The birther-palooza continues this week with the release of another video by Army LTC Terry Lakin.  LTC Lakin is currently under charges for failing to deploy and to obey several other orders and claims that he based his refusal on what he says are “reasonable arguments that President Obama may not have been born on American soil.”  Lakin contends that the certificate of live birth attesting to the President’s birth in Honolulu has been altered, making it “not admissible in court as evidence.”  He argues the President is refusing to let the public or the press see his original certificate and proclaims “To me, that isn’t right.” 

Lakin says he “invited” a court-martial because he did not see Congress or the courts “stepping up to the plate” to address the question of the President’s eligibility.  The Congress, of course, certified the electoral college vote prior to the President’s inauguration and the courts have repeatedly rejected prior birther suits; but Lakin does not mention these facts in the video or explain why these are not in his view examples of stepping up.  Lakin also does not explain why he believes he was entitled to disobey the orders of his immediate superiors or his deployment orders while at the same time exercising the authority of his own rank and drawing a military paycheck.   Perhaps these issues will be addressed in a future video release, or during his cross-examination.

While mostly a rehash of the accused’s former statements, the video does contain one interesting nugget of information:  Lakin says “If the original birth certificate is released and validated, I would gladly deploy immediately.”  Putting aside the question of what sort of “validation” would be required (the video is silent on that point), it appears that he has for now decided not to pursue any of the various other birther theories of Presidential disqualification.

87 Responses to “LTC Lakin Speaks (Again)”

  1. BigGuy says:

    All through this saga I’ve been wondering whether Lakin was ever going to broaden his birferism. While he’s only spoken of the birth certificate question in the past, I don’t recall his asserting previously that that was the only issue he would pursue.

    His apparent BC-only approach had drawn some fierce criticism on the birfer boards, because many have realized by now that the BC is a dead-end issue, while holding your breath until SCOTUS rules on the two-citizen-parent issue might keep the PayPal button jingling for a while.

    What is remarkable to me is the approach Lakin is taking. He is parroting the crudest, most easily debunked talking points in the birfer arsenal. Is he a shameless liar?

    Or could he, a doctor, really be so dumb as to believe it, and so lazy as to have staked his future on claims he hasn’t even checked out?

  2. soonergrunt says:

    The Birth Certificate ‘issue’ is the only thing he’s got. From what the regulars say here, it’s not a workable or valid line of attack via court (let alone court-martial) but it’s about the only thing they can really challenge the President on through Court Martial, probably–the others being even less amenable to them. Of course, the whole ‘not a workable or valid line of attack’ thing will make that a very short part of the trial.
    So, here’s my clueless eternal newbie question of the day–
    If you are the prosecutor, how do you plan for this case, and what arguments or procedures do you work from and plan for?

  3. Greg says:

    Once again, I have trouble following LTC Lakin’s logic, so I am hoping that someone with a background in military justice can help answer my questions.

    In his latest video, LTC Lakin states that he will be happy to deploy to Afghanistan – just as soon as he sees a birth certificate for the President that meets his standards. Now – by Lakin’s own reasoning – such a birth certificate would in fact establish Obama’s eligibility to serve as President (and I’m sure we will all breathe a huge sigh of relief, once that issue has been all cleared up once and for all).

    Now here’s the problem: once Lakin does acknowledge that Obama is eligible to be President (yes, I know how crazy this sounds – but bear with me here), then it must be the case that all those orders that Lakin chose not to obey (back in April) were “legal” orders after all (who knew?). Therefore, Lakin would be guilty of all the offenses he is charged with. So – instead of getting ready for Afghanistan once a suitable birth certificate is presented to him – shouldn’t Lakin be pleading guilty and be preparing himself for an extended stay in Kansas? (I suppose Lakin could sheepishly admit that he goofed, and just hope that his superiors will write off the whole incident off as a absurd prank that just got a little out of hand – hey, it’s probably worth a shot at this point).

    Or is there a conscious strategy being played out by these videos? After all, each successive video seems to be increasingly disconnected from the norms of either logic or reality. So, could it be the case that Lakin (and his top-flight defense team) are subtly laying the grounds to support a plea of not guilty – by reason of mental illness? And does the UCMJ even recognize such a defense? It strikes me that if ever a case called for such a defense, surely this would be the one.

  4. Ama Goste says:

    If you’re the prosecutor, you plan your case as you do any other failure to obey situation. You line up the commander who ordered Lakin to deploy, have the judge rule that this was a valid, legal order, and then you object to all the irrelevant evidence Lakin’s counsel tries to admit. Once the judge determines this was a legal order, the members aren’t allowed to question or reevaluate the lawfulness of the order.

  5. Snuffy says:

    It is actually a relatively easy case for the prosecution. Ignore all the birther nonsesne. Any Military judge will deem almost al of it irrelevant. Focus on establishing which orders were directly given to LTC Dipstick. Bring in the commanders who actually gave him the orders, then sit down. Object calmly to all all irrelevant birhter stuff except if Lakin wants to take the stand about it, then let him blather. Focus sentencing argument on the orders and the need to comply and that some other poor schlub had to deploy to fill the mission requirement. Convition. Argue for dismissal. Ignore the press, go back to the office, one high five to your paralegal, prepare for whatever case you got next, and drink coffee.

  6. Ama Goste says:

    Good points, Greg. Lakin’s in a world of hurt no matter how the facts play out. In answer to your question about mental illness being a defense at a court-martial, yes, it can be if the mental illness is severe enough that he didn’t comprehend the wrongfulness of his actions and/or if the mental illness precludes him from being able to assist in his defense.

  7. Snuffy says:

    Greg- you are looking too deeply. Why would you think there is either logic or strategy being played out here. Whack jobs will be whack jobs– independant of actual education or profession. He is certainly not legally insane or mentally not responsible- just an average, garden variety loon.

  8. John O'Connor says:

    In addition to whjat Ama Goste and Snuffy say, I would line up witnesses to testify as to several of the orders Lakin gave or obeyed since President Obama’s inauguration (e.g., someone to say he accepted pay, gave orders to nurses and clerks, showed up for work every day at the clinic). If the word “birth certificate” shows up at all in the defense’s case, and isn;t ruled irrelevant, I’d use it on rebuttal. Or, if not usable on the merits, I’d use it in sentencing, either as aggravation or as rebuttal to Lakin’s birther commentary (which surely will come up in sentencing and probably should be admissible in sentencing).

    Agree with Snuffy’s sentencing argument themes. I would add the theme (which members like in my experience) that each soldier doesn’t get to decide which rules must be followed and which ones don’t. I would ask for confinement because I think there’s a better than middling chance you’d get it (argue that this guy shouldn’t get to go home and sleep in his bed while some poor guy is sleeping on a cot in Iraq).

  9. Anon says:

    I always return to the very sage advice of my first senior prosecutor and mentor – never underestimate opposing counsel. The TC in this case better have a solid grasp of the strategy being employed here. And don’t be fooled – there is a strategy being employed here.

  10. DC Steve says:

    Great advice, and it makes you prepare. However, I often found myself lying awake, sleepless, trying to figure out just what the opposing counsel is up to – only to hear at trial, that the entire defense case amounted to the CDC, standing up, and with feigned bravado and confidence, announce that: “the defense rests.”

  11. muldrake says:

    IANAL, but I have been following the “birther” cases closely, largely for their amusement value. While the “strategy” which Lakin’s defense is attempting may appear too insane, unfounded in law, and downright stupid actually to be their strategy, there really isn’t a secret plan underlying it. It is, to be frank, as stupid as it looks.

    The birther legal strategy, such as it is, is to advance entirely frivolous arguments with literally zero chance of success, which fly in the face of all statute, constitution, and precedent, then when the inevitable loss occurs, they then accuse the judge of treason and corruption. As a side strategy, they use their own false accusations to rile up their flock of flying monkeys, either to click their PayPal button or to harass the judge.

    This pattern has been unvarying, and indeed, Lakin’s followers flooded the IO for Lakin’s Article 32 hearing with threatening, obscene, and insulting emails and telephone calls prior to the now-canceled hearing. They did this on the direct urging of Lakin’s so-called legal counsel, who posted the contact information of the IO on the defense’s website.

    If there is any strategy at all being pursued by the “defense,” it is to provoke and insult the military judge in charge of the court-martial to such a degree that Lakin ends up with the heaviest penalty, then use him as a martyr to provoke their crackpot cause. Virtually every action of the “defense” up to this point has not only not been tailored to result in a positive outcome for Lakin, but has instead been virtually custom-made to result in the worst possible outcome.

    So, I will agree with you that there is a strategy here, but it has nothing to do with winning the case or serving LTC Lakin’s best interests. Instead, it involves deliberate malpractice and ineffective assistance of counsel, the deliberate and knowing advancement of frivolous legal arguments, and incitement to harass the personnel of the military courts.

    I should make it very clear that when I refer to Lakin’s “defense,” I am referring to his civilian birther lawyer(s). His appointed counsel, I am certain, has absolutely nothing to do with any of these shenanigans.

    Finally, I’d like to commend this blog for a high degree of accuracy and professionalism in both its posters and commenters.

  12. BigGuy says:

    The IRS should also be getting a call. It is very likely that the American Patriot Foundation is illegally claiming that contributions to LTC Lakin’s Legal Defense Fund are tax deductible.

  13. Dwight Sullivan says:

    I see method in the Lakin/Jensen team’s madness.

    Looking at safeguardourconstitution.com (which, from time to time, I do) suggests that the Lakin/Jensen team’s main goal is to obtain a photocopy of President Obama’s original birth certificate (or, presumably in their delusional view, to force Hawaii to admit that no such document exists). I suspect that explains why the Lakin/Jensen team hasn’t advanced the two-citizen-parent argument. If they advanced that claim and (in some alternate universe) it were to prevail, then they would never get to obtain the original birth certificate, since the information necessary to establish that President Obama’s father wasn’t a U.S. citizen is available from many, many other sources. I think LTC Lakin’s statements that he would gladly deploy to Afghanistan if only a copy of the original birth certificate were to be produced and verified is an attempt to lay the foundation for the necessity of such discovery. And I suspect that LTC Lakin fully expects to be confined if discovery is denied and then use that confinement as the shoehorn for another shot at obtaining the birth certificate through a federal habeas challenge.

    I’m sure it goes without saying that I think all of those legal theories are guano crazy and that they have no chance of prevailing in the real world. But I do think that they are consistent with the actions of the Lakin/Jensen team and may very well explain those actions.

  14. Reality Check says:

    This video contains an amazing number of outrageous lies and attempts to mislead:

    1. John McCain did not produce a birth certificate. “John McCain’s eligibility was challenged in a lawsuit filed by Fred Hollander (Hollander v McCain). Just before this suit was dismissed for lack of standing, Hollander introduced a fake birth certificate alleging that John McCain was born in the Republic of Panama. Hollander is the best kn0wn, but not the only lawsuit to be filed alleging John McCain was not a natural born citizen. Others include the Pennsylvania case filed by Carmon Elliott.” Source: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/05/john-mccain-natural-born-citizen/

    More on the fake McCain birth certificate: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/04/john-mccains-fake-birth-certificate/

    It is indisputable that John McCain never produced his own copy of a birth certificate.

    2. The second lie concerns the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. The DHHL lie originated with Phil Berg in his lawsuits. The DHHL does not say that a COLB is invalid or inadequate to prove Hawaiian birth. What it actually says is that the COLB alone is not adequate to prove Hawaiian heritage. Hawaiian heritage requires at least 50% Hawaiian blood quantum for eligibility for their programs for “native Hawaiians”. This program is similar to programs for native Americans. Certain lands are set aside for homesteading by native Hawaiians. The President is not eligible for this program since neither of his parents were Hawaiian and he has never claimed otherwise.

    3. The video claimed the on line version of the COLB was altered because the certificate number was blacked out. While the original version that appeared on “Fight the smears” had the number blacked out there are high resolution photos on the Fact Check site that show the certificate number and the raised seal.

    4. Lakin claims that birth certificates commonly show the signature of the attending physician. While this once may have been true the modern forms from almost all states have been standardized and show only the information that is provided on the Hawaiian form. The current Hawaiin form has been around since at least 2001 and was revised in October 2008. The current form is now called a “Certificate of Live Birth” instead of “Certification of Live Birth”. While we do not know the reason for the change it is fun to speculate that it was a response to ridiculous birther claims that the “certification” document was somehow not a valid birth certificate. Both documents say on the bottom “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” Gee, would that include a court martial proceeding, LTC Lakin?

    I could add more but you get the idea. I hate seeing these same lies being recycled over and over. Those who knowingly propagate them like Jensen and Lakin are disgusting.

  15. BigGuy says:

    Dwight, you may well be right. But as R/C points out so well below, Lakin’s arguments rest on such easily debunked lies that it’s hard to believe that no one has been able to demonstrate to him how vulnerable he is.

    For example, even if discovery were granted, all that would happen would be that the judge would look at the COLB — the very same one that appears ubiquitously in photographs — and point out the obvious fact that it’s an official Hawaiian Birth Certificate to which Full Faith and Credit is due. (Not that it’s relevant to the criminal charges anyway.)

    Is Lakin too dumb to realize that? I suspect that the shadowy figures behind him know that it’s all a pack of lies, but I’m having trouble understanding where Lakin himself fits in.

  16. Christopher Mathews says:

    BigGuy, you may find Brendan Nyhan’s paper on the persistence of political misperceptions (PDF here) interesting. Basically, Nyhan concludes that in some people, admitting error is sufficiently threatening that they take refuge in entrenchment; the accumulation of contrary facts actually makes them more committed to the original, erroneous belief. This is particularly so when the error relates to a partisan position.

    There are certainly a number of prominent birthers whose conduct suggests they’re having a difficult time accepting the results of the 2008 election; their ever-shifting rationales for why President Obama cannot really be the President demonstrates that they’re proceeding from that conclusion and working backward. Speaking purely as an amateur observer of the political scene, I suspect there are some who have a hard time accepting the idea that a black man could occupy the position of chief executive, the same office labeled by its last occupant “The Decider.” There are others who I think are unwilling to believe that the nation rejected their political party and who therefore seek to deny the legitimacy of the man who won. Regardless of the underlying motivation for their belief, their minds are made up; evidence will not sway them.

    I have no idea what motivates LTC Lakin or his attorneys. It was interesting, however, to see the degree to which he personalizes events and exalts his own role in them: “To me,” Lakin says, the President’s failure to prove his eligibility to Lakin’s satisfaction just “isn’t right.” The Congress and the courts weren’t “stepping up to the plate” — so naturally it falls to Terry Lakin to step up for them.

    Putting this as gently as I can, the doctor seems to have an unnaturally inflated opinion of his own importance. I also think Greg’s remarks, above, touch on this. Does the accused truly believe that he could simply say “Okay, now that the duly-elected commander-in-chief of the armed forces has satisfied me, as an O-5, of his eligibility, I’ll be happy to deploy and to comply with all the other orders I decided to disobey?”

    Even assuming that the President’s eligibility were germane to the charges in this case, which it is not, proof of that eligibility would not mean Lakin has to deploy to Afghanistan; it would mean that he needs to deploy to Kansas. That Lakin seems not to grasp this concept is, I think, indicative of serious issues that make him unfit to wear the uniform.

  17. yguy says:

    For example, even if discovery were granted, all that would happen would be that the judge would look at the COLB — the very same one that appears ubiquitously in photographs — and point out the obvious fact that it’s an official Hawaiian Birth Certificate to which Full Faith and Credit is due.

    Given that FF&C only confers obligations on states, what do you imagine that has to do with this case, or with any relevant case Lakin might bring in an A3 court?

  18. yguy says:

    Does the accused truly believe that he could simply say “Okay, now that the duly-elected commander-in-chief of the armed forces has satisfied me, as an O-5, of his eligibility, I’ll be happy to deploy and to comply with all the other orders I decided to disobey?”

    Assuming that satisfaction was a result of having been shown a certified copy of the original, a better question would be why it took a court martial to make that happen.

  19. Christopher Mathews says:

    Not really. At best it would be something for the post-trial clemency package.

  20. BigGuy says:

    Oh, it’s not at all relevant to the case; I thought I made that clear, as it seems to be clear to everyone but Lakin and his team.

    I was addressing the hypothetical situation, highly unlikely in my opinion, that discovery were granted. I’m not a military lawyer, but I suspect that the UCMJ has something comparable to the FRCP’s rules concerning self-authenticating documents.

  21. Christopher Mathews says:

    Look at Mil.R.Evid. 902, BigGuy.

  22. BigGuy says:

    It might be an interesting question if the court-martial did make it happen, but I doubt very much that that will be the case.

  23. BigGuy says:

    Excellent, thanks!

  24. I was there says:

    Lakin says “If the original birth certificate is released and validated, I would gladly deploy immediately.”

    Who the eff does he think he is? He thinks he can add conditions to orders he receives? He was ordered to deploy – it wasn’t a request. He thinks this all goes away if he changes his mind and gladly deploys? Why is he even reporting to the various places he’s being told to report to now (Art 32 forum, work space, court-martial)? I know, these questions have all been asked already. I don’t see how he’ll get a members panel who will relate to his position.

  25. Reality Check says:

    A state issued birth certificate is a self authenticating document under the federal rules of evidence. I am not familiar with the rules in military courts martial but I suspect a the same concept would apply. (Of course, this is all hypothetical because it will never be allowed to be subpoenaed.)

  26. Dave says:

    BigGuy: My reading of those little pamphlets the IRS helpfully provides is that contributions made for the benefit of a particular individual are not deductible, even if made to a charity that can otherwise receive tax deductible contributions. The website says all contributions go to Lakin’s defense, and the Paypal description also mentions Lakin’s name. So it sounds to me like the claim of tax deductibility is pretty questionable.

  27. Reality Check says:

    Sorry for the dupe. I didn’t see the posts by BigGuy and Christopher Mathews. I think we put that one to bed. It would be wham, bam, thank you ma’am unless Lakin could provide concrete evidence of fraud by everyone from Hawaii Gov. Lingle on down.

  28. soonergrunt says:

    He can’t have a members panel that will relate to him because this position as he has articulated it, is bullshit. I doubt that there are 12 officers serving in the entire MDW who would see his way on that point. Even the ones who hate the President won’t be able to relate to that concept.

  29. yguy says:

    I was addressing the hypothetical situation, highly unlikely in my opinion, that discovery were granted.

    And what would FF&C have to do with that?

    I’m not a military lawyer, but I suspect that the UCMJ has something comparable to the FRCP’s rules concerning self-authenticating documents.

    Which FRCP provisions do you have in mind?

  30. Christopher Mathews says:

    yguy, the relevant military rule of evidence was posted above: it’s Mil.R.Evid. 902. You’re welcome to debate the applicability of FF&C and the FRCP if you like, but you may want to focus on the rules actually applicable to the case at hand.

  31. yguy says:

    A state issued birth certificate is a self authenticating document under the federal rules of evidence.

    This I’m aware of. What I’m missing is why people seem to think FRE 902 implies anything beyond admissibility WRT conforming evidence.

  32. marlio says:

    Obama is not providing a birth certificate, the long form, because it doesnt exist. One of the city records officers, for the city of honolulu stated Obama does not have a birth certificate. Apparently he had access to birth records and tried to look it up. You have to be a naturalized american citizen, born in the United States to be eligible to run for the president. I hope a force rises up and refuses to fight under obama anymore, until he proves he was born in America. HIs mother was 18 when she bore him and lived abroad afterwards, when a requirement of United States is that she has to live for 5 years after the age of 18 in America and she didnt. Obama also lost his citzenship when he moved to INdonesia, which didnt allow dual citizenships. So even if he had it, he lost it when he did that.

    In the end we will all find out the truth about Obama. Some people have already found his Mobasa birth certificate but of course the not so intelligent american press, didnt cover it.

  33. Christopher Mathews says:

    Once again, the question of the President’s eligibility is irrelevant to the charges against LTC Lakin.

    Nonetheless, marlio’s post is an excellent example of the moving goalposts described above. The President isn’t eligible, marlio claims, and we know this because an unnamed city official purportedly says he couldn’t find a copy of the President’s “long form” birth certificate.

    Never mind that the Hawaii Department of Health spokesperson, Janice Okubo, says there is no distinction between a long- or short-form certificate. Never mind that the Department’s Director, Chiyome Fukino, is on record saying that she has personally seen the President’s original birth certificate and that it confirms he was born in Hawaii. Never mind the pesky birth announcements in the newspapers in 1961.

    No, marlio is sufficiently incensed that President Obama holds his office to call on the military to “rise up” and refuse to fight until he proves he was born in America … while in the very next breath arguing that it doesn’t matter if he does so — because the President’s mother wasn’t really a citizen herself, or wasn’t eligible to give birth to a citizen, or deprived the President of his citizenship when she took him to Indonesia, or … or … or something.

    And on the strength of these scintillating arguments, the men and women of the armed forces of the United States are supposed to lay down their arms and refuse to defend this country.

  34. Anonymous says:

    I for one am taking early liberty tomorrow because of the possibility that Obama once went to Mexico for vacation.

  35. BigGuy says:

    And note that marlio’s beef is really with LTC Lakin, who’s declared himself ready to deploy to Afghanistan upon presentation of Obama’s “long form” birth certificate while completely letting him off the hook on that Indonesian adoption thingy … on the other hand, marlio himself is an Obama stooge when it comes to the British citizenship of his father, which marlio is apparently all too willing to overlook…

    Birfer logic is not easily mastered.

  36. Anonymous says:

    anyone thinks he could be facing years plural with a members panel?

    A judge-alone might, might mitigate the amount of jail time he might receive, but a panel I think would absolutely fillet him.

  37. Norbrook says:

    It sounds to me like he has the “god complex” to which MD’s are prone. Having worked with a lot of physicians both in and out of the military, there’s a certain amount of egotism that can get out of control.

  38. Anonymous says:

    One of? You can’t even make up, I mean provide, a name?

    Well, that seals it for me. I mean if “one of” the city records officers said it, then that’s good enough proof that he isn’t a citizen.

    I do appreciate you consolidating the various crazy into one post but you missed the step-father adopted away his American citizenship one as well as the he went to Pakistan which meant he gave away his American citizenship one, as well as the biggie, his dad was a British citizen one.

    I think we will all one day find out the truth about Obama. I think though that the number of folks who don’t yet know (accept may be a better word) the truth is very small.

  39. soonergrunt says:

    One of the un-named staffers for an office that doesn’t maintain the records in question said it?
    So does that mean that the guy with the blue eyes who used to be a personnel officer for the Navy can’t find any evidence that I wasn’t an Admiral before I retired and not (as my DD214 says) an E-7 in the Army actually mean that I was, in fact an Admiral? Where can I apply for all my back pay?
    And by the way, how is one “a naturalized american citizen, born in the United States”?
    I wonder about you people. I really do.

  40. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Judge Mathews the Greatest,

    Obviously I spend too much time following the birthers’ arguments, because I actually know who he’s talking about — Tim Adams. Doc Conspiracy explodes Adams’ claims at #33 here: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/06/birther-math-part-7-the-end/

  41. soonergrunt says:

    In the end we will all find out the truth about Obama. Some people have already found his Mobasa(sic) birth certificate but of course the not so intelligent american press, didnt cover it.

    You’re actually going on about the Kenyan birth certificate? The BC that everybody with the possible exception of a certain mail-order law degree dentist in California determined was a fake about five minutes after it was made public and about 5 minutes before the faker admitted it? That Kenyan birth certificate?

    Orly, is that you?

    Hey, I just found something interesting in my research of the city of MoMbasa, Kenya. According to Wikipedia, MoMbasa is an international sister city to HONOLULU, HAWAII! (DUN DUN DUNNH!)
    What can that possibly mean?

  42. Dave says:

    This is sad when I have to help the birthers get their story straight. The guy you’re talking about is Tim Adams. He was a temporary worker in the Honolulu elections office in the 2008 season — the birther blogs prefer to call him a senior elections clerk — but nobody has called him a city records officer. He made the allegation you refer to, when interviewed on James Edwards’ white supremacist radio program “Political Cesspool”. His claim to have access to birth records is quite dubious.

  43. yguy says:

    yguy, the relevant military rule of evidence was posted above: it’s Mil.R.Evid. 902. You’re welcome to debate the applicability of FF&C and the FRCP if you like, but you may want to focus on the rules actually applicable to the case at hand.

    MRE 902 seems to impart the same quality to its various objects that FRE 902 does to its own, i.e., admissibility, which obviously implies that the COLB would be admissible. What it does not imply is that a judge would be constrained from issuing a subpoena for the long form. Neither is it clear why any judge who acknowledged the relevance of the issue at all would be satisfied with the COLB when the long form is every bit is available.

    …Hawaii Department of Health spokesperson, Janice Okubo, says there is no distinction between a long- or short-form certificate.

    This is misleading at best. There is clearly a distinction in that one contains information that the other does not. The more important distinction, though, is that the long form was presumably generated in 1961, and is therefore as far from hearsay as it is possible to get in such a case; so obviously any judge who had any interest in putting the matter to rest would subpoena the long form.

  44. BigGuy says:

    No one disputes that the Hawaii Department of Health has access to birth data that does not appear on the Certification of Live Birth. It also has access to birth data that is so private that it doesn’t appear on any “long form” ever issued.

    But that does not imply that the term “long form” has any clear meaning in present-day Hawaii. Various forms have been used in the past, some containing more information than others, but there is no standard “long form” now. I can’t imagine what you have in mind when you say that “the long form is every bit [as] available.”

    That — plus the fact that there is no reason for a judge to ask for information beyond what is relevant to presidential eligibility — makes it highly unlikely that a judge would subpoena a form that would have to be designed on an ad hoc basis unless it were shown that specific information missing from the COLB needed to be seen.

    And all that, of course, would fall under the vanishingly small probability that the judge would grant any eligibility discovery.

  45. Dwight Sullivan says:

    yguy, military judges don’t have subpoena power. Only military prosecutors do. If the prosecutor refuses to issue a subpoena, the military judge can abate the proceedings. But the military judge can’t himself or herself subpoeana anything. (Not that a military judge would subpoeana Hawaii birth records even if he or she could in the Lakin case since they have no relevance to any legal issue in the case.)

  46. Reality Check says:

    That statement by Ms Okubo wasn’t misleading. For those purposes for which a birth certificate is required by law they are equivalent. Your curiosity about what might or might not be on the long form is insignificant as records go and of no legal consequence. Your speculation about what a judge would do is unfounded.

  47. Greg says:

    This is misleading at best. There is clearly a distinction in that [the long form] contains information that the other [birth certificate] does not.

    As RC has already pointed out: you are making a distinction without a difference. They are both birth certificates – neither one is more “legal” than the other. In fact, it makes no sense for someone – like Lakin – who does not accept Obama’s 2008 Hawaii COLB as authentic, to accept the 1961 version of the same birth record as gospel. After all, having forged the modern COLB, forging a document from the 1960s would be a cinch.

    And given how much Lakin would stand to lose (by his own reasoning) if he were ever to accept any birth certificate for Obama as authentic – it seems very unlikely that either Lakin – or any of his fellow travelers – will ever see fit to do so.

  48. Greg says:

    I’m happy to announce that I have found a solution to the Lakin case. Here’s the good news: not only would this solution please all parties – it would also avoid a court-martial (and the constitutional crisis that would have ensued). In fact, my solution is so obvious and so simple, that I’m embarrassed I did not think of it sooner.

    Here’s the plan:

    Because Lakin believes that it is his duty to disobey all orders – unless and until the President produces a birth certificate that Lakin finds acceptable (and fat chance of that ever happening), his commanders should simply insert the word “not” into every order they give Lakin. For example, “Do not take US Airways flight 1123 to Charlotte, NC.” Or: “Do not deploy to Afghanistan”. And one more: “Do not treat the injured soldiers there.”

    Now, in order for Lakin to disobey this set of orders – Lakin will have to take that flight, he will have to deploy to Afghanistan, and he will have to treat the wounded soldiers there.

    It’s the all-around perfect solution – Lakin can stay true to his principles – but at the same time, the Army gets Lakin to perform his duties – and all it took was a slight rewording of his orders.

  49. soonergrunt says:

    Very clever, and somewhat more logical than birfer reasoning.
    Can we at least directly order him to accept his pay so that he’ll stop doing that?
    Here’s a question which I’m sure you all will find incredibly stupid (and that makes me just the grunt to ask it): Could somebody who is found guilty of disobeying orders then be charged with fraud for receiving military pay? After all, he did not perform the service for which he was renumerated (and yes, I DO have a ‘word-a-day calendar)? I understand that fine and forfeiture serve that purpose, but I’m talking about trying to recover the money he was already paid and didn’t earn and then forteiture going forward.

  50. Weirick says:

    Sir,

    You will never get those moments back. Please, for all that is good, do not spend your time trying to understand birthers.

  51. Ama Goste says:

    I like your thinking, Soonergrunt, but the answer is no. Just ask 1Lt Murphy, who received O-6 pay for 3+ years while he was under investigation for pretending to have a law license.

  52. yguy says:

    No one disputes that the Hawaii Department of Health has access to birth data that does not appear on the Certification of Live Birth. It also has access to birth data that is so private that it doesn’t appear on any “long form” ever issued.

    But that does not imply that the term “long form” has any clear meaning in present-day Hawaii.

    Let’s not get distracted. We don’t care whether long forms are being generated for births in HI as of now. We care whether they were being generated when Obama was born. And they were.

    Various forms have been used in the past, some containing more information than others, but there is no standard “long form” now. I can’t imagine what you have in mind when you say that “the long form is every bit [as] available.”

    You are way over-complicating this. The long form, or the original birth certificate, is what was generated by the hospital (assuming he was born at Kapiolani) and sent to the registrar within a few days of his birth. It’s what Fukino says the DoH has on record.

    That — plus the fact that there is no reason for a judge to ask for information beyond what is relevant to presidential eligibility — makes it highly unlikely that a judge would subpoena a form that would have to be designed on an ad hoc basis

    Hardly necessary. If this article is correct, the vault copy still exists, in which case it merely needs to be photocopied, stamped, signed and so on.

    All this being the case, let us say a judge orders discovery for whatever reason. The three most obvious alternatives are:

    1. Accept the COLB provided by Obama.

    2. Subpoena the COLB from the HI DoH.

    3. Subpoena a certified copy of the original from the HI DoH.

    Why would any judge who wants to put this to rest choose any option but 3?

  53. Dwight Sullivan says:

    yguy confuses the birthers’ agenda with the purpose of the military justice system. No military judge “wants to put this to rest.” Rather, what the military judge will want to do is give LTC Lakin and the government a fair trial. And neither birth certificates nor COLBs are part of doing so.

    It’s not the role of the military justice system to confirm or refute the birthers’ agenda. That’s one of the things that’s interesting about this case — to the Lakin/Jensen team, this case is about something that it’s not about to the Army. To the Army, this case is about good order and discipline. It simply has nothing to do with President Obama. But to the birthers (including the Lakin/Jensen team), the case is all about President Obama. Because birthers don’t seem to understand what is actually motivating the Army (protection of good order and discipline rather than protection of President Obama), their predictions of what various actors in the system will do will often be faulty.

    yguy, no military judge is going to believe that President Obama’s eligibility is relevant to any issue before the court-martial. Therefore no military judge will either compel production of documents concerning the eligibility question or abate proceedings due to prosecutorial noncompliance with such a hypoethetical order to compel production.

  54. BigGuy says:

    “Why would any judge who wants to put this to rest choose any option but 3?”

    For the same reason that we establish that people passed their driving tests by examining drivers’ licenses rather than certified copies of their exam papers.

    Official documents exist to serve as legal proof of the data they contain. They are what make it unnecessary to track down 48-year-old paper documents in tropical climates — which, despite your assertions, are highly unlikely to be “every bit [as] available” as a standard form obtainable by hitting a few keys.

    People who were born in Hawaii and don’t have old copies of their birth certificates routinely use COLBs to prove their birth data. There is no reason to believe that that would be legally insufficient in this case.

  55. BigGuy says:

    (And, again, I am dealing in hypotheticals. I do not believe for a minute that questions of Obama’s eligibility will be considered relevant to the criminal charges against Lakin.)

  56. yguy says:

    “Why would any judge who wants to put this to rest choose any option but 3?”

    For the same reason that we establish that people passed their driving tests by examining drivers’ licenses rather than certified copies of their exam papers.

    The comparison is asinine, to say the least. An unlicensed driver can’t affect the destinies of untold millions of Americans for generations to come with the stroke of a pen. The President can.

    Official documents exist to serve as legal proof of the data they contain. They are what make it unnecessary to track down 48-year-old paper documents in tropical climates —

    Unless Fukino is lying, there is nothing that needs tracking down, because she knows where it is.

    which, despite your assertions, are highly unlikely to be “every bit [as] available” as a standard form

    The available evidence is very much to the contrary. Fukino says they have it, and HRS §338-13 and §338-18 make no distinction as to which kinds of certificates a qualified applicant has access to.

    obtainable by hitting a few keys.

    So essentially, you figure a judge ought to be satisfied with a COLB because obedience to HI law – which in this case might cost someone an extra half hour of work – places an undue hardship on the HI DoH. Have I got that about right?

  57. BigGuy says:

    “Have I got that about right?”

    No, not really. A judge ought to be satisfied with a COLB because it is prima facie evidence.

    Not that any evidence of Obama’s birth is relevant to Lakin’s case.

  58. Anonymous says:

    Okay you birfers, you’ve fished for as much information from the military legal community as you’re going to get. Just accept there’s no defense to these charges – at least not the defense you’re attempting. Why not focus on fundraising amongst yourselves to provide for this misguided fool’s defense – his lawyers’ primary concern at the end of the day is their $$.

  59. Christopher Mathews says:

    Please try to be civil, yguy. Although you’re not faring well in this discussion, there’s no call for you to accuse other posters here of being “misleading” or “asinine.”

  60. yguy says:

    “Have I got that about right?”

    No, not really. A judge ought to be satisfied with a COLB because it is prima facie evidence.

    You’re dodging the issue, obviously clinging to the idea that obtaining the original is somehow an onerous task for either a court or the DoH, when all the evidence I’ve encountered says that’s baloney.

  61. BigGuy says:

    Sorry, your attempts at mind-reading are falling far from the mark.

    What I’ve said is that I don’t believe that any judge would consider the question of Obama’s birth to be at all relevant to the case against Lakin.

    However, should a judge (in this case or any other) feel that there was a need to prove when and where the President was born, the COLB, the document normally used in Hawaii for that purpose, would suffice.

  62. Reality Check says:

    This is the point when my frustration level rises in these discussions. Part of my frustration is that birthers repeat the same lies as did LTC Lakin in both of his videos. I am also frustrated that folks come to forum after forum and make the same discredited arguments just to receive the same answers.

    In my opinion the birthers believed a vast proportion of the military hates Obama and would rally behind LTC Lakin in his silly quest. Their perception is incorrect. I think, unlike LTC Lakin, 99.9% of the military people take their oath and duty seriously. They may not all agree with the President’s politics but they understand that the election was over on January 8, 2009 (when the Electoral College vote was certified) and that from 12:01 PM on January 20 forward Barack Obama is their CIC.

    As Dwight Sullivan correctly put it “it’s not the role of the military justice system to confirm or refute the birthers’ agenda. That’s one of the things that’s interesting about this case — to the Lakin/Jensen team, this case is about something that it’s not about to the Army.”

    I would add that it will not be about that to the members either.

  63. yguy says:

    Please try to be civil, yguy.

    So far it has required no effort at all, thanks anyway.

    Although you’re not faring well in this discussion, there’s no call for you to accuse other posters here of being “misleading” or “asinine.”

    A dispassionate observer could not help but wonder why anyone faring well in this discussion would feel moved to make an accusation which the record shows is so obviously false to anyone aware of the distinction between attacking people and attacking their claims or arguments.

  64. Ama Goste says:

    So, getting back to that UFO cover-up in Roswell…

  65. Christopher Mathews says:

    You may feel this distinction is important, yguy, but it isn’t. Please try to be civil.

  66. Christopher Mathews says:

    BigGuy, let’s indulge the birther ambition of engaging in discovery for a moment.

    The State of Hawaii responds to a subpoena with a document which confirms the certificate of live birth: the President was born in Hawaii in 1961. The certificate, of course, already contains that information and is legally admissible. The subpoenaed document would add nothing to the record beyond what the certificate already shows.

    But what if there’s nothing in the state’s files other than the certificate of live birth? Dr. Fukino could have been lying about what she saw, or she could have been mistaken. If she was telling the truth, the additional document might have been destroyed or misplaced or absconded with.

    But there’s still the certificate of live birth, which already contains information as to the location and date of the President’s birth and is legally-admissible to establish the information as true. The absence of the subpoenaed record would add nothing to the record beyond what the certificate already shows.

    I think the birthers, to the extent they are sincere in their desire to see the so-called “long form” document, must hope it contradicts the certificate of live birth: that, for example, it shows the President was born in Kenya. Why the State of Hawaii would issue such a birth certificate is unclear; but then, at least, the birthers would have something to work with.

    Except, as Colonel Sullivan noted above, the purpose of a court-martial is not to provide the opponents of the President with a vehicle to indulge their ambitions; it’s to determine whether the accused is guilty of the offenses alleged against him and if he is convicted, to determine a sentence for those offenses. The question of the President’s eligibility has no bearing on those questions, and the production of irrelevant evidence is unduly burdensome however light the burden.

  67. yguy says:

    You may feel this distinction is important, yguy, but it isn’t. Please try to be civil.

    Perhaps you would be good enough to point me to the metric by which “crazy” is civil whereas “asinine” is not, and by which “moving goalposts” is civil whereas “misleading” is not.

  68. BigGuy says:

    @Christopher:

    “I think the birthers, to the extent they are sincere in their desire to see the so-called “long form” document, must hope it contradicts the certificate of live birth…”

    I think it’s more complex than that, and falls more into the category of a fishing expedition. The birthers IMO are looking for anything that they could spin a tale around in order to keep their make-believe “controversy” alive.

    For example, much has been made over the fact that Obama’s father’s race is listed as “African” on the COLB. To a true birther, that’s cause to doubt the authenticity of the entire document. One can only imagine how much hay could be be made over other snippets of information that might be found on the “long form.”

    However, the birthers are not monolithic in their approach. I, for example, have been surprised to hear that LTC Lakin would drop his objections if the “long form” were to show Obama to have been born in Hawaii; others in the birther clan have made it clear that they would not.

    I appreciate Dwight’s point about how the Lakin trial reflects the Army’s agenda rather than the birthers’. But when I consider the birther agenda, what strikes me is the pervasive notion that there’s something about Obama that renders everday methods of fact-finding and verification inadequate, requiring extraordinary measures, and I find that offensive.

  69. Christopher Mathews says:

    Remarkably, civil discourse is not governed by metrics. This was always a disappointment to the TQM fans, as I recall.

  70. yguy says:

    But what if there’s nothing in the state’s files other than the certificate of live birth? Dr. Fukino could have been lying about what she saw, or she could have been mistaken. If she was telling the truth, the additional document might have been destroyed or misplaced or absconded with.

    But there’s still the certificate of live birth, which already contains information as to the location and date of the President’s birth and is legally-admissible to establish the information as true. The absence of the subpoenaed record would add nothing to the record beyond what the certificate already shows.

    How about if every DoH employee who had access to those records years were deposed? Think that might add something to the record?

  71. Christopher Mathews says:

    Aside from bulk, no.

  72. King Jorge III says:

    From what I understand, even after the subpoena the State of Hawaii can still refuse to do anything and tell the military to take a quick leap at a rolling doughnut.

    Did I misunderstand something???

  73. King Jorge III says:

    Are you talking about the rumor of a person who talked to the guy who actually pulled the record for the issuance of the COLB in 2007? Apparently (still trying to find it) there is a sworn statement of an individual who talked with the guy. Don’t have any names, but that has never bothered any of the birfers before when they present their fairy tales.

    The rumor is that the “guy” validated the information that has been presented to the public over the last 3 years.

  74. yguy says:

    Aside from bulk, no.

    Well of course not, what was I thinking?

    After all, only a racist would look askance at the “dog ate the birth certificate” story, right?

  75. Christopher Mathews says:

    There are lots of reasons why someone might obsess over irrelevant matters. I suppose racism could well be one of them.

  76. yguy says:

    From what I understand, even after the subpoena the State of Hawaii can still refuse to do anything and tell the military to take a quick leap at a rolling doughnut.

    Some would have you believe that, but I’ve never seen anyone provide a rationale for such refusal that would stand up to a flea’s flatulence. HI law allows access to a “person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction”, so they’d have to pay their attorneys to figure out some way to cast the court’s jurisdiction as incompetent on the pretext of Protecting State’s Rights or some such horse hockey, all to save half a man-hour of clerical time.

  77. soonergrunt says:

    And taking the massive leap and assuming that a military judge will take the bait and order Trial Counsel to subpoena the Long Form BC, and taking the leap that TC would comply with such improper order without appealing it as irrelevant, let’s just assume for the moment that gravity has shifted and military regulations and the UCMJ no longer means what they say, but hey, why not, right?
    So the Court Martial issues a subpoena, which in due time is delivered to the Director of Vital Statistics Or Whatever It’s Called, and he or she says…”Go to hell. Take the COLB because that is the document that is legally sufficient.”
    What do you propose to do? Should the Army send someone from Schofield Barracks or should the USGvt send a US Marshal? Should the entire staff of the office be detained onto Federal property and deposed?
    What happens if or much more likely WHEN the Long Form shows exactly what the COLB says it does? Do we have document experts from a third party or from the CID’s lab examine the form? Do we then depose every single person who ever worked in that office since 1961? Do we search their personal effects?
    All or any of the above to determine whether or not LTC Lakin was given an order to do a lawful thing by someone known to him to have the authority to give him such orders, and whether or not he obeyed or carried out that order? Really?
    The Army doesn’t work the way you seem to think it works. Our lives are different than yours.
    A Soldier is given an order by his superior. Unless the order is unlawful on its face, like “kill those children in that mosque,” He carries out his order to the best of his ability, and at the risk and sometimes cost of his life if necessary. FULL STOP. The Army can’t work any other way. Those who buck this system get slapped hard. That’s why all those people who went AWOL from Dubya’s Great Adventure were punished under UCMJ and administrative procedings. Those who make a spectacle of themselves bucking this system get slapped really hard.

  78. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    Given that FF&C only confers obligations on states, what do you imagine that has to do with this case, or with any relevant case Lakin might bring in an A3 court?

    That’s right. Obama’s eligibility has nothing whatever to do with Lakin’s guilt of innocence. The Full Faith and Credit clause would not come into play.

    Sorry for the interruption.

  79. Keith says:

    … His claim to have access to birth records is quite dubious.

    No it isn’t. It is impossible. 100% false. Oh, yeah, did I say not true?

  80. Joey says:

    “You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Sen. McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it’s, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. … It’s been established. He was born here.”—Governor of Hawaii Linda Lingle (R)

  81. BigGuy says:

    I have a thought about that, and it’s somewhat speculative.

    If I were John McCain, I would have wondered during the campaign whether the question of Obama’s birth location was worth raising as a campaign issue. And the easiest way to find out (at least so the speculation goes) would have been to take advantage of the fact that the Governor of Hawaii, a Republican, was campaigning for me. I would have asked her to look into it.

    That’s consistent with Linda Lingle’s account. The question came up during the campaign, and that’s when she had her health director investigate. She was therefore able to assure McCain that there was no issue there — that Obama had indeed been born in Hawaii, and that the State of Hawaii had the records to prove it.

  82. yguy says:

    And taking the massive leap and assuming… but hey, why not, right?

    The question is better directed at those who floated the assumption.

    So the Court Martial issues a subpoena, which in due time is delivered to the Director of Vital Statistics Or Whatever It’s Called, and he or she says…”Go to hell. Take the COLB because that is the document that is legally sufficient.”

    I don’t know of anything in HI law that would justify such a stand. Certainly HRS §338-18 grants no patent authority to the DoH to refuse to comply with a subpoena on the basis that the requested document is unfit for the purposes of the applicant.

    What do you propose to do? Should the Army send someone from Schofield Barracks or should the USGvt send a US Marshal?

    I don’t know. All I know is that the court would need to be provided with access to the document by any means necessary.

    Should the entire staff of the office be detained onto Federal property and deposed?

    One thing at a time. The purpose of the subpoena is to get the document, not impugn anyone at DoH.

    What happens if or much more likely WHEN the Long Form shows exactly what the COLB says it does? Do we have document experts from a third party or from the CID’s lab examine the form?

    My preference would be to have three independent experts examine the vault copy, record the whole process and post the video on supremecourt.gov. If the experts say it’s the original and it shows he was born at Kapiolani, and no conflicting evidence casts reasonable doubt on the circumstances of birth as represented by the COLB, I’d say we’re done.

    Do we then depose every single person who ever worked in that office since 1961?

    If the above process yields evidence of fraud, I’d start with the present employees and extend the process as necessary.

    All or any of the above to determine whether or not LTC Lakin was given an order to do a lawful thing by someone known to him to have the authority to give him such orders,

    No.

    The Army doesn’t work the way you seem to think it works.

    It won’t work very well with a usurper running it, at least as far as the purposes of the American people are concerned.

  83. yguy says:

    “…we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact.”

    Actually it’s just baloney. The statement she refers to didn’t even say he was born in HI.

    Governor of Hawaii Linda Lingle

    She has no more legal access to those records than I do, so unless she got a court order that hasn’t been reported, her word is nothing but hearsay.

    (R)

    And…?

  84. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    I’m with AG, let’s get back to a rational discussion about aliens sodomizing unsuspecting desert dwellers.

  85. soonergrunt says:

    I was hoping to avoid that topic. It’s rather personal…
    Did I say that out loud?

  86. Joey says:

    Pardon me if I don’t accept the ruling from off the bench of Judge Yguy on admissible statements from the Republican Governor of Hawaii. In a court of law her statements taken under oath and with cross-examination would be powerful testimony for the defense. But of course no Obama eligibility lawsuit has ever reached a testimony phase in a court of law due to injury-in-fact/political question/justiciablity/failure to state a claim hurdles.
    The scorecard is already Obama: 71/ Birthers: 0
    Justice Clarence Thomas just denied Orly Taitz’s request for a Temporary Restraining Order against US District Court Judge Clay Land’s imposition of $20,000 in sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit in Rhodes v MacDonald. Captain Rhodes didn’t want to deploy to Iraq because Obama hasn’t shown his birth certificate. She lost.
    Judge Land said in his dismissal order: “A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”
    US Federal District Court Judge for the Middle District of Georgia Clay Land in dismissing “Rhodes v MacDonald” September 16, 2009

  87. Christopher Mathews says:

    Last comment here, because I think any thread that has multiple requests to turn to the Roswell incident has pretty plainly run its course.

    No one contends that the content of the orders disobeyed by LTC Lakin was unlawful — not our earstwhile birther friends and not even LTC Lakin himself. Instead, they contend that if the President is ineligible to hold his office, all military orders are unenforceable, including those given to LTC Lakin. The President, they say, is a usurper.

    This exchange sums up what I think lies at the heart of the birther cognitive error:

    soonergrunt: The Army doesn’t work the way you seem to think it works. Our lives are different than yours.

    yguy: It won’t work very well with a usurper running it, at least as far as the purposes of the American people are concerned.

    Except it will. When an officer, even one who is ineligible to command, exercises command authority and issues what would be otherwise-lawful orders, those orders remain lawful under the de facto officer doctrine. The military runs perfectly well that way; indeed, one could argue it cannot run otherwise. The authority belongs to the office, not the man.

    Some birthers either fail to understand this, or ignore it because it does not comport with their fantasies of a military “rising up” against the President. LTC Lakin evidently does not understand it, either.

    The situation presented here is even more dire for the accused, because he did not disobey an order of the purported usurper, but rather multiple orders from persons he knew to be his military superiors. Their authority does not end when the Oval Office changes hands.

    One can argue that officers act on behalf of the President as commander-in-chief; but they do not act on behalf of the individual politician Barack Hussein Obama any more than they did the individual politician George Walker Bush. Even if President Obama were somehow to be not rightfully the President, the office remains. Whether the White House should properly be occupied by President Obama, or President Biden, or President Pelosi, the authority of the officers who gave Lakin his orders remains as well.

    It is curious to see birthers argue in one breath that military orders can lawfully be disobeyed and in the next argue that a military court should obtain the evidence of their own impotence “by any means necessary.” But such is their logic.

    In any event, until the next phase of the court-martial process (or the next admission of guilt by the accused), we are done.