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
You’re skirting a question I have demonstrated is relevant. No use trying to discuss with you. You’re impotent, and it’s only frustrating me.
People who fight the fight may get a broken nose or a split lip. Lakin is fighting on principle, with faith in his convictions. Some are going to cheer when they see him get hurt because they lack the guts to stand up and fight when the time calls for it.
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.”
How is this any different than if an officer refused deployment orders when Bush was President because he "stole" the 2000 election? Should such a defendant be permitted to put on all evidence of supposed voter fraud, etc., in Florida, and essentially re-argue that whole election?
I was an officer in the military myself. If you're going to refuse to obey what appears to be a lawful order, you had better be so overwhelmingly right about it that you are vindicated almost immediately. That is clearly not the case here because there is a lot of disagreement on this issue. You cannot run a military if every officer -- and every enlisted, for that matter -- can refuse to obey orders because they've got an issue with an election, and aren't satsified with the manner in which the courts have addressed that issue.
Our constitution prescribes procedures to resolve these kind of issues, which is why the Supreme Court ultimately resolved the 2000 election dispute. The exact same system is in place today, and uniformed officers must respect that rather than relying on their own idiosyncratic views of how courts "should" rule.
I don't care how courageous or humble his request was, he's still out of line.
PA, you’ll be interested in the latest news:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2638338/posts
and here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2638352/posts
I want to make sure I understand what you’re saying about SJ Res 23. It is a resolution giving support to the POTUS to initiate combat operations at HIS sole discretion. It is not Congress directing the President to go to war, which would make the authority of deployment orders dependent on Congress if that was the case. Combat operations are to be decided and ordered by the President.
Is that what you’re saying, to make sure nobody misunderstands when I say “whether the President has chosen to use force in Afghanistan, as required by SJ Res 23”? I meant that SJ Res 23 requires that if force is going to be used it HAS to be the President who orders it - not that SJ Res 23 requires the President to use force.
Do you have any idea what part of the MCM would apply to a situation where a brigade commander ordered subordinates to deploy for combat operations without the CINC ordering combat operations there?
I’m looking at the 3 parts of Article 92: #1 is about lawful general orders, #2 is about other lawful orders, and #3 is about dereliction of duty. The part about general orders talks about it having to be not contrary to the Constitution or laws and not being beyond the authority of the person who issues it. If a brigade commander ordered soldiers to Iran for combat (without a valid Presidential order for combat operations), would that have the same requirement for lawfulness as #1? Is there anything in the MCM which would justify a soldier refusing to deploy to Iran for combat if there was no valid presidential order for combat operations there? If so, what is the code that would justify disobedience to that order?
Again, for convenience the Article 92 stuff starts on p 300 at http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/mcm2000.pdf .
I’ve tried to ask this stuff at Dwight Sullivan’s site but neither he nor anybody else there would respond any more informatively or earnestly than NS responded here. Mock the question rather than answer it.
I can understand if a person doesn’t have any answers, in which case I just hope they’d say so. It’s confusing stuff and I certainly understand why it’s a tough question. But if they claim that the question is so absurd because it’s obvious what the answer is - but still refuse to answer the question, that to me is the equivalent of a husband who refuses to satisfy even though he can. The more likely reality is he refuses to engage at all because he knows he can’t satisfy.
Not the most delicate way to describe the situation but I can’t think of a more delicate way to say it. lol
One other thing regarding disclosure. Hawaii law already requires that all of Obama’s birth records that Fukino relied upon to make her July 27, 2009 announcement be disclosed to anybody who asks for it.
Lakin should not even have to go through this big thing with discovery, for the actual birth records. The trouble is that to get the records he would have to find an honest judge in Hawaii. Given the way the rest of Hawaii government functions there’s probably slim hope of that.
Lind’s decision that the lawfulness of Lakin’s orders are independent of whether a valid President authorized combat operations is so critical to Obama’s hopes of anything, because that means she’s going to reject any evidence Lakin presents. As it is right now there is the evidence from the HDOH that they don’t have a legally valid BC for Obama. But even if Lakin had Obama’s BC and it clearly showed, for instance, that the BC was only completed in 2006 when a birth weight was added - which was necessary because Obama was not in Hawaii during the first 30 days of his life, to have a HI doctor examine him and complete the BC.... Lind could look at that, know that Obama and his SecDef are contrary to the Constitution and their issuance of orders is contrary to SJ Res 23, and STILL say it is irrelevant.
That’s the maddening part. That ruling she made literally cut the legs off of justice, even beyond refusing him his 6th Amendment right to compel witnesses, because it means that even if Lakin could prove that SJ Res 23 was violated through the issuance of his deployment orders, the judge had already ruled that lawfulness of the order is irrelevant to the lawfulness of the order.
Unbelievable.
Butterdizillion talks about invading Iran. You bring in muggings. Your analogies are getting odder by the moment.
Gonad envy, huh? You may be onto something there.
It’s the same thing with Sarah Palin. By giving birth to a Downs child and not having her life destroyed by it she proved that the feminazi arguments are based on a lie. She exposes them, and they react with vitriol.
By living out his officer’s oath, Lakin shows some of these people their unwillingness to sacrifice, and they don’t like it. Like Red Steel quoted, it is much easier to just “obey orders” because you’ve got a built-in excuse, a built-in sympathy from both the MCM and the people who are likely to judge you at court-martial.
Of course, there are others who believe that what Lakin did was a waste - either because he was wrong or because the military would never give him a fair chance even if he’s right. They don’t do the same because they think it’s a futile effort. It begs the question of why the officers even take an oath if it’s futile for them to try to keep it.
The difference between 2000 and now? The courts DID resolve 2000. The cases to resolve 2008 are still pending.
AS an officer, if you had decided to deploy your subordinates for combat operations in Iran even though there was no valid order for combat operations in Iran, would that be a “lawful order”? If your subordinates refused to deploy because they said it was obvious to them that it was not a “lawful order”, would you say the same thing of them as you say of Lakin now? Why or why not?
Lakin may be guilty of dereliction of duty; I’m not sure about that. But he is charged with violating a LAWFUL order. For Lind to claim that deployment orders for combat operations are lawful whether or not the only person who can lawfully authorize combat operations ever actually did.... is just crazy.
It’s like saying that if a brigade commander, independently of the chain of command, decides to invade Iran it’s irrelevant whether he acted outside his authority in deciding and ordering that. To truly “buy” Lind’s argument you’d have to condone absolute chaos in the military. A million times worse than having one officer ask for clarification of lawfulness, be ignored by the military structure for an extended length of time, and then disobey the orders so he can get an answer about the lawfulness and every person in the military can serve in good conscience.
Officers make a solemn vow to protect and defend the Constitution from being mugged.
The argument for not stopping a mugging in progress is that it is “against the rules”. Maybe so, but maybe an oath is more important than the rules.
At least to some people.
Officers also take a solemn vow to well and faithfully execute the duties of the office in which they are about to enter. How is refusing to obey the lawful orders of three superior officers doing that?
The argument for not stopping a mugging in progress is that it is “against the rules”. Maybe so, but maybe an oath is more important than the rules.
Lakin is about to find out how believing that he could make up rules for himself as he went along works out. My suspicion is 'not well'.
At least to some people.
Not to most apparently.
Not really. It has provisions for if the president fails to qualify, or if he becomes incapacitated... but it has nothing to say on the possibility of an 'president' who refuses to show that he is qualified.
The exact same system is in place today, and uniformed officers must respect that rather than relying on their own idiosyncratic views of how courts "should" rule.
Wrong. Neither officers nor enlisted can be required to respect the system when that system is the domestic enemy of the Constitution.
Furthermore, just because the Supreme Court says something does NOT make it either law or Constitutional. The Supreme Court is not given the authority to make or change laws or the Constitution; for example, just because the Supreme Court says that using eminent domain to facilitate larceny* does not make it so, the Constitution specifically limits eminent domain to public use in amendment 5.
*Kelo v. New London
Technically speaking, the Supreme Court Justices could be charged and prosecuted under this:
US Code, TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Or, if they could not be so charged, then does that not mean that they could conspire to murder, or themselves murder, and be wholly above the law?
Your very disciplined, and would drive a tank off a cliff if ordered to do so. Another person might refuse the order, and save the tank and himself. That's just not you. Orders are orders, they are followed, period. Outcome is not a consideration. The army needs people like that. When they told General Custer to go kick Crazy Horses a$$, he did what he was told. He Kicked crazy horse in the a$$. We can't say he didn't follow orders. And we know they didn't give him a dishonorable discharge or take his pension away. We need people Like Custer to remind us of what happens when we follow politicians orders without hesitation.
Apparently.
One of the duties of the office is to protect and defend the Constitution.
Lakin knew there would be a consequence. He considered that the well-being of the nation and of his fellow military personnel were worth the cost. That’s what I call a servant leader. Like the Lord he serves.
Another is to obey the lawful orders of the officers placed over him.
Lakin knew there would be a consequence. He considered that the well-being of the nation and of his fellow military personnel were worth the cost. That’s what I call a servant leader.
Soon you may be calling him a cashiered servant leader.
Like the Lord he serves.
It's amazing the things that God gets blamed for.
I don't think you can go back for the class, as you may not “fit in”.
Try the community college.
b/mark
Especially if the analogies are asinine to begin with.
Try the community college.
Or better yet whatever pre-school you're attending.
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.