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
Why?
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.
So Colonel Douglas was expected to prove his authority every time he issued an order? Did LCOL Lakin have to whip out his commission and show it every time he gave an order to a subordinate?
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.
We know that you believe that to be true.
I must have missed that one. Could you please indulge me and point me back to the thread where you answered it?
Post #468. First sentence.
Then doesn't any officer or enlisted have the right to refuse to obey any order until the military shows them the order is legal?
What’s your problem with that?
No problem at all. Lakin will indeed get his day in court, Obama's eligibility will not enter into the trial at all, and he will no doubt be convicted and cashiered, maybe even jailed. Sad to see a distinguished career chucked out like that.
My dad’s a Korea vet. Supposed to teach mountain climbing in Austria but they mixed up his orders and he ended up on the frontlines at the DMZ.
At one point the radio report got the numbers of the unit mixed up and mistakenly reported that his unit had been entirely annihilated. My Mom spent over a week thinking he was dead before she got a postcard saying he was OK. She still has the postcard he sent saying he was on his way home, and they both still cry whenever they see it.
He came back home and fathered 12 kids with the wife of his youth and still holds hands and kisses her when she has to go back home after visiting him at the care center.
I asked him one time what war was like and he said, “Nellie, I fought over there so you would never have to know what war is like.”
I so desperately wish that I could have fought hard enough here for him to never have to see his nation fall to its knees not in prayer but in defeat. Seeing what’s happening in America now is killing us both.
Actually you punted it. The question was if Lakin has the right and the responsibility to refuse to obey orders until the president proved eligibility then why can't Watada and Huet-Vaughn refuse to obey orders until the president proved the war was legal? The parallels between the two are obvious - in both cases the officer in question believe the order is illegal and in both cases the officer in question is demanding the government provide proof that would make the order legal. The only reason why you believe one is right and one is wrong is because you support the position on one and do not support the other.
To find out for sure whether the order is lawful will cost a man his career and perhaps his freedom.
Lakin was willing to make that exchange. He exchanged his career and his freedom in order to have the military be forced to show whether that order was lawful.
Now the military needs to live up to their end of the bargain. He paid the price; now they need to pay up. They say the order was lawful. To convict a man they have to prove that it was.
There’s no way they can prove that it was because it wasn’t. If Stanley McChrystal couldn’t deploy his desired forces without a valid CIC’s order, then neither could Lakin’s CO’s. And we KNOW - because Obama’s BC is amended and has never had its probative value determined - that Obama failed to qualify and can not have the presidential powers including that of CIC.
The military may well screw justice. Like they tried to do with the Haditha Marines. Like they did in allowing Nidal Hasan to be promoted instead of booted for being a terrorist. Like they did with the Able Danger folks, Schaffer and the others, in order to cover up Sec Def Perry’s illegal sale of prohibited satellite technology to a company he knew was owned by the Chinese military leader’s wife.
It’s a long line of political crap they’ve been willing to use to avert justice and screw the real men who are doing the heavy lifting.
I don’t doubt their ability to do it again. Judas can always use more money in his purse, maybe another title of nobility ala “Braveheart”.
But it doesn’t make it right. Or lawful.
Lakin’s CO acted outside his authority because Joe Biden is the only one the Constitution allows to act as CIC and he did not authorize additional troops to Afghanistan in support of OEF.
We’ve gone over those facts multiple times. You refuse to deal with them. You’re in denial, repeating the same lines over and over as if it changes anything. It doesn’t.
Obama failed to qualify by Jan 20, 2009. That is fact. The Constitution gives the presidential powers to Joe Biden. That is fact. Joe Biden didn’t authorize the additional forces for Afghanistan. That is a fact. Without the CIC’s order neither McChrystal or any of his underlings are authorized to deploy additional forces for OEF. That is a fact.
Deal with those facts.
Do you acknowledge that there are some orders which can only be given by the CIC?
If Lakin had ordered his underlings to go to Iran and fight the mullahs would you expect him to have to show some authority for being able to give that order? Or would his underlings just have to go invade Iran without question?
I didn’t say one was right or wrong. I said one was much easier to establish, so yes, I answered your question.
These are your arguments. They don't become fact until a court has ruled. Since no court will hear these arguments, there will not be any ruling of fact.
The Chief Justice of the United States does not believe that your first point is fact, or he would not have sworn Mr. Obama into office. Is there some reason why I should value your legal judgment above that of the Chief Justice?
Because you said so? Thanks for clearing that up for us. Well Obama's legitimate because he said so. That should end the discussion right?
I'm not sure what the order in this case would be. Did Obama order troops into Afghanistan? Nope, that was Bush. Did Obama order Lakin TDY to the 101st Airborne? Nope, that was the Army. Did Obama order the 101st to deploy? Nope, that was the Army again. So what specific order are we talking about?
If Lakin had ordered his underlings to go to Iran and fight the mullahs would you expect him to have to show some authority for being able to give that order?
If Lakin order his subordinate to empty the trash can does he need to show some authority for that? At what point does an order have to be obeyed merely because it's an order from one's superior?
His choice. At the end of the day I wonder if he will decide it was worth it?
Now the military needs to live up to their end of the bargain. He paid the price; now they need to pay up. They say the order was lawful. To convict a man they have to prove that it was.
Why? They didn't need to do that for Michael New, Yolanda Huet-Vaughn, or Michael Watada. Why is Terry Lakin so gosh darned special that every friggin' order given him has to be justified?
In any case I have no doubt that the Army would have no problem showing that Colonel Roberts and Colonel McHugh were authorized to issue the orders they did. You may not agree with them but I don't think that will change the ultimate outcome.
Lakin’s CO acted outside his authority because Joe Biden is the only one the Constitution allows to act as CIC and he did not authorize additional troops to Afghanistan in support of OEF.
In your opinion perhaps.
We’ve gone over those facts multiple times.
You've expressed your opinion multiple times. But facts are not facts merely because you say they are.
Obama failed to qualify by Jan 20, 2009. That is fact.
Obama qualified at a joint session of Congress on January 6, 2008 when they signed off on the results of the electoral vote.
The Constitution gives the presidential powers to Joe Biden. That is fact.
No it isn't.
Joe Biden didn’t authorize the additional forces for Afghanistan. That is a fact.
As vice-president he lacks the power.
Without the CIC’s order neither McChrystal or any of his underlings are authorized to deploy additional forces for OEF. That is a fact.
That is your opinion.
The Chief Justice didn’t know that Obama’s BC was amended. That fact changes everything, as I said - because it proves that he COULD NOT HAVE qualified by Jan 20, 2009.
But where is the Chief Justice ever allowed to refuse to swear in a president-elect? See, decisions like that have to be made through legitimate CASES, and SCOTUS has deliberately avoided hearing any cases about this. Treasonous jerks, all of them.
So saying that Obama must be hunky-dory because Roberts didn’t refuse to administer the oath is about like saying that the Minnesota Twins won the World Series because Roberts didn’t call their runner out.
The court system MUST hear these arguments. Lt Col Lakin has standing.
The courts at every level can make totally wrong and stupid decisions as seems to be characteristic of the courts these days. But they’ll have to find an excuse besides “standing” in order to try to justify their treasonous decision this time.
Ultimately this issue comes down to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV. The federal government has to honor Hawaii’s laws which say that the probative value of an amended BC has to be determined by a special procedure - meaning that an amended BC has NO INHERENT LEGAL VALUE. The feds have to honor that.
Fukino deceived everyone by not mentioning that - “oh, BTW, the BC we have for Obama doesn’t have any legal value”. By failing to say that she broke the Federal False Information Act - an act which says that deceiving Congress is a federal crime, whether it is by what you say or by what you refuse to say in order to deceive.
I have letters from my Congress critters saying that they relied on what Fukino said and on the Factcheck COLB - which means that not only Fukino but Gibbs, Obama, and everyone who knew this was a boatload of crap is guilty of breaking the Federal False Information Act.
This is how we can clean out Washington, DC and Hawaii. They all deceived Congress.
Zero.
They have all been dismissed, in one way or another on the lack of proper "standing". The judges have opined that regardless of what the evidence may or may not show the litigants don't have the proper *standing* to pursue such a case in the courts.
The judges are simply scared of opening a Pandora's box.
Are you 2 years old??
This is a point that most faithers don't seem to understand or want to admit. Most of the damning evidence that Obama committed fraud and is categorically ineligible came out AFTER he was clumsily sworn into the office he occupies. This also destroys any notion that Obama was properly or fully vetted prior to the election results being verified by Congress. Timing is everything, and Obama managed to use it to his benefit and fool a LOT of people ... and I mean a lot.
The Chief Justice knew that Mr. Obama had been duly certified as eligible, and was duly elected. These facts were certified by the Congress and therefore the Chief Justice was obligated by law to swear him in.
Of course, we know that no one who made these certifications has examined Mr. Obama’s birth certificate, amended or not. They weren’t required to. Now, I consider this a travesty, but its perfectly legal as things stand right now. So, get busy and change that.
There are standard authorizations. Officers at certain levels are authorized to give certain orders. Military people know what kind of orders are authorized for the various levels.
What level does a person have to be to issue orders for deploying to Iran and fighting the mullahs, or increasing troop levels in Afghanistan?
What level does a person have to be to issue orders for a trash can to be dumped?
I am sure that personnel at all levels are expected to know what orders their direct superiors are authorized to give. There would be utter chaos if people at any level of command could give orders to deploy to Iran and fight the mullahs and had to be obeyed without question.
Just as there would be utter chaos if legitimate orders from above regarding minute details were not obeyed when they were supposed to be.
There are different command levels for a reason: so there is order and so that everybody can hold each other accountable.
It’s like football. It works because everybody knows the rules. They know who is eligible to be a receiver, who can be where and when, when you can do forward passes and when it has to be lateral, who can tackle and who has to block, etc.
If the coach told the QB to throw to an ineligible receiver you would EXPECT that QB to point out that it was an ineligible receiver and verify whether that was really what they were supposed to do. If the coach still told the QB to do that, he probably would do it out of respect for the coach. But the referee would still call the penalty, because the rules don’t change just because the coach orders somebody to break the rule.
Lakin knows his CO doesn’t have authority ON HIS OWN to increase troop levels to Afghanistan in support of OEF, any more than he has authority ON HIS OWN to deploy troops to Iran to fight the mullahs. Everybody knows that decision can only be made by the CIC.
We now know that Obama can’t act as CIC so Lakin’s CO’s HAD to act outside their authority when they issued deployment orders for increased troop levels in support of OEF. That order was just as unlawful as if they had ordered him to deploy to Iran and fight the mullahs.
How would you expect things to be handled if the order had been to deploy to Iran in support of Operation-Blow-These-Bloody-Bastards-Off-The-Face-Of-The-Earth?
Would it be seditious and poison to the smooth-running military if a soldier questioned whether his CO could deploy him to Iran in support of OBTBBOTFOTE?
lol
Maybe because Watada and Huet-Vaughn just decided that they weren't going to go and that was that. Lakin followed written military procedure as far up the chain of command as he was allowed to go, without getting any answers. Since his command would not give him guidance, he took the only stance left to him (aside from acquiescing) which was to disobey a deployment order.
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.