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
“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.”
Well, I would say if his bravery was restricted to the battlefield, it would still easily exceed that of any noncombatant here.
To realize how trivial and stupid these claims are, just read the Nuremberg Principles:
Principle I
“Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.”
Principle II
“The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.”
Principle III
“The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.”
Principle IV
“The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him”.
Principle V
“Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.”
Principle VI
“The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.”
Principle VII
“Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.”
They are talking about “real crimes”, and specifically note that following a legitimate order from your chain of command does not constitute a defense if you commit a “real crime.” The idea that you are Nuremberg material for serving in a legally sanctioned war if it turns out your president didn't meet one of the qualifications in your own internal Constitution is silly. You are Nuremberg material if you commit real crimes against humanity, whether you were following “legal” orders or not.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
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.
Last I checked your opinion doesn't have the force of law.
It is not a difficult question.
If you deny military officers the right to demonstrate an order is illegal and hold them criminally liable, on what basis do you expect them to honor their oath to defend the Constitution?
LOL. They really believe that the people who design legal structures are that stupid. It's mind-boggling.
LMAOROTFLMAO. Last I checked, your opinion is worthless!
|
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. 1st Lt Ehren Watada of Honolulu refused follow his commander's orders to deploy to Iraq in 2006 because he felt the war in Iraq was illegal and that, under the doctrine of Command Responsibility under Bush would make Watada a “party to war crimes.”
 |
b.t.w according you your non-sensical opinion...if a Constitutionally legal President gave an illegal order to his/her Sec. Def. who passed that illegal order on down the chain of command, and some C.O. continued to pass that illegal order to some other LTC who did follow that illegal order (that originated from a legal POTUS)...you would say the LTC was simply following legal orders because their direct order came from their C.O. and not directly from the legal POTUS who gave an illegal order which was subsequently pushed on down the line. Yeah, brilliant there. Real brilliant. LMAO!
Yeah,,, the military has an obligation to obey ALL orders. It doesn’t matter if the person giving them is doing so legally or not! And they shall have no standing to use the law to confirm if they are legal!
Is this the Wehrmacht we are talking about?
It was Obama himself who gave the "green light" to disobey the orders
of a commander when he dismissed the case of 1st Lt Ehren Watada in May 2009.
Is this the Wehrmacht we are talking about?”
No, the military doesn't have to obey all orders. Clearly illegal orders involving crimes do not have to be obeyed. But the military is set up to function under the de facto officer doctrine no matter how much people unversed in the law stick their fingers in their ears and try to deny it. So as long as Obama is accepted as President by the government, sub-units of the military will continue to give orders that are fully lawful.
Ohhh. Lakin has been a puzzle because he avoids the obvious - the definition of natural born citizen accepted by Patrick Leahy and Clair McCaskill. Why? Do his attorney's have information we don't have? Perhaps Lakin is well enough connected to have information we don't have? But the legal standing point you've made may be the key. I hope so. This is a legal battle being waged by far-left activists. I wonder if the federal courts have any independence left. While see little first hand, the sudden appearance of a Bob Bauer stooge as a clerk for the ex-Marine judge Carter who promised discovery to Orly Taitz was unlikely to be incidental.
So Lakin probably expected, may have planned to have his witnesses rejected? This was a strategy to gain standing?
I hope you are correct.
__________________________
Because many are just beginning to pay attention, and Patrick Leahy scrubbed his Senate site, I'll include the press release he published, but removed:
U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY
CONTACT: Office of Senator Leahy, 202-224-4242 VERMONT
Senators: McCain Is A ‘Natural Born Citizen’
Senators Introduce Resolution
To Make Clear Senate’s Position On Candidate’s Status
WASHINGTON (Thursday, April 10, 2008) – Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) today introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that presidential candidate and current Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) is a ‘natural born Citizen,’ as specified in the Constitution and eligible to run for President.
In February, The New York Times published a report calling into question the legality of McCain’s presidential run. McCain was born to American citizens stationed on an American Naval base in the Panama Canal Zone. He has since served in the U.S. Navy, and, since 1983, has served in the U.S. Congress. “Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen,” said Leahy. “I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate.”“It is silly for anyone to argue that Senator McCain is not eligible to become president,” said McCaskill. “I would hope that this is something we can all agree on, for goodness sakes.”
At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President. “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.
“That is mine, too,” said Leahy.
http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924020027870#page/n7/mode/2up
“There is something in the idea of native country which is intimately connected with doctrine of allegiance.
It is not, however, the spot of earth, upon which the child is born that connects him with the national society, but the relation of the child’s parents to that society.” A Treatise on Citizenship; Morse, page 13.
“Let a child be born within the walls of a church, this does not make him a church member.” Morse page 14.
“The true bond which the child with the body politic is not the matter of an inanimate piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage” Vattel, section 215-220. Morse, page 12.
“It is necessary that a person born of a father who is a citizen of the country; for if he is born of a foreigner, it will only be a place of his birth and not his country. Vattel, Book 1, page 101. Morse page 13.
“By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers. Vattel; Morse, page 15.
“A legitimate child, wherever born, is a member of the nation of which its father at the time of birth was a member.” Field’s International Code, page 132; Morse page 17.
This case goes nowhere. Not this fall, and not later. There is no case.
The military cannot exist if junior members can disobey orders at will until someone above them proves they are just, legal, etc. Unless an order is obviously illegal - and deploying to Afghanistan does NOT qualify - then Lakin needs to obey.
If he wants to make a political statement, he needs to take off the uniform first...
“So as long as Obama is accepted as President by the government...”
What happens to your argument if Obama’s acceptance by the government was and continues to be defective?
I ask because so long as Obama conceals his birth documents from the Congress together with the fact he has conceded his father was a non-citizen, no one including the members of Congress can say he is qualified.
LTC Lakin may argue in essence that until Congress properly certifies Obama pursuant to 3 USC 15 (which it failed to do for political reasons), the certification is incomplete, that Obama is not yet qualified for the office nor is he authorized to issue military orders.
“And soon to be cashiered and, perhaps, jailed as well.”
That’s not the point, is it?
Remember, this was just a preliminary hearing. Really more like a grand jury proceeding. In a civilian grand jury proceeding, the accussed doesn't even get to participate or be present.
The main purpose of the Article 32 hearing is to determine that there is enough likelyhood that the offense did occurr, and that the accussed committed it to warrant a Court Martial proceeding. Since Lakin has pretty much admitted that he missed the movement and did not obey the orders, the only defense he has is that the order was unlawful. According to the Manual for Court's Martial, that's a matter for the trial judge, not an investigating officer (who is not in general even a JAG officer, although this one is) to determine.
Might as well skip the hearing and get right to the trial, where it's required that the affirmative defense of the order being unlawful be allowed to be presented.
“What happens to your argument if Obama’s acceptance by the government was and continues to be defective?
I ask because so long as Obama conceals his birth documents from the Congress together with the fact he has conceded his father was a non-citizen, no one including the members of Congress can say he is qualified.
LTC Lakin may argue in essence that until Congress properly certifies Obama pursuant to 3 USC 15 (which it failed to do for political reasons), the certification is incomplete, that Obama is not yet qualified for the office nor is he authorized to issue military orders.”
Doesn't matter. The de facto doctrine exists whether the diehards want to admit it or not. And Obama hasn't concealed his birth documents from Congress; it hasn't asked for them.
There is no requirement for Congress to certify that the President meets Article II. By not even raising the issue, Congress has accepted that Obama is qualified. They knew he had a non-citizen father when he was elected and did not consider it disqualifying. Absent any challenge from a relevant authority, Obama is President in the eyes of the law.
He tried, with no one giving him any evidence that BO is eligible for the office he occupies. Or even responding to his inquiries for the most part.
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.