Posted on 03/31/2010 9:00:21 AM PDT by americanpatriotfoundation
DECORATED ARMY PHYSICIAN REFUSES ALL MILITARY ORDERS BECAUSE PRESIDENT REFUSES TO DOCUMENT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBILITY
Court Martial Likely, Legal Defense Fund Established
Washington, D.C., March 30, 2010. “I am today compelled to make the distasteful choice to invite my own court martial, in pursuit of the truth about the president’s eligibility under the constitution to hold office”, said active duty Army Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin. The American Patriot Foundation, a non-profit group incorporated in 2003 to foster appreciation and respect for the U.S. Constitution, immediately announced it has set up a legal defense fund and will provide Lt. Col. Lakin with a top-flight defense team. Details are available on the foundation’s website, www.safeguardourconstitution.com.
Article II, sec. 1 of the U. S. Constitution explicitly provides that only “natural born” citizens can serve as president and commander-in-chief. Mr. Obama’s continuing refusal to release his original 1961 birth certificate has brought Lt. Col. Lakin to the point where he feels his orders are unlawful, and thus MUST be disobeyed.
Lakin has today informed his superiors that he cannot understand how his oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” does not permit military officers to pursue proof of eligibility from his commander-in-chief. Lt. Col. Lakin’s efforts to seek affirmation of the president’s eligibility have been rebuffed with legal evasions. Given the Obama Administration’s “transparency” initiative, many U.S. citizens are also demanding release of the original birth certificate.
Lakin serves as Chief of Primary Care and Flight Surgeon for the DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic and is lead Flight Surgeon charged with caring for Army Chief of Staff General Casey’s pilots and air crew. His numerous awards and decorations include the Army Flight Surgeon’s Badge, Combat Medical Badge, the Bronze Star Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters, the Army Achievement Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the National Defense Service Medal with Bronze Service Star, the Armed Forced Expedition Medal, the Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon and the NATO service medal.
"The UCMJ, Article 138, is another provision for protecting individual rights. Members of the Armed Forces who believe they are wronged by their commanding officer may request redress under the provisions of Article 138.
A member may use Article 138 when a discretionary act or failure to act by a commander adversely affects the member personally. Examples include acts that violate law or regulation; those that exceed the legitimate authority of the commander; ones that are arbitrarily, capricious, or an abuse of discretion; or those that clearly apply administrative standards unfairly...."
Source: AFPAM 36-2241
Not a thing.
LTC Lakin is pushing for a case in a military court vs. one in a federal civilian court.
As a retired military officer, I have a working knowledge of the UCMJ. As an admitted old fart [lol], I do not scour the news as I once did. So, my interest is in not missing new developments.
No problem. :-)
Do you have a link to such a FOIA request, including the information that was allegedly released.
It is highly unlikely (to the point of legally impossible) to secure the documents of a private citizen, a private university and a private scholarship fund with a FOIA request. FOIA is a government transparency statute, inapplicable to private enterprise or organizations.
Moreover, even if the scholarship fund was a government fund, or if Occidental was a public university, it would also be highly unlikely that FOIA coul successfully employed to acquire such materials, as they (admissions materials) would clearly be protected by the Privacy Act of 1974. FOIA requests cannot - by statute - break the protections of the 1974 Privacy Act.
Well, that is completely made up.
Which will result in a different outcome, how exactly?
Not to sure why you aren’t getting it. I’ll make it simple.
Mommy and Daddy must BOTH be born in the USA in order for Baby to be considered a natural born citizen of the USA.
The reason is so there is NO allegiance to any other country for a presidential candidate.
See how smart our forefathers were and how evil are those who turned a blind eye for Barry. They deliberately went against Our Constitution and we get an impostor with NO allegiance to the USA.
Thats your first error, the rest of your post is also full of errors. There are also native-born citizens.
We need more of this. Right on Lt. Col Lakin!
In your opinion, your crazy, crazy opinion, as no court has ever held such a statement to be true, nor is there a definition of "natural born citizen" found in the US Constitution.
As for your explicit definition, there's not a law school in the country, nor a state bar exam that adopts your definition. Perkins v. Elg and Schneider v. Rusk both use the terms "natural born citizen" and "native born citizen" interchangeably. In Perkins, the court affirms a lower court decision that a young woman who was born in this country to two parents who clearly were not born in this country, as a "natural born citizen".
The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States," and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants.It seems as if your opinion isn't validated by any court decision. How about that.
You think it is fait accompli. Noway. This will go on and on until Obama is exposed. You can tell that to your pals at the DNC.
I'll give you a little clue. You should get to know about the court martial of Billy Mitchell and the aftermath. You probably still won't get it.
However, mommy and daddy where US citizens at the time Ms. Elg’s birth in the United States.
Yes, they were. But, that's not what he said. He said...
"Mommy and Daddy must BOTH be born in the USA in order for Baby to be considered a natural born citizen of the USA"
Which is patently absurd, and easily refuted with just a elementary understanding of American Constitutional Law.
Yes, it was just to clarify the issue more thoroughly.
Was Daddy O a US citizen at the time of baby’s birth?
Nope.
then it’s all over the i-net& numerous places and if it’s false then pls check it out because if it is & it’s all over the i-net then SOMEBODY or SOMEONE is GUILTY of spreading a lie-google it go ahead
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.