A Daily Pen guest editorial
by Dan Crosby
Sometimes, judges make unpopular decisions based on a responsible adherence to the rule of law. It has only been during the recent era of neo-liberalism in America, however, that we have actually seen judges act stupidly and contrive irrelevant opinions which abrogate the essence of constitutional law.
In what may be characterized as the most subjectively advocatory decision in military justice history, Army Judge Col. Denise Lind, presiding in the case against Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, refused to allow the defendant his right to access commonly available evidence in his defense. Lakin is charged with disobeying deployment orders under UCMJ Articles 87 and 92.
In a pretrial hearing held at Fort Meade, Maryland, on September 2, 2010, Lakin’s defense team requested discovery of Obama’s natal documentation and scholastic records pertaining to his identity and relevance to determining his Constitutional eligibility to hold the office of the presidency.
The biographic information, which covers Obama's natal history, parentage, school attendance, travel and political roots between 1959 and 1994 is currently being held under top secret treatment by several institutions and Hawaiian municipal agencies acting under the control of, and in the interest of, the Obama administration. Essentially, Obama's opacity is acting to undermine his effectiveness more than the revelation of the documents could ever do.
This same request for discovery of evidence is granted in hundreds of American courts every year, in every classification of civil and military proceedings. Yet, despite the fact that access to this type of documentation has never been denied in any case when it serves as “at first view” evidence, known as Prima-Facie evidence, toward proving the facts of guilt or innocence, Lind went completely outside her jurisdiction in denying the merits of Lakin’s request.
Lind subjectively opined that Lakin’s request for Obama’s records are, “not relevant for the military to be considering such claims” and that “the laws allegedly violated by Lakin were legitimate on their face” and that “the chain of command led up to the Pentagon, and that should have been sufficient for Lakin.”
Then, the judge suddenly endowed herself with psychiatric qualifications in support of Obama. In what can only be characterized as shortsighted emotionalism for Obama’s delicate sensitivity to humiliation, Lind made this shocking statement:
“…opening up such evidence could be an “embarrassment” to the president, and it’s up to Congress to call for impeachment of a sitting president.”
This statement is unprecedented in American military justice history. It is a blatant violation of the most basic legal protections in our legal system, civilian or military.
“This is not a judge in submission to the rule of law,” said an ALAC spokesperson who asked to remain anonymous, “this is a radical enabler of the plaintiff. She is harmful in her opinion. Her decision sets precedence for actually allowing elected officials, regardless of the possible illegality of their appointment, the ability to violate Constitutional law and then hide the evidence of their crime. Lind is ridiculous and her course of action is far more harmful to the nation than embarrassing an ensconced maliform, like Obama.”
The tragedy of Lind's mistake, however, is her presumption that Obama is on trial instead of Lakin. Lind, like so many afoul judges has been summarily overridden in their ability to separate the realm of political consequence and legal justice. Obama's political well being is not more important than upholding the sovereignty of the citizenry and the timeless Constitutional rights endowed to them by God. Obama is not on trial here. Lakin is.
"Judges are not allowed to make decisions because they are afraid of the political consequences for someone. Obama is not even involved in this trial, but Lakin is. Any consequences perceived by Lind as to their adversity against Obama is clearly irrelevent in this case. She is obligated to consider the rule of law, not political consequences."
Under UCMJ SCR 47, Lakin is afforded the right to call any evidence or testimony in his defense when that evidence has not been proven in court to cause harm for those providing it. To date, no evidence about Obama's personal history has been proven to be harmful to him or those who hold it.
Someone needs to inform Lind that Obama losing a prospective election does not qualify as harm as a legal excuse for denying an American citizen's right to defend himself.
By putting Obama's sensibilities ahead of the Constitution, Lind has committed one of the most abhorrent litigatory acts in history. She has "propped" the interests of a single man ahead of the Constitutional welfare of an entire nation of people while violating her own sworn duty to defend that same Constitution. Lind should be removed from this case and immediately removed from judicial service.
Of course, we knew the Obama regime would not make it easy for Lakin to prove he is right about Obama, but when judges, themselves, deprive an honorable, exceptional, decorated military veteran his legal right to defend himself, with unclassified evidence, we have lost our way as a nation. However, when that deprivation of rights takes precedence over a risk of “embarrassing” a politician who is under vast suspicion of criminal wrongdoing in a judges decision, we have lost the sovereignty of America. Game over. Its time to arm yourself.
Moreover, What does Lind know about Obama’s covert identity?
Lind seemed to suggest that she holds specific understanding about the nature of the information about Obama while also hinting that the only way to deal with an entrenched figure like Obama is to seek Congressional proceedings in having him removed.
However, Lind fails to understand that if Obama is not eligibile to be president to begin with, Congress does not have the power to impeach him because he is not the president in the first place.
"Correct," says the ALAC spokesperson, "The only course of action is law enforcement to intervene. The legislative branch has no power in this case. Again, Lind is mistaken."
The only way to have Obama removed from the White House is to treat him as common trespasser if it is indeed discovered that he is ineligible to be president. He only needs to be arrested and tried as a usurper and an impersonator of an elected official. There is no legal mechanism for impeaching an ineligible candidate who was elected under false pretenses. However, the social and political pressure would mount so massively that he would have to be deported for his own safety. A result which is ironically meet.
"Basically, he becomes a party crasher, only worse. He was a fraud endowed with control of the most powerful military force in human history. Kinda scary to think, under similar circumstances, that the Salahis could have assumed control over our nuclear arsenal."