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
I feel good that I spent a career in the military, that my daughter did a tour, and my son is getting ready to deploy. The military isn’t the place to play politics. I deployed under Clintoon and a bunch more under GWB, including Afghanistan in 2007. No regrets from me and I’m proud of my kids.
And I suspect I know more about how Afghanistan works and how we have and will operate there than you do. But feel free to read WND and feel like you ‘really know’ what is going on...
Thank you. It was foremost addressed to Mrs. Rogers who is fighting for the usurper’s survival on issues like those in Indonesia and others!!!
Yep. And I was ‘trolling’ on FR 10 years before you. Feel free to read World Nut Daily and consider me to be a ‘deep cover’ troll. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization ...” Right. Citizens can be added by birth, but some are by statutory means, not natural born.
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” Right. Minor is saying the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ is extraconstitutional ... OUTSIDE of the Constitution, and they proceed to cite Vattel’s definition nearly word for word. Neither the 14th amendment nor any naturalization law changes this..
“For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” It’s not ‘necessary’ but they solve the doubts by reviewing naturalization laws and the necessity of alien fathers to naturalize in order for their children to become citizens; or later to have started the process. Obama’s father did not naturalize.
“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 answers the question by saying the parents, if not citizens, must have permanent domicil and residence, and the offspring is then a ‘citizen of the United States’ but not a ‘natural born citizen.’ Obama’s father was not a permanent resident and arguably, neither was his mother.
And I have no use for a POS that doesn’t produce his Birth Cert to prove he’s eligible according to THE CONSTITUTION.
I would rather have liked to put that question to his father if I had could, who I think was a true hero???
Wong Kim Ark said otherwise. I know you don't like it, but that's how it is.
If it were otherwise, I’m sure that the Supreme Court of the United States would have granted cert way before now in an Obama eligibility lawsuit.
So they would just ignore the issue of standing? Naw, you're employing a logical fallacy here. I'm pretty sure one of these recent appeals mentioned that even if Obama were ineligible that the plaintiffs still couldn't claim particularized harm, so this evidence that at least one court isn't concerned about Constitutionality.
Well normally I don't post my resume and life experience. But one year in the Royal Danish Navy. One year transferred to the Army's Air-force and then one and half year in the Danish Air-force when it became a separate unit in itself, flying with the old Sea-Otter and Catalinas left us from the U.S. during 1947-1951!
Four years stationed in Greenland e.i. building Station Nord, about 400 miles fom the North Pole. Then Prins Christan Sund, Blue West One and BW-8 and Thule Airbase (Dundas) all 1951-1956!!
Served about 30 years in the Merchant Marine with different shipping lines. Among "deployments" moving and supply military equipments from point A to Desert Storm, etc. Later supplied crude and refined oil products to U.S. ports and refineries from other countries in the Persian Gulf states, Venezuela, Columbia and other oil producing countries. For a short while loaded frozen meat from Australia to the U.S. Retired from seagoing duty/deployments in 1981 and the rest you can find on my FReeper profile, however nothing much to brag about!!!
The commanding officer who filed the charges against him is a Medal of Honor recipient. I would think that qualified.
HEY Non Squirter!
It takes more GUTS to go one-on-one (with the whole world watching) against the affirmative action, RACE hustler that people like you worship, than it does fighting some guys on the battlefield. Maybe that commanding officer took out some of the enemy but when he did, that enemy didn't get up again. PLUS that enemy wasn't being aided by people from his own side. People like you are giving aid & comfort to the enemy, OBAMA! That's why we can't get rid of the OBAMANATION.
Arthur's problem was not having been born in Canada. He was born in New Hampshire. Arthur's father was born in Ireland and didn't naturalize until Chester was fourteen, similar to Obama’s circumstance, except that Barack Sr. was never, and never intended to become a citizen of the U.S. He was a self declared Marxist who did not accept capitalism, and a hard drinking Muslim in a Christian majority country whose nephew, Odinga, was educated in Communist East Germany.
Arthur had a newspaper reporter, Mr. Hinman, who may or may not have been working for him, and who kept alive the red herring that Chester was not born on our soil - not a jus soli citizen. Thus the hubbub attracted enough attention to make it the issue for doubters, while his father was always his real Achilles heel. Arthur arranged to have most of his personal papers burned just before his death from a long illness. Leo Donofrio came across Chester's father's naturalization record in the possession of one of Arthur's biographers. Till now, it had never seemed important.
There was another interesting and similar case. Justice Charles Evans Hughes (credit Sharon Rondeau of Post&Email) left the court to run for president against Woodrow Wilson in 1916. One attorney, Breckenridge Long, later to become FDR's Secretary of State, wrote an extensive legal opinion published in the Chicago Legal News, Vol 49 of 1916, on page 146 making the argument that Hughes was ineligible because, while he was born in New York, and lived in the U.S. all his life, and was a justice of the Supreme Court, his parents were British Subjects when he was born. Long cites many Supreme Court cases, including Wilkins v. Elk, decided by Arthur appointee Gray. Long also provides a most concise differentiation of native born from natural born citizens (drawn from Wilkins v. Elk's decision by Wong Kim Ark's Justice Gray)
Ironically, after his loss to Wilson, Hughes was appointed to be Chief Justice by Harding, where 1n 1939, using many of the arguments used by Breckenridge Long which would likely have disqualified him, Hughes wrote the decision in Perkin v. Elg and in it, cited Minor v. Happersett, the Vattel definition of natural born citizen.
Obama is not the first take advantage of a little used provision. Hughes would almost certainly have been a better president than Wilson, but there was much we didn't know about both men. The legislature and citizens have the mechanism to amend Article II. But it would surprise me if citizens of three quarters of the states would alter a provision preventing the child of an alien from becoming president. It would not surprise me to find an amendment which would have made John McCain legitimate passing, similar to the proposal by Clair McCaskill, SB2678 of Feb 2008. The problem with McCaskill’s bill is that it was a sham to make sure McCain, the Democrat's Republican, was the opposition, so that no one would question Obama’s eligibility. She did not submit her bill as a Constitutional Amendment. There would not likely have been time. And had she done so, Obama’s alien parent would have been hard not to notice.
“Minor is saying the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ is extraconstitutional ... OUTSIDE of the Constitution, and they proceed to cite Vattel’s definition nearly word for word.”
Ummm...what they actual SAID is, “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...” Notice they refer to common law, which Vattel mirrors. For a couple of paragraphs earlier they wrote, “For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words “subject,” “inhabitant,” and “citizen” have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government...” Notice the link between common law terms of subject and citizen, and then think about the use in WKA of natural born subject in determining citizenship.
They affirm, as they did in WKA 20 years later, that COMMON LAW is the source of understanding, not Vattel.
““For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” It’s not ‘necessary’ but they solve the doubts by reviewing naturalization laws and the necessity of alien fathers to naturalize in order for their children to become citizens; or later to have started the process.”
Incorrect. They were concerned with the question of citizenship for a woman born of citizen parents, and didn’t feel a need to determine citizenship of alien parentage. If they had addressed it then, they would not have needed to do so in WKA 20 years later.
“WKA answers the question by saying the parents, if not citizens, must have permanent domicil and residence...”
No. The concern of WKA was primarily racial: “Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional [p675] Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States. V. In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.”
The question in WKA wasn’t even if alien parentage prevented citizenship, but CHINESE parentage. For they noted the purpose of the 14th, saying, “Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States.”
Again, it is LOCATION they refer to, not parentage. By the time of WKA, it was accepted that all whites and blacks born in the USA are citizens, and that this is true even if their parents are not citizens. They note an exception for Indians, but say, “The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.”
So again, it is primarily race before the court, and they assume that for most races, birth = citizenship, unless the child of an ambassador.
They eventually summarize many pages of argument with:
“The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” Notice they do NOT include a requirement of permanent domicile.
And by this time, they are also no longer arguing based on common law meanings of natural born subject, and thus natural born citizen falls from their concern.
“Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are “ subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States.”
The court does NOT require permanent domicile, but says the Chinese are held to the same standard as white - are the parents in the US at the time of birth, while not an ambassador or one of a handful of other classes not subject to the jurisdiction. Thus tourists are, as the dissent noted, parents of US citizens unless the parent is here to represent another country.
Thanks for the ping to the thread. I’ve been replying rather sparingly due to a broken arm in a cast, making typing a little interesting, but I’m getting better at working around it.
What is so difficult to grasp about the Constitution requiring that the President be legally unencumbered by any other jurisdiction? It’s really not difficult at all, unless you want it to be. Those who argue otherwise want it to be, for various reasons.
These reasons are sometimes personal and sentimental, due to being born of a noncitizen parent, while still harboring fantasies about becoming President some day, or being parent of a child in such a position. Sometimes, it’s economic, due to visions of profit from black market labor. Other times, it’s ideological, coming from the post-national citizen of the world crowd.
We’ve gone round and round with the same individuals on these threads for over two years now.
So anyone who doesn't agree with you lacks guts? There are a whole lot of gutless wonders out there then.
So then it's your contention that every order issued by every officer and NCO in the military since January 20, 2008 has been illegal? Issued without authority? And all could have been, and should have been questioned?
The Brigade commander has the authority to issue orders necessary to have his instructions carried out, and to expect those orders to be obeyed. Lakin didn't and he's being court martialed for it. Obama's eligibility doesn't change that. Obama could be unmasked as a fraud and removed from office tomorrow, and Lakin would still be guilty of refusing to obey orders and with missing movement.
The lesson of Chester Arthur is not where he was born, but that the political apparatus did not really care, just as today.
My contention is that is how it was explained to me in Basic training in 1958.
As to how it may have been corrupted since then, that is the whole issue.
I guess it is still to be determined if the theoretical still applies.
“We just don’t who that number legally belongs to.”
There’s no evidence indicating the factlack dot org number appears on Obama’s ‘original Certificate of Live Birth’ but there is evidence that it doesn’t (thanks Eleanor!).
No, just one comes to mind.
I see how you carefully avoided the question, so let me narrow it down a little for you. Have all the orders given by Lakin's brigade commander since January 20, 2008 been illegal?
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.