UPDATE:  04.16.10: On Wednesday, on another blog, I was asked to comment on the Lt. Col. Lakin case.  Here was my comment on that blog.

I read the Lame Cherry piece recommended here. All sizzle; no steak.

Think of the situation in this way: in deciding the fate of Lt. Col. Lakin, the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution is irrelevant. (The fact that he was legally elected will be mentioned but will not be a material issue, either.)

Rather, the only issue is this. When a soldier refuses to obey a direct order from immediate superiors is he subject to a court martial under the UCMJ? And the answer is, yes. Can he offer as a defense he had a good faith belief the lawfully elected CiC is not a NBC? Yes. Is such good faith belief an affirmative defense? No. (In other words, under the law, is it material to the finding of guilt whether he believed what he was doing is right? And the answer is, no.)

Several readers, while asserting their complete respect for my legal opinion on other issues; took issue with my ‘take’ on issues related to the UCMJ. Then, during my appearance on REVOLUTION RADIO, drkate asked for my opinion of this case.  I repeated what I had posted earlier, on that blog.

Here is a line from an email I received from drkate, shortly after the show.

Here is information that supports your discussion about Lt. Col. Lakin tonight.

I have read these materials; the legal argument spelled out therein is sound.  Nevertheless, normally I would neither post nor propose that you review an unknown source.  However, in this case, the author includes images from the relevant sections of the Code which were the basis for his treatise.


I had planned to take the day off to process tomorrow’s lengthy post. But, as fate would have it, I received an email from a respected colleague, asking me to read the article about Lt. Col. Terrance Lakin, the military doctor (surgeon) in the news lately for saying, he would refuse deployment to Afghanistan until Barack Obama produces documentation that establishes he is Constitutionally eligible to be his CiC. My response to her was rather lengthy; I already had not only familiarized myself with his situation but also been asked by others to weigh in with an opinion. I decided to incorporate my response to her email in this post, and refer people here, the next time they ask.


Fw: Army calls “BIRTHER” doc’s bluff (THIS WILL MAKE U MAD)


With all due respect, I am angry; but not perhaps at whom you might think.

I have not read the whole article; but these lines jumped out at me.

Instead, he referred inquiries to Margaret Hemenway, a spokeswoman for the Patriotic American Foundation, a group raising money to defend Lakin should he be prosecuted.
“Unless there is a breakthrough, unless there is a willingness to give [Lakin] the documentation he requests to show that the commander-in-chief is legally in the job … he won’t be able to follow those orders” to report, said Hemenway. Lakin’s refusal to deploy, Hemenway said, is in keeping with a vow not to obey any order he is given until he is satisfied that Obama was born in the United States.

Who is Ms. Hemenway and, what are her credentials to advise Mr. Lakin on the legal consequences of his position?

These ‘eligibility’ challenges have become quite the cottage industry. What I mean to say is, Mr. Lakin’s ‘case’ has no shot in hell – pardon my use of a military-like analogy – where he clearly can be charged, if he maintains his demands for eligibility verification.

(Interestingly, I stopped at this point to see whether the lengthy article will tell me his legal status viz a viz the military, that is, whether he is National Guard awaiting call-up, in which case, as you know, he is not yet under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ but state law, with the Governor as his ‘CiC’; or whether he is active military. And now, I read the rest of the email and found this.

Phil Cave, a retired Navy judge advocate general who now practices military law as a civilian, said that even if Lakin does decide to deploy as scheduled, the Army still may be able to prosecute him. Under Article 88, Cave said, a servicemember can be charged for making disrespectful comments or remarks about the president.
Cave believes that Lakin’s supporters in the birther movement hope that a court-martial will give defense attorneys the authority to seek, through discovery, other documents to help make their case.
“They think that by using [servicemembers in a court-martial] they can get discovery like you could in any criminal prosecution,” he said. “That ain’t gonna happen. They’re not going to have discovery where they’re going to get the president to produce a birth certificate because, I’m reasonably certain, no military judge, no appellate court and no federal court, and no U.S. Supreme Court is going to say they have a right to get that as a matter of discovery.”

So, you have jbjd and a retired Navy judge advocate general now practicing military law both saying, ‘not gonna happen.’ (However, I wish the article had pursued the reasoning underlying Mr. Cave’s prediction.)

Understand, I am not saying Mr. Lakin should not pursue conduct in accordance with the dictates of his conscience. On the contrary; I support his decision to proceed according to his beliefs. I am saying, aligning himself with a group that is determined to argue the rightness of that conduct because of his beliefs without even acknowledging the wrongness of his conduct, including the potential catastrophic harm to the country if individual soldiers determined for themselves when to serve; cannot serve him well.

Here is one of my favorite quotes from the writings of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., from “Letters from Birmingham Jail,” in the collection of his works in The Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr.

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate
evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who
breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I
submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly
accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its
injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

I hope you understand where I am coming from.


14 Responses to COURAGE of CONVICTION

  1. jbjd says:

    I looked up the article excerpted in the email; it’s from here.

  2. Pete says:


    You have a right to your opinion, and as far as law goes, it is much better informed than mine.

    I think it is sad that a soldier feels the need to question if his orders are legal, because he feels that the POTUS is an ursurper under the Constitution.

    What is truly wrong with this, is that he has to ask! There should be no question about “if” the POTUS is eligible for the office, as there are only three requirements under the Constitution.

    I cannot see justice that involves prosecution of someone whom asks only for the proof that his orders are lawful, especially in time of war. We as a nation, cannot ask our citizens to be responsible for their actions, without providing them with the basic knowledge that they are following legal authority.

    Frankly, providing the documentation is simple and effective. Anything short of definitive proof of legal order having been submitted form a legal CIC, will be seen as cover-up and cowardice on the part of the military and the US government by the people. I believe that this soldier DOES have a right to know, others may believe differently, but what exactly is the harm done in the proving—unless the soldier is correct that it isn’t a legal order?

    Pete: Welcome; I am so glad you sent in this comment. Because in my post, I did not go into the substantive reasons for believing, no soldier on active duty questioning the legitimacy of the President qua CiC can avoid discipline under the UCMJ. That is, whether BO satisfied the Constitutional eligibility for the job has no bearing on whether he is the POTUS/CiC. In my mind, the question of eligibility presented here is political; and, therefore, outside of the scope of the courts. That is, under the Constitution, all of the steps that were supposed to take place to elect the man, were carried out. (I have mentioned this several times before.) States Appointed Electors (through voting in the general election in November, and Certification of that vote by election officials and the Governor in each state); Electors voted for BO (in December); Congress Certified the Electors’ vote (in January); and the CJ of the SCOTUS swore him in on January 20, 2008. Just like the Constitution says. Nothing in that document requires anyone to ensure the person elected meets Constitutional qualifications.

    However, state laws in some states do require, before you can get a name printed on our state ballots, the candidate must be eligible for the office sought. I believe, BO is Constitutionally ineligible. That’s why I am asking the question: given that no documentary evidence available in the public record establishes BO is a NBC; on what documentary basis did members of the D party ascertain he was, before swearing he was, to state election officials to get them to print his name on the ballot?

    (Besides, how would such a demand to produce a ‘birth certificate’ actually be carried out? For example, to whom would this document be presented? Who would verify its authenticity? How does proof of birth establish NBC status where questions also arose as to whether adoption has altered such status?)

    • Pete says:


      Thanks for the feedback. Truly I see your point of view, and your logic. However, if the current POTUS office is based upon criminal activity, i.e. Fraud on his part and others, then the entire office is illegal and any orders thereof. Your opinion that he is POTUS, but is ineligible, is essentially stating that he has committed a federal crime (multiple) to advance into office. Prior court rulings make it clear that you cannot legally hold an office if you committed election fraud to obtain it.

      While we can go back and forth about ‘if’ he is eligible or not, a simple Military court can order the release of such simple records on any active service person. Since you cannot be a commander in chief (CIC) and not be in the military, his records are ‘fair game’.

      While we differ in opinion if Obama is POTUS within the Constitutional framework, I say Nay since he most obviously committed election fraud, we can both agree on some obvious points here. First, we can agree that Obama is not Natural Born, since he birth was under the jurisdiction of the British government. Two, we can agree that all of this can simply go away with a release of standard everyday records like a complete birth record.

      Pete: Discard whose ‘opinion’ is right or wrong. We do not elect the President; the Electors do. The Electors’ election of BO was not fraudulent whether he is a NBC. Or whether he claims to be a NBC. Or whether they elected HRC instead of him; or even JMc. Rules and laws that apply to the election of other offices do not apply to the election of the President. According to the Constitution, Electors can elect anyone they want. No vetting is required. And states only made laws that impact their decision in this way: they must support the party nominee. No ‘faithless Electors’ have ever been punished. But given that these Electors are party faithfuls named by the party and submitted to state election officials; it is no wonder, they routinely go along with the party.

      No legal definition of NBC exists absent an appellate court ruling in a case directly on point. Please, read the blog. I repeat these same statements, along with the rationale for my interpretation of the law and the Constitution. Repeating any definition as if repetition makes it so; fails to increase anyone’s knowledge of how our political system or government works. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. Michelle says:

    “unjust law must do so openly” this brings back a lot of memories. When we were teen-agers my girlfriends and I were in Civil Rights Demonstrations because of the Constitution and unjust laws. Being the super-straight high achieving girls from Catholic schools how we ditched I don’t remember. I do remember all of our parents were with us in spirit, but we did not tell them what we were up to-disobey parents, well if you don’t tell-I remember we were convinced we were going to get killed-better than getting arrested-teen-agers that’s how you think-we were sort of brave/bold/scared, but we were convinced we were doing the right thing. If one is enslaved all are enslaved. Civil Rights finally passed-on the path to justice for all Americans. The biggest shock of my life was finding out how few rights American women had up until that time. A wonderful house (investment) plopped into my mothers lap suddenly-had to make a decision very quickly-as a married woman (my father was too chicken to invest)we went to the mortgage lady (thank God it was a woman) I had to co-sign, by then I was 21. I remember sitting in the bank with my Mom and the Mortgage Lady saying women pay all the bills in this country so I’m signing off on this loan. Thank you nice mortgage lady.
    Because of this woman-the rent paid for my brothers college education, other things and when my Mom sold it, it was for 3-4 times what she paid for it.
    I guess the moral I’m trying to make it is all about our Constitution, if we were openly defying our government in the streets-something will give in the end-the high price for being citizens-it can be a little scary though. I hope Obama does get justice at the source of the original crime-the blatant election fraud. I sincerely hope that he and Jarrett will be prosecuted for their work as slum landlords on the Southside of Chicago-most immoral disaster I ever saw.
    How anyone could spin any of that as legal is beyond me.

    Michelle: What a fabulous story. How fortunate you are to be your mother’s daughter.

    You and I (and I am sure many others) share the outrage over the scam that is Chicago public housing which, in large part, was responsible for catapulting BO into financial prosperity. (If anyone here has not read Evelyn Pringle, please, do yourself a favor and wade into her exposes.) But as you learned at such an early age; protesting against inequities in the ‘system,’ whether real or imagined, comes with risk. I didn’t hear you say, you should not get arrested for defying this system, only that you were justifiably protesting what you found wrong. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. Teddy says:

    I agree with you completely. While Lt. Col. Lakin would have the duty/authority to challenge an order from his immediate superior, I don’t believe he can go further up the chain of command.

    I have considered the possibility of an officer who received their commission from Obama having standing IAW the holding in Newman (16-3503 interested person). It wouldn’t be a walk in the park, but I can’t see the District Court having the nads to deny standing to a military officer that they would acknowledge if he/she was a civil service employee.

    Just a thought. Desparate times call for desparate measures. I understand the effect such an action would likely have on a young officer’s career. However, I’m more worried about having a military at all by the time Obama finishes.

    Teddy: Welcome. Actually, if filing a military lawsuit were the way to go, way back in November 2008, I proposed a member of the National Guard subject to deployment could go into federal court under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act. Because until s/he actually shows up for deployment, s/he is under the jurisdiction of the Governor of the state, and not the UCMJ. And we are not nearly in desperate times. I am not looking for a savior; each of us could be the tipping point for resolution. That is, If enough citizens in applicable states protest that officials of the D party refuse to disclose on what basis they Certified BO is a NBC for the purpose of getting his name printed on the ballots then, the A’sG in those states would be persuaded to ask the question themselves. Or a member of the MSM… ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Teddy says:


    I don’t understand how a Guardsman (without any additional qualifier) would have standing to challenge the President’s title to office. In addition, wouldn’t the likely result consist of the deployment orders being rescinded? Thereby making the question moot.(as recent history demonstrates)

    I think the most expedient method would be an information on quo warranto, filed by an “interested person” IAW the holding in Newman. Since I doubt that any civil service employee would challenge the President, I think that leaves two possibilities:

    1. I think a State of the Union could initiate a quo warranto action by direction of that State’s governor. (Texas and Utah are you listening?) If a State filed the quo warranto action, I think SCOTUS would have original jurisdiction. I find that to be preferable to having such an important decision being placed in the hands of a lower court.

    2. I think a young military officer who received their commission from Obama would have a right/duty to ensure that their commission is valid. Their interest would be direct and unique, unlike that of a voter or taxpayer.

    The quo warranto statute was specifically enacted to challenge the President’s title to that office. The deficiency was brought to the forefront after the Hayes vs. Tilden election of 1876 (a disputed election). The 1877 speeches in Congress and before the Electoral Commission provide an excellent background on the motivation of Congress to enact the quo warranto statute.
    (This is a very informative and worthwhile read)

    Teddy: Thank you for sending that link; great historical background to quo warranto. Clearly, this cause of action does not apply to determining whether the President should be compelled to vacate the office because he is Constitutionally ineligible for the job. Such ‘vacation’ can only result from Articles of Impeachment. The materials you cite, while relating to both “qualifications” and “President,” are focused on the Electors. The quo warranto process discussed here is limited to establishing the legitimacy of the procedure followed in carrying out the process of state Ascertainment of Electors and the vote by those Electors for President. In other words, were the votes tallied correctly AND conveyed to the Archivist accurately. Evidence of this narrow focus of Mr. Fields’ entreaties to the time period BEFORE the swearing in of the new President appears in the opening page to these remarks.

    “Though Mr. Fields had voted for Mr. Hayes, he was convinced that Mr. Tilden had been elected, and should be so declared, and his efforts were directed to that end from the time of the election to the seating of Mr. Hayes.” p. 405

    As to your question about the national guard… been there; done that. In March 2009. Read, NATIONAL GUARD: THE PERFECT MILITARY PLAINTIFFS FOR A LAWSUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT

  6. Kathleen Wynne says:


    As you know, we have commented on each other’s post over at NQ and elsewhere and I just wanted to state here and now on your site, that I respect and admire your commitment to finding the truth about obama’s questionable legitimacy to be CIC. It’s not easy to pursue this issue because you are fighting a corrupt government who has taken great pains to cover up all of his past, which no other candidate would have been allowed to get away with.

    I particularly appreciated the quote you sent to Lt. Col. Lakin from MLK, in part: “I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.”

    We honor Dr. King for his willingness to go to jail for his convictions today because it was the only way to shine a light on the truth about racism and we should honor Lt. Col. Lakin for following his convictions.

    As you, and many others know, it’s not only the BC that’s been kept hidden from the American people, but all of obama’s school records and state senate records. How he has gotten away with this is cause for alarm because of the reasons “why” this has been done and ordered by whom. Until these questions are answered in full, keep doing what you are doing.

    Seeking the truth is never a waste of time.

    Here’s a quote for you: “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” Mahatma Ghandi

    Kathleen Wynne: Welcome; and thank you. Your comments point to what has been my biggest challenge. That is, what was the mindset that enabled people to hire BO for the job of Chief Executive notwithstanding he refused to establish for them, he was even eligible for the job? This means, setting aside our lack of knowledge about how our political system works; why vote for a man who treats us as if HE is doing us a favor by coming to work for US? (I am confident that once we understand how our government works, figuring out why BO is where he is and who put him there, will quickly follow.) ADMINISTRATOR

  7. Kathleen Wynne says:


    I’m sure you already know this, but I believe (names omitted by jbjd) are behind the obama meteoric rise to power.

    (remainder of comment omitted by jbjd)

    Kathleen Wynne: I cannot wait to begin posting articles related to the financial shenanigans of these crooks. I agree that when we ‘out’ how BO was installed into the WH, the by whom and why will closely follow. And it will in large be all about the money. But for now, I am limiting the scope of our discussions here to just the ‘how’ he got in; and how to get him out. So, I will save your comments for another post. ADMINISTRATOR

  8. roni says:

    Greetings jbjd.

    You are amazing. Thank you for your hard work. The simple fact that someone of your obvious legal caliber would persisit in pursuit of the truth is proof enough for rational people who are able to think and question for themselves.

    (extraneous comments deleted by jbjd)

    John D. Hemenway, Esq. a “World War II veteran, Naval Academy graduate and a Rhodes scholar” acted as local attorney of record for Philip Berg in the Colonel Hollister v Barry Soetoro lawsuit.

    Are you familiar?

    Colonel Hollister claimed standing on the possibillity of being recalled to active duty. Of course it didn’t work because no one has standing and, as you say, it’s a political question.

    Hemenway was sanctioned with a verbal reprimand by Judge James Robertson who ruled the case “frivolous”. In his order, he referred to BO’s extensive vetting:

    “The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency…”

    Hemenway appealed. He also wrote letters to Rupert Murdock and Robert Gibbs demanding action. Don’t know what happened.

    Mr Hemenway is more Mario Apuzzo than Orly Taitz or Philip Berg and as far as I know had no agenda like Taitz and Berg.

    (link omitted by jbjd)
    (comment omitted by jbjd)
    Some days it is hard to fathom what has happened in a few short years.

    May God grant you the courage to soldier on.

    roni: The Hollister case failed not “because no one has standing” but rather because, Mr. Hollister, being too old to have any chance of being recalled to active duty, had no standing. In other words, he would never be in the position to refuse such recall on account of his choice to ‘support and defend the Constitution,’ which “support and defend” meant, in his opinion, he could not obey the orders of the man he believed was not Constitutionally eligible to be CiC. I posted my memorandum describing how a member of the military could gain standing in federal court in an eligibility related case, in early November 2008. In that memo (and in subsequent posts), I spelled out that certain military plaintiffs could establish standing to petition the federal court to issue a ruling on what is a NBC. I proposed this be done by a member of the National Guard, pursuant to the federal Declaratory Judgment Act. Mr. Berg filed Hollister after that. However, he brought a variation of my proposal, using a Plaintiff who would never be subject to harm – the federal Declaratory Judgment Act requires the Plaintiff must be a prospective Defendant in a subsequent proceeding – meaning, he had no standing; and he used the cause of action Interpleader. Apples and oranges. The suit never had a chance. That said, I am glad Berg brought it, because this is how we ended up with Mr. Bauer’s infamous footnote in the Motion to Dismiss.

    An emotional entreaty to do what the writer asks because s/he ‘really really really’ means what s/he says; is no excuse for a cold calculated recitation of facts and law. As you indicate, I am persistent. As a result, no one doubts my passion, notwithstanding I tend to avoid hyperbolic proclamations of the rightness of my position. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. jbjd says:

    I was asked my opinion of the Lakin case, on another blog. Here was my response.

    …Think of the situation in this way: in deciding the fate of Lt. Col. Lakin, the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution is irrelevant. (The fact that he was legally elected will be mentioned but will not be a material issue, either.)

    Rather, the only issue is this. When a soldier refuses to obey a direct order from immediate superiors is he subject to a court martial under the UCMJ? And the answer is, yes. Can he offer as a defense he had a good faith belief the lawfully elected CiC is not a NBC? Yes. Is such good faith belief an affirmative defense? No. (In other words, under the law, is it material to the finding of guilt whether he believed what he was doing is right? And the answer is, no.)…

    Some readers over there, while emphatically reiterating respect for my legal acumen; disagreed with my opinion as to the application of the UCMJ in this instance. Then, I was asked about this case on drkate’s Revolution Radio show just now; my response mimicked my comments on that blog. She just sent me this link to materials she claimed supported my take on Mr. Lakin’s situation. I have now skimmed these; drkate’s impression of their content was right.

  10. Teddy says:

    Thought your readers might be interested in reading this article from a 1960 issue of LIFE Magazine.
    “Officer’s Duty to Disobey Orders”

    Teddy: Welcome; and yes, readers might be interested in an historical perspective of military justice. Let us hope they keep in mind, this information was published in 1960. The current applicable standards are cited in my post.

    Again, the import of the Lakin situation is to point out to American citizens who question BO’s Constitutional eligibility for the job; there are no saviors to resolve your dilemma. You have to do the hard work – learning how our government system functions – for yourself. To help you, I already compiled the information, here on this blog. ADMINISTRATOR

  11. Cabby - AZ says:

    jbjd – As always I appreciate very much your appraisal and understanding of these legal matters. Having also read again your other post about the necessary actions which should be carried out at the state level, I have learned much about the futility of the past suits that have been filed re. O’s right to occupy the presidency. The multitudes that were asleep at the switch, so to speak, before he was actually elected are largely responsible; but most of us were so uninformed as to what was actually taken place.

    I really was quite informed as to O’s background and what we could expect if he were President, but not up on ways to expose what I believed to be his usurpation.

    Oh, would that folks in those states whose laws are favorable to allowing criminal complaints to the respective attorneys general could be stirred sufficiently to pursue the actions that are still available to them! Articles of impeachment will probably never be sought unless there is pressure arising from citizens of these states.

    Would you agree that if the elections in Nov. yield enough of a change in Congress, Articles of Impeachment could be pursued for other reasons stated in the Constitution, providing that they could be legally applied to actions of the President? In other words, the serious questions surrounding his eligibility
    would not have to be a factor in his removal from office.

    Being an accountant, I’ve read many legal documents through the years, and I have to commend you on the clarity with which you write. Although I realize that these are not documents in the true sense of the word, still they are written about legal matters, and sometimes lawyers don’t communicate too well. Thanks for all of the effort and time you dedicate to your readers and listeners.

    Cabby – AZ: To use your phrase, you and I and millions of others were asleep at the switch, even while we ‘knew’ about BO! Honestly, I still recall how I felt realizing, the only thing standing between what I assumed would be the foregone imposition of his Nomination; and the WH was just his name on state ballots! In other words, if we could not keep him off those, we could not keep him out of the WH.

    Articles of Impeachment WILL be introduced as soon as one state ‘comes out’ with the results of the initial investigation into citizen complaints of election fraud. That is, when one state AG says, ‘I asked (fill in the name of the D official) to produce all documentary evidence that was the basis for Certifying to election officials in our state, BO was Constitutionally eligible for the job, on the basis of which promise our state printed his name on the general election ballot. But (name of D official) has refused to comply with this request. Therefore, I have now determined to use all of the resources available to this office to charge (name of D official) with criminal election fraud and to prosecute to the fullest extent allowed under the law.’

    The national cries for BO’s ouster at that point will drown out all reluctance on the part of members of the House of Representatives. And they will not be Impeaching BO just because he is not a NBC but because he had to have participated in this massive election (ballot) fraud. But, as you say, technically, this is different from Impeachmenet as the result of not being a NBC. (You ‘get’ it!) ADMINISTRATOR

  12. Cabby - AZ says:

    jbjd – Thanks for the commentary! There is a blogger over on a site that you frequently visit that has referred to a posting in Dec., 2008, re. a document that was signed by POTUS attesting that he is a NBC for purposes of being on the ballot in my state, Arizona. Is that a starting point for any kind of legal action by AZ citizens if it could be proved that he committed perjury? I know that would have to be done at the state level, and we have a Dem. Attorney General. Our SOS was Rep. Jan Brewer, who then became Governor to fill that office after the appointment of Janet Napolitano to head Homeland Security. Could you weigh in on this either here or over at the other site? I’m sure that the BIG problem here would be proving the perjury……

    Cabby – AZ: Yep; been there, done that. You can do a search on this blog for “AZ.” I have referenced that application to get on the AZ Presidential preference primary many times. (He also submitted forms in other states, too.) But you are right; proving BO did something wrong BEFORE going after the other D officials who swore he was eligible to get on the ballot, is futile. HE knows whether he is eligible. But, on what documentary basis, did they? But going after him directly for lying to state officials meant, KNOWING he is not a NBC. We don’t. But we KNOW if we don’t KNOW then, neither did the D officials who swore he was.

    The only use of this AZ document is to support a claim that BO knows the difference between “Natural Born Citizen” and “native,” the word he uses on FTS. Because as I have been saying ever since June 2008, it makes absolutely no sense to try to prove BO is not a NBC, by searching for documents. Rather, it makes sense to establish, if we cannot locate documentary evidence in the public record that would establish BO is a NBC then, no one else who certified his eligibility could have found documentary evidence on which to base that eligibility Certification.

    The AZ form only comes into play to establish BO participated in the ballot fraud (in which the other D officials are found culpable).ADMINISTRATOR

  13. CRB says:

    As I noted before jbjd, you only have half of an analysis of this. Here Is the most important part you don’t have.

    (Note from jbjd to Readers: CRB’s comment is quite long and, I disagree with all of this. But, since s/he took the time to write this and send it in, I decided to post it along with my editorial comments.)

    (Note from jbjd to CRB: Next time, I will not print a comment intended to compel me to ‘see your point’ through intimidation. The reason your conclusion as to Mr. Lakin’s options differs from mine is that I read the facts and apply the law differently from you. Please do not presume my reasoning would agree with yours ‘if only I had your information.’)

    There is more to Military Law than just the UCMJ when it comes to a Courts-Martial of this caliber. First and foremost, Military Law is also subject to and subservient to international treaties such the Geneva Conventions, and the international Laws of War. The Lt. Col. is a dually Commissioned Military Officer, and it is not only his job, but his duty to disobey orders what he thinks might be unconstitutional as we discussed yesterday and the day before about Military Oaths.

    (I have said that anyone subject to the UCMJ may feel compelled to submit to its terms; however, I reject any analysis that asserts this means, s/he should not be subject to discipline under other terms contained in the Code. jbjd)

    (quoted portions of Code removed by jbjd; see link provided elsewhere for actual Code)

    Under the Geneva Conventions, to whi9ch the UCMJ is subserviant, any military member found to be operating under an illegitimate/unlawful Leadership on a field of war will be subject to prosecution as a War Criminal. As we know, via the Nuremberg trials. Ignorance of an Unlawful order is not an excuse, justification, or reason to carry it out. You will be tried, and you will most likely be executed for doing so if found guilty of the offence.

    No cites? Okay, I cannot post any more of this. You violate several principles of this blog, including but not limited to failure to cite authorities. This blog does not engage in diatribes which purport to determine the correctness of viewpoints based on whose opinion can drown out opposing views. “As we know” is no substitute for a well-reasoned presentation of facts as these facts fit into (cited) law. ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: