Replies

Roberts' resume is irrelevant. Hopefully the court won't be discussing that. / Definitely an irrelevant witness. We've been told repeatedly that Lakin WASN'T ordered to deploy to Afghanistan, so there would not be a doctor who took his place, much less his wife. If the prosecutor is admitting that Lakin WAS being deployed to Afghanistan, then they are admitting that Obama's authority over that deployment is indeed relevant. Lakin then has a legal right to challenge that authority."

How do you feel about your track record of advice concerning Lakin's case so far? Could you have been more perfectly wrong?

I wish those advising Lakin on the Internet would take my challenge: Refuse to obey any law passed since 20 Jan 2009. After all, they have never been considered or signed by a REAL President, and are thus as invalid as Lakin's orders supposedly are...then you TOO will have 'standing' when the IRS, etc take you to court.

Odd, isn't it, that the Internet heroes supporting Lakin never take up that challenge.

How do you feel about your track record of advice concerning Lakin's case so far? Could you have been more perfectly wrong?

I haven't been wrong about anything. This is going pretty much as I expected.

After all, they have never been considered or signed by a REAL President, and are thus as invalid as Lakin's orders supposedly are...then you TOO will have 'standing' when the IRS, etc take you to court.

Standing doesn't apply to criminal cases. Nothing in what you quoted from me says anything about standing.

Odd, isn't it, that the Internet heroes supporting Lakin never take up that challenge.

It's not odd at all. Lakin is taking an admittedly extreme measure to challenge the president's authority. Most of us are trying to use persuasion and reason rather than civil disobedience as a means of exposing the truth. Just because we throw our moral and rhetorical support to Lakin doesn't mean we believe it was the best recourse to take.

I asked my senator about that and all he would say is that I shouldn’t do it.

I believe it was David, here on FR, who said that the tax law would go into effect even if there wasn’t a valid POTUS signature, as long as there wasn’t a veto by a valid POTUS. So the laws Obama has signed would still be in effect even if Obama can’t “act as President”, as the 20th Amendment says.