LTC LAKIN'S ART.32 HEARING wAIVED
Results 1 to 2 of 2

LTC LAKIN'S ART.32 HEARING wAIVED

This is a discussion on LTC LAKIN'S ART.32 HEARING wAIVED within the Politics forums, part of the Main Category category; AT FIRST I DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE REASONS AND WHYS OF WAIVING THE ARTICLE 32 HEARING. NOW IT IS CLEAR. ...

  1. #1
    festus's Avatar
    festus is offline God Bless Our Troops!!!
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    3,080

    Exclamation LTC LAKIN'S ART.32 HEARING wAIVED

    AT FIRST I DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE REASONS AND WHYS OF WAIVING THE ARTICLE 32 HEARING. NOW IT IS CLEAR. IF THIS GOES TO GENERAL COURTS MARTIAL...AND IT WILL...THEN THE MILITARY HAS TO INVESTIGATE UNDER THE MANUAL FOR COURTS MARTIAL. CIVILIAN COURTS CAN NOT AND WILL NOT DO WHAT MILITARY COURTS DO. I HUMBLY ASK EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU TO PRAY FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE TO PREVAIL AND BE PREPARED FOR WHAT COMES AFTER NO MATTER WHAT THAT MAY BE. THIS INTERVIEW SPELLS OUT WHY OUR COURTS ARE NOT EFFECTIVE AND WHEN IT HAPPENED IN HISTORY. I WOULD ALSO KINDLY ASK THAT YOU READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS ARTICLE BEFORE COMMENTING. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE RED LETTERS AND ALL CAPS BUT I DID NOT WANT MY WORDS CONFUSED WITH THE WORDS OF THE ARTICLE.

    Lt. Col. Lakin waives Article 32 Hearing

    (The Post & Email)
    Lt. Col. Lakin waives Article 32 Hearing | Republic Broadcasting Network
    Army flight surgeon Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin has waived a preliminary, or Article 32, hearing which had been scheduled for this Friday, June 11, 2010 at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, DC.

    According to the press release of June 9, 2010, Lakin waived the hearing because the Army had “made it impossible” for him to adequately defend himself. Information which Lakin had requested for his defense had included records from the Hawaii Health Department which purportedly has Obama’s birth information; the testimony of Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Health Department, school and college admission records, and financial aid information. He had also asked that Obama testify. His requests were denied by Lt. Col. Daniel J. Driscoll, Investigating Officer.

    A video has been released wherein Lt. Col. Lakin describes what he expects to happen next and what he sees as Obama’s questionable documentation released on the internet during the 2008 presidential campaign.

    Cody Robert Judy, candidate for U.S. Senate from Utah and former presidential candidate, has filed an Amicus Curiae brief with the U.S. Army on behalf of Lt. Col. Lakin.

    When The Post & Email asked Tim Harrington, former Marine and author of the Citizens’ Tsunami blog, if the new development was favorable or unfavorable to Lakin’s case, he answered:

    Yes. By waiving the (Article) 32, it brings it right into the court-martial atmosphere. It’s the perfect way to do it. What we put up at The Jaghunter and I’m getting ready to put up on Citizens’ Tsunami will show you all of the government agencies who came on as soon as that went up, because they cannot get around it.

    The only standing the American people have right now, with the amount of time we’ve spent in the War Articles, or the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice), is the court martial. The only change of the War Articles was the name in 1950. The interesting part of 1949, going into 1950, brings us back to 1881. In 1881, in the War Articles, they came up with a new idea called the Rules of Procedure. So if you take what’s happened and you take the changes of what they’ve inflicted on the citizens’ common-law courts of 1946, which actually took the power of the individual in the Grand Jury process (because that’s where the power lies; it does not lie in the judge, the court, or the prosecutor). The Constitution guarantees you two protections: a grand jury and a petit jury. Nobody can be indicted without the permission of a grand jury. They tried to use an Article 32 as if it were a grand jury process. It is not. It’s not even connected in any shape, manner or form to the Constitution or the Judiciary of the United States.

    But by making up the rules that they came up with in 1946, they took away the citizen oversight of any criminal activities at the federal or state level. If a case were brought in front of a grand jury, and through the process of that grand jury, they found other events that were criminal, they had the right to investigate that and place a presentment, or indictment, on those events. That’s why they were called a “runaway grand jury.”

    In 1946, they came up with the Rules of Procedure, whether they’re criminal rules of procedure or civil rules of procedure, which the states afterward adopted in their own ways through their own state legislation. They physically took away your standing, as you keep hearing from everyone, because of their rules. Basically, you have been under a form of martial law by your own judiciary since 1946. Your common-law court under the Constitution ceased to exist.

    The Post & Email then asked: However, that could not trump the Constitution, could it?

    Mr. Harrington replied:

    It doesn’t change the Constitution at all. What it did was take your rights, your protection (your rights come from your protection; the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are your protection; they’re not your rights) as a citizen of the United States, whether you’re naturalized or natural born, it doesn’t matter; those are your protections. So what they did was usurp your constitutional protections by inserting Rules of Procedure. And that’s why when the American Grand Jury made those presentments and a gentleman named Mack Ellis brought them into the Circuit Court in DC, Judge Lamberth came back with an opinion and said, “You’re absolutely correct. Under the First Amendment you have the right to assemble, do this, and make a presentment. But under the Rules of Procedure which are now in place, I don’t have to recognize that.”

    Now you have a federal judge on record telling you, the people, that he no longer has to listen to you because they came up with their own rules, just like the Uniform Code of Military Justice and War Articles.

    The Post & Email: As if that trumps the Constitution?

    Mr. Harrington: That’s exactly how they’ve gotten away with it since 1946. As we both know, you can’t pencil in a change to the Fifth Amendment without a ratification or a constitutional convention. They just did it, and for 46 years, it has grown to where it is today. The court system is operating under Admiralty Law, international law; there’s no doubt about that. I’m not big into the flag deal, but it makes sense, because in 1959, all of a sudden you had military flags in all public, federal and state institutions.

    The Post & Email: Was that done purposely?

    Mr. Harrington: Yes, because you’re in an Admiralty Law environment. If Obama has done anything, he has at least gotten the country to wake up to what they’ve lost to date for not paying attention for the last 65 years.

    The Post & Email: Which is longer than many of us have been alive.

    Mr. Harrington: Exactly. But this Article 32 or this court martial is the only standing that the American people have today to get the answers which 80% of the country wants.

    The Post & Email: Because of those rules that were put into place in 1946?

    Mr. Harrington: No, the rules in 1946 go to the civilian judiciary, and that is where they took away your standing. The only place you have standing right now in this situation is in a military court martial, because the military cannot operate or exist without a legitimate commander-in-chief. They cannot even convene this court martial. Every court martial since the day this man (Obama) was inaugurated revolves around the commander-in-chief. They will argue that the system stands on itself; it does not. The only power Congress has, especially when this idiot reviewing officer who said it’s a constitutional problem and not the military’s problem – the military can’t make those statements unless they know that their orders are lawful.

    The Post & Email: Do you think Investigating Officer Daniel Driscoll has checked to see if Obama is a legitimate commander-in-chief?

    Mr. Harrington: It doesn’t matter. It’s not his right to assume; it’s no one’s right to assume. This goes directly to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. With the amount of questions that are there about the man’s background and whether or not he’s legitimate, the military is obligated to make sure he is. Otherwise, there has not been a lawful order given to the military since the January 20, 2009 inauguration.

    The Post & Email: Why has Driscoll issued an opinion which says that Lakin can have certain pieces of the information he requested for his defense but not all of it?

    Mr. Harrington: Because he’s an idiot. Let me give you an example. Walt and I have been involved in some other military cases such as the Iron Triangle. Sergeant Hutchins is sitting in a brig at Camp Pendleton today as you and I are speaking. On April 22, an en banc appellate jury, which is all nine judges, overturned his conviction. So on April 22, this young sergeant became an innocent man. But today he’s still in solitary confinement in Camp Pendleton.

    The Post & Email: Why is that?

    Mr. Harrington: Because they can’t afford to let him out. The bigger question is, “Why is he behind bars?” This is a kid who has no conviction any more, no charges, no nothing, but he is still, in fact, incarcerated. It’s called “preventive detention.”

    The Post & Email: Is there any chance he will be released?

    Mr. Harrington: There’s a hearing on Monday on whether they will let him out. But the thing is, as you and I are talking, there’s no reason to have that hearing to make that decision because there are no charges against him to keep him there. They’re going to bring it to COMA (Court of Military Appeals) and go in front of COMA and argue, but they have no merit to argue in front of COMA to overturn the appellate process because what was done to him was egregious, according to the UCMJ. His defense counsel was released without notification to the defendant, and he was left without an attorney. And their only other avenue, which they should have done immediately, as far as the JAG Corps, was to bring him back, if he was guilty, on the original charges on which they convicted him. They cannot add anything; they have to bring him back on the exact same charges. The problem there is that they can’t, because the military, especially the Marine Corps, the Department of Defense, and the media will be exposed. What does happen is that the defense gets to bring in all the stuff we’ve dug up in four years of what has been done and withheld and enter it into evidence. They can’t afford to have that happen.

    The Post & Email: So what is going on with the military?

    Mr. Harrington: The military is completely corrupt at the leadership level. Another Marine who does a lot of writing came up with a description, and it made sense: You have two parts of the military: You have the band of brothers, who are your heavy lifters, your young men and women on the lower end of the food chain and their families. That is the backbone of the military. Then you have the corporation, and the corporation is in bed with what is going on in DC today. They turned their heads away from the Constitution years ago.

    The Post & Email: Before Obama?

    Mr. Harrington: Way before Obama. The military complex is nothing about power and money; the military and the JAG Corps is the biggest law firm in the world. What do you need that for when you have the Department of Justice? In the changes of 1950 in the UCMJ, the only thing that was supposed to happen at that point, besides just changing the name, was to have officers of the court, attorneys who had graduated and had state licenses, to be defenders and prosecutors. The other major change was instead of having just any old officer as a reviewing officer, you actually had appointed officers and judges by the name, but only appointed by the Department of Defense. That’s no judge. It’s an attainted system.

    Now ask yourself, on a state license, to be an officer of the court as an attorney, how do you then go in the military and all of a sudden become a federal attorney? The military, right now, is in every aspect of law there is: international law, contract law; they’re in your neighborhoods; they’re in civilian law. Then what is the DOJ for? Either you have this law firm or you have that law firm. The problem is that they’re combined, and that’s why we kept saying that the military system is coming into the citizenry. You couldn’t have Northcom; you couldn’t have what went on in Samson, AL; you can’t have a lot of the things that you see going on on a daily basis that people just take for granted. Your Constitution doesn’t exist.

    The Post & Email: Has Obama done away with it?

    Mr. Harrington: Obama is the force and function to bring this all to the front burner. Because of what’s happened, and if, in fact, by not producing anything in 15 or 16 months, the government has already shown its guilt. If in fact anything could have been produced to substantiate Obama’s birth in Hawaii, it could have been done in ten minutes. And what you have going on here is a major meltdown of the entire system, because it’s corrupt not just at the federal level; you’re corrupted all the way to the state level. Your state attorneys general, elections commissions and electoral colleges are all responsible for vetting the person who’s on the ballot, so they all have become co-conspirators if, in fact, he’s illegitimate, in the act of treason.

    The Post & Email: All of those entities said they weren’t responsible or that it was a non-issue.

    Mr. Harrington: It’s also bigger than that, because if you go back to Philip Berg’s case in Washington, DC, Judge Robertson said that Obama had been vetted by having been “twittered and blogged.” The most important part of that is in his opinion to Berg, he said that Berg did not meet the requirements prior to the president taking office. That meant that he didn’t contact his attorney general to make a complaint; he didn’t go to the Elections Commission, and he didn’t contact the Electoral College to make a complaint there. Everyone got into it after the election had taken place.

    Commander Fitzpatrick and I have the paperwork to show that months prior to that decision, every one of those things had been done in a timely manner. Walter got a hold of the state elections commission in Tennessee; he contacted the attorney general; we have that all on record as well as the receipts for certified mail.

    The Post & Email: And they didn’t do anything?

    Mr. Harrington: All the way to **** Cheney. We have the date of November 14 when **** Cheney’s office signed for that letter prior to when Cheney, as president of the Senate, convened the Congress to count the electoral college votes.

    The Post & Email: And Cheney failed to ask for objections. According to the Constitution, he was supposed to have asked, “Are there any dissenters?”

    Mr. Harrington: Exactly. You have had a coup in Washington for power. That’s the only explanation. And through the time of these last three presidents, if you look at the extensions of the Insurrection Act and all the things that have been put in place through Homeland Security and the powers given to Homeland Security, Northcom, all these executive orders, etc. – the only way you get away with an executive order without protest after 30 days in Congress is if we are at war on our own soil. We’re not at war. The only way for a court martial or military tribunal to take place is if we were at war. The only legitimate time was during President Lincoln’s time in office, when martial law was declared.

    The Post & Email: Was that unconstitutional?

    Mr. Harrington: Some say it is, but it was not. It was constitutional. It was the only time in United States history that state and federal courts couldn’t be open. The North was fighting the South. So as far as a legitimate time of martial law, it had to happen, because it was the only time in our country when we were at war with ourselves. The only other time I know of when martial law was implemented was during the earthquakes in the 1920s in California. You had martial law during Hurricane Katrina, but nobody ever actually declared it.

    The Post & Email: If Obama declared martial law, would the military follow the order?

    Mr. Harrington: That’s why Northcom is set up; they’re already prepared to do that. The first reports which came out on Northcom were talking about 20,000 troops. The problem is that 20,000 combat troops are rotating in and out of theater. Why are they now up to over 80,000?

    When you get into police-state activities, just go back to the G-20 meetings in Pittsburgh. Look at the pictures to see what went on at the G-20. Look at all these new federalized agents. Every town everywhere in the United States has at least one or two federalized officers. It’s out of control, and it’s because the government has usurped its powers. If the Constitution was in place, the health bill couldn’t go through. People say that we have no way of removing these people. The answer is, “Yes, you do.” The Constitution shows you a bill of attainder is, in fact, for sitting representatives for one crime for which they can held accountable federally: the AIG bailout. Remember that Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the whole crew wanted to single out the people who got the bonuses and tax 98% of that back to the federal government. That’s a bill of attainder. They’re being put upon without the permission of a jury. Now, not only is that an act of attainder (and that’s exactly why the Senate didn’t pick it up), it doesn’t matter whether it became law or not. You have a voting record, and you have a bill that was presented. So you have all the ayes and all the nays there, but all of them combined allowed it to happen. That is a bill of attainder.

    The criminals in command are aligned with the criminals in government. By allowing a usurper to ascend to the office of president, there is no control over the armies and navies. We are in a constitutional crisis and national security crisis at the same time.

    Mr. Harrington: If, in fact, these folks don’t use this one chance I see they have with the military and force the military to abide by its own rules and prove there are lawful orders…think how terrible this is: if, in fact, it comes out somewhere down the road that this man is not eligible (and I could care less about his birth certificate; this is a constitutional crisis, and they can hide behind any name they want), every one of our young men and women in uniform, which is the highest part of our citizenry, is a combatant on somebody else’s soil.

    Now who holds them accountable? The international court which Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are trying to bring in to the United States? How do you even talk about the UN and the International Court as long as the U.S. Constitution is in existence? This has been an attack on the Constitution for well over 100 years. But now they’re at a point where they have taken your standing as a United States citizen away from you.

    Your only stand right now for the truth is the patriotism of Lt. Col. Lakin. You can forceably make the military, through the internet and every avenue we have to make people understand it is their only standing to get an answer.

    The Post & Email: So do you feel that the waiver of the Article 32 hearing is a good thing?

    Mr. Harrington: Absolutely, because the onus goes back on the government. If in fact his defense is worth their salt, the first question that would be asked that day to the reviewing officer, “Do you believe, sir, that this is a lawful assembly because your commander-in-chief is legitimate?” He has to answer “yes.”

    The Post & Email: The defense attorney would have to ask that, correct?

    Mr. Harrington: Absolutely, on the record. Once that is stated, then the government has to back and prove that legitimacy. End of discussion.

    The Post & Email: By waiving the Article 32, doesn’t that give the government an “out,” because then it would just go to the next step?

    Mr. Harrington: Absolutely not. The next step is: how do they prosecute him? How do they prove that he denied an unlawful order? He is, in fact, in his actions, if they are lawful orders, guilty of “missing movement,” but he notified everyone in the chain of command as to what his intentions were and why, and nobody in the chain of command did anything to rectify the problem. And all that problem would have been was to prove the Commander-in-Chief was legitimate. So the chain of command going all the way into the Pentagon where he works, the Department of Defense, all the way to the White House, had been broken at that point.It is his lawful right under his officer’s oath to ask that question. He is obligated under that oath to ask that question. So is every officer and everybody serving in uniform today. That’s why it’s so important.

    The Post & Email: Is that why you said that this puts the onus back on the government?

    Mr. Harrington: Absolutely. The UCMJ is not a justice system; it’s a penal system. It does not work on law; it works on orders, and the only way the orders are lawful are through the Commander-in-Chief. Regarding Congress, it makes law; it doesn’t investigate whether or not the president is legally holding office. They don’t have that ability.

    The Post & Email: Even though the judges have said that it is up to the Congress to determine?

    Mr. Harrington: What they’re doing is passing the buck. If people want something to stand on, start bringing suits around this country to the federal judges and the state judges who have thrown these things out, and hold them accountable for not upholding the law, and instead of going after the judges in the states that are going to protect them, go after the bonding companies. Then courts will be shut down around this country. They wouldn’t be able to practice if the bonds were taken away.

    The Post & Email: Can anyone do that?

    Mr. Harrington: Anybody. Any American citizen can file a complaint anywhere in this country. That is your right.

    Getting back to Commander Fitzpatrick, we both realize that on March 17, 2009, Commander Fitzpatrick wrote and distributed a criminal complaint of treason. It’s the only criminal complaint. If you look at all the civil complaints, all of these folks have been doing one thing, and they have one thing in common: they are all smart attorneys, some brilliant; they know they can’t get the answer to remove Barack Obama in a civilian court. It can’t be done.

    The Post & Email: Then why are they filing the suits?

    Mr. Harrington: Exactly. What is their compensation? Their compensation is everybody donating money to them as they do it. And what it’s done is take attention away from the facts, because each time one is thrown out by a federal judge because you don’t have standing, the administration and everybody else can make fun of it and make it so that it is politically incorrect to talk about it. This is all part of the game.

    You have federal legislators, state legislators, all looking for amnesty when their only job and obligation and oath is to uphold federal law. There is no reason, and each state can do the same thing – they can file suits to remove these people around the country for failing to uphold state and federal law. If someone is an officer of the court and you know a crime is being committed, you are obligated to expose it or you become part and an accessory of a felony. What’s going on around the country? This is where everybody needs to focus. These are the tools that we’ve been trying to give people that have teeth in it to actually get something done.
    FESTUS
    IN OMNIA PARATUS

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,857

    Default

    An end run around the Constitution. So what they are trying to do to him is called "railroad"?

    "Since March 9, 1933, the United states has been in a state of national emergency. A majority of the people of the United States have their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (now 77 years) freedoms and governmental procedures, guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought forth by states of national emergency."
    Senate Report 93-549 (1973).
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •