Posted on 04/20/2010 8:02:29 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
The defense attorney for an officer refusing Army orders until Barack Obama documents his eligibility to be commander in chief has hinted that the president's proof of eligibility could come up during the course of the government's prosecution of his client.
"In the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice), just as you would expect, criminal defendants have the process of the court, for subpoenas and depositions under the rules that are prescribed," attorney Paul Jensen said during an interview today on the radio show of G. Gordon Liddy.
Jensen was on the program with his client, Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who posted a YouTube video inviting his own court-martial because he believes military orders under an ineligible president are illegal, and then posted a letter telling Obama that it's up to him to provide the proof.
"I'm not going to say what we are going to do other than we are going to do what you would want us to do," Jensen said.
He specifically avoided broadcasting any specific defense strategy for the case that is developing against Lakin – confirming that the officer was told in writing on Monday that he now has been "flagged" by the military and charges are expected to be filed soon.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Please...sarc was on. We are not finished until we lay our lives down for freedom.
Then go die on this hill. I’ll be celebrating the retaking of Congress on Nov.3 2010.
Are you saying that Obama will dismiss Lt. Col. Lakin from the Army rather than proceed with the court martial?
Yes, if a state kept Obama off the ballot because of constitutional eligibility it would definitely allow Obama to take the issue to court, although if only one or two GOP states do it Obama may choose to ignore it (even if he was actually born in Hawaii) so as not to risk the court declaring him ineligible.
As for a major-party presidential candidate not being on the ballot in a state, it has happened more often than you think. Incumbent President Lyndon Johnson was not on the ballot in Alabama in 1964 (Goldwater carried the state, and “unpledged Democrat electors” finished second), and incumbent President Truman was not on the AL ballot in 1948 (Strom Thurmond was the nominee of the AL Democrat Party and carried the state). In 1912, incumbent President Taft was not on the ballot in SD, while former President Theodore Roosevelt, nominee of the Progressive (”Bull Moose”) Party and second-place finisher that year was not on the ballot in OK (the only two presidential candidates on the ballot in all 48 states that year, and thus the first in history to be on 48 state ballots, were Democrat Woodrow Wilson and Socialist Eugene Debs). And in 1892, former President Grover Cleveland gained back the White House despite not being on the ballot in a few states out West in which Populist Party candidate James Weaver was stronger than Cleveland and was the “fusion candidate” against Republican President Benjamin Harrison. Off the top of my head I can’t think of any other post-1860 major-party nominee to be denied ballot access, but maybe there were one or two others as well.
Thanks Fm, that’s what I thought. Is the DNC so out of it as to try it in 2012?
I disagree.
The White House is very involved in the ground action taking place in Afghanistan. The White House is not leaving the decision making up to the generals on the ground. Hell, you can open up an American newspaper now and see where the troops will be fighting in Afghanistan, a few days in advance.
He is micro-managing the war. And he can’t win at that. He isn’t equipped to do so. His base does not like that in the least.
He needs his base to win in 2012, and he knows it.
As for the trials... over 400 lawsuits being filed, not one has stuck. 400! He’s spent 2 million dollars fighting them, and he has a huge amount of cash to keep fighting them.
Unless and until the US Supreme Court decides to pick up this case, it is going nowhere, fast.
And the US Supreme Court does not want to touch this. Justice Thomas even admitted that they are evading the issue.
“but I believe the court will tell the defense that it will accept the verdict of the US Congress in the matter of Obama’s eligibility.”
A court would accept the president of another court, but never the U.S. congress. That would be meaningless, since the congress is a legislative body not a judicial body...
Now why are all of these records hidden?
1 Certified copy of original birth certificate
2 Columbia University transcripts
3 Columbia thesis paper
4 Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups
5 Harvard University transcripts
6 Illinois State Senate records
7 Illinois State Senate schedule
8 Law practice client list and billing records/summary
9 Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mother
10 Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)
11 Occidental College Transcripts
12 Parent’s marriage Certificate
13 Record of baptism
14 Selective Service registration records
(Did Obama Actually Register for Selective Service?
This supposed revelation of 0's SS records has been debunked here and here.)
15 Schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
16 Passport records for all passports
17 Scholarly articles
18 SAT and LSAT test scores
19 Access to his grandmother in Kenya
20 List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists
21 Punahou grade school records
22 Noelani Kindergarten records are oddly missing from the the State of Hawaii Department of Education.
23 Page 11 of Stanley Ann Dunham's divorce decree.
24 Why isn't Barack Obama still a member of the Illinois bar and where are all of the relevant documents?
25 Why isn't Michelle Obama still a member of the Illinois bar, after only about four years of practice, and where are all of the relevant documents?
Anyone who cares about their country would be very concerned that a POTUS had hidden every scrap of information of his life that he possibly could.
You can’t chew gum and walk at the same time, apparently.
Bill Clinton pulled out every dirty comment in his portfolio during the primary. Hillary ran commercials saying John McCain was more qualified to be POTUS. Obama had no dirt on the Clintons. He was a pipsqueak, made large by a dying Ted Kennedy and the Clinton belief that the convention would be her coronation. I know a few people who know Hillary. She wanted to be POTUS more than I want my prostate biopsy next week to be negative. If there was any proof of this she would have found it and used it.And made herself a hero for defending the Constitution.
In 1860, it was a real mess. Officially, there were four candidates in the running. You had Lincoln-Hamlin for the GOP, Breckinridge-Lane for the Southern Democrat faction, Douglas-Johnson for the Regular Democrat faction, and Bell-Everett for the Constitutional Union (essentially ex-Whig).
There were 32 states participating in the election (SC opted out). Of those, only 7 had ALL 4 candidates on the ballot (CA, CT, DE, MA, MO, OH & PA).
Of the remaining 25, some had just two or three (with differing combos):
Those featuring Lincoln/Breckinridge/Douglas were IN, ME, NH, OR, VT.
Breckinridge/Bell/Douglas were AL, AR, GA, KY, LA, MD, MS, NC, TN, VA.
Breckinridge/Bell were FL & TX.
Lincoln/Douglas were IL, IA, MI, MN, NJ, NY, RI, WI.
You have no idea the MB infiltrators who were in his campaign and who are now in the govt and defense department. This is not micromanaging and you have no clue who his bosses are. “Winning” was never part of the calculation. I am amazed at how few people get what is going on.
Maybe the Joint Cheifs will wake up but this may yet get somewhere. The public is slowly catching on. You obviously are still on page 1.
Obutt won't even run because he'll have to show his real birth certificate to about a dozen states to get on their ballots when 2012 rolls around.
Unless and until the US Supreme Court decides to pick up this case, it is going nowhere, fast.
That would be a lower court first that would take it up before the Supreme Court does.
Argh, LBJ in AL in ‘64. I don’t know why I momentarily forgot that... Electors there refused to vote for JFK in ‘60, too, casting them for Harry Byrd and Thurmond (as did MS).
Sorry, got distracted. Have you contacted Jim to have me, the Obama Soros troll, banned yet?That should be your next step. I guess not. I still seem able to post.
That’s merely your supposition, nothing more. Anyone trying to bring down 0thugga at that point would have been sacrificed. McCain threw the election, he didn’t even try to win after July. Strings were pulled, Saudi money poured into 0thugga’s coffers. No one would could have done or said something, did or said anything. Fear of race/leftist riots? Mutually assured destruction? No spine? Blackmail? Who knows.
But the election was handed to him. Those who allowed him to run, knowing outright or figuring pretty well that he was ineligible, know why they chose to allow it. Probably they all didn’t have the same reasons. Hillary was paid by getting the SoS job. They’re all on the same team, they want to destroy the US. They’re all fiends. Like a Mob family, they may try to kill each other sometime, but they view us as their enemies. They’ll cover for each other against us.
Nah, I knew you were being sarcastic! I was replying to the other guy and supporting you.
Defeatism makes me want to puke.
It is likely that the SCOTUS will evade it until there is a groundswell of outrage from the public and maybe even the eunuchs in Congress.
“....even though the little vermin was spawned somewhere else....”
.
Bwaaaaah, haaah, aargh!
(Damn booze went down the wrong hole.)
I’ve been hoping you would post this list more often. I’ve missed it! A lot of people who don’t normally post on these threads are visiting them and are not up to speed. Your list is very educational.
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.