Main Menu

Obama will not appear at Lakin court martial

In an order yesterday, Lt. Col. Daniel J. Driscoll investigating officer in the court martial of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, the birther army officer who refused deployment until Obama proves his eligibility, refused to accept President Obama on Lakin’s witness list. Lakin is not going to be able to argue in his defense that the President is not eligible. Not to say “I told you so”, but I told you so. Every military legal expert who has commented on this has said Lakin has no case. Why didn’t Lakin’s attorney, Paul Jensen, tell him that too? The following list of documents was also refused:

  • Puhahau school documents
  • Punahau school records
  • Hawaii State Dept. of Health records
  • Occidental College records
  • Columbia University records
  • Harvard University records

A list of witnesses associated with the above was also denied. However, Dr. Alan Keyes was allowed as a witness, although the defense did not explain to the court the relevance of his testimony. Also unexplained but accepted was Maj. General (retired) Paul Vallely, senior military analyst for Fox News, and contributor to WorldNetDaily.

The investigating officer pointed out that President Obama did not directly give any order to LTC Lakin, and that facially proper orders must be obeyed unless carrying them out would be a criminal act. The court pointed out that the Defense arguments lacked scholarly authority (shoddy work, I would say).Β  He added:

The Defense … fails to assert a legal basis by which its request might be allowable under the law of political questions, whereby courts will refrain from inserting themselves in matters constituti0nally relegated to coequal branches of Government. The Defense quest to use a military justice forum to invalidate all military authority while undermining the authority of a sitting United States President certainly appears at first blush to be a nonjusticiable political question.

Daniel J. Driscoll,
Investigating Officer

,

318 Responses to Obama will not appear at Lakin court martial

  1. avatar
    aarrgghh June 3, 2010 at 8:09 am #

    so, in other words, everything is going according to plan.

    (what plan, i don’t know …)

  2. avatar
    John June 3, 2010 at 8:13 am #

    Everyone needs to email this piece of work and tell him that Lakin has right to JUSTICE and a FAIR TRIAL. Email away everyone:
    Daniel J. Dricoll
    LTC, JA
    Investigating Officer
    daniel.driscoll@amedd.army.mil
    ……http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/images/stories/documents/io_ruling_on_def_request_for_witnessesevid-usvlakin.pdf
    Let’s make sure this email goes viral!See More
    http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com

    Does anyone know Daniel Driscoll’s phone number?

  3. avatar
    Sef June 3, 2010 at 8:24 am #

    John: Everyone needs to email this piece of work and tell him that Lakin has right to JUSTICE and a FAIR TRIAL. Email away everyone:
    Daniel J. Dricoll
    LTC, JA
    Investigating Officer
    daniel.driscoll@amedd.army.mil
    ……http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/images/stories/documents/io_ruling_on_def_request_for_witnessesevid-usvlakin.pdf
    Let’s make sure this email goes viral!See More
    http://www.safeguardourconstitution.comDoes anyone know Daniel Driscoll’s phone number?

    I think everyone should buy Kraft Foods stock as the amount of Kool Aid that this guy alone is drinking will have a significant impact on their bottom line. Add in all the other birthers & the effect is staggering.

  4. avatar
    Greg June 3, 2010 at 8:26 am #

    Yes, always a good idea to infuriate the presiding judge, John. They love ex parte communications! And a concerted effort to communicate ex parte with a judge, one that smacks of an attempt to intimidate “this piece of work,” well, what could possibly go wrong with that?

  5. avatar
    Dave June 3, 2010 at 8:27 am #

    Well, I’m not sure we can say LTC Lakin has no case. He appears to have a pretty good case for legal malpractice.

  6. avatar
    John June 3, 2010 at 8:28 am #

    Well, ex parte communcations might result in a mistrial….Time to start the process over again with a new judge.

  7. avatar
    Sef June 3, 2010 at 8:35 am #

    John: Well, ex parte communcations might result in a mistrial….Time to start the process over again with a new judge.

    Driscoll’s spam filter has probably long since been activated. Whatever phone # that has been published has long since been changed.

  8. avatar
    John June 3, 2010 at 8:41 am #

    It might nice to get a few investigators to get ahold of Driscoll’s personal cell phone number so that “We the People” can remind Driscoll that Lakin has rights. We got 8 days to do the hard work.

  9. avatar
    misha June 3, 2010 at 8:42 am #

    John: you do not seem to understand the military chain of command.

    The only order that can be refused is one that would result in another My Lai. Sorry.

    Lakin should try that nonsense in the IDF.

  10. avatar
    Scientist June 3, 2010 at 8:58 am #

    A military court has no authority to compel a civilian (which Obama is) to appear. So, the chances you were ever going to see him were nil from the get go.

    Why is it so hard for you guys to understand that this is not a court matter (not civil courts and certainly not military)? They would sooner touch a pestilence-ridden corpse than this pile of legal dung.

  11. avatar
    Lupin June 3, 2010 at 9:03 am #

    John: It might nice to get a few investigators to get ahold of Driscoll’s personal cell phone number so that “We the People” can remind Driscoll that Lakin has rights. We got 8 days to do the hard work.

    If this crosses over some legal line, I do hope that Dr C will cooperate with the authorities if they try prosecuting you to the fullest extent etc.

    As for Lakin, I hope they throw the book at him.

  12. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett June 3, 2010 at 9:10 am #

    John: Does anyone know Daniel Driscoll’s phone number?

    Yeah. 1-800-EAT-POOP.

    And you readily admit that you’re happy to monkeywrench the trial and “start over?” Unbelievable. Do you really expect you’re going to get a different result with someone else?

    People have been trying to tell you and yours, all along, that what this investigating officer has just said is what they were going to say. Are you really that surprised that this is the result?

    I’m sorry. It must be a terrible thing to know you’re fighting a losing battle you know, deep down, that you can’t win. It makes a person do and say terribly dumb things.

    But at least you have an option. No one knows who you are, “John.” You can vanish of this blog right now, and no one will be able to hold your own silliness against you. Maybe someday you’ll even redeem yourself, somehow?

    Walk away from this train wreck. Please.

  13. avatar
    Arthur June 3, 2010 at 9:19 am #

    According to Playboy magazine’s Unabashed Dictionary, “we the people” is now a synonym for “lunatic fringe.” As in, “It might be nice to get a few investigators to get ahold [sic] of Driscoll’s personal cell pone number so that “We the People” can remind Driscoll that Lakin has rights.”

  14. avatar
    Dave June 3, 2010 at 9:21 am #

    Scientist: A military court has no authority to compel a civilian (which Obama is) to appear.

    I’m pretty sure you have that wrong. Military courts can subpeona civilian witnesses.

  15. avatar
    Scientist June 3, 2010 at 9:30 am #

    Dave here is what CAAFlog says:

    Thanks to valued commentator Glenn for calling our attention to this ruling that the Lakin Article 32 IO, LTC Driscoll, issued yesterday emphatically rejecting defense requests to produce documents and witnesses concerning President Obama’s constitutional eligibility. While the IO would have had no authority to compel the attendance of civilian witnesses who didn’t want to attend, the discussion accompanying R.C.M. 405(g) explains that an “investigating officer should initially determine whether a civilian witness is reasonably available without regard to whether the witness is willing to appear. . . . If the witness refuses to testify, the witness is not reasonably available.”

  16. avatar
    DaveH June 3, 2010 at 9:52 am #

    Everytime I read what John has to post, I break out laughing. Standard birfer dialog. Not getting a fair trial. Need to replace the judge. What is it about birfers that they can’t understand that Lakin is going to be court martialed for his stupidity? Do they want a military that will not work if by chance we did actually have a president that wasn’t eligible? Why is it so hard to understand that the military is structure so that it can continue to operate without a CiC? Obama’s presidency has nothing to do with an order that is given. You refuse to obey an order then you’re going to be court martialed. It is simple as that.

  17. avatar
    richCares June 3, 2010 at 9:59 am #

    What I find amazing is that birthers act surprised and are upset. In the beginning it’s an OMG moment to get the paypal pushed. They tout each OMG moment as the final chapter to eliminate Obama. When we tell them what will really happen they argue and shout “wait and see”. As what we forecast comes to happen, they get upset. So tell me this dear birther, as Terry Lakin is going down hard what will be the next OMG moment.
    .
    A few days ago I went to US Immigration office in Portland, inside there is a large picture of Obama labeled “President”. You will find that same portrait in every US Government office. Why are birthers unaware of that.

  18. avatar
    Lawrence June 3, 2010 at 10:05 am #

    John: Lakin has rights.

    He has the right to follow orders of his superiors which he refused so now he has the right to a vacation in Kansas which he deserves.

  19. avatar
    NbC June 3, 2010 at 10:19 am #

    Dave: I’m pretty sure you have that wrong. Military courts can subpeona civilian witnesses.

    A subpoena, yes. Forcing to appear, much harder.

  20. avatar
    NbC June 3, 2010 at 10:20 am #

    Greg: Yes, always a good idea to infuriate the presiding judge, John.

    Not judge, investigating officer…

  21. avatar
    SFJeff June 3, 2010 at 10:23 am #

    Lakin has a right to due process and a fair trial. Not the right to abuse either

  22. avatar
    richCares June 3, 2010 at 11:02 am #

    Larin’s lawyer, during Anderson Cooper’s interview, showed that we should expect incompetence from his lawyer.That’s what’s happening, Larkin was duped into thinking he can remove Obama. He was surprised by this rulling. The only “removing” will be his sanity. It seems that pushing that paypal button didn’t help Lakin but surely benefitted his lawyer. What was it that PT Barnum said about John?

  23. avatar
    Scientist June 3, 2010 at 11:21 am #

    Let’s pretend that some space virus wiped out everyone in the presidential line of succession in the space of an hour. In the interim, until the surviving members of Congress decided what to do, there would simply be no President, legitimate or otherwise. During that time, would Lt Col Lakin have to obey orders from his superiors? Absolutely. In fact, if the virus wiped out every single human being except Lakin and his Commanding Officer, he would still have to obey his CO (though that might be hard to enforce in practice).

  24. avatar
    misha June 3, 2010 at 11:21 am #

    richCares: Jensen is a bottom of the food chain lawyer. His practice is mostly dog bites. I know is going to get bitten next.

  25. avatar
    BatGuano June 3, 2010 at 11:33 am #

    richCares: Larin’s lawyer, during Anderson Cooper’s interview, showed that we should expect incompetence from his lawyer.

    this is the point that kills me. ltc lakin had access to the same information i had before he refused orders.

    military experts: ” obama’s eligibility will not be admissible ”
    dog bite expert: ” obama’s eligibility will be admissible ”

    lakin gambled his career ( and reputation ) on a 2legged horse with a limp all on a tip from the bathroom attendant .

  26. avatar
    JoZeppy June 3, 2010 at 11:43 am #

    misha: richCares: Jensen is a bottom of the food chain lawyer. His practice is mostly dog bites. I know is going to get bitten next.

    What still baffels me is how some reasonably intelligent, or at least having some level or education, would think that it would be a good idea to put their future in the hands of an attorney who specializes in dog bites, DUI, defending herself in medical malpractice suits (and had a mail order JD), or who spent more time as a professional poker player than attorney? If I had a legal problem, I would go to someone who is reasonbly competent in the field, or at least has some practice in the field. A dog bite lawyer is no expert on the UCMJ, and the last person I would go to on advice that could throw 18 years of service out the window. The brain trust of Taitz, Donfrio, & Apuzzo aren’t exactly what I think of when someone asks about the great constitutional scholars of our time, so why would I think any of them should be relied on for their opinions on what the Constitution means? If I had a question of this level, the first place I would look were who were the attorneys on Bush v. Gore, and how do they stand on the issue. I’m guessing since none of them are carrying the banner for the birther cause, we can guess how they stand.

  27. avatar
    Black Lion June 3, 2010 at 12:06 pm #

    The order is very straight forward. Of course the Lakin’s handlers are using it to demand that the “faithful sheep” donate more to the cause. It would be humorous if it wasn’t so pathetic. The seditious Lakin allowing his hate of the President to make himself into a pawn that will result in a nice long visit to the state of Obama’s grandparents birth, Kansas…Quite fitting actually.

    The order posted on Lakin’s site….

    http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/images/stories/documents/io_ruling_on_def_request_for_witnessesevid-usvlakin.pdf

  28. avatar
    Dwight Sullivan June 3, 2010 at 12:12 pm #

    Some of the questions posed above are answered by noting the difference between an Article 32 investigation and a court-martial. Neither an Article 32 investigating officer (IO) nor the prosecutor at the Article 32 investigation can compel a civilian to attend or provide evidence. But once a case is referred to a general or special court-martial, the prosecutor can compel civilians to attend and/or produce evidence, provided that the court-martial is being tried in the United States.

    So, for example, neither the IO nor the prosecutor could have compelled Dr, Fukino to attend the Article 32 hearing or provide a copy of documents in the Hawaii Health Department’s possession. At a court-martial, on the other hand, the prosecutor can require the production of such documents. But she won’t. If the defense wants documents, the military judge has no power to order their production, but can order the proceedings abated unless the prosecutor exercises his or her power to compel the evidence’s production. Mr. Jensen will no doubt ask the military judge to do so. And the military judge will no doubt refuse that request, ruling that such evidence isn’t relevant to any charge that LTC Lakin faces.

  29. avatar
    Dave June 3, 2010 at 12:21 pm #

    Scientist: I see where I screwed up. Article 32 hearings, which this is, cannot compel civilian witnesses. The court martial can, but we’re not there yet.

  30. avatar
    Saint James June 3, 2010 at 2:03 pm #

    misha: richCares: Jensen is a bottom of the food chain lawyer. His practice is mostly dog bites. I know is going to get bitten next.

    Misha, let’s not forget that someone also belongs to that category and that is Orly.

  31. avatar
    Rickey June 3, 2010 at 2:33 pm #

    John:It might nice to get a few investigators to get ahold of Driscoll’s personal cell phone number so that “We the People” can remind Driscoll that Lakin has rights.

    Lt. Col. Driscoll also has rights, John, one of which is to be free from harassment by people such as you. What you are suggesting crosses the line, and if Driscoll decides to pursue legal remedies I hope that Dr. C turns over your IP address and e-mail address to the authorities so they can track you down.

    By the way – if you have been paying attention, Lt. Col. Driscoll has done exactly what we predicted weeks ago. In fact, this has become like shooting ducks in a pond. Every birther lawsuit has failed. Every prediction made by birthers has been a fail. Every attempt to discredit Obama’s online COLB has been a fail.

    And you are not “We the People.” You do not speak for me.

  32. avatar
    bob June 3, 2010 at 2:45 pm #

    Rickey: In fact, this has become like shooting ducks in a pond.

    Ducks are smart enough to fly to different pond after the first shot.

  33. avatar
    Dave June 3, 2010 at 2:55 pm #

    OT — Taitz has a post on her blog about the hearing today in Barnett v. Dunn. The only thing that is clear from this post is that there was a hearing. Here’s a quote:

    Judge Shellyanne Chang issued an order re ex-parte based on the pleadings without oral argument. If another court does not issue an injunction for a writ of mandate or expedited hearing, the defendants have 30 days to respond.

    I don’t know how to translate this. Maybe this means the judge denied her request for an injunction?

  34. avatar
    Rickey June 3, 2010 at 3:12 pm #

    The daily rulings by Judge Chang are available here:

    http://tr.saccourt.com/courtrooms/trulings/dept54view.asp

    I checked the rulings for June 2 and June 3, and there is no mention of Barnett v. Dunn

    It appears that Pamela Barnett “scheduled” the supposed ex parte hearing on her own.

  35. avatar
    bob June 3, 2010 at 3:15 pm #

    Dave: OT — Taitz has a post on her blog about the hearing today in Barnett v. Dunn. The only thing that is clear from this post is that there was a hearing. Here’s a quote:I don’t know how to translate this. Maybe this means the judge denied her request for an injunction?

    Even better: Likely means the judge denied the request for a hearing on whether an injunction should be granted. (Because there was no hearing schedule for yesterday.)

  36. avatar
    bob June 3, 2010 at 3:21 pm #

    On June 1, 2010 at 3:55 P.M., Barnett filed an application for a hearing to be held on June 2, 2010 at 2:15 P.M. At least 24 hours notice is required.

    So the only possible outcome was that the judge denied the request for a hearing.

  37. avatar
    brygenon June 3, 2010 at 3:25 pm #

    JoZeppy: What still baffels me is how some reasonably intelligent, or at least having some level or education, would think that it would be a good idea to put their future in the hands of an attorney who specializes in dog bites, DUI, defending herself in medical malpractice suits (and had a mail order JD), or who spent more time as a professional poker player than attorney? If I had a legal problem, I would go to someone who is reasonbly competent in the field, or at least has some practice in the field.

    We’ll never know how many Obama-haters did seek, receive, and accept competent advice on the matter. They moved on to other issues.

    Charles Kerchner, who longs to see President Obama perp-walked out of the White House, says he went to many other lawyers before he Mario. He put quite a bit of effort into finding incompetent counsel.

  38. avatar
    mljucmj June 3, 2010 at 3:56 pm #

    Scientist: Dave here is what CAAFlog says:Thanks to valued commentator Glenn for calling our attention to this ruling that the Lakin Article 32 IO, LTC Driscoll, issued yesterday emphatically rejecting defense requests to produce documents and witnesses concerning President Obama’s constitutional eligibility.While the IO would have had no authority to compel the attendance of civilian witnesses who didn’t want to attend, the discussion accompanying R.C.M. 405(g) explains that an “investigating officer should initially determine whether a civilian witness is reasonably available without regard to whether the witness is willing to appear.. . . If the witness refuses to testify, the witness is not reasonably available.”

    An Article 32, UCMJ, investigating officer has NO subpoena power. There is a move in Congress to change that, but currently that’s the law.

    A military judge in a court-martial has the power to order civilian witnesses to appear. If they don’t it is no different than someone failing to appear in federal district court. A warrant of attachment is issued and the sheriff shows up.

    However, in order to get the subpoena the defense in this case has to show that the witness’s testimony is material, relevant, and necessary — it ain’t material, necessary, or relevant to the charges currently pending against LTC Lakin to have testimony from the President.

  39. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 3, 2010 at 3:58 pm #

    On previous threads here there was extensive discussion about United States v. New and the ‘de facto officer doctrine’. I notice that both of these were cited by the investigating officer’s report. What does it say that soon-to-be-mister Lakin’s lawyer didn’t know (or didn’t understand the significance of) these things which were apparently understood by a large number of anonymous posters on a blog? I think that it’s pretty solid evidence that soon-to-be-mister Lakin has a whopper of a legal malpractice suit – I hope he can find a good jailhouse lawyer in Levenworth…

    Kudos to the posters here who correctly addressed why this case was baseless (and I apologize for damning you with faint praise by implicitly saying you were better than bither lawyers ;-)).

  40. avatar
    Black Lion June 3, 2010 at 4:13 pm #

    The site conservative monster is not too happy with the ruling…This wingnut’s reaction is hilarious….Especially when he and the other birthers were told before this happened that the result was going to be what occured. But instead of admitting that they are clueless when it comes to the law of course it is part of a conspiracy or the fix was in…Priceless…

    “This is an immediate grounds for a mistrial…

    I know what that all of the military fellas will say that this is how military trials operate, but this issue is a national security issue and that is the difference. There is overwhelming evidence that Obama is not who he says he is and that Lt Col Lakin’s allegations have merit, due to the constitutional crisis that this nation faces from a president with FOREIGN ties.

    The Joint Chief’s and the cowards beneath them have committed treason and violated their oaths in my opinion, because this could have been avoided before the 2008 election.

    Military trial or NOT, this is still America and Lt Col Lakin is being denied a fair trial and the American people need to demand that the Hawaiian officials be forced to testify UNDER OATH. This charade has gone on long enough.

    Barry’s daddy was NOT an American citizen; therefore Obama is not a natural born citizen, because BOTH parents need to be US Citizens.

    ARMY REFUSES LAKIN’S REQUEST TO HAVE PRESIDENT OBAMA TESTIFY AND REFUSES TO ALLOW ANY WITNESSES OR EVIDENCE FROM HAWAII OR ELSEWHERE ON ELIGIBILITY QUESTION – HEARING TO PROCEED ON JUNE 11th. ”

    http://theconservativemonster.com/

  41. avatar
    Black Lion June 3, 2010 at 4:21 pm #

    Black Lion: The site conservative monster is not too happy with the ruling…This wingnut’s reaction is hilarious….Especially when he and the other birthers were told before this happened that the result was going to be what occured. But instead of admitting that they are clueless when it comes to the law of course it is part of a conspiracy or the fix was in…Priceless…“This is an immediate grounds for a mistrial… I know what that all of the military fellas will say that this is how military trials operate, but this issue is a national security issue and that is the difference. There is overwhelming evidence that Obama is not who he says he is and that Lt Col Lakin’s allegations have merit, due to the constitutional crisis that this nation faces from a president with FOREIGN ties. The Joint Chief’s and the cowards beneath them have committed treason and violated their oaths in my opinion, because this could have been avoided before the 2008 election. Military trial or NOT, this is still America and Lt Col Lakin is being denied a fair trial and the American people need to demand that the Hawaiian officials be forced to testify UNDER OATH. This charade has gone on long enough. Barry’s daddy was NOT an American citizen; therefore Obama is not a natural born citizen, because BOTH parents need to be US Citizens. ARMY REFUSES LAKIN’S REQUEST TO HAVE PRESIDENT OBAMA TESTIFY AND REFUSES TO ALLOW ANY WITNESSES OR EVIDENCE FROM HAWAII OR ELSEWHERE ON ELIGIBILITY QUESTION – HEARING TO PROCEED ON JUNE 11th. ”http://theconservativemonster.com/

    The more interesting thing is the comments by the other wingnuts…

    Robert Laity wrote:
    I have E-mailed the Investigative Officer Daniel Driscoll requesting information regarding the submission of an Amicus Brief. Insofar as the Columbia trial has found that Obama never did attend Columbia,that introduces an element into this case that Obama is indeed an imposter.

    And they get more delusional as time goes on…

    Pete wrote:
    Where is Orly Taitz? She is a true Patriot and she knows how to smack down these cases… Lakin needs to get Lady Liberty to represent him, not that traitor Jensen… did you see they’re raising $500,000 to pay themselves? Disgraceful. Please appeal to Orly, she’s the only one that can really make a difference! The brave Alan Keyes will be there, but he’s no match for Orly’s brilliance.

    libertybelle wrote:
    I don’t understand how the military can let obummer railroad that great patriot LTC Lakin. Didn’t Rev. Manning’s Trial find the great usurper guilty as charged? Is the military not paying attention to due process? Is there not anyone in any branch of the government besides Lakin not on the Illuminate’s payroll?

    And James, who posts here has “John” still has his panties in an bunch about harassing the IO…

    James wrote:
    Does anyone know Daniel Driscoll’s phone number? His personal cell phone number would be great.

    JAMES wrote:
    If you are an assertive person, it might even be better to call Daniel Driscoll. I am not sure if this his number but you can try it: (202) 782

    James wrote:
    Everyone needs to email this piece of work and tell him that Lakin has the right to JUSTICE and a FAIR TRIAL. Email away everyone:
    Daniel J. Dricoll
    LTC, JA
    Investigating Officer
    daniel.driscoll@xxx
    Let’s make sure this email goes viral!

    James wrote:
    Everyone needs to email this piece of work and tell him that Lakin has right to JUSTICE and a FAIR TRIAL. Email away everyone:

  42. avatar
    Dwight Sullivan June 3, 2010 at 4:34 pm #

    mljucmj,

    One caveat: a military judge can issue a warrant of attachment only after a subpoena has been issued and served. See R.C.M. 703(e)(2)(G)(ii). And a subpoena can be issued only by a military prosecutor, not by the military judge. So the military judge’s authority to order production depends on the prosecutor first issuing a subpoena. A military judge can encourage the prosecutor to do so by ordering the prosecution abated absent such a subpoena. But in a court-martial, the military judge doesn’t have independent authority to compel a civilian witness to appear or produce evidence.

  43. avatar
    Arthur June 3, 2010 at 4:55 pm #

    Black Lion, thanks for going into the lion’s den of the Conservative Monster to pull these tasty comments from the jaws of the yammerhundts. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE!!!!????? How did they ever learn to use a computer? Are all suffering some form of dementia? Do they need their meds adjusted? Did the cafeteria run out of tapioca pudding and so they’re just pissed off? Is it that their grandchildren never thanked them for that $5 last Christmas?

    Where are those fawking death panels Obama promised us?!!!!

  44. avatar
    bob June 3, 2010 at 4:56 pm #

    Oh: Barnett filed a petition in the California Court of Appeal.

  45. avatar
    Passerby June 3, 2010 at 5:14 pm #

    This Lakin thing has always confused me. See, I spent a bit of time in the army back in the 1980’s. At that time, Viet Nam was still casting a pretty long shadow. Most of the mid- to senior level NCO’s I served with had been there, and it had made an impression. They took the whole unlawful-orders thing really seriously, and they wanted us newbies to take it seriously too. There was a fair amount of discussion about how to protect ourselves, should we ever find ourselves in that situation.

    The thing is, I don’t remember any of that discussion revolving around who was giving you the order. It was always about what you were being ordered to do. What makes an unlawful order unlawful is that it’s ordering you to do something that’s unlawful. So if you’re ordered to take your POW and shoot him in the head, that’s an unlawful order–because it’s illegal to kill your POW’s. No matter who told you to do it.

    In fact, it was never clear to me that “obeying an unlawful order” was even, in itself, an offense under the UCMJ. So, if you were ordered to kill your POW’s or massacre a bunch of villagers or something, you could be charged with a crime. But could you also be charged, separately, with obeying an unlawful order? Or is it just that the fact that the order was unlawful would mean that it didn’t constitute any defense for your crime? That was always my impression.

    I’m getting this feeling of cognitive disconnect here, where I keep seeing people make claims that directly contradict something from my own experience. It’s almost like when I see someone going on about how you need a long form birth certificate to get a passport, when I know I got my own passport using a short form abstract.

    Of course, I guess it’s possible that all my old NCO’s were just out to lunch on this issue–this was all just barracks-house lawyering, after all. OTOH, these were some pretty smart guys, with a direct incentive to understand this issue, so that’s kind of hard to believe.

    Just sharing. Not sure why.

    BTW–I spend some time away from here, and when I come back the place is all spiffed up and stuff. I like it. it seems faster, and the comments are easier to follow, to me. So now I’ve lurked here a bit, trying to get caught up, and will probably comment a few times (although I was never a prolific commenter, so I don’t expect anyone to remember me.)

  46. avatar
    Arthur June 3, 2010 at 5:34 pm #

    Passerby:

    I liked your take on things, and appreciated reading the perspective of someone who was in the military.

  47. avatar
    Bob Ross June 3, 2010 at 5:42 pm #

    Black Lion: The more interesting thing is the comments by the other wingnuts…Robert Laity wrote:I have E-mailed the Investigative Officer Daniel Driscoll requesting information regarding the submission of an Amicus Brief. Insofar as the Columbia trial has found that Obama never did attend Columbia,that introduces an element into this case that Obama is indeed an imposter.And they get more delusional as time goes on…Pete wrote:Where is Orly Taitz? She is a true Patriot and she knows how to smack down these cases… Lakin needs to get Lady Liberty to represent him, not that traitor Jensen… did you see they’re raising $500,000 to pay themselves? Disgraceful. Please appeal to Orly, she’s the only one that can really make a difference! The brave Alan Keyes will be there, but he’s no match for Orly’s brilliance.libertybelle wrote:I don’t understand how the military can let obummer railroad that great patriot LTC Lakin. Didn’t Rev. Manning’s Trial find the great usurper guilty as charged? Is the military not paying attention to due process? Is there not anyone in any branch of the government besides Lakin not on the Illuminate’s payroll?And James, who posts here has “John” still has his panties in an bunch about harassing the IO…James wrote:Does anyone know Daniel Driscoll’s phone number? His personal cell phone number would be great.JAMES wrote:If you are an assertive person, it might even be better to call Daniel Driscoll. I am not sure if this his number but you can try it: (202) 782James wrote:Everyone needs to email this piece of work and tell him that Lakin has the right to JUSTICE and a FAIR TRIAL. Email away everyone:Daniel J. DricollLTC, JAInvestigating Officerdaniel.driscoll@xxxLet’s make sure this email goes viral!James wrote:Everyone needs to email this piece of work and tell him that Lakin has right to JUSTICE and a FAIR TRIAL. Email away everyone:

    Lion I think that James guy is our resident MPD whackamole Sven

  48. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 3, 2010 at 5:50 pm #

    Passerby:

    I’m getting this feeling of cognitive disconnect here, where I keep seeing people make claims that directly contradict something from my own experience. It’s almost like when I see someone going on about how you need a long form birth certificate to get a passport, when I know I got my own passport using a short form abstract.

    I think your problem is that you are normal and have real life experience.

    It’s nice to hear that you like the upgrades to the site. It looks like we’re here for the long term.

  49. avatar
    Sef June 3, 2010 at 6:21 pm #

    Black Lion:
    The more interesting thing is the comments by the other wingnuts…Robert Laity wrote:
    I have E-mailed the Investigative Officer Daniel Driscoll requesting information regarding the submission of an Amicus Brief. Insofar as the Columbia trial has found that Obama never did attend Columbia,that introduces an element into this case that Obama is indeed an imposter.And they get more delusional as time goes on…Pete wrote:
    Where is Orly Taitz? She is a true Patriot and she knows how to smack down these cases… Lakin needs to get Lady Liberty to represent him, not that traitor Jensen… did you see they’re raising $500,000 to pay themselves? Disgraceful. Please appeal to Orly, she’s the only one that can really make a difference! The brave Alan Keyes will be there, but he’s no match for Orly’s brilliance.libertybelle wrote:
    I don’t understand how the military can let obummer railroad that great patriot LTC Lakin. Didn’t Rev. Manning’s Trial find the great usurper guilty as charged? Is the military not paying attention to due process? Is there not anyone in any branch of the government besides Lakin not on the Illuminate’s payroll?And James, who posts here has “John” still has his panties in an bunch about harassing the IO…James wrote:
    Does anyone know Daniel Driscoll’s phone number? His personal cell phone number would be great.JAMES wrote:
    If you are an assertive person, it might even be better to call Daniel Driscoll. I am not sure if this his number but you can try it: (202) 782James wrote:
    Everyone needs to email this piece of work and tell him that Lakin has the right to JUSTICE and a FAIR TRIAL. Email away everyone:
    Daniel J. Dricoll
    LTC, JA
    Investigating Officer
    daniel.driscoll@xxx
    Let’s make sure this email goes viral!James wrote:
    Everyone needs to email this piece of work and tell him that Lakin has right to JUSTICE and a FAIR TRIAL. Email away everyone:

    I find it so sad that there are some people who actually believe that Manning’s off-off-off-Broadway performance had any meaning

  50. avatar
    DaveH June 3, 2010 at 6:38 pm #

    It would be interesting to find out just how much money has been brought in for Lakin’s defense. Initially, they were going for $50,000 and then raised it to $500,000. I was reading through comments at either the Pest & eFail or American Grand Jerkoffs and someone had posted that they were way short on donations. A figure of around $12,000 when they were still trying to raise the $50,000. I may have to go lurk in those dark places for a while to see if anyone lets the cat out of the bag as to how much they’ve managed to get from people stupid enough to send their money in.

  51. avatar
    BlackLion June 3, 2010 at 6:53 pm #

    Arthur: Black Lion, thanks for going into the lion’s den of the Conservative Monster to pull these tasty comments from the jaws of the yammerhundts. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE!!!!????? How did they ever learn to use a computer? Are all suffering some form of dementia? Do they need their meds adjusted? Did the cafeteria run out of tapioca pudding and so they’re just pissed off? Is it that their grandchildren never thanked them for that $5 last Christmas? Where are those fawking death panels Obama promised us?!!!!

    No problem. I did feel a bit dirty because of the rank hatred for Obama and by extension the Constitution at those sites. But I feel we need to be reminded of how many wingnuts are out there and what ridiculous theories these people are coming up with….

  52. avatar
    John June 3, 2010 at 7:49 pm #

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=161961
    Army slams door on Obama details
    Lt. Col. Lakin hearing: ‘Items pertaining to president’s credentials are not relevant’

    But Lakin said the result “makes it impossible for me to have a fair hearing.”

    “I cannot even raise the issue of the president’s eligibility, on the grounds that my position has ‘no basis in law,'” he said.

    —-
    Lakin is absolutely right. It is now impossible for Lakin to receive a fair hearing or trial.

    I would argue that if what court says is true, then it is impossible to prosecute Terry Lakin.

    Prosecuting Terry Lakin would invite the court into exploring Obama’s eligiblity which they can’t do.

    …but the court must do that in order satisfy Lakin’s right to justice, due process and a fair trial.

    Therefore, I would argue that it is not possible to prosecute Terry Lakin if the court’s position is true.

    …Doing so would force the court the eliminate Lakin’s SOLE and PRIMARY defense which can’t be done in the interest of justice, due process and fair trial.

    It would also make it impossible for the prosecution to prove it’s charges against Lakin because all eligiblity testimony would have to be ignored. The prosecution’s case would then lack foundation (In other words, the prosecution would have say Lakin broke the laws for no reason whatsoever; they would unable to establish a foundational sequence of events.)

    Clearly, Lakin’s rights would definitely be violated if the prosecution used the eligiblity to prove its case but denied Lakin to use the eligibility to prove his case.

  53. avatar
    bob June 3, 2010 at 7:56 pm #

    John: Try actually reading the IO’s order, instead of WND’s spin. All is explained there.

    Oh: The California Court of Appeal already denied Barnett’s petition.

  54. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 3, 2010 at 8:14 pm #

    John: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=161961
    Army slams door on Obama details
    Lt. Col. Lakin hearing: Items pertaining to president’s credentials are not relevant’
    But Lakin said the result “makes it impossible for me to have a fair hearing.”
    “I cannot even raise the issue of the president’s eligibility, on the grounds that my position has no basis in law,’” he said.
    —-
    Lakin is absolutely right.It is now impossible for Lakin to receive a fair hearing or trial.I would argue that if what court says is true, then it is impossible to prosecute Terry Lakin.Prosecuting Terry Lakin would invite the court into exploring Obama’s eligiblity which they can’t do.…but the court must do that in order satisfy Lakin’s right to justice, due process and a fair trial.Therefore, I would argue that it is not possible to prosecute Terry Lakin if the court’s position is true.…Doing so would force the court the eliminate Lakin’s SOLE and PRIMARY defense which can’t be done in the interest of justice, due process and fair trial.It would also make it impossible for the prosecution to prove it’s charges against Lakin because all eligiblity testimony would have to be ignored.The prosecution’s case would then lack foundation (In other words, the prosecution would have say Lakin broke the laws for no reason whatsoever; they would unable to establish a foundational sequence of events.)Clearly, Lakin’s rights would definitely be violated if the prosecution used the eligiblity to prove its case but denied Lakin to use the eligibility to prove his case.

    Sorry John, but the truth (which you would know if you actually read the information about the case presented here) is that President Obama’s eligibility is irrelevant to the case. Any orders coming from your chain of command must be followed unless they are ordering you to do something illegal. That’s how the military works and I’m guessing that soon-to-be-mister Lakin is going to pay a high price to learn that lesson.

  55. avatar
    John June 3, 2010 at 8:27 pm #

    The military also tries to use the De Facto Doctrine to defend Obama and lessen Lakin’s defense. This is complete and utter nonsense. If it were proven that Obama was a Usurper, Lakin Oath to the constitution would grossly violated. There would be no in hell Lakin would be able to follow military orders because all military orders derive their authority from Command in Chief which is Obama even if he doesn’t actually give them. If Obama were proven to be a Usurper, Obama would then be domestic enemy of the constitution and it would be Lakin’s sworn oath to uphold it…so help him god.

  56. avatar
    JustWondering June 3, 2010 at 8:40 pm #

    John: The military also tries to use the De Facto Doctrine to defend Obama and lessen Lakin’s defense.This is complete and utter nonsense.

    ____

    John, you’re absolutely wrong. The de facto officer doctrine has been part of our legal system for a long time, long before Lakin, and it means that even if Obama were a usurper that would not constitute a valid defense to missing a deployment order. You may think it’s unfair, and maybe you’re right. It doesn’t matter. It’s the law.

    The law is perfectly clear on this point, and everyone familiar with the UCMJ knows about it. You’re not going to accomplish anything by whining about how you don’t like it.

  57. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 3, 2010 at 8:45 pm #

    John: The military also tries to use the De Facto Doctrine to defend Obama and lessen Lakin’s defense.This is complete and utter nonsense.If it were proven that Obama was a Usurper, Lakin Oath to the constitution would grossly violated.There would be no in hell Lakin would be able to follow military orders because all military orders derive their authority from Command in Chief which is Obama even if he doesn’t actually give them.If Obama were proven to be a Usurper, Obama would then be domestic enemy of the constitution and it would be Lakin’s sworn oath to uphold it…so help him god.

    John,

    IF President Obama were a usurper (and there were evidence to prove it – which I remind you there is not) then the orders given to soon-to-be-mister Lakin would still be valid and he would have to follow them. I find it very interesting (and persuasive) that posters on this blog brought up the de facto officer doctrine and US v. New as reasons that the defense in this case was going nowhere and, lo and behold, the report by the investigating officer mentions both. In science that’s what we call empirical evidence and it’s considered quite good (for the case of the people who predicted it). Maybe you should consider that your comic-book ideas of how military law works are not suitable for a courtroom. It is truly a pity that Lakin didn’t seek out competent legal advice (all he had to do was search around the internet for other opinions) and stop this before it destroyed his career.

  58. avatar
    Bovril June 3, 2010 at 8:48 pm #

    John,

    Patently you haven’t bothered your Birfer brain to READ what the De-Facto Office doctrine is or else you would not make such an asinine comment.

    Read, inwardly digest THEN comment.

  59. avatar
    richCares June 3, 2010 at 8:51 pm #

    John says “…Obama were proven to be a Usurper, Obama would then be domestic enemy of the constitution…”
    .
    You appear to like that word “usurper” yet you don’t even know what it means.
    .
    I proudly served as a US Marine and I resent your use of that term. I voted for and supported Obama, you should probably go find a country that loves to hate the US. Just go away.

  60. avatar
    Passerby June 3, 2010 at 8:59 pm #

    “It would also make it impossible for the prosecution to prove it’s charges against Lakin because all eligiblity testimony would have to be ignored.The prosecution’s case would then lack foundation (In other words, the prosecution would have say Lakin broke the laws for no reason whatsoever; they would unable to establish a foundational sequence of events.)”

    You’ve lost me here. The charges here are that he missed deployment and disobeyed direct orders. The prosecution needs to prove that he missed deployment and disobeyed direct orders. They don’t really need to be concerned with his reasons.

    “Clearly, Lakin’s rights would definitely be violated if the prosecution used the eligiblity to prove its case but denied Lakin to use the eligibility to prove his case.”

    But they’re not using Obama’s eligibility to prove their case. They’re saying that Obama’s eligibility doesn’t matter either way–that even if Obama is ineligible, Lakin is still guilty of the charges.

    Look, I could refuse an order on the basis that I believed that orders given on a Tuesday when the moon is full are unlawful orders. When prosecuted, i might try to introduce evidence that the orders I disobeyed really were given on a Tuesday when the moon was full, but that wouldn’t be admitted. Because it would be totally irrelevant whether or not those things were true. Because my belief that orders given on a full-moon Tuesday were unlawful would be incorrect.

    That’s what’s going on here. Lakin believes that orders given while Obama is CIC are unlawful orders because Obama is ineligible for the office. But he’s wrong about those orders being unlawful under those circumstances–the orders are still lawful orders, which he was bound to obey, regardless. (Or at least, maybe I should say, he failed to make any case that Obama being ineligible would make the orders unlawful. He takes that as a given, but didn’t argue it. He really needed to.)Therefore, it’s irrelevant whether or not Obama is eligible. It doesn’t matter for this case, and this case is the only thing this court is concerned with.

  61. avatar
    misha June 3, 2010 at 9:06 pm #

    John: The military also tries to use the De Facto Doctrine to defend Obama and lessen Lakin’s defense. This is complete and utter nonsense. If it were proven that Obama was a Usurper

    John: look up the dictionary definition of ‘usurper.’ I wrote this before: Lakin should try this nonsense in the IDF, or the Russian army.

    May I remind you, the only order Lakin can refuse is if it would result in another My Lai. Sorry, thems the rules.

  62. avatar
    Scientist June 3, 2010 at 9:54 pm #

    John: Stop acting like a child. Limiting the issues both sides can bring up in a trial is neither new, nor limited to military trials. Why do you think jury trials have judges? To decide what is relevant and what isn’t. Otherwise every trial would last for months and all kinds of irrelevant, prejudicial nonsese would be laid in front of the jury. Do you think a terrorist on trial should be able to spend months delving into US policy in the Middle East, since that is supposedly their motivation for their criminal acts? I sure don’t, but I think the birthers hate America so much, they’d probably say yes.

    Your sympathy for Lakin is misplaced. As an officer, he is supposed to be familiar with UCMJ and should have spoken with and taken the advice of experienced military council, rather than listening to fools on birther web sites and dog bite lawyers. They would have told him this results is totally expected and totally correct. By the way, after Lakin is convicted he can make a statement before sentencing in which he will be free to say whatever he likes regarding the President.

  63. avatar
    Rickey June 3, 2010 at 9:59 pm #

    Black Lion(quoting birthers): Military trial or NOT, this is still America and Lt Col Lakin is being denied a fair trial and the American people need to demand that the Hawaiian officials be forced to testify UNDER OATH. This charade has gone on long enough.
    Barry’s daddy was NOT an American citizen; therefore Obama is not a natural born citizen, because BOTH parents need to be US Citizens.

    Thanks for the quotes.

    It always amuses me that the birthers who rely on the “two citizen parents” argument still demand to see Obama’s Hawaii records. Everyone stipulates that Obama’s father was not a citizen, so why do they need to see anything else?

    I once posed that question directly to Mario, but he never responded.

  64. avatar
    Greg June 3, 2010 at 10:03 pm #

    John: It would also make it impossible for the prosecution to prove it’s charges against Lakin because all eligiblity testimony would have to be ignored. The prosecution’s case would then lack foundation (In other words, the prosecution would have say Lakin broke the laws for no reason whatsoever; they would unable to establish a foundational sequence of events.)

    When a prosecutor presents a case, she looks at the elements of the crime. They tell her what she needs to prove. Here are the elements of the crime of missing movement, taken from the court martial judicial manual (p. 298):

    (1) That the accused was required in the course of duty to move with a ship, aircraft or unit;
    (2) That the accused knew of the prospective movement of the ship, aircraft or unit;
    (3) That the accused missed the movement of the ship, aircraft or unit; and
    (4) That the accused missed the movement through design or neglect.

    To make sure, the prosecutor then looks to see if there are any terms specifically defined. Only one is important for our discussion:

    “Design” means on purpose, intentionally, or according to plan and requires specific intent to miss the movement.

    Do you see anything missing? The prosecutor never has to show why the person missed movement. They only have to show that the accused intended to miss movement.

    This isn’t that unusual, there are very few crimes where the specific motive of the accused. Hate crimes, violence committed with the motive of instilling fear in a defined community, are about the only ones I can think of.

    The only place that eligibility could possibly rebut one of the elements of the crime is the first element, that Lakin was required to move. The de facto officer doctrine makes eligibility irrelevant to this element. The defense didn’t even attempt to rebut the doctrine, arguing only that it was obvious that an ineligible President made all orders in the military illegal.

    Ironically, the evidence of motive, specifically Lakin’s statements that he was intending to violate orders made prior to the movement, can, and probably will be used to prove the second and fourth elements, that he knew of the movement and that he missed the movement by design.

  65. avatar
    Rickey June 3, 2010 at 10:04 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    It is truly a pity that Lakin didn’t seek out competent legal advice (all he had to do was search around the internet for other opinions) and stop this before it destroyed his career.

    I seem to recall reading that Lakin did in fact speak with a JAG officer beforehand, who counseled him against disobeying his orders. Lakin chose to disregard the military lawyer’s advice, so I have no pity for him.

  66. avatar
    HellT June 3, 2010 at 10:12 pm #

    John: Well, ex parte communcations might result in a mistrial….Time to start the process over again with a new judge.

    The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

  67. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 3, 2010 at 10:28 pm #

    HellT:
    The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

    I believe that the birthers are listed as an example under that definition.

    Rickey:
    I seem to recall reading that Lakin did in fact speak with a JAG officer beforehand, who counseled him against disobeying his orders. Lakin chose to disregard the military lawyer’s advice, so I have no pity for him.

    I still feel some pity for him – not much, mind you – since it is sad that someone intelligent enough to be a doctor could be so foolish as to throw away his career in this manner and so misguided as to think that he is taking a principled stand. His commitment is admirable, the problem is the illogical and factually incorrect cause that he is committed to.

  68. avatar
    BugZptr June 3, 2010 at 10:39 pm #

    I feel that Lakin’s defence has overlooked some great avenues of discrediting the Obama regime.
    Although promised greater transparency and so on I feel very let down. As a loyal O-Bot I’m available and ready to serve on a “Death panel”. I’m also quite happy to escort republicans to their new homes in FEMA camps. To date I have not been offered either of these positions.

  69. avatar
    Black Lion June 3, 2010 at 10:40 pm #

    Good article regarding the Lakin issue…

    Thanks to safeguardourconstitution.com we have the Article 32, UCMJ, IO’s written ruling on several matters in LTC Lakin’s case.

    Note, “the Army” did not refuse the defense requests. The IO did, acting in his role assigned under Article 32, UCMJ, and R.C.M. 405. This is what I would have expected MAJ Kemkes, the military defense counsel to have told LTC Larkin, and by inference, Mr. Jensen.

    Sad, the defense was actually given the opportunity to submit a legal memorandum giving detailed facts and legal arguments to support production of evidence under R.C.M. 405(f)(9), (10). Inexplicably the defense failed to do that. I do not see any military judge saying that the IO’s determination was wrong. Especially as the defense failed to attempt an argument. I would suggest the issue is waived, at least as to the Article 32, UCMJ, hearing. … It seems very hard to argue, unfair even, to criticize “the Army” or the “IO” from hiding the ball if, having been given fair notice and an opportunity to argue, the defense waives or fails to exercise the opportunity to state their position with particularity supported by law.

    http://court-martial-ucmj.com/lakin/ltc-lakin-update-7/

  70. avatar
    aarrgghh June 3, 2010 at 10:44 pm #

    Rickey:
    I seem to recall reading that Lakin did in fact speak with a JAG officer beforehand, who counseled him against disobeying his orders. Lakin chose to disregard the military lawyer’s advice, so I have no pity for him.

    from lakin’s interview with anderson cooper:

    “i attempted all avenues i could over a year ago. i submitted an article 138, which is the only way that i could research how to — how to address this issue, asking and begging my leadership for guidance in how to — how to address this issue. and the answers that i got were not …”

    … what he wanted to hear, presumably.

    it’s a safe bet that there’s even more to come from his leadership that he won’t like hearing.

  71. avatar
    PaulG June 3, 2010 at 10:50 pm #

    HellT: The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

    Well played, sir!

  72. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 3, 2010 at 11:26 pm #

    When puzzling over Terry Lakin’s motives, think about these words: “suicide bomber.”

  73. avatar
    yguy June 3, 2010 at 11:45 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: When puzzling over Terry Lakin’s motives, think about these words: “suicide bomber.”

    That’s certainly a good way for Obamatons to reinforce their prejudices.

  74. avatar
    aarrgghh June 4, 2010 at 12:00 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: When puzzling over Terry Lakin’s motives, think about these words: “suicide bomber.”

    i agree — though lakin’s a suicide bomber sent to blow up an empty lot late at night in a deserted part of town.

  75. avatar
    Rickey June 4, 2010 at 12:30 am #

    yguy:
    That’s certainly a good way for Obamatons to reinforce their prejudices.

    It was apparent to anyone who understands the UCMJ that Lakin had embarked upon a fool’s mission, if not quite a suicide mission.

  76. avatar
    NbC June 4, 2010 at 12:36 am #

    yguy: That’s certainly a good way for Obamatons to reinforce their prejudices.

    What prejudice? That the military has the duty to obey orders and when refusing an order, it is done at one’s own risk. Unless of course the order is clearly illegal such as an order to kill a civilian or prisoner of war.

    Lakin should have known the risks, and could have easily informed himself of these issues but instead he decided to martyr himself for a ’cause’. Did he suddenly regret his foolish actions?

    What else explain this self destructive action?

  77. avatar
    NbC June 4, 2010 at 12:47 am #

    HellT: The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

    Hmm I thought that was the definition of birther. Weird…

  78. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 4, 2010 at 12:52 am #

    Slartibartfast:
    I believe that the birthers are listed as an example under that definition.

    Unfortunently, so are most of us. We continue arguing with these fools…

  79. avatar
    misha June 4, 2010 at 1:07 am #

    dunstvangeet: We continue arguing with these fools…

    If you argue with a fool, make sure you’re not doing the same thing.

  80. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 4, 2010 at 1:10 am #

    dunstvangeet:
    Unfortunently, so are most of us.We continue arguing with these fools…

    If you expect to change the mind of any of the birthers then you are right, but I think that the point of continually debunking them is so that anyone who hasn’t made up their mind yet and honestly looks for information has a chance to see how ridiculous and baseless the birhter arguments are. Imagine if Lt. Col. Lakin had read some of the debates on this blog before he decided to become a martyr to the birther cause – he may have realized that he was throwing away his career in order to allow a few con artists to get a few more pushes of the pay pal button out of their marks. We’ll never know how many people turned away from birtherism because of sites like this, but I know that I started looking into the eligibility issue because I couldn’t refute birther arguments (they don’t appear anywhere near as unreasonable on their own censored blogs…). With the help of sites like this one (and Vince Treacy at jonathanturley.org) I can now easily debunk birther arguments be they about Kenyan birth, dual citizenship, Indonesian adoption or Pakistani travel. As is often said, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

  81. avatar
    richCares June 4, 2010 at 1:31 am #

    I agree with Slartibartfast, an aquaintance that wasn’t quite sure on the BC issue (his first question to me was “why don’t he show it, I showed him my daughters COLB plus Obama”s on factcheck). I referred him to this site and the birthers lost him.

  82. avatar
    G June 4, 2010 at 1:58 am #

    Passerby: (although I was never a prolific commenter, so I don’t expect anyone to remember me.)

    I remember you, Passerby! Welcome back. πŸ™‚

  83. avatar
    Amy June 4, 2010 at 2:54 am #

    I agree with Slartibartfast, an aquaintance that wasn’t quite sure on the BC issue (his first question to me was “why don’t he show it, I showed him my daughters COLB plus Obama”s on factcheck). I referred him to this site and the birthers lost him.

  84. avatar
    Mike June 4, 2010 at 3:06 am #

    brygenon:
    Charles Kerchner, who longs to see President Obama perp-walked out of the White House, says he went to many other lawyers before he Mario. He put quite a bit of effort into finding incompetent counsel.

    Winner!

    Doc, add this one to your quote of the day… πŸ˜€

  85. avatar
    Lupin June 4, 2010 at 3:51 am #

    Once I read a rather funny book called MOTEL OF THE MYSTERIES, in which archeologists from the far future dug up an average MOTEL 6 room, and explained everything the way we look at Egyptian artefacts, in terms of weird religious practices, completely missing the real nature of the thing.

    When I read about the BOTH CITIZENS PARENTS and all that tripe, I think of that book, because we clearly have people who found a 17th century text and continuously misinterpret it.

    On the issue of lawful/unlawful orders I very very ,much recommend you go out of your way to rent the documentary SIR NO SIR about soldiers who refused to serve in Viet-Nam. It is truly a remarkable piece of film-making.

    I feel only deep contempt for Lakin; honestly, I have little sympathy towards a suicide bomber, but more than I feel towards Lakin, because at least opposing US’s aggression in the region indiscriminately killing civilians with robot planes is a defensible moral position, while betraying your oath in one’s own army based on some delusional constitutional interpretation is truly either contemptible or insane (or both).

    Since Lakin claimed he “investigated” the matter with his superior officers, he should have accepted their answers. I hope they throw the book at him.

  86. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 4, 2010 at 8:22 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: When puzzling over Terry Lakin’s motives, think about these words: “suicide bomber.”

    Yguy: That’s certainly a good way for Obamatons to reinforce their prejudices.

    Do you not agree that Lakin is sacrificing himself for a moral/political motive? I’m sure all competent advice he as received must tell him that 1) he will lose his case and 2) he will not be able to argue eligibility issues in his defense. He will appear to some as a martyr crushed by a rigged system that refused even to let him defend himself. Who in that crowd will consider the legal necessity of what will happen?

    If you don’t like “suicide bomber”, think of those Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire to make political/moral statements. However you characterize it, Lakin is committing a form of suicide.

  87. avatar
    misha June 4, 2010 at 8:37 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: If you don’t like “suicide bomber”, think of those Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire to make political/moral statements. However you characterize it, Lakin is committing a form of suicide.

    That’s a good analogy.

  88. avatar
    E GLenn Harcsar June 4, 2010 at 8:44 am #

    Hi Group,

    Can anyone comment on how this ruling is colored by the case of the officer refusing deployment who simply had the orders changed to make the challenge irrelevant?

    There, the military seemingly protected the chain of command to the CIC.

  89. avatar
    northland10 June 4, 2010 at 8:47 am #

    Jensen’s lack of defense for requesting the documents makes me doubt that they really want discovery at all. I had originally thought that they were looking for dirt on Obama. Since Clinton had the decency to leave his dirty laundry lying around for them to use, they are likely frustrated that Obama is not as accommodating. However, the sloppiness in even trying to get documents may show that they know there is nothing there.

    It seems to me that they are actually hoping they do not win. If they were able to get discovery in this case or past standing in other cases, then Obama’s team would then flood them with a pile of paperwork that states what everybody already knows. He may even be able to provide them with certified copies of any original paperwork held by Hawaii. For the birther world, it would be all over and their attempt to smear the President would take a fatal hit. By not getting further in a trial, they can keep using the “he’s hiding everything” argument.

    The irony is that the birther attorney’s and Rahm Emmanuel are likely in agreement here. He needs them strong enough to be able to tie them to the Republicans.

    (note: Orly may be the exception here as I am not sure if she has any attachment to the political realities)

  90. avatar
    Dave June 4, 2010 at 8:57 am #

    E GLenn Harcsar: Hi Group,Can anyone comment on how this ruling is colored by the case of the officer refusing deployment who simply had the orders changed to make the challenge irrelevant?There,the military seemingly protected the chain of command to the CIC.

    In that case, the officer was a reservist who volunteered under a program where the deal was he could change his mind up to the day of deployment. He filed the lawsuit to stop his deployment, and his command chose to take that as changing his mind.

    LTC Lakin is on active duty, and had no such option of changing his mind.

    “Protecting the chain of command” is a piece of spin often applied to that case, the notion being that no officer who refused orders would be court martialled. Well, the case of LTC Lakin appears headed towards disproving that.

  91. avatar
    Dave June 4, 2010 at 9:03 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: If you don’t like “suicide bomber”, think of those Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire to make political/moral statements. However you characterize it, Lakin is committing a form of suicide.

    That does seem an apt analogy. But there is an important difference: when a man pours gasoline over himself and lights a match, it is clear to everyone that he knew what was going to happen. LTC Lakin has given the impression that he thinks he’s going to be granted discovery for a birthers fishing expedition. So it is ambiguous whether his martyrdom is intentional or the result of a terrible mistake.

  92. avatar
    misha June 4, 2010 at 9:04 am #

    E GLenn Harcsar: Hi Group,Can anyone comment on how this ruling is colored by the case of the officer refusing deployment who simply had the orders changed to make the challenge irrelevant?

    Are you talking about Stefan Cook? He made his own mess, after being egged on by Orly. He volunteered to go to ‘Stan. When he started making noise, the Army simply dismissed him as a troublemaker, and treated it as a voluntary withdrawal. The DoD then revoked his TS clearance.

    There, the military seemingly protected the chain of command to the CIC.

    No, you have mis-interpreted what happened.

  93. avatar
    Arthur June 4, 2010 at 9:51 am #

    E GLen:

    I’m not sure to what officer or to what case you refer, but if it was the case of Army Reserve Major Stefan Cook, there is little comparison between Cook’s situation and Lakin’s.

    Cook was a reserve solider who worked for Simtech, a Florida company that does work for the Department of Defense. As part of his job, Cook had a security clearance at the Pentagon. After meeting Orly Taitz in the spring of 2009, Cook agreed to participate in one of Taitz’ legal attempts to challenge President Obama’s eligibility.

    Cook’s status in the military was “ready reserve,” and after he met Tatiz, he volunteered for duty in Afghanistan. Taitz hoped that active duty status would give Cook standing in a lawsuit she planned to pursue against President Obama. After receiving notification that his request for service in Afghanistan would be honored, Cook promptly refused his deployment. Using the same argument that Taitz would unsuccessfully employ in the Connie Rhodes case, Cook said that he was refusing movement because the President was in office illegally; therefore, (Cook) “would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this President’s command. … simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties.”

    One of the problems with Cook’s case was that since he had volunteered for service, he could, right up to the day of his deployment, change his mind and not deploy. The Army quickly realized that Cook was using his ready reserve status as a ploy to pursue a dubious law suit. It was apparent that he had no real desire to serve in Afghanistan, and since the Army was uninterested in having a false patriot serving in a war zone, they canceled Cook’s deployment. Any hope that Taitz had of using Cook in a lawsuit evaporated (and would have evaporated anyway since, among other things, Cook was never under any obligation to deploy). Of course, Tatiz claimed that Cook’s “orders” were put aside because of pressure she had applied.

    Unfortunately for Cook, his attempt to embroil the Army in Taitz’s illegitimate lawsuit resulted in the Pentagon rescinding his security clearance. That compelled his employer to fire him because without a security clearance, Cook was no longer able to carry out his job.

    To me, the primary similarity between Cook and Lakin is that that both men put their trust in advisers and lawyers who gave them terrible advice. As a result, Cook lost his job; Lakin will probably lose a great deal more.

  94. avatar
    DaveH June 4, 2010 at 10:00 am #

    misha: Are you talking about Stefan Cook? He made his own mess, after being egged on by Orly. He volunteered to go to Stan. When he started making noise, the Army simply dismissed him as a troublemaker, and treated it as a voluntary withdrawal. The DoD then revoked his TS clearance.There, the military seemingly protected the chain of command to the CIC.No, you have mis-interpreted what happened.

    Orly still sites this case as a victory and every birfer site propogates the idea that Cook wasn’t deployed to protect Obama from having to release his records.

  95. avatar
    Rickey June 4, 2010 at 10:49 am #

    Arthur:
    To me, the primary similarity between Cook and Lakin is that that both men put their trust in advisers and lawyers who gave them terrible advice. As a result, Cook lost his job; Lakin will probably lose a great deal more.

    Good analysis of the Cook case, Arthur, I would just add that Cook never actually disobeyed any orders. Orly filed the lawsuit prior to Cook’s scheduled deployment date and his orders were rescinded prior to his deployment date (tellingly, Orly appealed the dismissal of the lawsuit – unsuccessfully, of course – demonstrating that the lawsuit really was never about Cook).

    The key thing to remember is that Cook agreed to be Orly’s client before he volunteered to go on active duty. The fact is that he never intended to deploy, and his act of volunteering was a sham. Once the Army realized that, his orders were rescinded.

  96. avatar
    Sef June 4, 2010 at 11:22 am #

    Rickey: The key thing to remember is that Cook agreed to be Orly’s client before he volunteered to go on active duty. The fact is that he never intended to deploy, and his act of volunteering was a sham.

    Sounds to me like a conspiracy to defraud, but IANAL

  97. avatar
    Scientist June 4, 2010 at 11:44 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: If you don’t like “suicide bomber”, think of those Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire to make political/moral statements. However you characterize it, Lakin is committing a form of suicide.

    I’m not sure I really buy either analogy. Suicide bombers and Buddhist monks at least are sacrificing themselves over big issues-the proper role of their version of Islam in the world, war vs peace. Lakin is sacrificing himself over the arcane legal meaning of one of the least important and least beloved clauses in the Constitution and which suit gets to sit in the White House to preside over our multiple on-going disasters.

  98. avatar
    Arthur June 4, 2010 at 11:45 am #

    Rickey:

    “The key thing to remember is that Cook agreed to be Orly’s client before he volunteered to go on active duty. The fact is that he never intended to deploy, and his act of volunteering was a sham. Once the Army realized that, his orders were rescinded.”

    Yes, and that fact reveals the truth behind Cook’s craven motivation. It appears that Cook was dazzled by the fluttering false-eyelashes of Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq, and believed that he could achieve fifteen minutes of fame without it costing him anything. Taitz should consider herself extremely lucky that Cook has not sued her for malpractice.

  99. avatar
    yguy June 4, 2010 at 11:55 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Dr. Conspirac
    Do you not agree that Lakin is sacrificing himself for a moral/political motive?

    You could say the same for the Navy SEAL who threw himself on a grenade to protect his buddies a few years ago. Would you liken him to a suicide bomber?

    If you don’t like “suicide bomber”, think of those Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire to make political/moral statements.

    Maybe that’s closer, but suicide bombers in this particular slice of history are generally motivated by genocidal hatred.

  100. avatar
    Arthur June 4, 2010 at 12:00 pm #

    Lupin: Once I read a rather funny book called MOTEL OF THE MYSTERIES, in which archeologists from the far future dug up an average MOTEL 6 room, and explained everything the way we look at Egyptian artefacts, in terms of weird religious practices, completely missing the real nature of the thing.

    Lupin, if you’d like another humorous example of how future archeologists and anthropologist might misinterpret the past, take a look at this video:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/25/the-beatles-a-retrospecti_n_370614.html

    It imagines how researchers from the year 3,000 try to make sense of “The Beatles.”

  101. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 4, 2010 at 12:09 pm #

    yguy:
    You could say the same for the Navy SEAL who threw himself on a grenade to protect his buddies a few years ago. Would you liken him to a suicide bomber?
    Maybe that’s closer, but suicide bombers in this particular slice of history are generally motivated by genocidal hatred.

    And soon-to-be-mister Lakin is motivated by irrational hatred of the duly elected legitimate president of the country he choose to serve. He’s not protecting anyone by his act of career suicide, he’s just going down in flames so that people like you can misinterpret it for you own seditious ends.

  102. avatar
    yguy June 4, 2010 at 12:44 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    And soon-to-be-mister Lakin is motivated by irrational hatred of the duly elected legitimate president of the country he choose to serve.

    Substantiate, please.

  103. avatar
    richCares June 4, 2010 at 12:57 pm #

    Substantiate, please.
    HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  104. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 4, 2010 at 12:59 pm #

    yguy:
    Substantiate, please.

    This website is packed with information that substantiates the fact that the president is legitimate (and he was clearly duly elected), our military is all volunteer, so soon-to-be-mister Lakin chose to serve, and irrational hatred of the president (for whatever reason) is very nearly the defining characteristic of the core of the birther movement (which, as the defendant in the latest birther case, Lakin is clearly a part of).

  105. avatar
    E GLenn Harcsar June 4, 2010 at 1:02 pm #

    Thanks for the response to my query. Got that bug out of my head!

  106. avatar
    Dave June 4, 2010 at 1:06 pm #

    yguy:
    Substantiate, please.

    Since you’re in a substantiating mood, the best thing you could do to help the birther cause would be to get LTC Lakin’s website to post his lawyer’s brief. That way everyone could see the detailed legal argument he made. Because the IO pretty much said Jensen made no argument at all. Best way to refute that would be to post the brief.

  107. avatar
    Arthur June 4, 2010 at 1:09 pm #

    yguy:
    Substantiate, please.

    Slartibartfast is making an inference based on available evidence, yet his conclusion may or may not be true. It could be that Lakin doesn’t have an irrational hatred for Obama; for example, it may be that Lakin is simply irrational.

    What’s your explanation, Yguy, for Lakin to pursue a course of action that experts in military law repeatedly pointed out would never yield the outcome he desired?

  108. avatar
    Greg June 4, 2010 at 1:36 pm #

    Irrational:

    Definition:

    1. lacking in reason: contrary to or lacking in reason or logic

    2. lacking logical thought: unable to think logically

    3. unable to think clearly: lacking the normal ability to think clearly, especially because of shock or injury to the brain

    Does Lakin have an irrational hatred of Obama?

    But, it appears that his arguments as presented by his lawyers were irrational (lacking in reason, lacking logical thought):

    There is no scholarly discussion of what constitutes an illegal order or under what circumstances such an order can be disobeyed or must be disobeyed. Rather the Defense baldly asserts, “[LTC Lakin’s] submission is that if the president is ineligible under the constitution to serve in office, then axiomatically no order given by him is valid.”


    Moreover, the Defense proposition fails to account for the de facto officer doctrine, a military variant of apparent authority. The Defense offers no legal support whatever for its position, which I find to be far from ‘axiomatic.’

    Despite my express invitation to show why that doctrine [political question] should not apply here, no such showing was made.

    With respect to the Defense requests to present testimony from [Vallely and Keyes]…the Defense offers no explanation of relevance as required by the Manual for Courts-Martial and my 6 May 2010 Memorandum.

    Bald assertions, no legal support, no explanations of relevance, ignoring specific requests from the IO = lacking in reason = irrational!

  109. avatar
    DCH June 4, 2010 at 2:26 pm #

    LTC Latkin better get a real lawyer versed in military justice now since this fiasco has moved from the delusional birtherstan to a reality-based military court. The guy should be moving to plan B and fire his lawyer and start preparing a temporary insanity defense.
    If he goes to jail over this he will disapear from birtherstan in a day.

    The fact that birthers actually believed this case was going anyway other than the way its going proves the sheer level of delusional thinking (and explains why they keep filing the same few cases over an over).

    How many times have we’ve had them saying that the “next case” would be the one? Remeber how Judge Carter was a real-marine who would grant discovery – how’d that work out? He put the two cases together and dismissed them providing zero grounds for an appeal.

    Birthers have LOST sixty eight times in a row and FAILED 30+ times on appeal.

    So birthers what’s next?

  110. avatar
    yguy June 4, 2010 at 2:34 pm #

    And soon-to-be-mister Lakin is motivated by irrational hatred of the duly elected legitimate president of the country he choose to serve.

    Substantiate, please.

    Slartibartfast:
    This website…

    Thank you for this testament to your own bigotry.

  111. avatar
    Greg June 4, 2010 at 2:52 pm #

    yguy:

    Slartibartfast:This website…Thank you for this testament to your own bigotry.

    Bigot: A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

    I gave the definition of irrational above, lacking in reason or logic. You may see intolerance and even animosity towards you, but this site is not lacking in reason or logic.

    The bald assertion that this website is lacking in reason or logic, without any substantiation is lacking in reason or logic, however.

  112. avatar
    Rickey June 4, 2010 at 3:06 pm #

    DCH: LTC Latkin better get a real lawyer versed in military justice now since this fiasco has moved from the delusional birtherstan to a reality-based military court.The guy should be moving to plan B and fire his lawyer and start preparing a temporary insanity defense.

    Of course, Lakin has a real JAG attorney, provided to him at no charge, but it is obvious that he has decided to let Jensen call the shots. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall while Jensen and the JAG officer (who appears to be identified as Major Kemkes) discussed strategy and military law. It’s difficult to believe that Major Kemkes approved of the strategy, but ultimately it’s the client who makes the decisions.

  113. avatar
    bob June 4, 2010 at 3:15 pm #

    Rickey: Of course, Lakin has a real JAG attorney, provided to him at no charge, but it is obvious that he has decided to let Jensen call the shots. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall while Jensen and the JAG officer (who appears to be identified as Major Kemkes) discussed strategy and military law. It’s difficult to believe that Major Kemkes approved of the strategy, but ultimately it’s the client who makes the decisions.

    Actually, counsel is captain of the ship; with very few exceptions, trial tactics are to be decided by counsel.

    What is implicit, however, is that Lakin can fire Kemkes. I would not be surprised to see some motions addressing representation “issues” after the Article 32 hearing.

  114. avatar
    Bob Ross June 4, 2010 at 3:16 pm #

    yguy: You could say the same for the Navy SEAL who threw himself on a grenade to protect his buddies a few years ago. Would you liken him to a suicide bomber?Maybe that’s closer, but suicide bombers in this particular slice of history are generally motivated by genocidal hatred.

    Not exactly a correct analogy in both of Dr C’s cases the perpitrator is actively inflicting harm on himself purposely and premeditated. In your case of the marine he took no active role but took action as the situation happened. Sacrificing himself for his comrades. Lakin isn’t sacrificing himself for others for a real legit reason.

  115. avatar
    Sef June 4, 2010 at 3:19 pm #

    Rickey:
    Of course, Lakin has a real JAG attorney, provided to him at no charge, but it is obvious that he has decided to let Jensen call the shots. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall while Jensen and the JAG officer (who appears to be identified as Major Kemkes) discussed strategy and military law. It’s difficult to believe that Major Kemkes approved of the strategy, but ultimately it’s the client who makes the decisions.

    Note that this memo from the IO is addressed to MAJ Kemkes with a mention of Jensen only as a copy recipient.

  116. avatar
    Greg June 4, 2010 at 3:19 pm #

    Bob Ross: Lakin isn’t sacrificing himself for others for a real legit reason.

    Prediction: Yguy’s response will be that if Obama is found out to be illegitimate, it opens up the entire military to charges that they illegally followed illegal orders.

    However, following an order that, on its face, looks legal is a complete defense to criminal charges, regardless of whether it is later determined to be illegal.

  117. avatar
    Arthur June 4, 2010 at 3:20 pm #

    Here’s a long distance dedication to one of our favorite birthers (sung to the tune of “My Guy”)

    Nothing you can say,
    Will make him go away,
    Not yguy.

    There’s nothing we can do,
    He clings to us like glue,
    Does yguy, yguy, yguy, yguy.

    He sticks to his delusions
    In a great confusion,
    Like a drunk and his liquor,
    He’s gettin’ sicker.

    I’m tellin you from the heart, ,
    He’s a boring little fart
    Is yguy.

    I know that I’m breaking the rules on civility Dr. C., but yguy started it! Can’t you give him a detention or something????

  118. avatar
    Black Lion June 4, 2010 at 3:24 pm #

    Of course our friends over at the seditious Post and Fail had to weigh in on Lakin. The have posted a so called Letter to the editor. Which is kind of hilarious if you think about it. The birthers go on about the fact that the IO won’t allow the eligibility of the President to be presented by no allowing any of their so called holy grail of documents to be requested. But they say that Obama is ineligible because his father was from Kenya. So if he was from Kenya and that is your argument,. you should care less about the birth documents from Hawaii. It just goes to show that the birthers are so foolish they don’t even know what their actual argument is other than “we hate Obama”.

    From the Post and Fail….

    Dear LTC Driscoll,

    I understand you are the investigating officer in the upcoming trial of LTC Terry Lakin. First of all, you have made a huge strategic error by refusing to allow discovery that would exonerate Lakin in his refusal to take orders from an ineligible commander-in-chief. The whole world now knows that Barack Obama has usurped the presidency and the commander-in-chief position. We have all been made aware for the past 18 months or more that our Constitution requires that the presidency can only be given to a natural born Citizen. Obama does not pass that test with a Kenyan father who passed on his British citizenship and allegiance to his son. Obama was not, and can never be, eligible to hold the office he fraudulently holds. And you, sir, are now complicit in the cover-up by refusing to allow LTC Lakin the discovery that would exonerate him.

    I don’t think anyone would argue with your position that “…constitutional jurisprudence allows Congress alone, and not a military judicial body, to put the president’s credentials on trial…” if the president was not also our commander-in-chief. However, the president of the U.S. is also the commander-in-chief of our military forces. You have no excuse, Col. Driscoll, for failing to allow a fellow military member discovery that which would exonerate him. You have taken the road that no officer of integrity would take: the low road, the path of least resistance, the going-along-to-get-along way that only a coward and hater of our Constitution would take. Passing the buck to Congress and abrogating your responsibility to constitutional jurisprudence in this military matter just does not wash and will not go unnoticed by America, or the world, for that matter.

    You, sir, also took an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and you just showed that that oath means nothing to you. No person of integrity would withhold discovery from a defendant who has simply done what he swore to do: to support and defend the Constitution. The Army has lost the respect of all of us who believe in the rule of law and are shocked that it is being denied to defendant Lakin.

    I worked with the Army for many years during my federal career and never expected to see this day of disgusting cowardice and miscarriage of justice against a decorated Army officer of sterling credentials and character. LTC Lakin has put his oath, his principles, his career, and his life on the line and deserves to be afforded full discovery of Obama’s credentials. You need to know that LTC Lakin represents millions of us who are absolutely appalled at the conspiracy of silence and cover-up that in which the Army is engaging to carry out this miscarriage of justice. You know the truth. You know Obama is not qualified to serve as the president and commander-in-chief, and it is highly likely that you are aware that Obama has falsified his credentials on many fronts. Misprision of felony would look really ugly on your next ER.

    Disgusted with the Army,

    Kathleen Gotto

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/06/04/letter-to-investigating-officer-in-lt-col-lakin-case/

    I love how they think that attempting to intimidate the person in authority will somehow make someone ignore the law and acknowledge their delirious rantings. Also hilarious is when they claim that “millions” support Lakin and are questioning the legitimacy of the President. It is just funny to see these seditious people in action.

    And the comments…

    Tom the veteran says:
    Friday, June 4, 2010 at 12:59 PM
    My God, can it really be? Have we now lost our military to the ways of Chicago politics?

    I never thought I would say this but, I can no longer with a clear conscience recommend any young man or woman to serve in the military, for they would not be defending the same Libertyies and Freedoms I thought this country offered its citizens! I don’t believe the troops are corrupt, but it surely appears their superiors are!

  119. avatar
    yguy June 4, 2010 at 3:28 pm #

    Greg:
    Slartibartfast:
    You may see intolerance and even animosity towards you, but this site is not lacking in reason or logic.

    There is plenty of irrationality and illogic displayed on this site, thanks in no small part to your contributions. That aside…

    The bald assertion that this website is lacking in reason or logic

    …that wasn’t a slam against the site, but an observation that Slartibartfast couldn’t substantiate his claim WRT Lakin’s motivation, which is why he flailed like a bigot.

  120. avatar
    richCares June 4, 2010 at 3:38 pm #

    so what is Lakin’s motivation?

  121. avatar
    Greg June 4, 2010 at 3:49 pm #

    yguy: There is plenty of irrationality and illogic displayed on this site, thanks in no small part to your contributions.

    Substantiation?

    Just because you don’t understand the logic doesn’t mean it’s not there.

  122. avatar
    DCH June 4, 2010 at 3:55 pm #

    “Of course, Lakin has a real JAG attorney, provided to him at no charge, but it is obvious that he has decided to let Jensen call the shots. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall while Jensen and the JAG officer (who appears to be identified as Major Kemkes) discussed strategy and military law. It’s difficult to believe that Major Kemkes approved of the strategy, but ultimately it’s the client who makes the decisions.”

    That has to be the case, the real military lawyer must be setting up the backup plan for a plea agreement so after the birther-clowns fail completely and put their deluded fool of a client in an even worse position. Unlike the other birther cases the birther-clown in this case is a DEFENDANT and not a PLAINTIFF and cannot simply walk away with a dismissed case. When LTC Latkin loses he REALLY loses bigtime.

    The grfiters that target the birther demographic will then feast on his bones by using his defeat to raise another bucket of pay pals donations. I can’t wait for a birthers to point out where we are wrong in our predictions. To date NOT a SINGLE birther prediction has proven correct.
    LOL

  123. avatar
    Arthur June 4, 2010 at 4:41 pm #

    “Tom the veteran says:
    Friday, June 4, 2010 at 12:59 PM
    My God, can it really be? Have we now lost our military to the ways of Chicago politics?”

    My guess is that Tom probably thinks Chicago is a suburb of Mombasa.

  124. avatar
    Rickey June 4, 2010 at 5:11 pm #

    bob:
    Actually, counsel is captain of the ship; with very few exceptions, trial tactics are to be decided by counsel.What is implicit, however, is that Lakin can fire Kemkes.I would not be surprised to see some motions addressing representation “issues” after the Article 32 hearing.

    I should have been more precise. I meant that if there is a disagreement in strategy between the civilian attorney and the JAG officer, the client chooses which attorney’s advice he wants to follow. Someone with actual court-martial experience may prove me wrong, but my understanding is that the JAG officer does not automatically trump the defendant’s civilian attorney. I assume that you are correct that Lakin can fire Kemkes and just go with Jensen. I don’t know if Kemkes can ask to be relieved of the case if he finds himself fundamentally opposed to the approach Jensen is taking.

    Of course, Lakin’s biggest problem is not the advice he has been given by defense counsel, but the advice he was given before he decided to disobey his orders.

  125. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett June 4, 2010 at 5:24 pm #

    Dave: That does seem an apt analogy. But there is an important difference: when a man pours gasoline over himself and lights a match, it is clear to everyone that he knew what was going to happen. LTC Lakin has given the impression that he thinks he’s going to be granted discovery for a birthers fishing expedition. So it is ambiguous whether his martyrdom is intentional or the result of a terrible mistake.

    I agree. I’m starting to wonder if he wasn’t led down the primrose path by his birther buddies. he comes across as earnest but naive.

  126. avatar
    Sef June 4, 2010 at 5:29 pm #

    J. Edward Tremlett: I agree. I’m starting to wonder if he wasn’t led down the primrose path by his birther buddies. he comes across as earnest but naive.

    Ya think??

  127. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett June 4, 2010 at 5:31 pm #

    yguy: Maybe that’s closer, but suicide bombers in this particular slice of history are generally motivated by genocidal hatred.

    *bites tongue. bites it really, really hard*

  128. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett June 4, 2010 at 5:37 pm #

    Speaking of trolls. I posted an update on the situation over at opednews and a rarely-posting poster with no bio popped on to spout boilerplate, and then urge us to email the IO.

    I wonder how widespread the effort is?

  129. avatar
    bob June 4, 2010 at 6:02 pm #

    Rickey: I should have been more precise. I meant that if there is a disagreement in strategy between the civilian attorney and the JAG officer, the client chooses which attorney’s advice he wants to follow. Someone with actual court-martial experience may prove me wrong, but my understanding is that the JAG officer does not automatically trump the defendant’s civilian attorney. I assume that you are correct that Lakin can fire Kemkes and just go with Jensen. I don’t know if Kemkes can ask to be relieved of the case if he finds himself fundamentally opposed to the approach Jensen is taking.

    Because Lakin can fire Kemkes at any time, I think you are right the ultimate result is that Lakin can dictate the tactics to be used. Kemkes can’t be relieved of the representation unless it would require him to conduct an unethical act; it isn’t unethical to employ an stupid defense. I would guess Kemkes will write numerous CYA memos, so there’s a looong paper trail indicating his strong disagreement with this “strategy.”

  130. avatar
    Passerby June 4, 2010 at 7:25 pm #

    G: Welcome back. πŸ™‚

    Thank you! πŸ™‚

  131. avatar
    Passerby June 4, 2010 at 7:33 pm #

    E GLenn Harcsar: Thanks for the response to my query.Got that bug out of my head!

    Do you really mean to say that you asked because you really wanted to know? And that, having gotten a good answer (Arthur’s was a particularly good rundown), you’re accepting it? That’s almost unheard of!

    But cool. Very cool. Maybe all this arguing isn’t totally wasted after all.

  132. avatar
    Passerby June 4, 2010 at 7:44 pm #

    J. Edward Tremlett: I agree. I’m starting to wonder if he wasn’t led down the primrose path by his birther buddies. he comes across as earnest but naive.

    I generally take people at their word as to their motivations, unless I have a really good reason to suspect them. In Lakin’s case, my impression is that he truly does believe everything that he’s saying. That Obama is ineligible for the presidency, that this is a terrible crisis, and that in doing this he can bring it to light and stop it. I almost have to respect him for being willing to really put his money where his mouth is. I mean, he’s really risking something, which is more than most people will do.

    But really. He had every opportunity to know what he was getting into here. He had every opportunity to know that it wasn’t going to work–even assuming he was right about Obama’s eligibility.

    To me this is less like someone throwing themselves on a grenade to save his comrades, and more like someone running out onto a firing range during a live-fire exercise.

  133. avatar
    Donna June 4, 2010 at 8:21 pm #

    My sons are in the military and recently came home with some friends who wear wearing and giving out T-shirts that had a picture of Lakin behind bars and it said “Put Lakin where he belongs – BEHIND BARS!! There’s a huge movement against Lakin by some soldiers who think he’s a traitor, an idiot a moron etc. They also have a petition with over 650 doctors and nurses who say they will not work with him and want him imprisoned. I had no idea. He’s not real popular with alot of the military guys/gals.

  134. avatar
    Sef June 4, 2010 at 9:45 pm #

    Donna: My sons are in the military and recently came home with some friends who wear wearing and giving out T-shirts that had a picture of Lakin behind bars and it said “Put Lakin where he belongs – BEHIND BARS!! There’s a huge movement against Lakin by some soldiers who think he’s a traitor, an idiot a moron etc. They also have a petition with over 650 doctors and nurses who say they will not work with him and want him imprisoned. I had no idea. He’s not real popular with alot of the military guys/gals.

    Donna, please publish this on CAAFlog ( http://www.caaflog.com/ ). The birthers who frequent there need to see this.

  135. avatar
    ron June 4, 2010 at 10:13 pm #

    This whole bs about Lakin and all officers right to defend the constitution over lawful orders is just rediculous,I believe a general named Mcarthur tried that many moons ago when he defied President Truman. How did that that work out. It did not …… Mcarthur was relieved and his military career ended. Some folks never learn. By the way has anyone seen LTC Lakins long form?

  136. avatar
    Sef June 4, 2010 at 10:23 pm #

    ron: This whole bs aboutLakin and all officersright to defend the constitution over lawful orders is just rediculous,I believe a general named Mcarthur tried that many moons ago when he defied President Truman. How did that that work out. It did not …… Mcarthur was relieved and his military career ended. Some folks never learn. By the way has anyone seenLTC Lakins long form?

    Lakin needs to be very glad not to have suffered the same fate as Pvt Slovik in WWII.

  137. avatar
    ron June 4, 2010 at 10:27 pm #

    FUNNY SIDE NOTE TO LAKINS REQUEST FROM UCMJ

    846. ART. 46. OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN WITNESSES AND OTHER EVIDENCE
    The trial counsel, the defense counsel, and the court-martial shall have equal opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence in accordance with such regulations as the “President “may prescribe. Process issued in court-martial cases to compel witnesses to appear and testify and to compel the production of other evidence shall be similar to that which courts of the Unites States having criminal jurisdiction may lawfully issue and shall run to any part of the United States, or the Territories, Commonwealths, and possessions

    AINT THAT HILARIOUS AS THE PRESIDENT MAY PRESCRIBE.

  138. avatar
    ron June 4, 2010 at 10:36 pm #

    IN CASE THEY DID NOT KNOW here are a few charges they should and probably will be levied against the LTC

    887. ART. 87. MISSING MOVEMENT
    Any person subject to this chapter who through neglect or design misses the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which he is required in the course of duty to move shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

    888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
    Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

    889. ART. 89 DISRESPECT TOWARD SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER
    Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

    890. ART. 90. ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER
    Any person subject to this chapter who–

    (1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his officer; or

    (2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer;

    shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

  139. avatar
    ron June 4, 2010 at 10:38 pm #

    SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE TOLD THE LTC THIS IS NOT A GAME

  140. avatar
    ron June 4, 2010 at 10:41 pm #

    It appears that the real usuper is LTC Lakin as the UCMJ suggests.

    894. ART. 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION
    (a) Any person subject to this chapter who–

    (1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;

    (2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;

    (3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.

    (b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct

  141. avatar
    ron June 4, 2010 at 10:45 pm #

    and last but not least the award for that outstanding video on youtube

    917. ART. 117. PROVOKING SPEECHES OR GESTURES
    Any person subject to this chapter who uses provoking or reproachful words or gestures towards any other person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

  142. avatar
    ron June 4, 2010 at 10:53 pm #

    one more Jensen should brief his client about

    934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
    Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

  143. avatar
    Arthur June 4, 2010 at 11:12 pm #

    Thanks, Ron, for supplying the passages from the UCMJ that apply to Lt. Col. Lakin. Interesting reading.

  144. avatar
    Sef June 4, 2010 at 11:48 pm #

    ron: and last but not least the award for that outstanding video on youtube917. ART. 117. PROVOKING SPEECHES OR GESTURES
    Any person subject to this chapter who uses provoking or reproachful words or gestures towards any other person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

    I remember seeing on one of the blogs (I am not sure it was this one) that even retired military are still subject to the provisions of UCMJ. Would anyone care to comment on this? There have been several retired military people who have made birther comments. Would it be possible to see these folks “before the bar”?

  145. avatar
    Rickey June 5, 2010 at 12:24 am #

    bob:
    I would guess Kemkes will write numerous CYA memos, so there’s a looong paper trail indicating his strong disagreement with this “strategy.”

    I have no idea what criteria are used to grade JAG officers on their fitness reports, but I am sure that Major Kemkes does not want to be perceived as the lawyer who designed Lakin’s defense, so you are probably correct about the CYA memos.

    If I were Lakin’s attorney, at this point I would recommend that he try to strike a plea agreement whereby he would apologize for his actions, attribute his his decision to poor advice and undue influence placed upon him by others, and hope that the Army shows him some mercy and lets him go with an administrative separation.

  146. avatar
    NbC June 5, 2010 at 12:45 am #

    In the end, they have chosen to pursue clear violations which are sufficient for Lakin to lose a rank or two and lose his retirement benefits.

    Poetic justice perhaps?

    Sef:
    I remember seeing on one of the blogs (I am not sure it was this one) that even retired military are still subject to the provisions of UCMJ. Would anyone care to comment on this?There have been several retired military people who have made birther comments.Would it be possible to see these folks “before the bar”?

  147. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 5, 2010 at 1:31 am #

    yguy:
    [The bald assertion that this website is lacking in reason or logic] wasn’t a slam against the site, but an observation that Slartibartfast couldn’t substantiate his claim WRT Lakin’s motivation, which is why he flailed like a bigot.

    First off, implying that I’m a bigot (without substantiating it) is the debating tactic of a petulant child. Let’s take a look at what I said:

    Slartibartfast:
    This website is packed with information that substantiates the fact that the president is legitimate (and he was clearly duly elected), our military is all volunteer, so soon-to-be-mister Lakin chose to serve, and irrational hatred of the president (for whatever reason) is very nearly the defining characteristic of the core of the birther movement (which, as the defendant in the latest birther case, Lakin is clearly a part of).

    And in response to your demand for substantiation I said:

    Slartibartfast: And soon-to-be-mister Lakin is motivated by irrational hatred of the duly elected legitimate president of the country he choose to serve.

    As has been pointed out by other commenters here, the only part of this which is not easily substantiated is the term ‘hatred’ used with respect to STBM Lakin’s feelings regarding the president. I should have stated it differently using a qualifier such as ‘…soon-to-be-mister Lakin (for whom I have expressed nothing but pity and a small amount of admiration for) is motivated by an irrational belief in the ineligibility of President Obama, likely caused by his hatred of the president or his policies…’

    Your response was:

    yguy: Thank you for this testament to your own bigotry.

    My challenge to you is to substantiate this statement or admit (either explicitly or implicitly by your silence) that you are a hypocrite.

  148. avatar
    Lupin June 5, 2010 at 2:18 am #

    Arthur: It imagines how researchers from the year 3,000 try to make sense of “The Beatles.”

    That was hilarious! Thank you!

  149. avatar
    G June 5, 2010 at 2:54 am #

    E GLenn Harcsar: Hi Group,

    Can anyone comment on how this ruling is colored by the case of the officer refusing deployment who simply had the orders changed to make the challenge irrelevant?

    There, the military seemingly protected the chain of command to the CIC.

    If you are referring to the Cook case, then yes, this is easy to answer as these are apples to oranges cases and there is no “coloring” of the rulings.

    In Cook’s situation, which was a fairly clear and apparent stunt, Cook was a mere reservist who volunteered on his own for a deployment. He was not “ordered up” per say. Merely, he asked to be sent over there and the military accepted his offer and notified him of the deployment. In that situation, he had the ability to simply change his mind, (allowing for him providing the military with a sufficient number of days notice).

    As Cook tried to argue in court that he didn’t want to be deployed over there and his situation was both a voluntary and reversible act, the military simply rescinded his volunteer request.

    Latin’s case is quite different. He is an active duty officer who was issued deployment orders and willfully disobeyed them, even after being counseled and warned about the consequences of such actions. He will face court martial and appropriate reprimand & punishment for his clear violations of basic military orders and conduct.

    The only thing truly in common with both cases, other than the generalizations that they are both members of the overall “military” and these were both “deployment” situations is that both Cook & Latkin tried to use these situations as an excuse to push their personal prejudices against Obama as a political stunt (and that they both will be met with utter failure in those regards, as Obama’s status is completely irrelevant to the legal issue of their refusing to deploy).

    Simple as that.

  150. avatar
    Arthur June 5, 2010 at 12:10 pm #

    Lupin:
    That was hilarious! Thank you!

    Glad you enjoyed it. The sad thing is that the confused history parodied in that video is alive and well within the birther movement, to say nothing of the Texas State Board of Education’s recent decisions on social studies and history curriculums.

  151. avatar
    yguy June 5, 2010 at 12:14 pm #

    Slartibartfast: yguy:
    [The bald assertion that this website is lacking in reason or logic]

    I never made such an assertion, so you can go to Hell as far as I’m concerned.

  152. avatar
    Lupin June 5, 2010 at 12:29 pm #

    yguy:
    I never made such an assertion, so you can go to H*** as far as I’m concerned.

    But you do insult our intelligence on a daily basis.

  153. avatar
    NbC June 5, 2010 at 12:45 pm #

    yguy: I never made such an assertion, so you can go to Hell as far as I’m concerned.

    Is that where you have been hanging out ?

    Interesting…

  154. avatar
    Scientist June 5, 2010 at 12:54 pm #

    yguy: I never made such an assertion, so you can go to Hell as far as I’m concerned

    Here are yguy’s own words: “There is plenty of irrationality and illogic displayed on this site, thanks in no small part to your contributions”

    yguy needs a personal introduction to the truth, along with some sessions in anger management.

  155. avatar
    Arthur June 5, 2010 at 1:10 pm #

    yguy:
    I never made such an assertion, so you can go to Hell as far as I’m concerned.

    Oooo! yguy, I swear when you talk all macho, saying “hell” in that sweet falsetto of yours, it makes me all tingly and such. Reminds me of my fave scene from “Unforgiven.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccqdEhytKOk&feature=related

    Start at 7:05 to catch the appropriate dialogue.

  156. avatar
    NbC June 5, 2010 at 1:10 pm #

    Scientist: yguy needs a personal introduction to the truth, along with some sessions in anger management.

    Life could be so much easier if the facts, logic and reason were on one’s side. Lacking that ‘luxury’, not much remains.
    I find it fascinating to observe how people handle cognitive dissonance.

    So will we get a response to Slartibartfast’s question:

    My challenge to you is to substantiate this statement or admit (either explicitly or implicitly by your silence) that you are a hypocrite.

    Or has this been answered implicitly?

  157. avatar
    yguy June 5, 2010 at 1:46 pm #

    Arthur:
    it makes me all tingly and such.

    I’m sure many things have that effect on persons of your caliber. πŸ™‚

  158. avatar
    nbC June 5, 2010 at 2:07 pm #

    yguy: I’m sure many things have that effect on persons of your caliber. πŸ™‚

    How would you reach that conclusion? But yes, I agree that Arthur is quite a person of caliber, which may explain your response?

    Fascinating

  159. avatar
    nbC June 5, 2010 at 2:09 pm #

    In another failure, Walt visited the Monroe County Grand Jury to testify on his behalf

  160. avatar
    farleftliberalnutjob June 5, 2010 at 3:07 pm #

    Lakin does not need these records to remove the usurper Obama. Anyone who doubts that he is a usurper need know that the framers of the constitution said
    that
    1- president must qualify (obama doesn’t and never did)
    2- must be a natural born citizen
    The framers definition of natural born citizen has always been someone born of two US citizens. Even OBama’s 2008 resolution in Congress allowing McCain to be eligible despite being born in Panama stated during the discussions, verbatem from Patrick Leahy” ….I understand that a natural born citizen requires two parent to be US citzens…”
    and Chertoff “…that is my understanding also…”

    [I don’t normally insert comments inside other people’s comments, but the preceding quotation is false. The true citation is:

    “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff answered.

    “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.

    Source: The Washington Post (April 2008)]

    Therefore this OBOT appointed judge can’t have it both ways. He can not say Congress already qualified Obutthole and on the other hand ignore this 2008 resolution.
    Furtermore, if this ahole judge ever read the Constitution he would know that there
    are provision to remove a usurper…..which has already been….AHEM….qualifed by Congress.
    In addition, John Jay, on a historical note wrote to the constitution convention and asked that the qualifying word “citizen” be removed and changed to “natural born citizen”. In addition there were many correspondences about avoiding dual allegiances, etc.
    By any stretch of our history and our common law definition of natural born citizen, derived from LAW OF NATION (of which copies were found on both George Washington and John Jay’s desks) obama is clearly a usurper.
    Want more?
    During the electoral counting of the votes US code which elaborates the Constitutional requirements specifically requires that the VP, at that point in time, Cheney, is to ask for objections. CHENY NEVER ASKED FOR OBJECTION because that pothead PELOSE immediately cut him off and started clapping. Therefore DRISCOLL, you obot, who readily ignores the Constitution, the CONGRESS NEVER QUALIED OBUTHOLE

    remember in november
    remove these clowns and usurpers, and those complicit in the cover up

  161. avatar
    Sef June 5, 2010 at 3:18 pm #

    farleftliberalnutjob:

    Oh, goody another seditionist!

  162. avatar
    JustWondering June 5, 2010 at 3:20 pm #

    farleftliberalnutjob, you’re way, way off base.

    LTC Driscoll’s job had nothing to do with deciding whether Obama is eligible to be president. His sole duty was to determine what evidence is relevant in order to decide whether or not Lakin committed a crime by failing to obey his orders.

    He didn’t conclude that Obama is eligible. What he concluded was that, even if Obama was ineligible, Lakin was still under obligation to obey his deployment orders.

    If you disagree with his legal analysis — and it’s all there for you to read — please tell us why. But your interpretation of Constitutional history vis-a-vis presidential eligibility is an argument for another day. It has no bearing on Lakin’s guilt or innocence.

  163. avatar
    Sef June 5, 2010 at 3:22 pm #

    Dr. C, have you ever compiled a geographic distribution of the IP addresses of the birthers who visit here?

  164. avatar
    Greg June 5, 2010 at 3:46 pm #

    Here’s a question, “farleftliberalnutjob” – you say it is obvious that the Founders adopted Vattel – that no one born to foreigners could be a natural born citizen. Obvious even to someone who can’t even write a full post without typos. If it is so obvious, how come it wasn’t until 2008 that anyone figured it out?

    When George Romney ran in the 60s, there were several articles about whether someone born abroad could be a natural born citizen. One said yes, another said no, but they both agreed that those born here were eligible regardless of their parents’ citizenship.

    I think that you, like every other birther and every lawyer I’ve talked to, never heard about Vattel before 2008, that you never thought to question whether Dukakis’s parents had completed their naturalizations (or whether Greek law still considered them and their children to be citizens despite naturalization). And you didn’t check Spiro Agnew’s parents citizenship.

    By the way, Vattel was the 28th most quoted source by the founders. Blackstone was number 3.

  165. avatar
    misha June 5, 2010 at 4:04 pm #

    farleftliberalnutjob: The framers definition of natural born citizen has always been someone born of two US citizens.

    James Buchanan’s and Chester Arthur’s fathers were Irish citizens, not naturalized, at the time of their births. Agnew’s father was a Greek citizen, not naturalized, at the time of his birth.

    Lay off the coffee.

  166. avatar
    SFJeff June 5, 2010 at 4:22 pm #

    “farleftliberalnutjob”

    You can always tell when someone is interested in a rational discussion when they try to use bad names for everyone they disagree with.

    Of course i think my 11 year old could do a better job of calling names but thats besides the point.

  167. avatar
    Arthur June 5, 2010 at 5:05 pm #

    Sef: Dr. C, have you ever compiled a geographic distribution of the IP addresses of the birthers who visit here?

    If such a distribution chart exists, it would be interesting to see.

  168. avatar
    Dave June 5, 2010 at 5:07 pm #

    misha: James Buchanan’s and Chester Arthur’s fathers were Irish citizens, not naturalized, at the time of their births.

    After reading all the birther stuff I have, I hadn’t heard that about Buchanan.

    Of course, we’d certainly have been better off if Buchanan had never been President, but I guess that’s a subject for a different blog.

  169. avatar
    Dave June 5, 2010 at 5:19 pm #

    farleftliberalnutjob:
    The framers definition of natural born citizen has always been someone born of two US citizens.

    Here’s a fact you might find interesting: while I’ve certainly heard the two-citizen-parent theory before, LTC Lakin’s lawyer Jensen has never so much as mentioned it. He has appeared in press interviews, and has a bunch of stuff on his website, and none of it mentions this theory. So LTC Lakin is not using this theory. If you want him to, maybe you could contact his lawyer.

    Also, you notice that the IO says that Jensen made no argument why the President’s eligibility matters. You might not know that the only reason any of us have seen the IO’s memorandum is because LTC Lakin posted it on his website. What he didn’t post on his website was his own lawyer’s brief. If he wants to refute the claim that his lawyer failed to argue his case, he could post the brief. In the meantime, please forgive me for assuming that Jensen failed to make an argument. And you can’t really blame the IO if the defendant’s lawyer doesn’t bother to make an argument.

  170. avatar
    G June 5, 2010 at 5:24 pm #

    nbC: In another failure, Walt visited the Monroe County Grand Jury to testify on his behalf

    Thanks for the update on crazy old coot Walt Fitzpatrick and his one man mission against the world! LOL!

    Turns out he’s been ranting against da ebil goverbmint for years and years…see Patrick’s excellent findings on Walter’s past misadventures with authority in his latest post – a must read:

    http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/2010/06/dispatches-from-birtherstan-for-4-june-2010.html

  171. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 5, 2010 at 5:25 pm #

    yguy,

    I attributed the following comment to you:

    [The bald assertion that this website is lacking in reason or logic] wasn’t a slam against the site, but an observation that Slartibartfast couldn’t substantiate his claim WRT Lakin’s motivation, which is why he flailed like a bigot.

    To which you responded (referring to the beginning of the quote):

    yguy: I never made such an assertion, so you can go to Hell as far as I’m concerned.

    If you had basic observation and reading comprehension skills you would have noticed that the part of the comment you were objecting to was in brackets (the rest of the quote was a verbatim portion of one of your posts). The standard use of editorial brackets is to identify a section of a quote which was edited for clarity – in this case, I added the comment (from G I believe, but I’m not sure and you’re not worth taking the time to check) to which your comment was responding – without which the context was unclear. Your taking of offense here is yet another sign of your disingenuousness and ignorance in a pathetic attempt to obscure your implicit admission of hypocrisy.

    Have a nice day.

    Dr. C,

    If this comment violates your civility policy, I apologize but as this arose from yguy implying that I was a bigot, I felt that this was appropriate in my defense.

  172. avatar
    G June 5, 2010 at 5:31 pm #

    farleftliberalnutjob: Lakin does not need these records to remove …blah, blah, blah…endless stream of verbal diarrhea of total untruths and long debunked lies strung together in meaningless fashion and woven inbetween infantile poopy-head language, more reminiscent of a spoiled 5 year old crying after he trips and falls on his face and blames the world around him for his boo-boos…blah, blah, blah

    So, who’s worthless and vile sockpuppet is this?

  173. avatar
    Sef June 5, 2010 at 5:35 pm #

    G:
    Thanks for the update on crazy old coot Walt Fitzpatrick and his one man mission against the world!LOL!Turns out he’s been ranting against da ebil goverbmint for years and years…see Patrick’s excellent findings on Walter’s past misadventures with authority in his latest post – a must read:http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/2010/06/dispatches-from-birtherstan-for-4-june-2010.html

    Twitnozzle??? RPTFLMAO!

  174. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 5, 2010 at 5:47 pm #

    yguy:
    I never made such an assertion, so you can go to Hell as far as I’m concerned.

    The following is a portion of my response (which is in moderation).

    If you had basic observation and reading comprehension skills you would have noticed that the part of the comment you were objecting to was in brackets (the rest of the quote was a verbatim portion of one of your posts). The standard use of editorial brackets is to identify a section of a quote which was edited for clarity – in this case, I added the comment (from G I believe, but I’m not sure and you’re not worth taking the time to check) to which your comment was responding – without which the context was unclear. Your taking of offense here is nothing more than an attempt to obscure your implicit admission of hypocrisy.

  175. avatar
    SFJeff June 5, 2010 at 6:37 pm #

    Great history on Fitzpatrick. I would guess that most of the public Birther Crazies- Orly, Fitzpatrick have a trail of public craziness pre-dating Obama’s election.

  176. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 5, 2010 at 7:04 pm #

    I have never studied this question, but I do see a lot from California.

  177. avatar
    Arthur June 5, 2010 at 7:05 pm #

    Yes, Fitzpatrick is a fascinating, angry little man. What I wouldn’t give to have people who knew Fitzpatrick and Lakin before they became involved in their delusional windmill-tilting, tell us something about who these men are and what motivates them. I know that Fitzpatrick ran afoul of the Navy for authorizing the misuse of crew funds, but I suspect there’s more to the story than that. And what was going in Lakin’s mind?

    Dr. C., with your considerable renown and vast fortune, I’m sure you could find the appropriate sources.

  178. avatar
    Rickey June 5, 2010 at 8:03 pm #

    farleftliberalnutjob: Even OBama’s 2008 resolution in Congress allowing McCain to be eligible despite being born in Panama stated during the discussions, verbatem from Patrick Leahy” ….I understand that a natural born citizen requires two parent to be US citzens…”
    and Chertoff “…that is my understanding also…”

    You birthers can’t even quote people correctly.

    Here is what Chertoff actually said: “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born citizen.”

    To which Leahy replied, “That is mine, too.”

    They said nothing about it being a REQUIREMENT that both parents be U.S. citizens.

    It’s all here:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/25337874/SR511-Technically-a-Dfinition-of-NATURAL-BORN-CITIZEN

    And it wasn’t Obama’s resolution, it was Claire McCaskill’s resolution. Obama was merely a co-sponsor, as was Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. I’ve noticed that the birthers who bring up Senate Resolution 511 never mention Coburn’s involvement.

  179. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 5, 2010 at 8:10 pm #

    Rickey:
    You birthers can’t even quote people correctly.Here is what Chertoff actually said: “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born citizen.”To which Leahy replied, “That is mine, too.”They said nothing about it being a REQUIREMENT that both parents be U.S. citizens.It’s all here:http://www.scribd.com/doc/25337874/SR511-Technically-a-Dfinition-of-NATURAL-BORN-CITIZENAnd it wasn’t Obama’s resolution, it was Claire McCaskill’s resolution. Obama was merely a co-sponsor, as was Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. I’ve noticed that the birthers who bring up Senate Resolution 511 never mention Coburn’s involvement.

    Rickey,

    Nice catch – I hadn’t seen that before. I had assumed that it was just a mistake on Chertoff’s part (and a fairly unimportant one, at that). Thanks for setting the record straight.

  180. avatar
    Sef June 5, 2010 at 8:20 pm #

    Are there any teachers who read this blog who have any insight into how the new civics/social studies textbooks that Texas is going to make the U.S. study will treat the question of natural born citizenship?

  181. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 5, 2010 at 9:46 pm #

    farleftliberalnutjob: verbatem[sic] from Patrick Leahy” ….I understand that a natural born citizen requires two parent to be US citzens [sic]…”
    and Chertoff “…that is my understanding also…”

    I’ve been out of town attending a wedding. I saw this bastardized quote on my iPhone, but didn’t have the ability to look up and cite the correct quotation. I appreciate the commenters here who picked up on it and posted the correction. I have taken the unprecedented step (I think) of actually inserting a note in the comment itself identifying the quote as wrong. I generally believe in letting folks have their say without interruption, chafing under the same thing done to me by Donofrio. Nevertheless, this is just plain misstating the facts, and I don’t want bad facts to stand.

    I did a Google search on the bad quotation (with and without typos] and didn’t find it, suggesting that farleftliberalnutjob made it up personally and just for us.

  182. avatar
    Rickey June 5, 2010 at 10:06 pm #

    I agree with the concept that people are entitled to their own opinions but they aren’t entitled to their own facts.

  183. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 5, 2010 at 10:20 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I did a Google search on the bad quotation (with and without typos] and didn’t find it, suggesting that farleftliberalnutjob made it up personally and just for us.

    My recollection is that I’ve seen the incorrect version of the quotation before (or something similar), but not the correct one. I found the following in the Post & Email:

    Chertoff said, “It is my understanding that a natural born citizen has two parents who are citizens.”

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/17/the-senate-defined-natural-born-citizen-in-2008-and-obama-didnt-qualify/

    As you can see, this agrees in spirit with the misquote although it’s not exactly the same – my guess is that the birthers aren’t too careful when they’re altering quotations to support their arguments.

  184. avatar
    BlackLion June 6, 2010 at 11:11 am #

    From the infamous AGJ….

    http://americangrandjury.org/fair-trial#comment-28803

    The following letter was sent to the Investigating Officer who submitted his report to the JAG Court Martial proceeding stating he believes Obama’s eligibility has nothing to do with LTC Lakin’s defense..

    source: http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com

    Do you want to see that Lt. Col Lakin receives a fair trial? Do you not want every member of the military who are serving to abide by our Constitutional Law?

    “He must be allowed to present evidence of any nature and subpoena witnesses, including Obama, that will prove his innocence. Do you not believe in the United States of America with liberty, freedom and justice for all, and of course, innocent until proven guilty? The procedures that you directed sounds like a country that does not believe in due process and justice for all. Are we not the United States of America? I do hope you believe that you are in the United States Military. I respect and honor the courage of all the military, but these resolutions that you enforced display cowardice, not courage and justice and fairness and due process. Obama and many members of the Congress and the Senate should be called as witnesses, for they, along with Obama are fully aware he is not a “Natural Born Citizen.” I am a member of the American Grand Jury. If you desire to review the presentments that we have served on many, I will forward the documents to you through e-mail. ”

    And some of the comments….

    This poster might be getting the point that Lakin is cooked….

    RW&B Says:
    June 5th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
    What the hell kind of lawyer does LTC Lakin have? The guy goes on TV and shoots his mouth off about how Lakin is entirely within his rights to do what he is doing — and then when the Investigating Officer asks him to submit legal arguments he doesn’t do it?

    Come on, what kind of crap is that? He’s selling his client down the river — Lakin gets a DD and TF and possibly prison time — and we’re raising money to pay the lawyer?

    Let’s figure out who our friends are before it’s too late for poor Lakin.

    And the others…

    French Canadian Says:
    June 5th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
    One more time you will not be able to rely on the people that have power in this country, they are all corrupted to the bones. The Martial Court and their Investigating Officers are also part of that corruption.

    You can only rely on ordinary patriot citizens. I believe soldiers are ordinary patriot citizens. It is time for them to help Lt. Col Terry Lakin by standing by his side and resigning in group till Obama’s elegibility is proven in Court.

    If ordinary patriots soldiers are not willing to do that, then you are doomed for ever with no chance of ever taking back your country, unless you are ready for a civil war.

    But then again, even with a civil war, if ordinary patriot soldiers didn’t have the guts to stand by one of their own(Lt. Col Lakin), what makes you think that they will stand by you?

    French Canadian Says:
    June 5th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
    Sorry, but I am mad at your military people. Everyone praise them for been so brave and patriotic, whether they fight a legal or illegal war. Well, there is ONE LEGAL WAR in USA today, it is Obama’s eligibility.. so where are they?

    Only a few brave ones came up with this issue and did they get help from the rest of the military? NOPE!… So why praise them? Where has their bravery and patriotism gone?
    Are they only brave when it comes to killing people but have no guts when the time comes to protect and defend your Constitution against an evil Usurper? I don’t understand this, I really don’t. I’m mad as hell at them.

  185. avatar
    richCares June 6, 2010 at 8:42 pm #

    I just visited Lakin’s web site and saw a copy of his birth certificate. It is labeled as “Certificate of Live Birth”, it’s a COLB, That’s strange it’s not an original, it’s a COLB (Obama’s was a COLB as well)
    someone explain to me Lakin’s issue when Obama submitted the same form type as Lakin. I really don’t understand that..

  186. avatar
    Rickey June 6, 2010 at 9:36 pm #

    French Canadian Says:
    June 5th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
    One more time you will not be able to rely on the people that have power in this country, they are all corrupted to the bones. The Martial Court and their Investigating Officers are also part of that corruption.

    You can only rely on ordinary patriot citizens. I believe soldiers are ordinary patriot citizens. It is time for them to help Lt. Col Terry Lakin by standing by his side and resigning in group till Obama’s elegibility is proven in Court.

    That’s hilarious. If those ordinary patriot soldiers try to “resign” they will end up spending the forseeable future at Leavenworth with Lakin.

  187. avatar
    Rickey June 6, 2010 at 9:47 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    My recollection is that I’ve seen the incorrect version of the quotation before (or something similar), but not the correct one.I found the following in the Post& Email:

    One thing that we have to concede about the Post & E-Fail and WND is that they know their audiences. They know that their loyal readers will never try to independently verify what they read, but instead are likely to spread the misinformation all over the Internet.

  188. avatar
    marlio June 6, 2010 at 10:43 pm #

    WE all know that obama is a fraud, having been born in kenya. That the Congress of the United States knew he was a fraud, allowed him to run and take office, and that they are all complicit in allowing Obama to violate the Constitution of the United States of America. The military took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and what are they took about our president fraud??? NOTHING!!!

    I am glad that Terry Lakin is trying to stand up for his rights, and is standing up for all americans. Obama should be made to provide his records or why would anyone want to serve under him if he is hiding everything. I am ashamed at what has gone on!!

  189. avatar
    Bob Ross June 6, 2010 at 10:45 pm #

    marlio: WE all know that obama is a fraud, having been born in kenya.That the Congress of the United States knew he was a fraud, allowed him to run and take office, and that they are all complicit in allowing Obama to violate the Constitution of the United States of America.The military took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and what are they took about our president fraud???NOTHING!!!I am glad that Terry Lakin is trying to stand up for his rights, and is standing up for all americans.Obama should be made to provide his records or why would anyone want to serve under him if he is hiding everything.I am ashamed at what has gone on!!

    We? So do you have multiple personalities that inhabit your head? Lakin is no hero but someone who has betrayed the oath he agreed to honor. Why should Obama provide all the records no other president has been asked to provide?

  190. avatar
    Sef June 6, 2010 at 10:51 pm #

    marlio: WE all know that obama is a fraud, having been born in kenya.That the Congress of the United States knew he was a fraud, allowed him to run and take office, and that they are all complicit in allowing Obama to violate the Constitution of the United States of America.The military took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and what are they took about our president fraud???NOTHING!!!I am glad that Terry Lakin is trying to stand up for his rights, and is standing up for all americans.Obama should be made to provide his records or why would anyone want to serve under him if he is hiding everything.I am ashamed at what has gone on!!

    And I am ashamed that our supposedly vaunted education system has been so derelict that it has allowed so many people with such obviously inadequate critical thinking skills to populate our country.

  191. avatar
    marlio June 6, 2010 at 10:59 pm #

    I would think since you are so narrow minded, if is YOU that lack the Critical thinking skills and YOU probably never attended the university!!!

  192. avatar
    mikeyes June 6, 2010 at 11:09 pm #

    E GLenn Harcsar: Hi Group,Can anyone comment on how this ruling is colored by the case of the officer refusing deployment who simply had the orders changed to make the challenge irrelevant?There,the military seemingly protected the chain of command to the CIC.

    That officer was a volunteer reservist (or NG) so when he refused to go, the Army decided that this was his way of un-volunteering for the mission which is allowed in the case of reserve officers. He was not ordered to duty until he asked to go. When he decided not to go they let him stay at home.

    This is different from LTC Lakin’s situation. LTC Lakin is an active duty officer and thus has to obey all lawful orders. A lawful order is one that a reasonable person can see is not a criminal act. The originator of the order is irrelevant and there have been rulings that state that any lawful order has to be obeyed even if it is later found out that the originator of that order is not eligible to send the order. The purpose of this finding is to maintain the order of the armed services.

    When you join the military you give up some of your rights. In fact you have duties that are not present in civilian life. This is the reason a reservist can be sent home if they don’t like the orders, they are civilians until the day that they are activated.

    As an active duty member your duties outweigh your rights because you are defending the country and your duties are to honor that commitment. Among those duties is the obligation to obey all lawful orders. The UCMJ is very explicit about this.

    LTC Lakin was aware of this. I went through the same schools he did and this particular aspect of the UCMJ is stated time and again. He is charged with disobeying several orders and missing a movement. In 1991 there was a CAPT Yolanda Huet-Vaughn in my reserve unit who made the same arguments (that she disagreed with the orders due to her belief that they were not legal) and she ended up in prison. She was lucky to not have lost her license to practice medicine. I suspect that LTC Lakin will as he will be found guilty of the equivalent of a felony.

    I should point out that the officer’s oath (” I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God”) also contains a section about “faithfully” discharging his duties. This means that he has an obligation to his office and duties including obeying all lawful orders. If an officer disagrees, the honorable thing to do is to resign his commission, not hire a lawyer who went to clown college and then proceed to tell the world that he intends to disobey a lawful order. By doing that, LTC Lakin informed the court that he willfully intended to break the law. He has no defense as a result of that and has no claim to incompetent counsel due to the fact that his military lawyer, is by all accounts, one of the best in the Army.

  193. avatar
    Bob Ross June 6, 2010 at 11:10 pm #

    marlio: I would think since you are so narrow minded, if is YOU that lack the Critical thinking skills and YOU probably never attended the university!!!

    The University? Are you saying there’s only one in this country? Is it the all powerful mighty university?

  194. avatar
    Sef June 6, 2010 at 11:21 pm #

    marlio: I would think since you are so narrow minded, if is YOU that lack the Critical thinking skills and YOU probably never attended the university!!!

    Please describe the data & thought process by which you arrived at the conclusions you presented in your original post.

  195. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 6, 2010 at 11:40 pm #

    marlio: I would think since you are so narrow minded, if is YOU that lack the Critical thinking skills and YOU probably never attended the university!!!

    Could you please elucidate the reasoning by which you advocate ignoring the Constitution, the SCOTUS rulings by which it has been interpreted as well as the facts at issue to exonerate a man who is clearly guilty of an offense by the UCMJ (whether or not President Obama is eligible) which he committed in an attempt to remove a duly elected, legitimate president in a manner implicitly forbidden by the Constitution in defiance of the will of the people.

    I await your response.

    And for the record:

    BS in mathematics from Michigan State University in 1991
    MS in mathematics from Michigan State University in 1995
    PhD in mathematics from Duke University in 2004

  196. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 6, 2010 at 11:54 pm #

    markio: WE all know that obama is a fraud, having been born in kenya.

    You were born in Kenya? Do they not teach capitalization there in Kenya?

    You may think you know the real truth and that the entire US Congress is in on the conspiracy, but I think you are deluded. Lakin is just wasting his future for nothing.

  197. avatar
    Greg June 7, 2010 at 1:27 am #

    mikeyes: That officer was a volunteer reservist (or NG) so when he refused to go, the Army decided that this was his way of un-volunteering for the mission which is allowed in the case of reserve officers. He was not ordered to duty until he asked to go. When he decided not to go they let him stay at home.This is different from LTC Lakin’s situation. LTC Lakin is an active duty officer and thus has to obey all lawful orders. A lawful order is one that a reasonable person can see is not a criminal act. The originator of the order is irrelevant and there have been rulings that state that any lawful order has to be obeyed even if it is later found out that the originator of that order is not eligible to send the order. The purpose of this finding is to maintain the order of the armed services.When you join the military you give up some of your rights. In fact you have duties that are not present in civilian life. This is the reason a reservist can be sent home if they don’t like the orders, they are civilians until the day that they are activated. As an active duty member your duties outweigh your rights because you are defending the country and your duties are to honor that commitment. Among those duties is the obligation to obey all lawful orders. The UCMJ is very explicit about this.LTC Lakin was aware of this. I went through the same schools he did and this particular aspect of the UCMJ is stated time and again. He is charged with disobeying several orders and missing a movement. In 1991 there was a CAPT Yolanda Huet-Vaughn in my reserve unit who made the same arguments (that she disagreed with the orders due to her belief that they were not legal) and she ended up in prison. She was lucky to not have lost her license to practice medicine. I suspect that LTC Lakin will as he will be found guilty of the equivalent of a felony.I should point out that the officer’s oath (” I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God”) also contains a section about “faithfully” discharging his duties. This means that he has an obligation to his office and duties including obeying all lawful orders. If an officer disagrees, the honorable thing to do is to resign his commission, not hire a lawyer who went to clown college and then proceed to tell the world that he intends to disobey a lawful order. By doing that, LTC Lakin informed the court that he willfully intended to break the law. He has no defense as a result of that and has no claim to incompetent counsel due to the fact that his military lawyer, is by all accounts, one of the best in the Army.

    BugZptr: I feel that Lakin’s defence has overlooked some great avenues of discrediting the Obama regime.Although promised greater transparency and so on I feel very let down. As a loyal O-Bot I’m available and ready to serve on a “Death panel”. I’m also quite happy to escort republicans to their new homes in FEMA camps. To date I have not been offered either of these positions.

  198. avatar
    Greg June 7, 2010 at 1:31 am #

    What you are all missing is that his deployment is an unlawful order due to the fact war has not been declared. The military action itself is an unlawful order. Just as sure as most have been for the past 40-50 years. Congress has not made a declaration of war thus making it unlawful.

  199. avatar
    G June 7, 2010 at 1:57 am #

    marlio: : I would think since you are so narrow minded, if is YOU that lack the Critical thinking skills and YOU probably never attended the university!!!

    Bob Ross:
    The University? Are you saying there’s only one in this country? Is it the all powerful mighty university?

    LOL! I noticed that too. It must be “The University” that all the voices in his head attended together. I mean, what else can explain what he meant by “WE all know…”, other than that, right? Maybe all of his internal voices went to the fictional Wattsamatta U and spend most of their time plotting with himself on how to best capture moose and squirrel. πŸ™‚

  200. avatar
    Lawrence June 7, 2010 at 2:21 am #

    Greg: What you are all missing is that his deployment is an unlawful order due to the fact war has not been declared.

    He was not ordered to war he was ordered to report to a duty station for duty as a medical officer. Don’t need congress to declare war in order to properly transfer military personnel. It is all very simple. He disobeyed an order and missed movement. Solution: Courts Martial

  201. avatar
    Arthur June 7, 2010 at 4:00 am #

    Slartibartfast:
    .And for the record:BS in mathematics from Michigan State University in 1991
    MS in mathematics from Michigan State University in 1995
    PhD in mathematics from Duke University in 2004

    Your academic background is impressive, and it was interesting to learn where and when you obtained your training. I suspect Marlio knows little about the intellectual rigor required to complete a doctorate in math, especially one from Duke. Mathematics is the foundation of all the sciences, and represents the purest form of critical thinking imaginable. Although I struggled miserably in every math course I ever took, I have a deep respect for mathematics, and I hold considerable awe for those who have obtained advanced degrees in the subject. Since the founding of the great medieval universities of England, Spain, France, Italy and Germany, mathematics (together with rhetoric, music, philosophy, theology, and astronomy) constituted the core of liberal arts training.

    I imagine that if we asked those who post on this website to list their curricula vitae, the credentials of those who help debunk conspiratorial thinking would be considerably more impressive than those who help perpetuate it. Unfortunately, the United States has a strong anti-intellectual bent, so many would find a disparity in academic training and achievement unimportant.

  202. avatar
    misha June 7, 2010 at 4:24 am #

    Arthur: Unfortunately, the United States has a strong anti-intellectual bent, so many would find a disparity in academic training and achievement unimportant.

    You have the fundies to thank for that.

  203. avatar
    misha June 7, 2010 at 4:33 am #

    marlio: I would think since you are so narrow minded, if is YOU that lack the Critical thinking skills and YOU probably never attended the university!!!

    – The Kenya birth scenario is physically impossible:
    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-born-in-kenya-no.html

    – I have two degrees: English/photography, double major; addtional degree in Optical Technology. I made a career as a licensed optician. The Jesuits taught critical thinking.

    I suggest you improve your writing skills.

  204. avatar
    misha June 7, 2010 at 5:10 am #

    marlio: WE all know that obama is a fraud, having been born in kenya.

    Where in Kenya were you born? Watch those dangling participles.

    I am glad that Terry Lakin is trying to stand up for his rights, and is standing up for all americans. Obama should be made to provide his records or why would anyone want to serve under him if he is hiding everything.

    Hiding records? OK, here’s Shrub’s DUI misdemeanor conviction:

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html

    I am ashamed at what has gone on!!

    OK – Bush: God told me to invade Iraq
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-509925.html

  205. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny June 7, 2010 at 5:14 am #

    G: LOL! I noticed that too. It must be “The University” that all the voices in his head attended together. I mean, what else can explain what he meant by “WE all know…”, other than that, right? Maybe all of his internal voices went to the fictional Wattsamatta U and spend most of their time plotting with himself on how to best capture moose and squirrel.

    It is just Orlyspeak, folks. Runglish.

  206. avatar
    Arthur June 7, 2010 at 5:51 am #

    misha: Arthur:Unfortunately, the United States has a strong anti-intellectual bent, so many would find a disparity in academic training and achievement unimportant.You have the fundies to thank for that.

    I strongly agree–although there is a certain amount of belligerent, “South Parkian” know-nothingness in our country that is unaffiliated with religion. But I tolerate that sort of ignorance better than the Jesusland, “I-believe-in-the-Holy-Ghost-so-I’m-right” attitude.

    I’ve found a great deal of similarity between the fears and tactics of creationists and those of the birthers. Both believe that a cataclysm will soon destroy America unless everyone does what they say, both reject reason and objective facts in favor of solipsistic hallelujahism, and both are quick to use lies, obfuscation, misstatement, and religious chauvinism, to advance their agenda.

    When the Republican Party got in bed with the fundies back in the 1980s, they developed a bad case of intellectual gonorrhea from which they’ve never recovered.

  207. avatar
    Black Lion June 7, 2010 at 9:40 am #

    marlio: I would think since you are so narrow minded, if is YOU that lack the Critical thinking skills and YOU probably never attended the university!!!

    I have a suspicion that out friend here is not in the US. By using the sland “atetnding the university” it seems that he may be from Europe or Africa or was “educated” there. The American idiom would probably be “never attended college”….

  208. avatar
    JoZeppy June 7, 2010 at 10:49 am #

    Black Lion: I have a suspicion that out friend here is not in the US. By using the sland “atetnding the university” it seems that he may be from Europe or Africa or was “educated” there. The American idiom would probably be “never attended college”….

    My guess would be Eastern European. The European idiom is generally “attended university.” However, Slavic languages don’t use articles, and it is easy to spot a person whose native language is a Slavic tounge by their difficulties in knowing when to use or not use the words “the,” or “a.” Orly, is it you?

  209. avatar
    Sef June 7, 2010 at 11:19 am #

    Maybe marlio was referring to “the university” in a similar way as “the city” refers to NYC or “the Times” refers to the London Times. If that is the case, I probably did not.

  210. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 7, 2010 at 1:23 pm #

    Black Lion: I have a suspicion that out friend [marlio] here is not in the US.

    Marlio is posting from the US, and not a part of the US I had ever associated with Africans or Europeans.

  211. avatar
    G June 7, 2010 at 1:56 pm #

    Arthur: When the Republican Party got in bed with the fundies back in the 1980s, they developed a bad case of intellectual gonorrhea from which they’ve never recovered.

    Sadly, very true. All it has done is spread like a cancer from within since then.

  212. avatar
    Sef June 7, 2010 at 2:26 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Marlio is posting from the US, and not a part of the US I had ever associated with Africans or Europeans.

    One of SIster Sarah’s sock puppets?

  213. avatar
    Bovril June 7, 2010 at 2:43 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Marlio is posting from the US, and not a part of the US I had ever associated with Africans or Europeans.

    So….by some element of deductive reasoning…..

    The individual is NOT posting from

    The classic “War of Northern Aggression” states
    Any of the Eastern seaboard states
    Any of the physical “top tier” states (AK, WA, OR, ID, WY, ND/SD, IL, IN, NY, ME etc)
    Not a “non” state such as PR, AVI, Samoa

    My deduction and it is worth every penny you paid for it is

    HI or NM with TX as an outlier

  214. avatar
    mikeyes June 7, 2010 at 3:06 pm #

    Greg: What you are all missing is that his deployment is an unlawful order due to the fact war has not been declared. The military action itself is an unlawful order. Just as sure as most have been for the past 40-50 years. Congress has not made a declaration of war thus making it unlawful.

    Ironically that is the same defense that CAPT Yolanda Huet-Vaughn tried. At that time she hired a civilian lawyer to help her (only he was an anti-war activist) and ignored the advice of her military counsel. It didn’t work then either. She could have asked to stay at Ft. Leavenworth as a Family Practice doctor instead of going to the Gulf but decided to go on a tour of friendly radio, TV, and other meetings to promote her cause. LTC Lakin’s journey is a step for step reprisal of her attempt to make a political point only from the right instead of the left.

    She managed to keep her license (but paid a substantial fine to the Kansas Board of Medical Examiners) after her incarceration and is now a prominent – if that is the word – anti-war speaker. She continues to make a living as a physician. LTC Lakin may not be so lucky.

  215. avatar
    Dr. David Goliath June 7, 2010 at 4:03 pm #

    LTC Lakin is entitled to an affirmative defense based on his assertion the CiC is not eligible.

    Unlike Michael New, Stefan Cook and Capt. Rhodes, Lakin approached his superior officers and requested advice on the procedure to verify the CiC’s credentials before he contacted his lawyer. It is likely, in light of the Cook lawsuit and Rhodes restraining order request, Lakin’s superiors contacted those up the chain of command because they had prior knowledge Lakin questioned the eligibility of POTUS. Consequently, the de facto officer doctrine does not apply in this case.

    Evidence within the control of the US government is available to substantiate or discredit the credentials of POTUS; such as, SSN application form, IRS returns, passport application as a minor, passport application as an adult, etc.

  216. avatar
    Greg (different one) June 7, 2010 at 4:04 pm #

    This is true. Never the less it is an unlawful order and just goes to show that the rule of law in America is only used when it fits certain agendas. Thus making the establishment no longer a lawful one. Commonly refered to as corruption. Not that it was not done to draw attention to his cause because it was.If His cause was against America on the other hand they would be pinning a medal on him and praising his courage.IMO Oh the irony.

  217. avatar
    Sef June 7, 2010 at 4:23 pm #

    Dr. David Goliath: LTC Lakin is entitled to an affirmative defense based on his assertion the CiC is not eligible.Unlike Michael New, Stefan Cook and Capt. Rhodes, Lakin approached his superior officers and requested advice on the procedure to verify the CiC’s credentials before he contacted his lawyer. It is likely, in light of the Cook lawsuit and Rhodes restraining order request, Lakin’s superiors contacted those up the chain of command because they had prior knowledge Lakin questioned the eligibility of POTUS. Consequently, the de facto officer doctrine does not apply in this case.Evidence within the control of the US government is available to substantiate or discredit the credentials of POTUS; such as, SSN application form, IRS returns, passport application as a minor, passport application as an adult, etc.

    Is this one of Manning’s sock puppets?

  218. avatar
    Black Lion June 7, 2010 at 4:23 pm #

    Greg: This is true. Never the less it is an unlawful order and just goes to show that the rule of law in America is only used when it fits certain agendas. Thus making the establishment no longer a lawful one. Commonly refered to as corruption. Not that it was not done to draw attention to his cause because it was.If His cause was against America on the other hand they would be pinning a medal on him and praising his courage.IMO Oh the irony.

    Are there 2 Greg’s posting on this site?

  219. avatar
    Greg June 7, 2010 at 4:27 pm #

    Black Lion: Greg

    Yeah, that’s not me.

    Interesting, since it looks like a misrepresentation of an argument I had with yguy a few weeks ago.

  220. avatar
    Black Lion June 7, 2010 at 4:28 pm #

    Dr. David Goliath: LTC Lakin is entitled to an affirmative defense based on his assertion the CiC is not eligible.Unlike Michael New, Stefan Cook and Capt. Rhodes, Lakin approached his superior officers and requested advice on the procedure to verify the CiC’s credentials before he contacted his lawyer. It is likely, in light of the Cook lawsuit and Rhodes restraining order request, Lakin’s superiors contacted those up the chain of command because they had prior knowledge Lakin questioned the eligibility of POTUS. Consequently, the de facto officer doctrine does not apply in this case.Evidence within the control of the US government is available to substantiate or discredit the credentials of POTUS; such as, SSN application form, IRS returns, passport application as a minor, passport application as an adult, etc.

    Wow….Did he miss any of the discredited birther misinformation regarding Lakin? You notice how these “sock puppets” can never link or confim their so called legal analysis with any real legal expert or site. They just recycle the same stuff. Well Doc, can you provide us with any real or admissible evidence which would make anyone think that such evidence exists? Because I think the US government is hiding the fact that we were once visited by aliens, specifically Vulcans. This “evidence: is in control of the US government. I just need discovery and a true constitutional expert like Orly, Mario, or Leo to get to the bottom of this conspiracy.

  221. avatar
    Bob Ross June 7, 2010 at 4:29 pm #

    marlio: I would think since you are so narrow minded, if is YOU that lack the Critical thinking skills and YOU probably never attended the university!!!

    ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!!!!
    http://www.newgrounds.com/collection/allyourbase

    Sorry Doc I just couldn’t resist.

  222. avatar
    Black Lion June 7, 2010 at 4:30 pm #

    Greg: Yeah, that’s not me. Interesting, since it looks like a misrepresentation of an argument I had with yguy a few weeks ago.

    The writing did not seem like yours. I have read your posts long enough to realize when it doesn’t sound like you. Maybe it is yguy or wtf trying to be funny and misreperesent the original Greg on this site….

  223. avatar
    Bob Ross June 7, 2010 at 4:32 pm #

    Black Lion: Wow….Did he miss any of the discredited birther misinformation regarding Lakin? You notice how these “sock puppets” can never link or confim their so called legal analysis with any real legal expert or site. They just recycle the same stuff. Well Doc, can you provide us with any real or admissible evidence which would make anyone think that such evidence exists? Because I think the US government is hiding the fact that we were once visited by aliens, specifically Vulcans. This “evidence: is in control of the US government. I just need discovery and a true constitutional expert like Orly, Mario, or Leo to get to the bottom of this conspiracy.

    Doc can I change my alias to Dr. Kenneth Noisewater like from Anchorman? One of you guys can be James Westfall

  224. avatar
    Black Lion June 7, 2010 at 4:33 pm #

    BTW, anyone else read this crap analysis that has the birther world in a frenzy?

    http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/extra-extra-announcing-obamas-birth/#comment-135

    The birhters have crossposted this stuff all over.

    “This research project focuses on recently discovered facts surrounding the Barack Obama newspaper birth announcements. I realized quite some time ago that although many people knew there was scant information, and that the first images presented to the public looked doctored to many, no one out there had done a full-on comparison of copies covering a broad range of dates. Or, even more importantly to my mind, no one had done comparisons on copies from multiple libraries -personally collected- on a large scale. I set off to do so.”

  225. avatar
    Scientist June 7, 2010 at 4:36 pm #

    Dr Goliath-You are correct that the de facto officer doctrine does not apply. More precisely, it is unnecessary, since the President and the entire chain of command above Lt Col Lakin is 100% legitimate. The President was elected and the election was certified by Congress. He was sworn in by the Chief Justice and all suits contesting the election have been dismissed.

    The documents you cite (by the way his tax retirns are available on line) are irrelevant, because nothing in them could change the above facts. Lakin is guilty under any scenario. Which I’m sure his military lawyer has told him multiple times.

    As Tennyson said in regard to soldiers, “Ours is not to question why, ours is but to do or die.” Lakin knew that when he volunteered.

  226. avatar
    mikeyes June 7, 2010 at 4:45 pm #

    Greg: This is true. Never the less it is an unlawful order and just goes to show that the rule of law in America is only used when it fits certain agendas

    Greg (and I know I shouldn’t feed the troll),

    Case law is very clear about the issue of an unlawful order. It has to be a facially unlawful order which means that the content of the order has to demand a criminal act of the person receiving the order before you can object to it, not that the person giving the order has no right to do so. In fact, the case law is clear about that too, all orders are presumed to be from a lawful source and must be followed. It is the duty of a soldier to follow orders otherwise military order will break down and the safety of the country put at risk.

    LTC Lakin knew this. Not only did he check with authorities but unless he cheated or was asleep during his schools (and if you check his record he went to a lot of schools) he is aware of his duty and his oath which states: “I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.” Those obligations include obeying all orders given to him unless he can demonstrate that they are facially unlawful or criminal. A change of duty station clearly does not fit that rubric under the law, UCMJ, and case law.

    if you have case law that is different, now is the time to show it.

  227. avatar
    SFJeff June 7, 2010 at 5:07 pm #

    I sort of suspect that this is one of Sven’s posts.

  228. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 7, 2010 at 5:29 pm #

    Black Lion: BTW, anyone else read this crap analysis that has the birther world in a frenzy?

    Itooktheredpill posted the link in a comment on an old thread on his blog:

    http://itooktheredpill.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/graphic-defining-natural-born-citizenship/

    Here is my reply (he hasn’t answered yet):

    itooktheredpill,

    Sorry to have dropped this discussion for so long (I got distracted by something shiny), but your latest post called it to my attention again. I read the article you linked and I’m wondering: what do you think that it shows?

    Discussion of the birth announcement seems pretty pointless to me. The only court to give a definition of natural born citizen (the Indiana court in Ankeny) has said that, based on the Wong Kim Ark decision, anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen. While this ruling is not binding on other courts, there is no reason to suspect that any judge in the country would rule differently. Thus the COLB (meaning a certified copy with information matching the document published on-line) is prima facie proof that President Obama is a natural born citizen.

    (Incidentally, if the people promoting de Vattel’s definition of natural born citizenship’ – a phrase first translated into english 10 years AFTER the Constitution was ratified, by the way – are so keen on getting a court to define the term, why don’t they just appeal the Ankeny decision? Is it because they are afraid of having a federal court uphold the definition that everyone understood to be correct before 2008?)

    So, assuming that a state passes a law similar to the one that recently failed in Arizona or someone (with standing) challenges the president’s eligibility in the run-up to the 2012 election, what do you think will happen? My guess is, it will go something like this: When asked to prove his eligibility by a court of competent jurisdiction, a certified copy of the COLB will be produced (possibly with an affidavit from Hawaiian officials). At this point the president will have satisfied his burden of proof – any state court will have to accept it because of the full faith and credit’ clause of the Constitution and any federal court will have to accept it because it meets the federal definition of a birth certificate’. Then the burden of proof will be shifted to the plaintiff. In order to show that the COLB was fraudulent, the plaintiff would have to show things like: a Kenyan (or other foreign) birth certificate with affidavits from governmental officials testifying to its veracity; passport or customs records showing that Dr. Dunham was out of the country at the time of the president’s birth; or evidence that the president’s grandmother (or someone else) had fraudulently registered an out-of-country birth. This evidence would have to be both admissible in court (and no judge is going to grant discovery to go on a fishing expedition into the president’s records without evidence FIRST) and out-weigh the word of the Hawaiian government (which is what a certified copy of the COLB is).

    Even if such evidence was produced, there is a very strong argument (in my opinion) that the president was born a US citizen: because Barack Obama Sr. and Dr. Dunham were not legally married (since he was already married), the laws in force at the time would have allowed Dr. Dunham to pass US citizenship on to her son. Thus it would come down to the arcane legal minutia of whether citizens born abroad were natural born’ or naturalized at birth’ (this is about as far as you can get from settled law). I’m guessing that the SCOTUS (it would certainly end up there in this circumstance) would be very hesitant to rule against the eligibility of a sitting president (as well as all of the children of US citizens born abroad such as John McCain) when the law was not clear.

    In short, you are basing your hopes on a thread so small as to be non-existent. The odds of the president being declared ineligible are smaller than those of parleying the Detroit Lions winning the Super Bowl with Duke University winning the NCAA championship in football (and that’s pretty small ;-)). Don’t you have better things to do?

  229. avatar
    Sef June 7, 2010 at 6:09 pm #

    Slartibartfast: The odds of the president being declared ineligible are smaller than those of parleying the Detroit Lions winning the Super Bowl with Duke University winning the NCAA championship in football (and that’s pretty small πŸ˜‰ ). Don’t you have better things to do?

    How about making it a trifecta by adding the Pirates winning the World Series. (Someone’s gotta be in the cellar. The birthers are never going to get a “bloop & a blast”.)

  230. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 7, 2010 at 6:53 pm #

    Sef:
    How about making it a trifecta by adding the Pirates winning the World Series. (Someone’s gotta be in the cellar. The birthers are never going to get a “bloop & a blast”.)

    I was limiting it to ‘my’ teams – I got my PhD at Duke (and was a big-time Cameron Crazie back in my day…) and I’m a natural born Lions fan (we all have our crosses to bear ;-)). Besides, the Duke football – Lions parley is already small enough to be in the same ballpark as the Birther’s chances…

  231. avatar
    marlio June 7, 2010 at 8:33 pm #

    Just for the record, I have a degree in business, and one in music, flute performance. You are a lemming Bob, I dont care what degrees you have.

  232. avatar
    misha June 7, 2010 at 8:39 pm #

    marlio: Just for the record, I have a degree in business, and one in music, flute performance.

    Here’s a concert level flute performance. Maybe you know her:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvp7woNA9gw

  233. avatar
    Arthur June 7, 2010 at 8:47 pm #

    Marlio:

    No, YOU’RE a lemming. Hey, this birther-tag is fun! Anyone else want to play?

  234. avatar
    misha June 7, 2010 at 9:07 pm #

    Arthur: Marlio: No, YOU’RE a lemming. Hey, this birther-tag is fun! Anyone else want to play?

    Lemmings? Did someone say ‘lemmings’?!

    Ah, here it is: http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i10066

  235. avatar
    Dr. David Goliath June 7, 2010 at 9:21 pm #

    Scientist: Dr Goliath-You are correct that the de facto officer doctrine does not apply.More precisely, it is unnecessary, since the President and the entire chain of command above Lt Col Lakin is 100% legitimate.The President was elected and the election was certified by Congress.He was sworn in by the Chief Justice and all suits contesting the election have been dismissed.The documents you cite (by the way his tax retirns are available on line) are irrelevant, because nothing in them could change the above facts.Lakin is guilty under any scenario.Which I’m sure his military lawyer has told him multiple times.As Tennyson said in regard to soldiers, “Ours is not to question why, ours is but to do or die.”Lakin knew that when he volunteered.

    There is a COLB posted and tax returns posted, but no verification they came from the controlling authorities in possession of the documents.

    For example, let’s say I create two tax returns. One is factual and has by AGI at $50,000. The other is publicly posted and has my AGI at $75,000. If you dispute statement I make over $75,000 a year, I’ll refer you to my publicly posted tax return. If you need further proof, you can have professional tax preparers go over the publicly posted tax return with a fine tooth comb and you’ll find everything is in order.

    The problem is I don’t make $75,000 per year and you can’t prove I’ve lied about it until you examine a certified copy provided by the IRS.

    The same scenario works for the COLB.

  236. avatar
    Bob Ross June 7, 2010 at 10:08 pm #

    marlio: Just for the record, I have a degree in business, and one in music, flute performance.You are a lemming Bob, I dont care what degrees you have.

    “Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah” You really are doing an encore performance of the tiniest violin solo

  237. avatar
    Bob Ross June 7, 2010 at 10:09 pm #

    Dr. David Goliath:
    There is a COLB posted and tax returns posted, but no verification they came from the controlling authorities in possession of the documents.
    For example, let’s say I create two tax returns. One is factual and has by AGI at $50,000. The other is publicly posted and has my AGI at $75,000. If you dispute statement I make over $75,000 a year, I’ll refer you to my publicly posted tax return.If you need further proof, you can have professional tax preparers go over the publicly posted tax return with a fine tooth comb and you’ll find everything is in order.The problem is I don’t make $75,000 per year and you can’t prove I’ve lied about it until you examine a certified copy provided by the IRS.The same scenario works for the COLB.

    Except for the fact that state officials have confirmed the records. But you don’t believe public officials anyway.

  238. avatar
    misha June 7, 2010 at 10:23 pm #

    Bob Ross: Except for the fact that state officials have confirmed the records. But you don’t believe public officials anyway.

    When have the Denialists ever let facts get in the way of their stories? C’mon, get with the program.

  239. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 7, 2010 at 10:30 pm #

    Dr. David Goliath: There is a COLB posted and tax returns posted, but no verification they came from the controlling authorities in possession of the documents.

    The director of the Department of Health in Hawaii, which is the agency in charge of maintaining the documents, has confirmed in public statements that Obama was born in Hawaii. You can confirm this by going to the DOH web site That’s all the verification you need.

    To use your analogy, if you posted a tax return showing that your AGI was $50K, and for some reason you were a public figure and the IRS wanted to confirm your AGI and issued a public statement confirming that indeed, your AGI was $50k, and also posted a notice on its web site confirming that your AGI was $50K…. then it really wouldn’t matter whether or not you had posted a true and accurate copy of your tax return. If your AGI was $50K and you posted a false tax return showing $75K under circumstances where you could reasonably believe the IRS was likely to become aware of your posting — you would be a fool, because of course if you did that the IRS would NOT confirm your fake AGI statement and you could run into all sorts of trouble if the IRS made a public statement as to your fraud. So you wouldn’t do that.

    To put it another way: DOH confirms Obama was born in Hawaii, so therefore we know that it is possible for him to obtain a genuine COLB. What possible reason or motive would there be for him to post a false one?

  240. avatar
    Bob Ross June 7, 2010 at 10:48 pm #

    misha:
    When have the Denialists ever let facts get in the way of their stories? C’mon, get with the program.

    I still want to be Dr Kenneth Noisewater

  241. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 7, 2010 at 11:01 pm #

    Bob Ross: Doc can I change my alias to Dr. Kenneth Noisewater like from Anchorman? One of you guys can be James Westfall

    Ask Sven (Dr. Goliath). He can show you how to change it.

  242. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 7, 2010 at 11:07 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Ask Sven (Dr. Goliath). He can show you how to change it.

    I just don’t want to break any rules by being a sockpuppet. I’m clearly stating my purpose here.

  243. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 7, 2010 at 11:12 pm #

    Bovril: HI or NM with TX as an outlier

    I’m impressed.

  244. avatar
    Sef June 9, 2010 at 12:03 pm #

    This just in: Lakin has waived his right to the Art 32 on June 11. See http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/lakin-waves-article-32-hearing/

    and
    http://www.caaflog.com/2010/06/09/ltc-lakin-waived-his-article-32-investigation/

  245. avatar
    Bovril June 9, 2010 at 1:07 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Bovril: HI or NM with TX as an outlier
    I’m impressed.

    We aim to please…..8-)

  246. avatar
    Black Lion June 9, 2010 at 1:38 pm #

    Delusional birthers, this time from old friend JB Williams over at the CW cesspool….The usual nonsense but hilarious conclusion….It goes to show you that the longer Obama is President, the more delusional the birthers become….

    http://citizenstsunami.wordpress.com/2010/06/04/militar-officers-feeding-on-each-other-with-the-yellow-streak-running-down-there-back-as-they-turn-away-from-the-constitution/

  247. avatar
    Daniel June 9, 2010 at 1:51 pm #

    And the new nutjob conspiracies begin…. right on schedule
    Open letter to Steve Poizner

    Re: Precinct Walk With Steve Poizner
    Wednesday, June 9, 2010 8:21 AM
    From:

    “Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ”

    View contact details
    To:
    “Brian Anders OC REPUBLIC” , “bernie polak”
    Cc:
    “GOPUSA” , “Orly Taitz”
    Can you call me at 949-683-5411?
    I researched electrons results. All the candidates, who were strong against illegal immigration were kept at around 25%.
    Very telling are the results of the race for sheriff. I followed that race. there was a tremendous support for Bill Hunt, who is a retired sheriff of San Clemente, who blew the whistle on sheriff Carona and sent him packing and to jail for public corruption.
    Sandra Hutchins was appointed by the county supervisors after Carona was removed, even though Hunt ran against Carona in the previous election and was an obvious choice.
    During this election Hunt had tremendous support. Hutchins barely even campaigned, as if she knew that she will make it no matter what. The whole county was covered with yard signs “Hunt for Sheriff”. Everyone was sure that he will win. Nobody believes the polling results, showing Hutchins getting more than double vote over Hunt 56% Hutchins, 24% Bill Hunt, 20% Gregg Hunter.
    If you look Nationwide teaparty backed candidates were winning elections: Sharon Angle in NV, Rand Paul in KY. In CA all tea party backed candidates were kept at this imaginary line of about 25%. In my election in Los Angeles county I got over 30% and statewide 26%, but all in all there was a wall, and tea party backed candidates, anti illegal immigration candidates, pro second amendmet candidates, anti-corrupt establishment candidates were kept behind that wall.
    It worries me, it means the candidates that were elected, regardless of the party will vote for amnesty. Some surveys show that there are 30 million illegals in this country. If they go through amnesty, it is the end of the republic as we know it. We will be a de facto destitute third world banana republic (we might be there already considering wide spread corruption in the government, Congress, department of justice and judiciary). I hope Steve Poizner does not stop the fight. He is a billioner. He can provide financial support for legal actions, canvassing, analysis of Diebolt and Sequoia voting machines, outreach to the voters to fight corrupt and toxic thugs in the media. He is a father. I hope he wants his daughter and his future granchildren to live in a constitutional Republic, not tyranny that we are seing today. Please contact him and asked him to continue the fight,
    Sincerely
    Dr. Orly Taitz, ESq

  248. avatar
    Daniel June 9, 2010 at 1:52 pm #

    whoops posted to wrong entry, sorry Doc

  249. avatar
    ron June 9, 2010 at 9:38 pm #

    Greg: What you are all missing is that his deployment is an unlawful order due to the fact war has not been declared. The military action itself is an unlawful order. Just as sure as most have been for the past 40-50 years. Congress has not made a declaration of war thus making it unlawful.

    so you suggest a full mutiny by all miltary members. if that was to happen say goodbye to america.

    Thank God people know better, thats just crazy.

  250. avatar
    Dr. David Goliath (not Sven Magnussen) June 10, 2010 at 1:18 am #

    Expelliarmus:
    What possible reason or motive would there be for him to post a false one?

    After 1971-72, BHO’s birth record was “AMENDED.” As Dr. Pollard has demonstrated with a Youtube video presentation, BHO’s COLB was forged to cover up the fact BHO’s forged document is accurate in detail, except the word “AMENDED” has been eliminated from the forgery.

    To date, BHO denies he was ever a person named Barry Soetoro and yet, he has demanded Barry Soetoro’s documents remained sealed in the Allen v Soetoro FOIA lawsuit.

    Questions for Dr. Fukino:

    Was Barack Hussein Obama’s birth record amended in 1971, 72? Did Barry Soetoro become persona non grata at this time? Are Barry Soetoro’s records within the control of the Hawaii DoH sealed by court order at this time?

    Question for Gov. Lingle:

    Did Barack Hussein Obama received AFDC payments in Hawaii as a legal alien or a US citizen?

  251. avatar
    G June 10, 2010 at 1:30 am #

    I have a hard time believing that the post above is not from Sven. The person writing it sounds just as delusional. What a load of laughable garbage! Hint to kooky poster – using the outed fraud, “Pollard” as your reference instantly kills your credibility. The rest of the nonsense in your post just provides further evidence that you live in a weird fictional world.

  252. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 10, 2010 at 1:41 am #

    G: I have a hard time believing that the post above is not from Sven.

    It’s Sven.

  253. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 10, 2010 at 7:12 am #

    Here is a video of soon-to-be-mister Lakin explaining why he waived his hearing:

    http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2010/06/10/lakin-speaks/

    I find it interesting that a doctor who says he’s delivered many babies doesn’t seem to know anything about HIPPA regulations and what information is protected from public disclosure…

  254. avatar
    Black Lion June 10, 2010 at 4:15 pm #

    More about Lakin….

    From CAAFlog….

    “LTC Lakin’s new video discussing why he waived his Article 32 investigation is now online at the link we provided below. In the video, he acknowledges that his case will now be referred for trial by court-martial. He then goes on at length discussing why he believes there is serious doubt as to whether President Obama was born in Hawaii, as confirmed by Hawaiian officials.

    I’m on the road right now, so I won’t be discussing the merits of LTC Lakin’s statements. I’m unlikely to revisit his claims this weekend, both because we’ve discussed some of them before and they are well debunked elsewhere. But more importantly, LTC Lakin’s arguments about President Obama are irrelevant for purposes of his court-martial. Even if his suspicions had merit (they don’t), the orders that he received and disobeyed would still be legally valid. As discussed by the Supreme Court in Ryder v. United States, the de facto officer doctrine would give effect to government officials’ actions even if one of their superiors were improperly in office. The Supreme Court said the de facto officer doctrine exists to prevent the chaos that would occur were an official’s disqualification to invalidate the government’s actions. LTC Lakin and his supporters appear to invite such chaos by giving military personnel unilateral discretion to obey or disobey orders at their pleasure. No military or civilian court will accept that position. Nor should they.”

    http://www.caaflog.com/2010/06/09/ltc-lakins-new-video-is-now-available/

  255. avatar
    G June 10, 2010 at 5:14 pm #

    Black Lion: I’m on the road right now, so I won’t be discussing the merits of LTC Lakin’s statements. I’m unlikely to revisit his claims this weekend, both because we’ve discussed some of them before and they are well debunked elsewhere. But more importantly, LTC Lakin’s arguments about President Obama are irrelevant for purposes of his court-martial. Even if his suspicions had merit (they don’t), the orders that he received and disobeyed would still be legally valid. As discussed by the Supreme Court in Ryder v. United States, the de facto officer doctrine would give effect to government officials’ actions even if one of their superiors were improperly in office. The Supreme Court said the de facto officer doctrine exists to prevent the chaos that would occur were an official’s disqualification to invalidate the government’s actions. LTC Lakin and his supporters appear to invite such chaos by giving military personnel unilateral discretion to obey or disobey orders at their pleasure. No military or civilian court will accept that position. Nor should they.”

    Thanks Slartibartfast & Black Lion for those video links & updates from caaflog.com

    I watched the video and agree with caaflog here.

    As they pointed out, none of Lakin’s birther arguments are relevant to the charges he’s facing.

    Furthermore, every single birther argument he makes is nothing but the same long-dead and debunked arguments we’ve heard over and over again.

    As Slartibartfast points out, it seems quite surprising that a military doctor would willfully pretend that HIPPA doesn’t exist.

    Therefore, I don’t know how much of a true patsy he is in this whole birther scheme. He is willfully complicit in putting forward misstatements and arguments that even he has to know are not true.

    I have no sympathy for Lakin and his little martyrdom quest. He deserves to get the maximum penalty they can throw at him. He has chosen to become a disgrace to that uniform and to our country.

  256. avatar
    Black Lion June 11, 2010 at 3:16 pm #

    More from CAAFlog…..

    Paul Rolf Jensen’s analysis of what will happen in the Lakin case
    By Dwight Sullivan, June 11, 2010

    WorldNetDaily’s latest article on the Lakin case includes this analysis by LTC Lakin’s civilian counsel, Paul Rolf Jensen:

    “Lakin’s attorney, Paul Rolf Jensen, told WND that of all the dozens of cases that have been brought to various courts over the issue of Obama’s eligibility, Lakin’s probably is the strongest yet.

    He said that after the preliminary procedures but before the actual trial, there will be a time for the discovery of evidence.

    Jensen expressed confidence that the necessary information will be obtained.

    “This is a criminal case,” he noted, with a possible punishment of several years in jail. “In order for a criminal defendant to defend himself in a criminal court he has to be given the opportunity to put on a defense.”

    “The records are relevant.”

    He said Driscoll’s order would have allowed a “defense” but only the defense that would have been approved by prosecutors.

    The records and testimony requests will be renewed before a military judge who, Jensen believes, should see “there is an issue of allowing a criminal defendant an opportunity to prove his innocence.”

    Issues of loss of privacy for the president would be “minimal” compared to the prison time possible for a defendant who would be refused the opportunity to access all the relevant evidence available, he suggested.”

    As we’ve discussed, evidence concernng President Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve has no legal relevance to the charges facing LTC Lakin. Those documents, therefore, cannot “prove his innocence.” Hence, the military judge will deny any motion to compel production of documents or witnesses concerning President Obama’s constitutional eligibility.

    http://www.caaflog.com/2010/06/11/paul-rolf-jensens-analysis-of-what-will-happen-in-the-lakin-case/#comments

  257. avatar
    Daniel June 13, 2010 at 5:24 pm #

    ““Lakin’s attorney, Paul Rolf Jensen, told WND that of all the dozens of cases that have been brought to various courts over the issue of Obama’s eligibility, Lakin’s probably is the strongest yet.””

    How, exactly, do you judge which is the strongest of a whole bunch of cases, all with zero merit?

  258. avatar
    marlio June 13, 2010 at 7:56 pm #

    This just further proves that Obama is a coward , a wimp, and is afraid to reveal his records, because I believe he was born in kenya, is a muslim and leached american foundations and the govt for funds to attend school and receive medical care. Also he was not lacking for money, because i heard he drove a BMW when he attended occidental. This persons background will be discovered sooner or later and every bill he has signed will be invalid.

  259. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 13, 2010 at 8:15 pm #

    marlio: This just further proves that Obama is a coward , a wimp, and is afraid to reveal his records, because I believe he was born in kenya, is a muslim and leached american foundations and the govt for funds to attend school and receive medical care.Also he was not lacking for money, because i heard he drove a BMW when he attended occidental. This persons background will be discovered sooner or later and every bill he has signed will be invalid.

    So many falsehoods so little time. He has revealed his records more than any other president. I guess you think every other president must be yellow belly cowards as well since you don’t have access to their records. Even so Lakin’s case has little to do with the president.

  260. avatar
    ron June 13, 2010 at 8:31 pm #

    northland10: Jensen’s lack of defense for requesting the documents makes me doubt that they really want discovery at all. I had originally thought that they were looking for dirt on Obama. Since Clinton had the decency to leave his dirty laundry lying around for them to use, they are likely frustrated that Obama is not as accommodating. However, the sloppiness in even trying to get documents may show that they know there is nothing there.It seems to me that they are actually hoping they do not win. If they were able to get discovery in this case or past standing in other cases, then Obama’s team would then flood them with a pile of paperwork that states what everybody already knows. He may even be able to provide them with certified copies of any original paperwork held by Hawaii. For the birther world, it would be all over and their attempt to smear the President would take a fatal hit. By not getting further in a trial, they can keep using the “he’s hiding everything” argument. The irony is that the birther attorney’s and Rahm Emmanuel are likely in agreement here. He needs them strong enough to be able to tie them to the Republicans.(note: Orly may be the exception here as I am not sure if she has any attachment to the political realities)

    The more I look at this none of this is about discovery but about money, bilking gullible americans out of their money(think about the continuous unsustaniated claims that the president has spent millions to hide facts…. thats code for someone needs to donate millions to help unhide facts, facts that are either public record or unobtainable(the presidents long form could have been lost or destroyed years ago.)
    In the end an officers career will be over, and there will be a boat load of money in someones pocket but no one will know who’s. Jenson is just one many in a list of grifters

  261. avatar
    Daniel June 13, 2010 at 9:06 pm #

    marlio: This just further proves that Obama is a coward , a wimp, and is afraid to reveal his records, because I believe he was born in kenya, is a muslim and leached american foundations and the govt for funds to attend school and receive medical care.Also he was not lacking for money, because i heard he drove a BMW when he attended occidental. This persons background will be discovered sooner or later and every bill he has signed will be invalid.

    One thing you have to give Birthers specifically and conspiracy whackjobs in general, when they pursue a lost cause they really give it their all.

    Unfortunately, misplaced loyalty to a conspiracy fallacy often evolves into terrorism. I have no doubt that eventually you will see people like Marlio attempting assassination, bombings, or flying planes into buildings

  262. avatar
    SFJeff June 13, 2010 at 9:55 pm #

    Keep on smoking that Marlio…keep on smoking…whatever gives you comfort to believe.

  263. avatar
    Jody June 13, 2010 at 10:09 pm #

    marlio: .Also he was not lacking for money, because i heard he drove a BMW when he attended occidental.

    I wonder if the records are still available to see if Obama even had a California driver’s license while he attended Occidental. Certainly it would tell us whether he went by the name Obama or Soetoro. Are the Birthers even looking for the driver’s license, or are they waiting for someone else to do it?

  264. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 13, 2010 at 11:07 pm #

    marlio: This just further proves that Obama is a coward , a wimp, and is afraid

    I have never been impressed by the bravery of people who hurl insults anonymously behind someone else’s back.

    You heard he drove a BMW? Heard? Rumors don’t cut it around here.

  265. avatar
    G June 13, 2010 at 11:21 pm #

    Daniel: Unfortunately, misplaced loyalty to a conspiracy fallacy often evolves into terrorism. I have no doubt that eventually you will see people like Marlio attempting assassination, bombings, or flying planes into buildings

    Trust me, I share that concern. These are some truly, truly disturbed people.

  266. avatar
    G June 13, 2010 at 11:29 pm #

    Jody: I wonder if the records are still available to see if Obama even had a California driver’s license while he attended Occidental. Certainly it would tell us whether he went by the name Obama or Soetoro. Are the Birthers even looking for the driver’s license, or are they waiting for someone else to do it?

    Why would you even think that Soetoro would be on his college records? There is no stateside evidence of him ever using his mother’s second husband’s name over here. Other than that one Indonesian school enrollment form when he was a kid living over there, there is nothing else with Soetoro tied to him specifically. Nor has there ever been any evidence of adoption. He’s been living here, not there since he was 10 years old. Any stories that have come forward of classmates or others who knew him from his youth over here always knew him as Obama.

    Therefore, I really don’t see how any reasonable person could even believe that his last name was Soetoro or seriously think such could appear on any of his college or driving records. There is just no actual evidence on which to support such a belief and everything that is actually known about his background and life story contradicts it.

  267. avatar
    misha June 13, 2010 at 11:32 pm #

    marlio: i heard he drove a BMW when he attended occidental. This persons background will be discovered sooner or later and every bill he has signed will be invalid.

    Good point. I found a picture of what he drove in college.

    Thanks!

  268. avatar
    Sef June 13, 2010 at 11:32 pm #

    G:
    Why would you even think that Soetoro would be on his college records? There is no stateside evidence of him ever using his mother’s second husband’s name over here.Other than that one Indonesian school enrollment form when he was a kid living over there, there is nothing else with Soetoro tied to him specifically.Nor has there ever been any evidence of adoption.He’s been living here, not there since he was 10 years old. Any stories that have come forward of classmates or others who knew him from his youth over here always knew him as Obama.Therefore, I really don’t see how any reasonable person could even believe that his last name was Soetoro or seriously think such could appear on any of his college or driving records.There is just no actual evidence on which to support such a belief and everything that is actually known about his background and life story contradicts it.

    Have they given up on the “Steve” thing?

  269. avatar
    G June 13, 2010 at 11:34 pm #

    marlio: This just further proves that Obama is a coward , a wimp, and is afraid to reveal his records, because I believe he was born in kenya, is a muslim and leached american foundations and the govt for funds to attend school and receive medical care.Also he was not lacking for money, because i heard he drove a BMW when he attended occidental. This persons background will be discovered sooner or later and every bill he has signed will be invalid.

    Well, you can continue to believe in whatever fantasies you want. You can believe in the tooth fairy and that the moon is made of green cheese, both which have as much credibility as the claims you just made. Seek help.

  270. avatar
    G June 13, 2010 at 11:39 pm #

    Sef: Have they given up on the “Steve” thing?

    Aw Sef, you should know better than that by now. πŸ˜‰

    Birthers never, ever give up on anything. They live in a fictional world of their own creation where every day is zombified version of Groundhog’s Day. No absurd notion of theirs, no matter how discredited it is, stays dead.

    As they have nothing, all they can do is continuously recycle their old material in order to keep fueling their hate, and hope that others have as short of attention spans as they do and won’t notice.

    So, give it a few months, tops and we’ll be hearing them trot out the “Steve” stuff and other moldy chestnuts again…and again…and again.

  271. avatar
    Jody June 14, 2010 at 9:20 am #

    G:
    Why would you even think that Soetoro would be on his college records? There is no stateside evidence of him ever using his mother’s second husband’s name over here.Other than that one Indonesian school enrollment form when he was a kid living over there, there is nothing else with Soetoro tied to him specifically.Nor has there ever been any evidence of adoption.He’s been living here, not there since he was 10 years old. Any stories that have come forward of classmates or others who knew him from his youth over here always knew him as Obama.Therefore, I really don’t see how any reasonable person could even believe that his last name was Soetoro or seriously think such could appear on any of his college or driving records.There is just no actual evidence on which to support such a belief and everything that is actually known about his background and life story contradicts it.

    Since there are many birthers who insist that Obama’s name was Soetoro while he attended Occidental, I was just pointing out an easy way to prove it. If he drove a BMW, he had a drivers license. If he had a drivers license, his legal name would appear on it. If the name Barack Obama appeared on the license, then that’s another myth shot down. But birthers don’t want to do that kind of research because it might falsify their theory.

  272. avatar
    BatGuano June 14, 2010 at 11:29 am #

    Jody:
    If he drove a BMW, he had a drivers license.

    not only is he an evil muslim communist bent on destroying the free world…….. but he’s also an unlicensed driver !!!!!

    also the BMW was more than likely paid for by the CIA/ saudi royal family/ the weatherman/ satan/ col sanders .

  273. avatar
    Black Lion June 14, 2010 at 3:51 pm #

    The Lakin case and the Rules of Professional Conduct
    By Dwight Sullivan, June 13, 2010
    So-Crate’s post in an earlier thread suggests an interesting question: Did Paul Rolf Jensen, LTC Lakin’s civilian defense counsel, violate the California Rules of Professional Conduct?

    It’s apparent from one of Mr. Jensen’s web sites, here, that he was personally involved in making LTC Lakin’s initial video (available here) in which LTC Lakin declared his intent to “disobey what I believe to be illegal orders” and have himself court-martialed. California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-210, available here, governs “Advising the Violation of the Law.” It provides: ”A member shall not advise the violation of any law, rule, or ruling of a tribunal unless the member believes in good faith that such law, rule, or ruling is invalid. A member may take appropriate steps in good faith to test the validity of any law, rule, or ruling of a tribunal.”

    Thus, Mr. Jensen did not violate Rule 3-210 if, when he at the very least helped LTC Lakin make his video declaring his intention to violate orders, including his order to deploy to Afghanistan, Mr. Jensen believed in good faith that the orders LTC Lakin intended to disobey were invalid. And that raises a factual issue as to Mr. Jensen’s specific intent about which I have insufficient information to opine whether he violated Rule 3-210.

    Of course, no lawyer who had performed adequate research should believe that LTC Lakin’s deployment orders were invalid. Thus,if Mr. Jensen did have the good faith belief necessary to sail into Rule 3-210’s safe harbor, he might have violated California Rule 3-110 by failing to apply the proper diligence and learning and skill before at the very least helping LTC Lakin make his first video.

    http://www.caaflog.com/2010/06/13/the-lakin-case-and-the-rules-of-professional-conduct/

  274. avatar
    Black Lion June 17, 2010 at 2:27 pm #

    Update on Lakin….The Army has updated it’s assessment of his fitness…I wonder if the birthers will scream that Obama had this fignress report changed or it is part of some vast conspiracy….

    From WND….

    “However, a revised evaluation, obtained from officials with the SafeguardOurConstitution website, which is run by the American Patriot Foundation, a nonprofit group incorporated in 2003 to foster appreciation and respect for the U.S. Constitution, reveals the evaluation was changed.

    The evaluation obtained from the website raising support for Lakin now includes the terse condemnation, “Does not possess potential for promotion to higher ranks.”

    It also said his “exceptional” work as a physician was “overshadowed” by his questions about Obama’s eligibility.

    The Army pointedly avoided referencing the “eligibility” issue, instead characterizing Lakin’s attempts to satisfy his questions through channels and then through his online video as a “refusal to live up to his legal and moral obligations.”

    Such action, the Army said, “represents a clear lack of conceptual and decision-making abilities. His unwillingness to execute orders required to meet the deployment mission demonstrated a lack of military professional knowledge and tactical proficiency.”

    The new date attached to the signatures of both Block and Coots was May 25.

    Also changed were Lakin’s ratings for duty and loyalty as well as his decision-making and conceptual skills.

    Under the comment category for “Senior Rater” was the comment, “Do not retain.”

    “LTC Lakin provided excellent patient care during this rating period. … His failure to follow orders represented a significant problem to the deploying unit and this comment. LTC Lakin does not possess any potential for future service.”

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=167005

    From CAAFlog…

    “The period of the FitRep ended April 12, 2010 and the LTC’s video was released March 30. According to WND the FitRepwas changed after being signed to reflect questions about LTC Lakin’s judgment and loyalty. But I am sure there is more to that story. Question, if you are his counsel and know his FitRep runs through April 12, why have him release the video on March 30? Would 13 days really make that much of a difference?”

    http://www.caaflog.com/2010/06/16/lakin-gets-bashed-in-fitrep/

  275. avatar
    Black Lion June 17, 2010 at 2:32 pm #

    Good analysis from a commenter over at NBC’s…

    RetiredJAG says:
    June 17, 2010 at 18:27
    Three things:

    1. This business about the defacto officer having a different effect with officers versus enlisted people is wrong. The defecto officer doctrine either applies or it doesn’t.

    2. This business about “oaths” is a red herring. Although every military member has to take an oath, it’s really only symbolic. There has never been a reported case in the 60-year history of the UCMJ in which a military member has been court-martialed for violation of his oath. Nor has there ever been a case in which “I did what I did because I took an oath” has been held to be a valid defense (or has even been raised as a defense, as near as I could tell). The focus is *always* on the UCMJ, and whether the government proves each element of a given offense under the UCMJ.

    3. I think there’s a good chance, at least in the guilt phase, that the defense will not get to talk about eligibility. If the military judge finds it’s irrelevant as a matter of law (as he or she undoubtedly will), not only will the defense not get any discovery on the issue, but they won’t be allowed to present any evidence or testimony on it — not even by Lakin himself. That is because if it’s not relevant to the charge, any discussion of it is likely to confuse the issue and invite jury nullification — Lakin’s not the only one entitled to a fair trial. I don’t think the same is necessarily true for sentencing, though. I think it might be permissible for Lakin to explain why he did what he did after he’s been convicted, as in, “I thought Obama was not eligible. I thought the orders were unlawful. I really thought I was doing the right thing by refusing to deploy.” Even so, I don’t think he’d get discovery because I don’t think he gets to say, “and see, I was right.” In other words, if the members get to hear that he had an honest and sincere belief that he was doing the right thing, it doesn’t really matter whether he was right or not. I think the panel will know that the case is about, though, because if eligibility is marginally relevant for sentencing, then both sides would be able to explore the members’ feelings about that issue when they prepare for member selection.

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/lakins-updated-fitrep/#comments

  276. avatar
    BatGuano June 17, 2010 at 5:20 pm #

    Black Lion:
    It also said his “exceptional” work as a physician was “overshadowed” by his questions about [ the Korean Conflict ].

    …. i see a sit-com.

  277. avatar
    Rickey June 17, 2010 at 7:49 pm #

    Jody:
    I wonder if the records are still available to see if Obama even had a California driver’s license while he attended Occidental. Certainly it would tell us whether he went by the name Obama or Soetoro. Are the Birthers even looking for the driver’s license, or are they waiting for someone else to do it?

    California driving records are extremely difficult to obtain, more difficult than in most states. Access was tightened after actress Rebecca Schaeffer was murdered in 1989 by a stalker who had hired an investigator to get her home address through DMV records.

    That said, it is more likely that Obama was driving with a Hawaii driver’s license when he was attending Occidental. Assuming that he already had a Hawaii driver;s license, there would have been no reason for him to get a California license.

  278. avatar
    Jody June 18, 2010 at 12:56 pm #

    Rickey:
    That said, it is more likely that Obama was driving with a Hawaii driver’s license when he was attending Occidental. Assuming that he already had a Hawaii driver;s license, there would have been no reason for him to get a California license.

    So, how hard is it to get something like a Driving Record abstract from Hawaii? Something that would show tickets, or points on his license. Just to debunk the myth that he was using the name Soetoro anytime after he came back from Jakarta.

  279. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 18, 2010 at 4:17 pm #

    Jody:
    So, how hard is it to get something like a Driving Record abstract from Hawaii? Something that would show tickets, or points on his license. Just to debunk the myth that he was using the name Soetoro anytime after he came back from Jakarta.

    The facts are already there to debunk the myth.

    First of all, there is no substance to the myth. It arose because some Google search pulled up the name of some high school foreign exchange student whose first name was Soetero, and who attended a high school in Northern California, having been presented with some sort of honorary recognition for his academic scholarship while visiting the state capitol in the early 60’s. So basically, some other guy in some other place in some other time shared the same name.

    From that, birthers extrapolated the fiction that Obama attended Occidental (southern Cal) under the name Soetero on a scholarship reserved for foreign students because (a) same name (b) same century (c) same state and (d) they don’t understand that the word “scholarship” relates to the kids GPA, not any sort of funding.

    Against that ridiculous “theory” — you’ve got:

    a. Obama’s high school yearbook with the name “Barry Obama”
    b. Poetry published in Occidental College student journal, under the name “Barack Obama”
    c.. Article published in Columbia student magazine, under the name “Barack Obama”
    d. Common knowledge among anyone who has ever applied for or received financial aid that federal student loans are reserved for US citizens and permanent residents
    e. Common knowledge among anyone who has ever applied for or attended college that the process involves submitting a transcript from the previous school attended, and that of course the transcript contains the full name of the person.

    So you start with facts and evidence — and then you have a fantasy. How would more facts and evidence “debunk” the fantasy?

  280. avatar
    Daniel June 18, 2010 at 4:32 pm #

    Expelliarmus: It arose because some Google search pulled up the name of some high school foreign exchange student whose first name was Soetero, … some other guy in some other place in some other time shared the same name.From that, birthers extrapolated the fiction…

    I suppose, in retrospect, we can at least be thankful that Barack’s father’s name was not “Smith:” πŸ˜‰

  281. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 18, 2010 at 5:10 pm #

    Jody: Just to debunk the myth that he was using the name Soetoro anytime after he came back from Jakarta.

    Usually one uses debunking for something that is misinterpreted, exaggerated, misquoted, or supported by weak evidence. There is nothing to even suggest that Barack Obama ever used the name Soetoro in the United States. There is nothing to debunk.

  282. avatar
    Jody June 18, 2010 at 5:16 pm #

    Good point. It was just an idle thought.

  283. avatar
    G June 18, 2010 at 6:33 pm #

    Expelliarmus: From that, birthers extrapolated the fiction that Obama attended Occidental (southern Cal) under the name Soetero on a scholarship reserved for foreign students because (a) same name (b) same century (c) same state and (d) they don’t understand that the word “scholarship” relates to the kids GPA, not any sort of funding.

    Against that ridiculous “theory” — you’ve got:

    a. Obama’s high school yearbook with the name “Barry Obama”
    b. Poetry published in Occidental College student journal, under the name “Barack Obama”
    c.. Article published in Columbia student magazine, under the name “Barack Obama”
    d. Common knowledge among anyone who has ever applied for or received financial aid that federal student loans are reserved for US citizens and permanent residents
    e. Common knowledge among anyone who has ever applied for or attended college that the process involves submitting a transcript from the previous school attended, and that of course the transcript contains the full name of the person.

    So you start with facts and evidence — and then you have a fantasy. How would more facts and evidence “debunk” the fantasy?

    Excellent summary and breakdown of the situation & supporting info, Expelliarmus!

    Well done & wells said! πŸ™‚

  284. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 18, 2010 at 8:50 pm #

    I’d also add that we know from the divorce papers that Stanley Dunham separated from Lolo Soetero in August, 1974, 5 years before Obama started college at Occidental. See http://www.scribd.com/doc/9940006/Soetoro-Divorce-1980-9-Pages-Merged (at page 4)

    I mean… the whole theory doesn’t even begin to make sense.

  285. avatar
    Rickey June 18, 2010 at 10:18 pm #

    Jody:
    So, how hard is it to get something like a Driving Record abstract from Hawaii? Something that would show tickets, or points on his license. Just to debunk the myth that he was using the name Soetoro anytime after he came back from Jakarta.

    Disclosure of driving records is governed by the Drivers Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 2721 et. seq). To obtain a record, you have to satisfy one of the 14 permissible uses listed in the act.

    http://www.accessreports.com/statutes/DPPA1.htm

    I have no personal experience with obtaining Hawaii driving records. In New York it is possible for private investigators to establish an account with DMV to access records online, but such searches are subject to periodic audits to ensure that the investigators are complying with the law. The rules set forth in the DPPA are minimum requirements — states can (and some do) have more restrictive rules.

    We know from his high school yearbook and the reminiscences of Obama’s high school and college contemporaries that his classmates knew him only as “Barry Obama” or “Barack Obama.” There is no evidence that he was ever known as “Barry Soetoro” anywhere other than Indonesia, so there really is nothing to debunk.

  286. avatar
    G June 19, 2010 at 1:56 am #

    Expelliarmus: I’d also add that we know from the divorce papers that Stanley Dunham separated from Lolo Soetero in August, 1974, 5 years before Obama started college at Occidental. See http://www.scribd.com/doc/9940006/Soetoro-Divorce-1980-9-Pages-Merged (at page 4)

    I mean… the whole theory doesn’t even begin to make sense.

    Rickey: We know from his high school yearbook and the reminiscences of Obama’s high school and college contemporaries that his classmates knew him only as “Barry Obama” or “Barack Obama.” There is no evidence that he was ever known as “Barry Soetoro” anywhere other than Indonesia, so there really is nothing to debunk.

    I strongly agree. On both accounts.

    I too have found this to be one of the birther myths that is so silly and unsupportable on even its surface that debunking is rather beside the point. I mean really, should we have to spend time explaining to adult people that Leprechauns and Fairies aren’t real too…

  287. avatar
    misha June 19, 2010 at 2:27 am #

    G: I mean really, should we have to spend time explaining to adult people that Leprechauns and Fairies aren’t real too…

    Wait, they’re not?? Uh, oh. I just gave a dwarf all my gold coins.

  288. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 19, 2010 at 10:36 am #

    misha: Wait, they’re not?? Uh, oh. I just gave a dwarf all my gold coins.

    Fee, Fie, Foe, Foo! (At least that works when you give golden eggs to a troll.)

  289. avatar
    ron June 23, 2010 at 10:50 pm #

    The Lakin Camp better take note of todays events as they pertain to General Mchrystal, There will be no tolerance of insubordination in the ranks.

  290. avatar
    misha June 23, 2010 at 11:04 pm #

    ron: The Lakin Camp better take note of todays events as they pertain to General Mchrystal, There will be no tolerance of insubordination in the ranks.

    I was thinking the exact same thing. Lakin should pull this in the IDF, or the Russian army.

  291. avatar
    PJ June 25, 2010 at 1:46 pm #

    HEY MISHA,

    GENERAL STAN ALLEN MCCRYSTAL FELL ON HIS OWN SWORD FOR HIS TROOPS.

    IT WAS JUST ANNOUNCED THAT GENERAL DAVID H. PETRAEUS
    WILL BE ARRIVING WITH NEW ORDERS TO THE TROOPS THAT WILL CHANGE THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT THAT WILL PROTECT AMERICAN LIVES AND EXTEND OUR WAR FIGHTER’S ABILITY TO KILL THE ENEMY.

    GENERAL STANELY ALLEN MCCRYSTAL IS A TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOT , JUST LIKE THE DR/LT. COL. ……. WHO CERTAINLY KNEW THE RAMIFICATIONS THAT WOULD COME HIS WAY BY SPEAKING OUT. SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO USE UNCHARACTERISTIC TACTICS….ESPECIALLY WHEN DEALING WITH AN ENEMY WITHIN.

    GOD BLESS THOSE WHO STAND THE LINE TO FIGHT FOR EVEN THOSE SHORT ON UPI-TAKE ! GOD BLESS GENERAL MAC ! GOD PROTECT LT. COL. TERRY LAKIN !

    AS YOU WERE, YOU REMF

  292. avatar
    Greg June 25, 2010 at 2:04 pm #

    PJ: HEY MISHA,

    Hey, PJ,

    Three things:

    1. There’s this button, called “CAPS LOCK.” Hit it. If you type with all caps, like you’ve done, you look like an internet newbie.

    2. Why didn’t McChrystal care enough about our soldiers to change the rules of engagement himself?

    3. Was McChrystal a patriot when he accepted the command from Obama? Was he a patriot for the past 2 years when he was taking orders from Obama?

  293. avatar
    Dave June 25, 2010 at 2:53 pm #

    PJ: SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO USE UNCHARACTERISTIC TACTICS….ESPECIALLY WHEN DEALING WITH AN ENEMY WITHIN.

    “Uncharacteristic tactics” for dealing with the enemy within? You mean like court sanctions? Are court sanctions an “uncharacteristic tactic”?

    BTW, although GEN McChrystal made a serious error, I do think he is a true American patriot — so please don’t insult him by mentioning him in the same sentence with LTC Lakin, who refused deployment to a war zone.

  294. avatar
    G June 25, 2010 at 3:31 pm #

    Dave: so please don’t insult him by mentioning him in the same sentence with LTC Lakin, who refused deployment to a war zone.

    Agreed. It is a complete insult to compare any of our troops serving honorably, let alone an officer or a general, to a foolish and delusional blue falcon, such as LTC Lakin.

    And PJ needs to lay off the CAPS LOCk too.

  295. avatar
    PJ June 25, 2010 at 3:57 pm #

    I SEE NOW THAT THIS IS JUST A THREAD FOR THE INTELLECTUALLY STUNTED LIBERAL LEFT OBAMA KOOL-AID DRINKERS. GO FIGURE!

    AT LEAST WE KNOW WHERE TO COME FOR SOME LAUGHS .

    MARGINALIZING THOSE OF DIFFERENT VIEWS THAN YOURS LENDS WELL TO YOUR INTENDED SOCIALISTIC/COMMUNISTIC TENDENCIES. THAT’S NOW APPARENT.

    IN THIS CASE, MORE AMERICANS THAN NOT, REQUIRE REAL SUBSTANTIATED FACTS AND AN OFFICIAL ACCOUNTINGS OF THE TRUTH OTHER THAN DOCTORED RECORDS AND “JUST WORDS” ! THEY WISH TO KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT ‘YOUR MAN’ CALLED OBAMA…..AND HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO KNOW THAT TRUTH. MARGINALIZNG THE OPPOSITION TO YOUR VIEW POINT ONLY POINTS TO YOUR TRUE INTENTIONS, SO GO BACK TO WORK AT YOUR WHITE HOUSE OR SEIU PROPAGANDA DESK….. AND GO STEP AND FETCH FOR THE MUSLIN-IN-CHARGE BOYS…..YOU’RE TOO OBVIOUS !

    THE TRUTH WILL ONE DAY COME OUT…… AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS, I’M SURE YOU FOLKS WILL BE NOWHERE TO FOUND. AS USUAL !

    SO SUCK IT UP AND GET BACK TO YOUR PROPAGANDA ….I’M SURE THE MAN HAS LOTS MORE WORK FOR YOU TO ACCOMPLISH. HIDING THE TRUTH FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAS TO BE A BUSY TASKING. WITH OBAMA SPENDING NEAR 2 MILLION SO FAR IN HIDING HIS TRUE IDENTITY, I’M SURE HE PAYS YOU SUBSTANTIAL SUMS FOR YOUR QUESTIONABLE “WORD-SMITHING”. I’M SURE YOU MAKE YOUR MOTHERS PROUD!

    Dave …I USE CAPS, SO YOU CAN READ MY WORDS THROUGH YOUR ROSE COLORED GLASSES.

  296. avatar
    sfjeff June 25, 2010 at 4:06 pm #

    I figure PJ talks the way he uses caps- he stands in front of people and yells.

    PJ, basically you just come here and attack everyone. You don’t bring one clear assertion or try to support your assertion. I figure its because you are operating on blind faith of the justice of your cause.

    Do I care? Not really. Because President Obama was legally elected President and can, and should ignore the irrational like yourself. He has actual work to do, rather than ‘address’ the irrational fears of a few malcontents.

  297. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 25, 2010 at 4:31 pm #

    PJ: I SEE NOW THAT THIS IS JUST A THREAD FOR THE INTELLECTUALLY STUNTED LIBERAL LEFT OBAMA KOOL-AID DRINKERS. GO FIGURE!AT LEAST WE KNOW WHERE TO COME FOR SOME LAUGHS . MARGINALIZING THOSE OF DIFFERENT VIEWS THAN YOURS LENDS WELL TO YOUR INTENDED SOCIALISTIC/COMMUNISTIC TENDENCIES. THAT’S NOW APPARENT.IN THIS CASE, MORE AMERICANS THAN NOT, REQUIRE REAL SUBSTANTIATED FACTS AND AN OFFICIAL ACCOUNTINGS OF THE TRUTH OTHER THAN DOCTORED RECORDS AND “JUST WORDS” ! THEY WISH TO KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT β€˜YOUR MAN’ CALLED OBAMA…..AND HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO KNOW THAT TRUTH. MARGINALIZNG THE OPPOSITION TO YOUR VIEW POINT ONLY POINTS TO YOUR TRUE INTENTIONS, SO GO BACK TO WORK AT YOUR WHITE HOUSE OR SEIU PROPAGANDA DESK….. AND GO STEP AND FETCH FOR THE MUSLIN-IN-CHARGE BOYS…..YOU’RE TOO OBVIOUS !THE TRUTH WILL ONE DAY COME OUT…… AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS, I’M SURE YOU FOLKS WILL BE NOWHERE TO FOUND. AS USUAL !SO SUCK IT UP AND GET BACK TO YOUR PROPAGANDA ….I’M SURE THE MAN HAS LOTS MORE WORK FOR YOU TO ACCOMPLISH. HIDING THE TRUTH FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAS TO BE A BUSY TASKING. WITH OBAMA SPENDING NEAR 2 MILLION SO FAR IN HIDING HIS TRUE IDENTITY, I’M SURE HE PAYS YOU SUBSTANTIAL SUMS FOR YOUR QUESTIONABLE “WORD-SMITHING”. I’M SURE YOU MAKE YOUR MOTHERS PROUD!Dave …I USE CAPS, SO YOU CAN READ MY WORDS THROUGH YOUR ROSE COLORED GLASSES.

    OMGZ SOMEBODY CALL THE WAAHHHHHHBULANCE. if this is a thread for “liberal left koolaid drinkers” then that would mean you yourself are admitting to being one. Saying Obama is eligible to be president because he was born here isn’t a left or right issue, its reality. Many on both sides of the aisle rightfully believe he was born in this country. It is only extremist nutcases such as yourself who deny reality and believe otherwise based on absolutely no proof whatsoever. You don’t have to come here for laughs PJ crazy people often laugh at themselves. You seem to do that quite a bit.

    I got a question for you PJ where has anyone on this site posted their economic or social beliefs for you to even gauge who is a communist or a socialist. Do you know the difference between those two terms? What do those two terms mean?

    The majority of Americans believe he was born in this country. It is a small crazy minority that you belong to that don’t believe it. Even after seeing his birth certificate, even after state officials for the republican party say he is. Even after congress validated the election and the supreme court swore him in. You have nothing to go off of PJ.

    What the hell is a Muslin? So now its $2 million dollars? You and Oldsalt really need to coordinate your lies he says 1.3 million you say 2. Do you have any proof that he’s spent $2 million dollars?

    Yeah we make our mothers proud I’m sure yours wished she found a higher quality coat hanger.

  298. avatar
    G June 25, 2010 at 5:21 pm #

    PJ: MARGINALIZING THOSE OF DIFFERENT VIEWS THAN YOURS LENDS WELL TO YOUR INTENDED SOCIALISTIC/COMMUNISTIC TENDENCIES. THAT’S NOW APPARENT.

    PJ, you are just a sad joke and you only have yourself to account for the mocking you receive.

    Although, it appears from your very own words, that if you truly believed them, that you are merely mocking yourself here. I mean, look at what I put above, which you yourself wrote. Now re-read your very first sentence of that very same post. Here, I’ll post it again for you:

    PJ: I SEE NOW THAT THIS IS JUST A THREAD FOR THE INTELLECTUALLY STUNTED LIBERAL LEFT OBAMA KOOL-AID DRINKERS. GO FIGURE!

    Um, wouldn’t that be ” MARGINALIZING THOSE OF DIFFERENT VIEWS THAN YOURS” that you just did, by your very own words? So, I guess, by your own twisted views, you see yourself as a Communist or something like that? So, by the tone of the rest of your post, that must make you a self-loathing one at that, eh? LOL!

    Wow, talk about pot calling the kettle black and a whole post full of projecting your own actions & insecurities onto others. Seek help and if you are unhappy with life, why don’t you look in the mirror and start with holding yourself accountable and up to the very standards you claim to espouse.

    PJ: Dave …I USE CAPS, SO YOU CAN READ MY WORDS THROUGH YOUR ROSE COLORED GLASSES.

    Well, sorry, but when you do so, it just makes you come off crazy. Using all caps is what crazy, foaming at the mouth people do.

    Sorry, but if you feel that you’ve been marginalized, it is only because you’ve brought it upon yourself. Be a man and stop blaming others for your own faults and take responsibility for your own actions.

    If you are going to come here and say silly things and act crazy, then you are willfully asking to be thought of as crazy and merely be dismissively mocked in return.

    If you can’t carry on a serious conversation, then you don’t deserve to be treated as a serious person. Simple as that.

  299. avatar
    PJ June 25, 2010 at 5:21 pm #

    Dr. of what?

    Is that,…. you can trust me, cause I’m a doctor? Why give a care one way or the other wether you’re and Dr. or not. That fact has no bearing on this issue and is totally irrelevantto the argument. Terry Lakin is a doctor, but you don’t really give a shit about that do you? You best revisit your data today about how America fells about Obama and the number of Americans that demand to know the truth about him. TODAY !

    Why are you folks so damn dead set against knowing the truth about this man call Obama?

    YOUR FEAR IS TOO APPARRENT ! So, I’m guessing you already know the truth and hope to hide it by marginalizing those who want to see it. Could that be it? I’m sure it is !

    So what’s your real end game?

    We will find out the real truth….one way or the other. Try not have a heart attack when it’s disclosed that he is ineligible to serve as POTUS. But frankly, I think you already know the real truth, don’t you?,….And are scared shitless to see that truth come forward and the reaction of the American people when they find out.

    Something to always remember. Aiding in hiding of the truth from the American people, concerning this issue,, speaks of treason. Where do you stand again?

  300. avatar
    Majority Will June 25, 2010 at 5:26 pm #

    “THE MUSLIN-IN-CHARGE BOYS”

    Yes, the muslins have been busy taking orders and schemin’ up aplenty.

    Here is our new, MANDATORY uniform for the upcoming fashion season:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/TheWorldOfFashionJanuary1838.jpg

    Enjoy!

  301. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 25, 2010 at 7:17 pm #

    PJ: Dr. of what?

    See: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/dr-conspiracy/

    PJ: Terry Lakin is a doctor, but you don’t really give a shit about that do you?

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/04/lakin-liar-lunatic-or-lazy/

    PJ: You best revisit your data today about how America fells [sic] about Obama and the number of Americans that demand to know the truth about him. TODAY !

    Last time I checked the number was about the same as the number of Americans that believed in witches.

    PJ: YOUR FEAR IS TOO APPARRENT [sic] ! So, I’m guessing you already know the truth and hope to hide it by marginalizing those who want to see it. Could that be it? I’m sure it is !

    That’s the problem with birthers, I can call you birther can’t I? They are “sure” of things that they have no way of knowing. You went from “guessing” to “sure” in in 25 words! It is the central error in birther thinking: they can’t separate what they know to be true from what they want to be true.

    PJ: So what’s your real end game?

    I guess I’ll keep running the web site until folks lose interest.

    PJ: We will find out the real truth….one way or the other.

    Actually, it is very unlikely that you will find out the real truth. Conspiracy theorists are generally immune to proof: it only proves that the conspiracy is larger than they thought. I cannot imagine anything in the way of evidence that would convince a birther.

    PJ: Something to always remember. Aiding in hiding of the truth from the American people, concerning this issue,, speaks of treason. Where do you stand again?

    I think you should brush up on your Constitutional law and the definition of treason. Nevertheless, I don’t know anything about Obama’s presidential eligibility that I haven’t shared on this blog for all to see. If I had something to hide, would I give free Internet access to folks like you?

  302. avatar
    Bovril June 25, 2010 at 7:28 pm #

    G

    I refer the above to earlier my writing on the “ignorant, delusional or a sociopathic f*ing totalitarian mindset”…..8-)

  303. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 25, 2010 at 8:10 pm #

    PJ: Dr. ofwhat?Is that,…. you can trust me, cause I’m a doctor? Why give a care one way or the other wether you’re and Dr. or not. That fact has no bearing on this issue and is totally irrelevantto the argument.Terry Lakin is a doctor, but you don’t really give a shit about that do you? You best revisit your data today about how America fells about Obama and the number of Americans that demand to know the truth about him. TODAY !Why are you folks so damn dead set against knowing the truth about this man call Obama?YOUR FEAR IS TOO APPARRENT ! So, I’m guessing you already know the truth and hope to hide it by marginalizing those who want to see it. Could that be it? I’m sure it is !So what’s your real end game? We will find out the real truth….one way or the other. Try not have a heart attack when it’s disclosed that heis ineligible to serve as POTUS. But frankly, I think you already know the real truth, don’t you?,….And are scared shitless to see that truth come forward and the reaction of the American people when they find out.
    Something to always remember. Aiding in hiding of the truth from the American people, concerning this issue,, speaks of treason.Where do you stand again?

    Do you believe that 9/11 was an inside job by President Bush? It seems you have a flaw in your thought process that allows you to believe in conspiracy theories without having any evidence. At least the truthers were genuine and could point to specific science or what not while you guys point to absolutely nothing. Tell us PJ what’s your end game? Do you call for the overthrow of the government? If Obama stays in office and gets reelected do you then call for secession? The majority of the American people believe he is legit because that’s reality. Meanwhile a small loud minority of extremists such as yourself have to keep trying to build yourselves up to be bigger than you are. Yes you speak to treason. You appeal to treason.

  304. avatar
    G June 25, 2010 at 9:27 pm #

    PJ: Terry Lakin is a doctor, but you don’t really give a sh*t about that do you?

    Sorry, but Terry Lakin is just a deluded pawn and patsy. And a blue falcon. (look it up if you have to). All he has done is disgrace his uniform and throw away his honor for nothing. He failed to report for deployment. There are severe penalties for that, as he will soon find out. There is nothing heroic nor honorable in what he has done – quite the opposite. So no, I don’t give s sh*t about cowards, fools and traitors to this country – which is exactly what I think of Lakin.

    PJ:
    You best revisit your data today about how America fells about Obama and the number of Americans that demand to know the truth about him. TODAY !

    Sorry, but you birthers are vastly outnumbered by those that don’t care about this issue and who think you are just nuts. That is regardless of people’s feelings on Obama’s handling of his presidency. The majority of the GOP, Conservatives and even Tea Party folks consider you birthers to be nothing but a joke and an embarrassing nuisance.

    PJ:
    Why are you folks so damn dead set against knowing the truth about this man call Obama? YOUR FEAR IS TOO APPARRENT ! So, I’m guessing you already know the truth and hope to hide it by marginalizing those who want to see it. Could that be it? I’m sure it is !

    Well, keep telling yourself what you wish to believe, but you are sadly deluded.

    The answer is quite simple and there is no “fear” on our side – we simply are beyond satisfied by the existing evidence that Obama was born in Honolulu, HI & therefore clearly an NBC. I have no question about that being the absolute truth whatsoever at all. As the COLB is the official HI document for birth certificates these days, no other documentation is necessary and would be completely irrelevant and redundant as the only words on that document relevant to the NBC issue is place of birth and the COLB clearly states born in Honolulu, HI . As Obama is the *only* President who has ever shown a copy of his birth certificate to the public, that is the most transparency we’ve ever had on that specific issue from *any* president ever, which is the exact opposite of “hiding” information as you like to claim. Your silly screams for other documents beyond that are wholly and completely irrelevant.

    Therefore the issue is 100% settled for me (and most folks) and there is nothing out there that changes or puts this information into any actual dispute.

    PJ:
    So what’s your real end game?

    Well, in terms of the purpose of this site, it is simply to monitor, report on, investigate & comment on Obama related conspiracies and to debunk any non-factual information. Along with getting a good entertaining laugh at the silliness that the birthers provide.

    Honestly, none of us thought your silliness would continue on this long or that this site would still be relevant. But we realize now that your birther delusions are deep and pathological and you’ll be ranting on and making up stuff and claiming “any day now” for years to come.

    You are no different from the Flat Earthers still trying to deny that the earth is round or the folks that claim Elvis is still alive or that we never went to the moon. You are just a mere variation and offshoot of the delusional Birchers, who still try to claim that the fluoride in our water is a communist mind-control plot.

    PJ:
    We will find out the real truth….one way or the other. Try not have a heart attack when it’s disclosed that heis ineligible to serve as POTUS. But frankly, I think you already know the real truth, don’t you?,….And are scared shitless to see that truth come forward and the reaction of the American people when they find out.
    Something to always remember. Aiding in hiding of the truth from the American people, concerning this issue,, speaks of treason.Where do you stand again?

    LMAO! Yeah, you keep telling yourself whatever silly little delusions you need so you can sleep at night. Oooh…scary little hollow threats and birther tantrums…LOL!

    The only scared people I see are you silly birthers, who allow their irrational fears & hatred to drive their complete nonsense and futile efforts.

    Trust me, I have no worries. If you study this site, you will see that we’ve been very consistent & confident in both our analysis & predictions since the very beginning. All of the birther claims, lawsuits & actions to date have been so baseless and without merit that it has been extremely easy to predict exactly how & why they would fail every step of the way.

    So you keep telling yourself “OMG…any day now”… I’m quite sure you’ll just keep saying that over & over again, but that OMG moment is never going to come for you.

    The truth has been quite apparent and available and sufficiently evident for over 2 years now – Born in Honolulu, HI = NBC. End of Story. You folks are just intentionally allergic to the truth and therefore you will remain endlessly disappointed and destined for nothing but more failure. S*cks to be you!

    So, we on the side of rationality and reality, stand for this country and hope for its success. We are for following the rules & laws of our country and respecting the results of our elections process.

    From my point of view, the only traitors I see are those that wish to disrespect our country and the will of the majority of voters and illegally overthrow a duly elected government. Hint – that’s you birther losers.

  305. avatar
    G June 25, 2010 at 9:30 pm #

    Bovril: GI refer the above to earlier my writing on the “ignorant, delusional or a sociopathic f*ing totalitarian mindset”…..8-)

    Classic examples indeed!

    How funny that only moments after your present your thesis of such that PJ comes along to prove your points! LOL!

  306. avatar
    Bovril June 25, 2010 at 9:39 pm #

    Not me….honest…George Soros forgot to mail me my “cognitive dissonance” Obot Brown Shirt check this month.

    Until he ponys up, no masquerading as brain dead Birfers…so there!

  307. avatar
    G June 25, 2010 at 9:51 pm #

    Bovril: Not me….honest…George Soros forgot to mail me my “cognitive dissonance” Obot Brown Shirt check this month.Until he ponys up, no masquerading as brain dead Birfers…so there!

    LMAO! πŸ˜‰

  308. avatar
    Greg June 25, 2010 at 10:32 pm #

    PJ: GO STEP AND FETCH

    Stepin Fetchit – You can read about this stereotypical racist imagery at the Museum of Jim Crow.

    WITH OBAMA SPENDING NEAR 2 MILLION SO FAR

    Prove it!

    I USE CAPS, SO YOU CAN READ MY WORDS THROUGH YOUR ROSE COLORED GLASSES.

    Ironically, ALL CAPS is harder to read. You sacrifice legibility with all caps:

    In terms of legibility, all-caps text is harder to read than normal uncapitalized text. The shapes of letters—some tall (dhkl), some short (aens), some descending (gypq)—help us recognize words as we read. Capitalization homogenizes these shapes.

  309. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 25, 2010 at 10:47 pm #

    Greg: Ironically, ALL CAPS is harder to read. You sacrifice legibility with all caps

    This is also why the blog now uses a serif font instead of a sans serif font.

  310. avatar
    misha June 25, 2010 at 10:58 pm #

    Greg: Ironically, ALL CAPS is harder to read. You sacrifice legibility with all caps.

    Ironically, ALL CAPS is used primarily by the semi-literate and the insane.

  311. avatar
    G June 26, 2010 at 1:16 am #

    misha:
    Ironically, ALL CAPS is used primarily by the semi-literate and the insane.

    In other words…the majority of birthers…yep.

  312. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 26, 2010 at 4:03 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    Do you believe that 9/11 was an inside job by President Bush?It seems you have a flaw in your thought process that allows you to believe in conspiracy theories without having any evidence.At least the truthers were genuine and could point to specific science or what not while you guys point to absolutely nothing.Tell us PJ what’s your end game?Do you call for the overthrow of the government?If Obama stays in office and gets reelected do you then call for secession?The majority of the American people believe he is legit because that’s reality.Meanwhile a small loud minority of extremists such as yourself have to keep trying to build yourselves up to be bigger than you are.Yes you speak to treason.You appeal to treason.

    In my opinion, the truthers use science like the birthers use the law – incorrectly.

  313. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 26, 2010 at 10:47 am #

    PJ: I USE CAPS, SO YOU CAN READ MY WORDS THROUGH YOUR ROSE COLORED GLASSES.

    If you use CAPS again, I’ll delete your comment.

  314. avatar
    PJ June 26, 2010 at 11:18 am #

    to enlighten the socialist lean on this “page of Obama propaganda”
    ………………………

    “We live in a Constitutional Republic. The President’s job under the
    Constitution is to enforce the laws made by the elected Congress. His job is
    not to create new laws and enforce them all by himself. His job is as
    magistrate under the Constitution, not as Caudillo. He is not the law. He is
    supposed to enforce what Congress decides.

    The BP behavior is reminiscent of how, immediately after assuming office,
    Mr. Obama, with no Congressional authority or administrative allowance,
    simply made a phone call to fire the head of GM. When I called the White
    House press office to ask under what law or regulation Mr. Obama was acting,
    I was told he did not need a law. If the government put a lot of money into
    GM, it could call the shots at GM, I was told. But under what authority, I
    asked. ‘None needed,’ was the final answer. … The same goes for Mr.
    Obama’s demand that BP pay the lost wages of oil and gas workers suspended
    from work because of the moratorium on Gulf of Mexico underseas drilling.
    There simply was no legislation allowing this kind of specific demand.

    Mr. Obama’s demand was in the nature of a threat, more than a Constitutional
    act. … [T]o create specific enactments and actions without any authority
    — now Mr. Obama’s specialty — is so at odds with the law of the land that
    it terrifies me.

    These are not the acts of a teacher on Constitutional law. These are the
    acts of a big city boss or a third world dictator.”

    Ben Stein
    columnist

  315. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 26, 2010 at 12:28 pm #

    And by the way PJ this site has nothing to do with BP post on topic or dont post at all

  316. avatar
    Gorefan June 26, 2010 at 2:11 pm #

    PJ – “Try not have a heart attack when it’s disclosed that he is ineligible to serve as POTUS.”

    You don’t have to worry. If it should ever be decided, by Congress that the President is not eligible or by the Supreme Court that his name cannot be placed on the ballots in 2012, the peolple on this blog will continue to support the Constitution.

    But what about you PJ? When you find out that the courts don’t agree with your definition of natural born, what will you do? When the courts agree with James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, will you and other birthers talk about conspiracies, and treason? Will you still mutter under your breaths about the need for force of arms or military coups? Will you guys still preach sedition? What exactly will you do?

  317. avatar
    BatGuano June 26, 2010 at 2:27 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): And by the way PJ this site has nothing to do with BP post on topic or dont post at all

    lakin has oil in his GM car.