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?”
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.”
Was every injunction request and Temporary Restraining Order request denied prior to the 2008 Presidential election and also after the election but before Inauguration Day?
I am glad to see you still have no comeback for:
Taitz v Obama: Dismissed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth
Barnett v. Obama: Dismissed by Judge David O. Carter
Did you email Leo with this? I think he would be interested in reading it at the very least.
Invalid reference!
You want to play some more.
1) Have more than sixty Obama eligibility lawsuits been dismissed or denied on appeal? Yes or no?
However, the Obama eligibility issued is nowhere near to being resolved. BP2 told you we only need 1 court to take up the case. Moreover, Edge919 said to you, "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."
We have heard a Supreme Court Justice saying at a Congressional hearing that we 'are evading' Obama eligibility issue. That statement speaks for the whole justice system since none of them have went to trial.
BTW, none of these questions deserve a 'yes or no' answer they should be qualified with comments.
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?
Again I point to Justice Clarence Thomas's comment to a Congressional hearing that the US Justice system to include the Supreme Court that they are "evading" the Obama eligibility issue. Your term that they have been "rejected" is not accurate. SCOTUS refuses cases form many reason. We know they only take up a very small percentage of cases each year because it would be impossible to a good job for them to take on a large amount of cases. Usually when the SCOTUS take up cases that have a significant bearing which would have great and correct effect on the whole US justice system.
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?
Of course it take 4 court members to vote yes on a case for judicial review. I would suspect that SCOTUS will only take up cases after the lower court have heard the case on the merits, except in emergency cases. Phillip Berg skipped the lower court(s) where the SCOTUS said they would not take up the case "Before judgement" in the lower courts. Leo Donfrio also took the fast track before he was late denied when he tried and emergency staying of the November election, and if it was granted, it would be later followed by a petition for certiorari. If you reaaaalllly [LOL] want the official answers to this question, you should review the Supreme Court rules that they publish on their website for guidance.
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?
According to US code, Cheney was required [Shall] to ask for objections whether there were any or not to include written objections, which could have came after the verbal objection(s) by Congress critters who could have scribbled them down on paper in 60 seconds. We know now that Cheney failed to do so.
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?
But it is not the long form birth certificate which they still issue as I recall upon request. Didn't Danae tell you she has the long form on order about 2 days ago? I'm sure the resident experts Butterdezillion and Miss Tickly can give very coherent and very accurate answers to any questions about Hawaiian birth certificates. Ask them.
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?
and
15) Has the Republican Governor of Hawaii Linda Lingle declared that Barack Obama was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center? Yes or no?
Question numbers 6 and 15 go together. Now these two are playing games with words and legalese that are not quite accurate or truly honest. Placing your trust in politicians and bureaucrats from Hawaii is a fools game. They don't even abide by their own rules and laws when it pertains to Obama. Again if you reaalllly want to know my answer, review this youtube video it is explicit about the dishonest games that Hawaii is playing.
"Hawaii Officials Lie For Obama"
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?
You mean that meaningless resolution from that hippy and goofball Neil Abercrombie. The non-binding resolution that has no sway in law which was supposedly about the 50th anniversary of Hawaiian statehood, but it in reality, it was just a vehicle to state Obama was born in Hawaii. Yeah, Obama was lauded and sandwiched in between singer Don Ho and Hawaii's Diamond-head mountain. So why do you need a Congressional Resolution to state Obama was born in Hawaii anyway as it should be obvious? LoL. And it was Abercrombie who told Kapi’olani hospital that Obama was born there [Haaha] by giving them a letter allegedly from Obama...that the White House refuses to acknowledge it.
This post is now way too long as I usually despise long posts, especially to cut and paste BS that has been answered ten billion times on FR. I may slam the rest of your silly questions later but as of right now, I've got other things to do on a Sunday. I don't get paid to answer your nonsense like you get paid to spam FR with them. Until later Obot.
Note that Judge Lamberth mentioned but breezed by the Andrade case in his footnote number 1, but Andrade contains an “equity” alternative to quo warranto which might allow a plaintiff like Lakin to petition the court to issue “an injunction to restrain invalidly appointed officers” thus bypassing the AG and US Attorney.
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?
Barack Obama is not an appointed official. He is an elected official.
Since both the Attorney General of the United States and the US Attorney for the District of Columbia were confirmed by the United States Senate, it will be rather difficult to make the case that they were appointed “invalidly.”
If the opposition political party raises enough of a fuss about an alleged political scandal, then whichever party is in power can be forced by the power of public opinion to appoint a Special Counsel/Independent Counsel to investigate alleged wrongdoing. Richard Nixon’s and George Mitchell’s hands were forced in this regard in Watergate,
Ronald Reagan-Ed Meese were forced to appoint Lawrence Walsh in Iran-Contra; Bill Clinton-Janet Reno were forced to appoint Ken Starr in Whitewater and George W. Bush-John Ashcroft were forced to appoint Patrick Fitzgerald in the Scooter Libby-Valerie Plame scandal.
Thus far, the Republican Party or other Obama opponents have not demanded a special counsel/Independent Counsel to investigate Obama’s eligibility. The Attorney General or the US Attorney could cede the power to request a quo warranto action to such a neutral party, if the political pressure were intense enough.
I couldn’t help but notice that you were incapable of answering simple yes or no questions with a simple “yes” or “no” and then you go on to whine about the length of the post!
I am a military Veteran and I know I am a conservative American.
Whatever prejudices I may or may not have have nothing to do with your ridiculous, childish, “I know you are but what am I” crap you are spewing on these threads.
Your love for barry and hatred for our Constitution is obvious to anyone reading this thread.
You are a joke and should be ashamed of yourself.
Don’t fool yourself into thinking FReepers can’t see you for who you are.
A fool.
I wonder. Would LCOL Lakin consider evry order he's given since January 2008 to be illegitimate? Just curious.
If Obama is not duly elected, then every order from there on down is void.
Complete nonsense, but nothing I say will convince you otherwise.
By the way.....if this ex-military person you keep referring to in your posts is “oldpoopdeck”....you might want to reconsider your alignment.
First off my initial so called “insult” was me referring to his/her/it’s Navy service. Seaman is an enlisted rank in the Navy and Coast Guard.
Look it up. Not an insult.
And finally OldDeckHand is a liar. Confirmed on one of these eligibility threads. I confronted him/her/it about it and he/her/it refused to own up.
I will show no respect to a person who lies and is too arrogant to admit it.
You, well you are just a fool.
It would be stupid to answer those questions of yours with a simple yes or no. So what's wrong Obot? You must be getting tired of your tripe getting shot down over and over again.
Since you introduce my beliefs into evidence, I will admit that logical and sound arguments, backed by facts are welcome.
We do not have the full facts, but the peripheral and known facts indicate there is a serious issue with regard to the eligibility of the current commander in chief.
A number of people, some more talented and creative than others, have attempted to frame a legal argument, to bring a ‘test case,’ if you will, to find the facts.
It is a very good legal argument that the orders issued by the White House are all void if the commander in chief is not eligible.
Of course this is dangerous, and that is why it must be dealt with as soon as possible.
I don't have Leo's personal e-mail, but please send it to him if you have it.
I sent him an FYI but I’m sure he has already looked into this otherwise he wouldn’t have mentioned it. Leo was the one that contacted Orly and has directed her so she should have already studied the information well before going into Carter’s court and his decision should have been no surprise to her if they were on top of their game. I admire her tenacity, I just think she tends to let her emotions get in the way sometimes and thus doesn’t completely think things through before acting.
It can be argued. But for that to apply in this case you would have to demonstrate that the orders to deploy Lakin's unit came from the White House.
The Andrade Court was articulating an equity principle regarding the fact that an AG has a conflict of interest with people that they appointed which I believe can be applied directly to the conflict of interest that Obama has with the AG and US Attorney that he appointed.
In both cases, the same principle articulated in Andrade might apply with an qualified “interested person” as plaintiff/appellant:
“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.”
Regarding Obama’s eligibility, so far “requiring all appellants to convince the Attorney General (or US Attorney) to file a quo warranto action” has effectively been a bar to their access to court.
With Obama, but same Andrade equity principle might apply because Obama appointed the AG and US Attorney creating a conflict of interest for any quo warranto brought against Obama.
Some of the Obot Taitz haters may commit suicide if they have to acknowledge she turns out in having a key in taking Obama down. *snicker*
Unless or until we see this type of article in the NY Times,
Boston Globe, Baltimore Sun, Washington Post, etc., or unless we see a report on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, etc., nothing and I mean nothing will come of any hearings. The State-run media absolutely refuses to give this story any legs. As such, all attempts will sadly fall on deaf, State-run media ears!!
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.