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.

[danamco]

People entering the military need to show their birth certificate.

And your point???

[BuckeyeTexan]

Never, Never, Never, Never give up.

One of my all-time favorites.

[danamco]

Mario lost credibility when he wrote those 2 sentences.

By who???

[danamco]

We heard this over and over when we could get BBC through the German noises, 1944-45. The man with the stokes between his V formed fingers when inhaling the smoke. Great man that kept up our spirit under tyranny in our country!!!

[STARWISE]

Amen ... courageous, vaunted LEADER, defending freedom.

[Mr Rogers]

My point was merely how my son’s issues had resulted in many changes to his paper trail, and sharing an idea with BDZ about how it might work out. While I disagree with BdZ, I like her posts and respect her passion and patriotism.

However, I do strongly agree that all candidates ought to show they meet the minimum qualifications for office before being placed on the ballot, and that would include birth certificates. I would also cheerfully support requiring candidates for public office to release their school records, etc - the same information that would normally be required by a prospective employer.

Arizona might be willing, and when the legislature meets again, I’ll write my rep and ask for it. I do find it bizarre that as a military officer, I had to present my personal documents, and get a security clearance investigation regularly, but a candidate for office doesn’t have to show anything at all. I think that is appalling, and it honestly never occurred to me that it worked that way until Obama ran.

[patlin]

Mario lost credibility when he wrote those 2 sentences. By who???

By himself for arguing against himself when he cites SCOTUS & congressional records that say otherwise.

The 1st rule of a ‘good defense or offense’. Never argue the point of the opposition. Mario did that & thus it shows weakness in his conviction of his own position in his pleading.

On & after July 4, 1776 there were only kinds of citizens: natives, naturalized & natural born. All natural born & all naturalized were citizens but not all natives, born or otherwise, were citizens. The 100 year US Census proves this. Children born to aliens on US soil did not become citizens unless the parents were naturalized. They were considered as natives. According to Congress in 1892 when the report was given, the natural born were given to the 3rd generation. They were the children of the children who became naturalized upon the naturalization of the parents. Mario was sent this information & if he chose to ignore it, it is only to the detriment of the validity of his argument.

[Mr Rogers]

“... it became sufficient to be a citizen if one were merely born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.”

You disagree? What do YOU think the requirements are, then? I thought Mario was actually making sense there. What is the secret decoder that allows a different meaning to the 14th Amendment?

[patlin]

You disagree? What do YOU think the requirements are, then? I thought Mario was actually making sense there. What is the secret decoder that allows a different meaning to the 14th Amendment?

Yes, I disagree whole heartily. The entire gist of the 14th falls on the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction”. It does not mean mere local & temp obedience to the law as was argued in WKA in defense & reliance on feudal law as it doesn't matter where one goes in the world & what country they are in, they still owe obedience to the laws. This has been the international law of nature & nations going back to Adam & Eve and has been a constant ever since. So, in interpreting the 14th, what does it mean? The “oath” that all took at the founding & the oath that every naturalized person takes before actually becoming citizens has given us the answer to that phrase since the countries founding.

“subject to the jurisdiction” has many meaning in law & government & from the beginning of time, children owed obedience to parents who are responsible for making sure those children learn the law & obey it & if the child breaks the law, the parents are liable and there are MANY court cases throughout the history of the US to prove that fact. If as those who say that birth & citizenship go hand in hand no matter the nationality of the parent, then according to that feudal law, the government is the parent & should be held responsible for the disobedience of the child.

But one wouldn't know this unless they truly studied the same curriculum as the founders now would they? Right now I am studying Algernon Sidney. He was a highly decorated & respected British soldier & philosopher on the law of nature & nations. He was executed in 1683 for his writings & profound lectures on republicanism & life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Although he never broke any laws or actually started any uprising, his speech was held to be a traitorous act towards the King. You will find that Jefferson oft quotes Sidney in his writings and he also gave credit to Sidney for some of the phrasing he used in the Declaration of Independence.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=223&Itemid=28

[Mr Rogers]

I may not agree, but thank you for an interesting post. I’ve downloaded the book you linked to for future reading.

[patlin]

To understand our laws & to understand where Vattel's mindset was when he wrote his version of the laws of nations you have to study those whom Vattel & the founders studied. Even Obama knows that Vattel was a major factor in the establishment of our Constitution & American law.

Thanks to bushpilot for this find...GREAT WORK THERE BUSHPILOT!

[patlin]

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/2008OBAMA_LAW/Obama_CoursePk.pdf

[STARWISE]

Good find !

[Red Steel]

Hey, I made a copy too. ;0)

Did I hear that Jameseeeeee77777 say de Vattel and his works were obscure to the world? Say what Jammmmeeeeseee? Hee. Just in case the Rog and Jamie didn't see Patlin's post the first time, here it is highlighted. Jamesee, your girl Obama sure knows who is Vattel.

[patlin]

ROFL, yours is the closeup so we have ALL bases covered. AND....who woulda thunk it, that they actually still are teaching Vattel in laws schools in the VERY LATE 21st century? Did you see that jameseeeee?

[patlin]

OH MY...such bad grammar:

AND....who woulda thunk it, that they are actually still teaching Vattel in laws schools in the VERY LATE 21st century? Did you see that jameseeeee?

[jamese777]

Hey, I made a copy too. ;0)
Did I hear that Jameseeeeee77777 say de Vattel and his works were obscure to the world? Say what Jammmmeeeeseee? Hee. Just in case the Rog and Jamie didn’t see Patlin’s post the first time, here it is highlighted. Jamesee, your girl Obama sure knows who is Vattel.

---

Vatell was an acknowledged 18th century expert on international law. But unfortunately he was Swiss and not American.

Now if birthers could just find a plaintiff with legal standing, they could enter “THE LAW OF NATIONS OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS” by Emer de Vatell into evidence.

[STARWISE]

LOL ...

[bushpilot1]

“But unfortunately he was Swiss and not American.”

Please list the “American” books the Founders used to assist them drafting the Constitution.

We have the complete list of books. Humor us..please.

[bushpilot1]

Des habitans...that wud be Des habitans Obama