The prosecution has now rested and the court-martial is in recess until tomorrow. Some highlights from today:

According to LTC Lakin, his former counsel, Paul Rolf Jensen, told him that although disobeying military orders would be consistent with Lakin’s thinking, he specifically said “I can’t ethically advise you to disobey” those orders. This testimony came during the providency inquiry and was not heard by the members; but it is part of the record and can be presented to them in sentencing.

The most damaging evidence of the day came during the testimony of the accused’s brigade commander, Colonel Gordon Roberts. The accused and Mr. Jensen came to visit with Colonel Roberts on March 30, 2010, but the colonel was attending to other matters and couldn’t meet with them then. When Colonel Roberts summoned Lakin to his office the following day, he received this response: “You had your chance.”  This testimony was before the members, and Colonel Sullivan is of the opinion that the accused’s insolence toward his commander — a Medal of Honor recipient — did not go over well at all.

On the contested offense, the defense theory appears to be that no one told the accused to be on the flight alleged on the charge sheet. If true, it would be difficult to see how the prosecution could secure a conviction in light of United States v. Kapple, 40 M.J. 472 (C.M.A. 1994), as we discussed last month here.  According to Colonel Sullivan, the defense appeared to making some headway — no one said they specifically told the accused to be on that specific flight — until the next-to-last witness, LTC Christine Edwards. She testified that the brigade commander told her to tell Lakin ”his place of duty is on that airplane.” She said that’s the order she relayed to the accused.

We will see if he testifies to a contrary version of events tomorrow.

SPECIAL NOTE:  Colonel Sullivan and civilian attorney and military justice maven Phil Cave will be on blogtalkradio tonight at 2100 EST to discuss the day’s events. Should be lots of additional insights and analysis to be had then.

103 Responses to “United States v. Lakin liveblogging, Day One wrap”

  1. Sterngard Friegen says:

    I’m shocked and amazed that at the allocution (providency hearing) the military judge would have invaded the attorney-client privilege. Did Lakin make it an issue first?

  2. sg says:

    (LTC Christine Edwards) testified that the brigade commander told her to tell Lakin ”his place of duty is on that airplane.” She said that’s the order she relayed to the accused.

    Given that the insubordinate behavior “you had your chance” is going to go over like a 50-lb bag of manure on a kiddie balloon with the panel, I’d have to guess that this is very bad for LTC Lakin. If they don’t like him, they’ll be less likely to believe him if he claims that she didn’t give him that order.

  3. Greg says:

    How was the cross of Edwards? Is it going to be a swearing contest between her and Lakin?

  4. realist says:

    I would have placed bets and given odds that Lakin would not take the stand. Given the testimony of LTC Edwards, he may now be forced to… fun times.

  5. Greg says:

    Does Kapple require the defendant to understand that he’s supposed to be on the particular flight, or only that the order have been conveyed to him?

  6. Christopher Mathews says:

    Sterngard, great question for which I have no answer — hopefully the colonel can fill in details later. It’s not difficult to envision the subject of Mr. Jensen’s advice coming up, though; apparently, Lakin tried to offer some justification for his decision not to go to Fort Campbell and Judge Lind went over the issue several times during the inquiry to determine whether his pleas were provident.

    Greg, yup, it looks like a swearing contest — if the accused takes the stand.

  7. John O'Connor says:

    If it’s a battle of credibility, I don’t want to be the guy who told my Medal of Honor winning commanding officer that if he wanted to talk to me he had his chance the day before.

  8. Litlebritdifrnt says:

    Being former military myself I was utterly gobsmacked (a good old Royal Navy term) that Lakin would respond to a request to a summons to meet with his CO with “you had your chance” Colonel Roberts must be a very nice man. If I had said that to many of the COs I had in my career my butt would have been under the brig, let alone in it.

  9. Phil Cave says:

    Yes, both trial AND defense brought up the attorney discussions. Neal told the judge that he had no objection because it was going to come up in the case.
    I rate the providency as “tortuous.”

  10. Phil Cave says:

    I should note that both Dwight and I declined an offer from Ms. Taitz to appear on a tape for her Russian language program explaining how America is the new Russia, and thoroughly undemocratic.

  11. juniper55 says:

    Has Lakiin any history of prior insolence or refusal to obey his commanding officers? 18 years of service, was this a “first time” or a pattern of behavior?

  12. realist says:

    I should note that both Dwight and I declined an offer from Ms. Taitz to appear on a tape for her Russian language program explaining how America is the new Russia, and thoroughly undemocratic.

    LMAO

    I very much look forward to your, Dwight’s and mari’s comments this evening… wouldn’t miss it.

  13. Christopher Mathews says:

    Phil, you blew a chance to try out your “Borat” routine on a foreign audience. What a waste — I hear it’s a killer.

  14. sg says:

    I don’t know, juniper55, but that is highly doubtful, given his prior excellent Officer Efficiency Reports. Certainly not in recent memory.
    That fact isn’t likely to help the accused much if any. As John O’Connor noted in an earlier post:
    “If it’s a battle of credibility, I don’t want to be the guy who told my Medal of Honor winning commanding officer that if he wanted to talk to me he had his chance the day before.”

  15. Greg says:

    Did the brigade commander testify? Consistently with Edwards?

  16. Proofer says:

    Where does the US military derive its authority? The Pentagon? WRONG. It’s spelled out in the US Constitution and that would be the POTUS.

    And where is the proof that we have a legitimate Commander-in-Chief?

    Answer: a low-rez image without a seal posted on a left wing blog and the “fight the smears” website.

    Try using that approach to board a plane or sign up for little league. Yet we let allow this usurper to occupy the White House!?!

    Until Barry Obama (or whatever alias he is currently using) produces irrefutable evidence of his eligibility, via a long form birth certificate, this entire process is nothing more than a kangaroo court on par with something we would see in Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Soviet Union.

    The Brave Men and Woman who died on foreign soil to defend our nation and the US Constitution deserve better.

    Anyone active duty service man or woman who is “rooting” for the prosecution should be ashamed of themselves.

    One last thing: ask the owner of this blog how his defense of the Gitmo terrorists is going?

    He’s a real America hero…defending terrorists and throwing decorated officers who dared to stand up to a illegitimate usurper to the wolves.

    Over and out.

  17. Anonymous says:

    the dripping arrogance of that statement is amazing on so many levels, it does comport with the argument that this whole thing was not about ignorance or a misunderstanding of the law but LTC Lakin’s ego.

  18. Citizen Wells says:

    Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?

  19. sg says:

    Greg,
    COL Gordon Roberts was LTC Lakin’s Brigade Commander at the time, and his testimony established:

    The most damaging evidence of the day came during the testimony of the accused’s brigade commander, Colonel Gordon Roberts. The accused and Mr. Jensen came to visit with Colonel Roberts on March 30, 2010, but the colonel was attending to other matters and couldn’t meet with them then. When Colonel Roberts summoned Lakin to his office the following day, he received this response: “You had your chance.” This testimony was before the members, and Colonel Sullivan is of the opinion that the accused’s insolence toward his commander — a Medal of Honor recipient — did not go over well at all.

  20. obsolete says:

    Proofer, Your fact-free rant will surely secure Lakin’s acquittal and Obama’s impeachment, any day now….

    Citizen Wells, how much has Obama now spent? Is it over $100 Billion yet? Tell us about his Grandmother and the Pakistan travel ban- we haven’t heard about those yet.

  21. Greg says:

    Because frivolous lawsuits are a waste of the court’s and defendant’s resources. Any lawyer who suggested a client capitulate to crazies in a lawsuit should just hand in their bar-card along with that advice.

    Hint: now it’s a birth certificate and college records? Wasn’t it just a birth certificate at one time? What will you want next? His kindergarten records?

  22. Anonymous says:

    Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?

    Boy you guys sure know how to beat a dead horse with a broken record.

  23. Phil Cave says:

    Citizen Wells, who cares? As the member who was excused from the panel said during voir dire — military officers aren’t supposed to mix politics with duty. That’s a summary. He was the only panel member who had more than a passing piece of news gossip on Lakin (consistent with my experience that outside the beltway people don’t know who Lakin is), and his opinion was decidely against LTC Lakin. Which is why he was challenged and excused.

    Now 8 colonels will decide if he’s guilty of MM (there’s sufficient to get over a 917) and impose a sentence.

    How do you spell ‘smoking gun.’

  24. Christopher Mathews says:

    Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?

    As it happens, CW, those are assertions which everyone with a working knowledge of military law understands are irrelevant to the charges in this case.

    That includes the accused and his counsel.

  25. Greg says:

    Thank you sg. Since he testified before Edwards can we assume he doesn’t remember relaying the “your assignment is on that plane” to Edwards?

  26. sg says:

    @poofter and @wells
    Why do you persist in posting the same discredited crap over and over again? Have you no dignity, honor, or self-respect?

  27. nbc says:

    Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?

    He provided his legitimate birth certificate. As to college records. They have no relevance.

    The better question is why do people want access to all this and more information which is protected by federal or state law and has no relevance?
    Openness? Hardly…

    Obama has shown the document that proves that he was born on US soil. Now what?

  28. Tes says:

    Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?

    Because he strongly believes in upholding the Rule of Law.

  29. Christopher Mathews says:

    Thank you sg. Since he testified before Edwards can we assume he doesn’t remember relaying the “your assignment is on that plane” to Edwards?

    Greg, it appears the question wasn’t asked — which I would infer to mean that he has no specific recollection of saying it (and so the prosecution didn’t go there) but would have testified that it was consistent with what he does recall (which is why the defense didn’t, either).

  30. sg says:

    @greg–What Judge Mathews said.

  31. Anonymous says:

    Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?

    He hasn’t.

  32. John O'Connor says:

    Proofer:

    It’s funny to hear you talk about the brave men and women of the armed forces and what they deserved, when (1) Lakin deprived them of a in theater doctor they deserved, and (2) others of your ilk called judge advocates (many of whom deployed into harm’s way, “losers” who must not be able to get a civilian job

  33. Our day has come says:

    The Truth will be revealed tomorrow…this case is not over yet…

  34. Capt. Obvious says:

    Obama has shown the document that proves that he was born on US soil. Now what?

    Where in the Constitution does the law demand a Presidential candidate produce any documents at all let any of the many birthers demand to their personal satisfaction?

  35. Anonymous says:

    Birthers and their rantings are starting to remind me of the NAMBLA contingent in a child porn case: you can’t convince them that they are hopelessly lost, and their presence (combined with the subject matter of the proceedings) contaminates the process beyond repair.

    My hope is that a fair sentence which includes a conviction (and a transcript subject to FOIA which will be widely publicized) and significant punishment (at least some confinement) will serve to settle this issue.

  36. realist says:

    The Truth will be revealed tomorrow…this case is not over yet…

    So nothing presented today was truth? So Lakin did not plead to charges, all the witnesses who testified today committed perjury, and only what Lakin’s defense counsel puts on for a case is “truth.” What a load.

    The problem with birthers is (well, one of many) is that they ignore truth because it does not fit their agenda.

  37. realist says:

    Where in the Constitution does the law demand a Presidential candidate produce any documents at all let any of the many birthers demand to their personal satisfaction?

    I can’t wait to hear the answer you receive to that one, if you do.

    They’ll make something up that says so, though, as they do all other things “constitutional.”

  38. Rob M says:

    I should note that both Dwight and I declined an offer from Ms. Taitz to appear on a tape for her Russian language program explaining how America is the new Russia, and thoroughly undemocratic.

    At least you got asked. That has to count for something.

  39. Capt. Obvious says:

    s/b “let alone any of the many birthers demand to their personal satisfaction?”

    These birthers who think they’re hiding their obvious political agenda or bigotry while parading their b.s. of patriotism are vile and reprehensible, un-American scum. Sucking on the teat of World Net Daily causes brain damage.

    The truth has been revealed. This case is over.

  40. Rob M says:

    The Truth will be revealed tomorrow…this case is not over yet…

    Why did you use a capital T? It it something sacred? [He asked, against his better judgment…]

  41. Rob M says:

    Where does the US military derive its authority? The Pentagon? WRONG. It’s spelled out in the US Constitution and that would be the POTUS.<

    Read the whole Constitution, even the parts you don’t like. Start with Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12 and 14.

  42. The Magic M says:

    > Where does the US military derive its authority? The Pentagon? WRONG.

    Agreed.

    > It’s spelled out in the US Constitution and that would be the POTUS.

    Disagreed.

    Boy, you do read the Constitution only once every 25 years, do you?

    “The Congress shall have Power […]
    To declare War […];
    To raise and support Armies […];
    To provide and maintain a Navy;
    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; […]”

    So it’s Congress that “gives authority” to the armed forces. The POTUS is CIC, but authority (meaning legitimacy) comes from Congress, not the CIC.

    You’re hooked on the birther religion that a (hypothetically) “illegitimate” CIC removes all authority from the armed forces. Bogus.

  43. Abbey says:

    Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?

    Yawn.

    Why don’t you focus on challenging Glenn Beck to a duel? You’re much more fun when you do that.

  44. WorldWatcher says:

    >

    Wouldn’t that then lead to 10 USC §113 and 10 USC §3013?

    Read the whole Constitution, even the parts you don’t like.Start with Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12 and 14.

    >>>>

  45. sg says:

    @ Our day has come–
    Yes. That truth is almost upon us. Conviction by members panel for violation of one specification of Article 87, UCMJ, and sentenced to two years confinement and dismissal from the service. That’s what’s going to be revealed tomorrow.

  46. Proofer says:

    John O’Connor:

    If you want to talk about giving people “what they deserve”, why don’t citizens and service personnel deserve irrefutable proof that Barry Obama is eligible to hold the office of POTUS and be a Commander-in-Chief?

    It will cost him $15-20 and resolve this issue immediately. Why the delay?!?

    The answer, simply, is that whatever it says on his illusive birth certificate is an enormous source of “embarrassment” to him, if not worse.

    Do you think you are doing your nation any favors by prosecuting Lakin and giving Barry Obama a pass to continue acting as putative President?

    No, you are devaluing, if not destroying, the one document that has made this nation great and for which so many Brave Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice.

    The only “sacrifice” Barry has ever made in his enigmatic life is to move to Chicago to become a “community organizer”.

    The fact remains, a decorated soldier and American hero is being thrown to the wolves while you all play the role of useful idiots for radical socialists who have taken power in a bloodless coup.

    Over and out.

  47. Christopher Mathews says:

    Over and out.

    Promises, promises.

  48. Abbey says:

    Oh, and CitizenWells, you banned Pieter Nosworthy – a serving member of the Military – from your blog for dissenting from your version of the ‘truth’ about Lakin.

    He’s been posting on the Fogbow, where we debunk your birther lunacy daily, for just over a year now.

    Most posters disagree with nearly everything he believes but he doesn’t get banned for believing it, or saying it.

    On a different note: did you ever catch that Bigfoot?

  49. Proofer says:

    Magic M:

    Notwithstanding “Separation of Powers”, who makes the decision to send our young men and women into combat?

    The POTUS / CIC.

    In simple terms, what separates the USA from banana republics ruled by tin horn dictators who promote themselves and their cronies to Flag Rank?

    Civilian control of the military.

    The CIC does not remove power from the miliary, he/she gives it the authority it requires for legitimacy in our Democratic Republic.

    Oh, and there is no “birther religion”, only a sincere desire to know, without any doubt or reservation, that the POTUS is legitimate. Please explain what is wrong with that?

    Given his obfuscations and legal maneuvering, you can put me down as doubtful.

    May God Bless and Protect LTC. Lakin.

    Over and out.

  50. Capt. Obvious says:

    I can’t wait to hear the answer you receive to that one, if you do.They’ll make something up that says so, though, as they do all other things “constitutional.”

    That’s easy. Birthers have the attention span of a dying fruit fly.

    That’s why they move the goalposts. They’re not bright enough or mentally stable enough to stick to one subject especially when the law says they are full of crap.

    They’ll squawk, “transparency!” or “Marxist Muslim!” rather than admit they are a pathetic, clueless lot of paranoid, xenophobic fright wingers who’s opinions are based on ignorance and irrelevant politically motivated demands. Even if it means wiping their birther butts with our Constitution and established, relevant and authoritative U.S law.

  51. Anonymous says:

    Over and out.

    I don’t think one of those words means what you think it means.

  52. Proofer is in the pudding says:

    Proofer were you thumping your chest to get GWB’s military records? Were you wailing and gnashing your teeth that a guy who carefully avoided service in Viet Nam sent young men and women into combat? Or do your conspiracy theories only apply when a black Democrat is in office?

    If Lakin is an American hero, why didn’t he deploy and provide medical services to Soldiers in harm’s way? Why is he collecting a fat pay check if he thinks the CINC is illegitmate?

  53. Proofer says:

    Capt. Obvious:

    We learned in HS logic class that “ad hominem” attacks are the lowest form of argument. You “obviously” did not take that course…

    Over and out.

  54. Proofer says:

    Proofer is in the pudding:

    No, but you and your comrades sure pressed for those records; even going so far as to forge them to “make your case”.

    Nevertheless, whether GWB did or did not avoid service in Vietnam had NO bearing whatsoever on his eligibility to serve as POTUS.

    Barry Obama, on the other hand, has not produced a single document that demonstrates he is anything more than a putative President.

    It has nothing to do with the color of his skin or any wild conspiracy theories. It’s just a scientific fact.

    (Nice try at the race card, btw. Surprised it took that long!)

    There is no wailing or gnashing of teeth here…the truth will ultimately prevail and it won’t be kind to Barry Obama.

    Over and out.

  55. Rickey says:

    juniper55 said (in prior thread):

    …a SS number that apparently matched a Connecticut resident born in 1890 (why no Hawaii prefix, pray?)

    I am a private investigator, and I research more Social Security numbers in a week than most people do in a lifetime.

    The information which Orly Taitz developed about Obama’s SSN is bogus. Her investigators gleaned the information from the LexisNexis database, which I work with every day. Every LexisNexis report contains the following disclaimer:

    Important: The Public Records and commercially available data sources used on reports have errors. Data is sometimes entered poorly, processed incorrectly and is generally not free from defect. This system should not be relied upon as definitively accurate. Before relying on any data this system supplies, it should be independently verified.

    Of course, Orly Taitz didn’t bother to verify any of it. If she had, she would have learned that Obama’s SSN was issued when he was 16 or 17 years old, undoubtedly around the time he got his first job. It also is notable that Orly’s investigators were unable to match Obama’s SSN to any other name. Who was this Connecticut person who was born in 1890? The investigators can’t say. Furthermore, if Obama had used a SSN which was assigned to someone else, it would have been flagged the first time he filed a Federal income tax return.

    Why was Obama issued a SSN with a Connecticut prefix? Probably due to a typographical error. SSNs are assigned according to the Zip Code of the address where the Social Security Card is being sent, which is not necessarily the address where the individual lives. However, Obama was living and working in Hawaii when he was 16, so he should have received a SSN with a Hawaii prefix. Hawaii’s Zip Codes begin the number 9. Connecticut’s Zip Codes begin with zero. A data processor hits the wrong key and enters a zero instead of a 9, and a Hawaii Zip Code looks like a Connecticut Zip Code, causing the SSN to be issued with a Connecticut prefix.

    That is the most plausible explanation. In any event, the Social Security Administration says that no conclusions can be drawn from someone’s SSN. My ex-wife has a SSN with a Pennsylvania prefix, but she has never lived or worked in Pennsylvania. It happens.

  56. Proofer is in the pudding says:

    The man who wrote: “The fact remains, a decorated soldier and American hero is being thrown to the wolves while you all play the role of useful idiots for radical socialists who have taken power in a bloodless coup” should probably refrain from using “ad hominem attacks” as an insult.

    How about answering my question Proofer – under what legal and moral authority is Lakin cashing his pay check if he believes the CINC is illegitimate?

  57. Phil Cave says:

    Rickey, thanks for the input. I’ve been able to keep “documents” out of evidence for the reason of that very disclaimer. Do some due diligence on yourself some time and see how accurate LEXIS is about yourself. You will be surprised.

  58. Proofer says:

    Rickey,

    So Barry Obama’s CT SSN is due to a typographical error.

    There is always something with this guy, isn’t there?

    Always something…some reason why he just doesn’t add up.

    Are you beginning to see a trend?

    Over and out.

  59. Litlebritdifrnt says:

    CASHING HIS PAYCHECK. Bingo.

  60. Phil Cave says:

    Paycheck and specialty bonuses and pay. Can you say KaChing.

  61. Capt. Obvious says:

    Capt. Obvious:We learned in HS logic class that “ad hominem” attacks are the lowest form of argument.You “obviously” did not take that course…Over and out.

    You’re entitled to your opinions no matter how delusional or idiotic.

    My opinion is that birthers are un-American scum who deserve derision.

    Some are inciting sedition which is even more traitorous and contemptuous.

    However, you’re not entitled to your own facts.

    Also, since you insist on replying you might want to look into the meaning of “over and out” unless either you have many distinct, multiple personalities or you’re just a REMF.

  62. Brett says:

    So if I understand the arguments of the supporters of this Court Martial of LTC Lakin, it goes something like this:
    LTC Lakin’s orders to deploy to Afganistan did not come from Barack Obama, they came from the Pentagon which did not get its orders from the de facto Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama, even though he ordered/approved the Surge in Afganistan, which required more troops to deploy, which ended up requiring LTC Lakin to be deployed again.

    So who ordered this Surge in Afganistan that required LTC Lakin to be deployed again if it wasn’t Obama?

    Is there another CIC?

  63. obsolete says:

    You’re right, Proofer, a vast world-wide conspiracy is more likely than a typo where HI and CT zip codes were one digit off.

    And yet you haven’t explained, why couldn’t Obama get a real SS #? He had his fake COLB, right? Why would he need to get a fake one, and why would Social Security be in on the plot to get him a fake one? (when he was a teenager…)
    Who is the 110 year old whose number Obama stole?
    How come Obama has released his income tax returns when he has a fake number? Did he bribe the 110 year-old to be quiet? If the 110 year old was dead, Obama’s number would show up in the public database of deceased number holders. How come the IRS has been fooled all this time, going back to when Obama worked at Baskin-Robins? How did a teenage kid at Baskin-Robins pull this off, and to what ends?

    Yes, it is all much more likely than a one-digit typo….

  64. Proofer is in the pudding says:

    Proofer, I am a life long Republican and have served in both Iraq and Afgh – so don’t talk to me about “my comrades.” All I know is you and “your comrades” didn’t get worked up by a CINC that spent Viet Nam in the guard and may have been UA from his assigned duties, but when a Black democrat gets elected, you tease out elaborate conspiracy theories. You won’t see anyone happier to get a good Republican back in the WH, but you and “your comrades” make a mockery of being a patriot. God Bless our President, our Men and Women in Uniform, and the USA. Over easy.

  65. Frank Arduini says:

    If you want to talk about giving people “what they deserve”, why don’t citizens and service personnel deserve irrefutable proof that Barry Obama is eligible to hold the office of POTUS and be a Commander-in-Chief?

    Because he already tried it. And we all know how well that worked out.

    It will cost him $15-20 and resolve this issue immediately. Why the delay?!?

    July 2008 was more than two years ago. The only delay is in your noticing.

    Do you think you are doing your nation any favors by prosecuting Lakin and giving Barry Obama a pass to continue acting as putative President?

    Yes. As a veteran myself, I think that the prosecution and conviction of LTC Lakin is vital to the interests of military discipline and our national defense. I use not a drop of hyperbole.

    The fact remains, a decorated soldier and American hero is being thrown to the wolves while you all play the role of useful idiots for radical socialists who have taken power in a bloodless coup.

    Decorated? Yes.

    Highly decorated? Not really.

    Hero? Mot even close.

  66. Brett says:

    Who cares about the birth certificate?

    Barack Obama’s father was a British subject when Barack Obama was born (regardless of where he was born).
    Under natural law, Barack Obama would have been a Natural Born Citizen of England (not the USA) because of his Father. Dual Citizenship does NOT mean Dual Natural Born Citizenship, if anything it means NO Natural Born Citizenship.

    This is the issue. Barack Obama could NEVER be a Natural Born Citizen of the USA because his father was a British Subject at the time of his birth.

  67. NoMercyForTyrants says:

    You can’t handle the truth here because you just deleted my post. As for the CT SS#, Barry’s drug dealing older friend contacted some of his friends and clients (who were mostly high school students, SDS types who purchased weed from him) and my friend’s older sister asked her friends where Barry could get a SS# without having to present a birth certificate. Yes, Barry didn’t have a bc and couldn’t explain why he didn’t have one; he just knew he didn’t have one, he was sure about his lack of a bc. One of the SDS druggies relayed that CT didn’t require a bc and that if Barry needed to use their mailing address they’d be glad to help him out. Barry needed the bc to secure a job at Baskin Robbins in HI that had been promised to him by the owner. He said he’d wait awhile before applying for the CT SS#. Evidently, when Terry the drug dealer called his friends and clients for help with Barry’s problem, someone else had called in with new information for Barry. Barry said that he’d wait and check back in from time to time with the contacts in CT and would apply later. Did he? Check his Selective Service registration in his own hand which bears his CT SS#. Ask Debbie Schlussel about her expert contact who knows all about the draft registration’s inconsistencies. There are questions that the draft reg. is also not a forgery manufactured and backdated to make it appear that Barry applied with the Selective Service within the timeframe of his legal obligation.

  68. obsolete says:

    Brett-
    Sorry, but you’re simply wrong. Lawyers here have cited case after case to show you that you are wrong, and simply wishing for something doesn’t make it true.
    Nobody even brought up that stupid theory until recently, but yet the electors voted for him, Congress certified him, and the Supreme Court Chief Justice swore him in, all knowing at the time that his dad was not an American. So they think your theory has no merit.

    NoMercyForTyrants,
    Have you found a publisher for your novel yet? Step back from it and view the insanity in your claims with fresh eyes…

  69. obsolete says:

    Birthers now claim everything Obama has released is forged, and the first fake document analyst, “polarik”, has now gone on to claim that all of Obama’s childhood photos and videos are faked. He, of course, was the first to find the COLB “forgery” based on his own lack of knowledge, bad science, and lied-about credentials. They also claim now that Obama’s mom is not really his mom, and his dad is not Obama Sr.
    How deep does the rabbit hole go, birthers? How deep?

  70. Brett says:

    Well I guess the Lawyers here have not read the Supreme Court in SCOTT V. SANDFORD, 60 U. S. 393 (1856).
    Here’s the exact language from the Supreme Court itself in 1856:
    “The citizens are the members of the civil society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.”

    So according the the Supreme Court in 1856, “… natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”

    Apparently, your Lawyers disagree with the Supreme Court.
    Only liberal judicial activists who think the Constitution can be changed with amendment believe that Natural-Born Citizen means anyone born on U.S. soil even if their father was Osama Bin Laden.

    That is just legal nonsense.

  71. Brett says:

    And your Lawyers here have not read the The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814).
    Here’s the exact language from the Supreme Court itself in 1814:
    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

    “The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages.”

    So here we see again that the Supreme Court agrees that “The natives or indigenes [later tranlated to natural-born] are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”

    So to be a native or a natural-born citizen you have to be born in the country of parents [plural] who are citizens.

    Barack Obama’s Father was a British subject therefore Barack Obama cannot ever be a Natural Born Citizen according to these Supreme Court rulings in 1814 and 1856.

  72. NoMercyForTyrants says:

    Obsolete, fu. Didn’t Timmy and Barry let you in on their little coup?

  73. NoMercyForTyrants says:

    If I do write a novel about this, I’ll have the prez be an amoral, corrupt, money-grubbing Chicago shakedown artist with a predeliction for meth and getting balone by husky men in the back of a limo. The truth is stranger than fiction, and alot more seamy, too.

  74. juniper55 says:

    I’m not military but my DH was and so were many family members, and I did work for the Navy for many years on carriers and whatnot. I will be the first to admit that it is necessary to follow orders from command, document them of course, and when the orders are unclear, work through proper channels. But in the case of a commander whose very authority or credibility seems suspect – a CIC who may have constitutional issues, the question remains – who has the authority to ensure that BHO is actually constitutionally eligible for the job? Everybody’s pointing fingers at everybody else – states to courts, courts to Congress, Congress to states, and around we go. The only body I haven’t heard from in terms of ensuring eligiblity of command is the actual military! Civilian leaders of the military aside, the military may serve at the pleasure of a civilian CIC but the military has the right to insist that that CIC is eligible for the post. Just because he was elected doesn’t mean he is eligible. Chester Arthur, we now believe, hoodwinked us all; even if he was a halfway decent president, he should have never been.

    I’m going to give Pelosi et al the benefit of the doubt – suppose they saw an up-and-coming guy out of Chicago that seemed to be the new, hip antithesis to old John McCain and those old nasty Republicans. He looked good, he had charisma, he seemed to strike a chord. So they said “let’s back this guy for President” and the don’t-want-Clinton-again crowd voted him in. All seemed good. And because BHO seemed to be the right guy at the right time to elicit hope and change, lead us into the 20th century, even seemed (gasp) to break racial barriers once and for all, no one looked very closely at who he really was or where he came from. After all, why should anyone? The only one who really presented a challenge was that nutcase Palin from the hinterlands of Alaska, and she a late-add VP candidate at that (fun to watch against Biden, though). We’ll forget that Obama was from the hinterlands of Hawaii (and even further) because that really can’t be held against him. I’m told both states are lovely by my dad who’s been to both. What counted was what he did at Harvard and around Chicago. Even if he seemed to have a few radicals and commies in his past, indescretions of his youth, whatever.

    But when things looked like BHO was going to actually get the Dem nomination, suddenly things became a big deal. And that is when “whomever” had to begin to hide things. That is also why his very first Executive Order dealt with the sealing of Presidential records, presumably to prevent anyone from poking into Bush’s files but also to protect his own. This is also why there is a concerted effort to NOT look too deeply – the outrage that would ensue if BHO was removed would be significant – and very damaging.

    For a man who’s written two memiors already before he even became president, you would think more informatino would be in the public sphere; why no actual samplings of work and accomplishments (Harvard writings, school records). Little body of work in either Senate he served in, either. You don’t ever see or hear from his sister here in the states (we know all the names of the Bush, Clinton, even Carter siblings); his Kenyan family are dismissed as nonconsequential and Indonesian connections are completely ignored. You never really saw interviews with people who knew the child or teenager Obama, and very few who knew the college Obama (those tend to get quickly ignored). None of these need be used to prove eligibility, of course, but they help us to understand the man. THey don’t prove how he would command the military but they would give insight into how he views the military, whether he respects it, and whether he could be judicious in utliizing military resources to fight our current wars and such. But since so much of the man has been hidden – and FOIA requests have turned up little more than missing records of his mother (who entertains no such privacy anymore) and stonewalling and legal hassles regarding him. It seems very strange…

  75. Rickey says:

    Rickey, thanks for the input.I’ve been able to keep “documents” out of evidence for the reason of that very disclaimer.Do some due diligence on yourself some time and see how accurate LEXIS is about yourself.You will be surprised.

    Every investigator worth his or her salt knows that LexisNexis is a valuable tool, but that’s all it is. It can be a starting point for locating someone, verifying identity, etc., but the information has to be correlated and verified.

    Here in New York, we often see personal injury plaintiffs who claim to live in the Bronx, because that is the most favorable venue for them. If one of my attorney clients tried to move for a change of venue based only upon a LexisNexis report, he or she would be laughed out of court. Not only is it hearsay, it is unsourced hearsay because LexisNexis does not identify where the information came from.

  76. realist says:

    juniper 55 was just skimming your post and saw this:

    “But when things looked like BHO was going to actually get the Dem nomination, suddenly things became a big deal. And that is when “whomever” had to begin to hide things. That is also why his very first Executive Order dealt with the sealing of Presidential records,”

    Along with so many other things, that is just another of the many that is just plain wrong… did not happen.

    Look up what the executive order you are talking about covers. It’s nothing of the sort regarding his personal records.

    Geez, take off the foil and think for yourself. You seem a reasonably intelligent person.

  77. Patrick McKinnion says:

    juniper 55was just skimming your post and saw this:“But when things looked like BHO was going to actually get the Dem nomination, suddenly things became a big deal. And that is when “whomever” had to begin to hide things. That is also why his very first Executive Order dealt with the sealing of Presidential records,”Along with so many other things, that is just another of the many that is just plain wrong… did not happen.Look up what the executive order you are talking about covers.It’s nothing of the sort regarding his personal records.Geez, take off the foil and think for yourself.You seem a reasonably intelligent person.

    Not to mention the slight back that the executive order that Obama signed his first day in office is almost word for word identical to an executive order Ronald Reagan signed, and repealed an even more strict privacy rule that GW Bush signed HIS first day.

    I suspect those who bring up the “Obama signed an order to hide his records” never bothered to READ said record.

    Oh, and if anyone wants to read said order (along with the order Reagan signed), I have links at

    http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/the-executive-order-13489-myth.html

  78. Patrick McKinnion says:

    “Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”

    Well “Citzen” Larry Wells:

    1) He HAS presented a legitimate COLB, accepted by all 50 states and the US Government as proof of US citizenship. (If you remember, the only reason he did that was because people were claiming his middle name was “Muhammed”. Of course, after he did that was when “Polarik” and “Techdude” began making their claims, showing that he couldn’t provide any proof that would be acceptable to the conspiracy nuts.)

    2) Well, maybe he’s had to employ said attorneys because people like you, Dr. Orly, Stephan Pidgeon, Philip Berg, Mario Apuzzo, Walter Fitzpatrick, Gary Kreep, Andy Martin, Sharon Rondeau, etc., keep ignoring every bit of credible, factual evidence, clinging to long-disproven, tired, worn out conspiracy claims and wild-eyed paranoia.

    There’s more evidence that Obama is a natural-born US citizen under the definition of US law and US legal codes, then there is for the existence of Sasquatch/Bigfoot/the Yeti. A subject both you and Ed Hale are quite familar with if I remember correctly.

  79. Rickey says:

    Rickey,So Barry Obama’s CT SSN is due to a typographical error.

    I don’t claim to know that for certain, but it is the most plausible explanation.

    If the number wasn’t assigned to Obama, who was it assigned to? The phantom person who was born in 1890? The phantom would have been 87 years old when the SSN was issued. We know that it is a valid SSN and we know approximately when it was issued, so if it is not Obama’s SSN we would expect to see records which associate the number with someone else. But no such association exists.

    In my 35 years of doing investigative work, I have seen many instances of people using SSNs which were issued to someone else. But I have never seen an instance where there were no records to identify that “someone else.” If Obama’s SSN actually belongs to someone else, there would be evidence of it.

  80. qwertyman says:

    Brett,

    Are you really citing the DRED SCOTT case as support for your argument concerning natural born citizenship?

    I suppose there’s some irony somewhere in using a case that upheld race-based slavery in order to oppose the eligibility of the first black President in American history.

    In the end there is not a single current judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor who agrees with your legal interpretation.

  81. obsolete says:

    NoMercyForTyrants,
    Your novel sucks.
    What’s more likely to happen-
    A. Obama finishes out his term(s)
    B. Someone reads, believes and acts on the insane birther drivel & fiction posted here, and successful;y gets Congress to impeach Obama.

    “Anyday now,… he’ll be frogmarched out of the White House anyday now….” – Mumblings from an insane birther suffering from ODS* rocking alone in the corner……..
    *Obama Derangement Syndrome

  82. juniper55 says:

    Hypothetical – suppose someone who had risen through the ranks to become a Navy captain was found to actually be a spy? He (sorry, ladies) would have issued numerous commands to hundreds of officers and enlistedmen by that point, signed numerous documents, commanded a ship or a squadron, you get the idea. Suppose a lieutenant suspects the captain to be a spy, can’t entirely prove it, but then takes a stand one day and says “I’m not taking orders from you any more because you’re not legit, and here are my reasons why.” The LT is probably going to the brig, but my question is this – if it is, in fact, found out that the captain was a spy, what happens regarding all of the orders that were issued on his behalf? His appointments, material procurements, signing of contracts, sat on boards to confer rank on younger officers, orders in military exercises or conflicts, etc. We’ve seen some happenings in history, but what I would like to know is what happens to all of the stuff they did (legit military business transacted)? What, if any, of it would be undone?

  83. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Brett, I have a completely serious question: where did you get your information about Dred Scott v. Sanford? Because it’s wrong. I’ve seen Mario Apuzzo make the same mistake you made. Were you relying on his writings?

    You wrote: “Here’s the exact language from the Supreme Court itself in 1856.” Then you quoted language that came not from the majority opinion, but from the separate opinion of Justice Daniels. A concurring opinion by one Supreme Court justice isn’t the opinion of the Court and has no binding legal authority.

    Do you know the only thing worse than trying to rely on DRED SCOTT — certainly the most discredited Supreme Court decisoin of all time? Trying to falsely portray something you think supports you as coming from the Dred Scott opinion.

  84. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Brett, you also write: “Only liberal judicial activists who think the Constitution can be changed with amendment.” Do you know who else thinks the Constitution can be changed with amendment? The Constitution’s founders and ratifiers. See U.S. Const. V.

  85. BigGuy says:

    Hey, Dwight, great job as usual on R/C.

    One question that’s been bouncing around — did that “You had your chance” crack come from Lakin or Jensen?

  86. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Actually, Brett, I have read The Venus. But apparently you haven’t. First off, you get its citation wrong. Then you quote what you purport to be “the exact language from the Supreme Court itself in 1814.” But then you quote not the language of “the Supreme Court itself,” but rather language from Chief Justice Marshall’s concurrence, which was joined by only one other Justice. Once again, I’ve seen Mario Apuzzo make that same mistake. So I’ll ask again; where did you get your misinformation?

  87. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Big Guy, it apparently came from LTC Lakin. (Mr. Jensen had returned to California before that comment was made.)

  88. BigGuy says:

    Dwight — it just seems like an awfully odd thing for someone to say under the circumstances.

    Was there any context given? Is that just one phrase extracted from a broader exchange? Were they speaking directly on the phone? Was it in email? Was it relayed by a third party? I’m having some trouble imagining Lakin talking to Roberts that way.

  89. Brett says:

    Yes qwertyman, I actually cited TWO Supreme Court decisions on Natural-Born Citizen. Both Supreme Court decisions whether you agree with them or not use the definition of Natural-Born Citizen as found in de Vattel’s Law of Nations legal reference used by the Founding Fathers.

    So yes, the Founding Fathers used de Vattel’s Law of Nations as their legal reference when requiring the President and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Military to be a Natural-Born Citizen to insure that their was NO divided loyalty in the CIC. The Founding Fathers knew that War is Hell and they only wanted people 100% loyal to the U.S.A. and its soldiers in times of War to be the CIC.

    And yes the Supreme Court used de Vattel’s definition of Natural-Born Citizen because those Justices actually knew the history of the U.S. Constitution and knew that de Vattel’s Law of Nations was the main legal reference used during the writing of the U.S. Constitution.

    there are dozens of judges, congressmen, constitutional scholars who agrees with the legal history and Supreme Court cases I have cited above. It is not my legal interpretation, I just cited the Supreme Court cases that cited de Vattel’s definition of Natural-Born Citizen.

    Have you no shame in trying to make anyone who disagrees with a racist? That race card died back in 2008.

    Wow according to you, Osama Bin Laden’s son would be a Natural-Born Citizen and eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the US Military if he was just born on the soil in the USA.

  90. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Brett, you cited precisely zero opinions of the Supreme Court. I ask again, where did you get your misinformation about the Dred Scott opinion and The Venus?

  91. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Big Guy, COL Roberts testified about the statement. He indicated that it was relayed to him by a third party. After LTC Lakin blew off LTC Judd’s first order that he report to COL Roberts, COL Roberts drafted a letter ordering LTC Lakin to report to him at 1700. When he followed up on the letter to determine what Lakin was going to do, he was told Lakin said he had had his chance.

  92. Brett says:

    Dwight, you might have a point if only one Supreme Court decision had relied on de Vattel’s Natural-Born Citizen definition. There are 5 US Supreme Court cases that cite de Vattel’s Natural-Born Citizen clause (see also Minor v. Happersett and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark).

    Now please tell us how the Founding Fathers accomplished John Jay’s suggestion that the President have no divided loyalities when they added the requirement that the President be a Natural-Born Citizen IF as you claim the President could be a Dual Citizen at birth like Obama.

    Whereas the Founders allowed Senators and Representatives to be just Citizens. Why was is so important to the Founders that the President be a Natural-Born Citizen.

    Come on I know you know the answer.

  93. BigGuy says:

    Great, Dwight, thanks. That makes much more sense — it sounds much more like a remark that would come in indirect discourse. A simple, direct “You had your chance” seems too abrupt to be likely in those circumstances.

  94. Brett says:

    Dwight, you seem like an educated guy. So please tell us what library book was in the news recently that George Washington had checked out over 200 years ago and had forgot to return to the library?

  95. Brett says:

    Dwight, are you really serious that you do not think it counts when the multiple Supreme Court Justices use the same definition from a legal reference like de Vattel’s Law of Nations in multiple different Supreme Court cases?

    Please show us a different definition of Natural-Born Citizen in ANY Supreme Court Case before 1930 [after that liberal judicial activists started redefining words and finding hidden meanings in penumbras].

    Can not do it. So we must stick with the definitions that were actually used in Supreme Court CASES even if they were only in the opinions that clarified the rulings.

  96. Brett says:

    Dwight, got to go now, but I will check back tomorrow to see if you can list ANY US Supreme Court decision that uses a different definition of Natural-Born citizen than the 5 Cases where de Vattel’s Law of Nations definition was cited.

  97. Rickey says:

    Hypothetical – suppose someone who had risen through the ranks to become a Navy captain was found to actually be a spy?He (sorry, ladies) would have issued numerous commands to hundreds of officers and enlistedmen by that point, signed numerous documents, commanded a ship or a squadron, you get the idea.Suppose a lieutenant suspects the captain to be a spy, can’t entirely prove it, but then takes a stand one day and says “I’m not taking orders from you any more because you’re not legit, and here are my reasons why.”The LT is probably going to the brig, but my question is this – if it is, in fact, found out that the captain was a spy, what happens regarding all of the orders that were issued on his behalf?His appointments, material procurements, signing of contracts, sat on boards to confer rank on younger officers, orders in military exercises or conflicts, etc.We’ve seen some happenings in history, but what I would like to know is what happens to all of the stuff they did (legit military business transacted)?What, if any, of it would be undone?

    All of the orders which your hypothetical Captain gave were legal and binding. If such an improbable scenario were to occur, I’m sure that the Navy would conduct a thorough investigation to determine if any of the Captain’s actions should be reviewed and possible reversed.

    Suppose a lieutenant suspects the captain to be a spy, can’t entirely prove it, but then takes a stand one day and says “I’m not taking orders from you any more because you’re not legit, and here are my reasons why.”

    Your hypothetical Lieutenant is a fool. The Lieutenant should take his or her concerns and evidence to the proper authorities and continue to obey orders while the allegations are investigated. The only orders which the Lieutenant can disobey are orders which require the commission of an illegal act – e.g., the Lieutenant could and should disobey an order to deliver classified material to the Chinese Embassy.

  98. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Brett, you’re now spitting back both Mario Apuzzo’s misinformation about “5 Supreme Court cases” AND CDR Kerchner’s misinformation about John Jay’s letter? Seriously, are you getting your information from Mario Apuzzo’s website? I suggest you look the cases up and read them yourself because his (and your) description of them is wrong.

  99. James M says:

    Obama’s SSN was issued when he was 16 or 17 years old, undoubtedly around the time he got his first job.

    Wait, what? Birthers told me that Obama has never had a job.

  100. James M says:

    Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?

    Pretending for the moment that this assertion is true and you can prove it, has President Obama broken any law by doing so?

  101. ? says:

    I asked earlier and missed the answer if it was there.
    In military tribunal or courts-martial do they differentiate between LEGAL and LAWFUL when they consider cases and/or deliver punishment after conviction?

  102. Christopher Mathews says:

    Punctuation mark, I’m not sure I understand the question. Perhaps you could explain in the new liveblogging thread, here.

  103. Christopher Mathews says:

    The new liveblogging thread is now posted here. Comments in this thread are closed.