Posted on 10/03/2010 8:35:14 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
When courts-martial presiding authority Col. Denise Lind issued a ruling that blocked Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin's constitutional right to provide a defense by denying him a right to discovery and evidence supporting his decision to refuse what he believed to be illegal orders, thousands of fellow military veterans unified in Lakin's defense.
The Veterans Council of the The United States Patriots Union, led by respected retired officers like Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely and Col. Harry Riley, and Sgt. Timothy Harrington issued White Paper #1 on September 3, 2010. It recommended a slightly different defense strategy for Lt. Col. Lakin that focused solely upon the historic term natural-born citizen as a constitutional requirement for the office of president. The report called upon the Lakin defense to drop the search for a birth certificate (native-born) and focus on the bloodline of the father (natural-born) issues already known.
When the Lakin defense team rebuffed calls from USPU Veterans to alter defense strategy, the Veterans Council issued White Paper #2 on September 10, 2010. It delved deeper into concerns over the anti-constitutional precedents being established in the Lakin case and reinforced calls upon the Lakin defense team to change strategies, offering to bring expert UCMJ and criminal counsel to the table on behalf of Lakin.
The second white paper also established the proper interpretation of the term natural-born citizen – “that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
White Paper #2 connected Vattel's Law of Nations to the Constitution by way of its mention in Article 1, Section 8, Item 10 of the US Constitution, leaving Obama nowhere to run on the subject.
Still, the Lakin defense team stayed the course, despite growing pressure to drop the birth certificate search and provide Lakin with the correct defense. The USPU Veterans Council responded by issuing White Paper #3 on September 27, calling upon Republicans in congress busy campaigning on the Pledge to return America to honor, economic, and judicial sanity.
The document represents a change in tactics for the Veterans Council. It focuses on congressional candidates and media darlings spewing rhetoric about standing with our soldiers, calling upon these folks to take a real stand where it really counts, demanding the LTC Lakin get a complete and fair trial, including his right to discover and present mitigating evidence in his own defense.
Officers in the Veterans Council stayed the course on legal advice, which has been well vetted by constitutional lawyers, constitutional scholars, retired judges, and former JAG attorneys. They were forced, however, to alter tactics by the Lakin defense team, which was still refusing to shift defense strategy.
The Lakin defense team's decision to stay the course received another blow a day later. "We got absolutely slammed today," said Paul R. Jensen, lead counsel for the defense. "It's impossible for us to have a fair trial under these rulings."
This is exactly what the USPU Veterans Council had tried to advise the Lakin team against in three white papers. So long as the team stays the course in search of a “native-born” birth certificate, they have no defense and they have been told so twice now by presiding authority Col. Lind.
As the USPU White Papers were circulating to other law offices and defense teams, on September 30, Attorney Mario Apuzzo filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for Kerchner et al vs. Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al Lawsuit, which bases its arguments upon the facts established in the USPU White Papers.
The US Supreme Court is the proper venue for the filing as the only court with authority to rule and act on issues concerning a sitting president.
One way or another, the Veterans at the United States Patriots Union are determined to force a legal decision on the most vital question in America today – Does our Constitution stand in full force and effect or not!
Focused on the facts, unified in action, determined to make a real difference, the Veterans Council of The United States Patriots Union is proving that honorable Americans do have the power to alter the course of history. They do so by placing the issue of Barack Obama's ineligibility to serve as president and commander-in-chief front and center in the Lakin court-martial and the US Supreme Court all at the same time by way of three independently researched, written, vetted, and released white papers, all in less than a month.
The Veterans Council is now calling upon the signers of the Pledge to America, Tea Party congressional candidates, and TV talking heads to get behind Lakin in demanding he receive a full, fair trial. Further, the Veterans Council calls upon the members of the US Supreme Court to hear the facts established in the Apuzzo case immediately.
They also call upon fellow veterans and citizen patriots to join them at US Patriots Union to focus on the facts and unify in real and tangible strategies aimed at returning our runaway government to the American patriots.
The Founding Fathers gave us the right and the tools to defend freedom and liberty peacefully via our founding documents. Returning those documents to proper status as the supreme law of this land begins with upholding Article II of the US Constitution.
If Article II no longer stands, then no part of the Constitution stands today and that is unacceptable to the Veterans and members of the US Patriots Union. “If the final dismantling of our founding principles and values are unacceptable to you, JOIN US!” says Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely.
JOIN US NOW! Make a real difference!
In that case possibly but definitely a Commie Bastard.
“Thousands of fellow Military Veterans unified in Lakin’s defense. - placing 0bama Eligibility on Front Burner”
That is exactly what I think. The Birth Certificate is a smoke screen. It’s his Heritage which makes him ineligible.
Actually, BHO dba POTUS needs to prove his dad was a US citizen. As we all know, Barrack Hussien Obama’s dad was born in Kenya and died in Kenya as a Kenyan.
Not entirely. If The Won was born outside the US, that too, would make him not a natural born citizen, and would be much less controversial than having the Supreme Court rule on the "foreign father", or "Natural Born" vs. "native born" issue. Even for most of Oh's staunchest supporters would not argue that a person born outside the US of a foreign citizen father, was a Natural Born citizen. Especially one that did not even qualify as a citizen at birth under the law as it existed at that time.
So it need not be either reason A or reason B, it can be both, but either is sufficient.
“That is exactly what I think. The Birth Certificate is a smoke screen. It’s his Heritage which makes him ineligible.”
Smokescreen how-—or why shouldn’t both be pursued? How would things ‘be’ or ‘be different’ if the BC issue was dropped?
I don’t disagree with you, I am just curious as to what would change if the BC issue is dropped. A military court would still not hear Lakin’s argument. It’s not their place—it’s the SCOTUS’. At least that’s how I have been made to understand it.=)
Obama is hiding that BC and it seems to me that with or without that issue, the NBC/Two U.S> Parents issue would still not be going in front of SCOTUS. But I may not understand something here, I am no lawyer. I just don’t see how it’s a smokescreen or how it keeps people from pursuing the British father angle at the same time.
Exactly. I am suspicious of people who constantly shout, “Forget the birth certificate! He’s not a natural born citizen anyway!”
Well, why are these issues mutually exclusive? Obama and his supporters have lied repeatedly on numerous issues, and there are coverups all over the place. Why do we need to focus on just one issue?
The birth certificate problem has legs, and it’s easy for people to understand. It has not gone away, despite Obama’s best efforts. The question is simple. Why does Obama refuse to show his birth certificate. Why? And why did Pelosi and the rest of those who “certified” him let him get awasy with it? And why does he refuse to show his student, college, or passport records? And why did three of his workers sneak into his passport files in the State Department? And why was one of them shot when he was about to testify.
There are a lot of questions there. They are real questions. They all put Obama’s legitimacy in doubt. And they deserve to be answered.
The WKA decision also quotes a paper, published by Binny. in 1853, over 40 years before WKA was decided,
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.
Thus making a distinction between "the child of an alien" who is a citizen "if born the country" and the "natural born child of a citizen".
Horace Binney: was born January 4, 1780. He graduated from Harvard in 1797 and was admitted to the Philadelphia bar in 1800.
In 1806, Binney became a member of the Pennsylvania legislature, serving until 1807. In 1808 he became a director of the first Bank of the United States, then returned to his political career in 1810 as a member of the Philadelphia Common Council and, from 1816 to 1819, the Philadelphia Select Council.
As a counselor, Binney displayed his legal expertise in cases concerning land titles. He won a famous victory in the Girard Trust Case of 1844, which involved the legality of a charitable legacy left to Philadelphia by philanthropist Stephen Girard. Binney defended the validity of this gift and set a precedent for interpretation of the law in regard to charitable bequests. See also trusts.
Binney was a representative for Pennsylvania in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1833 to 1835. He opposed the views of Andrew Jackson on the Second Bank of the United States: Binney favored the federal bank, while Jackson preferred the use of state banks for federal deposits.
Binney wrote several biographies and case reports, including Leaders of the Old Bar of Philadelphia (1859). He died August 12, 1875, in Philadelphia.
Hey hun! :)
It’s a smoke screen because it is what most of the public is thinking about. The whole ‘Birther” thing is ripe for mockery, and it has been mocked thats for sure.
That being said. the Birth Certificate is important in that it may reveal some form of evidence which ALSO proves his ineligibility. But we are not going to force the release of it. Lakin MIGHT be able to do so, but has thus far been thwarted.
However, we DO know Obama’s heritage. That Heritage is British as much as it is American. The definition of “Natural Born Citizen” that the founders meant means that no one other than someone with American heritage and citizenship could run for or be POTUS. Obama’s birth with two citizenships means he never was nor could he ever be an NBC.
So simply based on what we do know, he is an usurper. Even before we get a look at what is on his Long Form.
This is more or less what I mean by a smoke screen. As long as people are focused solely on the Long Form, then they are not looking at what is right in front of them. Clear evidence the man is an usurper. People think it all hinges on the long form. It doesn’t, and that perception is hiding what is in plain view.
I hope that made sense. I have not had any coffee yet!
I hear you, but I think there’s a lot of people like me that think both issues are pretty important.
I also suspect that unless we have a legal record declaring his father is kenyan-born and british, then there’s no evidence to take anything to SCOTUS.
“Lakin MIGHT be able to do so, but has thus far been thwarted.”
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. His birth certificate will only be released to a person demonstrating they have a tangible interest in verifying his DATE OF BIRTH. There’s no legal dispute on what being 35 years old at the time of inauguration means. In other words, it would be palpably illegal if Obama was serving as president and as a 34 year old usurper. I find it odd that none of these lawyers argue this.
Except the most expedient way to prove O. Sr. is the legal birth father is by presenting the original BC. As it is now, we only have his word that Sr. is his father. Short of digging up Davis or Malcolm X or Stanley and doing a DNA test, we have to take Ann's and typical white granny's word on the BC. You are correct that the SSN, draft reg, etc. has nothing to do with this case, though I'd love to see him brought up on separate charges for those. However, adoption by Lolo, passport history, and possible citizenship changes might be needed if it turns out that Sr. isn't listed on the real BC.
Yep. If he can make documents disappear, he can make them appear.
I don't believe America has the guts for a civil war.
Also, if he was born outside the US, Ann was too young to bestow US citizenship on him. Again, we have to go back to whomever the orginal BC states is the legal father and his citizenship. Every avenue eventually leads back to the vault copy.
Your "clear evidence" is only his word that Sr. is his father. The courts need more than a liar's word. They need some sort of legal documentation and that would be the BC, adoption papers, divorce papers, original passport, etc.
A ruling coming soon to a courtroom near you. Precedent. Slippery slope.
Actually, releasing the original vital records is the ONLY way to prove Obama Sr. is the legally recognized biological father.
I’m with you, the BC issue matters a lot.
Why don’t these lawyers directly request his long form birth certificate be released in order to verify that Obama meets the constitutional age requirement?
There’s no dispute on the meaning of “35 years old.” OIP opinion letter 90-23 lays out the guidelines for a non-relative to make this kind of request. In fact, determination of our fourth amendment rights seems a perfectly wonderful reason according to Hawaii’s own laws. The POTUS has the authority to declare martial law and waive our fourth amendment protections of warrants and probably cause.
Why do all these lawyers avoid directly requesting the vital records from Hawaii for this stated reason?
‘Chapter 11-1, Hawaii Administrative Rules’ provides guidelines on what ‘argument’ needs to be provided for Fukino to waive the relationship requirement found in HRS 338-18(b).
It would make sense to at least try.
I just cannot agree with you more.=)The long form must be freed.
“Also, if he was born outside the US, Ann was too young to bestow US citizenship on him. Again, we have to go back to whomever the orginal BC states is the legal father and his citizenship. Every avenue eventually leads back to the vault copy.”
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.