Movie About Lt. Col. Terry Lakin's Battle To Get Obama's Birth Certificate Released In The Works

http://www.commandertaffy.com/thestory ^

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

For Immediate Release 2/13/2013

There is substantial interest in creating a film adaptation of the Terry Lakin Story, "OFFICER'S OATH."

This is a poignant, heroic story that must not be forgotten, or falsely relegated to the "conspiracy theory" chapter in the annals of our national history.

Terry knowingly sacrificed his military career, endured a court-martial, and ultimately spent nearly half a year in Leavenworth Prison simply for standing up for the Constitution he pledged to uphold and defend. His story is detailed in the book "An Officer's Oath," which is recommended reading for anybody who reveres this country and the Constitution by which we were successfully governed for so many years.

Officer's Oath tells the sometimes harrowing, sometimes inspirational true story of Doctor and 17-year U.S. Army veteran, Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who sacrificed his distinguished military career--and his very freedom--to preserve the integrity of the United States Constitution.

[BigGuy22]

"Right? That’s what she said?"
__

No, I don't think that's really an accurate statement of it. You keep talking about "the original authorization for the orders," referring to Obama, but Col. Lind made it clear that that was not the case.

The Army rules, as created by Congress, give Army officers independent authority to issue orders. It doesn't come from an original authority that reaches back to the President; the officers issue orders on their own.

When Col. Roberts ordered Lakin to report to his office and Lakin refused, that order came from Roberts. As Col. Lind stated, it is not legally correct to maintain that "the President, as Commander in Chief under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, is the source of all military authority."

"The Secretary of the Army has promulgated numerous Army Regulations pursuant to his authority under 10 U.S.C. 3013.1 These Army Regulations provide an independent authority for military officers to issue lawful orders."

[butterdezillion]

IOW, if Joseph Stalin told the chain of command to go to war with Iran, every order down the chain of command would be independent of Stalin and would thus be lawful - as long as Joseph Stalin took an oath of office to be POTUS.

Right? That’s what she said?

[butterdezillion]

Or did she say that Chuck Hagel, if approved as SecDef, could unilaterally decide to bomb Israel without any approval by anybody else, and all the orders down the chain of command would be lawful?

Or did she say that any officer can order the men under his command to hop on a plane to go to war against Iran or Israel - totally independently of someone acting as President or any of the other people in the chain of command?

Take your pick. Is she saying that all orders under a sworn-in Joseph Stalin are lawful, that Lt Col’s can initiate combat action against foreign countries by orders independent from the chain of command, or both?

[Mr Rogers]

Who has the power to declare war? Does the President declare war?

Were we in Afghanistan because the President unilaterally ordered troops there?

Where does authority to issue orders involving combat ultimately reside?

[BigGuy22]

“Right? That’s what she said?”
__

Well, that’s a little closer. I believe that what she said was, essentially, if your commanding officer gives you an order, and it’s not an order to commit an explicitly illegal act, you have to obey it, regardless of who the President is.

[butterdezillion]

The question was not whether he had to obey it. The question was whether the order was LAWFUL.

And she said that the eligibility of the President who approved the combat operations was irrelevant to the lawfulness of the orders. IOW, even if it was an ineligible POTUS (like, say, Joseph Stalin) who ordered combat operations (on, say, Iran), all the smaller orders to carry that out would be lawful.

So what she effectively said was that as long as Joseph Stalin took an oath to become POTUS, he can order combat operations and all the orders to carry out that operation are lawful. There is nothing in our Constitution, laws, or military codes that would put ANY OBSTACLE in the way of Joseph Stalin using the chain of command to do whatever combat operations he desires - even if everybody in the military knew he was ineligible and a foreign enemy combatant. If the military had evidence that a foreign enemy combatant was in the White House their only response could ever be to roll over and say, “So what? That’s totally irrelevant to what we do.”

Right? That’s what she said?

[butterdezillion]

You tell me. What do the Constitution, War Powers Act, and the Authorization to Use Force all say about that?

Judge Lind said it can’t be the President. Neither the Constitution, War Powers Act, nor the Authorization to Use Force place that responsibility on someone acting as President. The President is IRRELEVANT to the lawfulness of combat operations, she said

So who then? You tell me.

[butterdezillion]

Right now, who would have the legal authority to tell my nephews in the USMC to climb on a plane to Iran for combat operations there? What do the Constitution, War Powers Act, the Authorization to Use Force, and standard military protocols and chain of command say about that?

[BigGuy22]

“Right? That’s what she said?”
__

No, now you’re getting further away again.

Think about it, Butter. The Army has been in business for a long time, and they live or die on whether people can be counted on to obey their orders. Have you ever been in the military? Everyone who has knows that you have to obey your orders. The rules are very strict and they are stacked against you: It’s in the Army’s interests to make sure that orders are not disobeyed, and they’ve constructed the rules accordingly.

If your commanding officer tells you to report to his office, you better report to his office. Lakin’s commanding officer ordered him to report to his office. He was absolutely authorized to give that order, so it was a lawful order. Lakin had the obligation to obey it. He did not.

That’s all the court-martial was about. Lakin was stupid enough to believe that he could make it into a trial of the President, but that was a dumb pipe dream, and Col. Lind’s ruling makes it very clear why that was the case. I’m sorry you’re unhappy with it, but I haven’t yet heard anyone knowledgeable about military law say that she called this one wrong.

[Mr Rogers]

If Congress had authorized and funded operations in Iran, then a lot of officers could do it. I’ve deployed overseas on verbal orders from my squadron commander.

[butterdezillion]

I’m not talking about who has to obey orders. I’m talking about the LAWFULNESS of orders.

And Lind said that whether the President is QUALIFIED makes NO DIFFERENCE to the lawfulness of the orders. IOW, it could be Osama Bin Laden himself telling the military to carry out combat operations, and the military would all just have to bow and obey.

That’s what she said. Right?

And you’re agreeing with her?

[butterdezillion]

So right now, at this very moment, who would have the legal authority to order my nephews in the USMC to get on a plane to Iran for combat operations there?

[butterdezillion]

I said that wrong. She didn’t just say that the whole military would have to bow and obey if Osama Bin Laden took an oath to be POTUS and commanded combat operations. She said all the orders given to carry that out would be LAWFUL. There is nothing in the Constitution, War Powers Act, Authorization to Use Force, or military protocols or chain of command that prohibits orders carried out by somebody unable to Constitutionally “act as President”.

[BigGuy22]

"That’s what she said. Right?"
__

Butter, that's the third time you've done that! Are you being silly on purpose? What's the point of totally distorting what I said and then trying to get me to agree that you're quoting me accurately? That's just a childish game.

You must have breezed over my previous post too quickly. I explicitly said that Col. Roberts's order to Lakin to report to his office was a lawful order. And you are obviously totally ignorant of what Col. Lind actually wrote, or you wouldn't be getting all of this wrong. She was very specific about why the orders that Lakin received were lawful. You obviously disagree with her, but she is the Chief Judge of the First Judicial Circuit. I haven't seen you cite any legal sources that would indicate that you are right and she is wrong.

I know you have these spectacular fantasies about Joseph Stalin or Osama bin Laden sending us off to war, but please, let's try to keep it rational. This court-martial was about an order for an Army man to report to his commanding officer's office. He disobeyed the order and was punished.

And you do understand why his project was doomed to failure, don't you? It's really very obvious. We don't give our military the power to judge the President's qualifications -- under any circumstances.

According to the Constitution, the military is under civilian control, and I hope you will agree that it must always remain so.

If the President has an eligibility problem, it must be addressed by the Congress. And it's not too late -- the House is in Republican hands, and hearings could be called at any time.

But to suggest that a military court should judge the President's eligibility would be, I'm sure you would agree, anathema to the Founding Fathers.

[Mr Rogers]

If Congress had authorized operations in Iran, which they have not, then darn near anyone above them in the chain of command. There are documents created authorizing slots for manning. Those are normally signed by the SecDef, IIRC. The positions are funded by Congress, which gives Congressional approval. The individual who fills that slot is normally commanded to go by their CO or by an office that works manning across the service. When I deployed, I was, IIRC, #54 on a list of 57, but I was a volunteer so that made me #1 to go.

Lakin was ordered to go where Congress had authorized and funded operations for years. I deployed to Afghanistan in 2007. Don’t remember who signed my orders, but it sure wasn’t GWB.

Authority to engage in combat comes from Congress. They do not need to declare war, just agree to fund it. That has been ruled as the functional equivalent of declaring war.

The President cannot declare war. He can authorize combat operations for a short time by permission of Congress, which recognizes that we often need a faster response than Congress will give.

See: War Powers Resolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

[butterdezillion]

I am just breezing over what you say because I’m looking for a specific rebuttal to what I said. When Lind said that the eligibility of the President is “irrelevant” to the lawfulness of orders, that means it doesn’t matter if it was somebody ineligible - like Joseph Stalin. Right?

If Joseph Stalin had been President and everybody knew he was ineligible, how would Lind’s decision have been any different? According to her own words, it would be irrelevant even if the whole wide world knew that the guy was ineligible and got into office through forgery, fraud, perjury, and treason. That’s what she said. Right?

And the reason I want to bring this point home is because I was in the middle of getting the evidence to show to this judge, and she ruled that it didn’t matter. She said - as if directly addressing me - that I could have a videotape of the guy admitting that he had committed perjury, forgery, perjury, obstruction of justice, and treason, and it would make absolutely no difference. The guy could be sitting in Gitmo as a foreign enemy combatant, and the military would still be “lawfully” doing whatever he tells them to do, throughout the chain of command. That’s what she said. That is what her ruling means.

I just want you and everybody else to come eyeball to eyeball with the full impact of what she said. She is saying that even after taking the oaths to protect and defend the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, every person in the military would HAVE to obey a known foreign enemy combatant in the White House, with no recourse - because nothing they do is subject to the requirements of the Constitution, War Powers Act, Authorization to Use Force, or the regulations of the military which expressly state that orders not in compliance with the US Constitution are UNLAWFUL.

I just want you to say it loud, say it proud: If Joseph Stalin took an oath of office to be POTUS, everything the chain of command ordered at his bidding would be lawful and nobody could ever LAWFULLY even legally challenge the lawfulness of anything. There is NO WAY for an officer to successfully keep his oath of office if the country elects Joseph Stalin. The only oath he can actually keep is to protect and defend the US Constitution if it never NEEDS to be protected because the voters already ARE protecting it.

IOW, the military requires officers to take oaths they can never keep. If the system wasn’t already stacked in favor of the foreign enemy combatant, I’d say Lakin and the others would have a good case for saying the US military is guilty of entrapment - requiring something they know is not possible, because they MAKE it impossible.

[butterdezillion]

I’m not asking any if’s. And I’m not reading anything that doesn’t specifically address what I said. RIGHT NOW, who would have the legal authority to order my nephews in the USMC to board a plane to Iran for combat operations there?

Give me the name of a specific person or body who could give that order at this very moment, and the legal document that gives them the authority to do it.

[Mr Rogers]

Butter, you are utterly confused. Combat operations WERE authorized for Afghanistan. They are not authorized for Iran. You are mixing 2 completely different things.

If you make it comparable, and ask who could send your nephews to Afghanistan right now, then again - darn near anyone in their chain of command.

For an OPLAN, the document is a TPFDD: Time-Phased Force Deployment Data. It may have a different name under contingency planning, and I don't know which is being used for Afghanistan right now. But the principle remains: the document creates slots, like job openings, if you will. And anyone with the qualifications can be plugged into one of those slots. The document is created under the SecDef's authority, IIRC. That honestly isn't something I had to deal with.

Once created, a commander can put one of their people into it, or is tasked to commit so many people to go. In some cases, and entire squadron would be committed. I had limited experience with TPFDDs, other than in some static forms.

Lots of people could sign the orders - pretty much any commander in the chain. Since Congress funds it, it is authorized by Congress via the military. But no, the President of the USA doesn't sign the orders.

And as long as Obama is accepted by the government as President, he could sign the orders if he wished. The legality of the orders would remain, because he signs them as President, not as an individual. Just as Obamacare would remain a law if Obama was found to be Kenyan-born, so would any military orders he signed (if he could be found to sign them). It is the office that has the authority, not the individual.

In this case:

[Mr Rogers]

“According to appellant, the prosecution failed to prove that he had received a lawful order because the order was in furtherance of actions which he viewed as illegal — the deployment of American troops to the Republic of Macedonia and the development of command and control functions and associated uniform requirements. As noted in the majority opinion, these matters were properly resolved by the military judge under the Supreme Court’s political question doctrine. See Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1, 6-12 (1973).

The political question doctrine serves a particularly important function in military trials by ensuring that courts-martial do not become a vehicle for altering the traditional relationship between the armed forces and the civilian policymaking branches of government. Since the days of George Washington, America has demonstrated that military professionalism is compatible with civilian control of the armed forces. With few exceptions, American military personnel have been faithful to the concept that once their advice has been tendered and considered, they are duty-bound to implement whatever policy decisions the civilian leadership may make.

Appellant would have us change the nature of that relationship by requiring courts-martial to adjudicate the relationships between Congress and the President regarding the deployment of military forces. Consider, for example, the implications of appellant’s approach in the context of the Korean conflict, where adversity in frozen fields far from home intensified a bitter national debate over the propriety of U.S. participation in an undeclared war conducted under the United Nations’ auspices. Under appellant’s approach, courts-martial would have been authorized to adjudicate the relationships between Congress and the President, potentially permitting members of the armed forces to disobey unpopular orders. There is nothing in the more than 2 centuries of our history as a Nation that suggests courts-martial should be empowered to rule on the propriety of deployment orders as a matter of either constitutional or military law.”

http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/opinions/2001Term/99-0640.htm

[edge919]

edge isn’t sane. He cannot read a single sentence without getting it backwards.

Nice, you resort to insults and projection ... AND you simply can't read. The citation you quoted doesn't say anything about Obama. Second, this conclusion by the Indiana court was not supported by an actual legal precedent, It was only used as a rationale for the court to say it didn't have to accept the plaintiffs' argument. Read it and weep.

To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Do you understand what that is saying?? It doesn't say Obama is a natural-born citizen. It simply says that because the court doesn't have to accept the plaintiffs' argument as true because the court THINK's their interpretation of the Supreme Court conflicts the plaintiffs' argument. It's a bait and switch. If they had an actual precedent that supported their "guidance," they could have said Obama was eligible for office, but they never said this ANYWHERE in their decision. All they said was:

Thus, we cannot say that the trial court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiffs‟ case.