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.

 

"Judge" rules against Lakin's defense "Obama's eligibility is 'not relevent'"

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
DakotaVoice
(Not sure about the sources but it seems like easily trackable information)

Lieutenant Colonel Dr. Terry Lakin, an Army officer in his 18th year of service, decided to get a court marshal instead of returning to service because he believes Barack Obama is not a native born citizen of this country and is not eligible for the office of President. This has been covered many times on ATS..

Sept 2nd - a person acting as a judge has decided that Lakin's defense, to prove Obama is not eligible to be president, is not a valid defense! One of the reasons given was that it could be "an embarrassment" to the President.
you damn right!!



Last Thursday, September 2nd, a woman Army colonel acting as a judge in the prosecution of LTC Lakin ruled to deny his defense team discovery of any documentary proof that Barack Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States. What she has done is gutted LTC Lakin’s very defense, which is despicable.


From the primary source:
WorldNetDaily


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.


Lakin's attorney challenged the court using U.S.C. Rule 46...


Paul Rolf Jensen, Lakin's civilian attorney, said the case would continue. But he said the courts now have denied his client the opportunity to present his defense.

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.





edit on 14-9-2010 by Thermo Klein because: added "native born" in front of citizen.




edit on 14-9-2010 by Thermo Klein because: typo




posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Someone took "embarrassment" out of context in order to give a completely different view of what was actually said. Are you at all familiar with the use of that word as a legal term?

As far as eligibility, how is it relevant to his defense? He is on trial for failing to appear. He has no proof of what he claims is his defense, he asked the court to go out and prove it for him. That is not how it works. He was given an order. He failed to follow it. He is in trouble. He has to have a good reason. He did not have one.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
One of the reasons given was that it could be "an embarrassment" to the President.


This has been discussed here before, and your reasoning is wrong


What she has done is gutted LTC Lakin’s very defense, which is despicable.


why is it despicable? It is not relevant to his court martial - read the earlier threads, all is explained



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   
this is not some private on AWOL - it's a Lt Col with 18 years of excellent service who purposefully, with discretion and clarity chose to go public against Obama. I agree with some of your points but his standing should have some merit... guess it doesn't work that way.

I wonder if this can go to a non-military court?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
One of the reasons given was that it could be "an embarrassment" to the President.


This has been discussed here before, and your reasoning is wrong



Where? got a link? This just happened last week. he news article used the term "an embarrassment" what do YOU think it means?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
I wonder if this can go to a non-military court?


No, he is in the military and disobeyed orders - so it goes to a military court



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
this is not some private on AWOL - it's a Lt Col with 18 years of excellent service who purposefully, with discretion and clarity chose to go public against Obama. I agree with some of your points but his standing should have some merit... guess it doesn't work that way.

I wonder if this can go to a non-military court?


I do not understand what his length of service has to do with this though. Maybe you can clarify a little? It should have some merit, but it does not. The reason it does not is because his claim has no merit. His claim should have some merit, but it does not. Maybe I am not seeing it the same way you are. Help me out.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Embarrassment:

noun

1.Self-conscious distress: abashment, chagrin, confusion, discomfiture, discomposure. See pain/pleasure.
2.A condition of going or being beyond what is needed, desired, or appropriate: excess, excessiveness, exorbitance, extravagance, extravagancy, extravagantness, overabundance, plethora, superabundance, superfluity, superfluousness, surfeit. See excess/insufficiency/enough.

right...

maybe some people feel proving his eligibility is "beyond what is needed" (embarrassment) - I don't agree.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


I actually agree with you - he could have claimed "the gov't is going to attack little green men on Mars" so he refuses to go back in service... I appreciate LTC Lakin's sacrifice but maybe this isn't the way to do it.

I'm just reporting this... don't take this as my truth. I personally feel Obama is ineligible, for many reasons and I hope some judge in America allows this to progress without throwing out evidence for no reason, as seen in some previous cases.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
I personally feel Obama is ineligible, for many reasons and I hope some judge in America allows this to progress without throwing out evidence for no reason, as seen in some previous cases.


In no case about Obama was evidence thrown out for no reason - care to state the cases where that was done?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
One of the reasons given was that it could be "an embarrassment" to the President.


This has been discussed here before, and your reasoning is wrong



Where? got a link? This just happened last week. he news article used the term "an embarrassment" what do YOU think it means?


Is this to Dereks or me?

Here is one such the thread That I found concerning this topic.

Embarrassment in legal context

As we previously noted, in its New decision, quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217, 218 (1962), CAAF observed that “judicial review of ‘a political question’ is precluded where the Court finds . . . ‘the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question. ’” United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95, 108-09 (C.A.A.F. 2001). And in her ruling, here’s how Judge Lind used “embarrassment”: “The potential for embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question are uniquely powerful to ensure that courts-martial do not become the vehicle for adjudicating the legality of poltiical decisions and to ensure the military’s capacity to maintain good order and discipline in the armed forces.”

In other words, Judge Lind used the word “embarrassment” in precisely the political question doctrine context (and using almost exactly the same words) as CAAF in New and the Supremes in Baker v. Carr. And all the breathless birther commentary saying that she was attempting to avoid personal embarrassment to President Obama is just so much guano.
CAAFlog



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Which legal dictionary did you refer to in order to get that definition?

It looks like an ordinary English definition to me. Different words mean different things when used in different specialized fields.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Fair enough. If you question Obama then that is your own thing for another topic but I am glad that we seem to at least come close on the premise that this defense is rather faulty.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


If you can't be the president then you have no right to send our troops off to war! Is there anyone that can say yep we seen his proof he was born here and can be the leader of this country? Its not a hard thing to do show a copy of a birth certificate mine is in a drawer in the bed room! His court martial is because he wants proof he is going off to war for a legitimate leader, Facing death it don't seem too much to ask to me! Show the man and he will go to war today! He has never said He wont go,Just prove to me this guy has the authority to send me!



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by slinger
 


He needs to have proof Obama is not the legal president. Obama has indeed proved his legitimacy to hold that office. He has shown his birth certificate. This is all just circular nonsense to keep you busy not paying attention to anything real. The last time you had to show your birth certificate to someone for something, did you give me a copy?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by slinger
Its not a hard thing to do show a copy of a birth certificate mine is in a drawer in the bed room!


And Obama's is posted on the web.... why are you ignoring that?


Just prove to me this guy has the authority to send me!


Well, Obama is the proper POTUS, so how much more proof do you need?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
I'm just reporting this... don't take this as my truth. I personally feel Obama is ineligible, for many reasons and I hope some judge in America allows this to progress without throwing out evidence for no reason, as seen in some previous cases.

Sorry, but I actually laughed out loud at this. Federal judges write these things called "decisions", in which they elucidate their reasons for their rulings. So I guess the explanation in the twenty or so page ruling from Judge Land for Rhodes v MacDonald was just "no reason".



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Why are people still hung up on this issue? Please do try and give me a good reason to care, other than the idea of stripping Obama of the Presidency (which many right-wing conservatives so badly want).

He's already part of the Globalist Elite and it honestly doesn't matter where he was born.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Personally I think that the "embarassment" will not be on Obama, but on the people who vetted him and vouched for him and the USA's credibility to other nations of the Earth.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   
This article is dated September 2nd. (NOT a current event) and there was an 18-page thread about it:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


edit on 9/14/2010 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join