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

reply to post by Starbug3MY


Sorry, according to the 14th Amendment you are wrong.

It doesn't matter who his father is, he was born on American soil, that makes him an American citizen by birth. (and thus a natural born citizen)

The United States does not recognize the laws of other countries on it's citizens.

Originally posted by xyankee
reply to post by CoherentlyConfused

 

I think that there should be a re-election! because every one of his party should be hung! Period. They all are guilty by association. Don’t think for one second that this whole thing was an accident. It was well planed out right through the vetting process. If there is going to be change we need to have open elections with out the need to belong to a party!

There you go, ladies and gentlemen. Right from the horses mouth. Anyone who doesn't agree with this fine example of a birther deserves to be executed. Enjoy your one-party totalitarian state.

OK but it proves that his father was never an American. What about the other "missing" records / documentation? Just let the people see it and be done with it. Why does he resist so tenaciously? He must have something to hide.

reply to post by whatukno


Yet the same "president" can involve the UN....you know, a foreign entity to try and intervene on the behalf of civil rights for illegals. Gimme a break, he hasn't proven anything, and never will......this is truely terrible what this judge has done.

Originally posted by jibeho
This comment made by the judge just has me scratching my head.

After reading through this thread, it's clear that a lot of you don't understand the law and how it works.

Lakin is facing court martial for "failure to appear" or whatever they call it. He can bring witnesses and see ANY evidence related to his failure to appear. He's there to prove that he is not guilty of failure to appear. His REASONS are irrelevant.

It's like if you suspected that your wife was having an affair, so you killed her. Now, you go to trial. It is not the court's job to prove to you that your wife was faithful and you were wrong in your suspicion.

That's what Lakin is asking for here. To be proven wrong. But the fact is, he didn't appear. That's the only relevant issue in this case. The reason he didn't appear could be that he believed the chocolate monster would eat him if he did. It's not the court's job to prove to him that there is no chocolate monster.

[edit on 9/3/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by iterationzero


In all that mumble jumbo I still didn't see a valid birth certificate? If the guy has one and is able to hold office legally what is the big problem of just releasing this info to the courts? Put yourself in this mans shoes, if it were You in his position and the court said we are not going to let you use that evidence in your defense. That is just another perversion of the court system, no one in this land is above the law, no one.

reply to post by rbnhd76

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

Bravo.

This man should be entitled to present his defense, it is his constitutional right.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

The reason he didn't appear could be that he believed the chocolate monster would eat him if he did. It's not the court's job to prove to him that there is no chocolate monster.

His reason that he didn't appear is that he does not have to take orders from a commander-in-chief that is not holding his office through lawful means.

I do not suppose to know where Obama was born, but this is the nut that this soldier is looking to crack in his case. He obviously manufactured this case against him to get to this very point.

I think that his superior would want to put him in his place, especially if all that superior has to do is show his birth certificate.

Seems weird that the CinC would not want to keep the officers in our armed forces in line, at such a small price, no?

Thanks for posting Jib. I have been out of touch on the subject and it was nice to see the update.

I think I have to go with what B.H. indicated in her response. I am not familary with Military Law but it does make sense IMO-of course.

take care.

reply to post by jibeho


Think about it.

What if one challenged Bush's or Clintons eligibility?

You'd get the same result. But because of irrational beliefs of people who deny evidence contrary to their beliefs then the military should stop following orders of the president?

Originally posted by jaynkeel
reply to post by iterationzero

 

In all that mumble jumbo I still didn't see a valid birth certificate?

Is that a question or a statement regarding the "mumble jumbo" I posted? Do you expect me to post a valid copy of his birth certificate? It's been done.

If the guy has one and is able to hold office legally what is the big problem of just releasing this info to the courts?

He has, and multiple times. You should have read in my "mumble jumbo" that he had to produce one in order to even run for president, or didn't you bother actually reading it? A copy was released to factcheck.org, which you can read about for yourself...

www.factcheck.org...

Put yourself in this mans shoes, if it were You in his position and the court said we are not going to let you use that evidence in your defense. That is just another perversion of the court system, no one in this land is above the law, no one.

Put yourself in the President's shoes - you're faced with a country divided over partisanship, you're in the middle of a financial crisis, you're in the middle of two wars, and everyone wants you to fix it fix it fix it now now now. You can either spend your time producing the same documents over and over for every crackpot that wants to assert, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that you're not the legit POTUS. Or you can actually do your job.

Face it, it doesn't matter what documentation he provides. The birthers will simply deny its authenticity, as they already have, and continue the crusade. Ignoring them is a far better option.

Originally posted by butcherguy
His reason that he didn't appear is that he does not have to take orders from a commander-in-chief that is not holding his office through lawful means.

And if he had evidence to prove his position (that the president is unlawful) we'd be having a very different discussion right now, but he has NO EVIDENCE. His thoughts and fears are not evidence. He would have to provide evidence of his reason for it to be taken in a legal manner.

I think that his superior would want to put him in his place, especially if all that superior has to do is show his birth certificate.

Obama has proven his eligibility already. He is under no obligation to prove it again or further.

reply to post by whatukno


Lol no sorry let me clear that up. I was referring to his administration. Any one who conspired or contributed to this fraud.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


There is plenty of evidence but you won’t accept it. All of which raise reasonable suspicion which in a normal situation would allow a court order to discovery. But if every time we get "No way” sorry too bad. How can proof be provided. I mean you really don’t have a problem with this? Don’t you like to know the real facts? I just don’t see how anyone who calls them self an American can support this. I say that with the fact that I don’t care if it was Bush or anyone else. It is the morally right thing to do. Even if it was Ron Paul or someone I liked and voted for, I would want the answer cleared up!

I just think you guys are afraid of the outcome. You know it and will fight tooth and nail to keep it hidden. When a honest person would want to know the truth no matter how much it hurt! You have no dignity.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

He would have to provide evidence of his reason for it to be taken in a legal manner.

I thought that was what he was trying to do.

Someone was standing in the way according to his side of the story.



[edit on 3-9-2010 by butcherguy]

I'm sorry "Birthers" but Lakin didn't follow his orders and he is guilty of that. You don't get to think in the military you are obligated to follow the orders or your superiors. The judge was right in her decision.


Do you people really think the GOP would have let this issue go in the campaign if there was any shred of proof that he was not eligible? McCain and Palin would have been all over it!

It's sad to say but I think racism plays a major role in the "Birther" movement. Get over it people, a black man is President.

Lakin should be happy if he gets dishonourably discharged, he could get jail time if warranted.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

After reading through this thread, it's clear that a lot of you don't understand the law and how it works.

This is an amusing assertion given that you follow this assertion up with this remark:

Lakin is facing court martial for "failure to appear" or whatever they call it. He can bring witnesses and see ANY evidence related to his failure to appear. He's there to prove that he is not guilty of failure to appear. His REASONS are irrelevant.

Or whatever they call it? That's a bit sloppy for someone insisting a lot of other members in this thread do not understand the law and how it works.

For your edification, Lakin was charged with; missing a movement, disobeying a lawful order, and dereliction of duty. If Lakin believes that the order, in light of the question regarding the Commander in Chiefs actual birth place, was not lawful, and given that no evidence will be allowed into the trial to prove this, then it does indeed come down to mens rea, or his mindset regarding intent, and that is arguably that he did not believe he was disobeying a lawful order.

In terms of dereliction of duty, one of those duties is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and again, since no evidence can be entered to show why he believes that the Commander in Chief is not a natural born citizen, then again it comes down to mens rea.

That's what Lakin is asking for here. To be proven wrong.

Lakin is not asking to be proven wrong, and even in a military trial the burden of proof still belongs with the prosecution, and all service members are presumed to be innocent.

But the fact is, he didn't appear.

It appears to be a fact that he did indeed miss a movement, and for this charge he may very well be found guilty. He may also be found guilty for the other two charges of disobeying a lawful order, and dereliction of duty, but in these two charges it is up to the prosecution to prove he had criminal intent when disobeying this order, and being derelict in his duty.

reply to post by DEEZNUTZ

You don't get to think in the military you are obligated to follow the orders or your superiors.

This is an officer that we are speaking about, I should hope that we have officers in our military that can, and are allowed to think.

I hope that George Washington, U.S. Grant, John Pershing, Carl Spaatz, D.D. Eisenhower, and so many others didn't just do what they did by accident. I would like to believe that they were thinking the whole time, and that each of their Commander in Chiefs fully expected them to.

If you don't think officers buck their superiors when they are wrong, you are sadly mistaken. I am sure Custer would have liked for Marcus Reno to stay and get slaughtered too, but he and his men ran.

I would bet Lt. William Calley wished he had disobeyed the unlawful orders that he carried out, for which he did prison time.



[edit on 3-9-2010 by butcherguy]

Originally posted by xyankee
There is plenty of evidence but you won’t accept it.

Not me, hon. The courts. He would have to bring evidence to the courts.

. I mean you really don’t have a problem with this? Don’t you like to know the real facts? I just don’t see how anyone who calls them self an American can support this. I say that with the fact that I don’t care if it was Bush or anyone else. It is the morally right thing to do. Even if it was Ron Paul or someone I liked and voted for, I would want the answer cleared up!

The answer is cleared up. I know the real facts. I don't have a problem with this at all. I'm not sure what you have a problem with.

I just think you guys are afraid of the outcome.

What guys?

You have no dignity.

Excuse me? What are you talking about?

Originally posted by butcherguy
I thought that was what he was trying to do.

Someone was standing in the way according to his side of the story.

What do you mean? Did he have proof that Obama is unlawfully the president? What is it? What do you mean, someone was standing in his way? Can you explain?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
For your edification, Lakin was charged with; missing a movement, disobeying a lawful order, and dereliction of duty.

Thanks. I didn't know the exact charges. That doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. And did he have evidence that shows these charges are unfounded? If so, he can present it. Apparently he didn't.

If Lakin believes that the order, in light of the question regarding the Commander in Chiefs actual birth place, was not lawful, and given that no evidence will be allowed into the trial to prove this, then it does indeed come down to mens rea, or his mindset regarding intent, and that is arguably that he did not believe he was disobeying a lawful order.

Lakin has to PROVIDE some evidence of his assertion. What wasn't allowed was access to Obama's personal papers. They are not preventing Lakin from providing evidence, they are denying him access to Obama's personal papers.

In terms of dereliction of duty, one of those duties is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and again, since no evidence can be entered to show why he believes that the Commander in Chief is not a natural born citizen, then again it comes down to mens rea.

No where does it say that he can't enter evidence. If he has evidence that Obama isn't lawful, he can present it. He just can't have ACCESS to personal papers that would prove his case wrong.

Lakin is not asking to be proven wrong, and even in a military trial the burden of proof still belongs with the prosecution, and all service members are presumed to be innocent.

Isn't he demanding Obama's birth certificate? A birth certificate saying Obama was born in Hawaii would prove Lakin WRONG.

It appears to be a fact that he did indeed miss a movement, and for this charge he may very well be found guilty. He may also be found guilty for the other two charges of disobeying a lawful order, and dereliction of duty, but in these two charges it is up to the prosecution to prove he had criminal intent when disobeying this order, and being derelict in his duty.

I disagree. I think it's up to the prosecution to prove he disobeyed a lawful order. Obama is the president. The man had his orders. He disobeyed. It's pretty clear.