LTC Lakin's Appeal Denied

U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals ^ | 10/12/10 | Clerk of the Court

[BuckeyeTexan]

On consideration of the Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and Application for a Stay of Proceedings, the petition is DENIED.

[Las Vegas Ron]

See posts 42 & 53, this thread.

And you lump him into "birhters"

He's a freakin troll, just like you.

[edge919]

For the purposes of this case, he doesn’t need to prove anything other than that he is accepted by the Congress and the Courts as President.

No, he would have to prove his Constitutional eligibility since that is what Lakin is challenging.

There are Congressmen who believe Guam can tip over, but not one who believes Obama is ineligible because his father wasn’t a US citizen. Not ONE!

First, unless you can provide affadavits from each and every Congressperson attesting to this fact, your claim is nonsense. Second, what they do or don't believe doesn't make Obama eligible or not. The Supreme Court gave us a legal definition in at least two different cases, which I mentioned.

No one is ‘naturalized’ by birth. You are born a citizen, or you are naturalized under laws.

Sorry, but this is pure ignorance. If you are a citizen at birth by virtue of statue or Constitutional amendment, you are 'naturalized' as Congress ONLY has the power of naturalization.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Still spreading your debunked lies here, eh?

Disgusting.

[OneWingedShark]

>>“If the orders of Lakin’s immediate superiors were to support Obama’s strategery, then Lakin has a constitutional right to challenge the lawfulness of that order on the basis of Obama’s illegitimacy.”
>
>You cannot refuse to obey orders, and then say, “I don’t think he is a real officer/president/NCO/etc!” Not without proof. And even then, the deployment is fully backed by the US government, including Congress.

What about the adoption? He himself claims to have been raised in Indonesia; the school records we’ve seen so far list him as Indonesian.
(International law affixes to the adoptee the nationality of the adopter.)

Therefore his nationality *IS* legally questionable, no?

[little jeremiah]

I didn’t even address that his parentage is all supposition at this point...

But even if his parents are the ones he claims they are, their marital status is not clear. 0bama Sr is said to have already been married to Kezia, but a tribal marriage, which may or may not have had legal standing in Kenya, or in the US, and that is hearsay as no paperwork on the Kezia/0bama Sr marriage has turned up.

Next, no absolute evidence for a Stanley Ann Dunham/0bama Sr marriage has surfaced, although there are divorce papers, and some kind of notification in HI records of a marriage, or perhaps application for license, but still not without murkiness.

Butterdezillion will know.

[Red Steel]

And Obama didn’t sign Lakin’s deployment orders, so his invalid signature wouldn’t be a factor anyways. The war in Afghanistan is part of government policy, backed by the Congress as well as the executive branch.

Obama is in LTC Lakin's Chain-of-Command and the order(s) for Lakin to deploy, and the troops already in place, and all of their replacement troops, in the war zone flow from Barack Obama down the chain-of-command. None of them would be there without presidential approval.

From the court brief. Here is Obama ordering 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan in quotes.

The Chain-of-Command is more than a working concept for the military or what some may think is an obscure theory, it is codified in law by the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986.

[Mr Rogers]

“Therefore his nationality *IS* legally questionable, no?”

No. Nothing you do as a minor can cause you to lose your US citizenship. You can even serve in a foreign military as an adult and not lose your citizenship. You must renounce your US citizenship to a US government official as an adult, and sign it.

[Mr Rogers]

The deployment is not a personal whim of Obama. It is fully backed by the entire US government. Therefor, even if Obama was found to be an alien, the deployment order would still stand. That whole de facto officer thing...

[PA-RIVER]

I contend that Obama was born in a Cesspool of raw sewage on a Hawaiian Island.

To this date, no one has or can prove me wrong.

[Mr Rogers]

“He’s a freakin troll, just like you.”

Yep. I’ve been trolling for 11 years. Attacking big government, arguing for lower taxes, against the homosexual agenda, for gun rights - just trolling along for 11+ years.

In the CIA, we call that deep cover. Oh wait, did I let something slip? Guess my handlers won’t be happy. < / sarcasm >

[Red Steel]

There it is in post 206. In black and white and yellow, but you still do not believe your ‘lying’ eyes.

[Mr Rogers]

“If you are a citizen at birth by virtue of statue or Constitutional amendment, you are ‘naturalized’ as Congress ONLY has the power of naturalization.”

It is time for your meds. If you are born in the US, you are a US citizen. By birth. NOT by naturalization. By the Constitution, not by Congress. You need to go look up what the word means.

[Mr Rogers]

But Obama is acting in the office of the President without any legal challenge, isn’t he...and that means that anything he signs, as President, has Presidential authority even if he is later found to be ineligible.

[Mr Rogers]

My debunked lies? Then why is it that everything I said would happen in this case, has happened? And you’ve been wrong in every prediction?

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

I am sorry....anyone can get a COLB from HI. The online COLB means nothing. Perhaps anyone can get one from NM too. It still means nothing.

[Red Steel]

But Obama is acting in the office of the President without any legal challenge, isn’t he...and that means that anything he signs, as President, has Presidential authority even if he is later found to be ineligible.

Oh come on, Obama has got legal challenges up the kazoo. What the courts are doing is evading the issue, but that may change when the political winds change...they may then find their balls. We will just have to wait if Obama laws will be able to hold up over the course of history. I wouldn't bet on it.

And one more time for you...in an easier understanding. Here is what the Army teaches their troops about the Chain-of-Command.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

You can take my name off your list of people to educate about this subject, you see, If barry was an honest honorable man with nothing to hide he'd break out the long form BC and put this issue to rest, yet he remains silent while a good honorable man and Military Officer gets sent to rock-pile...

Tells me all I need to know about him, and those who defend him.. (that would be you and your pals here on this thread)..

[OneWingedShark]

>Obama doesn’t have to justify his standing as CINC any more than I had to justify my rank to those beneath me. If someone wanted to disobey orders based on the belief I hadn’t been promoted, it would have been up to him to offer proof - not for me to submit proof for his review.
>
>>“What if it was something as screwed up as a missing signature on a form somewhere?”
>
>Fine. Produce the evidence. But you haven’t, and neither has Lakin. That makes Lakin the equivalent of a Sgt refusing to obey my orders until I prove to his satisfaction that I didn’t cheat in OTS.
>
>>“Hm; what about the private who refuses to let you into a secure area because you’re not on his list of authorized people?”
>
>Then my order is illegal because my rank is irrelevant. The private is obeying orders and regulations, and I am the one who is not. What does that have to do with Lakin & Obama?

Everything. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land superior to and of more authority than ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT (elsewise how could it define the manner in which they are to operate?) If the Constitution is not being followed, then it is the equivalent of you trying to get into that private’s secured area. (Or do you wish to tell me that officers *don’t* “serve at the pleasure” of the Commander in Chief?)

If the person occupying the office of President is there without being qualified then needs bee there is no [authentic] Commander in Chief. In such a case there CAN’T be because there isn’t a qualified president.

You yourself have made appeal to authority, yet you acknowledge that someone in such a position can be in the wrong and have *no(* authority in some situation: “Then my order is illegal because my rank is irrelevant. The private is obeying orders and regulations, and I am the one who is not.”

If the Constitution is the Supreme law, then it is also the highest [governmental*] Authority. If it is the highest authority in the land then anyone acting contrawise to it is in the wrong and has no legitimate authority, correct? Then, if others are aiding that person, or passing along orders in pursuance thereof, those orders are of no weight, correct? So then, if someone DOD/Secretary-of-Defense/TAG is producing orders those orders are of no effect because they are passed “at the pleasure” of someone who is violating the Constitution.
(Yes, God is THE Authority; but let’s not get into Theology, ok?)

So, yes. Something like an ineligible person assuming the office of President (and therefore Commander in Chief) *IS* not only a “Constitutional Crisis” but a complete disintegration of the legitimate authority of the entire Chain of Command *UNLESS* (and this is important) the orders issued are ensuring that the Constitution is followed (ALL other orders are of null effect). So, this means IN THEORY that the CO if, say, the 5th ID could take the initiative to order his troops to AZ to repel the invasion there (i.e. pursuant to Art 4, Sec 4 of the Constitution), but NOT something like going on parade.

That is why it should be considered ESSENTIAL by all military members that [in particular] the Constitutional qualification for President is met.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
The VERY simple version of this argument:
1 - Someone shows up claiming to be the new OIC for some unit
2 - The Staff of that unit accept him at his word
3 - It is found out, some time later, that the new “CO” isn’t even in the military
4 - Are the orders issued by that ‘CO’ binding?
5 - Are the orders issued by legitimate officers, *in pursuance* to the orders mentioned in #4, valid?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////

[Mr Rogers]

If Obama was found to be a space alien, the laws he has signed to date as President and his orders to the US military would all stand. Why is that hard for you to figure out?

In any case, everyone with STANDING knows it...

[little jeremiah]

0bama hates the military.

So it’s really strange when people who served in the military support his lying ***, isn’t it. And support him with constant repetitive and disproven lies.

[Regulator]

Nonsense again. You claim "NO ONE" with standing objected?

On the contrary, Mr Keyes was acknowledged by the Judiciary as having standing, but his suit(s) were dismissed, mostly for tangential reasons which can be classified under the rubric of "the ruling class closes ranks when the system appears to be under attack".

Wrong again sport. You really have no idea what you're talking about. And insisting that your noise is factual is, as I said more than once so far, Conclusionary nonsense.

[Mr Rogers]

Answers to 4 & 5: Yes.

“The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). “The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.” 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees § 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984) (footnote omitted). The doctrine has been relied upon by this Court in several cases involving challenges by criminal defendants to the authority of a judge who participated in some part of the proceedings leading to their conviction and sentence.”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-431.ZO.html

[Walts Ice Pick]

Impeachment is the only remedy when it is discovered that a sitting president lacks constitutional qualifications.

[Mr Rogers]

Actually, your own link says, “The decision then decides not to decide the question of whether Keyes had standing, and instead rules that even if Keyes does have standing, his suit must fail because it was not filed until after Obama was sworn into office (the judge notes that the case was filed at 3:26 pm Pacific time, January 20, 2009).”

So no, it was not decided that Keyes had standing. Something about only being on the ballot in 3 states makes it tough to win election as President...

[OneWingedShark]

>>“Therefore his nationality *IS* legally questionable, no?”
>
>No. Nothing you do as a minor can cause you to lose your US citizenship.

So then you are arguing AGAINST the validity of international law?
I am very much a National Sovereignty guy, but please support your assertions...
The foreign-born adopted children of American parents are, IIRC, American citizens [according to that international law].

>You can even serve in a foreign military as an adult and not lose your citizenship.

So, we let foreign nationals serve in our military, too.
But do we let foreign nationals COMMAND our military?

>You must renounce your US citizenship to a US government official as an adult, and sign it.

Ah, so then if it turns out that Obama filed for foreign-student aid [for University] then he is merely committing fraud.
Yeah, *only* fraud.

[Red Steel]

Why is that hard for you to figure out?

You better look around on this thread. You should look in the mirror of the guy who can't figure it out. And about 'the de facto officer doctrine,' I gave you a pretty detailed paragraph in post 142 why you are wrong.

[Mr Rogers]

BTW - I donated to Keyes campaign when he first ran some years ago. That was before I realized that he is a professional candidate, who runs to make money.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

Yep, lot of people claimed to have been in the armed services, especially on the internet.. I don't just take their word “scouts honor”.. LOL

[OneWingedShark]

Thank you for posting those definitions of the “Chain-of-Command” and of “Authority.”
They prove the point I was making in Post #218

[Mr Rogers]

“I am very much a National Sovereignty guy, but please support your assertions...”

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

“But do we let foreign nationals COMMAND our military?”

Sometimes. But if you have PROOF that Obama is a foreign national, please hand it to Lakin. His case is hurting right now...

“Ah, so then if it turns out that Obama filed for foreign-student aid [for University] then he is merely committing fraud.”

That is right. Fraud, but he would still be a US citizen.

[Mr Rogers]

In post 142, you made an assertion. Assertions are not proof.

Saying Obama was accused of wrongdoing before taking office doesn’t change the fact that he has been recognized by every government institution and every member of Congress as President since 20 Jan 2009. So your assertion is wrong.

[Red Steel]

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886).

Lets look at Norton v Shelby what is a salient point.

" “The Defacto Officer Doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.”—Norton v Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886)"

The underlined is a constant legal rationale in all these de facto officer doctrine cases. Lakin didn't just disobey his deployment order because he wanted to watch Monday Night Football in the US or something; he thought his order to deploy was unlawful on the face of it, and therefore, challenged it as he is trained to do. Lakin did not find out later after the fact by reading FR figuring out Obama is not eligible under the US Constitution.

[Red Steel]

In post 142, you made an assertion. Assertions are not proof.

You can start looking at post 232 and there is more.

[OneWingedShark]

>Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886).

I’ll see your that and raise you a US CODE, TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 241. Conspiracy against rights

---

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

---

It could be used on those that gave that ruling (if they were still alive)... and EVERYONE WHO UPHOLDS/ENFORCES IT NOW.

[danamco]

“And for the record, I’d be willing to bet you are more of a Marxist than I am. “

---

That might be the case, but you can’t hide being a “Bernadict Arnold, either!!!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2605672/posts?page=164#164

[little jeremiah]

“On the internet, no one knows you’re a dog.”

And there are traitors and fools in every group of people, unfortunately.

[Red Steel]

Thank you for posting those definitions of the “Chain-of-Command” and of “Authority.” They prove the point I was making in Post #218

No problem. :-) Visual aids are great at proving points... even when they can't admit it.

[danamco]

Being born in Hawaii and over 35 years old makes him qualified.

Interesting because the Hawaii DNC refused to endorse his qualification to put him on their ballot!

So Nazy Pelosi had to make some Houdini tricks to get him there!!

False voting scandal all from the get-go. But regardless where born, he was still a Kenya/British/E.U. citizen in addition to his present Indonesian citizenship making him an illegal alien!!!

[danamco]

Buckey said this is an anti-birther thread!

Looks more like an “AFTER-BIRTHER” thread!!

But I realize it’s more a “BENEDICT ARNOLD” thread!!!

[Red Steel]

LoL!

[danamco]

And today Laura Ingram even mentioned Baracka Hussein Abu Amama’s other sealed college records, etc.!!!

And when you see all the DOJ Holder’s Benedict Arnold brigade showing up here in full force, you know they are real SCARED???

Just finished watching the great Chile success, WOW!!!

[danamco]

If I accuse my neighbor of tax fraud, the courts will not allow me discovery and require my neighbor to turn over their financial records for my examination. I need evidence of wrongdoing BEFORE I go to court.

You clearly don't understand how IRS works!

Whistle-blowers don't need any any discovery to initiate IRS to look into your neighbor's taxes!!

I'm sure you also would be comfortable to wear a "blue" helmet!!!

[Red Steel]

And today Laura Ingram even mentioned Baracka Hussein Abu Amama’s other sealed college records, etc.!!!

It appears the conservative talking heads are turning the burner on to warm for Obama. Hannity, Tapper, and Rush is regularly starting to allude about Obama hidden record(s). The best time I think to turn it up to hot on Obama should be about in the spring of 2011.

[danamco]

They just use this paper when they go to the bathroom!!!

[danamco]

“If GW had been illegally installed...”

Was he a NBC???

[danamco]

And so when it comes to pass that an ineligible person is elected to the Office of President by vote of the Electoral College, what to do?

WHY would the Hawaii's DNC not endorse him on their ballots???

[matthew fuller]

"Mass murder is a crime. Shooting unarmed civilians is a crime. "

Those two declarative statements mean that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes. I don't buy that.

[danamco]

And Obama didn’t sign Lakin’s deployment orders, so his invalid signature wouldn’t be a factor anyways. The war in Afghanistan is part of government policy, backed by the Congress as well as the executive branch.

Who signed the order of extra 30,000 troops to Afghanistan?

General McCrystal??

Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen or lower ranks???

[danamco]

My debunked lies? Then why is it that everything I said would happen in this case, has happened? And you’ve been wrong in every prediction?

Please then explain WHY Hawaii's DNC would NOT endorse his eligibility on their ballots for 2008???

[jamese777]

Which is a near impossibility when the jury in this situation is as corrupt as the usurper whom they protect.

---

Perhaps you should look for another nation more to your liking. You seem to be extremely unhappy with this one.
Everyone who doesn’t agree with YOU is corrupt.