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
>Now, please explain to me the meaning of the UCMJ, why it is what it is, and your experience with it.....oh, you do not know, and have no experience with it????
Actually I was enlisted for 9 years so I do have some idea.
The UCMJ is the codification of the military law that, supposedly, applies to all members of the armed forces.
I did get an article 15, with the hearing and everything once.
>then what the hell are you doing giving your opinion on military judical matters????????
It’s quite simple: I have the ability to read and to apply logic.
Furthermore, ALL members of the armed forces swear an oath TO THE CONSTITUTION, the Constitution very clearly states that in ALL criminal prosecutions the accused shall “have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor”* to deny the LTC the ability to produce witnesses in his favor is nothing less than this court declaring that the Constitution does not apply to it.
*Amendment 6.
Lucas Smith is a con-man who tried to scam money first and foremost and has put effectively zero effort into anything that could even remotely challenge BHO while focusing his efforts on trying to enrich himself.
Orly Taitz is a self-aggranizing nut who managed to single handledly poison the well for everyone who wanted the issue taken seriously.
You have no evidence. You only have what you want to think is evidence alongside an almost pathological rejection of anything that doesn't support your point of view.
Even if there was no birth certificate at all that would hold true.
Er, Butter is one of two or three people who, even if I were a staunch “anti-birther,” would command my respect because of the depth and honesty of their research. You should take a look at it yourself before dismissing it.
Why does the Factcheck COLB have a higher number than the Nordyke BC’s even though it claims to have received that number 3 days earlier than theirs?
That’s not a perceived anomaly; that is a real anomaly, based on what the HDOH itself has said. So explain that anomaly to me. Tell me what happened, to create that result.
If this was an episode of CSI the case would already be solved. But all I have asked for is an investigation because of the incompatible claims and because of the laws and rules documentably broken in this whole process.
The standard of evidence you seem to be expecting is that if the killer doesn’t come forward out of the goodness of his heart and tell the whole world that he committed the crime, then all you have are “suspicions, allegations and accustions based on perceived anomalies and your interpretations of people’s comment. Not proof.”
Apply that standard everywhere in your life and you’ll be left spinning in the middle of the room wondering which direction is up.
I’ve watched it from the beginning.
I do not question her honesty or efforts at depth.
I simply disagree with her and think she is drawing unwarranted conclusions and grasping at straws.
That’s not a perceived anomaly; that is a real anomaly, based on what the HDOH itself has said. So explain that anomaly to me. Tell me what happened, to create that result.”
I do not know. But there are a number of rational ways that it could have happened in 1961. Whether or not this is an anomaly depends on an exact knowledge of what was actually done in 1961. You've been presented with a number of possibilities but have chosen to reject them in favor of your conspiracy.
So I say that it remains a perceived anomaly because you are are making the assumption that it should have been done a certain way but have never bothered to show that it actually was done that way. We've discussed this before. If you actually had a few dozen BC’s from August of 1961 and could show that they should be sequential based on birth date and time then you'd have something. But you don't, instead you try to draw a conclusion from a sample of three and the statement of someone who has no knowledge of the process as it was done before she was born. Read up on aliasing errors in data acquisition and you'll hopefully get the idea.
“If this was an episode of CSI the case would already be solved.”
That's because CSI is a TV show where the writers can use whatever trope or deus ex machina they need to wrap things up in 46 minutes.
“The standard of evidence you seem to be expecting is that if the killer doesn’t come forward out of the goodness of his heart and tell the whole world that he committed the crime, then all you have are “suspicions, allegations and accusations based on perceived anomalies and your interpretations of people’s comment. Not proof.””
My standard of evidence is actually evidence.
“Apply that standard everywhere in your life and you’ll be left spinning in the middle of the room wondering which direction is up.”
And yet I seem do be doing surprisingly well...
I remain hopeful that things will clear up for you when you see the Whitehouse, Lord willing, change hands and the nutty idea pendulum swings Left again.
The right to have witnesses is so critical. Somebody once said that a person doesn’t have a right to bring up all kinds of stuff that doesn’t pertain to the charges. When a witness is brought forward at trial and questions are asked that are irrelevant the opposing counsel can object. You don’t stop a witness from appearing because there may be irrelevant questions asked.
This whole farce of a court-martial hinges on Lind ignoring the elements of Article 92, which say that an order is lawful if it is not contrary to the Constitution or laws and is not given by someone acting beyond their authority. Lind said an order is INFERRED to be “lawful” if it must be obeyed. That’s not what the actual law says, and she knows it.
True.
He is not being allowed to show that the order he was given was not lawful because it is - as the elements of Article 92 say - “contrary to the Constitution”.
There is no Constitutional question about the orders he's charged with disobeying.
Lakin’s due process and equal protection rights are being trampled. This is officially a banana republic.
Not even close to being true.
A lot of people here would happily “debunk” their own grandma for fun - it’s how they get their jollies.
And then there are the paid disinformation people, regular leftists, and who knows what else.
Don’t let them bother you.
I don’t know why some of them do what they do.
I suspect some are just people who have fun aggravating others and poking them with sticks. We’ve all known plenty of people like that.
In the context of this issue, those are patently absurd statements.
You want to believe the brother is yet sitting on evidence when there is every reason to believe it was delivered to Lakin's legal team.
There are some, of course, who would like to see the evidence prematurely made available to the public so as to gain additional time to attack its credibility or develop a response.
The time and place at which any such evidence will be offered or presented will depend primarily on the litigation plan; it will not be at some ineffective and premature publicity stunt.
You can have the last word.
Check out “Sampling Sinusoidal Functions” for a graphical presentation of aliasing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing
To say that an order that may be inferred to be lawful must be obeyed is exactly the same thing [implementationally] as saying "any order which is not illegal on-its-face must be obeyed; there can be no questioning or confirmation-requests to the validity of any order."
The underlined part lies at the heart of the matter and, sadly, is ignored by our judicial system. In fact, our judicial system is trained not to read the actual law; this is what case-law and precedence is all about. It is nothing more than the judiciary playing the children's game Telephone with your rights & liberties.
-Lakin’s brother has no information or evidence that in any way affect the matter.
-The trail will come and go without any contribution from Lakin’s brother.
-It is both a human failing and a common movie trope for people to tell themselves that “the truth is out there” and it will come to light when the time is right. But... The world doesn't actually work that way.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in verbal volley with
Puerto Rican born rep, Jose Serrano
~~~~~~~~~
Politics
April 18, 2010
Clarence Thomas: We’re \”Evading\” Eligibility Issues
*snip*
The comments came as part of Thomas’ testimony before a House appropriations panel discussing an increase in the Supreme Court’s budget earlier this week.
Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., actually raised the question first amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.
“I’m still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States,” said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. “That’s another issue.”
Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land’s highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative, but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.
“I’m glad to hear that you don’t think there has to be a judge on the Court,” said Serrano, “because I’m not a judge; I’ve never been a judge.”
“And you don’t have to be born in the United States,” said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural-born citizen but has no such clause for a Supreme Court justice, “so you never have to answer that question.”
“Oh really?” asked Serrano. “So you haven’t answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?”
“We’re evading that one,” answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. “We’re giving you another option.”
http://nation.foxnews.com/justice/2010/04/18/clarence-thomas-were-evading-eligibility-issues
Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7qEH-tKoXA&feature=player_embedded
If the Constitution required Joe Biden to “act as President” but instead *I* chose a Sec Def, conferred with my Sec Def, and gave orders to send additional troops to Iraq - causing the entire military structure to coordinate movements and deployments in implementation of that order.... would you say that the effects of what I did were unconstitutional?
Or does the military have to do whatever any fool who pretends to be CINC tells them to do - all with the Constitution’s blessing? What person would the military NOT have to obey if that person had the audacity to pretend they were CINC and the senior leadership did what he/she said?
And if the senior leadership choosing to obey somebody besides a Constitutional CINC is binding on all the military, then how can those military leaders say they are NOT usurping the power of the Constitution? People keep saying that we don’t want our military deciding Constitutional issues. But when the military structure implemented Obama’s orders AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION which only allows Joe Biden to “act as Presidnet” (if it even allows Biden; depends on whether Congress’ unlawful electoral certification is legally binding) aren’t they taking the Constitution into their own hands? Aren’t they usurping the authority of the judiciary?
If it would be unlawful for them to declare Obama to NOT be the CINC because that would usurp the role of Congress and the courts, then wouldn’t it also be unlawful for them to declare Obama to BE the Constitutionally-acting CINC when court cases are still pending for the courts to decide precisely that? If they don’t know that Obama is authorized by the Constitution to act as CINC, don’t the top leaders have a duty to await the court’s decision?
Lakin picked the wrong hill upon which to fight this battle. That's why his new counsel isn't doing the “Obama defense.” He's doing what his first counsel should have—trying to pare down the charges and plead good service to date.
The best available evidence disputes this.
Whether or not this is an anomaly depends on an exact knowledge of what was actually done in 1961.
Wich makes all the more important to demand full disclosure.
If you actually had a few dozen BC’s from August of 1961 and could show that they should be sequential based on birth date and time then you'd have something.
We don't have a few dozen, but there have been several random BCs posted that show a general sequential numbering system that goes along with the chronological order in which BCs are filed. The procedures as explained by a DOH employee support this numbering pattern, so again, the best available evidence supports the idea that the cert. no. is an anomaly and impossibility. Obama's alleged cert. no. is irrationally out of sequence, and the state of Hawaii REFUSES to affirm that the number belongs to Obama despite having statutory authority to confirm who the number does belong to. Why hide the truth when there's no legal reason to hide it?? So far, you're showing that you're good at making excuses that don't need to be made.
In the process (pun intended) Lakin is denied several Constitutional rights including due process.
Thanks for the ping. What is the meaning of the rule change they just put into effect? I don’t understand the legal ease.
God bless LTC Lakin. May he protect him from all injustice.
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.