From
"The Art of Trial Advocacy Faculty, The Judge Advocate General’s School, U. S. Army"
Lakin is not being afforded by the disingenuous "judge" Lind of 'full discovery to the maximum extent possible'.
Posted on 10/04/2010 11:30:46 AM PDT by Red Steel
The American Patriot Foundation is pleased to announce that LTC Lakin has repositioned his forces, has retained new legal counsel, and is extremely grateful that the Foundation will be dedicating the critical next few weeks before his planned court-martial on November 3-5, to focusing entirely on public affairs, strategic communications/messaging and coalition-building and that their support will continue seamlessly as the new attorney prepares for trial.
The website of the Foundation is being re-designed to reflect this new focus and emphasis. Contrary to the impression left by some blogs and internet commentary, LTC Lakin is consistent in continuing on the same path that he announced publicly six months ago when he released his first YouTube video-- and consistent with his military training, to continue to request assurance from Pentagon leadership that his military orders, including his deployment orders to Afghanistan, are legal-- authorized at the highest level by a Commander-in-Chief who is Constitutionally eligible, per Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. As a medical officer and not a lawyer or Constitutional scholar, LTC Lakin is not laying claim to be the sole arbiter of the President's Constitutionality in attempting to determine, without any genuine evidence to make such a determination, the President's "natural born" citizen status. The burden of proof rests solely on Barack Obama to demonstrate to the American people and to the U.S. Armed Forces that he commands, that he is lawfully serving in his current capacity as head of the Executive Branch of the federal government.
The Army prosecutors have made this determination of the Commander-in-Chief's eligibility under the Constitution impossible-- by denying discovery- and essentially denying LTC Lakin the customary due process rights that defendants in American courts enjoy when facing criminal charges, and in LTC Lakin's case, a jail sentence of several years at Fort Leavenworth prison.
The Foundation is pleased to continue to support LTC Lakin, a decorated and outstanding officer with 18 years of service in the Army, as he persists in his pursuit of the truth, the rule of law, and in support of his sworn oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Terry is gratified by the many people who have stayed in constant touch with him through the website and deeply appreciates their support, their guidance and suggestions, and their prayers.
Your posts are tired and old, and they certainly aren’t conservative.
Lift a finger for an actual Republican candidate, then come talk to me.
...the presumption under the UCMJ is that the orders were lawful... Sounds reasonable.
1. What amount of circumstantial evidence, if any, will shift that burden?
(Include here, a very long list of facts and documents, some of which have been intentionally altered or concealed.)
2. What other steps are available to a commissioned officer who wishes to honor his or her oath to defend the Constitution, but is prohibited from political activity?
The windmill may come crashing down on Obama's ineligible head. The people and the courts may grow a spine when the rats lose Congress.
I don’t care to waste my time.
founder-and-historian-david-ramsay-defines-natural-born-citizen-in-1789
That, is one great post!!
You need more substance than just posting contrary replies.
From
"The Art of Trial Advocacy Faculty, The Judge Advocate General’s School, U. S. Army"
Lakin is not being afforded by the disingenuous "judge" Lind of 'full discovery to the maximum extent possible'.
Had the very same conversation with my Pop's yesterday.
At first, he was lukewarm on the whole eligibility issue, now he's red (steel) hot on it!
Well, when you make a positive assertion, the burden of proof is on the one who makes the assertion, not on the one who denies it. Two of the three of your assertions were positive:
1) That there are numerous credible accounts of him being born in Kenya. I deny this. Can you prove it?
2) That SCOTUS has ruled him to be ineligible. I also deny this and challange you to prove it.
As to your negative assertion, that there is no legal proof he was born in Hawaii, I say there is, and I can prove it. Namely, Hawaii's vital records show he was born in Hawaii, and Hawaii's director of public health has confirmed it. Vital records are legal proof in any court.p>
There’s no LEGAL proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. Fukino’s statement is hearsay and has not been shown to be based on legal documentation, particularly not in a court of law. There’s been no vital record publicly released that states Obama was born in Hawaii. All we have are some unconfirmed jpgs and a ambiguous statements from the HI DOH not sworn before a court.
Obama’s wife said Kenya was his home country, two accounts from Kenya politicians have said he was born in Kenya, and at least a couple of newspaper/internet accounts have said he is Kenyan-born. As far as credibility, we don’t have any reason to believe any of these people were lying, unlike Fukino who has refused to say Obama’s alleged COLB is genuine despite having statutory authority.
The SCOTUS definition of NBC excludes Obama as it pertains only to children born in the country of citizen parents. Obama can’t prove he was born in Hawaii and we know that one of his parents is a foreign national, which by definition, excludes him from being an NBC.
Boo hoo I’ll tell O bummer on you—Boo Hoo I’ll tell O Bummer
it’s true and you will be Boo Hooing too. you have a right to your own dellusions as do we all.
The ability of the human mind to fixate on an idea or perspective to the exclusion of any and all conflicting information is something to be both marveled at and horrified by.
They waste all of our time if nothing more than having to scroll past them.
A hardcopy of the document would be legal evidence in court. Likewise, if Fukino testified under oath that his vital records show birth in Hawaii, it would be legal proof.
And no, it isn't hearsay. Go look it up.
Obama’s wife said Kenya was his home country,
Which isn't the same thing as saying he was born there.
two accounts from Kenya politicians have said he was born in Kenya,
Yes, two MP's who never met either Obama or any members of his family, and have no special knowledge of his birth, made claims about it. That's not an "account."
and at least a couple of newspaper/internet accounts have said he is Kenyan-born.
Did they cite a source? Did they have any proof? Just because some hack journalist makes a claim doesn't make it a credible account.
The SCOTUS definition of NBC excludes Obama as it pertains only to children born in the country of citizen parents.
That is simply not true.
The answer to question 1 is that generally, to overcome a presumption, clear and convincing evidence must be presented. And on cursory review of my MCM, lawfulness is inferred, not presumed, but the example they give is of “patently illegal” orders, such as orders to commit a crime. Questioning the credentials of somebody at least 5 levels of command above the person disobeying the order is a steep hill to climb and the person questioning it is entitled to no evidentiary presumption at all except the presumption of innocence of disobeying the order. He freely admits he disobeyed the order.
Colonel, USAFR
As MissTickly reminded us on another thread this morning, aside from the NBC he still hasn’t proven he has, as per the US Constitution, “attained to the Age of thirty-five Years.”
Larkin should pursue that avenue as well. Both the NBC and age will have to bring out the BC if he is, by military law, allowed discovery.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2601021/posts?page=57#57
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.