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
P.S. That stuff definitely is not an election winner. Keep it in the closet. Damned the constitution. Just care about the next election. Is that what you think? Might as well be a Democrat.
That's true, but also irrelevant.
It is he that hopefully will get what he deserves. Anyone who thinks for one minute that he should not have to show his long form birth certificate needs to be deprogrammed because their thinking is extremely convoluted and they have fallen from their senses.
I agree with you on that as well. But that is also irrelevant to the charges Lakin is facing.
Citeless, sourceless, quoteless, and finally you are pointless.
The Constitution makes Obama CiC. The USMJ sets out the chain of command with your usurper buddy at it's very top. The MCM is PUBLISHED and ENFORCED under Zero's Executive Orders. And finally, documentation from historical military manuals showing that all of the above makes the President the font from which all military officer authority flows.
And yet you still run around like a brain-dead liberal saying, "That's not what it says! That's not what it says!" Even though that is EXACTLY what it says.
Silly troll... DU is that way ---->
You don't build a house like our military on shifting sand. You build it on solid rock. That rock is supposed to be the Constitutional and civil authority of the duly elected President.
Larkin's question is germane in that it would validate that authority as well as the process.
This kangaroo court is doing the exact opposite.
When a soldier, silor, airman or marine is LAWFULLY ordered to deploy, you deploy. Isn’t that what you meant? Or do you want to cast aside the rule of law, throw out Article 92?
It’s crazy that Lakin would even stand a chance of being found guilty of an Article 92 violation, because Article 92 is exactly what protects military personnel from being charged when they refuse to obey UNLAWFUL orders. Article 92 is a standard that cuts both ways. It cannot be used to punish somebody for disobeying UNLAWFUL orders.
It’s an if-then. If the order is lawful, it must be obeyed. If it’s not lawful, it must be disobeyed. If it’s not known whether it is lawful or not, what I’ve been told is supposed to happen is the order is obeyed and a request is made to clarify the lawfulness of the orders.
Lakin did that. The military refused to investigate the lawfulness of the orders. Lakin has done what he was supposed to do in this context. To find him guilty would be unconscionable.
If “the President” isn’t the one using force, then it’s somebody who is not authorized to use force, because Congress only gave that authorization to “the President”. The lawfulness of all those orders by lower officers depends on whether force was authorized by a valid President.
Even if, say, I were to pull on some BDUs after getting a little line of stars for the rank patch and a haircut, then eith my forged orders giving me command of some unit order that unit to go to AZ and enforce border-security with extreme prejudice? The content of the orders would be justified by the Constitution itself:
ART 4, SECTION. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this
Union a Republican Form of Government, AND SHALL
PROTECT EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION; and on Application
of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature
cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
So then, the only thing that could invalidate those orders is their origin:
someone taking a command position who is unauthorized to do so.
Would those orders be legitimate?
If not, then why are Obama’s orders legitimate?
Well B, it’s good that we can be clear about where we differ.
Read more carefully. The closet comment is not referring to the birther issue in general. It was referring to the openly racist sentiments expressed by the previous poster in that chain. Unless you share them, I would think it wise not to associate yourself with them.
Lakin’s orders would be especially difficult for an honest judge to get around because Congress specifically stated that the authority to “use appropriate force” was given only to “the President”.
How can a judge claim that the President is irrelevant to the orders implementing force, when the law itself says that only the President can implement force?
Lind totally ignored that issue. Just like she totally ignored the actual elements of Article 92.
It’s a travesty. As a lot of us here can easily recognize.
The truth may be irrelevant in the courts of man but not in the eyes of God nor in the eyes of any decent minded human being. To any judge or court with wisdom and not just dead "relevant fact" these truths would also weigh in. The courts true duty is to dispense justice not just go by procedure which can be lacking. It is The LORD who knows all things and looks at the heart who will ultimately decide how this will be played out in history and His justice will be dispensed.
Obama is less than slime allowing such a patriot to suffer because he refuses to bring forth his long form birth certificate. A true Commander in Chief would realize that his duty lies with protecting his troops and their honor. Could you ever imagine Bush allowing this to happen for any reason. His not bringing it forth weighs in heavily on the fact that he is not a natural born citizen, nor a proper Commander in Chief, and shows merit to the fact that Larkin has reason to question his Constitution right to give the military orders as the legal Constitutional President and Commander in Chief. People forget that Larkin's loyalty lies to the Constitution first. He is a true patriot and hero. May the LORD of all vindicate him.
Jhn 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
Jhn 10:12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
Jhn 10:13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
I wasn't aware that He had expressed an opinion on the matter.
>>The truth may be irrelevant in the courts of man but not in the eyes of God nor in the eyes of any decent minded human being
>
>I wasn’t aware that He had expressed an opinion on the matter.
Is. 5:20 [KJV]
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Proverbs 17:5 [KJV]
He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.
Micah 6:8 [Young’s Literal Translation]
He hath declared to thee, O man, what is good; Yea, what is Jehovah requiring of thee, Except — to do judgment, and love kindness, And lowly to walk with thy God?
How, Oh Non-Sequitur, can there be justice without truth?
I should also say that the Isiah reference speaks directly to calling true the truth.
It’s a constant temptation for people to conflate their desires and the redress of their personal sense of grievance with the will of God.
As the Bible says, humility leads to wisdom. It lifts the blinding veil of our own self-centered consciousness.
[thread ping]
I’ve put together a scenario which illustrates the basic problem; I’m particularly interested in the answers to the two final questions.
Now, let’s say that I ordered the unit to go to the southern AZ border and enforce the border-security with lethal force. These orders are themselves authorized by the Constitution of the United States, to wit:
Article 4, Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, AND SHALL PROTECT EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
So then, the only variable concerning the validity of the given orders is the person who is issuing them; in this scenario: me. As in mathematics I have isolated the variable in question, which is that of origin: do those orders which originate from an unqualified source, even if in complete agreement with the Constitution, still carry LAWFUL authority?
That is to say, would those orders be legitimate?
If not, then why are Obama’s orders legitimate?
Keeper....book marked. Outstanding.
Thanks !
You could dress up in a clown suit for all the legal authority you'd have issuing orders. You'd be an imposter, a fake, and so would any orders you handed down.
If not, then why are Obama’s orders legitimate?
Because this isn't the America you grew up in. This is the twisted and sick America. This is the America where white guilt and PC elected a criminal. This is the America that nazi Soros bought and paid for.
*nod* - You fully grasp the situation.
Under the scenario presented , if a soldier killed someone the military would hold that person guilty of murder as the orders were unlawful even if the soldier did not know so.
Any order given by obama is unlawful and should not be obeyed.
After world war II we put to death soldiers who were just obeying orders, because we considered those orders unlawful
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.