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 ...
Please post them so we can challenge them!!!
Hat off!!!
Actually, I find Butterdezillion’s logic quite compelling and simple to follow:
If the very start of a command structure is tainted, the downstream orders are naturally tainted as well. Illegitimate, in the eyes of Joe America.
I may be a simple man, admittedly not fluent in the US military justice, but I’ve argued that the actual military “order regulations” are beside the point. Lakin knew he’d lose. He is sacrificing himself in order to draw attention to the miserable spectacle that is our current situation. There are posters more well-versed than I who can testify to what makes an order legitimate or not; from the perspective of regular folks, however, the natural injustice of taking orders of an Usurper (a man who hates America, no less!), is enough to sound warning bells in the hearts of millions.
Specifically though, for a judge to rule that whether or not the Constitutionally-vested powers a President holds are not intrinsicly tied to a deployment order’s legitimacy, is ridiculous. If not actually hard-coded into military law (a fact of which I’m admittedly ignorant), it certainly doesn’t pass the laugh test.
Let’s say tonight that I declare myself to be the electoral winner of the 2008 election. I haven’t been certified, or sworn in, or... well, anything (I do have a valid birth certificate, however). Why mustn’t our Armed Forced listen to my command, when I turn on a ham radio and order them to turn North Korea into a parking lot by dawn?
I’m not the legitimate president, of course. And neither is King O. And that is why Colonel Lakin deserves are utmost respect for what he has endured for our Constitution. Not for a President, to whom no man, citizen or solder swears an oath of fealty. America is an Idea, based on Liberty and the Rule of Law. If you start living like the law doesn’t matter, than what the hell are we defending, anyway?
The troop surge was authorized by Bush?
Since Jan 20, 2009 Bush is no longer able to decide whether force will be used or not. From that point on, somebody else needs to decide, and SJ Res 23 says it has to be “the President”.
Thank you R.S.!!!
Standing with Lt. Col. Terry Lakin
Published December 14, 2010 constitution , usurper 94 Comments
Tags: LTC Lakin, obama, US Military, usurper
©2010 drkate
Usurper v USA
Ironic, isn’t it, when we as Americans have standing to be punished, but not enough standing to ask about our own National Security and its jeopardy under the Obama regime. So is the case of Lt. Col Terry Lakin, whose only ‘crime’ is that he asked that his orders be verified as legal.
In a packed military court room at the Ft. Meade complex in Maryland, Lt. Col. Terry Lakin steadfastly faced Court Martial trial proceedings with family, friends and Patriots standing with him. Undeterred by the weight of the charges, LTC Lakin and his attorney, Neal Puckett, deftly executed a strategy that left the government prosecutors red-eared and shaken by the magnitude of their own mistakes and inability to articulate a valid claim.
Recall that Judge Denise Lind, presiding over the Court Martial, denied LTC Lakin an opportunity for discovery and told him literally to ‘get another defense’. This decision is in my view reversible error as the Judge offered no legal reason why Obama’s records could not be retrieved except that they would be ‘embarassing’. Based on what knowledge, and what law, Col. Lind?
And to that challenge, LTC Lakin and Attorney Puckett certainly rose to the occasion.
Piling On
The military’s charges against LTC Lakin are two fold:
* That LTC Lakin ‘missed movement’ by not reporting to Ft. Campbell for deployment to Afghanistan
* That LTC Lakin disobeyed a number of orders. This charge contained at least four ‘elements’ which appear to this author to be ‘piling on’ charges that carry long sentences.
Because Judge Lind denied LTC Lakin’s right to discovery and evidence, the only possible outcome for LTC Lakin on the second charge–disobeying orders–was to plead guilty. Essentially he would lose this argument because he was denied the right to discovery, with each charge carrying a two year prison term.
Judge Lind carefully went through each of the second group charges, painstakingly asking each time whether LTC Lakin understood the ramifications of disobeying these orders. Lakin described the anguish involved in his decision, yet accepted responsibility for his final course of action. On balance, this discussion between the Judge and LTC Lakin revealed Lakin’s extensive efforts to alert his Chain of Command as to his concerns, and the failure of the Chain of Command to address them. This is the reason he invited his own Court Martial–it may be one of the only ways to reveal Obama’s problems on proving his eligibility for office.
The second charge had its components ‘collapsed’, and when sentenced, LTC Lakin could face a maximum of 18 months in prison. NO SENTENCING DECISION HAS BEEN MADE.
Missing Movement
“Missing movement” is a military term of art describing the movement of troops aboard a military aircraft, a ship, or other event where unit of soldiers moves into the war theater.
To this charge, LTC Lakin pleaded ‘not guilty’, and asked for a jury to hear the case. A jury was assembled consisting of initially ten senior officers; through questioning, two were excluded.
For this charge, Lakin is accused of missing a commercial airline flight from Baltimore to Ft. Campell. As attorney Neal Puckett pointed out, however, Lakin could have traveled to Ft Campell in any manner he chose. Prosecution witness after witness divulged to Attorney Puckett that no one gave Lakin a direct order to take a commercial airline flight to his next duty position, as his orders allowed him to travel in any manner to Ft. Campell.
Additional injury to the government’s case was to come, as it was revealed in cross examination that the actual deployment of troops was going to occur three-four months after Lakin was called to Ft. Campbell. Thus, LTC Lakin did not ‘miss movement’
Painstakingly asking each of the six prosecution witnesses as to the schedule, timing, deployment, and general practice of deploying troops to a war theater, Attorney Puckett demolished the ‘missing movement’ charge.
The Government Introduces Obama’s Ineligibility
Recall that the government would rather bury LTC Lakin on a bunch of piled on charges than address the issue of Obama’s ineligibility. In what can be termed as a little ‘divine intervention’ the fifth government witness actually stated the reason why LTC Lakin refused his orders–Obama’s eligibility. You should have seen the prosecution shut that lady down right away! “next”…
Overview of the US National Security Structure
The National Command Authorities (NCA) are the President and Secretary of Defense together with their duly deputized alternates or successors. The term NCA is used to signify constitutional authority to direct the Armed Forces in their execution of military action. Both inter-theater movement of troops and execution of military action must be directed by the NCA. By law, no one else in the chain of command has the authority to take such action.
He [the SECDEF] has nearly plenary (full; complete; entire; absolute; unqualified) authority, direction, and control of the entire department [of Defense].
I feel the same about Lakin after reading what he’s been forced to say in the court-martial as I feel when watching our captured troops say they are being treated well.
I cannot say here what I feel about the b@stards who made him have to do it. The closest I can come is to say that I feel as much respect and kinship with them as I feel with those who capture our troops and then force them to say they are being treated well, and I feel it for the same reasons.
They will answer to God. I only regret that I won’t be there to see it.
William Wallace. Drawn and quartered, but it had a different effect than Edward the Longshanks intended.
After being commissioned, their “career” comes first, regardless they took an oath
Congress authorized the use of force, not the President. President Bush committed a certain number of forces to combat operations in Afghanistan. No further Presidential committment is required by law to continue the existing combat operations in Afghanistan. The Secretary of Defense and the Combatant Commander in Afghanistan have all the statutory authority they need to carry out the existing mission. (Unless the President orders them to withdraw from combat.)
The Combatant Commander in Afghanistan felt that additional forces were necessary to successfully complete the mission. He requested additional forces from the Secretary of Defense. The SECDEF asked the President if he would agree to commit additional forces. The President agreed to commit an additional 30,000. Once the President made that committment, the SECDEF had the statutory authority to deploy additional forces. No authorization to use force was necessary from the President. No order of deployment was necessary from the President.
That is the primary fallacy of butter's logic. The President doesn't have the sole authority to delegate responsibilities "downstream." Congress has granted specific authority for various functions of the military to various military officials through Title 10 of the U.S. Code. The authority granted by Congress in Title 10 to those military officials doesn't become null and void just because the President is ineligible.
Prominent scratches supposedly on the same microfilm disappeared over time. Twice in the case of the two California libraries.
Two different people received copies made by the librarian at the University of CA-Berkeley library. In both instances the “close-ups” had different features than the image of the full page, in different places on the copy so they could not have been from residue on the screen.
The copies that supposedly came from the Hawaii State Library, made by two different people, ALL had the exact same border and scanning edge waviness as copies given to Michael Rivero of Whatreallyhappened.com by someone at The Advertiser - very possibly Will Hoover. But one of them had one of the C&P lines in the margin erased.
When they spliced in the fake part for the Star-Bulletin they accidentally cut AFTER the page they intended to replace rather than before, so that they ended up with two images of the page right before Obama’s announcement page.
The mistakes they made are really laughable, except for the fact that our society is so dumbed-down that they won’t even care what a poor job of butchering these microfilms was done.
Most people are so stupid they will never check out the actual documents but will still say to someone who has in great detail, “No one - and I mean no one - is dumb enough to believe the microfilms were changed out”
You totally missed what the CRS said. The electoral vote certification is not a certification of the candidates’ eligibility. According to the CRS, only the states can disqualify someone for being ineligible in a presidential election. The certification of the electoral vote - if you believe the CRS - is nothing more than an official counting of what the states have certified as their official votes.
If you believe the CRS, Congress has never had ANY role in mitigating the eligibility issue.
If Obama is the POTUS (which depends on whether the electoral vote was ever lawfully certified, given that Cheney failed to ask for objections as required by law) then the only way to be rid of him as POTUS is through impeachment.
But Lakin’s case isn’t about getting rid of the POTUS. Lakin’s case is about whether Obama is authorized by the Constitution to “act as President” - “the President” being the only person authorized by SJ Res 23 to decide what force, if any, to use in the war on terrorism. The 20th Amendment says if he has “failed to qualify” by Jan 20th the Vice President elect is to “act as President until a President shall have qualified.”
Congress has nothing to do with that.
Deciding whether Obama “qualified” by Jan 20, 2009 is a case that arises under the Constitution and law, and the federal judiciary is expressly given the responsibility to judge those cases (which existed before and after Jan 20th), according to the Third Article. The only entity able to deal with whether a President elect (someone already certified as the winner of the electoral vote - at which point it is beyond the impact of either the states or of Congress)has “qualified” is the federal judiciary.
The question of whether Obama is Constitutionally allowed to “act as President” and decide at his sole discretion what force, if any, is to be used in the war on terrorism.... is not in any way, shape, or form a “political question”. It is a Constitutional issue that is found in multiple cases within the federal judiciary.
If Lind wanted to say that the cases had not yet been decided so she would wait on the decisions I could respect her. Instead she said it doesn’t matter. Nothing matters. Doesn’t matter one bit if the only person the Constitution allows to act as POTUS never authorized additional troops to Afghanistan, or Iran, or wherever.
You totally missed what the CRS said. The electoral vote certification is not a certification of the candidates’ eligibility. According to the CRS, only the states can disqualify someone for being ineligible in a presidential election. The certification of the electoral vote - if you believe the CRS - is nothing more than an official counting of what the states have certified as their official votes.
If you believe the CRS, Congress has never had ANY role in mitigating the eligibility issue.
If Obama is the POTUS (which depends on whether the electoral vote was ever lawfully certified, given that Cheney failed to ask for objections as required by law) then the only way to be rid of him as POTUS is through impeachment.
But Lakin’s case isn’t about getting rid of the POTUS. Lakin’s case is about whether Obama is authorized by the Constitution to “act as President” - “the President” being the only person authorized by SJ Res 23 to decide what force, if any, to use in the war on terrorism. The 20th Amendment says if he has “failed to qualify” by Jan 20th the Vice President elect is to “act as President until a President shall have qualified.”
Congress has nothing to do with that.
Deciding whether Obama “qualified” by Jan 20, 2009 is a case that arises under the Constitution and law, and the federal judiciary is expressly given the responsibility to judge those cases (which existed before and after Jan 20th), according to the Third Article. The only entity able to deal with whether a President elect (someone already certified as the winner of the electoral vote - at which point it is beyond the impact of either the states or of Congress)has “qualified” is the federal judiciary.
The question of whether Obama is Constitutionally allowed to “act as President” and decide at his sole discretion what force, if any, is to be used in the war on terrorism.... is not in any way, shape, or form a “political question”. It is a Constitutional issue that is found in multiple cases within the federal judiciary.
If Lind wanted to say that the cases had not yet been decided so she would wait on the decisions I could respect her. Instead she said it doesn’t matter. Nothing matters. Doesn’t matter one bit if the only person the Constitution allows to act as POTUS never authorized additional troops to Afghanistan, or Iran, or wherever.
“You totally missed what the CRS said. The electoral vote certification is not a certification of the candidates’ eligibility. According to the CRS, only the states can disqualify someone for being ineligible in a presidential election. The certification of the electoral vote - if you believe the CRS - is nothing more than an official counting of what the states have certified as their official votes.”
__
You are not telling the truth. The report says:
“It has generally been assumed over the more than 220 years of presidential elections that the specific authority to ‘count’ the electoral votes must, by practical necessity, also involve the implied authority to determine which electoral votes to count. Congress has thus developed over time a detailed process whereby electoral votes may be ‘challenged’ in the joint session, and the procedures for resolving such challenges.”
You do understand that SecDef statutorily answers to the POTUS?? I'm not the one who need to have things 'sink in.'
I hope you faithers understand that Lind was not going to question Lakin’s sincerity at this point. The Army wants to sweep this under the rug quickly and quietly. Lind neutered Lakin’s defense. She got what she wanted to happen. The last thing she was going to do was enter a not guilty plea for him and stretch this out.
And, a few lines down, the same report says:
“It appears from the record that no Member of the House or Senate of the 111th Congress, in joint session for the purpose of counting and certifying the electoral vote, raised or forwarded any objection to the electoral votes of (then) President-elect Obama on the grounds of qualifications, or otherwise.”
So it is absurd to suggest that Congress has no power to enforce eligibility requirements.
“I hope you faithers understand that Lind was not going to question Lakin’s sincerity at this point.”
__
So what are you saying? Was Lakin testifying sincerely under oath or was he lying to try to minimize his punishment?
I hope you faithers understand that Lind was not going to question Lakin’s sincerity at this point. The Army wants to sweep this under the rug quickly and quietly. Lind neutered Lakin’s defense. She got what she wanted to happen. The last thing she was going to do was enter a not guilty plea for him and stretch this out.
If the Army wanted this case to go away as quickly as possible, they have failed miserably since even Maureen Dowd of the New York Times is covering the trial and Anderson Cooper and Jeffrey Toobin were discussing the court martial on CNN and Lakin’s conviction on the movement trial virtually guarantees an appeal on that charge.
Objections to electoral votes are the basis of the counting of votes, not constitutional eligibility. Two pages prior to what you quoted is the section that says no federal agency or office vets candidates as to qualifications. The next paragraph says that states and state laws administer the elections of federal official within those states. Congress does NOT have a constitutionally designated function of vetting eligibility ... and especially not the sole eligibility to do so. Such powers not designated to the Federal government fall to the states or people according to the 10th amendment. This explains why states have ballot laws and affadavit requirements for presidential ballots. It also means Lakin has a constitutional right to challenge the constitutional authority of the resident of the White House.
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.