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.

[OneWingedShark]

Recognizing the legal reality that Obama is President does not mean one has to like it. It just means it's true.

Alright, we'll see about that, since we're talking law let's get this done-and-over with. (Using semi-formal logic.)

The Constitution mentions the case wherein the "the President elect shall have failed to qualify" so it must therefore be possible for an "elected president" to fail the qualification.

The Qualifications for president are "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Rephrased, the both of the following two conditions must be met for a person to qualify for the Office of President:

1. • That person is a natural born Citizen; OR
   • that person was a Citizen during the ratification of the Constitution.
      
     
2. • The age of that person is at least thirty-five (35) AND
   • Fourteen (14) of those years were spent residing within the US.

The only variable qualification is the age of the person; if some natural born Citizen were to run for President at, say, 34 years old at the scheduled time of inauguration (let's put his birthday in June), then his qualification would have changed from ineligible in May to eligible in July. Right?
Because people's age only grows this can only provide an example of the status of someone not-qualifying changing to that of qualifying. For aging to produce a qualifying to non-qualifying change the person would have to age backwards, like Merlin in some of the Arthurian tales.

Now here is where people seem to be getting tripped up: because the Natural Born Citizen status can never change they assume it to be true... that is they assume that whomever appears on a ballot is a Natural Born Citizen (if they ever think about it at all, that is). However, this is not necessarily the case; as can be seen here. As the wikipedia link shows, someone who did not meet the Natural Born Citizen requirement was on that ballot; thereby illustrating that assumption to be possibly fallacious.

Now, there are multiple factors which might have an impact on Obama's eligibility, here are just a few:

1. The actual birthplace,
2. The age of Obama's mother at the time of birth,
3. The nationality of his father,
4. Adoption[s].

When I was in the Army, it was incumbent upon me, the soldier, to provide documentation should it be lost, especially concerning promotions. How than can someone be 'promoted' to the position of Commander in Chief and not provide the requisite proof upon request? It simply boggles my mind. The image posted on the web saying "Certification of Live Birth" is not a birth certificate. Litigious nit-picking aside, every birth certificate I've ever seen has had the name of physician/attendant and this does not.

Let's put this in another light; suppose that you are given a promotion at work and the promotion requires that you a) have a certain degree, and b) have been employed by the company for a minimum length of time. Suppose now that this promotion came about because of a paperwork error, say a HR person entering 10/01/01 instead if 10/01/10 for your employed-on date or someone misread the qualification as an AS instead of a BS.
Would it be 'uncouth' for a co-worker to think that seems strange... and ask that the facts be reviewed? Would it be be 'wrong' for the company to take away that promotion when the truth came to light?

Why then do so many seem in a rush to "just recognize Obama as President"?

[butterdezillion]

I’ve come to expect it. It’s a rare thing when anybody will engage with something besides the old boilerplate responses.

[butterdezillion]

If an officer is told by his commander to turn on the oven and he chooses to ignore it.... what then?

[butterdezillion]

His public announcement of birth appears in two DOCUMENTABLY-MANIPULATED MICROFILMS.

[Regulator]

That has been accepted by every state, every Congressman, McCain, Palin, etc

That's just nonsense. End of discussion.

[RowdyFFC]

Too bad, isn’t it...he has to serve the constitution first, before the man sitting in the White House...think again...and yes, I suspect we’re going to see a change of attitude in lots of places shortly, including the White House which is going to have the living HELL investigated out of it.

[traditional1]

"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."

Who can be "that someone", when Courts have stonewalled petitioners as having no "Standing" to bring a case? It doesn't bother the Courts that ANY U.S. Citizen who has had this FRAUD perpetrated upon them is ruled to have no dog in this fight.

In reality, any document/legislation/Executive Order, or even orders to military as "Commander-in-Chief" should and would be found to be un-enforceable because they were FRAUDULENTLY applied due to an ineligible FRAUDULENT Office Holder, should such documentation come forward and show non-Natural Born and Constitutionally-ineligible having been the Case. However, due to riots in every inner-city in the USA, backlash from Leftists and the State-Run-Media, the ISSUE of Natural Born Citizen cannot see the light of day, as the Courts will not allow it to be litigated, nor can a convincing re-visiting of the term "subject to the Jurisdiction thereof" in regards to Anchor Babies be argued, either.

(I purposely did not bring up the FACT that the parents of the in-question child were NOT LEGALLY MARRIED, which is another issue that leads to NON-Natural Born Citizen implication, too)

[OneWingedShark]

>>to leave the question of Obama’s eligibility unresolved would be dishonorable and Conduct Unbecoming an Officer.
>
>So you believe that all of the tens of thousands of officers serving in the military who HAVEN’T followed Lakin’s lead are without honor and guilty of Conduct Unbecoming?

In a word, yes. (But not *just* on the issue of Obama’s eligibility.)
The officers are too much of the “armchair quarterback” style of person when it comes to the Constitution; as a matter of fact ALL THREE branches of government figuratively shit all over the Constitution.

How many Officers threatened to use their training [war] on the members of Congress in response to Obamacare?
— (BTW, that makes it a *FELONY* not to have health insurance in 2014... and we all know what happens to felons concerning guns.)
How many officers have DEMANDED that the AZ borders be sealed against illegal aliens?
— This is EXPLICITLY GUARANTEED in the Constitution; Art 4, Sec 4:
— “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion[.]”
How many officers demanded the Blood of the Supreme Court Justices for their de facto alteration of the 5th Amendment to allow eminent domain to be to seize for PRIVATE usage?
— Their EXTRAORDINARILY FLIMSY reasoning was that it served the “public interest” to do so because of PROJECTED tax income.

If *these* aren’t domestic enemies of the Constitution then I ask, pray tell, *what* are?

{If you want to argue that the Constitution is whatever the USSC says that it is, I’m game... but I won’t pull any punches in proving THAT a tyrannical, lawless and arrogant institution.}

[OneWingedShark]

>and the parties who conducted the Nuremburg trial would not have been able to push past what was evidently a strong Ex Post Facto inhibition.

I hate Ex Post Facto laws with a passion and strongly believe that the Nuremberg trials AS THEY WERE CONDUCTED were in error precisely because they applied laws in the Ex Posf Facto manner.

[jamese777]

Who can be “that someone”, when Courts have stonewalled petitioners as having no “Standing” to bring a case? It doesn’t bother the Courts that ANY U.S. Citizen who has had this FRAUD perpetrated upon them is ruled to have no dog in this fight.

In reality, any document/legislation/Executive Order, or even orders to military as “Commander-in-Chief” should and would be found to be un-enforceable because they were FRAUDULENTLY applied due to an ineligible FRAUDULENT Office Holder, should such documentation come forward and show non-Natural Born and Constitutionally-ineligible having been the Case. However, due to riots in every inner-city in the USA, backlash from Leftists and the State-Run-Media, the ISSUE of Natural Born Citizen cannot see the light of day, as the Courts will not allow it to be litigated, nor can a convincing re-visiting of the term “subject to the Jurisdiction thereof” in regards to Anchor Babies be argued, either.

(I purposely did not bring up the FACT that the parents of the in-question child were NOT LEGALLY MARRIED, which is another issue that leads to NON-Natural Born Citizen implication, too)

---

John McCain would have standing to sue, he was DIRECTLY harmed by Obama’s election. Sarah Palin would have standing to sue, she was DIRECTLY harmed by Obama’s election. The Republican National Committee would have standing to sue on behalf of McCain-Palin.

None of those entities has chosen to file suit, enter a suit as a co-plaintiff in a class action or even to file an amicus brief (friend of the court) on behalf of any of the citizens and groups who have challenged Obama’s eligibility in Court.

There are NO issues of standing with a Grand Jury investigation of Obama for election fraud. With a Grand Jury, documents can be subpoenaed and witnesses can be compelled to testify under oath.
If a Grand Jury was good enough for Nixon and Watergate, then why not for Obama?
If a Grand Jury was good enough for the Reagan Administration and Iran-Contra, then why not for Obama?
If a Grand Jury was good enough for Bill and Hillary Clinton and Whitewater, then why not for Obama?
If a Grand Jury was good enough for the Bush administration and CIA Files Leak-Valerie Plame incident, then why not for Obama>
If a Grand Jury was good enough to provide the grounds for the impeachment and removal of Obama’s buddy Rod Blagojevich as Governor of Illinois and to secure a criminal conviction against him, then why not for Obama?

All that is needed is just one prosecuting attorney with the guts to launch a grand jury probe. That prosecuting attorney could be a district attorney, a state attorney general or a US Attorney.

But if there are no guts to take it on as an issue, then there is no possibility of glory.

[OneWingedShark]

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.

Actually, the founders did have the foresight for including something to deal with the installation of an illegitimate president, or any other tyrannical/lawless portion of the government:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[jamese777]

Actually, the founders did have the foresight for including something to deal with the installation of an illegitimate president, or any other tyrannical/lawless portion of the government:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

---

A less dramatic answer is to impeach, convict and remove an illegitimate person occupying the office of the president.
The Confederate States of America tried the rebellion route and it didn’t turn out too well for them. They ended up occupied, disbarred from citizenship and forced to accept the very provisions of societal change that they were rebelling against.

[Mr Rogers]

“When I was in the Army, it was incumbent upon me, the soldier, to provide documentation should it be lost, especially concerning promotions.”

Bull! I spent 25 years in the military, and on any given day or month I couldn’t have PROVED my promotion except for my ID card. And if anyone had challenged my orders on the basis that I wasn’t an officer or had the rank, I would NOT have been expected to show him paperwork to his satisfaction. The burden of proof for his accusation would have to come from him. Otherwise, I’d have the cops take him away.

“they assume that whomever appears on a ballot is a Natural Born Citizen”

In the absence of any evidence, darn right. Everyone KNEW about Obama’s father, and NO ONE with standing objected. No party. Not McCain or Palin. Not the GOP or Hillary Clinton. No state official, governor or legislature. No one with STANDING. And that is still true - no one tasked to check has raised an objection based on either A) his father’s citizenship, which was completely known, or B) his supposed birth overseas, for which no evidence has been presented.

“Litigious nit-picking aside, every birth certificate I’ve ever seen has had the name of physician/attendant and this does not.”

My daughter’s certificate from New Mexico is in the same format as Obama’s, and no one can challenge her birth in the USA based on wanting to see the name of the physician.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Actually, the founders did have the foresight for including something to deal with the installation of an illegitimate president, or any other tyrannical/lawless portion of the government:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[OneWingedShark]

Not quite; there is a huge difference between the single [debatable] State’s right of secession and the definite Contra-Constitutionality of all three branches of the government.

Consider TARP & ObamaCare; legislative nightmares so contrary to the constitution that it should make you sick.
Consider the USSC/Judiciary’s tyranny & on-the-fly modification of the Constitution: the “commerce clause” being applicable to INTRA-state commerce, the shredding of the 4th Amendment by allowing no-knock warrants & warrantless searches, the virtual repeal of the strictures the 5th Amendment placed upon eminent domain, the super-legislative powers they exercised in Roe v. Wade...
Consider the refusal of the [federal] government to address the issue of the invasion of AZ (as required by Art 4, Sec 4).

IOW, ALL THREE branches of the Federal government are demonstrably contra-constitutional. No if/ands/buts, they are a monster that *will* cause bloodshed, one way or another.

[Mr Rogers]

“If GW had been illegally installed - say, for instance, they just skipped the electoral count and went right to the inauguration - and you or your fliers refused to obey orders emanating from him, would you be guilty of disobeying a lawful order? That is the question.”

Except that has NOT happened with either GWB or Obama. Cheney didn’t verbally call for objections BECAUSE THERE WERE NONE. They have to be presented in writing, and NO ONE objected.

To say that Obama isn’t President because Cheney didn’t verbally call for an objection that no one had is la-la land thinking.

[butterdezillion]

How would anybody know if there were objections if the question was never asked?

[Mr Rogers]

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

See posts 42 & 53, this thread.

[butterdezillion]

If I had a “Grand Slam” image I’d give you one on that post too. lol

You obviously get it. Between what you posted and your tagline, you get where we’re at and what it’s about.

[Las Vegas Ron]

I see you’re still defending your man.....ya know, if you would attack the poster on this thread who called our military “murderers”, as I have pointed out to you twice so far, like you attack posters here who would simply like to know the truth and not see our Country destroyed, you might actually have some credibility.