Posted on 04/13/2010 8:19:14 AM PDT by Man50D
Washington, D.C., April 13, 2010. Army doctor Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin yesterday met with his brigade commander, Col. Gordon R. Roberts, who proceeded to read LTC Lakin his Miranda rights, and who informed LTC Lakin he had the “right to remain silent” because LTC Lakin is about to be charged with serious crimes. Col. Roberts was at age 19 awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, the only recipient of the nation’s highest honor currently on active duty in the Army.
LTC Lakin had previously been ordered in writing to report yesterday to Ft. Campbell, KY and then on to deploy for his second tour of duty in Afghanistan. Lakin refused to obey these orders and instead came to work yesterday morning at the Pentagon. Late yesterday afternoon he was confronted by his brigade commander.
Before the meeting was over, LTC Lakin’s Pentagon Access Pass had been revoked, and his laptop computer was set to be confiscated.
The message to LTC Lakin is clear; through official channels, he was informed yesterday that he will shortly be court-martialled for crimes (specifically, missing movement and conduct unbecoming an officer) that for others has led to lengthy imprisonment at hard labor.
Lakin has announced in a YouTube video that has now been viewed more than 110,000 times that he considers it his duty to refuse to obey orders that would be illegal if President Obama is ineligible to hold office.
Meanwhile, cries mount for proof of that eligibility, but nothing has been forthcoming. The Obama campaign at one point released a copy of computer-generated abstract of information purportedly in Hawaii's records system, but the source of this information is unclear and need not have been a birth certificate issued contemporaneously and signed by the doctor who attended the birth. Even the document released was only a copy, and the version printed in the Los Angeles Times on June 16, 2008 is on a form only in use since late 2001. Even as it is, the document contains a warning that it is merely “prima facie”--threshold, rebuttable and thus inconclusive --evidence of birth, and the copy the Times printed mysteriously has the certificate number blacked out, thereby rendering the document unusable according to language on the bottom.
Given the seriousness of the offenses with which LTC Lakin is about to be charged, the American Patriot Foundation today renewed its plea for donations to its legal defense fund for LTC Lakin. Details are available at APF's website, www.safeguardourconstitution.com
Thanks. I wonder who his friends were, and what places he went to research. This whole Lakin thing has a sad tinge to it and I haven’t read much on him. Is he more of a “He was born in Kenya, or hasn’t proven he was born here” or a “His dad was British, so therefore, etc.”
I recall reading something about Polarik on his website a few weeks ago.
parsy
Radio interview with Hemenway about LTC Lakin
Perhaps you should read that resolution a little more carefully, you left out the AMERICAN CITIZENS part:
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511
Obama is not eligible per this resolution.
What troubles me the most about Lakin is that his letter published on American Thinker explains his actions. In that letter he repeats some birther rumors that have been debunked. This man has been duped into believing some Internet rumors and citing them as evidence in his defense.
I have been having this debate for a long time, and Uncle Chip has nothing to do with it. It goes back to Vattel, as you no doubt know. The framers of the constitution used this as a reference document, blackwell also contributed.
By EVERY definition, Obama is not a NBC, and the court cases you will no doubt cite, were first posted by me, and they do not grant Obama or any other person without citizen parents NBC status.
The electors accepted fraudulent certification from Pelosi without question, knowingly or unknowingly.
Also, obama did not accept matching campaign funds which allowed him to escape much of the normal scrutiny and vetting that the POTUS is usually subject to.
“Your statement makes it sound like “following procedure” automatically makes an order “lawful”. That would mean that an officer merely needs to establish a “procedure” to implement an unlawful order and then it is no longer unlawful.”
You are confusing two different issues. A federal court will look to see if the military court followed correct legal procedures.
OTOH, a order is assumed to be legal unless the person refusing had reason (facts, not opinions) to believe otherwise.
During my time in the military, I refused several orders. For example, I was ordered by my Sq/CC to change my section of an Officer Performance report on one of my subordinates. That was a direct violation of regulations, and I refused to obey. My refusal undoubtedly affected my own OPR, but that was my choice.
I also refused a direct order to alter logbooks that were legal documents. I told the officer that if he would put his order in writing and get it reviewed by legal, I’d do it...but until then, absolutely not. He backed down.
In each case, I was willing to be brought up on charges because I knew the orders were illegal. I wouldn’t have to fish for evidence. I knew what was illegal about each order.
However, I never said, “I refuse to obey, and when it goes to trial, I’ll ask to see every document you have to prove you are a legitimate officer...”
Sheesh, they're outright defenders!
Disgusting indeed.
The courts HAVE disagreed with you, and they specifically have addressed the questions you raise.
That is a non-binding Senate resolution. It’s meaningless. It doesn’t affect Obama’s eligibility.
We've noticed.
I saw the Polarik thing. I have tried not to read too much of this because it is sad that the guy is throwing his career over this stuff. As a Southerner, I understand fighting for a lost cause, but this is beyond lost. IMHO, it’s non-existent.
parsy, who will salute Lakin as he uselessly falls upon his sword
Well well well.
All the toadies and suckups are here in full mode. Says something indeed.
Did you look to see what an Articl 138 was? I did...here it is...
Article 138 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) gives every member of the Armed Forces the right to complain that he or she was wronged by his or her commanding officer. The right even extends to those subject to the UCMJ on inactive duty for training.
Matters appropriate to address under Article 138 include discretionary acts or omissions by a commander that adversely affect the member personally and are:
In violation of law or regulation
Beyond the legitimate authority of that commander
Arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, or
Clearly unfair (e.g., selective application of standards).
Procedures for filing complaint
Within 90 days (180 days for the Air Force) of the alleged wrong, the member submits his or her complaint in writing, along with supporting evidence, to the commander alleged to have committed the wrong. There is no specific written format for an Article 138 complaint, but it should be in normal military letter format, and should clearly state that it is a complaint under the provsions of Article 138 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The commander receiving the complaint must promptly notify the complainant in writing whether the demand for redress is granted or denied.
The reply must state the basis for denying the requested relief.
The commander may consider additional evidence and must attach a copy of the additional evidence to the file.
If the commander refuses to grant the requested relief, the member may submit the complaint, along with the commander’s response, to ANY SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER, who is MANDATED to forward the complaint to the officer exercising General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) over the commander being complained about. The officer may attach additional pertinent documentary evidence and comment on availability of witnesses or evidence, but may not comment on the merits of the complaint.
(Special Note: Article 138 clearly states that complaints may be addressed to any superior commissioned officer. However, only the Air Force regulations allow the complainant to bypass their chain of command when filing a complaint. The Army requires that the complaint be filed with the “complainant’s immediate superior commissioned officer.” A complaint in the Navy or Marine Corps must be submitted “via the chain of command, including the respondent.” Before reaching the general court-martial convening authority, an intermediate officer “to whom a complaint is forwarded” may “comment on the merits of the complaint, add pertinent evidentiary material to the file, and, if empowered to do so, grant redress.” In the Air Force, the complainant may “submit the claim directly, or through any superior commissioned officer” to the general court-martial convening authority).
GCMCA’s Responsibilities
Conduct or direct further investigation of the matter, as appropriate.
Notify the complainant, in writing, of the action taken on the complaint and the reasons for such action.
Refer the complainant to appropriate channels that exist specifically to address the alleged wrongs (i.e., performance reports, suspension from flying status, assessment of pecuniary liability). This referral constitutes final action.
Retain two complete copies of the file, and return the originals to the complainant.
After taking final action, forward a copy of the complete file to the Secretary of the Service (i.e., Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Air Force, ect.), for final approval/disposition.
The GCMCA is prohibited from delegating his or her responsibilities to act on complaints submitted pursuant to Article 138.
Matters outside the scope of the Article 138 complaint process
Acts or omissions affecting the member which were not initiated or ratified by the commander
Disciplinary action under the UCMJ, including nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 (however, deferral of post-trial confinement is within scope of Article 138)
Actions initiated against the member where the governing directive requires final action by he Office of the Secretary of the Service
Complaints against the GCMCA related to the resolution of an Article 138 complaint (except for alleging the GCMCA failed to forward a copy of the file to the Secretary of the Service)
Complaints seeking disciplinary action against another
Situations where procedures exist that provide “the individual notice of an action, a right to rebut, or a hearing” and “review by an authority superior to the officer originating the action.” (This includes most administrative boards)
Suggested Reading
Military Justice 101
Punitive Articles of the UCMJ
The Complete UCMJ
New posts to the U.S. Military forums:
Taiwan Displays Plans Missile - Corvette
USN mulls physical fitness exam changes
CA man pleads guilty to faker charges
Related Articles
Article 138 Complaints
Article 139 Claims
Air Force Inspector General (IG) Complaints Program
Code of Conduct, Article 6
Air Force Inspector General (IG) Complaints Program
True, how ever it does reiterate the two citizen parents language that previous SCOTUS decisions have used.
You have to wonder why obama's situation wasn't addressed in a similar fashion.
http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2001/00ka2864.opn.pdf
Simarly cited here (& elsewhere): "State of Vermont v Wanita Oren" http://info.libraries.vermont.gov/SUPCT/160/op92-113.txt
Just another day on FR :)
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DENVER-CO/KHOW-AM/041210PETE6A.mp3"
---------------
Awesome. Thanks STARWISE!
No, I don't wonder. I know the answer. Having the Senate address Obama's eligibility in an official Resolution would indicate that his status was in question and therefore bring legitimacy to the birther movement. Obama would never allow that.
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.