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 ...
Dream on. Puckett has also said Lakin was very courageous to stand up and demand proof of Obama’s eligibility and that the Army basically dropped the ball by not addressing his questions properly. Puckett’s not going to risk contempt of court, however, by specifically badmouthing the judge’s decision. It would serve no point.
Second, this part of the trial is already done. IF there’s an appeal, it’s going to take place rather quietly. The LMSM has a short attention span and short memories on things like this. Lind did what was expected and got what the Army wanted.
Three of those 4 met in an ex parte meeting with Obama when SCOTUS was supposed to confer on cases about Obama’s eligibility a couple days and about a week later.
The invitation to Obama to meet with SCOTUS came from Chief Justice Roberts on the SAME DAY that SCOTUS refused to hear Donofrio’s case. An invitation that had never before been given by ANY SCOTUS justice, much less a SCOTUS Chief Justice who knew he would have several cases to confer about.
One of those justices said straight out that SCOTUS was “evading” the issue - not something a conservative justice would boast about, so his saying it was apparently for some other reason.
Another one of those justices refused to be at that ex parte meeting with Obama, and acted to Orly Taitz as if he knew nothing of the eligibility cases they had supposedly already conferred on, and then gave her an “aside” implying they were missing one vote.
Another justice - not among those you mentioned - said to Joe Biden after administering the oath, “Congratulations, Mr President”.
Chief Justice Roberts rushed through the oath so it was screwed up and was only completed in private with no video made and with the same crew of people who were responsible for the forged COLB and the threats to the media heads acting as witnesses.
And it’s not just the SCOTUS justices who have anomalies in regards to the eligibility cases. Judge David Carter was acting in earnest in regards to Taitz’ case until he suddenly hired as his clerk a guy from Obama’s defense company - an ethics breach.
Judge Robertson actually claimed that Twitter had legally decided the case before him. If ever there was an ex parte communication, Twitter would be it. For a judge to cite Twitter in a court of law is beyond the pale.
The timing of a bunch of things are very, very uncanny. The run on the bank was undoubtedly done by Soros when the polls were in a dead heat after McCain chose Palin as his running-mate. I am almost positive that on Sept 24th Soros’ thugs called both GW Bush and John McCain and told them that if they resisted Obama’s coup Soros would make another run on the bank and collapse the entire western economy.
The result?
At 2:30pm McCain called Obama back and said he would write a joint statement saying they need to work together on the economy. As soon as McCain was off the phone he went on TV to say he was suspending his campaign (which Republican advisors said was crazy) and was asking that the first debate, scheduled for 2 days later, be postponed (which R advisors said was suicidal).
And Bush, who had been totally silent about TARP, letting the public and Congress deal with the strong feelings both for and against it, suddenly announced he would give a speech on it. In the speech he basically said if they don’t pass TARP the entire western economy would be destroyed. We know that the economy did fine for several months after that without TARP so the collapse Bush was talking about was not likely a natural collapse.
When neither Bush nor McCain blew the whistle on Soros he was emboldened to do the same thing elsewhere - to use the threat of collapsing the US and western capitalist economy in order to threaten patriots who love the country.
First to Judge Surick in the Berg case on Oct 15th, the same day that Rush Limbaugh made his first comment about Obama being in Hawaii and not responding to the Berg case as required. The next day Surick suddenly reversed his seeming attitude of earnestness and ruled that he was done with anything to do with the case. Period. That’s it.
Then, most probably sometime later that week, he met with the top media heads and threatened them with annihilation after the election if they reported on the eligibility issue. This is documented. The fact that these media heads ASSUMED that Obama would be elected, even though if these men had simply reported Obama’s threats Obama could have been sitting in jail rather than the White House, suggests to me that Soros had something he threatened them with that was not in any way dependent on Obama winning the election. The same thing he had threatened Bush, McCain, and Surick with: the threat of collapsing the US economy.
I believe at least Roberts and possibly the other conservative justices were threatened shortly before the Donofrio case, and that Roberts was so angered by it that he purposely, on the spot, invited Obama for an ex parte meeting that would serve as a red flag that something was seriously wrong. News about the invitation to Obama was reported before the SCOTUS denial of Donofrio’s case.
It was shortly after the SCOTUS meeting with Obama (2 days later) that Rush Limbaugh said that he hoped Obama would fail because Obama is trying to destroy the country. Rush had already speculated that democrats had prepared the way for Soros to make a run on the bank and that the dems had been surprised by how serious the situation was after it was all done. But at that point Rush made the point that not only were Obama’s policies going to destroy the country, but that Obama’s MOTIVE was to destroy the country.
Very interesting to me that Rush, whose 3rd wedding was officiated by the Justice who publicly stated that they were “evading” the eligibility issue, became the personal target for Obama to attack and try to destroy 2 days after that SCOTUS meeting, when Rush declared that Obama was trying to destroy the country.
I already know you’re going to say I’m crazy. I doubt that Rush would call me crazy. On Monday he was responding to a guy who talked about the Steelers giving Obama the game ball, and Rush said he knows a lot more about a lot of stuff than he can say publicly because he can’t betray the confidentiality of his friends. One of those close friends is Justice Thomas, and it’s interesting that Rush came out so strongly against Obama’s motives so soon after SCOTUS’ ex parte meeting with Obama (from which either Scalia or Alito chose to be absent; I always get those 2 mixed up).
There’s also much, much more that I could say about the particular timing of a lot of stuff, or about other connections involved, but you’ll call me crazy even if I made this post much longer with details to support my belief.
So I’ll just let you call me crazy. But there’s enough meat here to be pondered by those who have seriously wondered why it seems like good people have betrayed the Constitution. GW Bush himself did an absolute about-face on Sept 24th, at the same time as McCain did. And he went from being totally silent to proclaiming from the rooftops that the world as we know it was going to end if we didn’t pass TARP. Something happened on Sept 24th; that much is very clear.
I believe Soros is the key. And the fact that threats were made to the media heads tells the degree of boldness, even in dealing with Fox which by that time had exposed Obama’s communist history, etc. And yet what Soros threatened the media heads about was the eligibility issue.
The fact that Chavez and Castro immediately started saying, “Since CAPITALISM HAS FAILED, the world should try communism” speaks volumes. And Ahmadinejad and Al Qaeda started saying at the same time, “SINCE CAPITALISM HAS FAILED, the world should try Islamic finance.” And the IMF was meeting to decide whether CAPITALISM HAD FAILED. And GW Bush was suddenly saying that if they didn’t pass TARP, CAPITALISM WOULD FAIL.
That’s a lot of similar mantra from a lot of people all at the same time - all about whether or not capitalism could survive. Now there’s this French communist - Caputo? - who urged his followers to make a run on the bank to try to get CAPITALISM TO FAIL. Wonder where he got that idea from...
Glenn Beck has been concentrating on George Soros’ connections, and that’s probably what was behind this, but it was also interesting to me that just a couple days after I mentioned on my blog that I was wondering if Soros had threatened key conservatives with another run on the bank if they balked at the Obama coup, somebody here on FR posted an article about the European Court suddenly - after about 4 years of doing nothing - deciding to grant Soros’ appeal on his conviction of insider trading in France, which is something I mentioned to support my statement that Soros is recognized as an economic terrorist in many countries. Apparently Soros was suddenly willing to pay whatever it cost to have the bureaucrats change their minds on that.
It’s a theory. I can’t prove it, but there is a lot to support the plausibility of the theory. Stuff for serious minds to ponder.
“Objections to electoral votes are the basis of the counting of votes, not constitutional eligibility.”
__
I understand that’s your position, but the report says something quite different. I quoted it above, and I will quote part of it again. It makes it perfectly clear that, in 2008, the power to object on the grounds of eligibility was not exercised:
“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.”
During the morning portion of the trial, Lakin said he had gone to a chapel and done some soul-searching about whether to disobey orders.
"I believe there is a valid question that needs to be asked and answered," he said, referring to Obama's eligibility to be president.
“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?”
The stupid... It burns...
I’ve been called many things, but “glib” is certainly a new one. lol.
I did tell you what was different.
It’s much more serious orders, impacting everybody in issues of life and death.
Lakin obeyed while he was trying for a year to get the military to ascertain the lawfulness of the orders. This wasn’t a snap decision instituted only when he got an order he didn’t like. He started his official inquiries long before he was given any orders he disobeyed.
And there is much evidence to suggest that there is a serious problem with the alleged CINC’s eligibility.
I have no desire to lecture you or anybody else about conscience, legal proceedings, or patriotism. I have no reason to question your patriotism, motives, or anything else. What I am saying is that Lakin’s case is far different than the scenario you presented.
I thank you and all those who have served honorably, and especially those of you who did so when the world tried to label you as less than noble for doing so. I think Lakin could relate very well to what you went through. I can only stand from afar and admire all of you who had the stamina and honor to slog your way through the crud thrown at you. And that includes both you AND Lakin.
Yes, I read your post and accidentally thanked tired old conservative for it. lol. Sorry. Thank you for that post. That was the information I was needing and I was very grateful that you gave it to me.
So do I understand correctly, then, that Article 92 is a subset of Article 90, where the punishments are less because the element of willful disobedience is eliminated? Or how do they decide which cases are charged under Article 90 and which are charged under Article 92? Is it just the degree of punishment they are asking for or think is appropriate, or is there something about what the defendant actually did that requires them to be charged under one rather than the other?
Not only do I believe it, I know it. I have the copies that come as close as anything we could have to prove that the microfilms were changed out.
It’s good to be reminded of that. You and Red Steel are sort of the Rock of Gibraltar for me, to keep me focused on the larger game plan in this regard.
It just bugs me so bad when I see them basically force Lakin to beg. Reminds me of reading in “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” about the fiends of hell feeling so brave and powerful because they tied Aslan tight (as he willingly took Edmund’s place of guilt), mocked, sheared off his mane, and called him a pussy cat while they gloated over their triumph - when all along he willingly submitted to it out of his deep love and desire to save Edmund.
I wish I could serve at least part of his sentence for him. It was his love for this country and all us “old Narnians” that led him to do what he did, and seeing him treated this way is a million times worse than being treated like that myself.
I need to focus on the love of the lion, not the hatred of the ghouls that mock him. It’s the love that will save America, if anything. No matter what they do to Lakin, they can’t kill that love that he had for this country and for those of us who love what America is, or kill the love that we have for America and for him.
Not only do I believe it, I know it. I have the copies that come as close as anything we could have to prove that the microfilms were changed out.
link to Short guide to counting electoral votes
Notice that nothing here address presidential eligibility but only the electoral votes themselves.
If she was correctly applying military law then she should have referenced ii under the elements of lawfulness for Article 90. That is about the legal authorization the officer has for making the specific order. That is the only place I can see where an order to deploy to Iran (absent authorization from a valid POTUS), for instance, would be shown to be unlawful.
By ignoring that she’s actually claiming that combat deployment orders to a foreign country are independent of authorization from “the President” (the only person legally authorized to decide whether and how to use force in the war on terrorism).
Unless any brigade commander could lawfully decide to invade Iran even if no valid POTUS authorized it, Lind MUST be applying military law wrongly.
What about how you feel after you logged on and read some posts here??
What I see is Obama, the steaming POS who put both the Lakin and Dobson families through hell for Obama’s own personal gain. There was NO REASON for any of this, if Obama has documents to back up what he claims.
This guy is willing to play chicken with everything but his own damned ego. He is willing to put anything on the chopping block for the sake of his own supreme highness.
How can that be called anything but evil?
You don’t get it, Big Guy. These weren’t just any old orders. These were orders for combat operations in a foreign country. The authorization is different for that.
Congress said in SJ Res 23 that authorization to make decisions about the use of force in the war on terrorism is specifically reserved for “the President” alone. The ONLY PERSON who can authorize the use of force is “the President”. If there is no valid President authorizing the use of force, then there is no authority for anybody in the chain of command to use force.
Some orders are authorized by regulations. Some are authorized by the custom of the military. Some are authorized by law. The use of force is only authorized by Congress, and in SJ Res 23 Congress gave the authority to make decisions about the use of force directly to only “the President”.
In the elements of lawfulness for Article 90, ii refers to the different kinds of lawful authorization for specific kinds of orders, noting the different sources of authority. As everybody acknowledges in regards to Iran, nothing allows a brigade commander to lawfully choose on his own to deploy combat troops, without authorization from “the President”. If he tried he would be court-martialed, I’m told, although nobody has said what he would specifically be charged with.
What would he be charged with? What in the MCM punishes a commissioned officer for acting beyond his authority?
Exactly, and very well said.
No, that's incorrect. The element of willful disobedience is not eliminated and the punishment is not lessened.
Or how do they decide which cases are charged under Article 90 and which are charged under Article 92?
If you willfully disobey a general lawful order of your superior commissioned officer, you are charged under Article 90 which directs that you be charged under Article 92(1).
If you disobey a general lawful order that you had a duty to obey or disobey a general regulation, you are charged under Article 92(1).
If you disobey any other lawful order or regulation, you are charged under Article 92(2).
Is it just the degree of punishment they are asking for or think is appropriate, or is there something about what the defendant actually did that requires them to be charged under one rather than the other?
It has nothing to do with the degree of punishment. The accused's actions dictate which Article is applicable.
“What you allege is so facially absurd, it borders on insane. ————————————————————————————————————————————
Hey Oldie, here’s some more insanity thoughts for the naive sanity “squatters”!!!
http://www.usofearth.com/2011-obamas-coup-fails.php
You said: “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. “
And I think it was Buckeye Texan who admitted the same when the destination of the deployment was Iran rather than Afghanistan. I have yet to see an explanation for why Iran is different than Afghanistan. The authorization for use of force in those places comes from the same place: SJ Res 23 via “the President”.
Granted, I’m way behind in following the thread. Darn real life anyway. lol. And with that, my husband is calling me to bed. Sometimes real life is a welcome reprieve. lol.
Lakin's chain of command is under no obligation to independently confirm the eligibility of the President in a manner that pleases Lakin, --as Lakin has learned. If you think there's going to be courts-martial held because Lakin's superiors didn't drop what they were doing to go chase birth certificates, prepare to once again be disappointed.
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.