LTC Lakin and his attorney, Paul Rolf Jensen, were on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360° for about 7 minutes tonight.  I don’t believe any new ground was covered.  Most of the questions that Mr. Cooper asked of LTC Lakin were answered by Mr. Jensen instead, leading to sparring between the host and the lawyer.  LTC Lakin uttered only about nine sentences during the entire interview — and they were nine sentences we’ve heard him utter before.  He said, “This is a constitutional matter.  The truth matters.”  In response to a question about how servicemembers prove their citizenship, he said this isn’t about all soldiers; it’s about the constitutional eligibility requirements for the President.  He said, “I attempted all the avenues I could over a year ago.  I submitted an Article 138 asking and begging my leadership how to address this issue.”  And he said, “My oath of office is to the Constitution.  We need truth on this matter.”

Also today, David Weigel’s “Right Now” blog at the Washington Post‘s web site reported here that” The American Patriot Foundation informs us that since Lakin started publicizing his case, the organization ‘has received generous donations from more than 1,200 separate individuals,’ which is sort of the point.”

During the Anderson Cooper interview, Mr. Jensen did seem to concede that Hawaii officials wouldn’t be testifying at the court-martial.  If the defense recognizes that, one does wonder what the point of all this is. 

Finally, can anyone identify for us the Army judge advocate who has been detailed as LTC Lakin’s defense counsel?

37 Responses to “LTC Lakin interview fizzles”

  1. Ernesto says:

    Periodista de la esquina. Thanks, Dwight, for the informative posts. On the front line this week with minute-by-minute reporting. Errragh!

  2. Ama Goste says:

    Just caught the interview rerun. Two thoughts:

    1) To what nation’s military was Anderson referring when he mentioned military enlistees needing to prove their US citizenship? (Did he forget all the new paths to citizenship for our non-citizen soldiers that have been proposed/enacted in recent years?)
    2) What the !#$(@???

  3. Anonymous says:

    “Finally, can anyone identify for us the Army judge advocate who has been detailed as LTC Lakin’s defense counsel?”

    I’d look for the high ranking JAG walking around carrying a short straw.

  4. natural born citizen party says:

    I guess Hawaii should be called a “citizenship title-washing state” and be given a full faith and credit pass to generate natural born citizen POTUS/CINC US constitutional eligibility titles to the foreign national fathered births delivered world-wide to female citizens of the great State of Hawaii — site of the original Pearl Harbor event where various senior (O-5 and above) line officers in HI and DC somehow missed the call on Japan fleet movements related to Hawaii.

  5. soonergrunt says:

    Well, of course the full faith and credit clause applies, even though the defense won’t examine the Hawaiian government’s assertion that…wait, what?
    Peal Harbor event? Japan?
    Oh, OK. You really ARE batshit crazy after all. I thought it was just hyperbole.

  6. Truther51 says:

    What part of the constitution are YOU willing to ignore?
    Article II Section I Clause V is extremely difficult to read and understand for OBOTS so folks will either uphold it and fight or kneel down and kiss the hand that feeds them.
    Either way, those who are self sufficient will survive as the rest of the leaches in our society lament the loss of their free ride.

    Saul Alinsky is winning the battle but we’ll win the war.
    Time for a refresher course on Sun Tzu.

  7. ?????????? says:

    When I enlisted I had to show them my Birth Certificate 3x, once to my recruiter, again at MEPs, and finally when I got to my permanent station. A simple requirement.

    I am sure enlistees in foriegn countries go through a different process to obtain VISAs.

  8. Tom says:

    Lt Col Lakin needs to proceed armed with, at this stage, what we do know to be the truth:

    FROM THE “JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES” VOLUME 33 p398 January 28, 1839 :
    “Resolved, That the Commitee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire on the expediency of so amending the law on the subject of naturalization, as to EXCLUDE THOSE FROM THE PRIVLEGES OF NATURAL BORN CITIZENS WHO are or shall BE BORN OF PARENTS who have been removed or shall remove, from the United States, and have or shall take the oath of allegiance to the Government in which they so reside, until such persons shall become naturalized LIKE OTHER FOREIGNERS, agreeably to the laws that now do or hereafter may exist on that subject.”(my caps)

    From Article entitled “Massachusetts & South Carolina”, source:The New Englander L Rev Vol 3 1845 p414
    “The expression ‘citizen of the United States’ occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used & EXCLUDES ALL PERSONS OWING ALLEGIANCE BY BIRTH TO FOREIGN STATES; in the other cases the word ‘citizen’ is used without the adjective & excludes persons owing allegiance to foreign states, unless naturalized under our laws.”(my caps) Note: “The New Englander” was a publication that stood, in great measure, as a tribute to patriot and Revolutionary War hero General Joseph Palmer He gave his life & fortune for ‘the cause’

    U.S. Congressman, abolitionist, “Father of the 14th Amendment” John Bingham confirms understanding & construction Framers used re birthright & jurisdictIon in the House March 1866:
    “I find no fault with the introductory clause which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States OF PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..”

    The ADMISSION via “Fight the Smears”
    The Obama Campaign states that BO Jr was subject to British Law at birth. This is FACT not allegation
    “… As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose CITIZENSHIP STATUS WAS GOVERNED BY The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act GOVERNED the status of Obama Sr.s children

  9. natural born citizen party says:

    NARRATIVE STATEMENT OF RECORD OF PEARL HARBOR COURT OF INQUIRY

    http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/narrative/index.html

    FOREWORD

    Public Law No. 339, 78th Congress, approved June 13, 1944, directed the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy, severally, to proceed forthwith with an investigation into the facts surrounding the Pearl Harbor catastrophe, and to commence such proceedings against such persons as the facts might justify.

    A Court of Inquiry, consisting of Admiral Orin G. Murfin, U. S. N. (Retired), Admiral Edward C. Kalbfus, U. S. N. (Retired) and Vice Admiral Adolphus Andrews, U. S. N., (Retired), with Commander (Retired) and Biesemeier, U. S. N., as Judge Advocate, was appointed on July 13, 1944. The Court was directed to convene on July 17, 1944, or as soon thereafter as practicable, for the purpose of inquiring into all circumstances connected with the attack made by Japanese forces on Pearl Harbor, Territory of Hawaii, on December 7, 1941; to inquire thoroughly into the matter, and to include in its findings a full statement of the facts it might deem to be established. The Court was further directed to state its opinion as to whether any offenses were committed or serious blame incurred on the part of any person or persons in the Naval Service, and, in case its opinion was that offenses had been committed or serious blame incurred, to recommend specifically what further proceedings should be had.

    The Court of Inquiry commenced its proceedings on July 31, 1944, and sub­mitted the record of its proceedings on October 20, 1944. During its investiga­tion, the Court took the testimony of thirty‑nine witnesses, and received seventy-seven exhibits. Certain portions of the record of proceedings before the Court, including the findings and opinion of the Court, have been classified “TOP SECRET,” and the balance “SECRET.”

    By letter dated October 21, 1944, the Secretary of the Navy requested the commander in Chief, U. S. Fleet, and Chief of Naval Operations to advise as to how much of the records of the Pearl Harbor Court of Inquiry bear such a rela­tion to present military operations as to require high security classification.

    The Commander in Chief, U. S. Fleet, and Chief of Naval Operations advised, in a letter dated November 3, 1944, that a substantial part of the records of Pearl Harbor Court of Inquiry bears such a relation to the national security and to current military operations as to make it essential that that information not be revealed publicly.

  10. Phil Cave says:

    I’d bet on LTC Celtniks, but suspect he’s PCS’d, and probably too junior.

  11. Norbrook says:

    Unfortunately for you, that is neither germane to the case law – including several Supreme Court decisions. Despite your fondness for capitalizing (screaming) various things, it doesn’t make them so. You seem to unable to understand that British citizenship law does not apply to the United States. It has been well-established that if you are born in this country (jus soli) you are a Natural-Born American Citizen, no matter what your parents’ citizenship status. Period.

  12. natural born citizen party says:

    continued NARRATIVE STATEMENT OF RECORD OF PEARL HARBOR COURT OF INQUIRY

    (suggested Lakin CM “Pearl Harbor Court of Inquiry” defense)

    364 CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

    After thorough review of the record of proceedings of the Pearl Harbor Court of Inquiry, the Secretary concurred with the views of the Commander in Chief, U. S. Fleet, and Chief of Naval Operations, as expressed in his letter of November 3, 1944, and accordingly has directed that in the best interests of the present and future military operations of the United States, the existing TOP SECRET” and “SECRET” classifications of the record must be continued. The Navy Department has stated that the record of the Court will not be made public while the war is in progress.

    The net result of the findings of fact and opinion of the Pearl Harbor Naval Court of Inquiry, as reviewed by Judge Advocate General of the Navy, and the Commander in Chief, U. S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, and by the Secretary of the Navy is that the evidence now available does not warrant and will not support the trial by general court martial of any person or persons in the Naval Service.

    The Secretary in his findings upon the evidence before the Court of Inquiry and all the other proceedings in the matter to date, has found that there were errors of judgment on the part of certain officers in the Naval Service, both at Pearl Harbor and at Washington.

    The Secretary is not satisfied that the investigation has gone to the point of exhaustion of all possible evidence. Accordingly, he has decided that his own investigation should be further continued until the testimony of every witness in possession of material facts can be obtained and all possible evidence exhausted. Some of the testimony will be much delayed because certain witnesses who are actively engaged in combat against the enemy are not available and will not be available within the predictable future. The present decision of the Secretary will be reviewed when the investigation has been finally completed in the light of the evidence then at hand.

    The Secretary made this personal statement to the press on December 1, 1944: “In reaching the above conclusions and decisions I am fully mindful of the wide and legitimate public interest in the Pearl Harbor attack. However, there is one consideration which is paramount to all others, and that is: What will best serve the continued successful prosecution of the war? The actions I have taken in my judgment, are taken in the light of that consideration, and I accept full and complete responsibility for them.”

    In connection with the Secretary’s further investigation, the following statement has been prepared, narrating the evidence obtained by the Court of Inquiry. It is believed that all significant evidence so obtained has been included. Because reference is made to “TOP SECRET” material, this statement has been classified “TOP SECRET.”

    On June 15, 1944, two days after the enactment of Public Law No. 339 of the 78th Congress, Admiral Thomas C. Hart, USN (Retired), completed an examination of witnesses and the taking of testimony pertinent to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which had been directed by the Secretary of the Navy in a precept to Admiral Hart, dated February 12, 1944. In the course of his examination, Admiral Hart took the testimony of forty witnesses, some of whom also testified later before the Naval Pearl Harbor Court of Inquiry, and received forty‑two exhibits. Various of the witnesses before Admiral Hart furnished information which does not appear in the Record of Proceedings of the Naval Pearl Harbor Court of Inquiry. The evidence obtained by Admiral Hart has been digested. The following narrative statement of the evidence obtained by the Naval Pearl Harbor Court of Inquiry has been cross‑referenced to the evidence obtained by Admiral Hart. The left‑hand “pink” pages refer to the record of the examination of witnesses conducted by Admiral Hart. It should be noted that the record of proceedings before Admiral Hart has been reclassified as “TOP SECRET.”

    JOHN F. SONNETT

  13. Norbrook says:

    and apparently you can quite easily ignore the 14’th Amendment, as well as numerous Supreme Court cases.

    Since you’re apparently arguing that only the original Constitution as passed is “valid,” it means that all those other 27 Amendments don’t mean anything either. Including the so-called “bill of rights.”

  14. Anonymous says:

    I know how disappointed you are that the 14th Amendment was passed what with all the guarantees it gives (technically to everyone) but primarily to minorities, but it still counts.

    Even if you are right about the section you cite (you aren’t of course but let’s assume you are right), the 14th Amendment changes things, and it came later in time.

    Then again, why am I wasting my time, you are calling military officers “leaches” (sic) and “OBOTS” (continually coming up with ways to play 12-year-old word games with the President’s name is not impressive) and apparently denigrating our service to this nation by implying through linkage to Saul Alinsky that we are America-hating radicals.

    I think Sun Tzu isn’t who you are emulating, instead it’s Don Quixote.

  15. soonergrunt says:

    I just MUST know…what does this have to do with whether or not LTC Lakin violated Army rules and regulations and military law?
    What does it have to do with something that happened in a civilian hospital twenty-one years later?
    I’m waiting for this in the same way one waits when one sees that the car accident is inevitable–that brief feeling of “oh wow” when you see the cars heading right for each other…

  16. James says:

    Cooper was completely ignorant in Criminal Law 101: Lakin has the right to remain silent. Lakin will anwer what he can, but his lawyer will do most of the talking.

    I am sure Lakin’s law team will throw up quite a battle for discovery and will likely be most uncoorporative until Lakin has his Due Process and Right to a Fair Trial honored (Discovery into Obama eligiblity). The Army might end up spending millions of dollars and 5 years of litgation trying to bring Lakin to trial.

  17. James says:

    Stephen Pidgeon has indicated he wants to help in the case. Perhaps Pidgeon can given Lakin’s lawyer the Port of Entry doc which Ed Hale claimed to have seen and given to Pidgeon. The Port of Entry doc is a document that shows Stanley Ann Dunham entered the US shortly after Obama’s alleged birthdate with a baby in tow.

  18. Phil Cave says:

    LTC Lakin does have the right silence under Article 31, UCMJ.
    However, his public statements are voluntary and may be used against him.
    The “discovery” battle will be short, consisting of a couple of hours in an Article 39(a), UCMJ, session.

  19. James says:

    Leo Dononfrio has indicated he wants to help out the case. Phil Berg and Mario Apuzzo should also lend whatever legal expertise they can. Lakin should seek out Major Stephen Cook, Capt. Connie Rhodes, Lt. Scott Easterling, and Orly’s 150 military plantiffs to bolster and solitify Lakin’s position in the case. Lakin should think about bringing Alan Keyes into the case since Alan Keyes is a Constitutional Scholar and has recently argued that all orders in the military have their authenation in the power of Commander In Chief. Lakin should also seek out Herb Titus; an expert in consitutional law who helped out a lot in the Michael New case.

  20. James says:

    This is why Lakin needs get as much financial help as possible. Lakin, needs to hire an armada of lawyers and witnesses to come to his defense and insure that Lakin gets Due Process and A Fair Trial. (Discovery into Obama)

  21. Anonymous says:

    So James, why is Lakin not following orders to deploy because the President has no authority but has no problem receiving his pay?

  22. Norbrook says:

    The right to remain silent does not mean the right to avoid being asked questions. That little distinction is something you aren’t grasping.

  23. Norbrook says:

    While the entertainment value provided by DBerg, Apuzzo, Taitz, etc. would be remarkable, the reality check is that their record in court cases to date argues against their “skill” and “expertise.” Putting that much guano-crazy into one spot would probably cause a rip in the space-time continuum.

  24. Christopher Mathews says:

    James, you are the embodiment of why this case is so fascinating … and, in its own way, so tragic.

    This case represents a collision between birther ideology and military law — a system that you and others like you seem to barely understand. You want this court-martial to be a vehicle for undermining the President. Because you so badly want it to serve that purpose, you appear unable to comprehend that it will not.

    LTC Lakin will get notoriety and fame within certain circles. If that’s all that he wants, then he’ll accomplish his mission — all the more so when he’s convicted. But for the birther faithful, this case is going to turn into an enormously frustrating exercise. It will not take five years, as you hypothesized, and it will not cost the Army millions of dollars.

    On the contrary: it may fleece enormous amounts of money from the gullible and committed citizens who contribute to LTC Lakin’s legal defense fund, but at the end, the President will still be President. And you will still be enormously frustrated.

  25. Christopher Mathews says:

    Among other things.

  26. Ama Goste says:

    While the military enlistment process is full of paperwork, enlisted members (at least in their first enlistment) need not prove US citizenship.

  27. James says:

    Regarding LTC Terry Lakin, we should remember these elegant words of wisdom:

    “Let me remind you, it’s not good for the country. It’s not good for the country, if he is qualified to be POTUS, that these rumors swirl. And if he is not, it’s not good for the country that he is Commander In Chief.” – Judge David O. Carter, Federal District Court of California.

    A Judge Carter shares Lakin’s setiment, it might important to get his words on the record.

  28. Phil Cave says:

    Michael New lost.

  29. Phil Cave says:

    Keep giving to the Lakin fund — a losing proposition, which means the money won’t be available in areas where it might actually have some impact.

  30. soonergrunt says:

    Why this guy? Does somebody with stars hate him? I ask because I once pissed off somebody with an oak leaf and spent about half a year doing dipshit details, and it strikes me that LTC Lakin’s CM fits right along those lines, like the JA equivalent of painting all the rocks white to outline the walkways and then turning the rocks over to make it harder for the satellites to discern the walkways.

  31. Christopher Mathews says:

    I think this quote from Judge Carter may be more apropos, James:

    There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.

    Order re Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 89), Case No. 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN (Central Dist Cal.) October 29, 2009, at 24:21-27.

  32. soonergrunt says:

    @Norbrook, 1952hrs;
    You mean of course, the Wingularity, a concentration of Wingnut stupid so dense and powerful that, like the Singularity at the center of a black hole, nothing, not even light, can escape and space and time break down.

  33. Anonymous says:

    While you brithers are at it trying to get all this additional assistance, why not seek out some senators or representiatives – I think Grassley of Iowa was on the birther train for a bit. Though it won’t help your cause (see the SEALS cases), it would be interesting to see who the guano-crazy legislators are amongst us.

    And James, let’s see that Port of Entry doc – if there really is one. Maybe it’ll be an appellate exihbit due to its irrelevance in Lakin’s crimes.

  34. Bob Weber says:

    While the military enlistment process is full of paperwork, enlisted members (at least in their first enlistment) need not prove US citizenship.

    When my father served in WWII, according strictly to the law he was an enemy alien (though a U.S. permanent resident alien.) The only document he had was a record of entry from when he was a boy.

  35. Patrick McKinnion says:

    Yeah, funny how that document, (along with the “whitey tape”, the “Africa Press Internation Michelle Obama tape” and many other items that were supposed to show up “any day now” have never showed up.

    Or, more likely, never existed in the first place.

  36. Sef says:

    It’s always April 1 in birtherdom.

  37. Ladies Business Suits says:

    Kasper Suits…

    […Kindly Accept This Link Exchange Invitation…]…