---

---

New standard of ‘birther’ justice

---

Posted: September 06, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

From the very beginning, legal challenges to Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility have met a standard of adjudication unfamiliar to most Americans.

Mere “citizens” were told again and again they didn’t have “standing” to test the eligibility of the man in the Oval Office.

Then came forward a man who actually ran against Obama in 2008. He didn’t have standing, either.

Then came a parade of active-duty military men. Surely they would have standing to challenge a man with the power to send them on life-and-death missions in foreign wars. No dice.

And finally came Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, a distinguished U.S. Army surgeon, due for promotion, with a stellar military career. When he simply asked for proof that Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve – something now 58 percent of the American people do not believe – he was court-martialed.

He is now being denied the right to defend himself in that case because, as the female military judge suggests, requiring the evidence he seeks might prove “embarrassing” to the president.

“Embarrassing?”

Are good men and women denied justice because someone might be “embarrassed” by the truth of the evidence?

What might that ruling suggest about Obama’s actual ability to prove his eligibility? It almost sounds like Army Col. Denise R. Lind, the acting judge in this case, might know Lakin is correct in his suspicions. Surely Obama would not be “embarrassed” if he had the documentation he could provide to prove he is eligible, right?

So, in the interests of protecting Obama from “embarrassment,” the Army is ready to railroad Lt. Col. Lakin, deny him a fair hearing and look the other way on the little matter of constitutional integrity.

I don’t know about you, but I’m getting a little sick of this charade.

If Obama were capable of “embarrassment” in this matter, all he would need to do would be to answer the now overwhelming call of the American people for transparency, candor, honesty and forthrightness. The decent thing to do for a man who seeks only to avoid “embarrassment” is to prove he is what he claims. If he can’t, he should step aside as president.

Obama is embarrassing the entire nation with this stonewalling.

His efforts at cover-up are a disgrace to the office of the presidency and to the Constitution he swore to uphold.

Sadly, I feared all along that these court cases were not going to result in the kind of justice and rule of law they sought. I said all along that I could not foresee any judge – military or civilian – holding a president, legal or illegal, accountable to the standards of equal justice under the law. I just never believed any judge was likely to risk his or her career on principle and the standards of the law.

That assumption was sadly confirmed by the inept and corrupt decision by Ms. Lind.

“Embarrassment?” She ought to know something about that subject after that rationalization for throwing Lt. Col. Lakin to the wolves. That has to be one of the most embarrassing legal rulings I have ever heard. In another time and another place, when men and women of honor predominated in our military and judicial ranks, such a decision might be worthy of disbarment or impeachment or worse.

Meanwhile, my heart and prayers go out to Lt. Col. Lakin and his family for enduring the agony they must be experiencing because they are fighting for truth and justice and principle.

We must continue to support this very good man as he prepares for what is shaping up as a kangaroo court hearing next month.

---

© 2010  

10 Responses to “Editor of World Net Daily Joseph Farah calls for disbarment or impeachment lor worse… for judge Denise Lind, who refused to give Lt. Col Lakin discovery because it might embarass Obama. I know of a couple of other judges, who deserve the same for their actions.”

1. lawyer
   September 6th, 2010 @ 1:58 pm

   Im sorry ma’am, ’embarrassment’ does not mean to humiliate in this instance….the term ’embarrassment’ is a legal term used extensively in court ruling dealing with political question doctrine…..specifically in United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95, 108-09 (C.A.A.F. 2001…..this is the case Judge Lind was referencing….and here is a quote from the case:

   The Supreme Court has long recognized the principle of “nonjusticiability”: meaning that courts of law should decline to exercise their authority to decide matters where judicial intervention is deemed inappropriate. Based upon the Constitutional principle of separation of powers in the three branches of Government, judicial review of “a political question” is precluded where the Court finds one or more of the following:
   a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.

   Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217, 218 (1962); see also Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968).

   You are a lawyer as Jenson is, you should know this or have been able to find out in 5 minutes.

2. Judge
   September 6th, 2010 @ 2:16 pm

   Can obviously flawed and/or corrupt rulings in military courts be appealed or reversed by higher Military Authorities? Who does Col. Lind report to? This should shine the light on all of her superiors clear to the top, and she should be prosecuted and appropriately punished.

3. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
   September 6th, 2010 @ 3:47 pm

   this is complete nonsense. Not only fraud and treason are justiciable, it is an obligation for the judge on the case to assume jurisdiction.
   Per Justice Marshall, when one does not assume jurisdiction, when it is due, he commits treason against the Constitution. What Land and Lind did, constitutes treason against the Constitution

4. Leonard McCauley
   September 6th, 2010 @ 4:53 pm

   The customary penalty for Treason in times of war (ie) Iraq & Afghanistan…Would be a Firing Squad or Hanging.

5. Veritas
   September 6th, 2010 @ 5:35 pm

   Insightful and didactic answer, Dr Taitz! Thank you!

6. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
   September 6th, 2010 @ 6:18 pm

   As an attorney I cannot agree with any violent acts, only with legal and lawful acts.

7. Jim
   September 6th, 2010 @ 8:48 pm

   What about the “judges” other asinine statement that the chain of command led up to the Pentagon, and that should have been sufficient for Lakin.

   She should review her notes from the first week in college. The first thing you learn in ROTC ( or West Point )is the chain of command. Is she implying that the Sec of Defense can issue troop movements on his own volition and that the orders originated with the Sec of Defense ? To remind the “learned judge” ( from the DoD’s own site ):

   “The Secretary of Defense is the principal defense policy advisor to the President and is responsible for the formulation of general defense policy and policy related to all matters of direct and primary concern to the DoD, and for the EXECUTION OF APPROVED POLICY. UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT, the Secretary exercises authority, direction, and control over the Department of Defense.

   So Colonel ( or should we be calling you General in a few months ? ), to remind you, no deployment orders ORIGINATE with the Pentagon (certainly the specific orders to which units to send, etc. come from the Pentagon ). The decision and authority to commit troops ORIGINATE SOLELY from the President and is carried out by the Sec of Defense. To say that Lakin should be satisfied with stopping at a certain link in the chain is ridiculous and you are actually “suggesting” to Lakin that he violate his oath of office. Do I need to remind you of that oath ( you took it yourself ) :

   “…that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;…”

   His ( and your ) oath is to defend the Constitution of the United States . From DoD’s site :

   ” Under the President, who is also Commander-in-Chief, the Secretary of Defense exercises authority, direction, and control over the Department which includes the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, three Military Departments, nine Unified Combatant Commands, the DoD Inspector General, fifteen Defense Agencies, and seven DoD Field Activities.”

   If you have Commander in Chief who is not eligible per the requirements of the Constitution ( that little document you swore an oath to defend ) any orders given to the Sec of Defense by the ineligible CiC would be illegal on their face. Thus any orders issued by the Sec of Defense through the Pentagon would themselves be illegal.

   So you see Col Lind, your statement that the chain of command led up to the Pentagon, and that should have been sufficient for Lakin is absurd. Obama, as Commander in Chief, is the overall authority for all the military services. For you to suggest that the buck stops at the Pentagon and not the Oval Office is not only intellectually dishonest, but is a violation of your oath. So far your ruling has, in effect, forced another officer to violate his oath. You should be ashamed of yourself.

8. Lenny
   September 7th, 2010 @ 7:21 am

   Demand for soldiers and officers to blindly follow the orders from superiors helps to conduct a military coup. All will be needed is some arrogant power-hungry general giving order to disband and destroy all of the branches of US Government.

9. P. Barnett
   September 7th, 2010 @ 3:54 pm

   Orly,

   I need copies of letters from Congressmen regarding the obama eligibility issue for an important project. Files can be emailed to me at barnettpamela@hotmail.com

   If someone needs to fax their letter, they can email me for my fax number.

   Time is of the essence.

   CPT Pamela Barnett, USA Retired

10. Jim
    September 8th, 2010 @ 3:40 am

    One other thing, judge. What are you so afraid of being revealed in discovery ? As you well know judge, discovery is a pre-trial procedure. Not everything obtained through discovery is allowed into evidence. That is what you have an evidence hearing for. You say it it may cause embarrassment or be irrelevant to the case. How ?

    I am sure you are well aware of R.C.M. 701(g) – Rules for Court Martial. As a matter of fact, I know you are. I quote from a paper you wrote for the Military Law Review ( October 2000) entitled :

    MEDIA RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO PROCEEDINGS, INFORMATION, AND PARTICIPANTS IN MILITARY CRIMINAL CASES

    From page 58 :

    “Rule for Courts-Martial 701(g) provides for regulation of discovery. The rule authorizes the military judge to make time, place, or manner restrictions on discovery and provides for in-camera inspection of discovery materials.”

    Thus judge, you well know that any material obtained through discovery can be reviewed in-camera by you. Doing that would provide Lt. Col Lakin access to possible exculpatory evidence ( the basic right of all defendants ). So save us this “cause of embarrassment” or “not relevant to the charges crap. You know full well that if there was anything obtained through discovery that was not relevant, or was not exculpatory but could cause embarrassment, that all of that could be handled in-camera.

    To say that it is a political question is passing the buck. If an in-camera inspection of his birth records were to reveal that he was not born in the US, there is no need for Congress or the courts to get involved in deciding eligibility ( removal is another matter ). It is clear cut. He is not a natural born citizen and therefore is in violation of the Constitution ( the document you swore and oath to protect and defend ). As a result, Lt. Col. Lakin was fully justified in his actions. Why are you unwilling to allow a defendant his right to obtain exculpatory evidence, especially when if there is nothing to the records, their contents would not be revealed to the public ?

Leave a Reply