Press Release: Army Refers Charges Against Lakin To Court Martial

Safeguard Our Constitution ^ | August 2, 2010 | Margaret Hemenway

[orinoco]

It is disconcerting that the justifiable hatred of Obama POLICIES renders so many culpably ignorant.

There, that's much better and accurate.

[azishot]

The Certification of Live Birth that 0bama proffered as a true and legal document attesting to his birth in Hawaii and on US soil is a fraudulent counterfeit, government document that contains false information used expressly to commit felonious acts at the State and Federal levels.

Yes, the COLB is a forgery used to create a person who refers to himself as Barack Hussein Obama. And to think there is actually a JUDGE who said that this COLB was blogged, twittered and texted about before the election.

The lies can't be kept a secret forever.

[rxsid]

""That ludicrous decision by that judge was based in part on an image found on the internet. Beyond ridiculous."

No, that document had absolutely no impact on that particular judge's decision. That judge - Land I believe, granted defendant's motion dismiss for one reason - plaintiff's failed to meet the requisite obligation of standing. That's it.

Land then goes on to editorialize about the case generally - as judges almost always do, irrespective of granting MTD - in what is known as "orbiter dicta" which is Latin legal phrase translated as "said by the way". Dicta has absolutely no precedential value, at all. That's why it's called editorializing

---------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, of course not ODH. Judge land (Hollister v. Obama) is most definitely of sound mind when he editorialized that the issue had been "vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry"
Oh yeah, that is a brilliant piece of work there ya gotta admit. I mean, everybody knows that the way to address issues of national importance and determine the facts is by twittering and texting (oh, and massaging). In fact, that's how the majority of business deals get done. If you really think about it, how in the world did we as a nation ever survive prior to twitter?

IMO, Land should immediately be nominated for chief justice of the world court.

 

/s

[jamese777]

Would you?

---

No. I like official documents to come from official sources.

---

“I guess not. There are many more missing documents besides his birth certificate that matter.

---

Those missing documents are political issues. The birth certificate is a constitutional issue.

[Uncle Chip]

Legal opinions can be dangerous things when read by people who weren't trained to understand them.

So are forged government documents in the hands of Federal Judges.

[tired_old_conservative]

“So when it's actually numbered “Clause 5” (like the house.gov version), what they really mean is that it's Clause 4. And, when the clauses are not numbered (like the senate.gov version), but if you count them you'll see clause 5 is in fact the NBC clause...what that really means is that it's clause 4.

And....since WKA was found to be a “citizen”, what that really means is that since it involves Barry O it was really supposed to mean WKA was a NBC and therefore Barry is one too.

Yup. You betcha toc!

/s”

The salient point is that it's not numbered in the actual Constitution. Any assignment of numbers occurs in a construct outside of the Constitution. That construct will have its own conventions when the clause identifiers are assigned technical meaning, which they are in legal documentation.

Any number of birthers also refer to the NBC citation being in Clause 4. The opinion in Kerchner vs. Obama refers to Clause 4 with again a footnote: “There is a dispute, among courts and commentators, as to whether the provision known as the “Natural Born Citizen” clause should be cited as clause 4 or clause 5 of Article II, § 1 of the Constitution... In any event, the parties agree as to the substance of the Natural Born Citizen clause, and we use the same citation as we used in Berg v. Obama, 586 F.3d 234, 237 n. 1 (3d Cir.2009).”

I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. That is, if you want to understand.

[OldDeckHand]

"Judge land (Hollister v. Obama) is most definitely of sound mind when he editorialized that the issue had been "vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry"

Judges are allowed to editorialize, and often they do. And, judges aren't reversed for what they say in dicta. They're reversed for applying the law incorrectly. Neither Land nor Robinson - or any judge in these eligibility cases - have been reversed, at all.

That is the only relevant criteria for measuring the competency of these judges, or any judge - their rate of reversal.

[little jeremiah]

Placemark.

[tired_old_conservative]

“To support and defend the constitution of the United States. Thus we swear allegiance to the Constitution, the founding document of the US government and the federated states. We do NOT swear allegiance to an individual or to a specific office/office holder.”

That is exactly correct. This idea that somehow taking the officer's oath empowers each officer of the armed forces as his own personal Supreme Court to construe and defend the Constitution as he/she sees fit is just silly.

[OldDeckHand]

"So are forged government documents in the hands of Federal Judges."

Documents - forged or otherwise - that aren't relevant to the central legal question(s) posed by the case, are for all practical purposes wholly irrelevant.

Yes, it is a punishable offense to knowingly submit fraudulent documents or to knowingly make fraudulent representations and statements to the court. But NONE of these cases have been decided based on any documentary evidence provided to court. They have all been dismissed because of either FRCP 12(b)(6) and FRCP 12(b)(1) problems or because of the non-Justiciability and political question doctrine. That's it.

I'm not sure why this is so hard for so many to grasp. It's fairly elementary. If plaintiffs don't have standing to file suit, the case is dismissed. If plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, then the case is dismissed.

[danamco]

Franzie, your frustration is very understandable, however, you will see a plethora of Brandon Manning clones posting here to discourage those who take the Constitution serious and to which THEY also swore an oath!

But like their mentor Bill Ayers who did not do enough of domestic bombing and which you have see standing and stepping on the American flag. That’s what THEY are doing with the Constitution!!

They don’t know what Oath Keeping is or loyalty to their comrades!!!

[rxsid]

From http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_zoom_3.html

So do tell toc, what does the 5th paragraph (i.e clause) state within Article II Section 1?

Here, I'll make it easier...

The image of the Constitution from archives.gov reads like this:

[Clause 3 continued from previous page] the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

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.

[continued]

Are you suggesting that the small clause (i.e. clause 4) below the much larger (continuation of) clause 3 at the top...in fact contains the NBC language?

[jamese777]

So are forged government documents in the hands of Federal Judges.

---

If any federal judge wants to see the original document, they can issue a subpoena for it from the Hawaii Department of Health. What judges usually accept is a deposition from the Director of the state agency where the document resides or from the Registrar of Records for that state authenticating the vital record.

[jamese777]

Are you suggesting that the small clause (i.e. clause 4) below the much larger (continuation of) clause 3 at the top...in fact contains the NBC language?

---

Some people refer to the original Constitution in which clause 5 is correct while other people refer to the amended Constitution in which Clause 3 has been rendered moot by the 12 Amendment, thus moving the Natural Born Citizen clause up to clause 4 in the Constitution as it stands today.

[rxsid]

Indeed ODH. Judge land is a master of the judicially texted, twittered and massaged legal universe. A truly magnificent piece of legal brilliance. In fact, he is far superior to Chief Justice’s Jay and Marshall. It’s no wonder, too, because Jay and Marshall were severely handicapped by not having the ability to rely on the “vigilant citizenry” who had twittered and massaged the serious issues of the day.

[Frantzie]

Polarik is a really good guy.

[STARWISE]

Nice punt and diversion ... ;)

[Uncle Chip]

Documents - forged or otherwise - that aren't relevant to the central legal question(s) posed by the case, are for all practical purposes wholly irrelevant.

But it is a crime to present a forged government document to a Federal Judge, right???

[rxsid]

"Are you suggesting that the small clause (i.e. clause 4) below the much larger (continuation of) clause 3 at the top...in fact contains the NBC language?

Some people refer to the original Constitution in which clause 5 is correct while other people refer to the amended Constitution in which Clause 3 has been rendered moot by the 12 Amendment, thus moving the Natural Born Citizen clause up to clause 4 in the Constitution as it stands today.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course jamese buddy. Make perfect sense. Clause 5 is really clause 4, and clause 10 is really clause 9. That's great. Excellent point. The Constitution on display in the nations capital, or reprinted on the house.gov and senate.gov sites have it all wrong. When do you get nominated for SCOTUS jamese?

[OldDeckHand]

"But it is a crime to present a forged government document to a Federal Judge, right??? "

It's a punishable offense to knowingly present fraudulent documents or to knowingly make false representations to the court. If I make a representation to the court in good faith, and if it at some later time is determined to be a fraud or fraudulent document, I'm probably not going to be disciplined - assuming it was a good faith representation.