Posted on 12/14/2010 9:25:59 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at wkrn.com ...
Lakin could well have known of the evidence submitted in court cases, showing what the HDOH has now indirectly confirmed in 3 different ways: that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery.
It would be reasonable to expect that if the alleged POTUS presented a forgery rather than something genuine, there must be something even more legally damaging on the original than forgery or perjury would be legally damaging.
The HDOH has made a statutory admission that Obama’s BC is amended, which means it is not legally valid. If Lakin knew that before he disobeyed - which he may well have known - would that have been just reason for him to believe that Obama “failed to qualify” by Jan 20th, since even his birth date was legally undocumented at that point (and even now)?
Also - going back to the Iran scenario - wouldn’t Lakin have to assume that there WAS an order for combat in Iran unless he had physical proof, himself, that the POTUS had never issued the order? What kind of proof would be good enough for him to use in that regard? If he had gone to his superiors and asked them if a valid POTUS had authorized combat in Iran and they had fiddled around for a year and refused to answer his question, would he be required to assume that his deployment order to Iran was valid, since he didn’t have any proof that it wasn’t?
Her rationale was poor. Her claim is that Congress and the SecDef 'share' authority for the military, as if that somehow substitutes for the presidential authority that is Constitutionally and statutorily specified. It also ignores that the SecDef is statutorily under the direction of the president. None of these bodies, for example, has the independent authority to authorize a military surge. Since two of the charges against Lakin were specifically related to Operation Enduring Freedom, there is a direct link to the statutory authority of the president. Of course, Lind did NOT want the jury to hear this in court.
You make a good point. Obama is a very spaced-out alien.
It’s possible...
Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.
Yes, they have access to Obama’s records; that’s why they made a statutory admission that Obama’s BC was amended in 2006. Which makes it no longer legally valid.
“Her rationale was poor.”
__
Well, her rationale was documented and supported by citations to the Constitution and to law.
Care to document yours? Maybe your legal acumen is as sharp as that of the Chief Judge of the Army’s 1st Judicial Circuit.
Was LBJ alone on the plane when he took the oath, or were there witnesses?
So if Obama said he took the oath all by himself and that he has video of it but won’t show anybody the video, that would be proof enough that he fulfilled the Constitutional obligation to take the specific oath that’s required in order for him to assume the duties and have the powers of the presidency?
If he says he fulfilled the Constitutional requirement then he did, regardless of any evidence that he shows anybody else?
Do you really think that the Constitution would have us blindly trust a politician like that?
Well then, I'm sure Lakin has nothing to fear.
Legal reasoning like that is what got Lakin into the mess he was in. Lakin, while under oath, has already acknowledged the orders were lawful. This is all water well-under the proverbial bridge.
Not really. The Constitution for example does acknowledge the president is the CinC. It doesn't say his power as CinC is 'shared' with Congress.
Care to document yours? Maybe your legal acumen is as sharp as that of the Chief Judge of the Army’s 1st Judicial Circuit.
Do you need a link to the Constitution?? I can document anything you have questions about.
How do states, Congress, and SCOTUS officially “recognize him as president”?
Besides that, the Constitution says that the POTUS can’t execute the office of the presidency unless and until they have made a specific oath. Everybody in the world could recognize him as president whether or not he makes the oath, but he would not Constitutionally be able to execute the duties of the office until he’s done the oath.
He refuses to show any proof that he’s done it. Says he did it privately without witnesses and won’t show anybody the tape. Who would decide whether or not the requirement of the oath had been made? What procedure would be used to decide that? Where is that procedure authorized?
You are putting words into Lind’s mouth. She said the President is IRRELEVANT to the lawfulness of Lakin’s orders.
And that is a revolutionary claim.
Dead wrong. Thus far judges have all ruled that nobody who has filed has standing to even get the issue on the table.
Please don’t continue to claim that any judge has actually ruled on the actual eligibility of Barack Obama.
And the evidence that you mentioned is flawed because
1) Hawaii officials have not and CAN NOT say that Obama was born in Hawaii, because what they have for Obama - per their own statutory admission - is amended and has no probative value unless and until it is presented as evidence, which Obama will not allow to be done.
Furthermore, Hawaii officials have hid rules and disobeyed rules and laws on Obama’s behalf, so calling them the “loyal opposition” is disingenuous. “Partners in crime” would be much more accurate.
2) The birth announcements are fake. The microfilms were changed out in the libraries.
3) Kapiolani Hospital says they can’t say whether Obama was born there. Obama has signed a statement with raised seal saying he was born there but won’t tell anybody whether it is genuine or a forgery by Abercrombie.
Every serious investigation of presidential actions has been conducted via Grand Jury: Watergate, Iran-Contra, Savings and Loan Scandal, Whitewater, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, CIA Leaks/Valerie Plame are just a few examples.
All of the allegations made above about Obama’s documents can be investigated by a Grand Jury with subpoena power over the release of documents and witnesses being compelled to testify under oath.
How on Earth do you get that from my statement from her having poor rationale. If anything, he has everything to fear. Let's put it this way, would you rather go under the knife from a competent or incompetent surgeon?? Judge Lind, so far, represents the latter.
Gosh, I guess all that other stuff about "declaring war" and raising an army and providing for a navy, and the making of the rules for those land and sea forces, that must have been constitutional filler - just trying to take up a page, Madison was.
What part of an officer's authority to issue orders to subordinate members is not incumbent on the authority (or even the existence) of the CiC, don't you understand?
Between the time that JFK was assassinated and LBJ was installed, did the military stop functioning? Golly, how about that.
Officer's have authority that is vested in them by custom and by statute, and that authority gives them legal power to issue orders to subordinates.
Orders to deploy and orders to report are NOT facially criminal acts - you know, the kinds of orders that service members are obligated to disobey.
The order to report to Kentucky was included in the Temporary Change of Station to Afghanistan.
Iran comes in because combat operations in both Afghanistan and Iran would be authorized by SJ Res 23, with the only stipulation by Congress being that “the President” be the person who decides on using force in those places.
So whatever procedure has to happen for lawful combat orders to Iran also has to happen for lawful combat orders to Afghanistan. If Lakin should refuse combat orders to Iran based on the fact that a valid POTUS didn’t make such an order, then Lakin would also have to refuse combat orders to Afghanistan based on the fact that a valid POTUS didn’t make such an order.
Judge Lind said that the POTUS is irrelevant to the lawfulness of Lakin’s combat deployment orders. If that’s true, then the POTUS would also be irrelevant to combat orders in Iran.
I’m asking if that’s really where we want to go with this. Do we really want brigade commanders making lawful combat deployment orders to foreign countries totally independent of the POTUS?
Does Title 10 allow brigade commanders to issue combat deployment orders to a foreign country without authorization from “the President”, when the authorization to use force requires that the decision to use force be made by “the President”?
“Do you need a link to the Constitution??”
__
LOL, no, thanks. But you can check your copy — does it include the words:
“The Congress shall have Power:
...
To raise and support Armies...
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces...”
__
It is widely acknowledged in the law that the President and Congress share power over the military. This is not something that Judge Lind invented for the purpose of screwing LTC Lakin.
Of course she does. You're an expert in military jurisprudence, and she's the bumbling dolt. That's how all JAGs get their appointments to judicial billets - stupidity.
Counselor Jensen, is that you?
Had the officers of the Caine not mutinied the ship would have been lost, they made the correct decisions in seamanship while the Captain froze.
In this case, our government has frozen in all of it’s responsibilities to its citizenry, and we are at the point where the nation will soon collapse under the weight of what is either a grandiose socialist experiment brought about by the feel good candidate of the millennium, or an engineered destruction of our country by the puppet king of a socialist world order.
There is one bright spot though even after Judge Lind refused to allow LtCol. Lakin to use his refusal to deploy to Afghanistan on the basis of Obama’s eligibility the prosecution used his youtube video stating just that as evidence against him as part of the sentencing phase.
I’m sure that will figure into the appeals process prominently.
I’d like to know the so called sanity squad opinion on that maneuver...
And which of those powers is delegated to the CinC??
What part of an officer's authority to issue orders to subordinate members is not incumbent on the authority (or even the existence) of the CiC, don't you understand?
Find me where an officer has the INDEPENDENT authority to order deployments wherever he or she likes.
Between the time that JFK was assassinated and LBJ was installed, did the military stop functioning? Golly, how about that.
Sorry, but a rather poor strawman. Who here said the military has stopped functioning?? The question is whether the chain of command has full constitutional authority. When a president is incapactitated there are structural safeguards for ensuring the functioning of the military and other government institutions. This is why LBJ was sworn in as quickly as possible (which would happen before knowing if JFK was dead or not). Such safeguards were executed when Reagan was shoot too IIRC.
Officer's have authority that is vested in them by custom and by statute, and that authority gives them legal power to issue orders to subordinates.
At least two of the orders Lakin disobeyed were tied specifically to White House directives. These orders were not made in a vacuum, so to speak.
Orders to deploy and orders to report are NOT facially criminal acts - you know, the kinds of orders that service members are obligated to disobey.
They ARE when the person(s) making or executing such orders do not have the proper authority to make them. Such orders are not exempt from challenges of lawfulness.
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.