Posted on 07/29/2010 1:01:40 AM PDT by rxsid
"Press Release: Lakin Makes Formal Request of Hawaii Deposition
American Patriot Foundation, Inc.
1101 Thirtieth Street, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20007
www.safeguardourconstitution.com
DECORATED ARMY DOCTOR LTC TERRY LAKIN MAKES FORMAL REQUEST TO COMMANDING GENERAL FOR DEPOSITION OF HAWAII STATE DEPT OF HEALTH
Testimony Sought of “Custodian of Records” AND Production of all records relating to President
Decision to be made by Army Major General
Washington, D.C., July 29, 2010. The Army doctor who is facing a court martial for refusing to obey orders, including a deployment order for his second tour of duty in Afghanistan, has formally requested his Commanding General approve a deposition in Hawaii of the records-keeper of the State Department of Health—and the production of all of their records concerning Barack Obama.
The records Lakin seeks have been the subject of intense interest ever since the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign when a document appeared on the internet purporting to be a certification that Hawaii’s Dept. of Health had records showing he had been born in Honolulu. Since then, Dr. Chiyome Fukino the head of that agency has made public statements on the subject, but has refused all requests for copies of the actual records in the Department’s custody. Recently, a former Hawaii elections clerk has come forward saying that he was told that the Department’s records showed Obama was NOT born in Hawaii.
The United States Constitution requires that a person be a “natural born citizen” to be elected to the presidency. If Mr. Obama was not born in Honolulu as he has claimed, then he is unlikely to be a “natural born citizen”. An examination of the records kept by the Hawaii Dept. of Health are an essential first step in ascertaining Mr. Obama’s constitutional eligibility to hold the office to which he was elected in 2008.
While no civil litigant has obtained discovery of these records, and all the civil lawsuits seeking those records have been dismissed on procedural grounds, Lakin’s case is different because he is the subject of criminal prosecution, and upon conviction stands in jeopardy of being sentenced to years at hard labor in the penitentiary.
Lakin’s request was submitted by his counsel to the Commanding General of the Military District of Washington, Major General Karl R. Horst, under Rule 702(b) of the Rules for Courts-Martial, which provides that “A convening authority who has the charges for disposition or, after referral, the convening authority or the military judge may order that a deposition be taken on request of a party.”
Lakin’s civilian attorney has been provided to him by the American Patriot Foundation, a non-profit group incorporated in 2003 to foster appreciation and respect for the U.S. Constitution, which has established a fund for Lakin’s legal defense to LTC Lakin. Further details are available on the Foundation’s website, www.safeguardourconstitution.com."
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/press-release/pressrelease20100728.html
0bozo allegedly said so when he was allegedly running. His alleged campaign answered question and allegedly confirmed that he allegedly travelled to Pakistan.
I could have allegedly been wrong about reading the item in my previous post. However, our alleged POTUS is now a confirmed ghost. Allegedly yours, The Ghoster
If Apuzzo has asked the right questions, perhaps the supremes will hear the appeal - or not, as the case may be.
WOW, you must be busy up there with the three horses, dogs and a foreign wife. Harris is linked to Brennan's people snooping in your dear leader's passport file and shot and never heard of since, like the gay choir director at your dear leader's church!!!
Never heard about that either, or of Larry Sinclair???
Oh my, you really out did your self with that one, lol!!
About the only thing that has any weight to his identity, is The 1964 divorce record from the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit State of Hawaii, which states that Stanley Ann D. Obama and Barack H. Obama "were lawfully married in Wailuku, Maui, State of Hawaii, on February 2, 1961, by a person duly authorized to perform marriage cerimonies and ever since that date have been and are now husband and wife." http://www.scribd.com/doc/18130289/Obama-1964-Divorce-Papers-13-Pages-Missing-Pg-11 (that one child was born to them....Barry)
Until there is court ordered discovery to the contrary, all we have at this point (re: Sr. not being his legal birth father) amounts to little more than conjecture...no matter how logical it may seem otherwise.
Tomorrow is Friday, PAYDAY, so they need to meet the quota!!!
Just amazing your intellect, how could he, he never went to court???
Correct, but even you admit he is defending something.....what on earth do you think it is?
Correct, but even you admit he is defending something.....what on earth do you think it is?
So? It still stand that BHO has never proven in a court of law that he went to Pakistan.
Do you have a problem with that line of reasoning?
When I put it to Mrs. Rogers who is a former Army officer, it was meant to piqued his interest!!
Apparently he was busy on the horse farm to know that!!!
Sorry, should have read “as an American” not and!!!
Oops, you just stepped on your on d*ck
Bammies father was a British subject, the Brits by virtue of his birth right grants duel Citizenship whether bammie wants it or not...IOW half claim on him even if he was born here because of his Fathers Citizenship....just like your parents US Citizenship is claim over Germany.
"Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," [n7] and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea."
So Minor never tackles the question of citizenship by birth from non-citizen parents. This is why the question still existed at the time of WKA. This was after the 14th, so a lot depended on the meaning of under the jurisdiction.
WKA then decided that resident aliens could give birth to citizens. There are arguments pro & con for saying WKA makes them NBC, but it is certain the official binding ruling does not do so, and thus questions still remained.
With subsequent rulings, the courts moved farther towards suggesting NBC meant born in the USA, and during the latter half of the 1900s, that opinion held sway. As I have said, I disagree & think they went a bit to far, but that is just my opinion and it doesn't count for squat.
Then why are you here wasting your time instead of working on what you think will expose him as the fraud he is?
I mean since you know this is just a distraction and all?
“I think Vattel *is* US common law at the constitutional level.”
The US Supreme Court disagrees. It has repeatedly gone to English common law to determine the original intent of NBC, not Vattel. You may disagree with that, just as I think WKA went to far, but our opinions hold equal legal weight - none.
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.