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.

[patlin]

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

To Understand Sidney, you have to also understand Locke, the other distinguished Englishman who lived at the same time and for 21 years past Sidney:

Politically active, Locke was personal physician and advisor to Anthony Ashley Cooper, the Earl of Shaftesbury, a leader in the parliamentary opposition to King Charles II. In 1681 Shaftesbury was accused of conspiring to overthrow Charles and was tried for treason. Although acquitted, he fled to the Netherlands and Locke followed. Locke stayed in exile until 1689, during which time he wrote his masterpiece, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, and actively plotted to put William of Orange on the English throne. Locke returned to England after King James II fled and William was crowned William III (in the turn of events known as the Glorious Revolution). Over the next several years he published his most important works, including A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689), Two Treatises on Government (1690) and Some Thoughts Concerning Education (1693).

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Fperson=131&Itemid=28

[Red Steel]

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

That doesn't matter one bit - a non sequitur. In the 18th Century and in the 21st Century Vattel's work about natural law transcends time all the way up to the 21st Century. This book was publish in 2005.

And as you can see, when this nation was formed, de Vattel book had a predominant influence on our Founders.

What you clowns fail to realize that laws are not needed to say who are natural born citizens. No Constitutional amendment, no statutes, no acts of Congress, no treaties, no Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS opinion(didn't happen), no nothing. You looking for US statutes that says so is futile.

[bushpilot1]

pls have a look 7)pg6 in the Obama pdf.

[patlin]

What you clowns fail to realize that laws are not needed to say who are natural born citizens. No Constitutional amendment, no statutes, no acts of Congress, no treaties, no Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS opinion(didn't happen), no nothing. You looking for US statutes that says so is futile.

Exactly! Natural as in nature. From the beginning of time children owed obedience to the father & mother and the father & mother owed protection & an obligation to educate the child. At the time of the founding as well as the ratification of the Constitution for our nation that was framed on natural law as declared in the Declaration as well as the Constitution, it has been through the citizen father or single citizen mother born of a citizen father that the child becomes a natural born citizen.

[patlin]

you saw that too eh? Time to make this go viral?

[TheCipher]

You guys are good capturing images... (like the one posted from google books).. One day maybe I can understand how its done.

Here's one way :

Screen Grab Pro

[bushpilot1]

pretend sterilization is for black women. but its really for white women..

Hes a frickin Hitler.

[Red Steel]

From Obama's 1994 Syllabus:

"Should judges or welfare agencies have the power to restrict the reproductive choices of mothers who are found to have neglected their children, or take drugs during pregnancy? "

So what's that Obama? Forced sterilization?

In Obama's class, I'm sure his pupils got an "A" choosing this one as the "Right" answer.

[jamese777]

That doesn’t matter one bit - a non sequitur. In the 18th Century and in the 21st Century Vattel’s work about natural law transcends time all the way up to the 21st Century. This book was publish in 2005.

And as you can see, when this nation was formed, de Vattel book had a predominant influence on our Founders.

---

Once again, should any court of law or any congressional committee deem the Law of Nations to be relevant to Obama’s eligibility, I’ll be most interested.
Umtil then, I’m not interested.
I did note that the Indiana Court of Appeals actually mentioned Vattel in their dismissal of Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels.
To wit: “The bases of the Plaintiffs’ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate. For the reasons stated below, we hold that the Plaintiffs’ arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that therefore the trial court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs’ complaint.”

So Vatell has actually been mentioned in an Obama eligibility lawsuit.

[edge919]

I did note that the Indiana Court of Appeals actually mentioned Vattel in their dismissal of Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels.

This is one of the many parts of the Ankeny ruling that makes the Indiana Appeals Court look really, really stupid. For example, the 'various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate' were citations to show the intent of the authors of the 14th amendment. The Hoosier Hillbilly court tries to pass it off as insignificant. To pass off Vattel as incidental is complete and utter stupidity, seeing as how often Vattel has been cited by the SCOTUS, including two example Rogers provided earlier in this thread, not to mention that two SCOTUS decision use Vattel's definition of NBC nearly word for word.

[Red Steel]

Yeah, that silly Indiana court "opinion" does not stand up to any scrutiny. It is about as significant in law as a single cellar animal in size. Get your electron microscope.

[patlin]

SELECTIVE DRAFT LAW CASES, 245 U. S. 366 (1918)
Case Preview

Full Text of Case

U.S. Supreme Court
Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918)
Selective Draft Law Cases

Nos. 663, 664, 665, 666, 681, 769

Argued December 13, 14, 1917

Decided January 7, 1918*

245 U.S. 366

That power, by the very terms of the Constitution being delegated, is supreme. Article VI. In truth, the contention simply assails the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution in conferring authority on Congress, and in not retaining it as it was under the Confederation in the several States. Further, it is said, the right to provide is not denied by calling for volunteer enlistments, but it does not and

Page 245 U. S. 378

cannot include the power to exact enforced military duty by the citizen. This however but challenges the existence of all power, for a governmental power which has no sanction to it and which therefore can only be exercised provided the citizen consents to its exertion is in no substantial sense a power. It is argued, however, that, although this is abstractly true, it is not concretely so, because, as compelled military service is repugnant to a free government and in conflict with all the great guarantees of the Constitution as to individual liberty, it must be assumed that the authority to raise armies was intended to be limited to the right to call an army into existence counting alone upon the willingness of the citizen to do his duty in time of public need, that is, in time of war. But the premise of this proposition is so devoid of foundation that it leaves not even a shadow of ground upon which to base the conclusion. Let us see if this is not at once demonstrable. It may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it. Vattel, Law of Nations, Book III, c. 1 & 2. To do more than state the proposition is absolutely unnecessary in view of the practical illustration afforded by the almost universal legislation to that effect now in force. [Footnote 1] In England, it is certain that, before the

Page 245 U. S. 379

Norman Conquest, the duty of the great militant body of the citizens was recognized and enforceable.

[patlin]

NEW JERSEY V. DELAWARE, 291 U. S. 361 (1934)
Case Preview

Full Text of Case

U.S. Supreme Court
New Jersey v. Delaware, 291 U.S. 361 (1934)
New Jersey v. Delaware

No. 13, original

Argued January 9, 10, 1934

Decided February 5, 1934

Then, with Grotius and Vattel, came the notion of equality of division (Nys, Droit International, vol. 1, pp. 425, 426; Hyde, supra, p. 244, citing Grotius, De Jure Belli et Pacis, and Vattel, Law of Nations), though how this was to be attained was still indefinite and uncertain, as the citations from Grotius and Vattel show. [Footnote 5]

[Footnote 5]

Grotius has this to say (De Jure Belli et Pacis, Book 2, c. 3, § 18):

“In case of any Doubt, the Jurisdictions on each Side reach to the Middle of the River that runs betwixt them, yet it may be, and in some Places it has actually happened, that the River wholly belongs to one Party, either because the other Nation had not got possession of the other Bank ‘till later, and when their Neighbours were already in Possession of the whole River, or else because Matters were stipulated by some Treaty.”

In an earlier section (§ 16, subdivision 2) he quotes a statement of Taxitus that, at a certain point “the Rhine began . . . to have a fixed Channel, which was proper to serve for a Boundary.”

Vattel (Law of Nations, supra) states the rule as follows:

“If, of two nations inhabiting the opposite banks of the river, neither party can prove that they themselves, or those whose rights they inherit, were the first settlers in those tracts, it is to be supposed that both nations came there at the same time, since neither of them can give any reason for claiming the preference, and in this case, the dominion of each will extend to the middle of the river.”

[patlin]

OK, if the court in 1950 relied on Vattel & the founders as to who were the resident aliens, then it is only common sense that Vattel would also direct them as to who the citizens are.

JOHNSON V. EISENTRAGER, 339 U. S. 763 (1950)
Case Preview

Full Text of Case

U.S. Supreme Court
Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950)
Johnson v. Eisentrager

No. 306

Argued April 17, 1950

Decided June 5, 1950

339 U. S. 768-777.

(a) Our law does not abolish inherent distinctions recognized throughout the civilized world between citizens and aliens, nor between aliens of friendly and enemy allegiance, nor between resident enemy aliens who have submitted themselves to our laws and nonresident enemy aliens who at all times have remained with, and adhered to, enemy governments. P. 339 U. S. 769.

(b) In extending certain constitutional protections to resident aliens, this Court has been careful to point out that it was the aliens’ presence within its territorial jurisdiction that gave the Judiciary power to act. P. 339 U. S. 771.

(c) Executive power over enemy aliens, undelayed and unhampered by litigation, has been deemed, throughout our history, essential to wartime security. P. 339 U. S. 774.

(d) A resident enemy alien is constitutionally subject to summary arrest, internment, and deportation whenever a “declared war” exists...

Citizenship as a head of jurisdiction and a ground of protection was old when Paul invoked it in his appeal to Caesar. The years have not destroyed nor diminished the importance of citizenship, nor have they sapped the vitality of a citizen's claims upon his government for protection...

Vattel tells us: “If any of the subjects, whether military men or private citizens, offend against the truce . . . , the delinquents should be compelled
to ...

[danamco]

This my favor, and see what we have today:!!!

Thomas Edison's teachers said he was "too stupid to learn anything." He was fired from his first two jobs for being "non-productive." As an inventor, Edison made 1,000 unsuccessful attempts at inventing the light bulb. When a reporter asked, "How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?" Edison replied, "I didn’t fail 1,000 times. The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps."

[danamco]

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.

It seems we have made some progress here, and pleases me, because that is just what this whole long thread is all about, isn't it???

[danamco]

You realize how foolish birthers look

If this is the case and you still claim your dear fuehrer is a NBC because he's born in Hawaii(?) by a U.S. citizen mother, I would thunk his name to rather be Barry Dunham instead of named after the "father-sperm" Obama???

[bushpilot1]

Thanks..

[bushpilot1]

“Vatell was an acknowledged 18th century expert”

Wonder what happened to “obscure”..Oh we get it..Vattel is obscure..in the Age of inhabitant Obama.

[bushpilot1]

Read it differently..he states there are more Whites on welfare..but the public assumes there are more Blacks...because they are racist.

So..sterlize..it would affect more Whites..and the Blacks can rise in power..