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

Skip to comments.

LTC Terry Lakin may be last line of defense to Constitution
Sonoran News ^ | 1 Dec 2010 | Linda Bently

Posted on 12/02/2010 1:11:13 AM PST by bushpilot1

The American Patriot Foundation has called on citizens to support LTC Terrence “Terry” Lakin during the countdown to his court martial.

As of this edition, there are only 12 days before Lakin goes to trial.

A group has organized a “Support Terry Lakin Day” series of rallies on Monday, Dec. 6, beginning at 10:30 a.m. in front of Sen. John McCain’s Office, 5353 N. 16th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85016.

The next rally will begin at 12 noon in front of Sen. Jon Kyl’s office, 2200 E. Camelback, Phoenix, Arizona 85016, with the final rally at 2 p.m. in front of Rep. Trent Frank’s office, 7121 W. Bell Road, Glendale, AZ 85308.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; naturalborncitizen; obama; ofraud
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 last
To: omegadawn

True, If we had a Supreme Court that was composed of honorable men and women they would have already declared obama ineligible.


Calling justices “dishonorable” is not the best strategy to get them to pay close attention to your grievance.
The Supreme Court does not have the power to declare a president to be ineligible AFTER THE FACT (ex post facto).

The Supreme Court is an appeals court. It rules on whether lower courts interpreted the law and the Constitution correctly. The Supreme Court is not a trier of fact.

If Obama were to be indicted by a grand jury for fraud, election fraud or forgery, there would be sufficient grounds to force his resignation or to impeach him for high crimes and misdemeanors.


61 posted on 12/02/2010 10:43:35 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Citizenship is obtained via naturalization. Those who don't need to be "naturalized" are those who are already "natural-born" citizens (why would you need to be "naturalized" if you're already "natural" from birth).

You're right that Barack Obama didn't need to be naturalized--i.e., that he was natural-born an American citizen.

As you point out, at birth, the UK was a potential citizenship option, but that soon went away with Kenyan independence. And since his birthright to American citizenship couldn't be taken from his minority, it was up to him at majority to decide whether to forsake it. I don't know of any evidence of him forsaking his status as a natural-born citizen or taking the loyalty oath required to become a Kenyan citizen.

So...you then come up with this non sequitur...

He never was at birth, nor is now, a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S.

Actually, as nicely laid out from your own evidence, he was a US Natural Born Citizen unless he chose to renounce that status.

Maybe you're mixing up with "native-born"...you wouldn't be the first. Later editions of Emer de Vattel's The Law of Nations translated into English even made this mistake. Some folks have thought the version the Founding Fathers knew had that mistake (but it was demonstrated that the earlier versions were correct, and that some websites used the original publication date on their later translations, giving the wrong impression about what the Founding Fathers understood as natural born).

62 posted on 12/02/2010 11:39:11 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
The problem with your ‘claim’, to have gone to those addresses, is that Barack or Barak Obama wasn’t the only one in his family to link those addresses to his name; so did Michelle Obama and Stanley Ann Dunham Obama (who has been dead for quite some time).

Show me where.

Why and where would they list another Barack Obama's address?

Neil Sankey is not a 25 cent detective — as he heads up his own agency.

And Rev. Wright has his own church.

But you're right...he charged more than 25 cents for his work. I sure hope those clients got more for their money than the stuff he's done for free.

The whole 1890 bit is an obvious typo, one of many many errors in the online database search garbage Neil Sankey presented as "evidence" regarding this issue. He claims that 042-68-4425 was issued to someone who would be 120, but that number doesn't show up in the SSDI at all.

And, note that Neil Sankey's database skills have revealed that Stanley Ann Dunham is a male (confirmed in multiple entries, and never listed as female).

But that 1890 date associated with 042-68-4425 is online, so it must be right! And those locations have the name "Barack Obama" so they must be the same Barack Obama and none of them could possibly be fake entries! </sarc>

63 posted on 12/02/2010 11:57:16 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Citizenship is obtained via naturalization. Those who don't need to be "naturalized" are those who are already "natural-born" citizens (why would you need to be "naturalized" if you're already "natural" from birth).

You're right that Barack Obama didn't need to be naturalized--i.e., that he was natural-born an American citizen.

As you point out, at birth, the UK was a potential citizenship option, but that soon went away with Kenyan independence. And since his birthright to American citizenship couldn't be taken from his minority, it was up to him at majority to decide whether to forsake it. I don't know of any evidence of him forsaking his status as a natural-born citizen or taking the loyalty oath required to become a Kenyan citizen.

So...you then come up with this non sequitur...

He never was at birth, nor is now, a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S.

Actually, as nicely laid out from your own evidence, he was a US Natural Born Citizen unless he chose to renounce that status.

64 posted on 12/02/2010 11:58:40 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
Ah, so you one of those who believes anchor baby's are "Natural Born Citizens" and thus eligible to be the Commander in Chief...as are (for example) baby's who are born to a foreign mother simply passing through our territority (ex. vacation or business). They too, by being born on the soil, along with foreign citizenship, you consider them "Natuaral Born Citizens."

Clearly, we have read differnt history books on the founding of America.

65 posted on 12/03/2010 12:06:42 AM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

It was a surprisingly minor point in the Constitutional development.

The issue was denying the office to those who had switched allegiances (”naturalized”) to become American.


66 posted on 12/03/2010 12:15:33 AM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

Back in February 2008, when I first started researching Obama, there were more than 140 SSNs associated with the names Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, and Stanley Ann Dunham.

Over the past two years and ten months those have dwindled considerably due to the Obamas no longer needing to launder money contributed from Africa and the ME. All donations went through a Swiss bank located on the island of Madeira.

BHO is a con man and criminal. Michelle Obama had to surrender her law license for committing insurance fraud. Typical skanks, the whole bunch.

I suggest you do research rather than taking pot-shots at those who have done so.


67 posted on 12/03/2010 3:36:53 AM PST by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
There are two books below Washington’s hand. One is open..the Bible..the one below the Bible is the Law of Nations

You've always shown remarkable persistence and energy in ferreting out historical sources but I think you've let your enthusiasm carry you away on this one. The painting is from 1889 - a hundred years after the event - and can't be treated as a contemporary source. Why on earth would you think the Law of Nations was shown in it?

68 posted on 12/03/2010 6:32:16 AM PST by Factsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

The Supreme Court Justices actions, or lack thereof have determined that they are dishonorable. The court could once again define the original intent of Natural Born.
CHILDREN OF CITIZENS SHALL BE CONSIDERED NATURAL BORN

But for political reasons, they are refusing to become involved.
It’s not neccesary for them to declare obama ineleigible, only publicly define Natural Born as being born to parents who were U.S. citizens. IT would then be up to Congress to remove obama.


69 posted on 12/03/2010 8:15:37 AM PST by omegadawn (qualified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Factsman
Why on earth would you think the Law of Nations was shown in it?

If I had to guess, it's because of this article, with a joke caption suggesting he's being sworn using The Law of Nations.

70 posted on 12/03/2010 8:48:53 AM PST by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: omegadawn

The Supreme Court Justices actions, or lack thereof have determined that they are dishonorable. The court could once again define the original intent of Natural Born.
CHILDREN OF CITIZENS SHALL BE CONSIDERED NATURAL BORN

But for political reasons, they are refusing to become involved.
It’s not neccesary for them to declare obama ineleigible, only publicly define Natural Born as being born to parents who were U.S. citizens. IT would then be up to Congress to remove obama.


The Supreme Court would only rule on the factual evidence of an appeal IF the appeal wasn’t dismissed at the original trial court level. Since EVERY Obama eligibility lawsuit that has reached the high court seeking a Writ of Certiorari was dismissed for lack of standing, the ONLY issue that the Supreme Court can address is did the trial court and the Circuit Court of Appeals err on the dismissal for lack of standing.

No Obama eligibility lawsuit has featured a plaintiff with standing to sue: someone who can show DIRECT injury from the election of Barack Obama as an illegal candidate.

At the appeals court level, the justices are required to accept as true, everything that the plaintiff is alleging and to cast the plaintiff’s case in the most favorable light and THEN decide if the original trial court erred in its application of the law.
It also doesn’t help the “Obama is ineligible movement” that no well known, major conservative constitutional attorney, someone of the stature of Judge Robert Bork or Ted Olsen has written any of the Petitions for a Writ of Certiorari.

You are still acting like the Supreme Court is an original jurisdiction court and not an appeals court. If any Obama eligibiity suit that was dismissed for standing reasons was ever heard by the Supreme Court and the Justices ruled in the plaintiff’s favor, that lawsuit would then return to the original trial court for a trial on the merits with the plaintiffs being granted standing. It would then have to work its way back through the appeals court process.

It is my personal opinion that unless John Sidney McCain, Sarah Palin and/or the Republican National Committee is the plaintiff or lead plaintiff in a class action suit, no other entity will ever be granted standing to sue.
That is why I favor a criminal justice approach where standing issues are not a factor. A grand jury investigation for election fraud can be convened in any jurisdiction where Barack Obama’s name was on the ballot. I suggest that happen in any of the reddest of the red states.
The current “reddest of the red” are Wyoming and Mississippi.


71 posted on 12/03/2010 10:07:55 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Ah, so you one of those who believes anchor baby’s are “Natural Born Citizens” and thus eligible to be the Commander in Chief...as are (for example) baby’s who are born to a foreign mother simply passing through our territority (ex. vacation or business). They too, by being born on the soil, along with foreign citizenship, you consider them “Natuaral Born Citizens.”
Clearly, we have read differnt history books on the founding of America.


President George W. Bush appointed a second generation “anchor baby” to be America’s chief law enforcement officer as Attorney General of the United States. His name was Alberto Gonzales and he was number seven in the line of presidential succession.


72 posted on 12/03/2010 10:21:42 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

I believe that everyone in America is is directly injured by the actions of obama. Millions of American have lost their jobs directly related to his illegal “election”. I do not believe that obama has full and complete allegiance to the United States. His actions indicate that his allegiance to the U.S. is questionable. The purpose of Article 2 was to prevent a person like obama with mixed allegiance from holding the office of the President. Without a legal sitting President sitting in the White House all Americans are directly injured.


73 posted on 12/03/2010 10:48:05 AM PST by omegadawn (qualified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: omegadawn

With the full court of 9 justices it’s the rule/vote of 4 to grant certiorari to move the case forward.

With two recusals that would have left only 7 justices and it’s then the rule/vote of 3 to grant certiorari to move the case forward.
If sotomier and kagen has recused it is possible that certiorari might have been granted.
it could have been held up by one vote.


The “rule of four” doesn’t change if there are recusals. The Court always requires the concurrence of four justices in order to grant a petition for a Writ of Certiorari.

None of the four Clinton or Obama appointed Justices are needed whether they are recused or participating in order to hear an Obama eligibility appeal or to render a favorable opinion for a plaintiff in an Obama eligibility lawsuit. There’s still Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas.


74 posted on 12/03/2010 10:54:13 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

If I had to guess, it’s because of this article, with a joke caption suggesting he’s being sworn using The Law of Nations


I wondered that myself - but I do hope bushpilot1 will enlighten us.


75 posted on 12/03/2010 10:54:17 AM PST by Factsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Kerchner said that if Sotomayor and Kagan had recused themselves only 3 would have been needed.

If you look at http://books.google.com/books?id=6ubh-K1gBooC&pg=PA453&lpg=PA453&dq=How+many+justices+needed+to+grant+certiorari+when+only+7+justices%3F&source=bl&ots=sAVqikyOXm&sig=o_WZdLQRN4m_7-8hEOuU-iyeFBg&hl=en&ei=Czz5TMfvOsSAlAfBgKGaBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

on page 453, footnote 5, it says:

“The “rule of four” is modified when seven or fewer justices participate, which occurs from time to time. When that happens as few as three justices can grant certiorari.”

This appears to be a textbook. I’m not sure where a person would find what is legally binding for SCOTUS.


76 posted on 12/03/2010 11:13:17 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Actually there is no law that requires 4 votes ,just a simple rule. The court could accept the case with even one person voting for it. I of course wonder with one(or more) of the 4
mentioned did not vote for the case to move forward.


77 posted on 12/03/2010 11:17:24 AM PST by omegadawn (qualified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

The Supreme Court is not a trier of fact? Article III, Section 2 disagrees:

“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, BOTH AS TO LAW AND FACT (emphasis mine - BDZ), with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Cognress shall make.”


78 posted on 12/03/2010 11:19:08 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

The Supreme Court is not a trier of fact? Article III, Section 2 disagrees:

“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, BOTH AS TO LAW AND FACT (emphasis mine - BDZ), with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Cognress shall make.”


The Supreme Court will not be a trier of fact in an Obama eligibility lawsuit. That is what I meant.
No one has even attempted to have the Supreme Court exercise original jurisdiction in such a case involving Obama’s eligibility.

Thanks for backing up my point by emphasizing where the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction BOTH AS TO LAW AND FACT (emphasis Butterdezillion’s).


79 posted on 12/04/2010 2:51:14 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
The issue was more complex and important than you allude too. In fact, numerous early states debated weather or not their governors should be required to be Natural Born Citizens. Furthermore, during the debates of the several states on the adoption of the Constitution, many of the state delegates had pushed for the Natural Born Citizen requirement to be included for Senators and Reps as well. It was about singular allegiance from birth.

It was about the top single political office (that is the "face" for negotiations with foreign countries), and that of the Commander in Chief of the armed forces not have divided allegiance owed. Someone born with dual citizenship...is a divided citizen. Someone who owes allegiance to "two masters." In natural law, there is nothing natural about someone being divided like that at birth.

80 posted on 12/06/2010 12:53:37 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 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