Lakin not allowed witnesses, documents, explanation at court-martial Dec. 14!

"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."

So then, what you’re saying is that in my scenario if some Sergent disobeyed the Company commander’s command [pursuant to my order to defend AZ’s border] on the grounds that he believed me to be unqualified then that soldier would be wrong?

What if the reason he did so is because he knew me from my old unit?
Oh, wait, that doesn’t matter because he would be disobeying the company commander!

...what strange world do you live in where a chain, broken in the middle, may still be said to be carrying a load?

Let's come back to reality, shall we? Why are the orders of Colonel Roberts, Lieutenant Colonel Judd, and Colonel McHugh illegal? Or unconstitutional?

When Nebraska played Texas last year I thought the clock running out meant we had won the game. I accepted that the win was legitimate. But the amount of time on the clock was being contested. Until that issue was resolved it didn’t matter whether the clock said zero, didn’t matter if I had accepted our win.

As long as there are unresolved cases regarding whether Obama was ever even lawfully declared to be the electoral winner, it doesn’t matter what is accepted in the minds of people. What matters is that the legal issue is still unresolved.

Exactly. He was the only one who could make that decision. To say that he is “irrelevant” would be utterly laughable if it wasn’t a serious claim in a serious judgment having serious consequences for us all.

We’re living in an alternate universe.

you know.........., I was just driving home here in Upstate NY and I heard Monica Crowley on the radio talking with Dinesh Disouza about his book and I could not believe what heard them talking about in regards to Obama. They were saying, “...Well you know his father was a Kenyen and his mother was American and his father was an African socialist and Yadda, Yadda, Yadda”. No mention that he is not a NBC. I think her sight is monicamemo.com. I am going to write after this.

It really is a simple test. Lakin’s order to deploy to the war zone would not exist if it was not so ordered from the White House, and as this order would not exist, which was carried down by the rest of Lakin’s chain-of-command. The judge cutting Obama out of Lakin’s chain-of-command is on the face of it absurd and laughable.

If someone refuses to obey a LAWFUL order, questioning any of the things you mentioned won’t change a thing. That person could question it - and should get an answer. The answer won’t be what he wanted if it was truly a lawful order, in which case the CINC would simply prove his eligibility and the order would be known to be lawful.

But that has nothing to do with Lakin or this discussion, because Lakin was not given lawful orders. His brigade commanders acted outside their authority by sending him on a combat mission without being authorized to do so by the only person given authority to use force in the war on terrorism - “the President”, who can only “act as President” if he has “qualified” for the Presidency by Jan 20th. We already know Obama failed to qualify by then because he doesn’t even have a legally valid US birth certificate.

His brigade commanders acted outside their authority by sending him on a combat mission...

Walter Reed may not be in the fanciest of neighborhoods, but I don't think that orders to report to his brigade commander's office equates to being sent on a combat mission.

OK.........Please show me when, where and how I have protected and/or helped fubo.....you cannot and will not find it...what you will find is that i refused to support a coward and traitor...yes, I will say it again, coward and traitor... I served my time in the armed forces, and i know this type of person well...how many years did you serve ???? or are you just a no action person with an opinion????

We’re living in an alternate universe.

On that point, I entirely agree. The birthers are indeed living in an alternate universe. The futility of this case has been apparent since the first day with the reasons why pointed out quite clearly. The case has proceeded exactly as predicted and will so end. The judge has already ruled that Obama has nothing to do with the case and therefore LTC Lakin will be found guilty and will stand convicted of the charges against him.

Obama's eligibility status will be resolved politically, not by a military court. Those who thought differently were and are delusional.

"So then, what you’re saying is that in my scenario if some Sergent disobeyed the Company commander’s command [pursuant to my order to defend AZ’s border] on the grounds that he believed me to be unqualified then that soldier would be wrong?"
Without going into detail, I disobeyed a so called lawful order given to me by an e-8 ( senior chief ) when I went before the commander of my squadron ( yes, when you disobey an order, you will be brought up on charges ) I was exonerated. I was exonerated because the order I was given conflicted with orders my commanding officer had given. The e-8 disappeared over the weekend. I never asked to have the president of the united states ( at that time jimmah cahtah, the ultimate worst president ever ) to come and testify at my hearing. I would have been laughed at, made a fool of, and told to go to hell. Nowhere, in the history of the United States, has a standing president been forced to testify at the trail of a deserter ( yes, if he refused to deploy, he is a deserter. As such, he could, and should, be placed upon a wall and shot )anyone who feels any differently has either not served in the military, or is a socialist plant. You are the second person on this thread that makes sense......

Thanks for the kind words. I’ve never been told I should go to DU before; I imagine that’s sort of like telling somebody to go to hell... lol.

Seems like this poster doesn’t grasp the whole point of what is being argued: Lakin disobeyed an order but it was not a LAWFUL order, according to the expressed definitions in Article 92’s elements. I don’t know how to make the argument any clearer; wish I did.

Or this person grasps it and wants to change the subject by calling me and other people trolls. I guess if I’m a “troll” in his estimation I’m in good company; always happy to be with people who look for genuine facts and then analyze them with integrity. There are a lot of people I respect even though I don’t initially (or sometimes ever) agree with them; their steel sharpens mine, and that’s what I want. I will weigh into the mix any genuine facts somebody presents.

Lind threw into the mix the role of Congress with the military. Well, if she really wants to get onto that subject, she should look at Congress’ role of declaring war, which in this case took the form of authorizing the use of force - delegating that authority to “the President” alone, for him to use sole discretion. The use of force ABSOLUTELY depends on a valid POTUS deciding it, according to Lind’s own argument about the role of Congress.

Did Congress authorize Col Roberts or Lt Col Judd to “use appropriate force” in Afghanistan in SJ Res 23 (I hope I got that cite right)?

If not, then by what authority do they issue orders for Lakin to deploy for combat operations in Afghanistan?

Lakin disobeyed an order but it was not a LAWFUL order, according to the expressed definitions in Article 92’s elements. I don’t know how to make the argument any clearer; wish I did.

Unfortunately for you and, more importantly, for LTC Lakin you are wrong. The orders were lawful and the Court Martial on 14 Dec will make that point clear. Your flawed interpretation of the UCMJ, the Constitution, and most other legal and military points won't count for much in the final analysis.

Because Congress did not authorize them to use force. They only authorized “the President”. If they are not implementing the decision of a valid, Constitutional President to use force, then they are acting beyond their authority.

And we have no valid, Constitutional president who can “use force” because the guy we’ve got in there now has never lawfully been declared the winner of the electoral vote and even if he had, he did not “qualify” by Jan 20, 2009 so the Constitution requires Joe Biden to “act as President”.

Since Joe Biden did not decide to use force, Lakin’s brigade commanders acted outside their authority. Which, according to the elements of Article 92, means that the orders are not lawful.

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.