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
Each and every one of them, including the Supremes who have "evaded" the issue should be tried for treason. But that would mean eating their own and they aren't going to do that. America, she was grand while she lasted.
Arthur , I’m not familiar with. I know he was a Pres..
Spiro Agnew was the 39th Vice President of the United States, not the President.
Would your remarks establish that you do not believe in American Victory? Whose victory would you prefer? I am not aware of any opportunity that I had in 2006 and do not believe that there was any. I did exercise my vote against this fraud in 2008, even though the alternative was not one I would have preferred. Electors are not required to examine the eligibility of a candidate certified as Obama was and were not empowered to do so at the time. As to members of Congress: several have remarked that they have a question about the issue and now their number has been increased. I expect that trend to continue.
As to my own credentials: I did once, as lead counsel, win cert in a case that is somewhat of a precursor of the present situation. It involved the late Edward Kennedy and after we won cert his machine, which was not unlike the Ci-cago machine behind the incompetent now occupying the Oval Office managed to rig the system in ways not all of which were legal and a good deal of which were not above board. I believe we are once again engaged in a contest to see if a man who has aggregated power to himself and is surrounded by toadies and lickspittles of the mainstream media, so-called, is above the rule of law.
I agree that Lt. Col. Lakin does not have a chance of success and a very good attorney I know so advised him before he went forward. But then, as was once pointed out in a book of that name, the military justice system is to justice as military music is to music. It can be good but often is not. It is not completely clear in the civil justice system that the ineligibility issue will go unexamined, and, if it does, and the intent of the Framers is examined along with the 19th century comments by the judiical giants who mentioned the issue, then the constitutional rule of law may yet be preserved. On the other hand it may be historically established that our judiciary decided he was above the law but I believe if that does happen that the verdict of history itself will not so easily let him off the hook.
“deem & pass”
That was where they tried to sidestep voting on Obamacare, I think.
Yup, we are in for some exciting times. Stay armed and stay safe.
So, you’re in favor of that? The abrogation of
responsibility by those in the pertinent positions of
authority is acceptable to you?
What may be done by dishonorable and despicable govt
officials and citizens is not the issue. They will pay
for their abuses, one place or another. American citizens
have a right to expect what is specifically prescribed in
the Constitution and vital in this nation of laws .. what’s
honorable, righteous, and must be defended.
Otherwise, how do you .. how do we dare to remember, honor
and defend the hundreds of thousands of brave troops who’ve
suffered horrors beyond description, been brutalized, given
all for this great country and their forever grieving loved
ones if the highest ideals of the nation they love and for
which they fought are trivially trampled upon and discarded
like so many specks of grass, blown on the wind ?
It’s like spitting on their blessed graves.
NO .. Americans are NOT that. And God will not be mocked.
Americans won’t suffer this tyranny very much longer.
We strive for the best of principles, the highest character
and ideals, not the rotgut, filthy dregs of sewer dwellers
and connivery, and the thuggish behavior under which we now
endure.
Things must look smaller and cheaper in your mirror.
‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ - Edmund Burke
May God grant us mercy and save America.
I don’t think that either the politicians or the judiciary care much about this issue, either in the abstract or in the particulars of the Obama situation. Certainly politicians are not going to voluntarily accept any limitations on what their particular class can do. The people will have to do that and they will have to do it without using the courts as a crutch. Voters can force their legislators and/or state officials to demand proof of eligibility as a condition of a listing on the ballot for both primary and general elections. Unfortunately, I don’t see much of a ground swell to do that.
Absent that, someone who is a viable Presidential candidate will have to raise a challenge before an election is held.
I don’t like being called a troll and am more that happy to take on anyone who has recklessly slung such a slander in my direction. As to the Scalia comment, you may recall that I simply agreed with what Scalia had said regarding the point of natural birth. My point of agreement can be found here:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/justice-scalia-natural-born-requiring-jus-soli/
I have not expressed any opinion about what others in the 19th Century or any other time may have had to say.
There have been three opportunities to resolve this issue: Arthur, Agnew, Obama. Hasn’t happened yet, has it.
Thank you for your comments and quote. This thread and indeed, the entire situation especially with Col. Lakin, has gotten me very downhearted.
Far too many in congress and the supremes continue to ignore it. Why? Why are they protesting so much that there is not an elephant? What are they afraid of? What backroom deal have they made that they are so afraid of getting out? This elephant has been defecating in the room for over four years and none of them have so much as pulled out a hanky to block the stench. Ten dollars is all it takes for this to go away but they had rather tear down America than to admit they did her wrong.
If Chester Arthur’s and Spiro Agnew’s fathers both immigrated and naturalized, they are much, much closer to being natural born than Obama can claim. Those fathers quit their countries to become U.S. citizens, while the visiting scholar Barak Sr. went back to his home country with no intention of ever being a U.S. citizen. Natural born is about having a birthright and the only birthright Obama has is that of British, Kenyan or Indonesian citizenships.
Just about every judge in the eligibility cases has done something that leaves room for appeals or something to taint the legitimacy or integrity of the decision. It’s very possible that those are deliberate., to allow the case to be revisited at a time when a judge could make a correct ruling rather than the ruling the Obama coup tells them they have to make.
I don’t know about Spiro Agnew, but at least for Chester Arthur, he hid the records of when his parents naturalized. If the parents are US citizens at the time of the child’s birth in the US there would not be a problem.
Chester Arthur obviously thought there would be a problem if people were able to find out that his parents were not US citizens yet at the time of his birth. People knew that his parents were citizens but had no way of finding out WHEN they became citizens, because Arthur hid that.
Why do you think he hid that?
It would be jus soli for such a child of an alien father to be a citizen but not for him to be eligible to be President. There the Framer's concern that Scalia mentions would be controlling if their intent were analyzed by virtue of what Scalia himself is saying what their concern was. Scalia would agree with what St. George Tucker explained in his comments about the Constitutional provision at the end of his Blackstone of 1804.
There are clearly those, like Judge Robertson, who don't care about the issue because of their bias, but it would appear that Scalia is not among them, at least from the comment you cite and might well actually apply the law as intended in the Constitution.
By the way, there was no opportunity as you put it in Arthur’s case He went to great lengths to prevent one from arising. In Agnew’s case I don’t believe that it has been established that his parents were not both citizens when he was born.
Sort of. He said that perhaps he was wrong to call me a troll. I’ll accept it as an indicator of goodwill anyway. And he’s laid off the ad hominems some so that’s good.
Seems like the anti-Lakin people aren’t really addressing the actual arguments and content. The answer just seems to be “We won”. We know how that mindset is working out for Obama so maybe they’ll eventually realize that might doesn’t always make right.
??? You just cut and paste the same junk everyone else has while quoting some definitions. I knew what a legal order was before you were born. The definition of what actually constitutes an illegal act is well-established, and it doesn't include the fantasy you've concocted. You need to develop a proper sense of discrimination between the things that flatter your own sense of self-righteousness, which we are all betrayed by at times, and the actual external reality that is under no obligation to even pretend to respect our personal BS once we're older than 3.
Sorry if that's curt, but I'm tired. I spent most of the day carrying a grandson around on my shoulders. (He's three, so he still gets a free pass.)
You do have some talent for organizing and collecting your thoughts. I will certainly give you that. You're a step above most birthers. But your occasional lapse into florid style and expressions of self-esteem indicate you have some growing up to do. Which is okay if you're less than 30.
And I'm sorry you're feeling sad. But there's a lot of stuff to be sad about in this world, and we still have to keep our mental discriminators online. And my discriminator understands that there are a lot of fine men and women in the military doing what they're supposed to. Some of them are even dying as we type. Even officers. To impugn them based on your sense of pique over an issue you perhaps understand less absolutely than you think is ignoble.
I'll leave you with two lines, one from my father and one from my first NCO:
Father: "Just because you think something is the most important thing of moment doesn't mean it is. You will always be angry and upset with the world if you don't understand that, and then you will always be less of a man than you could have been."
NCO: "One thing can save your rear end time and time again in this life. That is the ability to imagine that you, yes, ever so special ******* you, can be completely full of **** at any time. And the more God-given certain you are that you ain't, the more you need to remember that."
The link you posted is a known Obama troll site in bed with obamaconspiracy aka Dr. Conspiracy. Dr. Conspiracy was banned from FR.
I take your point, but that is the entire issue, isn’t it? To what extent did the 14th Amendment affect the original language and framers’ intent? I don’t think that the courts want to resolve the issue and the politicians don’t want to touch it with a ten foot pole.
Ala your NCO, you are completely full of bull$hit right now. Can you accept that?
I’ve been observing epistemology. For all your lecturing of OneWingedShark, he is the one providing actual content. You are providing, “Everybody agrees with me so I must be right.”
You may be older, but you’re definitely not wiser, if that is how you judge what is true and what is not. That thinking is what got Germany to do whatever Hitler wanted. That thinking is what got banks and investors to play with fire and throw our economy into the shambles it is, because “everybody couldn’t be wrong at once”! History is littered with the effects of that kind of reasoning.
At the most basic level of the Lakin issue, neither you, nor Lind, nor any of the anti-Lakin folks have shown by what authority Lakin’s brigade commanders were lawfully able to send Lakin into combat. Others have shown that all authority derives from the Constitution which gives that power to Congress and to the President. I have shown that the Constitution says war (combat operations) can only be authorized by Congress and that in SJ Res 23 Congress specifically delegated that authority to use force, in the war against terror, to “the President”.
If there is no Constitutional president who has decided to use force, then what authorizes the brigade commanders to use force?
I have never, in all this time, been given an answer to that. I’ve put it in various ways, including whether Lakin’s brigade commanders could send him into combat operations in Iran right now (since there is no presidential decision to use force in Iran), and if so why. Crickets.
The conversation breaks down into the emotionalism and name-calling that it does because the anti-Lakin people are impotent. We get to climax, where the real issue is at the surface, and then you pull out.
And this is one frustrated lady because of that. I don’t think I’m the only one, and saying that WE’RE just not pretty/sexy/smart enough does not excuse the anti-Lakin people’s failure to follow through and bring the issue to a satisfactory conclusion that makes sense.
What gives Lakin’s brigade commanders the authority to lawfully send Lakin into combat operations in Iran right now, at 8:15AM on Sunday, Dec 5, 2010? Answer the question, or admit that you’re impotent and neither you, nor Lind, nor any of the anti-Lakin folks can keep up with the big girls.
That would be Hollister v Soetoro? Which has been tossed out of court at every level it's been filed in?
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.