parsy, who is more interested in that aspect.
Really?? Here is a hint
Posted on 04/13/2010 8:19:14 AM PDT by Man50D
Washington, D.C., April 13, 2010. Army doctor Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin yesterday met with his brigade commander, Col. Gordon R. Roberts, who proceeded to read LTC Lakin his Miranda rights, and who informed LTC Lakin he had the “right to remain silent” because LTC Lakin is about to be charged with serious crimes. Col. Roberts was at age 19 awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, the only recipient of the nation’s highest honor currently on active duty in the Army.
LTC Lakin had previously been ordered in writing to report yesterday to Ft. Campbell, KY and then on to deploy for his second tour of duty in Afghanistan. Lakin refused to obey these orders and instead came to work yesterday morning at the Pentagon. Late yesterday afternoon he was confronted by his brigade commander.
Before the meeting was over, LTC Lakin’s Pentagon Access Pass had been revoked, and his laptop computer was set to be confiscated.
The message to LTC Lakin is clear; through official channels, he was informed yesterday that he will shortly be court-martialled for crimes (specifically, missing movement and conduct unbecoming an officer) that for others has led to lengthy imprisonment at hard labor.
Lakin has announced in a YouTube video that has now been viewed more than 110,000 times that he considers it his duty to refuse to obey orders that would be illegal if President Obama is ineligible to hold office.
Meanwhile, cries mount for proof of that eligibility, but nothing has been forthcoming. The Obama campaign at one point released a copy of computer-generated abstract of information purportedly in Hawaii's records system, but the source of this information is unclear and need not have been a birth certificate issued contemporaneously and signed by the doctor who attended the birth. Even the document released was only a copy, and the version printed in the Los Angeles Times on June 16, 2008 is on a form only in use since late 2001. Even as it is, the document contains a warning that it is merely “prima facie”--threshold, rebuttable and thus inconclusive --evidence of birth, and the copy the Times printed mysteriously has the certificate number blacked out, thereby rendering the document unusable according to language on the bottom.
Given the seriousness of the offenses with which LTC Lakin is about to be charged, the American Patriot Foundation today renewed its plea for donations to its legal defense fund for LTC Lakin. Details are available at APF's website, www.safeguardourconstitution.com
j, I didn't challenge the word 'verifying,' just the object you claimed was being verified. Helps if you can read.
As for “legal weight” there have now been 68 adjudications of lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility including 7 at the US Supreme Court and no challenging plaintiff has prevailed in any of them.
Which one of those cases was specifically decided on the basis of the statement you quoted??
The short form Certification of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii clearly states: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.”
Right, and for obvious reasons, that same short form was never presented in any of the 68 cases you mentioned. Had it been presented in one, then maybe there wouldn't have been 67 other cases and Biden would be president now. Not the best alternative, but if that's what must be, so be it.
All the information needed to verify Article 2 Section 1 eligibility is on the short form issued by the state of Hawaii.
Wrong. It contains some information, but certainly not all.
And when Congress fails to do its job, then who is responsible in a Constitutional Republic of We the People with Constitutional rights to redress of grievances??? or are we all supposed to just sit down and shut up and read another chapter of the adventures of Humpty Dumpty???
” . . . his only vulnerability is his ability to front the cost of getting the evidence together and getting a decent lawyer to present his case . . .”
Does Lt. Col. Lakin have a legal fund that needs our contributions?
Here’s the info from Article 92 referenced in my above post.
Text.
“Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Elements.
(1) Violation of or failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation.
(a) That there was in effect a certain lawful general order or regulation;
(b) That the accused had a duty to obey it; and
(c) That the accused violated or failed to obey the order or regulation.
(2) Failure to obey other lawful order.
(a) That a member of the armed forces issued a certain lawful order;
(b) That the accused had knowledge of the order;
(c) That the accused had a duty to obey the order; and
(d) That the accused failed to obey the order.
(3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.
(a) That the accused had certain duties;
(b) That the accused knew or reasonably should have known of the duties; and
(c) That the accused was (willfully) (through neglect or culpable inefficiency) derelict in the performance of those duties.
Explanation.
(1) Violation of or failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation.
(a) General orders or regulations are those orders or regulations generally applicable to an armed force which are properly published by the President or the Secretary of Defense, of Transportation, or of a military department, and those orders or regulations generally applicable to the command of the officer issuing them throughout the command or a particular subdivision thereof which are issued by:
(i) an officer having general court-martial jurisdiction;
(ii) a general or flag officer in command; or
(iii) a commander superior to (i) or (ii).
(b) A general order or regulation issued by a commander with authority under Article 92(1) retains its character as a general order or regulation when another officer takes command, until it expires by its own terms or is rescinded by separate action, even if it is issued by an officer who is a general or flag officer in command and command is assumed by another officer who is not a general or flag officer.
(c) A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it. See the discussion of lawfulness in paragraph 14c(2)(a).
(d) Knowledge. Knowledge of a general order or regulation need not be alleged or proved, as knowledge is not an element of this offense and a lack of knowledge does not constitute a defense.
(e) Enforceability. Not all provisions in general orders or regulations can be enforced under Article 92(1). Regulations which only supply general guide-lines or advice for conducting military functions may not be enforceable under Article 92(1).
(2) Violation of or failure to obey other lawful order.
(a) Scope. Article 92(2) includes all other lawful orders which may be issued by a member of the armed forces, violations of which are not chargeable under Article 90, 91, or 92(1). It includes the violation of written regulations which are not general regulations. See also subparagraph (1)(e) above as applicable.
(b) Knowledge. In order to be guilty of this offense, a person must have had actual knowledge of the order or regulation. Knowledge of the order may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
(c) Duty to obey order.
(i) From a superior. A member of one armed force who is senior in rank to a member of another armed force is the superior of that member with authority to issue orders which that member has a duty to obey under the same circumstances as a commissioned officer of one armed force is the superior commissioned officer of a member of an-other armed force for the purposes of Articles 89, and 90. See paragraph 13c(1).
(ii) From one not a superior. Failure to obey the lawful order of one not a superior is an offense under Article 92(2), provided the accused had a duty to obey the order, such as one issued by a sentinel or a member of the armed forces police. See paragraph 15b(2), if the order was issued by a warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer in the execution of office.
(3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.
(a) Duty. A duty may be imposed by treaty, statute, regulation, lawful order, standard operating procedure, or custom of the service.
(b) Knowledge. Actual knowledge of duties may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Actual knowledge need not be shown if the individual reasonably should have known of the duties. This may be demonstrated by regulations, training or operating manuals, customs of the service, academic literature or testimony, testimony of persons who have held similar or superior positions, or similar evidence.
(c) Derelict. A person is derelict in the performance of duties when that person willfully or negligently fails to perform that person’s duties or when that person performs them in a culpably inefficient manner. “Willfully” means intentionally. I t refers to the doing of an act knowingly and purposely, specifically intending the natural and probable consequences of the act. “Negligently” means an act or omission of a person who is under a duty to use due care which exhibits a lack of that degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances. “Culpable inefficiency” is inefficiency for which there is no reasonable or just excuse.
(d) Ineptitude. A person is not derelict in the performance of duties if the failure to perform those duties is caused by ineptitude rather than by willfulness, negligence, or culpable inefficiency, and may not be charged under this article, or otherwise punished. For example, a recruit who has tried earnestly during rifle training and throughout record firing is not derelict in the performance of duties if the recruit fails to qualify with the weapon.
Lesser included offense.
Article 80—attempts
Maximum punishment.
(1) Violation or failure to obey lawful general order or regulation. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.
(2) Violation of failure to obey other lawful order. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.
Note: For (1) and (2), above, the punishment set forth does not apply in the following cases: if in the absence of the order or regulation which was violated or not obeyed the accused would on the same facts be subject to conviction for another specific offense for which a lesser punishment is prescribed; or if the violation or failure to obey is a breach of restraint imposed as a result of an order. In these instances, the maximum punishment is that specifically prescribed else wherefor that particular offense.
(3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.
(A) Through neglect or culpable inefficiency. Forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 3 months and confinement for 3 months.
(B) Willful. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.
No. They certified he got the most electoral college votes.
As a matter of law, it wouldn’t make any difference even if the certificate were the seminal act in installing him because the Constitution is couched in terms of “eligibility” to act as President. From a legal point of view, if he isn’t eligible, he can’t hold the office and act—he isn’t there.
For the military officer, it makes a big difference. I assume they all have personal liability (no tort immunity) for people who get shot and property which gets destroyed, under international law because the exemptions apply only for things done under lawful orders of the head of state.
I am astonished that the Joint Chiefs have permitted this situation to continue.
That's like saying if a bank teller accidentally accepts a counterfeit bill or check and cashes it, they were really legitimate instruments.
I truly can’t figure out what tipped him over towards this action. If anything, the Birther cause has become even less viable over the last year. Start with the “legal” challenges. Since March 2009, let’s take as a starting point, well over 50 birther lawsuits have been dismissed. Taitz wound up with sanctions in the Florida action. Hemenway scooted by on the “old age” exception. An Indiana court basically reaffirmed the reasoning in Wong. So, on that front, it has been a losing year for the birthers.
On the “he was born in Kenya” front, another year has gone by without a smoking gun. One BC (Bomford) was an obvious phony. The Smith BC hasn’t gotten much respect. Even Smith himself can’t swear that it is authentic. All he can swear to is how he got it. More importantly, there is no ongoing court action I am aware of, where it is in evidence. The Polarik analysis has been refuted by several other experts. So, on this prong, there hasn’t been any progress that I have seen.
In the court of public opinion, over the last year, more conservative pundits have disassociated themselves from the birther movement. Elections are coming up, and the conservative/Tea Party “diss” should intensify, IMHO.
So my question to Lakin is, “Why Now?” Again, I take it as given that he is sincere. Who or what convinced him now was the time to do this?
parsy, who is more interested in that aspect.
Do you actually bother to think before you post?? Why would there be a section on the president-elect qualifying AFTER the part where he may have died?? These are two different scenarios. And your other argument is equally lacking in logic. Qualifying doesn't = getting a majority of votes. Being a president-ELECT means you already got the votes from the electoral college. THEN you must qualify for the office. You might think about finding a basketweaving forum to participate at.
“0bama’s eligibility has never been ruled on.
The question is, why are you lying?”
The question is why are you stupid?
Every state that put him on the ballot ruled on his eligibility by placing him on the ballot. The people ruled on it by voting for him. The Electoral College did so by voting for him. The Congress did so by certifying the election - without any objection from any member. The Supreme Court has rejected challenges to his eligibility, which they would not do if they had concerns. The courts in Indiana have ruled Indiana’s votes were properly cast:
“Kruse and Ankeny claimed Obama does not meet the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that the president be a “natural born” citizen, because Obama’s father was a citizen of the United Kingdom at the time of his son’s birth in Hawaii.
Unlike other claimants in the so-called birther movement who deny Obama was born in Hawaii, Kruse and Ankeny argued that any U.S. citizen born of a parent who is a citizen of another country can never be president.
The Indiana Court of Appeals said it didn’t find support for that argument in its reading of the U.S. Constitution. The court ruled that “persons born within the borders of the United States are natural born citizens, for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/article_4da2bd4c-62b3-556f-a97c-8c3009013129.html
You can read the court’s reasoning here:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
I’m not lying. You are stupid - for these facts have been pointed out to you and others on this thread repeatedly. However, facts matter little to you.
I’m only up to post 98, but curious if you are new to this discussion or if you have followed it since before BO was even chosen as the democratic runner for the president?
Has anyone shown Mr. Rogers some of the evidence that has been gathered? For instance that the DNC Failed to Certify Obama as Eligible in MOST States! The only state that actually had the required wording was Hawaii? All other
Story at link:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15127
Democratic National Committee prepared, signed and notarized two slightly different Certification of Nomination documents where the statement constitutionally eligible was mysteriously missing from 49 states. We’ve been fighting this ever since. Where have you been?
No, it is more like saying that if the US Treasury accepts a bill as legitimate, it is.
The folks responsible for making judgment have done so, and without exception it has been in favor of Obama.
parsy, who is more interested in that aspect.
Really?? Here is a hint
“Democratic National Committee prepared, signed and notarized two slightly different Certification of Nomination documents where the statement constitutionally eligible was mysteriously missing from 49 states. We’ve been fighting this ever since. Where have you been?”
I’ve been living my life.
Name a state that has found Obama ineligible. There are not any. Not even Utah!
It is not up to the DNC to add a phrase with “constitutionally eligible”. It is up for each state to determine if they accept him for the ballot. And all 50 did.
Your statement makes it sound like "following procedure" automatically makes an order "lawful". That would mean that an officer merely needs to establish a "procedure" to implement an unlawful order and then it is no longer unlawful.
Also, a criminal defendant will always have "standing" to appeal a conviction. That is one of the reasons that federal gun laws, such as that which forbids sawing one-quarter-inch off an eighteen-inch shotgun barrel, carries such significant prison time. Without the serious prison time, the law would be easy to challenge. Getting "standing" in such a case poses some real jeopardy for the offender. That's the way the government wants it.
Finally, one should not confuse "standing" with "relevance".
Michael New was court-martialed for refusing to wear UN insignia on his uniform. The court-martial panel refused to allow New to introduce evidence demonstrating that the order to do so was unlawful. The Military Court of Appeals considered the case with a split decision against New. A dissenting judge pointed out that denying New the opportunity to prove that the order was unlawful renders the obligation for New to obey only lawful orders meaningless.
The Supreme Court refused to hear New's appeal, thus allowing the very situation that the dissenter at the Appeals Court anticipated.
If, as you describe, Lakin is permitted to argue that the orders are unlawful, then Lakin will not face the same problem that New faced.
The problem for Lakin then becomes one of "relevance" and not "standing". If the court-martial panel finds that Obama's eligibility is relevant and that production of documents concerning that eligibility is relevant, then Lakin should be granted subpoena power to have such documents produced. For example, there is no compelling reason why the State of Hawaii should be permitted to shield the information concerning the birth of our Commander-in-Chief at the expense of a conviction in a court-martial.
If Lakin's court-martial panel refuses to let Lakin address Obama's eligibility and the Military Court of Appeals repeats its mistaken decision from the New case, and the Supreme Court once again refuses to hear Lakin's appeal, then Lakin will be convicted and it will be established pretty finally that soldiers must obey orders whether they are lawful or not.
The next time the National Guard finds itself confiscating guns from civilians in the middle of a disaster, the individual soldier will know that refusing to do so will result in his imprisonment and that he has no obligation to recognize the rights of citizens.
There have been a lot of new revelations. The DOH has indicated by virtue of information requests that Obama's certificate was amended, which means the alleged COLB is a forgery. They've also shown evidence that they've ignored their own laws that would LEGALLY allow them to release Obama's records and/or confirm the authenticity of his alleged COLB. There's also been the discovery of information that makes it apparent that Obama's certificate as photographed by factlack dot org is fraudulent. And more recently, it's been discovered that Obama's own wife says Kenya is his home country, and in his home country, this Minister of Land says Obama was born in Kenya. Further, historical writings have been discovered that further enforce the Minor and WKA definitions of NBC that a person must be born in the country of citizen parents. What more do you need??
|
Every person certifying him for the ballot KNEW about Obama’s father. The public knew. The Electoral College knew. Every member of Congress knew. The Supreme Court knew. All before Obama took office. Here's some perhaps controversial, yet serious & valid ponderings to your statements:
Have you ever try to publicly criticize* a Black man in America, not because of his skin color but because of his status as a Dual Citizen and ineligibility to hold Public Office which has a unique, yet Constitutionally-required Eligibility stipulation?
Have you ever try to publicly criticize* the first Black man in America EVER to have a serious shot at winning the Presidency because of his charisma and ability to read a TelePrompter?
Have you ever try to publicly criticize* a Black man in America, especially one utterly adored by the MSM, who in turn attacks others critical of this man, even though the MSM lacks such color-blind spectacles themselves? * And when I say "publicly criticize", I don't mean from behind the relative safety of your keyboard, but out in PUBLIC, in FULL view, cameras on, knowing that WHATEVER you assert, no matter how TRUE, you will STILL be labeled as a RACIST by the MSM and allies of the man you criticize. Lastly:
Did the Public FOCUS (with the aid of the the MSM and allies of the man you criticize) on his PLACE OF BIRTH (birth certificate) -OR- his loyalties, acculturation, and Framers' usage of "natural born citizen", versus a "citizen" of this and another NATION (as Chester Arthur SUCCESSFULLY pulled off more than 100 years before)?
However, seemingly now that a growing portion of the population knows HOW question Obama's Eligibility in a legitimate manner — EVEN once the RACE CARD is dealt — we may have the answer in 2010 or 2011 that eluded us in 2008. |
later
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.