Court Martial Likely, Legal Defense Fund Established [wants truth on president's eligibility]

Safeguard Our Constitution ^ | 3-30-10 | Press Release

[mlizzy]

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.

[BP2]

> Can he bring a Quo Warranto case if he’s court-martialed?

Yes, and I believe it could go through the USDCDC on its way to the SCOTUS, but I'm not sure yet how exactly this will be filed in the Federal Courts. That method is a plus working with Military plaintiffs and was first explored in a working-group of Eligibility attorneys in November 2008 as a means to "fast-track" it to the SCOTUS. Today, it's the best way to beat any October surprise (climax) by Soros preceding the 2010 election.

Col. Lakin would have Standing and this track should also give his case Jurisdiction, too. The USDCDC will rule against, most likely for Political Question reasons, forcing an Appeal to the USCADC then to the SCOTUS.

If the US Army tries to canx his Deployment orders to make this go away, Col. Lakin will persist in refusing to follow ANY orders originating from Barry Soetoro. There is no TS clearance to screw with, like the DoD has done with another military Eligibility plaintiff. This guy is meticulous, VERY seasoned and is prepared for the Obot hit-job that's coming his way, both on the civilian and military side. He's got back-up.

Col. Lakin knows EXACTLY what he's getting into — eyes wide open! He knows EXACTLY the risks ahead and probability of failure, as well as the importance of SACRIFICE. Notice how on his webpage, he uses the phrases “original 1961 birth certificate” and “I am today compelled to make the distasteful choice to invite my own court martial ...”.

Col. Lakin's language and message has A LOT of appeal with other Field Grade officers, even though only a few have been willing (up to this point) to put their necks on the line to FORMALLY question Obama's Eligibility. As ALL officers undergo LOAC training every year, they are all familiar with Article 92 and the consequences for refusing to follow Lawful Orders, as well as following UN-Lawful Orders. It is in the best interest of the DoD to get this resolved, once and for all, to avoid further dissension in the ranks. (On a more personal level, the troops are just starting to realize the great risk that exists to their TriCare under ObamaCare, and to their retirement benefits under his overall fiscal policies — FGOs and senior NCOs are questioning Obama's overall political and military agenda. They talk ... and morale is lower than it ever was under Bill Clinton)

Col. Lakin knows the actual FactCheck COLB has NEVER appeared in Court, never formally "activating" HRS 338's "This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding" Clause. Once an actual copy (not a COPY of a copy) of the COLB appears in court, that will lead to the next phase.

He will be questioning Obama’s Eligibility more so than his Citizenship, while also working around flaws in Election Laws which FAILED to check Obama's Eligibility in 2008. His goal will be to "force" the SCOTUS to formally define the Framer's meaning of "Natural Born Citizen," as it defined "to keep and bear arms" in DC v Heller (2008).

Furthermore, the colonel and his attorney — NOT Orly or Berg, by the way — also have a handful of OTHER military Eligibility challenges to study on how the DoD will ATTEMPT to shrug this off. The O-5’s are talking.

If you haven't read it before, take a few minutes to look at Lawrence J. Joyce's Amicus Curiae that caught the attention of the SCOTUS in December 2008. It may be a very instrumental part of Col. Lakin’s case ...

[Jet Jaguar]

BTTT

[LucyT]

~Ping~

Check out Article and # 21.

.

[Red Steel]

Good to see you are on this case BP. :-)

[Red Steel]

[BP2]

> Good to see you are on this case

I do what I can to help ... as we all do.

But I want to re-iterate an important point.

Just like many civilians realize there will be NO Social Security and Medicare waiting for them when they retire, more and more military members are realizing there may be NO retirement stipend and TriCare/VA benefits waiting them when they take off their uniforms and retire.

Our soldiers believe in Duty and Honor, but those words have a lesser meaning if you're on your third Deployment in as many years, you've had to deal with a divorce while you're home in Station, and your teenage kids are in Juvie all of the time because they only have the influence of one parent raising them.

The Obots think Obama is “safe” from Eligibility questions originating from military members. They shouldn't bank on that.

The reality is rapidly becoming that all things considered, many military members believe they have almost NOTHING TO LOSE in questioning Obama's Eligibility, especially if they have doubts as to who he REALLY is and what his agenda may be ...

[Spaulding]

I hope you are correct BP2. Listen to Lakin’s recorded speech. It is the usual birth certificate discussion. The birth certificate is not the issue, it is the clear violation of the definition of natural born citizenship by having been born of an alien father.

There were even discussions, and briefly, a statute, suggesting that children of military and diplomats born “across the seas” be “imputed” born on our soil. But as late as 2003, when Orrin Hatch wanted the path clear for Schwarzenegger, an amendment to Article II NBC permitting the children of non-citizen parents who had spent many years here to run for president got nowhere.

The 501c3 status for the organization backing Colonel Lakin is seven years old. I hope they aren't taking him for a ride. His active duty status might give him standing, but his argument fails and he probably goes to jail when Obama whips out a Hawaiian birth certificate. Obama’s foreign born father needs no proof. Obama told us he was born a subject of the British Commonwealth. Obama also told us he was "a native born U.S. citizen." A native born U.S. citizen is not a natural born U.S. citizen unless both of his parents were citizens when he was born. (I know you, BP2, know all this, but want to make the issue clear for anyone who might be drawn to understand it. It sounds so outrageous that many simply dismiss such a clear statement of fact, particularly when pundits are afraid to go near it with the Chavez-influenced FCC awaiting their move to a fairness doctrine.)

Socialist law faculty have been writing about how stupid the natural born citizenship requirement is, but every senator used it to validate McCain's eligibility in April 2008 with Senate Res. 511. Of course it was all smoke, but they all participated, Republicans and Democrats, including Obama, repeating that both parents were citizens making McCain an NBC, while Obama had no more than one citizen parent, and both parents were Marxists thus without allegiance to our Constitution, and Obama’s father was a Muslim who believed the Islam was the only true religion - for others - while he drank himself to death.

[KarenMarie]

Marked

[Uncle Chip]

This letter is a MUST READ for everyone. He makes his case quite succinctly and logically.

[Uncle Chip]

Very Encouraging — Thanks

[Uncle Chip]

I hope so too. I hope their eligibility argument takes advantage of what we have discussed here over the past year, that his ineligibility is three-pronged: 1) his father was a foreign national. 2) his birth was outside the U.S. 3) his subsequent Indonesian citizenship.

As scripture says: "In the mouth of two or three witnesses is every matter established." Any strategic move by the Obama legal team to evade one of these puts him right in the jaws of the others.

[butterdezillion]

Thanks for the additional information. Sounds like he’s the right person to bring this forward. I think Obama knows his time is limited; hence the breakneck speed of his agenda. Expedited appearance before SCOTUS is definitely a good thing.

It makes me so angry that our military people are being screwed so badly by this usurper.

I hope that SCOTUS does give a ruling on the meaning of “natural born”; we need that. I also hope that even if they rule badly on that issue they will recognize on the basis of the finding of FACT that Obama is not eligible because he was not born in the US. Like you say, when Obama’s actual documents are in play that will reveal that issue.

What I fear is that the people in Hawaii would falsify the record for him - coming up with a “clean” so-called original BC for him. But a clean BC at this point cannot be considered authentic in any way, shape, or form - because of the history of responses by the DOH until now.

One of the reasons for John Charlton to spend a lot of money asking for all the UIPA requests and responses on this issue is so that there will be a permanent record of those communications. UIPA responses only need to be kept by the DOH for 2 years, and the DOH already claims that some of the responses required to be kept another year are already gone. The primary reason I’ve documented the statements and actions of the DOH on my blog is so that Obama has no option of offering a fraudulent “original BC”. Without the record of those communications, Obama and the DOH could try (and probably get away with) doing just that.

I sent Col Lakin’s website a link to my blog, hoping they would realize that anything I have that could be helpful is available to them.

I’m not sure how state law enters this question, but in Hawaii inviting a government official in the course of fulfilling their duties to rely on a document known to be fraudulent is the same thing as perjury (either that or forgery; I should look at that again; anyway I know it’s a crime). So there’s not only the res ipsa (whatever it was) issue of it being obvious that Obama’s placing the fraudulent document where it was causing harm - but there’s also the issue that he committed a crime in doing so, since secretaries of state in the course of placing names on ballots, Congressmen in the course of deciding whether to certify the electoral results, and judges in the course of deciding eligibility cases have been invited by Obama to rely on a document he knows is fraudulent - which is a crime in Hawaii if not elsewhere.

Because Quo Warranto is a civil lawsuit, would the potentially criminal actions be censored from consideration? Is there any way to make sure that the law enforcement aspect of this issue gets due diligence? Is there anything I (or anybody else) can do to make sure due diligence happens?

I respect you and would really value any input you have on this.

[butterdezillion]

Obama can’t whip out a pristine “original” birth certificate and call it genuine. The Hawaii DOH has already confirmed that his BC is amended with a major administrative amendment not necessitated by hospital or secretarial errors. Through their responses they have also indicated that the amendment had to involve the medical portion of the certificate. Since the hospital would be responsible for filling out the medical portion this means that Obama’s record is NOT from a hospital.

They’re walking a minefield. Any BC they come up with has to explain the multiple and many-angled communications already put out by the DOH. I’m withholding some of those communications and the analysis of them for now because I don’t want to clue in Obama’s folks to where the mines are that they have to dodge. But be assured that there is a limited number of “original BC” options they have - and all of them mean that his BC is amended and cannot be considered prima facie evidence.

More on this at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/

Conservatives have been afraid of this issue because Obama and cohorts are Wiley Coyotes. But the reason I’ve been such a “vexatious requestor” has partly been to take a snapshot of what the DOH says they have now - before Obama sanitizes the record - so Obama’s ability to sanitize the record is gone. Any sanitizing he does will only implicate both him and the DOH in evidence tampering.

I say to Obama. “Go for it. Make my day.” He’s caught in a slip-knot. The only way we can lose is if we let go of what we have out of fear that we will be considered crazy or tricked by this escape artist.

[bgill]

What I fear is that the people in Hawaii would falsify the record for him - coming up with a “clean” so-called original BC for him.

Even if the original vault certificate did state he was born in HI, it's not worth the paper it's printed on what with HI's ACORN attitude of signing up any and everyone no matter where they're from. Then there's the question of typical white granny being the informant. While getting the original one is important and is one more stake, it might not be of any use and he knows it. The simplest tactic would be go to in on the dual citizenship and papa. Why these lawsuits don't address that is mind boggling.

[butterdezillion]

The lawsuits need to argue both.

We need the definition of “natural born” so this Constitutional crisis will never have to happen again, and so secretaries of state have solid criteria for eligibility, to which we the people can hold them accountable.

But we need the fact of Obama’s foreign birth as well because SCOTUS could well decide that anybody born on US soil is “natural born”. They are not beyond the ability of reading the Constitution as a “living document” and/or ruling that the 14th Amendment replaces any pre-existing ideas of what constitutes “natural born”. Unless we establish the fact of Obama’s foreign birth, Obama himself could get away with the lies that put him in office in the first place. And that would mean our entire system has failed.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Hope the APF has got folks better than Orly Taitz.

[David]

This case presents the one class of facts that might be a foundation for an effective action to bring the issue to judicial resolution.

It should be noted that the Opposing Forces have adopted several different kinds of response to the action by the military officer seeking to challenge the authority under which a given order has been issued.

However at the point where an action like this gets to the point of an effective legal consideration, their response has been to withdraw the order and moot the case. I do understand this is the class of Plaintiff about which they are most concerned.

One of the things I believe Joe Farrah (WND) could do to advance the cause is to do an in depth research article which addresses the legal problems faced by enlisted military in performing under orders not issued by legitimate command authority. Interview the Judge Advocate General's office; attempt to interview military brass at as high a level as can be reached.

This is another way to focus the mass media on the possible significance of this issue.

[butterdezillion]

I also want to make sure everybody knows the significance of the amendment being to the medical portion.

When an unattended birth happened, the mother had until a month after the birth to have her and her baby examined by a doctor who would then complete the birth certificate.

For Obama to have to amend his BC in 2006 means that his mother did not see a Hawaii doctor any time in the first month after Obama was born. She (or Madelyn, or whoever) went to the trouble of reporting the birth but not to the trouble of having a medical check-up after the birth. Why?

It also means that if he did any of the things that required a valid birth certificate (kindergarten, etc) he had to use a different certificate - one signed by a doctor outside Hawaii - because Hawaii cannot print out any kind of certificate for somebody whose record is not complete.

So Ann was not seen by a Hawaii doctor within the first month, but she was seen by a doctor outside Hawaii to produce a valid birth certificate from somewhere besides Hawaii. That certificate was the one he has had to use up until 2006 when he completed the BC in Hawaii. This could explain why all his records are hidden.

[butterdezillion]

Are enlisted people legally liable if they carry out orders given by an illegal chain of command, even if the acts ordered to be done are not illegal or unethical?

I’ve gotten into discussions with military people who basically say that as long as the person doesn’t ask you to do something which is in itself illegal or unethical you have to obey even if they are illegitimate. They say that Congress certifying Obama’s election is the only proof of eligibility anybody can ask for, and that questioning the ACCURACY of Congress’ certification is insubordination.

My son asked me a couple days ago whether the military would side with the right people if the government tried to take guns away (for instance). I told him that would probably only happen under martial law - which is the only instance in which military is supposed to take on law enforcement duties in America. As for what would happen in martial law all I could say was that I don’t know, because I’ve heard so many military folks basically say that their oath to obey renders them incapable of fighting internal enemies to the Constitution who happen to be in the chain of command.

Any military folks want to set me straight or help me understand the lines here?

[Red Steel]

Are enlisted people legally liable if they carry out orders given by an illegal chain of command, even if the acts ordered to be done are not illegal or unethical?

Yes. However, the oath of enlistment has the clause that says "I will obey...the officers appointed over me" which would be a point of contention for the opposition in court. The officer's oath does not state the same. Therefore, the officer(s) should be the ones who take on Obama's legality to be Commander in Chief.