Posted on 09/14/2010 4:24:53 PM PDT by rxsid
"
Statement on LTC Lakin Courts Martial
On behalf of the members of The Veterans Council
Paul Vallely, Maj Gen (Ret), US Army
Harry Riley, Col (Ret), US Army
Carmen A. Reynolds, Lt Col (Ret), USAF
Debra A. Gunnoe, Lt Col (Ret), USAF
Greg Hollister, Lt Col (Ret), USAF
William Harker, Cmdr (Ret), USN
Bill Little, Cmdr (Ret), USN
John Johnson, 1st Lt (Ret), USAF
Luther B. Neff, Capt (Ret), USAF
Michael A. Trudell, Capt (Ret), USN
Fred Herndon, Capt (Ret), USAF
The United States Patriots Union, LLC; Sheridan, Wyoming
The United States Patriots Union has been formed to represent the more than 70% of patriotic Americans who believe that this nation is headed in the wrong direction, who oppose the Obama administration’s policies and make up the 89% of Americans who think every member of congress should be fired.
We have come together to form a Veterans Council within The United States Patriots Union, for the purpose of unifying veterans all over the country in an organized effort to address all issues of great and ongoing concern to the veterans community. We plan to address many different issues from this council looking forward, not the least of which is proper representation and defense of our men and women in uniform, those who have served with honor and distinction, and the families who have endured great sacrifices on behalf of freedom and liberty for all these many years.
Today’s statement relates specifically to the ongoing courts-martial of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin.
September 3, 2010 – Upon receiving word that LTC Lakin would be denied any and all access to discovery and mitigating evidence needed to provide for a legitimate defense, a White Paper was prepared and released by The United States Patriots Union and The United States Bar Association, advising the Lakin defense team to immediately adjust its defense strategy in accordance with established history and law concerning Mr. Barack Obama’s constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief. In short, to drop the search for an insignificant birth certificate and focus on the right question at hand.
We believe that there are only two potential outcomes of this courts-martial, and that both outcomes bring certain challenges. Our first priority must be to unite in defense of LTC Lakin in an effort to arrive at the best possible outcome for both Lakin and the nation.
1. LTC Lakin is found GUILTY of wrongfully refusing orders. With this outcome we get the following precedents.
a)Anyone, without so much as a birth certificate, can hold the office of President and Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Military.
b)ALL soldiers must blindly follow orders, whether or not those orders are legal.
c)Not even a high-ranking officer has the right to challenge the lawfulness of the orders.
2. LTC Lakin is found NOT GUILTY of wrongfully refusing orders, as Barack Obama’s illegitimacy is confirmed, in which case the following precedents have been established.
a) Every soldier must make the same decision Lakin made, to follow or not to follow an illegal command.
b) The military chain of command is broken at the top of the chain.
c) Obama must be removed from office and there is no one in the normal line of succession to the Oval Office who can replace him, as they were all complicit in the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people.
We believe that whether LTC Lakin is found guilty or not guilty in his courts-martial, our nation is in a full scale national security crisis. This cannot be avoided by simply brushing the Lakin situation under the carpet as if the legitimacy of this administration and command has not been properly and repeatedly challenged.
The current Lakin defense strategy is limited to an ongoing search for a missing birth certificate that is of no real consequence [Edit: As I and others have mentioned before, his born with foreign allegiance is the primary qualifier], and they have been denied discovery access to any of Obama records, as well as anyone who has had access to those records. There is no defense for Lakin on this basis.
The Veterans Council of the United States Patriots Union has decided not to let LTC Lakin face these charges alone, without a proper defense. Following this statement, a 2nd White Paper concerning the Lakin courts-martial is being released. The PDF is embedded here:
Eligibility for the office of President and Commander-in-Chief is very clear in the U.S. Constitution.“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.” -
Article II – Section I – Clause V
These constitutional requirements are not negotiable, nor are they without history, reasoning or vital purpose.
As we discussed in the original White Paper, t he central point in the issue over Lakin‟s refusal to follow orders is the requirement of “natural born citizen.” Note that “native born” citizenship is not the requirement for President. Native born is a statement of birth place, which could be established by an authentic birth certificate for Barack Obama. No such document has been presented by Mr. Obama, despite two years of demands to produce that document.
The requirement is “natural born” – as-in “nature‟s law,” the law of nature, superseding any and all man- made laws or statutes. The term “natural born” was specifically chosen for this very reason, that no man- made law could affect the status of “natural-born.”
The subject is written about extensively in Vattel‟s book The Law of Nations, in which Vattel settles on the definition of natural-born, as follows;
...
It is our opinion that the existing legal team representing LTC Lakin should be re-energized and reinforced immediately by a more experienced military legal team. We hope to offer the Lakin defense team additional legal talent that we believe will lead to a positive outcome for LTC Lakin, his family and our national security interests. We are very concerned that continuing with the current defense strategy, the search for a birth certificate, will likely end in the wrongful conviction of LTC Lakin, establishing a horrific and unnecessary precedent in the Courts-Martial system of the US Military, as described above. We feel obligated to do all that we can to avoid this outcome.
In an effort to support and assist the Lakin Team, The Veterans Council of the United States Patriots Union has worked to make available the best possible legal defense team capable of and willing to assist with the Lakin courts-martial defense.
We recognize that defense strategy decisions are ultimately in the hands of LTC Lakin. We hereby call upon the Lakin defense team to alter the defense strategy and to accept the assistance of additional defense counsel, which would lend its leadership to the case on behalf of LTC Lakin, the Armed Forces and the people of the United States of America.
We call upon patriots to engage and support this vital Veterans Council initiative by joining The United States Patriots Union. Veterans who wish to directly engage with and participate in The Veterans Council should apply to that division, once a member of USPU. A special defense fund may be established within the Veterans Council. The place for veterans to be heard is here, and the time is now.
It is imperative that all veterans support us now, by joining this effort within the Veterans Division of The United States Patriots Union.
Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely (Ret.) of the USPU Veterans Council can be reached at 406-249-1091 for further comment."
Continued: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/09/press-release-veterans-statement-on-ltc.html
The phrase you cite says “sujets naturels” - natural subjects, which would under common law be natural born subject in England, or natural born citizen in the US.
“The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”
Cited by the US Supreme Court.
Cited by the US Supreme Court.
Ok, I'll bite. So what the Supreme court said is this:
“The term “citizen,”(natural/original common law) as understood in our law, is precisely analogous(Similar in function but not in structure(meaning) and evolutionary origin(jus commune/natural/original common law v. jura corona, or lex prerogativa/feudal/statutory law)) to the term (“subject”jura corona, or lex prerogativa/feudal/statutory law) in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”
Thus when the founders & framers changed the form of government, they also changed the form of citizenship. Form being the meaning of the term not the function. It was how an individual became tied to the political state.
OK. You are right and I am wrong...so why do birthers lose all their cases?
After all, Vattel was the source of our government, our Constitution, and all meanings...so why doesn’t the Supreme Court know it?
Of course, what they wrote was that “the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government”, leaving the underlying meaning the same.
NO, this should be posted on every threads possible and shouted out from the rooftop so that the American people can wake up and see the truth. Don’t try censoring other FRiends. rxsid keep on posting as often you can!!!
Mrs. Rogers crossed his fingers when he pledge to the Constitution and is still using that paper in his bathroom!!!
Per the Journals of Congress in 1781, “sujets naturels” was translated as “natural subjects”. It seems entirely reasonable that a phrase such as “citoyens naturels” could be translated as “natural citizens”, doesn’t it? (Not that Google is the final word, but when I type in “citoyens naturels,” Google translates it as “natural citizens.”) So when Vattel is discussing citizens and says “Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens” it’s not beyond imagination that it could be translated as “The natural, or indigenous, are those who were born in the country of citizen parents.”
The two translations of Vattel used different english phrases. Were they translated by the same person? Would someone else come up with yet another translation? Given twenty different people translating the text, how many variations do you suppose they would end up with?
Saying that the translation of Vattel they were working with didn’t say NBC implies that they would have just copied and pasted, instead of coming up with original language that would be easily understood by everyone. They weren’t quoting Vattel, they were using the concepts of natural law, using Vattel as one of their references.
Who was their opponent or "enemy"???
The British King, and the LEAST thing they wanted in their new Constitution was anything that had to do with the King's common law, therefore the ONLY option was Vattel. Period!!!
The supreme court never defined NBC. They commented on it, quoted different, sometimes conflicting sources. They never had occasion to make a ruling on whether someone was an NBC or not. So it’s all dicta, isn’t it? If they actually end up taking one of these cases, I’m sure they will look at these opinions. But since NBC is the main point of the whole thing, I think they’ll be more careful in their research than just taking another justice’s dicta as fact.
I (obviously) agree. I don’t post that for those that have already seen it, I post for those that haven’t (i.e. lurkers, passer-byers, those who simply haven’t seen it, etc). I’ve been meaning to add to it/modify it (which I’ve started), and will, but just kinda busy. The “message”, IMO, needs to be restated. It’s because the left hasn’t succeeded in burying the message, at large, that this issue has not only not gone away...but has grown. Thanks.
After all, Vattel was the source of our government, our Constitution, and all meanings...so why doesn’t the Supreme Court know it?
I do not buy into Vattel being the ultimate authority though his woks are vital when you put them next to all the others such as Locke, Puffendorf, Domat, etc. What vattel did was tighten the meaning of natural born to limit it to birth within the territory and for good reason. The feudal law that was in place from the Brits throughout the world. There was a reason the 1795 Naturalization Act was repealed and the term “natural born citizen” was removed and replaced with just “citizen” in 1798 (war of 1812) and there is plenty of law review & court cases to back it up. Birth abroad falls under the Dept of State & statutory law according to the foreign affairs manual as well the former INS.
Of course, what they wrote was that “the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government”, leaving the underlying meaning the same.
Words have meaning, especially in law. Analogous is NOT synonymous thus meaing is everything while function has not changed.
http://www.belcherfoundation.org/joseph_story_on_rules_of_constitutional_interpretation.htm
The progressive movement has purposefully been obfuscating the law since the civil war. Let's call it “sore losers” because they wished to go back to big government where “we the people” no longer control the purse strings & population. If you really dig, you can see congressional records of them trying to transform this as far back as the late 1820’s.
You have to keep in the forefront of your mind that the progressives/Dems didn't want the slaves to be free as was laid out in the constitution & declaration.(remember in the north from the founding, blacks were allowed to vote & hold high positions) But more importantly you need to keep in the forefront the fact that one of the MAIN reasons stated in the Declaration of Independence was the fact that the Brits had forced the states to end ALL immigration from foreign nations.(He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners;) English subjects according to the crown were already considered members of the colonies due strictly to the fact of their birth on British soil and they did not recognize the citizenship of foreign parents who were traveling through their territory and thus made any children born to those parents, aliens to them. This IS NOT natural law (separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them). Feudal subjectship was birthed from statutory law put in place & kept in place by centuries of rulers who were drunk with power. The Brits expanding territory due to conquering foreign nations resulted in a massive loss of body count & men to serve in its military. For this a comprehensive study of the war of 1812 is a must.
FYI: Chester Arthur was a Democrat before he schmoozed his way into the new Republican party. He was NO conservative and the newly formed Conservative Republican party of Lincoln did NOT back him. Lincoln assassinated, Garfield assassinated within 4 election cycles, this was NO coincidence. Kennedy, the only Dem to be assassinated was a conservative dem fiscally and to change the nation, they need the control of the money & Kennedy a signed an order to begin the dismantling of the federal reserve bank.
For more than a century, progressive judges have been allowed to legislate from the bench without any repercussion(removal from the bench). But as we do know, this is NOT a settled matter and there needs to be just the RIGHT case before the SCOTUS & Lakin has the standing according to the US military code of justice. I believe we'll soon see very soon just how dedicated our current SCOTUS is to the constitution. Next day to watch, Sept 28th. There is a reason this usurper is not showing his original bonifides and I do not think it is because he has a different daddy.
The revolution wasn’t won by going to battle only one time. Repetition & success in winning over those coming off the koolaid is going to take many posting of the truth for it to sink in.
1790 Naturalization Act repealed & replaced with the 1795 Act. In 1795 the French war was escalating and the attack on US trade ships and the taking captive of US citizens who were former Brit subjects and forcing them into the service of the Crown or jailing & torturing them had begun. 1798 brought the 1st Alien & Sedition Act and the extended time(probation) period between filing to become a US citizen & actually gaining US citizenship.
If they wanted nothing to do with the common law, they had a funny way of showing it. More than half of the Framers were lawyers whose legal education and practice dealt with common law. They used their experience to modify and streamline common law, not toss it aside.
I don't see that in "We The People"???
Vattel noted in Law of Nations that “... there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.” We know that the founders read Vattel, so even if he didn’t use the specific term ‘natural born citizen,’ he made a distinction between natural subjects and naturalized subjects. While English law may have called children of foreigners born in the country ‘natural born subjects,’ Vattel is pointing out that these children are actually naturalized and are NOT natural subjects as he defined them. Since our founders rejected a great deal of common law, it can’t be assumed that states subscribed to this law unless it was specified in their charter or constitution. We already know that many states reserved the right of citizenship only to the children of citizens, which is expressed in their charters. This concept is also expressed in our constutition, “We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union ... secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity ...” This country was established for the people who rejected England and for their children (our posterity). Our naturalization laws thereafter defined who else could become a citizen of the United States. Any right of citizenship solely by geographical birth was not expressed nationally until the 14th amendment, but only for those persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The 14th amendment is thus a naturalization law, except that it does not recognize persons born under its circumstances as natural born citizens. Our ‘posterity’ (the children of the people of the United States) are the natural born citizens and require no statute nor amendment to define or establish their citizenship.
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.