Hearing Will Challenge Obama's Eligibility

On May 12, the American Patriot Foundation announced that there will be an Article 32 military hearing that may reveal whether President Barack Obama is a native-born citizen of the United States. The hearing is set for June 11, after Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin refused to deploy to Afghanistan “because the president refuses — even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary — to prove his eligibility under the Constitution to hold office.”

The American Patriot foundation operates the Safeguard Our Constitution website, which generated a great deal of support for the movement for Obama to provide documentation proving his eligibility to serve as President. Those involved in the movement have been dubbed “birthers”, a term that has generally been met with contempt by the mainstream media and Obama supporters.

However, Lakin’s staunch insistence that Obama is responsible for proving his eligibility has gained some notoriety, even prompting CNN to provide media attention to the movement on Anderson Cooper’s program. On the show, both Lakin and his attorney, Paul Rolf Jensen, presented a series of facts to legitimatize their concerns.

The “certification of live birth” found on the Internet, which purports to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii, has been dismissed as valid proof, as it is a “short-form” document, as opposed to the “long-form” document that lists the hospital and attending physician. “Short-form” documents are easily obtainable. In addition to Obama’s missing birth certificate, other documentation that has been concealed includes kindergarten, elementary, and secondary school records; college records; Harvard Law Review articles; passport; medical records; Illinois State Bar Association records; baptism records; and adoption records.

The constitutional language in question is tricky, as it states that the president of the United States must be a “natural born citizen,” though the term has been undefined. Some argue the term means that the president must be born in the United States to two parents that were also born in the United States. If that proves to be the case, Obama would be disqualified, since he has openly admitted that his father never was a U. S. citizen. However, much of the legal challenge of Obama’s eligibility rests upon the presumption that Obama was not even born in Hawaii, as he claims.

As a result of Lakin’s oppositional failure to report to duty, charges have been filed against him. According to Safeguard Our Constitution, the charges against Lakin are serious and can result in “years of hard labor in a penitentiary,” but Lakin refuses to rescind his demands, as he asserts that serving in a military operation under an ineligible president is illegal. It is Lakin’s hope that the charges against him will lead to the discovery of information to prove or disprove Obama’s legitimacy, which is his ultimate objective.

In the past, however, this has not proven to be the case. Attorney John Hemenway was threatened with sanctions by a federal judge when he attempted to challenge Obama’s presidency. Hemenway welcomed the threat, however, as he believed it would lead to a “discovery hearing,” which would necessitate the search for documentation proving Obama’s eligibility. At that point, the court rescinded its sanction threats.

Any deployment orders filed under Obama that were met by questions of his eligibility have been rescinded. World Net Daily columnist Vox Day writes that this behavior suggests “that the Pentagon generals are not entirely confident that they can demonstrate the legitimacy of their purported commander-in-chief.”

According to World Net Daily, “Obama’s actual response to those who question his eligibility to be president under the Constitution’s requirement that the U.S. president to be a ‘natural born citizen’ has been to dispatch both private and tax-funded attorneys to prevent anyone from gaining access to his documentation.”

Lakin joins the ranks of Army doctor Capt. Connie Rhodes and Army reservist Maj. Stefan Cook, both who have also questioned Obama’s legitimacy, but Lakin remains the first-active duty officer to raise issue.

Additionally, recent ABC polls reveal that tens of millions of Americans question Obama’s eligibility, including many who are in favor of Obama.

In addition to the controversy over Obama’s birth certificate, World Net Daily’s Jerome Corsi reports that “two independent investigations by two different investigators in two different states (using two different data sources) discovered that the Social Security number used by Barack Obama mysteriously coincides with Social Security numbers verified to have been issued by the state of Connecticut between 1977 and 1979, a full two years after Obama’s first, publicly-documented record of employment at a Hawaii Baskin-Robbins back in 1975.” If this is true, not only is President Obama guilty of illegally accepting the presidency, but of identity theft as well.

Joseph Farah, founder of the World Net Daily, has launched a full-fledged campaign questioning Obama’s presidential legitimacy. A petition has been circulated, generating 500,000 signatures from those demanding proof of Obama’s eligibility, while yard signs, bumper stickers, and billboards are popping up asking “Where’s the birth certificate?”

"There is no paper trail showing Obama to be Constitutionally eligible. "

The EXACT same (your words) "paper trail" that exists for GWB exists for Barack Obama.

Can you tell me when, where and to whom GWB provided certified copies of his birth certificate? I'll wait.

Barack Obama, just like George Bush, was elected by Electors in the Electoral College, and those results were certified without objection by the Senate, presided over by the President of the Senate, in Obama's case, Dick Cheney. He was then sworn into office, like Bush, by the CJSC in front of millions - and yet, you expect our military to question Obama's authority. It's preposterous.

And you still refuse to answer the questions...
Do you have experience in military law yourself or do you just take someone else's word for it?
You go ahead and listen to ODH, a man who fabricates an incident "for effect" and then, despite saying that he spent almost 25 years as a JAG (though he never admits to actually being a lawyer, trained or not) has the audacity to say he made a poor choice of words when quickly typing despite evidence to the contrary that trained lawyers don't say something they don't mean.

That's a good company to put some stock in there! Enjoy your dwindling 401K.

Allow this question, JAG, concerning the Chain of Command.

Lakin's orders to deploy came from his unit 's Command, which came from a detailer somewhere in the Pentagon or CentCom and none of the upper echelons protested the legality of the ongoing conflict in the area to which he refused deployment.
Ipso facto, his challenge was presented incorrectly and subsequently without standing?

Personally, I think he should have resigned in protest and followed another course of action and another venue to challenge the eligibility issue; like his home of record and it's state court system, try to subpoena records on file from the state's election officer who passed on Obama's qualifications and eligibility to become a candidate in the first place.

"his challenge was presented incorrectly and subsequently without standing?"

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking, but the eligibility of any of his commanders may not necessarily be material to the lawfulness of order. It's a little complicated, but the case law surrounding such circumstances is fairly straightforward - so long as an officer is only exercising authority that is inherent in the office he holds, that authority is legally binding even though the officer himself may be holding the office by some defect.

More to Lakin's particular circumstance, he's questioning the authority of the President to issue order - a man that is about as far removed from his commander officer as you can get. People have tried to make similar arguments before - that presidents were issuing illegal orders - that have gone NOWHERE. I doubt this case will be any different.

All the money spent to seal the records is nothing for puppet-master soros to cough up. But it keeps all his lawyer buddies busy making money in court doesn’t it?

A lot of that money is taxpayer money! Obama used and is using Department of Justice attorneys!

Obama wasted the time of U.S. attorneys when they should been focused on "getting the bad guys". Obama did this at time when plots were being laid to:

**BLOW UP TIMES SQUARE!

** BLOW UP A PITTSBURGH MARATHON!

** KILL SOLDIERS ON THEIR BASES AND RECRUITMENT CENTERS!

If this is an Alinsky joke or maneuver, the American people will NOT be amused!

Only people who haven't been paying attention, don't know the answer to any question you've asked.

We lawyers have a saying, “When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. And when neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table”

You have done nothing but pound the table all afternoon. You have not offered a single case, or point of military law to support Lakin or his chances of prevailing at trial. What you have done is attack the character of people with whom you disagree on this issue.

Your character speaks for itself.

I was simply noting that a Courts Martial was the wrong venue to use to challenge the eligibility of the CIC. Those in Lakin’s chain of command cannot be found complicit in anyway issuing illegal orders in his deployment.

The key to resolving 'eligibility' issue lies at the court room's steps of the individual states, whose election officer or Lt. Governor gave a pass allowing his name to be placed on the ballot in that state, whether through complicity, omission, dereliction, intimidation or ...gullibility. (Is gullibility a misdemeanor or a felony? Hmmm...)

It's really up to a case of merit reaching a state's court to subpoena and examine credentials and rule on a case of fraud, however far it goes up and down the food chain and at the very least, prevent his name ever being printed on an election ballot again.

Best case scenario, that this happens in enough of the state's to deny an election by the Electoral College of him or another like him.

This of course would mean a 'political' civil war....BWTH....we're already there!

( I always enjoy our exchanges.....they're edifying.)

"I was simply noting that a Courts Martial was the wrong venue to use to challenge the eligibility of the CIC. Those in Lakin’s chain of command cannot be found complicit in anyway issuing illegal orders in his deployment."

Yes, of course. Sorry about that.

FWIW, I still think the best way to resolve this is with the legislation that is pending is several state Houses. The states need to codify specific requirements, like the presentment of certified birth credentials, before any court will hear such challenges, in my estimation.

Obama needs to be given the ultimatum - present a certified birth certificate, or be denied ballot access.

Does the government appeal the ruling?

They would have to. I imagine it would be immediately appealed or else the military would be dealing with legions of troops trying the same thing. That would completely disrupt the military and give a "get out of jail free" card to anyone who doesn't want to deploy --whether they cared about Obama's eligibility or not.

Should such a verdict happen, and I very strongly doubt it will, you can guarantee the issue of Obama's eligibility would be thrust to the headline story of every news media imaginable.

“Again, this is VERY elementary for lawyers familiar with military law. Lakin should have consulted competent military counsel before engaging in this behavior. In fact, he was formally advised by his command to seek military counsel prior to missing movement.”

While do not discount your military JAG experience. I question whether a board of officers will feel compeled to follow “precident” since this is entirely new ground. It is funny you should quote from Watada’s case since he walked and the case against him was a slam dunk. The more the JAG Corps attempts to follow precident and suppress germane evidence concerning the LTCs motives and blindly convict a distingusihed officer who is not making unreasonably requests....there more the JAG Corps will lose credibility in the eyes of the rank and file.

Loss of credibility, means loss of ability to function. What line officers think is more important than a direct commission JAG.

"It is funny you should quote from Watada’s case since he walked and the case against him was a slam dunk. The more the JAG Corps attempts to follow precident and suppress germane evidence concerning the LTCs motives and blindly convict a distingusihed officer who is not making unreasonably requests....there more the JAG Corps will lose credibility in the eyes of the rank and file."

A few things - that decision didn't come from JAG lawyers, it came from CAAF. CAAF has civilian lawyers on it, applying military law.

More to the point, any evidence of Lakin's motivation or intent is immaterial because the Rules for Courts-Martial clearly DO NOT make those requisite elements of missing movement. Intent can be a central element of some UCMJ specifications - like murder, for example. It's just not an element for this particular charge.

Secondly, conservative legal philosophy is such that it demands that trial courts follow the law, to include precedent. To do otherwise, is legislating from the bench.

With respect to Lakin's case in particular, it is an unreasonable request because the military - to include LTC Lakin - does not enjoy the prerogative of inspecting the bona fides of its civilian command. There are civilian procedures for that. The Constitution provides NO ROLE for the military in vetting our Presidents, or civilian military leadership, nor any role in an examination of their installation.

Lastly, Watada's case is complicated, but essentially the trial court blew the jury instruction, which was tricky because of Watadas assertion of an affirmative defense. Reasonable people can disagree about whether the MJ's instruction was indeed defective, and whether or not that defect constituted reversible error. If it were not for the attachment of double jeopardy (again, controversially), Watada would have been retried and again, easily convicted.

Watada didn't walk on the merits. He walked on a technical error of the military judge.

“Secondly, conservative legal philosophy is such that it demands that trial courts follow the law, to include precedent. To do otherwise, is legislating from the bench.”

Precident IS NOT law, it is interpretation....and it can be a bad interpretation that should be disrequarded. Bad precident is bad precident...it is NOT conservative(except in semantics) to maintain bad precident.

You seem to keep dodging the realty that the JAG Corps is not well thought of by regular officers. IF it keeps losing its credibility with those it is supposed to protect...it will go away. Once again, I point out it is the members of the court...line officers...that have to decide guilt or innocence.

I cannot believe that someone would be so assinine to expect a POTUS to prove to the people he governs that he is truly eligible. This is a NEW precident that needs to be set, that even the most insignificant citizen can have standing to challenge what MAY be wrong. Personally, I don’t think the BC shows anything damning about the current POTUS (like born in Kenya), but it may have something to impeach his credibility. However, be that as it may, LTC Latkin’s desire to have the POTUS purported to be the son of a non citizen to provide full disclosure on his past is NOT unreasonable. We have no ROYALTY in this country. IF I have to show my BC on many occasions, then so should the POTUS. It is a No duh situation. IF as a former JAG Corps type, you cannot grasp this...you make my point for me.

"Precident IS NOT law, it is interpretation....and it can be a bad interpretation that should be disrequarded. Bad precident is bad precident...it is NOT conservative(except in semantics) to maintain bad precident."

I'm not sure how much legal education you possess, but in every law school and bar exam in America, binding precedent (and that's what we're talking about here, the trial court is bound by CAAF) is law. That's just the way it works.

"Once again, I point out it is the members of the court...line officers...that have to decide guilt or innocence."

And, once again the ONLY thing that the jury panel will decide with respect to guilt or innocence is the fact of whether or not Lakin missed movement. His motivation for missing that movement is immaterial and irrelevant to the jury panel, and the lawfulness of the orders is decided by the MJ, not the panel.

As for the rest of your response, can you please provide for me the date, the time, the place and the name of the inquiry/inquirer that demanded to see the birth documents of any of the other 43 US Presidents. I'll wait.

I'm no sure why you can't grasp this concept - Presidents of the United States do not answer to the military. And, they certainly don't answer to light Colonels. Every officer on that panel (they will all be o-6's or above) understands this. For this reason, if this goes to trial and sentencing, Lakin's punishment will be severe to probably include some confine, some forfeiture and dismissal.

where does their direct superior camanding officer get them?

Besides, the chain of command is not that simple. One sometimes gets orders from several levels above ones direct CO. Transfer and movement orders are often like that. Especially orders for individuals as opposed to units.

There have been literally hundreds of these types of general courts martial. Let’s see what the judge decides.
If General Petraeus or General McCrystal were the one’s refusing movement orders instead of Lt. Colonel Lakin, we’d have something serious to discuss.

It's not the right of a member of the US military. You don't have a right to question order if you feel that they are unjust or unconstitutional. Something’s constitutionality is a political or legal question, not a military question. This only seems to be complicated to people who were never military officers.

It's not very complicated at all, ODH ... Lakin's just following his oath:

“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

Orders are presumptively legal and service members question the legality of order at their own legal peril.

The very fact that Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) covers "lawful orders" shows that there must ALSO be such a beast as an "unlawful order". That's what this is all about ...
an "unlawful order" from an illegitimate CinC.

And yes, it IS done at Lt Col Lakin's "legal peril" — and he's okay with that.

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.