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

Skip to comments.

Judge to Lakin: Find another defense Rules that officer challenging Obama's eligibility...
WND ^ | 9/02/10 | By Thom Redmond

Posted on 09/03/2010 5:39:48 AM PDT by blueyon

Judge to Lakin: Find another defense Rules that officer challenging Obama's eligibility can't see evidence FT. MEADE, Md. – A career officer in the U.S. Army acting as a judge in the prosecution of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin today ruled that the military is no place for Barak Obama's presidential eligibility to be evaluated.

Army Col. Denise R. Lind today ruled in a hearing regarding the evidence to be allowed in the scheduled October court-martial of Lakin that he will be denied access to any of Obama's records as well as any testimony from those who may have access to the records.

With her decision, Lind mirrored a number of federal judges who have ruled on civil lawsuits over Obama's eligibility. They have without exception denied the plaintiffs' access to any requested documentation regarding the president's eligibility.

Lind ruled that it was "not relevant" for the military to be considering such claims, that the laws allegedly violated by Lakin were legitimate on their face and that the chain of command led up to the Pentagon, and that should have been sufficient for Lakin.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bc; bh44; bho44; birthcertificate; birthed; birther; certifigate; eligibility; lakin; larkin; ltclakin; naturalborncitizen; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last
Unreal!
1 posted on 09/03/2010 5:39:50 AM PDT by blueyon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: blueyon

This is insanity. This country is now upside down. damn the anti-constitutionalist.


2 posted on 09/03/2010 5:43:29 AM PDT by FreeAtlanta (Hey, Barack "Hubris" Obama, $10 is all it would take, why spend millions to cover it up?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

The more often this happens, the more it looks like a conspiracy.

The government’s position is that no citizen has standing, under apparently any circumstances, to question the President.

This is not un-Constituional. It is anti-Constitutional. Against the whole concept.


3 posted on 09/03/2010 5:44:33 AM PDT by Eldon Tyrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2582370/posts
148 comments


4 posted on 09/03/2010 5:45:11 AM PDT by Genoa (Titus 2:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

5 posted on 09/03/2010 5:45:38 AM PDT by FreeAtlanta (Hey, Barack "Hubris" Obama, $10 is all it would take, why spend millions to cover it up?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

“Lind ruled that it was “not relevant” for the military to be considering such claims”

Wow
The military has no valid reason for questioning the authority of it’s commander?
So, if we elect an alien from Mars then the military has to obey without question.

We are truly living in “Alice in Wonderland”.


6 posted on 09/03/2010 5:46:42 AM PDT by vanilla swirl (We are the Patrick Henry we have been waiting for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon
She said opening up such evidence could be an "embarrassment" to the president, and it's up to Congress to call for impeachment of a sitting president.

"Embarrasment" shouldn't even be concern in court (and why would the president be embarrassed unless he's a liar)...and Lakin isn't calling for impeachment, he is simply calling for proof!

I'll bet the judge is a bigtime, Koolade-drinking Obama supporter!

7 posted on 09/03/2010 5:48:33 AM PDT by SonOfDarkSkies (This year Christmas is coming in November!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

8 posted on 09/03/2010 5:48:51 AM PDT by FreeAtlanta (Hey, Barack "Hubris" Obama, $10 is all it would take, why spend millions to cover it up?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

This judge wants to keep her job, by staying alive.


9 posted on 09/03/2010 5:49:07 AM PDT by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

10 posted on 09/03/2010 5:55:59 AM PDT by Diogenesis (Si vis pacem, para bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drypowder

This judge wants to be a general.


11 posted on 09/03/2010 5:56:39 AM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

The only defense to a court martial hearing on refusing to obey an order (other than whether the order is legitimate and whether Lakin received and understood the order- neither of which is an issue here, the military can order a soldier to get on a plane so the order is legit, and Lakin knew and understood the order) is Lakin’s LEGAL incapacity to obey the order. Incapacity is strictly defined by law. For example, if he was hospitalized or in jail, he could not get to the flight. In such case, he would not be legally capable of following the order.

The issues in this matter are narrowly defined and the outcome, while tragic for Lakin, is not a surprise.


12 posted on 09/03/2010 6:10:54 AM PDT by Padams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon
I think that the issue of Obama’s eligibility will never be settled through federal courts because the federal government is corrupt from top to bottom. I would be thrilled to see many of the states pass legislation before the 2012 elections requiring all candidates placing their names on the ballot to prove their eligibility. In the case of presidential candidates this would require a birth certificate ... NOT a ‘certificate of live birth’.
13 posted on 09/03/2010 6:12:30 AM PDT by layman (Card Carrying Infidel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Padams

http://jaghunter.wordpress.com


14 posted on 09/03/2010 6:16:25 AM PDT by manonCANAL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Padams
whether the order is legitimate

I believe this is (should be) the entire basis of his suit. An illegitmate potus cannot issue a legitimate order.

Officers are not sworn to follow any order. They swear to follow legal orders of proper authority appointed over them.

I remember this became a big deal after the My Lai massacre. If a soldier is ordered to machine gun a village of civilians into burial trenches- is that a legitimate order?

Is obama a proper authority - or not? Being inaugurated by swearing a false oath- does not make him a proper authority.

Especially an order that could lead the officer to kill others, and face his own death.

If his situation does not confer "standing" on basis of potential injury (a criteria used to bounce many of the other petitioners out of court for lack of standing) - I cannot imagine what could.
15 posted on 09/03/2010 6:20:45 AM PDT by silverleaf (Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

maybe the legal course that needs to proceed is a military officer suing Congress, the Electors or any other federal officials who inaugurated and thus appointed obama as potus without proper proof of his constitutional eligibilty to hold the office.

Let’s call in Pelosi et al to certify their diligence in ascertaining obama’s eligibilty.


16 posted on 09/03/2010 6:25:32 AM PDT by silverleaf (Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Eldon Tyrell

“... that no citizen has standing...”

Would citizens have had standing if this was a Republican with all of Obama’s issues swirling around him? It does look like an organized conspiracy to prevent any discovery of negative evidence against the Chosen One. It has been going on as long as the Chosen One won (stole) the election. It seems like avery judge, in every court, is in on it. How can all of the cases against the Chosen One be summarily tossed out because the plaintiff “doesn’t have standing”. It begs the question who and what constitutes standing?

Does anyone think that if this was George Bush, any and all cases seeking discovery of evidence against him would have been treated the same way those agains the Chosen One has been? I doubt that they would have. All of THE 1’s records must be so damning that release of them would topple this well orchestrated fraud. there are far too many people involved and they would all go to prison for their part in this fraud. And I would put the judges that has prevented all those cases from going forward in prison too. They have been willful participants in this fraud.


17 posted on 09/03/2010 6:27:44 AM PDT by NCC-1701 (HEY, NAZI PELOUSY, ON NOVEMBER 2, WE WILL DRAIN THE SWAMP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

Of course its insane.

A distinuished military officer calls into question the legitimacy of the individual giving him orders - something I think we striaghtened out as acceptable at Nuremberg.

If that is NOT a valid question, suppose Obama decided to remain in office and block the electoral process?? Would this judge feel that the military is still obligated to obey him???

This decision is chilling in its ramifications.

Americans had better wake up and start taking their government back - a piece at a time - or find they have no government or freedoms left to take back.


18 posted on 09/03/2010 6:29:21 AM PDT by ZULU (God, guts and guns made America great,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blueyon
the chain of command led up to the Pentagon, and that should have been sufficient

Did the court just provide 0bama with the Eichmann defense?

19 posted on 09/03/2010 6:29:38 AM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vanilla swirl

“The military has no valid reason for questioning the authority of it’s commander?”

Lind also says that authority stops with the Pentagon. So if the Pentagon accepts a usurper everyone else has to accept the usurper too, regardless of The Constitution.

“Lind ruled that it was “not relevant” for the military to be considering such claims, that the laws allegedly violated by Lakin were legitimate on their face and that the chain of command led up to the Pentagon and that should have been sufficient for Lakin.”


20 posted on 09/03/2010 6:30:19 AM PDT by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next 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