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.)

[danamco]

No, NO, we can’t do that. You know BP2, because we are against those things tooooo you have mentioned here, that for sure also make us FReepers lookie stupid, right???

[BP2]

Unbelievable that you were compelled to reply to an obviously spurious contention.

We feel compelled to correct much of the misinformation you infiltrating Lefties put forth here and elsewhere on the Internet, such as:

— Mitt Romney is a good Conservative choice in 2012
— Sarah Palin’s negative numbers make it IMPOSSIBLE for her to win in 2012
— the GOP is the party of NO

And Obama-specific falsehoods like:

— if you disagree with Obama, you're definitely a RACIST
— Obama is pro-Capitalism and NOT a Socialist
— Obama is only trying to fix Bush's mess
— Obama has always been a Christian, and is one today
— Obama does not seek government-funded Abortions
— etc

And of course:

— Obama is a “natural-born citizen” because he's currently the president

[verity]

Why do you assume that anyone who disagrees with anything you propound is a Lefty?

As far as I am concerned, you and Obongo can rot in hell for eternity.

[BP2]

As far as I am concerned, you and Obongo can rot in hell for eternity.

Oooo, such venom. Do you touch your mama with those fingers? LOL.

Let me offer you a message of feign Peace, Hope and Love, paraphrased from none other than self-proclaimed Communist and former-White House Green Jobs Czar Van Jones:

To my fellow countryman, verity. I see you and I love you, brother. I love you and you cannot do anything about it. I love you and you cannot do anything about it. Let's be one country. Let's be one country. Let's get the job done.

[danamco]

And here's more "smoke" from another site:................

Roberts was the first Supreme Court Justice to swear in a president who voted against him (in 2005). And Roberts was the first Supreme Court Justice to swear in any single president in a single term, twice. Roberts and Obama were criticized for not flawlessly repeating the oath written in Article II Section 1 of the United States Constitution, and the Second Oath ostensibly was meant to avert criticism of the one-word diversion from the oath as set-forth in the Constitution.

The Article II Red Herring (“Look at *this *Article II concern)

Such apparent meticulous attention to Article II Section 1 of the Constitution provides cynical and stark contrast to what was really going on in the months prior to the inauguration oath taken by Barack Hussein Obama. As time-honed experience tells us, “We” should always be looking at the hand the Obama people are not pointing at. Obama visited with Justice Roberts specifically in his private chambers in a meeting closed to the public on January 14, 2009. Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden also met with the other Supreme Court members, in the Court’s ceremonial West Conference Room, just before his inauguration.

Obama and Biden, without the plaintiffs present, met with the very justices who were deciding a case which exacted that Barack Hussein Obama was a British Citizen at birth and thus ineligible to be president by, none other than, Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The case filed by Orly Taitz, which appeared, and then mysteriously after the Roberts-Obama meeting, *disappeared* from the Supreme Court dockets. Further, Roberts and the other eight justices had already held two ‘Distribution for Conferences’ on the Donofrio and Wrotnoski cases on Obama’s citizenship ineligibility.

For the first time in 16 years, a President-elect (Obama) and Vice President-elect (Biden) paid a pre-inaugural visit to the Supreme Court. Interestingly, Obama supporter Jeffrey Toobin’s analysis tries to avert attention from this pre-inauguration closed-door face-to-face meeting, when he writes that “Through intermediaries” the flow and pattern of the oath recitation was agreed to between Roberts and Obama. However, all evidence shows that Roberts and Obama themselves, two Harvard graduates with exquisite seasoned speaking abilities and didactic timing capabilities, decided the exact flow of their historic interchange, not “through intermediaries”.

Pictured: Defendant President Elect Barack Obama and Vice President Elect Joe Biden meet with Supreme Court Justices January 14, 2009, while several pending presidential eligibility cases were before the Court. Justice Alito chose to be absent. (c/o Change.gov)

Pictured: Defendant President Elect Barack Obama and Vice President Elect Joe Biden meet with Supreme Court Justices January 14, 2009, while several pending presidential eligibility cases were before the Court. Justice Alito chose to be absent. (c/o Change.gov)

All evidence points to highly unethical and untoward and impeachable behavior and breach of fiduciary duty and treason by both Roberts and Obama and other Supreme Court justices, meeting while a case was pending absent the presence of plaintiffs. The probability is high that the “flub of oath” was anything but a mistake and that the secretive Second Oath had only to do with constructing a feigned, artificial nod to the absolute requirements of and respect for Article II Section 1 of the Constitution. The publicized meeting between Roberts and Obama January 14, 2009, was a slap in the face of judicial balance. The Citizen Journalist asks the questions the media will not touch

Where is the Official White House recognition of what was said during the Second Oath? The Inaugural Oath is a verbal contract with America, and of critical import, and We The People deserve to know in official printed testimony format, not a grainy smuggled non-attributed version exactly what was spoken. We deserve to know why the Supreme Court has so cynically faulted at its post, and faltered at its obligations to the American people and The Constitution. In light of the sum total breach of fiduciary obligations to America, the diversionary Article II Red Herring “fishy” unofficial Second Oath does not inspire any confidence in the fiduciary obligation of either the Supreme Court or of Mr. Obama, to the Constitution. At this point all we can see is that Mr. Obama is indeed working to “execute” the office of the president. According to the dictionary, the verb “execute” has the following meanings:

Main Entry: *ex·e·cute*

Pronunciation: \ˈek-si-ˌkyüt\

Function: *verb*

Inflected Form(s): *ex·e·cut·ed*; *ex·e·cut·ing*

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French *executer,* from *execucion*execution

Date: 14th century

*transitive verb*

1: to carry out fully: put completely into effect 2: to do what is provided or required by 3: to put to death especially in compliance with a legal sentence 4: to make or produce (as a work of art) especially by carrying out a design

[reasonisfaith]

“Yes, it’s obvious that YOU and the other Obama supporters here DO NOT KNOW his true Eligibility status, which is why your position is so incredibly weak.”

This is an excellent summary—a summary explaining the most important fact that can be derived from all the comments ever posted on this issue by N-S and the rest of them.

(N-S, you really could have saved yourself a lot of time.)

[Pilsner]

Are you NOW saying that Roberts and the other Justices have ACTUALLY SEEN a certified copy of Obama's ORIGINAL birth certificate,

Come on BP2. If you are going to play the "are you saying game" and make up something I've clearly not implied, much less said, you can do better than that.

In answer to your question, I'm saying that its not any court's call to make, so it doesn't matter what they have seen, or will see in the future.

[Pilsner]

So I take is OK with you that our nation is run besides the rules of the Constitution?

Is it OK with you if the Army starts to decide for us who is President? That is, after all, what LTC Lakin wants. What Art. of the Constitution provides for that?

I

[Mr Rogers]

“Oh yeah, they are asking the United States Army to declare that the guy the Chief Justice swore in, on 20 January 2009, isn’t really President, and that the Army doesn’t have to follow his orders.”

Can you imagine the Court Martial Board returning and saying, “We determine that Obama is an impostor, and that there have been no legal military orders since 20 Jan 2009 - including the order that formed this Board. So we aren’t going to write anything, lacking the authority to be here, and not existing as a legal Board, and are just going to go home and wait to see what happens...”

Seems a bit unlikely for an outcome, doesn’t it! But that is the outcome Lakin has staked his career on.

[Pilsner]

Global Warming is revealed now to be a fraud,

Yes. And I'll admit that it is within the realm of possibility that BO was born in Kenya, Canada, in international waters, on a foreign flagged ship, or some other place where he would not be a natural born citizen. But Birthers can never get their head around the very simple fact that, even if they did have a case, the only place to make it is Congress.

Congress is a Court, with the power to hear evidence, determine the facts, and render a verdict from which there is no appeal -- at least when it comes to impeachment. Congress is also the sole Court with the power to impeach Federal officials, so you can't get any other Court to act.

Birther lawsuits about Obama are exactly like appealing to David Stern to increase, or decrease, the suspension of Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger. Birthers can never grasp the fact that David Stern is the NBA Commissioner, not the NFL Commissioner, and he doesn't get to rule on suspensions of NFL players.

So it doesn't matter how persuasive you think your pitch to Stern is. Or how often you make it. Or a anything else. It won't work. If you want Big Ben to get more, or less, punishment, you gotta go the guy who makes that call, Roger Goddell, the NFL Commissioner. Same with BO and Birthers. You gotta go to Congress. If you don't like Congress's action, or lack thereof, then you can work to elect a different Congress, but you can't run to Court and get a Judge to do what you want, any more than you can run to David Stern if you don't like what Roger Godell does to Roethlisberger.

[BP2]

Well we’ll see who’s proved right in the end; professionally trained military lawyers

Yes, the JAG will undoubted attempt to represent the Army's interests and protect the "OFFICE of the President of the United States."

But the fact is that — JUST LIKE YOU Non-Sequitur — the Army will also have a difficult time arguing your position separating Lt Col Lakin's deployment orders and his CinC’s Military Directives ... the SAME CinC that Lt Col Lakin’s attorneys will argue is de facto.

For example, when 2d Lt Henry Howe appealed his charges against the President in 1965, the Army Board of Review recognized the disciplinary domino theory in the military the Chain of Command. The Board's findings naturally concluded that since Effectiveness of the Army depends on Discipline, and Discipline involves Obedience and Respect towards one’s superiors, it is naturally assumed that the Discipline, Obedience and COMMAND AUTHORITY is directly connected to a soldier's ultimate superior, the Commander-in-Chief:

His relationship as an officer to the President, the highest source of military command authority, in this regard is significantly the same as his relationship to his superior officer - in both instances, respect is required and demanded.

Again, this is both cultural norm and codified reality, published over and over DoD black and white.

Non-Sequitur, we know that you and the other Obama defenders here don't like it.

We know that it must pain you — on a DEEPLY personal level — that it is NOT Lt Col Lakin ordering himself to deploy, nor is it his Commanding Officer, General Casey, or even Secretary Gates that is deploying our Armed Forces to CAPTURE and KILL Islamic militants in Iraq and Afghanistan ...

It is BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA who would be defined on any orders starting with the phrase “By order of the President of the United States”.

These are Obama’s wars against the Muslims. He delayed those deployment order for months last Fall, but now the Army is pushing forward with those deployment directives from the CinC ... AS ORDERED.

That's how we here can firmly assert that your "pretty much" "opinion" is as worthless as a promise from Obama himself ... and the validity of any military orders he may pass down to officers and enlisted alike.

[Jim Noble]

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.

This argument was extensively discussed before the General Election of 2008, before the Electoral College met, and was well-known at the time the Special Joint Session, under the chairmanship of Richard Cheney of Wyoming met and, without objection, certified the election of the person who calls himself "Barack Hussein Obama".

It is precisely because the People have already disposed of this argument, once directly and twice through representatives, that no court now can or should touch it with a ten foot pole.

[SeaHawkFan]

The problem for Lakin is that he was counseled prior to disobeying his orders (and missing his movement) that his orders were presumptively lawful.

Who did the 'counseling'?

[SeaHawkFan]

As long as those who are committing treason against the Constitution do not fear the people, they are not do anything different.

Even Thomas Jefferson stated that the Tree of Liberty would need occasional fertilizing by the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Are you saying there are no circumstances in which you would take up arms against tyranny?

[Red Steel]

It is precisely because the People have already disposed of this argument, once directly and twice through representatives, that no court now can or should touch it with a ten foot pole.

I wouldn't be so sure about that in the near future.

[SeaHawkFan]

Lakin is not asking the Army to decide who is President. He will be asking the court martial board to find him not guilty of the charges for the reason that Obama is not constitutionally qualified for the office of President of the United States. What the civilian authorities might do if he is acquitted in not up to the Army; nor should it be.

Lakin is on trial and U.S. Army must prove he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If they cannot do so, it has no legal effect on whether Obama is the legitimate PResident even if it would make for very interesting commentary by the news media and congress members.

[BP2]

> This argument was ... was well-known at the time the Special Joint Session, under the chairmanship
> of Richard Cheney of Wyoming met and, without objection, certified the election of the person who
> calls himself “Barack Hussein Obama”.

> It is precisely because the People have already disposed of this argument, once directly and twice
> through representatives, that no court now can or should touch it with a ten foot pole.

Not to be terribly rude, but please check you shoes. I think you just stepped into something stinky.

Many people falsely assume that Dick Cheney called for objections that day when Hope and Change exuberantly erupted from the Senate Floor on January 8, 2009. He did NOT.

And the Dems were too busy patting themselves on the back — salivating over the evil they had planned for America — to even notice that the established chamber protocol of calling for Objections upon formal votes was breached that day. Obama had the legal sense to ask for a do-over on January 21 for his botched Inauguration Day Oath; the Senate, however, did NOT fix their January 8th error.

I submit the following from the archives. First, listen to the rules as set forth by Cheney in the first 90 seconds, then jump forward on the video to 26 minutes once the states are counted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcGt8hQZzg4&feature=related

The REQUIREMENT for the Calling of Objections is codified HERE:

3 USC Sec. 15 01/03/2007
TITLE 3 - THE PRESIDENT CHAPTER 1 - PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES
Sec. 15. Counting electoral votes in Congress

"Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections" (emphasis added)

Furthermore, if Electoral College delegates accepted on face value that Obama is a "natural-born Citizen" based off "proof" they collectively viewed on their freaking computer monitors ...

... then they were bamboozled like many of the other passive sheep in 2008. Those EC delegates deserve to be smacked in the arse — for their incompetence and dereliction to their Constitutional duty — by that same ten foot poll for letting this happen without exercising a scintilla of DUE DILIGENCE.

[OldDeckHand]

"Who did the 'counseling'? "

I don't know who specifically signed the counseling sheet. I'm not completely familiar with Army regs (different branch of service), but I would guess that it was handled by his immediate superior or unit commander, perhaps both. If Army regs are similar to Navy regs in this regard (and I'd wager that they are), they'll require the person receiving the counseling to sign the form as well. Refusal to sign would be an additional charge, and since it's not on the charge sheet publicly available, I presume he signed it.

[Seizethecarp]

I found this interesting link/post when I searched “UCMJ discovery”. It seems to this non-lawyer that discovery of Obama’s HI vital records would potentially both be exculpatory for Lakin and impeaching for Obama’s CIC status. My reading of the UCMJ post below is that it might even be the duty of the prosecution to obtain Obama’s vital records.

It also seems to me that the military court is duty bound to act under the presumption that Obama’s HI vital records will conform to his representations, and under that presumption Obama would have nothing to hide, as an honorable CIC sworn to uphold the Constitution, and would have no basis to obstruct a request from the court directly to HI Vital Records.

Obama does not have the DOJ obstructing discovery in a court-martial. HI statutes authorize HI DOH to release Obama’s vital records to any proper court request, if I remember correctly.

http://court-martial-ucmj.com/discovery/discovery/

Discovery
December 31, 2009

Discovery obligations apply to court-martial motions practice, for example when there is to be a suppression hearing.

The government has a mandatory duty to disclose evidence in its possession that is favorable to the defense, “either because it was exculpatory or of impeachment value . . . .” . The government breaches the duty established by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny, including Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), when it withholds such evidence, either willfully or inadvertently, and the withheld evidence is found to be “material.” Id. In the context of non-disclosed impeachment evidence, materiality is assessed in terms of whether the reliability of the witness in question may well be determinative of the outcome of the proceedings. See Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987). That is, the evidence must be such that “there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985)). Stated otherwise, “the relevant question is: ‘when viewed as a whole and in light of the substance of the prosecution’s case, did the government’s failure to provide . . . [the] Brady impeachment evidence to the defense . . . lead to an untrustworthy [result]. . . .” (some citations omitted).

United States v. Best, No._________, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119802, at *19–20 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 23, 2009).

“Mandatory duty” is what I usually refer to as a self-executing duty that does not require the defense to make a discovery request. Trial counsel at court-martial sometimes state that they didn’t (or don’t) have to give “Brady” discovery until there’s a defense request, or until the MJ has arraigned and docketed. Not so. Also, it is my view that the prosecution has an affirmative obligation to seek out Brady-plus discovery.

Best stands for the proposition that Brady and impeachment evidence should be disclosed prior to a suppression hearing if the information relates to a prosecution witness who will be testifying.

[OldDeckHand]

"Lakin is on trial and U.S. Army must prove he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. "

Right. But remember, in a military court of law, the orders are presumptively legal. The burden of proof with respect to the lawfulness of his orders, falls to the defendant see: United States v. Smith, 21 U.S.C.M.A. 231, 45 C.M.R. 5 (1972).

Moreover, the lawfulness of the order is a matter of law to be decided by the military judge, not the jury panel. The judge will instruct the jury panel that the orders were indeed lawful, and they will never hear Barack Obama's name mentioned, and certainly there will be no mention of his alleged ineligibility to hold office.

The prosecution will establish that Lakin missed movement by entering into evidence his deployment orders as well as testimony from superior officers that Lakin didn't deploy. That's the ballgame.