When the subhead of your website’s logo is “The Truth Matters,” you really ought not post obvious falsehoods.  Consider this from the Lakinista website’s “COUNTDOWN to Court-Martial” page: 

This week, the American Patriot Foundation heard from a retired Navy SEAL, shocked by the stunning decision by a civilian court in which a terrorist suspect/detainee was convicted on only ONE count of 249 criminal charges: “Let me see if I understand this, Col. Lakin can get a more severe punishment that Ahmed Ghailani?”

Of course, the answer to that question is no, no he can’t.  Ghailani faces a minimum of confinement for 20 years and a maximum of confinement for life.  Even if LTC Lakin could be separately punished for all the offenses he faces (and, for reasons that I’ve discussed previously, he can’t be), his maximum confinement would be four years.

The website also posts an “‘Open Letter to Congress’ from a supporter of Terry.”  This letter repeats the untruth — repeated often among birthers — that “Lakin is being denied due process by Judge Lind who has ruled that Lakin cannot defend himself in any way whatsoever because she will not ’embarrass the President’ to show his vital records, and prove his eligibility under Article 2 Section 1.”  The claim that Judge Lind denied disovery so as not to “embarrass the President” is false.  Additionally, those at safeguardourconstitution.com know or should know that it’s false.  They were working directly with Paul Rolf Jensen when Judge Lind issued her ruling on the defense’s discovery motion.  They know — or should know — the actual content of that ruling.  For all his faults — and there were certainly many — Mr. Jensen (to the best of my knowledge) never participated in the false characterization of Judge Lind’s use of the word “embarrassment,” which came from a quotation from Baker v. Carr concerning the political question doctrine and spoke not of embarrassment to the President, but rather the embarrassment that would arise if two different branches of the same government reached two different legal conclusions.  Shame on safeguardourconstitution.com for furthering that lie. 

It’s also untrue, of course, that Judge Lind ruled that LTC Lakin “cannot defend himself in any way whatsoever.”  I’ve discussed earlier today some ways in which LTC Lakin can defend himself.  No doubt there are others.  What Judge Lind ruled that was LTC Lakin wasn’t entitled to discovery that was irrelevant to any legally viable defense.  Under CAAF’s New decision, it was up to Judge Lind to determine whether the orders that LTC Lakin received were lawful.  She’s ruled that they were.  The content of her ruling would have been unaffected by any information concerning President Obama’s constitutional eligibility.  That demonstrates that her ruling on the discovery issue was correct.  There’s also no question that Judge Lind’s rulings were compelled by an objective application of existing case law — just as LTC Lakin’s current counsel has conceded.

Now, I know Judge Lind.  And while we aren’t buddies, I both like and respect her.  And I suspect my reaction to untruths like those posted on safeguardourconstitution.com is intensified because I know, like, and respect her.  So I’m not pretending to be objective.  But I’m sure that even if I didn’t know, like, and respect her, I would still be disgusted by the ignorant and false (and sometimes vile and misogynistic) attacks that have been launched at her.  Many of LTC Lakin’s supporters are prone to use the words “truth” and “honor.”  safeguardourconstitution.com has demonstrated once again that it has no commitment to the former and no claim to the latter.

40 Responses to “Lakinista website posts obviously false claims”

  1. Phil Cave says:

    Agreed.

  2. Christopher Mathews says:

    The birther movement has been, from a military law point of view, simply a prolonged excercise in wishful thinking. Distateful though their comments are, it’s not surprising that the Lakinistas would respond to an adverse ruling with denial and temper tantrums.

  3. BigGuy says:

    While it is only natural that you would choose to comment from a military law point of view, those of us who have been following the birther movement from the outside have seen all of it as a prolonged exercise in wishful — and often hateful — thinking.

    President Obama, like all political figures, had and continues to have credible political opponents, and it is absurd to think that they would have failed to seize upon any legitimate opportunity to challenge his eligibility.

    Had he actually had the temerity to offer a questionable birth certificate, it could not have escaped the attention of the Hawaiian authorities; had his father’s lack of citizenship been seen as a real constitutional bar to his eligibility, it would have been tested in court early in the campaign rather than after his election.

    While the birthers continue to decry their lack of standing in court, they are blind to its obvious meaning: None of the parties with standing found their arguments to be even remotely convincing, nor did anyone else with the authority to bring a legitimate challenge to his eligibility.

  4. John O'Connor says:

    They probably have an affidavit from LGen McInerny saying that Lakin can get a stiffer penalty than Ghailani.

  5. Norbrook says:

    It is an unfortunate – and sad – feature of the birthers that they will always attempt to impugn the reputation or motives of any judge which does not give them their way. Which, to date, has been all of them. Those of us who are (mostly) sane realize that if every judge is telling you that you don’t have standing, the odds are pretty good (after 70+ attempts) that you don’t have standing.

  6. Glenn says:

    The punishment Lt. Col. Lakin receives even if only 4 years, is little compared to the damage done to his name and honor. If he can not defend his name, then how does he difend his honor? Is a man’s honor held in such low regard today that damage to it is not considered a grievance worthy of a petition for redress? The man simply requests confirmation in a matter that our constitution demands. Why is that a crime that can not be worth of a free, fair, open, honest, and complete hearing of ALL the facts? If the answer to either of these can so easily be waved away as they seem to have been to date, then honor and justice are both surely doomed.

  7. Rob M says:

    There was an article in Slate I read today asking why there haven’t been any major first amendment Supreme Court cases arising out of the GWOT (or “overseas contingency operations against man-caused disasters,” which I believe is the official correct term now).
    http://www.slate.com/id/2276010/

    I think part of it is that society today is pretty tolerant of free speech. The last two presidents have been regularly compared to Hitler, and there’s nary a weekend that goes by (or a Thursday night on a college campus) when you can’t find a protest somewhere about something.

    Maybe that’s why the military has become the target of/fodder for the varous fringe movements du jour (anti-Bush, anti-Obama, anti-war, anti-whatever). It’s about the only place left where someone making a public spectacle can still get in trouble, and thus garner attention in their litigious quest for vindication. Ehren Watada, Terry Lakin, even Dan Choi all got their fifteen minutes because they were/are in the military; a civilian who said and did exactly the same things wouldn’t have made the tinest of ripples.

  8. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Rob M, I think that Dahlia Lithwick’s question may be answered in part by the fact that with this war, there’s no draft.

  9. Reality Check says:

    I suspect that the editorial content of the “Safeguard Our Constitution web site is under the control of Margaret “Ducky” Hemenway. She is the person in charge of PR for APF. Ducky Henenway is the daughter in law of John Hemenway who was the attorney of record in Hollister v Obama. This was one of the many birther cases filed in 2009. Gregory Hollister was a retired colonel who was scared to death the might be recalled from retirement to service of the “ususrper”.

    The case was really one of Phil Berg’s cases filed by proxy through Hemenway. Even Judge Robertson recognized this and said that had Berg been the attorney of record he would have been sanctioned. Instead Hemenway received a reprimand. They case was denied on appeal and recently sent to SCOTUS where it will be surely denied.

    Ms Hemenway is a former staffer for Robert C. Smith (R), NH, Bush appointee to the DoD and NASA, and is a devoted hompohobe. She was part of the John Kerry Swift Boater’s in 2004.

    I found more info on Ms Hemenway and detailed it here: http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=5081#p188592

  10. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Glenn, you do realize that LTC Lakin’s defense has acknowledged that the President’s constitutional eligibility isn’t relevant to his offenses, don’t you?

  11. Christopher Mathews says:

    Glenn, LTC Lakin was free to demand all the documents he wanted, and he did. He didn’t get what he wanted, but such is life.

    What he was not entitled to do was to disobey the orders of his superiors. He did so knowing full well the possible consequences, in the apparent belief that he could use the court-martial process to obtain that which he could not obtain through his demand.

    He was wrong, of course, but nothing that is happening now was unforeseeable or unforeseen. It is entirely the result of a course of action he set into motion himself. That he was encouraged to do what he did by others who will bear no price for his folly is a fact for which those who did the encouraging should feel a deep and personal shame — but probably will not.

  12. Rob M says:

    Seriously…do we need to do this again?

  13. Rob M says:

    Yeah, that’s the obvious explanation that’s left out of the article- I’ll admit it didn’t occur to me right away either (generation gap?). But it did get me thinking about how the only real sensational(ized) criminal trials for political protesting have been the courts martial of active duty military.

  14. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Rob M, did you just call me old? :-)

  15. Phil Cave says:

    I think it’s a little more nuanced than the lack of a draft. It’s also a combination that the “war” has been successfully posited as being in the publics own backyard, not Europe, not Asia, not Viet-Nam. Thus people are less inclined to object to giving up rights or having their freedoms limited in the name of the war. It’s OK to shout fire these days, but not bomb. And yes he generalized you :-)

  16. Glenn says:

    Dwight, yes I heard. And the judge ruled it so it must be true, right. In that courtroom anyway.

    Christopher, You seem so sure, it must all be true, we don’t need a justice system when we can live so happily with your opinions, right.

    Rob, Seriously. We will need to do this so long as the constitution matters and the question remains buried in refusal to hear ALL the facts in a free, fair, open, honest, and complete American fashion. And proving the constitution no longer matters should be done only at ones own peril.

  17. John O'Connor says:

    Is a man’s honor held in such low regard that he’s prohibited from admitting patently irrelevant evidence in support of his defense?

    Yes, it is.

  18. Christopher Mathews says:

    Glenn, I “seem so sure” because I am sure. A working knowledge of military law is really helpful in that regard.

    If you had such a working knowledge, you would realize that we do, in fact, have a justice system. It’s the one LTC Lakin chose to live with when he joined the military. It just didn’t rule in his favor.

    I get that you don’t like that, but there was never anything particularly difficult about the law in this area. If the accused, or the folks who encouraged him, lacked an understanding of that law before starting down this path, that was a fairly grievous error in judgment on their part.

  19. sg says:

    In regards to LTC Lakin’s honor, Glenn:
    LTC Lakin did that damage, no one else. No one forced him to disobey orders or refuse to go to the places he was to go. He did those things himself, and bragged about doing those things on Youtube.
    “The man simply requests confirmation in a matter that our constitution demands. Why is that a crime that can not be worth of a free, fair, open, honest, and complete hearing of ALL the facts?”
    Where in the Constitution is the requirement for a mid level officer to determine for his own self whether or not he will obey lawful orders? Cause his orders most assuredly were lawful. Once that fact was established, and even to the satisfaction of LTC Lakin’s counsel, nothing else is relevant.
    “If the answer to either of these can so easily be waved away as they seem to have been to date, then honor and justice are both surely doomed.”
    No. My honor is intact. So too is the honor of every Servicemember that has put his feelings and politics aside and obeyed his lawful orders to the best of his ability, sometimes at the cost of their own lives. You want to talk dishonor? Another doctor had to deploy to the war zone on short notice because of Lakin’s actions. Lakin caused HIS duty to devolve upon his brother in arms. THAT is dishonorable and no one is responsible for that dishonor but Terry Lakin. Had he resigned his commission and then went on television and Youtube, his honor would be intact, and he would have the same access to President Obama’s personal records that he has now, which is to say none. His military career would be over, but at least he wouldn’t be in danger of going to jail. Or better yet, he could’ve just obeyed his orders and went where he was told. His honor would be intact and he would have the same access to President Obama’s personal records that he has now, which is to say none, and he wouldn’t be in danger of going to jail.

  20. Rob M says:

    When I asked “seriously…do we need to do this again?” what I meant was “seriously…do we need to [go through the painful excercise of explaining why all the various birther arguments are completely irrelevant to his trial by court-martial and therefore inadmissible at said trial regardless of the merits of said birther arguments] again?”

  21. mikeyes says:

    Glenn,

    When you state the things that you have said, especially on this blog, you fall into one of three categories:

    1) You are ignorant of the workings of the Constitution, especially the relationship of the military to the government as mandated by the Constitution (including, but not limited to, Article I courts and the UCMJ.)

    2) You are an enemy agent, probably Al Qeada, whose sole purpose is to promote mutiny and chaos in the military thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

    3) You have an ulterior motive that so blinds you to the consequences of your actions such that you don’t see you are advocating treason by the destruction of the military.

    Of course there is the fourth reason: You are promoting various scams whose sole purpose is to get those that fall into categories 1 and 3 to push the Paypal button since there is no way that LTC Lakin’s lawyers will see a cent of that money. But you are wasting your time here.

    If you are behind Door Number One, I suggest that you read every LTC Lakin thread on this blog and you will be enlightened.

    If you are in the Number Two category please attempt to fly on an airline with a bomb in your pants.

    If you are Number Three, there is nothing that can be done except to ignore you. (I suspect I have just broken my own rule.)

  22. Anonymous says:

    Dwight, yes I heard. And the judge ruled it so it must be true, right. In that courtroom anyway.Christopher, You seem so sure, it must all be true, we don’t need a justice system when we can live so happily with your opinions, right.Rob, Seriously. We will need to do this so long as the constitution matters and the question remains buried in refusal to hear ALL the facts in a free, fair, open, honest, and complete American fashion. And proving the constitution no longer matters should be done only at ones own peril.

    So Glenn, then you don’t want us to hear relevant facts, you want us to hear all facts. That isn’t how any criminal justice system has ever worked, ever, in history.

    ever.

  23. sus says:

    Hey! Glenn took my name. I was “Glenn”.

    Keep it. You ruined it with your birferism.

  24. Sterngard Friegen says:

    Dwight – Welcome to the insane world of Birfoonistan where the lying occurs on a routine basis. These people, who hate America and Americans, and who have no idea of American history, law or and traditions, call themselves patriots. That is probably the greatest lie.

  25. realist says:

    “By Dwight Sullivan, November 27, 2010

    When the subhead of your website’s logo is “The Truth Matters,” you really ought not post obvious falsehoods”

    Without their constantly posting lies, misleading information and suborning suspension of the U.S. Constitution and ignorance of the supreme laws of the land in order to attempt an overthrow of a legal election, there could be no birthers.

  26. Norbrook says:

    Rob, Seriously. We will need to do this so long as the constitution matters and the question remains buried in refusal to hear ALL the facts in a free, fair, open, honest, and complete American fashion. And proving the constitution no longer matters should be done only at ones own peril.

    Glenn, as any number of sites besides this one – NBC’s blog, Obamaconspiracy, etc. – have pointed out ad nauseum, all those matters have been aired out, proven, fact-checked, and relevant case law examined. Which all point to one thing. President Barack H. Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and is the duly-elected, sworn-in, Constitutional President of the United States. Just because you don’t like the answer doesn’t mean that it isn’t true.

  27. SueDB says:

    When I asked “seriously…do we need to do this again?”what I meant was “seriously…do we need to [go through the painful excercise of explaining why all the various birther arguments are completely irrelevant to his trial by court-martial and therefore inadmissible at said trial regardless of the merits of said birther arguments] again?”

    Yes, each an every time one of these numbnuts pops up.
    They won’t take a NO to the lies. It is like playing “Whack a Mole”.

  28. Christopher Mathews says:

    Except they’re zombie moles.

    There’s a post on Mario Apuzzo’s website commenting on the denial of cert in the Kerchner case that reads “Is there any further recourse?”

    * sigh *

  29. sg says:

    Well, if you already believe in things like Obama being an evil Kenyan usurper who is engaged in a huge conspiracy with a supporting cast of thousands of Federal and Hawaii politicians and bureaucrats to overthrow the constitution and establish sharia-backed socialism, why not believe that there’s a forum to which one may appeal SCOTUS rulings?
    It’s not a big leap from their starting point.

  30. Norbrook says:

    <a href=

    NBC’s blog has commentary from one of the other birther sites about the case – the Post&E-mail, where they’re stomping about the Lakin case:

    We want his attorneys to DEMAND proof that Obama is eligible, and when he cannot do so, Lakin will be exonerated and the nation will be out from under the yoke of this impostor!

    I want a new Lamborghini, and my chances of getting one are about on a par with them getting their way.

  31. BigGuy says:

    What’s even more remarkable is that Sharon Rondeau posted it as a response to the question, “Do we want him to go for the deal or do we want him to fight on, even if it means the real possibility of a stiffer punishment?”

    She has no regard whatsoever for LTC Lakin’s fate. Maybe he’ll take consolation in having been named her Man of the Year!

  32. Rickey says:

    This was posted by one of the regulars at Post & eMail, which tells you all you need to know about that site:

    “Lakin fired his original attorney, the wonderful Paul Jensen, even before his appeal of Judge Lind’s terrible decision had been ruled upon. He hired a run of the mill military lawyer, Neal Puckett from the firm of Puckett and Faraj (sounds Muslim)…”

    By using a different handle I was able to post a non-argumentative response, pointing out Mr. Faraj’s 22 years of distinguished service with the Marine Corps. A follow-up post which I submitted has been languishing in moderation for nearly three hours.

  33. BigGuy says:

    @Rickey — “This was posted by one of the regulars at Post & eMail…”
    __

    I wouldn’t be so sure. It sounds to me much more like an obot spoofer who knew how to hit the buzzwords needed to allow some unpleasant truths to be brought forward. I think it’s clearly tongue-in-cheek — some of those references are too funny to be believed.

    And no, it wasn’t me!

  34. Kenneth Olsen says:

    You CAAFLOG types may well be geniuses in the letter of the law.
    You’re pretty much failures in its spirit.

  35. Christopher Mathews says:

    You CAAFLOG types may well be geniuses in the letter of the law.
    You’re pretty much failures in its spirit.

    Thanks. On behalf of the denizens of this blog, I accept the compliment from your first sentence.

    As to the second: if the letter of the law doesn’t match what you imagine its spirit to be, perhaps you’re just wrong about the spirit. Or had that possibility not occurred to you?

  36. Greg says:

    Who ees thees “we”? Is Sharon planning on accompanying Lakin to the USDB?

    The “we” refers to the ones (including Rondeau) who see themselves as pulling Lakin’s strings. To them, Lakin is just their marionette, after all.

  37. Greg says:

    You CAAFLOG types may well be geniuses in the letter of the law.
    You’re pretty much failures in its spirit.

    But what of Lakin?

    Although no one would expect Lakin to be a “genius” in military law (he’s far from it) – Lakin did utterly fail to understand the most rudimentary concept of military law, that is, the meaning of a “lawful order.”

    Even more egregiously, Lakin failed to grasp the entire spirit and purpose of military law: to promote cohesion, morale, order, readiness, effectiveness and discipline among soldiers working as a unit. In particular, military law does not encourage a random officer to disobey orders because of his own, ill-conceived quest to obtain the President’s (already public) vital records.

    Furthermore, your criticism of the “CAAFLOG types” is grossly inaccurate. A military lawyer who understands merely the letter of the law is a good lawyer. What distinguishes the authors of the articles on this site as great lawyers – is precisely their understanding of the underpinning spirit and purpose of the UMCJ – an understanding that shows in nearly every Lakin-related article that they have written.

  38. Capt. Obvious says:

    You CAAFLOG types may well be geniuses in the letter of the law.
    You’re pretty much failures in its spirit.

    Can you cite specific examples or were you just fine tuning your rectal thunder?

  39. Capt. Obvious says:

    Thanks.On behalf of the denizens of this blog, I accept the compliment from your first sentence.As to the second: if the letter of the law doesn’t match what you imagine its spirit to be, perhaps you’re just wrong about the spirit.Or had that possibility not occurred to you?

    Kenneth Olsen has a much more explicit opinion posted on http://www.lysanderspoonerlawschool.org:

    “CAAFLOG Guilty! : Obama’s Ass-Clowns”

    “May it please the Court:

    Your Honor, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, It brings me no pleasure; but I have a sacred duty, and I am obligated to bring charges.

    I submit to you that there are imposters in our midst. Some of them wear the uniform of the U.S. military. Alas, some of them are even Officers of the Court.

    In this case the main defendants are the diabolical imposters at caaflog dot com. The evidence will clearly show that they are guilty of being Obama’s ass-clowns in the case against LTC Terry Lakin.

    Obama’s long-form birth certificate? Why, they’re not asking, and they’re not telling!

    No! They’re far too busy, hiding their eyes behind their law books lest they actually have to take a stand and do something about conduct unbecoming a President. For to do something means to risk something, and it’s plain to the eye that cares to see that they’re in the business of protecting their plush pensions and their pampered pink posteriors. May it please the Court, I believe the generally-accepted military term for these caaflog people is “candy-asses.”

    They’ll claim otherwise, Your Honor, but the more opaquely they spout on about article this and section that, the more transparent frauds they expose themselves to be. They assert that their precision cowardice, since it’s so well-pressed, polished, and formally-correct, is worthy of honor and respect. But they’re fooling no one, least of all themselves.

    That’s right, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury. There are imposters in our midst, and caaflog dot com is the support group for these unindicted co-conspirators. They’re meeting regularly, on-line, in a sordid and epic struggle to make sure they all get their stories straight.

    But, by God, the Truth will out, and it is not that tough to spot the Truth in this case: Obama is obviously a non-adjudicated incompetent. But every one at caaflog is compos mentis, and they are falling all over themselves in their most unusual quest to be Obama’s ass-clowns.

    Ass-clowns, Ladies and Gentlemen. Corrupt, self-serving ass-clowns.

    Unfortunately, they will win in the rigged battle against Terry Lakin. There’s really no doubt about it. They have all the power, and they’ll win their mock trial with their courage-free claims that no one has any standing, and nothing evidentiary is relevant. Lakin will lose his status, but he will have earned a place in Heaven and in history as someone willing to risk it all in a simple request for honesty and integrity in high office. He’s a decorated Officer, and Lakin won’t be a vassal to a fraud. Lakin’s conduct is above and beyond the call of duty, and Obama and his ass-clowns at caaflog don’t have the right to wipe shit off Lakin’s shoes.

    But Obama and his ass-clowns will win, Ladies and Gentlemen. Make no mistake about it! The administration and the guilty caaflog ass-clowns will most certainly achieve victory in their case against Lakin. They will win, decisively, but I submit to you that there will be no glory in it for them, and verily, it will be a Pyrrhic victory, at best.

    For I submit to you, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, that Justice is Divine! And just as God rules in Heaven, the caaflog ass-clowns will get what they’re so desperately seeking, and that which they will have so richly earned: a jive-ass, pusillanimous fraud will maintain his worldly position of power, where he will continue fondling his crown jewels while he lords it all over his servile caaflog ass-clowns.

    By God, their punishment will most certainly fit their crime. Let us pray for America.

    The Prosecution rests, and will now approach the Bar for salubrious libations. Thank you very kindly.”

    And even more birther derangement syndrome:
    “It’s plausible that Obama was born in Hawai’i but not in a hospital. This would explain the bizarre behavior of the President in not producing a long-form birth certificate. If he plopped out at home, there would be no attending physician or documentation. He may not be producing a long-form birth certificate because it simply does not exist. He would be eligible for a Hawai’i COLB based on the testimony of his parents/guardians. Whether the information included in any COLB is factually correct is another story.”

  40. Greg says:

    Well, Mr. Olsen certainly has a flair for name calling (though for the life of me – I don’t know what an “ass-clown” is supposed to be, or why Mr. Olsen feels that the term is such an insult).

    The one positive takeaway from Mr. Olsen’s article, moreover, is his acknowledgment that the regulars on this web site are compos mentis – therefore implying by contrast – that Mr. Olsen is not.

    And who could find fault with that argument?