Via Commander Kerchner; JAMESBURG, NJ – (Sept. 30, 2010) - Attorney Mario Apuzzo of Jamesburg, NJ, today filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington DC, on behalf of plaintiffs, Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lehigh County, PA; Lowell T. Patterson, Burlington County, NJ; Darrell J. LeNormand, Middlesex County, NJ; and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr., Middlesex County, NJ. Plaintiffs are challenging the recent decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, PA, which affirmed the dismissal by District Judge, Jerome Simandle, sitting in the Federal District Court, Camden, NJ, of plaintiffs’ lawsuit in which they charge that Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, has NOT conclusively proven to any controlling legal authority that he is Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen of the United States” and thus constitutionally eligible to serve as the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military, and that he has hidden all his early life records including his original long-form birth certificate, early school records, college records, travel and passport records needed to prove he is even a born Citizen of the United States
Obama was born a British Subject/Citizen to a British Subject/Citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother. Obama's father was not a U.S. Citizen and never intended to be one. Obama's father was never even an immigrant to the USA nor was he even a permanent legal resident. Obama's father was a foreign national sojourning in the USA to attend college. Obama is still a British Subject/Citizen to this day because he has never renounced that citizenship. According to this lawsuit, Obama was born a dual-citizen with dual allegiance and loyalty and is therefore not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military. The founders of our country and framers of our Constitution required the President to have unity of citizenship and sole natural allegiance to the USA from the moment of birth, which Obama does not and cannot have. This was a national security issue to the founders and framers.
Obama has multiple foreign allegiance claims on him because of his British citizenship which also converted to Kenyan citizenship at age 2. Obama was also an Indonesian citizen as a youth when he was adopted or acknowledged by his Indonesian step-father when he married his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham.
The lawsuit seeks a trial on the merits to determine the true facts of Obama’s legal identity and exact citizenship status and to require Obama to prove to the courts that he is eligible for the federal office he sits in per our Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which states: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The legal term of art, natural born citizen, is defined by the world renowned legal scholar, Emer de Vattel, in his pre-eminent legal treatise and enlightenment to the world of jurisprudence in the revolutionary period, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, and which was used by the founders by the Continental Congress during the formation of our country and by the framers of our U.S. Constitution, and whose definition of natural born Citizen is incorporated in several U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Vattel and U.S. Supreme Court decisions agree that a natural born citizen is a person born in the country to two parents who are both citizens of the country. Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, nor even an immigrant to the USA. Thus Obama is not a natural born citizen of the USA, and that is the reason for the lawsuit.
The original lawsuit was filed early in the morning of January 20, 2009, before Obama was sworn in. The case was dragged out by delays by the government in addressing the case and deciding on whether the case would proceed to a fact finding trial on the merits or not. The courts have decided that it will not go to the merits and have dismissed the case using technical and procedural tactics to keep the Plaintiffs from getting to the merits of the charges.
By the lower Courts finding that plaintiffs do not have standing and that their claims present a political question, the lower Courts were able to avoid having to address the underlying merits of the Kerchner case. With such a decision, the American People unfortunately still do not know conclusively where Obama was born and whether he is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore constitutionally eligible to be President and Commander in Chief. Being a born “Citizen of the United States” is a necessary part but is NOT sufficient to be an Article II “natural born Citizen of the United States”. We have asked the relevant questions and provided for the U.S. Supreme Court in our Petition various reasons why it should accept this case and promptly resolves this constitutional crisis.
--more--
A copy of the Petition for the Writ of Certiorari may be viewed and downloaded at this site. [embedded below]
For a copy of the Petition and more information about the lawsuit see these links:
Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for Kerchner et al vs. Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al Lawsuit
Update: As previously reported here, a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus was filed in the Army Court of Criminal Appeals on behalf of LTC Terry Lakin. The Petition and supporting Brief embedded below.
UPDATE - 10/14/2010 - LTC Lakin v. COL Lind et al, - Petition for Extraordinary Relief, Writ of Mandamus and Application for Stay of Proceedings, Denied - 10/12/10 - Previous report here. Order now linked here and embedded below.
UPDATE - New date announced for LTC Lakin's Trial: December 14-16. More info as it is available. Source.
UPDATE - DOWNLOAD LTC LAKIN'S FLYER: PRINT, EMAIL, AND DISTRIBUTE TO EVERYONE. CLICK HERE FOR THE FLYER.
Local CBS affiliate W*USA9 continues the Obama talking points from an organization that employed Obama and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Below is a snippet from W*USA9's report on LTC Lakin's court-martial hearing and my email to the "reporter" that propagated the piece. Feel free to email the reporter and demand that he correct his lies. Video report and contact info posted below.
Via W*USA9; - New Setback For Birther Flight Surgeon Who Refused Deployment - Bruce Leshan
FORT MEADE, Md (WUSA) -- Another big legal setback for the Walter Reed doctor who refuses to deploy to Afghanistan until he sees President Obama's original birth certificate.
A military judge ruled the President's birth records were irrelevant to the case that could send Lt. Col Terrence Lakin to federal prison for four years of hard labor.
This is the controversy that just won't go away.
Polls suggest about a quarter of Americans doubt President Obama was born in the US, even though all kinds of mainstream news organizations have debunked the so called birther arguments.
You can go on the web and look at pictures of a his Hawaiian certification of live birth that shows he was born in Honolulu.
There's even a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper from 1961.
But Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin still doesn't believe it. The flight surgeon was back before a judge in a last ditch attempt to salvage some kind of defense case. A case funded by the conservative American Patriot Foundation and publicized on YouTube.
"I am disobeying my orders to deploy," says Lakin on YouTube, "because I, and I believe all servicemen and women and the American people deserve the truth about President Obama's constitutional eligibility to the Office of the Presidency and the Commander in Chief."
But things aren't going well for Lakin as his case heads toward trial on charges of missing a movement, disobeying lawful orders, and dereliction of duty.
The judge turned down two more witnesses... ruled the orders at issue ARE lawful ... and found that Lakin's motives are irrelevant... at least until sentencing.
"It is impossible for us to put on a defense without them," says defense attorney Paul Rolf Jensen. "We've been deprived of everything, what else is left." ...the lies continued here; http://www.wusa9.com/rss/local_article.aspx?storyid=113264
"Reporter" Bruce Leshan can be contacted by email here; bleshan@wusa9.com
Also contact W*USA9 and demand they report the truth about Obama's CONSTITUTIONAL eligibility to be President.
W*USA 9
4100 Wisconsin Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20016
Phone: 202.895.5999
General email: 9news@wusa9.com
http://www.facebook.com/WUSA9
Story Ideas & Press Releases: wusa-assignmentdesk@wusa9.com Source; http://www.wusa9.com/company/contact/default.aspx [image source]
My email to "reporter" Bruce Leshan;
Bruce Leshan,
Thanks for covering the Lt Col Lakin hearing ( http://www.wusa9.com/rss/local_article.aspx?storyid=113264 )... but...
Just a few questions and clarifications.
The newspaper birth announcements were generated after a COLB (certification of live birth, which is not the same as a certificate of live birth aka birth certificate) was applied for under the Hawaii Act 96 program which also allowed foreign born babies to obtain a Hawaiian COLB...
Did you know that Hawaii did not even accept the short-form COLB as proof as a Hawaiian birth until 2009, as the same type short form was also issued to Act 96 applicants?
Did you know that Hawaii is ignoring their own laws that require them to release any and ALL information to back up public statements made by Hawaii DoH officials, regarding Obama?
Did you know that Hawaii refuses to verify the numerous images of Obama's purported COLB as being issued by the Hawaii DoH?
Did you know that Hawaii can release a person's original long form hospital generated birth certificate with the person's authorization?
Did you know Obama refuses to give such authorization?
Did you know that Obama is fighting the release of ALL past records, now with lawyers paid with our tax dollars?
Did you know that Factcheck.org is run and funded by the Annenberg Foundation which EMPLOYED Obama and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers?
This was sent to me by an ABC reporter located in Hawaii. Even he knows the difference! Why not you? http://www.scribd.com/doc/31951652/Official-Hawaii-Certificate-of-Live-Birth-vs-Obama-s-Certification-of-Live-Birth
Did you know this issue is about whether Obama is a "natural born Citizen" of the United States which is not the same as a "Citizen" of the United States?
How about doing a real investigation in to this issue instead of using Obama talking points posted by an organization that once employed Obama and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers?
[UPDATE BELOW] Via (Pro-Obama?) NIMJ; At today's court-martial session, the defense and trial counsel argued a number of motions. The defense first argued that the military judge should abate the court-martial until the Army Court of Criminal Appeals rules on a writ petition the defense inexplicably ("for reasons I can't get into right now," according to a defense counsel) filed just yesterday, in response to the military judge's ruling on September 2. The defense also attempted to convince the military judge that several prospective witnesses who were the subject of prosecution motions in limine were relevant to the defense case. These witnesses included former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and a retired Air Force general. The defense sought to qualify these gentlemen as experts in the areas of constitutional history and military training regarding the chain of command and obedience to orders, respectively.
The trial counsel argued that bringing evidence of motivation for refusal to follow the orders was irrelevant and should be excluded, citing a previous anthrax shot refusal case in which the military judge did just that. (I'm not sure which case it was, but the case of another military doctor--Air Force Captain John Buck--comes to mind.)
The military judge responded by determining that the orders (Specifications 1-3 of Charge II) given LTC Lakin were lawful. She continued by taking judicial notice of an Army regulation regarding orders and ruling that the witnesses who were the subject of the government motion in limine were precluded from testifying as experts, although they could end up testifying in sentencing if the case proceeds that far. Furthermore, the military judge granted the prosecution motions to prevent the defense from raising irrelevant issues regarding President Obama's eligibility to serve as the commander-in-chief and LTC Lakin's motivation for disobeying the deployment orders during the findings phase of the trial. Again, the motivation might become relevant in sentencing.
Hearing this, the civilian defense counsel remarked that this gutted the defense case, and he had to put on some sort of defense. Apparently, LTC Lakin is chomping at the bit to testify in his own defense, so that might be the sum total of the defense case after today's rulings.
The court-martial is set to resume at Ft. Meade on November 4. Stay tuned for more on this saga.
Full report here; http://www.nimjblog.org/2010/09/ltc-lakin-court-martial-update-judge.html
I will update this post when more details are released...
UPDATE: Via WND; - Army judge tells officer: Shut up and be punished! - Defense counsel warns 'fair trial' impossible under military rulings - By Brian Fitzpatrick
FORT MEADE, Md. – An Army judge has made it "impossible" for a career medical officer to get a fair hearing on charges he refused to deploy to Afghanistan because of concern that obeying orders in the chain of command under an ineligible commander in chief would be illegal, his attorney says.
The rulings came today from Col. Denise Lind, who in so many words told Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin to pound sand. Rocks actually. He faces up to four years at hard labor if convicted in his case.
"We got absolutely slammed today," said Paul R. Jensen, lead counsel for the defense. "It's impossible for us to have a fair trial under these rulings."
Jensen continued, "The judge did what she thought was right, but the result is to deprive us of any opportunity to have a defense."
Lakin believes any order issued under Obama's authority as commander in chief of the armed forces may not be valid because his eligibility to serve as president is unproven. After fruitlessly requesting the Army to verify Obama's eligibility to serve as president, Lakin wrote directly to Obama asking for proof of eligibility.
But without a response, Lakin decided it was his duty to refuse an order to deploy with his unit as part of Obama's Afghanistan surge. As one of the defense briefs states, he "... [took] the distasteful route of inviting his own court martial."
Note: A legal-defense fund has been set up for Lt. Col. Terry Lakin. Click here for information.
In her decision, Lind, acting as judge in the case, censored the last remaining arguments Lakin planned to make in his defense: motive and duty. Lakin had intended to explain his motive for disobeying the order and contend that it was his duty as a good soldier to disobey orders that he believes to be illegal.
The defense also planned to call as witnesses Ambassador Alan Keyes and retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney. Keyes was to explain the constitutional issues involved in the case, and McInerney was to talk about the training soldiers receive regarding when they should question and even disobey orders.
Lind was following up on her rulings from Sept. 2, when she rejected defense plans to introduce evidence concerning Obama's eligibility. The defense also requested for Lakin's defense documents referencing Obama's birth records on file in Hawaii, but Lind refused to allow that either, noting that providing the documents might prove "embarrassing" to Obama.
"Our arms were cut off last time," said Jensen. "Our legs are being cut off this time." ...continued here; http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=209357
A hearing is on the trial docket for today for the Courts Martial of LTC Terrence Lakin at the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps 1st Judicial Circuit.
From LTC Lakin’s website, as of 2pm ET, September 27, 2010 @ 2 pm ET: ‟We have now filed our Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in the Army Court of Criminal Appeals"
According to sources here, the writ "a drastic remedy that should be used only in truly extraordinary situations." It is generally disfavored because it disrupts the normal process of orderly appellate review. For that reason, "to justify reversal of a discretionary decision by mandamus [or prohibition], the . . . decision must amount to more than even gross error; it must amount to a . . . usurpation of power." The petitioner has the burden of showing that he has "a clear and indisputable right" to the extraordinary relief that he has requested.
On behalf of the members of The Veterans Council, The United States Patriots Union issued the third in a series of White Papers that calls for specific actions including members of Congress, Tea Party candidates, veterans, veteran’s family members…and ALL of the public figures who claim to be “behind the soldiers” and “for the US Constitution” to “take a stand here and now for both LTC Lakin and his right to a real defense complete with discovery as well as the national future of constitutional law.”
“If these members of congress, candidates for congress and public figures fail to stand up with Lakin and the nation now, then all of their promises of a brighter future are exposed as nothing more than campaign rhetoric.
We are convinced that Barack Hussein Obama cannot be a ‘natural-born citizen’ of the United States and therefore, currently holds the office of Commander-in-Chief illegally. On this basis, the Veterans Council of the U.S. Patriots Union stands with Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely in his open call for the immediate resignation of the entire Barack Hussein Obama administration, in which Maj. Gen. Vallely stated the following;
“A civil uprising is brewing. We now must call for the immediate resignation of Barry Soetoro (AKA President Barack Hussein Obama) …..based on Incompetence, Deceit, Fraud, Corruption, Dishonesty and Violation of the US Oath of Office and the Constitution. - And a call for a National Petition for new elections to select the next President of the United States of America must be initiated. We can wait no longer for a traditional change of Power and New Government.”
On Sept. 2nd as previously reported here Col. Lind denied LTC Lakin “discovery” or a defense in his court-martial for refusing to obey orders until Obama AKA Soebarkah AKA Soetoro proves his Constitutional eligibility to be Commander-in-Chief.
The defense asserted that the President, as Commander in Chief under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, is the source of all military authority.
Retired Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney has supplied an affidavit to the court in support of Army Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin acknowledging pervasive concerns over Obama’s Constitutional eligibility and demands the putative President release his birth records or the court authorize discovery.
LTG McInerney states “All officers must be and are trained that their loyalty to the Constitution requires them to obey all lawful orders, but they are also trained that they must disobey an illegal order, and that the failure to do either is equally a betrayal of their oath.”
In Col. Lind’s decision, she stated that “the authority of military officers to issue lawful orders and the concomitant duty of military service members to obey such lawful orders does not depend on whether the president is qualified under the constitution to hold office”
Let’s review the estimable insights by Brigadier General John S. Cooke on “MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL 20X” during a speech presented March 10, 1998:
“As with most legal questions, a good place to begin is the Constitution. I know you are all familiar with the powers of Congress and the President over the armed forces and military justice, but I would like to begin with an even more fundamental point, the Preamble…”
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
“It is important to recall two things when you consider those words. First, as lawyers and as military officers, we have as large a role as any members of our society in helping to meet those goals that the Framers adopted. That is something of which we can be proud.
Second, those words remind us that all power flows from the people and that, through the genius of our constitutional structure, there is a direct bond between the people and the men and women in the armed forces. Every soldier, sailor, airman and marine takes the following oath…”
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
“That oath is not to the President, the Congress, the Government, or to the fatherland or motherland; it’s to the Constitution, and thereby to the people. At the same time, the people, through Congress and the President, assume responsibility for the men and women of the Armed Forces, and a primary means by which they have exercised that responsibility is mentioned in that oath – the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).
As those charged with the administration of the UCMJ, we must bear in mind our responsibility and accountability to the people and their elected representatives. This is our system; but in a greater sense it is theirs. We are simply the trustees.”
As a trustee with accountability to “We the People”, it appears that Col. Lind has violated her oath to the Constitution by denying LTC Terrence Lakin a means of a defense through discovery merely because it might “embarrass” the President.
Brigadier General Cooke continues:
“The American people want and expect an effective, disciplined force in which the rights of each servicemember are protected.
This concern for soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines reflects another fundamental truth – what I call the eternal truth. Success in any military mission depends on many things: the equipment, the doctrine, the plan, the supplies, the weather and so on. Such factors have varied greatly through history, but ultimately the success of every military mission depends on a group of relatively young men and women doing their jobs well under difficult, demanding, often dangerous circumstances. That success, their success, does not just happen; it is the product of a system of individual and group development which builds competence, confidence, cohesion, morale and discipline. George Washington said it best: ‘Discipline is the soul of an Army’…
“When we say we want a disciplined force, we mean we want people who will do the right thing when the chips are down. That discipline, ultimately, flows from within – it is that quality which motivates an individual and an organization to do the right thing even when the right thing is very, very hard to do.
The unfailing formula for production of morale is patriotism, self-respect, discipline and self-confidence within a military unit, joined with fair treatment and merited appreciation from without. It will quickly wither and die if soldiers come to believe themselves the victims of indifference or injustice.”
Brigadier General Cooke’s view on the so-called information revolution:
“This ranges from fax machines to CNN to, of course, the Internet. For all its benefits, this also poses some problems. The speed with which information is moved depersonalizes and compresses the decision cycle – at a cost of the leavening effect on decision-making of old fashioned conversation and contemplation. Related to this is the phenomenon that what once might have been only a matter of local interest can now become an international incident in a matter of minutes. Aggravating these problems is the fact that the information is not always accurate; satellites and computers simply mean that one person’s bad idea, or bad facts, can now be shared with millions, rather than dozens, almost instantly.”
Brigadier General Cooke’s view on evidence:
“Today, a contested case that does not involve multiple motions, some tough evidentiary questions, and at least one expert is relatively rare. In military as in civilian courts, the role of science and experts has become more significant and more difficult for courts to deal with. In sum, we may be trying fewer cases today, but what we do try is relatively serious and tends to be more complex.
The increasing significance of scientific evidence and expert testimony has important implications. These include not only what is or is not admissible, and how to help fact finders rather than confuse them - I think courts will work that out under our current rules, albeit with some difficulty. A less noticed but no less important systemic issue is the cost associated with this evidence which carries the real risk of making some courts-martial too expensive to handle out of a command operating budget. A single case can easily run up bills in the six figures. Equally important is ensuring that the defense has fair access to pursue and present such evidence. I do not know the answer, but I am sure we will face the problem.”
Brigadier General Cooke’s view on “Change you Can Believe In”:
“The public’s, and more specifically the Congress’ and our civilian leadership’s increasing lack of familiarity with our legal system cannot be ignored. Fewer members of Congress have military experience than any time since World War II. Any initiative to secure changes, particularly legislation, must be undertaken with this in mind. This lack of familiarity increases the risk of changes that will do more harm than good.”
Brigadier General Cooke’s view on the “myth of the monolithic Pentagon”:
“Decisions on the disposition of offenses begin, and often end, at the lowest levels. The discretion of higher level commanders can be constrained by the prior decisions of lower commanders. This is a product of our hierarchical system, and of rules against unlawful command influence especially designed to protect service members from certain effects of this system. Because of our history, a number of rules operate as “default mechanisms” in favor of the accused. Consequently, power is diffused, resulting in the increased likelihood of disparity of decisions concerning disposition. Our rules against unlawful command influence prohibit issuing general guidelines, exacerbating the disparity problem.
Therefore, the commander should decide whether to invoke the judicial process or whether some other action is appropriate. Many of us would view turning this function over to lawyers or someone else to be a usurpation of command authority.”
Brigadier General Cooke’s view on the judicial process:
With respect to counsel, along with teaching them the techniques of advocacy, we must provide a strong foundation in ethical rules and ensure they understand and respect the judicial process. They must understand the difference between the dogged pursuit of justice and a dogfight. We need them to help preserve the dignity of the deliberative process. This is one area where we really do not want to follow the civilian trend.
Justice Ginsburg’s concurring opinion on Military Justice:
In Weiss v. United States, 510 U.S. 163, 2 (1994)
“The care the court has taken to analyze petitioners’ claims demonstrates once again that men and women in the Armed Forces do not leave constitutional safeguards behind when they enter military service. Today’s decision upholds a system notably more sensative to due process concerns than the one prevailing through most of our country’s history, when military justice was done without any requirement that legally-trained officers preside or even participate as judge.”
President Lyndon B. Johnson honors American soldier, September 28, 1967.
Usurper Barack Hussein Obama dishonors American soldier, September 28, 2010 by allowing an 18 year Army officer and flight surgeon, highly decorated with an exemplary record to be court-martialed rather than honorably proving his eligibility.
For a comprehensive understanding of Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution and why Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible for the office of the Presidency and Commander in Chief, read all of Attorney Mario Apuzzo’s court filings here including his exhaustive research and writings. He is representing Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR(Retired) in another epic court battle Kerchner v Obama & Congress against the putative President Obama with their Writ for Certiorari expected to be submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by the end of this week.
In addition to the United States Patriot Union action items you can also take a stand and get engaged in the fight for Truth and Justice by way of supporting any one or all of these efforts:
1. http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com
2. http://puzo1.blogspot.com
3. http://www.protectourliberty.org
4. Support (Retired)LCDR Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III http://thejaghunter.wordpress.com
5. Share the news of this historic travesty with your friends, family and fellow countrymen.
6. Call the media and demand they start reporting on this Constitutional crisis. With irrefutable evidence of the fraud and corruption designed to usurp the office of the Presidency, this breach of national security stands as one of the most egregious acts of treason ever in our nations history.
7. Take the time to read the Constitution, and be a part of the regeneration of the spirit of America as the nation as a whole unites behind the principles of liberty, freedom and our God given unalienable rights as enshrined by our Founding Fathers in those glorious documents that established our Constitutional Republic.
“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”- Thomas Jefferson
Via Safeguard Our Constitution; September 27, 2010 @ 2 pm ET - We have now filed our Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, but the trial court is going to proceed with a hearing tomorrow (Tuesday) as scheduled. Stay tuned for more news after the hearing. Source; http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com [This post will be updated once more info is released]
UPDATE - 9/30/2010 - Petition and supporting Brief can be viewed here; http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/09/ltc-lakin-v-col-lind-brief-in-support.html
UPDATE - 10/14/2010 - LTC Lakin v. COL Lind et al, - Petition for Extraordinary Relief, Writ of Mandamus and Application for Stay of Proceedings, Denied - 10/12/10 - Previous report here.
UPDATE - New date announced for LTC Lakin's Trial: December 14-16. More info as it is available. Source.
UPDATE - DOWNLOAD LTC LAKIN'S FLYER: PRINT, EMAIL, AND DISTRIBUTE TO EVERYONE. CLICK HERE FOR THE FLYER.
Via Wise Geek; - What Is a Writ Of Mandamus? -
A writ of mandamus is a court order which compels someone to execute a duty which he or she is legally compelled to complete. This type of writ can also be used to order a lower court to complete a duty which is assigned by law. The writ of mandamus is rarely used, because it must be demonstrated that there is no other remedy available and that someone is suffering an injustice as a result of the failure to complete a legally required duty. It can also be very disruptive and for that reason judges are reluctant to grant such writs unless they are truly necessary.
In some cases, the writ of mandamus may order someone to complete a task, while in other cases, it may order that an activity be ceased. For example, if a couple wanted to get married and they were refused a marriage license by the clerk despite the fact that there were no legal barriers to their marriage, they could file for a writ of mandamus to compel the clerk to issue the marriage license. Conversely, someone could file for a writ to ensure that a court will not pursue a case which is outside its jurisdiction.
When a writ of mandamus is imposed on a court, the writ must come from a higher court which has authority over the lower court. In situations where the highest court appears to be neglecting its legal duties or performing tasks which are outside its scope of authority, people may have to resort to other measures to compel the court. The person or court subjected to the writ can also oppose it if it can be argued that the writ of mandamus is not appropriate to the situation.
Writs like this can only be used when there is a clear legal duty which is not being met. A writ of mandamus could not, for example, be used to compel someone to do something which she or he is not obligated to do by law and position. Likewise, if there are over equitable remedies which can be pursued they must be considered before a writ of mandamus will be granted. Source; http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-writ-of-mandamus.htm
Snippets via the Hill; - Dem Whip: GOP majority will issue birther subpoenas - By Jordan Fabian
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) warned Republicans will investigate President Obama's birthplace if they take over Congress [YES WE CAN!].
Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House, said Republicans will grind the government to a halt by issuing subpoenas against the Obama administration over a number of issues if they take power. He predicted that "gridlock" in Congress would "define" Obama's first term if Republicans win the House, but expressed confidence his party would prevail...
..."The White House will be full-time responding to subpoenas about where the president may or may not have been born, whether his mother and father were ever married, and whether his wife's family is from Georgetown or Sampit," Clyburn said in an interview published Monday on TheGrio.com, an African-American news website....
...Issa has promised to ramp up his probes into the Obama administration, but his spokesman said he would not pursue the "birther" controversy and that the congressman has not spoken about the issue [WE SHALL SEE ABOUT THAT!]....
...Some Republican congressional candidates and lawmakers have raised questions about Obama's country of birth and citizenship since he took office[SEE THE LONG LIST HERE]. Activists who have expressed skepticism of Obama's American citizenship have been labeled "birthers."
Obama was born in Hawaii, and the White House released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate [BULLSH!T, THAT IS NOT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND IT WAS HIS CAMPAIGN/SUPPORTERS NOT THE WHITE HOUSE]. But that has failed to silence arguments that he was not born in the U.S [THAT IS BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE THE USURPER WAS BORN, THIS IS ABOUT A "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" NOT A "CITIZEN"]....
...complete report continued here; http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/121059-rep-clyburn-gop-majority-will-issue-birther-subpoenas-against-ob?page=2
