Main Menu

The Lakin contradiction

Reading comments on various online forums, I have found one idea appearing frequently, and it is expressed here by Devvy Kidd, in her article: Terry Lakin is Obama’s Willie Horton.

Last December, that honorable man who faithfully served this country for 18 years lost his freedom. Why? Because the putative president simply refused to produce his long form birth certificate.

Kidd takes some time in her article saying what a wonderful soldier Lakin is, mentioning his “numerous awards.” It was Lakin’s concern over Obama’s legitimacy that led him to refuse to follow orders, the crime that got him jail time. If we assume that the presentation of the long form to Lakin would have prevented him from going to jail, then we must also assume that the long form birth certificate would have convinced Lakin that Obama was eligible as his Commander in Chief.

If the long form would have convinced Lakin, why does it not convince Kidd?1 She goes on in her article to call Obama “usurper” so apparently the long form made no difference to her.

The position that the long form would have saved Lakin from court martial is incompatible with continued belief post long form that Obama is not eligible to be President.

1I personally believe that Terry Lakin suffers from chronic, incurable birtherism, and that the long form would have been dismissed for the same reason that he dismissed the short form: he’s a birther.

106 Responses to The Lakin contradiction

  1. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 3, 2011 at 1:53 am #

    It seems like every time there’s news in birtherstan lately that it exposes more of these contradictions. If there is one birther myth I’d like to see busted it’s the myth of convicted felon Lakin’s heroism – I would love for the birthers to come to understand that their ‘hero’ is actually a cowardly Blue Falcon.

  2. avatar
    richCares May 3, 2011 at 2:06 am #

    Why did Obama do this to Lakin,
    what, he didn’t!
    what, Lakin did it to himself!
    .
    the COLB was adequte proof if Lakin removed his large hands away from his eyes and ears he would not be in jail. The Long form has nothing to do with Lakins foolishness.
    ditto:
    I would love for the birthers to come to understand that their ‘hero’ is actually a cowardly Blue Falcon.

  3. avatar
    Critical Thinker May 3, 2011 at 2:12 am #

    Hmmm…from this incongruity, one could perhaps draw the conclusion that birtherism actually has very little to do with whether or not Obama was born in the United States. What is it about Obama that the birthers so detest??

  4. avatar
    sactosintolerant May 3, 2011 at 2:24 am #

    The worship of this guy is disgusting. The 99.9999% that continued their duty are bigger men and women then he’ll ever be.

    Side note about that article is the reference to one of the more fun post-release claims: he released it to preemptively hurt Corsi’s book sales. One of the more extreme examples has him releasing it to hurt Taitz’s appeal. Birthers extremely overestimate their importance.

  5. avatar
    richCares May 3, 2011 at 2:32 am #

    detest? no, it;s hate in the extreme, the insults hurled at Obama and his wife very strongly suggest that “presidenting while black” is a major crime in Biferstan.
    .
    the hate is so high it affects their very lives. Example: My neighbors took in their HS grand daughter, the kid could no longer handle her birther father. She requested her father not show up at her graduation this June. The kid is very nice and will be class valedictorian, the grandparents are close friends of ours so I got the kid a Mini HP computer to use in college as a graduation present. (somethig her idiot father can’t afford) These kind of family problems appear a lot in Birferstan, it’s a trademark.

  6. avatar
    Lupin May 3, 2011 at 2:53 am #

    I cannot find enough words to express my disgust at the supporters of Lakin — and Lakin himself.

    To support that traitorous bastard is to spit in the face of all the good soldiers who loyally serve their country, respect their officers, no matter what. It makes a mockery of duty and patriotism.

  7. avatar
    DP May 3, 2011 at 4:20 am #

    There’s no logic to it, and it can’t be analyzed like that. It’s simply free -flowing hatred.

    Birthers invert the actual events that occurred. That’s because Lakin was the courageous soldier standing up for what birthers know in their fact-challenged little minds is true. Obama’s mendacity is proven precisely because he let Lakin be crucified. The very fact that Lakin went to court martial and was convicted is emotional proof of everything they want to be true, so the actual legal facts or their response to Obama’s long form is irrelevant.

    Obama is evil. He is always evil and deceitful, no matter what he does. If he does “A” he is evil and deceitful. If he does “non-A,” he is evil and deceitful. The Lakin tirades, like everything else, simply shine a spotlight on the central birther psychosis.

  8. avatar
    nc1 May 3, 2011 at 5:04 am #

    Presenting the long form in court is different from presenting an image on the web.

    Lakin was sentenced to jail without being allowed to present his defense. This is how things are done in kangaroo courts, third-world dictatorships – surely not in the United States!?

  9. avatar
    Lupin May 3, 2011 at 5:09 am #

    nc1: Lakin was sentenced to jail without being allowed to present his defense. This is how things are done in kangaroo courts, third-world dictatorships – surely not in the United States!?

    There is no country in the world, no army in the world, that would have tolerated Lakin’s insane behavior. Had there been a State of War, he would have been summarily court-martialed and executed within 24 hours.

    That you support such a traitor and his reprehensible actions show you to be an unprincipled, utterly unpatriotic person. The only possible excuse you have (and it is no excuse) is your racism and deep stupidity.

  10. avatar
    Sean May 3, 2011 at 5:41 am #

    nc1:
    Presenting the long form in court is different from presenting an image on the web.

    Lakin was sentenced to jail without being allowed to present his defense. This is how things are done in kangaroo courts, third-world dictatorships – surely not in the United States!?

    Obama doesn’t have the resources to make a copy for every American citizen, so he uses this modern invention called the Internet so everyone can see it and all of its supporting documents.

    nc1, you will never join us in reality, because it’s so much more comfortable under your Klan hood.

  11. avatar
    obsolete May 3, 2011 at 6:06 am #

    Look at this amazing photo inside the situation room during the Bin Laden operation:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/5680724572/in/set-72157626507626189

    Sitting next to the President is Brigadier General Marshall B. “Brad” Webb. I wonder what he thinks of Lakin and the birther seditionists.? (when he is not too busy killing terrorists, that is).

    Brigadier General Marshall B. “Brad” Webb is a hero.

  12. avatar
    The Magic M May 3, 2011 at 6:47 am #

    > This is how things are done in kangaroo courts, third-world dictatorships – surely not in the United States!?

    Says one who has not the faintest idea how the UCMJ works and how court-martials differ from civil or criminal court cases.

    Besides, even in a criminal or civil case, you cannot bring any defense you like. You cannot subpoena the Pope because you allegedly played golf with him on the moon while the murder you’re accused of took place.
    You cannot raise a defense “I wouldn’t have broken the contract with that company if only their CEO had proven to my standards he was the legitimate CEO – and shown me his birf certificat”.

    And you simply cannot raise a defense that, even if taken as true (“I have no idea if my CiC is legitimate”), would not have changed the fact that you violated UCMJ rules.

    It has been pointed out to you and Lakin time and again that even if Obama were not eligible, the orders given by Lakin’s superior officer were not “illegal on their face” and thus there was no justification for not obeying them.
    So even if Lakin could *prove beyond a shadow of a doubt* that Obama was not eligible, the verdict would not have been any different (though in that parallel universe he might have received clemency for “being a hero” later).

    This simple fact just won’t go into your birfer head, will it?

    In no court you are allowed discovery or defense that will have no bearing on the results. A court, much less a court-martial, is not a place to adjudicate your personal interests, just like you cannot go to a judge and say “please, my wife and I can’t agree who composed ‘As tears go by’, you must issue a ruling!”.

  13. avatar
    The Magic M May 3, 2011 at 6:53 am #

    PS. The whole Lakin issue was based on that misunderstanding – that the birfer “master”minds could somehow use this as another vehicle to get their “merits” examined by a court. Of course that failed miserably.

    They’re like the poor guys with querulatory disorder – who lose a court case and then sue their lawyer (or slander their judge) in the hope the original case will be revisited and re-decided in their favour in the ensuing “do-over”.

    The same way some birfer lawyers thought “well, it has nothing to do with his case, but maybe we can sneak the ‘BC discovery’ issue in”, so they convinced Lakin to play the Trojan horse. Of course that failed because birfer lawyers are crackpots who would probably lose a case to Grandma Jones, the latter blindfolded and hands tied behind her back.

  14. avatar
    Keith May 3, 2011 at 7:56 am #

    Critical Thinker:
    Hmmm…from this incongruity, one could perhaps draw the conclusion that birtherism actually has very little to do with whether or not Obama was born in the United States. What is it about Obama that the birthers so detest??

    He has a great tan?

  15. avatar
    Keith May 3, 2011 at 8:15 am #

    nc1:
    Presenting the long form in court is different from presenting an image on the web.

    Lakin was sentenced to jail without being allowed to present his defense. This is how things are done in kangaroo courts, third-world dictatorships – surely not in the United States!?

    Lakin had no defense to present.

    He disobeyed orders. He announced that he was going to disobey orders before hand. He was counseled on the facts and the consequences and he did it anyway.

    No soldier, in any country, in any position, at any time in history, has the option to refuse an order unless that order is clearly, on the face of it, an order to commit a crime.

    Getting on a plane is not a crime by any definition. Lakin refused an order to board a plane.

    Reporting to a superior officer is not a crime by any definition. Lakin refused an order to report to his superior officer.

    To believe that such orders are conditional on the existence or non-existence of a piece of paper in Hawai’i is so far outside the military experience as to defy any claim of honorable service prior to such a claim. Since Lakin clearly had honorable service prior to such a claim speaks to his descent into delusion. Hey it happens sometimes; read the story of William Chester Minor. In Lakin’s case it appears that he fell for con men who took advantage of his personal weaknesses.

  16. avatar
    Scientist May 3, 2011 at 8:38 am #

    nc1: This is how things are done in kangaroo courts, third-world dictatorships – surely not in the United States!?

    Here’s a challenege for you. Can you name me a single case in any country in the world in which an officer was permitted to challenge the legitimacy of his Commander in Chief in a court of law. In cases where the office is in dispute (such as recently in the Ivory Coast), military units choose a side and fight it out on the battlefield. If Lakin felt that someone other than Obama was the actual CIC he should have quit the US Army and joined an insurgent force to back that person. Then he could have died on the battlefield with some shred of honor.

    By the way, I’ve never gotten a straight answer. If by some twisted logic, Obama is not the President, then who is? Whom should soldiers be taking orders from? Or should they just be winging it and doing whatever gthey feel like?

  17. avatar
    Bovril May 3, 2011 at 8:38 am #

    Nancy

    It’s real simple, you are a LSOS, delusional or both.

    During the lying, cowardly buddy feckers courtmartial, the Major who had to deploy in Lakins place had this to say.

    Due to the extremely short period of time that he had from orders to deployment he had insufficient time to fully refresh his trauma training and had no time to integrate with his deployment unit and his trauma, nursing and medevac teams.

    As a consequence, when, 3 days after deployment, there was a mass casualty event, he stated, for the record that the care provided to the injured was directly and adversely impacted.

    THAT’S what that c*nt Lakin caused, and what you support.

    Oh and lets not forget,

    Lakins daughter was BORN in Hawai’i and he tried to get her long form and couldn’t so that twat knew his whining was full of crap.

    Next, he was counselled 3 times seperately that his actions had no validity in the eyes of the UCMJ and would lead to his courtmartial

    He was AGAIN informed by his commanding officer, the only serving Medal of Honor holder in the Army, an ACTUAL hero, that he would either deploy or face court martial to which his response was, and the quote came from the record, “Bring it on”.

    Never mind that Lakin, even though he had stated multiple times he would not deploy, STILL took the pre-deployment leave that only soldiers who are ACTUALLY deploying are entitled to.

    Liar, thief, bigot, coward and buddy fecker

    Waaaaaay to go Birfoons, lookie at your poster boy.

  18. avatar
    Lupin May 3, 2011 at 8:52 am #

    My father (now retired) was in the medical corps (“service de sante”) of the French army and when he was ordered to deploy to Algeria (I was just about born then so I have no conscious memory of the period) he did so even though he was leaving his wife and baby boy behind and easily could have died — and I won’t even get into the highly debatable and dubious morality of the Franco-Algerian war.

    But my dad wasn’t a deserter and oath-breaker like that coward Lakin.

  19. avatar
    misha May 3, 2011 at 9:03 am #

    nc1: This is how things are done in kangaroo courts, third-world dictatorships – surely not in the United States!?

    Lakin should try that in the IDF or the Red Army.

  20. avatar
    JD Reed May 3, 2011 at 9:14 am #

    NC One, Lakin and his lawyers should have learned from others’ sad mistakes — i.e. those of Capt. Connie Rhodes and Major Stephan Cook, on whose behalf Orly advanced the same wackadoodle theory Lakin embraced — only to get smacked down by a George Republican judge appointed by President George W. Bush.
    Would a military tribunal have been more likely to excuse the disobedience of a superior officer’s order than a civilian court? And don’t forget, ultimately the issue would have landed in a civilian appellate court had an appeal been pursued. In fact, a civilian appeals court almost certainly would have stepped in to overrule the presiding military judge had she allowed the fishing expedition to publicly reveal President Obama’s long form birth certificate.
    So at best all a sympathetic court martial panel could have acquitted Lakin, but it could not have forced the disclosure of the document so coveted by the birthers.
    Questions, NC One: Were the elite Navy Seals who killed Osama bin Laden following lawful orders when they actually carried out their mission? A week earlier, would they have been following illegal orders because at that point the president had not disclosed his long form?

  21. avatar
    DCH May 3, 2011 at 9:21 am #

    “Questions, NC One: Were the elite Navy Seals who killed Osama bin Laden following lawful orders when they actually carried out their mission? A week earlier, would they have been following illegal orders because at that point the president had not disclosed his long form?”

    Ah. that must be why Obama “released” his LFBC! the SEALs must have demanded to see it before departing on their mission. This is how berfer myths get started. I bet if we look hard enough at the berfer websites we can find a comment saying something like that.

  22. avatar
    US Citizen May 3, 2011 at 9:27 am #

    Great posts!

    And may I add that at no time was Lakin’s freedom of speech violated.
    His web page and a video were widely distributed and no one censored him at any time.

    Bravery and stupidity walk a fine line.
    He gambled his career and family’s future on blind hatred and he lost. That’s not brave, that’s stupid.
    I also think he got off light.
    I would have put him in for at least 1 year.

    Also, consider that Lakin has now heard that OBL was killed.
    He was supposed to be serving in Afghanistan now.
    Instead he had to watch his former co-horts score victory while he sits in a jail cell. That’s gotta hurt.
    Birthers always lose.

  23. avatar
    Mary Brown May 3, 2011 at 9:38 am #

    NC1 As a military wife I will tell you he had no defence. None. Giving in to him would have meant giving in to every question any soldier had about leadership. He refused to go because he did not believe the President was legitimate. He listened to rumor and innuendo and wishful thinking- and most of all lying. My husband who is politically independent and a retired military member looked at me and said, “He is toast and he needs to be.” The military is allowed to be as powerful as it is because and only because it follows civilian leadership. Once Congress had verified the election results and the President was sworn in he was honor bound to obey the orders of his superiors. He did not and allowed anothetr person to take his place in harms way. He betrayed his fellow soldiers on the battlefield. People who were looking for and who bravely found and removed bin laden from this earth. Remember, he allowed someone else to take his place. I assume you are Dr. Taitz. As I have told you, hatred rots the soul from the inside out.

  24. avatar
    Majority Will May 3, 2011 at 10:49 am #

    “The position that the long form would have saved Lakin from court martial is incompatible with continued belief post long form that Obama is not eligible to be President.”

    Since the long form, as Lakin demanded, is further proof of the President’s eligibility and natural born status, then the COLB that was initially provided by the same Hawaiian Department of Health and certified by the same Registrar is also valid proof. One is not more valid than the other.

    Lakin created his own logical trap.

    Why didn’t Blue Falcon Lakin just resign?

  25. avatar
    JoZeppy May 3, 2011 at 10:55 am #

    nc1: Presenting the long form in court is different from presenting an image on the web. Lakin was sentenced to jail without being allowed to present his defense. This is how things are done in kangaroo courts, third-world dictatorships – surely not in the United States!?

    Seems you know equally nothing about the law, our courts, or the military. Lakin was permitted to present his defense. He was not permitted to go off into la-la land and babble on about meanless topics that had no impact on his guilt or innocence. In REAL courts, you are not permitted to go on fishing expeditions that have nothing to do with you case. Lakin was free to present his defense. However, he was not entitled to present a defense, that even if it was exactly as he said it was, would have no impact on his guilt or innocence. 1) Lakin’s guilt of innocence is not effected by President’s Obama’s status. Even if President Obama was born in Kenya, and said it right to Lakins face, Lakin would still be guilty of disobeying a direct order. Therefore, the Court was absolutely correct in denying him any right to demand any documents for the President or agruing irrelevant points in his defense. 2) Lakin and the military have no role in determining the qualifications of the President. You see, that is how thrid-world dicatorships and banana republic works. 3) Finally, how is Lakin remotely qualified to make a determination about the President’s qualifications? He doesn’t know the UCMJ well enough to listen to his superiors who counselled him and told him he was given a lawful order. He didn’t know the law well enough to recognize what a legal birth certificate was. He doesn’t know the Constitution well enough to understand the COLB was good for all purposes because the full faith and credit clause.

  26. avatar
    The Magic M May 3, 2011 at 11:09 am #

    > He doesn’t know the Constitution well enough to understand the COLB was good for all purposes because the full faith and credit clause.

    I think even more deplorable than not following legal orders was his claim to “defend the Constitution”. Instead of listening to people who know how the Constitution and the law works, he is like the guy who listens to the mad priest who says “you must do X, it’s God’s will!” and then goes off doing X, justifying it with the Bible or whatnot.

    In some way birthers are like those Christian zealots who kill people in the name of God, yet totally ignore the Ten Commandments (which do not contain footnotes, waivers or limitations of any kind).

    Here they go with their unconstitutional bigotry (like denying Full Faith And Credit, or calling for the military to unseat the president and replace him with a candidate of its choice) and claim it’s because they want to “protect the Constitution”. Sure, by violating it with every other word and (planned) deed.

    > Why didn’t Blue Falcon Lakin just resign?

    Because it never was about “not obeying illegal orders”. It always was a vehicle to try and get a court to unseat the president. No matter how foolish the idea is to begin with, that’s what all birther cases have been about. And they did it because they were obsessed with the idea of “having standing”.
    Almost every other act the birfers blabbered about (a court ruling, an election result, a government decision etc.) entailed the magic whispered question: “Doesn’t that give him/her STANDING?”
    Achieving standing was their holy grail, and they stopped short of nothing to reach their goal, including convincing an LTC to fabricate a case.

  27. avatar
    nemocapn May 3, 2011 at 11:28 am #

    Since Lakin expressed remorse, I think it’s possible a long-form birth certificate could have changed his mind but it would’ve been too late. It would’ve been after he’d already disobeyed orders. However, if he’s like most birthers, Dr. C. is correct that it wouldn’t have made any difference.

    I noticed on Caaflog someone put Lakin and Manning supporters in the same category, but I think there’s a big difference between the two. I’m sympathetic to Manning, but I don’t deny the military’s right to hold Manning before trial. I don’t insist on turning Manning’s trial into a trial of Obama. I only question Manning’s treatment in custody and whether it prevents him from getting a fair trial. I don’t say Manning shouldn’t be in custody at all.

    Lakin’s supporters think because he was acting on principle, he deserves to be pardoned and released. Manning was also acting on principle, but I don’t expect him to be pardoned. I expect him to be released only if he’s found not guilty or has completed his sentence. I simply expect that his motivation be taken into consideration during sentencing if he’s found guilty. His sentence should be lighter than, say, Jonathan Pollard. I recognize reality.

    Birthers are completely unrealistic. They think you can be a hero because of your “selfless sacrifice” without having to actually sacrifice. What has happened since the ’60s that people think they can commit acts of civil disobedience and not be jailed? Birthers should be glad Lakin was jailed. Hard to be a hero without making the sacrifice.

  28. avatar
    gorefan May 3, 2011 at 11:30 am #

    Mary Brown: As a military wife I will tell you he had no defence

    Excellent response.

    I find it interesting that people like NC1 accept no culpability in Lakin’s situation. Yet, it was their lies and conspiracy drivel that lead him down his chosen path. And once on that path, NC1 and people like Vallely prodded and cheered him on, and they continued to spoon fed him more of their nonsense. I saw many birther websites where people posted comments like”We need to get this information to Lakin’s attorneys”, or “We need to make sure Lakin is aware of this new information.” He went willingly there is no doubt about that, but he had a lot of help.

  29. avatar
    EnoughisEnough May 3, 2011 at 11:56 am #

    All the release of the “long form” would have proved, and does prove, is that Lakin had no basis whatsoever to refuse to carry out his orders and is guilty as charged.

    He’s exactly where he ought to be, and it’s all of his own doing. I don’t follow the “logic” that says the release of the birth certificate would have kept Lakin out of jail. It makes no sense at all.

  30. avatar
    Tarrant May 3, 2011 at 12:08 pm #

    When Lakin was court martialed, there were lots of excited birthers saying “Now he has standing!”

    When Cao was arrested, they said “Now she has standing!”

    They don’t.

    I don’t think they understand that if you’re arrested for hacking into a computer, you aren’t entitled to ask for the data on the computer as part of your defense against the charge, because it’s irrelevant – it’s irrelevant even if the data on the computer would show they were committing a crime against you (if you have evidence that that is the case, you don’t hack the computer, you take it to the authorities who subpoena the data). However even then such a thing can’t be done just by saying “I think it’s there” – there has to be real evidence to make the issue of a subpoena justified, not merely a hunch.

  31. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett May 3, 2011 at 12:26 pm #

    Used to have a kinder view of Lakin than most people here did from the get go.

    I used to think he was well meaning but foolish and naive, and was used by people who have an agenda. I thought that, If he actually knew what was going on, he’d have done things differently.

    But since he’s been in prison, and since I’ve been reading the diaries they post on the fund website, I’ve come to the conclusion that he is unrepentant. I think he tried to save his ass on the witness stand and now is letting the true flag fly, and it’s not a pretty sight.

    I still think Farah owes him big time, and I respect his service to this country prior to his abdication of that service for stupid reasons. But I’m done defending him as a pawn. He made himself a player. Now he’s gonna have to pay for it.

  32. avatar
    G May 3, 2011 at 12:35 pm #

    sactosintolerant: Side note about that article is the reference to one of the more fun post-release claims: he released it to preemptively hurt Corsi’s book sales. One of the more extreme examples has him releasing it to hurt Taitz’s appeal. Birthers extremely overestimate their importance.

    Exactly! The birthers always overestimate their size, impact and importance. Heck, all birtherism really amounts to is a self-crafted wall of fictional delusion to protect their fragile personal insecurities from the realities around them.

    In terms of killing Corsi’s book sales, Orly, etc, etc. – that is what is merely known as additional side-benefits….

  33. avatar
    Lupin May 3, 2011 at 12:39 pm #

    J. Edward Tremlett: I used to think he was well meaning but foolish and naive,

    Many traitors (the ideologically motivated ones a la Kim Philby) are well-meaning, foolish and naive — and leave many deaths in their wake, which is why they deserve nothing but our contempt and harsh punishment.

    Lakin’s actions (or rather inaction) possibly killed other soldiers. That’s all I need to know.

  34. avatar
    G May 3, 2011 at 12:46 pm #

    J. Edward Tremlett: But since he’s been in prison, and since I’ve been reading the diaries they post on the fund website, I’ve come to the conclusion that he is unrepentant. I think he tried to save his ass on the witness stand and now is letting the true flag fly, and it’s not a pretty sight.

    Yeah, he’s been completely unrepentent. If anything, he’s sadly decided to not reflect upon his mistakes and instead seems to be doubling down on trying to be a birther martyr. He’s beyond hope.

    If anything, the only mistake made here was giving him so light a sentence.

  35. avatar
    mikeyes May 3, 2011 at 1:19 pm #

    nemocapn: I noticed on Caaflog someone put Lakin and Manning supporters in the same category, but I think there’s a big difference between the two. I’m sympathetic to Manning, but I don’t deny the military’s right to hold Manning before trial

    nemocapn,

    I was the one who equated the two supporters but my main point was just the one you are making: that PFC Manning was charged under UCMJ and that the system is different as are the rights and privileges of military members vs. civilians. You have figured out the differences, but the vast number of responders to various threads on the subject don’t seem to have a clue as to what is going to happen, what the President’s role is in the whole mess, and how the UCMJ proceeds in cases like this.

    So far yours is the most balanced response that I have seen so far outside of CAAFlog. The issue of whether or not he was treated unfairly or even egregiously is separate from the charges. Not everyone seems to understand that. People can decry the treatment he had in Quantico and still think he violated UCMJ. This will be investigated, his lawyer is making sure that it will. (But moving him to Kansas makes it harder for his civilian and military lawyers to see him in person.)

    As for LTC Lakin (he is still at that rank until the appeals are over), he either lied on the stand or is doing so in his blog. You choose. One of these is dishonorable, maybe both.

  36. avatar
    G May 3, 2011 at 1:28 pm #

    mikeyes: As for LTC Lakin (he is still at that rank until the appeals are over), he either lied on the stand or is doing so in his blog. You choose. One of these is dishonorable, maybe both.

    Like many criminals, I think he is only repentent about being convicted itself and not at all repentent in his convictions…

    In other words, I think he feels sorry only for his present situation and not at all for his actions that led to it.

  37. avatar
    The Magic M May 3, 2011 at 1:55 pm #

    > As for LTC Lakin (he is still at that rank until the appeals are over), he either lied on the stand or is doing so in his blog.

    Or there’s the third possibility: he has no idea what some backyard birfer is writing under his name. You never know. But we’ll know once he is released.

    > I don’t insist on turning Manning’s trial into a trial of Obama.

    And that wouldn’t work either.

    This would be like me suspecting the mayor of NYC is not holding his office legally and then trying to use a parking ticket as a method for “uncovering” said allegation in court.

    This reminds me of one of my favourite TV shows as a teenager, Picket Fences. There was one episode where the Pope was eye-witness to a murder and the defense attorney tried to turn the case into his personal crusade against Catholicism. However that character was only acting out of line and wasn’t stark raving mad.

  38. avatar
    nemocapn May 3, 2011 at 2:31 pm #

    mikeyes: my main point was just the one you are making: that PFC Manning was charged under UCMJ and that the system is different as are the rights and privileges of military members vs. civilians. You have figured out the differences, but the vast number of responders to various threads on the subject don’t seem to have a clue as to what is going to happen, what the President’s role is in the whole mess, and how the UCMJ proceeds in cases like this

    I’m surprised that more of Manning’s supporters don’t recognize that a military court operates differently than a civilian court. I would’ve thought most think like me. What Manning did, if he did it, is a violation of the UCMJ. His altruistic motives can’t change that. It’s customary for the military to hold the accused until court martial. His treatment is a separate issue from the charges. That’s just reality.

    Lakin received a light sentence. I don’t think Manning will be as lucky.

  39. avatar
    DP May 3, 2011 at 2:38 pm #

    nc1:
    Presenting the long form in court is different from presenting an image on the web.

    Lakin was sentenced to jail without being allowed to present his defense. This is how things are done in kangaroo courts, third-world dictatorships – surely not in the United States!?

    I think everyone else has done a nice job with this, but it really is complete nonsense. NC1 is simply announcing for all to see that he/she has no idea what they are talking about.

    Lakin’s orders were legally valid regardless of Obama’s eligibility to hold office. That’s a legal fact as the United States military has been established and defined in legislation; to argue otherwise is to expose one’s own foolishness.

    The “defense” Lakin wished to offer was no defense at all. It was irrelevant. Even if Obama was somehow proven to not legally hold office, Lakin was still guilty of the charges against him. I am not without basic human sympathy for someone who has wrecked their own career and harmed the well being of their own family, but Lakin was a fool. He was a fool who received (and accepted) awful legal advice from people using him to their own ends.

  40. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 3, 2011 at 4:00 pm #

    obsolete:
    Look at this amazing photo inside the situation room during the Bin Laden operation:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/5680724572/in/set-72157626507626189

    Sitting next to the President is Brigadier General Marshall B. “Brad” Webb. I wonder what he thinks of Lakin and the birther seditionists.? (when he is not too busy killing terrorists, that is).

    Brigadier General Marshall B. “Brad” Webb is a hero.

    Man, the Sit Room was much nicer under President Bartlett…

    Look at the expression on Secretary Clinton’s face (and President Obama’s) – there’s no way to tell for sure, but I think this may have been taken right after bin Laden was killed…

  41. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 3, 2011 at 4:21 pm #

    J. Edward Tremlett

    I’m going to be in EL this weekend – want to meet up for a beer or a meal?

  42. avatar
    Obsolete May 3, 2011 at 6:56 pm #

    Or the photo could have been after the helicopter malfunction…

    Lakin claimed to be defending the constitution, but that gives the power to verify and certify the President to Congress. Lakin is free to disagree with them, but has no right to overrule them. Lakin was the one trying to usurp powers not reserved for him.

  43. avatar
    Jules May 3, 2011 at 7:42 pm #

    Lakin accepted paychecks issued under a budget signed by a supposed usurper. If boarding the plane was illegal, then so was accepting funds that were, by his theory, misappropriated. (For the avoidance of doubt, I do not consider the funds actually misappropriated. I merely note the logical consequence of accepting Lakin’s crackpot theory.)

  44. avatar
    Dave May 3, 2011 at 9:11 pm #

    As for Lakin not being “allowed to present his defense,” there is an aspect of this I’d like to point out. Leading up to the Article 32 hearing, Lakin’s lawyer filed a request for documentation, much of which was denied by the Investigating Officer. Lakin’s website did not post the filing of his lawyer, but did post the IO’s order. The astonishing thing is that in that order the IO stated that Lakin’s lawyer did not present any argument why the requested documents were relevant. Let me repeat that, the IO did not rule that he found the lawyer’s argument unpersuasive, he said that there wasn’t any argument made.

    How can anybody say the he wasn’t allowed to present his defense, when this filing was an opportunity to present that defense, and no defense was presented.

  45. avatar
    Black Lion May 3, 2011 at 9:29 pm #

    WND Clings To Layers Conspiracy On Birth Certificate
    Topic: WorldNetDaily

    On April 28, WorldNetDaily shot down the idea that the existence of layers in the PDF version of President Obama’s long-form birth certificate was evidence of fraud. It even stated, “While there may be other challenges to the document’s authenticity that bear further scrutiny, it appears that the ‘layer argument’ can be easily explained,” and cited a commenter at the far-right website Free Republic as backup.

    Well, forget about that. WND — in an apparent desperate attempt to find something, anything to discredit Obama — has changed its mind.

    A May 1 WND article by Bob Unruh quotes a “computer document expert” claiming there are “anomalies inconsistent with a simple scanning process, and there is evidence it has been manipulated, but there’s no way to determine exactly what may have been modified.” But buried in Unruh’s article is the evidence that destroys the big conspiracy, citing the report by “expert” Ivan Zatkovich:

    “All of the overlays were of a higher resolution than the background layer,” the report said. “This suggests that the overlays [were] created to enhance that content (i.e. make the text darker and/or the edges sharper). The only two plausible explanations for this pattern of layers is: 1. Someone was changing the content of both the text and the stamps. 2. Someone was systematically enhancing the black text layers for legibility, and then enhancing the stamp overlays separately for legibility.”

    […]

    Zatkovich told WND that the White House image “has specific content extracted from that base layer and enhanced.”

    He said, “This was done through an explicit operation to edit and/or enhance the printing in the document. There is no ambiguity here. There was an explicit action by a person to modify the document. … Mostly like to enhance the legibility, but still an explicit action none the less.”

    In short: The certificate was scanned into a computer and sharpened in Photoshop before being saved as a PDF. Of course, Unruh waits until the 17th paragraph — well after the scaremongering about alleged manipulation — before bothering to report that.

    Meanwhile, a separate May 1 article attempted to discredit one expert who was “the first forensics analyst to weigh in on the validity of the document” by digging up a positive review of a book about Obama’s presidential campaign he allegedly wrote on Amazon.com.

    Of course, by the same standard, WND is not credible because it puts its anti-Obama agenda before the truth. But don’t look for WND to apply that standard to itself.

  46. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett May 3, 2011 at 11:41 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I’m going to be in EL this weekend – want to meet up for a beer or a meal?

    sure, if we can! what days and what times are you available?

  47. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 3, 2011 at 11:51 pm #

    J. Edward Tremlett: sure, if we can! what days and what times are you available?

    I’ll be there from early Friday afternoon until Sunday. You can send me an email at (first name)@(last name – note spelling).net or we can just arrange to meet somewhere .

    Kevin Kesseler

  48. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett May 4, 2011 at 12:39 am #

    okay, you got mail 🙂

  49. avatar
    Northland10 May 4, 2011 at 6:15 am #

    Dave: How can anybody say the he wasn’t allowed to present his defense, when this filing was an opportunity to present that defense, and no defense was presented.

    Well said.

  50. avatar
    Keith May 4, 2011 at 11:14 am #

    DCH: Questions, NC One: Were the elite Navy Seals who killed Osama bin Laden following lawful orders when they actually carried out their mission?

    Actually, there could be a strong argument that no, they weren’t.

    I strongly suspect that argument will not be strongly and pursued, and I am not sorry about that, but the argument can be made.

    An order to commit murder is not lawful. People are being very careful at the moment to insist that there was an honest intent to take him alive, but the credibility is strained.

  51. avatar
    nc1 May 4, 2011 at 11:56 am #

    misha: Lakin should try that in the IDF or the Red Army.

    Did you serve in IDF?

  52. avatar
    nc1 May 4, 2011 at 12:11 pm #

    Keith: Actually, there could be a strong argument that no, they weren’t.

    I strongly suspect that argument will not be strongly and pursued, and I am not sorry about that, but the argument can be made.

    An order to commit murder is not lawful. People are being very careful at the moment to insist that there was an honest intent to take him alive, but the credibility is strained.

    They have been many callers (including defense lawyers) on the local radio in San Francisco (KGO 810) who were very disappointed that Osama was not captured alive and charged in either US courts or International War Crimes Court in Hague.

    If it turns out that he was killed while not armed and not resisting – this will be the start of another conspiracy theory.

  53. avatar
    Joey May 4, 2011 at 12:28 pm #

    What birthers seem not to understand (probably because of the psychological mechanisms of denial) is that a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth has all the information that any birth certificate needs to provide that is relevant to Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 eligibility as a natural born citizen. There is NOTHING on a Hawaii long form Certificate of Live Birth that adds to (or subtracts from) constitutional eligiblity to be president.
    Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin, in his own words, in a rare moment of lucidity: “I chose the wrong path.”
    What denialists like NC1 can’t admit to themselves is that LTC Lakin pleaded guilty to 3 of the 4 specfications against him.
    If the decision to deny him discovery was wrong, it still can be reversed on appeal. Thus far, no appeals court, military or otherwise has reversed the Court Martial judge’s ruling which was consistent with the initial ruling of the investigating officer for the Court Martial.
    In the US Military, you should know that your goose is cooked when one of the only two active duty winners of the Medal of Honor, America’s highest military citation, testifies against you at Court Martial. Lakin’s commanding officer was Gordon Ray “Bird dog” Roberts, a winner of the Medal Honor. Lakin refused to report to Colonel Robert’s office and that was one of the charges against Lakin. Colonel Roberts testified that when he asked Lakin to report a second time, Lakin responded “you had your chance.” When the eight Colonels sitting on Lakin’s jury heard that, Lakin was done for.

  54. avatar
    Suranis May 4, 2011 at 12:56 pm #

    NC1. Have you apologized yet to the American people for your baseless speculation about the longform and wasting countless hours blatherong on about June 2007?

    Have you admitted that the cradle to the grave documentary evidence for the longform is Ironclad and proves beyind a reasonable doubt that Obama is who he says he is, especially as Hawai’i has linked to the long for image as a true representation of that they sent with the courier to the white house?

    Have you apologized the the American People for your constant attempts to make people believe a falsehood about a legitimate president?

  55. avatar
    ellid May 4, 2011 at 2:55 pm #

    nc1: Did you serve in IDF?

    Did you serve under Slobodan Milosevic, Radavan Karadzic, or another fine Balkan genocide and terrorist?

  56. avatar
    misha May 4, 2011 at 4:38 pm #

    misha: Lakin should try that in the IDF or the Red Army.

    nc1: Did you serve in IDF?

    Yes.

  57. avatar
    Bovril May 4, 2011 at 9:37 pm #

    There are a number of us here who have served Nonce, have you?

  58. avatar
    nc1 May 5, 2011 at 2:20 am #

    Joey:
    What birthers seem not to understand (probably because of the psychological mechanisms of denial) is that a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth has all the information that any birth certificate needs to provide that is relevant to Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 eligibility as a natural born citizen. There is NOTHING on a Hawaii long form Certificate of Live Birth that adds to (or subtracts from) constitutional eligiblity to be president.
    Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin, in his own words, in a rare moment of lucidity: “I chose the wrong path.”
    What denialists like NC1 can’t admit to themselves is that LTC Lakin pleaded guilty to 3 of the 4 specfications against him.
    If the decision to deny him discovery was wrong, it still can be reversed on appeal. Thus far, no appeals court, military or otherwise has reversed the Court Martial judge’s ruling which was consistent with the initial ruling of the investigating officer for the Court Martial.
    In the US Military, you should know that your goose is cooked when one of the only two active duty winners of the Medal of Honor, America’s highest military citation, testifies against you at Court Martial. Lakin’s commanding officer was Gordon Ray “Bird dog” Roberts, a winner of the Medal Honor. Lakin refused to report to Colonel Robert’s office and that was one of the charges against Lakin. Colonel Roberts testified that when he asked Lakin to report a second time, Lakin responded “you had your chance.” When the eight Colonels sitting on Lakin’s jury heard that, Lakin was done for.

    His defense attorney admitted ambushing Lakin during the trial:

    “Puckett raised his voice and proceeded to point out through questions and answers from Lakin how he had let down his family, the Army, his Soldiers, and those who need his medical services on the battlefield. This defense tactic totally surprised the client, but enabled the jury to see the depth and agony of the moral issues that led Lakin to make those choices.”

    http://www.puckettfaraj.com/2010/12/ltc-lakin-convicted-of-failure-to-obey-orders-and-missing-movement/comment-page-1/#comment-9788

    Puckett left the trial before its end, demonstrating total lack of commitment to this case.

    An interesting interview with Cdr. Kerchner who witnessed the trial:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/the-lakin-contradiction/#comment-111583

  59. avatar
    nc1 May 5, 2011 at 3:04 am #

    JoZeppy: Seems you know equally nothing about the law, our courts, or the military.Lakin was permitted to present his defense.He was not permitted to go off into la-la land and babble on about meanless topics that had no impact on his guilt or innocence.In REAL courts, you are not permitted to go on fishing expeditions that have nothing to do with you case.Lakin was free to present his defense.However, he was not entitled to present a defense, that even if it was exactly as he said it was, would have no impact on his guilt or innocence.1)Lakin’s guilt of innocence is not effected by President’s Obama’s status.Even if President Obama was born in Kenya, and said it right to Lakins face, Lakin would still be guilty of disobeying a direct order.Therefore, the Court was absolutely correct in denying him any right to demand any documents for the President or agruing irrelevant points in his defense.2)Lakin and the military have no role in determining the qualifications of the President.You see, that is how thrid-world dicatorships and banana republic works.3)Finally, how is Lakin remotely qualified to make a determination about the President’s qualifications?He doesn’t know the UCMJ well enough to listen to his superiors who counselled him and told him he was given a lawful order.He didn’t know the law well enough to recognize what a legal birth certificate was.He doesn’t know the Constitution well enough to understand the COLB was good for all purposes because the full faith and credit clause.

    Read the officer’s oath. Defending the Constitution takes precedence over obeying the order to deploy to war given by illegitimate CiC. That was the true motivation on Lakin’s part and the defense that his attorney did not use.
    An honest defense attorney would not have ambushed his client during the trial, that is exactly what Neal Puckett did. He ought to be ashamed for his role in the trial.

    I had a personal experience with a corrupt defense attorney. My father had an eminent domain case against a government agency. Guess what, our attorney was trying to do favors to the government at our expense.

    Puckett’s behavior is nothing new. I am sure that you have heard about such behavior by defense attorneys.

    If my memory is correct there were two retired generals who were willing to testify in Lakin’s defense. Are you saying that none of them understood the military law and the meaning of a lawful command?

    If COLB was good enough evidence – why is it that it was not presented in any court? An image posted on the web is meaningless, unless you are a judge who relies on Twitter for ruling in Obama’s eligibility case.

    How would you feel if a judge ruled against your client using Twitter as an argument? What sanctions should be imposed on such an obviously biased judge?

  60. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 5, 2011 at 3:46 am #

    nc1: His defense attorney admitted ambushing Lakin during the trial:

    The lawyer who ambushed Lakin was his first attorney, Paul Jensen.

    Any competent lawyer would have advised Lakin to deploy.

  61. avatar
    The Magic M May 5, 2011 at 4:49 am #

    > Defending the Constitution takes precedence over obeying the order to deploy to war given by illegitimate CiC.

    But it is not up to the soldier to decide what “defending the Constitution” means. Your argument means that if the soldier decides it’s more important to fight domestic terrorists than to deploy to Afghanistan, he is allowed to disobey orders because the former would mean “defending the Constitution”. That’s outright foolish and is not how the military operates.

    > If my memory is correct there were two retired generals who were willing to testify in Lakin’s defense. Are you saying that none of them understood the military law and the meaning of a lawful command?

    The definition of a lawful command is simple. Two retired generals can’t argue that away, just like two retired Nobel prize winners cannot argue away that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

    > If COLB was good enough evidence – why is it that it was not presented in any court?

    Because no case ever went that far. And the release of the LFBC has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that birthers will never be satisfied anyway. If the COLB had been presented to a court and accepted, they’d still be suing over the LFBC being presented to a court, and ultimately they will claim the judge is part of the conspiracy or “was threatened”. Don’t kid yourself otherwise.

    > How would you feel if a judge ruled against your client using Twitter as an argument?

    And again you openly lie and claim that “Twitter” had anything to do with losing the case. The judge only mentioned the issue was public, among others that it had been twittered. His dismissal of the case had nothing to do with the issue being public, let alone with it having been twittered.
    So why do you birthers have to lie again? Is your truth still so weak?

    > What sanctions should be imposed on such an obviously biased judge?

    What sanctions should be imposed on the birther agenda if it is always brought forth using lies, deceit and distortion?

  62. avatar
    Bovril May 5, 2011 at 6:17 am #

    nc1: There are a number of us here who have served Nonce, have you?

    Still waiting Nonce,

    There are a number of us here who have served Nonce, have you?

  63. avatar
    mikeyes May 5, 2011 at 7:10 am #

    nc1: Read the officer’s oath. Defending the Constitution takes precedence over obeying the order to deploy to war given by illegitimate CiC. That was the true motivation on Lakin’s part and the defense that his attorney did not use

    How does one “defend the Constitution” by openly defying it? The Constitution clearly spells out the Congressional role in the regulation of the military. Congress passed laws that include the UCMJ. Article 92 of the UCMJ states that LTC Lakin had to follow lawful orders. The same law also outlines who can give a lawful order including LTC Lakin’s commanding officer. It very clearly outlines that the legitimacy of the president in office is moot in this case. Lawful orders are those that are not facially illegal.

    We have been through this time and again, you just choose to ignore those aspects of the Constitution that are inconvenient to your case. Atty Jensen did the same thing. He was given a chance to propose his case before the CM and failed to do so. He was unable to show why the orders given his client were facially illegal and he clearly did not understand the Article I court system.

    Atty Puckett, on the other hand, made lemonade with the case he was given. Now Terry Lakin can practice medicine, provide for his family and advocate any political position he wants as of May 13. Because of Atty Puckett’s efforts he is not charged with a felony under federal rules and will not face moral turpitude charges in the MD medical board.

    BTW, I have served, for over 28 years in two wars, if that is relevant.

  64. avatar
    Black Lion May 5, 2011 at 7:39 am #

    mikeyes: How does one “defend the Constitution” by openly defying it? The Constitution clearly spells out the Congressional role in the regulation of the military. Congress passed laws that include the UCMJ. Article 92 of the UCMJ states that LTC Lakin had to follow lawful orders. The same law also outlines who can give a lawful order including LTC Lakin’s commanding officer. It very clearly outlines that the legitimacy of the president in office is moot in this case. Lawful orders are those that are not facially illegal. We have been through this time and again, you just choose to ignore those aspects of the Constitution that are inconvenient to your case. Atty Jensen did the same thing. He was given a chance to propose his case before the CM and failed to do so. He was unable to show why the orders given his client were facially illegal and he clearly did not understand the Article I court system. Atty Puckett, on the other hand, made lemonade with the case he was given. Now Terry Lakin can practice medicine, provide for his family and advocate any political position he wants as of May 13. Because of Atty Puckett’s efforts he is not charged with a felony under federal rules and will not face moral turpitude charges in the MD medical board.BTW, I have served, for over 28 years in two wars, if that is relevant.

    Mike, and tell NC1 what would have happend if you had disobeyed an order from your CO or someone under your command had disobeyed a direct order from you using Lakin’s “excuses”?

  65. avatar
    Keith May 5, 2011 at 9:17 am #

    nc1: If COLB was good enough evidence – why is it that it was not presented in any court?

    Because there has been no trial in which it was relevant.

  66. avatar
    Lupin May 5, 2011 at 9:30 am #

    nc1: I had a personal experience with a corrupt defense attorney. My father had an eminent domain case against a government agency. Guess what, our attorney was trying to do favors to the government at our expense.

    That might explain why you’re mentally unbalanced, with a propensity to support traitors.

    And I’d bet your attorney was right too; you loons just wouldn’t listen to him/her.

  67. avatar
    Greg May 5, 2011 at 9:36 am #

    An honest defense attorney would not have ambushed his client during the trial, that is exactly what Neal Puckett did. He ought to be ashamed for his role in the trial.

    This was SENTENCING, Lakin had already been found guilty, and the defense attorney ambushed his client in order to make him look remorseful. Otherwise, instead of 6 months, Lakin would have gotten the full 3 years!

    That you can’t be honest even about this says volumes about you, nc, and nothing about the defense attorney.

  68. avatar
    misha May 5, 2011 at 10:03 am #

    nc1: His defense attorney admitted ambushing Lakin during the trial: An honest defense attorney would not have ambushed his client during the trial, that is exactly what Neal Puckett did.

    The one who sandbagged Lakin was Jensen. Jensen is a personal injury attorney, whose practice is mostly dog bites.

  69. avatar
    JoZeppy May 5, 2011 at 10:26 am #

    nc1: Read the officer’s oath. Defending the Constitution takes precedence over obeying the order to deploy to war given by illegitimate CiC. That was the true motivation on Lakin’s part and the defense that his attorney did not use

    His oath nor what Lakin thinks it means, does not trump the UCMJ. You’ll also note there is nothing in the Constitution that give the military the power to decide a president’s qualifications. You’ll also note that the Constitution demands that the official documents of the individual states be respected. And as has been said over, and over again, none of this effects the legality of his orders. All this taken together, it is quite clear that Lakin is grossly unqualified, and uneducated to make any determinations of sufficience under the law or Constitution. If it really bothered him that much, he should have resigned his commission. His defense attorney did not use it, because it is no defense. If I shoot my neighbor in the head while he is asleep in his bed, because I think he’s a serial killer, no matter how believed it to be true does not constitute a defense against murder. Just get it through your head, it wasn’t used as a defense, because even if Obama was ineligible, Lakin was still required by the UCMJ to follow all lawful order, and there is no argument that his deployment order was lawful.

    nc1: An honest defense attorney would not have ambushed his client during the trial, that is exactly what Neal Puckett did. He ought to be ashamed for his role in the trial.

    It wasn’t Puckett that ambushed Lakin, it was Jensen. Puckett did the best after Jensen set Lakin up for a fall. Jensen was the one that let Lakin put up a video on Youtube where he admits that he plans to disobey lawful deployment orders. Jensen is the one that let Lakin believe the fantasy that the judge would let them get discovery from the President. Jensen is the one that pretty much made it unquestionable that Lakin would do time. Puckett just did the best he could to salvage what was unquestionably a lost cause. Puckett acted as an honest defense attorney would, and tried to mitigate as much of the damage that Lakin and Jensen inflicted. But then again, with every post on the subject, you just reinforce the fact that you have no idea how the law works.

    nc1: I had a personal experience with a corrupt defense attorney. My father had an eminent domain case against a government agency. Guess what, our attorney was trying to do favors to the government at our expense.

    First off, your experiences are irrelevant. The fact that you may have had a bad experience does not make every attorney corrupt. Plus, you have displayed a complete ignornace of the law, so I really don’t put much weight on your irrelevant personal stories.

    nc1: Puckett’s behavior is nothing new. I am sure that you have heard about such behavior by defense attorneys.

    You’re right. It is nothing new. Many lawyers do their best to make lemon aide out of lemons after their clients screw themselves over. Puckett did the best he could to limit the number of years Lakin served, and did an honorable job of trying to defend his client.

    nc1: If my memory is correct there were two retired generals who were willing to testify in Lakin’s defense. Are you saying that none of them understood the military law and the meaning of a lawful command?

    Just because you’re a general, doesn’t mean you understand the UCMJ any more than a CEO understands corporate law.

    nc1: If COLB was good enough evidence – why is it that it was not presented in any court? An image posted on the web is meaningless, unless you are a judge who relies on Twitter for ruling in Obama’s eligibility case.

    Because there has been no court case that actually had any merits to get past a Motion to Dismiss, to the point where they could file a Motion for Summary Judgment where it would be introduced, or in the case of Lakin, it was just immaterial. And you can continue to make snide remarks about single comments taken out of an opinion, but it just shows that you don’t care to read the whole opinion (or don’t know how to), and understand the real rationale for dismissal.

    nc1: How would you feel if a judge ruled against your client using Twitter as an argument? What sanctions should be imposed on such an obviously biased judge?

    Read the opinion. He didn’t use Twitter as an argument. It was dismissed based on lack of standing. It has nothing to do with bias, and everything to do with your ignorance of the law.

  70. avatar
    mikeyes May 5, 2011 at 12:18 pm #

    Black Lion: Mike, and tell NC1 what would have happend if you had disobeyed an order from your CO or someone under your command had disobeyed a direct order from you using Lakin’s “excuses”?

    That’s what CAPT Yolanda Huet-Vaughn did in my unit when we were deploying to Desert Storm in 1991. She arrived one day, gave an impromptu lecture to the nursing staff exhorting them to leave with her, and left stating she could not obey the orders to deploy because by her reckoning they were illegal. She used the same excuse of illegal orders that LTC Lakin did and suffered the same result.

    She was counseled by our commander in much the same way LTC Lakin was and ended up with a carbon copy set of charges and specifications. Her lawyer didn’t help her very much either as the orders were lawful. She went around the country giving talks about her defying orders which had the same effect as the youtube declarations of LTC Lakin. She had 11 years of service in the Guard and Reserve.

    Another aspect of the Constitution that LTC Lakin seemed to have both ignored and flouted is the Congressional duty to determine the eligibility of the President. He chose to take that task on his own contrary to the words of that document.

    There is a logical disconnect between his oath to “defend the Constitution” and the acts of LTC Lakin (and Atty Jensen) so large that you could drive a truck through it. LTC Lakin knew this – he was a senior officer with plenty of military experience and schooling, after all – and he chose another path. The honorable thing to do would have been resignation.

  71. avatar
    geoff May 5, 2011 at 5:37 pm #

    At a certain point, you can tell Lakin realized he made a disastrous error in listening to the professional birthers and refusing to deploy. He started backtracking fast but, by then, it was too late for him. Another fool hung by his own petard.

  72. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 5, 2011 at 5:52 pm #

    geoff:
    At a certain point, you can tell Lakin realized he made a disastrous error in listening to the professional birthers and refusing to deploy. He started backtracking fast but, by then, it was too late for him. Another fool hung by his own petard. [By the way, it’s ‘hoist’ not ‘hung’ – a petard was a small bomb {~5 lb. of gunpowder }]

    I notice that his backtracking seemed limited to damage control – he carefully avoided any sort of real apology for his actions (or anything which would have alienated the birthers). I think the more you examine the behavior of this birther pseudo-hero, the less honorable it becomes…

  73. avatar
    G May 5, 2011 at 6:06 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I notice that his backtracking seemed limited to damage control – he carefully avoided any sort of real apology for his actions (or anything which would have alienated the birthers). I think the more you examine the behavior of this birther pseudo-hero, the less honorable it becomes…

    Agreed.

    The only thing he’s actually sorry about is that he’s being punished.

  74. avatar
    Dwight Sullivan May 5, 2011 at 7:11 pm #

    From sitting through LTC Lakin’s trial, I believe that he was genuinely remorseful that he dissed his Medal of Honor recipient brigade commander and genuinely remorseful that his attorney’s response to COL Robert summoning LTC Lakin a second time was “you had your chance.” (COL Roberts had to miss an earlier scheduled meeting with LTC Lakin and Paul Rolf Jensen. Apparently in Jensen’s view of military service, that exempts the subordinate from an order to attend a make-up meeting.) Even at the court-martial, LTC Lakin exhibited no signs of remorse that two other doctors had to deploy in his place. Nor did he seem remorseful as the result of the moving testimony of one of his replacements that he thought he wasn’t able to treat U.S. servicemembers wounded in a mass casualty event right after he arrived in theater as effectively as he would have had he received the training that his short-fuse deployment prevented. Nor did I see any signs of remorse for his arrogant, unprofessional, unmilitary treatment of his Commander in Chief.

    In terms of Mr. Puckett’s performance, his ambushing of LTC Lakin during the unsworn statement probably saved his client several months of confinement. Throughout most of LTC Lakin’s testimony, he had a flat affect and wasn’t sympathetic in the slightest. By referring to LTC Lakin’s family and the upcoming Christmas holiday, Mr. Puckett succeeded in making his client cry almost an hour into his unsworn statement. That display of emotion, which humanized LTC Lakin in a way that nothing else in the court-martial did, might help explain why the members limited his confinement to six months. There’s no way to test this theory, but I am convinced that LTC Lakin would have received more confinement — and probably significantly more confinement — had Paul Rolf Jensen represented him at the court-martial.

  75. avatar
    nc1 May 6, 2011 at 2:57 am #

    Dwight Sullivan:
    From sitting through LTC Lakin’s trial, I believe that he was genuinely remorseful that he dissed his Medal of Honor recipient brigade commander and genuinely remorseful that his attorney’s response to COL Robert summoning LTC Lakin a second time was “you had your chance.”(COL Roberts had to miss an earlier scheduled meeting with LTC Lakin and Paul Rolf Jensen.Apparently in Jensen’s view of military service, that exempts the subordinate from an order to attend a make-up meeting.)Even at the court-martial, LTC Lakin exhibited no signs of remorse that two other doctors had to deploy in his place.Nor did he seem remorseful as the result of the moving testimony of one of his replacements that he thought he wasn’t able to treat U.S. servicemembers wounded in a mass casualty event right after he arrived in theater as effectively as he would have had he received the training that his short-fuse deployment prevented. Nor did I see any signs of remorse for his arrogant, unprofessional, unmilitary treatment of his Commander in Chief.

    In terms of Mr. Puckett’s performance, his ambushing of LTC Lakin during the unsworn statement probably saved his client several months of confinement.Throughout most of LTC Lakin’s testimony, he had a flat affect and wasn’t sympathetic in the slightest.By referring to LTC Lakin’s family and the upcoming Christmas holiday, Mr. Puckett succeeded in making his client cry almost an hour into his unsworn statement.That display of emotion, which humanized LTC Lakin in a way that nothing else in the court-martial did, might help explain why the members limited his confinement to six months.There’s no way to test this theory, but I am convinced that LTC Lakin would have received more confinement — and probably significantly more confinement — had Paul Rolf Jensen represented him at the court-martial.

    IS HE OR IS HE NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?

  76. avatar
    G May 6, 2011 at 3:30 am #

    nc1: IS HE OR IS HE NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?

    He is.

  77. avatar
    Bovril May 6, 2011 at 6:18 am #

    I don’t know Nonce, I haven’t seen Lakin’s “long form” BC nor that of his parents, have you?

  78. avatar
    misha May 6, 2011 at 8:21 am #

    nc1: IS HE OR IS HE NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?

    Lakin is NOT a NBC:

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/08/lakin-undocumented-worker_26.html

  79. avatar
    Dwight Sullivan May 6, 2011 at 8:25 am #

    nc1, assuming you are speaking of the President, of course he’s a natural born citizen. The generally accepted legal definition of a natural born citizen is one who becomes a citizen at the moment of birth. President Obama became a U.S. citizen at the moment of his birth in Hawaii. That would have been the case even before the 14th Amendment was adopted, but it is even more apparent in light of the 14th Amendment. One born in the U.S. — unless the child of someone enjoying diplomatic immunity — is a U.S. citizen. (Some people born outside the U.S. also become U.S. citizens at the moment of their birth due to their parents’ citizenship. They are also natural born citizens.) The Supreme Court construed the term “natural born” in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). That is one of many authorities that establish beyond any reasonable doubt that President Obama is a natural born citizen as a result of being born in Hawaii.

  80. avatar
    Bovril May 6, 2011 at 8:35 am #

    Oh Dwight, it’s so sweet seeing you trying to reason with The Nonce…… 😎

  81. avatar
    Daniel May 6, 2011 at 12:47 pm #

    nc1: IS HE OR IS HE NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?

    You really havn’t been listening at all, have you.

  82. avatar
    NBC May 6, 2011 at 12:57 pm #

    Dwight Sullivan: The Supreme Court construed the term “natural born” in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). That is one of many authorities that establish beyond any reasonable doubt that President Obama is a natural born citizen as a result of being born in Hawaii.

    Just to clarify: The Court also found that children born abroad were naturalized citizens.

    But it has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents, and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.

    and

    A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

    Can Congress extend the class of natural born citizens through statute? I’d love to hear your opinion on that.

  83. avatar
    ballantine May 6, 2011 at 4:20 pm #

    Can Congress extend the class of natural born citizens through statute? I’d love to hear your opinion on that.

    LOL. Let’s not start that debate again on a beautiful Friday afternoon. I’m sure you have seen this, but I just read Miller v. Albright recently and saw this Scalia quote:

    “The Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, “[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” Ibid. Petitioner, having been born outside the territory of the United States, is an alien as far as the Constitution is concerned, and “can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress.” Id., at 702—703; see also Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 827 (1971). Here it is the “authority of Congress” that is appealed to–its power under Art. I, §8, cl. 4, to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” If there is no congressional enactment granting petitioner citizenship, she remains an alien.”

    Would love for someone to ask Scalia his views on this.

  84. avatar
    Rickey May 6, 2011 at 6:17 pm #

    Keith: Actually, there could be a strong argument that no, they weren’t.

    I strongly suspect that argument will not be strongly and pursued, and I am not sorry about that, but the argument can be made.

    An order to commit murder is not lawful. People are being very careful at the moment to insist that there was an honest intent to take him alive, but the credibility is strained.

    I’d be interested to hear Dwight Sullivan’s take on this, but my understanding is that killing the commander of an actively hostile force is legal under any circumstances, unless a truce is in place.

    For example,I am fairly certain that there wasn’t a single U.S. soldier who would have hesitated to obey an order to kill Hitler if the opportunity had presented itself during WWII.

  85. avatar
    Joey May 6, 2011 at 6:48 pm #

    Dwight Sullivan:
    nc1, assuming you are speaking of the President, of course he’s a natural born citizen.The generally accepted legal definition of a natural born citizen is one who becomes a citizen at the moment of birth.President Obama became a U.S. citizen at the moment of his birth in Hawaii.That would have been the case even before the 14th Amendment was adopted, but it is even more apparent in light of the 14th Amendment.One born in the U.S. — unless the child of someone enjoying diplomatic immunity — is a U.S. citizen.(Some people born outside the U.S. also become U.S. citizens at the moment of their birth due to their parents’ citizenship.They are also natural born citizens.)The Supreme Court construed the term “natural born” in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). That is one of many authorities that establish beyond any reasonable doubt that President Obama is a natural born citizen as a result of being born in Hawaii.

    How would you know that, Dwight? You’re no attorney. You don’t know anything more about constitutional law than NC1 knew in order to pass the US citizenship exam.
    [set up statement! ;-)]

  86. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 6, 2011 at 8:15 pm #

    Rickey: my understanding is that killing the commander of an actively hostile force is legal under any circumstances, unless a truce is in place.

    Here’s a US Marine document on the law of war:
    http://www.cat-p.com/lawofwar.pdf

    Two main points:

    All persons in uniform, carrying a weapon or participating in any way in military operations or activities, are known as combatants. Under the laws of armed conflict, only combatants are considered proper targets and may be fired upon. All others are called noncombatants

    and

    Never attack enemy soldiers who surrender

    So the question would be whether Bin Laden surrendered.

    Under the rules of war, the way to communicate surrender would be by displaying a white flag, or by raising open hands above the head. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_(military)

    The current standard for determining combatant status appears to be:

    “ Enemy combatant’ shall mean an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy combat forces.”

    I’d say that unless Bin Laden had his hands raised or was waving a white cloth, then the shooting would be legal. I think the events were probably captured on video, but I doubt that the video will ever be released to the public. Bin Laden was in his bedroom, and photographs of the room after his death clearly show white sheets & pillowcases on his bed, so I think the man had the materials at hand to make a white flag if he had chosen to.

  87. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 6, 2011 at 8:35 pm #

    Basic rules of international humanitarian law in armed conflict:
    http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/basic-rules-ihl-311288.htm

    Bottom line:

    It is forbidden to kill or injure an enemy who surrenders or who is hors de combat .

    “Hors de combat” basically means someone who is a prisoner or who has been incapacitated in a way that they can no longer fill their function, such as a pilot who has been shot down or a soldier who is injured and unconscious.

  88. avatar
    Rickey May 6, 2011 at 11:34 pm #

    Thanks for the links, Expelliarmus.

  89. avatar
    Keith May 7, 2011 at 10:06 am #

    Rickey:
    Thanks for the links, Expelliarmus.

    Seconded.

  90. avatar
    nc1 May 7, 2011 at 11:54 pm #

    Dwight Sullivan:
    nc1, assuming you are speaking of the President, of course he’s a natural born citizen.The generally accepted legal definition of a natural born citizen is one who becomes a citizen at the moment of birth.President Obama became a U.S. citizen at the moment of his birth in Hawaii.That would have been the case even before the 14th Amendment was adopted, but it is even more apparent in light of the 14th Amendment.One born in the U.S. — unless the child of someone enjoying diplomatic immunity — is a U.S. citizen.(Some people born outside the U.S. also become U.S. citizens at the moment of their birth due to their parents’ citizenship.They are also natural born citizens.)The Supreme Court construed the term “natural born” in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). That is one of many authorities that establish beyond any reasonable doubt that President Obama is a natural born citizen as a result of being born in Hawaii.

    You, sir, are an intellectually dishonest person.

    Do you remember these words?

  91. avatar
    NBC May 8, 2011 at 12:56 am #

    You, sir, are an intellectually dishonest person.

    I guess the facts are too hard to swallow so you use name calling. Note the absence of any rebuttal by nc1.

  92. avatar
    NBC May 8, 2011 at 12:57 am #

    See also Ankeny v Daniels which found President Obama to be a natural born citizen.
    But let’s not confuse NC1 with facts..

  93. avatar
    obsolete May 8, 2011 at 1:01 am #

    Everything Dwight Sullivan said in the quote is a fact.

  94. avatar
    NBC May 8, 2011 at 1:11 am #

    Everything Dwight Sullivan said in the quote is a fact.

    But NC1 does not deal in facts…. So how would he know?

  95. avatar
    Dwight Sullivan May 8, 2011 at 1:28 am #

    Ah, nc1, facts are such pesky things. It’s so much easier to cast aspersions. Would you care to point out something I wrote that was wrong?

  96. avatar
    Joey May 8, 2011 at 1:46 am #

    The key phrases from the Ankeney v Daniels decision: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
    The Indiana Court of Appeals had been asked to rule on Barack Obama’s eligibility to receive Indiana’s Electoral College votes as a natural born citizen.

  97. avatar
    The Magic M May 8, 2011 at 6:29 am #

    > The Indiana Court of Appeals had been asked to rule on Barack Obama’s eligibility to receive Indiana’s Electoral College votes as a natural born citizen.

    And of course birfers never appealed this to SCOTUS (as the only case they didn’t take further) out of fear the decision would then stand as final. Now they can tell their gullible followers “it was just one court opinion, SCOTUS may/will see it our way”.

  98. avatar
    Joey May 8, 2011 at 1:43 pm #

    The Magic M:
    > The Indiana Court of Appeals had been asked to rule on Barack Obama’s eligibility to receive Indiana’s Electoral College votes as a natural born citizen.

    And of course birfers never appealed this to SCOTUS (as the only case they didn’t take further) out of fear the decision would then stand as final. Now they can tell their gullible followers “it was just one court opinion, SCOTUS may/will see it our way”.

    When the birthers say that (and minimize the impact of a state court decision) I remind them that US presidential elections are decided by the accumulation of electoral college votes from 50 states plus the District of Columbia. If one state invalidated Obama’s Electoral College votes, that would start a cascade of states doing the same thing.
    I also remind them that 13 Obama eligiblity appeals have already reached the Supreme Court of the United States and not one of them has been granted a hearing before the full Court. The Supremes aren’t interested.

  99. avatar
    nc1 May 8, 2011 at 6:11 pm #

    Dwight Sullivan:
    Ah, nc1, facts are such pesky things.It’s so much easier to cast aspersions.Would you care to point out something I wrote that was wrong?

    Why didn’t you hit him, coward?

    If others on this blog could not figure out what I was referring to in my last two posts, you certainly should have.

  100. avatar
    NBC May 8, 2011 at 6:23 pm #

    Why didn’t you hit him, coward?

    ROTFL, poor NC1, personal attacks rather than to point out where Dwight Sullivan was wrong.
    I am not surprised as Dwight’s explanation was fully factual.
    Why are you hiding behind the words of others? Coward?

  101. avatar
    Suranis May 8, 2011 at 7:54 pm #

    nc1: Why didn’t you hit him, coward?

    If others on this blog could not figure out what I was referring to in my last two posts, you certainly should have.

    Because he is a US Marine, he was standing in a court of the US Army, and he has a hell of a lot more self control than I would have had when confronted with such a lying smarmy twit.

  102. avatar
    Joey May 8, 2011 at 8:54 pm #

    I think that it is reasonable to assume that if there was even the slightest possiblity that the President of the United States was not a natural born citizen, the very first order of business for the new “loyal opposition” Republican majority in the House of Representatives would have been to convene immediate hearings on Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution as applied to the birthplace and parentage of Barack Hussein Obama II. The fact that not one single member of Congress has called for hearings on the meaning of “natural born citizen” and whether Barack Hussein Obama II qualifies speaks volumes.
    From Watergate to Iran-Contra to the Savings and Loan scandal to Whitewater to the CIA leaks-Valerie Plame affair, every time an administration might be operating outside the law and the Constitution, there are congressional hearings (and a Grand Jury investigation). Not so with “natural born citizen-gate!”

  103. avatar
    Dwight Sullivan May 8, 2011 at 9:13 pm #

    nc1, I will once again invite you to point out something I wrote that was wrong.

  104. avatar
    Manuel Ferreira May 12, 2011 at 12:09 pm #

    nc1:
    Presenting the long form in court is different from presenting an image on the web.

    Lakin was sentenced to jail without being allowed to present his defense. This is how things are done in kangaroo courts, third-world dictatorships – surely not in the United States!?

    Seriously? Can you seriously not see the delusion in demanding that the President of the United States present his birth certificate so that you can prove for yourself that you were given a lawful order? I…I…I…what does one say? How does one respond to such idiocy?

    This man allowed himself to be duped by hucksters and charlatan lawyers into throwing away his career and forcing another man to deploy in his place.

    And now, Farah and the other Whirled Nuts are crying “Shame on Obama”

    I used to think of this stuff as entertainment because really, no one was getting hurt and MOST of the American public (the ones with critical thinking skills) believe that this is all nonsense…now, well now, it’s time to stop. Stop before some crazy mofo takes out a gun and shoots someone

  105. avatar
    Montana May 12, 2011 at 8:53 pm #

    Dishonorable discharge Terry Lakin, is a fool, who needs him!

    Our president had already showed his US birth Certificate to;

    1. Get a US Passport; http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/03/20/obamas_passport_files_hacked/

    2. Become a US Senator;

    I feel sorry for all the little Birthers, It’s not their fault; it’s your families’ fault that taught you that you were better than other people based on race, creed ethnicity, color, nationality or sex, in short they engrained in you their hate (what a legacy).

    But you know at some point you need to grow up and act like an adult and think for yourself and distinguish what is true and what is BS.

    But there is where the little Birthers find yourself because we all know it was never about a birth certificate or grades, because we all know you want to go around wearing white sheets, burn crosses and hang people who are not like you, we know that your growth is stunted in your hate, and hate is what this is all about, you will never win anymore, and I feel sorry for all of you.

    I can only imagine when our President is re-elected what you phonies will lie about next. Oh, and just know, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it’s a duck, the little Birthers are a bunch of racists!

  106. avatar
    Majority Will May 12, 2011 at 9:59 pm #

    Manuel Ferreira: I used to think of this stuff as entertainment because really, no one was getting hurt and MOST of the American public (the ones with critical thinking skills) believe that this is all nonsense…now, well now, it’s time to stop. Stop before some crazy mofo takes out a gun and shoots someone

    Amen.