr to this cause. And that's not even mentioning the de facto officer doctrine that also applies. Or that United States vs. New established a high bar for what constitutes an unlawful order, a bar Lakin's issue does not meet.
I will not refute nor disagree with a thing you wrote. But really? You think even a judge could not get a copy of the long form birth certificate upon request?
According to Okubo and the retention schedules, they still have at the very least, digital or film copies of every original vital record.
You really think one could not be obtained? How would one go about amending their birth record if their original record could not be accessed?
This makes no sense. Here it is again in 338-13.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2008/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0013.htm
Uhm, someone please help me understand HRS338-14. Does this say that ANY veteran can request a vital recortd as long as it is involved in a claim about service in the U.S> military???????
“§338-14 Fees for certified copies and searches; transcripts or other statistical summaries of vital records for National Center for Health Statistics; certified copies for veterans and others; and corrections on vital statistics certificates. (a) The department of health shall establish reasonable fees to be paid for certified copies of certificates; provided that the department shall furnish, free of charge, a certified copy of any of the records, or a certification of birth, to any veteran of the armed forces of the United States... when required for use in connection with a claim based on service in the armed forces of the United States. “
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2008/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0014.htm
http://hawaii.gov/oip/opinionletters/opinion%2090-23.pdf
WTF??? Has anyone ever noticed this before?
I will not refute nor disagree with a thing you wrote. But really? You think even a judge could not get a copy of the long form birth certificate upon request?
According to Okubo and the retention schedules, they still have at the very least, digital or film copies of every original vital record.
You really think one could not be obtained? How would one go about amending their birth record if their original record could not be accessed?
This makes no sense. Here it is again in 338-13.
Your way involves Obama in the release. My way does not involve Obama but rather release of Obama’s original vital records is done by an officer of a court.
“5. Any suggestion by the defense that the authority of military officers to issue any lawful orders ceases to exist jf a serving President is found to be unqualified by the Constitution to hold office is an erroneous view of the law, Similarly, any suggestion by the defense that if a President is found to be unqualified by the Constitution to hold office, service-members have no duty to follow any orders issued by their military superiors is equally erroneous.”
What “ruling” did this come from? This is not to be considered a hostile inquiry on my part. However, this paragraph looks like an opinion essay rather than a “high court” ruling. Remember, I am not an attorney.
“Your way involves Obama in the release. My way does not involve Obama but rather release of Obama’s original vital records is done by an officer of a court.”
No it doesn’t. Obviously you didn’t read 90-23.
Instead of a court, it only involves Fukino making a determination based on an application.
That’s it. Where the heck did you get Obama being invovled/??
You are a paid troll. There’s no other explanation for your idiocy.
That is correct. A COLB constitutes prima facie evidence before any court of the facts stated therein. It says so right on the form.
Now you're trying to brag that it doesn't have to be shown, which undermines your previous argument.
First of all, I wasn't bragging. I was merely stating a fact: the form has not had to be shown in any court.
Now how exactly does that undermine my other argument? The fact that no court, to date, has asked to see the form is in no way inconsistent with the fact that the form would by accepted as legal proof by any court asks to see it in the future.
If he has legal evidence, let's see it.
He's allowed photos of it to be posted on the internet. How else do you expect him to show it to you? Do you expect him to send to you and every other birther your own personal, certified hard copy of it?
> He doesn't have to fight showing it to a court.
He's not.
Well, no, that's not the only thing that makes them credible.
Okay, so what, in your mind, makes these Kenyan MP's credible sources of information about Obama's birth?
If you throw them out, then you also need to throw out the journalists who claim Obama was born in Hawaii who didn't have a credible source.
IMHO, Hawaii's director of public health is a credible source.
The pictures have not been confirmed as representing a valid or legal COLB by the issuing agency.
No, but the location of birth listed in the said document has been confirmed by state officials.
Chiyome Fukino has refused to say so despite having statutory authority ...
Fukino refused to confirm the authenticity of the image because it is simply impossible to authenticate any document by looking at an image of it on the internet. She would need to hold a hard copy in her hand.
However, it is possible to verify that the information contained in the photograph is consistent with what is in the state's records, and Fukino did just that. I'm not sure what else you expect her to do.
and she did NOT confirm that any state records show that Obama was born in Hawaii. She referred to unspecified records; not any specific STATE record.
Now you're just playing with semantics. It is obvious to any rational person reading the press release the she was referring to vital records maintained by the state. If that's not a state record, nothing is.
It's not out of context, mister argues-with-himself. The next sentence doesn't change anything,
Okay, Mr. OutofContext, if that's really true, then why don't you post the next two sentences? Hmmmm?
Yeah, you and your Trollish antics.
Trying to advocate for alternate methods of obtaining information is classic Alinsky.
A curse upon you, you foul trolling cur.
True patriots like Lakin will make sure that you plans to have a court subpoena Obama’s record will never succeed!
This is what everyone is so exercised about it. As usual, they have fixated on the immediate author, Judge Lind, pronouncing her a traitor and a sell-out, and refused to recognize that the opinion is very conventional. There's nothing shocking or new or even original about it. It is simply citing well-established foundational law for the military.
But Lind is now a traitor and a sell-out, just like Carter became when he ruled. And just like everyone else will be when they rule because the only available alternative is to accept that, yes, there is foundational military law that is well understood by judges and it inevitably yields this result. I'm sorry, but that is the legal reality. I suspect it's also why Lakin has belatedly changed attorneys to one who at least understands the terrain upon which Lakin finds himself deployed.
Ain't it, though. I suppose as time goes by and this issue doesn't pan out, eventually the Constitution itself will be a traitor and a sell-out. (LOL) It's so inferior to what you can imagine it is.
After all, why stick to dreary old issues of international relations and law when, according to some of the wilder folks, under Article I, Section 8 Congress could be passing laws to prosecute people for disrespecting De Vattel’s book.
“There’s nothing shocking or new or even original about it. It is simply citing well-established foundational law for the military.”
It has never come up before. So, this isn’t “well-established” law. I am sorry my friend, but using a ruling by a “questionable” judge in this case to prove that the POTUS eligibility is not an issue....well it don’t wash in my opinion. I have seen numerous posts here on FR from respected texts that say just the opposite of this.
I thought you were citing some old past case. That would have carried some weight. The issue of President Obama’s constitutional eligibility is at the heart of the reason LTC/Dr. Lakin “refused” to deploy. He should be allowed to fully use that defense. If our president has nothing to hide, then what is the issue with him providing documents. Revealing his past isn’t going to damage national security, and even if there were “irregularities” in the circumstances of his birth (parents not married, etc.), in this day and age no one is “embarassed by such things anymore.
Obviously, a court martial cannot unseat a president. However, if the panel of officers acquit LTC/Dr. Lakin after hearing the full evidence the defense team wants to present....then it creates an issue the SCOTUS and Congress must deal with an no longer ignore. Conversely, if after full discovery, the panel finds him guilty, then that sends a message as well that there is no basis for doubting the POTUS’ eligibility.
I want to maintain military discipline. I admire those, and I believe you are one, that zeolousy want to maintain it. That is why I have and will continue to treat you with respect. However, this is uncharted territory, and a wider lattitude needs to be allowed. Using the military system to silence LTC/Dr. Lakin is not a very good idea. I believe it harms discipline more than enforcing it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.