Letter to Investigating Officer in Lt. Col. Lakin Case


June 4, 2010

The U.S. Constitution is the oldest, yet shortest, written constitution still in use today. Or has it been suspended for Obama's usurpation?

Dear Editor:  The following letter was sent to the Investigating Officer for the Article 32 hearing scheduled for June 11, 2010, at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center:

Dear LTC Driscoll,

I understand you are the investigating officer in the upcoming trial of LTC Terry Lakin. First of all, you have made a huge strategic error by refusing to allow discovery that would exonerate Lakin in his refusal to take orders from an ineligible commander-in-chief. The whole world now knows that Barack Obama has usurped the presidency and the commander-in-chief position. We have all been made aware for the past 18 months or more that our Constitution requires that the presidency can only be given to a natural born Citizen. Obama does not pass that test with a Kenyan father who passed on his British citizenship and allegiance to his son. Obama was not, and can never be, eligible to hold the office he fraudulently holds. And you, sir, are now complicit in the cover-up by refusing to allow LTC Lakin the discovery that would exonerate him.

I don’t think anyone would argue with your position that “…constitutional jurisprudence allows Congress alone, and not a military judicial body, to put the president’s credentials on trial…” if the president was not also our commander-in-chief. However, the president of the U.S. is also the commander-in-chief of our military forces. You have no excuse, Col. Driscoll, for failing to allow a fellow military member discovery which would exonerate him. You have taken the road that no officer of integrity would take: the low road, the path of least resistance, the going-along-to-get-along way that only a coward and hater of our Constitution would take. Passing the buck to Congress and abrogating your responsibility to constitutional jurisprudence in this military matter just does not wash and will not go unnoticed by America, or the world, for that matter.

You, sir, also took an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and you just showed that that oath means nothing to you. No person of integrity would withhold discovery from a defendant who has simply done what he swore to do: to support and defend the Constitution. The Army has lost the respect of all of us who believe in the rule of law and are shocked that it is being denied to defendant Lakin.

I worked with the Army for many years during my federal career and never expected to see this day of disgusting cowardice and miscarriage of justice against a decorated Army officer of sterling credentials and character. LTC Lakin has put his oath, his principles, his career, and his life on the line and deserves to be afforded full discovery of Obama’s credentials. You need to know that LTC Lakin represents millions of us who are absolutely appalled at the conspiracy of silence and cover-up in which the Army is engaging to carry out this miscarriage of justice. You know the truth. You know Obama is not qualified to serve as the president and commander-in-chief, and it is highly likely that you are aware that Obama has falsified his credentials on many fronts. Misprision of felony would look really ugly on your next ER.

Disgusted with the Army,

Kathleen Gotto


Editor’s Note: LTC Driscoll’s contact information is:

Daniel J. Driscoll
Investigating Officer

Print Friendly

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Categories: Editorials

39 Responses to Letter to Investigating Officer in Lt. Col. Lakin Case

  1. Tom SAint

    Thursday, June 17, 2010 at 4:24 PM

    How can the American People expect justice in this matter when the whole government has been polluted with crooks and thieves and liars. I expect nothing and will do everything I can to vote everyone that now holds office to be voted out that would stand and support a President that is not eligilble to even hold that office. This is disrespect for our constitution at the highest level.

  2. Son of PUBLIUS

    Tuesday, June 8, 2010 at 6:58 PM

  3. Dan

    Tuesday, June 8, 2010 at 11:36 AM

    Congress is not the only power to remove a “ineligible” President.
    Obama can and should be charged for “fraud”, perjury, among
    many other “chargeable” offenses.
    Obama is nothing but a common criminal who can be Judged
    in any juridiction.
    You cannot IMPEACH a person who is not eligible to be President to begin with. Congress only writes laws, it does not
    enforce them. The Judicial branch does.
    A Governor was removed from Office years ago by a State Court and ALL his signatures on law became null & void.
    see: gov. Walton & Mecham

  4. Bob1943

    Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 4:19 PM

    The “flaw” is the refusal to adhere to the Constitution and/or the interpretation. When that happens under one party control there is evidently nothing that can be done that is effective. If it were, Obama would not now be pretending to be president.

    Why have none of the “avenues for removal” worked, and what do you suggest be done to evict the imposter from the White House?

  5. epicurious

    Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 3:42 PM

    Not to sound redundant but in IMHO, placing focus on the DNC statement is a dead end. There were two separate letters because HI election law specifically states the nominating Party shall submit a sworn statement the Party’s candidate for President and Vice President is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

    An excerpt from HRS 11-113:

    c) All candidates for president and vice president of the United States shall be qualified for inclusion on the general election ballot under either of the following procedures:

    (1) In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:

    (A) The name and address of each of the two candidates;
    (B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;
    (C) A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection.

    This statute in its current state has been in effect at least since 1993 nor does their appear to be any pending changes as a result of the 2010 Legislative Session.

    What is unclear is if the statement submitted by the State Party (in this case the HDP), also needs to declare if the candidate is “constitutionally eligible” to serve. The HDP 2000 Gore and 2004 Kerry statements included this language while the HDP 2008 statement for Obama did not. It was complete gutted and merely stated Obama was “legally qualified to serve” by virtue of winning the HI Democratic caucus and the majority of the Democratic Party’s delegates.

    To my knowledge, the DNC sworn statement has not included the constitutionally eligible language, save for HI, (except 2004 it is missing from the DNC statement sent to even HI), in the last three election cycles. Everyone seems to be under the impression the DNC did something different in 2008 than in 2004 or 2000 when in fact they followed normal their protocol.

    I seriously doubt that the DNC ever asked any of these three candidates to produce a long form b/c, so it creates two separate certifications to minimize its “liability”. HI may be the only state that requires the “constitutionally eligible” language in the DNC or RNC’s sworn statement. It is difficult however to know without examining the election laws of each state.

    What we need to be asking why did the HDP gutted the “constitutionally eligible” language from its statement, and if required, why did the HI Office of Elections accept the HDP statement without it? Why did they accept the 2004 DNC certification for Kerry when it clearly did not include the appropriate language?


  6. jtx

    Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 2:39 PM

    Lucas Smith:

    No, Lucas your analysis is incorrect. You need to study the legal action put forth in Kerchner et al v. Obama et al and the attorney Mario Apuzzo. The Judicial Branch in fact is empowered to rule on this as a Constitutional matter.

    If the man is not legally eligible, there are any of several different avenues for removal. THis is not a “flaw” in the Constitution but in your analysis of the Constitution and what it means.

  7. Tom the veteran

    Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 8:58 PM

    Regarding the comments of Lucas Smith:

    The flaw you refer to was well understood by our Founders. As Madison wrote in Federalist 47, “legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

  8. Tom the veteran

    Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 8:50 PM

    Hey Ken, thanks for your service. I’m a Vietnam Era Seabee, 1968-1974

  9. Bob1943

    Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 6:19 PM

    There is nothing that can be done. The fact that she signed and had notarized two different cetification letters on the same day should be investigated, and I’m sure the DNC has been asked that question. As far as I know there has been no answer.

    The one sent to Hawaii included language “certified per the requirements of the US Constitution”. The one sent to the other states did not say anything about the Constitution.

    Why were there two different letters?

  10. Betty Merry

    Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 4:14 PM

    Shouldn’t the focus be directed to Nancy Pelosi? She ‘s the one that confirmed Obama’s eligibility originally.

  11. Sheri Smith

    Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 1:39 PM

    I think you are right and Mr. O knows to many thugs around the USA. If you don’t follow his rules you end up dead or something worse. I think the whole Military should just turn their backs on him he is not there Commander in Chief until proven so and he can not do that because he is not a US citizen! They can not fight against us because of the Constitution but the could fight for us Wouldn’t Mr O just love that, safety in numbers.

  12. Mick

    Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 1:18 PM

    This whole case is a setup. Lawyer incompetence is purposeful. No discussion of dual citizenship= no case. Is Lakin in on it?

  13. Tom the veteran

    Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 12:55 PM

    So… let me see if I got this right? In a country established on the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty, you can no longer present evidence that will prove you’re innocent! Hmm, I see! I believe that’s called a kangaroo court!

  14. Bob1943

    Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 11:15 AM

    Lucas, you are right. Obama has the ability to stop any investigation, lawsuit, threat of impeachment, or anything else that would have a real effect on exposing his obvious ineligibility to be POTUS. We are caught in the “flaw” in the Constitution, if you want to call it that. Maybe the writers of the Constitution failed to consider the magnitude of corruption, lying and rabidly partisan politics that would exist 200 plus years later. They also didn’t realize how domestic and foreign enemies of America could literally take over, change and control America without firing a shot by using would using perverted interpretations of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

    The Constitution has been so perverted, and ignored, that is has became a “death warrant” for our nation.

    Will voting be enough to save us?

  15. kenneth

    Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 9:55 AM

    Reply to Tom the veteran:
    I was going to write the exact same reply as you.
    I joined the Army out of high school in 1961 during the Berlin Crisis buildup and served a three-month tour of duty in Berlin because it was the patriotic thing to do.
    Today I not only would not recommend a young person to sign up; I would flat-out discourage it.
    If the military cannot get good personnel, what can a corrupt leader lead?

  16. Larry Brian Radka

    Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 12:00 AM

    Don, Obama was a CIA operative before gaining the Senate and occupying the Presidency, as Dr. Manning pointed out in the Columbia University Obama Treason and Sedition trial. Bush, Congress, the courts, as well as the mainstream liberal media knew this beforehand, but after he won the Iowa caucus, it was too late to stop him. Now he is blackmailing all of them into complete silence. Besides that, I am pretty sure he has blackmailed, with the threats of being hit by the CIA, most of the big radio talk show hosts, like Rush Limbaugh, who admitted his life was in danger. See my http://einhornpress.com/TheSecretHistoryofBarackObamaandtheColumbiaUniversityTreasonTrial.aspx for the details. Guantanoamo is much too nice for a traitor like Obama. A military firing squad would be most appropriate Don, but the Army seems now to be packed with a bunch of brassy cowards who wouldn’t think of such justice.

  17. Larry Brian Radka

    Friday, June 4, 2010 at 11:20 PM

    I sent LTC Driscoll the following email this morning:

    In my opinion, you are the worst kind of coward and a revolting shame to the American Constitution, Flag, and all the brave men and women who have served in the United States military—past and present!

  18. Lucas Smith

    Friday, June 4, 2010 at 10:57 PM

    OK so here’s the deal…I tried explaining this to my girlfriend last night and she said I was crazy but here goes. There is a little flaw in our U.S. Constitution. Yes thats right, the same Constitution that was “SPECIFICALLY” designed to create a separation of powers. The obvious reason for a separation of powers was to thwart corruption and tyrannical government. Only problem though was the founders created what is called a SUPERMAJORITY. A supermajortity gives massive power to a single party and gets even worse if the Executive branch is in the same party. I dont have to give you an example of this becuase we are suffering from this situation right now. Obama is above the law right now. He is basically immune from prosecution, federal investigation or impeacment. The only real power that is saving our collective @sses is political pressure. Obama knows he can only push so far until his poll numbers make him radioactive against his own party. Heres the little unknown fact that we need to keep in mind:
    Fact 1: ONLY Congress has the power to remove a sitting president.
    Fact 2: The Attorney General has the final say as to who gets investigated and who gets a pass.
    Fact 3: The Commander in Chief has the authority to remove or replace anyone in Uniform.
    Sure you can file lawsuits and get on TV and make U-Tube videos and hold Grand Jury’s and put up Billboards and scream and yell until your veins pop out.
    But keep in mind…..if nobody opens an investigation, if nobody gets put under oath, if there is no trial…… well then go figure!
    Vote Smart! Vote Conservative! Its our last hope for this great Republic.

  19. TexomaEd

    Friday, June 4, 2010 at 9:49 PM

    His case is not only not lost, but it will be stronger if he shifts his focus to the fact of Obama’s dual citizenship at birth. Obama was subject to a foreign power at birth, which is the same reason why a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President.

  20. Aussie

    Friday, June 4, 2010 at 9:39 PM

    The birth in Hawaii is irrelevant. Being born in Hawaii does not make Soetoro aka Obama a natural born citizen. The requirement for NBC which is a very high requirement, is that he must be born of parents (both, not one) who are citizens of the USA. The other issue is the age of his mother, since she could not confer citizenship because of her age at the time of his birth.

    As stated in the letter, Obama Sr. conferred British and Kenyan citizenship upon Obama at birth.

  21. jane

    Friday, June 4, 2010 at 9:35 PM

    When I saw Lakin’s loser attorney who ignored the Constitutionality issues though we clearly were screaming at him to “go there”…

    I think this was just a ruse, to diffuse energies and remove hopes of other soldiers who might refuse orders and want to challenge.

  22. Cincinnatus Dogood

    Friday, June 4, 2010 at 9:16 PM

    What about the social security numbers swap Obamas shown to have. How does Lakin know that the person in the WH is BO? What if this is complete identity theft? By following the dictates of his oath isnt he also doing his duty? How many people in the US dont believe BO is a citizen? I would put every person in the court room on the witness list and ask them “is BO a natural born citizen”? All he has to do is have one person say NO to raise a doubt. Better yet ask if BO has a Kenyan father? As you said is the doubt reasonable!

  23. VietnamVet

    Friday, June 4, 2010 at 8:55 PM


    Daniel Driscoll
    LTC, JA
    Investigating Officer

    RE: LTC Lakin Article 32 Hearing

    Dear Colonel Driscoll:

    I am absolutely appalled at your refusal to allow discovery proceedings on LTC Lakin. My, God, Colonel! That’s part of your job! Your refusal to allow discovery is indicative of your involvement in the ruse that prompted LTC Lakin’s case.

    Man up, Colonel Driscoll! Do your job! Anything less is not only a travesty of justice, it is an insult to everything noble about serving as an officer in the U.S. Army! You have crossed the line from famed Judge Advocate Corps to that of a Chicago gangster-style lawyer service.

    I can only conclude one final thought: As a civilian attorney, you’ll starve.

  24. James

    Friday, June 4, 2010 at 8:46 PM

    What can the average Joe do to help Lakin:
    1. Donate to http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com
    2. Actively blog the issue on the internet and defend Terry Lakin
    3. Attend Terry Lakin’s hearing on June 11, 2010 at Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington DC. Details are at http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com.
    4. Email Danial Driscoll at daniel.driscoll@amedd.army.mil

  25. James

    Friday, June 4, 2010 at 6:58 PM

    Does anyone have Driscoll’s mailing address and phone number. Emails are easy to avoid but phone calls are harder?

    Everyone should email Driscoll and if you are feeling assertive, phone him as well.

  26. kittycat

    Friday, June 4, 2010 at 6:52 PM

    Something needs to happen to help Lakin. This is just totally ridiculous, and that’s putting it nicely. What can we do?

  27. Don Butcher (CSM)(USA Ret)

    Friday, June 4, 2010 at 5:17 PM

    I cannot believe that the( so called) leaders of this nation(military included)
    are spineless cowards. What has Obama got on them that they cannot see
    the destruction he is doing to my United States of America? Here is an arro-
    gant being who won’t even honor our flag or anthem. He despises every-
    thing about my country and what it stands for. He should be stopped, told to
    produce the necessary documents that are required for the position he
    illegally holds, then marched off to Guantanamo to relax with all of his compatriots, so we can get my country back to normal. Oh by the way——-
    a lot of his congressional misfits should be sent there with him.

  28. Don Butcher (CSM)(USA Ret)

    Friday, June 4, 2010 at 5:16 PM

    I cannot believe that the( so called) leaders of this nation(military included)
    are spineless cowards. What has Obama got on them that they cannot see
    the destruction he is doing to my United States of America? Here is an arro-
    gant being who won’t even honor our flag or anthem. He despises every-
    thing about my country and what it stands for. He should be stopped, told to
    produce the necessary documents that are required for the position he
    illegally holds, then marched off to Guantanamo to relax with all of his compatriots, so we can get my country back to normal. Oh by the way——-
    a few lot of his congressional misfits should be sent there with him.

  29. Gianni

    Friday, June 4, 2010 at 3:37 PM

    Sorry, I forgot to cite the case law relevant to my last comment. In the case of United States v. Michael C. Miller (2008), this was part of the finding of the appellate judge:

    “However, the President, Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of the Air Force most certainly can issue “lawful” orders to military personnel,
    notwithstanding the absence of any unity of status with the military personnel over whom they exercise constitutional and statutory command, in the case of the President and the Secretary of Defense, or administrative control, in the case of the Secretary of the Air Force.”

    The PDF of the cited case is at this link:


  30. Gianni

    Friday, June 4, 2010 at 3:21 PM

    A brillaint move would be to call to the witness stand LTC Driscoll and ask him pointblank:

    “If President Obama gave you an order, would you have a duty to obey it?”

    Driscoll would have to respond “yes,” and then that would completely destroy his misguided finding that Obama does not fall within the chain of command. Stick it to him good. Show him that his finding makes no sense.

  31. SteveT

    Friday, June 4, 2010 at 3:09 PM

    There are two distinct questions: 1) Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve as president? 2) When LTC Lakin disobeyed orders, did he have a legitimate reason for doing so?

    Driscoll seems to be saying that the two questions have little, if anything, to do with each other.

    If Lakin has a valid reason for believing that Obama is ineligible, Lakin might be exonerated and could walk free, regardless of whether his belief later turns out to be wrong. Similarly, if Lakin disobeyed orders for flimsy or superficial reasons, he committed a crime, even if his belief is subsequently proved correct.

    If I understand Driscoll correctly, there is simply no way on Earth that the military can (or will) condone “disobeying orders” when the reason for such disobedience is based on nothing more than conjecture, speculation and unsubstantiated opinion. Don’t even think about disobeying orders, unless your reason is solidly based on hard facts.

    In other words, Lakin might (emphasis on the word “might”) escape years of hard labor if (emphasis on “if”) he can show a factual reason for his misconduct.

    Unfortunately, there is no fact that directly impugns Obama’s birth in Hawaii. Lakin has good cause to suspect that Obama might have been born overseas, but suspicion is not fact, hence is not a valid reason for disobeying orders.

    However, it is an undisputed fact that Obama acquired foreign citizenship at birth. Obama himself has verified this fact on his website. Moreover, there is substantive historical and legal evidence showing that the original meaning of “natural born citizen” was exclusive U.S. citizenship ( i.e., the absence of any foreign citizenship) at birth.

    So LTC Lakin’s case is not lost. He just needs to shift the focus of his defense from speculation about Obama’s foreign birth, to the undisputed fact of his foreign citizenship.

  32. michaelsr

    Friday, June 4, 2010 at 3:02 PM

    Alas, I’m not an investigator. If I were, the very first order of business would be to find out how much, over and above the two million obama has already expended on his cover-up, he paid to Ltc Driscoll in return for Driscoll’s ruling.
    On the other hand, perhaps this ruling will shorten the path through the military appeals process to obtain a ruling actually allowing discovery to proceed.

  33. impeachtheboob

    Friday, June 4, 2010 at 2:51 PM

    I told you Lakin was a plant. Set up to thwart all others for testing the waters. This time next year he will be out of the brig and relaxing on the beach in a faraway place….with only his conscience to bother him.

    Judge Carter all over again.

  34. Paul

    Friday, June 4, 2010 at 2:50 PM

    Et tu Driscoll?

  35. YO

    Friday, June 4, 2010 at 2:30 PM

    And the worst of it is that Obama would have never, ever gone the court martial path with Lakin if there was an ounce of chance that discovery would be allowed. Meaning……
    that there is a high probability, imo, that this denial of discovery was discussed In advance with Driscoll.


  36. Bob

    Friday, June 4, 2010 at 2:18 PM

    My exact sentiments Kathleen Gotto, well written, and precisely to the point. It seems that the Army thinks that by adding more lies to the existing lies it will solve the problem; what a ghastly miscarriage of justice to LTC Terry Lakin. There is no excuse good enough to allow a proven usurper, make believe, pretend potus to stay in office and continue the financial, moral, and religious changes to America, that he is doing. Better to make the correction now and have a little civil unrest amongst the liberal pc’s, than to have an outright CIVIL WAR in America. Now that the picture is clear, and where the obomination el al, is very rapidly taking us, it has proven yet again that mankind appears totally incapable of governing themselves. We need God in our hearts and minds, and with prayerful thought and consultation, we might as well “GET IT ON NOW” like a real Army. Eph 6:10 to 6:17. “LETS ROLL”

  37. Rob

    Friday, June 4, 2010 at 2:16 PM

    What is going on! are we living in Bizarro World?
    See no Evil, Hear no Evil, Speak no Evil……

  38. thistle

    Friday, June 4, 2010 at 2:07 PM

    Great letter Ms. Gotto. I was sickened to learn that Lt. Col. Lakin was going to be denied a fair trial. However, it didn’t surprise me….Obama isn’t called the ‘teflon man’ for nothing. What does surprise me is that our military brass may be complicit in what Obama is trying to do to this country, or they are nothing but a bunch of cowards. If the latter is true, one has to question how they ever achieved the ranking of top brass in the first place. No one deserves this kind of treatment for defense, especially Lt. Col. Lakin. If this can happen to a brave and honorable man who is putting everything on the line for his country and truth, what does this regime have in store for the rest of us who don’t agree with Obama?

  39. Tom the veteran

    Friday, June 4, 2010 at 12:59 PM

    My God, can it really be? Have we now lost our military to the ways of Chicago politics?

    I never thought I would say this but, I can no longer with a clear conscience recommend any young man or woman to serve in the military, for they would not be defending the same Libertyies and Freedoms I thought this country offered its citizens! I don’t believe the troops are corrupt, but it surely appears their superiors are!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>