Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Obama Citizenship Blogs -> The Right Side of Life

Obama Citizenship

: The Right Side of Life

Eligibility Update: Rev. Manning, LTC Lakin, Obama SSN

By Phil

This update will entail an overview of major eligibility events that have happened since The Right Side of Life.com’s relaunch as well as some recent news — and my analysis.

Rev. James David Manning’s The People v. Columbia and Obama Citizen’s Trial

Reporter Linda Bentley from SonoranNews.com did a masterful job at reporting — as well as being called as a witness in the trial — a survey of the event:

• The People v. Columbia and Obama trial convenes in Harlem church
• Obama, Sovern, trustees of Columbia University found guilty

The citizen trial was held under the auspices that Rev. Manning alleged that Columbia University lied about Obama’s attendance in that Obama was instead involved with the CIA at the time.

Not too long after Rev. Manning’s claim was made, The Post & Email conducted an interview with the controversial pastor on the subject.

My analysis:

The number one maxim for the eligibility issue is that all press is good press, though not everyone treats it as such.

While this citizen trial has no legal enforcement to it (and most in the opposition castigate it on this basis alone), there is nothing that stops anyone from aggregating evidence that they believe shows intent to commit fraud. The more that folks talk about this, the more traction the issue gets, especially in light of the radical policies promulgated by this Administration.

Army Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin Court Martial

LTC Terry Lakin is an active-duty Army officer (serving as the Chief of Primary Care and Flight Surgeon for the DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic and is lead Flight Surgeon charged with caring Army Chief of Staff General Casey’s pilots and air crew) who has “invited [his] own court martial” because of disobeying orders to be deployed to Afghanistan.

According to his web site, LTC Lakin has questioned his chain-of-command superiors as well as his congressional delegation over Mr. Obama’s eligibility. Subsequently, he believes that Mr. Obama needs to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as Commander in Chief before he can follow any further orders.

Recently, SafeguardOurConstitution.com reported news from his court martial. Via BirtherReport.com, the Investigating Officer produced the following documentation explaining why the Defense’s (LTC Lakin’s) request for various materials was, for the most part, denied:

Ruling on Defense Request for Witnesses and Evidence in LTC Lakin’s court-martial – 6/1/2010

It needs to be noted that the above document serves as a recommendation to the Court as to how to proceed.

From NativeBornCitizen, Court-Martial-UCMJ.com provides an excellent analysis from an individual who’s experienced in these matters. I’ll provide the poster’s salient commentary:

Thanks to safeguardourconstitution.com we have the Article 32, UCMJ, IO?s written ruling on several matters in LTC Lakin?s case.

Note, ?the Army? did not refuse the defense requests.  The IO did, acting in his role assigned under Article 32, UCMJ, and R.C.M. 405.  This is what I would have expected MAJ Kemkes, the military defense counsel to have told LTC Larkin, and by inference, Mr. Jensen. …

[Per paragraphs 3 and 4:] Sad, the defense was actually given the opportunity to submit a legal memorandum giving detailed facts and legal arguments to support production of evidence under R.C.M. 405(f)(9), (10).  Inexplicably the defense failed to do that.  I do not see any military judge saying that the IO?s determination was wrong.  Especially as the defense failed to attempt an argument.  I would suggest the issue is waived, at least as to the Article 32, UCMJ, hearing. …

[Per paragraphs 5 and 6:] It seems very hard to argue, unfair even, to criticize ?the Army? or the ?IO? from hiding the ball if, having been given fair notice and an opportunity to argue, the defense waives or fails to exercise the opportunity to state their position with particularity supported by law.

The same author posted a comment to the post detailing why an appeal of the above is unlikely:

1. At the end of the hearing the defense will be given the option to submit written objections to the hearing. R.C.M. 405(j)(4). That includes raising an issue that the IO made erroneous findings or decisions.
2. The IO can, but is not required to comment on the objections.
3. When the staff judge advocate (SJA) presents the case to the convening authority the SJA can comment on the objections.
4. Once charges are referred to trial the defense can make a motion for a new Article 32, UCMJ, investigation or to reopen, based on the errors. In making such a motion the defense will be required to do the same as the IO directed ? explain in a reasoned legal brief why there was error, why the error wasn?t waived for failure to comply with the IO?s direction, and whether or not there was prejudice from any error. I doubt a military judge will order a new Article 32, UCMJ, hearing on the issues so far for two reasons: like the IO the MJ will find the requested information irrelevant, and IMHO the defense effectively waived the issue by not briefing the issue. Note that I am not saying that had they briefed the issue they should have won, rather I?m saying that an aggressive, zealous, competent representation of the client on such an issue required the defense to make a good effort to raise and preserve the issue. We have all been in the position of raising an issue we know the IO or MJ will decide against us, but we make the effort to try to lay out the issues. If you or someone else has a copy of what the defense submitted then I?d certainly reconsider my thought if the filing was much detailed and complete than it appears to have been.

My analysis:

I cannot disagree with what the court martial lawyer is saying. I’ll only add that the Investigating Officer points out the following:

1. In paragraph 5, “[t]he Government does not charge that the President gave an order directly to LTC Lakin,” thereby saying that the object of LTC Lakin’s disagreement is with a lower-level officer, not the Commander-in-Chief, per se;
2. Also in paragraph 5, that “a facially proper order be obeyed so long as it does not require the commission of a criminal act;” LTC Lakin’s deployment orders to Afghanistan — presumably the basis upon which this court martial has been brought — are not criminal;
3. In paragraph 6, “…courts will refrain from inserting themselves in matters constitutionally relegated to coequal branches of Government;” and, “…constitutional jurisprudence allows Congress alone, not a military judicial body, to put the President’s credentials on trial.” My full analysis of the constitutional impossibility of Judicial presidential impeachment can be found here.

LTC Lakin certainly has some serious guts to go “all in” with his military career over this issue; I certainly don’t fault him for that. I simply wish his legal representation would have done a better job in presenting actual jurisprudence justifying his defense, per the IO’s quizzical response.

Obama’s Social Security Number

Once again, Linda Bentley of SonoranNews.com performs yeowoman’s work (!) at getting to the facts of Mr. Obama’s background.

This story, however, nearly defies explanation (most salient facts excerpted):

Story header:

President Obama?s Selective Service System registration, 61-1125539-1 was verified by entering his last name, date of birth: Aug. 4, 1961, and Social Security number 042-68-4425, a number issued in Connecticut between 1976 and 1979, which is when Obama was attending high school in Hawaii, to an individual born in 1890.

While describing the required documentation to have a completed application for a Social Security number submitted to the government, Sonoran News proverbially pounded the pavement with the feds in asking some pertinent questions:

Sonoran News contacted a congressional aide to ask if elected representatives, upon being elected and placed on the U.S. taxpayer-funded payroll, were required to fill out Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.

The instructions accompanying Form I-9 provide answers about the purpose of the form and when it should be used.

According to those instructions, ?All employees (citizens and noncitizens) hired after November 6, 1986, and working in the United States must complete Form I-9.?

No exceptions are noted.

After contacting Member Services for the U.S. House of Representatives, the aide said she was told members are not required to fill out a Form I-9.

She was told the reason the House does not require a Form I-9 from its members is because the Constitution requires anyone who runs for a seat in the House to be a U.S. citizen for a minimum of seven years. And, when a person runs for office, they must file proof with their state?s election office that they meet the requirements of the office.

However that does not appear to be the case. If it were, Roger Calero, a Nicaraguan national and convicted felon, wouldn?t have been able to appear on the ballot as the Socialist Worker’s Party candidate for president of the United States in numerous states.
No one appears to be responsible for certifying, under penalty of perjury, that he has examined one document from List A or one each from List B and C, and that the documents presented appear genuine and relate to the candidate, who simply signs a document swearing to be eligible.

There is no apparent law or written policy that exempts members of Congress or other elected officials on taxpayer-funded payrolls from filling out a Form I-9.

Sonoran News continues to seek answers regarding Obama?s fraudulent use of another person?s SSN, the use of which has been cemented in with his fraudulently created Selective Service registration.

My analysis:

As my own site can attest via such categories as Candidate Qualifications, I agree with Ms. Bentley in that there has been, to date, no direct accountability on the part of State-level Secretaries of State to actually vet candidates for office, outside of self-ascribing documentation in which said candidates declare themselves (with no required substantiating documentation) eligible for a given position.

-Phil

Email: phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com

Subscribe via RSS feed and/or email updates

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

• The background:
  • Obama?s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
  • Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
  • Obama Citizenship Facts
  • What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a BirthCertificate
  • Hawai’i State Department of Health – Vital Records “Obama” page
• The questions:
  • Leo Donofrio Affirms FightTheSmears.com?s Obama Citizenship Admission
  • Fallible FactCheck.org: TheBirthers, Donofrio Cause Change on Obama Citizenship
  • Newsmax.com: Obama Birth Certificate Not Released
  • Keyes v. Lingle: Forensic Examiner and IT Expert Disprove Certification of Live Birth
  • The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
  • Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing

Similar Posts:

• Comparing Military Enlisted and Officer Oaths
• More Military Personnel Consent as Plaintiffs to Dr. Taitz’ Upcoming Suit
• Further Leo Donofrio Comments on Quo Warranto
• Retired Colonel Reported to be Joining Dr. Taitz’ Upcoming Court Case
• Army Sergeant Next to Join Dr. Taitz’ Upcoming Military Action

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on June 04, 2010 (boomark / email).