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
They didn't order him to Afghanistan, they ordered him to report to his brigade commander's office. And he was ordered to report for duty in Kentucky. Haven't you read the charge sheet?
Show me the order he disobeyed which is not part of his orders to deploy to Afghanistan.
And as long as there is any instance where he’s charged with disobeying an order connected to the deployment orders then he has a right to defend himself against that charge. Anything he disobeyed that was associated with the deployment order is documentably dependent on a valid POTUS in order to be “lawful”.
A darn good case has been made for the lawfulness of ALL orders being dependent on a valid, Constitutional POTUS, but the “use of force” orders are certifiably dependent, according to Lind’s own statement that Congress has some authority over military matters - because Congress expressly gave that authority ONLY to “the President”.
Why was Congressional authorization necessary to order Lakin to report to his brigade commander's office or for duty with the 101st Airborne in Kentucky? Would congressional authorization be needed to order a private to empty the trash can?
Why was Congressional authorization necessary to order Lakin to report to his brigade commander's office or for duty with the 101st Airborne in Kentucky? Would congressional authorization be needed to order a private to empty the trash can?
You can repeat the lie as many times as you want, but SJ Res 23 authorizes only “the President” to “use appropriate force”. Lakin’s brigade commanders are not “the President” so they act beyond their authority when they issue orders for combat operations that were not ordered by Joe Biden, the only person the Constitution allows to “act as President” - and that’s only if Obama and Biden were lawfully certified as the electoral winners, which is highly questionable since Cheney didn’t ask for objections as required by law.
Show evidence that it was.
And as long as there is any instance where he’s charged with disobeying an order connected to the deployment orders then he has a right to defend himself against that charge.
He'll get that chance starting December 14th. It should be interesting.
Anything he disobeyed that was associated with the deployment order is documentably dependent on a valid POTUS in order to be “lawful”.
Obama's status is irrelevant to the question of whether the order's Lakin is charged with disobeying are lawful or not. The question is did Colonel Roberts, Colonel McHugh, and Lieutenant Colonel have the authority to issue the orders that they did? The answer is yes they did. The question then is were the orders lawful? The answer is yest they were.
A darn good case has been made for the lawfulness of ALL orders being dependent on a valid, Constitutional POTUS...
You haven't made a convincing case to date, and I've been watching you post on this for months.
...but the “use of force” orders are certifiably dependent, according to Lind’s own statement that Congress has some authority over military matters - because Congress expressly gave that authority ONLY to “the President”.
How so?
You are wrong, wrong, wrong and you can repeat this nonsense as often as you like and you will still be wrong. What you have just written is gibberish, but is quite typical of the many other illogical and incorrect assertions that you have made.
Obama is President. The only way that he can be removed involuntarily before January, 2013 is through impeachment. So produce some evidence (none to be found so far) and demand that the Congress impeach him. The Butterdezillion Undo Button won’t work.
You are right right right right....
Lakin is not a deserter. He is a man who disobeyed unlawful orders.
There was a case where somebody deserted and was court-martialed. He maintained that he was not guilty of the charge against him because it claimed he was in the custody of a particular person he was bound to obey, when in reality he was in the custody of somebody else. The military argued that it didn’t matter which person he was in the custody of, because EVEN IF it was the guy that it really was, the accused would still have been required to follow the orders.
He appealed in civilian court and his conviction was overturned because his due process rights were violated - not being allowed to defend himself against the actual charges made against him.
The military has charged Lakin with disobeying a lawful order, but his brigade commanders acted beyond their authority when they ordered him to deploy for combat operations, because Joe Biden is the only person potentially allowed by the Constitution to make the decision to “use force”. Anybody else using force is acting out of line, beyond their authority, which according to the elements of ARticle 92 makes the order not lawful.
Lakin disobeyed an unlawful order.
So if you’re going to call names, compare Lakin with others who have disobeyed unlawful orders. Should they be put against a wall and shot? Should you have been put up against a wall and shot? It’s the same thing. If you’re gonna crucify him you have to crucify yourself also, because he did what you did.
Unfortunately he hasn’t gotten equal protection to what you got. Because Carter though stupid was not a Marxist tyrant like Obama and his puppet-masters. Or at least if he was, he wasn’t as effective in taking over the American infrastructure.
You had a chance for justice; Lakin thought he had a chance when he disobeyed the unlawful orders but the retired military folks have even said he should drop the attempt at justice because it’s not gonna happen and the injustice could set bad precedent.
It is unconscionable for you of all people to “cast the first stone” - you who did the same thing as Lakin but benefited from the justice that is being denied Lakin.
[Thread Ping]
[T]he accused may challenge an order on the grounds that it would require the recipient to perform an illegal act or that it conflicts with that person‘s statutory or constitutional rights.
— “United States v. Deisher, 61 M.J. 313, 317(2005)”
As a citizen LTC Lankin has the Right to know that the President is eligible, as a Commissioned Officer he has both the [Judicial] Standing (by virtue of the president being the commander-in-chief) and the Responsibility to ensure that the President is eligible ( the Officer’s oath is to the Constitution and makes no mention of the President at allhttp://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm ). {Relevant to point 1.}
As butterdezillion posted:
>This is the relevant text of the SJ Res 23 authorizing the use of force (found at http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html ) :
>
>“a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
>committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of
>international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
The above relates to points 1, 2, & 3; the PRESIDENT [for pt 1] is who is authorized to “use all necessary and appropriate force” [the action for pt 2] against Afghanistan by congress [who can authorize war; for pt 3].
As it is the President who is authorized to “use all necessary and appropriate force” by Congress any order pursuant to operations in Afghanistan must needs be pursuant* to orders from the President.
*Pursuant
–adjective
1. — proceeding after; following (usually fol. by to ): Pursuant to his studies he took a job in an office.
2. — pursuing.
–adverb Also, pursuantly.
3. — according (usually fol. by to ): to do something pursuant to an agreement.
4. — in a manner conformable (usually fol. by to ): to act pursuant to the dictates of one’s conscience.
So, if Obama is ineligible to hold the position of President then point #1 is, by definition, being violated and the orders are themselves illegal. {Item #2 on the following citation. — Note: also that there is no “presumed to be illegal” therein, the orders ARE legal or they ARE NOT; any failure to ascertain the truth of the validity of those orders by the officers of this court-martial is exactly violating item #3: “derelict in the performance of his duties.”}
tired_old_conservative, I told you in post 107 that I’d whomp you if I broke out laws and definitions; I believe I have.
BDZ has EARNED her stripes here. I suggest rather extreme caution in trying to label her a troll. Because it isn’t going to fly here. She has earned the respect I attribute to her.
On the other hand I don’t know you, so in my eyes, she has a LOT more credibility than you do. I am not slamming you, but I am slamming your accusation against her. I don’t care what party she belongs to, she is fighting the good fight against corruption and lawlessness, and she has WALKED the talk.
Butter, we got your back!
Not even close. Obama is the President, period. I don’t like it one little bit, but that’s fact. Every order he has issued, every bill he has signed, every appointment that he has made is legitimate.
There is not a shread of evidence to refute his legitimacy. There’s plenty of speculation, but speculation is not evidence except in the birther universe. Without any evidence to support the start of impeachment hearings, your musings carry no weight.
Lakin’s order: http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/images/stories/documents/apf01-lakinorders12mar2010.pdf
The charge sheet comes right out and says that he was required to move and report as part of his Temporary Change of Station in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. That charge sheet is at http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/images/stories/documents/apf-14-chargesheet.pdf
Actually, yes; you see there is no requirement of “evidence” for questioning the lawfulness of orders... but there IS a requirement for proving the lawfulness of [the] orders if you are to charge someone with Art 92.
And the prosecution will easily prove the orders to be lawful. Pay attention to what happens on 14 Dec, you might learn something.
The whole argument that the orders are lawful can only come from the claim that officers have their own, personal authority.
This is at odds with all of established military law; all officers are authorized the use of authority by their superior... all the way to the Constitution authorizing authority to the Commander-In-Chief.
Red Steel, IIRC, you had some awesome references regarding this.
Only Congress has the authority to declare war against foreign powers. In this instance Congress authorized only “the President” to use force against those who perpetrated or support the terrorist attacks of 9-11. All force that is used is at the discretion of whoever is acting as President at the time.
The only person the Constitution allows to “act as President” at this time is potentially Joe Biden. Joe Biden did not approve the use of force. In fact, he was against the troop increase. The only reason Lakin was given these orders was because somebody who is not allowed by the Constitution to exercise the presidential powers pretended that he was authorized when in reality the Constitution and SJ Res 23 could only allow Joe Biden.
And that’s what the Hollister case is about, as I understand it. Hollister asked the court to judge between Joe Biden and Obama, as to which has the authority to act as CINC, because Biden’s decision regarding the use of force has already differed from Obama’s.
I only found out yesterday that the Hollister case was denied because Robertson claimed that not enough was at stake. To make the challenge Hollister made, $500 of property or obligations had to be at stake. Robertson ignored the fact that obligations count in that tally, which means that Hollister’s salary if called to duty on Ready Reserve would make a large enough claim.
Lakin’s brigade commanders clearly acted beyond their authority if Joe Biden is the only person the Constitution allows to “act as President”. That issue is critical to the lawfulness of the orders. And we already know that Obama didn’t “qualify” by Jan 20, 2009 because he doesn’t even have a legally valid US birth certificate. The Constitution thus says the VP elect must “act as President”. That’s Joe Biden (if the electoral certification is considered lawful).
He is not a deserter because he never received lawful orders that he disobeyed. The movement orders he received were part of deployment orders which were not authorized by Joe Biden, the only person who could possibly be authorized by SJ Res 23 to “use force”.
He disobeyed an unlawful order. Just like you. The orders you received conflicted with a higher order. Just like Lakin’s. The orders he received violated SJ Res 23. He had a duty to disobey those orders.
Here’s a thought.
Is everyone who has been honorably discharged from the military since Jan 20th of 2009 AWOL?
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.