Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by For WorldNetDaily, Thom Redmond

BORN IN THE USA?
Judge to Lakin: Find another defense

Rules that officer challenging Obama's eligibility can't see evidence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 02, 2010 4:16 pm Eastern

By Thom Redmond
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin

FT. MEADE, Md. – 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.

[quote="[url=http://ironicsurrealism.blogivists.com/2010/08/31/obama-dept-of-justice-rips-stars-and-stripes-from-site-header/]On Aug. 31, 2010, velvethammer[/url]"]Ironic Surrealism v3.0

It is not fear that grips me… only a heightened sense of things.

Obama Dept. of Justice Rips Stars and Stripes from Site Header[size=117]

Old all American version:



New stark black and white version:



Go have a look for yourself.

Via Bruce Cunningham at American Thinker who provides insight to the quote chosen to grace the header:
[list][i]“The common law is the will of mankind, issuing from the life of the people.â€

In this 9 minute clip of a Barry Farber show in April, Gordon Smith points out that, at a Tea Party rally over five months ago, about half of the signs demanded lower taxes, and about half demanded, "Where's the Birth Certificate?"

Might that explain why signs were scarce or non-existent - perhaps discouraged or even forbidden - at the "Restoring Honor" rally at the Lincoln Memorial on Aug. 28, 2010?

http://theloudtalker.com/2010/08/restor ... -pictures/

http://www.watchglennbeck.com/restoringhonor/

Barry Farber's CRN Talk website stated that he would interview
LTC Dr. Terry Lakin after the Thursday hearing with Col. Lind.

The audio recording should be available here.

Originally Posted by AP

The judge [Col. Lind] ruled Thursday that those records and any other evidence or witnesses pertaining to Obama's birth are not relevant to the case and will not be admitted. Prosecutors have argued that Obama's birth certificate shouldn't be part of the case, especially since the order for Lakin to deploy to Afghanistan didn't come directly from the president.

Lakin's lawyer [Paul Jensen] has argued that if Obama isn't a natural-born citizen, any military order given under his administration is unlawful.

http://www.news25.us/Global/story.asp?S=13091049

Originally Posted by safeguardourconstitution.com

DECORATED ARMY DOCTOR LTC TERRY LAKIN PHYSICALLY THREATENED BY LEAD PROSECUTOR AT ARRAIGNMENT HEARING; "DON'T TASE ME 'BRO'", LAKIN REPLIES

SUPPORTERS ASKED TO CONTACT GENERAL TO COMPLAIN OF THIS MISCONDUCT

... the lead prosecutor overstepped his bounds and injected himself improperly into LTC Terrence Lakin's chain of command.

Because of this, the American Patriot Foundation has asked supporters of LTC Lakin to contact his commanding General, MG Carla Hawley-Bowland via (202) 782-1104, fax (202) 782-0940, and email: carla.hawleybowland@us.army.mil, and ask her to insure that LTC Brodsky cease interfering in her chain of command.

http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com ... ction.html

Army judge Col. Denise R. Lind denied discovery of Barack Obama II's birth and school documents, saying, "Evidence could be embarrassing to the President."

It sounds like she knows something. Perhaps the DoJ attorneys are showing judges in their chambers, privately, before the trials, a birth document that reads, "born in the U.S. of citizen parents." Not that such a document would be genuine, true, or accurate, but it might show a parent (or parents) other than Barrack Obama, Snr., and Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama. Or maybe he was born on June 25th (anti-Christmas).

Could the U.S. Attorneys show "evidence" to a judge without disclosing it to the defense?

What else could be such an embarrassment to Mr. Obama as to deny discovery?

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

In this 9 minute clip of a Barry Farber show in April, Gordon Smith points out that, at a Tea Party rally over five months ago, about half of the signs demanded lower taxes, and about half demanded, "Where's the Birth Certificate?"

Might that explain why signs were scarce or non-existent - perhaps discouraged or even forbidden - at the "Restoring Honor" rally at the Lincoln Memorial on Aug. 28, 2010?

http://theloudtalker.com/2010/08/restor ... -pictures/

http://www.watchglennbeck.com/restoringhonor/

Excellent point!

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Could the U.S. Attorneys show "evidence" to a judge without disclosing it to the defense?

In a country ruled by law - NO. In a corrupt country ruled by man - YES.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Could the U.S. Attorneys show "evidence" to a judge without disclosing it to the defense?

In a country ruled by law - NO. In a corrupt country ruled by man - YES.

Showing "evidence" to a judge outside the courtroom, without opposing attorneys present, would be an ex parte (one-sided) communication prohibited by judicial codes of ethics.

This could conceivably have happened in a few cases. On the morning of July 16, 2009, before the Cook et al v. Good et al trial, four witnesses saw AG Eric Holder in the coffee shop on 12th St. in Columbus, Georgia, across the street from the U.S. Post Office and Courthouse. AG Holder may have had a heart-to-heart chat with U.S. District Judge Clay Land before the trial.

But certainly not all judges are corrupt. To tamper thusly with all 70+ cases, successfully and without being exposed, ranks in the same order of probability as tossing in the air a big bucket of coins, and they all come down showing "heads".

WND Forums has some significant and insightful comments on the "Lind v. Lakin" trial.

Originally Posted by [url=http://forums.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=1291

At WND Forums, commenters[/url]]A pen wrote:

[U.S. Supreme Court] opinion;
"The characteristics of a 'totalitarian dictatorship,' as set forth in subsections (2) and (3) are the existence of a single, dictatorial political party substantially identified with the government of the country in which it exists, the suppression of all opposition to the party in power, the subordination of the rights of the individual to the state, and the denial of fundamental rights and liberties characteristic of a representative form of government."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...ol=367&invol=1
__________________________________________________ ___

cj314404 wrote:

Justice Denied

I am stunned. I really do not know what to say. Discovery, the requirement that the prosecution turn over potentially exculpatory evidence, even if it is examined by the judge in chambers prior to being admitted in open court, is fundamental to our judicial system. To deny this is a manifestation that this court and this prosecution are illegitimate. This is not a frivolous lawsuit, it is a criminal prosecution and the defendant has a right to the defense argument of his choice, even if that defense argument is itself frivolous. He has that right, and the court has no authority to deny him that right. Can you imagine the firestorm had the Duke lacrosse defendants been denied access to the video that showed them across town at the time of the supposed crime? Had they not been permitted to present that tape in court? That is exactly what is happening here. It is a travesty. It makes me ashamed to be an American and a Vet.
__________________________________________________ ___

Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote:

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague."
__________________________________________________ ___

paul1 wrote:

As a retired military officer, and having served as a base prosecutor, the authority for a courts martial is the red book, the UCMJ, or without the acronym, the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I find it difficult to believe that a Colonel in the Army (man or woman) is ignorant of the articles in the UCMJ, or that she would blatantly disregard those articles. As such, she should be removed from the court ASAP, as well as being reprimanded for her conduct.
__________________________________________________ ___

Preacher77777 wrote:

I'm a USAF Veteran and KNOW that regardless who issues the order, they are speaking or "ordering" as per the authority of the POTUS who is the Commander In Chief. ANY orders given that are not by the authority of the Commander In Chief are invalid and do not have to be obeyed. If he happens to be POTUS under false pretenses, any order given by him down the chain of command is invalid. We are sworn, as "government issue" to up-hold the constitution. If you are so concerned for the fact that Lt/Col Lakin did not deploy, why didn't you rush to Obama's office and intercede and tell the POTUS to show his documentation as any honest, concerned, red-blooded American would have done? He spent 3 million dollars covering up his past. Does he think the American people are stupid? I thank God that one man is willing to put his reputation and career on the line for all of us.
__________________________________________________ ___

DJ wrote:

I just can't believe that our great country has came down to this---- Save the usurper embarrassment-- send an honorable serviceman to prison! Where are our leaders????
__________________________________________________ ___

ge370151 wrote:

You are correct, David, in your comment that the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) sets up a judicial system different in many respects from the civilian system. But you are wrong to imply that this so-called judge, COL Denise R. Lind, is the final word on this matter.

First, COL Denise R. Lind is sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, which she has failed to do in two respects:

• a. She has failed to enforce the portion of the Constitution requiring the Office of President to be occupied by a qualified individual, and she has obstructed its enforcement.
  b. She has denied LTC Lakin the right to a fair trial, which would, at minimum, require LTC Lakin's access to the Ineligible-Affirmative Action-Usurper-in-Chief's birth records.

COL Denise R. Lind should be charged with dereliction of duty under the UCMJ and herself tried by Court Martial.

Second, COL Denise R. Lind does not operate in a vacuum; her decisions are reviewed by the chain of command above her. If that chain approves her decisions, then they are culpable.

Finally, LTC Lakin has appeals available as this case proceeds.

General McInerny is correct; this is a matter of elemental importance to the nation. We either have a nation based on laws starting with the Constitution, or we have the rule of dictators starting with the Ineligible-Affirmative Action-Usurper-in-Chief. This has the potential of resulting in civil war, and if it does, then the cowardly COL Denise R. Lind will have blood on her hands.

Biden for President. Remove the usurper. A stupid eligible American president is better than a foreign illegal alien traitor as president.

RationalGeezer
__________________________________________________ ___

PRevere wrote:

Also, who is in command of the military?

To those who need for this to be broken down a little further ask yourself this...
by whose authority was this court martial convened?
__________________________________________________ ___

woodsman1st wrote:

THE "JUDGE'S?" CAREER CAME 1ST

No military judge should ever have ruled over this case! Any military judge's career would have been damaged if they had allowed Obummer to be questioned in any manner.

EVERY MILITARY JUDGE CHOSEN SHOULD HAVE, BY LAW, RECUSED THEMSELVES!

A military judge could NOT have ruled on any part of this trial without their career influencing every decision.

To use a military judge in itself is a GROSS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE!

Being tried by a military court, ruled over by a military judge is a GROSS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE!

Every participant in this trial is influenced by their career. The defendent doesn't have a chance; never did; never will, under a military court [which is subject to Presidential oversight/review].

This entire trial is a disgraceful miscarriage of justice!

Originally Posted by At forums.hannity.com, bluecat6

Below is a list of [U.S.] government and educational institution documents
for Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., from 1961 through 1986 that are:
a) not missing pages or other critical information,
b) verified by independent inspection, and
c) have no suspicion of forgery or fraud:











End of list.