LTC Lakin Named “Man of the Year”

Print This Article


by David F. LaRocque

Is there legitimate authority to court-martial this man, or any member of the Armed Forces, while a question remains about the eligibility of the putative commander-in-chief?

(Nov. 28, 2010) — Friends and Patriots,

The court-martial of LTC Lakin is scheduled to convene on December 14, 2010. The defendant in this case, Colonel Terry Lakin has been recognized by the web site as its 2010 “Man of the Year.”

Colonel Lakin, a decorated and highly-regarded U.S. Army physician with multiple prior overseas deployments, has been charged with dereliction of duty for his refusal to accept deployment orders until his request for verification of the legitimacy of those orders has been provided in connection with the resolution of the issues surrounding the eligibility of the de facto commander-in-chief.

While Colonel Lakin is, in my opinion, highly deserving of this recognition, it must be remembered that, in addition to the pending Lakin court-martial, there are now three eligibility-related cases which have reached the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking acceptance for a decision by that court by means of a legal procedure known as a “petition for a writ of certiorari.”  The plaintiff in each of these three cases is a present or former U.S. military officer, as follows:

1) Kerchner et al v. Obama et al, CDR Charles Kerchner USNR (ret) plaintiff, Mario Apuzzo Esq., counsel ( );

2) Rhodes v. McDonald, CPT Connie Rhodes USA (MD, U.S. Army) plaintiff, Dr. Orly Taitz, counsel (;

3) Hollister et al v. Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama et al, Col. Gregory Hollister USAF (ret) plaintiff, John D. Hemenway Esq., counsel (

In addition to these cases, the case Barnett, Keyes et al v. Obama et al (CPT Pamela Barnett, USA (ret) and Alan Keyes, plaintiffs, Dr. Orly Taitz counsel) is on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; and the case Taitz v. Obama is active on a motion for reconsideration of a previous denial of a motion for a “quo warranto” proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking a demonstration of eligibility justifying the authority of the office of president claimed by Barack Obama.

Finally, let us not overlook the important case of LCDR Walter Fitzpatrick, a retired naval officer and graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. LCDR Fitzpatrick, son of a World War II naval officer, became aware of the serious and unaddressed concerns which had been raised about the eligibility of the newly-inaugurated president. Because of the circumstances surrounding the 2008 presidential election and inauguration, LCDR Fitzpatrick believed that one or more criminal acts had taken place in connection with this election, and that an ineligible person had usurped the office of president of the United States. LCDR Fitzpatrick recognized that he had a right under the U.S. Constitution to present such a criminal complaint to his local grand jury, and attempted to do so, charging Obama with treason.

The truly extraordinary sequence of events that followed resulted in the illegal incarceration of LCDR Fitzpatrick in medieval and brutally inhumane conditions in the Monroe County, TN county jail in Madisonville, TN, an illegal incarceration which continued through the Thanksgiving holiday, and continues to this day. In the process, LCDR Fitzpatrick has stumbled upon a situation of such massive local corruption involving law enforcement, the judiciary, the local bar, the press, and possibly the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, that the local population is literally living in a state of terror.

The level of terror associated with this corruption cannot be overstated. It has produced at least one unsolved murder (of a local Republican election official) and the effective abrogation of the rule of law in an entire county.

The Fitzpatrick case also appears to be moving toward some kind of resolution which will ultimately return its focus to LCDR Fitzpatrick’s original purpose – the apparent criminal acts which resulted in the fraudulent election of Barack Obama to the office of president of the United States.

What we have here is a massive confluence of well-founded legal actions directed to the single objective of establishing conclusively whether or not the putative president of the United States is in fact constitutionally eligible to serve in that office in accordance with Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the United States Constitution.

This is not a politically or racially motivated effort. This is an effort to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” pursuant to the oath of office taken by every military officer, every government official, every member of the judiciary, and every member of Congress.

By extension, this effort is, in fact, a critically important and absolutely crucial defense of the rule of law. For once this nation allows the well-known, long-established, and consistently-honored constitutional requirements to serve in the office of president to be disregarded, then the very essence of the Constitution itself will have been effectively abrogated. This means nothing less than that our precious Constitution will have been abandoned and that the rule of law will have been rendered meaningless.

If you want to see what the absence of the rule of law looks like, there are numerous examples in recent history in places like China, the Soviet Union, Burma, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea. But we have our own domestic example in Monroe County, TN, and it is truly frightening.

In my opinion, we actually have a number of patriots who should be honored as “Men and Women of the Year” for 2010, including several senior military officers and attorneys, and at least one pastor, who have provided unique, extraordinary, and substantial contributions to the cause of justice on the eligibility matter during the year 2010.

Because of their unusual courage in the face of ongoing threats and widespread ridicule, their extreme personal sacrifices, their original contributions to the advancement of the eligibility cause, and the real physical risks which they have undertaken for the sake of their devotion to the Constitution, I would suggest that in addition to LTC Terry Lakin, LCDR Walter Fitzpatrick, Attorney Orly Taitz, Pastor James David Manning, and Attorney Mario Apuzzo are equally deserving of the highest honor from the Constitutionalist community.  The contributions of these individuals are so well-known, so extensive, and so monumentally significant that I will not attempt to take the space here to describe them in detail.

Note: The author of this guest editorial has contacted the editor and requested a change in the text. On further reflection, Mr. LaRocque has concluded that the contributions made to the eligibility cause by CDR Charles Kerchner are so significant that he should properly be included with the other five honorees as “Man of the Year.” Accordingly, the list of primary honorees has been expanded by the author to include six individuals:  LTC Terry Lakin, LCDR Walter Fitzpatrick, CDR Charles Kerchner, Attorney Orly Taitz, Pastor James David Manning, and Attorney Mario Apuzzo.

I would also suggest that bestowal of such an honor would not be proper without mention of the extraordinary contributions to the cause of the defense of the Constitution and the preservation of the rule of law from the following additional individuals:

CDR Charles F. Kerchner USNR (ret) – lead plaintiff in Kerchner v. Obama, for his exemplary leadership and foresight in the eligibility battle; for having located and engaged a brilliant and dedicated attorney (Mario Apuzzo) to serve as counsel for his case; and for his extraordinary personal initiative in preparing and publishing his ongoing series of informative full-page advertorials regarding the entire eligibility matter in the Washington Times.

Colonel Gregory S. Hollister USAF (ret) – lead plaintiff in Hollister v. Soetoro- for his early action in initiating litigation in the Obama eligibility case, as well as for his record of constitutional vigilance going back to concerns he presented to higher authority in 1994 relating to the apparent constitutionally-disqualifying activities engaged in by President William Clinton during the Vietnam era.

CPT Connie Rhodes USA – plaintiff in Rhodes v. MacDonald and an Army physician, Captain Rhodes was the first and most junior active duty U.S. military officer to refuse deployment as a result of constitutional eligibility concerns regarding the commander-in-chief. Her case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Judge Clay D. Land presiding. Judge Land eventually ordered highly unusual sanctions against Attorney Taitz in this case in the form of a $20,000 penalty for alleged violations of the federal rules of procedure. Attorney Taitz believes that these sanctions were intended to intimidate her in order to frustrate the judicial process in the Rhodes case, and that they were wholly improper. This case is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Major Stefan Frederick Cook, USAR – an Army reservist who volunteered for call-up to active duty for deployment to Afghanistan in early 2009. When he placed his Army Reserve career as well as his civilian employment in jeopardy by requesting confirmation, in accordance with his understanding of his duties as a military officer, of the legitimacy of the commander-in-chief prior to his scheduled deployment, his active duty orders were revoked. Major Cook was subsequently terminated from his defense-related civilian employment, apparently at the insistence of the Department of Defense. Major Cook was represented by Attorney Orly Taitz. He was described as a “jackass” by MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann and Attorney Taitz was described as a “con-woman.” His case was the first case that directly challenged the constitutional authority of the newly-inaugurated president, raising hopes of an expeditious resolution of the eligibility controversy without lengthy legal proceedings ending ultimately at the U.S. Supreme Court, but these hopes were quickly dashed by the Army’s revocation of Major Cook’s activation and deployment orders. Despite his challenge to authority, which appeared to have doomed his Army Reserve career, Cook has been promoted to Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) with an effective date of December 15, 2010.

CPT Pamela Barnett USA (ret) – Captain Barnett is a former Army officer and the lead plaintiff in Barnett v. Obama. She was one of the first military officers to step up and volunteer as a plaintiff in the case which was being prepared by Attorney Taitz following the 2008 presidential election.

The Honorable Alan Keyes – one of the original plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama, Keyes is a former Ambassador to the U.N. Economic and Social Council during the Reagan administration, as well as a former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations. Dr. Keyes was a candidate for president in 2008 for America’s Independent Party. He has been a strong national voice on the eligibility issue, and several videos have been widely viewed in which Dr. Keyes expresses his strong concerns about Barack Obama and the entire eligibility controversy, describing Obama as a “radical Communist.”

Lieutenant General Thomas G. McInerney USAF (ret) – Lt Gen McInerney is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy, a combat pilot and Vietnam veteran, and former Commander of the 11th Air Force in Alaska. He is also a regular Fox News contributor. In August 2010 he submitted an affidavit to the military court in support of LTC Terry Lakin in which he acknowledged widespread concerns over Obama’s constitutional eligibility, and demanded that he release his birth records or that the military court authorize discovery to obtain them. In his affidavit General McInerney stated the following: “The Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to hold office. If he is ineligible under the Constitution to serve in that office, that creates a break in the chain of command of such magnitude that its significance can scarcely be imagined.”

Major General Paul E. Vallely USA (ret) – a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, General Vallely is a Vietnam veteran and former Deputy Commanding General, U.S. Pacific Command. He has extensive experience in special operations. He is also a military analyst on Fox News. General Vallely will be a defense witness at the military court-martial of LTC Lakin. As the featured speaker at a Lincoln-Reagan Memorial Dinner in Virginia City, MT on June 5, 2010 General Vallely called for “the immediate resignation of Barry Soetoro AKA Barack Hussein Obama based on incompetence, deceit, fraud, corruption, dishonesty and violation of the U.S. Constitution.” Earlier in his remarks, General Vallely stated that “We the People have had enough… The Obama White House and identifiable members of Congress are now on a progressive socialist, treasonous death march and are bankrupting and weakening the country. We have watched them violate their sacred oath of office… these public servants must put the citizen’s interests above self-interest by resigning immediately.”

John Hemenway Esq. – Attorney Hemenway is counsel in the case Hollister v. Soetoro. He is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy (Class of 1951), a Rhodes Scholar, and a veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service with experience in the former Soviet Union and Germany as Chief of the Berlin Section. Attorney Hemenway, who is reported to be 85 years old, was sanctioned by Judge James Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a decision in the Hollister case with the never-to-be-forgotten words of Judge Robertson that “the issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.” Attorney Hemenway’s son, also named John, was shot to death in Bedford, VA on April 30, 2010. No information from the official investigation into this apparent homicide has been reported, nor has any connection been established to the legal action against Barack Obama in which the senior John Hemenway is serving as legal counsel.

Joseph Farah, Bob Unruh, Jerry Corsi/World Net Daily – WorldNetDaily has been committed to the resolution of the Obama eligibility controversy from its earliest days prior to the 2008 election. It is probably accurate to say that every single development in the eligibility controversy has been reported at WND fully and accurately. Joseph Farah writes frequent opinion pieces on these developments, while Corsi and Unruh are on top of ongoing developments. Jerry Corsi traveled to Kenya to investigate rumors of a Kenyan birth for Obama and was incarcerated by Kenyan authorities for his troubles. He was the author of the book Unfit for Command which exposed John Kerry’s misrepresentations of his military record, and wrote an excellent book on Barack Obama titled The Obama Nation which exposed much accurate and extremely disturbing information about Obama’s background, including his family’s ties to the Communist Party and his work as an Alinsky-trained “community organizer” which should have raised serious questions in the mainstream press regarding his suitability as a presidential candidate. The book is so disturbing that it is unimaginable that any loyal American citizen could have voted for Obama after reading this book, yet it was ignored by the rest of the media. All this said, Joseph Farah must be given special recognition for his unique contributions, including a bold speech at the National Tea Party Convention in early February 2010 in which he focused on the eligibility controversy, and his sponsorship of a national billboard campaign with the message “Where’s the Birth Certificate”. It is not an exaggeration to say that WorldNetDaily has become the journal of record for the eligibility issue, and these three individuals have each made major contributions. The link below is a complete archive of WND news reports on the eligibility issue.

Lucas Smith – perhaps the most controversial of the major eligibility figures, Lucas Smith is a rather young writer previously unknown on the national scene. He claims to have traveled to Kenya, and while there to have obtained a copy of the original birth certificate for Barack Obama at the Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya. He attended one of the hearings at the Federal District Court in Santa Ana, CA in late 2009 in connection with the hearings conducted by Judge David O. Carter in the case Barnett v. Obama. He brought a copy of the Kenyan birth certificate to this hearing and was prepared to testify to his knowledge of this matter, either in open court or in a deposition, but was blocked from doing so by Obama’s attorneys. On July 4, 2010, Smith sent individual hand-addressed letters by Federal Express, with certified copies of the purported Kenyan birth certificate enclosed, to each of 538 voting and non-voting members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. In this writer’s opinion (based in part on my personal observations of Lucas Smith and his document at the Judge Carter hearing) there is at least a 90 per cent probability that the Lucas Smith document is genuine. Lucas Smith has offered to provide the Kenyan birth certificate for professional authentication, but there have been no takers. He deserves recognition for his notable personal initiatives which have greatly increased the visibility of the eligibility matter. The fact is that the document Lucas Smith possesses may be the one document most feared by Obama and his co-conspirators in what appears to be an unprecedented massive presidential election fraud, because if valid and authentic, the Kenyan birth certificate would almost certainly expose Barack Obama as an illegal alien.

Andy Martin – another somewhat controversial figure in the eligibility controversy is Chicago attorney Andy Martin. He wrote and published in 2008 a book about Barack Obama titled Obama: The Man behind the Mask. While Andy Martin has a penchant for self-promotion, he has organized several eligibility conferences and has traveled to Hawaii several times to initiate legal efforts to break loose the tight control placed on critical Obama documentation by Hawaiian government officials. While his efforts have not borne fruit, they have served to increase the visibility of the eligibility controversy, and they have further exposed the massive political corruption which exists in the Aloha State.

Sharon Rondeau – Sharon is the editor of the on-line newspaper The Post and Email. This website has been one of the most courageous, consistent, and reliable web sites in publishing eligibility-related material. It accepts editorial contributions from its readers, and has recently maintained a rather intense focus on two issues – the political corruption in Hawaii which has allowed government officials in that state to illegally block the release of documents related to Barack Obama’s claimed birth in that state; and the massive and frightening political, legal, and media corruption in Monroe County, TN which has resulted in the illegal incarceration of LCDR Walter Fitzpatrick and has allowed a literal reign of terror to be imposed on the citizens of that county. Sharon Rondeau deserves special recognition for her lonely efforts to expose these very serious instances of corruption, so serious that they beg the questions of:  How far has this type of corruption spread? What are we going to do about it?

If I have left out any names which are deserving of inclusion, please advise me. I am open to the addition of any worthy individuals to this list.

David F. LaRocque


The legal submissions in the cases mentioned above are extremely well-documented, thorough, and historically significant. They are well worth reviewing, particularly the following:

© 2010, The Post & Email. All rights reserved.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Categories: Editorials