Posted on 09/14/2010 1:00:58 AM PDT by STARWISE
Complete Title:
Retired JAG Officer Says Judge’s Ruling Against Discovery for Lakin Could Derail Case Based on Legal Precedent
###
A retired JAG officer with over 23 years of experience, says the military judge who ruled against discovery for a Greeley Army officer may have derailed the government’s case based on precedent from another high profile case involving a military officer.
Lt. Col John Eidsmoe, a retired Air Force officer who works for former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore at the Foundation for Moral Law, said Lakin is “raising legitimate constitutional questions” regarding President Obama’s eligibility to be commander-in-chief.
Eidsmoe said the issue has been around for several years and was first raised by Phillip Berg, a liberal Democrat who was a Hillary Clinton supporter.
“If he is a legitimate citizen of the United States, he could easily clear that up just by releasing the information to prove it,” Eidsmoe said
“When the national interest is at stake, he has a duty to put personal feelings aside and show us he’s legitimate, if he is.”
Last week at a hearing on the motion for documents relating to the President’s eligibility under the Constitution, the judge ruled Lakin did not have any rights to discovery.
Jensen (Ltc Lakin's attorney) said in the morning the judge listened very intently and she “found our arguments very appealing.”
After lunch she issued a motion ruling against Lakin on all counts. In a meeting with the press afterwards, Jensen said he “was astonished that she would leave them with no defense whatsoever.”
He went on to say that they were going to be given “no discovery at all” and they would be barred from “introducing any witnesses on the legality of the order.” Jensen said that they will immediately appeal the ruling to the Army Court of Criminal appeals as this ruling completely prevents them from providing a defense.
In issuing the decision, Lind said Lakin would not be permitted to call witnesses because it has the “potential for embarrassment” of the President. Margaret Hemenway, spokeswoman for Col. Lakin, said the judge appeared to imply Lakin could be a racist by asking if this would be happening if Bush were the commander-in-chief.
~ ~ ~
((Note: this is allegedly how Judge Lind stated the 'embarrassment' issue:
“The potential for embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question are uniquely powerful to ensure that courts-martial do not become the vehicle for adjudicating the legality of political decisions and to ensure the military’s capacity to maintain good order and discipline in the armed forces.”
~ ~ ~
In the decision the government stated that even if Obama is not eligible it would not matter and all actions taken by the president would still be valid. They also state that Lakin is “duty bound to follow the lawful orders of his superiors even if the eligibility of the President under the constitution is later found deficient.”
The issue of the president’s birthplace is outweighed by “the danger of confusing the issues” according to prosecutors.
Eidsmoe said these statements could possibly cause problems for the government’s case based on precedent set in another recent high profile case involving Lt. Col. Michael Murphy.
Murphy was a high ranking official who served as general counsel to the White House Military office under President George W. Bush.
In 2006 the Air Force discovered he had been disbarred for over 20 years in Texas and Louisiana, however, Murphy had told the Air Force he was never subject to any disciplinary issues. The military charged him with nine counts of conduct unbecoming an officer and one count of failure to obey a general regulation.
At the arraignment his lawyers requested records from his time with the WHMO arguing the records were needed in order to provide a defense. The WHMO refused to release the documents requested and the judge agreed, ruling that the information was not harming the lawyer’s ability to mount a defense to the charges which did not directly relate to his time at WHMO.
The Air Force Times reported that, “The information would not relate to the facts of the case but could have been useful in presenting what is known as the "good airman” defense, a doctrine in military law that allows the defense to present information about the defendant’s character and job performance.”
The judge also ruled that a lack of access to the records would affect the defense’s ability to demonstrate Murphy’s good conduct and performance during the sentencing phase of the trial, calling the ability to present mitigating evidence about conduct “a substantial right of a military accused.”
The judge also ruled that even if found Murphy he could not be punished and the Air Force of Criminal Courts agreed.
Eidsmoe said the circumstances in the Murphy case are very similar to Lakin’s case with the refusal to allow documents and witnesses related to the President’s eligibility.
Two days prior to the ruling, a former three-star Air Force general I who was a command pilot with 407 combat missions, filed an affidavit supporting of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin. Retired Lt. General Thomas McInerney said in an affidavit filed prior to Lakin’s September 2nd court hearing that officers are and must be “trained that they owe their highest allegiance to the United States Constitution.” He goes on to state as part of a training officers received is that they “must disobey an illegal order.”
On the eligibility issue, McInerney said “if he is ineligible under the Constitution to serve in that office, that creates a break in the chain of command of such magnitude that its significance can scarcely be imagined.”
He went on to note part of his duties including commanding forces equipped with nuclear weapons and it was important “that the personnel with access to these weapons have unwavering in absolute confidence in the unified chain of command, because such confidence was absolutely essential in the event the use of those weapons were authorized.”
Gen. McInerney was the former assistant vice Chief of Staff, headquarters U.S. Air Force Washington, DC. Additionally he has logged over 4100 flying hours, including 407 combat missions as a command pilot. Commenting on Lakin’s refusal to obey orders, the general praised him saying, “In refusing to obey orders because of his doubts as to the legality, LTC Lakin has acted exactly as proper training dictates.”
Praising Lakin for following his conscience, McInerney said it was vital for the judge to grant Lakin’s request for discovery pertaining to the President's birth records as “absolutely essential to determining not merely his guilt or innocence, but to reassuring all military personnel once and for all for this president whether his service as commander-in-chief is constitutionally proper” noting that the President “is the single person in the chain of command that the Constitution demands proof of natural born citizenship.” He also said that “allowing access to these records is critical to our Republic.”
Supporters of the President have said there is no need for Obama to release any of the records requested because the online copy of the certification of live birth released during the campaign is sufficient proof. They also claim that the President is under no obligation to release them citing privacy laws.
McInerney disputes that saying, “The invasion of his privacy in these records is utterly trivial compared to the issues at stake here.
McInerney is the third former general to come out in support of Lt. Col. Lakin, and the highest ranking member of the military thus far.
Other discrepancies in the President’s childhood history have also helped fuel the controversy. Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, claimed in an interview with the Rainbow Newsletter in 2004 that he was born at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu on August 4, 1961. In an interview with the Honolulu Star Bulletin in February 2008, she stated that he was born at the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children.
Additionally, there are numerous foreign news sources disputing his Hawaiian birth. The Kenyan Observer in 2008 made reference to “the Kenyan born senator.” African Travel Magazine declared “as Kenyan born, US Senator Barrack Obama gets into Kenya today…”
Two questions for you.
1. Would a white president with a father from Australia be permitted to do this?
2. Would a president who loved the USA permit himself to do this to the Armed Forces?
Let us know what you think. Be a man. Tell it like it is.
The American people have NO standing whatsoever???
Every courts are filled with “professional” punters that would do well in the NFL, by cowardly judges scared to death of the so called political “embarrassment” of the “establishment.” They are bought out by “Judas” silver coins!!!
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/09/09/soros-watch-45-million-to-sabotage-americas-judiciary/
Yep, I was a big fan of Rush until he sold his integrity for a half BILLION+ “Judas” silver coins by adhering to bosses’ gag orders of total SILENCE on the NBC issue. I got some flack here for saying that. But the same counts for ALL the knee-weak talking heads on FOX, including Glenn Book and a slew of other RINO radio talk hosts!!!
The judiciary classes and Congress are in the same wagon???
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/09/09/soros-watch-45-million-to-sabotage-americas-judiciary/
3. Would a white president with a white father from South Africa be permitted to do this to a Black officer born of US citizens in Brooklyn NY?
The Marine judge Carter played the same scenario until he got an Robert Bauer employee "hired" or a 3:00 AM call from the red phone!!!
“He is no different than Huett-Vaughn or Watada or New or any other serviceman who decided, wrongly, that they choose what orders they want to follow and what they cannot. The military cannot operate that way. Take away the authority of the officers and NCOs and you have an armed mob. That may be your preferred organization, it isn’t mine.”
Well, you gave me a straight forward answer that you want to see LTC/Dr. Lakin be zapped. You compare him to Watada (he has walked by the way) and others less savory types. I don’t agree, I think Dr. Lakin is an entirely different breed, and his situation actually would strengthen disclipine not harm it. However, that is MY opinion and you have yours. In either case OUR opinions are not fact.
I do thank you for an honest answer.
According to an Arab News Outlet his real name is Baracka Hussein Abu Amama!!!
Instead of your head or face, maybe this is more telling of your whole body of an “AFTER-BIRTHER” playing ball here???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cord_%26_Placenta.jpg
The Constitution's NBC is the ONLY issue here. Period!!!
Maybe his name is really Baracka Hussein Abu Koochie Mama. :)
Thanks. I knew there was another permutation, but I forgot what it is.
If you're looking for an explanation from me on why Obama does or doesn't do something, or for agreement on what Obama has or hasn't done then you're looking in the wrong place. But what does any of that have to do with Lakin's guilt or innocence?
Let us know what you think. Be a man. Tell it like it is.
Beats the hell out of me.
Wikipedia says, “Rauf has been imam of Masjid al-Farah at 245 West Broadway in New York City’s Tribeca district since 1983.”
Rauf attended Columbia U. Who else do we know who went to Columbia, albeit in the early ‘80s? Where did they live? What mosque might at least one of them have attended?
What mosque did Sohale Siddiqi attend? He and his famous roommate lived at 339 East 94th St, NYC. Look how close that address is to the Islamic Center of NY at 1711 3rd Ave. (founded by Rauf’s father). The FIRST mosque built in NYC. The cultural center opened in ‘91, but it took 25 years to complete the building. It was oh, just a hop, skip, and a jump away from Siddiqi’s place. About 4 blocks, tops. Much closer that Rauf’s mosque, which he didn’t lead until ‘83, when Obama was just then graduating from Columbia and embarking on his short career (whatever that was) before he went to Harvard (allegedly). Round about that same time, in the early ‘80s, Billy Ayers was at Bank Street College, also in NYC. Close enough. Just the other side of the park.
“The Constitution’s NBC is the ONLY issue here. Period!!!”
Maybe to you and me, but not everyone shares that view. Non-Seq. apparently sees other issues (military discpline, etc.) that many of us don’t consider significant (in this case at least). I don’t agree with him, but it all comes down to opinion ultimately.
The only difference between Lakin's case and those of Huet-Vaughan or Watada is that you agree with Lakin's motivation and you don't agree with Watada's or Huet-Vaughn's.
“The only difference between Lakin’s case and those of Huet-Vaughan or Watada is that you agree with Lakin’s motivation and you don’t agree with Watada’s or Huet-Vaughn’s.”
It is not as simplistic as you state, but in “essence” you are correct. In both cases you cite, neither should ever have joined the military. They were COs from the get go. In both of their cases they should have been discharged, except that by taking the oath they had committed fraud in accepting pay from the military when they really had no intent to actually serve. LTC/Dr. Lakin has served honorably and his questioning of the legitimacy of the CinC credentials is, in my opinion, a valid point. He has not committed fraud in that he didn’t join 18 years ago knowing that he was going to be faced with a question of a POTUS that may not be constitutionally qualified to hold office or be CinC. The political civilian authorities did nothing substantial to end the questions about the POTUS. If all the legal nonsense about “standing” wasn’t so abused to keep the public from receiving answers, then I might be more on your side that the LTC was out of line. However, that hasn’t been the case.
Now if you want to nail me on being inconsistent, here is an opportunity. I don’t think anyone else serving should do what LTC/Dr. Lakin is doing. He is the test case (that is why I think he should have full discovery). Others doing so would create chaos. Even though the finding of a court martial would not, in itself, unseat a POTUS. IF the court acquited him after his was able, unhindered, to request and receive all documents, etc. he needs to present the case he desires. Then such an acquital could not be ignored by the Congress or SCOTUS. They would have to take affirmative action. Ultimately, the SCOTUS would have to decide what constitutes a NBC.
Once decided it would help chart the future of legibility for the office of POTUS. In my opinon, and I understand the SCOTUS might not agree, the intent of the COTUS was that they did not want a POTUS that could in any way have divided loyalties. In my opinion, President Obama is a person with divided loyalties by birth and subsequent actions. I don’t think the founding fathers would approve of him being POTUS (and not because he is black either).
It is indeed as simple as I state. In all cases the officers in question decided that they were capable of deciding whether they needed to obey the lawful order of their superior. If they are entitled to do so then why isn't every officer and enlisted entitled to decide for themselves if they need to obey the order of their CO, or any other order for that matter?
In both cases you cite, neither should ever have joined the military. They were COs from the get go.
Nonsense. A Consciencious Objector rejects the concept of war and fighting. In both the Watada case and the Huett-Vaughn case the officers in question said that that they were willing to fight in the defense of their country but were not willing to fight in what they believed was an illegal war. Illegal war/illegal commander-in-chief. If an officer is able to decide on one why not on the other? And if an officer is entitled to proof that the c-in-c is legal then why shouldn't the c-in-c be required to prove the war he is sending people to is legal? As I said, the situations are eerily similar, it's just that you agree with the motivation of one but not the others.
In both of their cases they should have been discharged, except that by taking the oath they had committed fraud in accepting pay from the military when they really had no intent to actually serve.
In all cases, the officers have refused to obey the lawful orders of their superior officers. All deserve court martial and punishment.
LTC/Dr. Lakin has served honorably and his questioning of the legitimacy of the CinC credentials is, in my opinion, a valid point. He has not committed fraud in that he didn’t join 18 years ago knowing that he was going to be faced with a question of a POTUS that may not be constitutionally qualified to hold office or be CinC. The political civilian authorities did nothing substantial to end the questions about the POTUS. If all the legal nonsense about “standing” wasn’t so abused to keep the public from receiving answers, then I might be more on your side that the LTC was out of line. However, that hasn’t been the case.
Lakin has one choice as I see it, the same as any other officer. If he truly felt that he could not serve in a military where Obama was commander-in-chief then the only honorable course was to resign. Refusing to obey orders on some weird arguement that Obama's ineligibility made all orders ineligible flies in the face of established precedent, army regulations, military legal procedures, and basic common sense. But Lakin chose the course he took, he deserves to face the results from that decision.
“Refusing to obey orders on some weird arguement that Obama’s ineligibility made all orders ineligible flies in the face of established precedent, army regulations, military legal procedures, and basic common sense.”
IMO you simply are just wrong. There is NO such precident in regards to an ineligible POTUS because it has never come up. Plus numerous individuals have repeatedly quoted reliable sources, which you disregard, that make it CLEAR that all authority in the military derives it from the POTUS. Tainted POTUS...tainted chain of command. However, we have argued this before and we are just going in circles.
I truly appreciate your concern about a breakdown in disclipine, etc. I share your concerns to some extent. As I have pointed out, I would NOT want all to do what LTC Lakin has done. That would be chaos. His case should be sufficient IF properly done....suppressing his defense is NOT properly done.
Finally, I think, IMO, that you are also wrong about the two cases of con. obj. you mentioned. They both had objections, at least reservations, to war before they joined.
Once again, we are arguing in circles and going nowhere fast. We both have repeatedly stated our beliefs/views...we need to let others do so.
Personally, I would like to see LTC Lakin get to do a full defense. I concede that the “system” isn’t going to let that happen. You consider this correct, I consider it wrong.
You seem convinced that LTC Lakin is guilty and deserving of a punishment fitting. Ultimately, that is your opinion and I’m obviously not going to change it. As a obviously, you aren’t going to change my view. IF LTC Lakin was allowed to fully defend himself as he choses, and the “full discovery” (original BC, etc.) showed no reason to doubt POTUS Obama’s NBC status (except for his father not being a U.S. Citizen)....I might have to change my mind a say the man has to be hammered. The issue over the father is one that has to be decided by the SCOTUS and far beyond what a court martial should consider.
BTW - I have given money to LTC Lakin’s defense fund.
Did you get the Obama T-shirt?
The Obama Basketball with his face on it?
You got the poster of him on the wall?
“Got Hope?” bumper sticker? Or did you get the Change bumper sticker? Still on your car?
Come on Seq, you can tell us. Why did you vote for him?
We'll understand why you love him. Forget about lakin, we know you want him dead. Thats getting old.
What draws you to love Obama? Are you Indonesian?
It never ceases to amaze me how Birthers manage to make being a Birther the be-all and end-all of being a conservative. And how anyone who disagrees with any of their asinine opinions in the slightest degree has just got to be an Obama supporter. You truly are a moron.
And that is plain idiotic. What you would have us believe is that every single order given by every single officer and every single NCO in every branch of service since January 20, 2009 has been illegal. That the UCMJ and Army Regulations and Title 10 of the U.S code are all meaningless. That Congress and the civilian leadership of from the Secretary of Defense on down don't exist. Complete nonsense.
The President may be Commander-in-Chief but that is not the whole story. The Constitution in Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to make all necessary rules for the government and regulation of the armed forces. Congress exercised that power when it enacted Title 10 of the U.S. Code and when it granted certain authorities to the service secretaries and the uniformed heads of the armed forces. And out of that comes Army regulations which grant the authority for officers to issue lawful orders. And these are the orders Lakin refused to obey. Not orders from Obama or from officers drawing their authority directly from Obama, but orders from officers appointed over him by the Army itself and getting their authority through the office they are holding. Obama's eligibility or lack thereof is absolutely irrelevant to Lakin's chain of command and their authority to issue him lawful orders and to expect those orders to be obeyed. Lawful orders are disobeyed at the peril of the soldier disobeying them. Lakin is about to find out what that peril means.
Finally, I think, IMO, that you are also wrong about the two cases of con. obj. you mentioned. They both had objections, at least reservations, to war before they joined.
Says who?
Personally, I would like to see LTC Lakin get to do a full defense. I concede that the “system” isn’t going to let that happen. You consider this correct, I consider it wrong.
No, what you want is for Lakin to be able to haul Obama into court, regardless of the irrelevance of his eligibility. That is not going to happen. Lakin WILL get a full defense. He will have access to every scrap of relevant evidence he needs to defend himself against the charges he's facing. Just because you think he should have free reign to go fishing for anything and everything doesn't mean his trial won't be fair.
You seem convinced that LTC Lakin is guilty and deserving of a punishment fitting.
Lakin stands convicted by his own admission. He has never denied disobeying the orders or missing movement. And he has cooked up an excuse to justify his insubordination.
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.
