The safeguardourconstitution.com website reports that LTC Lakin’s counsel “has formally requested his Commanding General approve a deposition in Hawaii of the records-keeper of the State Department of Health—and the production of all of their records concerning Barack Obama.”  The request was reportedly “submitted by his counsel to the Commanding General of the Military District of Washington, Major General Karl R. Horst, under Rule 702(b) of the Rules for Courts-Martial.”

74 Responses to “LTC Lakin’s counsel requests deposition of Hawaii official”

  1. Look, pal says:

    lol

  2. brian le chien says:

    The Good News: Someone is reading the MCM.

    The Bad News: They need to re-read MRE 401 & 402.

    (also, it would be great it they would post the request for a deposition. I am curious to see what warrants this “exceptional” circumstance, and what they said “the reasons for taking the deposition” were).

  3. Phil Cave says:

    Dwight and I keep asking them to post all of this stuff. But it appears they want to only put out information that serves their PR goal, rather than open access.

  4. Anon says:

    I observe the “craziness” coming from the defense table in this whole, sad affair and quickly come to the same conclusions as most who read and post to this blog. However, that very small voice which was first conceived many years ago when as a young Trial Counsel I was served by Defense Counsel an hour before trial with a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Speedy Trial which turned upon the accused’s command putting him in pretrial confinement for a day (thereby starting a “hidden clock”) and neglecting to tell anyone. Why do I think we will all someday put the palm of our hand to our forehead and exclaim, “Is that what this was all about – never saw it coming”?

  5. Friend says:

    Brian – you said “Good News: someone is reading the MCM”.

    Its perhaps news – how good it is, I’ll leave to history and pundits to expound upon.

    OK, the defense got it right that the CA may order a deposition (RCM 702b). But, perhaps it may be clearer if one reads and addresses, including the defense, RCM 702a and the discussion. That section describes ordering such “due to exceptional circumstances” when “in the interest of justice” to “preserve the testimony” of “a prospective witness”. I really don’t think this official will be unavailable for trial or the Article 32 investigation. Perhaps there is some other great rationale from the defense that escapes us….enquiring minds want to know?

    Of course – I could be wrong. But I do agree – as least one section of the RCM was read by someone at the defense table.

    And I really don’t want to know. Anon – I concur with you – a sad affair all around.

  6. Norbrook says:

    Having followed a number of birther cases, it’s pretty easy to see what this is all about. In this case, it’s an attempt to get the birther’s “holy grail”: Discovery. That it is not germane to the case at hand is irrelevant.

    The other sad part is that Jenkin’s efforts have nothing to do with defending LTC Lakin in the court martial – it’s all about playing to the stands.

  7. Cheap Seats says:

    Did the Army have insider info. on the results of US v Diaz before preferring this case? I notice the LTC was not charged with Article 133. Good thing after Diaz. Although I don’t buy this guano-crazy defense, good for the DC. As this site is filled with defense hacks (present company included), why is this so outlandish? We make requests/motions all the time that we don’t think we’ll win. That doesn’t mean there isn’t merit to the submission. This group needs to lighten up on this submission. I say good for the DC. Don’t think it’s going to work, but good idea. Push for as many chances to get the info. as possible…

  8. Dave says:

    About them posting the request: far as I know, they haven’t posted any of Jensen’s filings. One would presume that these filings contain their very best shot at advocating LTC Lakin’s legal position. So what does it mean when they think these filings won’t help their PR effort? It suggests they they themselves think their very best shot isn’t good enough to show anyone.

  9. soonergrunt says:

    popping popcorn, chilling beer
    Hang on, let me get seated for the show!

  10. Cheap Seats says:

    soonergrunt – It’s going to be a quick show, so don’t get up. The case will be over for the Defense as soon as Colonel Roberts gets on the stand to authenticate his written order. The Medal of Honor will eclipse the guano and sink the Defense. The birth certificate nonsense will be quickly disposed of by the Military Judge and this will be a quick merits phase. I still think they should have flown him to theater with his unit and tried him in theater.

  11. Norbrook says:

    I think it’s more a case of preferring the charges against him that had the strongest case, not one of preferring all the possible charges. What makes this particular filing irritating is not that it’s going to get bounced – it is – but that it’s an obvious ploy to rile up the monkeys in the cage, and keep the dollars flowing in after the trial.

  12. duh says:

    ACTUALLY SINCE THE PRESIDENCY IS INVALID AND MILITARY JUSTICE IS IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH ANY COURT AFTER JAN 2009 IS INVALID. yes this post is for the funnies.

  13. soonergrunt says:

    Thanks, but I’m talking about the show here on CAAFlog that always accompanies the birfer invasions secondary to Lakin posts. It’s like watching NASCAR for the crashes.
    THIS IS GONNA BE GREAT!

  14. Anonymous says:

    the whole thing is outlandish.

    I’m as defense-hacky as they come, and it this were a wild swing during an otherwise valid case, I’d say go for it.

    Put another way, government-hacks hate it when trial counsel do really dumb, improper things that mess up what would have been an otherwise valid case.

    Well, us defense-hacks hate it when a guy is so poorly represented that not only does he make matters worse for himself thanks to defense counsel’s advice, but arguably, but for someone buzzing in his ear about this (likely his current civ counsel) he wouldn’t have done what he did in the first place and thrown away his career.

    I have little sympathy for the LTC, but what I do have is extreme anger at the civ defense counsel which I guess also engenders a tinge of sympathy for the LTC.

    Defense counsel are like docs, first, do no harm. This guy didn’t just cut the wrong leg off, he cut it off knowing the guy didn’t need surgery at all, and he’s now leaving the sponge sewn up inside.

  15. Anonymous says:

    He’s going to put the SYSTEM on trial!

  16. Cheap Seats says:

    And I have confidence the system will win. I guess I’ll sit down and have some popcorn and beer with soonergrunt now.

  17. Anonymous says:

    I have a vision in my head of LTC Lakin humming “I fought the law, and the law won” at counsel table. Makes for good theatre though.

  18. Cloudesley Shovell says:

    If we’re going to put the system on trial, we need a football coach for a prosecutor (who forgot to bring his case), a loony judge who carries a pistol in the courtroom (and flies helicopters for fun), and most of all, a defense counsel with witnesses lined up from here to Washington, DC who really speaks truth to power in his opening statement. And some beer and popcorn.

  19. Trevor says:

    Ahhhhhh, the Birferstani…….

    Speaking of, where for is LieGuy….sorry Yguy, here to smack us all down for not understanding how Birfer Law is the only true law……8-)

  20. BigGuy says:

    It seems to me that the point is not the deposition so much as the almost parenthetical “—and the production of all of their records concerning Barack Obama.”

    This is probably the same information that was sought in the original Article 32 discovery request (we don’t know for sure because the request hasn’t been made available). The request was denied by LTC Driscoll, and LTC Lakin et al made a big stink about being denied the right to put on a defense. But once he waived the hearing, any argument on that point became moot.

    He needs a new rallying cry — or, perhaps more accurately, his handlers need to reinvigorate their fund-raising campaign. The sooner this request is denied, the sooner they can start grousing about it.

  21. Greg says:

    …Don’t think it’s going to work, but good idea. Push for as many chances to get the info. as possible…

    But the (civilian) Defense Counsel does not want the information that they are asking for – after all, any records or testimony about Obama’s birth certificate would just confirm what every sane person already knows: Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Instead, the (civilian) DC is counting that their requests and motions for the birth record will be denied. In that way Lakin’s supporters can claim that access to the records was withheld – not because they were irrelevant (which they are) – but because release of the records would have vindicated their client. To the civilian DC, Lakin’s court-martial has nothing to do with military justice, but has everything to do with theatrics.

    In fact the DC’s ploy follows a pattern: Birthers are experts at turning unreleased information into evidence of its absence. For example, “no hospital in Hawaii confirms that Obama was born there.” Of course, privacy laws prohibit revealing such information (so it would be equally valid to state that no hospital in Hawaii denies that Obama was born there, either).

  22. Phil Cave says:

    Agree with Greg.
    If the deposition or discovery is granted, then we will have what the world already has.
    Perhaps a smart TC at this stage would agree to call the witness at trial on the motion to dismiss (not lawful order) and to provide a copy of the “official” records, certified and all trussed up in a MRE 902 certification. At which point the MJ says, the orders are lawful, move on counsel.

  23. Anonymous says:

    The lefties do this sort of thing so much better. You’d never catch them waiving a 32 and then whining about needing a deposition.

    They’d settle for nothing less than a government-paid trip to Honolulu for the defense team (There must still be someone around there who knows what really happened on 4 August 1961).

  24. Bridget says:

    Col. Roberts’ MOH citation:

    Rank and organization: Sergeant (then Sp4), U.S. Army, Company B, 1st Battalion, 506th Infantry, 101st Airborne Division. Place and date: Thua Thien Province, Republic of Vietnam, July 11, 1969. Entered service at: Cincinnati, Ohio. Born: June 14, 1950, Middletown, Ohio.
    Citation:

    For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. Sgt. Roberts distinguished himself while serving as a rifleman in Company B, during combat operations. Sgt. Roberts’ platoon was maneuvering along a ridge to attack heavily fortified enemy bunker positions which had pinned down an adjoining friendly company. As the platoon approached the enemy positions, it was suddenly pinned down by heavy automatic weapons and grenade fire from camouflaged enemy fortifications atop the overlooking hill. Seeing his platoon immobilized and in danger of failing in its mission, Sgt. Roberts crawled rapidly toward the closest enemy bunker. With complete disregard for his safety, he leaped to his feet and charged the bunker, firing as he ran. Despite the intense enemy fire directed at him, Sgt. Roberts silenced the 2-man bunker. Without hesitation, Sgt. Roberts continued his l-man assault on a second bunker. As he neared the second bunker, a burst of enemy fire knocked his rifle from his hands. Sgt. Roberts picked up a rifle dropped by a comrade and continued his assault, silencing the bunker. He continued his charge against a third bunker and destroyed it with well-thrown hand grenades. Although Sgt. Roberts was now cut off from his platoon, he continued his assault against a fourth enemy emplacement. He fought through a heavy hail of fire to join elements of the adjoining company which had been pinned down by the enemy fire. Although continually exposed to hostile fire, he assisted in moving wounded personnel from exposed positions on the hilltop to an evacuation area before returning to his unit. By his gallant and selfless actions, Sgt. Roberts contributed directly to saving the lives of his comrades and served as an inspiration to his fellow soldiers in the defeat of the enemy force. Sgt. Roberts’ extraordinary heroism in action at the risk of his life were in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the U.S. Army.

  25. yguy says:

    But the (civilian) Defense Counsel does not want the information that they are asking for – after all, any records or testimony about Obama’s birth certificate would just confirm what every sane person already knows: Obama was born in Hawaii.

    IOW, either Obama is so stupid as to play into the birthers’ hands, or he wants this kept alive.

    Which do you prefer?

    For example, “no hospital in Hawaii confirms that Obama was born there.” Of course, privacy laws prohibit revealing such information

    You mean Gov. Lingle violated the law by saying he was born at Kapiolani? Or that she didn’t break the law because he wasn’t born there?

  26. Anonymous says:

    Is. Is. Alive.

  27. soonergrunt says:

    The popcorn is ready just in time. The beer is nice and cold, too.
    Or the third option that everybody else in the whole farking world understands–that Obama’s birth/citizenship status is irrelavent to the questions of whether or not COL Roberts ordered LTC Lakin to do something lawful, whether or not LTC Lakin knew that COL Roberts was his superior in the chain of command, and whether or not LTC Lakin did in fact obey those orders as given.

    As to the second part, the Governor was obviously describing the contents of newspaper notices from 1961, and if she was discussing something else, that’s between her, the US Attorney (it’s federal law) and the ‘victim’, President Barrack H. Obama. It certainly isn’t any concern of yours unless you are a citizen of Hawaii. If you can’t prove that though, to my standards, well…

    You should sell crazy somewhere else. They aren’t buying, and I make my own.

  28. Greg says:

    IOW, either Obama is so stupid as to play into the birthers’ hands, or he wants this kept alive. Which do you prefer?

    I really don’t think the President pays this so-called controversy any mind. He has more important things to do.

    You mean Gov. Lingle violated the law by saying he was born at Kapiolani? Or that she didn’t break the law because he wasn’t born there?

    Laws protecting patient confidentiality apply to hospitals and other medical care facilities. Governor Lingle is not a hospital. She is a governor.

  29. Dave says:

    You raise the question of whether Gov. Lingle’s statement was in violation of the law. Is it possible to understand what this question has to do with LTC Lakin’s court martial?

  30. anonymous says:

    I don’t get it. How could the President’s purported ineligibility to hold his office ever invalidate Colonel Robert’s authority to issue orders to LTC Lakin?

  31. soonergrunt says:

    I don’t get it. How could the President’s purported ineligibility to hold his office ever invalidate Colonel Robert’s authority to issue orders to LTC Lakin?

    The birfers seem to think that officers’ commissions expire with the presidential office terms to be renewed by the next CinC.
    Yes, it’s as stupid as it sounds, but that’s because you actually understand something about the military.

  32. anonymous says:

    Wow, that is strange. Maybe they think it has something to do with commissioned officers serving “at the pleasure” of the President, in that if there is no real President (in their view) to ratify at least implicitly the previous commission, then there is no continuing service?

    I wonder if they’d view the obligations of enlisted members differently since their service is defined by a contract, vice a commission, and provided the contract was entered into prior to the President’s current term?

  33. Norbrook says:

    Wow, that is strange. Maybe they think it has something to do with commissioned officers serving “at the pleasure” of the President, in that if there is no real President (in their view) to ratify at least implicitly the previous commission, then there is no continuing service?

    If one tries to follow their logic, you end up spraining your brain. What I find amusing is the implicit assumption that if the President is “not a real President,” then all military orders are invalid. I wonder what LTC Lakin would have done if some sergeant had told him to buzz off in response to an order Lakin gave? It’s very much an ego trip to think that you don’t have to follow orders because you think the President isn’t a “natural born citizen,” but everyone below you does, because you’re a LTC.

  34. yguy says:

    You should sell crazy somewhere else. They aren’t buying

    Most likely because they’re already overstocked:

    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.

    Christopher Mathews: Except it will.

    […]

  35. yguy says:

    I really don’t think the President pays this so-called controversy any mind. He has more important things to do.

    To be sure, there are terrorists who need appeasing, larcenous bills that need passing, and golf courses that need appraising…but his genial willingness to let a man be court martialed rather than produce a document that would presumably do no more than confirm the conventional wisdom doesn’t say a whole lot for his level of concern for military personnel in general.

    Laws protecting patient confidentiality apply to hospitals and other medical care facilities.

    And just how would Kapiolani Hospital be violating Obama’s confidentiality by confirming information that so many media outlets have already taken care to disseminate?

  36. Dwight Sullivan says:

    yguy,

    It appears that LTC Lakin has already violated the UCMJ. Even if the President were to produce a copy of his birth certificate that satisfied his military subordinate, that presumably wouldn’t result in LTC Lakin not being court-martialed. Rather, it would just highlight what already appears to be the case — that LTC Lakin chose to violate the law without any legal justification for doing so.

  37. Anonymous says:

    And, if LTC Lakin is regularly issuing invalid orders to his subordinates might he also be prosecuted for a violation of Article 93?

  38. Trevor says:

    Ahh YGuy and the smell of Birfer crazy in the morning…..it smells like…..FAIL

  39. soonergrunt says:

    And again, if he took pay he believed he couldn’t lawfully be paid (since the CinC isn’t the CinC and can’t order someone to pay him) why can’t he be prosecuted for Art 132?

  40. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    Governor Lingle attended a celebration of the 100th anniversary of Kapi’Olani hospital in February of 2009, during which Congressman Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii (a long time personal friend of the President) read a letter from President Obama stating that he was born at that hospital. That’s one reason why the Governor knew this information.

    It was not in the 1961 newspaper vital statistics announcements, nor in the published statements of Health Department director Fukino. The Department of Health has never commented on the name of the hospital, but any tour guide in Hawaii will show you.

    Governor Lingle is “guilty” in misstating where she got her information from, but certainly not of breaking any law.

  41. Anonymous says:

    But, if what he’s saying were true, what force would an order to depose have anyway — and who would swear the witness?

    For that matter, how could he invoke any of the various benefits of the MCM which have their basis only in an Executive Order and not the UCMJ itself?

  42. Anonymous says:

    Just to be safe, maybe Code 45 should start tacking on birther-based summary assignments to every case tried after 20 January 2009?

  43. yguy says:

    Even if the President were to produce a copy of his birth certificate that satisfied his military subordinate, that presumably wouldn’t result in LTC Lakin not being court-martialed.

    True enough, but my understanding is that Lakin tried to get this addressed through official channels long before he crossed the Rubicon of insubordination; so unless Obama was somehow unaware of this situation before then, he bears some degree of culpability for this mess.

  44. BigGuy says:

    Really? You see the President’s failure to comply with “Do as I say or I’ll disobey my orders” as a mark of culpability?

  45. Trevor says:

    True enough, but my understanding is that Lakin tried to get this addressed through official channels long before he crossed the Rubicon of insubordination; so unless Obama was somehow unaware of this situation before then, he bears some degree of culpability for this

    Deliberate obfuscation of a non issue from Yguy, so suprising……not.

    If you had bothered to stir yourself for 30 seconds you would have pulled up all the sordid little details of the charges, the counselling he received and the information he was provided.

    He was plainly shown the inapplicability of his “beliefs”, the matter of the de-facto officer doctrine, the fact that his orders were from his direct chain of command and not the President and the simple fact that he is a soldier and therefore under orders.

    Since yiu apprear top have a massive blind spot of simple purblind ignorance in this area I will type slowly and in big letters.

    OBAMA’S LEGITIMACY OR OTHERWISE HAS NO RELEVANCE WHATSOVER TO THE CHARGES LAID AGAINST LAKIN, THERE IS AND WILL BE NO MAGICAL “DISCOVERY” AS IT IS IRRELEVANT.

  46. yguy says:

    Really? You see the President’s failure to comply with “Do as I say or I’ll disobey my orders” as a mark of culpability?

    No, I see his refusal to provide credible evidence of his eligibility for office as a mark of culpability, seeing it would have been every bit as easy to publish that as it was to publish the COLB.

  47. Norbrook says:

    Excuse me? Let’s see, he actually did release his COLB. It was even examined by disinterested parties, who took high-resolution photographs of it, verified that the document was indeed a real one with a correct seal. The governor of the state he was born in (who was campaigning for his opponent), had it checked out, and verified that he was born in Hawaii.

    So your comment about “credible evidence” is specious. He has provided it, more than any other presidential candidate – or President – ever has in the past. Now, what you really mean is “some evidence, which I won’t detail, that only I will get to determine the credibility of.” It’s the ever-popular “moving the goalposts” that birthers do all the time. There is no evidence that could be provided that will ever satisfy you.

    What none of you birthers seem to grasp is a very simple concept that just about everyone in (or formerly in) the military grasps. It doesn’t matter one whit if he’s not a natural born citizen. He’s the President, and unless Congress removes him, he holds the office. Orders are still valid, laws he signed still are real laws, and everything else remains the same. That’s the de facto officer doctrine. It’s way things work, because that’s the only way it can work. Otherwise you have anarchy, which is not a good thing for a military.

  48. Dave says:

    “Somehow unaware”… that is definitely my favorite part.

    I’m sure the President has a regular briefing on “LTC’s exhibiting unusual behavior.”

  49. BigGuy says:

    @yguy: Those are the same false claims that you were called on last time around.

    Don’t you remember? The COLB is an official Hawaiian Birth Certificate, prima facie evidence in any court. And since it is the only form of Birth Certificate that Hawaii currently issues, it is preposterous to suggest that any other document could be provided every bit as easily.

    But I was under the impression when you spoke of attributing culpability to President Obama that you meant “culpability” in some legal sense. Now I understand that you were simply using the term within the purview of your own idiosyncratic view of how the law and the military ought to operate. Anyone who understands how they do operate knows better.

  50. soonergrunt says:

    And you guys all laughed and me bringing popcorn…
    Beer, anyone? It’s Belgian.

  51. Trevor says:

    Add a charge of peculation to the charges laundry list….8-)

  52. yguy says:

    Excuse me? Let’s see, he actually did release his COLB. It was even examined by disinterested parties,

    I can’t imagine whom you think you’re kidding.

    who took high-resolution photographs of it, verified that the document was indeed a real one with a correct seal. The governor of the state he was born in (who was campaigning for his opponent), had it checked out,

    No, she did not have the COLB checked out – or if she did, nary a mention of it has come within my field of vision.

    So your comment about “credible evidence” is specious. He has provided it, more than any other presidential candidate – or President – ever has in the past. Now, what you really mean is “some evidence, which I won’t detail, that only I will get to determine the credibility of.” It’s the ever-popular “moving the goalposts” that birthers do all the time. There is no evidence that could be provided that will ever satisfy you.

    You obviously have me confused with someone else. I’ve been perfectly explicit about what would satisfy me on this very site.

    It doesn’t matter one whit if he’s not a natural born citizen.

    Then one cannot help but wonder why you people continue to argue the point as if it does.

  53. Anonymous says:

    Actually no one has “argued the point as if it does.”

    People have argued about the true motives of the birthers, people have argued about how possibly the birthers could think they have a case here, people have lamented how people like you are riding this LTC like a horse to the glue factory because you have to know no court will give you what you want and you are egging on a guy to lose his retirement and service over something so asinine.

    All because you don’t like a black liberal in the white house. If Obama had the exact same history but was a white, conservative republican, you and your ilk wouldn’t say boo.

    You and your kind are a disgrace to logic, to decency, and all you will have accomplished is to send one gullible, not too saavy guy to the glue factory all to be able to pump each other up about the coming revolution and how you are TRUE patriots.

  54. yguy says:

    @yguy: Those are the same false claims that you were called on last time around.

    More accurately, they are the same facts you somehow find so objectionable.

    …since [the COLB] is the only form of Birth Certificate that Hawaii currently issues, it is preposterous to suggest that any other document could be provided every bit as easily.

    Again, HRS §338-13(a) says otherwise; so it would appear that either you’re wrong or the DoH, by refusing to issue certified copies of original certificates they have on file, is in willful violation of HI law.

    Which is it?

    But I was under the impression when you spoke of attributing culpability to President Obama that you meant “culpability” in some legal sense. Now I understand that you were simply using the term within the purview of your own idiosyncratic view of how the law and the military ought to operate. Anyone who understands how they do operate knows better.

    Anyone with a sense of justice, and who understands that the law can be perverted to perpetrate an injustice, knows that while there may be people who know better, you are not among them.

  55. Phil Cave says:

    I say, could you add a Cruz Campo or two and I’ll be glad to join you. The popcorn is all yours.
    Cheers.

  56. Phil Cave says:

    No, I’m not sure that works. But as a Code 45 alumnus I’d wonder, maybe any Soldier ordered around by LTC Lakin who refused the order and was disciplined can now raise this in an appeal or with the BCMR?

  57. BigGuy says:

    The Constitution requires that the president be a natural born citizen. It does not require that the president convince every last doubter that he or she is a natural born citizen.

    You have a highly inflated sense of self-importance when it comes to the question of how much weight your personal “sense of justice” should carry in our legal and political system.

  58. yguy says:

    Actually no one has “argued the point as if it does.”

    You evidently think the readers of this blog are idiots.

    you are egging on a guy to lose his retirement and service

    I’m not doing any such thing.

    over something so asinine.

    Perhaps you’d like to explain to me how it is that the military can serve the interests of the American people just as well with a usurper acting as CiC as with a legitimate President, as a certain contributor to this site has opined.

    All because you don’t like a black liberal in the white house.

    Let us not forget that unprovoked race-baiting is nothing but a pusillanimous act of intellectual desperation.

    You and your kind are a disgrace to logic, to decency

    See above.

  59. Phil Cave says:

    Actually, if you want to get into a different topic, it could be argued that the United States did just that for eight years while G. W. Bush served as president.

    That is part of the reason why five, possibly soon to be six states have passed legislation on how their electoral college votes will be assigned.

  60. yguy says:

    Actually, if you want to get into a different topic, it could be argued that the United States did just that for eight years while G. W. Bush served as president.

    Any delusion can be argued for, given sufficient creativity and determination.

  61. BigGuy says:

    Actually, if you want to get into a different topic, it could be argued that the United States did just that for eight years while G. W. Bush served as president.

    You know, Phil, if you’re speaking of Bush v. Gore, it raises an interesting comparison.

    That was a hard-fought, closely divided issue. The country was split largely down the middle, with high-powered constitutional lawyers on both sides and a 5-4 Supreme Court decision. The outcome will probably be debated for decades, if not longer.

    On the birther issue there’s nothing comparable. Both houses of Congress approved the vote of the Electoral College without a single dissent; there’s not a single reputable constitutional attorney advocating the birther point of view; and there hasn’t been a single court decision in their favor (I believe the score is something like 0-71 now).

    So, while some of the more vociferous on the losing side see the situation as an illustration of how “the law can be perverted,” there is a remarkable near-unanimity in all three branches of government — both at federal and state levels — that the law, at least with regard to presidential eligibility, is functioning just as it should.

  62. Anonymous says:

    Oh look, someone has a thesaurus and he ain’t afraid to use it.

    No, I don’t think all of the readers of this blog are idiots, just one.

    Tell you what, when you have evidence that the President is an “usurper” please post it, it ought to be entertaining. Otherwise, we don’t all quit doing our jobs in the military just because of who the president is.

    What you call unprovoked race-baiting, I call truth. You are an idiot. That’s not name-calling. It’s clear truth. And that’s the nicest thing I can say.

  63. yguy says:

    What you call unprovoked race-baiting, I call truth.

    Of course you do. When you hate what someone says but can’t find any fault with it, what alternative do you have but to manufacture a fault in his character out of thin air and call it truth?

  64. Phil Cave says:

    Right, that’s what we’ve been saying.

  65. soonergrunt says:

    Any delusion can be argued for, given sufficient creativity and determination.

    The irony is just killing me.

  66. Sterngard Friegen says:

    yguy has the same writiing style as an annoying troll named MichaelN who came to the politijab site for a couple of weeks and peddled his birfer theories there. He never responded to an argument and generally answered questions by changing the subject. Congratulations (or, really, condolences). I think you guys have inherited him.

    As for birferism, there are perhaps 800,000 lawyers in America. And of that number the only ones who seem to klnow what the rest don’t about Barack Obama as well as the “natual born Citizen” clause are these tremendous legal lights Orly Taitz, Phil Berg, Mario Apuzzo, Charles E. Lincoln III (inactive). John Hemenway and Gary Kreep. They have become famous not because of any scholarly pursuits (they’ve never published more than a blog), nor because of their victories (they’ve lost every case they’ve filed on the matter), but because they bask in publicity and the PayPal button.

    Now, late to the party, comes Rolf Jensen, who is new civilian defense counsel for LTCOL Lakin. Mr. Jensen’s many talents have been discussed earlier. All I need add is that like all of his birfer colleagues he, too, has a PayPal button.

  67. Anonymous says:

    I would love to see the color of the sky in your world. No doubt it won’t be any color I’ve ever seen before.

  68. Southern Defense Counsel says:

    Yguy,

    Until you respond to the issue of all other orders that LTC Lakin has obeyed (showing up to work at the Pentagon, accepting pay, uniform regulations) your rantings, however you disguise them, will have absolutely no traction here or anywhere else. LTC Lakin disobeyed an inconvenient order. He never said (not according to his own posts anyway, and since he seems content to tell us everything else he does and “thinks”) that he wouldn’t accept pay, etc. Let’s not pretend this guy is more principled than he is.

  69. Anonymous says:

    Alanis Morrissette should write a song about it! ;)

  70. yguy says:

    Let’s not pretend [to know how principled this guy is].

    I never have, which certainly can’t be said for most of Lakin’s detractors that I’ve run into.

  71. Norbrook says:

    And speaking of Bush v. Gore, once it was decided, it was decided. While the various liberal blogs constantly griped about the decision, I don’t recall seeing any calls for armed insurrection, uprisings by the military, or large numbers of lawsuits challenging his legitimacy and demanding proof that the election wasn’t stolen. Once President Bush was in office, he was in office – he was the President. There’s no rule that says everyone had to like it, or agree with his actions as President, but he was the President.

    Just as with President Bush, no one said you have to like President Obama’s victory or his policies and actions. But he is the President. The birthers often strike me as the ultimate sore losers.

  72. yguy says:

    And speaking of Bush v. Gore, once it was decided, it was decided. While the various liberal blogs constantly griped about the decision, I don’t recall seeing any calls for armed insurrection, uprisings by the military, or large numbers of lawsuits challenging his legitimacy and demanding proof that the election wasn’t stolen.

    Setting aside the fact that the only people who people who were moved to complain about it were the people who tried to steal it in the first place, the contested ballots were recounted by several media outlets who concluded that Bush would have won an official hand recount. A reasonable parallel, then, would be if Fox News personnel had been allowed to inspect the vault copy of Obama’s original birth certificate.

  73. Reality Check says:

    According to a press release on the “Safeguard or Constitution” website that supports Lakin charges have been referred and a military judge has been appointed. The arraignment is scheduled August 6. Army Col. Denise R. Lind will preside over the trial that the press release says will be held at Ft. McNair in October.

    http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com./press-release/pressrelease20100812.html

  74. Randy says:

    Bush v Gore?
    Gore was unsuccessful and a loser.
    Nothing has come to light since to refute Bush’s win.
    Thankfully, the SCOTUS got that right. Lawyers here would advise Lakin to cut and run. How heroic.
    Did you suggest Gore should have quit too?
    Will Obama concede and abandon his Alinskist narcissistic ways? Or unite us by coming clean?
    No, the battle provides cover for his agenda, and
    his sycophants fight the battle for him.
    Lakin’s questions of Obama’s eligibility won’t be settled with a Court Martial, but will create a new one:
    Obama, why would you let LTC Lakin be jailed for upholding his given oath?
    As an aside: If the NY Times were to get a copy of the original certificate, would they release it even if it didn’t validate Obama’s narrative? Precedent says no.
    I not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.