Update! Officer challenging Obama's eligibility can't see evidence

page: 1
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+5 more 
posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   

A career officer in the U.S. Army 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.

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.


I know some of you will certainly cheer this decision but Lakin is entitled to defend himself.


Jensen had argued that under U.S.C. Rule 46, a defendant put on court martial has the right to call any and all witnesses and obtain any evidence in his or her defense.

Lind, who took 40 minutes to read her decision to the court, disagreed.


This comment made by the judge just has me scratching my head. She doesn't want to be the one to go there obviously.


She said opening up such evidence could be an "embarrassment" to the president, and it's up to Congress to call for impeachment of a sitting president.


Sure it could! It could also be an embarrassment to our nation. But shouldn't this man be allowed to take necessary measures to build his defense?

Granted, Lakin brought this on himself but some argue he that he is simply acting as proper training dictates.

Not one single judge has allowed any cases of this nature to go to the discovery phase. I'm sure that there is a reason. Who's the daddy?? and what was Obama's mother up to?? Who knows? I think we call all rule out a Kenyan birth though.

Here's the rest of the scoop www.wnd.com...

[edit on 2-9-2010 by jibeho]



+1 more 
posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I sure as hell hope that our military is watching this! If this it true then I seriously think it is time for those of you who serve our country to put their foot down. This should say a lot to all of you! I hope also, the jury makes the proper decision. I think it is time for this guy to go. What a pice of $&!%!



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by xyankee
I hope also, the jury makes the proper decision. I think it is time for this guy to go. What a pice of $&!%!


Yes, the jury will decide he is guilty, and the piece of $&!% will probably be dishonourably discharged


+7 more 
posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


nope! I was referring to the pice of # that refuses to prove where he was born! I can’t even acknowledge he holds that title, he makes me so sick!



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by xyankee
nope! I was referring to the pice of # that refuses to prove where he was born!


You cannot be talking about Obama, the proper POTUS, as he has already proved where he was born, so who are you talking about then?



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   
If every crackpot out there who wanted to challenge the President was able to call him as a defense witness, he'd NEVER get any work done.

I believe the judge to be correct in this ruling. Allowing this Lt Col access to unspecified records needs to go through the appropriate avenues.

The President;s documents for eligibility have all been entered into the public record. The courts is not the place to challenge the sitting President, this has to be done by Congress, under the rules of the Constitution of the United States.

This guy needs to take this up with his Congressperson, not a military court. As the Judge said, the authority follows the chain of command, and the Colonel's immediate superiors are whom he follows orders from, not directly from the President. The Colonel should be fully court martialled and dishonorably discharged.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by xyankee
nope! I was referring to the pice of # that refuses to prove where he was born!


You cannot be talking about Obama, the proper POTUS, as he has already proved where he was born, so who are you talking about then?


Give me a brake! You know exactly who I am talking about. Just like YOU know he is a fraud! I wish I could show you and Southern Guardian in person, just what change is, but I don’t think you can follow a map between the two of you. (based on you brain capacity). If you feel you would like to tackle that challenge PM me!



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   
actually it is a travesty of justice...

he can call anyone wants by the LAW....

the judge took it upon here self to judge before hearing the evidence the outcome that MAY result from the evidence requested. Not from the evidence itself.

It is a major violation of what justice stands for. The evidence has not been presented. So no conclusions can be legally or even morally ascertained pretrial. The evidence was not heard, due to ASSUMED political outcomes.

What congress may or may not due in response to the evidence HAS NO BEARING ON THE CASE. The case is about an Officers grounds for not following an order and if they have merit.

For the doubters its the merit part not the political part that is the concern of the court.



Its a win for injustice and tyranny.. I hope someone tells him he can appeal to the supreme court of the United states from his court martial. They are the only court that can OVERTURN this. This is what is called grounds to remand back to the lower court (the court martial court)


+5 more 
posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


All it would take is to see the REAL birth certificate, passport records and one colleges financial records.

It would not take Obama being there.

Yes, we already know that Obama is untouchable. He could be the lizard man from Axtar 7, and no one would have standing.

The government, the military and no one in Law enforcement will do anything about the destruction of the US and the coming global governance. They are part of the elite, so they want more power. That is what they do.

You do not question them.

For the military court to say that the evidence cannot be acquired, the case against the officer will have to be dropped. The jury of his fellow officers will not convict, and they will have to either A, let him retire with full honors, or B convict without allowing evidence to be presented. Which leads to the destruction of another court system in the US.

Let us see, no one has standing to question the government. No one has standing or is allowed the evidence in the military.

Do you still think there is relief to grievance in our government?

Oh well, you will get to choose between choice A or B in a little while, that should change everything. /s

I no longer consent to be governed by these so called representatives.

Later.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by xyankee
You know exactly who I am talking about.


No, you sound very confused. Obama has shown his birth certificate, so it was not him.


Just like YOU know he is a fraud!


How can he be a fraud, all the proper procedures to vet and elect him were followed


I wish I could show you and Southern Guardian in person, just what change is


I know what change is, the USA changed parties running the country, and as the person you voted for did not win yiou are very bitter and twisted about Obama winning.


(based on you brain capacity).


You should talk, you have shown by your refusal to accept that Obama is the proper POTUS to have very little brain capacity.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   
I may be too stupid to work this here internet thingy, but i have YET to see the birth certificate, passport records or any other thing that would prove this guy is a proper natural born citizen of the US.

Does that make me a birther? guess so. Don't wanta be.

If I have to abide by the law, then the president does too.

Thanks your highness, oops, meant your honor for speeding along the destruction of this ONCE great country. If this Lt Col? can't have the evidence admitted, that may or may not exonerate him, the charges must be dropped and at worse he be given what's it called a section 238 - service retirement in lieu of other administrative action? or something similar.

I will not be bullied by anyone who can't abide by THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. The Constitution.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
I have a feeling that behind closed doors, the GOP is painfully aware of the ongoing eligibility dispute. However, because they are in the minority and have NO control of Congress, they are unable to do anything about it.

If the GOP wins in November, and takes control of the House, or the House AND Senate, I believe they will launch investigations. Any action will HAVE to come from Congress NOT from the courts.

If the GOP wins both houses, look for BO to either resign or face impeachment.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
There might be a military coup in the country.

That's what I think might happen.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by rbnhd76
I may be too stupid to work this here internet thingy, but i have YET to see the birth certificate,


Have you looked? Where is Bush's birth certificate, or Clinton's or any other previous presidents birth certificate?


passport records


I have not seen your passport records, or any previous Presidents either, does that mean none should have been President?


or any other thing that would prove this guy is a proper natural born citizen of the US.


Where are those records for all the previous POTUS's?


If I have to abide by the law, then the president does too.


Which law do you think Obama has not abided by? Why do yiou think that?


I will not be bullied by anyone who can't abide by THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. The Constitution.


So who is not abiding by the Constitution?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


The judge in this instance needs to be impeached and disbarred.

Lakin should file suit against the judge demanding her dismissal.

The thing about military courts martial though, the prosecution is going to have a hell of a time convincing the jury.

The jury is all military officers, and if even one of them has any inkling of doubt about Obama's eligibility, he will deadlock the trial (as he should).

The officer is guaranteed that highly educated, intelligent, constitutionally minded individuals will be on his jury.

I think he's going to walk.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by coastalite
If the GOP wins both houses, look for BO to either resign or face impeachment.


On what grounds? You must not realise that you actually need grounds to impeach a President....



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by coastalite
If the GOP wins both houses, look for BO to either resign or face impeachment.


You must not realise that you actually need grounds to impeach a President....


President?

I didn't know foreign-born people could be President? Something change?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Even without entering into evidence any necessary documentation regarding Obama's birth, and even in a military trial, the principle of mens rea still applies.


As an element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent. Guilty knowledge and wilfulness.


Right or wrong, Lt. Col. Larkin is clearly acting upon the dictates of his own conscience, and it seems to be his argument that he is acting upon the oath he took to uphold and defend the Constitution. It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove mens rea, that is to say, they must prove that Lt. Col. Larkin acted knowing that he was committing a crime.

In 1474 Peter von Hagenbach, a Bourguignon knight, was put on trial for atrocities and war crimes, and was found guilty, becoming the first instance of an international acceptance that military commanders act lawfully. Of course, mens rea is normally spoken of in terms of military commanders who allowed atrocities to happen by their rank and file even when knowing it was unlawful, but the inverse of that thought is that when a commander acts lawfully, or believes they are acting lawfully, then there is no criminal intent.

Under this principle, it seems it would be difficult to find Lt. Col. Larkin guilty of any crime. If the belief is that all commanders act lawfully, and part of that lawfulness is that the Commander and Chief be a natural born citizen of the United States, and Larkin believes the Commander in Chief is not a lawful officer of the Executive Branch, and given no evidence can be admitted into trial regarding the veracity of this belief, then it seems it will come down to mens rea, or the mindset of Lt. Col. Larkin.

ETA: Conversely, if Larkin believes he is commissioned in the military under an unlawful Commander in Chief, the honorable thing to do may very well be to resign his commission and leave the military, rather than stay and defy orders. If the belief is that the Commander in Chief is not the lawful Executive mandated by Constitution, the arguably all orders made, and even the military trial itself is suspect, and Larkin is in the untenable position of either staying and accepting the situation as is, or leaving and truly acting under the dictates of his own conscience.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Why does every case end before ANY evidence is put on the table from either side. There has yet to be a legal determination of the potus standing. I am not on either side I just want to see a fair examination of the records to finally resolve the issue. Obama supporters will say even if he proves it birthers will not end, but that is garbage. why not prove it and be done with it? by not proving it in a court of law, any court of law, the question is still unanswered. just because he is president does not mean that it is valid.



new topics
top topics
 
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join