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?”

And why? Is it on the Merits?

Or is it something else, like:
— Standing
— Jurisdiction, and most importantly
— Political Question

That’s okay. The Eligibility attorneys are probing and getting more refined with each new filing.

Yep, the count is 67 cases, with many in the litigious food chain on Appeal.

But ... all it takes is ONE successful case to get him, now doesn’t it? ;)

However in the latest case to be decided just last month, a handpicked by the plaintiff, conservative, Reagan appointed federal judge threw out a “Quo Warranto” action against Obama and the Judge said the following: “This is one of several suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution. See U.S. Const. art.II sect. I. This court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”—U.S. Chief Federal District Court Judge for the District of Columbia Royce C. Lamberth in his Memorandum Opinion for “Taitz v Obama” issued April 14, 2010.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30040084/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-23-MEMORANDUM-OPINION-dcd-04502943496-23-0

Regarding your comment to Mr Rogers :”Thank you for confirming you are an operative with a political agenda.”

I actually think Mr Rogers’ revelation that he had only a rudimentary and rather flawed understanding of the legal concepts of standing, jurisdiction and justiciability (on which you have properly schooled him) tends to support a probability that he is NOT on operative.

I did express concern that his posts appeared to be in line with what one would expect from a WH/DIA operative, but I have never directly accused him as I only assign my own personal probabilities to such matters.

I have found the underlying consistent motivation of his posts to be protection of the de facto lawful orders that come down the chain of command from subjective second-guessing by members of the military based on speculation about the CIC.

Where Mr Rogers has erred, in my view, is in trying to defend Obama’s NBC status on legal grounds that have never been tested on the merits and/or affirmed by SCOTUS. In this he has lots of company here at FR.

I have a classmate who has received two Legion of Merit medals as a nuclear submarine commander (not much below the Medal of Honor). He can't even talk about what he did to get them. He loathes Obama and all that he stands for, but I have been surprised at the degree of contempt that he has expressed for Lakin. In his view, a military commander cannot have the men/women below him refusing to obey orders on speculation about the CIC. Mr Rogers seems to have had a similar visceral response to Lakin.

In justifying his condemnation of Lakin, my decorated friend declared that “Of course somebody vetted Obama’s BC and his eligibility”. I politely suggested that this might not be so and haven't pressed the point with him.

A military man is faced with a never before encountered conundrum by Obama. If your conscience tells you that Obama appears to have fraudulently gamed the system by exploiting weaknesses and as president he is now weakening our defenses all over the world, what do you do? Resigning would be easy.

In my view, Lakin is performing a self-sacrificial act of conscience not unlike MLK or Ghandi. He is saying “Go ahead and convict me, but the hypocrisy of your refusal to do the right thing (release the HI vital records) will be glaringly obvious.”

Lakin is fully aware that if convicted by the court-martial he may achieve standing for a quo warranto or other action in civilian federal court.

There is only one federal court that can hear a petition for a Writ of Quo Warranto against an elected official of the federal government and that court is the US District Court for the District of Columbia. The Chief Judge of that Court has spelled out very specifically the requirements for bringing a quo warranto petition in his court in the case of Taitz v Obama.
You would do well to read Judge Lamberth’s very considered explanation of the requirements for Quo Warranto. There is no way on earth that an active duty member of the military would EVER qualify for standing to be granted a petition for a Writ of Quo Warranto:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30040084/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-23-MEMORANDUM-OPINION-dcd-04502943496-23-0

Uummmmmmmm Obot, that wasn't the topic that BP2 pointed out in his post to you. The post was about why the court system comes up with excuses not to go to trial on the merits.

BP2: And why? Is it on the Merits?

Or is it something else, like:
— Standing
— Jurisdiction, and most importantly
— Political Question

You think it is all about being the party hack don't you? There are numerous reasons that the US judiciary will not take the eligibility cases, whether they were appointed by Demos or Repubs, but they will not elucidate those to the public. However, they do impose the legal blocks above that BP2 has showed you.

Here are verbatim words from Judge Lamberth's opinion.

"Because Ms. Taitz is neither the Attorney General of the United States nor the United States Attorney General for the District of Columbia, she does not have standing to bring a quo warranto action challenging a public official's right to hold office.¹ Accordingly Ms. Taitz's quo warranto claims are dismissed for lack of standing."

We see Judge Lamberth clearly say she lacks standing not what you think or implies why he did not.

Those are all excellent points and I can certainly see where you are coming from.

However, my point towards Mr. Rogers in my belief that he has now outed himself as an operative (which I still believe btw) comes down to this one point I mentioned that he refused to comment on.

There is absolutely no reason for anyone, and I do mean ANYONE, to not want the merits of these cases heard. A birther wants them heard so the truth will be told, an anti-birther should want them heard for the same reason and for the additional reason that an issue he deems ridiculous would end. The only reason anyone would NOT want these cases to go through the courts and actually be heard on the merits would be because you are afraid of what would be discovered.

What does Mr. Rogers then do???? He glosses over that section, ignores it, and goes right on cheerleading activist judges, twists the meaning of the court cases (proving his rudimentary and rather flawed understanding of all concepts legal which you generously pointed out) and attempts to prove that the cases shouldn't HAVE to hear any of these cases on the merit which is precisely what an ACTIVIST would do, not a merely misguided after-birther.

Let me repeat this: a TRUE anti-birther would not be afraid of any of the merits of discovery regarding Obama because he/she knows he/she is right and the whole thing is to them 'ridiculous'. A TRUE anti-birther would be promoting that these cases be heard in order to render a verdict that proves the matter and settles it.

A political operative would continue to hope and work for anything BUT discovery for FEAR of what that discovery would bring. After showing Mr. Rogers clearly and concisely from the courts on the correct understanding of what standing and jurisprudence is - he still comes back and continues to cheer these courts for not acting in concert with their constitutional requirements. That proved in my mind without a shadow of a doubt that he does indeed have a political agenda. He is as afraid of discovery as many of these judicial activists are! And that in turn makes him an operative exactly as all his previous points indicate.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one point, but I do appreciate your comments and agree with 99.9% of what else you had to say. Have a good one!

Uummmmmmmm Obot, that wasn’t the topic that BP2 pointed out in his post to you. The post was about why the court system comes up with excuses not to go to trial on the merits.

BP2: And why? Is it on the Merits?

Or is it something else, like:
— Standing
— Jurisdiction, and most importantly
— Political Question

You think it is all about being the party hack don’t you? There are numerous reasons that the US judiciary will not take the eligibility cases, whether they were appointed by Demos or Repubs, but they will not elucidate those to the public. However, they do impose the legal blocks above that BP2 has showed you.

Here are verbatim words from Judge Lamberth’s opinion.

“Because Ms. Taitz is neither the Attorney General of the United States nor the United States Attorney General for the District of Columbia, she does not have standing to bring a quo warranto action challenging a public official’s right to hold office.1 Accordingly Ms. Taitz’s quo warranto claims are dismissed for lack of standing.”

We see Judge Lamberth clearly say she lacks standing not what you think or implies why he did not.

“Taitz v Obama” dealt with a wide range of charges and issues. Judge Lamberth dismissed some of them on the (lack of) merit(s) and others on the grounds of standing. You have referenced ONLY the Quo Warranto claim.
Please read the ENTIRE Memorandum Opinion that he issued and you’ll find:
A. Quo Warranto Claims
B.Qui Tam (False Claims) Claims
C. Freedom of Information Act Claims and Request for Mandamus
D. Common Law Fraud Claims
E. 42 US Code Section 1983 and Section 1985 Claims (Civil Rights Violations)
F. RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) Claims
G. Commerce Clause Claims
and finally,
H. Christopher Strunk’s Motion to Intervene and consolidate his case with this case.

Judge Lamberth issued separate opinions on each aspect of the case. He did not lump all the charges together and dismiss them all for lack of standing. He dismissed some of the complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and he dismissed others for lack of legal merit to that particular claim.
Here’s an example of Judge Lamberth’s opinion based on the merit of the claim by Ms. Taitz on the RICO Act claim and I quote directly from the Judge’s verdict. THIS IS A VERDICT ISSUED ON THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM.
“The Court first addresses the predicate acts Ms. Taitz has alleged. First of all, neither violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 nor 42 U.S.C. §1985 are “racketeering activities” which could be the basis for Ms. Taitz’s RICO claim. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(a) (defining which offenses are racketeering activities). They thus are not actionable as violations of section 1962. With respect to the various allegations of fraud—and fraud indeed is a predicate act for purposes of RICO liability—Ms. Taitz has failed to sufficiently plead her claims. To the degree a RICO complaint sounds in fraud, the plaintiff must meet Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirements. See Farlow v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 956 F.2d 982, 989 (10th Cir. 1992). As the Court observed earlier, Ms. Taitz’s fraud claims fail to even meet the standards of Rule 8, much less the heightened requirements of Rule 9(b). Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1954. As such, she has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and her RICO claims will be dismissed. FED. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).”

“The Chief Judge of that Court has spelled out very specifically the requirements for bringing a quo warranto petition in his court in the case of Taitz v Obama.”

Judge Lamberth confirmed that if Taitz had waited a few more days before filing her quo warranto, she might have been able to argue for standing as an “interested person” injured in particular as a Dentist by ObamaCare.

Lamberth did not in any way address whether a military officer might qualify as an “interested person” as he did not and could not reach any such determination in the Taitz case.

The fact that he was willing to open the door for Taitz to be an interested person was a very broad interpretation of that term. I have seen previous narrow argument that an interested person would have to be a government civil service employee fired or otherwise injured as a direct result of an administrative action by Obama.

Lamberth seems to have opened the door for a non-government employee, such as Taitz to be an interested person based on the much more remote injury of being adversely affected by legislature signed by Obama.

This, in turn, opens the door for a military officer to be an interested person who has been personally adversely affected by a CIC order from Obama.

Lakin might claim that his conscience was so wounded by Obama’s suspicious failure to allow proper discovery of his HI vital records that he was unable to obey an order that originated from Obama resulting in the injury of court martial.

“But for” (a legal term of art) Obama’s failure to release his HI vital records, Lakin would never have been convicted in a court martial. I believe this is also a civil tort and this could also become available to Lakin if he is convicted outside of quo warranto.

The quo warranto statute was not intended to shelter fraudsters, but to allow them to be exposed. Proving Obama’s bona fides should be an administrative trifle involving release of his HI vital records as “best evidence” under the FRE. An honest, honorable president would have nothing to hide.

How could these proceedings to gain discovery of Obama’s HI vital records possibly threaten a constitutional crisis or threaten Obama when he has assured the US public and the courts that he was born in HI and that he is NBC eligible to be POTUS? /s

Litigating Obama’s NBC status as a claimed dual citizen at birth would be messier, but could be reached in a quo warranto, I suspect.

I see Lamberth’s dicta as giving a green light for Taitz and other healthcare industry victims of Obamacare as well as military personel to attempt to gain standing for quo warranto by requesting leave for the court to issue a quo warranto under 16-3503.

Taitz got dismissed because she tried to issue a quo warranto in her own name.

I think you have summed up our disagreement fairly.

I wasn’t trying to write a legal treatise, just define in common terms the aspects of standing, etc that I think impact WHY courts often turn down birther cases. I’m no lawyer, nor have I ever worked legal issues...but neither have many birthers. Our opinions are our own and are worth what we charge for them.

“Where Mr Rogers has erred, in my view, is in trying to defend Obama’s NBC status on legal grounds that have never been tested on the merits and/or affirmed by SCOTUS.”

You are correct. They haven’t been set in stone, and a court could surprise me. I just don’t see much future in pursuing these court cases. I find the fact the SCOTUS had the chance to rule BEFORE Obama took office and did not significant. No, it isn’t legally binding, but a court that ducked the issue BEFORE Obama took office isn’t likely to pick it up now - not unless one first has FULLY met issues like standing, jurisdiction, etc. If they can avoid it, they will.

“In his view, a military commander cannot have the men/women below him refusing to obey orders on speculation about the CIC. Mr Rogers seems to have had a similar visceral response to Lakin.”

Accurate again. It is, for me, more a visceral reaction than something I’ve deduced. I used to hear guys talking about how they could get out of deploying by getting the ‘right’ assignment or convincing their boss they were too essential to deploy. I was always on the other side. I thought deployments were opportunities, not chores.

When things started heating up prior to GW2, I tried to convince my boss I WASN’T essential and COULD deploy...but I was one deep in a big program, and wasn’t allowed to go anywhere until my replacement arrived and was spun up. Then I volunteered to go remote to the Gulf, and was sent to...Korea. To do a job I had no particular qualification to do!

In honesty, it is very much a gut-level reaction for me. It is far more an emotion for me than a reasoned position. That may make me biased, or guilty of overlooking evidence...those are possibilities. But I spent a lifetime - well, 25+ years - despising people at the ‘hilt of the sword’ instead of the ‘tip of the spear’.

I read once of a cavalry horse in the Civil War ridden by a southern General. After the war and for the rest of his life, he tried to bite anyone wearing blue.

If the military asked me to come out of retirement and go work EW issues in the Gulf, I’d go tonight. And my wife would understand my decision. And maybe that is why I don’t understand Lakin.

Thank you for a thoughtful post. You’ve made me think, and my wife would say that isn’t easy to do. I apologize for calling you a nutjob (among other things). Anyone who knows me could tell you I sometimes have more temper than brains.

Let me repeat this: a TRUE anti-birther would not be afraid of any of the merits of discovery regarding Obama because he/she knows he/she is right and the whole thing is to them ‘ridiculous’. A TRUE anti-birther would be promoting that these cases be heard in order to render a verdict that proves the matter and settles it.

I must be a “TRUE” anti-birther by the definition stated above!
As long as I have been posting on the Obama eligibility question I have been advocating legal strategies for the birthers to use to resolve this issue quickly and once and for all.
I will repeat my points of view one more time.
1) Since so many lawsuits have been dismissed for lack of standing, stop using plaintiffs who lack standing (DUH!).
John McCain is the person most likely to be granted standing since he can show direct and particularized harm from Obama’s election as the only other person to receive electoral votes.
2) It is conceivable that Sarah Palin might also be granted standing as a Vice Presidential candidate who could become president in the event of McCain’s death or infirmity. Get McCain and/or Palin to file suit and see what happens.
3)Birthers need to stop using poorly trained and incompetent attorneys that courts don’t respect. Why haven’t ANY of the big name conservative law firms or individual lawyers represented plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits? Why is Alan Keyes the ONLY well known conservative to enter any lawsuit as a plaintiff? Where are the amicus briefs in support of birther lawsuits from members of Congress, conservative Governors or name conservatives?
4) Even better than using the civil litigant route would be to use the criminal justice system to pry loose Obama’s vault copy, long form birth certificate. Hawaii statutues allow that document to be released to “a person whose right to inspect a vital record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.” Obama’s permission to release the document would then not be needed.
Any Grand Jury investigation could subpoena Obama’s birth certificate.
Remember that the ultimate impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton began with the Whitewater Grand Jury in Arkansas and Paula Jones’ Grand Juries.
Birthers should search for an enterprising conservative District Attorney or state Attorney General and get that person to convene a Grand Jury investigation of Barack Obama’s eligibility and use subpoena power to force the release of his birth certificate as a part of that investigation.
If Obama were to be indicted by a Grand Jury, he too would be impeached by Pelosi/Reid’s Congress faster than you can say “Rod Blagojevich!” The Democratic controlled legislature in Illinois removed Blagojevich in less than a month after his indictment, to minimize harm to the Party.

“There is absolutely no reason for anyone, and I do mean ANYONE, to not want the merits of these cases heard. A birther wants them heard so the truth will be told, an anti-birther should want them heard for the same reason and for the additional reason that an issue he deems ridiculous would end. The only reason anyone would NOT want these cases to go through the courts and actually be heard on the merits would be because you are afraid of what would be discovered.”

There you have it. A vast segment the US population is “afraid of what would be discovered” and would rather not find out.

If I were in the military serving under Obama, the act of conscience by LTC Lakin might be a severe challenge to me personally. Why was I not undertaking the same brave self sacrifice of declaring “I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!”? Lakin could be seen as pointing a finger at all of his fellow officers and exclaiming “J’accuse!”

It might be reflexively defensive for some folks to attack Lakin rather than confront their own complicity in the continuing destruction of America's strategic military posture, such as we saw today at West Point.

Of course none of this may have anything to do with any FReeper, just my own amateur psychological ruminations.

Lamberth did not in any way address whether a military officer might qualify as an “interested person” as he did not and could not reach any such determination in the Taitz case.

This, in turn, opens the door for a military officer to be an interested person who has been personally adversely affected by a CIC order from Obama.

Litigating Obama’s NBC status as a claimed dual citizen at birth would be messier, but could be reached in a quo warranto, I suspect.

Taitz got dismissed because she tried to issue a quo warranto in her own name.

I quote from Judge Lamberth’s Memorandum Opinion in “Taitz v Obama”: “The Court of Appeals for this Circuit has held that a quo warranto action against a public official may be brought ONLY (emphasis mine) by the Attorney General or the U.S. Attorney. Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 1498 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Wright, J.) (citing United States v. Carmody, 148 F.2d 684, 685 (D.C. Cir. 1945)). The Court of Appeals reasoned that this must be the case because challenges to authority by which a public office is held ‘involve a right belonging to the whole body of the public which can be protected only by a public representative.’ Carmody, 148 F.2d at 685.”

Since Lieutenant Colonel Lakin is not a public representative and is not the Attorney General of the United States nor the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, he will not be granted standing in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

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.