A Possible Defense Strategy for Lt. Col. Terry Lakin

BUT IS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION STILL IN EFFECT?

by Brianroy

Is the answer contained in this document ratified in 1789 by the Second Continental Congress which declared us free of British rule?

(Dec. 11, 2010) — I sent the Lt. Col. Lakin team essential US Supreme Court cases to pound earlier in the year, and they blew it off. Yesterday, I tried sharing in their comment section something to the effect of what I have reconstructed below, that:

1. They need to cite where the Supreme Court says: “The burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States, or the prohibition of power to the States, is upon those making the claim” (such as the President of the United States, or those aspiring to such office) and so stated in 333 US 640 @ 653 Bute v. Illinois (1948). This point should lead the Lakin defense argument.

2. The requirement of presenting an identification of person, and proof of birth is Supreme Court Law and follows 533 US 53 @ 54 and 62 Nguyen v. INS (2001) in which both hospital records of where born and witnesses to the birth are those REQUIRED BY LAW via the US Supreme Court to be a partial fulfillment of 333 US 640 @ 653, in which the Court would recognize such certification of identity as rising to the level of a de jure jus soli claim as identified as being born here on US soil.

3.There is a requirement in the Constitutional Article specified as 2.1.4. (now 2.1.5) in which a natural born Citizen, and those seeking the Presidency of the United States, have sole allegiance to the United States at birth, and the Supreme Court consistently says from the Founding to Perkins v. Elg that a US Citizen father (or the presumption of one in bastardization where the father is unknown and the mother is a US Citizen) is required every time someone is called a natural born Citizen. So a US soil or territory, sole allegiance birth AND a US Citizen father are required.

4. Raise the question, “Does a natural born allegiance follow the condition of the nationality and citizenship of the child’s father at birth or not?” Obama’s biological father was an alien national his entire life, a Kenyan national, and NEVER a US Citizen.

5. The US Constitution to be understood in the natural sense per South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 @ 448 – 450 (1905), Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) @ 188-189, taking also into account the influence of Vattel — even as cited in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 @ 289-290 (1814) — on the definitions of the framers in using “natural born Citizen” in place of indigenes (indigenous) as used by Vattel.

6. Every word of the US Constitution is to have its due force, as stated by Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 @ 570-71 (1840); and again, it is the precept of interpretation of the US Constitution to this effect, where the phrase “natural born Citizen” means more than just a “born citizen” because “every word [of the US Constitution] must have its due force” active in the Rule of Law as even the Supreme Court of the United States says. This must also include the Constitutional Article 2.1.4 (now Article 2.1.5) “natural born Citizen.”

I also enclosed to them that they should read my October 24, 2010 blogpost on citing “due process” case law, etc. There is just so much info that can be argued, but if anything, Lakin’s defense needs to spearhead on 333 US 640 @ 653 and 533 US 53 @ 54 and 62. Lakin followed the pursuit of being faithful to the US Constitution as first and foremost demanded of him to uphold and protect it from DOMESTIC as well as foreign enemies. In other words, his oath demands that there will be unique DOMESTIC circumstances where he will have to follow the US Constitution first, and see that it is adhered to. So if the Army demands he come to deploy and bring along his birth certificate and re-identify after 18 years (or however many) of service, the US Army having already seen it way back when he (Lakin) enlisted…why shouldn’t Obama fulfill US Case Law on the books, de facto de jure since the bluebook printing of the Nguyen v. INS case back in 2001, i.e. 533 US 53 @ 54 and 62, and produce a HOSPITAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE WITH WITNESSES TO THE BIRTH at the very least?

Lt. General (Air Force – Retied) McInerney agreed he should, and believes Lakin will be Kangaroo convicted and later win exoneration following a Congressional Armed Services Committee Discovery and a subsequent three-judge court- martial oversight review panel on appeal. If the defense cites what I cite above, I believe Lakin will not only avoid conviction, but will allow the national debate that should have been had in 2007 when Obama announced his candidacy for an office he had no US Citizen father qualification to run for.