The Oath of office for an Officer in the Army:
I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.
It says nothing about obeying orders.
Thats because ALL officers have the ability to question orders for CONSTITUTIONALITY!
American Grand Jury comment on same subject – http://americangrandjury.org/battle-scarred-judge-says-lakin-decision-ignores-constitution#comments:
In the Judge’s decision excluding evidence for “embarrassing” reasons there is ample latitude for an appeal. In Courts-Martial: “The ‘sole test’ for admissibility is whether the evidence of the misconduct is offered for some purpose other than to demonstrate the accused’s predisposition to crime and therefore to suggest that the factfinder infer that he is guilty, as charged, because he is predisposed to commit similar offenses. It is unnecessary that relevant evidence fit snugly into a pigeon hole provided by Military Rules of Evidence. 404(b). United States v. Castillo, 29 M.J. 145, 150 (C.M.A. 1989).” Thus, in my view, the Judge has purposely set up for an appeal. Colonel Lakin clearly has an exemplary Character and military record. The Judge’s exclusion of the ELIGIBILITY evidence fails to pass the “Sole Test” requirement in courts-martial and must be allowed. Indeed, the entire case hinges on whether or not the Commander in Chief is legitimate or a USURPER unqualified under our Constitution. Discovery of the ELIGIBILITY evidence is the only reason the distinguished military physician invited his own court-martial; he was unable to ascertain ELIGIBILITY because of demonstrated legal obfuscation and interference instituted by the attorneys representing the putative POTUS. Clearly Colonel Lakin is not predisposed to commit similar offenses with an unblemished 18+ year record and selection for O-6 prior to his invitation to Court-Martial.
One must ask the questions: “WHO HAS THE MOST TO GAIN BY AVOIDING DISCOVERY? WHY HAS OVER $2,000,000.00 BEEN SPENT ON LEGAL DELAY WHEN $12.00 FOR A LEGITIMATE BIRTH CERTIFICATE WOULD ANSWER ALL ELIGIBILITY QUESTIONS? WHO HAS THE BETTER CHARACTER: AN UNBLEMISHED RECORD MILITARY PHYSICIAN ONLY SEEKING THE TRUTH, OR AN OCCUPIER OF THE OVAL OFFICE WHOSE EVERY ACTION IS ILLEGITIMATE IF HE IS A USURPER? WHO ARE THE PUPPETEERS PULLING THE STRINGS OF A “PUPPET PRESIDENT” WHO IS CLEARLY PERFORMING TO THE CONTROLLER’S WISHES INSTEAD OF ACTING IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF U. S. CITIZENS?”
Eldon E. Bell, M.D. (Colonel US Army Retired) Says:
September 4th, 2010 at 10:54 am
By Dr. Theo on September 4th, 2010
Army Col. Denise R. Lind ruled last week that LTC Terry Lakin, MC “will be denied access to any of Obama’s records as well as any testimony from those who may have access to the records.” Lakin, a career officer and medical doctor has refused orders for a second deployment to Afghanistan on the grounds that he must be convinced that such orders are lawful, specifically that the Commander in Chief has the Constitutional eligibility to command the military.
Vodpod videos no longer available.
Once more, the issue of Obama’s birth and citizenship are being questioned by a career military officer. In an affidavit in Lakin’s defense retired Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney stated that Lakin’s access to documents and testimony relating to Obama’s claimed citizenship are essential to his defense and to the integrity of the military chain of command.
McInerney is quoted by WorldNetDaily on Thursday
as saying “There can be no question that it is absolutely essential to good order and discipline in the military that there be no break in the unified chain of command, from the lowliest E-1 up to and including the commander in chief who is under the Constitution, the president of the United States. As military officers, we owe our ultimate loyalty not to superior officers or even to the president, but rather, to the Constitution.”
Article 92 of the UCMJ states that “A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.” A lawful order can only come from a superior that has the Constitutional authority to issue it. The Oath of Enlistment, taken by every memeber of the armed services from the lowliest private to the highest ranking officers makes clear that one’s duty is to the Constitution above all else.
Maryland- September 2nd – Fort Meade – Three-Star General Files Sworn Affidavit Supporting LTC Lakin’s Case – Retired Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney has supplied an affidavit in support of Army Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin, who faces trial on October 13-15.
A birth certificate from Hawaii that IS legitimate: