Posted on 11/30/2010 11:42:20 PM PST by rxsid
"Lakin not allowed witnesses, documents, explanation at court-martial Dec. 14!
Lakin Family Attempts to Avoid Confrontation Ignored by Obama
Letters obtained by The Gazette reveal the extent to which a decorated Army officer and his brother struggled to resolve concerns over the President’s eligibility prior to the officer being court-martialed.
The Lakins are long-time Greeley residents. Three Lakin brothers; Dr. Greg Lakin, Capt. Gary Lakin USCG and Lt. Col. Terrance Lakin graduated from University High School in 1977, 1980 and 1983 respectively. The brothers' parents still live in Greeley and have a long history of supporting humanitarian causes in the area.
Lt. Col. Lakin is currently scheduled to be court-martialed Dec. 14 for disobeying orders to deploy after exhausting numerous attempts to resolve issues regarding the President’s eligibility to be Commander-in-Chief. The specific issue involved is the Constitutional requirement that the President be a natural born citizen.
Dr. Greg Lakin has previously been a member of the Greeley Police Department and was a prosecutor in Hawaii. Greg, who was interviewed on the Peter Boyles radio show on Nov. 9, said Lakin, “mulled over this for a long period of time” before he made his decision to refuse to deploy to Afghanistan. He strongly disputed the contention that his brother was a coward for deploying, noting Terry had already served in both Bosnia and Afghanistan.
...
In an interview with the Gazette, Dr. Lakin shared copies of letters he and his brother sent to the President and Hawaiian Governor Linda Lingle asking for a resolution of this issue. Greg said the letters were written with a very humble spirit in an attempt to seek information verifying Barack Obama’s birthplace.
...
Lt. Col. Lakin sent a letter to the President prior to being charged saying, as part of the deployment orders, he was required to submit his long form birth certificate and he was “glad to obey this order, and will provide a certified copy of my original birth certificate with common, standard identifiers, including the name of an attending physician and a hospital.” He said he “attempted through my chain of command for many months to get answers to the relentless questions surrounding your eligibility, but was informed that I lack standing. I also sought answers, unsuccessfully, through my Congressional delegation.” He went on to explain the reason for his request had nothing to do with personal differences. “Please assure the American people that you are indeed constitutionally eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief and thereby may lawfully direct service members into harm's way. I will be proud to deploy to Afghanistan to further serve my country and my fellow soldiers, but want to do so with the knowledge and peace of mind that this important provision of our Constitution is respected and obeyed.”
Dr. Lakin, in his first letter to the president prior to his brother’s arraignment, implored Obama to put the matter to rest stressing his brother tried to resolve the matter through proper channels but was rebuffed. “Approximately 20 months ago while continuing to serve in the Army he attempted to seek clarification regarding your birth certificate through proper military channels. Lt. Col. Lakin filed his requests through the normal chain of command (as the military advised) but continued to meet with frustration as the Army was unable to provide any clarification with regard to your place of birth. He believes this raises a Constitutional issue, a Constitution which he has sworn to uphold.” He stresses that his brother would gladly deploy in an instant once his questions have been answered, saying Terry “remains ready and willing to continue to serve his country in areas of conflict - as he has done in Afghanistan and Bosnia. I believe that upon meeting with my idealistic and principled brother you would find him professional, compassionate and worth helping.” Dr. Lakin even suggested a way to defuse the situation saying that “a meeting with him or our family, whether you chose to do this in private or public setting, would likely defuse this matter.”
He also sent a letter to Hawaiian Governor Linda Lingle who he met several times while he was a prosecuting attorney in Maui County. He told her that “a short meeting or phone with him or family (whether done privately or publicly - your choice), would completely defuse this matter.”
...
Dr. Lakin sent another letter to the President after the initial court-martial date was set. In the letter Greg told the president he was a supporter who was pleased to see him elected in 2008. He reiterated that Terry made this decision only after other options had been exhausted. “It is a shame that no one above him in the military ranks and no one in Congress, who represents him, could address his concerns so that he could have avoided the prospect of such an enormous penalty for staying faithful to the oath he swore as an officer.” He went on to say that Col. Lakin was far from alone in his concerns saying, “Many others in uniform share this concern and have conveyed their support to my brother.”
Showing he understands the divisiveness the issue has caused, he told the President, “We should use all means necessary to avoid an escalated controversy this fall when his court-martial is scheduled. There is much strife and tension in this nation now and this would not be healthy or productive.” Emphasizing the desire to find a resolution of the eligibility issue once and for all so the matter could be put to rest, Lakin said, “My family stands ready to provide any further information you might need and to offer our assistance to try to broker any compromise or negotiation that might be acceptable to all parties. We are deeply distressed over this situation, and do not believe that Terry deserves to be imprisoned simply for seeking assurances that he is following legal orders.”
Greg stated that he has not received any response to his letters and is concerned the Army will simply take the easy way out by avoiding the issue and simply lock up his brother. He said based on his experience as a prosecutor in situations like this where there is no case law, “Judges go in with a pre-determined idea how they are going to decide it and take case law and policy statements to say whatever they want. There is no magic law that supports either position.”
Greg said if his brother is not allowed to present evidence on his behalf and is convicted he would be forced to leave his practice to advocate for his brother saying, “My reluctant but determined response would be to forego my busy medical practice treating drug addicts and elderly patients to organize a public outcry for America’s new military political prisoner.”
As the issue drags on, more members of the media appear to be mentioning the issue. Conan O’Brien joked about the President being ineligible in one of his monologues. Rush Limbaugh, who has previously made comments regarding Obama’s birth certificate, said last week, “We have an imposter for all intents and purposes serving in the White House.”
Saturday Night Live has also mentioned the issue with an opening skit having Sen. Harry Reid asking the President to produce his birth certificate. ABC News Jake Tapper questioned White House Security Advisor David Axelrod’s statement that the President has released his birth certificate asking specifically about the long form containing the name and signature of the attending physician."
From: http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=6890
I’d really love to see the communications Lind received before making this decision. Are those available through FOIA, or would they be considered “risky to national security?”
Most likely nothing was written down. That’s the way these people do things.
But I seriously wonder who told her to say what.
Another thing I wonder about is the “Don’t tase me” episode with Lakin, and the way he was not allowed to speak to media, etc. after the hearing. Is that standard procedure for this kind of situation, or could this be another red flag to show that the process is compromised?
I think there are any number of ways that Lakin’s case could be appealed. Everything about it has been wrong, wrong, wrong. But it seems to me that the retired military folks who pressured to switch Lakin’s counsel are convinced that there is nobody in the military or civilian courts who would actually execute justice so it’s best to not even try for it.
That’s a scary prospect, that the military which is supposed to comply with the rulings of the valid process would rather not have a ruling at all than trust what the process would come up with because they know the process and the people who imlement it are corrupt. That is a huge vote of no confidence from people who have earned America’s respect.
My sister just told me that federal agents came to their door to ask questions about my nephew who was commissioned in the USMC last spring. Apparently they’re doing a background check on him for a security clearance. I actually fear for him in some ways because he still believes the military is apolitical and that the structure can be trusted. I love and respect him, and pray that God will give him wisdom and courage, because this is a really bad time for anybody earnest to be in the military. IMHO.
Correlation between birthdates, stamp dates and certificate numbers...
I'd argue that there isn't enough evidence to state with conviction that they should necessarily be sequential.
Look up Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. You will find that Congress, not the President, has the following powers:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Congress has those powers because the Founders understood perfectly well that giving one Commander-in-Chief total control over the armed forces is irreconcilable with the survival of freedom and a representative democracy.
Consistent with its Constitutional authorities, Congress has enacted Article 10 of the United States Code. Article 10 provides the legal basis for the roles, missions and organization of each of the services as well as the United States Department of Defense. Article 10 establishes the and defines the authorities of the Secretary of Defense and the Service Secretaries, all of whom are approved by Congress. The Service Secretaries are authorized by Congress to establish Service Regulations that provide the authority for military officers to issue orders. Any order issued by the Secretary of Defense or a Service Secretary, and amplified as necessary at lower levels to carry out, is legal and binding all the way down.
So, in effect, the basic military structure is owned and maintained by Congress. It is a tool Congress defines and creates. The President is constitutionally authorized to use that tool, within limits that are debated all the time. But when Congress authorizes use of force, the President decides how that force is to be applied at the strategic and high tactical levels. The Secretary of Defense then issues the appropriate top level orders. Officers below him issue the required subsidiary orders. All those orders have statutory authority via Congress. By design, the military can legally function all the way down no matter what its level of decapitation. That's an important point for operational forces, which can be isolated from contact with command authority while simultaneously experiencing loss of command personnel.
That is why Judge Lind correctly concludes:
Any suggestion by the defense that the authority of military officers to issue any lawful orders ceases to exist if a serving President is found to be unqualified by the Constitution to hold office is an erroneous view of the law. Similarly, any suggestion by the defense that if a President is found to be unqualified by the Constitution to hold office, service-members have no duty to follow any orders issued by their military superiors is equally erroneous.
It's pretty simple. And then there's the de facto officer doctrine that dictates even if Obama is found ineligible, actions taken under color of office are valid. This country and its government were not designed by total morons, and it does not fall to pieces at the drop of the hat. If you choose to read the Congressional authorization of force like a child, insist the President is your magic prince, and hold your breath until you turn blue, that is your right. But it is a silly, erroneous, and juvenile act that will not be acknowledged or respected by reality. I'm sorry if that cause you more distress, but it is you who has chosen to remove yourself from the realm of rational discourse.
I am comparing two systems. You seem to get half the idea.
You understand temperature fluctuations so the comparison seems absurd.
But what if you did not understand the system and all you had to go on was three data points?
I think you’re getting a tad sophisticated for the level of this conversation.
Lousy elitists and their technical points. LOL.
That's all you have - half an idea. Keep trying.
Look at the verbs used in the Constitution: raise, support, provide, maintain, make rules, provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining. Congress has set up a system to do those things. It’s structural, functional stuff. It is NOT authorization to use force.
Where did Congress ever give a military officer authorization to use force in Afghanistan independent of “the President”? What you gave me has nothing to do with who gets to use force on foreign entities. The Authorization to Use Force does, and it gives the authority specifically to “the President”.
So where did Congress authorize military officers to “use appropriate force”? And does that mean that if Lakin’s brigade commanders had ordered him to deploy for combat operations in Iran that would be lawful since Congress has laready said that military officers don’t need no stinkin’ POTUS before they can go invade a foreign country?
More like 8 data points, the descriptions of the person who has implemented the system for over 40 years, the requirements of the CDC and Hawaii statutes, and common sense.
Then what evidence WOULD be enough?
To see all the BC#’s and the dates they were “filed”? That would be in the handwritten birth index, which is required to be kept permanently and is public.
OH, but wait! The HDOH says that doesn’t exist. Bummer, isn’t it - that the only level of evidence that would be conclusive has been illegally destroyed (if the HDOH isn’t lying)? Funny how that happens...
Was that first order legal though? Can an ineligible CiC give a legal order? The answer to that is No, which makes your first question moot.
8 data points over what kind of time period?
Did you check out the link on aliasing?
Sounds a lot like 9th Circuit reasoning where gun control laws are left on the books as "reasonable restrictions" despite the clear language of "shall not be infringed".
All military authority rests on the Chain of Command. If the CiC isn't eligible to BE in command, then any orders given under that authority are equally invalid.
It's easy calculus.
This evidence appears to be preserved on the COLB’s.
You’re just being silly now. Honestly. You don’t want to understand and can’t even repeat the facts given to you correctly.
It's nothing like that at all. That you think so evidences your lack of knowledge on the subject.
All military authority rests on the Chain of Command. If the CiC isn't eligible to BE in command, then any orders given under that authority are equally invalid.
It's easy calculus.
It's not calculus at all. It's law, in which you are obviously unversed. In the law, simply insisting something is true does not make it so. To insist in the face of established statute reflected in actual court rulings simply demonstrates ignorance.
> “It’s not calculus at all. It’s law, in which you are obviously unversed. In the law, simply insisting something is true does not make it so.”
.
We sure have a bunch of noobies like you here, since the pretender enconsed himself in the Offal Orifice, that insist that the orders of a pretender are valid.
You’re obviously here to support the coup d’etat and the false courts that presently turn law on its head daily.
I just cannmot imagine why Jim allows this to continue.
I would have installed a filter to auto-zot you and your kind long ago.
.
I looked at the link but didn’t see the relevance of it.
The data points were over years but I compared the dates of filing and BC#’s in comparison with the total number of births for the year, to establish that the order was ascending.
The statements in the CDC’s 1961 Natality Report and common sense both say that the numbers are sequential. The mechanics of using a hand stamper would make little sense with non-sequential numbering.
And it matches what Onaka said about the process.
I’m not sure what’s your hang-up.
The anomalies on the Factcheck COLB itself - taken right off the Factcheck images themselves, without any of the computerized analysis by Polarik or comparisons with other COLB’s borders or features that could potentially be inauthentic - tell us the image is a forgery.
The circular seal that supposedly authenticates the document is on a fold line but the seal doesn’t distort when the paper it’s on folds forward. I did the scientific method to check this thing out.
I traced the outline of the seal on the fold and compared it to a circle I had drawn with a compass to be that size. The “seal” was just barely a little taller than wide, and showed no distortion. Then I traced the pre-printed state seal/circle on the top fold. It was obvious where the fold was because the circle was flattened and distorted where the fold was. I checked the angle of the fold by looking at the left-hand edge of the page. The angles were almost identical so the degree of distortion should have been roughly the same.
So then I tried to duplicate the results of either the top circle or the supposed “seal”. I tri-folded a piece of paper so that when I held up the paper to my computer screen the fold lines matched and the left-hand edges aligned. That required an exact angle of fold and an exact angle of the right edge being closer to me. So I was sure that the paper I had was identical to the paper used for that photo.
Then I drew a circle on the top fold that was identical to the one on the Factcheck image, and a circle on the bottom fold that was identical to the “seal” on the bottom fold. So I made sure that I replicated what would have been on the paper that Factcheck says they photographed.
Then I tried to duplicate the results that Factcheck got with their camera. I held up my simulated COLB against my computer screen so the left edge matched - again, requiring specific fold angles and a specific angle of the right side being closer to me. Then I snapped a photo of it, enlarged it, and traced it. The top circles matched. On the “seal” my photo showed distortion that almost made the circle look square on the top, from the top curve of the circle being pulled backward by the paper it was on. It looked a lot like the top circle.
Of all those 4 circles, there was one that was different. I tried the experiment probably 3 or 4 times, and in every instance there was always one circle out of the four that was different: the “seal” on the Factcheck COLB was the only one that was not distorted like the others.
I have never been able to duplicate the result that Factcheck got when they supposedly photographed a circular seal on a fold and got an almost-perfect circle slightly taller than it was wide, which is the opposite of the flattening effect I observed in every other instance.
I know of no way that a round “seal” could have been on that paper and ended up looking like the Factcheck image when the paper was folded. I cannot duplicate that. I’ve invited other people to try to duplicate it. I don’t know if they actually tried it or not, but if they did they never told me that they were able to do it, or how. If you change the position of either the paper or the camera the left-side edges don’t match up so there is only one position that works, and it never results in a “seal” that doesn’t distort.
As with all scientific inquiry, research that is trustworthy is able to be duplicated. If that seal was on that piece of paper before it was folded, then the result woould be duplicated when you repeat the experiment with the same variables. I challenge anyone to duplicate Factcheck’s result.
The Factcheck COLB is obviously a forgery because of that non-distorting “seal” alone, but what the HDOH said - both with the BC#’s AND with the admission of the amendment (as supported also by OIP Director Tsukiyama’s citation of HRS 338-13 when addressing Obama’s records) - just shows that the HI bureaucrats also know it is a forgery.
You’re arguing that it might not be a forgery because the evidence of ascending sequential numbering in every instance is not conclusive. As I noted, the conclusive publicly-accessible evidence of that has been illegally destroyed (if the HDOH told the truth about the handwritten birth index not existing even though it is required to be kept permanently). But though the conclusive evidence has seemingly been illegally destroyed, everything we have supports the scenario that the numbers were given sequentially in ascending order.
And there is the other evidence of forgery also, like the admission of the amendment and the physical, scientific fact that the shape of the alleged “seal” can’t be duplicated on a real piece of paper.
I asked you for the specific place where Congress gave military officers (such as brigade commanders) the authority to “use appropriate force” independently of “the President”.
Your response was to call me silly.
Because there is no place Congress ever did that, and you, I, and the kitchen sink all know it. So does Denise Lind.
Because you’re asking a nonsense question that evidences failure to understand the subject matter. And I’m sorry, but Judge Lind knows what she’s talking about and you don’t.
You still haven’t shown me any time that Congress authorized military officers to “use reasonable force” independently of the POTUS so as to make the POTUS “irrelevant” as Lind claimed.
I have shown you the Authorization for the Use of Force, which specifically gives that authority to “the President”. Brigade commanders do not have authority to invade another country independently of “the President”.
I’ve documented; you’ve called names.
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.