Posted on 06/09/2010 12:40:42 PM PDT by 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
The person giving him that order was his brigade commander, Colonel Gordon Roberts. So far as I know, Colonel Roberts is not only a U.S. citizen but is also the only active duty Medal of Honor recipient. Lakin could have presented evidence refuting any of that at his Article 32 hearing but failed to do so.
Thats nonsense, if Obama was found ineligible. His orders to deploy need not be obeyed. If fact, probably SHOULD NOT be obeyed. This is a basic cornerstone of Nurnberg. No obligation whatsoever to follow illegal orders.
A brigade commander has no legal authority to attack a country. He only can do so upon the orders of the CIC, who does possess war-fighting powers. If the CIC is illegal,, the commanders orders are void.
It is called the fruit of the poison tree. It is found in search and seizure issues. It’s a legal concept widely defended in our law.
It’s rather extremist to suggest that a soldier being ordered to his possible death, cannot challenge the legitimacy of those who demand it.
He is brave enough to ask for mere proof, and risk consequences. His coward leaders should be as brave as he.
That’s right. His (Lakin’s) direct C.O. could not give him a legal order to deploy to the war in Afghanistan, because the order given to him (Lakin’s C.O.) originated with the (alleged) Commander in Chief of the armed forces to deploy troops to that war....who is a usurper and therefore not Constitutionally eligible to order troops to war.
“Colonel Gordon Roberts.”
And does the good colonel have power to say,,invade Mexico if he alone pleases? Or, does he have the power do disobey a lawful order of a lawful president?
No and No.
So Roberts did not give that order, obama did. Roberts is nothing but a mere conduit for an order, originating with Obama. Claiming anything else is Sophistry, and is avoiding the real issue.
Across the board, a range of elected officials, soldiers, citizens, and voters have all challenged Obamas eligibility under the constitution.
Apparently, nobody, anywhere, has standing to be satisfied on this simple question. Whatever you think about the truth of the situation, don’t you find that odd that nobody can ever get standing to ask?
Do you believe a vipers nest of legal niceties is ultimately more important than testing whether the basic foundation of the constitution is being followed?
For example, our female SOTUS judges wear soft, attractive and feminine blouses ( that look comfortable, as well) under their judges robes. A little femininity doesn’t detract from their power.
And is that claim based on something other than your opinion? If so, what?
It is called the fruit of the poison tree. It is found in search and seizure issues. It’s a legal concept widely defended in our law.
Actually that legal concept has nothing to do with Lakin's situation. Link. Unless, of course, Lakin or the prosecution use illegal means to gather their evidence.
It’s rather extremist to suggest that a soldier being ordered to his possible death, cannot challenge the legitimacy of those who demand it.
Blood-thirsty hyperbole aside, you keep forgetting that the order he's charged with disobeying is his brigade commander's. Not Obama's.
Naw, Obama just likes to exploit the men and women of the US military for his own perverse political objectives.
And he thanks people like YOU jamese for enabling him to do it some more ...
And that claim is based on what exactly? Federal law? Article in the UCMJ? Court precedent? Your opinion? What?
Colonel Gordon Roberts might have been brave under fire. But if he does not turn *up the chain* and say “some of my men question whether their commander in chief is an American and deserve proof”,,,, then his bravery seems to be restricted to the battlefield.
You said.....”Ultimately his argument is that Obama *is not* his commander in chief due to ineligibility. For there to be a case, he must disobey an order. Then it can be tested in court.”
Isn’t the military oath to uphold the US Constitution?
It is called the fruit of the poison tree, and is not restricted to search and seizure issues. It is also found in the unenforcability of illegal contracts. IE,, you cannot sue the drug dealer for selling you oregano instead of pot.
If obama is illegal, his orders are too. But im sure Obama appreciates your efforts.
But he does have the authority to issue orders to the men and women under his command, and to have those orders obeyed. Lakin refused to do so. He offered nothing to show that Colonel Roberts' order was illegal. That was his choice.
So Roberts did not give that order, obama did. Roberts is nothing but a mere conduit for an order, originating with Obama. Claiming anything else is Sophistry, and is avoiding the real issue.
I asked you earlier to state the legal foundation for your claim that the ineligibility of anyone in the chain of command makes all orders given by anyone in the chain of command illegal. I'm still waiting for you to do so.
Across the board, a range of elected officials, soldiers, citizens, and voters have all challenged Obamas eligibility under the constitution.
How've they done so far?
Do you believe a vipers nest of legal niceties is ultimately more important than testing whether the basic foundation of the constitution is being followed?
That 'vipers nest of legal niceties' is also known as the law. And be it federal law or military law I'm not willing to ignore it just to get one man. If we do that, then someday someone may use the same tactics to get you or me.
And has nothing to do with this case. You can continue to make stuff up as you go along, or you can cite chapter and verse of the laws or regulations which support your statements. Your choice.
But im sure Obama appreciates your efforts.
If everyone who disagrees with you is an Obama supporter then his popularity percentages must be in the high 90's.
“Blood-thirsty hyperbole aside, you keep forgetting that the order he’s charged with disobeying is his brigade commander’s. Not Obama’s”
It really isn’t hyperbole to the man deploying to the war zone. And i already explained to you why that brigade commander is not the source of that order. You never convinced me that the brigade commander ALONE could launch an invasion of Mexico. Your argument is becoming circular and you appear to be immune to reason, so ill leave you and Obama to agree on your opinion.
“Isn’t the military oath to uphold the US Constitution?”
Yessir, i believe it is!
You've offered your opinion, nothing else. Unless you include your unique interpretation of the rules of evidence. I've asked for the federal statute, the UCMJ article, or the court decision that supports your claim. I'm still waiting.
You never convinced me that the brigade commander ALONE could launch an invasion of Mexico.
Nobody is claiming he can. Or did. But he is expected to obey his order, and to have his orders obeyed.
Your argument is becoming circular and you appear to be immune to reason...
You've offered none.
You’re hitting all home runs from this seat.
Keep it up please.
And that claim is based on what exactly? Federal law? Article in the UCMJ? Court precedent? Your opinion? What?
-----------------------------------------
The Constitution. As DesertRhino has already pointed out, a brigade commander, not even the Sec. Def. can not (for example) order troops into a battle against the North Korean's all on their own decision. Talk about chaos! The Constitution states the the POTUS is the (one and only) Commander in Chief. If, for example, Bush had NOT ordered the military response in Afghanistan to begin with, LTC Lakins' C.O. would NOT have had the Constitutional authority to send anyone over there...much less LTC Lakin for a 2nd tour. It all originates with the POTUS.
You start with an illegal POTUS (like LTC believes) giving an order to stay in, or increase deployment to the war in Afghanistan, there can be no legal order from the Sec Def. and therefore there can be no legal order from his C.O. to deploy.
Your entire parroted premise upon which you base your parroted conclusion. Nothing you proffer constitutes an epiphany.
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.