LTC Lakin Formally Charged (Violation of UCMJ Articles 87 & 92)

American Patriot Foundation ^ | 04/22/2010

[BuckeyeTexan]

Lieutenant Colonel Terrence L. Lakin was charged today with four violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Articles 87 and 92.

(Chargesheet at the link in PDF format.)

[Red Steel]

And if the JAG even insinuates it during the Court Martial hearings, Lakin’s attorneys will rightfully jump on it and readily discredit the Army for acting in a partisan and political manner.

I see this question has been hit out of the universe. It was a baseball the size of a beach ball hitting a bat which could not miss.

[Red Steel]

Blago very likely has Obama’s ass in a sling.

[BP2]

> It’s even sadder to see all these people carrying on about discovery
> when some of us know quite well there’s not a snowball’s chance in the hot place.

If FR were around in ‘74, I'm sure Nixon's supporters would have posted a similar sentiment,
even AFTER the SCOTUS ordered him to turn over the evidence.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Show me exactly where I ever suggested, not where I was the first to suggest, but where I ever suggested that Lakin's actions were driven by his political agenda.

In fact, you can't show me that because I never suggested it. Not on this thread or any other.

I have always maintained that his actions are misguided because he was duped by some birther Internet rumors that he cited in his article on American Thinker. If I thought he seriously had a political agenda, I'd rip him apart (in a vanity thread, a personal letter to him through safeguardourconstitution.com, and as many op-eds as I could get published) for dishonoring conservatives, himself and his fellow soldiers who risk all for us.

Twice on this thread (#139 & #169) you have said that this case is unfolding exactly as it was intended. You're the one with the political agenda because you think this whole affair is productive and necessary.

It isn't necessary or productive. It's just tragic.

[Pilsner]

And the US Army would not be the "final arbitrator" that would be the people of the United States to whether Obama is a lawful or an unlawful president.

Entirely correct. (One seldom gets gets to use that phrase when addressing a Birther.) And just how do the "people of the United States" express their opinion? Through the actions of the Congress of the United States -- not through the United States Army. Birthers can chase their tail around that fact until they drop, but they are never going to catch it.

Oh, and if the orders deploying LTC Lakin are void, 'cause BO is President, then the orders convening the General Court Martial of LTC Lakin are void, 'cause BO is President. And what jurisdiction does a "court martial" not convened by a lawful order of a competent authority have? None.

For Birthers, the half full part of that glass is that LTC will have a (specious) ground to file a writ of habeas corpus challenging his confinement. The half empty part is that a void court martial doesn't have any jurisdiction at all, much less the jurisdiction to remove the President of the United States from office.

[Pilsner]

(Re discovery) I'm sure Nixon's supporters would have posted a similar sentiment, even AFTER the SCOTUS ordered him to turn over the evidence.

Actually, the Congress of the United States has the absolute authority to engage in discovery, if it is contemplating impeaching BO for not being a natural born citizen, as it is the government body charged under the Constitution with the exclusive authority to remove the President from office. The fact that Congress is not contemplating removing BO from office does not transfer that exclusive authority anywhere else.

[little jeremiah]

Best comment of the day and it’s only noon! (here, anyway)

[Red Steel]

And just how do the "people of the United States" express their opinion? Through the actions of the Congress of the United States -- not through the United States Army. Birthers can chase their tail around that fact until they drop, but they are never going to catch it.

It was a failure of the public being uninformed by the leadership and the media of this country that Barack Obama is not qualified for office. They just flat out lied to the public or they lied my omission. It is you Afer-Birthers who are trying to keep the truth from being aired in an honest and public forum. The United States can correct the wrong of Barack Obama being elected as an unconstitutinal president. It is not too late for that or will it ever be too late to challenge the laws signed by the usurper as unconstitutional.

Oh, and if the orders deploying LTC Lakin are void, 'cause BO is President, then the orders convening the General Court Martial of LTC Lakin are void, 'cause BO is President. And what jurisdiction does a "court martial" not convened by a lawful order of a competent authority have? None.

You are getting slightly warmer...but hey, keep up your impossible reasoning argument it is you.

For Birthers, the half full part of that glass is that LTC will have a (specious) ground to file a writ of habeas corpus challenging his confinement. The half empty part is that a void court martial doesn't have any jurisdiction at all, much less the jurisdiction to remove the President of the United States from office.

How can Lakin be confined? He hasn't been convicted of anything yet which is followed by sentencing. LoL! Oh, Lakin will have grounds to file a civil suit if he does not get satisfaction because the military court did not allow him to address the heart of the contentious issue.

[Non-Sequitur]

The result will depend on the Military Judges and their views of the role of the constitution. If they believe in the constitution as supreme law they sould allow Lakin discovery.

I'm sure the military judge will take their jobs seriously, and no doubt are aware of the Constitution. I'm equally sure that if LCOL Lakin and his team try a defense along the lines of your argument then they will be laughed out of court.

[bushpilot1]

Why did Congress pass court martial authority to the executive? Was it to help the President control the military by following orders. I submit all orders originate from the President via his authorized representatives...from the corporal, sergeant, staff sergeant, senior NCO’s and officers in the chain of command.

If there is no court martial a staff sergeant really does not have much power, that power comes from the President given to him by the Congress.

[Exmil_UK]

If a judge can invent the “doctrine of standing” out of thin air in 1923, then a panel of military judges can defend the constitution in 2010 and help enforce article II.

Really your arguement is the same as Judge Carter’s:

Statute Law and arcane procedure top the constitution.

I believe the constitution gave Carter the power to challenge Obama directly, and petty tricks and traps like the progressives love to pull be damned.

[Mr Rogers]

“It was a failure of the public being uninformed by the leadership and the media of this country that Barack Obama is not qualified for office.”

Good point! John McCain, Sarah Palin, Rush, Ann Coulter, the GOP, 50 states, the voters - none of them knew that Obama’s father wasn’t a citizen of the US...

“Oh, Lakin will have grounds to file a civil suit if he does not get satisfaction because the military court did not allow him to address the heart of the contentious issue.”

I suspect you have Lakin convinced of that. I don’t think he’ll get far in court, but if he gets a Federal Court to allow him to demand Obama’s long form birth certificate and passport records, freepmail me and I’ll send you a half dozen bottles of Arrogant Bastard Ale.

http://www.stonebrew.com/arrogantbastard/

[BP2]

> Actually, the Congress of the United States has the absolute authority to engage in discovery

As I've pointed out many times here, Congress has attempted to (re)define “natural-born Citizen” nearly 30 times in the last 140 years. ALL attempts at such legislation or proposed Constitutional Amendments have FAILED to even get out of Committee — ALL Bills, every one, every time.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi did not even let the GOP participate in any of their closed-door ObamaCare meetings. Their is no fair-mindedness with them, regardless of what evidence they would find if they even cared to look.

Conversely, if the GOP wins handily in November as expected, not only will they work to de-fund ObamaCare and unwind his agenda ... they will also want Political Blood, similar to what we saw unfold in the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky hearings.

As much as the SCOTUS may eschew Political Question, especially after Bush v. Gore, part of their charter is to RULE on issues of national Controversy.

It's their Constitutional duty, and why this is often referred to as a Constitutional crisis.

> The fact that Congress is not contemplating removing BO from office
> does not transfer that exclusive authority anywhere else.

The Federal Court system would not be exercising “exclusive authority” of their own accord if they had to write such an unsavory opinion. The Judicial branch would simply be acting on a Ruling originating from a lower court Appeal in upholding the Constitution.

And in such historical rarities that the Legislative and Executive branches share overwhelming political power (and partisanship), it just goes to show the wisdom of our Framers in giving us THREE branches of government ... instead of just TWO.

[Red Steel]

Good point! John McCain, Sarah Palin, Rush, Ann Coulter, the GOP, 50 states, the voters - none of them knew that Obama’s father wasn’t a citizen of the US...

Pointing out people's failures in the media or other public officials who have not taken up the eligibility issue doesn't make your argument. However, Palin during the presidential campaign wanted to go after Obama's Communist and hidden background but McCain and his numbnuts told her no. Rush does bring up Obama's eligiblity issue every once in a while. He may not press the point but he keeps informed about it. Coulter may be coming around in her latest comment, and her making money came first so she could go on liberal news shows to hawk her latest book. Coulter feared she could be black balled by the press who she used as advertisement.

I suspect you have Lakin convinced of that. I don’t think he’ll get far in court, but if he gets a Federal Court to allow him to demand Obama’s long form birth certificate and passport records, freepmail me and I’ll send you a half dozen bottles of Arrogant Bastard Ale.

You don't think Lakin hasn't already thought out a wrongful dismissal in a civil suit against the government? I'm sure he has; it is logical forward thinking.

No thanks. You can keep the "Arrogant Bastard Ale" to suck in with your face. More for you.

[Mr Rogers]

“Pointing out people’s failures in the media or other public officials who have not taken up the eligibility issue doesn’t make your argument.”

It doesn’t prove it, but it makes it much more likely. The idea that Coulter or Rush fears Obama is just silly. Palin wanted to go after Obama’s socialist tendencies, but she has NEVER said that Obama’s father makes Obama ineligible. She has never even hinted that!

When you cannot convince a single person of influence or power that your argument has merit, you’ve got a problem. Either everybody is a sell-out, or your argument is flawed. If the former, then the only hope for change is violence. If the latter, then a change of arguments or tactics is called for. I vote option two.

[BP2]

> Good point! John McCain, Sarah Palin, Rush, Ann Coulter, the GOP,
> 50 states, the voters - none of them knew that Obama’s father wasn’t a citizen of the US...

>> Pointing out people's failures in the media or other public officials who
>> have not taken up the eligibility issue doesn't make your argument.

How many years was it legal to restrict a citizen's right “to keep and bear arms” before the SCOTUS settled it (2008)?

How many years was it legal to prevent women from voting until is was finally settled by the 19th Amendment (1920)?

How many years was it legal to OWN and ENSLAVE a man until it was finally settled by the 14th Amendment (1868)?

Just because some people may not have the Political Will to do what's right,
it doesn't mean the Constitution can be ignored. NO man is above the law, especially the King.

At some point in the very near future, Obama’s Eligibility problem will — and MUST — be resolved.

[Red Steel]

It doesn’t prove it, but it makes it much more likely. The idea that Coulter or Rush fears Obama is just silly. !

I didn't say they feared Obama, although, they may fear overwhelming ridicule which is real that tempered their tongues. And it is a fallacy that you think the issue is not correct or because they didn't talk about Obama not being qualified for office is silly.

Palin wanted to go after Obama’s socialist tendencies, but she has NEVER said that Obama’s father makes Obama ineligible. She has never even hinted that!

Palin has more than hinted. She has said questioning about Obama background is fair game.

When you cannot convince a single person of influence or power that your argument has merit, you’ve got a problem.

Gee, you are full of nonsense. You keep on saying to youself that it never will happen. We will see about that. The argument has merit.

Either everybody is a sell-out, or your argument is flawed. If the former, then the only hope for change is violence. If the latter, then a change of arguments or tactics is called for. I vote option two.

Your are the sell out. As for "everyone else" that remains to be seen Mr. 'No Option' who drinks Obot, Jim Jones grape juice.

[Red Steel]

Great post BP. :-)

[Mr Rogers]

“How many years was it legal to restrict a citizen’s right “to keep and bear arms” before the SCOTUS settled it (2008)?”

It still isn’t settled. Arizona will be (in Aug) only the 3rd state to allow concealed carry without a permit. The idea that a permit should be required for concealed carry is contrary to the Constitution - much more plainly than the meaning of NBC - yet 47 states are opposed, and the Supreme Court wouldn’t even consider legalizing concealed carry without a permit in all 50 states.

You win political fights at the ballot box, not by filing cases in Court.

“How many years was it legal to prevent women from voting until is was finally settled by the 19th Amendment (1920)?”

Legal. Not a court in the country would overturn it until the Constitution was amended. The Obama father thing could be settled much easier - just get ONE state to enact a law interpreting NBC as forbidding a run by someone with a foreigner for a father.

If you cannot do that, then there just isn’t the political will - and you won’t win the argument in court.

“How many years was it legal to OWN and ENSLAVE a man until it was finally settled by the 14th Amendment (1868)?”

So feel free to pass a Constitutional amendment requiring Presidential candidates to be born of 2 US citizens. Or two folks born in the US, or whatever - pass a Constitutional amendment. Won’t happen. Right now, you can’t get one state to back you, let alone enough to amend the Constitution to add a definition.

“At some point in the very near future, Obama’s Eligibility problem will — and MUST — be resolved.”

It has been. He is President. Short of proof that he was born in Kenya, or had previously renounced his citizenship, it is a done deal.

If you want to stop Obama, look to the ballot box.

https://www.jdforsenate.com/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=1

[Mr Rogers]

“She has said questioning about Obama background is fair game.”

And you think THAT is the equivalent of saying that Obama is ineligible for President because his father was a foreigner?