Posted on 04/13/2010 8:19:14 AM PDT by Man50D
Washington, D.C., April 13, 2010. Army doctor Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin yesterday met with his brigade commander, Col. Gordon R. Roberts, who proceeded to read LTC Lakin his Miranda rights, and who informed LTC Lakin he had the “right to remain silent” because LTC Lakin is about to be charged with serious crimes. Col. Roberts was at age 19 awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, the only recipient of the nation’s highest honor currently on active duty in the Army.
LTC Lakin had previously been ordered in writing to report yesterday to Ft. Campbell, KY and then on to deploy for his second tour of duty in Afghanistan. Lakin refused to obey these orders and instead came to work yesterday morning at the Pentagon. Late yesterday afternoon he was confronted by his brigade commander.
Before the meeting was over, LTC Lakin’s Pentagon Access Pass had been revoked, and his laptop computer was set to be confiscated.
The message to LTC Lakin is clear; through official channels, he was informed yesterday that he will shortly be court-martialled for crimes (specifically, missing movement and conduct unbecoming an officer) that for others has led to lengthy imprisonment at hard labor.
Lakin has announced in a YouTube video that has now been viewed more than 110,000 times that he considers it his duty to refuse to obey orders that would be illegal if President Obama is ineligible to hold office.
Meanwhile, cries mount for proof of that eligibility, but nothing has been forthcoming. The Obama campaign at one point released a copy of computer-generated abstract of information purportedly in Hawaii's records system, but the source of this information is unclear and need not have been a birth certificate issued contemporaneously and signed by the doctor who attended the birth. Even the document released was only a copy, and the version printed in the Los Angeles Times on June 16, 2008 is on a form only in use since late 2001. Even as it is, the document contains a warning that it is merely “prima facie”--threshold, rebuttable and thus inconclusive --evidence of birth, and the copy the Times printed mysteriously has the certificate number blacked out, thereby rendering the document unusable according to language on the bottom.
Given the seriousness of the offenses with which LTC Lakin is about to be charged, the American Patriot Foundation today renewed its plea for donations to its legal defense fund for LTC Lakin. Details are available at APF's website, www.safeguardourconstitution.com
Just because he claims they are doesn't mean that the judge will agree.
An affirmative defense to disobeying an order is that the order was illegal. But, as an affirmative defense, the defendent must prove that the order was illegal. He must be given the opportunity to do so.
Who's got the popcorn concession?
If the Constitution's requirements have not been met, then yes. Judges do that all the time. At all levels. See Bush vs. Gore in Florida.
“the military judge will have to rule in favor of the defense...or it will get overturned on appeal.”
Wrong. It is common for judges to rule the defense is trying to bring up irrelevant issues. It happens all the time. It isn’t an automatic basis for appeal.
The Constitution doesn’t give the courts the right to rule on Obama’s eligibility. That role is given to Congress.
Dr. Reddenbacher!
Dr. Orville Reddenbacher, please pick up the white courtesy phone.
Lakin is not deciding the 2008 presidential election. He doesn't believe Obama is Constitutionally eligible to hold his office. Obama can dismiss him if he wants to. Please do that Obama. Please involuntary separate Lakin from the his Army service. Come on Obama. Give the separation order to the Army to release Lakin from duty.
Why isn't it that simple? I haven't looked at the order challenge procedural in many years but as I recall from Law School, ultimately, the officer has a right of review to the District Court.
This is the kind of case that could ultimately backfire on Obama. They ought to withdraw the order and dismiss this guy.
Seems to me his only vulnerability is his ability to front the cost of getting the evidence together and getting a decent lawyer to present his case and preserve his procedural right to get to a District Court.
A lot of this evidence is in files they managed to get orders sealing. And at one point, Orly was cooperative--is she still?
And of course there is downside risk generally if he gets this to a hearing on the merits and loses.
The fact that he has confidence in the lawyers running the show is not necessarily dispositive of issues regarding their adequacy.
It’s on.
Did all 50 states agree to put him on the ballot? Yes.
If the basis for their decision was fraud by Obama, then PROOF would be needed - and Congress would have to decide how to proceed. The courts don’t make that decision.
And an Army LTC certainly doesn’t make that decision, nor will he be allowed to go on a fishing expedition.
Obama has failed to prove his eligibility. This isn’t at question. Claiming is not the same as proving. All our members of the military and all real citizens of the United States deserve full disclosure and certifiable proof that the claims are truthful.
Obama’s political opponents have to prove his ineligibility and neither John McCain, Sarah Palin nor the Republican National Committee has legally challenged his eligibility nor have they filed an amicus brief in support of any eligibility lawsuit.
So at what point is the source of the order subject to challenge?
A soldier may challenge the order at any time, but s/he had better beware of the consequences:
"As this court observed and reemphasized in United States v Rockwood, 48 M.J. 501 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 1998):
An individual soldier is not free to ignore the lawful orders or duties assigned by his immediate superiors.
'For there would be an end of all discipline if the seamen and marines on board a ship of war [or soldiers deployed in the field], on a distant service, were permitted to act upon their own opinion of their rights [or their opinion of the Presidents and United Nations intent], and to throw off the authority of the commander whenever they supposed it to be unlawfully exercised.'Rockwood, 48 M.J. at 506 (quoting Dinsman v. Wilkes, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 390, 403, 13 L.Ed. 1036 (Dec. Term, 1851)) (emphasis added) (footnote omitted)."
No!!! They all assumed that Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party apparachniks vetted Obama's POTUS qualifications, and that assumotion has made an "ass" out of them all.
Now we find out that she and they knew that he was not Constitutionally-qualified and submitted affidavits concealing that fact and protecting themselves from perjury. Nowhere in those affidavits will you find them stating that Obama is a "natural born citizen" and thus qualified under the Consitution for the office he seeks.
Just because someone received the most electoral votes doesn't give him the right to office. The same Constitution that governs that election also governs the qualifications of those seeking elective office. They have to meet those qualifications and also be elected. Obama has not and you know it.
Try reading that Constitution that you took an oath to support and defend.
Well, I agree with you in one respect - no one can say how a judge will or won’t rule. It’s just a guess.
“Why isn’t it that simple?”
Because Obama’s eligibility isn’t up for review. The legality of the order will be assumed unless PROOF is offered to the contrary.
You can’t just say, “This order is illegal...now let me look for a reason why.”
2 million is easier to come up with than a BC
|
It isn’t his call. Bullsh!t. Yes it is. You DARE call yourself a Veteran, and seemingly know not the words DUTY and SACRIFICE. Lt Col Lakin took an Oath:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).NO WHERE in that Oath sworn to God himself, especially before the word "President", are the words:
|
“Now we find out that she and they knew that he was not Constitutionally-qualified and submitted affidavits concealing that fact...”
Evidence. Evidence that will stand up in court. Where is it?
Thank you. Great letter and it will be in the history books some day. (At least in TX) I agree 100%. They are making him NOT follow his Oath of Office and I dare them to prove otherwise.
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.