Viernes, 03 de septiembre de 2010

Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records


Friday, September 3, 2010

Courts Martial Defense of LTC Terrance Lakin - Researched and Reviewed By The United States Bar Association - 9/3/2010


Courts Martial Defense of LTC Terrence Lakin
Issued September 3, 2010

World Net Daily (WND), which has been following the Lakin trial step-by-step from the beginning, is reporting ? ?FT. MEADE, Md. ? A career officer in the U.S. Army [Col. Denise R. Lind] acting as a judge in the prosecution of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin today ruled that the military is no place for Barak Obama's presidential eligibility to be evaluated.?

According to the WND report, presiding authority Col. Denise R. Lind used the following arguments to deny LTC Lakin proper access to a defense, summarized in the following three paragraphs taken from the 40 minute long reading of her decision -

  • Army Col. Denise R. Lind today ruled in a hearing regarding the evidence to be allowed in the scheduled October court-martial of Lakin that he will be denied access to any of Obama's records as well as any testimony from those who may have access to the records.
  • With her decision, Lind mirrored a number of federal judges who have ruled on civil lawsuits over Obama's eligibility. They have without exception denied the plaintiffs' access to any requested documentation regarding the president's eligibility.
  • Lind ruled that it was "not relevant" for the military to be considering such claims, that the laws allegedly violated by Lakin were legitimate on their face and that the chain of command led up to the Pentagon, and that should have been sufficient for Lakin.

We find foundational flaws in Col. Lind?s decision, which Lakin?s defense team must seize upon in order to alter the current course of this trial.

  • Lind?s authority is derived from the same place as LTC Lakin?s and all other members of the United States Military - from the supreme command of the office of Commander-in-Chief, the President of the United States.
  • ?Lind is attempting to use her authority under her Commander-in-Chief to break the military chain of command, isolating the Commander-in-Chief of the US Military specifically, exempting the President from his position of authority in the chain of command, without which, Lind herself has no authority to convene the Courts Martial.
  • Lind then reaches outside of the US Military Justice system to the Civil Court, relying upon civil court precedent to deny Lakin any access to discovery and thereby, a proper defense guaranteed him by the US Constitution and UCMJ, Uniform Code of Military Justice. Civil Court precedent has no legal standing in a UCMJ criminal proceeding. In fact, the UCMJ is based upon the Articles of War (aka War Articles) and is a ?penal system? unlike the US Justice System - as explained by Col. William Winthrop in Military Law and Precedents. As a result, precedents set in courts outside of the UCMJ are without legal standing in any UCMJ proceeding.
  • Not even in the UCMJ can the United States government deny the accused his/her right to a trial, complete with discovery of related evidence. Yet Lind attempts to do so, under the authority derived from her Commander-in-Chief. If the chain of command is broken, then Lind herself has no authority.
  • Lind?s statement that the legality of the Commander-in-Chief is ?not relevant? in matters of military command is false on its face. As stated in a sworn affidavit filed by LTG Thomas G. McInerney executed on August 20, 2010 ? ?In refusing to obey orders because of his doubts as to their legality, LTC Lakin has acted exactly as proper training dictates. ? By thus stepping up to the bar, LTC Lakin is demonstrating the courage of his convictions and his bravery. - That said, it is equally essential that he be allowed access to the evidence that will prove whether he made the correct decision.?
  • Lind attempts to break the chain of command at The Pentagon level, which she claims has no issue with the current Commander-in-Chief and that this should be good enough for Lakin. Yet she cannot break this chain of command without eliminating her own authority, and Lakin?s oath requires that he decide for himself whether or not his orders are legal, as affirmed in LTG McInerney?s sworn affidavit.

At issue is not whether or not LTC Lakin refused orders, but rather whether or not he ?unlawfully? refused orders. If his orders were not ?lawful,? including but not limited to, emanating from a ?lawful? chain of command which begins with a lawful Commander-in-Chief, then Lakin must be found NOT GUILTY of ?unlawfully? refusing orders.

At the heart of the matter is whether or not his orders to deploy were ?lawful.?

LTC Lakin has questioned whether or not his deployment orders were ?lawful? on the basis that he believes that the Commander-in-Chief from which those orders are issued, may not be ?lawful,? therefore making any orders from the top of military command ?unlawful.?

To determine whether or not Lakin is correct in his decision to refuse orders, it is paramount to discover with certainty whether or not his orders were issued by a ?lawful? command.

As we know, Article II ? Section I requires that only a ?natural born citizen? of the United States can hold the office of President, Commander-in-Chief.

In this regard, a fatal misstep in the Lakin defense has opened the door for the illegitimate statements now being made by Col. Denise R. Lind.

LTC Lakin failed to directly assert that Barack Hussein Obama is NOT legal in his command on the basis that we know with certainty that he is not a ?natural born citizen,? ? and that LTC Lakin is ?lawfully? refusing to follow orders on this basis.

Instead, LTC Lakin only asked the ?birth place? question and tied that question to whether or not Mr. Obama could and would present an official ?birth certificate? proving once and for all that he was indeed born in Hawaii, making the wrong assumption that if he could and would provide proof of said birth via an official birth certificate, which has never been released to date.

The fatal error revolves around the reality that Obama?s birth place is of no consequence in the matter of his status as a ?natural born citizen? eligible for high Command of the US Military under Article II ? Section I of the Constitution.

Although there is no shortage of opinions on the subject of what the term ?natural born citizen? means, there is no honest debate on the matter either.

Every Supreme Court Justice knows exactly what the term ?natural born citizen? means, where it came from, why it exists in Article II requirements for the office of President and that Barack Hussein Obama is NOT a ?natural born citizen,? indeed ineligible for the office he currently holds.

They know that LTC Lakin is right to ?lawfully? refuse orders from an illegal Command.

We know this on the basis of the following critical facts ?

  • The term ?natural born citizen? is derived from the Law of Nations. An international treaty establishing a set of rules used to establish a ?nation,? the issue of nation and citizen sovereignty, and internationally recognized definitions of universal terms, including the term ?natural born citizen.?
  • The Law of Nations is specifically mentioned in the US Constitution as an enumerated power of Congress under Article I ? Section VIII ? Item X - ?To define and punish offenses against the Law of Nations;? (Note that in the original Constitution, Law of Nations is capitalized, referring specifically to THE Law of Nations.)
  • From Emerich de Vattel?s 1758 book on The Law of Nations, Chapter 19 ? 212. - Of the citizens and natives ? Vattel establishes ? ?in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.?
  • In a letter from Founder John Jay to then President of the Constitutional Convention George Washington, Jay stated - ?Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.?
  • It was later learned that President George Washington had actually taken out Vattel?s book on the Law of Nations from the local library in order to study proper implementation of law in our newly formed nation, and never returned that book.

On the basis of known history and facts behind the Constitutional term ?natural born citizen? which is based upon ?natural law? explained in the Law of Nations as stated referred to in the US Constitution, the proper assertion is not at all related to the actual ?birth place? of Barack Hussein Obama, II. The ongoing search for a Hawaiian birth certificate has no bearing on the subject of ?natural born citizen? status for Barack Hussein Obama, II.

The only relative question is ?

Was Barack Hussein Obama?s birth father a legal citizen of the United States of America at the time of his birth, no matter where in the world he may have been born?

Without a birth father who was a legal citizen of the United States at the time of his birth, Barack Hussein Obama, II cannot be a ?natural born citizen? of the United States of America, he is not without divided national loyalties, and cannot serve as President of the United States or Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military as a result, creating a national security and a full blown Constitutional crisis.

According to the two autobiographical books by Barack Hussein Obama, II ? his birth father is Barack Hussein Obama, a British subject at the time and a legal citizen of Kenya. According to public family history, Barack Hussein Obama was at no time in his life a legal citizen of the United States.

On this basis alone, LTC Lakin is right (and lawful) in refusing to accept orders from an illegal command. The US Constitution and the Law of Nations, upon which our sovereign nation was formed, are very clear on the matter.

As a result, the need for LTC Lakin to gain access to the Hawaiian birth records for Barack Hussein Obama, II is eliminated.

LTC Lakin need only assert the following ?

  • On the basis of Article II ? Section I of the US Constitution, supported by Article I ? Section VIII ? Item X concerning the Law of Nations and the term ?natural born citizen,? - I hereby refuse any and all illegal orders issued by the illegal Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military, President Barack Hussein Obama, on the basis that he does not meet Constitutional requirements for the office he currently holds and must further hereby demand that he be removed from office and immediately relieved of Command of the United States Military. I further assert that due to the illegal status of existing Military high Command that this Court Martial has no authority under which to proceed.

Under this assertion, there is no need for access to the birth records of Barack Hussein Obama, II, unless Mr. Obama chooses to respond by stating that Barack Hussein Obama is not his real birth father, in which case Mr. Obama is admitting to fraud during his pursuit of the Oval Office.

In the event that the UCMJ chooses to challenge the historically accurate definition of the term ?natural born citizen? described herein, the US Supreme Court is the only court in the land with proper authority to rule on the true meaning of the term ?natural born citizen? ? as stated by the Constitutional protections that LTC Lakin has sworn a lifetime to protect and defend.

With this assertion is place, LTC Lakin does not have to prove that his assertions are true and accurate. As Commander-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama must prove that Lakin?s assertion is false in order to proceed with the government prosecution of LTC Lakin on the grounds that he has ?unlawfully? refused orders.
In short, Mr. Obama must prove that his orders are in fact ?lawful.? If Obama is either unable or unwilling to do so, then LTC Lakin is in fact NOT GUILTY of ?unlawfully? refusing orders.

This particular case is not about one soldier refusing deployment orders. It is about a nation allowing a precedent to stand which makes it possible for any individual with any foreign allegiance to hold the highest office in this land, with no obligation whatsoever to demonstrate or prove national loyalties before holding the office of President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief.

This case is about whether or not the US Constitution stands as the official Law of this land.

NOTE: Past challenges on the term ?natural born citizen? have been improperly argued upon cases revolving around the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment relates to ?immigration? and ?naturalization? laws, not ?natural law? used to establish ?natural born citizenship? status of an individual. Therefore, any and all cases pertaining to Fourteenth Amendment arguments are moot on the matter of ?natural born citizen? claims.

Researched and Prepared By:

J.B. Williams and Timothy Harrington
The United States Patriots Union, LLC
Sheridan, Wyoming

Researched and Reviewed By
The United States Bar Association

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 21:52
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar