LTC 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

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."

You’re right - Lakin’s CO’s never attempted to say that any orders they issued were “on their own”. Their orders were always connected to Obama’s directive for increased troop levels in support of OEF.

IF OBAMS CAN’T ACT AS THE CIC, THEN THOSE ORDERS WOULD BE ON THE CO’S OWN AUTHORITY ALONE, AND THEY WOULD BE UNLAWFUL ORDERS BECAUSE THAT IS ABOVE THEIR PAYGRADE.

I was thankful to see the directive that Gen Eisenhower received for WWII. Really interesting stuff. But I haven’t received an answer to the question of what happens if there isn’t a Presidential directive.

As to your comment that “that’s news to me”, cut the BS. When the elements say that an order is lawful unless it is given by somebody acting beyond their authority, that tells you, right there, that there are levels of authority and that the kinds of commands that can be given depends on the level of a person’s authority.

You’re not this stupid so stop giving me answers that you, I, and everybody else here know are stupid.

The number was originally blacked out unnecessarily on Obama’s jpg. The number can be legally verified by the DOH, but the state of Hawaii won’t do so. The number is out of sequence and inconsistent with registration procedures. That’s three strikes. There’s NO evidence that the number is part of Obama’s reality. Just because you accept it on blind faith doesn’t make it real.

The factcheck.org, Fight the Smears, Daily Koz and politifact scanned images would not be used in any court of law. What would be used is a copy of the COLB issued directly from the state of Hawaii. That copy would include the certificate number.
The state will verify the number via a court order to do so.
Additionally, like all Governors, Governor Lingle holds regular press conferences. There is nothing stopping any reporter from asking the Governor to verify the Certificate number and report back as to whether it is the same number as has been seen on the internet.

“... IF it is presented in court. Obama has avoided doing this at all costs. It’s not self-authenticating as a jpg on a website. Strike four.”

Its not Obama’s fault that 71 lawsuits have been dismissed prior to a discovery phase.

The cert number IS index data and IS permissable for release under grandfathered law. Strike 5.

WRONG. Index data is exactly and precisely what has been released and is currently available on the DOH website.

“Wrong. She has discretionary authority to release additional information on request WITHOUT a court order. There’s no reason to withhold it. Strike 6. Wow, Obama is terrible at baseball.”

She has exercised her discretion. If some folks don’t like her decision, they should simply go and get a court order for the release of additional information.

Obama is fantastic at baseball, the score of the game is currently Obama: 71/Birthers: 0. Its like the New York Yankees playing a Little League team composed of handicapped children.

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.

I’m sorry to hear that you confuse not agreeing with you with not listening to you. But that is your choice to see things however you choose.

My suggestion is that you retain a lawyer, go to court, sue Dr. Fukino for her allegedly illegal acts, get a subpoena, force release of documents.

Yeah, right. A Hawaii judge is going to give me a fair trial.

I wasn’t born yesterday.

I’ve reported this stuff to every law enforcement body that exists in Hawaii. I can’t even get them to acknowledge that I contacted them.

This is the state which tried to pass a law allowing agencies to ignore anybody they thought was too “vexatious”.

This is the state whose Ombudsman told me they couldn’t investigate my complaints because crimes were involved and they can’t investigate crimes - even though they have subpoena power and the right to do warrantless searches of government offices.

This is the state where Okubo said the law forbids her from reporting a forgery to law enforcement.

This is the state where their disclosure law says it can be ignored as soon as federal money is offered to keep them quiet (paraphrased).

They’re a lost cause, as far as I can tell.

It IS Obama’s fault that he had 71 lawsuits that could have been used to get his birth facts legally determined before Jan 20, 2009.... and he messed them all up.

He’s a loser. He was behind by 3 points and had until Jan 20, 2009 to score and instead of taking any of the 71 shots he was offered, he dribbled around in glorious mockery of the crowd and let the time run out on him.

What the Constitution says to him: Loser, get off the court. You’re done.

Regarding the index data being grandfathered in, you didn’t even take the time to understand what was being said there. You have no clue where Edge’s statement came from. You just glibly tossed out another kernel of your so-wise wisdom that’s based on ignorance. You’d have to understand the legislative history of UIPA in order to see why the certificate number and birth date are both grandfathered in for public disclosure. You haven’t read anything about the legislative history of UIPA, have you? Haven’t read the OIP Opinion Letters about it, have you? You just glibly said that Edge was wrong, even though you know NOTHING about the subject. You didn’t substantiate your claim and didn’t even ask him how it was grandfathered in.

My husband is going to be mad that I even bothered with these discussions because I lose faith in people and lose hope for my world when I deal with people who have no regard for the facts or truth.

He’s going to get a heapin’ helpin’ of thankful, admiring respect for the man of integrity that he is tonight. If I don’t show up tomorrow it’s because the house is still smoldering.

I read through a lot of the material you pointed me toward months ago, and came to the conclusion that the Hawaii DOH was simply a bureaucratic mess. To me, two different wordings of the responses does not necessarily mean they destroyed records, but that the ship is not run very well over there. I’d need more evidence that the COLB was amended or records destroyed than what you’ve so far cited.

The PDF on the DOH site of rules was dated 1955, with amendment in 1961, and has handwritten notations on it - not my idea of a definitive current document. This contains the rule that allows anyone a noncertified COLB. The question we discussed last time was whether the 1961 rules were superceded by 338-18 from 2001. I’m no lawyer, but I’d bet that’s what the DOH would argue. 338-18 gives the director very wide latitude to decide what to release.

The DOH is a bureaucratic mess, no doubt.

But there is a reason that their Administrative Rules were deliberately hidden until a year after the election.

There is also a reason that their birth index book has removable pages, and that they have 2 different versions of the 1960-64 book (one with Obama’s name and one without). That’s not something that happened accidentally. That requires deliberate action on the part of somebody high in that office.

HRS 338-18(a) is the rule they say has superceded the Administrative Rules. But HRS 338-18(a) specifically states that the prohibition doesn’t apply to disclosures already allowed by the rest of HRS 338 or by Administrative Rules. The Ombudsman actually acknowledged that the HDOH had given the wrong reason for refusing me a non-certified abbreviated copy and said that I could sue them under UIPA. IOW, he told me that the law is on my side and dared me to sue. As if I think a Hawaiian judge would side with the law. The Ombudsman refused to say whether he would let the HDOH know that the reason they gave doesn’t apply and that the UIPA law sided with me.

And that's the bureaucratic mess in a nutshell. The old rules are from 1955, have cross outs and handwritten notations. HRS338-18(a) specifically contradicts the "you can have a noncertified copy" of the 1955 rules by mandating what is protected. It forbids anyone "to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health." So the legal question for the lawyers around would be whether "as authorized by this part" supercedes "by rules adopted" in 1955 where they are in contradiction.

It's a good question and one of the many reasons I say they are a bureaucratic mess. Because what's in "this part" clearly forbids release except for index data, and for specified circumstances.

What is the evidence for there being 2 different versions of the 1960-1964 book?

Also, just a factual correction. The rules which allow a non-certified abbreviated BC to be released to anyone went into effect in 1976. It is the latest version of Administrative Rules there are and the HDOH has confirmed that those are the rules that are in effect, as nothing has been even proposed to replace those rules.

We spent a LONG TIME just getting the HDOH to say whether those are the rules in effect, as well as much time and effort trying to see PHR Chapter 8 on our own. The Hawaii libraries wouldn’t give it out and it wasn’t to be found anywhere. The HDOH refused to respond to UIPA requests for the document or to answer phone calls, forward phone messages, or respond in any way to the requests for what was required to be public on the website at all times.

It was only finally made public on the web shortly after I contacted the Lieutenant Governor to ask who is reponsible to make sure that the departments’ administrative rules are posted publicly as required by law. (HI law says it’s the lieutenant governor). They responded that the Lieut Gov is only responsible to see that the proposed AMENDMENTS to the rules are posted online, but a couple days later the HDOH Administrative Rules appeared online via the Lieut Gov’s website. After months of hassle.

That is WAY, WAY beyond bureaucratic inefficiency. That is deliberate obfuscation and violation of the law.

And there is a reason for it. Of that you can be sure.

NbC 31. Jul, 2010 at 2:36 pm

Some interesting notes:

in the first 4 pages of the FOIA release, page 4 shows Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) crossed out as “amend to exclude/include children”. This should lay to rest the idea that Barack had been adopted. However what does the annotation mean? A nick name?

Nor is there any evidence that Dunham became an Indonesian citizen.

So far it lays to rest some myths and raises one interesting question: Who/what is Soebarkah(sp)?

Found at ObamaConspiracy

***

Me: “This should lay to rest the idea that Barack had been adopted.”

I don’t know, Berg has made a convincing case that Lolo adopted Barack.

Interesting how they say they can’t locate a 1965 passport application (or earlier)as many records were destroyed. I find that unbelievable and we need to follow up and find out why they were destroyed and under what authority. They have my passport records from before 1965, why weren’t those destroyed?

I no longer trust any portion of the US Government or the Hawaiian Government as it relates to Obama and in many other cases. This is obscene.

I’m afraid to go on the site because my computer has had a lot of troubles after I’ve visited Taitz’s sites in the past, and I can’t afford to have my computer go nuts right now.

Are you saying that they claim they don’t have anything earlier than 1965?

Wouldn’t that be convenient.

I suppose those records are the same place as the original birth index for 1961, the Index to Foreign Births, Index to Delayed Birth Certificates, Index to Certificates of Hawaiian Birth, and a certain individual’s birth certificate: the Interpol Office in New York City (I suspect) - the one place in this country that Obama has made sure cannot be searched by law enforcement.

All those records are similarly claimed as “missing”/destroyed - all of which are required to be permanently retained so if they have been destroyed they were ILLEGALLY destroyed.

Is there any way the information on Orly’s site could be imported to Free Republic? I hate being a wimp but I know what my husband would do to me if he has to redo my computer again.

Hrs 338-18a addresses what information from the actual certificates can be released and under what circumstances. It defers to the rules and to the “rest of this part”. The “rest of this part” only applies to certified copies and to index data.

Not sure about that - I'd like a lawyer's opinion if any are still reading. (a) reads

To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.

I would not read that as limited to certified copies and index data, but to all VS records. Again, I'm not a lawyer, and one versed in the ins and outs of bureaucratic rules might interpret differently.

I followed your link, and am a bit confused. I see one photograph under "here is what you are given when you request the General Index Data book for births at the Department of Health in Honolulu, this is an actual image of the book in the DoH." with 0bama listed, but no photograph of the one your friend saw where he was not listed. Is there a link to that? You would need both photographs to prove there are two different versions of the book. (I am happy to see the pages posted show identifying information of which book is displayed - very important to good evidence.)

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.