Posted on 05/20/2010 11:35:49 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
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?”
It’s one of their new talking points; to toss back what they really are, on those defending the Constitution.
The scorecard is not flattering to faithers and sand heads. It tells us a couple of things. This is a large number of individuals who have had the conviction (pun intended) to take this issue to a court of law. IOW, this is proof that it’s not a fringe movement as faither and Obots would try to characterize it. A fringe movement would be lucky to get one or two cases to a courtroom. 69 cases, no way. Second, if Obama was legit, the scorecard should be 1-0, not 69-0. IOW, if he was legitimate he could have PROVED IT in a court of law rendering the 68 additional cases to be moot. As long as the courts avoid hearing this case on merits, the court cases will continue to pile up. Don’t celebrate someone who successfully hides the truth with aid from the courts when he falsely promised to be transparent.
One of the first “birther” lawsuits was “Berg v Obama.” When it was submitted for conference at the US Supreme Court, the birther crowd was all a-twitter saying “Justice Souter has given Obama two weeks to present his birth certificate to the Supreme Court.”
Obama didn’t even bother to file a brief with the Supreme Court, let alone present his birth certificate. He left it up to the Justices to decide and they rejected Berg v Obama.
Just is case anyone has forgotten Berg v Obama from 2008, here’s an old Free Republic thread from that week:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2128383/posts
Presidents get sued by fringe groups with grudges all the time, this is nothing new, so the number of lawsuits filed is irrelevant.
Many of the Obama eligiblity lawsuits don’t even name Obama as a defendant so there is no need for him to defend himself. Here’s a brief sampling of the actual suits:
Ankeny v Daniels, Lightfoot v Bowen, Donofrio v Wells, Brockhousen v Andrade, Broe v Reed, Greenberg v Brunner, Keyes v Bowen, Lightfoot v Bowen, Martin v Lingle, Rhodes v Gates, Schneller v Cortes, Stumpo v Granholm, Strunk v US Department of State, Neal v Brunner, Thomas v Hosemann, Welch v Mukassey, Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz, and on and on I could go naming lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility where Obama isn’t even a named defendant.
I can guarantee that a Senior Lecturer in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School like Barack Hussein Obama would much prefer to be 7 and 0 in lawsuits at the US Supreme Court than 1 and 0. Just like in sports, the more runs, touchdowns, baskets you score, the better.
Now you are admitting that this case discussed and all other eligibility cases have never been decided on the merits.
In your last post you were saying that the court already determined the case on the merits where you put in capital letters : “THIS IS A VERDICT ISSUED ON THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM.” In the subsequent post [501], I showed you beyond a shadow of a doubt how wrong you are, which if anyone who looks up and down this 500+ post thread can see it happens with regularity. Hell, it happens everyday to you on FR.
If your ego needs to be “right” so that you can feel good about yourself who am I to stand in the way of your self-esteem? You go right ahead and BE right!
Hey everybody, Red Steel is RIGHT!!!
Who says the republicans and democrats are in opposition? Some court?
They often reach across the isle to “get things done” - do they not?
I contend that they they are 2 sides to the same out of control federal government coin. And that they act mostly to support their own re-election.
Oh, and to stave off competition , such as the tea party .
It's not about my ego. What you do is mislead and misdirect all the time. You get called on it all the time not only by me, but by many others.
Every military order ultimately stems from the authority of the CIC.
If Obama is not duly elected, then every order from there on down is void.
This is an excellent argument, and thanks for giving me the opportunity to bump it to the top again.
Cite an authoritative source. BTW, there isn't one.
What is ‘conservative’ about tossing crude innuendo and insult at a military veteran who presents reliable and correct information which doesn’t conform to your personal prejudices?
It’s Alinsky all the way.
Good thing he was duly elected then, eh?
The reasoning the Andrade Court gave could well apply to an "interested person" such as Lakin:
Regarding statutory quo warranto procedure Andrade Court said:
"The above procedure is cumbersome and could easily operate to deprive a plaintiff with an otherwise legitimate claim of the opportunity to have his case heard. For instance, the Attorney General was responsible for appointing appellees Diegelman and Lauer to their jobs. Requiring appellants to convince the Attorney General to file a quo warranto action on their behalf in this case would effectively bar their access to court."
“This court has held that equity will not be barred from issuing an injunction to restrain invalidly appointed officers if the alternative remedy of quo warranto is inadequate.”
Details in context from a previous post by me:
Leo was elated when Judge Carter refused to grant the DOJ claim that only impeachment could remove a sitting president and instead Carter affirmed Leo's theory that a quo warranto could be brought against Obama, but only in the DC District Court.
Leo did discuss Andrade in his 3-part legal brief on quo warranto, but did not discuss the “equity” comment in that decision, which I believe might interest Leo, if it hadn't come to his attention.
Now a second federal judge, Lamberth, has ignored a DOJ request in their Motion to Dismiss to rule that quo warranto can't be brought against a sitting president.
From the Lamberth ruling dismissing 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 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.”
I also found in Andrade the following explaining how “equity” could provide an “alternative” to quo warranto:
“The above procedure is cumbersome and could easily operate to deprive a plaintiff with an otherwise legitimate claim of the opportunity to have his case heard. For instance, the Attorney General was responsible for appointing appellees Diegelman and Lauer to their jobs. Requiring appellants to convince the Attorney General to file a quo warranto action on their behalf in this case would effectively bar their access to court.”
and
“Given these restrictions, quo warranto is an extremely difficult and uncertain remedy for the type of claim at issue in this case. This court has held that equity will not be barred from issuing an injunction to restrain invalidly appointed officers if the alternative remedy of quo warranto is inadequate. Columbian Cat Fanciers, Inc. v. Koehne, supra, 96 F.2d at 532.”
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/729/729.F2d.1475.82-1880.html
The Andrade Court said “This court has held that equity will not be barred from issuing an injunction to restrain invalidly appointed officers if the alternative remedy of quo warranto is inadequate.” I wonder how Leo would interprete an implementation of this “alternative remedy” to quo warranto in terms of gaining discovery and a ruling on Obama’s NBC eligibility consistent with and still under the quo warranto umbrella.
Just how far would this equity alternative to quo warranto go in the fact situation regarding Obama? Would the “injunction to restrain invalidly appointed officers” apply to Obama or perhaps restrain invalidly appointed AG and US Attorney from failing to bring quo warranto or failing to permit an “interested party” to bring quo warranto?
I post links that anyone can click on and read for themselves to back up my statements. I post statistics that are accurate and indisputable and I post quotations from recent and historic court decisions with links to the actual decisions so that they can be read in full context.
Let me ask you a few simple “yes or no” questions based on statements that I have made.
1) Have more than sixty Obama eligibility lawsuits been dismissed or denied on appeal? Yes or no?
2) Have seven Obama eligibility lawsuits been rejected for Writs of Certiorari at the Supreme Court of the United States after Justices’ conferences? Yes or no?
3) Does it take four US Supreme Court justices to agree to hear a case before the full Court (the Rule of Four) and to then decide it on its merits? Yes or no?
4) Could any TWO members of Congress (One Senator and One Representative) have submitted written objections to the Certification of Obama’s electoral college votes at the Joint Session of Congress held to certify the vote of the Electoral College and would those written objections have triggered immediate investigations into the reasons for the written objections? Yes or no?
5) Has Janice Okubo, Director of Communications for the Hawaii Department of Health stated that the short form Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate of the state of Hawaii since they went paperless in 2001? Yes or no?
6) Did Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health state that she has personally viewed Obama’s original birth records and did she declare him to have been born in Hawaii and did she further declare him to be a natural born American citizen? Yes or No?
7) Did the House Resolution on the 50th anniversary of Hawaii becoming a state of the union declare Hawaii to be the birthplace of the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama” and did that resolution pass in the House by a vote of 393 to 0? Yes or no?
8) Did a conservative federal judge appointed by Ronald Reagan named Royce C. Lamberth call a birther attorney’s quo warranto claim against Obama to be akin to “tilting at windmills”? Yes or no?
9) Did a former conservative Republican state legislator from Georgia, appointed to the federal judiciary by George W. Bush by the name of Clay Land, rebuke a birther attorney and fine that attorney $20,000 for abuse of the court which could lead to that birther attorney’s disbarment? Yes or no?
10) Has any Obama eligibility lawsuit resulted in a victory of any kind on any level for any plaintiff? Yes or No?
11) Has any well known conservative except for Alan Keyes submitted an amicus brief in support of any lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility? Yes or No.
12) Has any major conservative law firm or any well known conservative attorney such as Former US Solicitor General Ted Olson or Judge Robert Bork represented any plaintiff in any Obama eligibility lawsuit? Yes or no?
13) Has any prosecuting attorney in the nation convened a Grand Jury to investigate the legitimacy and authenticity of Obama’s birth documents used to get on the ballot in any state? Yes or No?
14) Has any judge issued a subpoena for Obama’s birth records which is allowable under Hawaii Revised Statues 338-18(b)? Yes or no?
15) Has the Republican Governor of Hawaii Linda Lingle declared that Barack Obama was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center? Yes or no?
16) Has the Supreme Court of the United States ever ruled in any decision that a natural born citizen requires two American citizen parents even if that citizen was born in the United States? Yes or no?
17) Is there any law in the US Code that defines the term “Natural Born Citizen” as a person with two US citizen parents? Yes or no?
bump
That is the question.
If Obama is ineligible under the Constitution, was he duly elected? If he was not, then the election is void. The post of commander in chief is technically and legally vacant.
Since might makes right these days, the post is occupied, but perhaps not legally held.
Obama’s DOJ argued to Judge Carter that quo warranto could not be brought against a sitting POTUS. DOJ lost, and Judge Lamberth has concurred with Judge Carter.
Both are key victories for eligibility activists and both were the result of cases brought by the Quixotic Orley Taitz.
With Democrats in control of the impeachment process in the House and able to block a conviction in the Senate, even if GOP gets a nominal majority in 2010, the only vulnerability that Obama has is to quo warranto, and thanks to Kreep and Taitz that door has been kicked open.
The barrier of having to get past Obama appointed AG and US Attorney may well be circumvented by a willingness of the DCDC to cite and apply the Andrade assertions that:
“The above procedure is cumbersome and could easily operate to deprive a plaintiff with an otherwise legitimate claim of the opportunity to have his case heard. For instance, the Attorney General was responsible for appointing appellees Diegelman and Lauer to their jobs. Requiring appellants to convince the Attorney General to file a quo warranto action on their behalf in this case would effectively bar their access to court.”
and
“This court has held that equity will not be barred from issuing an injunction to restrain invalidly appointed officers if the alternative remedy of quo warranto is inadequate.”
Applying Andrade to the current situation, requiring appellants such as Lakin or the Chrysler dealers to convince the Attorney General or US Attorney to file a quo warranto action on their behalf against Obama when they were appointed by Obama would effectively bar their access to court.
“If Obama is not duly elected, then every order from there on down is void.”
It’s a pretty standard agency issue. You could, since you are a legal expert, get on Westlaw and check it for yourself. I would suggest searching “void acts” /p elected and official.
And thank you for the opportunity to bump this topic to the top.
“If Obama is not duly elected, then every order from there on down is void.”
It’s a pretty standard agency issue. You could, since you are a legal expert, get on Westlaw and check it for yourself. I would suggest searching “void acts” /p elected and official.
And thank you for the opportunity to bump this topic to the top.
“10) Has any Obama eligibility lawsuit resulted in a victory of any kind on any level for any plaintiff? Yes or No?”
Obama’s DOJ argued to Judge Carter that quo warranto could not be brought against a sitting POTUS. DOJ lost, and Judge Lamberth has concurred with Judge Carter.
Both are key victories for eligibility activists and both were the result of cases brought by the Quixotic Orley Taitz.
With Democrats in control of the impeachment process in the House and able to block a conviction in the Senate, even if GOP gets a nominal majority in 2010, the only vulnerability that Obama has is to quo warranto, and thanks to Kreep and Taitz that door has been kicked open.
The barrier of having to get past Obama appointed AG and US Attorney may well be circumvented by a willingness of the DCDC to cite and apply the Andrade assertions that:
“The above procedure is cumbersome and could easily operate to deprive a plaintiff with an otherwise legitimate claim of the opportunity to have his case heard. For instance, the Attorney General was responsible for appointing appellees Diegelman and Lauer to their jobs. Requiring appellants to convince the Attorney General to file a quo warranto action on their behalf in this case would effectively bar their access to court.”
and
“This court has held that equity will not be barred from issuing an injunction to restrain invalidly appointed officers if the alternative remedy of quo warranto is inadequate.”
Applying Andrade to the current situation, requiring appellants such as Lakin or the Chrysler dealers to convince the Attorney General or US Attorney to file a quo warranto action on their behalf against Obama when they were appointed by Obama would effectively bar their access to court.
“Judge David O. Carter betrays the Nation!
DISMISSES CASE WHICH SOUGHT REMEDY FOR MASSIVE ELECTION FRAUD IN 2008”
by John Charlton
The Post & Email
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/29/judge-david-o-carter-betrays-the-nation/
I will only add that BOTH Judge Carter AND Judge Lamberth DISMISSED the Obama eligibility lawsuits that were before them. Judge Lamberth went one step further by ruling that ONLY the Attorney General of the United States OR the US Attorney for the District of Columbia can file quo warranto against a federal official in US Federal District Court for the District of Columbia.
He specifically pointed out in his decision that since Ms. Taitz is neither the Attorney General nor the US Attorney, she CANNOT bring quo warranto in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
I quote Judge Lamberth again: “Because Ms. Taitz is neither the Attorney General of the United States nor the US Attorney 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. Accordingly Ms. Taitz’s quo warranto claims are dismissed for lack of standing.” See Fed.R.Civ.P.(12)(b)(1).”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30040084/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-23-MEMORANDUM-OPINION-dcd-04502943496-23-0
“Judge Dismisses Suit By Birther Activist Orly Taitz”
I will quote just one paragraph from the following linked article: “Lamberth wrote that only the U.S. attorney general or a U.S. attorney’s office can ask a court to file a writ of quo warranto, which according to Black’s Law Dictionary is a “common-law writ used to inquire the authority by which a public office is held.”
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/04/judge-dismisses-suit-by-birther-activist-orly-taitz.html
So what are you saying in post 526? All military orders are void? The military is disbanded? All military orders are now voluntary?
Talk about a far-left wet dream. It helps make it pretty clear that ‘birthers’ are really leftists trying to undermine the United States.
It’s a problem, yes.
I am glad to see you still have no comeback for:
“This court has held that equity will not be barred from issuing an injunction to restrain invalidly appointed officers if the alternative remedy of quo warranto is inadequate.”
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.