CDR Charles Kerchner Speaks out about the Court-Martial of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin

“HIS OWN DEFENSE ATTORNEY BROKE HIM”

by Sharon Rondeau

(Dec. 28, 2010) — Commander Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. (USNR, Retired) was an eyewitness at the trial of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin which took place at Ft. Meade, MD on December 14-16.  Lakin was charged with disobeying orders and missing movement after he announced last March that he could no longer follow orders because of his doubts about, and the lack of evidence of, Obama’s constitutional eligibility to act as commander-in-chief of the U.S. military.

According to the U.S. Constitution, all military authority resides with the Commander-in-Chief, who is also the President.

Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution states that the president (and thus the commander-in-chief) must be a “natural born Citizen.”  Other sections of the Constitution relating to congressmen and senators state the requirement as simply “Citizen,” therefore implying a higher standard in the “natural born Citizen” requirement.

In 1787, John Jay, who became the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, wrote in a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention:

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

In 2006, an attorney from a law firm with ties to Obama discussed the idea of a “takeover” of the U.S. government by a foreigner and possibly a Muslim, and strongly advocated abolishing the “natural born Citizen” requirement, calling it “outdated and undemocratic.”  Others have called the requirement “pernicious” and labeled the Founding Fathers’ “fear of undue foreign influence soon proved itself baseless.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear oral arguments in numerous cases brought before it on the question of Obama’s eligibility, and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas stated in a congressional hearing earlier this year that the Supreme Court is “evading the issue.”

As Commander Kerchner relates, Lakin, who is a medical doctor and served as flight surgeon to General George F. Casey’s unit, made extensive efforts before his announcement in March to determine whether or not Obama held office legally and constitutionally.  None of his inquiries were addressed.  Now Terry resides in Ft. Leavenworth prison for the next six months, unless a de facto officer in the chain of command reviews the sentence and amends it.  It appears that Maj. Gen. Karl Horst, who was the original point of contact for those concerned about Lakin’s sentence, has been promoted since Obama took office on January 20, 2009.  Horst had delegated calls and emails to Lt. Col. Robert Manning, who then directed all inquiries to go to Lakin’s former Army defense counsel, Maj. Matthew Kemkes.

Since the 2008 election,  questions of possible wire fraud, social security number fraud, voter fraud, illegal campaign contributions and failure to qualify as a “natural born Citizen” of the United States have all been raised by citizens but have either been ignored, answered with a form letter, or dismissed without a hearing from various courts.

Obama himself has stated that he was born a dual citizen of the U.S. and Great Britain due to a British citizen father. He has never shown the public any conclusive certified true and correct paper documentary proof of his alleged U.S. citizenship to any controlling legal authority such as Congress or a court of law, but evidence was presented early on in the presidential campaign that Obama might have become a citizen of Indonesia as a child.  Various accounts of his life differ as to when he was taken to Indonesia and when he might have returned to Hawaii, if he had ever lived there previously.  There are numerous statements by public officials and news outlets in Kenya stating that he was born in Kenya.

No hospital in Hawaii will confirm that Obama was born there, although the Hawaii Department of Health has stated that they “have Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”  However, they will not state what kind of birth registration record it was and no name of the doctor, medical attendant, or midwife who assisted with the alleged birth in Hawaii has ever been provided. No witnesses to the birth have ever been named.

Later, the Director of Health stated that she could confirm that Obama was a “natural-born American citizen,” although she refused to expound on how she claimed that knowledge or the legal definition she utilized to make the determination.  The complete absence of any corroborating independently verifiable evidence that Obama was physically born in Hawaii and not just falsely registered as being born there by his maternal grandmother using a simple mail-in form available at the time gives Americans numerous reasons to be concerned about Obama’s true legal identity.

Commander Kerchner and Attorney William Baer did a radio interview following the court-martial on December 19 which can be heard here.

MRS. RONDEAU: Thank you for taking the time to speak with The Post & Email regarding the proceedings last week against Lt. Col. Lakin.  To begin, how many people would you say were in the room?

CDR KERCHNER: On the first day, Tuesday morning, I took the time to count the chairs, and there were 60 seats in the courtroom.  It was not a big courtroom.  The room was full; all the seats were taken, and the court bailiffs – they were soldiers in camos – announced that they were going to allow “standing room only.”  So at the start of the trial, it was declared “standing room only” admissions to the courtroom.  They also had a closed-circuit camera in there which was feeding into another room.  I never got to go over there to see how many people were there, so I don’t know if there any people there or if the room was full.  But on the first day, every seat in the main courtroom was full with the constitutionalists, news people, and there were a few bailiffs seated here and there and standing along the walls.  I guess they were there because the word was out that we could be “potentially dangerous;” the constitutionalists were pre-labeled as potentially violent.  So they had a contingent of these people in camo in the room all the time, and at some point I noticed there were always three of them sitting behind me.  Also Rev. Manning and the two members of his congregation who accompanied him to the court martial always had a couple of these bailiffs or constables wearing their camo military uniforms sitting to the left and right of them.  It appeared there were keeping an extra close eye on certain attendees because of the false information spread around amongst the bailiffs prior to the court martial that we constitutionalists were potentially violent. And nothing could be further from the truth with that kind of statement. We came and gathered peacefully to show our support for Lt. Col. Lakin and the Constitution and nothing more.

The second day, pretty much all the seats were filled, with a few more of the uniformed bailiffs than on the prior day that I noticed.

On the third day, Lt. Col. Lakin’s counsel, Neal Puckett, left before the court-martial was over.  That surprised me and in my opinion showed a lack of 100% dedication to LTC Lakin’s court martial.  He actually made a statement that he had to go to another trial somewhere, catch a plane or whatever.  And of course, he had to get the permission of Lt. Col. Lakin to leave early.  The court asked Terry also, but Terry was broken in spirit by that time, because Neal Puckett, his defense counsel, did more to destroy the self-esteem and morale of Terry Lakin on the stand than any member of the prosecution.  I think that Neal ambushed him.  If you read the statement released on Puckett’s website, he says he “surprised” Terry with his method of defense.

MRS. RONDEAU: Immediately afterward, I had read that Puckett sounded more like a prosecutor than a defense attorney at the trial.

CDR KERCHNER: Absolutely. I had driven down from Pennsylvania with a Vietnam combat veteran friend who had wanted to be there, too.  When we arrived at Ft. Meade, I went to the base to see if there was going to be lodging available on the base for me because it would have been considerably less cost, as a retired military officer, than staying outside in commercial lodging.  So we were driving around the base, not knowing exactly where the check-in building is, and after some time had elapsed, we found the right building.  We asked a fellow in the parking lot, and he said, “This is where you have to go in and check in there and see if they have a room.  I was just in, and they don’t have any, but if you want to check yourself that is where you do it.”  So he showed us where to go; we went in there, and he stood there while we inquired.  He was a Lt. Col., and I pulled my ID card out and said, “I’m CDR Kerchner; I had called down and asked to reserve a room, and you said I couldn’t do that, but if I got here around 16:00 (which is 4:00 in the afternoon for the civilians), if they had a last-minute cancellation on a room, they would provide it.  They said, “No, we don’t have any openings.”  So I said, “OK,” and I thanked the Lt. Col. who was there.  It turned out he was on Terry Lakin’s panel the next day; he was one of the jurors, so to speak.

Anyway, I turned around and was leaving, and I heard, “Commander Kerchner,” and it was Terry Lakin.  He was checking out at that facility while I was attempting to check in.  If I had arrived a minute or five minutes before or a minute or five minutes later, I would never have met the man.  Can you just imagine that…driving a couple hundred miles, and the timing to come down and be at his trial…just two people in motion in the universe, and we just crossed paths in that building at that instant in time.  Anyway, he said, “Commander Kerchner,” and I said, after looking at who was calling me, “Terry!” It was quite a surprise to meet him that way. We were chit-chatting for a few seconds there, and he said, “I’m pleased to meet you,” and I said, “I’m honored to meet you.  I’m here to support you.

As we were talking there, he said, “Why don’t we go out to my car because the fellow over here might be on the panel.”  He kind-of detected that.  He went out to the car and he put on the heat, and we were talking, and he was upbeat then.  He wasn’t defeated.  And then at some point, he said, “Why don’t you fellows come out to my house tonight?” and I said, “Are you sure?  This is the night before the trial.  Don’t you prefer to be with your family or consulting with your counsel?” and he said, “”No, I don’t have any scheduled meetings and my family would enjoy meeting you.  I’d be happy to have you out.  It’s such a great honor to finally meet you,” and I was saying the same thing to him.  I told him, “You’re the one who should be honored.  You’re risking everything.”

So we agreed, and he gave us the address and phone number in case we got lost on the way and we could call him.  We had a GPS system, so we went out there and met his family.  He has a nice home in the suburbs, nothing pretentious; just an ordinary middle American home, about 35 miles from Ft. Meade.  He has a beautiful wife and three lovely children, a Christian home, very nice kids who were very well-behaved.  They got pizza for us, and we had a little wine and pizza and talked.  He was not a beaten man.  He knew he was going to be punished, but he was not demoralized.

We left at about 8:45 that evening.  The next day, the trial started.  I just thought it was God’s hand at work there to put us two together, the two most recently prominent figures in the Obama eligibility saga, he as a defendant, and I as a plaintiff.  I thought it was really remarkable that this happened. When we talked, we both had a kindred soul and understanding that we were answering the call to do this.  We didn’t do it for any other reason but to stand up for our oaths to the Constitution, and we answered a higher call.  Both of us felt that way.  We were like two kindred souls there; we understood each other; we could look at each other face-to-face, and we knew we both were standing for the truth and for the Constitution, so help us, God. We both believe in God and that what we are doing is right.

The point is that Terry was not at all defeated or demoralized when I met him.  He knew he was going to be punished, but he wasn’t a broken man over it.  He believed he was standing tall for the Constitution.

The next day, at the court, he came in with his new lawyer, Neal Puckett.  In retrospect, I don’t believe that Neal even told Terry how he was going to approach defending him.  I don’t know how much time Lt. Col. Lakin actually had to meet with his lawyer and discuss strategy.  Based on what I saw happen, my opinion is:  very little.  I believe he knew that they were going to plead guilty to the charges of disobeying orders to report to Ft. Campbell and disobeying orders to report to his Commanding Officer for counseling.  Regarding those, Terry admits that he misunderstood the advice about not reporting for counseling.

MRS. RONDEAU: When you say “advice,” was that from his first attorney?

CDR KERCHNER: Yes.  Listening to the testimony and statements of Terry’s lawyer, it seemed as if his first civilian attorney, Paul Jensen, had said something to the effect of refusing to obey all orders was consistent, after Terry decided not to follow the order to deploy for the 30,000-man surge, which came directly from Obama.  Foreign deployments must be signed off by the President.  So Terry was looking at this as a direct order from the illegal President, and he was disobeying that. But when Terry apparently asked Paul Jensen whether or not he should obey the order to go to counseling, Paul Jensen said something to the effect of “Well, I can’t tell you not to go, but it would be consistent with your refusal to obey the first set of orders regarding overseas deployment.”  So Terry misunderstood that, and perhaps Paul Jensen doesn’t understand military law, but what he did was to set up numerous violations from each time he disobeyed an order.  The government piled all of those on to make additional charges to add on more potential jail time.

In retrospect, Terry understood that he made a mistake in that regard.  He should have obeyed all orders except the one that came down from Obama ordering him to be deployed overseas in combat.  Terry had been to Afghanistan and Bosnia before in a war situation, so it wasn’t a case of lack of courage to be deployed and go to combat.  He’s been there many times before.  It was strictly because he didn’t believe that Obama is eligible to issue any orders to any soldier to do anything, especially to deploy overseas in combat, because he’s a usurper.

So that was the whole first morning:  pleading out, and making sure he knew his rights to plead guilty to disobeying these orders.  Then in the afternoon, they had voir dire about the second charge of “missing movement,” which was missing the movement of a particular commercial airline flight to take him to Ft. Campbell, KY to join the unit, the 101st Airborne, which was being deployed in the near future to Afghanistan.  Terry had been told to go to Ft. Campbell to do pre-deployment training with the unit for several weeks or months.  So by missing that plane he did not miss the movement of the military unit which was “moving” as a unit several weeks or months later to Afghanistan. He just disobeyed orders to go to Ft Campbell, KY.

There were ten officers, and both sides’ lawyers were questioning them to make sure that they didn’t have preconceived bias one way or the other.  They were all senior to Lt. Col. Lakin. Most of them were full colonels, and I think one was a Lt. Col. who would have had an earlier date of rank, which would mean that he was commissioned to the same rank earlier than Lt. Col. Lakin, so he would be senior.

They eventually decided to dismiss two of the ten and were left with eight, and they proceeded with the government’s case.  By the end of the day, the government made Terry look like the worst officer who ever served in the military; you would expect that from them.

MRS. RONDEAU: Did the eligibility question come up at all on that first day?

CDR KERCHNER: Yes, I believe it was on the first day.  One of the witnesses for the government, when asked if she knew why the Lt. Colonel was doing this, said “Yes, because he questioned the eligibility of the president,” and of course, the government attorneys, who were all young captains, cut that line of testimony off by her and said, in effect, “Whoa…we don’t want to go there.”

MRS. RONDEAU: So the reason for Lakin doing what he did couldn’t even be mentioned?

CDR KERCHNER: That’s correct.  It couldn’t be mentioned in the trial phase, but during the sentencing phase on the third day, it was mentioned, not by the defense but by the prosecution.  The prosecution played the video where Lt. Col. Lakin was in Paul Jensen’s office and explained why he did it.  They played the whole thing, but they used it in a way that was detrimental to Terry Lakin to make Terry Lakin look bad and that he planned it all and was a pawn of the “birther” movement.

MRS. RONDEAU: It was planned to the extent that he had gone through about a year and a half of asking all of his elected representatives to verify that Obama was eligible.

CDR KERCHNER: It was even more than that.  I learned a lot there.  Terry had been questioning Obama’s eligibility for over two years, and not only did he go to his elected representatives; he used a formal path available to soldiers, filling out a form or writing a letter, to request a congressional inquiry.  If a soldier is having some issue with the military chain of command or for any reason feels that he has been unjustly treated, there is the Article 138 where you can directly ask your senior chain of command about it.  He also filed another form or letter to request a congressional inquiry; he requested more than once that an investigation be done about Obama’s eligibility because as an officer, he had sworn an oath to the U.S. Constitution.  He had great doubts that Obama was eligible, and he wanted them to investigate, and they didn’t even answer him.

It was the same story for me when I wrote to Congress to request inquiries, although under statutory law, I don’t have the right to one in the same sense that an active duty soldier does.  However, we both had constitutional rights to ask Congress to investigate the questions and fully vet Obama’s eligibility. The Congress did nothing.  Terry, as a soldier, had a further right to one, and he didn’t even get an answer.  For example, if you allege that your commanding officer is mistreating you, Congress  investigates those allegations.  Terry asked for a congressional inquiry because no one in his chain of command was answering his questions, and they didn’t answer him.  He felt he was being unjustly treated and ignored by his chain of command in their not addressing or answering his questions about the eligibility of Obama to be the Commander-in-Chief and President.  He brought that up in the sentencing phase of the trial.

It was the same story, absolutely no answers being provided to the questions being asked. His was within the military; mine was in civilian life.  They totally ignored us.  The Congress ignored hundreds of thousands of petitions and letters from people like me in civilian life and also from this soldier. Terry wrote personal letters to his elected representatives and a congressional inquiry request that were sent to the proper committee to request a formal congressional inquiry, and they were totally ignored.  They didn’t even answer him.

MRS. RONDEAU: What do you think this means, Commander, when the courts, the Congress, state legislators, the military and the media have closed off every avenue that “we the people” thought we had for redress of grievances?

CDR KERCHNER: It means we no longer have a rule of law and a constitutional republic subservient to the fundamental law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.  Not even statutory laws are being obeyed; not even regulations regarding congressional inquiries from soldiers are being obeyed.  It’s strictly to defend one man, a phony, a fraud, the usurper-in-chief, Obama.  Our whole system of government, our whole culture has been corrupted and turned upside-down and completely rotted from the inside out to protect this man.  All of our laws are being subverted and ignored because they know the answer:  he’s not eligible They know it. The media anointed him, covered for him,  plowed the way for him, and ridiculed anybody who stood up to ask questions about his eligibility during the election process.  They painted themselves in the corner by his getting the nomination.  When the electoral college questions came up, they continued again; in the joint session, again and again, to protect him, to plow the road ahead and cover for him and ridicule and put down anybody who questioned it.  I believe the Republican Party was complicit in this because they put up John McCain, who also had questionable natural born Citizenship, and they wanted to keep the lid on that.  John McCain should be ashamed of himself for his silence during the campaign on this matter and his continued silence on this matter.  It was a perfect storm for creating a constitutional crisis, and I believe that Obama and his backers played that perfect storm perfectly, with the media backing it 110%.

We know about the Journolist group of 400 mainstream media journalists in a secret forum, planning and plotting how to write favorable stories for Obama, their anointed one, to be the first black president in history, and coordinated attacks on anybody who stood up to Obama asking questions about his constitutional eligibility for the office he sought, labeling them as racist and other vicious names.

Going back to the Monday night when I met Lakin’s family, he is in a mixed-racial marriage. So for CNN to call him a racist was abominable.  It was terrible.

Terry Lakin and his wife, Pili

MRS. RONDEAU: I hadn’t known that at the time, but when I saw his wife’s photo on the new foundation’s website, I saw that she is Asian.

CDR KERCHNER: She’s Thai.  She came over here after the Vietnam War.  I don’t know under what program, but they did allow a lot of people who worked for the U.S. government during the war to come over to the United States for their own safety.  I don’t know if that was the exact reason for her.  She’s a very beautiful woman, and lovely children.

In the military, there are warriors, and we’re all trained, to a certain extent, to be warriors, but Terry Lakin is a doctor.  He’s a healer, a nurturing man.  There’s not a racist bone in his body.  I don’t even think he’s ever thought a racial thought.  I’m more of the Alpha Male Warrior type.  He’s a nurturer, a very quiet, calm man.  Race has nothing to do with this issue. It is a legal and constitutional question.

MRS. RONDEAU: I spoke to him once about two weeks before the trial.

CDR KERCHNER: Let me diverge for a minute. The officer’s sole oath is solely to support and defend the Constitution. The enlisted man’s oath is to support and defend the Constitution and obey all orders from the President, all officers appointed above you, and the UCMJ regulations. There’s a big difference. The officer’s oath obligates the commissioned officer to only be responsible to support and defend the Constitution, not a person or man or president. The first oath administered to commissioned officers under the new Constitution, like the current oath, required them only to support the Constitution.  Various oaths were tried in between the first oath enacted into law on June 1, 1789 and the modern version prescribed in the 1860s after the Civil War.  But the writers of the modern oath realized that the singular intent of the original oath was the best for the survival of the constitutional republic. Officers were and still are in general more educated, and they were envisioned to be able if need be to question the lawful constitutionality of orders and to be the last line of defense for the Constitution, which is why in their original commissioned officer’s oath and in the modern commissioned officer’s oath they are charged solely to support and/or defend the Constitution. By leaving out the word “President” and “officers appointed above you” and references to the “UCMJ” out of their oath  – when push gets to shove with the U.S. Constitution you are intended to defend the Constitution no matter what…even if it means going up against a President violating that Constitution. You are charged with defending only the Constitution in that oath – because the President is not in the commissioned officer’s oath. The writer’s of the oath, both the original one and modern one used since the Civil War, knew that someday a President could be subverting the Constitution to gain more personal power.

Another point:  in my opinion, they tried Lt. Col. Lakin on the enlisted man’s oath.  They didn’t explicitly say it, but anybody watching knew it, because they were saying he has to obey the orders of the President.  He has to obey the orders of the officers above him.  He has to obey the regulations of the UCMJ.  But to do so would have been violating the prime directive of protecting the Constitution.  That was the supreme order and the only oath to which he swore when he became a member of the military.  He didn’t swear an oath to the president, or a man.  People are forgetting this; they don’t understand why our Founding Fathers created this system of checks and balances.  They were so wise that they knew this day could come.  That’s why the oath is written the way it is.  Not enough people have studied this and know this, and it should never have had to happen.  Lt. Col. Lakin shouldn’t have been put in a position by our society and the U.S. government to have to stand up to the de facto putative president as being a usurper.  Our system of checks and balances should have taken care of that, but it didn’t.  They all failed us.  The Washington, DC establishment is a cesspool.  It’s a cesspool, and it’s controlled by social forces, alternative-lifestyle forces that are pushing objectives to move our government totally away from right and wrong and the Constitution, the fundamental law of our land.  They’re trying to twist it as in “What does the word ‘is’ mean?” and their contention that the Constitution is supposed to be saying “freedom from religion” when it provides for freedom “of religion.”  They twist words.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think the military is completely overtaken by these forces, whomever is driving them?

CDR KERCHNER: The military leadership in Washington is, yes.  The Washington, DC establishment military are all politicians and thinking of their own careers and personal advancement.  I would say most of them down there are like that.  But if you get away from Washington, DC, no, they are not.  They still believe in the Constitution.

When I was on active duty as an enlisted man, I didn’t get the opportunity to go down there, but when I was commissioned in the Reserves and was assigned for training in Washington, I couldn’t wait to get out of there.

MRS. RONDEAU: Really?

CDR KERCHNER: Yes, that was my internal feeling, because it’s an entirely different environment down there.  It’s like big government in the military.  I like to be out on the ships, or at the operating bases; the closer to the troops, the better.  As a senior officer, my last training normally wouldn’t have allowed that, but I asked to be sent to sea again.  I wanted my last training duty after 33 years of service to be at sea.  I don’t like the desk jockey, Washington, DC political bureaucracy for personal career.  I was never a political officer; I just never could do that.

MRS. RONDEAU: Would you say that all of the upper-echelon officers have all caved in to politics?

CDR KERCHNER: Not all, but most, and the ones who are thinking the way I’m thinking, such as Lt. Col. Lakin, are afraid for their career to speak up.  They’ll be crushed by the system.

The military is not really the place to bring this up in the sense that they have the tools to crush you in that UCMJ on the basis of  “You just obey orders or you resign.”  You cannot fight this within the system and not have happen to you what happened to Lt. Col. Lakin unless a sufficient number of officers would stand up en masse.  If 100 commissioned officers had stood up simultaneously, within days of Lt. Col. Lakin having stood up, the press couldn’t have buried this.  The press couldn’t have crushed him.  In the court, they said that he was “obsessed” with the Constitution and only doing it for himself and that he was put up to it by the “birther” movement.  That was completely wrong.  And this was his own defense attorney saying this.  During the unsworn statement at end, after he was convicted of missing movement but before he was sentenced, he gave Lt. Col. Lakin a medical analogy:  that his vision of what was wrong was like a cancer on the Constitution, but there really was no cancer.  Puckett asked him, “Do you now understand that it was just a mirage, just your obsession about this?” and all the time he was doing this, between half an hour and an hour, he launched the most demoralizing attack on Lt. Col. Lakin on the stand.  He had a picture of his wife and three kids displayed on the wall, and he pointed at them, and he said, “Are you now ready to admit you were wrong and you were doing this for yourself and your obsession about the Constitution?  Are you now going to do something to help those three young kids of yours, those cherubs, and your wife, instead of thinking of yourself and this obsession with the Constitution and the mirage that you thought you saw something wrong?”

MRS. RONDEAU: Are you kidding?

CDR KERCHNER: No, I’m not kidding.  He broke that man with statements like that, one after another, and he called Obama a “native born citizen.”  Neal Puckett does not believe in the cause that Lt. Col. Lakin and we believe in.

MRS. RONDEAU: Then why was he hired to defend him?

CDR KERCHNER: I don’t know.  You could have defended Lt. Col. Lakin exactly the way I just described, as living up to his oath, which Neal Puckett didn’t even touch on other than just briefly, for a second, and he would have gotten the same punishment.  He would have been dismissed; maybe he would have gotten a year in jail instead of six months, but he still would have had his sacred honor intact, his self-esteem…honest to God, Sharon, did you ever see the prisoners who were caught by the Vietnamese and beaten and interrogated and then put on TV and had to say things you know they were being forced to say under the circumstances…or when Al Qaeda had some guy stand with a sword in the background, about to behead someone:  that’s what Terry looked like after Neal got done with him.  Terry’s parents and his brothers and sisters were sitting in the first row, and Terry’s father is in a wheelchair, and Neal was pointing at them and the pictures of his wife and kids projected on the wall and saying, “Are you done thinking of yourself and your obsession with the Constitution?”  Terry said in a low, subdued and beaten voice, “Yes.”  He was almost in tears.  Puckett broke him.

MRS. RONDEAU: Right after the sentence was pronounced, I wrote an article comparing it to George Orwell’s 1984.

CDR KERCHNER: Exactly.  That’s what’s going on.

MRS. RONDEAU: For me, it was a horrible, reminiscent experience of that book, which I read in junior high school.

CDR KERCHNER: Yes.  Rewriting history:  “He who controls history controls the present.”  It appeared that the whole purpose was to demoralize him in front of the world, in front of his parents, destroy his self-esteem and break his sacred honor before everybody in order to send a message to the other soldiers of “You don’t do this.”  And Neal Puckett left early at the end of the trial; he didn’t stay until the end.  He was too busy.  Gone.  That was terrible.

MRS. RONDEAU: At any point, did the question arise as to whether or not there was even the authority to hold the court-martial?

CDR KERCHNER: No, but that’s the approach I would have taken.  A judge could have gaveled me down.  I hate to say it, because you don’t know what you would do in a similar situation, but if Neal had ambushed me like that, I would not have taken it.  I would have exploded on the stand; I don’t care what they would have done to me.  In World War II, when some soldiers were overrun and most of their men were killed, and the Germans surrounded them and said, “Surrender, or you’ll be killed” – some people would surrender and some people would keep fighting with a bayonet and no bullets and they’d be shot down.  Lt. Col. Lakin was beaten down and forced to surrender, but do we hold the POWs with any less honor because they surrendered due to overwhelming force?  No, we don’t.  We actually consider them heroes.  Do we in the patriotic, constitutional movement now consider Lt. Col. Lakin any less of a hero because he was deprived of any means to defend himself by not allowing discovery and subpoena of documents or the calling of witnesses such as Lt. Gen. McInerney and Alan Keyes for his defense and was forced by overwhelming force from the prosecution and his own defense attorney to do and say things he didn’t in his heart want to do and say and then demoralized and broken on the stand by his own counsel?  No!  He’s a victim of ambushing.  If you read Neal Puckett’s blog, he says he “surprised” his own client.

MRS. RONDEAU: Is he proud of that, do you think?

CDR KERCHNER: Yes, he’s proud of it, because he did it to get him a lesser sentence.  Now is your sacred honor worth six months less time in prison?  If you had asked Lt. Col. Lakin ahead of time, I don’t think he would have said yes to that.  He would in my opinion have said, “Put me in jail another six months.”  Dismissal from the Army is what LTC Lakin feared the most since Terry loved the Army. And Neal Puckett did not save Terry from that punishment with his ambush and destroy-type defense.  Puckett destroyed this man to get him what he probably would have gotten anyway as excessive.  If they had sentenced him to the max, the commanding general or the judge likely would have lowered it anyway.  Regarding dismissal from the service, if Neal told him at all, he might have said that the only way to prevent it would be showing remorse from the stand and that you’d never do this again.  After half an hour or more of browbeating and demoralizing him, Neal got him to say, “Yes, I’d never do this again” and something like “Now I see I thought of only myself and my obsession with the Constitution and didn’t think of my family.” He got him to say that right in front of his family, his parents.  That’s why I say he was like a broken prisoner of war being forced to say things.  He was mentally tortured by his own counsel on the stand for almost an hour.

MRS. RONDEAU: And you believe that this was a complete surprise to Lakin?

CDR KERCHNER: Yes, it was, in my opinion.  I felt that way at the time, but when I read Neal Puckett’s blog, he said it was.  It was clear that Neal Puckett didn’t believe in the merits underlying this case.  So he was playing a chess game with Lt. Col. Lakin as one of the pawns, and the Constitution was thrown under the bus along with  Terry Lakin’s sacred honor.  It was all thrown under the bus. I cannot believe that any defense counsel who believed in his client could do what he did.

MRS. RONDEAU: I wondered what had happened when I read that he had pleaded guilty.

CDR KERCHNER: Well, he pleaded guilty to disobeying the orders regarding the counseling.  When I spoke with Lt. Col. Lakin the night before the trial, he knew that he had made a bad decision and was allowed to make it by his counsel when his counsel said, “It’s consistent with your prior refusal to take orders to be deployed.”  That’s where Paul Jensen didn’t understand military law.  He should have said, “No.  Stick to the fact that you are refusing to be deployed to Afghanistan because those orders came from Obama.”  Foreign deployments, during war, especially, have to be signed by the President.  But he should have advised Lakin to follow all other orders.  So Terry was telling the truth when he pleaded guilty to disobeying those orders; he’s a truthful man.

MRS. RONDEAU: I see.  And then he pleaded “not guilty” to the missing movement charge?

CDR KERCHNER: Yes, because they felt that was a trumped-up, piling-on charge, and it was.  Terry Lakin didn’t have to be on that specific airplane; he could have driven down to Ft. Campbell, KY.  It was a technical defense, but it was a true technical defense.  That missing movement charge was probably the worst one.  They were trying to keep him from getting dismissed from the Army, so they were trying to beat that charge for sure.

MRS. RONDEAU: But the defense counsel didn’t succeed with that, either.

CDR KERCHNER: The defense counsel failed to beat that charge and failed to keep LTC Lakin in the Army.  If I were going to court-martial, I would have made them convict me on all of the charges, and declaring in open court why I was forced to do what I did,  just out of principle.  That’s why he stood up and disobeyed those orders:  out of principle.  I would have made them go to the principle and underlying merits and the oath to the Constitution as to why I stood up.

MRS. RONDEAU: But they would allow no discussion of whether or not Obama is eligible to serve and give orders.

CDR KERCHNER: Nobody would for the defense side.  But interestingly, the prosecution did play the video from Safeguard Our Constitution, and the audience applauded when that was played.  That was the real Lt. Col. Lakin.  So we applauded, and the court gaveled us down; she called us “the gallery.”

I would have brought in the Nuremberg defense, too. First, for every witness the prosecution put up, I would have handed them a card with the enlisted man’s oath and the officer’s oath, and I would have asked each of those prosecuting witnesses who were there about obeying orders and said, “Now you read this oath to the Constitution.  Read the officer’s oath and the enlisted man’s oath and tell me which words are different and why they are different, in your opinion.  Why is the officer’s oath different from the enlisted man’s oath?  What differences are there and why?  Why did the Founders and Framers have different oaths for the officers and the enlisted men? Let them explain it and let the members of the panel listen to that.

Then I would have brought up the Nuremberg defense and cited the officer(s) tried at Nuremberg who told that court it was not his duty to question orders from the Supreme Commander, meaning Adolf Hitler, and that your duty is to obey orders, and that man was hanged for that:  for blindly accepting all orders from the Supreme Commander.  There was no defense.  All soldiers were trained on that, that even an unlawful order, even if it comes from the President, shall not be obeyed.  And what is a lawful order?  That is the officer’s decision to make and ask his superiors and a congressional inquiry to find out if he has a doubt, and he did that, and they ignored him.  The Constitution is not a piece of parchment paper down there on display in Washington.  It is the fundamental law of the land. The lawfulness of all orders issued by officers and the people above them shall be judged by that law, because his officer’s oath is to do just that, to support and defend the Constitution.  So they should not have court-martialed him for this; they should have held a congressional inquiry and answered the question.  If I had been the lawyer defending Terry, that’s the approach I would have taken.  The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land, and all orders from all officers shall be judged against that, and if the officer is charged with disobeying the order, there should be a congressional inquiry to see if that order was lawful, because it’s a question of fundamental constitutional law and lawfulness.

By the way, when that Obama supporter confronted me, that was the tone of my voice.  That was on the second day of the trial during a recess.  This Obot lawyer, Lt. Col. Dwight Sullivan, was debating with some people about the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment conveyed the ability of the President to be natural born and therefore eligible to be the president.

MRS. RONDEAU: I read on his own blog that he admitted that he lost control of himself during the confrontation.

Editor’s Note: To read Lt. Col. Sullivan’s account of the incident, scroll down almost to the bottom of the linked page.  Please be advised that many of the comments on the page contain profanity.

CDR KERCHNER: Let me tell you how it happened, according to my recollection.  He was talking to Mr. William Baer, who is also an attorney, at that time.  They and several others were debating it.  I was two rows away, and I leaned forward a little bit and said to Col. Sullivan, “The words “natural born” are not even in the Fourteenth Amendment, so how can you say that that creates a natural born Citizen?”  He said something back, and I said, “To argue that, you’re being intellectually dishonest,” and when I said “intellectually dishonest,” he flew off the handle.  His face got red, he got up, yelling “Sir! Sir! Sir!” as he was going down the aisle.  You know how in the movie theater you have to go around people’s legs?

MRS. RONDEAU: Yes.

CDR KERCHNER: He was going around their legs the fastest he could go, almost trampling on them to get by them, Dr. Kate and another lady, down to the end of the row towards the wall, and then he made an “L” and came up along the side.  My row was empty, and I just walked down to the end of my row, and he met me at the end of my row, and he got in my face like a Marine Corps drill instructor and shouted, “You will NOT call me dishonest!!” His nose was a quarter-inch away, we were eyeball-to-eyeball, toe-to-toe.  I just stood there, calm, cool and collected, and I said to myself, “This guy’s not pulling this with me.”  You know what I mean?  Thirty-three years in the military, Mustang officer, up through the ranks, chief petty officer, commissioned as an officer promoted up to full commander…I’ve led lots of men in the service and in civilian life, been a practitioner of the martial arts such as judo, Tai Kwan Do in many a one-on-one physical contest in tournaments …he’s not going to intimidate me!

So I was standing there calm, cool and collected, and I looked at him right back in the eye as if to say, “You’re not going to make me blink, buddy.”  I then said to him, “I did not call you dishonest; I called you intellectually dishonest.”  Then he said something, and we debated more about the Fourteenth Amendment, and I said, “You have it all the time in your blog; you say the Fourteenth Amendment makes a president natural born.  That’s intellectually dishonest.”  So I was throwing some facts back at him, and he says in his account that I didn’t give any facts.  I said, “The “natural born” phrase is not in the Fourteenth Amendment and you’re on the blogs saying that it conveys natural born status.  So you’re intellectually dishonest.”

At a certain point, I said to myself, “I have to take charge here,” so I started asking him questions.  I said, “Is he or is he not (meaning Obama) a natural born Citizen?” and he didn’t answer that question.  He stood there and didn’t say a word.  Then I saw him start to twitch a little bit; his facial muscles showed that he was starting to get nervous.  Then I said even louder in my booming Commander’s voice, “IS HE OR IS HE NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?  Answer the question.”  The military people in the room went, “Huh, huh, huh!!”  They did that the first time when Sullivan first ran up to me and started barking at me.  But within 30-60 seconds, I had turned it around, and I was barking at him.  So that last time when I said that really loud, he started shaking.  His body, his facial muscles, his knees started shaking, and he turned around and ran back to his chair with his tail between his legs as fast as he could go, backed down, and I stood where I was and observed him.  He picked up his book and his notepad, and his hand was shaking like a leaf. He tried to write and he couldn’t.  One of the people I know told me afterward that he had walked up to Sullivan and asked, “What happened?  What was the matter?” and he had said, “I’m so embarrassed that I did something like that.”

MRS. RONDEAU: He admitted in his blog that his behavior was inappropriate.

CDR KERCHNER: Yes, although he said he wasn’t shaking and that his knees didn’t buckle, and they did.  I looked into that man’s eyes, and despite the veneer of being a Marine Colonel, he’s a hollow man inside.  The truth was on my side, and he knew it, and he knew he was a bluff and a deceiver.  I looked into his eyes and I saw nothing.  He had nothing, and he buckled and ran.

MRS. RONDEAU: He could not prove that Obama is eligible to do what he’s doing.

CDR KERCHNER: He cannot prove it, and all his statements about the Fourteenth Amendment are a deception.  He knew it.  He knew he couldn’t bluff me, neither mentally nor physically, and he buckled and ran for his chair, shaking like a leaf.  Did you ever see the movie “Full Metal Jacket?”

MRS. RONDEAU: No.

CDR KERCHNER: Well, it shows the Marines Corps instructors getting in the faces of the recruits and destroying them.  They want to break them and then they build them back up in a different image.  That’s what he was trying to do to me.  He was trying to physically intimidate me and break my will to debate him in front of all the people in the courtroom during that recess, and it didn’t work.

I’ve been in physical combat, not in a war, but in judo and wrestling matches with dozens and dozens of men.  He didn’t scare me at all.  He’s maybe 15 years younger than me and probably in much better shape than I, and if it had come to a wrestling match, he could have won, but I certainly would have done my best to take care of that man if he had put his hands on me.  He knew I wasn’t scared of him and his threatening demeanor and behavior and he ran away.

MRS. RONDEAU: This appears to me to be a lesson to all of us.  Does this tell the average civilian who has never served in the military that we actually are tougher than we think?

CDR KERCHNER: Yes, because we have the truth on our side.

MRS. RONDEAU: We probably have strength that we didn’t know we had.

CDR KERCHNER: That’s right; we do.  If you are speaking the truth, you can feel it in your soul.  When you’re telling lies, you have to keep thinking of changing the story, but when you’re telling the truth, it comes out naturally.  The power of the truth just comes out.  You don’t need to be thinking about the truth; it’s the truth.

MRS. RONDEAU: What can be done now?

CDR KERCHNER: What we need to do immediately is to support Lt. Col Lakin financially for the next six months until he gets out of prison at the Terry Lakin Action Fund. As far as what we can do to fight the battle against the usurper?  We’ve tried every vehicle:  the executive branch with Bush and Cheney, who did nothing to vet Obama; Homeland Security did nothing to vet him; during the election, the media anointed him, pushed him and defended him, thereby failing us; the people were deceived by this man; the court system failed, and now the military system has failed us.  The only thing left is to go back to the political process which failed us the first time and hope that the new Congress, with a Republican-controlled House finally listens to the people and holds a congressional investigation with full subpoena power.  We need to force them to do that.  They can now justify it by saying, “The prior Congress made a mistake, but we’re not going to do it.”

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you have an expectation that they will do that?

CDR KERCHNER: I don’t know.  Darrell Issa has already said that they aren’t going to consider the birth certificate, which is a necessary but not sufficient part of this.  But they should at least start with it.  If they don’t, the only thing left is John F. Kennedy’s words and the Declaration of Independence:  “Those who make peaceful resolution (to paraphrase; he used the word “revolution”) impossible make violent resolution inevitable.”  This is not going to stand with the people forever.  It’s going to boil over at some point, and what they thought they were preventing – violence in the inner cities if he were properly vetted and revealed he was not eligible – will result in and cause far, far, far worse by what they have done by corrupting every institution and system of our government to protect an ineligible man, a phony, the usurper-in-chief, Mr. Zero.

MRS. RONDEAU: And you are by no means a “fringe lunatic conspiracy theorist.”

CDR KERCHNER: No, we’re not a fringe.  And who were the original birthers?  Jonathan Turley and the Democratic Party?  Were they a fringe when they put up the constitutional questions about John McCain?  They’re hypocrites.  They will use the Constitution to go after whomever they want to go after, and whether it’s false or true, they will point to the Constitution.  But if we point to the Constitution, then we are “nutcase, boneheaded constitutionalists…birthers, crazy, fringe.”  Well, Jonathan Turley, that’s you, then; you’re a “boneheaded constitutionalist nutcase birther fringe” yourself, then.  He’s the guy who was put up by the Democratic machine to go after McCain, and The New York Times piled on with it.  Do you remember all that?

MRS. RONDEAU: Yes, I do.

CDR KERCHNER: So what’s so different about them and us?  Except they consider us the enemy.  That bonehead constitutionalist birther Jonathan Turley wrote all these articles in his blog which were parroted in The New York Times, and there were a couple of lawsuits filed against McCain, and they had a congressional inquiry in the Judiciary Committee in the Senate as a result of a few thousand people asking questions.  Hundreds of thousands, even millions of people, were asking questions about Obama, and did they have a congressional inquiry?  No.  They just called us names and the mainstream media piled it on deeper.

MRS. RONDEAU: I noticed that Fox News is talking about his re-election bid for 2012.

CDR KERCHNER: Well, that’s another thing we can do.  House Bill 1503 introduced by Rep. Bill Posey in Florida will die at the end of this year because it didn’t get out of committee, but it could be reissued under a new number and in the new Congress and get more than 12 cosponsors and move that forward, mandating that the FEC, by law, must vet the presidential and vice presidential candidates be vetted and proven to be constitutionally eligible which includes being a natural born Citizen.  And even further, if they would put in that law the definition of a natural born Citizen which confirms what it really is.  They cannot change it, but if the Congress reaffirms that a natural born Citizen is one born in the country of two citizen parents, that’s confirming natural law, not trying to change natural law.  Even if it’s a resolution, they need to state it.  Now if they try to issue a resolution that says that a natural born Citizen is someone simply born in the United States, that would be a violation of natural law and international law.  International law is at play here, because natural born Citizenship becomes involved when parents of children are from different countries.  So they couldn’t define natural born Citizen as anything other than what it really is under natural law without violating international treaties and laws.  If Congress won’t produce a resolution or law, then it needs to get the FEC to force people to produce certified copies of all their original documents; at least that much, and not a data dump from a computer, but a copy of the contemporaneous original birth certificate and any other documents that are necessary to prove the qualifications that they are a natural born Citizen of the USA.

The Framers knew what a natural born Citizen was, and for the first 100 years, no one even tried to challenge it.  They knew what it was the way people know what a DUI is today.  You know what these terms mean; they don’t have to be explained.  For the last 100 years, the progressive movement has tried to change our language:  “What does ‘is’ mean?”  They changed the word “of” to “from” in the Constitution when it comes to religion.  They twist it, they turn it, they redefine everything; they use language against us to rewrite history as they did in the book 1984.

MRS. RONDEAU: And they brainwashed people to repeat that two plus two equals five.

CDR KERCHNER: So we’ve had 100 years of programming in the United States, and we no longer know what the Founders and Framers intended because they’ve changed the meaning of words.  I don’t believe that Vattel has been taught in constitutional law classes since 1920.  They’ve buried Vattel because his work codified natural law and stressed the importance of a written constitution as fundamental law.  He didn’t invent natural law; nature and nature’s Creator did that; he just codified it.  He was probably the most succinct and clear writer on natural law, which is why he became so popular.  They progressive movement wants to bury him because what he wrote in Volume I of that treatise disputes their view that the Constitution is malleable and living and fluid according to the progressives.  It needs to be amended when you want to amend it, using the process provided in the Constitution itself, but you don’t falsely interpret it or ignore it.

MRS. RONDEAU: Can the decision regarding Lt. Col. Lakin be reviewed?

CDR KERCHNER: Yes, the commanding general for that district could totally overrule the court or reduce the sentence.  He could grant Lt. Col. Lakin clemency, anything from reducing his sentence to time served, let him out; he could even reverse the dismissal by letting him serve the six months but not dismiss him from the Army and allow him to use his talent as a physician.  Any combination or permutation possibility, including completely annulling it, could be done.  When people call, they should say, “Look at the difference between the officer’s oath and the enlisted man’s oath, and why is Lt. Col. Lakin being punished when he didn’t swear an oath to the president?”  Let them know that you know.  He swore an oath to the defend the Constitution and only the Constitution, and the chain of command and the Congress failed him by not helping him get that answer on the constitutional legitimacy of the putative president Obama.  Tell that to the general and ask him to think about his own oath.

MRS. RONDEAU: People could also ask where the authority comes for convening Lakin’s court-martial or any other court-martial without a legitimate Commander-in-Chief.

CDR KERCHNER: It comes down from the executive authority of the president, and if Obama is illegal, the whole convening authority is also.  Above the major general, it goes back up to the president.  The president himself could annul the conviction.  So the president can not only pardon under the Constitution under the military chain of command; he can absolve any conviction and just erase it as if it never happened.  Of course, Obama will never do it; it would be up to a future president to do it.  Not only should Lakin have his conviction expunged; he should be given the Medal of Freedom.  He should be marched up to the new president, honored to the world, and given a Medal of Freedom for standing up for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and for the Constitution.  He will someday; he will be vindicated.  The truth always wins.  If the truth always comes out and Obama is proven to be a fraud, which we know he is, then justice mandates that Lt. Col. Lakin be vindicated, pardoned, and his kangaroo court conviction record expunged from history and a new history written that he did the right thing in the face of adversity.

MRS. RONDEAU: Many of the Founders died broke, maimed, their families murdered, their farms taken away…

Ft. Leavenworth consists of one military and one civilian prison four miles apart. Both were constructed in the early 1900s.

CDR KERCHNER: They stood alone, and many times, nobody would help them.  The word should be put out that what was done to Lakin in the court was a complete surprise to him and he was broken in front of his family with a picture of the children on the wall.  Even if he said some things, he was forced to say them, so let’s look at it as a strategic withdrawal in the face of overwhelming superior force that he could not stand up to.  He is still a hero; he has not betrayed us or given up the fight that I know of; he was just broken in a system stacked against him; the courtroom demoralized him and took his self-esteem and sacred honor away from him.  He’s a political prisoner of war now, and he’s a hero to us.  So we should not be disappointed in what happened, because he was overwhelmed, even by his own defense counsel.  If you read Neal Puckett’s blog, it says specifically that Terry had no idea of the way Puckett was going to approach the defense.  That was a sin.

MRS. RONDEAU: I always thought a defense attorney is supposed to brief his client on the strategy and support his client’s actions in court.

CDR KERCHNER: Neal admitted that he did not tell Terry what he was going to do, and it was disgraceful.  He drove Lt. Col. Lakin into the ground.

But this is not over. The eligibility issue with Obama is not going away. It is getting stronger. More and more people are aware of this issue every month. The truth will come out some day. The usurper-in-chief Obama and his Marxist/Socialist cronies out to destroy our constitution and country will be exposed some day. LTC Lakin will be vindicated and Obama will be totally exposed in history for the phony and fraud he is. And hopefully at that point Obama will be the one put in prison along with many, many of the people guilty of helping him perpetrate the fraud in the first place and of misprision of a felony in allowing this to go on this long.

Print Friendly

75 Responses to "CDR Charles Kerchner Speaks out about the Court-Martial of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin"

  1. Jermaine   Monday, January 3, 2011 at 11:19 AM

    > he was the person whose job it was to verify citizenship of voters

    But not the citizenship of candidates, so why would the hospital have shown him anything if he asked?
    I think this was just another false lead, either by Adams himself or by those who would like us to hunt for every bone they throw us.

    > a “personal attack” is an attempt to discredit a person’s views by discreditng the person or the character of the person that holds it

    And how would

    “Perhaps that’s how you and the assistant night manager who supervises you at the Sonic Drive Inn you work at see it”

    not qualify for that? Or why do you claim to have the slightest idea where I work and in what position?

  2. Spaulding   Friday, December 31, 2010 at 9:11 PM

    Mrs. Rondeau and Cmdr Kerchner are helping to clear the fog. Cmdr Kerchner has explained much of what was suspect about Ltc Lakin’s defense. The analysis of the tactics of the defense bear a closer look. Dr. Lakin was always surrounded by people who appeared to be avoiding the fundamental issue – jus sanguinis, or parental citizenship or the ‘sole allegiance’ of John Bingham, all equivalent terms. Cmdr Kerchner is leading as the officer is. Dr. Lakin needs support. I am convinced by the Commander that Dr. Lakin is not a plant. If we trust Cmdr. Kerchner we must honor Dr. Lakin with the support our sick military has denied him. Too bad Dr. Lakin had not secured Mario Apuzzo as defense council.

    The article by Mrs. Rondeau about Sarah Herlihy must have come before I became a Post and Email fan. It is an excellent summary. A bit of additional information is that Sarah Herlihy, when she wrote the Chicago Kent Review article, was working for McCain Justice Advisory Committee legal council, Christopher Landau – Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Kirkland and Ellis had senior partners on both the McCain and Obama campaign committees, and both received considerable support from Soros’ Open Society Institute. That a big law firm works for both parties is not proof of any sort, but these are election committees. That fact has prompted the question of whether McCain was a willing participant in the coverup of Obama’s illegitimacy. Landau was involved with defending McCain from one or both of the law suits challenging McCain’s eligibility. Herlihy never mentions jus sanguinis. Her article might be seen as an attempt to justify McCain’s entitlement. She never mentions Marshall or Waite or Jay or Bingham. She touches no legal concept which would raise questions about Obama. Her thesis, crafted in 2005 or before, was conceived as much conceal as to convince.

  3. Bob1943   Friday, December 31, 2010 at 7:30 PM

    “In fact, if there had been more to it, that issue wouldn’t have lapsed back into oblivion (with neither the P&E nor WND covering it).”

    Not true, he was ready to do more interviews, and testify under oath if asked, until the college in Kentucky that employs him told him to shut up.

    Adams may not have been the person in the highest position during the ’08 election, but he was the person whose job it was to verify citizenship of voters. He was told by every hospital in Hawaii that no long-form birth certificate exist for Obama.

    Like many others, he was apparently shut up by a threat to his job……….

  4. Texoma   Friday, December 31, 2010 at 3:33 AM

    Excellent accounting of what transpired in Honduras, AuntieMadder. I would add that the Honduran military, following the removal of the Honduran president (for the reasons you stated), stepped back and handed control of the government and country back to civilians.

  5. AuntieMadder   Thursday, December 30, 2010 at 11:59 PM

    Jermaine, a “personal attack” is an attempt to discredit a person’s views by discreditng the person or the character of the person that holds it. Examples would be something like “Because Tim Adams was hired to replace you at the HI Elections Office, your opinion of him and what he said can hardly be unbiased,” or “Jermaine, you’ve been known to make up stories since you were a small boy. As far as we can know, you’re making up a story now.” So, you’ve not been personally attacked by me nor can you be because I don’t know you personally.

    Note: Any work you’ve done on the night shift at Sonic Drive Inn is purely coincidental. It would also be mere coincidence if you really weren’t just playing dumb with rick to make his comment about the Hondurans seem idiotic (can you say “passive aggression?”). My comments, therefore, no matter how true, can not, by definition, be perceived as “personal attacks.”

  6. AuntieMadder   Thursday, December 30, 2010 at 10:32 PM

    “How are they going to explain to the parent, spouse, sibling, or child that their loved one died at the hands of a president who was not even American? They will not be able to.”

    Denial’s working out well enough for them so far. If they continue denying the he’s not an American or not a NBC, they’ll never have to explain it.

  7. Jermaine   Thursday, December 30, 2010 at 8:31 PM

    > That Adams referred to his “supervisor” (not “Supervisor”) doesn’t even imply that the position he reported to has “Supervisor” in the title.

    I wasn’t stating anything to the contrary. I was just correcting rick’s false or misleading statement that implied that Tim Adams was sitting on top of the supervision of the election, as “the elections supervisor in hawaii” clearly suggests.

    I don’t see how my statement warrants the type of personal attack that you’ve turned your posting into.

  8. sky   Thursday, December 30, 2010 at 8:11 PM

    friendsofliberty.ning.com The home of modern american patriots John Quade1 common law video

  9. Starla   Thursday, December 30, 2010 at 6:39 PM

    “ARMY ASKS FOR MERCY FROM CLEMENCY CALLERS”
    “LAKIN SUPPORTERS FLOOD PHONE LINES – NEED TO REDIRECT MESSAGES”

    By Brian Fitzpatrick
    © 2010 WorldNetDaily

    December 21, 2010
    9:33 pm Eastern

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=242665

  10. Starla   Thursday, December 30, 2010 at 6:28 PM

    “WE NO LONGER HAVE REPUBLIC SUBSERVIENT TO CONSTITUTION”
    “OFFICER: LAKIN CASE IS END OF ‘RULE OF LAW'”

    By Bob Unruh
    © 2010 WorldNetDaily

    December 29, 2010
    10:01 pm Eastern

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=245529

  11. JLancaster   Thursday, December 30, 2010 at 5:15 PM

    Lawyers can be sued for malpractice. This is something Dr. Lakin might want to consider down the road. I think Congress is deathly afraid of the truth coming out. I don’t think they are going to be able to hide it much longer though.

    How are they going to explain to the parent, spouse, sibling, or child that their loved one died at the hands of a president who was not even American? They will not be able to. The fingers, rightfully so will be pointed at Dick Cheney, Congress, Supreme Court and Military for the deaths. They all have blood on their hands. May life get even with all of them. Even the good ones I’m afraid. Did they take these jobs assuming that they would never be called to stand up when they know the people or the country is being threatened? I guess they took them for the prestige and benefits, right?

    Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.
    —Dietrich Bonhoeffer

  12. JLancaster   Thursday, December 30, 2010 at 5:09 PM

    “We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”
- Samuel Adams

  13. AuntieMadder   Thursday, December 30, 2010 at 1:55 PM

    “No, he was “a” Senior Elections Clerk. That is a far cry from being “the” “supervisor” which assumes he had the highest position in that regard.”

    LOL! Perhaps that’s how you and the assistant night manager who supervises you at the Sonic Drive Inn you work at see it, but in the real world, the position of Supervisor is rarely a “far cry” from those being supervised. In many cases, the supervisor performs the same work as those s/he supervises, working side-by-side with them (you should suggest that arrangement to Asst Night Manager Skippy at your Sonic), or as a “floater” who has done it all and continues to do it all on an as-needed basis. That Adams referred to his “supervisor” (not “Supervisor”) doesn’t even imply that the position he reported to has “Supervisor” in the title.

    “…[I]f there had been more to it, that issue wouldn’t have lapsed back into oblivion (with neither the P&E nor WND covering it).”

    Oh, really. Please do cite your sources.

    “Why would we want a supreme court of questionable authority and a foreign country’s military leadership? This would be so much against the Constitution it’s not even in the same universe!”

    I would accuse you of playing dumb just to be argumentative, but you may not be playing so I’ll explain it to, instead, since I understand perfectly what rick meant.

    Contrary to what your Obamessiah said and what the state run media repeated/reported, the Supreme Court of the Honduras and the Honduran military leaders did not perform a coup of the Honduras govt. In fact, what transpired was exactly the opposite.

    After the Honduran people elected the man who would be his successor, the sitting President of the Honduras, whose term was coming to its end, shared his plan to remain in office and become the Honduran President For Life. (According to the Constitution of the Honduras, the term limit for the presidency is one term per prez, so that was really, really pushing it.)

    In response, the Justices on the Supreme Court of the Honduras and the Honduran military leaders had the will and the courage to remove the wanna-be dictator. They were also wise enough not to allow him to remain in office for the several months left of his term, giving him time and oppty to put together the muscle and might to protect him and what he believed to be his office, they removed him immediately after checking his stated plans against their Constitution. (The root of the lie that the Supremes and Military performed a coup of the Honduran govt. Every good liar knows that the best lies have some base in truth.)

    So, what rick is saying is that he wishes we had Supreme Court Justices and military leaders who possess courage, will and wisdom like those of the Honduras.

  14. Gary L. Zerman   Thursday, December 30, 2010 at 1:43 PM

    Thank you Ms. Rondeau and the Post & E-mail for a job well done. Thank you for practicing the lost art of – good journalism. (William McGowan’s book “Grey Lady Down” (2010) re the fall of the NYTimes and Neal Gabler’s book “Life the Movie: How Entertainment Conquered Reality” (1998).)

    Justice Louis D. Brandies stated: The most important political office is that of private citizen. He also stated: If we desire that the law be respected, we must first make the law respectful. Justice Robert Jackson stated: … It is not the function of Government to prevent the citizen from falling into error, it is the function of the citizen to prevent the Government from falling into error. Communications Assoc. v. Douds, 339 US 382, 442 (1950).

    Are not these people, these courageous American citizens, like L. Col. Lakin, stepping up and asking these simple questions about who Barack Obama is, acting in the best traditions of the above quotes? Yet they are called names, slandered with the pejorative “crazy birther(s)”.

    Yet, are they not just simple bona fiders? Concerned citizens asking simple questions, that demand and are entitled to simple answers. They actually are defenders of the Constitution. They are those attempting to prevent the government from falling into error, from abusing power. They are those attempting to make the law (the government) respectful.

    The lamestream media has not only failed to ask these simple questions, but in fact joined in Barack Obama’s campaign, and now Administration. (Example: MSNBC’s Christ Mathews’ thrill running up his leg. Illustrative, not exhaustive.) Academia no better. Both main parties, the Dems & Repubs have been totally derelict to their duties, as well as election officials. But none worse, than the Courts, the judiciary. Who are supposed to be the gate keepers, the final backstop, but who instead have dismissed case, after case, after case, that was simply trying to get at the truth. Most abusive here, striking the constitutionally guaranteed defense of L. Col, Lakin. They have joined in preventing these simple questions from both being answered, and worse havebcreated a fear to even ask them. Yes, 1984. Yes, a police state.

    And all the while, Barack Obama continues to hide in plain sight, THE EMPEROR WITH NO CLOTHES, and also continues to get away with saying his administration will be the most transparent ever.

  15. Researcher   Thursday, December 30, 2010 at 1:31 PM

    Slick Sleeves,

    Thank you for your commendation and your willingness to donate to the cause. I am reluctant to receive donations just yet; we need to figure out an iron-clad game plan first. It would be helpful to have a trustworthy person who lives on Oahu who can provide us some assistance. It will greatly increase the likelihood of success. Otherwise, we wil be putting all of our trust into an almost unknown entity who may or may not do the next right thing.

  16. California Birther/Dualer/Doubter   Thursday, December 30, 2010 at 1:22 PM

    Kudos, Sharon: Your article got top billing in WorldNetDaily! See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=245529
    ——————-
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Yes, I was made aware of that this morning. Thank you, and many thanks to the Commander for being so generous with his time.

  17. Researcher   Thursday, December 30, 2010 at 1:16 PM

    I never really followed up on the Tim Adams story. I had planned to visit the Office of Elections and the Democratic Party of HI last summer but ran out of time. I will note the following:

    *The “legally qualified under the provisions of the Constitution” language was gutted from the DPH Certificate of Nomination.
    *The Office of Elections accepted it when it should have been rejected.
    *Either the Office of Elections tipped off the HDP or vica versa.
    *Someone at the OoE and/or DPH knew something was amiss as it related to O’s eligibility;
    it is the only logical explanation as to why the CoN language was so radically altered.
    *William Gilhardy, a longtime DPH operative, was SAD’s divorce attorney for her divorce from Soetoro. The divorce decree lists two dependent children. Why would it list Obama, if he just a stepson and over 18? Gilhardy if anyone, knows about Barry Soetoro.
    *The veracity of Adam’s claims are unknown at this time. I beleive it was confirmed that Adams was a temporary worker at the OoE during the 2008 election.

    I think the circumstances surrounding Adam’s claim and the alteration of the DPH CoN is of critical importance and should be further investigated. As to what that looks like, I don’t know other than I believe it requires boots on the ground in HI to pursue.

  18. Daniel Cutulla   Thursday, December 30, 2010 at 6:27 AM

    > I have repeatedly explained this simple fact of nature and U.S. Law to Mario Apuzzo, and Mr. Kerchner and his associates, and Orly Taitz, and Phil Berg, and the population at large and they all refuse to accept the natural reality and facts of law just described or to change their wrong ideas.

    Yes, isn’t it interesting that everyone but you thinks your idea is incorrect, including constitutional experts on both sides of the fence (Obots and Apuzzo/Berg/Taitz alike)?
    Face it, you’re not Galilei, you’re just plain wrong.

  19. Jermaine   Thursday, December 30, 2010 at 6:19 AM

    > he was the elections supervisor in hawaii during the 2008 elections

    No, he was “a” Senior Elections Clerk. That is a far cry from being “the” “supervisor” which assumes he had the highest position in that regard.
    In fact, if there had been more to it, that issue wouldn’t have lapsed back into oblivion (with neither the P&E nor WND covering it).

    > can we make a trade with HONDURAS, their supreme court & military leadership for ours?

    Why would we want a supreme court of questionable authority and a foreign country’s military leadership? This would be so much against the Constitution it’s not even in the same universe!

  20. Sam Sewell   Thursday, December 30, 2010 at 4:14 AM

    Here is the law that authorizes any law enforcement agent to have access to AKA Obama’s real birth certificate. Read it! See if it gives you any ideas.

    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/07/how-to-obtain-copy-of-obamas-original.html

  21. Chester   Thursday, December 30, 2010 at 3:17 AM

    RE: Abercrombie

    There is a plan behind the apparent madness.

    You dont get to be a governor if you are a fool. Abercrombie claimed in the interview that he did not check his announcement with the White House prior to the statement. How can anyone believe that?

  22. Slick Sleeves   Thursday, December 30, 2010 at 3:05 AM

    Mrs. Rondeau,
    One “smoking gun” would be if Researcher should successfully locate a genuine Birth Certificate (or Index Record) – showing the same NUMBER that was “later” put on the (redacted) image first posted on Obama supporter websites, allegedly of Obama’s Certification of a Live Birth – belonged to another infant BORN on 4 August 1961, but which subsequently DIED.

    Researcher supposedly has at least one name that potentially may fit the above criterion. Reportedly, there is a need for approximately $1,000 to “follow up” this lead.

    I hereby pledge $20 – and call upon at least 50 other viewers to pledge a like amount – so that this Project can be undertaken. Sharon, please pass my email address along to Researcher. COME ON FOLKS.

    Folks, if it can be established that a COLB Number was “stolen” to create a ficticious COLB for Obama, then the FRAUD would be so obvious that the Mainstream Media would be forced to turn on him like a pack of wolves. “Hell hath no fury like a pack of media lackies, who discover that they had been tricked and “outsmarted”. Conspirators would be jailed.

    Good News: tonight, Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck were joking about Obama’s Birth Certificate. Also, Posts over at Free Republic are mentioning that Hawaii’s new governor (Abercrombie (?) , D.), Chris Mathews and others of the Messiah’s supporters, are all now starting to “mention” the “Birth Certificate”.

    “Something” is up!!! They may have a new counterfeit Long Form (which might pass “first appearances” muster) that they plan to spring on the Public ? They may be setting the stage for Hillary to get into the 2012 Race? Too much “chatter”, going on.

    In any event, positively identifying a “stolen” COLB Number would really change the Political landscape in D.C.

    So, here is a better “smoking gun” than Vince Foster had in his hand, in Ft. Marcey Park!

    Researcher and Mrs. Rondeau are to be commended for their dedication and sleuthing persistence. “There is no substitute for perserverence.” ~ Pres. Calvin Coolige (?)
    ———————-
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Yes, I am aware of Researcher’s excellent work. The Post & Email supported it financially until the funds in the Legal Defense Fund were gone.

    Due to time constraints, I personally was unable to maintain the original Legal Defense Fund, as our main purpose at The Post & Email is research, writing and reporting, which consumes close to 12 hours each day. If there is a volunteer who would like to collect donations to support Researcher’s suggestion, that should work well. The donated money could be kept in a Paypal account until dispersal. We just don’t have the staff at The Post & Email currently to maintain records and receipts as well as issue reports, as people want to know what their money has paid for. Anyone wishing to pursue that avenue is welcome to begin such an account, and several people have been put in touch with Researcher about it with her permission.

  23. Chester   Thursday, December 30, 2010 at 2:55 AM

    It seams that Puckett delibertly misled his client. Furthermore he did not address key points. Did he violate the attorney-client relationship?

  24. Chester   Thursday, December 30, 2010 at 2:41 AM

    Thank you for the excellent interview.

    It would be good to learn more about the appeal process. Who recommended Puckett to Lakin? Why was Jensen fired?

  25. Chester   Thursday, December 30, 2010 at 2:30 AM

    @Joe Maine

    Leo Donafrio worked out the nbc issues as early as 2008. He was a pioneer. Many of the the more recent suits are based on his reasoning. He deserves praise not ridiicule.

  26. California Birther/Dualer/Doubter   Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 8:18 PM

    I mailed a letter to Lakin and posted it on a local community blog to spread the news of this injustice: http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/paxchristi3/63962

  27. Bridgetteb   Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 6:44 PM

    Who was the attorney that was referred to in the following statement?

    “In 2006, an attorney from a law firm with ties to Obama discussed the idea of a “takeover” of the U.S. government by a foreigner and possibly a Muslim, and strongly advocated abolishing the “natural born Citizen” requirement, calling it “outdated and undemocratic.”

    Fascinating interview, I had no idea that LTC. Lakin’s attorney sabotaged his own client! How did Puckett defend him? From this interview, it doesn’t sound like there was any defense. Instead, it sounds more like the attorney took the prosecutor’s
    position instead. Browbeating his own client for 1 1/2 hours for what purpose..to say “I’m sorry and I won’t do it again” like a child answering a parent?

    Is there any chance to file an appeal to clear his name and to use a reputable attorney that is on the side of his client?

    This whole ordeal was heartbreaking. He is a hero to many. Those that sneer at him for upholding the constitution, are anti-Americans. They aren’t fit to shine his patriotic shoes
    ———————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: It was I, and the story I wrote was based on an article published in the Chicago Law Review: http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/02/was-there-a-conspiracy-to-put-obama-in-the-white-house/

  28. rick   Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 5:21 PM

    grandma sarah & tim adams apparentley have fallen off the planet! before the kenyan president shut her off from interviews, she told 3 different interviews, one of them corsi from WND, that she witnessed his birth at coast provincial in mombasa. tim adams signed an affidavit stating, there is no BC from hawaii because he was not born there. he was the elections supervisor in hawaii during the 2008 elections. if they did fall off the planet, daddy alone, makes our ELECTED politicians, americas #1 enemy’s. my congressman, dean heller is an enemy of my country. so, like john edwards found out, the truth ALWAYS becomes fact, even if it takes a supermarket tabloid to get the job done. go GLOBE go, and PLEASE, scream at your congressmen, each one of those criminals has a copy of his mombasa BC with footprint. a thought, can we make a trade with HONDURAS, their supreme court & military leadership for ours?

  29. Joe Maine   Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 3:17 PM

    Researcher,

    READ my post and reply below.

    Did you ever find anything to the Tim Adams story? It is of critical importance and has been almost totally forgotten …

  30. Joe Maine   Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 3:16 PM

    Sharon, I’ve told you but can’t reach you through email, it’s been weeks or months now.

    I have all sorts of ideas. I’m surprised no one has listened … do you remember from before?

    Everyone acts like they care, I’m sure some do — but those that keep saying “it’s not about the BC” are sadly mistaken. It is indeed about the BC, if not for any other reason than at this point the MINORITY view is NBC = born in US to two citizen parents.

    Get it, people? Get it through your thick skulls. Let’s help this idiot Abercrombie find what he wants (although he doesn’t realize what he’s getting himself into, haha). What a dope.

  31. Researcher   Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 3:11 PM

    Jim Delaney says: “First off, without BHO’s permission, my understanding is that the Governor cannot disclose the BC.”

    That is not entirely correct. While the Governor cannot directly disclose the b/c, the Director of Health has ALWAYS had the authority to release vital records per HRS 338-18 (a) (d).

    (a)……or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.

    (d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and SUCH OTHER DATA as the director MAY AUTHORIZE SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.

    Public Health Regulations Chapter 8,8A, and 8B (rules): This document has numerous provisions for the the release of vital records. In particular, Chapter 8B 2.1.D, 2.1.E, 2.1.F and 2.5.D.
    See: http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/8%208A%20B%20VR%20Admin%20Rules.pdf

    Ambercrombie’s claim that he and the AG need to determine if a work around is required, or if a new law is in order, is a crock. They have always had the authority to release O’s vital records but have refused to do so thus far.

  32. Etraveler13   Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 1:31 PM

    I made the following comments in Lakin’s defense attorneys blog:

    What you did was fail your client. You did not help him to remain in the Army. You did not fight for the basis of his argument, you attacked your own client. He was tried to an enlisted man’s oath, not an Officer’s Oath. His justification was sound. You humiliated him as a man to his piers and his superiors. You betrayed him, and in his own words, you did not tell him what your defense would be. In front of his family, you questioned his Oath to the constitution, and your attitude of it lacking Utmost importance in the proceedings. You took an honorable man, and filleted him before his family, and the very military he loved. You did not represent him, you represented yourself. You are a disgrace in my opinion. Wuterich is in deep do-do if he thinks he will be fairly represented by you and your firm.

    It will come out, what, and why you did what you did to him, yes, to him. You prevented reasonable and honorable men from expecting justice single-handedly.

    This day, you did nobody any good, and created a precedent difficult to overcome, and you did it believing you did a good job. Your a disgrace, and should be ashamed.

    I think it proper, for others to voice their opinions as well…

  33. Leo Patrick Haffey   Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 12:18 PM

    Exactly.

    BO is NOT constitutionally qualified to be POTUS regardless of where he was born because by his own admission his dad was a British/Kenyan citizen.

    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/05/aka-obama-ineligible-if-he-was-born-on.html

  34. Jedi Pauly   Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 11:09 AM

    No kidding. What Mr. Kerchner and so many others fail to understand is that American citizens are supposed to be SOVEREIGN CITIZENS and the office of President is supposed to be a SOVEREIGN POLITICAL RIGHT. Sovereign Rights are NATURAL RIGHTS not legal “PRIVILEGES”.

    Natural rights are inherited from other human beings (natural political rights from males) according to the Laws of Nature (self evident scientific fact of Nature spelled out in the Declaration of Independence), not from soil jurisdictions or from females which are only governed by Congress and Courts. Congress and the Courts are not the Laws of Nature and they cannot endow one with unalienable Sovereign Political Rights at birth which is why the “natural born citizen” statutes via soil or your mom is not what Article II is talking about and why your place of birth and mom are irrelevant.

    Article II “natural born Citizen” means one who is born as a Sovereign American U.S. citizen. It is a fact of nature that sovereign political rights are Natural Rights that are inherited from males at birth, not females or soil, therefore you must have a U.S..citizen father who creates you in order to inherit your sovereign political right to qualify for the office of President. It is just that simple and obvious. Obama did not have a U.S. citizen father who created him if we accept what he has publicly announced as who his father is, therefore he cannot qualify. End of story.

    It is astounding that the American People have lost sight and understanding of their own natural sovereign political status and rights to such a degree that they cannot accept the simple and obvious explanation that I have just given here. I have repeatedly explained this simple fact of nature and U.S. Law to Mario Apuzzo, and Mr. Kerchner and his associates, and Orly Taitz, and Phil Berg, and the population at large and they all refuse to accept the natural reality and facts of law just described or to change their wrong ideas.

    Unless and until people wake up and realize and accept reality and their own sovereign political status and rights, as dictated by the Laws of Nature, they will continue to be nothing more than citizen “subjects” and under involuntary servitude (slavery) to a governmental system that is bent on denying the sovereign political rights of the citizens. No attorney or judge is going to free citizen “subjects” from a system that refuses to acknowledge that the citizens are sovereign with a right to a representative government where the President is one of the sovereign citizens at birth, especially if the citizens themselves do not even accept the Laws of Nature and their own sovereign political status that nature dictates is inherited from a sovereign citizen father. Each citizen subject slave must free himself by realizing and accepting reality as I have described it here. Only then will you be able to make the correct legal arguments that can hold government accountable.

  35. Joe Maine   Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 11:01 AM

    Forget the birth certificate? It’s been 2 years, stand up. Are you living in reality yet? They don’t care. It doesn’t get you anywhere to toot your horn about NBC, they obviously don’t care to define/reverse it. Got it? You people are quite delusional. Whether we’re right about it DOESN’T MATTER. They don’t care. Get it through your skulls people.

    Better to embarrass the deceiver-in-chief.

    GET THE SMOKING GUN. Quit drinking failed Donofrio Kool-Aid.

    Haven’t heard from him in a long time, recognize? I wonder why …
    ——————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: What would the smoking gun be?

  36. lana   Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 10:28 AM

    As much as I admire CDR Kerchner and Col Lakin and want to support them financially, I think we should first use our money to support our soldiers who got hurt fighting for us.

    God bless us every one

  37. Jim Delaney   Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 10:24 AM

    CDR Kerchner’s clarity, knowledge and fearlessness are impressive and commendable. I am particularly taken by the quote, “those who make peaceful resolution impossible make violent resolution inevitable”. And unless we the people insist upon a fair and timely resolution of this constitutional issue, violence may well be inevitable.

    An officer myself during Vietnam, I am deeply troubled that fellow active duty officers have chosen to remain silent. They could still make a very big difference.

    As for Hawaii Gov Abercrombie’s mystifying announcement recently that he would end the question of Obama’s eligibility by unilaterally disclosing Obama’s BC–with or without Obama’s permission and without a date certain in mind–I find it stunningly naive and desperately obfuscatory. First off, without BHO’s permission, my understanding is that the Governor cannot disclose the BC. And whether or not Barry was born in Hawaii is, of course, irrelevant. What is relevant is his natural born citizenship status. I can only hope that the Governor’s announcement is symptomatic of a crack up on the left, a chink in their armor.

    Finally, I urge CDR Kerchner to contact XM’s John Gibson and TV’s Glenn Beck with the singleminded purpose of being interviewed by these conservative so-called seekers of truth.To date, they have been anything but objective regarding this seminal issue. In fact, they have been openly and unashamedly hostile to birthers. The CDR’s command of the facts, his confidence and fearlessness would not only win them over, but turn the tide of public opinion as well.

  38. Researcher   Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 10:12 AM

    Fascinating interview, Mrs. Rondeau. I had no idea that even his own defense attorney ambushed him.

    I pray that Lt. Col. Lakin is vindicated and soon. CDR Kerchner is right; the truth will eventually prevail. I am of the opinion that the next line of defense is for at least a handful of states to enact election laws that require Presidential and Vice Presidential provide their creds before they given a place on the ballot. For the states that do not enact such laws, there needs to be a concerted effort to mount a challenge.

    I have zero faith that Congress will do anything to prevent this from occurring again. To do so is an admission they did not uphold the Constitution. The courts or Congress however still needs to define what constitutes a NBC. This cannot be resolved at a state level.

    CDR Kerchner, thank you for providing The P&E readers with an insider’s account of the courtroom proceedings.
    —————-
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I did not know about Puckett’s behavior, either, until I interviewed CDR Kerchner.

  39. Mia   Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 9:58 AM

    When I read this interview yesterday morning, it was like a knife in the heart. I literally started crying. The first time I’ve cried throughout this entire pathetic Obama debacle. This is unconscionable and downright evil. And it reaffirms that WE HAVE NO FRIENDS IN WASHINGTON.

    Unless and until We The People realize that no one is going to fix this for us… until we realize that everyone in a position of authority and power is part and parcel of the problem… unless and until We The People decide we refuse to be part of it… it will only get worse.

    My husband and I spent last night discussing our options… what we could do as two proud patriots who’ve completely had it… peaceful, non-violent, lawful ways we can push back. We’re not waiting on others any longer. I hope and pray others do the same. It’s our only hope.

    Mrs. Rondeau, thank you and God bless you. This ain’t over by a long shot. God bless the USA!!!

  40. sky   Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 9:53 AM

    It would be nice if the oil companies or whoever fills airforce one or the usupers limo,quit doing so,even the electricity,even the capitol.That would help them from being so greedy,and not doing it until obama shows his real long form bc,and his real social security number.

  41. sky   Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 9:28 AM

    everything the usuper has done or passed should not count,that includes Lt.Col.Lakin.the tenth amendment center.The traitors who have been backing this usuper,belong behind bars.These traitors better do their duty and tell usuper lets see if you are the real commander and chief,and follow the oath they made.

  42. Paula   Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 9:24 AM

    Excellent point Harry H, and based on Michaelsr’s post above, Lt. Col. Lakin ought to be entitled to a retrial.

  43. Paula   Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 9:19 AM

    JoeMaine,

    You ought to know better; these guys aren’t asking because they’re turning against Obama. Look, Obama was just in HI vacationing, AGAIN, and Abercrombie all of sudden comes out swinging against the Constituionalists who demand to know who Obama is, and says he’s going to release more documents on Obama. Come on, now. I know you can see the light of day in this little get together by Abercrombie, the communist, and Obama the communist. Me thinks they are up to no-good.

  44. Paula   Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 9:10 AM

    Vallely is the one who advised Lakin to take up Puckett for an attorney? Whoa! Drop Vallely like a hot potato if that is the case. I sure hope that Vallely didn’t stab Lakin in the back! If all of what you say is true, Vallely may not be on our side. You are right; it’s not the words we should take up front; it is if the actions back up the words they speak. Good points concerning the organization of the Constitutionalists.

  45. sky   Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 9:07 AM

    the fed,and the rothschilds,goldman sachs,follow the money,They are the main problem,the thugs are paid off,this includes the UN,to the usuper,and the liberal socialist,and the traitors backing this usuper.

  46. stand up and fight   Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 9:06 AM

    Why is everyone talking about the birt certificate?What makes Obama an illegle commander in chief is the fact his father was never a citizen of this country.Imagine if Obamas father was Osama Bin Ladin would you still think Obama was still worthy to be commader in chief of our military?What if Obamas father was Putin would that be ok too?Forget about the birth certificate already.

  47. Paula   Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 9:03 AM

    I agree. It should be investigated, for sure, because it sure looks dirty. I hope Lt. Col. Lakin and his family realize this and speak up concerning this miscarriage of justice.

  48. sky   Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 8:53 AM

    Dont forget Soros

  49. Pixel Patriot   Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 6:21 AM

    CDR Kerchner,

    You are a true American HERO and I would like to say thank you for your service to the country and all Americans can take great pride in your unrelenting dedication and support for the Constitution and the God given liberties it represents.

    THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL

    When you walk down the path to the hallowed Vietnam Memorial, there you stand face to face with an undeniable truth. The scope and dimension of the price that has been paid for the cause of Freedom and Liberty around the world is undeniable. And it is personal. Very personal. From a distance you might be disconcerted or disconnected. But when you are there, names speak. The names have a voice. The voice has a cause. That cause is us. It is who we are as a nation.

    Now, you may not want to admit it but the Founding Fathers have given us a chisel. Two walls are being erected right now. The names are for those that stood up for TRUTH.

    “We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” — Thomas Jefferson

  50. Daniel Cutulla   Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 3:44 AM

    Technically yes, but de facto that wouldn’t matter. If someone illegally threw you behind bars and then (somebody else) let you out again, would you (have to) stay? No.

  51. Alicia Fitzpatrick   Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 12:03 AM

    Thank you, Sharon for this excellent interview with Cmd. Kerchner. I had to read this more than once to absorb as much as I could. I felt sick at each reading. Terry Lakin was betrayed and horribly abused by his lawyer. Neil Puckett used a torture tactic by showing him his family, which Terry wasn’t able to prepare himself for. It has dawned on me that we are in conflict with a mindset that has so rapidly and insidiously spread its tentacles that we are now completely engulfed and seemingly paralyzed by it. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has become the all-encompassing slogan of this regime. There is an ongoing undercurrent of fear I can FEEL and SEE in people. My heart goes out to Terry and his family. War cannot be fought with your family at your side. It is apparent that in order to combat this mindset, I will have to adopt a mindset of my own, which Patrick Henry also arrived at. “Give me Liberty or give me death.”

  52. Sgt. James Pepper   Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 8:58 PM

    Just a question for you sir, as someone who has followed this with a great deal of interest, how can any order to vacate the sentence of LTC Lakin be accepted as lawful to undo this? If, as we hope a de facto officer does amend it wouldn’t that be just as invalid at the chain of orders that landed this patriot in jail?

  53. California Birther/Dualer/Doubter   Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 7:21 PM

    Kudos to Sharon for a most revealing interview. No doubt the fix was in, with Lt. Col. Lakin being betrayed by his own attorney, for God’s sake. I emailed the scumbag and let him have it, and encourage others to do the same by going here: http://www.puckettfaraj.com/contact-us/

    I also wrote my congressman about this article, which I will be disseminating far and wide to family, friends and fellow bloggers. It’s clear that we have reached a crucial moment in this nation’s history, and those who carried out this illegal takeover of the presidency or were complicit with it are going to be taught one helluva lesson that they do not screw around with the Constitution.

  54. ch   Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 6:46 PM

    Kerchner and Lakin are unbelievable….what heroic men….I hope there is a platoon of military who go en masse to meet with Congress and require an investigation into a military judge who does not know the president is the commander, and a military doctor who is upholding his oath, and is ignored by all normal channels, and the imprisoned. Peaceful but in a large group, in their parade dress.

    God protect us all….the Truth always wins. This is such a wonderful article of a very painful situation. I wish Apuzzo and Kerchner could have been the lawyers.

  55. A pen   Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 6:26 PM

    You’re absolutely right! Twice I’ve been shafted by the gov and twice I had to out fox them simply because there is no way you can get justice from anything so obscenely corrupt. It has been every man for himself for the 30 years I’ve been intimately involved with that criminal enterprise. You’re not safe anywhere in this country anymore. I was told to never ever volunteer because once your name is know to an authority you are on a list of possibles. If a scapegoat is needed, it’s a spin of the mental roulette wheel and you’re it. LTC Lakin volunteered.

    The gov is so far beyond legit that people are grabbing at straws trying to feel good about doing something, anything. Unfortunately the answer is what most dread and the longer it is put off the worse it is going to get.

  56. PorkRoll   Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 4:36 PM

    The question now is: Was Neil Puckett paid off to humiliate and crush Terry Lakin and belittle his stand for the Constitution against the usurper? My spidey senses say yes, a deal was struck. It sounds like Puckett fled the court-room after doing his dirty work, too ashamed to face his victim.

    Deal or no deal, what a profound disgrace and miscarriage of justice.

  57. m02   Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 4:19 PM

    Cdr. Kerchner and Sharon deserve a lot of praise for getting these facts of the trial in print. The one overriding issue which is common to Col. Lakin, Cdr. Fritzpatrick, Darren Huff, and other cases is the lack of organization among those fighting for our Constitutional rights. Cdr. Kerchner makes the point of how miraculous it was that he and Lakin should meet, and perhaps it was; however, why didn’t they meet before?

    What is it that prevented them from making contact previously? Why is it that Constitutionalists have not built a support network? Why is there no central legal support resource center when it is so obvious it is needed? This fragmentation and lack of organization is killing us and getting good men thrown in jail.

    And if you do finally start putting a network in place, the number one priority is vetting. Lakin’s case is proof positive of this; he was taken in and blind sided by that phony Mr. ‘I’m a retired General Big-Shot Patriot’ Vallely into dropping legal counsel that was definitely on his side, and went with a paid off scum bag who set him up and then dumped him. This wasn’t a failed courtroom strategy by Puke-it, this was a deliberate assassination of a good man’s honor while on the witness stand – this was Vallely’s and Puke-it’s intention from day one. All you need to know about this ass Vallely is that he is joined at the hip with the government’s intelligence agencies – that means he is a paid off stooge because all government intel agencies operate for the sake of their elitist corporate masters. And all you need to know about Puke-it is to look at his picture and then look at pics of those dear folks from the Southern Poverty Law Center – they all came out of the same cess pool.

    Quit being naive and simple minded. Do not accept people at their word, lairs have no qualms about taking oaths. A man is known by his actions, and that is how you have to judge people, and you have to continually re-evaluate because some moles are very clever. Vallely is a fraud; that ass yale lawyer at Oath Keepers is a fraud; Glenn Beck and all wannabe media personalities are frauds… Col. Lakin is not a fraud; Col. West is the real deal; Cdr. Kerchner is real, and so is Sharon. We are fighting a civil war funded by huge foreign corporate interests, civil wars are ugly, get used to it and learn how to organize and fight back intellegently.

  58. Leo Patrick Haffey   Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 3:54 PM

    Thanks to you, Sharon, and Cdr Kerchner for shedding more light on LTC Lakin’s troubling case.

    The most disturbing aspect of this trial is the bad representation and humiliation of Lakin by his own lawyers.

    As soon as I read in WND that his lawyer had stated that he was guilty 11 days before trial and that Lind’s discovery rulings were correct, I saw that his “conviction was certain.”

    A good lawyer would have had him plead Nolo Contendre to the charges of disobeying orders of his immediate superiors and not guilty to missing movement. By pleading guilty to the charges of disobeying orders, he was doomed to conviction on the missing movement charge and his chances of appeal were seriously damaged.

    Despite the many failures of lawyers in 2009 and 2010, I still have faith that We the People will prevail when good, courageous lawyers bring strong cases that will not fail on political and standing issues.

  59. Bob Porrazzo   Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 3:49 PM

    Sharon, thank you for interviewing CDR Kerchner…AN OATHKEEPER!

  60. Angus Lang   Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 3:21 PM

    > Is it your opinion that LTC would have been better served by keeping Paul Jensen as his lawyer?

    Obviously not, given that CDR Kerchner points out several times Jensen is not a specialist in military law.

    > He should have obeyed all orders except the one that came down from Obama ordering him to be deployed overseas in combat.

    I find it interesting that CDR Kerchner is free to say his opinion that LTC Lakin’s orders were lawful *except* for the deployment to Afghanistan. My comments here stating the same have been blocked so far. :-( I think that sometimes, Sharon, you let your fear of every criticism having an Obot behind it get the better of you.

  61. Slick Sleeves   Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 3:09 PM

    Brilliant interview – as usual – Mrs. Rondeau. I came away with an even greater respect for Commander Kerchner, and his knowledge of the facts. Learned much that I did not know.

    Each time I read him describe how the politicians / lawyers distort, spin, and parse the meaning of words, I was reminded of what Confucius wrote about 300 B.C.”:
    “When words lose their meaning, men lose their Liberties.”

    As CDR Kerchner described his encounter with LTC Dwight Sullivan, esq., my mind went back to several instances where – in the Blogs – Thinkwell has eviserated that statist Obot with pure, simple logic. Watching Sullivan operate, I’ve concluded, “Boy, he is a tremendous parser – just like “Slick Willie’s”, “Is, IS” was. Wish I could “dance” like that.

    The way the Army has parsed LTC Lakin’s disobedience to Obama’s Fundamental Deployment Order – down into separate events, so that he could be charged with their individual violations – is a clear attempt to look away from the True, Real Problem. That is: An “ineligible” person can NOT properly serve as President / Commander-in-Chief and, therefore, can NOT issue ANY “lawful” orders to the military !!!

    I can just imagine LTC Sullivan, esq. parsing / defending Jodl at Nuremberg – or Eichmann at Tel Aviv – “Your Honors, My client did not murder any Jews. They died because SS Unterofficier Schultz opened the valves to the poisonous gas, which flowed into the Shower Rooms. My client was merely an innocent observer. Yes, my client signed certain orders. But, he was ‘just following orders’ – like any good soldier would.”

    TO THE CONGRESS of the UNITED STATES:

    J’accuse !!!
    An innocent patriotic officer has been wrongly imprisoned by a kangaroo military court. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT ???

    Treason runs rampant. The Republic is almost dead. A Marxist, America-hating, Traitorous Usurper is now seated at the Center of Power – where he is doing far more damage than Stalin ever could.

    Here is the sad part: He is aided and abetted by a mindless News Media, ignorant apathetic Electorate, two corrupt Political Parties, a gutless Judicial System, and a Military that is more concerned with their pensions – than with their Solemn Oath to the Constitution.

    As a Sovereign Citizen, I am ashamed and disgusted.

    I pray that after LTC Lakin is finally freed, he writes a book – that makes millions, and triggers the Retaking of America from the Utopians. It is too bad that he is such a peaceful, now “broken” person. But, so once was Ghandi. BEWARE.

  62. Stock   Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 2:37 PM

    Great article-remember that SR511 issued from the McCain Senate investigation already serves to define “natural born citizen”-it doesnt need any other source-the Dems cant run away from what they themselves wrote and the testimony from which it was derived. A “complete” investigation is all that remains to be done-for Obama this time.

  63. Leo Patrick Haffey   Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 2:29 PM

    Thanks to you, Sharon, and Cdr. Kerchner for publishing this account. It sheds new light of this troubling and perplexing case.

    The most disturbing aspect of LTC Lakin’s case is that he was so badly represented, dishonored and humiliated by his own lawyers.

    As soon as I read the WND article about his lawyer annonuncing that Lakin was guilty 11 days before trial and stating that Lind’s discovery rulings were correct, I saw Lakin’s “conviction was certain.”

    A good lawyer would have advised Lakin to plead Nolo Contendere to the charges of disobeying orders of his immediate superior officers and not guilty to the missing movement charge. He would very likely have gotten the same sentence of 6 months, but he would have had a fighting chance of acquittal on the missing movement charge.

    By pleading guilty to the charges of disobeying orders, he was doomed to a conviction on the missing movement charge and he severely damaged his chances for an appeal on all of his convictions.

    Despite the many failures of eligibility lawyers in 2009 and 2010, I still have faith that We the People will prevail when good, courageous lawyers bring strong cases that do not fail on political and standing issues.

    http://standupamericaus.com/our-privilege-our-right-and-our-duty-civilian-grand-jury:33320

  64. Tom Arnold   Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 1:11 PM

    Great stuff, Mrs Rondeau and CDR Kerchner. I am so happy, CDR Kerchner, that you met Lt Col Lakin. Thanks for sharing your experience with us. I’m a pretty “hardened” senior citizen, Army vet, retired law enforcement officer, and downtrodden yet unashamed “birther,” but the whole thing almost makes me want to cry.

  65. Navy Pilot   Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 1:10 PM

    Thank you CDR Kirchner for being a PATRIOT. I too expect Terry Lakin to be exonerated when the truth comes out. I believe that the activity of all those involved with the sham Court Martial should be held accountable both civily and criminally. We will see if we have any true patriots after Jan 5. If Horst had any sense at all, he would hold the CM findings in abeyance until it can be proven that Col Lakin was either right or wrong about Obama.

  66. Larry Brian Radka   Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 12:51 PM

    This is a superb account Commander Kerchner that satisfies some of our disappointment! I will place a picture link to this article on my http://einhornpress.com/ and http://ancientskyscraper.com sites asap. The truth will eventually win!

  67. Joe Maine   Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 12:47 PM

    This whole Abercrombie thing is just utterly nonsensical to me — I love it! What possible advantage, prestige, or acclaim does Neil have to gain by bringing the transparency regarding the Obama birth cert back to life? What a stupid move! They’ve totally quashed everything and the story is essentially a non-story (in that you can’t follow it up) and this guy goes out of his way to bring it back to light? Then the Chris Matthews interview?

    There is only one explanation! These guys are mad at Obama. Why else would they risk embarrassing him further having been his true believers up to this point?

    Let’s face it, we can’t do anything, I’m sad to say, but what a crazy turn. His own have to be turning on him now. The story was finished, it was buried, he was untouchable. Now Neil Abercrombie wants to bring it back? Very very odd.

    I’m surprised you guys aren’t covering this here. Sorry I had to ask on a Kerchner interview thread.

  68. Angus Lang   Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 12:36 PM

    > Did you ever see the movie “Four Metal Jacket?”

    It’s “Full Metal Jacket”, Sharon. Impressive movie, BTW.
    ——————–
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Thank you. As everyone knows, I don’t watch movies!

  69. sky   Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 12:34 PM

    friendsofliberty.ning.com the home of modern american patriots artical, The recipe to save america

  70. michaelsr   Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 12:05 PM

    I am aware that this is after-the-fact. However, if, as CDR Kerchner believes, LTC Lakin was court-martialed under false or incorrect pretenses, would he not be immediately eligible for, at a minimum, a retrial? The basis for my question is CDR Kerchner’s belief that LTC Lakin was tried based on the enlisted oath and not the officer’s oath.

    In my opinion, this point is sufficiently significant that there ought to be more of a collective ‘stink’ raised over the prosecutorial misconduct or error in LTC Lakin’s court-martial. As the CDR pointed out, LTC Lakin’s sentence could be altered or overturned. I believe this is a good enough reason for, as I said, LTC Lakin’s chain of command to grant, at least, a retrial.

  71. sky   Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 11:54 AM

    va18.2-482 constitutional reset,

  72. Harry H   Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 11:48 AM

    Thanks for this informative interview with a national hero. Charles Kerchner’s courage and persistence are inspiring, and I hope he is right about the truth coming out eventually. Trouble is, every day Obama remains in office validates his fraudulent tenure. The naked emperor keeps getting away with his criminal fraud, which has been and continues to be aided and abetted by the legislative and judicial brances and the military.

    I disagree with CDR Kerchner on one point: I believe Col. Lakin was correct in refusing to report for “counseling.” Just as Lakin’s snake of a defense attorney attacked his mental competence by focusing on Lakin’s supposedly abnomal “obsession” with the Constitution, the Army’s “counseling” session would probably have resulted in Lakin being diagnosed as mentally unstable, unbalanced, etc., which would have paved the way to a psych ward a la standard procedure in the former Soviet Union. As Kerchner himself says in the interview above, “. . .if we point to the Constitution, then we are ‘nutcase, boneheaded constitutionalists…birthers, crazy, fringe.’ ” I believe that the Army’s first choice was to discredit Lakin as loony and that Lakin was absolutely right to avoid that trap.

  73. Paula   Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM

    Cdr Kerchner,

    I so appreciate your stand for the Constitution and your observations on the trial. It helped me immensely to know that Lt. Col. Lakin was ambushed. I was one questioning and confused as to what happened, but now I see, and I am so glad to know that you and Lt. Col. Lakin’s paths crossed and you and others were there to give your support. I had thought that Lakin’s attorney must’ve pulled some dirty tricks, and it appears that Lt. Col. Lakin was railroaded. I pray that he will find justice in the here and now. God bless all of you standing for the truth and what is right. May God see to it that our nation’s constitutional republic stands until He returns to take His Body, the Church, off of the earth; this is my prayer.

  74. 68Truthseeker   Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 11:08 AM

    Lt. Col. Terry Lakin Court Martial : Eyewitness Speaks Out
    U.S. Naval Commander Charles F. Kerchner Jr. (Ret.) discusses his eyewitness account while attending the court martial of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBNwwSiZU0Q

  75. Thomas F. Babson   Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 11:06 AM

    Cdr. Kerchner — Is it your opinion that LTC would have been better served by keeping Paul Jensen as his lawyer? I was under the impression that Jensen was ditched in favor of Puckett for just the reason you mentioned with disfavor — that Lakin decided that, for his own sake and the sake of his family, he would do what he had to do to minimize his punishment.

    As you see it, a sentence of one year instead of six months would have been a reasonable sacrifice to make in order to maintain his principles, but it’s not your liberty on the line. Are you sure that LTC Lakin agrees with you?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.