WorldNetDaily:
Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin, a distinguished Army flight surgeon, is "certain" to be convicted of disobeying orders, according to his lawyer, Neil Puckett.
LTC Lakin will go on trial December 14 for refusing to deploy with his unit to Afghanistan. The senior officer questioned the legal validity of his orders because they originate ultimately with President Barack Obama, whose eligibility to serve as commander in chief under article II of the U.S. Constitution remains unproven.
"Based on the evidence available, his conviction is certain," Puckett told WND. "He has no affirmative defense for the offenses he committed."
"There is not much left to do" in defense of his client, Puckett said. Lakin's previous defense counsel, Paul Jensen, already "sought discovery of documents, and to introduce evidence and expert witnesses, but the judge shut down all those efforts."
What is this? Nazi Germany??
I'm not a lawyer, but I must admit that I have never heard of a judge "shutting down all efforts" for a person to present evidence in his defense.
During a September hearing, Colonel Denise Lind, the judge in the case, censored the last remaining arguments Lakin planned to make in his defense: motive and duty. Lakin had intended to explain his motive for disobeying the order and contend that it was his duty as a good soldier to disobey orders that he believed to be illegal.
Lind also rejected defense requests to call as witnesses Ambassador Alan Keyes and retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney. Keyes was to explain the constitutional issues involved in the case, and McInerney was to talk about the training soldiers receive regarding when they should question and even disobey orders.
Stripped by the court of all possible defenses that might have justified his actions, Lakin has no chance of prevailing at trial.
To me, this is a very strange turn of events. Perhaps the military "justice" system can legally twist things in order to do this to an honorable army surgeon, but is it right? I certainly don't think so!
You need to read the entire article for all of the details. However, there is one ray of hope in the end:
Once guilt or innocence has been determined by his jurors, the trial will move to a presentencing hearing, when Lakin will have an unfettered opportunity to introduce mitigating evidence that might justify his disobedience in spite of Judge Lind's limitations on the scope of the trial.
"If he were to be convicted, he would have an open microphone to talk to the panel of jurors," said Puckett.
An open microphone to talk to the panel of jurors might break the eligibility issue wide open. Unless the Lamestream media still refuses to cover it.
I agree with the conclusion of the article:
"Every American should support Lakin," said Arizona organizer Jeff Lichter, a retired high school physical education teacher. "Don't we all have a simple right to ask who our president is? Is he legitimate, is he qualified? That's all Terry is asking. He has every right to ask the question, he asked it for a long time before he went public.
"They're not even going to allow him to put up any evidence, We feel the trial is already rigged, and they're denying him his due process rights, He's been denied access to records in Hawaii. He's been told by Judge Lind that the orders he's refusing to obey came from the Pentagon, not the commander in chief, so his question whether the commander in chief is eligible is irrelevant. It's ridiculous. It's all fixed."
Lichter's rallies will take place at the state offices of Arizona Republican senators John McCain, and Richard Kyl, and U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz.
"We have 535 congressmen and none are ready to ask for an investigation of this issue? We just want these officials who have not kept their oaths to defend the constitution. They're not doing it," said Lichter.
"Nobody has been able to break what's apparently a cover-up of this issue. We want people to know about this in spite of the media blackout."
Hat Tip:
WorldNetDaily
Lt. Col. Lakin certainly isn't the only one questioning Obama's eligibility to occupy the position of POTUS:
BORN IN THE USA?
THE BIG LIST of eligibility 'proofers'
See those who have raised questions about legitimacy of Obama presidency
Also see:
THE FULL STORY
Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve?
WND's complete archive of news reports on the issue
Posts
22 comments:
'I'm not a lawyer, but I must admit that I have never heard of a judge "shutting down all efforts" for a person to present evidence in his defense.'
__
Keep in mind that this isn't the first time that Neal Puckett, LTC Lakin's attorney, has spoken to WND.
On October 19, they published an earlier interview in which he spoke of the rulings by the judge. He said, "She was right on the facts and right on the law."
He went on to say that "[a]ll those issues concerning the president's eligibility to hold office are completely irrelevant as to whether Lt. Col. Lakin was issued lawful orders and whether he obeyed them."
Remember, this is the attorney that LTC Lakin has chosen to represent him. Perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the judge's rulings if Lakin's own attorney says they are correct.
We need to look into this a little more deeply.
Hey Christine!
It is no wonder about the outcome of this circus of a trial. The prosecution of this honorable man is not justice ... it's disgraceful.
The "affirmative" defense was denied him. Of course it was. We'll never know the bribes or threats the judge recieved for this, but it has continued for the past 2 years. Here's what I had posted some time ago:
http://stevex09.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/lt-col-terry-lakin-is-denied-evidence-for-his-defense/?preview=true&preview_id=9144&preview_nonce=95ec7296f1
the comments are interesting. I hope you and yours are doing well.
The Commander-In-Chief is the head of the military and as such is a civilian in our system. In fact, the first two positions are civilian (Secretary of Defense, then Secretary of each of the services), and then the military is divided up into a bunch of subsystems called commands. The president tells the SecDef what he wants done and the details are decided at a lower level. The CIC does not decide that Brigade X will be sent to Location Z.
Hence LTC Lakin was given orders by his immediate superiors, and refused to carry them out. Those orders were legal, and LTC Lakin was obliged to carry them out. He did not. Attorney Jensen admitted that the orders were legal, i.e. the acts that LTC Lakin was ordered to do were not criminal.
LTC Lakin's deliberate disobedience of legal orders is a court-martial offense. Since he knowingly did this, he is in violation of the UCMJ. As a soldier he is obliged to follow lawful orders. As an officer he is obliged by his oath "that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter" or he is in violation of his oath, leading to dismissal.
His lawyer is not doing him any favors by admitting that the orders are legal.
Nobody asked me, but given that he's been to Afghanistan once before, I'm inclined to think he's simply trying to get out of serving in a place he knows to be a dump, and a potentially fatal one. As a former service member myself, I can tell you we're not generally allowed to pick where and when we'll go, or how long we'll serve there.
His court-martial was originally slated for October, so it can't be said he wasn't given time for defense. Get on with it.
@GMpilot -- "His lawyer is not doing him any favors by admitting that the orders are legal."
__
I'm not sure I agree with that. First of all, you just made the case very well that the orders were legal. There's really nothing in military law that would suggest that they weren't. Second, the judge had already ruled that the orders were legal before Neal Puckett made the statement agreeing with her.
I imagine that Mr. Puckett would like to score some points with the judge on LTC Lakin's behalf, and the easiest way to do that is to concede a point that you can't possibly win anyway.
Quite right, Anonymous: no points could be lost by admitting the orders were legal.
Is Lakin essentially claiming, then, that he was issued lawful orders by a person not qualified to issue them (Obama)? But Obama didn't cut his orders; the general officers above Lakin did, acting under the SecArmy, SecDef, and ultimately the C-I-C.
So LTC Lakin should be issuing his lawsuit against the Army Chief of Personnel, and claiming that he was unqualified to order him to Afghanistan. It wouldn't make the birther look any more ridiculous than he already is, but it would put the issue in sharper contrast.
A prison term would suck, but then again, there is life after the military, as a certain other former LTC can attest.
I'm with GM on this one. Pending any finding to the contrary, it has to be assumed that the orders are lawful. I can't read what the person's true intentions are in refusing the orders, honorable or otherwise, but from my time in the military I don't think he has a legal leg to stand on.
@GMpilot -- "Is Lakin essentially claiming, then, that he was issued lawful orders by a person not qualified to issue them (Obama)?"
__
It's hard to say for certain -- we don't know if there have been any pleadings filed, for example; we only know what Puckett has said as quoted by WND.
But it certainly appears that, since the firing of Paul Jensen, the defense as led by Puckett has completely abandoned the eligibility defense, and now takes the position that not only were the orders legal, they were issued by officers with the authority to do so.
That, of course, is exactly what Judge Lind ruled, and so we are inferring that this is the defense's new position given that Puckett said, "She was right on the facts and right on the law."
(And he also said, as I quoted above, "[a]ll those issues concerning the president's eligibility to hold office are completely irrelevant as to whether Lt. Col. Lakin was issued lawful orders and whether he obeyed them.")
FYI, the "seal" on the Soetoro/Obama "COLB" does not match the official seal of the HDOH.
Please see:
Unveiling the HDOH Seal
Hi All,
Good discussion going on here. Sorry about my absence.
What each of you have shared sheds some light on why Lt. Col. Lakin was not allowed to present the evidence that he wanted to. I still think that it is unfair, but I guess that is life.
Thank you "I Took The Red Pill" for sharing that link about the bogus seal on Obama's online "birth certificate." It would be difficult to not acknowledge that the online BC is definitely bogus with all that has been exposed about the seal not matching the typical ones that were made during that era.
Obama certainly has the protection of many people in high places in order to get away with the fraud that he has inflicted upon the American people! it appears that many people have been paid off to keep this fraud under wraps. Can't wait till he is G O N E after the 2012 election. OTP man!
"It would be difficult to not acknowledge that the online BC is definitely bogus."
__
To me it's just not believable that that many people are in on the secret. There are lots of real document experts, people with credentials who know how to tell a real document from a fake one, and not a single one has stepped forward, identified himself, and said that there's anything wrong with the BC. And I don't mean fake ones, like Polarik.
I mean, of all the people who have held positions with the Hawaii Attorney General's Office, the Hawaii Department of Health, people involved with creating and verifying official documents -- they can't all be Obama supporters, can they? The Governor of Hawaii is a Republican. Why wouldn't a single one of them spill the beans?
Do you really think the conspiracy reaches that wide? It just doesn't ring true to me.
BTW, I see that I made a mistake in my last post when I said "The Governor of Hawaii is a Republican."
Hours before I posted, a Democratic governor took office. But Linda Lingle, the one who had stepped down, is a Republican and was in office through the 2008 campaign and the first two years of the Obama administration.
Anonymous @ December 6, 2010 7:33:00 PM PST
Personally, I think that there are more progressives in both the Democrat AND Republican "parties" right now than ever before in the history of our Republic. It is for that reason that the Natural Born Citizen clause in the U.S. Constitution doesn't matter to them.
As I had posted in a later blog post:
As "I Took the Red Pill" blogger pointed out in a previous post, FYI, the "seal" on the Soetoro/Obama "COLB" does not match the official seal of the HDOH. One would think that this alone would be enough evidence to prove that the online BC is a forgery!
Christine, I could understand your concern about "more progressives ... than ever" if we were talking about a simple majority -- maybe the "progressives" outnumber those who see it your way.
But that's not the case, is it? I'm not pointing out a simple majority. I'm talking about the fact that not a single participant in the McCain campaign questioned Obama's eligibility -- including the Republican Governor of Hawaii, who would certainly have known if something was fishy about the seal and could easily have clinched victory for McCain by speaking up about it.
Not a single member of either house of Congress had any problem with the vote of the Electoral College. Not a single federal or state prosecutor has seen any reason to question the validity of the COLB, even though forgery and fraud are serious crimes and the evidence was available during the Bush administration.
Nor has even a single current or former official of the Department of Health expressed any doubts about it, regardless of how obvious "I Took the Red Pill" thinks the problem with the seal is.
Are you really saying that the explanation is that every single one of these people is so progressive that they're ignoring the Constitution?
What about those who are deeply, from the bottom of their souls, opposed to Obama? What's stopping them? Could it really be that even the dyed-in-the-wool Obama-haters are so progressive that they're ignoring the Constitution?
As I said, it just doesn't ring true to me.
Running out the door but wanted to give a quick response.
I think that there are far more nefarious things at play here. One reason that perhaps McCain didn't contest Obama's lack of presenting a bona fide COLB is because his citizenship was questioned. Recall that Congress created a resolution whereby McCain was declared eligible to run for POTUS. There has been some questioning about whether or not McCain's birth in Panama would count as a natural born citizen.
Please visit "The Obama File" and "The Place to Ask the Right Questions to Get the Right Answers" sites and read everything you can there.
Lastly, it isn't so much the BC that matters, but the FACT that Obama Sr. WAS NEVER A U.S.CITIZEN and thus could not transfer NBC status to his son (if, in fact Obama Sr. is his biological father). The mystery continues because the COLB (if there is one) remains locked up where none may see it. I think that is highly unusual and alarming - to say the least.
Wow, Christine, I gotta tell you I find that even more baffling.
Now you're saying, not only was Obama ineligible on the basis of the forged COLB and no one took action on it, but in fact he was doubly ineligible and still got away with it!
The reason this angle strikes me as particularly odd is that you say that his father's lack of U.S. citizenship made it impossible for him to be a natural born citizen.
But, you know, unlike the questions about the COLB, which were raised during the campaign, this question about his father's citizenship was raised by absolutely no one until after the election!
Isn't that odd? Everyone knew his father was Kenyan, there was no secret about that. Not a single soul ever mentioned that it could affect his eligibility at any point during the campaign, even those who really wanted Obama to lose. Don't you think that's odd?
If you go all the way back to the founding of this country, it's always been a foundation of our legal system that everyone born here (except for children of diplomats and invading soldiers) is a natural born citizen. And weren't you taught in school, the way I was, that one of the great things about this country is that anyone born here can become President? The contrary theories did not begin to pop up until after Obama was elected.
Take a look at what the Indiana Court of Appeals said in a unanimous decision in a case concerning Obama's eligibility:
"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."
Can you find a law or a judge's ruling or even a law review article that says anything different? I'm not talking about people's opinions on blogs, I mean a reputable legal source.
I think this theory's on even thinner ice than the COLB claims.
Anonymous,
Obviously, you chose not to read at the links I provided. All of your claims are covered and challenged there.
A bogus online-created and generated BC is not the same thing as a COLB. Obama has spend 2 million keeping that hidden. Why would someone do that if they didn't have anything to hide?
There is no solid proof that Obama was born in Hawaii (The Obama File has all the information on that). Back in the 60's, anyone could get a BC in Hawaii - even if they were born elsewhere. All they had to do was have a relative CLAIM the child was born there. No hospital in Hawaii has admitted to Obama being born there. No doctor from back then has admitted delivering him. I could go on and on but it's better to read the sites I recommended - that is, if you have an open mind about it - which at this point I doubt.
You are wrong about people questioning Obama's eligibility before the election. Many were, including a Hillary backing lawyer. But these objections to Obama's citizenship were ignored and dismissed. The lawyer concoction of "lack of standing" was overused.
Look, I'm not going to convince you and you aren't going to convince me so we will just have to agree to disagree.
If you read many of the posts here at this blog, you will find that I have covered the subject over the past 3 years.
On my sidebar, I have the following:
THE RELEVANT OBAMA ADMISSION
At Barack Obama’s web site, the following admission:
“FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship
‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “
Read that last line again.
“That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…”
That’s an admission that Great Britain “governed the status” of Barack Obama, Jr. He has chosen to highlight this on his own volition.
And this leads to the relevant question:
HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN?
A natural born citizen’s status should only be governed by the United States.
Hat Tip: Natural Born Citizen blog
End of story.
The only way that Obama could be eligible for POTUS is if his biological father was someone other than Obama Sr.
"You are wrong about people questioning Obama's eligibility before the election."
__
No, Christine, that is not what I said. Please look again.
There were challenges to his eligibility before the election on the basis of the COLB. There was not a single challenge on the basis of his father's citizenship until after the election.
And that's because it is common knowledge throughout the legal community, among essentially all judges and constitutional lawyers, that having a foreigner for a father has absolutely no effect on the natural born citizenship for someone born within the United States. Did you read the Ankeny decision I quoted? It's all spelled out in great detail and shows how senior, professional judges view the issue:
"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."
Like I said, that's what I was taught growing up, and I'm sure you were taught the same thing. I've looked hard and cannot find a comparably authoritative quote that says anything different.
Can you show me one? And can you point me toward a single soul who raised that question about Obama before the election?
Look, without the public viewing the Certification of Live Birth - the original - then Obama could have been born on the moon for all we know! /sarc off
At the website I told you to visit, the subject of who constitutes a natural born citizen is discussed at length. Such a status is required if a person becomes POTUS. The "grandfather" clause was there because many of our founders were obviously not natural born citizens. When that provision died out along with those who were under it, natural born citizen status required two citizen parents and birth in the United States.
As a foreign-born person, Arnold Schwartenegger could be a governor, but never POTUS. The same holds true for Obama (he could be a senator - but not POTUS). The Wong Kim Ark case was different because it didn't involve him becoming POTUS.
I stand by the question that I quoted above. If Obama stated on his own website that his father was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948 - which was passed on to his children then the question remains:
Quote:
“That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…”
That’s an admission that Great Britain “governed the status” of Barack Obama, Jr. He has chosen to highlight this on his own volition.
And this leads to the relevant question:
HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN?
A natural born citizen’s status should only be governed by the United States.
This will be my last comment post to you on this topic.
(By the way, Christine, please permit me to thank you for the courtesy and hospitality that you are showing toward someone whose views differ from your own. Such civility seems rare these days, and I want you to know that yours is appreciated.)
I'm sorry that you wish to withdraw from the discussion at this point. Where we're leaving it is that I have quoted from the unanimous decision of a panel of senior judges, and you have quoted from an anti-Obama blog.
I hope that you will reconsider and come up with a more authoritative source; otherwise the disagreement will terminate in a terribly unbalanced state.
Oh gosh...
A commentator over at Hillbuzz blog had this to say about Obama's reason not to show his birth certificate.
Quote:
lisette05 Says:
December 11, 2010 at 7:34 am
The good folks at Vodkapundit are talking about the Birther issue, and Obama’s alleged worry that the left will turn on him:
http://pajamasmedia.com/vodkapundit/2010/12/09/mail-bag-36/
Personally, I think Obama would like nothing more than to see the left turning on him publicly. But this comment caught my eye:
….
The birthers are too useful to Obama for him to take any serious steps towards ending the “controversy”.
…
What’s with the stonewalling on the birth certificate? Simple, to my mind.
I believe that there exists a valid, accurate birth certificate belonging to The Once. I believe that it correctly gives his birthplace as Honolulu, Hawaii.
I also believe that it gives his birth name as “Barry Dunham”, and his father as “Unknown”.
Could THAT possibly be the reason for Barry Dunham Soetoro's embarrassment? That means that his book - "Dreams From My Father" was all a fabrication!
So...the question would then be how many black guys did Dunham sleep with back then? Who are they?
The speculation goes on...
Anonymous,
That must mean that you have neglected to read anything over at this blog:
Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers
The current post is about:
Quote:
In America, there are only two types of citizens. One type is a naturalized citizen which the Constitution, treaties, and Congressional Acts call a “citizen of the United States.” The other type is a natural born citizen which Article II calls a "natural born Citizen." "The Constitution of the United States recognizes the division of the people into the two classes named by Blackstone - natural born and naturalized citizens." Rep. Wilson Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1116 (1866). Only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. A naturalized citizen, whether naturalized at birth or after birth, is not so eligible. The "natural born Citizen" clause is nothing more than the people of the United States expressing their power of self-preservation.
Read the rest HERE
Please, Christine, don't assume that I have "neglected to read" anything. I am familiar with those arguments.
But, as I said to you earlier, the Indiana decision that I quote, Ankeny v. Governor, deals specifically with the question of Obama's eligibility for the Presidency. You can find the decision in its entirely here: www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf. The judges explain in excruciating detail the legal and historical rationale behind their decision.
And in fact, there was an attempt to appeal it to the Indiana Supreme Court, but the court rejected it. And it could have been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but no one even tried. Why not? It would have been the perfect opportunity to have SCOTUS rule on this issue; but those in the position to make the appeal chose instead to let the decision stand.
There are certainly some Obama opponents -- attorney Mario Apuzzo comes to mind -- who have come up with alternate legal theories under which Obama would be ineligible. But these theories have been rejected in court time after time, because long-standing U.S. legal precedent states very clearly that everyone born in the U.S. (with limited exceptions for foreign diplomats and invading armies) is a natural born citizen and is eligible for the presidency.
I know you can't really believe that a blog posting carries any kind of weight comparable to a unanimous appellate court ruling.
(And again, thank you for your courtesy.)
Post a Comment