Posted on 08/11/2010 11:00:30 AM PDT by traumer
An insubordinate Army doctor has been charged with disobeying orders after failing to show up for duty in Afghanistan and questioning whether President Barack Obama has the right to order him there. Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, birther and insubordinate soldier headed for court martial
Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, birther and insubordinate soldier headed for court martial
Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin is scheduled to be arraigned Friday at Fort Belvoir, VA and in all likelihood will either be sentenced to detention and/or given a dishonorable discharge from the military.
Lakin will be charged under Article 92 and 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice which states - Under Article 92, Any person subject to this chapter who:
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or...
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Under Article 86, UCMJ. Any member of the armed forces who, without authority -
(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;
(2) goes from that place; or
(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
I hope Lakin gets both jail time and a dishonorable discharge. From the video he posted on YouTube, it looks like he will have a short court martial as it seems he will just plead guilty. Hopefully he will expeditiously sentenced to jail time and a dishonorable discharge.
Lakin is from Greeley, Colorado and was ordered to go to Afghanistan. He did not report to Fort Campbell, KY
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
My perception is that Lakin and his advisors have gamed this out pretty thoroughly. Still, plans are just plans, as Von Clausewitz reminded all. In the reality, there is just the fog we all walk through seeking each his own way.
Winning the electoral vote is obviously not the same thing as “qualifying” because
1)the 20th Amendment says that a “President elect” can fail to qualify. The Constitution recognizes no popular vote so the only way to have a President elect is if the electoral vote is already certified, which is all Congress did for Obama; and
2) whether or not the Vice President “qualifies” is independent of whether the President “qualifies”, since one can qualify without the other. That means that “qualifying” is not something simply procedural, which is done for the Pres and VP at the same time.
Hawaii law specifically provides that Hawaii can issue a foreign born adoptee a birth certificate listing the adoptive parents as the birth parents, and the place of birth as Hawaii.
We wouldn't want to stigmatize or traumatize the little darlings would we, hmmmm?
You don't need to believe me, you don't need to trust me, in fact I'd prefer that you didn't. Do your own homework and check it out for yourself.
Yer catchin on fast!
Lakin already has grounds to sue in civil court because his due process rights were violated by an Investigating Officer denying him access to evidence and witnesses based on an “EVEN IF” argument. Yesterday I referenced a case where a court-martial conviction was overturned because the military had used an “EVEN IF” argument to deny the soldier opportunity to defend himself against the actual charge made.
Read Phil Driscoll’s refusal again. It is one great big “EVEN IF” argument. After I post this I’ll go C&P the post where I noted this so folks can look at the actual place in the court decision which verbalizes this.
Here’s what I posted yesterday; in my next post I’ll copy another post I made which allows access to Driscoll’s refusal so you can compare them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/2008SepTerm/08-0779.pdf page 9, footnote 3, says:
“The Government also argues that it is immaterial from whom
Appellant escaped, because the escape was wrongful in any event. The fact that two alternative theories of a case may both involve criminal conduct does not relieve the government of its due process obligations of notice to the accused and proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense alleged. See United States v. Ellsey, 16 C.M.A. 455, 458-59, 37 C.M.R. 75, 78-79 (1966).”
This supports what I’ve said about the military needing to allow Lakin to defend himself from the actual charge: disobeying a LAWFUL order.
IIRC, the military guy (jeez, I need to remember names and positions. lol) who said that Obama is irrelevant to the case argued that EVEN IF the order wasn’t lawful, Lakin still would be guilty because of the de facto officer doctrine.
This footnote shows that EVEN IF arguments don’t excuse the military from actually proving the actual charges they make against someone. They have to prove that Lakin disobeyed a LAWFUL order - what they formally accused him of. And they have to allow him to defend himself not just in regards to whether he disobeyed an order, but whether the order he disobeyed was LAWFUL.
If I have remembered correctly, and the argument used to deny access to the documents and witnesses Lakin requested is based on the EVEN IF argument, then the legal reasoning of the person who made that argument is refuted by this other case. The lawfulness of the order is relevant to THIS CHARGE, even if Lakin could be found guilty of a different charge if the order had to be obeyed even if it was unlawful.
I’ll see if my computer allows me to check my memory on the reasoning given for refusing Lakin’s requested evidence.
To be Honest, you would have to ask Obama. Obama may have had his wife order him to do it, or Jessy Jackson, or Reverend Wright or the Saudi King.
Until Obama talks, we dont know, ultimately, who ordered Lakin to go to Afghanistan.
“That must be the Supreme Court of your imagination, not the one that we who live in the real world and the Senators who authored the SR511 are familiar with:”
As for your supposed Supreme Courts cases:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)never discusses natural born citizenship.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830) uses birth in country for citizenship, but does not discuss natural born citizen.
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) specifically avoids the controversy, saying, “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
I will repeat: “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) says, “I. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.”
I’ll repeat, since you have missed it before: “Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.”
The dissent, recognizing the implications, said, “Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
As for Senate Resolution 511, only a liar would post it without pointing out that it was MCCAIN’s status discussed, and the requirement for 2 citizen parents linked to someone born OUTSIDE the USA.
.......So every order given by every officer in every branch of service since January 20, 2009 has been illegal?.....
Yes. All were based on a chain of command that is faulty/defective.
Here’s the other post about this from yesterday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Driscoll’s decision to refuse Lakin’s request for further evidence can be found at http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/06/obama_records_denied_in_birthe.html
All I can say is WOW!!! Having just read the case at http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/2008SepTerm/08-0779.pdf and finding that EVEN IF arguments don’t excuse the military/government from proving the SPECIFIC CHARGES, I look at Driscoll’s reasoning and it is sheer bullcrap in light of what the judges in this other case said.
For one thing, he doesn’t even get the actual charges correct - fails to mention that one of the charges is an Article 92 violation: failure to obey a LAWFUL order.
Then his entire argument is one great big EVEN IF.
A misdemeanor. A high misdemeanor, actually. One a sane legislature could impeach Justice Roberts for, I think. These are not times of sanity.
Let me raise the ante on your question a bit. Let’s say Obama orders an attack on Israel because Israel opens up on Lebanon. Thankfully, the Military refuses, grabs ahold of Biden and Pelosi and has them pull the 25th’s flush knob. Obama’s insane, that is, for the purposes of emergency Presidential succession — unable to carry out the duties of his office.
In the course of the follow-up investigation it is discovered — and this is within the realm of possibility — that Obama is even not a citizen. And not ever even a natural born citizen.
Here’s the thought-question posed to you then: In that type of situation would Justice Robert’s be culpable, for not having had verified Obama’s bonafides?
Native born and natural born would be syonyms when they share the same meaning of being born in the country to parents who are citizens. That's why Minor said "Natives, or natural born citizens."
They have NEVER said natural born requires two citizen parents.
They followed Vattel's definition of native and natural born which is based on the citizenship of the father. I can't argue with you here that this would invalidate any chance for Obama being a natural born citizen.
They HAVE said NBC is analogous to natural born subject, and that a natural born subject could have two alien parents...
Well they did cite United States v. Rhodes which said, "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens," however this was in reference to people born in the United States. You could born here and not be a natural born citizen, which is what applies to Obama.
So I guess we need to court martial the entire military for obeying illegal orders.
He may try to appeal on those grounds, though I doubt he'd be successful. But to say it's grounds for a civil suit is a bit of a stretch. Who would he sue anyway?
No it doesn't. See DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CHAPTER 120: FOREIGN BORN PERSON ADOPTED IN HAWAII and HRS §338-20.5.
Both make it abundantly clear that a birth certificate issued for a foreign-born adoptee shall state the true place of birth (not Hawaii, as you claim) and that the certificate is required to state "This certificate is not evidence of United States citizenship for the child or the parents named above."
You don't need to believe me, you don't need to trust me, in fact I'd prefer that you didn't.
Good advice.
Right. So the very existence of the order is dependent on the OPLAN - which is authorized at the Presidential or SecDef level.
IOW, Lakin’s brigade commanders do not have authority to issue that order independently of the OPLAN, which in the case of the troop surge for Afghanistan was authorized by a presidential order from Obama.
The whole thing is totally dependent on Obama for its Constitutionality.
I'm not aware of what would make the order of Colonel Roberts, Colonel McHugh, and Lieutenant Colonel Judd unlawful. That's my question to you.
To such an idiotic idea? Not hardly.
Yes. A president can fail to qualify if none of them receive 270 electoral votes. Not the case in this election.
2) whether or not the Vice President “qualifies” is independent of whether the President “qualifies”, since one can qualify without the other.
Highly unlikely but theoretically true. If one or more faithless electors switched their vote for president but not vice-president then it may be possible to have the vice-president qualify but not the president.
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.