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 ...
Anything on it can be amended, but amendments have different classes, according to the HDOH Administrative Rules. Major administrative amendments, such as changing the place of birth, must always be noted on the certificate and always reduce the legal evidentiary value of the BC to zero.
The HDOH confirmed that Obama had paid money to have an amendment made, so it was a major administrative amendment; it could not have been a typo or anything that a hospital or doctor erred on.
I believe - based on multiple responses the HDOH has given - that he amended it to add his birth weight, which could not be added to the BC when it was reported in 1961(probably by Madelyn Dunham) because the baby was not in Hawaii within the first 30 days after birth to be examined by a doctor who could then complete the BC.
Of course, this theory depends on the accuracy of the HDOH responses, which is not a given. lol.
Now go back and find out what the rules were in the 60's.
I apologize for setting you up by saying "Hawaii law specifically provides..." instead of what I intended to say: "Hawaii law specifically provided..." It wasn't deliberate, sorry.
Irrelevant in this case. Lakin is not being charged with disobeying orders to deploy but for disobeying other orders not specifically connected with deployment.
The de facto officer doctrine applies.
But just because the orders must be followed does not make them LAWFUL - and that is what the military has accused Lakin of breaking, so that is the charge the military has to allow him discovery to defend himself on.
“EVEN IF” arguments are not acceptable, since they violate the accused person’s due process rights. I’ve already posted the citation on that.
Not making any sense, but there's nothing surprising in that.
In the case you link, “Here, Appellant was charged with escaping from the custody of CPT Kreitman. Assuming, arguendo, that CPT Kreitman was in fact authorized to apprehend Appellant, no evidence was presented that Appellant was in his custody at any time.”
The error of the military was in specifically charging the accused with escaping from Capt Kreitman, when in fact Capt Kreitman never had custody to begin with.
“Although the nature of the offense remained the same — escape from custody — by substituting SSG Fleming for CPT Kreitman as the custodian from whom Appellant escaped, the military judge changed the identity of the offense against which the accused had to defend. This denied him the “opportunity to defend against the charge.”...Had he known that he would be called upon to refute an agency theory or to defend against a charge that he escaped from SSG Fleming, Appellant is unlikely to have focused his defense and his closing argument on the lack of evidence that CPT Kreitman placed him in custody or that he escaped from the custody of CPT Kreitman.”
Because of the screw up charge, the defendant proved he was never in the custody of the Captain rather than defending himself against another charge.
This is not the same as saying that an order is legal regardless of the qualifications of the person giving it. It is unlikely that Lakin will be arguing his CO cheated at West Point and is therefor not really qualified to be a Col.
In the Lakin case, the charges were also very specific, and Obama not mentioned. Lakin is charged with disobeying his CO, not Obama. And that is what I think he will be convicted of doing.
The most likely question will be, “Did the military prejudice the case by refusing to get Obama’s birth certificate?” And since judges seem to pull rulings out of their butts with no regard for the law, there is no telling how an appeal court would rule on that.
You keep misinterpreting the opinion of the dissent. It’s not acknowledging that the decision of the court, but simply giving the historical context for how the founders understood the term natural born citizen. If you look at the charters of some of the original colonies, it acknowledges the children of citizens would be recognized as citizens and the children of denizens (legal aliens) would be recognized as denizens, not citizens. Likewise, the preamble to the Constitution says, “We the People of the United States,... secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity ...” When they say their posterity, they are referring to their children, i.e., the children of citizens, not to ‘ourselves and anyone else who happens to be in the country.’ For the latter, the Constitution grants the power of naturalization to the Congress. This mirrors the charters of the colonies in granting the natural rights of citizenship to the children of those who were citizens. A few colonies, such as New York, would recognize anyone born in the colony as a citizen, but not all colonies. The English common law wasn’t comprehensive to all colonies nor the new country as a whole.
Also, in your citation of WKA, they acknowledge the English common law applied to aliens only “so long as they were within the kingdom.” The United States did not exercise this same principle of citizenship. Aliens could only be considered citizens (and their children) when they naturalized (in the case of the children, when their fathers naturalized).
You guess wrongly!
The solution is more along the lines of all who were convicted of disobeying lawful orders (which in fact were not lawful) can petition the courts for reversal of the conviction and recover damages from the government.
What follows is that all orders whether applying to the military or by actions of the government under direction of a false president can be nullified and the aggrieved may recover damages from the government.
How is that for hope and change.
And it’s interesting because the Index to Foreign Births is one of the documents that was required to be permanently retained and the HDOH says doesn’t exist.
Kind of like what the Passport Office has done. They said the records from SAD’s 1965 and earlier passport applications may have been destroyed. But there is now an affidavit in Chris Strunk’s case, showing that those are to be retained permanently. Furthermore, they have to have record of every application written on an index card that is immediately placed for permanent retention. There is no way that all those records could have been destroyed - unless somebody was purposely breaking the law to get rid of them.
Whose name is listed on the deployment order as the person issuing the deployment order?
Non-Sequitur keeps saying that the brigade commanders didn’t order him to deploy. Well, then who did? Who signed the deployment order, and under whose authority?
So Seq, last time you saw Obama, did you have a beer? Kenyan beer? Have you been to Africa?
No, we need to insure the chain of command is valid. The Commander in chief must prove he has a valid credentials to hold the office. Not only has he not done so but strenuously resists.
If he proves the valid credentials, The officer will lose. Every other order can then be determined valid.
If the credentials are invalid, Barack Obama is not commander and if necessary will be forcefully removed. All orders will need to be reevaluated but for most it will not matter.
In my opinion, the Lt. Col. has had it.
While I do believe that obama is/was not qualified under the Constitution to hold the office of President, the people in power behind the scenes said that he is their choice to occupy the White House. Power, good or bad ,is still power and power does as it pleases.
I do believe that the Republican Party, the Democrat Party, the main stream media and everyone else who had the means to influence the outcome and the power and /or authority to prevent or change knew everything about obama’s life history, including who his parents were, where he was born, where he went to school including but not limited to what brand of toilet paper he prefers.
They chose to remain silent and do nothing.
The Lt. Col. had the courage to insist that the Constitution be followed [make waves]. He is now to be crushed.
The difficulty I see with that is that the judiciary is supposed to decide CASES arising from the Constitution or laws. People have argued that SCOTUS can’t do anything unless somebody brings a valid case, which is defined to include the factor of standing.
So under that understanding, neither Roberts nor any court could do anything about Obama’s eligibility unless a court case arose in which somebody had “standing”.
Of course, we know that there were a bunch of cases which SCOTUS could have taken up - including Donofrio’s, Wrotnowski’s, and others. Clarence Thomas laughed about them avoiding the issue.
I don’t think that Clarence Thomas would really laugh about that. I think if you care about the Constitution (as I believe Thomas, Roberts, and some of the others do) you wouldn’t laugh about something like that, unless it was a morbid kind of laugh. You laugh because you can’t do anything else.
I really, really wonder if the person who made an electronic run on the bank when McCain pulled ahead in the polls right after the Republican Convention told the leaders (Bush, Bernanke, Paulson, SCOTUS, etc) that if they didn’t allow Obama’s coup there would be another run on the bank.
Soros has destroyed several countries’ economies with that kind of sabotage; the Chinese absolutely hate his guts because of it (that’s why they adopted financial sabotage as one of their actual military contingencies), as do the Russians. And he’s said that he is afraid that America will win the war on terror because it would make America and capitalism strong - 2 things Soros wants to destroy. That leads me to think that he has aligned himself with the Islamists. Together they could well have enough money to effectively take the entire western world hostage.
GW Bush said that if we didn’t pass TARP it would be the end of the western world. We managed nicely without TARP for quite some time after Bush had said that; it wasn’t the natural consequences that Bush feared because even as TARP was delayed those consequences never developed. I believe GWB had a gun against his head, with Soros and the Islamists saying, “You put our puppet in place or we’ll kill the entire western world.”
That would explain why dems were willing to fall on the knife for Obama’s extremely unpopular agenda: they know that Soros can pull out the gun any time he wants to, like right before the Nov election.
It also would explain why people who do care about the Constitution have still balked, resulting in bizarre things like Stevens saying “Congratulations, Mr President” to Joe Biden right after swearing him in, Joe Biden sighing and delaying before taking the oath to defend the Constitution, the stumbling over the oath and there not being video of a correct oath being given, Clarence Thomas’ joke about avoiding the eligibility issue.
It’s sort of like the captured soldiers going on video saying, “The gracious warriors for Allah (Peace Be Upon Him) are treating me really, really peachy.” A little eye-rolling, gagging, or a veiled sarcastic joke would be a clue that they were only saying it under duress.
Does anybody have unedited footage of the inauguration? I couldn’t bring myself to watch it. Darn emotions; they got in the way of me seeing something that would have helped me make sense out of things. Argh.
Does anybody know of somebody who taped the inauguration live and still has the unedited tape?
Funny how the word “allegedly” is missing here.
_______________________________________________
That’s because he’s not a thug or an illegal alien that “allegedly” committed a heinous crime!
No, Lakin was charged with disobeying a LAWFUL ORDER.
And Driscoll refused to let Lakin get evidence regarding whether the order was lawful - by saying that Lakin would still be guilty, EVEN IF.
Just like the military said this other guy would still be guilty EVEN IF he didn’t escape custody of the guy they said he escaped custody from.
The point is that an “EVEN IF” argument is a violation of due process. They have to allow the accused to defend himself from the ACTUAL CHARGES.
The only way it makes any difference whether Lakin disobeyed an order from the brigade commanders is if those orders were LAWFUL. If the military uses an “EVEN IF” argument to deny Lakin the ability to prove that the orders were not lawful - based upon the “political question” issue or the “de facto officer doctrine” (as Driscoll relied uppon) - they are denying Lakin due process, by refusing to let him defend himself from the actual charges.
Shame! Shame on every so called patriot and defender of the constitution who hails this mans act as courage.
He is a coward. He is a traitor and an oath breaker. He is a media whore.
As an officer of the military he does not, cannot and and is directly forbidden to use his office for political posturing.
If he truly believes an order given is unlawful, he has but ONE recourse. To resign his commission.
Any other act is the act of a military junta. A dangerous path for anyone who dares to respect the law.
Just like others before him, he had the choice to resign or to play with 15 minutes of fame and put at risk our constitutional form of government. He chose the later.
I hope a strong example is made of his error.
Those of you who would defend this act are worse than ignorant, you violate the very principles you claim to hold dear and do so with emotion and lacking in all reason the cause and effects of your most foul deed.
I hold you beneath contempt.
I believe at least some of them remained silent because they had a gun against their head - Soros saying he would make a run on the bank that would destroy the entire western economy and capitalism.
Look at the articles back then. Remember the Islamists saying that since capitalism had failed everybody should use Sharia-compliant financing? Remember Chavez and Castro saying that since capitalism had failed the world should be communist?
Those are the two powerful world bodies that Soros aligns himself with, and they are united in Barack Hussein Obama, the lawyer who carried out 2 major planks of the Cloward-Piven Plan to destroy America and told the Egyptian ambassador that he is a Muslim who supports the Muslim agenda (the Muslim agenda I know of being worldwide Sharia and the destruction of Israel and USA).
Remember GWB saying that if TARP wasn’t passed it would be the end of the Western World? Somebody put fear in the same guy who said to the terrorists, “Make. My. Day.”
I think this entire nation has been taken hostage in a coup at the point of a financial gun.
And I don’t think we can get America and our freedoms back until we figure out a way to disarm Soros and the Islamists from financial blackmail of the entire Western World.
I know it sounds crazy, but the more you look at the details, the more they are explained by this scenario.
Wouldn’t it be total irony if Justice Stevens was the one who loved this country enough that he called Joe Biden “Mr President” under his breath after giving him the oath and then resigned from SCOTUS because he just couldn’t take the unconstitutionality of it any more?
As stupid as Joe Biden is, I have to say it would be endearing if he sighed and paused before giving the oath to defend the Constitution because he hated breaking that Constitution under duress.
I don’t know. Maybe I’m nuts. But I can’t help but wonder.
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.