Posted on 11/30/2010 11:42:20 PM PST by rxsid
"Lakin not allowed witnesses, documents, explanation at court-martial Dec. 14!
Lakin Family Attempts to Avoid Confrontation Ignored by Obama
Letters obtained by The Gazette reveal the extent to which a decorated Army officer and his brother struggled to resolve concerns over the President’s eligibility prior to the officer being court-martialed.
The Lakins are long-time Greeley residents. Three Lakin brothers; Dr. Greg Lakin, Capt. Gary Lakin USCG and Lt. Col. Terrance Lakin graduated from University High School in 1977, 1980 and 1983 respectively. The brothers' parents still live in Greeley and have a long history of supporting humanitarian causes in the area.
Lt. Col. Lakin is currently scheduled to be court-martialed Dec. 14 for disobeying orders to deploy after exhausting numerous attempts to resolve issues regarding the President’s eligibility to be Commander-in-Chief. The specific issue involved is the Constitutional requirement that the President be a natural born citizen.
Dr. Greg Lakin has previously been a member of the Greeley Police Department and was a prosecutor in Hawaii. Greg, who was interviewed on the Peter Boyles radio show on Nov. 9, said Lakin, “mulled over this for a long period of time” before he made his decision to refuse to deploy to Afghanistan. He strongly disputed the contention that his brother was a coward for deploying, noting Terry had already served in both Bosnia and Afghanistan.
...
In an interview with the Gazette, Dr. Lakin shared copies of letters he and his brother sent to the President and Hawaiian Governor Linda Lingle asking for a resolution of this issue. Greg said the letters were written with a very humble spirit in an attempt to seek information verifying Barack Obama’s birthplace.
...
Lt. Col. Lakin sent a letter to the President prior to being charged saying, as part of the deployment orders, he was required to submit his long form birth certificate and he was “glad to obey this order, and will provide a certified copy of my original birth certificate with common, standard identifiers, including the name of an attending physician and a hospital.” He said he “attempted through my chain of command for many months to get answers to the relentless questions surrounding your eligibility, but was informed that I lack standing. I also sought answers, unsuccessfully, through my Congressional delegation.” He went on to explain the reason for his request had nothing to do with personal differences. “Please assure the American people that you are indeed constitutionally eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief and thereby may lawfully direct service members into harm's way. I will be proud to deploy to Afghanistan to further serve my country and my fellow soldiers, but want to do so with the knowledge and peace of mind that this important provision of our Constitution is respected and obeyed.”
Dr. Lakin, in his first letter to the president prior to his brother’s arraignment, implored Obama to put the matter to rest stressing his brother tried to resolve the matter through proper channels but was rebuffed. “Approximately 20 months ago while continuing to serve in the Army he attempted to seek clarification regarding your birth certificate through proper military channels. Lt. Col. Lakin filed his requests through the normal chain of command (as the military advised) but continued to meet with frustration as the Army was unable to provide any clarification with regard to your place of birth. He believes this raises a Constitutional issue, a Constitution which he has sworn to uphold.” He stresses that his brother would gladly deploy in an instant once his questions have been answered, saying Terry “remains ready and willing to continue to serve his country in areas of conflict - as he has done in Afghanistan and Bosnia. I believe that upon meeting with my idealistic and principled brother you would find him professional, compassionate and worth helping.” Dr. Lakin even suggested a way to defuse the situation saying that “a meeting with him or our family, whether you chose to do this in private or public setting, would likely defuse this matter.”
He also sent a letter to Hawaiian Governor Linda Lingle who he met several times while he was a prosecuting attorney in Maui County. He told her that “a short meeting or phone with him or family (whether done privately or publicly - your choice), would completely defuse this matter.”
...
Dr. Lakin sent another letter to the President after the initial court-martial date was set. In the letter Greg told the president he was a supporter who was pleased to see him elected in 2008. He reiterated that Terry made this decision only after other options had been exhausted. “It is a shame that no one above him in the military ranks and no one in Congress, who represents him, could address his concerns so that he could have avoided the prospect of such an enormous penalty for staying faithful to the oath he swore as an officer.” He went on to say that Col. Lakin was far from alone in his concerns saying, “Many others in uniform share this concern and have conveyed their support to my brother.”
Showing he understands the divisiveness the issue has caused, he told the President, “We should use all means necessary to avoid an escalated controversy this fall when his court-martial is scheduled. There is much strife and tension in this nation now and this would not be healthy or productive.” Emphasizing the desire to find a resolution of the eligibility issue once and for all so the matter could be put to rest, Lakin said, “My family stands ready to provide any further information you might need and to offer our assistance to try to broker any compromise or negotiation that might be acceptable to all parties. We are deeply distressed over this situation, and do not believe that Terry deserves to be imprisoned simply for seeking assurances that he is following legal orders.”
Greg stated that he has not received any response to his letters and is concerned the Army will simply take the easy way out by avoiding the issue and simply lock up his brother. He said based on his experience as a prosecutor in situations like this where there is no case law, “Judges go in with a pre-determined idea how they are going to decide it and take case law and policy statements to say whatever they want. There is no magic law that supports either position.”
Greg said if his brother is not allowed to present evidence on his behalf and is convicted he would be forced to leave his practice to advocate for his brother saying, “My reluctant but determined response would be to forego my busy medical practice treating drug addicts and elderly patients to organize a public outcry for America’s new military political prisoner.”
As the issue drags on, more members of the media appear to be mentioning the issue. Conan O’Brien joked about the President being ineligible in one of his monologues. Rush Limbaugh, who has previously made comments regarding Obama’s birth certificate, said last week, “We have an imposter for all intents and purposes serving in the White House.”
Saturday Night Live has also mentioned the issue with an opening skit having Sen. Harry Reid asking the President to produce his birth certificate. ABC News Jake Tapper questioned White House Security Advisor David Axelrod’s statement that the President has released his birth certificate asking specifically about the long form containing the name and signature of the attending physician."
From: http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=6890
Lind never claimed that the President is irrelevant to the military. That is what you say because you are either incapable of understanding what she did write or simply refuse to accept an outcome that does not conform with your emotional desires.
Brigade commanders do not have the authority to invade another country independent of a lot of people, not just the President. And mindlessly parroting the Authorization of Force like an addled six-year-old does not constitute documenting an intelligent argument.
You have a fixation in your head that is an erroneous interpretation of the law. It leads you to not only ask nonsensical questions about Congress authorizing individual military officers to invade countries, a wrong-headed and pointless hypothetical grasping at the wrong issue, but to expect others to take them seriously.
Outside of your own head, you've documented nothing meaningful. You will acknowledge nothing but the insistence that you are correct. You flatter yourself that this constitutes anything but a study in the pathologies of the mind.
What military officer does Congress authorize to “use appropriate force” independently of “the President”, and where does Congress authorize it?
>> “It’s not calculus at all.
Actually it is.
calculus
–noun, plural -li
1. — Mathematics. a method of calculation, esp. one of several highly systematic methods of treating problems by a special system of algebraic notations, as differential or integral calculus.
2. — Pathology. a stone, or concretion, formed in the gallbladder, kidneys, or other parts of the body.
3. — Also called tartar. Dentistry. a hard, yellowish to brownish-black deposit on teeth formed largely through the mineralization of dead bacteria in dental plaques by the calcium salts in salivary secretions and subgingival transudates.
4. — calculation; estimation or computation: the calculus of political appeal.
Definition #4.
>>It’s law, in which you are obviously unversed.
So says someone who cannot check a definition.
>>In the law, simply insisting something is true does not make it so.”
Ah, but going to the sources and the definitions, which you have failed to do.. that does.
I noticed that too. It is actually disturbing the number of people who would argue, without any citation of law, that the eligibility of the person in command has no effect on the legitimacy of orders.
>You’re obviously here to support the coup d’etat and the false courts that presently turn law on its head daily.
More and more I agree.
>I just cannmot imagine why Jim allows this to continue.
>I would have installed a filter to auto-zot you and your kind long ago.
You and me both!
But perhaps Jim merely has a bit more mercy than you or I do.
Thanks the Gods for that. Else I'd be able to write any number of laws, or rule on them, that completely defy common sense and logic as in the current case.
It isn't that I do not have a lack of knowledge, it's that I heartily disapprove of how twisted and evil the whole system has become. Both civilian and military alike.
Are you denigrating my legal acumen because you think me ignorant? Or because you support the judges ruling?
Definition #4 does encompass the law, which you would know if you were familiar with all aspects of its practice. It is a beginner’s mistake in the law to apply definitions too broadly. It is simple ego to assume having access to Webster’s makes one clever.
The former. At least as far as the law goes, you do have some lack of knowledge and have demonstrated it.
That said, you may still be quite clever and knowledgeable in whatever it is you do. For your sake, I trust and hope that is the case.
On the relevance of data sampling rates to avoid aliasing...
The classic example is the wagon wheel on TV. If you watch the video of the wagon go by, the wheel sometimes appears to be turning backwards. That’s aliasing, and results from not sampling data at a fast enough rate to give a true picture of what is actually happening.
You sample some data (say a video frame of the wheel) and you see one state. The next sample (or next video frame) shows a different state but is it immediately after or is it sometime later? If the wagon wheel turns at five times a second and you take samples at two times a second you won’t get a good representation of what the wheel is doing.
Another example, say I am baking cookies and they keep getting burned. I’ve set the oven to 350 and I go to check the temperature with a thermometer every twenty minutes for two hours. I get temperatures of:
0 min. - 325
20 min. - 330
30 min. - 330
60 min. - 325
80 min. - 330
100 min. - 330
120 min. - 325
That doesn’t explain why the cookies get burned. If anything the data shows a constant oven temperature and the snickerdoodles should therefore be undercooked.
So I stop and think that I am sampling temperature every twenty minutes for two hours, but the cookies only bake for 10 minutes. I need to know what is happening in that ten minute window more than I need to know what the oven does over two hours.
So I check the temperature every 30 seconds for ten minutes and I see:
0 sec. - 325
30 sec. - 330
60 sec. - 335
90 sec. - 340
120 sec. - 345
150 sec. - 350
180 sec. - 355
210 sec. - 360
240 sec. - 365
270 sec. - 370
300 sec. - 375
330 sec. - 380
360 sec. - 385
390 sec. - 390
420 sec. - 395
450 sec. - 400
480 sec. - 400
510 sec. - 400
540 sec. - 380
570 sec. - 370
600 sec. – 370
So now I know why my snickerdoodles are getting burnt.
I sampled the same process each time. Both data sets tell me what is happening in the oven. But only the second data set has enough information to tell me what is actually happening in the time frame that concerns me.
If you look at discrete examples of behavior of a system over large time periods it doesn’t necessarily tell you much about the behavior of a system over short time periods.
Where vital records are concerned, I hope you can see that looking at three from August of 1961, one from May of 61, two from July of 64, one from January of 65 and four from November of 68 isn’t going to give you anywhere near the same level of useful information as would if a dozen records from a single week in October of 1961.
As for the Factcheck COLB, I think you are simply mistaken in your presumption that because you couldn’t figure it out it must be falsified. Especially since there are a number of photos from that stunt that do show the seal quite clearly.
“Definition #4 does encompass the law, which you would know if you were familiar with all aspects of its practice. It is a beginner’s mistake in the law to apply definitions too broadly. It is simple ego to assume having access to Webster’s makes one clever.”
Error on my part; lost a word in uploading. That first sentence should read “Definition #4 does not encompass the law.”
Ok smart guy... Who issues and enforces the MCM? If you don’t know what it is, or who issues it... Maybe you aren’t as up to speed as you think you are.
You don’t seem to be listening to what I’m saying. What is observable on the Factcheck images is not reproducible in real life. There is no other angle that could produce the exact left-side edge shown on the Factcheck image. Every time you have the page so that the left-side edge looks like the Factcheck image, you get the same image of the folded “seal” - and it doesn’t look like what Factcheck has. The shape of the circle on the top fold is reproducible every time. The shape on the “authenticating seal” is never reproducible.
In science that’s definitive. If a result can’t be reproduced under identical variables, there’s a problem with that “result”.
Regarding the sampling of BC#’s, all I’ve ever used that for is to show that the numbers go up rather than down. That’s all the degree of precision that I was looking for. BC#’s from early in the year have low numbers, BC#s from the end of the year have high numbers. That’s all I was using those numbers for.
The numbers being serial is stated in the CDC’s Natality Report, and HI law requires that HI BC’s conform to the standards of the CDC. And the Nordyke BC’s are numbered serially, one right after the other.
You couldn't do it so it can't be done?
In science that's not definitive. It simply means that you couldn't do it.
So how do explain the other photos from that same session that clearly show the seal?
It does encompass the law, it refers to ANY calculation, estimation, or computation.
Any legal reasoning could therefore be termed a “legal calculus.”
People like you are EXACTLY why “common sense gun regulation” is acceptable DESPITE that the 2nd Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.”
The Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) is the official guide to the conduct of Courts-martial in the United States military. An Executive Order of the President of the United States, the MCM details and expands on the military law in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The MCM contains 5 parts plus 27 appendices.
Simple enough.
To understand Judge Lind's ruling, one has to understand the defining role of Congress in the military. Hint: it's statutory, as in authorizing, as in what makes certain things legal and other things not. That Constitutional role interacts with the President's Constitutional role in sometimes complex ways.
“You couldn’t do it so it can’t be done?”
Yup. Right up there with “I can’t imagine that so it can’t be true.”
Much of humanity’s confusion stems from overestimating the significance of “I.”
And here's an up-to-date copy of the MCM issued and enforced by the CiC/President. The JSC can make recommendations, but it is up the to President to use an EO to make changes and to see that they are enforced all teh way down the chain.
All authority trickles down from the CiC. Without which, there IS no military command structure that has any force of legality what-so-ever. Deliberately made that way by the Founders to keep the military power subordinate to the civil power.
If there is a question about the CiC's eligibility to enforce the UCMJ and the MCM, then damn straight any courts martial proceedings taking place are called into question.
I recommend corrective phrenology as a therapeutic regimen to alleviate the symptoms.
A seal can easily be “Photo-shopped” onto an image - especially when the file is saved within an editing program, as the Factcheck images were.
When the paper is flat there’s no way for the unaided eye to tell whether a “seal” was added digitally. It’s when the 3D aspect is shown that you have the potential for problems that would reveal a “Photoshop”. There are 2 images which claim to show the “seal” in visible 3D.
The one I told you about is problematic because the “seal” doesn’t distort with the fold - which is not reproducible in real life and strongly suggests that this seal did not exist on that paper in real life.
The other one is an image looking down the fold that has the “seal” on it. The problem with that one is that there is nothing on that document that identifies it as the same document that has Obama’s name on it. And in fact, there appears to be a line of print missing from what is on the Obama COLB. So at best it is unknown whether that is a photo of the Obama COLB and at worst it appears to definitely NOT be of Obama’s COLB.
So every 3D image showing the “seal” is either problematic or (at best) inconclusive. This is stuff that is on the Factcheck site itself and can be verified using only the naked eye. No computer or image processing at all. No reliance on documents whose provenance is unknown. Just basic observation.
I’ve done enough geometric proofs to know that this angle affecting this angle is all about what is actually possible in real life.
And I never once had a geometry teacher who quoted a law that depended on whether I “tried hard enough”. You can draw right triangles all you want and the sum of the angles will always equal 180 degrees. No math teacher has ever told me that I just hadn’t tried enough times to find the way to get a triangle totalling 240 degrees.
What is being dealt with in this scenario is the effect of angles. It’s not a highly erratic science. lol
Well, yes, bashing their skull in would remove the problem...
The UCMJ is a federal law and the basis of our military justice system. It determines what conduct is criminal, establishes the various types of courts, and sets forth the procedures to be followed in the administration of military justice. You can find the UCMJ in Appendix 2 of the MCM, United States, 1984 or in 10 United States Code (USC) §§801-940.
The MCM is an executive order that details the rules for administering military justice. For example, it sets forth the rules of evidence for courts-martial and contains a list of maximum punishments for each offense.
The civil power to which the military power is subordinate per the Constitution is both Legislative and Executive. That means Congress and the President. It's right there in the Constitution.
Honest. Read it. Judge Lind did. She even cited it. So, darn straight, you don't know what you're talking about.
And why do you think the MCM is a clever test? I was in the army.
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.