Movie About Lt. Col. Terry Lakin's Battle To Get Obama's Birth Certificate Released In The Works

http://www.commandertaffy.com/thestory ^

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

For Immediate Release 2/13/2013

There is substantial interest in creating a film adaptation of the Terry Lakin Story, "OFFICER'S OATH."

This is a poignant, heroic story that must not be forgotten, or falsely relegated to the "conspiracy theory" chapter in the annals of our national history.

Terry knowingly sacrificed his military career, endured a court-martial, and ultimately spent nearly half a year in Leavenworth Prison simply for standing up for the Constitution he pledged to uphold and defend. His story is detailed in the book "An Officer's Oath," which is recommended reading for anybody who reveres this country and the Constitution by which we were successfully governed for so many years.

Officer's Oath tells the sometimes harrowing, sometimes inspirational true story of Doctor and 17-year U.S. Army veteran, Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who sacrificed his distinguished military career--and his very freedom--to preserve the integrity of the United States Constitution.

[Mr Rogers]

“Well if there are regulations in place that allow him to renounce his U.S. citizenship, even as a kid, then the court must uphold it.”

I don’t know if the paperwork CAN be filled out by a minor under any circumstance. If the minor was 17, maybe...but 10? Or 6?

And if a court found the paperwork was filled out by someone who didn’t understand what they were doing, then it would be thrown out. So...how many 10 year olds can sign legal contracts on their own initiative?

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

Well what I found is this:

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN/INCOMPETENTS

Citizenship is a status that is personal to the U.S. citizen. Therefore, parents may not renounce the citizenship of their minor children. Similarly, parents/legal guardians may not renounce the citizenship of individuals who are mentally incompetent. Minors seeking to renounce their U.S. citizenship must demonstrate to a consular officer that they are acting voluntarily and that they fully understand the implications/consequences attendant to the renunciation of U.S. citizenship.

And this:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481

8 USC § 1481 - Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.

[Mr Rogers]

“In 1967, Obama’s mother told the U.S. State Department she planned to stay in Indonesia indefinitely on her passport renewal. That’s a big mistake if you want to maintain your U.S. Citizenship.”

In 1967, she was overseas. But no, she could stay many years overseas without ever losing her citizenship. And Barry couldn’t lose his by any act of hers.

---

“Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon one’s own application after the age of 18 (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or its political subdivisions after the age of 18 (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);
accepting employment with a foreign government after the age of 18 if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);
formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);
formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (The Department of Homeland Security is responsible for implementing this section of the law) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);
conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).

In light of the administrative premise discussed above, a person who:

is naturalized in a foreign country;
takes a routine oath of allegiance to a foreign state;
serves in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or
accepts non-policy level employment with a foreign government,

and in so doing wishes to retain U.S. citizenship need not submit prior to the commission of a potentially expatriating act a statement or evidence of his or her intent to retain U.S. citizenship since such an intent will be presumed.

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

[butterdezillion]

They decided all orders ever given (except to murder somebody, maybe - but even those would be lawful at this point) would be lawful even if the originating order/authorization had been given by Joseph Stalin - as long as Stalin had first taken an oath of office. Doesn’t matter what the 20th Amendment says. That’s just the Constitution, after all, and the Kenyan doesn’t want us to follow no stinkin’ Constitution. If he orders the chain of command to stop following the stinkin’ Constitution, then that’s what every guy in the military has to do - screw the oath; orders are orders.

That’s all I’m going to say to you.

[SvenMagnussen]

Anyone of any age can move out of the country and renounce their U.S. Citizenship. There are many circumstances where a CLN will not be issued, regardless of a renouncement of citizenship. For example, a CLN will not be issued if the applicant cannot demonstrate they will not be stateless after the CLN is issued.

In the case of minor voluntarily renouncing, the parent or guardian informs the State Department their child wants to renounce their U.S. Citizenship. After the State Department informs the parent that a parent cannot renounce a child’s citizenship, the parent is asked if they want to sign migration agent agreement where a temporary guardian is assigned to assist the minor with the renouncement of citizenship.

The agent, usually a locally employed staff member at the U.S. Embassy, acts as the child’s guardian for the express purpose of championing the child’s cause for renouncement. The agent interviews the child, family, friends, neighbors and establishes background information for a report filed with to the Consular Affair Officer (CA0).

The CAO uses the report to conduct an investigation. The CAO main focus is a check to see if the child is involved in a child custody dispute, a victim of kidnapping or otherwise being sought by law enforcement.

In Obama’s case, he was the adopted son Lolo Soetoro with an Hawaiian COLB naming Lolo Soetoro as his birth father and Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro as his birth mother. There was no record of BHO Sr. searching for his son. After Stanley Ann told the State Department she planned to stay in Indonesia “indefinately” with her “INDO” husband, there wasn’t any reason to think Obama wanted to maintain his U.S. Citizenship.

[WildHighlander57]

Nero germanicus,

Many thanks for that info!

Anybody try a FOIA request for these docs?

And if they did request them, what did they receive?

(If a kid could sign a renunciation.... but I concur with Mr Roberts about minors not being able to sign contracts/official docs)

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

You said:
[I don’t know if the paperwork CAN be filled out by a minor under any circumstance. If the minor was 17, maybe...but 10? Or 6?

And if a court found the paperwork was filled out by someone who didn’t understand what they were doing, then it would be thrown out. So...how many 10 year olds can sign legal contracts on their own initiative?]

Well here is a kid who divorced his parents at age 12 and it was granted. So I presume he signed legal papers on his own initiative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Kingsley

[WildHighlander57]

CCPS, many that.KS for this info!!!

Sven, what’s your analysis of what CCPS found- how on earth could 0 get that CLN doc issued to him?

[BigGuy22]

“They decided all orders ever given (except to murder somebody, maybe - but even those would be lawful at this point) would be lawful even if the originating order/authorization had been given by Joseph Stalin - as long as Stalin had first taken an oath of office.”
__

Maybe you should read Col. Lind’s ruling again. She emphasized the point that the orders Lakin disobeyed came not from the President, but rather from Army officers who were authorized by Congress to give them:

“These Army Regulations provide an independent authority for military officers to issue lawful orders. ... The authority of military officers to issue lawful orders and the concomitant duty of military service members to obey such lawful orders does not depend on whether the President is qualified under the Constitution to hold office.”

and:

“Any suggestion by the defense that the authority of military officers to issue any lawful orders ceases to exist jf a serving President is found to be unqualified by the Constitution to hold office is an erroneous view of the law, Similarly, any suggestion by the defense that if a President is found to be unqualified by the Constitution to hold office, service-members have no duty to follow any orders issued by their military superiors is equally erroneous.”

[WildHighlander57]

CCPS, pinging you to this reply by Sven. How to reconcile what you found with what he’s claiming?

Let me know your take on it.

[SvenMagnussen]

Obama’s mother told the State Department she did not plan to return to the U.S. in 1967 on her passport renewal application.

The reason the State Department asks an applicant when they plan to return to the U.S. is to establish intent to return.

Furthermore, the reason the State Department asks an applicant if they or a family member has naturalized in a foreign state is to establish the fact they will not be stateless if a CLN is issued.

Obama’s mother could not have been issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality because she would have been stateless if the SoS issued her a CLN. Obama’s mother amended her passport renewal to inform the State Department her son had naturalized in a foreign state.

It puts Obama in a precarious position because the SoS could issue him a CLN if a preponderance of the evidence indicated his actions could be determined to be a renouncement of citizenship.

In the WKA case, it was never established WKA was a citizen of another country. WKA would have been stateless if the U.S. did not recognize him as a citizen.

In the Elg case, it was never established Elg was a citizen of another country. Elg would have been stateless if the U.s. did not recognize her as a citizen. Elg’s father renounced his U.S. Citizenship after he returned to Sweden. He would not have been issued a CLN if he could not show he would obtain Swedish citizenship in the near term.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

Mr. Magnussen. I have repeatedly asked you this:

Have you specifically checked the ‘National Archives’ in Maryland for verification the ‘Certificate of Naturalization’ is actually there?

If so when and what did you find? I would appreciate if you could be so kindly to answer. You would be doing us all a great favor. Thanks

Cold Case Posse Supporter

[WildHighlander57]

Sven’s post #85 vs. CCPS’s post #82 is what I’m trying to figure out

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

You state Mr. Magnussen:

“In Obama’s case, he was the adopted son Lolo Soetoro with an Hawaiian COLB naming Lolo Soetoro as his birth father and Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro as his birth mother.”

What date (or year) would this Soetoro Hawaiian COLB been issued?

[4Zoltan]

Here is a survey on expatriation which deals principally with those over the age of majority.

http://www.justice.gov/olc/expatriation.htm

There is this statement,

“The party claiming that a person has lost his U.S. citizenship has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the performance of an act of expatriation and the intention to relinquish citizenship. 8 U.S.C. § 1481(b); Terrazas, 444 U.S. at 268; see also id. at 264-67 (upholding preponderance of the evidence standard of proof against constitutional attack). Although any person who performs an act of expatriation is presumed to have done so voluntarily, that presumption can be rebutted with proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the act was performed involuntarily. 8 U.S.C. § 1481(b); see also Terrazas, 444 U.S. at 267-70 (upholding voluntariness presumption against constitutional attack).”

[Nero Germanicus]

You’re welcome. I have not heard of any FOIA request specifically requesting information concerning a Certificate of Loss of Nationality.

[Nero Germanicus]

Barnett, Keyes v Obama, Rhodes v MacDonald and Farrar, et. al. v Obama were appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States but they were denied Petitions for Writs of Certiorari or Appications for Stays. When the Supreme Court refuses to hear an appeal, the lower court ruling stands.

[DoodleDawg]

That’s all I’m going to say to you.

That's OK because that's the only question I'm going to direct to you. I'm highly doubt that I'd get anything useful from any additional queries.

[WildHighlander57]

I wonder how hard it is to do a FOIA.

Sven should do one for the CLN, since his path of investigation lies in that direction :)

Sven, did you do a FOIA request yet?

[edge919]

Every court, every state, and 535 members of Congress think you are an idiot who cannot read a court decision.

No, this is what YOU think because you hate being shown wrong over and over by me. Sucks don't it.

At some point, birthers need to ask themselves WHY they lose every time they go to court.

They lose for a variety of INCONSISTENT and legally deficient reasons, most of which are procedural excuses, but that's not what this thread is about, so stop spreading ignorant lies and excuses.