LTC Lakin’s new video discussing why he waived his Article 32 investigation is now online at the link we provided below.  In the video, he acknowledges that his case will now be referred for trial by court-martial.  He then goes on at length discussing why he believes there is serious doubt as to whether President Obama was born in Hawaii, as confirmed by Hawaiian officials.

I’m on the road right now, so I won’t be discussing the merits of LTC Lakin’s statements.  I’m unlikely to revisit his claims this weekend, both because we’ve discussed some of them before and they are well debunked elsewhere.  But more importantly, LTC Lakin’s arguments about President Obama are irrelevant for purposes of his court-martial.  Even if his suspicions had merit (they don’t), the orders that he received and disobeyed would still be legally valid.  As discussed by the Supreme Court in Ryder v. United States, the de facto officer doctrine would give effect to government officials’ actions even if one of their superiors were improperly in office.  The Supreme Court said the de facto officer doctrine exists to prevent the chaos that would occur were an official’s disqualification to invalidate the government’s actions.  LTC Lakin and his supporters appear to invite such chaos by giving military personnel unilateral discretion to obey or disobey orders at their pleasure.  No military or civilian court will accept that position.  Nor should they.

35 Responses to “LTC Lakin’s new video is now available”

  1. soonergrunt says:

    The problem with doing what the birfers want to do is that there is no way that could possibly only work this one time. Sooner or later, somebody is going to have an issue with something a President from the right side of the aisle wants to do, and there will be some screwy possibility that the President shouldn’t be the President, and the next thing you know, the S-3 of the 3rd Stryker Brigade is refusing to deploy and so is the commander of the 1/505 ABN.

  2. Anonymous says:

    An open letter to LTC Lakin – I hope you are reading. You have taken an oath to uphold the constitution and the laws of the land. This includes Supreme Court case law that delineates the de facto officer doctrine:

    “The doctrine which gives validity to acts of officers de facto, whatever defects there may be in the legality of their appointment or election, is founded upon considerations of policy and necessity, for the protection of the public and individuals whose interests may be affected thereby. Offices are created for the benefit of the public, and private parties are not permitted to inquire into the title of persons clothed with the evidence of such offices and in apparent possession of their powers and functions. For the good order and peace of society their authority is to be respected and obeyed until in some regular mode prescribed by law their title is investigated and determined. It is manifest that endless confusion would result if in every proceeding before such officers their title could be called in question.”

    Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442 (U.S. 1886). If you want to validly question the president’s credentials, ask Congress. Congress, specifically the Senate accoeding Article I, section 3, has the ability to conduct an impeachment trial to assess such qualifications.

    It is time to adhere to your oath and follow the law of the land. Apologize for your actions, express your willingness to follow the orders of your superiors, including your President, and hope for clemency.

  3. RY says:

    I have tried to read the matters posted by the birther movement, echoed by LTC Lakin in his video, but I find it difficult to do, kind of like forcing yourself to finish a book you don’t like or find boring. I must admit, watching this video reminds me a bit of the man on the street with poster boards on each side preaching that “The end of the world is near! Repent Sinners, Repent!” I feel the same way about Lt Col Lakin’s speech as I do the preacher on the corner trying to save us all from ourselves. I hope that doesn’t that mean I’m going to hell?!

  4. Joe Macarthy says:

    I propose we form a House and Senate committee to conduct “loyalty reviews.” We need to identify the birthers in our own ranks.

  5. Son of Joe says:

    HEAR! HEAR! Then we can go after the Adulterers and Adulteresses in the Congress…

  6. mikeyes says:

    Another aspect of the officer’s oath (“I [insert name], having been appointed a [insert rank] in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.”) is the “accept freely, without reservation or purpose of evasion” part. The duties of the office include obeying orders unles facially criminal. It seems to me that LTC Lakin is clearly having reservations and, if the bit on his bio about attending basic and advanced officer’s training is correct, he has been evasive too.

    I have graduated from all of those AMEDD schools and they teach the de facto officer doctrine in each one. This video does not address any of the issues in his court martial and clearly states that he will not obey orders until his reservations are dealt with.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Another aspect of the officer’s oath (“I [insert name], having been appointed a [insert rank] in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.”) is the “accept freely, without reservation or purpose of evasion” part. The duties of the office include obeying orders unles facially criminal. It seems to me that LTC Lakin is clearly having reservations and, if the bit on his bio about attending basic and advanced officer’s training is correct, he has been evasive too.I have graduated from all of those AMEDD schools and they teach the de facto officer doctrine in each one. This video does not address any of the issues in his court martial and clearly states that he will not obey orders until his reservations are dealt with.

    Great summation and point.

  8. Socrates says:

    Forget the De Facto officer doctrine; we also operate under a “de facto Constitution.” The commission of the Constitutional Convention was chartered only to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation. Instead, the Framers decided that instead of amending the Articles of Confederation, replacing the document wholesale was the best course. Technically, the Articles of Confederation could not be amended without the consent of each and every state in the United States. The Constitution, however, calls for ratification by only nine of the thirteen states. Because the Constitution was an amending document, it was technically illegal when passed. But what makes our Constitution “legal” is mass consent by the people, which overwhelms any technical arguments. The same holds true with President Obama’s legitimacy.

  9. Balkan Ghost says:

    Could a CAAFlog reader who is skilled in the art of cross-examination expound on how the Lakin cross might unfold? It seems inevitable that he’ll take the stand to tout his views (and open the door to everything but the kitchen sink).

    I’d start with his (lack of) efforts to verify citizenship for each of the previous new presidents in his 18 years of service — Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, W. Why does he only care when it’s the first black president?

    With a great cross, Lakin will appear more delusional, radical, intellectually lazy and racist than we already know he is. Gentle but damning.

  10. Cap'n Crunch says:

    I think if I were his defense counsel, I’d think about trying an insanity defense. If you are going to lose anyways, why not try arguing that the birthers are all mentally insane. Heck, you might even convince a panel of it (or at least set up for a nice mitigation case in sentencing that your client is guano crazy).

  11. A Defense Counsel says:

    I thought McCarthy was dead? Who would chair the hearings?

  12. A Defense Counsel says:

    LTC Lakin, do you expect your subrodinates to obey your orders?

    Since Jan 20 2009, have you given any orders?

  13. nutz says:

    I can’t wait until LTC Lakin and his team show all you “holier than thou” haters why he (and many others) have been right all along. He who laughs last, laughs best!!!

  14. yguy says:

    “The Supreme Court said the de facto officer doctrine exists to prevent the chaos that would occur were an official’s disqualification to invalidate the government’s actions.”

    Similarly, the commerce clause was written to minimize economic chaos; and if it could be used to justify penalizing Roscoe Filburn for producing grain he never sold, perhaps it is not such a stretch to think the de facto officer doctrine could be used to justify acquiescence to the presence of a usurper in the Oval Office.

  15. keeponpassingtheopenwindows says:

    My dear nutz, you will grow very old waiting for the vindication of the birthers. Those who debunk birthers are not the “haters” — some of us do not support, nor approve of President Obama — but we do support the law, legal precedent and military order, all of which flow from, and are supported by, the Constitution.

  16. Christopher Mathews says:

    I can’t wait …

    Yes, you can.

  17. Anonymous says:

    perhaps it is not such a stretch to think the de facto officer doctrine could be used to justify acquiescence to the presence of a usurper in the Oval Office.

    There is no “usurper in the Oval Office”. Period. End of story. This is not the United States of Birfestan where decisions regarding who qualifies to hold office are made by the self-appointed triumvirate of Taitz, Apuzzo and Donofrio. Now that would be usurpation. No, in the United States of AMERICA, those decisions are made by the people’s representatives, Congress. They certified Barack Obama as President and he is therefore the 100% legal President, the objections of whoever wishes to object notwithstanding. The Courts have refused to intervene. When Congress does something and the Courts let it stand, then that is the law under the Constitution.

    Now just to make you happy, supposing absolutely incontrovertible evidence surfaced today that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Would he still be the 100% lawful President? Yup. Unless and until the House impeached him and the Senate convicted him. And if they chose not to? Then he would be the 100% lawful President until Jan 20, 2013.

    The “usurpers” are really the birthers who are attempting to subvert the Constitution which clearly delegates the powers to Congress. If you think Congress has not done its job the way you would like, then you are entitled to vote for different representatives or run yourself. What you and your usurping friends are not entitled to do is to substitute yourselves for the people’s elected representatives.

  18. Anonymous says:

    TC: I’m going to ask you a series of questions, and I would like you to answer with a yes or a no. First, did you or did you not board U.S. Airways Flight Number 1123 on 12 April 2010?

    ACC: No.

    TC: Did LTC Wallace order you to report to COL Roberts’ office at 1315 on 31 Mar 2010?

    ACC: Yes.

    TC: Did you go to COL Roberts’ office at 1315 on 31 Mar 2010?

    ACC: No.

    TC: Did you comply report as ordered by COL Roberts’ 31 March 2010 memorandum?

    ACC: No.

    TC: Did you report to the 32nd Calvary Regiment, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Kentucky by 1500 on 12 April 2010?

    ACC: No.

    TC: No further questions.

  19. yguy says:

    When Congress does something and the Courts let it stand, then that is the law under the Constitution.

    You literally don’t know the first thing about the Constitution.

    Now just to make you happy, supposing absolutely incontrovertible evidence surfaced today that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Would he still be the 100% lawful President? Yup.

    IOW, the Constitution demands that the presidential authority of a usurper be respected, and therefore is indeed a suicide pact.

    Thanks for clearing that up.

  20. Anonymous says:

    You literally don’t know the first thing about the Constitution.

    You wouldn’t know the Constitution if I hit you over the head with it. I wouldn’t do that, though, preferring a heavier text like “War and Peace” in hardcover. I fear even that would be insufficient to knock sense into you.

    IOW, the Constitution demands that the presidential authority of a usurper be respected, and therefore is indeed a suicide pact.

    The person elected by the people and approved by Congress, cannot be not a usurper. In fact, you and your cohort are attempting to usurp the choice of the people and their elected representatives. Fortunately, you have gotten and will get nowhere. Now run along and play. Or is it naptime?

  21. Anonymous says:

    Well, at least you chose your username appropriately.

  22. yguy says:

    The person elected by the people and approved by Congress, cannot be not a usurper.

    You said it. :)

    In fact, you and your cohort

    Who would that be?

    Now run along and play. Or is it naptime?

    Wow, am I dealing with a formidable intellect here or what? 8)

  23. Anonymous says:

    In fact, you and your cohort
    Who would that be?

    The crowd that’s 0/70, soon to be 0/71. Sadly, this time, they’re taking a real, live human being down with them.

    If you believe the nonsense you spout, why don’t you be a hero and enlist and then show up for Basic Training and tell the Drill Sergeant you aren’t going to obey orders until you see the President’s papers? I’d pay money to see the fireworks.

  24. Southern Defense Counsel says:

    Yah know, I’m going to go with Lee Marsh’s statement about the Lakin case: It’s killing an otherwise awesome blog. Stop feeding the trolls, people.

    As for the wisdom of the TDC in this case, lawyers go for rides on their client’s crazy trains all the time. I’ve done it a few times myself. You don’t need to sell your client out just because he’s got an unpopular view. Military Defense Counsel should paper the hell out of his file with CYA letters (assuming he thinks the good LTC is wrong – who knows? he might agree with the Birthers) and then strap in and enjoy the ride. Of course ADC will claim IAC – it’s what ADC do when there is nothing else they can do.

    Just because a client is galactically stupid doesn’t make TDC ineffective. And just because a client wants to go on a world wide media tour before being hauled off to the stockade doesn’t mean that you are ineffective for stopping him from doing so. The best you can do is act like Jim Carey from Liar Liar and yell out “Stop breaking the law @$$h*le!” Then, respect your A/C relationship with the nut and put your game face on. But calling your client out as nuts in court or in the press? That’s IAC in my book.

  25. jeff mayton says:

    3) Questions

    1)What is your view of the 10Th amendment? Does it giving the people power to conduct court actions if the courts are so corrupt that justice is impossible to achieve?
    should it apply to this administration?

    2) What is your view of the hr 1503 bill?

    3)What exactly is a natural born citizen?

    Thank’s for your time,
    jmayton

  26. Anonymous says:

    1)What is your view of the 10Th amendment? Does it giving the people power to conduct court actions if the courts are so corrupt that justice is impossible to achieve?
    should it apply to this administration?

    Who represents the people? You? I must have missed where jeff mayton got selected to represent the people. We have these things called elections where the people elect their representatives. Those representatives at the state and federal levels selct and approve judges. In some states, judges are directly elected by the people. That gives the courts their legitimacy. 3 birthers in robes don’t represent the people. You shouldn’t have slept through Civics class.

    2) What is your view of the hr 1503 bill?

    A useless piece of posturing that has gone nowhere. Under the 20th Amendment Congress qualifies the President. If members have questions they can object, and if they are not satisfied, then they can reject the President-elect and select the Vice President-elect instead. None of the sponsors of this bill objected at the time and place provided under the law.

    3)What exactly is a natural born citizen?

    A citizen born naturally.

    Now you have your answers.

  27. yguy says:

    1)What is your view of the 10Th amendment? Does it giv[e] the people power to conduct court actions if the courts are so corrupt that justice is impossible to achieve?

    No. 10A reserves to the states or the people those powers which are not delegated to the federal government, and Art. 3 delegates the judicial power to federal courts.

    2) What is your view of the hr 1503 bill?

    It needs to specify that a certified copy of the original BC is required, and to require all the documentation to be made available to the public.

    3)What exactly is a natural born citizen?

    I don’t know all the necessary criteria, but I know that one of them is citizenship by birth.

  28. Norbrook says:

    It’s pretty easy to know the Constitution. You should try reading it. You can start here. I’d suggest you try reading it. Being able to quote the actual text, versus whatever you thought it says is more likely to help your case. At the very least, it’s educational.

    What you – and other birfers – can’t seem to grasp is that the courts aren’t going to go near the issue, because it’s not their role and they know it. The de facto officer doctrine would hold in any event.

    Let’s do a quick jump back in time, shall we? A decade ago, we had a candidate for President who lost the popular vote, and whose election was based on a Supreme Court decision for one state which gave him the Electoral vote victory. Now, there were all sorts of questions about the legitimacy of that, whether or not the Court decision was valid, and so on. But, once Congress certified the Electoral vote and he was sworn into office, it didn’t matter. He was the President. You didn’t have to like it, you didn’t have to think he was a good President, you could gripe and groan about his “stealing the election.” But it didn’t change the fact that he was the President, and wielded all the authority that the office has.

    Which is the case here. You may not like the fact that President Obama is the President, you may not like his policies, you may not like the voting and Electoral College results. It doesn’t change the fact that he is the President. Until and unless Congress removes him, he will remain the President. The military doesn’t get to question that.

  29. yguy says:

    It’s pretty easy to know the Constitution. You should try reading it.

    Get real. I understand it a million times better than you do, easily.

    Let’s do a quick jump back in time, shall we? A decade ago, we had a candidate for President who lost the popular vote, and whose election was based on a Supreme Court decision for one state which gave him the Electoral vote victory.

    It is old news that no court has any business doing a vote recount, as that is clearly a political matter. The eligibility of a candidate under A2S1C5 is not. Among the requirements are natural born citizenship, which at a minimum requires citizenship at birth. There is nothing political about the question of whether he was born in the US, or, if he was not, whether he qualifies regardless under some provision like 8USC1409(c), or whether such a provision constitutes a breach of legislative authority.

    It is understandable that military personnel are incensed at the controversy that casts doubt on the authority of their CiC, but they need to realize that the person most responsible for keeping that controversy alive is none other than Barack Hussein Obama.

  30. Norbrook says:

    It is old news that no court has any business doing a vote recount, as that is clearly a political matter.

    Yet amazingly enough, no birther – even you – has ever questioned why the Supreme Court saw fit to rule on the Florida recount in 2000.

    It is understandable that military personnel are incensed at the controversy that casts doubt on the authority of their CiC, but they need to realize that the person most responsible for keeping that controversy alive is none other than Barack Hussein Obama

    Really? He has released copies his Certificate of Live Birth for examination. The COLB is legally proof of birth in any Court in the nation. The actual document was examined by disinterested parties, and confirmed to be real. Even the State of Hawaii has confirmed it’s a valid document, and that he was born in the State of Hawaii. That makes him, under Article II, a “natural born citizen” of the United States, and just to put a few more nails in the coffin for you, that definition is covered by the 14’th Amendment and several Supreme Court decisions regarding that issue – principally Wong Kim Ark.

    The only people keeping the “controversy” alive is not President Obama, it’s a small group of guano-crazy people who can’t accept that a black Democrat with a non-Anglo-Saxon name is the duly elected President and Commander-in-Chief.

  31. Norbrook says:

    Get real. I understand it a million times better than you do, easily.

    Apparently not, since you don’t seem to grasp the concept of separation of powers. It’s not the court’s responsibility to determine whether the President is or is not eligible to hold office. They can’t even remove him from office. That power is, under the Constitution, strictly given to Congress. That’s why every birther case has been bounced out of court, and will continue to be bounced out. Which you would know if you actually understood the Constitution.

  32. yguy says:

    Yet amazingly enough, no birther – even you – has ever questioned why the Supreme Court saw fit to rule on the Florida recount in 2000.

    So because I have averred that courts have no business doing vote recounts, I should find it odd that SCOTUS prevented the FLA judiciary from doing that very thing.

    Right.

    Really? He has released copies his Certificat[ion] of Live Birth for examination. The COLB is legally proof of birth in any Court in the nation.

    No, it is prima facie evidence thereof.

    The actual document was examined by disinterested parties,

    Who the hell do you think you’re kidding?

    and confirmed to be real.

    Sure, by people who are unqualified to attest to its authenticity.

    Even the State of Hawaii has confirmed it’s a valid document,

    This is a persistent Obamatonic myth. No HI official has made any unequivocal pronouncement as to the authenticity of any COLB provided by Obama.

  33. yguy says:

    It’s not the court’s responsibility to determine whether the President is or is not eligible to hold office.

    You don’t know what you’re talking about.

    I’ll grant that you have some excuse, seeing I’m not aware of any SC ruling that addresses this directly; but the fact remains that the judicial power extends to all cases in law arising under the Constitution. In Nixon v. United States (91-740), 506 U.S. 224 (1993), Rehnquist opined that an impeachment was not reviewable, but laid great stress on the fact that Congress has the sole power of impeachment. By contrast, nowhere is Congress or any other entity exclusively authorized to be the judge of constitutional eligibility per A2S1C5.

  34. Norbrook says:

    This is a persistent Obamatonic myth. No HI official has made any unequivocal pronouncement as to the authenticity of any COLB provided by Obama.

    Um… yes, they have. Numerous times. Both the governor and the director of the department of health. The latter actually reviewed the original records prior to making it. You lose. You might want to check the Native and Natural Born Citizenship blog, and take this discussion there. BTW – you’ll lose there as well.

  35. yguy says:

    Um… yes, they have. Numerous times. Both the governor and the director of the department of health. The latter actually reviewed the original records prior to making it.

    I’m perfectly aware of Fukino’s press releases in 08 and 09, and neither she nor Lingle has ever directly addressed the authenticity of the COLB offered by Obama. You are welcome to provide direct quotes from either to the contrary.