LTC Lakin’s new strategy

The APF has launched it’s new campaign – Terry Lakin Action Week — to persuade members of Congress to get involved in establishing a new concept, that military officers may refuse duty at their whim.

With Congress back for the "lame duck" session we are urging Terry’s advocates to make calls to Capitol Hill- and to newly elected Members of Congress- during the week of Nov 15-19 to urge them to speak up for LTC Lakin and to provide feedback on the response to those calls. Remember that the U.S. Congress works for you- and that Members have a certain obligation to respond to constituent inquiries- but please be polite and respectful in advancing your point of view.

This is a reminder that LTC Lakin has not yet made some statement refuting his belief about the President’s eligibility or the birther movement.  That would not be completely expected at this point and I would anticipate his counsel have told him not to make any more public statements. 

Were LTC Lakin to have remained with his former defense counsel, the TLAW, would seem to be another aggravating step in his contumacy.  However, he did change lawyers, not soon enough, but because of that I’m not certain the current efforts of APF should be attributed to LTC Lakin.  Rather, this shows how the APF and others have taken advantage of him.  The birthers still don’t understand the military justice process.  They keep to the talking point that if only the president would release his birth certificate it would be all over.  Maybe, but it was and is too late for LTC Lakin.  He’s in a lose lose situation.  If the president’s eligibility were proved, LTC Lakin’s lost; but so too if the president wasn’t eligible.

Right now the prosecution has a standard prosecution case that should be fairly straight forward to make and prove.  So long as they continue to take the KIS approach to the case all should go well, LTC Lakin will be convicted and there will be a sentence.  That is unless the defense can use what little leverage they have to negotiate a PTA.  Remember, a plea of guilty is a first sign and a first step toward rehabilitation.

CPT Connie Rhodes sort of did that when she withdrew her civil case and went on deployment.  (It would be interesting to know how she fared.  Anyone know?)

Posted in:
Tagged:
Updated:

49 responses to “LTC Lakin’s new strategy”

  1. soonergrunt says:

    I don’t know how she fared, but CPT Rhode’s deployment should be over by now. She fired Taitz sometime in early to mid-September, 2009 and deployed to Iraq. Assuming that she kept her nose clean and didn’t have her tour foreshortened* or extended, then she should’ve returned to her duty station sometime in mid September. There’s no mention of her in Google after about the 21st of September, 2009 so I’m guessing that nothing of consequence happened.

    *soonergrunt’s word-a-day calendar strikes again!

  2. mikeyes says:

    According to the KS board of Healing Arts, she is at Ft. Riley with a “Federal Active” license. I assume she is still in the Army or working for them at this point. These licenses have to be kept up to date or suffer punishment.

  3. mikeyes says:

    I might add that no actions have been reported on her and she appears to have no other licenses. She last renewed her license in July 2010 https://www.accesskansas.org/ssrv-ksbhada/details.html?id=32134

  4. mikeyes says:

    Whoops, that URL puts you on the first person in the data base. Just go to the bottom of the page and do a new search for Connie Rhodes.

  5. dancingrabbit says:

    The wording used by the author this article..seems to show bias against LTC Lakin by using “birther movement”.

    Obama is in violation of the offense clause in the Constitution. Justice Waite stated the law of nations is imposed on the United States.

    The offense clause is Vattel’s Law of Nations. The United States is imposed to follow it.

    A Founder said it is muncipal law and a Chief Justice said it is in the Constitution in the offense clause.

    We the American people are discovering the crimes being committed by the government and corrupt attorneys.

    Jefferson said we must look to the Law of Nations.

    John Adams read it three times. How many here have read it?

    Those that support Obama cannot say they have a right to keep their shirts on their backs.

  6. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Does anyone have a dancingrabbit-to-English dictionary?

  7. mikeyes says:

    Dwight,

    What I don’t understand about dancingrabbit and the other anonymous responders who continue to advocate that officers and military members don’t have to obey orders is why they don’t understand that they are promoting treason. The only two conclusions I can come to is that A) they are promoting treason and hence must be part of a terrorist plot or B) they are dyslexic and can only read parts of the Constitution. (Or C) they are stupid, but that would be judgmental.)

    Of course what better way to achieve a goal of hamstringing the military than to advocate not obeying orders? Even more interesting is that the groups and blogs that promote anarchy in the military almost always have the word “Patriot” in their titles or featured prominently somewhere in the blog. I suspect that dancingrabbit is an unwitting pawn of these groups since he seems to be voicing talking points without any understanding of what they are or the consequences of what he is asking for, namely treason.

    It is clear that none of these “patriots” are concerned about LTC Lakin, a man who was a star in his field until he was apparently convinced to disobey an order, they are more interested in promoting their agenda which I think is not the so-called birther philosophy, but something much more sinister.

    (dancingrabbit, promoting chaos in the military is giving aid and comfort to the enemy any way you look at it. If you have managed to read that far, this is part of the Constitutional definition of treason.)

  8. dancingrabbit says:

    All orders come from the President, from the sergeant to the general officer… It is why we have a courts martial, the problem today military attorneys and judges..do their home research from talking points or google. How many have dusty law books…how many have the books the Founders had in their library.

    Justice Waite said..the Law of Nations is article 2 section 8 of the Constitution. He said this law is imposed on the United States. Justice Waite quotes Vattel often.

    The 1833 Edition of the Law of Nations…a natural born citizen is born from citizen parents. Not a US citizen parent and a Kenyan parent. This is a violation of the Law of Nations.

    Chief Justict Waite: The law of nations requires every national government to use due diligence to prevent a wrong being done in its own dominion.

    The Law of Nations is a law superior to municipal law.

  9. dancingrabbit says:

    Do not see how a military court can convict LTC Lakin when we have a fraudulent Commander in Chief violating the Law of Nations. The Law of Nations is a part of the Constitution. LTC Lakin swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

    Chief Justice Marshall ..The Law of Nations is law of the land.

  10. dancingrabbit says:

    82R302 JRJ-D

    By: Berman H.B. No. 295

    A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
    AN ACT relating to certification for placement on the ballot of candidates
    for president or vice-president of the United States.
    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
    SECTION 1. Section 192.033, Election Code, is amended by
    amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsection (d) to read as
    follows:
    (a) Except as provided by Subsection (c) or (d), the
    secretary of state shall certify in writing for placement on the
    general election ballot the names of the candidates for president
    and vice-president who are entitled to have their names placed on
    the ballot.
    (d) The secretary of state may not certify the name of a
    candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has
    presented the candidate’s original birth certificate indicating
    that the person is a natural-born United States citizen.
    SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2011.

    http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/html/HB00295I.htm

  11. mikeyes says:

    Dancingrabbit,

    Maybe C) is the correct choice. You clearly know nothing about the law or the Constitution. Or the military.

  12. dancingrabbit says:

    mikeyes 11.17.10 at 22:01

    Dancingrabbit,

    Maybe C) is the correct choice. You clearly know nothing about the law or the Constitution. Or the military.

    1. C troop 3/4 Cav, 25th infantry. 2. LANDSOUTHEAST, Izmir. 3.AFSOUTH, Naples. 4. 504th MI Group, West Ft. Hood, 5. USLO American Embassy,in East Africa. 6. Det 2, Hanoi.7. Instructor, Ft. Jackson n Ft. Bragg. 8. USAREC, Ft. Sheridan. 9. Ft. Lewis. 10. Ft. Knox. Will not list authorized medals.

    It is what you guys do..try to discredit those who question Obama’s natural born citizen status.

  13. mikeyes says:

    Thank you for your service, but you are still advocating mutiny and should know better.

  14. dancingrabbit says:

    The munity is being done by Congress, the Justice deparment and the illegal occupants in the White House. Obama is not, never will be a naural born citizen. He is not by the 14th Amendment, he is not by the Indiana court ruling..he is not by WKA..he is not by Sen Leahy and Secy Chertoff, he is not by Aristotle, he is not by Roman Law and Greek Law, he is not by the Law of Nations, he is not by Minor, he is not by Ramsey, he is not by John Jay, and he is not by millions of Americans.
    ,
    The birth certificate issue is a ruse.

  15. Dwight Sullivan says:

    dancingrabbit, in all seriousness, before commenting about the U.S. Constitution, you should read it. Had you read it, you would know that there is no Article II, Section 8. Article II of the United States Constitution has only 4 sections.

    You seem to be making your points on the basis of false information disseminated by birther websites.

    Let’s look at what Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 actually says: “The Congress shall have Power . . . To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.” Obviously President Obama couldn’t possibly have violated that clause. If you think that President Obama has violated some offense against the law of nations as defined by Congress, please point to the relevant congressional statute.

    Congress, by the way, also has the constitutional responsibility “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” And Congress carried out that responsibility in a manner inconsistent with your erroneous statement that “All orders come from the President, from the sergeant to the general officer.” Congress established an offense of willfully disobeying the lawful command of a superior commissioned officer. 10 U.S.C. 890(2). Congress also established an offense of willfully disobeying the lawful order of a warrant officer, non-commissioned officer, or petty officer. 10 U.S.C. 891(2). So Congress itself has recognized that orders that must be obeyed can come from commissioned officers, warrant officers, NCOs, and petty officers.

    I could even go back to dusty books and find similar provisions in the UCMJ’s predecessors.

  16. nc1 says:

    Please explain the logic: an ineligible commander-in-chief can issue a lawful order to deploy troops to war!?

  17. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Under the de facto officer doctrine, legal effect is given to the orders of an ineligible office holder until that office holder is removed from office. The Supreme Court has said that doctrine is necessary to avoid the chaos that would result from treating that office holder’s actions as void or voidable. So the logic is to avoid chaos. Imagine if the law were otherwise and any member of the U.S. military could disobey any order at his or her own choosing and rely upon doubts about the President’s constitutional eligibility. Chaos is a very good term for what would ensue. And through the de facto officer doctrine, the courts have ensured that will not occur.

    While a person is in the office of President, that person is exercising that office, even if it later turns out that the person shouldn’t have been in office. That doctrine isn’t some recent creation — it’s one of several reasons that those of us in the military justice community have virtually unanimously opined that LTC Lakin’s attempt to misuse the court-martial process to obtain discovery concerning the President’s constitutional eligibility would fail. President Obama is, without question, the President today — even if, in some alternative universe, a cognizant court were later to declare him ineligible.

    Also, please note that LTC Lakin isn’t charged with violating an order to deploy to war. He’s charged with violating an order to fly from Baltimore to Charlotte, violating an order to report to his brigade commander in Arlington, Virginia, and violating an order to report to Fort Campbell. The authorities who issued those orders had the lawfully authority to do so regardless of whether the President did or did not direct that some troops deploy to Afghanistan.

  18. nc1 says:

    What an upside down logic! We will keep the usurper in office and pretend that Constitutional eligibility requirement is irrelevant; officers who swore an oath to the Constitution should blindly follow the order to deploy to war.

    Lakin did not merely refuse to fly from Baltimore to Charlotte. If that was the order, he would have followed it – however you know very well that this was just a first leg in a deployment to war. The surge in Afghanistan could not have been ordered by any military officer. The legality of that order rests on the legality of Commander-in-Chief. Lakin’s immediate commander had no authority to make such decision on his own.

    What is your explanation for words spoken by the military judge presiding the case, saying that Lakin’s defense could be embarrassing to the president? Which law prevents a defendant from using a defense that may embarrass somebody else?

    It is troubling that there are so many lawyers in the military who are willing to keep their heads in the sand and ignore the fact that Obama lied about his birthplace.

  19. Dwight Sullivan says:

    nci,

    Judge Lind didn’t say that LTC Lakin’s defense might embarrass the President. Her actually ruling is widely available on the web. Perhaps you should read it rather than repeating untruths from birther propaganda sites.

  20. Dwight Sullivan says:

    nc1, you’re also mistaken is asserting that subordinates to the President didn’t have the authority to order people to Afghanistan. We’ve been fighting in Afghanistan for more than 9 years now. Subordinates to the President regularly send servicemembers to Afghanistan. When I was on active duty as an O-6, I ordered subordinates to go to Afghanistan and it wasn’t because President Bush told me to; there were missions that needed to be accomplished there, so servicemembers were sent there.

    And even if actually flying to Afghanistan somehow implicated a directive from the President and even if having doubts about the President’s constitutional eligibility justified disobeying such an order (it doesn’t), that wouldn’t provide a defense to taking other actions issued by superior commissioned officers — such as reporting to the brigade commander at Arlington, flying from BWI to Charlotte, or reporting to Fort Campbell. If he had done those things and then refused to go from Fort Campell to Afghanistan, then LTC Lakin might have been charged with failing to deploy to Afghanistan. He would have lost, but he might have been charged with that. But he said he didn’t have to follow any orders. He’s wrong about that, too.

    nc1, the purpose of the U.S. military isn’t to decide who is lawfully in the office of the U.S. Presidency. Rather, the purpose of the U.S. military is to carry out the commands issued by national command authority. Until an entity in a position of authority determines that isn’t President Obama — and the members of that entity don’t wear uniforms to work — the military will continue to carry out the directives of the national command authority. That’s one of the things that separates the United States from a great many other nations — and one of the many reasons why I am grateful to be an American.

  21. SueDB says:

    dancingrabbit – nc1 seem to be cutting and pasting from the same decrepit and deceitful source. Really makes them look dumb as a box of rocks. We have the military law experts on one end, and raving loonies on the other. Gee, to whom should I listen? Tough choice…

  22. SueDB says:

    No one on the Birfer side wants to discuss Title X, I wonder why?

  23. nc1 says:

    1. Many retired generals have completely different opinion from yours when it comes to following an order to deploy to a war zone. If Obama gave an order to launch a nuclear missile would it not be absolutely necessary that officers carrying out that order have an utmost confidence that the legitimacy of the chain of command is impeccable. Officers cannot put their heads in the sand and follow the orders blindly.

    2. Perhaps geniuses on this web site will be able to provide a logical answer to the following question.
    Why does so called Obama’s birth certificate show a factual error?

    The registration number 10641 is not compatible with the Date Filed (August 8, 1961).
    How do we know it – by comparison with a legitimate LONG form birth certificate from Hawaii. Honolulu Advertiser published such documents for Nordyke twins. They were born in the Kapiolani Hospital on August 5, 1961 one day after Obama’s birth.
    Interesting thing about Nordyke certificates is the fact that they were signed by the physician at Kapiolani and processed at Hawaii DoH (assigned numbers 10637 and 10638) on the same day (August 11, 1961).
    Kapiolani sent their birth registrations to DoH on a weekly basis. Obama’s birth certificate should have been sent to DoH at the same time as other certificates for that week (on August 11).
    Obama’s registration number is higher than Nordykes’, therefore it could not have been assigned prior to August 11, yet the Date Filed on the document shown by Fact Check says August 8.
    It is impossible that Obama’s birth certificate originated at Kapiolani. If it did, the Date Filed field would have shown the date August 11, 1961.

  24. Dwight Sullivan says:

    I suspect those retired generals would have a different response if they were still on active duty and one of their subordinates refused their order, citing doubts about the President’s constitutional eligibility as a justification. There is zero question as to who the President of the United States is today. If he gave an order to the military to launch nuclear weapons, there is zero doubt that order would be executed.

  25. Joey says:

    As long as the Governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle. says that Barack Obama was born at Kapi’olani and Kapi’olani itself says that Barack Obama was born there, no one much cares about a 3 digit difference in registration numbers of a bunch of certificates for children who were born after the close of business on a Friday (Obama) and the following day, the Nordyke twins.
    The difference in numbers could be as easily explained as different birth notices ending up on the desks of different clerks.

    “You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Senator McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it’s, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. … It’s been established. He was born here.”—Governor of Hawaii Linda Lingle (R), May 2, 2010

  26. Joey says:

    NC1 obviously hasn’t read Lieutenant Colonel Lakin’s charge sheet. Here’s a link so that you can read it for yourself and not look like such an idiot:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/30409029/LCOL-Terrence-L-Lakin-Charge-Sheet

    As one federal judge, appointed by President George W. Bush who actually adjudicated an Obama eligibility lawsuit said about this silly hyperbole that President Obama is a “usurper:”
    “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 “Captain Connie Rhodes, M,D., F.S. v Colonel Thomas D. MacDonald, Garrison Commander, Fort Benning, GA” September 16, 2009

  27. @nc1

    I am glad that you saw my correction on the Nordyke registration number. The rest of your analysis is just as flawed and filled with unsupported assumptions as it was the last two times you posted it. 😉

  28. nc1 says:

    @Reality Check

    I have not seen any corrections about Nordyke registration number(s).

    Obama’s birth certificate did not originate at Kapiolani hospital. The Date Filed would have been August 11, 1961 or a later date. Registration numbers were assigned at the Hawaii DoH and it is not possible to have a higher number (Obama’s) issued three days earlier than Nordykes’.

  29. nc1 says:

    @Joey

    1. Could you ask the judge cited in your previous post the following question: Can a popular vote trump the Constitution?

    2. We know from the internal memo to Congress members that nobody vetted Obama:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/41131059/CRS-Congressional-Internal-Memo-What-to-Tell-Your-Constituents-Regarding-Obama-Eligibility-Questions

  30. @nc1

    Actually, it was the Obama registration number that you had listed incorrectly as 10645. You have now corrected it to 10641. I pointed that out to you in a comment on a previous article: http://court-martial-ucmj.com/lakin-2/yes-a-ltc-lakin-post/

    “Reality Check 11.09.10 at 19:58

    nc1

    How many times are you going to post this? Next time you better take a another look at Obama’s birth certificate registration number. You got it wrong.”

    As I have pointed out to you before your analysis is flawed because you do not know the details of how the numbers were assigned and how the birth certificates were processed in the paper only days of 1961. We know that the Nordyke twins birth certificates were signed on August 7th. Did they have registration numbers assigned then? I cannot say because I do not know when the DOH assigned the numbers and neither do you. We know Obama’s was filed on August 8th. There are several very plausible explanations as to why the numbers may not be exactly sequenced by time of birth. If anything, the fact that the numbers are only three off is supportive of the births happening on consecutive days at the same hospital. How do you explain Ms Barbara Nelson’s recollection of a discussion about Stanley Ann having a baby at Kapi’olani with Dr. West on the very evening of August 4th? Could you please explain that?

    I understand that you are going to cling to your registration number conspiracy theory copied from a birther web site and keep repeating it no matter how many times that it is shown to be inconclusive. You are just another intellectually dishonest birther who is not interested in facts.

  31. Did anyone hear how the huge “Terry Lakin Action Week” worked out? I didn’t see a lot of action.

  32. Anonymous says:

    Here’s an answer to nc1’s question about a popular election trumping the Constitution. If an otherwise ineligible person is confirmed by Congress as POTUS they & they alone have the Constitutional ability to remove that person through impeachment. No court in the land can intervene. IOW it is Congress’ duty to select the President & to remove the President.

  33. A popular election qua election cannot “trump” a provision of the constitution. If a sufficient number of members of congress can agree, then under Article V., they can propose an amendment to the constitution, the state legislatures get to vote, etc.http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articlev.htm

  34. nc1 says:

    @Reality Check

    Talking about intellectual honesty?! You mentioned that Nordyke certificates were signed on August 7 (but did not mention that it was their mother who signed on that day) .

    Attending physician signed documents on August 11, 1961. Certificates were signed by the birth registrar on August 11, 1961.

    According to Okubo, it was the DoH office that assigned registration numbers. You can ask Dr. Conspiracy for details. There were no numbers assigned on birth registrations at the time when document was signed by Eleonor Nordyke.
    August 7, 1961 is irrelevant date in this whole story.

    Okubo also mentioned that registrations were sent weekly to DoH. Obama’s certificate should have been sent to DoH together with Nordyke certificates, not three days earlier.

    There is no legitimate way for Obama’s certificate to have originated in the Kapiolani Hospital.

    I will take documentation over a person’s recollection of events from 47 years ago. Nelson’s story does not make much sense. Dr. West had not seen regular patients for four years prior to Obama’s birth. Yet, according to Nelson, he took Obama’s mother as a patient, delivered baby Barack at 7:24 pm on Friday evening, then rushed to have a dinner with a young woman (Nelson), a friend of his daughter.

    If Obama was born at the Kapiolani Hospital we would have seen the original birth certificate by now. There would be no need for posting several versions of COLB on the web. If the official birthplace story were true it would be very simple to prove birthers wrong – just release the original certificate, what is there to hide?

  35. “Dr. West had not seen regular patients for four years prior to Obama’s birth. Yet, according to Nelson, he took Obama’s mother as a patient, delivered baby Barack at 7:24 pm on Friday evening, then rushed to have a dinner with a young woman (Nelson), a friend of his daughter.”

    Funny thing. Dr. West’s own niece, Catherine West Dale, says she was delivered by her uncle in 1961 and that he delivered her sister in 1964. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/more-testimony-obama-was-born-in-k/#comment-38660 It seems he did not retire until the 1970’s. What is your source for the claim that he retired earlier? So you know that Mrs. Nelson had an early dinner that night? Are you a psychic?

    “If Obama was born at the Kapiolani Hospital we would have seen the original birth certificate by now.” And you know this to be true? How?

    “If the official birthplace story were true it would be very simple to prove birthers wrong – just release the original certificate, what is there to hide?”

    The COLB already proves the doubters wrong. Any court in the land would rule that it is sufficient proof.

    You have yet to provide any evidence as to how the numbers were assigned in 1961

    “There is no legitimate way for Obama’s certificate to have originated in the Kapiolani Hospital”

    You have provided no proof of this statement and have had about 4 tries. Care to go for 5?

  36. nc1 says:

    I never said that Dr. West retired four years prior to Obama’ birth. He worked in administration and stopped seeing patients regularly. Seeing regular patients and helping family mambers are different things.

    According to Janice Okubo, registration numbers were assigned by the DoH. You are familiar with Dr.Conspiracy web site – you can check this fact with him.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/06/birther-math-part-6/#comments

    “Dr. Conspiracy June 28, 2010 at 1:13 pm:
    Janice Okubo, spokesperson for the Department of Health, has confirmed that the records were numbered centrally at the time they were filed. I suggested that a “machine” is used because of the uneven registration (vertical alignment) of the digits on the sample we’ve seen, and because this is how other vital statistics agencies I know about used to do it. Nowadays, numbering is all done in computer software since nearly all births (95% in 2005) registered today are done electronically.”

    COLB business: First version was posted on Daily Kos web site in June 2008. No state seal, no bottom crease fold, registration number blacked out. It took Obama campaign two months to present an improved version. Fortunately, Eleonore Nordyke came forward with legitimate long form birth certificates that we can use to judge the validity of information presented by Obama.

  37. Reality Check says:

    Here is what Barbara Nelson said:

    ““I may be the only person left who specifically remembers his birth. His parents are gone, his grandmother is gone, the obstetrician who delivered him is gone,” said Nelson, referring to Dr. Rodney T. West, who died in February at the age of 98. Here’s the story: Nelson was having dinner at the Outrigger Canoe Club on Waikiki Beach with Dr. West, the father of her college friend, Jo-Anne. Making conversation, Nelson turned to Dr. West and said: “‘So, tell me something interesting that happened this week,’” she recalls.

    His response: “Well, today, Stanley had a baby. Now that’s something to write home about.”

    The new mother was Stanley (later referred to by her middle name of Ann) Dunham, and the baby was Barack Hussein Obama.

    “I penned the name on a napkin, and I did write home about it,” said Nelson, knowing that her father, Stanley A. Czurles, director of the Art Education Department at Buffalo State College, would be interested in the “Stanley” connection.

    She also remembers Dr. West mentioning that the baby’s father was the first black student at the University of Hawaii and how taken he was by the baby’s name.

    “I remember Dr. West saying ‘Barack Hussein Obama, now that’s a musical name,’” said Nelson, who grew up in Kenmore and went to Hawaii in 1959 to be in Jo-Anne’s wedding party. When Nelson was offered a job as a newspaper reporter and photographer at her friend’s wedding reception, it led to her living in Hawaii for 47 years. She returned to Kenmore in 2006. ”

    So she was lying?

    If you enhance the contrast on the DailyKos photo the seal is there. It was just a low res scan didn’t show the embossed seal very well. The Obama campaign has explained that they thought that the registration number might be conveying personal information so they redacted it. The figured out later that there was no harm in showing it.

    You have still offered only your suppositions that the numbers must be exactly sequenced in order of birth. How about this equally valid explanation. The forms for the all the births for the weekend were sent over to the DOH to be filed and registered. They were sorted alphabetically and processed and numbered in that order. N before O you see. Mystery solved! My supposition and conclusion is equally valid.

    What I know for certain is that for the legal purpose of proving place of birth the 1966 Nordyke certified forms are no more valid than a 2007 COLB.

  38. nc1 says:

    1. Did Tim Adams lie? How about James Orengo?

    You will dismiss a hearsay evidence pointing out to Obama’s birthplace story as a fake one, while taking Nelson’s story at face value.

    2. Obama campaign knew that the COLB posted on Daily Kos had problems. If the issue had been only a low quality scan, they could have posted a good quality scan immediately after the authenticity of the document has been questioned.

    Instead, they waited TWO months to present improved version to Fact Check. Two Fact Check representatives have never before seen a legitimate Hawaii COLB document. How could they claim that the document is authentic without trying to authenticate it with the issuing authority?

    3. I never said that numbers must be sequenced identically to the order of births. The numbers however cannot contradict the Date Filed field. You cannot have a higher registration number issued by the DoH at an earlier date – that makes no sense.

  39. Reality Check says:

    @nc1

    I guess I will flog this poor horse just one more time. 🙂

    “1. Did Tim Adams lie? How about James Orengo?”

    We know Tim Adam’s lied about his position and access that he claimed to have to the DoH databases. He has also contradicted his own story in various interviews. Tim got carried away bragging to his racist buddies on the radio at conservative ,white supremacist CoCC event in Nashville and had to backtrack on his story. He has since shut up before he dug a deeper hole and lost his position at Western Kentucky University. So yes, Tim Adams lied.

    James Orengo? You know he actually did not say Barak Obama as born in Kenya, don’t you? There has been lots of hyperbole from Kenyans about a “native son of Kenya” becoming President of the USA. File this one under him getting a little carried away. The entire Kenyan birth story is preposterous and without a single shred of evidence.

    “You will dismiss a hearsay evidence pointing out to Obama’s birthplace story as a fake one, while taking Nelson’s story at face value.”

    The Nelson story is quaint, interesting, and fits with the incontrovertible facts that the State of Hawaii has verified that the COLB is authentic and correct. I look at the totality of the facts and those making the claims. The claims that Obama was born in Kenya are being pushed by charlatans like 911 Truther/Birther Phil Berg who was caught red handed manipulating the Sara Obama interview to try to say something it doesn’t and others who hate Obama for whatever reason.

    “2. Obama campaign knew that the COLB posted on Daily Kos had problems. If the issue had been only a low quality scan, they could have posted a good quality scan immediately after the authenticity of the document has been questioned.
    Instead, they waited TWO months to present improved version to Fact Check. Two Fact Check representatives have never before seen a legitimate Hawaii COLB document. How could they claim that the document is authentic without trying to authenticate it with the issuing authority?”

    The original posting of the COLB was an unprecedented act for a presidential candidate to do and was done to answer internet rumors about his place of birth and his real middle name. I think that the Obama campaign thought that would be the end of it and folks would move on. Well, that was true for the rational people but not for the Birthers. Then two complete phonies, Tech Dude and Polarik (Ron Polland) , did their voodoo image analysis of the Daily Kos scan and kept the doubts going on right wing blogs. The Obama campaign then made the COLB available for inspection at the Chicago campaign HQ and only the FactCheck organization decided to take their offer. I cannot remember who made the offer but a poster at Doctor Conspiracy’s blog said he offered to fly Phil Berg to Chicago to see the BC but Berg would not take his offer.

    You statement shows that you see the situation through the filter of a true conspiracy theorist. The Obama campaign was wrapping up the Democratic nomination after a grueling primary battle with Hillary Clinton and gearing up to run a multimillion dollar campaign against John McCain in the fall – not to mention picking a running mate. They were fighting a cadre of smears like the Rev. Wright smear, Williams Ayers association, and the Resko land deal. Eligibility concerns were hardly on the radar screen for the campaign. Oh, and by the way, at the same time Obama’s dear friend and Grandmother was dying. You seem to think that satisfying the Birther fringe questions was a major issue with Obama. It was not and still is not.

    “3. I never said that numbers must be sequenced identically to the order of births. The numbers however cannot contradict the Date Filed field. You cannot have a higher registration number issued by the DoH at an earlier date – that makes no sense.”

    First, there is no “Date Filed” field on the Nordyke birth certificates. You are making the assumption that this is the same as the “Date Accepted by the Registrar”. While that is a plausible assumption we really do not know if those dates are the same. We also do not know when the numbers were assigned to the certificates. Doc C has an article on this that says that Janice Okubo stated that the numbers were assigned centrally by the DoH. You are also inferring that the “Date Filed” on the Obama COLB of August 8 would equate to the “Date Accepted by the Registrar” field on the Nordyke certificates (August 11). Again, one can assume this but it is just an assumption. To summarize: you do not know what the “date filed” was for the Nordyke certificates, you do not know what the “date accepted by the registrar” was for the Obama certificate, and you do not know with certainty when the certificate numbers were assigned nor what order they were processed.

    This is all just minutia. You are trying to say that the COLB is somehow invalid because you see an anomaly in the certificate numbers that requires a bunch of assumptions to even remotely be of significance. Only someone who on faith alone believes a massive conspiracy is afoot would make such a big deal from the certificate numbers. The elephant in your living room is that we know that the COLB exists, it says Honolulu is the place of birth, it is signed, it is sealed, it has been attested to by everyone up to the Governor of the State. I think it is time to move on.

  40. nc1 says:

    1. You dismiss a hearsay evidence pointing out to Obama’s birthplace story as a fake one, while taking Nelson’s story at face value.

    2. It is a lie that the COLB was available for inspection to anyone but FactCheck.
    Furthermore, how did FactCheck determine that document presented to them was not a forgery but an authentic Hawaii COLB?
    They have not asked Hawaii DoH a simple question whether the COLB was issued to Obama on June 6, 2008? This question has been asked many times and DoH refused to answer. The DoH also refused to provide birth index data when the request mentioned both the name and the registration number (Barack Obama, 10641).

    Without having answers to these two simple questions FactCheck’s claim cannot be taken seriously.

    3. You cannot have it two ways. Since the whole eligibility debate started, Obama supporters have claimed that there is no difference between the Date Filed and Date Accepted by State Registrar.

    Janice Okubo mentioned that numbers were centrally assigned. Dr. Conspiracy provided analysis based on his experience in dealing with birth registration documents.

    According to Okubo’s explanation, Date Filed is the date when the local registrar of births received birth registration. Local birth registrars sent data to central office on weekly basis. Because of the Hawaii geography, registration of births on islands other than Oahu would show a difference between the Date Filed and Date Accepted by State Registrar (central office in Honolulu).

    Nordyke certificates show that all officials involved in processing their birth certificates signed them on August 11, 1961. Therefore, we do know that Date Filed and Date Accepted by State Registrar is the same in Nordyke’s case. Obama’s birth certificate should have been sent to the central office in the same weekly batch as Nordyke certificates.

    We do not know for sure whether Obama’s COLB is an authentic document or a forgery. If there was nothing to hide, the Hawaii DoH should have no problem confirming that the document was issued to Obama on June 6, 2008 – yet they refused to do it. As of November 30, 2010 no Hawaii official confirmed its authenticity.

  41. Reality Check says:

    “1. You dismiss a hearsay evidence pointing out to Obama’s birthplace story as a fake one, while taking Nelson’s story at face value.”

    Ms Nelson’s story is believable since it is supported by an overwhelming preponderance of other evidence. The Kenyan birth stories are pushed by frauds like Phil Berg and Lucas Smith. I was born with a brain and choose use it. We haven’t even discussed the birth announcements in the local newspapers that appeared the following week have we?

    “2. It is a lie that the COLB was available for inspection to anyone but FactCheck.
    Furthermore, how did FactCheck determine that document presented to them was not a forgery but an authentic Hawaii COLB?

    They have not asked Hawaii DoH a simple question whether the COLB was issued to Obama on June 6, 2008? This question has been asked many times and DoH refused to answer. The DoH also refused to provide birth index data when the request mentioned both the name and the registration number (Barack Obama, 10641). “

    This is a real gem of an assertion. I seem to recall that another organization like Fox News viewed the COLB. Many of the links are dead now. How do you know that only FactCheck was allowed to view it? You seem to have a conspiratorial answer for everything. I like simple answers.

    The COLB had a raised seal and a signature from Hawaii. Why in the world would they need to call Hawaii? The COLB would be presentable in any court in the land as a self authenticating document. This is a preposterous expectation.

    We have seen birth index data for the period and Obama’s name is on it. I don’t think registration numbers were provided on the copy I saw but I fail to see any significance of that. It might just be departmental practice.

    “Without having answers to these two simple questions FactCheck’s claim cannot be taken seriously. “

    Sure you can’t take it seriously if you are pushing a kookie conspiracy. FactCheck’s purpose was to show that yes, this COLB is a real birth certificate with a raised seal, registration number, and signature stamp after questions were raised by the aforementioned charlatans, TechDude and Polarik. They were not conducting an extensive investigation that you seemed to have wished them to have conducted. The high resolution photos are probably as good as we could have expected to have without holding and touching the document.

    “3. You cannot have it two ways. Since the whole eligibility debate started, Obama supporters have claimed that there is no difference between the Date Filed and Date Accepted by State Registrar.”

    Nope, that’s incorrect. What has been claimed is that there is no difference in validity of the COLB depending on whether it included a “Date Filed” or “Date Accepted”. The Birthers were the ones making the weird claim that since the Obama COLB had “Date Filed” that it was never “Accepted”. If you look at COLB’s over the years they seem to alternate back and forth on what is on the certificates.

    “Janice Okubo mentioned that numbers were centrally assigned. Dr. Conspiracy provided analysis based on his experience in dealing with birth registration documents.
    According to Okubo’s explanation, Date Filed is the date when the local registrar of births received birth registration. Local birth registrars sent data to central office on weekly basis. Because of the Hawaii geography, registration of births on islands other than Oahu would show a difference between the Date Filed and Date Accepted by State Registrar (central office in Honolulu). “Nordyke certificates show that all officials involved in processing their birth certificates signed them on August 11, 1961. Therefore, we do know that Date Filed and Date Accepted by State Registrar is the same in Nordyke’s case. Obama’s birth certificate should have been sent to the central office in the same weekly batch as Nordyke certificates. “

    You still do not know at what point the numbers were affixed to the certificates. They could have been assigned to a batch for the entire week up through August 11 and in any random order. Dr. West and the registrar may have signed Obama’s on the 8th and the attending physician (I cannot make out his name) may not have gotten to the Nordyke certificates until the 11th. The numbers prove nothing except that they were probably from births that happened around the same time period. Wait, we already knew that didn’t we?

    “We do not know for sure whether Obama’s COLB is an authentic document or a forgery. If there was nothing to hide, the Hawaii DoH should have no problem confirming that the document was issued to Obama on June 6, 2008 – yet they refused to do it. As of November 30, 2010 no Hawaii official confirmed its authenticity.”

    Show me a statement where anyone from Hawaii they said these words or anything equivalent: “We refuse to confirm the authenticity of this particular document.” The COLB has Alvin T. Onaka’s signature and a raised seal saying it was signed on June, 6 2007 (note the correction, it was issued in 2007). What more do you want? A personal phone call from Onaka? Dr. Onaka’s secretary is a nice lady named Audry. I will give you her number if you want to call and chat about your issues. I think you need to discuss your issues with a doctor anyway. This could be a good start towards recovery.

    Nc1, you are not the first Birther to try to be clever and use the fact that the officials in Hawaii have had to walk the tightrope of confirming the authenticity of their documents while obeying their own standards for individual privacy and then twist this into some conspiracy or even into a lie. We have seen this done beginning with Phil Berg and by several others. You are not unique. It is completely dishonest to do that but when you do not have the facts you have to make do with such distasteful tactics I suppose.

    What part of these statements do you think indicates that Hawaii does not think Obama was born in their state and that they would not stand by their own state issued birth document?

    “STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO
    “There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.”

    “Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    “No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i.”

    and

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

    Only a true conspiracy theorist would doubt the validity of the COLB after those statements.

    I have spoken to Mrs. Nordyke. We had a very pleasant conversation. She is a delightful lady and still very active in her 80’s. She thinks the “controversy” over the registration numbers is ridiculous as is the entire “birther” controversy. While she did not know Stanley while they were in the hospital together she later became friends with Obama’s grandmother when they were on a cruise together to Tahiti. Her twins and young Obama shared some of the same teachers in school. She said the she found out that she and Stanley used the same group of OBGYN’s and that all the doctors primarily used Kapi’olani Hospital for deliveries.

    Unless you call and obtain some significant new information from the Hawaiian officials on the details of the way the certificates were processed in 1961 I think our conversion is done. I will leave it to the other readers to decide who sees a conspiracy behind every bush and in every tiny bit of minutia, and who is being rational in this discussion.

  42. nc1 says:

    The privacy excuse is a phony one. If Obama campaign released an authentic document to the public, Hawaii DoH would not have violated anybody’s privacy to answer the following two questions:
    – Did they issue COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007?
    – Provide birth index for Barcak Obama, registration number 10641.

    Numerous UIPA law requests for these confirmations have been ignored by Hawaii DoH.
    The fact that DoH refused to answer such simple questions tells me that they are covering for Obama.

    If the official birthplace story were true, there would be no need to wait for more than two years to release partial passport data for Obama’s mother. Government officials would not have to lie that passport documents were destroyed. Subsequent investigation could not find any directive to destroy documents. It is not believable that passport information for a living person would be destroyed.

    Documents that could be used for independent verification of Obama’s birthplace are hidden from US citizens.

    Okubo’s statements do not exclude the possibility that Obama’s birth registration is based on an affidavit from a relative (grandmother).

  43. Reality Check says:

    nc1

    Let me know when you get that info from Hawaii. Have a nice day.

  44. nc1

    Congratulations! You have now convinced me that the Nordyke twins could not have been born at Kapio’lani Hospital. All the information points to that fact:

    1. Your brilliant analysis of the number sequence conspiracy.
    2. The Nordyke birth certificates were not signed, filed, or registered for almost a week. This is extremely suspicious and must have been to allow time for clever forgeries to be created.
    3. The State of Hawaii has failed to issue a single statement to support authentication of these birth certificates. They must therefore be fraudulent. What are they hiding?
    4. No one else has stepped forward to verify that they were born at Kapi’olani.
    5. The attending physician intentionally made his signature illegible so we could not trace him back to the hospital. We know doctors all write legibly.
    6. I have yet to see the Nordyke’s passport records, kindergarten records, or college records. This is most suspicious.
    7. Mrs. Nordyke won’t spend twenty bucks to go get modern birth certificates for them to force Hawaii to either cough up the truth or continue to support this 49 year old lie.
    8. The twins could have been born in Canada and Mrs. Nordyke flew back to Hawaii to file a delayed birth certificate.

    I plan to talk to Mrs. Nordyke again and ask her to come clean and answer my questions. I will also call up Ms Okubo and ask her why they continue to perpetuate this massive lie.

    Thank you again for enlightening me. Mrs. Nordyke is one clever lady and really had me fooled. I will not be so gullible next time. nc1, I hope you support me in my continued pursuit on the path of truth that you have guided me to follow.

  45. Reality Check says:

    More on the Nordyke scandal:

    The images that were posted were of very poor quality and on the completely biased web site World Net Daily. WND failed to call Hawaii to verify ask if the birth certificates were authentic. Why didn’t they do that? As of this date they still have not called.

    I would ask that the renowned imaging expert Dr. Ron Polland undertake a full analysis of the Nordyke birth certificate images. I have no doubt that he will use his great talents as an instructional media expert and find problems with these images including the “Ducky” embedded in them. You can see for yourself there is no raised seal on the certificates. Why are they dated 1966 when the births happened in 1961?

    Be assured, now that I am on this Nordyke scandal I will not rest until the truth be told.

  46. nc1 says:

    Nordyke certificates were originally published by Honolulu Advertiser.
    http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Jul/28/ln/hawaii907280345.html

    These photos destroyed credibility of Obama’s COLB.

    You try to go on different tangents to the main question – where is the proof that Obama was born in the USA?

    Documents that could be used for independent verification of Obama’s birthplace are hidden from US citizens.

    Okubo’s statements do not exclude the possibility that Obama’s birth registration is based on an affidavit from a relative (grandmother).

  47. Reality Check says:

    These are the same poor quality images supplied to WND. There is no raised seal. Hawaii has said nothing at all to verify them. Why haven’t they? The numbers should have been higher than Obama’s certificate which was filed on the 7th.Why did the doctor intentionally write his signature so that it could not be read? Twice? They are obvious fakes. The registrations were delayed almost a week. Why? The birth announcement for the Nordykes could not be found for months then it mysteriously appeared at Doctor C’s blog. We have absolutely no independent verification of the Nordyke certificates. Nada.

  48. nc1 says:

    I understand that you would rather talk about anything else than Obama’s eligibility.

    Read it and weep:
    http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/

  49. Reality Check says:

    I only weep that my fellow man is so hopelessly misguided and gullible to be blinded by hatred for whatever reason. I am fine otherwise.

    I also don’t have time to read Butterdizilly’s complete blog. I have read Butter’s stuff before. The stupid is breathtaking.

Leave a Reply

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