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
Here’s a follow up who has the same determination as you!!!
Boom-Shakalaka:
http://atlah.org/atlahworldwide/?p=9298
I don’t remember the case, but I do remember what the court said to Mr. Martin when they dismissed it (Martin v. Lingle). Filed after Berg v. Obama. Mr. Berg didn’t have any luck either.
I once sued a couple of kids who wouldn’t get off my lawn. Judge said that I couldn’t do that because they were just kids. What do judges know anyway.
Lunch was good.
President or not, the 20th Amendment forbids him from having the presidential powers.
He is breaking the Constitution with every act he takes under the guise of being able to act as President. Anybody harmed by those illegal actions has standing to sue.
Anybody harmed by his executive orders, his selection of a “czar”, his nomination of a SCOTUS justice, his veto, his orders to the military, his military appointments or firings, any other firings he has done as President, his foreign policy decisions, or anything else he has done that requires Presidential power has grounds to sue because of his illegal, unconstitutional acts.
He doesn’t have to be impeached in order to be stopped from doing anything to this country. We have only to follow our Constitution and he will be stopped, because the Constitution forbids him from being able to act as President.
Yolanda Huet-Vaughan was a doctor and a captain in the Army reserve. In 1991 she refused to report for duty with her unit for Desert Storm claiming that the war was illegal and orders for her to report were invalid. She was court-martialed for desertion, sentenced to two and a half years in Leavenworth and served part of her sentence before having the balance commuted.
Michael New was an enlisted man who refused to wear the UN patch and beret when his battalion was ordered to deploy with UN forces in Bosnia. He was court martialed, dishonorably discharged, and later spent time in jail for drug dealing.
So, do you support all of them as well for having the courage to decide for themselves what orders are legal and what are not? Should the president in each case - Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2 - been obligated to prove to each of these people that their doubts were groundless and that the orders given them were legal? Do you admire them for standing up and taking the heat? Should all of their peers done the same?
It’s a waste of time on the people who are determined to obscure the truth.
But if people here can know the facts and understand the legal ramifications they can go elsewhere and keep the fifth columns from deceiving the American people.
And even more importantly, they can inform our conservative leaders so they will be emboldened to do what needs to be done. There is absolutely sound legal standing for action right now. It is NOT going out on a legal limb to say that Obama is forbidden from having the presidential powers. The 20th Amendment is clear.
The fact that Obama’s BC is amended changes everything from a legal standing because it shows that nothing Fukino says can make that BC she says they have actually mean anything legally. She can also say she’s got Monopoly money, but that doesn’t mean the Monopoly money she’s got could buy her a cup of coffee at Burger King.
The amendment proves that her announcement means ZERO.
It also proves that any “certification” by Pelosi or Congress means ZERO because they can’t legally certify facts that haven’t even been legally determined. That they tried to claim they certified it only proves that they didn’t even LOOK at what Obama’s got, because if they had looked they would have known there was a problem (Of course, the HDOH has already confirmed that nobody in the DNC or Hawaii Dem Party even ASKED to look).
It also proves that Obama could not have fulfilled the 20th Amendment requirement to be given the presidential powers.
That revelation that Obama’s BC is amended throws EVERYTHING upside-down from a legal perspective because it introduces another legal step that MUST BE TAKEN before even Obama’s AGE can be legally determined - a step that we know has never been taken.
Conservative leaders need to know this, and it’s only we who will get around to telling them.
So this information is intended for immediate dissemination to everybody, but especially to our conservative leaders who need to know they have the support of us AND the law if they stick their necks out on this.
In fact, their oaths to defend the Constitution DEMAND that they stand up on this issue because every day Obama acts as President is a day where the Constitution is absolutely trashed.
If you want to equate our efforts in Afghanistan with deliberate genocide then I'm sure a lot of liberals out there would agree with you.
If he had been ordered to Fort Riley, for example, so that an officer there could deploy to Iraq would his transfer order have been illegal? If not, why not?
His movement was ordered WITH his deployment order. The movement was the first step in his deployment. The whole order was dependent on authorization from a valid CIC.
Not at all.
It’s a lot harder to make a case that a war is illegal than it is that the president is ineligible. There are only two things that need to be established: Birth to two U.S. citizens and birth in the country.
I wish I could see video on my computer. We haven’t been able to figure out how to get the computer to allow it.
My computer froze 5 times in 4 hours this morning. All I had open was Free Republic.
McAfee always says there are no viruses.
TRanslation:
There were no orders given to Lakin which were independent of his order to deploy to Afghanistan in support of OEF.
I'm going to stop you right here, because you just proved me right. Everything else you wrote is irrelevant.
Why? The Constitution is quite clear - Article I states that only Congress can declare war. No formal declaration of war has been made by this country since World War II. Therefore both Watada and Huet-Vaughn decided that orders deploying them to a war that didn't believe existed were illegal, and they acted on those beliefs. Why are they wrong in believing that they had the authority to decide for themselves what orders were legal and what are not and Lakin right for doing the very same thing?
In their cases, the Military had the burden and apparently met the burden and prevailed.
Yes I admire them for taking a stand. I would not have taken the same position, but that is their choice.
I don't think it is wrong to put the officials to their proof. It may have been wrong to make the moves they did, but having taken those actions, they should follow through.
People are free to screw up their lives if they want to.
None of those have asked me to feel sorry for them, and I don't.
Why should destination matter? If Lakin was ordered to a stateside post to replace an officer ordered overseas then how is that supporting the war any less than if he went himself? How can one order be legal and the other not if all orders are dependent on the validity of the chain of command all the way to the president himself?
I am not equating them. I just was explaining what I was taught in Basic Training in 1958.
Maybe it is "old fashioned" and no longer applies.
The burden to do what? To prove that the war was legal or service with the UN was Constitutional? They didn't do any of that in any of the trials. None of the defendants were allowed to present testimony supporting their claim that the orders were illegal, and the military didn't address their claims. All were convicted without the legality of the war even entering into it because the legality or illegality of the order had nothing to do with their claims. Why should Lakin expect different?
People are free to screw up their lives if they want to.
They are. Doesn't make them heroes because they choose to do so.
I agree.
I don’t know about the chain of command so I am not going to be drawn into a discussion about that.
I do know that Stanley McChrystal wanted to deploy additional troops but could not until he had an order from Obama to deploy those additional troops - one of whom was Lt Col Lakin.
If McChrystal couldn’t order additional troops (including Lakin) to deploy to Afghanistan without the CIC’s order, then neither could Lakin’s CO’s.
The only order Lakin disobeyed was the order to deploy to Afghanistan, beginning by reporting to X and Y. I have seen his order. It talks about the likely end date for his deployment, what he’s supposed to bring, etc. The whole thing is about how to implement his deployment in support of OEF. It is a deployment order.
If Stanley McChrystal couldn’t give that order without authorization from a valid CIC then neither could Lakin’s CO. The whole thing is absolutely dependent on whether additional troops were authorized by a valid CIC.
The only person the Constitution allows to act as CIC at this point is Joe Biden. Joe Biden has not authorized additional troops to Afghanistan.
Did they tell you of the law of lawfulness of orders? The doctrine that says a facially valid order is assumed legal and must be obeyed so long as it does not require the commission of an criminal act? What criminal act would Lakin have been committing by deploying with his unit?
Whether Lakin had to obey the order is another question.
The US military has accused him of disobeying a lawful order. The “elements” listed with Article 92 say that an order is “lawful” if it is not contrary to the Constitution or law and if it is not given by somebody acting beyond their authority.
Lakin’s CO’s acted beyond their authority deploying him to Afghanistan because Joe Biden has not authorized additional forces to Afghanistan in support of OEF.
And we know that Joe Biden is the only one who the Constitution allows to act as President, since Obama’s birth facts have never been legally determined even now, much less by the deadline of Jan 20, 2009.
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.