Lt. Col. Lakin’s Article 32 Hearing is not legitimate without an eligible Commander-in-Chief

LEGITIMACY OF HEARING MUST BE ESTABLISHED BEFORE IT CAN COMMENCE

by Catherine Whitfield

No orders can be followed if there is no Commander-in-Chief. Shouldn't Lakin's attorneys be asking, "By what authority is this hearing to be held?"

(Jun. 5, 2010) —Without a legitimate Commander-in-Chief, an Article 32 hearing cannot take place.

Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin has refused to follow orders until Barack Hussein Obama proves that he is constitutionally eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief.  If Obama’s eligibility has not been established before the Article 32 hearing scheduled for Lakin on June 11, 2010, then it is illegitimate.

Even the officer delivering the charges to Lt. Col. Lakin did not have the authority to do so if Obama is not constitutionally qualified.

A retired Navy Commander subject to recall filed a criminal complaint against Obama on March 17, 2009 and was neither arrested nor court-martialed, even after the complaint had been served to numerous courts across the country.  The complaint charged Obama with treason and was never answered.    Why wasn’t Fitzpatrick arrested and court-martialed for accusing Obama of the most serious of crimes:  treason?

When Major Stefan Cook challenged Obama’s orders for the same reason Lakin has, his deployment orders were revoked. Obama never answered the question as to whether or not he is constitutionally eligible.  Cook was neither arrested nor court-martialed because Obama chose not to answer the charges.  One writer commented that “Rather than contesting the suit, the Army took the highly peculiar step of revoking the major’s deployment order, suggesting that the Pentagon generals are not entirely confident that they can demonstrate the legitimacy of their purported commander in chief.”

What does this mean?  How could any hearing possibly be legitimate if there is no legitimate Commander-in-Chief?  How could anything the military is doing right now be legitimate?

Lt. Col. Driscoll, the Investigating Officer who issued a decision on June 1, 2010 not to allow certain evidence and testimony for the upcoming hearing for Lakin, must be asked before the hearing even begins if he knows for a fact that he holds proper authority to convene it.  That means that he must have evidence that Obama is a “natural born Citizen” and meets the other constitutional requirements to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces.  If he does not, then he does not have authority to conduct the hearing.

Lakin’s attorneys need to demand that Driscoll show by what authority he will convene the Article 32 hearing.  Otherwise, it will be nothing but a sham, and Lakin will never get justice.  It is not Lakin who should have to prove anything; it is Driscoll and everyone in his  chain of command, right up to Obama.

Driscoll must prove that Obama is legitimate.  The question needs to be asked now, before the hearing date.  And Driscoll cannot say that it is Congress’s job to determine whether or not Obama is qualified.  It is his job.  Because if Obama is a usurper and Driscoll pretends otherwise, then he is the one who should be court-martialed, not Lakin.

The military must solve this problem.  The nation is waiting.  How much longer can this go on?

13 Responses to "Lt. Col. Lakin’s Article 32 Hearing is not legitimate without an eligible Commander-in-Chief"

  1. Red   Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 11:23 PM

    When questions were raised about the authenticity of the COLB that was produced at and by the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago (and never declared authentic by the State of Hawaii), many pointed to the newspaper birth announcements as “proof” that the COLB was authentic.

    Well, a blogger has done extensive research into the announcements that appeared over a 10 day period, and she’s found some very interesting anomolies in the day when the “Obama” birth announcement appeared.

    http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/06/06/graphs-and-stats/

  2. Joseph Maine   Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 7:52 PM

    What did I tell you guys? I knew they wouldn’t allow for anything. He’ll be sidestepped and they’ll let him walk, just as I said.

    He SHOULD have said, “How much you wanna bet, Cooper, that they’ll let me walk without a word out of you guys? They won’t prosecute me. And you know why? They’ll never show his real records. Period.”

    That would have been a shot in the arm for those really wanting to expose the truth. This whole thing is a joke.

    SMOKING GUN OR NOTHING, folks!

  3. Cincinnatus Dogood   Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 7:34 PM

    What they are afraid of is the TRUTH. What is wrong with the TRUTH.
    Lakin is searching for the TRUTH to uphold his oath to “We the people”.
    IF this goverment is to work our lives must be founded on the bedrock of TRUTH.

  4. Vic Hern   Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 5:33 PM

    So does that mean that a President who is also Commander-In-Chief subject to the Code as is any other Officer?

    And since BHO has lied his way into the JOB, is he subject to charges and dismissal for lies and crimes committed? And further can Congress or any Congressperson initiate an investigation or appoint a Military Inquiry into the facts and get evidence and full disclosure?
    ——————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: The answer to all of your questions should be a resounding “yes,” and I actually believe it is. More research to do…

  5. jtx   Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 2:20 PM

    I heartily concur with Catherine! Otherwise it is merely another kangaroo court just like the many so far convened on this matter.

  6. Captain Jack   Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 11:19 AM

    Actually, according to the Constitution, the UCMJ descends from the Congress, not the President. The framers had a deep mistrust of a standing army, and they split control between the executive and legislative branches. UCMJ is governed under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 14.

  7. Denver   Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 10:29 AM

    Government is always designed to protect its interests first. Which, the Founders explained, was one of a myriad of reasons why they chose a Republican form of Government.

    So sad. Talk to most people under 60 and say, “Republican” form of Government and they immediately ‘know’ you mean the G.O.P. This country is so lost I do not believe it can be salvaged.

  8. jane   Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 10:26 AM

    To All Who Know the Truth:
    PENTITO!

  9. jane   Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 10:25 AM

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omert%C3%A0
    Omertà
    “Omertà is a code of silence, according to one of the first Mafia researchers Antonio Cutrera, a former officer of public security, that seals lips of men even in their own defense and even when the accused is innocent of charged crimes. Cutrera quoted a native saying first uttered (so goes the legend) by a wounded man to his assailant: “If I live, I’ll kill you. If I die, I forgive you.”[5]

    The suspicion of being a “stool pigeon”, a cascittuni (an informant), constituted the blackest mark against manhood, according to Cutrera. Each individual had the obligation of looking out for his own interests and of proving his manliness by not appealing to legally constituted authority for redress of personal grievances. A wronged person is expected to avenge himself, or find a patron who will see to it that the job is done.

    Omertà is an extreme form of loyalty and solidarity in the face of authority. One of its absolute tenets is that it is deeply demeaning and shameful to betray even one’s deadliest enemy to the authorities. Observers of the mafia debate whether omertà should best be understood as an expression of social consensus surrounding the mafia or whether it is instead a pragmatic response based primarily on fear. The point is succinctly made in a popular Sicilian proverb Cu è surdu, orbu e taci, campa cent’anni ‘mpaci (“He who is deaf, blind, and silent will live a hundred years in peace”).

    The American Mafioso Joe Valachi was one of the first persons to betray the omertà when in 1963 he publicly spoke out about the existence of the Mafia and testified before the United States Congress. [6][7] In Sicily, the phenomenon of pentito (Italian he who has repented), broke omertà.”

  10. jane   Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 9:06 AM

    What we are learning, albeit late in the game, is that the military, courts and congress are total shams. We thought they were lawful? HA! They have disdain for the people, all of them, and are functioning on auto pilot. The law is for the little guy, not them. Even the military! Unbelievable! This guy Driscoll uses reasoning on one point that then defeats his next point! It’s all made-up, like la la land. Quite the imagination they have, but they have lost ALL credibility with the people.
    What did they do? All pow wow how to screw of Americans? What the hell is going on? From Justice Roberts to the Congress/Senate and now even the military and all of the judicial branches, it’s total corruption. These people have no honor and no character, I don’t know how they live with themselves. God, compare them to George Washington they couldn’t even scrape the dirt off the bottom of his shoes.

  11. Kingskid   Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 8:33 AM

    Great points you raised, Catherine; I just sent it to Driscoll and Lakin’s patriot foundation. Hopefully, others will too. If we do not rise up en masse, we will all go down together. It’s time to fight back hard!

  12. Larry Brian Radka   Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 8:06 AM

    These are extremely interesting points, Catherine. I am sure Lt. Col. Lakin’s lawyers are aware of your points, but I emailed their way a link to your article here anyway. Let’s continue to see what the CIA and Chicago thugs do with this knowledge. Obama must be having some pretty sleepless nights now, if he even cares about all the lawsuits filed against him. The best criminals have always overlooked something in their crimes, and I am sure Barack Hussein Obama is no different.

  13. Vic Hern   Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 6:45 AM

    Excellent points, Catherine Whitfield.
    Place the burden of proof, onus, directly on the court.
    By what authority indeed.

    I just posted the URL for this article on this website, with a note to pass it along to Col. Lakin’s Attorney.
    I hope they do so and that the attorney reads and acts accordingly.
    Anyone else have better access to Col Lakin and/or his attorney?
    Then send it on!

    http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/questions-or-comments.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.