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 ...
Never seen him, no, no, and yes.
Lakin will lose regardless. He's already been denied subpoenas for any and all documentation relating to Obama's eligibility. It's not relevant to the charges against him.
Are you sure I’d get a straight answer? lol
It’s only irrelevant if you use “EVEN IF” arguments - which has already been ruled by a court in another court-martial case to be a violation of due process rights for the accused.
Lakin already has standing to sue in civil court if they convict him of anything, because his due process rights have been violated by Driscoll. Even if they find him guilty it will be reversed by a civil court on appeal because of that violation of due process.
About the de facto officer doctrine. In past cases all the way up to the Supreme Court, The defendants charged that the officers in questions had no authority after the facts. As in finding out later. In Obama's case, Lakin charges that Obama is a de facto president, which he has questioned for about 2 years.
The Courts would have to expand and conflate their arguments to cover Obama from what they have said in their past opinions.
The dissent recognized that giving citizenship to anyone born ‘within the realm’, so to speak, was to allow anyone born here “in amity” with the government to become President. It (rightfully) objected to that standard...but since it was the dissent, it didn’t matter.
“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...were eligible to the Presidency...”
“They followed Vattel’s definition of native and natural born which is based on the citizenship of the father.”
No, in the US, citizenship is defined first of all by place of birth. You will notice the 14th Amendment makes no reference to parentage, only location, with the provision that one must be here legally (IMHO - a 1982 Supreme Court case has in its footnotes that even that does not matter).
Ping to the usual argumentative Obama eligibility thread.
Thank you - it seems there is some nervousness about Lakin’s case in the toady camp.
It's irrelevant under for the reasons given in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of the Investigating Officer's memo.
Lakin already has standing to sue in civil court if they convict him of anything, because his due process rights have been violated by Driscoll.
I doubt that a court will agree with your conclusion.
Thank you for your courage sir!
The decision of the court didn't disagree. It declared no one to be a natural born citizen, especially not on that basis.
No, in the US, citizenship is defined first of all by place of birth.
No, in the 14th amendment, citizenship is defined by place of birth. Prior to that citizenship of the parents was part of the deal.
You will notice the 14th Amendment makes no reference to parentage, only location, with the provision that one must be here legally (IMHO - a 1982 Supreme Court case has in its footnotes that even that does not matter).
The provision is that such persons are here under the jurisdiction of the United States. WKA decided this on the basis that the parents were permanent residents and had a permanent domicile, so parents matter. The Supreme Court may have misinterpreted this in 1982 or it may have taken a new step, but again, this wouldn't make anyone a natural born citizen, just a citizen of the United States.
NS loves what he does:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2339550/posts?page=103#103
He hasn't change in 2010 either.
From past posting history, I'm thinking Non-Seq is a chick and likes to play Devil's Advocate without telling anyone.
Well, I disagree with you...but I thank you for the rational discourse. I’ll be happy if you are right and I am wrong, but we’ll see how it turns out.
Paragraph 5 is the “EVEN IF” argument about the “de facto officer doctrine” - saying that “a facially proper order must be obeyed”. According to the specific Article 92 charge against Lakin, the issue is NOT whether he had to obey the order he was given, but whether he was given a LAWFUL order and disobeyed it.
They have not charged him with disobeying the “de facto officer doctrine”. They have charged him with disobeying a LAWFUL ORDER. They have to allow him to defend himself against that charge - EVEN IF he would be guilty of something else if not the actual charges against him.
Paragraph 6 is the “political question” - saying that “In my view our constitutional jurisprudence allows Congress alone, and not a military judicial body, to put the President’s credentials on trial.”
That’s saying that nobody but Congress has standing, which is patently absurd. To use the “political question” he has to show that the Constitution expressly gives that job to Congress. Nowhere does it say that.
And even if it did, is his job to be the judge, or to be the investigator? What difference does his “view” regarding our constitutional jurisprudence make? Who died and made him judge?
If he wants to say that only Congress can determine whether it was a lawful order, then why is the military making the accusation? Shouldn’t Congress be making the accusation, since they are the only ones who (supposedly) can even DECIDE whether the order was lawful? If he wants to say that the lawfulness of the CIC’s orders is outside the jurisdiction of the military, then he is admitting that this whole CASE is outside the jurisdiction of the military so they shouldn’t even be hearing it. Congress should be suing Lakin, if that legal reasoning was actually followed.
None of the straight answers I've given you to date have managed to sink in so what good would another one do?
You keep saying that the orders were from the brigade commanders alone, even though the military folks here have shown that no brigade commander even CAN move troops around without that movement or deployment being included in the complete system, coordinated by an OPLAN or CONPLAN authorized at the proper levels - CINC or SecDef. (I’m not sure how the Crisis Action Plan thing fits in there, but in any event, whether it was a CAP, CONPLAN, or OPLAN, Obama gave a presidential order which authorized the plans which the system then coordinated resulting in Lakin’s deployment and movement orders.)
Military folks, please tell me if I’ve misunderstood what you’ve said.
It seems to me that your argument is about like saying that one ear cell can act on its own. A little ear cell can’t act on its own. If it’s on its own - not connected to the whole body - it’s dead. If a movement or deployment isn’t connected to the whole system, with the OPLAN’s authority, that movement or deployment doesn’t happen. Period. It’s all connected.
Again, if I’m misunderstanding what has been said, somebody please correct me. Where’s the Fair guy? What was his name? The guy who has taught this stuff. He would tell me if I was misunderstanding.
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.