Posted on 02/13/2013 2:25:37 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at commandertaffy.com ...
Beyond his case, the courts have made it clear that they won't get involved in any of this. I don't think they believe that the Constitution empowers them to determine qualifications of presidents.
Clearly, however, no one disputes that the people as voters have a right to decide upon a candidate's qualifications. No one can question their power in that regard and that may be where we have to win those arguments.
And, then there is the power of impeachment. There is no doubt about that power.
But, the courts won't play.
“THEN he could act as President.”
__
And, even then, the Congress (between the two houses) would have the unquestioned ability to remove him from office if they thought the circumstances warranted it.
So then you DO agree that Lind said Joseph Stalin could be President and it would be “irrelevant” to the lawfulness of Lakin’s orders?
Let me lay this out flat. AFter 9-11-01 Congress authorized the use of force to fight terrorism, at the sole discretion and decision of THE PRESIDENT. The lawfulness of combat operations in any particular foreign country was specifically made by Congress to be TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON THE DECISION OF THE PRESIDENT. A person legally able to “act as President” can order troops to Iran right now if he so desires. Nobody from SecDef down to (for instance) company commanders can do that right now; they have to wait until they have authorization from THE PRESIDENT, according to Congress’ legal authorization to use force. Those are the conditional terms of Congress’ legal authorization; they are critical to the lawfulness of ANY foreign combat operations against terrorism.
The 20th Amendment says that if the President elect FAILS TO QUALIFY by the beginning of his term, the Vice President elect must “act as President” until a President shall have qualified.
Joseph Stalin would fail to qualify. Every time. He’s not eligible to be President unless he is a natural born US citizen, and he can never be that. Joseph Stalin could NEVER lawfully “act as President” according to the 20th Amendment of the US Constitution. No vote of Congress can get him to qualify. No electoral vote can get him to qualify. There is no way he can qualify. Period.
There are no orders that Joseph Stalin could ever give that would be lawful because the 20th Amendment would always prohibit him from “acting as President”.
If people didn’t know he failed to qualify he might act under “color of authority”, and his orders must be obeyed under the de facto officer doctrine UNTIL IT IS DETERMINED THAT HE ACTED APART FROM THE CONSENT OF THE CONSTITUTION. That doesn’t meant that his orders were ever LAWFUL (something which can only be determined when the evidence is examined and it is seen who the 20th Amendment COMMANDS to “act as President”). And without the approval of a Constitutionally-acting President, there is no authorization to use force, because Congress left that decision to the President to decide. If the person who is Constitutionally required to act as President (Joe Biden) did not decide to approve additional forces in Afghanistan, then that use of force FAILS TO COMPLY with the terms in Congress’ authorization to use force. Without the lawful order of Joe Biden, all orders down the chain of command lack the legal authorization of Congress because they failed to meet the conditions of the authorization. They are UNLAWFUL.
Joseph Stalin could never qualify and thus could never lawfully order combat under the terms of the Authorization to Use Force. If the chain of command implemented combat operations without meeting the legal requirements of Cognress’ Authorization to Use Force, those implementing orders would all be unlawful.
The ONLY WAY to know if the orders were lawful is by knowing which man is required by the 20th Amendment to “act as President” - Barack Obama, or Joe Biden.
The 20th Amendment makes no exceptions. It doesn’t say that if the President elect takes an oath then the requirement to qualify is null and void. It doesn’t say that Congress certifying the President elect as the electoral winner nullifies the requirement to qualify. (In fact, it specifically says that the President elected by the voters and certified by Congress can still “fail to qualify” - and in that situation is Constitutionally DISABLED from “acting as President”.)
None of those things could get Joseph Stalin to “qualify”. And none of those things could get Barack Obama to “qualify” either.
Lind had one job: to find out whose approval for combat operations would fulfill the conditions of Congress’ authorization to use force, so she could determine whether Lakin had disobeyed a lawful order (the charge against him), or had done the lesser crime of failing to obey an order he was required to obey. She should have ordered the SecDef to file a Quo Warranto case on behalf of Terry Lakin, to have the judiciary determine the facts of Obama’s birth so it could be determined who can lawfully authorize foreign combat operations under the Authorization to Use Force.
If she had done so, the military would not be deciding who is President OR who can “act as President” - the civilian courts would be REQUIRED to give our military officers the answers they need in order to be able to keep their oaths. No problem with the military overstepping its bounds. The judge could have simply forced the SecDef to do what integrity should already have compelled him to do, when Lakin came forward for clarification in the first place.
There would have been no “political issue” problem because the 20th Amendment gave Congress no role in deciding who would “act as President” if the President elect failed to qualify; they are only given the responsibility if BOTH the President elect and Vice President elect failed to qualify - and they have already enacted law giving the order of succession so that job is already done.
There would have been no problem with “standing”. The SecDef would automatically have standing.
It would have been a win-win. It would have been right. But it wouldn’t have served the communist-Islamist coup, and that’s why the powers-that-be would not let Denise Lind do what both her oath and the US Constitution compelled her to do.
If he can’t qualify, then how could the 20th Amendment ever allow him to “act as President”?
Where in the 20th Amendment does it say that being elected, certified as the electoral winner, and/or taking an oath of office wipes out what it specifically says - that failure to qualify means a President elect cannot “act as President”?
You’re right; the military should not decide who is Constitutionally able to “act as President”. SCOTUS should ultimately do that. They wimped out by refusing any cases. What Lind should have done was to order the SecDef to file a Quo Warranto case on behalf of Terry Lakin. That would FORCE the civilian courts to do what the military courts can’t, but which our military heroes like you and your son need in order to keep their officers’ oaths.
The civilian courts should NOT be giving you, your son, Lakin, my nephews, or any of our fighting heroes the middle finger salute. That’s all I’m saying. Denise Lind could have compelled them to do right. Instead she acted as puppet to the coup and pretended that even Joseph Stalin could lawfully “act as President” - a man who could NEVER “qualify” as required by the 20th Amendment.
Maybe it would be helpful if you answered my question from earlier.
Do you believe that Col. Roberts did, or did not, have the authority to order Lakin to report his office?
Denise Lind would not accept any argument regarding the eligibility of Obama.
So you are wrong. Lind specifically told him he does NOT have a right to present his evidence. She called it irrelevant. The CENTRAL POINT she made in order to keep Lakin from presenting evidence was that EVEN JOSEPH STALIN COULD BE PRESIDENT AND COULD MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE AUTHORIZATION TO USE FORCE. This in spite of the 20th Amendment saying that if the POTUS failed to qualify he could not “ACT AS PRESIDENT”.
The Authorization to Use Force specifically required the PRESIDENT to decide where, when, and to what extend force should be used in foreign countries. Their legal consent was conditional upon that. If Joseph Stalin was President and forbidden by the 20th Amendment to “act as President”, then the terms for legal authorization to use force would not have been met, and the entire combat operation would be unlawful.
Lind knew that, and her claim that the SecDef or anybody else could decide on a “surge” in Afghanistan without the consent of a lawfully-acting President is a travesty. The only LAWFUL authorization for those guys to even fly to Afghanistan is because Congress said it’s OK as long as the President says it’s OK.
He had the authority to order him to report to his office. He did not have LAWFUL authority to order him to get on a plane to any foreign country for combat operations without the approval of a CONSTITUTIONALLY-ACTING President. That was the condition that CONGRESS placed in the Authorization to Use Force, which was the lawful authorization for ANY COMBAT OPERATIONS.
“You’re right; the military should not decide who is Constitutionally able to “act as President”. SCOTUS should ultimately do that. They wimped out by refusing any cases.”
The Supreme Court doesn’t see it that way. I’d bet my last penny that they figure: “Hawaii says Obama was born in the USA, and we’ve already argued in WKA that anyone born in the USA (with few exceptions, none of which apply to Obama) is a natural born citizen. Thus, he is qualified.”
Do you really think the US Supreme Court would refuse to take a case if they thought there was any chance Obama wasn’t qualified?
“What Lind should have done was to order the SecDef to file a Quo Warranto case on behalf of Terry Lakin.”
Lind didn’t have the authority to order the SecDef to do anything. Her authority is under his. That would be like a LT ordering a Colonel to go do something.
And the way the military framed the charges, it really DIDN’T matter who the president was. The order to appear in your CO’s officer has nothing to do with the President. The order to report to such and such a Fort on such and such a date doesn’t fall under the President. It falls under Congress, which has given the Army authority to require that.
The charges against Lakin were narrowly drawn. I think that was intentional. I think they drew up charges that would be easy to prove and which would NOT require anything from the President. That way, the issue wouldn’t come up.
In a court, your reason for doing something isn’t important (usually). What really matters is what you do. And Lakin was ordered to show up in his CO’s office, and he did not do so. That didn’t involve Obama. Any CO can give an order like that, and who is president doesn’t matter.
The military had almost 2 years to give Lakin answers before he realized they were never going to give him answers.
Why did the SecDef not file a Quo Warranto case on behalf of all his officers who didn’t know whether to obey orders from Obama, or from Joe Biden? Did the SecDef just take it in his own hands, to interpret the 20th Amendment? I thought the military wasn’t supposed to do that. I thought the military was supposed to refer any legal questions like that to the civilian courts. Why didn’t they do that? They had almost 2 years and did NOTHING, ZIP, ZERO, NADA.
If the military leadership would stop fellating the people who promote them, maybe we’d have some real men to represent the real men who are doing our fighting.
“He had the authority to order him to report to his office.”
___
And an order from a commanding officer with the authority to give it, which does not require the commission of a manifest crime, is by definition a lawful order. Lakin knowingly refused to obey a lawful order.
The court-martial existed for the sole purpose of determining whether Lakin had committed crimes, and it seems to me unquestionable that he did.
You guys are no match ...you’re up against an impenetrable fortress.
It’s now just a question of when you’ll say uncle, not if.
Just a PSA...
Lakin’s order was to show up in order to deploy to Afghanistan. That was in his order. It DID depend on the PResident, according to the Authorization to Use Force.
If SCOTUS is willing to use “judge’s knowledge” in order to keep evidence from being subjected to the scrutiny required by the Federal Rules of Evidence, then they are just as unlawful as the Soros coup. As are the military leaders who refused to file a Quo Warranto case on behalf of their officers.
What I was working on when Lind forbade Lakin from arguing the President’s ineligibility was the proof that the 1960-64 birth index was altered to include legally non-valid names, as well as other evidence proving that the HDOH has been criminally altering and misrepresenting records as well as disobeying the laws. This was to overcome the “presumption of regularity” - the presumption that the HDOH would have told us if something was wrong. Instead, the evidence shows that the HDOH is criminally complicit in deceiving and/or downright altering records on Obama’s behalf. WE have even more evidence of that now, including the indirect confirmation of HI registrar Alvin Onaka that the record they have is legally non-valid and the White House image is a forgery.
The day after I was in contact with Lakin’s people regarding the evidence I have to refute the “presumption of regularity” (a legal protocol allowing Lind or SCOTUS or whoever to accept Hawaii’s statements at face value because there was no evidence of dishonesty or deception).... the sheathing on the wiring in my husband’s van either decayed uniformly all at once, or else was cut.
Within about a week my daughter’s computer, which I was using because my own computer had been hit by a massive virus, was hit by a trojan so bad I could not even start it.
Around the same time, Lind ruled that she wouldn’t accept any evidence like mine - claiming that Joseph Stalin could have been President and Lakin’s orders to appear for deployment to combat in a foreign country would still have been “lawful”.
Lakin has a right to a fair hearing on whether he committed the crimes he was accused of. He was accused of several things, including the failure to obey the LAWFUL order to show up for deployment to Afghanistan.
Lind’s job was to determine whether the orders he refused to obey were lawful orders. Deployment to combat in a foreign country is only lawful if it meets the conditions set forth in Congress’ authorization to use force in foreign countries. The one condition they gave was that it had to be the decision of THE PRESIDENT.
Lind could claim that Lakin had to obey the order even if it wasn’t lawful, on the grounds of the de facto officer doctrine. But her first order of business was to take what was set before her - the claim that he had failed to obey 2 LAWFUL orders. I have agreed that the one (to show up at hsi office) was lawful. The other (to show up for deployment to Afghanistan) wasn’t, and Lind did not distinguish between the two, even though the terms of the Authorization to Use Force are explicit in their demand that it be approved by the President. The lawfulness explicitly depends on the approval of the President, and the military’s regulations say that all orders down the chain of command must be in compliance with the US Constitution and the legal authorizations. Lind totally blew that off. Deliberately.
The charges against Lakin didn’t include failing to go to Afghanistan.
“Charge I stated, on April 12, Lakin intentionally missed his US Airways Flight Number 1123 from Baltimore/Washington International Airport to Charlotte, North Carolina in order to deploy for a Temporary Change of station in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.
Charge II cited two specifications of Lakin, “having knowledge of a lawful order issued by LTC William Judd, to report to the office of his Brigade Commander, Col. Gordon R. Roberts,” and “having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Col. Gordon R. Roberts,” orders which were his duty to obey, failed to obey those orders by “wrongfully not reporting as directed.”
Notice they did not charge him with not going to Afghanistan, but not going to Baltimore/Washington International Airport and catch a flight to Charlotte, North Carolina.
They drafted the charges narrowly, and did so to prevent Lakin from arguing his orders were to deploy overseas to combat. I think they would have won, and won easily, regardless. But they wanted to make sure it never came up.
““Based on the evidence available, his conviction is certain,” Puckett told WND. “He has no affirmative defense for the offenses he committed.”... “This leaves us with a client who stands accused of missing the movement of an airplane, two failures to obey orders to meet his brigade commander, failure to report to Ft. Campbell, and failure to report to his unit,” said Puckett.”
http://www.wnd.com/2010/12/235561/#Vczm7rXMZ8t6TqxI.99
Nobody within the electoral system or any state court can compel the production of a candidate’s records. Hawaii can refuse to honor subpoenas from other states.
And the system won’t even demand records. We’ve gone through how many state ballot appeals and NOBODY would require legal documents to be provided.
And the HI state registrar has indirectly confirmed that they CAN’T provide any legally probative records, because what they’ve got is legally non-valid. The White House image was forged to hide that fact.
Let me get this right. The only way the military would be able to charge him with failing to obey the unlawful order to deploy to Afghanistan is if he was on the plane when it reached Afghanistani airspace and immediately jumped out.
Do I have that right?
” I have agreed that the one (to show up at hsi office) was lawful. The other (to show up for deployment to Afghanistan) wasn’t...”
__
OK, well I’m glad that we at least agree that Lakin was guilty of a crime.
I happen to disagree with your opinion that deployment-related orders fall under a different analysis, and obviously Col. Lind does too. Here’s what she said about that:
“The three orders at issue in specifications 1-3 of Charge II are alleged to be authorized by LTC William Judd, COL Gordon Roberts, and COL Peter M. McHugh, respectively. Whether President Obama is a natural born citizen or is qualified under the Constitution to hold office is not relevant to determine whether they are authorized to issue the orders charged.”
As I believe we agreed earlier, if the officers giving the orders are authorized to do so, and the orders don’t involve the commission of a crime, the orders are lawful.
” I have agreed that the one (to show up at hsi office) was lawful. The other (to show up for deployment to Afghanistan) wasn’t...”
__
OK, well I’m glad that we at least agree that Lakin was guilty of a crime.
I happen to disagree with your opinion that deployment-related orders fall under a different analysis, and obviously Col. Lind does too. Here’s what she said about that:
“The three orders at issue in specifications 1-3 of Charge II are alleged to be authorized by LTC William Judd, COL Gordon Roberts, and COL Peter M. McHugh, respectively. Whether President Obama is a natural born citizen or is qualified under the Constitution to hold office is not relevant to determine whether they are authorized to issue the orders charged.”
As I believe we agreed earlier, if the officers giving the orders are authorized to do so, and the orders don’t involve the commission of a crime, the orders are lawful.
Just found this link:
It is the transcript of his court martial...runs over 500 pages. I’ll skim thru it later. But see page 48...
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.