LTC Lakin’s defense crushed in detail

I have just returned from watching most of the Article 39(a), UCMJ, hearing.  (I left as the last item on the table was a defense request for Alan Keyes and LtGen McInerney.)

To say that the military judge destroyed the defense arguments in detail would not be an overstatement.  Although the military judge did politely characterize the defense arguments as an “erroneous view of the law.”

The authority to issue orders does not depend on the qualifications of the President, any suggestion that it does is an erroneous view of the law.

Any suggestion that there is no duty to obey these orders is equally erroneous.

or words to that effect.

Basically what we have been saying has come to pass.

Arrival.  The parking lot immediately around the court-house was blocked and you had to pass through a sentry.  They demanded identification from everyone.  When questioned the guards indicated that everyone had to identify themselves.  To my knowledge no-one was turned away.  But I thought it odd that they were “checking creds, to know who you are.”  Toward the end of the discussion it appeared the real issue was identifying members of the press (who did require escorts).

Waiting.  There seemed to be about four or five media.  Interestingly there was a court artist for NBC (courtartist.com) present.  There were several military persons stopping by for the view.  There seemed to be about 10-12 civilians present observing.  Two of the civilians indicated that they work on base and that this was a “historic event,” that they have no standing, and are interested in what happened.

I did ask around – again – to see if there were copies of the motions available for press or public review, but there weren’t.

Good move of the day.  LTC Brotsky has been released from further participation in the case.  Two new trial counsel (CPT O’Bierne and CPT Odergaard) appeared.

Witness production motion.

The defense had requested over 15 witnesses for merits and sentencing.  The military judge initially deferred ruling on witnesses who might be relevant to the “eligibility” issue.

The defense argued the alternative that the witnesses would be relevant on sentencing anyway.  Mr. Jensen passionately argued that such sentencing evidence would be the “most eloquent mitigation.”  (Ignoring the possibility that such would be the most eloquent aggravation.)  Dr. Keyes would be an expert in constitutional law to explain to the panel why LTC Lakin’s actions were mitigated because of various (as yet unstated) constitutional principles.  This was part of what was going to be addressed when I had to leave.

The government objected on cumulative grounds to the remaining witnesses.  The government also seemed to say or hint that the witness summaries were inaccurate.  At least that’s how I interpret prosecutors saying, “that’s not what the witness would say.”

The character witnesses for the recent assignment are a CPT, a 1Lt, a SSG, and two SGT’s, and “some are female and some are African-American.”  MAJ Kemkes argued that there was a need to have subordinates (generally considered not a good idea in officer cases) who were female and/or African-American to refute claims or perceptions that LTC Lakin is a racist.  An indirect reference to Toobin and others in the media who do appear to have at times conflated LTC Lakin and allegations about birtherism being racially motivated.  The military judge ordered the defense to pick “the best three” of the witnesses for duty in Afghanistan and ordered the others.  The defense (MAJ Kemkes) made a good argument on the witnesses being of different ranks, different positions, and different perspectives of observation.  Essentially the defense made a good standard case for why they can present a “Good Soldier” defense.  In the military the defense can raise the persons good character as a soldier as reasons why they would not violate the UCMJ. 

Judicial Notice.

The defense sought judicial notice of several documents.  One a presidential address regarding deployments to Afghanistan. Other documents related to the chain of command or the eligibility issue – DA PAM 10-1, 10 U.S. Code 162(b), Hawaii Stat. 338.17.8 (this is the one I believe Jensen has referred to with his notorious CNN interview and which wasn’t in effect until the [I think] 1980’s.  Again the military judge temporarily deferred ruling on the judicial notice motion.  The defense wanted to have judicial notice that “all soldiers have a duty to disobey unlawful orders.”  That’s not going to be given.  The prosecution argued that’s an instructions issue.

The prosecution had requested judicial notice of AR 600-8-105 and the PPG Chapter 11, to which there was no objection from the defense.

The deposition of the officials for the State of Hawaii who have records relating to births was DENIED.

There was no credible argument that the officials would refuse to abide by a subpoena for documents or come to trial.  Subpoenas issued for courts-martial are valid and enforceable in similar fashion to federal district courts.

Follow federal practice rules

Jensen made a credible effort to get the military judge to accept that federal rules of practice (especially as to subpoena’s) are effectively assimilated via Article 46, UCMJ, 10 U.S. Code 846; and that in effect R.C.M. 703 violates Article 46, UCMJ.

One of Jensen’s arguments in response to a military judge question was that the authority is a “trickle down” concept.  Jensen argued that under that theory any order since 20 January 2009 was illegal, including by implication the Manual for Courts-Martial because it was presidentially issued.  Actually he’s off on that.  President Obama has only signed executive orders regarding the MCM this week (unless I missed one in 2009?).  I thought at one point Jensen started to walk-back the “any” order is illegal theme.  I also thought I heard him say that Congress has no authority to question the president’s eligibility.  (As those of you who have practiced in the Fort Meade courtroom know the acoustics are not the best.)

If 40% of Americans doubt came up several times

The most dangerous it seemed to me was hinting a “how many of them are on active duty.”  Essentially Jensen was trying to argue that there is public doubt, that many doubters may be military (you’ve heard me comment on that, and so there must be discovery.  This is where the issue of mutiny might come up?

A novel argument was made that the ease of getting discovery should be a factor to consider on the need and the relevance.  Jensen did agree that sealing the records would be appropriate.

The military judge took a long lunch break to finalize her decision and findings on the discovery of school records and other records and on the remaining witness issues.

The prosecution seems to be on track as treating this case in the same manner as they would Private Snuffy accused of the same charges – following the KIS principle.  The government approach compared to the defense public pleading on political grounds.  Jensen got the most voluble and passionate when pleading that discovery should be had because people had a right to know.  Oh, OK, you want to know what happened.

Rulings.

The military judge DENIED all of the discovery requests and witness requests related to the birth controversy.  This was not unexpected.  But what was unexpected was the breadth and detail of the rulings, because of the obvious impact on the lawfulness motion.  Clearly the findings and rulings anticipated the next motions session.  At the end of the military judge’s reading of her findings, Jensen appeared beaten down.  He seemed so affected that for some time he failed to stand when talking with the military judge on the record.  LTC Lakin remained impassive as always.  The military judge’s findings and rulings seemed also to put a stake through the heart of LtGen McInerney’s affidavit and its relevance to the trial (by inference this would include MG Vallely and MG Curry).

Basically the documents and witnesses are neither (at times she interspersed logically) relevant nor material.  She cited to New, Huet-Vaughn, and Rockwood.  The military judge found that Congress through its power to regulate the armed forces appointed the service secretaries and their service leaders to carry out functions such as order people to deploy, etc.  She found there was substantial independent authority in law, regulation, and custom to support the issuance of orders in this situation.  She gave passing reference to the de facto officer doctrine and focussed more on the political question doctrine as a justification for denial of discovery and witnesses on the strawman that the presidents status might be relevant in some fashion.

The military judge twice said that a court-martial is not “a vehicle to challenge political decisions.”

The defense conceded that with the military judge’s rulings, the orders were otherwise lawful.  With that this case is back to the standard case one sees where a Soldier has missed movement and disobeyed orders.  There was discussion of whether an additional session was necessary based on the lack of “wiggle room” given to the defense as it affected the discovery, witnesses, and lawfulness issues.  I did not hear mention of a writ.  But if there were one I’d imagine ACCA would deny based on the, “we’ll deal with it if he’s convicted and gets a jurisdictional sentence,” theory.

At this point it seems LTC Lakin will be left to wriggle while his fate is decided in the normal course of business.  No doubt there will be some who will try to continue the political aspects of the case but for all intents and purposes LTC Lakin is dead meat.  The real question will be sentencing.

Here is a link to some more background to LtGen McInerney who the defense appears to be posturing as their star witness in addition to Dr. Keyes.

Posted in:
Updated:

106 responses to “LTC Lakin’s defense crushed in detail”

  1. heron says:

    What a shame….Blue Falcon pisses away his career because he’s either stoopid, racist, or both……..cryin shame……….

  2. sus says:

    Thank you for the excellent report.

  3. BigGuy says:

    Phil — thanks for the report. It’s not really surprising, and it would have been alarming if things had gone very differently. Still, it’s hard to see it as a happy day as we witness the step-by-step martyrdom of LTC Lakin. Granted, it was all his choice, and an officer must be responsible for his actions.

    Still, he will lose big, and others who supported him stand to do quite well.

    And it was all so predictable.

  4. Noway2no says:

    Please for the un-law-degreed person; where exactly up the chain of command does the legality of the persons rank stop mattering?

    If I’m an E-1 and an “E-2” who I along with tens-of-millions of others suspect is an infiltrator or a spy gives me an order I do nothing? I have no reason to doubt the lawfulness of the order? No recourse?

    If I do have recourse with an E-2 what about an O-1? If an O-1 why not the alleged commander-in-chief?

    Again where does the need to certify legitimacy stop?

  5. yguy says:

    The authority to issue orders does not depend on the qualifications of the President

    Of course it doesn’t, because this statement assumes the person issuing the orders wields that authority in pursuance of the Constitution, which he cannot do without being a natural born citizen. Otherwise, no one who reports to the President is legally authorized to carry out his orders, and neither is anyone in the Executive branch.

  6. BigGuy says:

    Yes, yguy, we understand how things work in your world. All the judges are wrong. SCOTUS decided WKA incorrectly, the Indiana Court of appeals decided Ankeny incorrectly, Scalia screwed up royally on Lujan, and now COL Lind has misunderstood the legality of orders.

    All just a matter of opinion, you say? Maybe so. But theirs count. Yours (and, for the most part, ours) do not.

  7. Observer says:

    It’s pretty obvious that the only person in truth who would be embarrassed if discovery was granted would be this judge who worries more about her image (as others have done) than in giving a fair hearing to a citizen who happens to be most effected in standing than most other citizens. Anyone considering notorious history to demonstrate consequences for “following orders” when real doubt is obvious – by the citizenry in general as well as those military also in rather large numbers and high rank – and with the contemporary orders designed by this administration to tie the hands, in combat of war, of its own.

    Would the judge also rule on Natural Born herself if presented with that evidence without any need of discovery, admitted by the president himself, that he was a British citizen at birth, adopted in Indonesia with nothing to demonstrate any re-naturalization process? My, the self aggrandizement of individuals placed in such positions with political and career consequences who, when the going gets tough, these “tough” get going!!

    Hopefully, in this case, justice denied is justice only postponed.

  8. aarrgghh says:

    don’t tell me the birthers were wrong again!

  9. Arthur says:

    Observer:

    The opacity of your writing reminds me of someone . . . did you by any chance study English and law under Orly Taitz?

  10. yguy says:

    Yes, yguy, we understand how things work in your world. All the judges are wrong. SCOTUS decided WKA incorrectly, the Indiana Court of appeals decided Ankeny incorrectly, Scalia screwed up royally on Lujan,

    Amazing how often people get me confused with the voices in their heads.

  11. Greg says:

    Please for the un-law-degreed person; where exactly up the chain of command does the legality of the persons rank stop mattering?

    All orders from a superior officer are presumed lawful. An order is unlawful only if it orders the commission of a crime. Deploying to Afghanistan is not a crime, therefore Lakin’s orders were lawful. In other words, soldiers do not have the luxury of disobeying orders because they doubt whether their commander is eligible for that position.

    And that is how the military works. In fact, that is how the military must work – if it is to work at all.

  12. Daniel says:

    yguy 09.02.10 at 18:46
    Amazing how often people get me confused with the voices in their heads.

    Maybe that’s because voices in the head, and you pretending to know more about law than judges, are both signs of insanity.

  13. Joey says:

    If Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Admiral Mike Mullen (both appointees of George W. Bush) or Secretary of the Army John McHugh or Army Chief of Staff General George W. Case, Jr. or General David Petraeus were among those challenging the President’s eligibility we’d have something serious to discuss but Lieutenant Colonels do not get to challenge the credentials of the Commander-in-Chief, EVER.
    On top of that, the absolute worst move that LTC. Lakin made was to obey orders from Obama for over a year and then choose to disobey a movement order to a war zone. That looks really bad to a Court Martial.

  14. James says:

    This Judge Denise Lind has clearly denied Lakin’s Constitutional right to a FAIR trial. It looks like Lakin is at the mercy of really corrupt court. Thus forward, all motions and exhibits submitted to the court should bear the symbol of the a red swastika to represent this court and its role in the pursuit of justice.

  15. James says:

    Judge Denise Lind is a complete traitor to the US Constitution. Our courts have corrupt nazi judges and it appears they are in our military courts as well. Today, we saw that female corrupt nazil judges exist too. On the morning of Lakin’s court martial in October, Lakin and his legal team should get sprayed good and well by a skunk. I don’t know if the trial would be postponed but it would a fitting smell to describe Judge Denise Lind’s courtroom – Foul foul smelling.

  16. James says:

    Lakin’s court Martial is a “Kangaroo Court”!!!!

    IT”S A CLASSIC EXAMPLE

    Kangaroo Court 101

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court

  17. Does anybody know a good military defense attorney in pearl harbor? | lawyer says:

    […] LTC Lakin’s defense crushed in detail | Court-Martial Trial Practice […]

  18. ms. helga says:

    Believes
    In
    Restoring
    The
    Hallowed
    Eternal
    Republic

    Onward to “USURPERVILLE”

  19. James says:

    Yes, yesterday was a real piece of work. Judge Denise Lind is traitor to US Consitution and a disgrace to the military uniform. Not only did deny she Lakin of his right to a FAIR trial, but she completely dismissed Lakin’s God sworn oath, along with every other officer including Lind, to the US Constitution. She essentially said that it is no big deal if the Commander In Chief is constitutionally ineligible to serve; military officers need follow orders and that’s that. She even had the nerve to go and say that it would be an “embarrassment” for Lakin, the military, and the people to know on whether or not their Command In Cheif is eligible or not. She also suggested that if Congress had failed to do its job, this would be also a “embarrassment”. The case should be declared a mistrial and Judge Denise Lind needs to removed and reprimanded strongly for her conduct.

    Judge Denise Lind needs to wake up and take some good advice:

    “Let me remind you, it’s not good for the country. It’s not good for the country, if he is qualified to be POTUS, that these rumors swirl. And if he is not, it’s not good for the country that he is Commander In Chief.” – Judge David O. Carter, Federal District Court of California.

    Even though Judge Carter was a coward he still had some guts to admit that this was real problem.

  20. RacerJim says:

    Eligibility to hold the Office of the President just became part-n-parcel of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.

  21. HORUS says:

    “Eligibility to hold the Office of the President just became part-n-parcel of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.”

    The President HAS provided VALID PROOF that he was born in Hawaii, just because some of you refuse to believe that his BC is Valid does NOT make it so!

    After 2 years those who STILL question Obama’s citizenship are either morons or they are using the issue for political purposes.

  22. James says:

    Seems to me the Courts opinion is the military is above reproach even if orders through the chain of command are “eronious” in nature. That all their, i’s are dotted and t’s, are crossed, no matter public concerns or concerns of Officers of distinquished service per a political atmosphere. Unfortunate for the Military that it cannot connect the “dots” for its own high ranking Officers because of its own failkure to “blind obedience” to the political machine. That which of course has nothing to do with the Military aspect in determination. These articles of enlistment and or, appointment state, “Any person who”. This in itself brings the Military into the public domain, as is only to obvious. The concern is of the Commander in Cheif the “highest” ranking Officer of the Military. And yet, the Military claims, “public circumstances” are not of their concern. And so, now by its own folly their own dictates and “blind” obedience of the structure of command they overlook what is obvious to even a blind person. 883. ART. 83. FRAUDULENT ENLISTMENT, APPOINTMENT, OR SEPARATION

    Any person who–

    (1) procures his own enlistment or appointment in the armed forces by knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment as to his qualifications for the enlistment or appointment and receives pay or allowances thereunder; or

    (2) procures his own separation from the armed forces by knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment as to his eligibility for that separation; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

    884. ART. 84. UNLAWFUL ENLISTMENT, APPOINTMENT, OR SEPARATION

    Any person subject to this chapter who effects an enlistment or appointment in or a separation from the armed forces of any person who is known to him to be ineligible for that enlistment, appointment, or separation because it is prohibited by law, regulation, or order shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

  23. Anonymous says:

    James appears to be under the somewhat common misunderstanding that the President is a member of the armed forces. He is not. He is a civilian. As is SecDef.

  24. heron says:

    WOW, james…you’re everywhere with feverish cutting and pasting of other peoples ideas…..can’t think of anything on your own huh?……………Just like Curly of the Three Stooges, “Im trying to think, but nothin’s happenin”…..bwahahaha….all aboard the failboat james………FYI everyone, on another blog james hurls insults at the military judge such as traitor, etc, then, in a remarkable revelation(and accidental i surmise) of his true stripes, says she needs, ‘to be taken over a knee a spanked.’ what a maroon.

  25. Ob says:

    The President HAS provided VALID PROOF that he was born in Hawaii, just because some of you refuse to believe that his BC is Valid does NOT make it so!

    Who “validated” that unqualified, non-informational document? The MSM! Obviously you are not up to snuff on legal documents of proof…only those whose highest value is to misinform. And the lack of honest intellectual curiosity is amazing here …. Every form of historical info on this guy is locked up tighter than a tick while spending millions against opening even college entrance forms or the high school records. Why? Already ashamed? More “embarrassment”???!!! What’s admitted to personally by the man (and unfortunately in the only document that wasn’t caught in order to hide) is British citizenship at time of birth (no matter where that took place) and Indonesian citizenship in the interim that hasn’t been cleared through re-naturalization (and that would of course also deny the NBC).

    And what a rebuttal for a career military posing as a “judge” to use against a defendant due discovery – that a high ranking (elitist?) person may be “embarrassed” if facts are brought to the light of day and to the inquiring public!! That’s embarrassing to our system of justice. Join the military and be stripped of due process of justice.

    And another idiot remarks in a huff that people should have the nerve to challenge a judge! – judges are never overruled??

  26. Observer says:

    Arthur 09.02.10 at 18:44
    Observer:

    The opacity of your writing reminds me of someone . . . did you by any chance study English and law under Orly Taitz?

    So you mention Taitz as one of your go-to references? Bwwwaaaahahaha.

    Re: your personal memory term – The one in the conversation here obviously blocking the light from the public square is yourself. Just clothing another naked emperor – this time in a courtroom, rather than an oval office!!

  27. Abby says:

    Thank you for the detailed account, Mr Cave.

    I wonder if you could address the one word that appears to have been selected for a great deal of attention by those railing against the judges ruling. ‘Embarrassment’

    It seems that WND informed their readers that Lind, in her 40 minute ruling, said that ‘opening up such evidence could be an “embarrassment” to the president…” (Please note I’m not quoting Lind, but what she is reported to have said).

    This is being widely interpreted as Lind attempting to somehow shield President Obama from something that would *personally* embarrass him (as in shame or mortify him), contained in his birth certificate, whereas I understand the term was not used in this sense at all, but in the – some would say – arcane ‘legal’ use of the term, relating to jurisdiction?

  28. Anonymous says:

    There are several comments about “embarrass” on Doc Conspiracy’s site, including this one: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/08/ltc-lakin-pre-trial-motions-and-witness-list/#comment-66521

  29. James says:

    The Constitution, Article II, Section 2, The President shall be Commander in Cheif of the Army and Navy of the United States, etc.

  30. HORUS says:

    Abby,
    The judge did not say it would embarrass the President.
    What she did say was that it is not the duty of one of the branches of Government to use their power to embarrass the other branches of government.
    It’s not a quote, I’m just paraphrasing.

  31. ellid says:

    James, it’s called “civilian control of the military.” The President does NOT hold any kind of military commission despite being CinC, which is why you don’t see him wearing a uniform. That holds true even when the President is a retired officer who would otherwise be entitled to wear a uniform on certain occasions, like Dwight Eisenhower, Zachary Taylor, James Garfield, or Jimmy Carter. The President is a civilian, period, and neither has a commission nor is subject to military law.

    So once again, as always, you’re wrong.

  32. Abby says:

    Thank you Horus and Anon @ post 20.

    Quoting from Doc C’s site

    “The phrase “embarass”… is a term of art by legal entities where they acknowledge the seperation between co-equal jurisdictions.

    Specifically it means, in this case, a re-iteration that the judicial branch has no right or authority to delve into another entities business, specifically political questions on the Presidents legitimacy which are reserved exclusively to Congress.”

    Thought so.

  33. Monte says:

    This has been laid out in plain language before. Laconically: Without a legitimate United States commander in chief there is absent authority to assemble {convene} any U.S. court-martial.

  34. heron says:

    yes, embarrass in the artful legal since is used frequently when discussing politcal doctrine question….it does not mean it will cause shame or humiliation, but refers to putting up an “impediment or hindrance’ to other coequal branches of government that will be deleterious to them performing their responsibility……but don’t tell the birfoons that, because evidently the completely lack all critical thinking ability and, amazingly, they don’t seem to know how to use Google to do any research whatsoever…….twinks.

  35. James says:

    ellid, the articles clearly state, “any person who” that is either civilian or military, who procures enlistment or appointment in the armed services. So there it is. Did Obama procure his appointment through fraud and or concealment of his qualifications (ie; Nancy Pelosi and the DNC)? Can a person with dual-citizenship at birth be considered a “Natural-born Citizen”? Can a citizen of Indonesia be a U.S. Citizen without repatrioting?FOIA, have you seen this guys Selective Service forgeries? Is he even a U.S. Citizen? How many SSN#, do you have? Who gave the orders, no return fire if fired upon? Who gave the orders for an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan deploying Lt.Col. Lankin? Who wanted the Military to pay for their own healthcare insurance? Who ordered the Coast Guard to spray Corexit onto the Gulf Oil spill? So, do you think the pentagon is only responcesible for these orders or the civilian authority? The point is through appointment he becomes either a legal authority or illegal and as such those with knowledge of his procurement are accountable within the military. Could be his superiors answering to a court-martial.

  36. The Law Office of Philip D. Cave Viking says:

    This president is not a member of the military. Unlike President Eisenhower are retired officer, and others in the past.
    Therefore any reference to Article 83, UCMJ, is meaningless.
    The same applies to the Secretary of Defense and others in the civilian leadership.

  37. Abby says:

    heron 09.03.10 at 15:27
    …don’t tell the birfoons that, because evidently the completely lack all critical thinking ability and, amazingly, they don’t seem to know how to use Google to do any research whatsoever.

    —————————————————————–

    Heron, I’m quite skilled at the goggle, and it was hard for me. It may be already too late to inform the birthers they’re making fools of themselves (again) but you may know how good they are at getting their word out. If the general population’s understanding of this case is dictated by what birthers currently understand to be the truth, then the gen pop will think a military judge wanted to spare/shield obama from personal embarrassment. I get it. They don’t.

    James 09.03.10 at 15:46
    “Can a person with dual-citizenship at birth be considered a “Natural-born Citizen”? ”

    James, why don’t you count up those who did count someone who was born with dual citizenship as being elligible. I’ll help by pointing out that Chief Justice Roberts is a Constitutional Scholar – a real one. That’s the guy who swore Obama in as President.

    Furthermore, about 900,000 atttourneys, some of whom are constitutional scholars/experts, failed to alert the nation to any eligibility issue before Obama was sworn in. Indeed, can you point me to any who have?

    Just how many of your fellow citizens do you think have been ‘bought’?

  38. Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

    Again and again James you continue to post misinformation. Do you not understand how idiotic the whole dual citizenship argument is? You’re basically saying that any country can legitimize our own president by making laws that say any children or grandchildren of their citizens are automatically citizens of their own country as well. You seem to forget we’ve had several presidents who by virtue of their parents and grandparents countries laws would be considered citizens of other country at birth. Eisenhower being one. VP Spiro Agnew was also a dual citizen at birth as well as JFK. Thomas Jefferson had dual French and American citizenship when he ran for president. So we can safely say that that one is debunked.

    Second Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia. Indonesia doesn’t grant automatic citizenship to children of couples that marry. You have shown no proof of adoption and even so Indonesia doesn’t allow dual citizenship. No child 6 years of age would be able to renounce their US citizenship and take the oath of another country. That is a ridiculous notion. You’ve been told this over and over again James yet you continue spouting it.

  39. James says:

    Point is with all these unanswered facts are still in debate and litigation. Did Obama commit “fraud”, against the American people? Of course just saying so doesn’t always make it so. Where is the misinformation if their is no information. All that anyone is saying is prove it. No matter what all others have said, without proof their is no admittance. Their seems ample enough proof their is a question of legality. If he is found to be an illegal POTUS down the road, what will those 900,000 lawyers say then? What will Cheif Justice Roberts say? Ooops, my bad! Point is, this person has effected an enlistment Lt. Col. Lakins through appointment. Prove to him, his question is unfounded.

  40. Granite says:

    Re: Dual Citizenship. I have seen reports that I respect that show Thomas Jefferson received FULL citizenship (including voting rights and the right to run for office) from France. That made him a Dual Citizen.

    Obama has already proven that he was born in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate shows. A great many of the claims that Obama was born in Kenya have been proven to be deliberate lies. This includes the claim that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya. The birther sites that have done this, did it by cutting off the tape recording just before she answered the question: “Where was he born?” The answer to the question was “America, Hawaii,” and she repeated it several times after that. And, in another interview, she said that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter from Hawaii. Then there is the fellow who went to Kenya and came back with a “birth certificate” that was shown to be a crude forgery.

    Re Indonesia. The way to find out whether or not Obama was ever a citizen of Indonesia is simply to call up the Indonesian Embassy in Washington and ask them. (Ask for the press officer.) They will tell you, as the told me, that Obama was never a citizen, never had a passport, and was never adopted in Indonesia.

    I can hear you thinking “What about the application to the school that said that Obama was a citizen of Indonesia?” Answer. That was an unsigned application, and the clerk may have filled in the citizenship out of a desire to be politically correct in Indonesia at the time. BUT, if the parents had actually said “Indonesian citizen,” then it still would not mean that he was an Indonesian citizen. Do parents lie to get their children into the right school? Yes, all the time. If the Indonesian government says that he was never a citizen, there will never be proof that he was a citizen, and the speculation that he could have been a citizen is as worthwhile as speculating that he was born on Mars.

  41. BigGuy says:

    James — have you ever heard of “burden of proof”?

    The fact that he has a Hawaiian COLB that says he was born in Honolulu is prima facie evidence that he was born in Honolulu. If you don’t think it’s true, prove it. But in this country people are not asked to authenticate their birth certificates — the documents are considered self-authenticating.

    The fact that he was elected, confirmed by the Congress, and sworn in — all without a single objection by those with the legal authority to make one — means that he is, in the eyes of the law, President of the United States. There is no legal doubt about that. If you wish to change the situation, don’t vote for him — or persuade your congressperson to initiate impeachment proceedings.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “unanswered facts.” But the fact that there are suspicions held and stories told doesn’t change the basic facts. If you wish to change them, the burden of proof is on you.

  42. Joey says:

    It seems to me that the appropriate places to resolve James’ questions is either in the criminal courts via a Grand Jury investigation where documents can be subpoenaed and witnesses can be compelled to testify under oath or via a congressional investigation where once again, documents can be subpoenaed and witnesses can testify under oath.

    The military court martial of a Lieutenant Colonel is a totally inappropriate venue for such determinations. Lieutenant Colonels do not get to challenge the eligibility of the Commander-in-Chief, EVER and under de facto officer and the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, Barack Obama IS the President and Commander-in-Chief until some official body says otherwise.
    Lieutenant Colonel Lakin is STILL taking orders under the authority of the Commander-in-Chief to this very day. He has only refused several specfic orders, most importantly, a movement order.

  43. James says:

    Thankyou all, much of this information, though I still would much rather see it all as Joey has stated. True and legal not just in a comment column. As you say, the guy is legit. It’s all just to bad that Lt. Col. Lakin should take the fall over this and that Major Generals have to issue affidavits because even they are still somehow uncertain that POTUS is a legitimate POTUS. This has been going on for over two years now. You would think someone could have at least written a straight up column and addressed all these issues. For my part, the COLB still doesn’t fly, born in Kenya, how about those gov’t officials in Parliment, how is it the guy has so many SSN#, did he ever really attend Columbia University or just run around Pakistan for the CIA, Theirs still to many questions here. If he committed fraud on the American People he is not a legal POTUS. Thanks again, I learned a view pointers, maybe. Bye, the bye WND has posted a defence for LT.Col. Lakin using the “Natural-born Citizen” clause. Researched and reviewed by, The United States Bar Assoc.

  44. BigGuy says:

    James: “You would think someone could have at least written a straight up column and addressed all these issues.”

    There have been a number of them; unfortunately, there are birther columns and there are anti-birther columns, and you’re bound to find some that support whatever it is you already believe. I really think the only way to dig your way out of the muddle is to carefully read both sides, point by point, and see who makes the most sense and cites the most credible sources and authorities.

    WorldNetDaily has probably been the most consistent purveyor of the birther point of view, and you can follow their links to other similar sites.

    For the opposing view, I’ve always had a fondness for Tesibria’s “What’s Your Evidence?”(http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/). Unfortunately, she hasn’t updated it in some time now, though she did get to cover most of the issues that you mention. Her front page also contains a lot of links to other sites; and she maintains an exquisite Birther Scorecard — a table that details each and every birther case that has hit the courts, and how each one has fared.

    Happy hunting!

  45. Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

    No there are no facts in dispute. You’re making controversy where there is none. Just come out and admit you’re a liar James. It has been pointed out to you multiple times where you have been in error only for you to go around to another blog and repeat the same stuff that has already been discredited. You’re not interested in the truth.

    Once again you fail to understand the standards of evidence. Obama has proven he’s eligible. Thus far Lakin and the birthers have ever been able to show any evidence to back up their claims of Obama not being eligible.

  46. Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

    More misinformation James. You had one guy in Kenyan parliament who claimed such. So you take the word of a random politician in Kenya who would have no access to that information over the state of Hawaii and the Director of the Department of Health who is charged with the keeping of birth records. One acted in their professional authority and as their profession as a doctor while the other acted without any authority. You believe the random kenyan politician.

    As for the SSN Orly Taitz has never been able to tie any of the SSN to Obama except for the one he actually uses. Taitz got her information from a database which is often found to be unreliable with information that isn’t always correct.

    Yes he did Attend Columbia University and several of his classmates have attested to this. This is all information you’ve been told before James. http://snopes.com/politics/obama/columbia.asp

    The whole CIA story is funny. You think a 6 year old worked for the CIA?

  47. ch says:

    Judge Lind seems more of a prosecutor than a judge. Maybe she is getting her roles confused, if she was a prosecutor in the past.

    She has reached conclusions before giving Dr. Lakin his day in court, rather than providing a fair and unbiased hearing. She is clearly biased and formed an opinion before hearing the trial.

    She evidently does not believe in the Constitution, so has no idea what Dr. Lakin is doing. I think it is a matter of intelligence. The people who “mock birthers” are those who think they have seen a real birth certificate, and believe a majority vote makes a candidate legal.

    The “silly birthers” know that a real birth certificate has not been shown, because it ALWAYS HAS A DOCTOR’s SIGNATURE, and that the majority vote for an illegal candidate cancels the victory, and the candidate has committed a crime.

    They also know that the President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Services, and that it is actually possible to have an illegal person steal that office, as has been done with Obama, and when that happens, it is the duty of those under oath to protect the Constitution to stand up to the crime. Dr. Lakin tried the various routes offered, through Congress, through chain of command, and saw nobody handling the problem.

    I can see that the anti-birthers have trouble grasping the big picture, and fall for the lies and confusion. Dr. Lakin is not trying to impeach Obama. He is asking for documents and for the eligibility issue to be dealt with. Impeachment is for a legal President. This is the question, is Obama legal?

    He has seen suspicious activity of a person who is questionable in his background, has sealed all records, and there is hiding documentation that would endanger his position, and Dr. Lakin has refused to obey.

    The chain of command starts at the top. It is far far beyond an immediate order to deploy. It is saying that the entire Army and all orders are in jeopardy because the top dog is a criminal and behaving in a criminal manner.

    Dr. Lakin knows that a political Congress composed of the Democratic Party which put the illegal criminal into the Presidency obviously cannot be expected to deal with the problem, as they are benefitting from the problem. Dr. Lakin sees the seriousness and the urgency of the situation, and Congress is not well known for handling a problem expeditiously. The courts are the place to solve a legal problem. This is obviously not a political problem….which the Obama guns would try to make people believe, so that it cannot be settled expeditiously and their boy has to leave.

    Dr. Lakin has seen the courts refusing to help the citizens, We the People, from having access to our own courts to have simple documents presented and the “eligibility” question resolved. Obama himself says he has a foreign father, which is saying “I am not eligible, but here I am, deal with it.”

    Until actual birth documents are shown, we do not really know who his mother is, who is father is, or where he was born. Obama knows that and is playing this out for as long as he can.

    If the documents supported his presidency, he would not deliberately destroy confidence in himself, so he obviously has incriminating documents. The anti-birthers are gullible but Dr. Lakin is not so gullible.

    Judge Lind is in over her head and has denied Dr. Lakin his rights, and has concluded he wants impeachment. She is not a judge. She is the opposite, slanting the trial to her own thinking, rather than waiting for both sides to present their arguments. She should be removed from the case.

    From her conclusions, she therefore must feel that Obama is hiding something, is illegal, but it should be settled by Congress. She does not assume Obama is legal, get the documents, and the case is over.

    Instead, she seems to know there is a big problem, and is not smart enough to realize a political body of majority Democrats would never go after their own and implicate themselves in the crime!! She thinks Congress is like a court of judges, rather than elected officials who crony with their President.

    She does not seem to understand the separation of powers and how a legal constitutional question, and the verification of a person hiding documents is properly handled by a court system.

    I stand shoulder to shoulder with Dr. Lakin and if the “gullible mockers” enjoy calling law-abiding citizens who can actually think “birthers”….then I am proud to be a birther.

    But I am also a “foreign-father-not-eligibler”, and a “phony document and no documents and sealed documents means We Do Not Have a Real Presidenter”.

    God bless Dr. Lakin.

  48. PorkRoll says:

    Hear! Hear! ch. Notice how your post is unlike those of your detractors? The short answer is: you are gentleman. I, not so much.

    Those who claim to have seen any legal evidence of Obama’s NBC status are blinded by their own brilliance. The Certification of Live Birth is prima facie evidence, you say? Perhaps, perhaps not. But, is a digital picture of a redacted document still prima facie evidence, oh wise ones? Have you held and examined your precious prima facie evidence you so love to bloviate about?

    And Wong Kim Ark? Doth thou know that the ruling never stated Wong Kim was an Article 2 Section 1 Natural Born Citizen? That Wong was only a ‘citizen from birth’ because he was born on US soil, his parents had permanent domicile within the US and participated in trade, unlike Obama’s alleged alien father? And, for the coup de grace, the WKA ruling not only reiterated de Vattel’s NBC definition by directly quoting from Minor v. Happersett, but destroyed the claim that Obama, with an alien father, could ever be a natural born citizen. “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” Oops, looks like children born of an alien might be ‘citizens’ but certainly aren’t ‘natural born’.

    I could go on and on, but it’s fruitless. How does one convince the mad they aren’t Gods? Who can tell ‘the enlightened’ they must come down from the rarefied air of their Mt. Olympus? Truly, they personify ignorance compounded by arrogance.

    The true crime of it all isn’t just that LTC Lakin will suffer at the hands of fools like these, with their hollow, wagging tongues; but that we will all suffer at the whims of their benighted brethren who inhabit the halls of government. Though in a free society the people get the leaders they deserve, those who oppose them suffer ten-fold.

    God bless you, LTC Lakin: patriot, leader, and righteous objector. Your sacrifice and suffering only steels the hearts of your countrymen who are willing to give their lives, fortunes and sacred honor in defense of that glorious document you swore an oath to uphold and defend from enemies both foreign and domestic.

  49. Lupin says:

    Porkroll: ” the WKA ruling not only reiterated de Vattel’s NBC definition…”

    This is actually false. As a French lawyer familiar with Vattel’s text in the original French, let me tell you that, without ambiguity, Vattel did not say that one had to have two parents citizens in order to be a “natural born citizen” (he actually doesn’t use that term either). Quite the contrary, Vattel states clearly that one parent is enough, the father, or of the mother if the parents are unmarried.

    The misinterpretation of Vattel likely arose because of his use of a group plural (as in “only children whose parents are members of the club can use the pool”) but since this has been pointed out several times, it has now become a willful fabrication.

    You are free to interpret WKA as you will, but please do not use Vattel who, in fact, contradicts your theory.

  50. joeymac says:

    ch said:

    The “silly birthers” know that a real birth certificate has not been shown, because it ALWAYS HAS A DOCTOR’s SIGNATURE, and that the majority vote for an illegal candidate cancels the victory, and the candidate has committed a crime.

    I was born in SC in 1941 at home with no doctor in attendance. I had no trouble acquiring a birth certificate which was accepted for a passport in 1964. As an aside, I just last year requested a replacement which was a computer-generated short form WITHOUT A STATE SEAL. Again, no trouble having it accepted for a passport.

    The stupid…it burns!

  51. joeymac says:

    ch said:

    They also know that the President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Services, and that it is actually possible to have an illegal person steal that office, as has been done with Obama, and when that happens, it is the duty of those under oath to protect the Constitution to stand up to the crime. … .

    I am somewhat sympathetic with those sentiments with having watched a stolen election in 2000 due to wholesale disenfranchisement of Democratic voter in Florida; and in 2004 with the shenanigans in Ohio. “Those under oath” in Congress, however, shut their eyes and rolled over, so there was nothing to be done.

    Until actual birth documents are shown, we do not really know who his mother is, who is father is, or where he was born. Obama knows that and is playing this out for as long as he can.

    A flat-out lie. You know who his legal parents are and where he was born from the legal COLB supplied. The information thereon was taken directly from the birth records kept by the State of Hawaii. Nothing in those birth records will conflict with the information shown on the COLB.

  52. joeymac says:

    Granite said:

    The same thing with the “You couldn’t go to school in Indonesian at the time without being an Indonesian citizen” myth. No one has ever claimed this except for birther sites. It can be determined to be true or false by simply calling the Indonesian Embassy, which has a legal officer on its staff. Naturally, no site that purveys this lie recommends checking it out. Some of those who believe this lie, when told to check it out, respond “Well, of course, the Indonesian government would lie now that Obama is POTUS, wouldn’t it?” ….

    Even if the President had been accepted as an Indonesian citizen (he wasn’t–I know), it would not have affected his American citizenship status. No action taken in the behalf of a minor can jeopardize that minor’s citizenship; the person has to take concrete steps himself AS AN ADULT to renounce American citizenship. So, the mantra “He was adopted” or “He became an Indonesian citizen” is all eyewash.

  53. DCH says:

    Why is it that when a birther gets into real court facing a real state, federal, or now a military court ALL of the birther legal reasoningand logic found on birther websites NEVER works. We’ve heard it all – BCs, Vatel, – NONE of it sticks. If I fail at sometijng 80 times in row my conclusion is that I don’t know what I’m doing.
    LTC Lakin is just the latest and most foolish of bithers – the grifter lawyers have been collecting income from paypal donations and filing low cost paper cases. LTC Lakin is looking at the loss of his liberty. If he goes to the stockade it will be birthers on the internet who put him there. Feeling any better now idiots?

  54. Granite says:

    Re: “Major Generals have to issue affidavits because even they are still somehow uncertain that POTUS is a legitimate POTUS. ”

    IF the general really was uncertain, that would be one thing. But it is far more likely that the general knows perfectly well that Obama is legitimate and is using the claim that he (the general) does not know, and that there is insufficient evidence, as an attack on Obama. There is a difference between honestly not knowing and claiming not to know although you know damn well that the president is eligible. I do not believe that the general is of the honest not-knowing variety.

    This follows the format of the birther sites that keep publishing the claims that Obama was born in Kenya. We see right here on this site various posts of people who say that they believe these claims. And now there are government officials in Kenya who apparently also believe them. (They can be mislead too. They never cited any evidence.) But, THIS ALL STEMS FROM A LIE. This all stems from the deliberate lie that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that Obama was born in Kenya.

    But she did NOT say that. Birther sites cut off the tape after an ambiguous answer and just before she answered the clear question: “Where was he born?” She answered the “Where was he born?” question: “America, Hawaii,” and then she kept on saying Hawaii several times after that. In another interview, she said that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a LETTER FROM HAWAII.

    The act of cutting off the tape, was of course a deliberate act. It was no accident. And the sites that continually claim “Obama may have been born in Kenya” or the even more weasily ‘some say that Obama was born in Kenya” when they know that the tape was cut off and know about the other interview, are lying.

    If a person were born in Kenya, she or he would need a US travel document to get to the USA. That would be either a US visa on a foreign passport or the change to his mother’s US passport to include him. One or the other would have had to have been applied for at a US Consulate in Kenya and granted before the child would be allowed to enter the USA.

    If such a document existed, it would be easy to find because the records of the application for the visa or for the change to the mother’s passport would still be in the files of the US State Department, filed under applications for visas and applications for changes to passports in Kenya in 1961. The Republicans were in charge of the US State Department until January 2009. No such document has been found. No such document exists.

    Obama was not born in Kenya. He was born in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate from Hawaii shows, and the facts on it were repeatedly confirmed by the officials in Hawaii. Obama has already posted a copy of the official birth certificate, the Certification of Live Birth, which is the only birth document that Hawaii has been sending out since 2001. Hawaii no longer sends out copies of the original birth certificate, only of the official birth certificate: The Certification of Live Birth.

    You have to be particularly gullible to really believe that Obama was born in Kenya in the face of clear evidence that he was born in Hawaii and the obvious lack of US government (and for that matter Kenyan) evidence that he was born in Kenya. Sure, there is a “Kenyan birth certificate” that a man claims to have gotten in Kenya. But that was proven to be a forgery in about twenty seconds (It uses USA date formats, not Kenyan ones, for one thing. Mombassa wasn’t part of Kenya in 1961 for another).

    So, the innocents who on this site write that they believe that Obama was born in Kenya should start to feel mad, because they were DELIBERATELY mislead. Was the general one of the ones who were mislead? Or was he one of the ones who do the deliberate misleading?

    Another example of the deliberate misleading is the “he went to Pakistan at a time when Pakistan was forbidden” myth. This holds that when Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 that Pakistan was either on a “no visit list” of the US government or that Pakistan forbade US visitors from entering. But neither is true. Pakistan was about as popular a tourist country as India in those days, and there were travel articles in US newspapers recommending visiting. Some people post the Pakistan story because they honestly believe that Pakistan was on a no visit list. Others keep posting it as a political attack even though they know it is false.

    The same thing with the “You couldn’t go to school in Indonesian at the time without being an Indonesian citizen” myth. No one has ever claimed this except for birther sites. It can be determined to be true or false by simply calling the Indonesian Embassy, which has a legal officer on its staff. Naturally, no site that purveys this lie recommends checking it out. Some of those who believe this lie, when told to check it out, respond “Well, of course, the Indonesian government would lie now that Obama is POTUS, wouldn’t it?”

    Somehow this reminds me of the people who continue to believe that the US government has the bodies of space aliens stored away in Rosewell, NM. The difference, I think, is that there are no professional liars continually heating up the Rosewell pot.

  55. Granite says:

    Re: “Doth thou know that the ruling never stated Wong Kim was an Article 2 Section 1 Natural Born Citizen? That Wong was only a ‘citizen from birth’ because he was born on US soil, his parents had permanent domicile within the US and participated in trade…”

    You probably DOTH know, but are to some extent willing to mislead us, that the issue in the Wong Kim Ark case was whether or not he was a citizen, not whether or not he was eligible to be president. Since the case was NOT about whether Wong Kim Ark was the president, it was not–obviously–about whether he was an Article 2, Section 1 Natural Born Citizen. But the case still found that Wong was a Natural Born Citizen because it ruled that he fell into the category of Natural Born and also into the category of Citizen, and being both he was naturally (pun intended) a Natural Born Citizen.

    Two-fers tend to believe that a Natural Born Citizen for POTUS purposes is different from the combination of a person who is Natural Born and is also a Citizen. But there is no evidence for it, and much evidence against. The ranks of people eligible to be president are drawn from the gigantic list of all of those who have liven in the USA for 14 years, are more than 35 years old, are citizens and are Natural Born. If there were anything different about these simple terms, the writers of the Constitution would certainly have told us. And Natural Born was a common expression at the time of the writing of the Constitution. It simply meant “born in the country.”

    That is what the Wong Kim Ark ruling said also. It said that under the common law, and the laws in the American colonies, and in the states after the Declaration of Independence and under the Constitution, EVERY child born (with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats) was Natural Born. And it said that Wong was a citizen. He was therefore a Natural Born Citizen.

  56. Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

    You obviously never read the appellate briefs which the higher court affirmed. In the lower court hearing WKA was determined to be a natural born citizen by virtue of Jus Soli the higher court only affirmed the lower court’s position. You also probably didn’t bother reading the dissent in which even the dissenting judges believes that the affirmation ruling would give WKA natural born citizenship and could even give him a chance at the presidency.

    You also might not understand the 14th amendment and that it didn’t just give those born here citizenship but corrected the original mistake in the constitution that limited citizenship to white land owners.

    You also may not be away of several lower court decisions that were never appealed where children born on US soil were considered to be native born/natural born citizens at birth.

    McCreary v. Sommerville, 22 U.S. 354 l.c. 356357 comes to mind. In the opening statement it says that children born to an irishman who had not naturalized were considered native born citizens. The high court has used natural born citizen and native born citizen interchangeably throughout the years.

    Can you show us one court case where someone who was born on US soil not to ambassadors but to foreign parents where the court specifically determined one not to be natural born

  57. Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

    ah the block quote didn’t work i was replying to rickroll

  58. Granite says:

    Joeymac:

    You are absolutely right. I was merely stressing the LIE side of this thing. Even if the lie were true, it would have no effect, of course. But it is very important to know that it is a lie and was always a lie.

  59. Granite says:

    Joeymac:

    You are absolutely right. I was merely stressing the LIE side of this thing. Even if the lie were true, it would have no legal effect on US citizenship, of course.

    But it is very important to know that it is a lie and was always a lie. That holds for the big lie, loss of US citizenship, and the small lies that stand behind it: Indonesian citizenship, an Indonesian passport, adoption in Indonesia, an “Indonesian law that said that only Indonesians could attend schools.” These all can be exposed as lies by simply checking, but the professional birther sites do not check or do not report the results of their checking–and that reveals their motives.

  60. Granite says:

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)

    You have shown much more about the Wong Kim Ark ruling that Wong was a Natural Born Citizen than I. But I still believe that the actual ruling’s statement that Wong was a citizen and that he was Natural Born is sufficient. a Natural Born Citizen being the combination of someone who is Natural Born and a Citizen seems logical.

    Nevertless, the rulings affirmation of the lower court’s ruling that Wong was a Natural Born Citizen is a powerful point.

  61. yguy says:

    Obama has already proven that he was born in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate shows.

    We are long past the time when anyone ought to be under the illusion there is only one “official birth certificate”.

  62. Anonymous says:

    Ah, finally we have some truth from yguy. Every time Hawaii issues a signed & sealed birth certificate it is an official birth certificate. So, there could have been many & there could be many more, however many Obama requests.

  63. ch says:

    Therefore, Joeymac, the president could save himself millions of dollars, unseal all his college records and passport, which is a pattern of behavior of hiding incriminating evidence. All he has to do is say…hey, born at home….no witnesses. Wonder why he does not do that? Perhaps there is a legal document that shows otherwise.

    If as you say his phony COLB is legitimate, then submit it to the courts for verification, and have the natural born with foreign father dilemma resolved in the courts, like a MAN. Nobody has verified his posted COLB. Since when is an internet document proof of anything.

    The Hawaiian officials have not verified that document, and not signed notarized statements in a courtroom. That document is supposed to be pulling from a larger document. Show the original major document, to verify the short form.

    You might fall for the testimony of two uncertified document experts at Factcheck, employees who are not warranted by the government to certify and verify documents. Most of us do not. Who in their right mind listens to a nonprofit verifying presidential birthplaces?

    It is also unethical and illegal for government officials to be making public statements to the media about hidden personal documents. Only the president should be speaking to the press about his hidden documents, and if they still remain hidden…his words are only hearsay and unsubstantiated. He does not seem to be able to back up his claims. He seals everything, his whole life. That should worry everybody!!

    If he had a home birth, as you claim you had, then he would say so, wouldn’t he? So it seems to clearly not be the case. You are projecting your own birth circumstances onto him. You are not hiding your home birth…so why is he?

    Please post your application for a birth certificate and see if it might have some indication you had a home birth and therefore no physician witnesses.

    The COLB is a scam for the easily deluded. The Hawaii officials are a scam. The only satisfactory proof of parents and birth is a full certificate.

    Embarrassent….What is embarrassing about a home birth? What would be the embarrassment for the president related to his birth? It could only be one or both of the parents are not who he claims. Or he has lied about the place. Or all of the above. You do not spend millions to hide a home birth.

    What he is hdiing is now way beyond embarrassment. He has painted himself into a corner. He has either lied about his father, and does actually have citizen parents….so he is in trouble for posting phony documents. But why lie about a father who would make him a natural born.

    Or he is lying about both his parents. Or he was born elsewhere, which puts him in big trouble for lying about his place of birth and not being eligible to run.

    He is obviously in a lose lose situation, and can only temporarily win by stalling. But he has lost his loyalty and trustworthiness. He cannot handle the simplest of problems as “president”….who are you, Obama???

    The Democratic Congress does not want to concede he is a criminal, because they would lose all their efforts. Obama’s behavior has indicted himself. An honest and innocent man would quickly step into the courts and build the trust of the military.

    We are without a real President.

    A blessing, actually!

    In God we trust.

  64. Anonymous says:

    Re this discussion about the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. IANAL, but from the discussions I have read it seems clear that NBC means someone who is a citizen at birth without there being a necessity for a Congressional act to make him/her a citizen. The Constitution grants Congress the right to naturalize persons (SCOTUS has said that this is the limit to their authority on the subject) & if a person gets their citizenship because of one of these acts then they are not natural born, but instead are naturalized.(I think this is the real reason for the NBC clause for Presidential eligibility, so that Congress could not pass a law granting someone eligibility.) There are only 2 types of citizens: NBC & naturalized. Thus the only way someone can be NBC is if they are born on U.S. soil. Neither the 14th Amendment, nor any other part of the Constitution, says anything about parentage or dual citizenship.

  65. Joey says:

    In my humble opinion President Obama is doing exactly the right thing regarding the birther movement. He is allowing the judicial system to work its will with the issue without any interference from him. There have now been 73 adjudicated lawsuits on Obama eligibility and not one court has found the President to be ineligible. That includes eight appeals that have reached the Supreme Court of the United States: Berg v Obama, Beverly v FEC, Craig v US, Donofrio v Wells, Herbert v Obama, Lightfoot v Bowen, Schneller v Cortes and Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz.
    If any Court should order release of Obama’s birth records under subpoena, then they will be released without any input or influence from the President, That is the correct way to proceed legally.
    As a US District Court Judge appointed by President Bush who was a former Republican state Senator in Georgia said in his verdict dismissing one of the 73 Obama eligibility lawsuits: “The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million. Then the President faced a formidable opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President. It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought. Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not instituted impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Cong. (2009) (commemorating, by vote of 378-0, the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and stating, “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961”).
    A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly
    disserve the public interest.”
    –US Federal District Court Judge for the Middle District of Georgia Clay D. Land in dismissing “Rhodes v MacDonald” September 16, 2009

  66. Joey says:

    Anonymous: John Sidney McCain was not born in the United States. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone, yet he is a natural born citizen.

  67. Granite says:

    Re: “We are long past the time when anyone ought to be under the illusion there is only one “official birth certificate”.

    One is enough, especially when in this case the facts on it were confirmed repeatedly by the officials in Hawii, when his Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Hawaii, and there is this witness (http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece).

  68. Granite says:

    Re: “The COLB is a scam for the easily deluded. The Hawaii officials are a scam. The only satisfactory proof of parents and birth is a full certificate. ”

    The only thing that the full certificate shows that the short-form birth certificate does not show is the name of the hospital and the name of the doctor (and maybe nurses too, I forget).

    It is only because a group of people are willing to lie and claim that Obama’s grandmother said that he was born in Kenya, when she actually said repeatedly that he was born in Hawaii, that there is any desire for verification. There was no desire for verification with previous presidents. Obama has shown an official birth certificate that says “born in Hawaii” on it. Hawaii does not now and certainly did not in 1961 allow a birth certificate to the issued that says ‘born in Hawaii on it” without proof of birth in Hawaii. Obama’s says “born in Hawaii,” and that fact has been confirmed by the officials and the governor of Hawaii.

  69. Granite says:

    Talk about a “scam for the easily deluded.” The story that Obama was born in Kenya is a scam for the easily deluded.

  70. BigGuy says:

    @ch — “The COLB is a scam for the easily deluded. The Hawaii officials are a scam. The only satisfactory proof of parents and birth is a full certificate. ”
    __

    You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but according to the law, the COLB is an official, legal birth certificate, and the law trumps your opinion. The President is under no obligation to provide whatever you consider to be “satisfactory proof.”

  71. Anonymous says:

    Joey, McCain’s NBC status is debatable. The only way I see that McCain could be NBC is to accept the legal fiction that wherever he might have been born was part of the United States due to his parents being militarily assigned to a particular place. It is an open question that has not been decided by SCOTUS.
    Yes, there was the Senate Resolution, but that has no legal standing. If McCain had won the election & survived any Congressional challenges during the Electoral College vote counting he would be President. It would have been difficult for Obama to have challenged the eligibility in court before Jan 20 because he voted for the Resolution.
    By “legal fiction” I mean the following from the Wikipedia article on United States nationality law: “Currently under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) effective from December 24, 1952 to present the definition of the “United States” for nationality purposes, was expanded to add Guam; and, effective November 3, 1986, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (in addition to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands of the United States). Persons born in these territories on or after December 24, 1952 acquire U.S. citizenship at birth on the same terms as persons born in other parts of the United States; and “Outlying possessions of the United States” was restricted to American Samoa and Swains Island.” I do not know whether this view has been challenged or upheld in a court.
    The following passage is also in this article” “The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 U.S.C. § 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was “declared” to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms “natural-born” or “citizen at birth” are missing from this section.” IOW, they were naturalized at birth. Naturalized because their citizenship required an act of Congress.

  72. yguy says:

    One is enough

    Not when Obama so obviously doesn’t want the other to be seen, it isn’t.

  73. BigGuy says:

    @yguy — “One is enough / Not when Obama so obviously doesn’t want the other to be seen, it isn’t.”
    ___

    That’s obvious nonsense. If a document is legally sufficient, it is legally sufficient. No amount of hand-waving over what you think the President wants has any bearing on that.

  74. Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

    CH tell me where exactly you get the idea Obama has spent millions of dollars on the birth certificate issue. I’ve heard this number passed around birferstan for over a year now without anyone showing proof of this. I’ve heard you guys claim 700,000 to 2.5 million and yet when called out on the number and asked you ignore the question.

    Also how exactly would Obama’s college transcripts prove he was born in the US? How exactly would his college transcripts have anything to do with his eligibility?

    As for passport records did you see the passport records when his mothers application information was released? They looked into several issues one being that Obama was never adopted by Soetoro. 2. That Obama was indeed born in the United States.

    How many confirmations do you need? The Hawaii Department of Health stated that they have seen and verified the original birth certificate and that everything was in order.

    Now CH do you have any evidence that Obama wasn’t born in this country? I mean actual evidence?

  75. Granite says:

    Re: “The only way I see that McCain could be NBC is to accept the legal fiction that wherever he might have been born was part of the United States due to his parents being militarily assigned to a particular place. It is an open question that has not been decided by SCOTUS.”

    We are in complete agreement that the original meaning of Natural Born referred to the place of birth. However, there is a case to be made that the original meaning embraced the possibility of being extended by legislation.

    There are indications that some of the early states thought that they could create Natural Born Subjects (which was used interchangeably with citizens) so long as they swore an oath (and in Maryland’s case they had to be Christian).

    This is from the naturalization law of Maryland of 1779.

    It reads: “Be it enacted by The General Assembly of Maryland. That every person who shall hereafter come into this State, from any Nation, Kingdom or State, and shall complete and subscribe a belief in the Christian religion, and take, repeat and prescribe the following oath, to wit: “I do swear that I hereafter will become a subject of the State of Maryland, and will be faithful and bear full allegiance to the state, and that I do not hold myself bound to give allegiance to any king or prince or state or government” shall thereupon and thereof be adjudged, deemed and taken to be a natural born subject of this state.”

    As you can see, Maryland did not simply grant the person who swore the rights of a Natural Born Subject. Maryland “adjudged’ that the person WAS a natural born subject.

    That is not the way that the US Constitution is written at all. Clearly, the Constitution excludes naturalized persons from becoming president. But Maryland’s naturalization law would have made Natural Born subjects/citizens. Since this is only one of the 13 original states, it can hardly be a precedent. But it seems to show that some of the Americans at that time were flexible enough to extend the original definition of Natural Born, meaning born in the country, to others as well.

    But, as you say, it is still debatable.

  76. Anonymous says:

    Granite, re: “However, there is a case to be made that the original meaning embraced the possibility of being extended by legislation.” as Dr. C. has mentioned, there is evidence that British Common Law included the ability of Parliament to extend “natural born subject” to a person not born in UK. Thus, if we derive our definition of NBC from this Common Law, then there exists the possibility of Congress extending NBC to a person or class of persons. SCOTUS, however, doesn’t see it that way as they have limited Congress’ role to naturalization. This is, of course, of no import to Obama as he was born in a U.S. state.

  77. yguy says:

    If a document is legally sufficient, it is legally sufficient.

    Hold the presses.

    what you think the President wants

    I don’t think he doesn’t want it seen, I know. And so does everyone who is aware of the relevant facts.

  78. BigGuy says:

    @yguy — And where’s the part where you explain how that affects the legal sufficiency of the document?

  79. Mary Adams says:

    James,

    The SSN kerfuffle is simply and easily explained. Orly’s supposed list of SSNs “used ” by President Obama shows no such thing. SSNs can become connected to names in a database via error or something such as his name included as a tenant on an office rental. Others were SSNs of names similar (and not so similar, LOL!) such as Obomo and Obama, Bob A. Orly just threw them all together and claimed he was “using” them.

    President Obama’s SSN – the one that can be confirmed as his via the Selective Service website – was issued after the central office was set up in Baltimore. The SSA used the zip code of the address the card was to be sent to, to determine the first 3 digits. It could have simply been an error (aren’t people always complaining about how incompetent the govt. is?) see: http://www.aolnews.com/article/two-women-share-birth-date-and-social-security-number/19532239

    or, notice how most Hawaii and CT zip codes are only ONE digit different. HI starts with 96 and CT with 06. It would be very easy to mis-read or mis-type the 9 as a 0.

  80. joeymac says:

    ch,

    beneath your prolixity is the same birther/seditionist bs that characterizes your group: i.e., shameless lies and mischaracterizations.

    Let’s see if I can deconstruct your statements.

    Therefore, Joeymac, the president could save himself millions of dollars, unseal
    all his college records and passport, which is a pattern of behavior of hiding
    incriminating evidence. All he has to do is say…hey, born at home….no witnesses.
    Wonder why he does not do that? Perhaps there is a legal document that shows
    otherwise.

    This is misdirection with gratuitous falsehood tossed in. He was born in Kapi’olani Hospital, which we both know. I introduced my home birth in response to the nonsense that a legitimate BC requires a doctor’s signature; it doesn’t…the only REQUIRED signature is that of the registrar and witness.

    If as you say his phony COLB is legitimate, then submit it to the courts for verification, and have the natural born with foreign father dilemma resolved in
    the courts, like a MAN. Nobody has verified his posted COLB. Since when is an
    internet document proof of anything.

    The Hawaiian officials have not verified that document, and not signed notarized
    statements in a courtroom. That document is supposed to be pulling from a larger
    document. Show the original major document, to verify the short form.

    Again, you lie like a rug, Hawaiian officials have attested to the legitimacy of the image of the COLB and to his birth in Honolulu. You Rovian operatives follow a predictable script–repeat the same lie over and over, no matter that it’s been debunked. It’s called “catapulting the propaganda.”

    The people tasked by the Constitution with evaluating his qualifications–the Electors and the Congress–have already spoken, so there is no need for judicial vetting.

    It is also unethical and illegal for government officials to be making public statements to the media about hidden personal documents. Only the president should be speaking to the press about his hidden documents, and if they still remain
    hidden…his words are only hearsay and unsubstantiated. He does not seem to be able
    to back up his claims. He seals everything, his whole life. That should worry
    everybody!!

    You Rovians are shameless. First, you kvetch that no one in authority will vouch for the authenticity of of the image, then when someone does, yell “gotcha” because that official allegedly violated privacy laws.

    The statement “He seals everything, his whole life.” is another Rovian lie. HE has sealed nothing. NOTHING. Privacy laws that apply to everyone does not allow disclosure without permission. We know more about this President than we have about any other in my long life. Nearly everyone can recite his life story from birth to the Presidency. The fact that we don’t have access to certain minutiae such as a fifth-grade book report or his vaccination records or his kindergarten records (KINDERGARTEN records???) is not germane to eligibility.

    You might fall for the testimony of two uncertified document experts at Factcheck, employees who are not warranted by the government to certify and verify documents. Most of us do not. Who in their right mind listens to a nonprofit verifying
    presidential birthplaces?

    You claim to have fallen for the BS allegations of two self-proclaimed “experts” who would not identify themselves, and when identified, had no credible credentials in document analysis.

  81. Joey says:

    “Joey, McCain’s NBC status is debatable. The only way I see that McCain could be NBC is to accept the legal fiction that wherever he might have been born was part of the United States due to his parents being militarily assigned to a particular place. It is an open question that has not been decided by SCOTUS.”
    The Constitutional term of art “natural born citizen” has since the 14th Amendment’s ratification morphed into the current legal term: “Citizen at birth” and McCain’s status as a “citizen at birth” is established under Title 8 Section 1401 of the US Code
    Point c which defines a “national and US Citizen at Birth” as: “a person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;”
    I am certain that John McCain’s parents maintained a residence in the United States while McCain’s father was serving in the US Navy.

    Hawai’s former Congressman (and current candidate for Governor) Neil Abercrombie used a similar political tactic to make it hard for Republicans to oppose Obama’s status when he authored the resolution honoring Hawai’i 50th Anniversary of statehood which contained the phrase “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961”). “
    The vote on that non-binding resolution was 373-0 but more than 100 Republicans are on record voting for that resolution.

  82. Joey says:

    JoeyMac, while I admire your argument, I need to correc this statement: “You Rovians are shameless. First, you kvetch that no one in authority will vouch for the authenticity of of the image, then when someone does, yell “gotcha” because that official allegedly violated privacy laws. ”

    Allow me to quote Karl Rove: “If Tea Party groups are to maximize their influence on policy, they must now begin the difficult task of disassociating themselves from cranks and conspiracy nuts. This includes 9/11 deniers, ‘birthers’ who insist Barack Obama was not born in the U.S., and militia supporters espousing something vaguely close to armed rebellion.”
    Karl Rove, February 17, 2010, The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
    🙂

  83. joeymac says:

    Joey, McCain’s NBC status is debatable. The only way I see that McCain could be NBC is to accept the legal fiction that wherever he might have been born was part of the United States due to his parents being militarily assigned to a particular place. It is an open question that has not been decided by SCOTUS.

    If the Canal Zone was not part of the United States, then McCain’s father was part of an occupying army, and under English common law, acquired natural born status in the citizenship of his father.

  84. yguy says:

    And where’s the part where you explain how that affects the legal sufficiency of the document?

    Maybe it doesn’t, but “legal sufficiency”, in the context of a controversy wherein a vital record held by a state has bearing on the enforcement of a constitutional provision, has no clear definition that I’m aware of; so it becomes a question of what any particular court will be satisfied with. That said, it is self-evident that no jurist who wanted to put the controversy to eternal rest would be satisfied with the COLB when the original is ostensibly available.

  85. Joey says:

    If the Canal Zone was not part of the United States, then McCain’s father was part of an occupying army, and under English common law, acquired natural born status in the citizenship of his father.

    There was a 1904 treaty agreement (The Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty) between Panama and the United States. Therefore Admiral McCain was not a part of a foreign occupying army.

  86. Joey says:

    “Maybe it doesn’t, but “legal sufficiency”, in the context of a controversy wherein a vital record held by a state has bearing on the enforcement of a constitutional provision, has no clear definition that I’m aware of; so it becomes a question of what any particular court will be satisfied with. That said, it is self-evident that no jurist who wanted to put the controversy to eternal rest would be satisfied with the COLB when the original is ostensibly available.”

    Are you aware of any jurist who has requested the original in the 73 lawsuits that have thus far been adjudicated?
    To the best of your knowledge has any plaintiff in an Obama eligibility lawsuit attempted to subpoena the original document?
    My understanding is that Lieutenant Colonel Lakin’s attorneys asked to depose Dr. Chiyome Fukino of the Hawaii Department of Health and both the Investigating Officer and the Military Judge denied that request on relevance grounds.
    There is a longstanding legal tradition of birth records being self-authenticating documents and whatever is acceptable to the US Government for the issuance of a passport is an authentic, certified proof of birth in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
    The only information on a birth record that is relevant to Article 2 Section 1 natural born citizen status is place of birth and date of birth. Barack Obama has had his place of birth and date of birth authenticated by the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii and also by the state Registrar of Vital Statistics. Thus far that has been good enough for the legal briefs of defense attorneys in more than 70 different lawsuits.

  87. Anonymous says:

    “If the Canal Zone was not part of the United States, then McCain’s father was part of an occupying army, and under English common law, acquired natural born status in the citizenship of his father.”

    Joeymac, I am trying to understand how English common law would have any relevance for McCain absent the 1904 treaty. Could you please elucidate?

  88. joeymac says:

    Joeymac, I am trying to understand how English common law would have any relevance for McCain absent the 1904 treaty. Could you please elucidate?

    John McCain’s father was an American citizen and bound by US law. US law is derived from English common law, except for statutory exceptions.
    English common law is that anyone born in a place is natural citizen of that place; except for children of occupying armies or of diplomats. The exceptions are not subject to the jurisdiction of the locality, so their bonds are to their originating jurisdictions.

    Capich’.

  89. joeymac says:

    Joeymac, I am trying to understand how English common law would have any relevance for McCain absent the 1904 treaty. Could you please elucidate?

    In other words, if there was no treaty ceding sovereignty of the Canal Zone, the US which was administering the area, was occupying it. Ergo, children of US forces born there acquired the citizenship of the occupiers at birth.

  90. Greg says:

    This has been laid out in plain language before. Laconically: Without a legitimate United States commander in chief there is absent authority to assemble {convene} any U.S. court-martial.

    That plain language is plainly false.

    The U.S. is not a dictatorship. In particular, military authority does not emanate from a single individual. Instead the U.S. is a government of law. Military authority (including courts-martial) derives from acts passed by Congress (see Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution). And these laws were passed long before Obama ever became President.

  91. BigGuy says:

    @yguy — ““legal sufficiency”, in the context of a controversy wherein a vital record held by a state has bearing on the enforcement of a constitutional provision, has no clear definition that I’m aware of”
    ___

    LOL, there we go again! The country is to governed by what you’re aware of! Our legal system, as interpreted by our judges, nothing matters, it all must grind to a halt while we await the revelation of the world according to yguy’s awareness.

    You’re self-importance knows absolutely no bounds, does it?

  92. Anonymous says:

    In other words, if there was no treaty ceding sovereignty of the Canal Zone, the US which was administering the area, was occupying it. Ergo, children of US forces born there acquired the citizenship of the occupiers at birth.

    Joeymac, your “ergo” would only apply if there were no U.S.law defining the citizenship of the child. In the case of our Constitution the NBC definition derives from English Common Law, but that does not mean that we should look for everything in U.S. law in ECL. If U.S. law defines something that takes precedence.

  93. Arthur B. says:

    yguy, if it has no clear definition that you’re aware of, it’s OK, take your time. The legal community seems to be functioning perfectly well on its own.

    But if you ever become aware of anything, by all means let us know.

  94. joeymac says:

    Joeymac, your “ergo” would only apply if there were no U.S.law defining the citizenship of the child. In the case of our Constitution the NBC definition derives from English Common Law, but that does not mean that we should look for everything in U.S. law in ECL. If U.S. law defines something that takes precedence.

    It seems that we are in agreement on the posit.

    joeymac 09.04.10 at 15:59

    John McCain’s father was an American citizen and bound by US law. US law is derived from English common law, except for statutory exceptions.
    English common law is that anyone born in a place is natural citizen of that place; except for children of occupying armies or of diplomats. The exceptions are not subject to the jurisdiction of the locality, so their bonds are to their originating jurisdictions.

    Of course, the statement should have read ” … except for statutory or constitutional exceptions.” My apologizes on that error.

    To my knowledge, the term “natural-born” is no longer defined by statute and was never defined in the Constitution, so “resort must be had else where” to determine it. Hence, the common law principles apply.

    Of course, if the treaty is accepted as defining the occupied area as an adjunct of the US, to discussion is moot.

  95. yguy says:

    Are you aware of any jurist who has requested the original in the 73 lawsuits that have thus far been adjudicated?

    No, but then I’m not aware of any judge who has ruled that Obama eligible because of his birthplace, either.

    To the best of your knowledge has any plaintiff in an Obama eligibility lawsuit attempted to subpoena the original document?

    Barnett did, and I think Berg did too. What of it?

    There is a longstanding legal tradition of birth records being self-authenticating documents and whatever is acceptable to the US Government for the issuance of a passport is an authentic, certified proof of birth in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

    Any idiot can get a passport. Very few idiots ever obtain the highest security clearance there is.

    Barack Obama has had his place of birth and date of birth authenticated by the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii and also by the state Registrar of Vital Statistics. Thus far that has been good enough for the legal briefs of defense attorneys in more than 70 different lawsuits.

    Your point being…?

  96. PorkRoll says:

    My, my Granite, that’s quite the interpretation of Wong Kim Ark you have there. Unfortunately for you, it’s only an interpretation that directly contradicts the ruling itself (please re-read my pull-quote from the ruling). It also doesn’t help your case that WKA was predicated on the 14th Amendment whose very author, Rep John Bingham, stated in the Congressional Record on March 9th, 1866: “I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen;”
    http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332
    So much for your interpretation that jus soli is sufficient for NBC status.

    And for those who believe that to understand “natural born citizen” one can simply substitute “citizen” for “subject” to get the same meaning (the same unfounded leap the majority in the Fuller court made in WKA, incidentally), Thomas Jefferson would have to disagree with you:
    http://boingboing.net/2010/07/03/declaration-of-indep.html

    I also love how Wikipedia was scrubbed of the correct statement that the Wong Kim Ark case only determined WKA was a citizen and never attempted to determine his status as an NBC. I can’t even find cached pages of it in the Way Back Machine. They’ve simply gone down the Orwellian memory hole, it seems. I’m sure someone will say I didn’t see what I saw much in the same way they try to tell us we’ve seen Obama’s birth certificate when, of course, we haven’t.

    Finally, to Noisemaker, here is Obama’s Perkins-Coie tab at 1.7 million as of October, 2009.
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114202

    Like I said, blinded by their own brilliance.

  97. yxscwgndj says:

    S9rFPE nulgsqlkejmg, [url=http://ljrqsbrqvqtf.com/]ljrqsbrqvqtf[/url], [link=http://uisbzzbmjngd.com/]uisbzzbmjngd[/link], http://kymnwypssbpk.com/

  98. PorkRoll says:

    http://court-martial-ucmj.com/lakin-2/ltc-lakins-defense-crushed-in-detail/

    My, my Granite, that’s quite the interpretation of Wong Kim Ark you have there. Unfortunately for you, it’s only an interpretation that directly contradicts the ruling itself (please re-read my pull-quote from the ruling). It also doesn’t help your case that WKA was predicated on the 14th Amendment whose very author, Rep John Bingham, stated in the Congressional Record on March 9th, 1866: “I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen;”
    http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332
    So much for your interpretation that jus soli is sufficient for NBC status.

    And for those who believe that to understand “natural born citizen” one can simply substitute “citizen” for “subject” to get the same meaning (the same unfounded leap the majority in the Fuller court made in WKA, incidentally), Thomas Jefferson would have to disagree with you:
    http://boingboing.net/2010/07/03/declaration-of-indep.html

    I also love how Wikipedia was scrubbed of the correct statement that the Wong Kim Ark case only determined WKA was a citizen and never attempted to determine his status as an NBC. I can’t even find cached pages of it in the Way Back Machine. They’ve simply gone down the Orwellian memory hole, it seems. I’m sure someone will say I didn’t see what I saw much in the same way they try to tell us we’ve seen Obama’s birth certificate when, of course, we haven’t.

    Finally, to Noisemaker, here is Obama’s Perkins-Coie tab at 1.7 million as of October, 2009.
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114202

    Like I said, blinded by their own brilliance.

  99. Granite says:

    Re: “ My, my Granite, that’s quite the interpretation of Wong Kim Ark you have there. Unfortunately for you, it’s only an interpretation that directly contradicts the ruling itself (please re-read my pull-quote from the ruling). It also doesn’t help your case that WKA was predicated on the 14th Amendment whose very author, Rep John Bingham, stated in the Congressional Record on March 9th, 1866: “I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen;”

    Answer: That was Bingham’s view in 1866. The Wong Kim Ark case was after Bingham and is definitive. Bingham gave his opinion. The ruling of the Wong Kim Ark case is LAW, and it ruled six to two, with one justice not voting, that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born. It also stated that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen. He was both Natural Born and a Citizen. That means that he was a Natural Born Citizen.

    Further confirmation is that the Wong Kim Ark ruling UPHELD the ruling in the lower court that specifically stated that Wong Kim Ark was a Natural Born Citizen.

    Ah you disagree with “..the majority in the Fuller court made in WKA, incidentally..”

    But your opinion is worthless. It is the LAW.

    Re: “Thomas Jefferson would have to disagree with you:
    http://boingboing.net/2010/07/03/declaration-of-indep.html

    I totally agree with you that citizen and subject are different things (though some of the early state Constitutions used the word “subjects,” and they are similar in one broad way, that they both confer the right to live within the country.)

    But where does Jefferson say, or any of the writers of the Constitution say that a citizen requires two citizen parents, while a subject is simply someone who was born in the country. Why shouldn’t it be the other way around, a subject requires two subject parents while a citizen is simply someone who is born in the country?

    You insist that the latter is not true. But where is the proof? Can you show a single AMERICAN (Swiss philosophers do not count) at the time of the writing of the Constitution who used the phrase Natural Born or Natural Born Citizen to mean “two citizen parents?”

    By the way, even the Bingham quote that you show does not say that the children of foreigners are NOT Natural Born Citizens. It only says that those who are born in the USA to parents not owing allegiance ARE. That is like saying that Manx cats are cats. By saying that, you do not necessarily mean that Persian cats are not cats.

    Since you have invoked Jefferson, let us consider what he said: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’

    You say, however, that Jefferson and the other leaders of American at the time the Constitution was written did not really believe that. They really held, you say, that the US-born children of two US citizens are better than the US-born children of foreigners as far as eligibility for president is concerned.

    I will grant you that it COULD be true, but it cannot be true unless the AMERICANS who wrote Article II of the Constitution had said somewhere that they meant two-citizen parents when they wrote Natural Born Citizen. If they did not say anything on the subject (and they didn’t), and all the quotations from them show that they used Natural Born to mean “born in the country,” then there is no legal proof that they meant ‘two citizen parents.”

    Now let us talk about strict construction. Conservatives say that strict construction is a good thing. (Scalia by the way said that he does not exactly hold with it, but I think that unless there were evidence for something, he certainly would not interpret it into the Constitution out of some theory or “penumbra.”)

    Under strict construction, if a law does not say “it is illegal,” it is legal. There have been plenty of cases where legislators forgot to tax something or forgot to say that something was illegal, and justices quite properly say that they cannot tax the thing or make it illegal by judicial ruling. The fact that liberal justices have in fact changed the law by their interpretation of “the penumbra” in the past does not make it right. And, if it is not right, no conservative justice would do it—despite the temptations to get back at liberals for doing the same thing. If it is wrong in principle, it is wrong.

    And yet, you say that the justices should interpret Natural Born Citizen to mean “two citizen parents” even though the actual words of the Constitution do not say “two citizen parents.” Not only would this be strictly disobeying strict construction, but it disobeys even loose interpretations of strict construction because the Federalist Papers and in fact NO writings of the American leaders at the time of the writing of the Constitution use Natural Born Citizen to mean two citizen parents.

    What we know is that the meaning of Natural Born at the time stemmed from the British common law. The writers of the Constitution were 60-70% lawyers and judges. When they talked Natural Born, they were not referring to Vattel. They were referring to the way that they had always used the phrase, which always referred to the place of birth and NEVER referred to the parents at all.

    Re: “ I also love how Wikipedia was scrubbed of the correct statement that the Wong Kim Ark case only determined WKA was a citizen and never attempted to determine his status as an NBC. ‘

    Answer: I didn’t scrub it. I agree with you that the Wong Kim Ark case determined that he was a US citizen. That was the entire purpose of the case. The essential question was whether he was a citizen or not. But in the course of it, the court defined Natural Born and said that Wong was Natural Born because he and every child born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is Natural Born. And, it upheld the ruling of the lower court that said that Wong was a Natural Born Citizen.

    This all simply shows the meaning of Natural Born is a geographic term. And it is very clear that the phrase Natural Born can be used to modify Citizen just as cross-eyed can be used to modify Citizen. A cross-eyed citizen is a citizen with crossed eyes, and a Natural Born Citizen is a citizen who fulfills the criterion of Natural Born, the original meaning of which was “born in the country.”

    Would the men who wrote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” have written a constitution that made the US-born children of citizens superior to the US-born children of foreigners WITHOUT TELLING US? Would a conservative justice find that Natural Born Citizen refers to two citizen parents if the actual words of the law do not say it, and no American writers at the time can be found to confirm that meaning? Certainly not. There wouldn’t be even four justices to call the case

  100. Granite says:

    I have so far shown the historic meaning of Natural Born Citizen referred to the location of birth not to the parents, which is shown by numerous quotations of the writers at the time of the writing of Article II. (Actually, I haven’t quoted anything here, but believe me, I can. In particular, there is an excellent quotation in a draft treaty written by Franklin, Adams, Jay and Livingstone, which would have given all the rights and privileges of Natural Born US Citizens to British Natural Born Subjects visiting in the USA.)

    I also showed the Wong Kim Ark case supports the evidence that Natural Born meant “born in the country.” I have also shown that it is illogical to think that the Americans who held “…that all men are created equal” would make US-born citizens of US parents eligible while US-born children of foreign citizens are not eligible, without telling us (and they did not tell us).

    Although the fact that virtually everyone supports this reading of Natural Born Citizen is merely an argument Ad Hominem, and it is unnecessary to show that virtually everyone supports this reading since the historic meaning and the Wong Kim Ark rulings are sufficient. Still, it is interesting to see in how much of a minority the two-parent theory is really held.

    There is of course the general legal authorities, such as Black’s Law Dictionary, which says:

    “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition. (This adds birth to citizens abroad, a more recent legislative move, to the original definition of birth within the country.)

    Then there are special law review articles specifically on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. Yale Law Review, for example wrote: “It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born. ”

    Such leading conservative Congressional experts on Constitutional law as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham also say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

    And rulings in the following Federal law cases ( a few of many more) follow the Wong Kim Ark precedent and hold that the US-born children of one or two foreigners are Natural Born Citizens:

    Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

    “Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

    Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

    “Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

    Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

    “The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

    Also, birthers and two-fers tried to get the members of the Electoral College to change their votes from the vote determined by the November 2008 election because of their allegation that Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen. Not one changed. And birthers and two-fers tried to get the members of the US Congress to vote against Obama at the time of the confirmation of the election. But not one did. The vote to confirm was unanimous.

  101. Dadzrites says:

    Since Military discovery practice is more liberal than Federal discovery practice, it is apparent that Ltc. Lakin was denied all of his exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland. The careerist military judge (an Obama supporter no doubt) is WRONG! She committed a “Brady Violation” and Lakin will overturn it on appeal.

    According to Artice 46 Military discovery practice has been quite liberal, although the
    sources of this practice are somewhat scattered. See Articles 36
    and 46; paragraphs 34, 44 h, and 115 c of MCM, 1969 (Rev.).
    See also United States v. Killebrew, 9 M.J. 154 (C.M.A. 1980);
    United States v. Cumberledge 6 M.J. 203, 204 n.4 (C.M.A. 1979).
    Providing broad discovery at an early stage reduces pretrial motions
    practice and surprise and delay at trial. It leads to better
    informed judgment about the merits of the case and encourages
    early decisions concerning withdrawal of charges, motions, pleas,
    and composition of court-martial. In short, experience has shown
    that broad discovery contributes substantially to the truth-finding
    process and to the efficiency with which it functions.

    1991 Amendment: Subsection (b)(1) has been revised to expand
    the open discovery that is characteristic of military practice.
    It provides the trial counsel with reciprocal discovery and equal
    opportunity to interview witnesses and inspect evidence as that
    available to the defense under subsection (a). See Article 46,
    U.C.M.J., and R.C.M. 701(e). Enhanced disclosure requirements
    for the defense are consistent with a growing number of state
    jurisdictions that give the prosecution an independent right to
    receive some discovery from the defense. See Mosteller, Discovery
    Against the Defense: Tilting the Adversarial Balance, 74
    Calif. L. Rev. 1567, 1579–1583 (1986).

    Mandatory disclosure requirements by the defense will better serve to foster the truthfinding
    process.

  102. WP Themes says:

    Good dispatch and this fill someone in on helped me alot in my college assignement. Thanks you on your information.

  103. Lawrence says:

    So, once again Mr. Obama does not have to suffer the “embarrassment” of the American People learning the truth about him. The evidence is inadmissible in court due to the Political Question Doctrine. To say Obama is innocent is like saying Bill Ayers is innocent of his anti-American crimes. Remember? He and his co-horts BOMBED OUR GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS AND TRIED TO KILL PEOPLE! Yet, the evidence against Ayers was inadmissable in court also. After the trial, Ayers proclaimed: “Guilty as Hell, free as a bird… what a great country!” Today, Mr. Ayers visits Mr. Obama in the White House. Maybe Ayers gets to sit with Obama in the Oval Office and smirk and wink to one another.

    Now, Obama did not try to bomb or kill anyone. Obama has pulled off the most incredible FRAUD on the American People ever commited. He is lying about his past. IF the Judicial Branch would ever allow discovery… Obama would resign overnight. The proof is there, you just can’t gain standing about it. Don’t believe me? Grant me discovery and I will prove it! Every judge, when threatning sanctions, has backed down when a credible lawyer has said they would need some discovery to fight the sanctions.

    Justice Thomas admitted SCOTUS is evading the issue. Thomas said so at a Congressional hearing. So, Obama wins, just like Bill Ayers did. Just like OJ did. There is NO HONOR IN THIS TYPE OF VICTORY. Why not just release the pertenent docs and get it over with like McCain did? Obama can’t, that’s why. He has something to hide.

    My, how the military must be so proud to itself for destroying the career of such a hero as LTC Lakin. What HONOR you must have to gloat over sending him to prison. The truth be damned… you kept the rules from being broken. I guess, for someone so highly trained in following the rules… that is all there is. That is all the honor you will ever have. You followed the rules, the UCMJ. To Hell with Truth , Justice and the American Way.

  104. Lawrence says:

    Granite on 9.13.10 @ 18:05 cites several case laws supporting his side, but does not include the five SCOTUS rulings with the definition of a natural born citizen therein. SCOTUS defines Natural Born Citizen as one born of the soil and of two citizen parents.

    The Venius, circa 1813, is the first one. Too busy to look up the details right now.

    IF you are really interested look up: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ That is the official web-site for Kerchner, et al v. Obama, et al. The SCOTUS rulings are listed there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *