Army birther pleads guilty to 1 of 2 charges

AP ^ | December 14, 2010 | AP

[Smokeyblue]

An Army doctor who disobeyed orders to deploy to Afghanistan because he questions Barack Obama's eligibility to be president has pleaded guilty to 1 of 2 charges against him.

At a court-martial proceeding Tuesday in Maryland, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin of Greeley, Colo., pleaded guilty to not meeting with a superior when ordered to do so and not showing up at Fort Campbell in Kentucky where he was supposed to report.

[danamco]

Buckey, “dear:” LOL, I never ever seen you being embarrassed, that’s new, hmmm!!!

[Non-Sequitur]

In the Whitehouse, the President will celebrate that little SOB who challenged his authority is going to jail.

I'd be surprised if Obama is even aware of Lakin's existence or the fact that a court martial was convened.

Pretending this is about missing movement is childish.

It's also about refusal to obey lawful orders and conduct unbecoming.

That SOB Lakin is going to get punished for putting a communist thug on the spot, and pointing out he's not qualified.

So he's an SOB in your eyes now because he failed?

[usmcobra]

Did John McCain produce his Birth certificate?

You don’t have to answer that and embarrass yourself, we all know he did, we have seen it.

Obama’s 2007 COLB was produced so that he could run for president, It does not rise to the level of an original document. It is merely a truncated version used for certain situations.

And given the fact that it could have been easily forged and has never been examined in a court of law, it fails the same test as the proof that you expect from LtCol Lakin....

Legal binding proof entered as evidence in a court of law.

Funny how that works isn’t it? The same proof you require from Lakin to prove his allegations is the same proof Obama should be required to submit to prove he is eligible.

[butterdezillion]

Getsmart64, even if you don’t want or need an apology from me I’d be happy to give you one any day of the year if you thought I was dishonoring you or your service. The men and women who have been willing to sacrifice so much for this country deserve - and have - nothing but my respect, gratitude, and support.

I believe that the way Lakin’s case has been handled is a stain on the honor of the military as an institution, and the noble men and women who have served honorably deserve much, much better than this. That’s what I meant to say. It is because I honor the genuine heroes in the military so MUCH that this bothers me so.

“I’m proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free. And I won’t forget the men who died, who gave that right to me, and I’d gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today. No, there ain’t no doubt I love this land. God bless the USA!”

The men who died to give the right of freedom to us all deserve better than to have those who sacrifice life, limb, wealth, and their sacred honor be deprived of their Sixth Amendment rights by those who, like them, have sworn to protect and defend the US Constitution.

If we break faith with those who die they shall not sleep, though poppies blow in Flanders Fields - or though we salute them as they pass. The greatest way I know to honor those heroes is to “take up the quarrel with the foe”, and what the military officers are sworn to protect and defend - and what I will also protect and defend with every power that I have - is the US Constitution, which requires the rule of law not of men.

This isn’t just filling a page with “nothing”, like a deranged lunatic. The Constitution and the rule of law are not trifles. They are the very substance of this nation. I will apologize for using offensive words that didn’t express myself well - and I’m so thankful for those who either don’t need the apology or who accept it graciously - but I will never apologize for defending the Constitution and rule of law.

[usmcobra]

I never said the Military forced him to expose his records, the press did...

You are bright enough to realize that the Military has total access to all of George W. Bush’s Military records, aren’t you?

[butterdezillion]

Wow. I didn’t know that story.

I have taken so much for granted. So many of the great stands of history weren’t nearly as clearcut or easy at the time as they seem in retrospect. Evil is so rampant because it’s so hard to fight it. I’m learning it’s never easy for the good guys to win. If they win, it’s by blood, sweat, and tears, and there were probably at the time as many people who thought they were the bad guy as recognized they were the good guys.

I needed that story. Thanks for telling it.

[butterdezillion]

Well-said.

[usmcobra]

When the Republican Governor of Indiana was sued for allowing Obama’s name to be on the Indiana ballot and receive Indiana’s Electoral College votes when Obama’s father was not an American citizen, the Republican Governor of Indiana had the Republican Attorney General of Indiana use the legal tactic of trying to have the lawsuit dismissed on grounds that the plaintiffs had stated a claim that the Court had no remedy for—out of the Court’s jurisdiction.

In other words a complete lack of testicular fortitude....

[BuckeyeTexan]

Can I assume that you have been following this issue for a while?

Yes, I have.

If you have you then know that almost all attempts to get this matter resolved legally (even before the elections) have been stymied by all sorts of legal maneuvering whose sole purpose was to prevent Obama's eligibility from being examined in a court of law.

Standing is a hurdle that any plaintiff must jump in order to move forward. It's not a legal maneuver. It's a component of the Rules of Civil Procedure. And whether or not you or I like the rulings, the plaintiffs clearly did not meet the requirements of standing.

We've never been faced with the question of an ineligible POTUS. So there wasn't a model to follow. The proper venue to address this issue was a moving target. John McCain and the Republican Party always had standing to challenge Obama's eligibility. Aside from that, standing progressed as follows.

• Prior to the election, ordinary citizens had standing to challenge Obama's eligibility at the State level to prevent the Secretaries of State from certifying Obama's name on the ballots.
• After the election, only the members of the Electoral College had standing to challenge Obama's eligibility. Alternatively, the electors could have refused to vote for Obama when the Electoral College met.
• After the election and after the Electoral College met, only the members of Congress had standing to challenge Obama's eligibility. Alternatively, they could have submitted written objections to VP Cheney to be read at the time the Electoral College votes were counted by Congress.
• After Congress certified the Electoral College vote and before Obama was sworn into office, I don't know who had standing. Perhaps Congress.
• After Obama was sworn into office, only the Department of Justice (or someone granted ex relator status by the Court) had standing to challenge Obama's eligiblity through a writ of quo warranto in the U.S. District Court of D.C. Alternatively, Congress could impeach, convict, and remove Obama.

Now we know what the process is and who has standing and when. I hope we can focus our efforts toward the proper venue if Obama decides to run for re-election. We must pay attention to the State deadlines mandated for certifying Obama's name on the ballot. I also hope that a State legislature passes a law requiring their Secretary of State to personally verify Obama's eligibility or seek judicial guidance in the event that his eligibility is unclear.

[butterdezillion]

Let me give you a scenario and have you (or anybody else) respond.

Let’s suppose that right up to this very day Obama is refusing to take the oath of office publicly. Let’s suppose that he said he made his oath in his bedroom sometime before Jan 20, 2009; he says it’s recorded but he won’t allow anybody to hear the recording because it would be embarrassing to him.

Would Obama be able to issue orders for a troop surge in Afghanistan? Who would decide that and how?

[mojitojoe]

You said it wasn't you and said I was a fool to believe it. But since you keep bringing it up, now I have to wonder. But we know why you keep bringing it up don't we? LMAO! Good luck with your plan. Now this is the final time. Here it is. SAVE THEM IT YOUR COMPUTER this time moron. I realize it's hard to save things to your antique 60GB HP, but they are small files, maybe it will handle it.

[BigGuy22]

“The original trial court judge and then a three judge Appeals Court agreed with Governor Mitch Daniels and his Attorney General and they dismissed the lawsuit.”
__

Yes, but they went further than that. Not only did they affirm the dismissal of the case on jurisdictional grounds, they took the additional step of discussing the merits of the case. That’s when they deflated in no uncertain terms the Vattellite argument that natural born citizens require two citizen parents even for those born in the U.S.

A further appeal was turned down by the Indiana Supreme Court; and the appellants chose not to attempt to take the case to SCOTUS. The deadline has now passed, and the decision stands.

[butterdezillion]

And it’s even worse than just denying him access to the records. Lind actually said that Obama’s qualifications are IRRELEVANT. By Hawaii law, any person is supposed to be able to ask to see Obama’s records at this point and the HDOH HAS to disclose it because Fukino made a public announcement about what is on his “vital records”.

If Lakin wanted, and the Hawaii courts would follow the rule of law (I know, less likely than pigs flying but I have to say it anyway), he could have the proof of what the HDOH has already indirectly admitted: that they have no legally valid BC for Obama, because Obama’s BC has been amended.

But even if Lakin had absolute proof that Obama was an ineligible fraud, Lind would not allow the evidence to be admitted because she ruled that it is IRRELEVANT.

The authorization for the troop surge absolutely depended legally (according to SJ Res 23) on being given by “the President”, and Article 92(1) says that orders contrary to the Constitution are not lawful. Yet proof that Joe Biden is the only person the Constitution allows to “act as President” would be IRRELEVANT to Lakin’s charges.

Unbelievable. I’m shaking my head in disbelief at this.

[Mr Rogers]

“You are bright enough to realize that the Military has total access to all of George W. Bush’s Military records, aren’t you?”

Odd. I was active duty all but one month of his Presidency, and I didn’t have access to them...

You ARE bright enough to realize the US government and the state of Hawaii have access to Obama’s records, aren’t you?

[butterdezillion]

In the meantime, however, we’ve got a ruling by a military judge saying that combat orders are totally independent of a valid President’s decision to use force.

That is serious doo-doo. Are you suggesting that this just be ignored? Should it be allowed to stand, that brigade commanders can issue lawful orders to invade another country without authorization through the LEGAL routes?

[BuckeyeTexan]

The Constitution stipulates only that the President-elect take the oath. It doesn’t stipulate who must administer the oath or where it should be administered.

It’s tradition that the Chief Justice administer the oath and that we have a public inauguration ceremony. There’s no legal requirement for such.

LBJ was sworn in on a plane by other than the Chief Justice. The military was sent to South Vietnam on his orders.

So yes, Obama could order additional combat operations regardless of where he took his oath.

[Mr Rogers]

“Let’s suppose that right up to this very day Obama is refusing to take the oath of office publicly. Let’s suppose that he said he made his oath in his bedroom sometime before Jan 20, 2009; he says it’s recorded but he won’t allow anybody to hear the recording because it would be embarrassing to him.

Would Obama be able to issue orders for a troop surge in Afghanistan? Who would decide that and how?”

If all 50 states recognized him as President, and Congress without objection recognized him as President, and the Supreme Court recognized him as President, then yes, he could.

The problem is one the founder of this site pointed out to you - individual officers don’t get to determine who is President. Lakin was NEVER the right venue.

[Mr Rogers]

“we’ve got a ruling by a military judge saying that combat orders are totally independent of a valid President’s decision to use force”

No, you have a military judge stating the obvious: That every state, every member of Congress, the Electoral College & the Supreme Court recognize Obama as President, and that a military court martial isn’t the place to challenge that fact. And under the de facto officer doctrine, if Obama were found to be a space alien, everything he has done as President so far would stand as legally binding.

[humblegunner]

Should it be allowed to stand, that brigade commanders can issue lawful orders to invade another country

You have researched this far more than I, but it's always been my
understanding that Kentucky remains within the United States.
Movement orders to Kentucky were refused.

First leg of the trip to Afghanistan. Where did Iran get into the picture?

[butterdezillion]

There was no lawful order if Obama is not Constitutionally able to “act as President”, and that depends on whether he “failed to qualify” by Jan 20, 2009 - according to the 20th Amendment.

To this day we don’t know if the orders Lakin received were lawful. That is all Lakin wanted to find out. It’s what he spent a year trying to get the military to ascertain. They refused.

As somebody commented to me privately, there is no military commander who can look at a soldier killed in action as a result of the order the commander gave - and honestly know whether the order he gave was lawful.

That is heavy stuff. Our military people are bearing a huge enough burden as it is; you and I both know that. They should not have to bear the burden of their conscience not knowing whether what they did was lawful. Sure, they’ve got cover in the MCM if they were “just following orders”. They’re not LEGALLY in trouble for it, but when you’re looking at a dead man’s family and in your heart you really don’t know what you’ve done, there’s more pressing on you than just what you can get away with.

And I know that because we have fantastic, conscientious leaders on the battlefield who truly care about their soldiers and about the Constitution. They are caught in the cross-fire here, and only a cad without a conscience who doesn’t give a rip for either the commanders or the foot-soldiers would trivialize the earnestness of these honorable men’s consciences.