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
You are running down bunny holes.
Here’s what is going to happen in the LTC Larkin case:
The order will be found to be lawful.
He will be found to have willfully disobeyed.
He will be found guilty.
Obama, his birth certificate, and the 20th Amendment will never be mentioned.
All of these are just predictions, of course. So we will just have to wait to see if they are correct. I’ll reserve further comment until we know the outcome.
Some of my brothers were drafted, the rest of us avoided the draft by enlisting.
“If he had to do that, he wouldn’t have time for golf.”
Ha!
Good one!
Not exactly. I think I gave about 17 different legal documents (and I incidentally have another one that I could add but haven’t added yet) which show that a denial of access to a record is a statutory admission that the denied record exists.
When asked on 2 different occasions - and confirmed when asked about it later - the HDOH denied access to the records of Obama’s amendment.
There’s other corroborating information, some of which I haven’t shared yet, but that’s the main gist of it.
As was reported at http://www.myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com the birth index for 1961 didn’t have Obama’s name in it back in March so they apparently had no completed birth records for him back in 1961. They now have a fake copy of the 1960-64 birth index which they show to the public upon request; that copy has Obama’s name in it. That’s all I can say on that right now.
They say Obama doesn’t have a delayed birth certificate or Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, so the only way I know of for that to make sense with what’s been revealed is if there was a standard birth certificate that was submitted for him (rather than the delayed birth certificate, which is a specific form) within 90 days of his birth (which puts it within 1961) but that it was not completed until 2006. Since it wasn’t complete when the HDOH went through the various changes in terminology & definitions for late/delayed/Hawaiian BC’s, that terminology wouldn’t have applied to his BC. It wasn’t completed until 2006, when it would technically be called a “late birth certificate” rather than a “delayed birth certificate”.
So basically the only explanation I know of for the otherwise seemingly conflicting information I’ve seen is that Obama’s BC was submitted in 1961 but sat incomplete until he completed it via an amendment in 2006.
There’s more stuff, too, but it gets kind of complicated.
Well, I’m glad they’ve got the verdict decided.
Why bother having the trial?
Geez, don’t you know how much like Venezuela you guys sound in all this?
BTW, what happens if there is no Presidential directive?
WOW, that is real some accomplishment, how do you do that???
Yesterday on July 29, 2010 you started out here @ 5:58:09 AM and until 10:26:10 PM and being able of posting 60 (sixty) posts, several every hour except 0800. If you are able to get other works done, you must be the fastest FReeper poster ever.!!
Yes I saw you were back 7/30 at 2:30:21, prostate problems(?). Try fooling somebody else as not being a FINO!!!
They did not deny access to a record. The said they wouldn’t discuss it with you as a matter of policy. That is not an admission that the record exists.
If you asked me about the marriage certificate to my second marriage and I told you I didn’t talk about private matters, that would not be an admission of a second marriage (and yes, I’ve only got one marriage).
And ‘vital records’ does NOT mean there must be more than one birth certificate.
And just like that you believe you’ve refuted the 17 or so different legal documents which I presented showing that what they did is a statutory admission of a record’s existence?
Wow.
Your opinion vs over a dozen legal documents.
“Who ya gonna believe - me, or your lyin’ eyes?”
I’m a fast Freeper poster and I STILL don’t get much done. lol.
I spend way too much time here.
In the military, we sometimes had to refuse comment. We did so without confirming anything...we just said we didn’t comment on XYZ as a matter of policy. It didn’t confirm or deny squat. Otherwise someone could play 20 questions and eventually the information would be revealed.
So no, I don’t believe you. Not because you are a liar - I think you are totally sincere and honest and trying hard to do what is right - but because I think you have misunderstood what is happening. I respect what you are trying to do, but I disagree with your conclusions.
The “we don’t discuss it as an issue of policy” is what is known as a Glomar response. An examples is “The requested records, if any, are exempt from disclosure”.
That’s a totally different response than, “The requested records are exempt from disclosure” or “There are no records responsive to your request”.
They are only allowed to give the Glomar response if a record’s EXISTENCE is exempt from disclosure. The existence of receipts, UIPA requests, etc are not exempt from disclosure.
When I later asked for the same records that Terri K had asked for and been denied, I was told that the records didn’t exist. Two different requests, two different answers - neither of them a Glomar response, because the existence of the records is not exempt from disclosure. That means that the records existed when Terri K asked for them; they had been destroyed by the time I asked for them.
The VA, in their retention schedules, has a file for records requested that don’t exist.... and a file for records requested that were denied.
The military knows the difference between records which don’t exist and records which are denied. It also knows the difference between a non-committal response. The term “Glomar response” was in regards to a submarine, IIRC - a request regarding military information, and the response was to be non-committal.
If it’s not a non-committal denial (Glomarized response) then it is a direct denial - and that is an admission that the requested records exist.
Terri K asked the OIP whether the HDOH response really meant “no comment”. Cathy Takase refused to let Linden Joesting answer the question.
I asked the OIP Attorney for the Day what would be some examples of Glomar responses or how a person would tell a standard denial from a Glomarized response. She refused to answer the question unless I showed her the specific request - wouldn’t commit to saying that certain words mean certain things. That’s how slippery these people are.
If they had meant “no comment” they had MANY, MANY opportunities to do so - both the HDOH and the OIP - and yet none of them would ever say the response meant “no comment”.
Oops. I should have pinged you to this one.
From your blog, Hawaii’s response was:
“I am responding to your latest e-mails on behalf of Dr. Fukino and the Department of Health.
Section 92F-13, Hawaii Revised Statutes, says that disclosure is not required for government records that are protected from disclosure by state law. Section 338-18, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is just such a law. It prohibits disclosure of vital statistics records to anyone who does not have a direct and tangible interest in the record. Those persons with a direct and tangible interest are listed specifically in the statute. Under section 338-1, Hawaii Revised Statutes, vital statistics records include registration, preparation, and preservation of data pertaining to births and other vital events, as well as related information.
Therefore, neither a birth certificate nor any information related to a birth certificate may be disclosed to a person who does not have a direct and tangible interest in it. You have not shown that you have such an interest in President Obama’s birth certificate, so we cannot disclose to you the birth certificate or any related information.
We now consider this matter closed. We do not plan to respond to further UIPA requests from you for President Obama’s birth certificate or any related information.”
You posted it with this comment:
“As the Office of Information Practices determined on appeal of this response, this is a denial of access to all the records requested, without a Glomar response (“if any” statement) – which confirms the existence of the requested records to which access is being denied.”
I think you are connecting dots that aren’t meant to be connected, particularly with email. I understand you disagree, as is your right. I post it here so others can draw their own conclusions.
For those not familiar with it, BDZ’s blog can be found here:
http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/
Also see here for more info:
http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/joesting-wont-correct-terri-k/
Now you're just being silly.
To be the president-elect a person has to have been certified as the winner by Congress. And yet the 20th Amendment says that a President-elect (already certified by Congress as the winner of the election) can STILL fail to qualify. Obviously “qualifying” is something besides getting Congress to say you won the electoral vote.
So who still has to qualify him?
Show me where Congress ever said that Obama is Constitutionally qualified to be president. And right after you show me that I will file perjury charges against anybody who signed it, because Hawaii law says the facts of Obama’s birth have never - to this day - been legally determined.
They approved the vote of the Electoral College, didn't they? And he got sworn in and everything, I watched it on the news.
Lakin decided he wasn't going to go and that was pretty well that too.
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.
And he's going to be court martialed and cashiered for it.
That's news to me. And you'd think I would have come across the UCMJ article that specified that during my 31 years in the Navy.
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?
Irrelevant to the charges against Lakin. He's charged with disobeying his brigade commander's order to report to his office and the order to report for duty with the 101st Airborne. Both those officers were authorized to issue those orders.
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.
Again irrelevant since Lakin's commander didn't pretend he was issuing orders to deploy on his own.
We now know that Obama can’t act as CIC...
So you say. But your say alone doesn't change your opinion to fact.
They are denying access on the basis that the requested records are exempt from disclosure because of HRS 338-18.
Later Terri K/Miss Tickly (MT) asked them to clarify which of the records she requested they were denying access to and they said all of them.
OIP Attorney Linden Joesting repeatedly told MT that the HDOH should say if they didn’t have the requested records, and she said in her summary letter to MT that the HDOH had correctly denied access to the records.
There was another instance where then-OIP Director Paul Tsukiyama also denied access to records including supplementary documents to support the birth claims (which would not exist for a standard birth certificate issued by a hospital).
There is much, much more that supports the conclusions I’ve reached than what was posted here. But thank you for posting the link; people do need to look at what’s there and make up their own minds.
Does the 20th Amendment say that “qualifying” doesn’t matter if the Pres-elect is certified by Congress, or takes the oath, or anything else?
Let me just type it in here, Section 3 of the 20th Amendment:
“If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
In what instance would a President elect fail to qualify by Jan 20th even though the Vice President elect qualified by then?
This is not about SOMEBODY ELSE “qualifying” him. It is about he himself failing to qualify by Jan 20th.
The only place the Constitution talks about Congress with the electoral vote is counting the already-certified votes from each state, and taking care of a split vote where nobody gets the majority of the electoral votes.
It’s COUNTING the votes.
It’s described in the 12th Amendment thusly: “The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted...”
It goes on to say how to decide who has won and what happens if there’s a split vote so that nobody has the majority (the House gets to decide/vote on the Pres and the Senate gets to decide/vote on the Vice Pres, both of them pitting only the 2 top vote-getters against each other. If the House doesn’t decide on a President in time, the VP elect acts as Pres)
Contrast that with Article I, Section 5, where it says, “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members...”
Nowhere is Congress given any job in the electoral vote except counting them and deciding who wins if the vote is split.
Nobody knows the results of the electoral vote until Congress counts the votes which were certified, sealed, and delivered to Congress. There is not a President elect until then. If there is a “President elect” then everything Congress is allowed to do has already been done - and after that the President elect and VP elect can each STILL “fail to qualify”, independently of each other, according to the 20th Amendment.
What are the qualifications for holding the office of President and Vice President? How could a person “fail to qualify” even though they were certified as the winner? You tell me.
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.