It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



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?
Most certainly, my dear, as in friend!

No, he does not have proof, you are certainly correct on that point.

He wants the birth certificate, as proof that his Commander in Chief is valid in his position as POTUS.

If a person is on trial, and the prosecution holds exculpatory evidence, they are bound to provide it to the defense.

This evidence would strengthen the prosecutions case, and do wonders for Obamas credibility. Why not just play that card(the BC) and put it all to rest? Shut everyone up, put the defendant in Leavenworth or drum him out with dishonor!

Why hide what is good? That is all I am wondering about. Seems weird to me.

Later sweetie!

P.S. I starred your last post, you have valid points there!


[edit on 3-9-2010 by butcherguy]




posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
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.



Based on what obama has "accomplished" so far, anything that helps him do less work would probably be a plus.

Carry on ...



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
Yes there has, which is why Obama was sworn in as the POTUS

Even the swearing-in ceremony was questionable. Selective memory?



I am not on either side I just want to see a fair examination of the records to finally resolve the issue.


Yet you never asked to see any previous Presidents birth certificate.... so you are a birther!

I dunno, maybe it's because he's an immigrant?


Obama HAS proved it, he even posted his birth certificate - something no previous POTUS has done, but the birthers have not stopped and are still whining!

Yet it was not made available to the court for inspection.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
Most certainly, my dear, as in friend!


Thank you.




No, he does not have proof, you are certainly correct on that point.

He wants the birth certificate, as proof that his Commander in Chief is valid in his position as POTUS.


Yes, that's what he wants, but he has no legal right to it. And, as I have said, ACCESS to that would prove his case WRONG, wouldn't it? You can't blackmail the courts. In other words, you can't say, "I'm going to disobey my orders unless you guys PROVE to me that I'm wrong in doing so".
By asking for proof of Obama's eligibility, he's asking to be proven wrong. You can't go into court saying, "I need evidence that proves my case wrong". You have to bring evidence that proves that you are right.
In other words, Lakin can PRESENT evidence, like a Kenyan birth certificate or some such, but he cannot DEMAND access to something that will prove him wrong.



If a person is on trial, and the prosecution holds exculpatory evidence, they are bound to provide it to the defense.


The prosecution is charging him with disobeying an order. They have proof that he disobeyed the order. That's all they need. They have no exculpatory evidence. Such evidence doesn't exist. A Kenyan or British birth certificate doesn't exist. That would be the only thing that could possibly clear Lakin.



This evidence would strengthen the prosecutions case, and do wonders for Obamas credibility. Why not just play that card(the BC) and put it all to rest?


The judge doesn't care about strengthening the prosecution's case. That's not what the judge is interested in. The judge is interested in the law. Following court procedures. They're dealing with a 'disobeying an order' case. Not a presidential eligibility case.

From the original source:



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.





posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by xyankee
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 $&!%!


This is a Court Martial, not a trial in an Article III Court. There is no jury. There is a Court-Martial Panel, hand picked by the Convening Authority, the guy's CO. And if the OP is correct that the guy is relying on USC 46 for his authority, no wonder he's losing.United States CodeTitle 46 has to do with shipping and the merchant marine.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno

As Obama was Elected by the Electoral College, confirmed by the Senate and sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, doesn't that make Obama the POTUS and thus the legal commander in chief of the armed forces of these United States?

Not saying I want this guy to get in any trouble mind you, I think he should just be sent home. If he doesn't want to be in the military he should just quit.



If he's not a natural-born citizen, then he doesn't fit the criteria for eligibility.

As a constitutional lawyer and college professor he knows more this than most of the people who voted for him. To knowingly violate the law calls his motives into question.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
Birthers, have some fun - look up the following court case from the US District Court, Middle District of Georgia, Columbus Division for a fantastic explanation as to why judges are simply throwing out cases involving using the POTUS's origin as a legal defense:

Rhodes v. MacDonald, Case No. 4:09-CV-106 (CDL), Filed 16 Sep 2009

From the judge's ruling on the case:


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. See Federal Election Commission, Presidential Pre-Nomination Campaign Disbursements Dec. 31, 2008, www.fec.gov... (last visited Sept. 15, 2009). Then the President faced a formidable opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President. Press Release, Federal Election Commission, 2008 Presidential Campaign Financial Activity Summarized (June 8, 2009), available at www.fec.gov... 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”).


Is that black-and-white enough for you? The Congress that you are calling on to impeach him has unanimously declared, for the public record, that he was born in the US. Get up, get over it, move on.


You've misquoted your own citation.

It would have been kinda weird for a congressman to vote against commemorating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii's statehood. That would have led to arguments about Obama's eligibility, which would have led to a delay in the commemoration ceremony.

What's even weirder is that Hawaii has been fighting against the US federal government in an effort to not only assert its 10th amendment sovereignty, but also to become a sovereign nation.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
If he's not a natural-born citizen, then he doesn't fit the criteria for eligibility.


You are 100% right! And what evidence did Lakin present that showed that Obama is not a natural-born citizen?



**crickets**



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
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.



So far, the only proof provided for Obama being born in the US has been a short-form birth certificate which could have easily been falsified.

His paternal relatives conversely claim that he was born in Kenya,



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
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.
Why should he have to when you guys haven't brought up any valid evidence whatsoever to back up your irrational claims? For instance, I can say McCain runs a secret prostitution ring, but without evidence it's just as valid as saying the president of the United States somehow managed to get elected for president despite not being an American Citizen, and his opponent for some inexplicable reason decided not to use this to his advantage (especially with the VP he had), and the people who elected I guess were too distracted by his charming smile to notice he wasn't born here. Oh, and I guess the editors of the newspaper proving he was born in Hawaii didn't notice it either.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


The credibility and possible bias of Factcheck.org has already been questioned.

You seem to forget that in America they pay people to retrieve documents. It's not like Barack Obama himself would be dialing in the combination lock.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by DEEZNUTZ
 


You sure are a fan of ad-hominem attacks.

Second line.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You are 100% right! And what evidence did Lakin present that showed that Obama is not a natural-born citizen?
**crickets**


Birthers seem very confused about this court case. Obama is not on trial, he has nothing to do with this case. Larkin is the one making the silly claims, he has to back that claim up.

Obama does not have to prove he is the proper POTUS, Larkin has to prove Obama is not.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
If the pres. didn't have anything to hide he wouldn't have spent all that money HIDING HIS RECORDS.Whats the matter with everybody has it come to this??we can't see through his lies,everytime the man gets up to speak he's lying!!!!ARE WE ALL UNDER MIND CONTROL.OMG I WON'T BE ABLE TO SLEEP TONIGHT,this is the man that gives the okdokey to use nukes?I DON'T THINK SO,the col is the only one to have the guts to actually stand up and say it!!!!If we had more Col.Lankins our country wouldn't be in the shape its in!!!!



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
His paternal relatives conversely claim that he was born in Kenya,



Originally posted by TWILITE22
If the pres. didn't have anything to hide he wouldn't have spent all that money HIDING HIS RECORDS.


It's amazing to me that these two pieces of information that have been disproved SO many times are still being bandied about as fact... Just AMAZING! Neither of these are true, guys.
But I don't want to let facts get in your way.

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



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TWILITE22
If the pres. didn't have anything to hide he wouldn't have spent all that money HIDING HIS RECORDS.


Please show proof Obama spent "all that money hiding his records"

That is just another birther lie....

[edit on 3/9/10 by dereks]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
Obama is not on trial, he has nothing to do with this case. Larkin is the one making the silly claims, he has to back that claim up.


This is what I meant in my first post. A lot of people here don't know how the law works.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TWILITE22
 


I agree, but also we couldnt have everyone in the military, doing and saying whatever they want. That would not be good.

Although it would make history if the Amred forces pulled back its support of a sitting President. Wow I could only imagine, syocks would plunge other counries would look to invade, I think that the trial is a must.

He was swore in as President. Thats the fact. An officer recieves his power from the president. It is not up to a military officer to question the president and if he is a citizen. Regardless he is still the President.

It is up to civilions to take up this court battle, well it should be the DOJ but they dont realy represent the people, they represent the white house. It will be up to the new rupublican congress next year to decide if they would want to take further action on this.

Also if he gets impeached would we realy want Biden or god forbid Pelosi filling in till the next election.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 





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.


Absolute rubbish!

If the proof is provided, concrete and unequivocal - it would only need be presented once, not every five minutes!

The law is the law, the POTUS is NOT above it and is subject to it's vagaries just as the rest of us are.

He is a president, not a deity.

Being voted into an office, even a high office, certainly doesn't make one immune from prosecution or automatically pure of intent and deed, it simply means he had wealth and wealthy backers enough, to enable him to convince more of YOU to scribble an X in one box rather than another.

The primary linchpin of any democratic civilization, HAS to be the rule of law, to which every human being participating within that jurisdiction, is subject.

Without it, we no longer have that civilization. Instead we would have a totalitarian dictatorship.

The 'leader' of that democratic civilization, in fact - ESPECIALLY the leader, ought to go the extra mile to accommodate the law, EVEN dare i say at the expense of a fleeting presidential blush or two.

A brief and magnanimous surrender of presidential pride, is preferable to destabilizing and making a mockery of the rule of law, and the good standing of an entire nation.

TPTB are often fond of claiming, in defense of wire tapping or civil spying; that the public who are innocent or have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear from being 'monitored' by the state...is the same then not true of the one, single guy that MILLIONS of YOU guys voted into his current position?

As for the the guy who's going to be hung out to dry by the military kangaroo court, if the law states that as a defendant he has the LEGAL right to call whomever he wishes as a witness, or have produced whatever exhibit he wishes in support of his defense, then the court is legally obligated to oblige.

If he is then denied those basic legal rights when being accused of and prosecuted for an alleged crime, the 'trial' in itself then becomes illegal if he is denied the right to make his case for his defense. It also makes a laughing stock of the law, and erodes it's authority significantly.



Either follow the rule of law, or dismiss the case. The court cannot claim a legal moral high ground, by running roughshod over those very legalities put in place to protect the innocent from tyranny from the state.

It's akin to any one of us being charged for a crime we did not commit, and taken before a court to be tried for the crime, and not permitted to assemble a case in our own defense!



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


You are the one not following the rule of law.

At this point you would have to prove that Obama is ineligible for the office. You can't just demand that he prove his innocence. You have to prove him guilty.

As he has already shown positive proof that he was born in Hawaii, you would have to provide evidence to show that he wasn't. And at this point the courts cannot decide this according to the Constitution, the Senate is the only ones that can bring forth a case against the POTUS.

[edit on 9/3/2010 by whatukno]



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join