DECORATED ARMY DOCTOR LTC TERRY LAKIN WAIVES PRELIMINARY HEARING

safeguardourconstitution ^ | 6/10/2010 | American Patriot Foundation

[rxsid]

"DECORATED ARMY DOCTOR LTC TERRY LAKIN WAIVES PRELIMINARY HEARING AND ANNOUNCES NEW YOUTUBE VIDEO

HEARING WILL NOT PROCEED ON JUNE 11, 2010

Washington, D.C., June 9, 2010. Saying that the Army has made it “impossible for me to present a defense” at the Article 32 “preliminary hearing” previously scheduled for June 11, 2010, Lt. Colonel Terrence Lakin has officially waived –cancelled—that proceeding. Therefore, the case will move inexorably on to a General Court Martial. The punishment for the charges filed against LTC Lakin carry a maximum term of four years in the penitentiary. Lakin expects the trial to be held in the early fall, but this has yet to be determined. The next step will be the formal referral of the charges by Lakin’s Commanding General, Major General Carla Hawley-Bowland, followed by his arraignment before a Military Judge, both of which are expected before the end of June.

Lakin, through his legal defense team, requested the testimony of Dr. Chiyome Fukino of the Hawaii Dept. of Health, and all of that agency’s records that exist concerning the president’s birth. Lakin had also requested the testimony of the custodians of records of, and the records relating to Obama’s admission and financial aid that exist, of the Punahou School, Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School. All these requests were also summarily denied, leaving Lakin without any ability to mount a defense at the hearing. However, in that this hearing was preliminary in nature in the first place, Lakin will renew his requests to the Military Judge at the appropriate time.

Lakin also released a new 5-minute video on Youtube explaining why he believes there are reasonable arguments that President Obama is Constitutionally ineligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief. The video can be viewed at http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/video2.html.

The video is being released under the auspices of the American Patriot Foundation, a non-profit group incorporated in 2003 to foster appreciation and respect for the U.S. Constitution, in the one month since establishing a fund to provide a legal defense to LTC Lakin, has received generous donations from more than 1,200 separate individuals. Further details are available on the Foundation’s website, www.safeguardourconstitution.com. "

From: http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/news/press-release-june-2010.html

[El Gato]

Not hardly, you said.

I think the military goes out of its way to desexualize the work environment for purposes of national security.

If that were the case, men's uniforms wouldn't look good on men either. Mostly they do.

[zeebee]

IMO, Lakin and his civilian attorney seek to get his cause to SCOTUS

Can a military trial be appealed to the SCOTUS?

[BP2]

I agree with your synopsis of the Watada case, but the MJ ruled that the question could NOT be resolved within the military justice system, saying Watada’s argument was thus reduced to an admission of guilt.

The same argument exists for Lt Col Lakin, as summed up in Orloff v. Willoughby, supra, at 345 U. S. 93-94:

“[J]udges are not given the task of running the Army. The responsibility for setting up channels through which ... grievances can be considered and fairly settled rests upon the Congress and upon the President of the United States and his subordinates. The military constitutes a specialized community governed by a separate discipline from that of the civilian. Orderly government requires that the judiciary be as scrupulous not to interfere with legitimate Army matters as the Army must be scrupulous not to intervene in judicial matters.”

And yet ... the Executive interfered with the Judicial branch in dealing with a matter PUSHED by the Executive branch from the previous Administration. This is a rare instance where Political Question has been breached BY the Executive Branch in a Court of Law. And there ARE consequences for this.

The motivation for Watada’s dismissal was CLEARLY political, driven by the anti-war constituency that elevated B. Hussein Obama to the presidency.

At the time, Obama was still somewhat popular and he felt he could do whatever he wanted to pay back his supporters. His first significant drop in public approval did not occur until early July 2009.

However, Obama’s sloppy Justice Dept dealings to appease the peaceniks have SET A PRECEDENCE:

It's “okay” for an Army officer to REFUSE Deployment orders if he feels morally justified to do so.

[BP2]

> Can a military trial be appealed to the SCOTUS?

Yes.

There are many avenues, but this is the most obvious [UCMJ Article 67(a)]:

(a) Decisions of the Unites States Court of Military Appeals are subject to review
by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari as provided in section 1259 of title 28.

[danamco]

Moreover Dan Blather tried to falsify his papers like they have now done with a false “B.C.”!!!

[jamese777]

If that were the case, men’s uniforms wouldn’t look good on men either. Mostly they do.

---

I’ll leave that critique to you. I don’t pay attention to whether men look good or not.

[bushpilot1]

You moron. Looking Good is an Army tradition. The words are in marching and running songs.

Standing tall..looking good..oughta be in Hollywood is one example.

It is an honor to have a soldiers DA photo selected by the Post photographer and posted near the changing room as an example for other soldiers to view and possibly correct their uniform.

[Spaulding]

Thanks Bushpilot. The organization of the body of knowledge pertaining to the framer's intent is getting better and better. Most of us know the disruptors. They are probably not worth engaging because they will come back again, attempting to bury the truth in details, often responding like tag-teams, to each other. We have a tendency to talk about new discoveries, leaving newcomers searching for some truth given the lamentable irrelevancy of state-run media, wondering about some things we know. Illuminating one theme is a great idea.

Bob Bauer and his colleagues are professional at obscuring the facts they can't deal with - misdirecting the jury, which in this case consists of ‘we the people’. Free Republic, with its enormous readership, can inform by following your example. Short quotations, by framers if possible.

[Non-Sequitur]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,

So you would destroy it in order to save it, like I said.

[Non-Sequitur]

However, I'm happy to see that Learning has occurred — you FINALLY admit that Lakin's Deployment Orders did NOT come from Lakin's commander, Col. Gordon Roberts.

But Lakin's orders did. And those are the ones he's charged with disobeying.

And yet ... B. Hussein Obama himself SET PRECEDENCE by interfering with the 9th Circuit to get Watada’s case for REFUSING to abide by Deployment Orders DISMISSED.

And I will state for the record that Watada was wrong. That like Lakin he was guilty of refusing to obey the orders of his commanding officer, and like Lakin deserved to be court martialed. And that like Lakin he deserved to be stripped of his rank and dismissed from the Army as unfit to server. Are you willing to state for the record that Watada was right to refuse to obey his commanding officer if he felt they were illegal and that he shouldn't have been tried? Or are you saying that you agree with Obama that the case shouldn't have been tried in the first place and that the appeal should be dismissed? Is that what you are telling us?

[BP2]

> However, I'm happy to see that Learning has occurred — you FINALLY admit that
> Lakin’s Deployment Orders did NOT come from Lakin’s commander, Col. Gordon Roberts.

>> But Lakin’s orders did. And those are the ones he's charged with disobeying.

I'm sure Col. Gordon Roberts is a fine man, but nobody in Congress knows who the hell he is. How could THEY approve a Deployment ordered by a “lowly” O-6? An O-6 does not have the authority to Command the Armed Forces.

> And yet ... B. Hussein Obama himself SET PRECEDENCE by interfering with the 9th Circuit
> to get Watada’s case for REFUSING to abide by Deployment Orders DISMISSED.

>> And I will state for the record that Watada was wrong. That like Lakin he was guilty of refusing to
>> obey the orders of his commanding officer, and like Lakin deserved to be court martialed. And that like
>> Lakin he deserved to be stripped of his rank and dismissed from the Army as unfit to server. Are you willing
>> to state for the record that Watada was right to refuse to obey his commanding officer if he felt they were
>> illegal and that he shouldn't have been tried? Or are you saying that you agree with Obama that the case shouldn't
>> have been tried in the first place and that the appeal should be dismissed? Is that what you are telling us?

My personal feelings are that Watada should be in Ft Leavenworth doing hard time, making big rocks into little rocks.

But neither you nor I have the power of the Justice Department to influence a panel of judges, SETTING PRECEDENCE along the way for other military officers who Refuse Movement, REGARDLESS of the reason.

However, B. Hussein Obama, as the acting-CinC, does have the power to influence a panel of judges. Obama (ab)used his authority already in May 2009 with Lt Watada's case, and NOT as an Executive "pardon", but by working THROUGH the Justice Department's attorneys.

Although Congress did not write the UCMJ until 1950, the Court Martial is older than the Constitution itself! However, JUST as with Lt Watada, Lakin’s “constitutional question” CANNOT be resolved within the military justice system.

And JUST as with Lt Watada’s case, where the military judge ruled that Watada’s argument was reduced to an admission of guilt, Lt Col Lakin is — by design — ALREADY Guilty under the UCMJ. He will NOT have a “fair” trial, at least as “fair” might be defined in a Civilian court.

As the 9th Circuit discussed in CHAPPELL V. WALLACE, 462 U. S. 296 (1983):

Many of the Framers of the Constitution had recently experienced the rigors of military life, and were well aware of the differences between it and civilian life. In drafting the Constitution, they anticipated the kinds of issues raised in this case. Their response was an explicit grant of plenary authority to Congress “To raise and support Armies”; “To provide and maintain a Navy”; and “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” Art. I, § 8, cls. 12-14. It is clear that the Constitution contemplated that the Legislative Branch have plenary control over rights, duties, and responsibilities in the framework of the Military Establishment, including regulations, procedures, and remedies related to military discipline; and Congress and the courts have acted in conformity with that view.

[El Sordo]

Silly, silly, silly.

[Non-Sequitur]

I'm sure Col. Gordon Roberts is a fine man, but nobody in Congress knows who the hell he is.

The order to Lakin came from Colonel Roberts. It is that order that Lakin is charged with disobeying, not that of Gates or Obama or anyone else in the chain of command. It is that order that Lakin has to show is unlawful. The originating individual is irrelevant. As I have said on many occasions, Obama could be exposed and removed from office tomorrow, and Lakin would still be guilty of missing movement and of disobeying the order of his brigade commander. Any satisfaction Lakin may get from seeing Obama exposed and removed from office may not outweigh the cost of the court martial conviction, the cashiering, and the possible prison time.

My personal feelings are that Watada should be in Ft Leavenworth doing hard time, making big rocks into little rocks.

Why? Where is his position any different from Lakin's According to him the war was illegal. According to you he is within his rights to question the legitimacy of his orders on those grounds and to have his questions answered before having to obey the orders he believed were unlawful. It is hypocritical of you to take any position other than full blown support of Watada and complete approval of Obama's actions at quashing the appeal.

[BP2]

> Silly, silly, silly.

When you have something important and
intelligent to add, please let us know.

Until then, enjoy the view.

[El Sordo]

Such silliness.

[jamese777]

You moron. Looking Good is an Army tradition. The words are in marching and running songs.

Standing tall..looking good..oughta be in Hollywood is one example.

It is an honor to have a soldiers DA photo selected by the Post photographer and posted near the changing room as an example for other soldiers to view and possibly correct their uniform.

---

You have your definition of looking good and the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard obviously have a different definition.
I’m getting back to discussing the waiver of the Article 32 hearing.
If discussing women’s uniforms turns you on, start a thread.

[rxsid]

LOL.

[BP2]

> Such silliness.

Yep, we're still waiting on those words
of intelligence from you ... troll.

[El Sordo]

Silly and confused.

Some days it's funny, but today it just makes me kind of sad.

[BP2]

> Silly and confused.

No, silly and confused is a FReeper like yourself who's had an account for more than eight years and can only make detracting comments — and ONLY on Eligibility threads — that add nothing to the discussion than to make you Obama-supporting After-Birthers seem like idiots.

If you're here to discredit the After-Birther movement ... Congrats, you win the prize.