New Defense Strategy Proposed for lt. col. Terrence Lakin (Maj.Gen. Paul E. Vallely)

ThePost & Email ^ | 9-14-10 | Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely (Ret.)

[imfleck]

Here’s the strategy he ought to employ: plead guilty.

[danamco]

He does claims he is a “Native” citizen, NOT a NBC!!!

[Godebert]

Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America. History will not look favorably upon those who fail to uphold their sworn oath.

[Electric Graffiti]

A lot of big names are starting to speak out......If Lakin gets some more high profile support and donations to fight the Holder/Soros/Hussein smear machine this may go somewhere.

Even if it doesn’t, the brush fire is lit and the winds are starting to blow.

When most of the active duty military have doubts that the CIC is legitimate, you know this thing is going to explode.

It’s telling that all the usual trolling, lowlife, simpering, Obama-rumpswab bedwetters are here. The memo went out.....change your acorn issued depends and start spamming eligibility threads.

[David]

He does claims he is a “Native” citizen, NOT a NBC!!!

Fine. Do you or does anyone know of any legal authority--a decided case; dictum in a decided case; anything in the way of real legal authority supporting the proposition that there is some legal difference?

It continues to astonish me that many of the posters here just drive along speculating about how things ought to work or what the result of a legal contest ought to be without really knowing anything about how the process works or about what the real legal authorities are.

I find it disturbing that there is a continuing effort in the legal process to focus the issue on considerations other than the place of Obama's birth--I have heard several times the suggestion that Obama's lawyers are looking for a decision other than one based on a place of birth finding for the purpose of establishing a Supreme Court precedent confirming his eligibility without having to face the Kenya birth location. I don't mean to impugn the officers who are supporting Lakin's case but it almost seems that the continuing effort to dilute the argument on place of birth is directed to ultimately obtaining a decision supporting Obama's position.

During the course of my own career, the "natural born citizen" clause has been the subject of fairly intensive debate on more than one occasion.

First was Goldwater who was born in the territory of Arizona before it became a state.

More recently, Republicans and many members of Congress were concerned about the qualification of John McCain. With respect to McCain, the natural born citizen requirement is a test of eligibility set forth in the Constitution. Yes, it could be amended through the Amendment process. But even enacted legislation signed by the President making McCain a natural born citizen would not cut it if he was not in fact qualified in that respect.

Congress, or in this case the Senate in a sense of the senate resolution, does not have the power to directly amend the constitution.

We all recognize that the Senate effort with respect to McCain was initiated by Obama's allies for the purpose of attempting to clarify Obama's position. However during the course of the discussion and in communications to the House about the prospect that the House would pass a bill if one were enacted by the Senate, significant attention was paid to the narrow kinds of issues that have been set out here.

Experienced Constitutional lawyers in DC were involved. The Republican National Committee became concerned and ultimately sought legal advice. Now when a client comes in with a checkbook and says we need a written opinion that this deal works the way we want to do it so write the strongest opinion you can write, cooperative counsel does what he is asked to do.

However those opinions are recognized by the bar as having the weight of the client's checkbook and not much more. The bottom line is that uncertain issues of great Constitutional significance ultimately get resolved by the United States Supreme Court.

In the McCain episode, the issue was further confused by the question of the "canal zone". Most of the initial arguments and facts were couched in terms of his birth in the "canal zone" and it was argued that somehow made a difference as distinguished from Panama proper. It didn't and doesn't.

Anyone who examined the extensive work that was done at the time of the Goldwater issue understood clearly that if Arizona remained a territory and had not become a state, Goldwater was subject to objection even though the US was the primary sovereign in the territorial period.

The Constitutional Bar generally, absent any bias resulting from current issues, is of the consensus view that adoption of the 14th Amendment vitiated any underlying historical authority on the purpose of the natural born citizen clause to the extent that authority would suggest other conditions of qualification other than birth within the territorial limits of the several states.

I know that many poster's here do not want to believe it but the bottom line is that in Obama's case, if the controlling court record finds that he was born in Hawaii, he will be held eligible to hold the office--if the record is Kenya, he is not eligible. That simple. (There is no doubt in my view, that the clear record at present demonstrates that he was in fact born in Kenya--however the ultimate Constitutional decision will depend on a Court record so a careful legal job needs to be done obtaining and introducing admissible evidence to support that factual view.)

And if the legal question proceeds to McCain, and it would not surprise me even at this late date if it did, the Court would hold that he is not eligible because he was born in Panama. The Canal Zone issue is a red herring--it shouldn't make any difference whether he was born in the Zone or in Panama proper and the McCain campaign has conceded that he was in fact born in Panama.

Either way, McCain is not eligible because he was not born in the territorial limits of the several states.

I also want to address Constitutional legal procedure. The Courts are not "hiding behind" some artificial requirement with the standing decisions. Standing is a long established procedure doctrine imposed to assure that a decision when rendered will resolve arguments and provide an enforceable conclusion. Law Schools spend a four hour course for an entire year on nuances of these kinds of issues which I am not able to summarize in the available space here. But to my knowledge, with a single exception of a wrong District Court decision which was not appealed, all of the other standing decisions I have read on this issue have been correctly decided.

As to the military tribunal in Lakin, there are other procedural considerations in force here. As I set out in one of my earlier posts, if the legal strategy in Lakin is being micro managed by some able legal decision makers, the current posture of the case may be directed to getting rid of the argument without leaving an appeal open.

Ultimately, subject only to the considerations set forth in my closing comments, Lakin cannot be punished for refusing to obey the order without having access to a collateral attack on the decision in the Federal Courts in which the Military would be forced to face the issue of Obama's legal authority on the merits.

The limitation on that view is that competent counsel needs to get the issue squarely framed to force the proper tribunal into facing the facts. So far, the reported WND and other commentary suggests that counsel has not done the most effective job of getting the issue to the proper court and it may be that Lakin will wind up holding the bag even though he is correct on the merits.

[thecodont]

(There is no doubt in my view, that the clear record at present demonstrates that he was in fact born in Kenya--however the ultimate Constitutional decision will depend on a Court record so a careful legal job needs to be done obtaining and introducing admissible evidence to support that factual view.)

We still haven't seen in any legal proceeding an official, long-form birth certificate proving he was born in the State (not Territory) of Hawai'i, in the United States of America.

[David]

We still haven't seen in any legal proceeding an official, long-form birth certificate proving he was born in the State (not Territory) of Hawai'i, in the United States of America.

A more important point than is generally recognized.

Lawyers deal with a proposition called "burden of proof"--who needs to make a specific factual showing to establish a basis for their case.

Most commentators (read Bill O'Reilly) believe that the burden of proof will be on the party asserting that Obama was born outside the United States--to show he was born somewhere else. That is probably not going to be the case.

To some degree, this is likely to depend on the legal action--the substance of the case; the parties; and the forum in which the argument takes place.

In an ultimate challenge on the merits to the military to show that its Commander in Chief in fact exercises the authority of the office of President, the challenge to the order is simply a request to show the authority.

However as a practical matter, the court is going to hear this kind of argument only in a context where the challenging party is able to start with the proposition "here is why it appears that he was not born in the US" with some reasonable description of its position.

So when counsel gets his client into court with one of these arguments, he needs to have thought through how he gets this entry position in place. Sure the burden ought to be on Obama to show where he was born but to effectively get the question in place, the moving party needs to make some kind of first showing about why the issue is presented.

Here, much of the work has been done. Personally, I see Smith's affidavit and birth certificate as probably being enough to get over the hurdle.

[LucyT]

"Do you or does anyone know of any legal authority--a decided case; dictum in a decided case; anything in the way of real legal authority supporting the proposition that there is some legal difference?

"It continues to astonish me that many of the posters here just drive along speculating about how things ought to work or what the result of a legal contest ought to be without really knowing anything about how the process works or about what the real legal authorities are.

"I find it disturbing that there is a continuing effort in the legal process to focus the issue on considerations other than..."

. . . . Check out David's comment # 45. - 0bama, and McCain mentioned, too.

Perhaps the discussion should have its own thread, but I don't know where to post it.

[Thanks, David.]

[danamco]

Thank you for the post!

We all recognize that the Senate effort with respect to McCain was initiated by Obama's allies for the purpose of attempting to clarify Obama's position.

I don't think that the "Senate's" effort was to clarify Barry's position. Rather it was to cover up and only for the purposes of protect his worse position!

I know that many poster's here do not want to believe it but the bottom line is that in Obama's case, if the controlling court record finds that he was born in Hawaii, he will be held eligible to hold the office--if the record is Kenya, he is not eligible. That simple. (There is no doubt in my view, that the clear record at present demonstrates that he was in fact born in Kenya--however the ultimate Constitutional decision will depend on a Court record so a careful legal job needs to be done obtaining and introducing admissible evidence to support that factual view.)

The B.C. in essence of the NBC is mostly irrelevant, except for when the copy of his Kenya (footprint) B.C. is validated. But more obscure is the fact he probably still is an Indonesian citizen as SAD dropped him from her Passport application at a time he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and was an Indonesian citizen according to an AP school application form. To get back to Honolulu from Jakarta required a separate Passport!!

I also want to address Constitutional legal procedure. The Courts are not "hiding behind" some artificial requirement with the standing decisions.

Seems to me within the judiciary sphere it's like a "hot" potato that neither the crooked Congress or the courts want to touch with a ten-foot pole, Thomas saying with a "straight" face/smile(?) "We are evading it." They are extremely good punters that they would have done well in the NFL. The "Marine" judge Carter promise to hear the case on its MERIT and went along with procedures, UNTIL one of Bob Bauer's employee became a clerk for Carter - (or maybe a 3:00 AM call from the Red Phone?) - he then likewise punted the case out of court on the alter of "jurisdiction/standing," case closed. I don't have any kind of edifying view of our court system, regardless the Bar or how many classes they have taken. Your example with the check book is a good one, however!!!

[LucyT]

. . . . # 47, too.

[CynicalBear]

>>His Mother’s age is irrelevant, because Obama had citizenship from birth as a result of being born on American soil. <<

Prove it. And don’t try to use the already debunked made up colb that has already been determined to be invaluable as a proof.

[danamco]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2590981/posts?page=31#31

[thecodont]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2590981/posts?page=31#31

Right. And WOW.

May the truth be revealed! In court!

[bgill]

So you keep saying, though you’ve yet to provide an argument that has standing for the courts to proceed.

[bgill]

Personally, I see Smith's affidavit and birth certificate as probably being enough to get over the hurdle.

Which came first, Smith's footprint or the child care site's blue footprint and is it Hussein's footprint?

[The Comedian]

He’s not Natural Born because his father was a British Subject and his mother was not old enough to confer citizenship. Why is that not being put forward as an argumen

No kidding!!

Arg, this so frustrating.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[Fred Nerks]

Which came first, Smith's footprint or the child care site's blue footprint and is it Hussein's footprint?

I went through that 'babyguide' website and could NOT find a footprint that looked anything like the one on the Lucas document.

May I run through the sequence of events one more time?

A freeper, whom I will not name (because it's up to the freeper to come forward and admit what he/she did, IMO) posted two blue footprints attached to the babyguide logo.

As the footprints looked familiar, AND BOTH WERE IDENTICAL LEFT AND RIGHT MIRROR IMAGES, I suspected that the origin was from the Lucas document itself. But checked the babyguide website anyway.

I then returned to the thread and asked the freeper/poster for the source of the image. IMMEDIATELY, the image was removed from the thread.

I then posted the image - as I had downloaded it. Why? Because I wanted to show that the two blue footprints combined with the babyguide logo HAD BEEN CREATED. I suspected this was done simply to discredit the Lucas document. And that's NOT the way we do things on FR...right?

I was then accused of fabricating the image myself. The original poster did not come forward - and still to this day has NOT. I'm still waiting.

Here is the offending image:

BOTH LEFT AND RIGHT PRINTS ARE THE SAME...SOURCE? THE LUCAS DOCUMENT.

[LucyT]

. . . . Back to the thread, see # 57 . - All of it.

I suspected this was done simply to discredit the Lucas document. And that's NOT the way we do things on FR...right?

I (Fred Nerks) was then accused of fabricating the image myself. The original poster did not come forward - and still to this day has NOT.

Fred, I recall the original post with those blue footprints.

[little jeremiah]

I vividly recall that thread and someone else posting those blue footprints with mother and baby. Can’t remember who but it was definitely not you!

[little jeremiah]

If I were you, (I bet you’re glad I’m not!), I’d out the person who did it.

S/he was bold enough to fabricate it and post it, s/he should be bold enough to live through it being posted again.

Whichever mod took it down should be ashamed of herself. Or himself. the post is not against FR rules - it’s not racist, inciting violence, etc.