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 ...
Sorry to bug you. I just wanted to have you check if I’m misunderstanding the process. Would you be willing to look at the post I’m responding to and see if I’m missing the point?
Thanks!
And he is entitled to anything he might need to prove the orders given him by Colonel Robert, Colonel McHugh, and Lieutenant Colonel Judd were invalid. As Lieutenant Colonel Driscoll correctly pointed out, the defense offered no legal support whatsoever for their contention that all military orders issued by superiors to their juniors are invalidated during times when a president improperly holds office. And their contention not only violates court precedent, as in the U.S. v New decision, but the law of lawfulness of orders doctrine.
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 where is he wrong? He gave the defense the opportunity to produce reasons why the question of Obama's eligibility was a matter should be adjudicated by the military court martial, irrelevant to the case as it may be, and the defense failed to do so. So here's your chance. What clause of the Constitution empowers the military to rule on Obama's eligibility?
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?
In the military justice system, the Investigating Officer determines whether charges are warranted. In preparation for the Article 32 hearing he reviews evidence and has the authority to decide what evidence is relevant for his review and what is not. In this case Lieutenant Colonel Driscoll determined that matters relating to Obama's eligibility were not relevant.
If he wants to say that only Congress can determine whether it was a lawful order...
What he said was that only Congress can put the presidents credentials for the presidency on trial. The military does not have the authority to do so. He never said that only Congress can determine what is a lawful order or not. That's the responsibility of the military.
The “validity” of the order is not included in the charges against Lakin. Stop using that term becauase it never comes into the picture. The word used in Article 92 is LAWFUL. And the elements define that an order is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution....
Now think about that. A military order is not lawful if it is contrary to the Constitution.
Just by looking at that, the military does not have the authority to decide a case where the judgment depends on whether an order was “contrary to the Constitution” - because only the civil courts are authorized to try cases resulting from the Constitution.
At the point that the question of Constitutionality came up, the military should have handed over the entire issue to the civilian courts - with Lakin having standing. IMHO.
You say that the military can’t determine Presidential eligibility because it is a “political question” - designated to a particular branch of government and not the military. Well, the military sure as heck can’t determine the lawfulness of their own orders either then, because they are not authorized to interpret or apply the Constitution.
So Driscoll’s entire argument depends on the “EVEN IF” stipulation - that even if the orders were not LAWFUL, they still weren’t “invalidated”. Lakin is accused of disobeying a lawful order. According to the very elements of Article 92, that includes a scenario where the order was not lawful because it was “contrary to the Constitution”.
If the military can’t even say whether an order is “contrary to the Constitution” then before they make any charges they should be checking with the civilian judiciary to find out. Lakin gave them over a year to do that. They didn’t. They filed this accusation against Lakin without even finding out if they had a case.
What he allowed the defense to do was give scholarly work regarding whether unlawful orders have to be obeyed anyway. He sent them on a wild goose-chase based on an “EVEN IF” argument that is irrelevant to the charges actually made against him.
In the other case that I cited, a similar goose-chase the military tried to send the defendant on was determined by a civilian court to be a VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS. And this is a violation of due process as well - based on Driscoll’s assumption that Lakin was gonna be found guilty of something, by golly, so it doesn’t matter what the actual charges are.
A violation of due process.
Now, in practice, there are delegated authorities that play into this.
Here is a question I’ve asked repeatedly trying to get a direct answer. So far, nobody has been able to provide one. Giving it another try.
Exactly what rights and responsibilities does an Commissioned Officer in the US Military have afforded to them, under the UCMJ or any other legally binding document, if they believe an unlawful order has been given to them directly by a superior officer?
Lakin used Article 138 of the UCMJ to make a complaint for redress noted in his Timeline below, which includes orders that are beyond the legitimate authority (Obama "BHO" the usurper) of a commander or commanders.
Excellent response, and not the only excellent response on this thread. When Mr. Rogers gets busy the clarity of those unraveling his twists is encouraging. Does he get a tweet when eligibility threads launch? He has been using the same arguments to obfuscate truths for so long it is tempting to think “Well, that was answered long ago, so I won't bother.” But he/she knows, and we must remember, that there are a great many people who were susceptible to the campaign of ridicule associated with calling people “Birthers” and “Wingnuts.” Your clarification probably helped many to understand what you and I and rsxid and Bushpilot and ... know, but many more do not.
Anyone who has read the short “Dissertation on the Manner...” by framer Dr. David Ramsay will never equate subjects with citizens. http://www.scribd.com/doc/33807636/A-Dissertation-on-Manner-of-Acquiring-Character-Privileges-of-Citizen-of-U-S-by-David-Ramsay-1789 But how many have read this remarkably clear essay on the meaning of freedom, citizenship, and which also explains the eligibility requirements for being president, calling them “birthright citizenship.”? Ramsay helps to understand the nonesense of the semantic games used by Mr. Rogers and other obots, fussing over “indigenes,” “naturale,” “native-born,” etc.
Some of us owe the clarity more and more in evidence at FR to Mr. Rogers. We know his objectives. Take any of his/her statements and consider it a challenge to find the logical and factual inconsistencies. When we see his name we expect propoganda. That is his/her job. Those who come infrequently don't know that. He is a propagandist. So must be the patriots at FR, but propagandists for truth.
We may have some help. Mark Levin, for the first time, openly threatened Obama today with raising the question of Obama's father's citizenship. Levin was angry when Obama accused a free market organization of having foreign funding. What foreign influence could be more important than having been born of a foreign enemy of capitiism about whose dreams one writes a book?
“Will show it to you again...all orders come from the CINC.”
When Lieutenant Colonel Lakin wrote a letter to the Commander-in-Chief explaining Lakin’s position, the Lieutenant Colonel began the letter:
“The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:”
I would not be surprised at anything they came up with.
This is an evil bunch that the voters {I do not refer to them as Americans, nor do I consider them to be Americans]unleashed on us November 4, 2008.
Obama has got his stooges in there overseeing the military. This poor guy never had a chance of a fair trial.
A m e r i c a n P o s t - G a z e t t e
Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E , in Arizona
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Challenge to John McCain
Weigh in to end Obama birth controversy
The following, open letter to Senator McCain was written by Margaret Calhoun Hemenway. Her concern is the grave damage being done to the US military due tof Mr. Obama’s refusal to demonstrate his eligibility status.
Dear John McCain,
During the 2008 presidential campaign, the media hounded you about your “natural born” status- a law professor in Arizona even made the outrageous assertion, completely unjustified, that you were not “natural born” because of your birth in Panama. As a result, you released your original birth certificate. The controversy grew so heated that your Senate colleagues held a hearing and passed a unanimous, albeit non-binding resolution proclaiming you were “natural born” and therefore eligible to run for President. Senator Obama even co-sponsored this resolution.
Unfortunately, you never asked your rival to produce his original birth certificate— even though a roiling controversy surrounds his birth place- with no hospital in Hawaii willing to claim to be his birthplace- and recently, a senior elections clerk offered to testify in court that his boss, Glenn Takahashi, said there was no hospital birth record for Obama. Three prominent Kenyans said Obama was born in Kenya, contrary to his official birth narrative— including his paternal step-grandmother, Sarah Obama, Ambassador Peter Ogego (on WRIF radio in November 2008) and recently, in March, Cabinet Minister James Orengo- on the floor of the Kenyan Parliament.
A Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin is being court-martialed for asking Obama to produce an original birth certificate- consistent with the oath he swore as an officer- of loyalty to the U.S. Constitution. His deployment orders required him to produce his birth certificate- yet the man commanding ALL the US Armed Forces refuses to submit his for public scrutiny. Truthfully, the citizenship status of the President of the United States- remains undetermined. You are ranking on the Senate Armed Services Committee with oversight over the Department of Defense- it is incumbent upon you to raise your voice- to ask Obama to release his birth records and to avert this court-martial and the ruination of a fine officer’s career- a man who has served 18 years, was selected for promotion to Colonel- and who has deployed six times, including twice to combat zones, in service to his country. You are seen by many as a hero for your tragic capture and torture in Vietnam- even today, our soldiers trained on “duty to disobey” because of My Lai. Col. Lakin is upholding this positive duty to affirm the legality of his orders. If we do not resolve this controversy now, you might expect that soldiers who were part of Obama’s surge, will come home missing arms and legs, and like others before them who served in uniform, will undoubtedly file lawsuits in other courtrooms, asking judges if they have standing. This will rip apart the Armed Forces- it is causing dissension already among our people and emotions are escalating. This unanswered question- was Obama born in Hawaii- or Kenya- must be dealt with now. There is a shadow over this Presidency which could be ended immediately if Obama directs his lawyers to release his original birth record, just as you did in 2008.
Very truly yours,
Margaret Hemenway
Margaret Calhoun Hemenway is a 15-year veteran of Capitol Hill and a former White House appointee, serving at both DoD and NASA. Currently, she is the official spokesperson for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, now being court martialed for requesting Barak Obama’s birth certificate.
I have a spare 2x4 with your name on it. lol
‘Does the CIC authorizing the order lawfully hold office? That is the question.’
Maybe it is, but the subject is not going to come up in the court-martial.
When you say realm of possibility you must mean greater than 0.00 %. It's pretty low, Roberts knows it. Furthermore no judge can remove Obama for any reason even if Roberts wasnt involved. Only congress can do that.
Thank you. I just read through UCMJ Article 138 and 139 plus related information - unless I’m missing something, our military members are screwed.
If they attempt to clarify the issue of Obama’s eligibility to assure themselves that their orders are indeed lawful, and are denied clarification (as Lakin was for over a year) they have three options. They either follow orders they believe to be unlawful, resign their commission or refuse and await a court martial.
Major General Paul Vallely is correct; our military should not be forced to ask these questions.
The dissent in WKA said, “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...”
It realizes the argument used in WKA makes everyone born in the USA, unless of diplomat parents or an invading army, a natural born citizen eligible for the Presidency. That is the inescapable conclusion if one grants, as the court did, that the meaning of Natural born citizen is found in the meaning of the common law phrase natural born subject.
In WKA, the Supreme Court said:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Unless the Supreme Court overturns WKA, then Barack Obama - if born in the USA - is a natural born citizen IAW the original intent of the Constitution.
You can blow smoke up as many butts as you wish to try, but the Supreme Court put more stock in common law than in Dr. David Ramsay, and more in it than in a bad translation of Vattel made years after the Constitution was written.
More likely is when they used the laterines, they probably used the Constitution papers to wipe their sorry butts!!!
More from WKA:
“In Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:
It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects.”
And “It may be observed that, throughout that statute, persons born within the realm, although children of alien parents, were called “natural-born subjects.” As that statute included persons born “within any of the King’s realms or dominions,” it, of course, extended to the Colonies, and, not having been repealed in Maryland, was in force there. In McCreery v. Somerville, (1824) 9 Wheat. 354, which concerned the title to land in the State of Maryland, it was assumed that children born in that State of an alien who was still living, and who had not been naturalized, were “native-born citizens of the [p662] United States...”
And “In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, 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. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”
The Supreme Court approvingly noted: “The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:
Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”
And on and on and on. WKA was excruciatingly clear. Thus the Indiana courts were following the Supreme Court lead when they decided “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
My salute to you, but we still have a few distracting FINOs who have drink the cool-aid and think different, kind acting like Bradley Manning!!!
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.