Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

LTC Lakin Makes Formal Request of Hawaii Deposition
safeguardourconstitution ^ | 7/29/2010 | American Patriot Foundation

Posted on 07/29/2010 1:01:40 AM PDT by rxsid

"Press Release: Lakin Makes Formal Request of Hawaii Deposition

American Patriot Foundation, Inc.
1101 Thirtieth Street, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20007
www.safeguardourconstitution.com

DECORATED ARMY DOCTOR LTC TERRY LAKIN MAKES FORMAL REQUEST TO COMMANDING GENERAL FOR DEPOSITION OF HAWAII STATE DEPT OF HEALTH

Testimony Sought of “Custodian of Records” AND Production of all records relating to President

Decision to be made by Army Major General

Washington, D.C., July 29, 2010. The Army doctor who is facing a court martial for refusing to obey orders, including a deployment order for his second tour of duty in Afghanistan, has formally requested his Commanding General approve a deposition in Hawaii of the records-keeper of the State Department of Health—and the production of all of their records concerning Barack Obama.

The records Lakin seeks have been the subject of intense interest ever since the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign when a document appeared on the internet purporting to be a certification that Hawaii’s Dept. of Health had records showing he had been born in Honolulu. Since then, Dr. Chiyome Fukino the head of that agency has made public statements on the subject, but has refused all requests for copies of the actual records in the Department’s custody. Recently, a former Hawaii elections clerk has come forward saying that he was told that the Department’s records showed Obama was NOT born in Hawaii.

The United States Constitution requires that a person be a “natural born citizen” to be elected to the presidency. If Mr. Obama was not born in Honolulu as he has claimed, then he is unlikely to be a “natural born citizen”. An examination of the records kept by the Hawaii Dept. of Health are an essential first step in ascertaining Mr. Obama’s constitutional eligibility to hold the office to which he was elected in 2008.

While no civil litigant has obtained discovery of these records, and all the civil lawsuits seeking those records have been dismissed on procedural grounds, Lakin’s case is different because he is the subject of criminal prosecution, and upon conviction stands in jeopardy of being sentenced to years at hard labor in the penitentiary.

Lakin’s request was submitted by his counsel to the Commanding General of the Military District of Washington, Major General Karl R. Horst, under Rule 702(b) of the Rules for Courts-Martial, which provides that “A convening authority who has the charges for disposition or, after referral, the convening authority or the military judge may order that a deposition be taken on request of a party.”

Lakin’s civilian attorney has been provided to him by the American Patriot Foundation, a non-profit group incorporated in 2003 to foster appreciation and respect for the U.S. Constitution, which has established a fund for Lakin’s legal defense to LTC Lakin. Further details are available on the Foundation’s website, www.safeguardourconstitution.com."

http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/press-release/pressrelease20100728.html


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: certifigate; lakin; naturalborncitizen; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 621-625 next last
To: Non-Sequitur

Translation:
“Lakin’s brigade commander would be acting beyond his authority if he deployed additional forces to Afghanistan in support of OEF without a valid order from a Constitutional CIC.

But I don’t want to acknowledge that because it proves that the orders to Lakin are not lawful if Obama is forbidden by the 20th Amendment from using the presidential powers, which is the whole issue.

So I’ll hem and haw and avoid the central question of this whole issue.”


421 posted on 07/30/2010 8:13:53 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Jamese, HRS 338-17 says that the probative value of an amended BC is determined when it is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body.

An AMENDED birth certificate is not prima facie evidence and it has absolutely NO legal veracity at all unless and until it is presented as evidence so that the merit of the claims can be determined, based on the supporting evidence.

Right now Obama has NOTHING of legal value in Hawaii. He refuses to submit what is there to have its legal value determined.


422 posted on 07/30/2010 8:17:35 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

I don’t know about all of them because I don’t know what he has the authority to issue on his own, but I do know that he has no authority on his own to deploy additional troops to Afghanistan for war. Neither did Stanley McChrystal; he had to wait for orders from the CIC on his request for more troops.

THAT order can only come from a CIC that is not contrary to the US Constitution.

That’s probably why Lakin obeyed other orders until this one - the orders to deploy to Afghanistan, beginning by moving to X and Y. That order was beyond the authority of his CO to give, absent a Constitutional order by a Constitutional CIC.


423 posted on 07/30/2010 8:22:04 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Any argument about Obama not being Constitutionally eligible for the Office of President officially ended when his election was certified by Congress and he was sworn into office by the Chief Justice. Since a case was never brought prior to his installation as President, no argument will ever be heard inside a U.S. court. The responsibility now falls to the U.S. Congress who may only undo this by bringing Impeachment charges and trying him in the U.S. Senate. Good luck on that happening.

Of course, the other option is the voting booth in 2012. This is where I’ll put my money and effort.


424 posted on 07/30/2010 8:23:54 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

The HDOH Administrative Rules say that anyone who wants is supposed to be able to get a non-certified abbreviated birth certificate (COLB) for anybody they want. UIPA says that if an agency CAN make a disclosure they MUST make a disclosure when requested.

Fukino illegally hid those rules until a year after the election. Since then she has refused to follow that law.

OIP Opinion Letters state that records maintained for the purpose of informing the public are to be made public upon request. When Fukino stated that at least one of Obama’s multiple birth records claims he was born in Hawaii, that meant that she has to show the record on which that statement was based. If she wanted to keep that record private she shouldn’t have made a public statement about it.

But again, she refuses to follow the legal requirement in the OIP Opinion Letters.

IOW, Fukino is breaking the laws herself and trying to cover herself with a fig leaf by citing laws or rules that don’t apply to these particular situations.

You know that, because I’ve told you that many times. Either your comprehension is poor or you are deliberately trying to hide the truth.

Just like Fukino.


425 posted on 07/30/2010 8:29:34 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
Since a case was never brought prior to his installation as President,

Perhaps you should check the record before making a statement like that.

426 posted on 07/30/2010 8:35:25 AM PDT by Balata
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

No. The date mentioned in the 20th Amendment is the date for the inauguration, not the date of Congress’ certification. If the pres-elect fails to qualify by the date his term starts, the VP-elect is to act as president. That’s what the 20th Amendment says.

There is no way that Congress could legally certify Obama’s eligibility since his birth facts have never been legally determined. Congress is legislative. Only judicial or adminsitrative persons or bodies can determine the legal value of an amended BC, when the BC is presented to them as evidence. IOW, it required a judicial or administrative proceeding in order for Obama’s BC to ever mean more than Monopoly money.

That didn’t happen.

So Congress is shown not only to have NOT certified Obama’s eligibility, but to have COMMITTED PERJURY on anything they signed saying that they did.

But I don’t think anything Congress signed said he was eligible. I think the Constitution only authorizes Congress to certify the ELECTORAL VOTE. He did get the electoral vote which made him the “President-elect”. What he failed to do is qualify by Jan 20, 2009 - and the 20th Amendment says that means he cannot act as President.

Nancy Pelosi, OTOH, DID sign an oath saying Obama was Constitutionally eligible. We know FOR A FACT that she perjured herself in doing so, since there is no way she can know his legal age, birthplace, or parents since those have never been legally determined.


427 posted on 07/30/2010 8:37:25 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Also, I need to address the whole idea that taking the oath made Obama the president.

The president-elect becomes the president at noon on January 20th, according to the Constitution. But a president cannot have the presidential powers and duties until they meet all other Constitutional requirements for doing so. There are 2 other requirements mentioned in the Constitution: the oath of office (mentioned in Article II), and qualifying by Jan 20th (mentioned in the 20th Amendment).

When Obama took his oath of office he fulfilled one of the 2 prerequisites for having the presidential powers. To this day he has never fulfilled the other one.

We can argue about whether the 20th Amendment allows Obama to BE the president, but there is no question but that the 20th Amendment says that only the Vice-President elect can ACT as president (exercise the presidential powers and duties).

Article II says that “In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or INABILITY TO DISCHARGE THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE SAID OFFICE, the same shall devolve on the Vice President...”

The 20th Amendment forbids Obama from discharging the powers and duties of the presidency, giving that instead to Joe Biden. At this point Obama is (at best) a president who can’t do anything presidential. A dog that can’t hunt.

He committed both perjury and forgery in order to trick the entire US so he could get the position, which I would think would be impeachable crimes. So Congress has to decide what to do with a president who is Constitutionally disqualified from having any of the presidential powers or doing any of the presidential duties.

And at this point anybody who has standing to sue the government for actions Obama has taken which are forbidden in the Constitution can certainly do so.

That would almost certainly include Lt Col Lakin - especially if Obama’s unconstitutional usurpation of the presidential powers causes him to be wrongfully jailed.

I don’t know what military procedures have to happen but I would think that Lakin has already been harmed by Obama’s illegal act of pretending to be CIC when the Constitution says only Joe Biden can do that at this point. Lakin would certainly have standing to sue in the civil courts at any time, I would think.


428 posted on 07/30/2010 8:57:12 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
They may be illegal. There are a lot more actions Zero has taken that are usurpation's, so eventually they will have to be dealt with.

I am no longer in the Military so I no longer memorize the chain of command.

There is another thing that applies.

It has been said that for evil to win only needs to have good people do nothing.

I admire him for standing up and taking the heat. I have had a similar thing done. It wasn't with the military but involved the right to use an old stagecoach road. Everyone else using it caved, and I was left alone to fight.

It was a 15 years, but I won.

429 posted on 07/30/2010 8:57:20 AM PDT by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
We can argue about whether the 20th Amendment allows Obama to BE the president,

We can argue on this forum, and its a very interesting academic discussion. But, it won't be argued anywhere that counts, since all branches of government agree that he met all the requirements and was duly sworn in. I don't recall any Officer of the United States raising any objection to the qualifications of Obama to be President.

430 posted on 07/30/2010 9:05:43 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
But I don’t want to acknowledge that because it proves that the orders to Lakin are not lawful if Obama is forbidden by the 20th Amendment from using the presidential powers, which is the whole issue.

ROTFLMAO!!! So I'll ask you the same question. Has every order given by every officer and NCO in the Armed Forces since January 20, 2008 been illegal?

431 posted on 07/30/2010 9:07:42 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
That’s probably why Lakin obeyed other orders until this one - the orders to deploy to Afghanistan, beginning by moving to X and Y. That order was beyond the authority of his CO to give, absent a Constitutional order by a Constitutional CIC.

Lakin's motivation is not really the issue here. The question is does Lakin's brigade commander have the authority to issue orders to the people under him? Clearly he does, and Lakin refused to obey his lawful order. A second question is does the Army have the authority to move its people from one post to another? Again, clearly it does and by refusing to go where the Army sent him Lakin is guilty of missing movement. If that is not valid, then every order given by every commanding officer and every order of transfer issued to every person in the Army has been invalid since Obama took office. Is that your contention?

432 posted on 07/30/2010 9:12:03 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: Dan(9698)
I admire him for standing up and taking the heat.

Do you also admire people like Ehren Watada, Yolanda Huet-Vaughan, and Michael New?

433 posted on 07/30/2010 9:13:22 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

You don’t get it.

Being sworn in has nothing to do with whether he can have the presidential powers according to the 20th Amendment.

Obama is forbidden by the 20th Amendment from having the presidential powers. Anybody who experiences particularized and justiciable harm from his unconstitutional use of the presidential powers has standing to sue, and the judiciary is given the job of deciding all cases that arise as a result of the Constitution.

That would certainly include Lt Col Lakin’s case. He has particularized injury so they can’t deny him standing. Eventually they will have to hear his case on its merits.

IOW, it HAS to be “argued anywhere that counts”. It is inevitable. This will be decided; it’s just a matter of time.

The only way it could NOT be decided on its merits is if the judges totally ignore the rule of law. Which, unfortunately, is a very real possibility - which is why this is much, much more serious than just a technical glitch in one man’s documentation. It really is about whether the rule of law exists in this country.

And nobody in the world can convince me that the very rule of law is too piddly for real conservatives - or even real Americans - to care about or spend time on.


434 posted on 07/30/2010 9:13:48 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

No, the question is whether Lakin’s CO has the authority to issue deployment orders to Afghanistan in support of OEF without a valid order from a CIC.

He doesn’t. If a valid CIC didn’t give the order for more troops to support OEF, Lakin’s CO acted beyond his authority, just as surely as it would be beyond his authority to deploy Lakin to combat operations in Iran.

The lawfulness of Lakin’s orders absolutely depends on whether a valid CIC gave the order for more troops for OEF.

End of story.


435 posted on 07/30/2010 9:17:46 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
You don’t get it.

I believe that its the other way around. Let me know when someone who is an Official of the United States Government takes any action that might be construed as supportive of your point of view. It has not yet happened and likely never will. Standing will never be granted to LTC Lakin, or to any John Q. Citizen who claims that Obama's agenda has harmed them. They will deny it to him and to any other who comes forward, except perhaps John McCain, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

436 posted on 07/30/2010 9:21:42 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

You probably hadn’t seen the post when you posted this response, but I did say in another post that I don’t know what the CO’s have authority to do without orders from the CIC. Whatever they ordered that was within their authority and not dependent on orders from the CIC would have been lawful.

But even Stanley McChrystal couldn’t deploy additional troops to Afghanistan without first asking and receiving orders from the CIC. If McChrystal couldn’t do it without a valid order from a valid CIC then Lakin’s CO sure as heck couldn’t either.


437 posted on 07/30/2010 9:21:47 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Standing doesn’t depend on the US government doing anything.

And it’s not Obama’s “agenda” that has to cause particularized harm. It is specifically anything he has done which is unconstitutional which causes particularized harm to somebody, who then has standing to sue in the courts.

Your whole argument seems to be, “The people in power right now agree with me. Nanner-nanner-nanner!!”

I don’t care what the corruptocrats think. The law is the law. The federal government is required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV to honor the laws and documents of Hawaii - and Hawaii law says Obama’s BC has no legal veracity unless and until the proper procedure is followed.

Congress CANNOT legally certify Obama’s age, birthplace, or parents until Hawaii’s requirements have been fulfilled. They haven’t been fulfilled. Obama has fought all the court cases which would have given him the very opportunity he needed in order to have the procedures fulfilled. He should be THANKING the “birthers” for these lawsuits because they are the only way he could have “qualified” by Jan 20th.

But as with everything, Obama took the goose that lays the golden eggs and trashed it. It’s his loss. He dribbled the ball and dazzled the crowd while the clock ticked away and the buzzer sounded leaving him with a score of ZERO. He loses.


438 posted on 07/30/2010 9:32:29 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 436 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
No, the question is whether Lakin’s CO has the authority to issue deployment orders to Afghanistan in support of OEF without a valid order from a CIC.

No, the question is does the Army and Lakin's CO have the authority to issue orders to their people. Lakin's brigade was ordered to deploy. As part of that deployment, the Army issued order for Lakin to report to the 101st Airborne which was preparing to deploy to Afghanistan. He refused to report to the flight taking him there and was charged with a violation of Article 87 - Missing Movement. Lakin's immediate superior ordered Lakin to report to his brigade commander's office at a certain time and date. Lakin refused, which is the first violation of Article 92. Does LCOL Judd have the right to issue orders to his officers or doesn't he? Regardless of the purpose of the meeting, does Lakin have the duty to report as ordered by his CO? Yes or no? Did he have the duty to report as his Brigade commander also ordered, yes or no? Did the Army, in the form of Colonel McHugh, have the authority to transfer people from one unit to another, yes or no?

If your answer to any of these is 'no' then obviously every order and every transfer during the Obama administration has been illegal. If the answer is 'yes' then Lakin is guilty as charged, regardless of Obama's eligibility. If you answer is 'maybe' then when are orders valid and when are they not?

439 posted on 07/30/2010 9:46:41 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

I don’t know who they are.


440 posted on 07/30/2010 9:48:00 AM PDT by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 621-625 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson