Posted on 12/14/2010 6:12:11 AM PST by george76
FORT MEADE, Md. -- A military court was set to hear the case Tuesday of an Army doctor charged with refusing to deploy to Afghanistan because he says he doubts whether President Barack Obama was born in the U.S. and therefore questions his eligibility to be commander in chief.
Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, an 18-year Army veteran from Greeley, disobeyed orders to report earlier this year to Fort Campbell in Kentucky to prepare for deployment, saying he believed the orders were illegal.
In videos posted on YouTube, Lakin aligned himself with so-called "birthers" who question whether Obama is a natural-born citizen as the U.S. Constitution requires for presidents.
Lakin said in the videos that any reasonable person looking at available evidence would have questions about Obama's eligibility to be president and that he had "no choice" but to disobey orders. Lakin said he would "gladly deploy" if Obama's original birth certificate were released and proved authentic.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedenverchannel.com ...
Where are the experts that said this would never go to trail?
That is who I was thinking of. If not George, he has several other half brothers and sisters who probably would.
Sounds as if he may have had some bad legal advice. He should have deployed under protest and then filed a petition for writ of mandate for the Army to produce the documents in question. He probably would have lost, but he would still have his commission.
Cest la vie.
BO’s bith certificate will not solve the riddle-no one disputes that his father was not ever an american citizen, therefore, even if BO was born on the steps of the capitol itself, he would not, under consitutional requirement and basic citizenship law, be a nautral born US citizen.
BOTH parents are required to be US citizens in order for a child to be a “natural born” citizen.
33 posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 10:41:01 AM by Manly Warrior
The following is the passage from Law of Nations that was used as the definition for a Natural Born Citizen by our Founding Fathers:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Now what part of Vattel’s clear and concise Definition of a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN do Communists, Socialists, Liberals and Democrats not understand?
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/05/aka-obama-ineligible-if-he-was-born-on.html
“...This is why I tell people that the military won’t be on our side...”
Some will be, some won’t be. Same as 1861-65. Then there will be those who sit on the fence watching which flag to fly - same as the civilian population. It’s the “Thirds Rule”.
History repeats, almost always, because people forget, or are made to forget, or are deliberately not taught.
It’s inevitable at this point, good brothers.
A bit of a stretch, heh?
“I would think that the burden of proof would be on the Military to show that it was a lawful order...”
I imagine the military’s burden will be to show that Larkin refused to obey a lawful order to report for duty. I doubt they will get to the question of O’s birth certificate.
Suppose every soldier had the right to force the government to prove that every officer in the chain of command was legally holding his office before the soldier was required to obey the order. Might slow things down a bit.
Sounds as if he may have had some bad legal advice. He should have deployed under protest and then filed a petition for writ of mandate for the Army to produce the documents in question. He probably would have lost, but he would still have his commission.
43 posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 11:42:12 AM by P-Marlowe
Now what basis for appeal is there for what LTC Lakin’s lawyer has concluded is a “certain conviction?”
Puckett stated that all of Lind’s rulings re: discovery were correct, did he not?
What issues does LTC Lakin have for appeal of the “certain conviction” predicted by his lawyer?
I won’t be one of those sitting on the fence.
In a military court of law, orders are presumed to be lawful and are disobeyed at the legal peril of the service member, per the MCM. IOW, the burden of proof falls to the defendant to prove that the orders were illegal, so long as whatever ordered isn't facially illegal - to be understood clearly as a criminal act.
Yes, I realize that probably doesn't make sense to people who live a legal world where the state bears the burden of proving its case, but the military legal world is not the civilian legal world, and this is one of the differences.
This statement is just so typical of the MSM misinformation about the constitutional eligibility issue concerning Obama!
No Hawaii official said that he or she had seen an original birth certificate.
And even if such official had seen one, it could have been a foreign birth certificate. In fact, it could have been a Kenyan birth certificate, even perhaps a copy of the same document that Lucas Smith claims to have obtained from Kenyan authorities, an image of which was posted on the Internet.
That's because Hawaii law at the time permitted Hawaii residents to register out-of-state or even foreign births of relatives with the Hawaii Health Dept.
It may lose in the short run, but he knew that. In the long run, we will get the truth, and he will be vindicated.
How would evidence concerning Obama's birthplace exonerate Lakin from failure to obey the lawful orders of three superior officers? One has no bearing on the other.
Because Obama's eligibility is irrelevant to the charges Lakin was facing.
IIRC, the judge is not allowing Lakin to tell the court (and the jury) the reason he decided to disobey orders (the unreleased birth certificate).
The question is did Lakin refuse to disobey the lawful orders of three superior officers. Why he did it isn't important.
Apparently they were right. I understand Lakin pleaded guilty this morning.
From your lips to God’s ears. Seriously.
I just don’t think it will be settled in his favor.
My favorite scenario is that a Republican House refuses to accept Obama’s credentials for a 2d run for office.
I don’t think that will happen either.
He plead in court to *one* of the counts. Those that thought the Army or the Obama admin feared having this go to court were wrong.
And apparently the trial is proceeding on the counts he didn't plead out to. So he could be found guilty on those as well.
Because an officer may not enforce an unlawful order. Just because his superiors agreed to issue the order to save their cowardly careers does not make the order 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.