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Before the meeting was over, LTC Lakin’s Pentagon Access Pass had been revoked, and his laptop computer was set to be confiscated.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
You raise valid points. I do not know how successful he will be. My observation leads me to conclude that is a very smart man,who is moving forward having considered all possible outcomes.
” Matt Dillon will indeed be in the room”
He has my respect and admiration.
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?
-------------------------
LTC Lakin should display, for the court, the Naturalization Act of 1790 (which of course was repealed), (non binding) Senate resolution 511, and founder Ramsay's dissertation about citizenship...all referring to NBC as having citizen parents. The first Congress (Act of 1790) knew that an NBC was one who was born in country to citizen parents (plural), they tried to legislatively extend the definition to those born overseas (to citizen parents). Of course, Congress has no authority to legislatively define an NBC, yet...they also knew that it was ALWAYS about both parents being citizens.
Under the 20th amendment, it acknowledges a president may not have qualified for office by the beginning of his term. The act of being elected and certified by electors doesn't guarantee eligibility, especially when the choice of the electors can end in a tie and be broken by the House.
Welcome to the party. You were supposed to bring the chips and dip.
I disagree, but in the most agreeable manner. If I think a law is unconstitutional then it’s up to me to break the law and fight it out in court. It would not be really helpful if the sheriff declined to arrest me and was suspended or removed from office for failing to do his job. It is not good to take a situation where you are completely right and the other side is completely wrong, and turn it into a situation where there is right and wrong on both sides. It’s much easier to see a test case through the unbelievably contorted path of the courts if you keep it simple. One defendant, one charge. If you add the CO to the mix then we have to cough up money for TWO defense funds.
In theory you are quite correct. But in application additional defendants would make it more complicated.
Either way, I stand behind the Lt. Col. ready to help fund his defense and vote for him if he runs for an office where I have a vote!
It addresses McCain’s situation but from the perspective of the longstanding historical definition of natural born citizen that we Constitutionalists have and you don’t.
So at what point is the source of the order subject to challenge?
If Aunt Sadie orders him to deploy, it is not legal.
Are we saying if his superior received orders from Aunt Sadie, the order is valid?
Are we then saying that as long as there is an authority at least one step removed from the wrongful order, that the troops are protected from prosecution?
Are then saying that the only people to challenge the President’s authority is the Secretary of Defense, through whom all of Obama’s orders are conveyed?
Where is the right to challenge a usurper?
I don’t much like a rule that permits illegal orders to be made righteous through a sufficient number of steps in the chain of command.
If we have no redress through legal process, what are we, as a people, left with to remedy the situation?
Are we a banana republic?
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.
---------------------------------
Since we are (or, supposed to be) a Constitutional republic and NOT a "democracy", yes. It's thanks to this republic that "minorities" (of any kind) have a voice and have protections under the Constitution.
If the masses (i.e. majority) vote someone into office that isn't Constitutionally eligible, then they should be found ineligibly by the judiciary. From there, how they are removed (if they don't leave on their own free will) is up to law enforcement.
“Overturning the election”.
You make me want to puke.
0bama’s eligibility has never been ruled on.
The question is, why are you lying?
Yo do and you have to clean it up. lol
For the sake of discussion on this thread, I looked up the UCMJ regarding “lawful orders.” Here’s some of what I found.
(2) Disobeying superior commissioned officer.
(a) Lawfulness of the order.
(i) Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.
(ii) Authority of issuing officer. The commissioned officer issuing the order must have authority to give such an order. Authorization may be based on law, regulation, or custom of the service.
(iii) Relationship to military duty. The order must relate to military duty, which includes all activities reasonably necessary to accomplish a military mission, or safeguard or promote the morale, discipline, and usefulness of members of a command and directly connected with the maintenance of good order in the service. The order may not, without such a valid military purpose, interfere with private rights or personal affairs. However, the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order. Disobedience of an order which has for its sole object the attainment of some private end, or which is given for the sole purpose of in-creasing the penalty for an offense which it is expected the accused may commit, is not punishable under this article.
(iv) Relationship to statutory or constitutional rights. The order must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order.
(b) Personal nature of the order. The order must be directed specifically to the subordinate. Violations of regulations, standing orders or directives, or failure to perform previously established duties are not punishable under this article, but may violate Article 92.
(c) Form and transmission of the order. As long as the order is understandable, the form of the order is immaterial, as is the method by which it is transmitted to the accused.
(d) Specificity of the order. The order must be a specific mandate to do or not to do a specific act. An exhortation to “obey the law” or to perform one’s military duty does not constitute an order under this article.
(e) Knowledge. The accused must have actual knowledge of the order and of the fact that the person issuing the order was the accused’s superior commissioned officer. Actual knowledge may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
(f) Nature of the disobedience. “Willful disobedience” is an intentional defiance of authority. Failure to comply with an order through heedlessness, remissness, or forgetfulness is not a violation of this article but may violate Article 92.
(g) Time for compliance. When an order re-quires immediate compliance, an accused’s declared intent not to obey and the failure to make any move to comply constitutes disobedience. If an order does not indicate the time within which it is to be complied with, either expressly or by implication, then a reasonable delay in compliance does not violate this article. If an order requires performance in the future, an accused’s present statement of intention to disobey the order does not constitute disobedience of that order, although carrying out that intention may.
(3) Civilians and discharged prisoners. A discharged prisoner or other civilian subject to military law (see Article 2) and under the command of a commissioned officer is subject to the provisions of this article.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm90.htm
“If the masses (i.e. majority) vote someone into office that isn’t Constitutionally eligible, then they should be found ineligibly by the judiciary.”
Incorrect. Congress is responsible, not the judiciary.
George Washington would be turning in his grave if he knew this country had overturned the Constitution’s bedrock principle [that the civilian government controls the military, and not vice versa.] that only a natural born citizen is eligible to be President.
YEP -- these pretenders are duplicitous snakes who speaketh with a forked tongue.
Because they did not act doesn't mean Obama is qualified to be president. Another fallacious argument by you...something called 'Appeal or Argument To Authority' The opposition did not know for sure because of the lies by Obama and the lies by the Dims and their lame stream media enablers.
Carter was born in the US to parents who were citizens, there was no doubt about it.
If you don’t see the difference there’s no hope for you at all.
Under the 20th amendment, it acknowledges a president may not have qualified for office by the beginning of his term. The act of being elected and certified by electors doesn’t guarantee eligibility, especially when the choice of the electors can end in a tie and be broken by the House.
Now that you are here, I feel that I can leave the party w/o any qualms.............as long as you do not exceed your dosage. :-)
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.