Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

LTC Lakin writ sitrep
www.court-martial.com ^ | 10/2/10 | tired_old_conservative

Posted on 10/02/2010 4:36:35 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative

Don't know if it's true, but various sites are reporting that Lakin and his counsel, Paul Jensen, may be parting ways and Lakin may be acquiring an experienced military law counsel

If that is true, better late than never. If nothing else, it could pay dividends in the sentencing phase.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; courtmartial; lakin; naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-143 next last
To: Red Steel

Prima facie? The Obama Hawaiian COLB has not been entered as evidence in any court. That’s the fact.


It’s kind of difficult to enter a Hawai’i COLB as evidence when 73 lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility have been summarily dismissed.


81 posted on 10/04/2010 12:32:58 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
It’s kind of difficult to enter a Hawai’i COLB as evidence when 73 lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility have been summarily dismissed.

More nonsense. Obama could have entered that faux Hawaiian COLB of his as evidence when his lawyers submitted their briefs to the courts. The thing must not be real as Obama has not done so.

82 posted on 10/04/2010 12:39:36 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

true. If the COLB is entered as evidence , it opens the door to demand supporting doc’s. The proof would be a certified copy of obama’s LONG FORM certificate(if one exist?). obama can never allow this to happen as it proves he is not a Natural Born citizen. I have no doubt that obama knows that he is not a natural born citizen, and can remain “president” only as long as he can keep his birth records out of the court system.


83 posted on 10/04/2010 1:14:12 PM PDT by omegadawn (qualified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

More nonsense. Obama could have entered that faux Hawaiian COLB of his as evidence when his lawyers submitted their briefs to the courts. The thing must not be real as Obama has not done so.


Why would ANY defendant submit evidence in a pre-trial hearing?

Let me repeat just one more time and very, very slowly, for the really, really stupid: defendants don’t substantiate their innocence in the American judicial system. Plaintiffs have to substantiate the defendant’s liability.

Since the Governor of Hawai’i, the Attorney General of Hawai’i, the Director of Health of Hawai’i and the Registrar of Vital Statistics of Hawai’i have all vouched for the authenticity of Obama’s Hawai’i birth records, that most likely will be enough for any Court should the “Obama in ineligible” folks ever find a plaintiff who might be granted legal standing to file suit.

Additionally, if anybody really, truly, honestly wants to see Obama’s original birth records, all they need do is go to a friendly judge and get a legal document known as “a subpoena.” That way the state of Hawai’i will print out a fresh copy of whatever birth records they have for Barack Hussein Obama II! What a concept!

Futhermore, any congressional committee could have subpoenaed Obama’s birth records years ago. Obama announced his candidacy for the presidency in February of 2007.

If Congress subpoenaed Nixon’s White House tapes, they can certainly subpoena Obama’s birth certificate.

Have you heard ANY single member of Congress call for congressional hearings on Obama’s eligibility to be president or has any member of Congress called for a congressional subpoena of Obama’s birth records?

A Hawai’i birth record can be released without the permission of the person named on the record to: “a person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by a court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.”—Hawai’i Revised Statutes 338-18(b)


84 posted on 10/04/2010 1:44:25 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative
Though it's a crying shame that Lakin didn't have this moment of clarity six months ago.
85 posted on 10/04/2010 1:50:02 PM PDT by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: omegadawn

true. If the COLB is entered as evidence , it opens the door to demand supporting doc’s. The proof would be a certified copy of obama’s LONG FORM certificate(if one exist?). obama can never allow this to happen as it proves he is not a Natural Born citizen. I have no doubt that obama knows that he is not a natural born citizen, and can remain “president” only as long as he can keep his birth records out of the court system.


Here’s a link to a copy of a 1961 Hawai’i long form birth certificate.
Can you tell me what additional information there is on a long form that is relevant to being eligible to be president under Article 2, Section 1 that isn’t available on a short form?
http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/colb.jpg

Obama’s birth records can be released at any time without his permisson by subpoena.


86 posted on 10/04/2010 1:52:06 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
“Plaintiffs have to substantiate the defendant’s liability”

I'm sure there's a different standard that can be applied to people we don't like.

The Supreme Court said so in some document that I can't recall.

It's probably in the Constitution somewhere too.

I'll have to go see if I can find some out of context quotes by some Flemish writer from back in the 1500’s or so that support my opinion.

87 posted on 10/04/2010 1:54:54 PM PDT by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Still playing games I see you, have been advised over and over what the long form has that the short form doesn’t and that is the ability to verify it.

Nice to see you post Obama’s long form, blank just as many thought. ZERO information just like Obama another big ZERO.


88 posted on 10/04/2010 1:57:30 PM PDT by rolling_stone ( *this makes Watergate look like a kiddie pool*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
Why would ANY defendant submit evidence in a pre-trial hearing?

Well clown it is called exculpatory evidence. To clear his name to at least show he was born in in Hawaii. He says he is but will not prove it. That is called hearsay BS, especially from a proven liar.


Let me repeat just one more time and very, very slowly, for the really, really stupid: defendants don’t substantiate their innocence in the American judicial system. Plaintiffs have to substantiate the defendant’s liability.

No, let me repeat to you clown for the very slowly...you're slow and even slower than an idiot.

89 posted on 10/04/2010 1:58:24 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
I'm sorry, but you really are making a wrong point on this one. No defendent ever submits anything until requested/directed by the Court to do so. Courts don't even want such submittals from the defense before basic procedural issues are cleared.

Obama could have submitted a birth certificate to each of the seventy-some trials to date, and no Court would have even attempted to validate it. The dismissals would have been issued on the exact same procedural grounds; they don't just jump over that to answer questions they aren't even legally asked yet.

90 posted on 10/04/2010 2:07:53 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative
I'm sorry, but you really are making a wrong point on this one. No defendent ever submits anything until requested/directed by the Court to do so. Courts don't even want such submittals from the defense before basic procedural issues are cleared.

I'm sorry my points are right on CON. We see a silly "president" who can't even prove he was born in Hawaii. Nope, we have a proven liar-in-chief who can't show a mere birth certificate in court. He has the exculpatory evidence at the tip of his finger but won't produce it for the court. It's certainly not evidence that will hurt him in court as it should clear his name to where he was born. You don't keep exculpatory evidence out of numerous courts for over 2 years if it clears your name.

91 posted on 10/04/2010 2:17:46 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
I'm sorry you can't grasp the concept. No one just shows up initially at Court with exculpatory evidence. To pretend otherwise is simply an admission that you don't know what you're talking about.

You may recall that this same conceptual issue was played for humorous effect in "My Cousin Vinny."

Vinny Gambini: No. I'm just trying to explain...

Judge Chamberlain Haller: [cutting him off] I don't want to hear explanations. I don't know how you practice law in New York, but the state of Alabama has a procedure. And that procedure is to have an arraignment. Are we clear on this?

Vinny Gambini: Yes, but there seems to be a great deal of confusion here. You see, my clients...

Judge Chamberlain Haller: Uh, Mr. Gambini?

[Motions for him to approach the bench]

Judge Chamberlain Haller: All I ask from you is a very simple answer to a very simple question. There are only two ways to answer it: guilty or not guilty.

Vinny Gambini: But your honor, my clients didn't do anything.

Judge Chamberlain Haller: Once again, the communication process has broken down between us. It appears to me that you want to skip the arraignment process, go directly to trial, skip that, and get a dismissal. Well, I'm not about to revamp the entire judicial process just because you find yourself in the unique position of defending clients who say they didn't do it.

Now that's just Hollywood humor, but the point is correct. Courts don't accept evidence for evaluation before they have made a determination that a case, as presented, can progress to that stage. It wouldn't be exculpatory for Obama in a pre-trial submittal because the Court wouldn't evaluate it. Therefore, no competent attorney would bother to submit it. They would likely be embarrassed by the Court if they did.

92 posted on 10/04/2010 2:33:43 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

Now if you can work Marisa Tomei into this, we’re in business!


93 posted on 10/04/2010 2:42:12 PM PDT by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative
I'm sorry you can't grasp the concept. No one just shows up initially at Court with exculpatory evidence. To pretend otherwise is simply an admission that you don't know what you're talking about.

No, I'm right on troll. You can make all the excuses you want; apparently, Obama does not have the evidence that clears him.

It seems to be all right with you Obots for Obama to act like a criminal. Most of us have a much higher standard that we expect from someone who occupies the presidential office. Obot lawyer Robert Bauer can point to a jpg. image in a silly footnote for a federal judge to look at online, but will not produce Obama's birth certificate in court? So it's ok that Obama's eligibility has been twittered, blogged, and massaged? That's total nonsense by a federal judge. You after-Birther's are all unbelievable to say the least.


It wouldn't be exculpatory for Obama in a pre-trial submittal because the Court wouldn't evaluate it. Therefore, no competent attorney would bother to submit it. They would likely be embarrassed by the Court if they did.

Oh, it would be an "Embarrassment" that you guys like to latch onto? What 'embarrassment' would that be CON? Do tell. Obama not born in Hawaii is about as big as an 'embarrassment' that can happen. So again, what 'embarrassment' is Obama keeping from the public other than that he is a pathological liar?

94 posted on 10/04/2010 3:24:39 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
No, I'm right on troll. You can make all the excuses you want; apparently, Obama does not have the evidence that clears him.

No, irrespective of whether Obama was born in Hawaii or not, you simply don't know what you're talking about. You apparently have no comprehension of actual court procedure; that is the issue about which you're trying (unsuccessfully) to state meaningful conclusions.

It seems to be all right with you Obots for Obama to act like a criminal.

Failure to provide exculpatory behavior in the initial pre-trial briefs is not the behavior of a criminal. It is the normal behavior expected by the Court. As, I've noted, they wouldn't evaluate the birth certificate if he provided it. And outraged hyperbole does not, in fact, constitute an argument, either in court or out.

Oh, it would be an "Embarrassment" that you guys like to latch onto? What 'embarrassment' would that be CON? Do tell. Obama not born in Hawaii is about as big as an 'embarrassment' that can happen. So again, what 'embarrassment' is Obama keeping from the public other than that he is a pathological liar?

You fail to comprehend what I wrote. It does not presume there is anything embarrassing in the birth documentation itself. The embarrassment I was speaking of would be felt by the attorney who submitted such a thing at that stage. They would likely be asked "What am I (the Court) supposed to do with this? You do recognize that I have not asked for or directed delivery of this, and that it has no relevance at this stage of the procedure?" You are basically taking attorneys to task for following court procedure and thus not subjecting themselves to needless rebuke. That's a pretty unreasonable perspective.

95 posted on 10/04/2010 4:02:19 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

I tried to get Marisa Tomei, but when she found out the script was pages and pages of Red Steel yelling at her that she was a traitorous Obot, she told her agent to pass. (smile)


96 posted on 10/04/2010 4:04:28 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative
You fail to comprehend what I wrote.

I understand completely.

It does not presume there is anything embarrassing in the birth documentation itself. The embarrassment I was speaking of would be felt by the attorney who submitted such a thing at that stage.

Oh come on now troll, then there is no good reason for Obama not to release the birth certificate if it is not an embarrassment. At that stage? LOL! That's about as silly of an excuse that I've seen in awhile. "At that stage" is BS. Moreover, after about 70+ cases and over 2 years of litigation "that stage" has come. Ask your fellow Obot LiL' Jamie for an accurate count.

They would likely be asked "What am I (the Court) supposed to do with this? You do recognize that I have not asked for or directed delivery of this, and that it has no relevance at this stage of the procedure?"

You understand an honest man would release his birth certificate without question. I expect no less from a "president," and not make up BS excuses .

You are basically taking attorneys to task for following court procedure and thus not subjecting themselves to needless rebuke. That's a pretty unreasonable perspective.

Exculpatory evidence that show Obama was at least born in Hawaii is not an unreasonable perspective or is it unreasonable for him to release exculpatory evidence to the courts. Everyone would present exculpatory evidence, to clear themselves "except Obama" in this world. It seems to be OK with you Obots to send a man to jail to protect Obama because of some imaginary 'embarrassment' cooked up from the imaginations of dishonest lawyers.

97 posted on 10/04/2010 4:30:19 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Well clown it is called exculpatory evidence. To clear his name to at least show he was born in in Hawaii. He says he is but will not prove it. That is called hearsay BS, especially from a proven liar.

No, let me repeat to you clown for the very slowly...you’re slow and even slower than an idiot.


Exculpatory evidence is presented AT TRIAL, not during pre-trial hearings and pre-trial motions. Has Obama needed one shred of exculpatory evidence submitted with legal briefs in order to get 73 lawsuits summarily dismissed? No he hasn’t.
My God, man, haven’t you ever watched “Court TV?” ;-)

For example:
“A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.“ US Federal District Court Judge for the Middle District of Georgia Clay D. Land in dismissing “Rhodes v MacDonald” September 16, 2009
or:
“This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”—Chief US District Court Judge for the District of Columbia Royce C. Lamberth in dismissing “Taitz v. Obama”—April 14, 2010


It is my personal belief that President Obama doesn’t want to “clear his name.” He’s having much too much fun winning lawsuit after lawsuit (after all, he is a Harvard Law School grad and a former senior lecturer in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago) and getting Republicans to carry his “native born citizen” water for him.


98 posted on 10/04/2010 4:36:00 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

Ah, dang....


99 posted on 10/04/2010 4:37:25 PM PDT by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
It is my personal belief that President Obama doesn’t want to “clear his name.” He’s having much too much fun winning lawsuit after lawsuit (after all, he is a Harvard Law School grad and a former senior lecturer in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago) and getting Republicans to carry his “native born citizen” water for him.

Oh, Really? Why don't you also trot out that Obama wants the NBC issue to save Congress for the Dems in this election season? So Jamie, you should start a national Dem campaign that Obama is a natural born citizen and is eligible for presidential office. It would be such a winner for you guys since the Dems have nothing else to run on this year. Get all the Dems to spout everyday in unison that Obama is an natural born citizen. Heehee... And Obama is an empty suit who spouts a bankrupt life and governing philosophy and having a Harvard degree did not save him from his stupidity.

100 posted on 10/04/2010 4:50:58 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-143 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson