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 be real careful about being nasty or demeaning
to butter here .. someone who’s devoted countless,
ernest hours and months of research, pursuing a
righteous goal:
the truth.
She also possesses the utmost of manners and civility
in all her dealings, unlike you.
Real careful.. and duly noted.
If you’re a gentleman, Joe, you’ll apologize to her.
turn me into the mods..........i do not take being threatened well.....go to hell
If his whole purpose was to invalidate the integrity of the government of the United States by forcing them to ignore their Constitutional duties (under whatever excuse “wanting to prevent race-riots,” political correctness, the “impropriety” of challenging the president’s eligibility etc) then I should say that the NWO has made a masterful move.
INDEED.
WELL PUT.
Thankfully, God has a warm spot in hell for the gloablists . . .
I just hate to see what they are going to be allowed to get away with between now and their shipping out to there.
>If I ever hear anyone make a statement in favor of anything remotely trans-national in terms of authority or legal precedent, I typically go into my reloading room, and carefully etch their name into a bullet.
There is one case wherein I am willing to accept “legal precedent”* in terms of foreign/trans-national law as being possibly relevant to us in the US: law pursuant unto treaties which the US has accepted and ratified (such as the Hague Convention, which most people confuse with the Geneva convention).
*This does not mean that I accept as valid “case law” wherein the decisions of judges are rendered of higher authority than the law.
I don’t think this is Obama’s plan. This comes from the CFR and billionaires like Rockefeller, the Clintons and Soros. People who have no reason to be concerned with the common people.
By my count you should have in excess of 400 by now.
My recommendation to be real careful is not a threat. It’s suggested because you’ve chosen to be unnecessarily nasty to Butterdezillion.
And that just won’t set well with those who know how diligently and conscientiously, as well as very politely, she’s worked for a very very long time to laboriously track volumes of known information relative to this issue, and very objectively and civilly shared those results.
Butter’s someone who’s *earned* extremely good will and very high respect here due to her perseverence and her open, polite and civil dialog with all, both those in harmony with her position, as well as those who disagree with it.
But there you go, showing your stripes, and now cursing me.
Nice going .. and duly noted.
My suggestion stands.
Gots to get me a few cases of those......;o)
You're waaay short. I'll put it this way: I've worn out 2 diamond-tipped etching tools. Of course, misspelling "Brzezinski" a couple of times didn't help much.
>Not being a lawyer I don’t feel capable of arguing for or against it.
That is the BIG LIE currently in our judicial system; you don’t *need* to be a lawyer in a matter such as I presented.
You merely need to read AND reject violations of the Law of Non-Contradiction.
As I’ve shown the state constitution forbids laws “abridg[ing] the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense.”
If you ask, what authority put the State Statute in place the answer is: the legislature.
If you ask what authority put the legislature in place the answer is: the State Constitution.
Now if the State Constitution which establishes the legislature also forbids the creation/recognition/validity of laws which abridges the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense does the legislature have the [legitimate] authority to pass a law that does?
Also according to my State Constitution the argument against weapon infringement may be made indirectly:
Art II, Sec. 4. [Inherent rights.]
All persons are born equally free, and have certain
natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among
which are the rights of enjoying and defending life
and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and
protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining
safety and happiness.
Inalienable –adjective
not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.
Repudiate –verb (used with object), -ated, -ating.
1. — to reject as having no authority or binding force: to repudiate a claim.
2. — to cast off or disown: to repudiate a son.
3. — to reject with disapproval or condemnation: to repudiate a new doctrine.
4. — to reject with denial: to repudiate a charge as untrue.
5. — to refuse to acknowledge and pay (a debt), as a state, municipality, etc.
So then, Art II Sec 4 declares that the “rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty” is not capable of being rejected [as having no authority/force]. Therefore the restriction of implements with which to defend “life and liberty” cannot be seen as valid.
BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE! [;)]
I can also argue from greater authority from the State Constitution:
Art II, Sec. 1. [Supreme law of the land.]
The state of New Mexico is an inseparable part of the
federal union, and the constitution of the United
States is the supreme law of the land.
[insert Amendment 2 to the constitution of the United States here]
...and the best part of going this route is that those who oppose you have a far greater burden: they have to try to prove that the law [in this case the Constitution] does not say what it says. That so many have rejected the Law of Non-Contradiction is what allows them to get away with their games.
The people who protect Obama from criticism on FR belong at DU.
Irrelevant to the charges Lakin is facing.
Reminds me of trials during the days of Joe Stalin in Russia. I would never in my days in the USA(since the 1920s) have thought such a justice system would be used in the USA.
Reminds me of trials during the days of Joe Stalin in Russia. I would never in my days in the USA(since the 1920s) have thought such a justice system would be used in the USA.
This court is full of BS and they know it. Politically, if not in court, LTC Lakin is going to be a lead anvil that will drag Obama down.
>>If not, then why are Obama’s orders legitimate?
>
>Irrelevant to the charges Lakin is facing.
How is it irrelevant? / Back your assertion.
Because Lakin is not charged with disobeying Obama's orders. He's charged with disobeying the orders of his brigade commander, Colonel Roberts, his immediate superior, Lieutenant Colonel Judd, and the officer cutting the orders sending him to temporary duty with the 101st Airborne, Colonel McHugh.
LoL, that was predictable. Avoid the real issue as the romper-room court and the Army prosecutors because he or they really can't do that.
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.