LTC Lakin's Appeal Denied

U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals ^ | 10/12/10 | Clerk of the Court

[BuckeyeTexan]

On consideration of the Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and Application for a Stay of Proceedings, the petition is DENIED.

[mlo]

"Being born in Hawaii and over 35 years old makes him qualified."

"Uh, wrong."

Only in Birtherland, where imagination is reality. :-)

[Red Steel]

Discovery in not a tool that allows someone without proof to gather some.

But 'Discovery' is a tool for someone facing a court martial, and LTC Lakin is being denied all for the sake not to "embarrass" Obama, which we all know is BS.

And this case is a bit unusual in that the de facto officer comes into play - even if Obama is found tonight to be a space alien, Obamacare will still be legally binding.

If we ever get that far, you Obots lose when Obama is found to be the usurper that he is. Obama as it stands now is not covered by the de facto officer doctrine. All the court arguments including the US Supreme Court is that the defendants found out after the alleged breaking of the law. Lakin has questioned Obama for over two years about his eligibility to hold presidential office under the US Constitution. Well, that's not after the fact finding out that Obama is not eligible. Another problem the courts will have is collusion or conspiracy to commit fraud, and obstruction of justice by many many other people. So for you and Obama "to win" under the de facto officer doctrine, the court would have to expand on the their legal rationale as I pointed out to get him off. Obama would still likely end up in jail anyways, and under those circumstances the convening authority of his court martial would throw out the charges, or the the next right of center real president would grant LTC Lakin a full pardon..you lose again.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Weak, boring, not even a good troll.

Mr. Rogers, this poster says that we send troops to murder people.

I know you want a piece of this one.

You make my argument. He was ordered to go over with his men and kill/murder people.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2606951/posts?page=37#37

[little jeremiah]

What boggles my mind is people making light of an oath to the Constitution. As in “it means nothing”.

Can’t wrap my mind around that...

[El Sordo]

“If GW had been illegally installed...”

There are those who argued that this was just the case in 2000.

It never got them anything beyond cathartic outbursts.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Hiya LJ!!

I hear ya!

[centurion316]

And so when it comes to pass that an ineligible person is elected to the Office of President by vote of the Electoral College, what to do? Unfortunately, the founders did not have the foresight to say that in such a case, Las Vegas Ron and Butterdezillion were to be consulted and whatever ruling they made will apply.

Instead, they laid down procedures for impeachment, and that’s the only remedy. What about “Shall be President” is unclear or unambiguous? Let me know when you find a Court or a Constitutional Officer who agrees with your positions. It hasn’t happened so far.

[Mr Rogers]

No, WKA was NOT a naturalized citizen. A law of Congress would not override the treaty with China - only the Constitution did that. So WKA needed to be a citizen per the Constitution, which the court found he was since he A) qualified as a natural born subject and thus a natural born citizen, and B) a citizen per the 14th amendment.

Perkins v Elg did NOT say “”Natural Born” has been found to be “born of two U.S. Citizen parents”.” ON the contrary, they used native born and natural born citizen as interchangeable. See the thread I did on this case a while back:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2499682/posts

For example, they quote the Attorney General “”Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States” using native born to mean someone who can be President.

Again, their findings include:

“Fifth. The cross-petition of Miss Elg, upon which certiorari was granted in No. 455, is addressed to the part of the decree below which dismissed the bill of complaint as against the Secretary of State. The dismissal was upon the ground that the court would not undertake by mandamus to compel the issuance of a passport or control by means of a declaratory judgment the discretion of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg “solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.” The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.”

And you DO realize that there have been many people born in the USA who were not born in a hospital, nor have a long form certificate of birth. In fact, it used to be quite common.

But at this point, it is not up to Obama to prove he is President, but for someone else to provide convincing proof that he cannot be President.

[Mr Rogers]

I’m not claiming a fire in Hawaii. For all I know, they stored their records next to the Ark of the Covenant.

And Lakin has not been ordered to do anything illegal, nor to do anything that would result in an illegal act.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Funny, you never answered the question, just continue with your obfuscations......funny indeed.

[Red Steel]

What boggles my mind is people making light of an oath to the Constitution. As in “it means nothing”.

Can’t wrap my mind around that...

Yeah Ms. Rogers and et al ignores much.

[Las Vegas Ron]

And Lakin has not been ordered to do anything illegal, nor to do anything that would result in an illegal act.

Yet a poster is here accusing our Military of murder, and you have not responded.......Did you miss it?

[Non-Sequitur]

I swear, you would condemn the patriot that stood in front of the tanks in Tinnemen Square.

So now you're comparing Lakin to him?

Back to LT. Larkin. You are wrong. Let me make it simple, it a boyscout gives an oath to do his best and the Scoutmaster says go cut that tree down, would he be guilty for refusing to cut it down?

Let me put it this way, if an officer in the armed forces is given a lawful order by his commanding officer and he chooses to ignore it then he suffers the consequences.

[CanaGuy]

"...his "Certificate of Live Birth" was simply produced by Hawaii at the request of the parent"

His public announcement of birth appeared in two publications. How they got there, I respectfully submit, YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. Speculations are unfortunately becoming "facts" and people like you are part of the problem in this important issue.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Let me put it this way, if an officer in the armed forces is given a lawful order by his commanding officer and he chooses to ignore it then he suffers the consequences.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Sometimes you has to [b]uck the system.

[butterdezillion]

Because SCOTUS had already ruled on the Constitutionality of that case. Totally different scenario.

[Non-Sequitur]

All too true, but it was not in force until 1945. Any judgment based solely on the London Agreement would have to be considered Ex Post Facto, would it not, as the acts under consideration were performed beforehand?

And if they were tried under the Constitution that might be a problem. But one of the advantage to being on the winning side is you get to write the rules.

[butterdezillion]

When has Lakin ever admitted that he disobeyed a lawful order?

[butterdezillion]

They said if that happens, the VP elect is supposed to “act as President”.

How would that happen? Any case arising from the Constitution is to be decided by the judiciary. That’s how Bush v Gore was decided. What would have happened if SCOTUS had refused to hear Bush v Gore? What if the lawsuits and recounts were all still going on 4 years later? You tell me what the Constitution provides for that situation.

What about “the electoral vote was never legally counted and the winner certified” is unclear? If a winner is never lawfully determined where does that leave us? If there is no winner there is no “shall be President” so your point is moot.

[traditional1]

Okay; you have no facts to support your dismissal of the issue:

Who was his FATHER?

Who was the attending physician?

What citizenship was his father at the time of his birth?

(Anyone can call a newspaper and tell a story that could be published, for certain back then).

My kids MAY find out the truth of the matter, once this Regime is removed, and over time, the TRUE story is brought forth.

Until that time, you and the rest of the speculators that rely on faulty logic and lack of evidence to support "natual born citizen" (you have cited only naturalized/claimed inference), those of us who would rely on a CERTIFIED LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE, and supporting documentation of travel to foreign countries where Citizenship was entered on the Passport, will continue to question eligibility.

THE END