Viernes, 08 de octubre de 2010
?
??
2010-10-08

Huge Ramifications of Lt. Col.?s ?Obama Eligibility Case?



By Pat Shannan

The records of modern military tribunals often seem like a page torn from the dreaded British star chambers of the same era. The recent court martial sham of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin is the latest example. Also a medical doctor, Lakin is the highest ranking member of any branch of the armed forces still on active duty to refuse direct orders to report to a war zone?acting under the belief that because President Barack Obama (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro) has refused to prove himself a natural-born American citizen as the Constitution requires, any orders coming from the acting ?commander-in-chief ? would be illegal.

On Sept. 3, a female officer in the U.S. Army, Col. Denise R. Lind, acting as a judge in the prosecution of Lakin, ruled that the military is ?no place for Barack Obama?s presidential eligibility to be evaluated.?

Lind used the argument of ?not wishing to embarrass the president? and summarized with the decision that Lakin will be denied access to any of Obama?s records as well as any testimony from those who may have access to the records in the October court martial. Federal judges without exception have denied all access to any requested documentation by the many plaintiffs regarding the president?s eligibility over the past two years.

Lind ruled that it was ?not relevant? for the military to be considering such claims, that the laws allegedly violated by Lakin were legitimate on their face and that the chain of command led up to the Pentagon, and that should have been sufficient for Lakin.

Retired Army Gen. Paul Vallely of the newly founded United States Patriots Union (USPU) told this writer that the main thrust should be based on evidence other than the birth certificate because the chain of command has been corrupted from the White House to the Pentagon and all the way down to convening authority (he who convenes the court martial).

Finding foundational flaws in Lind?s decision to effectively eliminate Lakin?s defense, the USPU, along with the U.S. Bar Association [not to be confused with the ?official? American Bar Association. ?Ed.], issued written advice urging the Lakin defense team to adjust its strategy, after receiving word that Lakin would be denied access to discovery and mitigating evidence needed to provide for a legitimate defense.

Vallely believes that there are only two potential outcomes of this court martial, and that both outcomes bring certain challenges. He said, ?The first priority of USPU must be to unite in defense of Lakin in an effort to arrive at the best possible outcome for both Lakin and the nation.?

He defined the heavy ramifications of either resulting verdict. If Lakin is found guilty of wrongfully refusing orders, he says it carries these legal precedents:

1) Anyone, without so much as a birth certificate, can hold the office of president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the U.S. military.

2) All soldiers must blindly follow orders, whether or not those orders are legal.

3) Not even a high-ranking officer has the right to challenge the lawfulness of the orders. On the other hand, should Lakin be found not guilty of wrongfully refusing orders, as the president?s illegitimacy of office is confirmed, then these precedents will have been established:

1) Every soldier must make the same decision Lakin made, to follow or not to follow an illegal command.

2) The military chain of command is broken at the top of the chain.

3) Obama must be removed from office and there is no one in the normal line of succession to the Oval Office who can replace him, as they were all complicit in the fraud on America.

Lakin does not have to prove that his assertions are true and accurate, USPU says. Rather, the commander- in-chief must prove that the assertion is false in order to proceed with the prosecution on the grounds that Lakin has refused a lawful order. The burden of proof is on the White House, in other words.

A sworn affidavit filed by Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney (ret.), a former Air Force Convening Authority himself, says, ?In refusing to obey orders because of his doubts as to their legality, Lakin has acted exactly as proper training dictates. By thus stepping up to the bar, [he] is demonstrating the courage of his convictions and his bravery. That said, it is equally essential that he be allowed access to the evidence that will prove whether he made the correct decision.?

AFP also is continuing to follow the case of Walter Fitzpatrick, a retired Navy lieutenant commander. As AFP has reported, Fitzpatrick is challenging Obama?s birth status in the Tennessee courts at the state and federal levels.



The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:32
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Comentarios