Tag Archives: Alan Keyes

Lakin court martial Judge Lind, Col. Denise R. Lind words and ruling prejudicial, Alan Keyes, Citizen Wells open thread, September 6, 2010

Lakin court martial Judge Lind,  Col. Denise R. Lind words and ruling prejudicial, Alan Keyes

From Alan Keyes September 4, 2010.

“Is Lakin’s court-martial an American ‘Dreyfus affair’?

I doubt that most people would be shocked to learn that sometimes the influence of power can interfere with and even derail the course of justice in our legal system.  Behind the scenes, a phone call from a powerful politician, or a corporate mogul often affects the actions or judgments of people whose personal ambitions they are in a position to help or hinder.  Usually though, people giving heed to such considerations have enough sense to cloak what they do with words or actions that give their corruption at least the appearance of probity.  Maybe its the tribute that vice renders to virtue.  Maybe its nothing more than self-serving prudence (the mask of honesty that facilitates corruption.)

However, when court officers conclude that such hypocrisy is no longer worth the effort, things are pretty far gone.  The video featured with this post  focuses on the recent decision by Col. Denise R. Lind, the military judge charged with presiding over the court martial of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin.  People who still care about American justice will recognize the facts as confirmation that America has passed ‘far gone’ and is approaching the point of no return.

Judging by Col. Lind’s demeanor, the court marital is apparently slated to be the inaugural “show trial” of Obama style Stalinism in the United States.  Without even a show of rational argumentation ( as WND’s story reporting Judge Roy Moore’s insightful comments makes clear) she has denied Lt. Col Lakin “the right to obtain potentially exculpatory evidence” for use in the Court Martial proceedings brought against him on the charge of refusing to obey lawful orders from the military chain of command until the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility for the Office of President has been investigated and resolved by the decision of a properly constitutional  authority.

The Judge’s derelict disregard for constitutional right adds this military tribunal to the long list of civilian courts that have made themselves vehicles for the anti-American elite’s purposeful derogation of the authority of the U.S. Constitution.  In the course of her dereliction, however, Lind spoke of the documentary evidence Obama has thus far abused government power to suppress.  She proclaimed that “opening up such evidence could be an “embarrassment” to the president.”

It’s marvelous that a supposedly competent legal officer of the United States military could cram so much prejudicial nonsense into so few words.  She refers to Obama as president.  But because, among other things, of her own action, his status as president is, as the lawyers might say, a fact not in evidence.  If he is in fact not constitutionally eligible for the office, then he is not president.  If he is not in fact constitutionally eligible, then no lawful authority emanates from him to the military chain of command.  Therefore,  Lt.Col Lakin is not guilty of the charge against him.  Judge Lind’s language is prima facie evidence of prejudice, and she should either recuse herself or be removed from the case.

She suggests that the evidence might be embarrassing to Obama.  Since when is the embarrassment that may attend the discovery that a public official has sworn or acted dishonestly a lawful reason to suppress evidence tending to establish his official malfeasance?  Since when does the mere possibility of such official embarrassment justify suppressing the constitutional rights of a person accused of a serious crime and liable, upon conviction, to onerous punishment?

Judge Lind’s words appear at the very least, prejudicial. However, they may also raise the possibility of serious malfeasance on her part.  How has she reached the conclusion that the evidence in question may be embarrassing to Obama?  Has she privily received communications to that effect?  If so, why did she not publicly indicate the source or sources of these communications, so that Lt. Col. Lakin could claim his constitutional right to confront, in a proper hearing, the witnesses against him?”

Read more:

http://loyaltoliberty.com/WordPress/2010/09/is-lakins-court-martial-an-american-dreyfus-affair/

Bill O’Reilly, Dr Orly Taitz lawsuit, O’Reilly uninformed, Fox, O’Reilly Factor, Obama not natural born citizen, Alan Keyes, Major Stefan Cook, YouTube video, So simple even O’Reilly can understand

Bill O’Reilly’s

cowardly treatment of Orly Taitz

and the American Public

Part II

Last Night on the O’Reilly factor on Fox, Bill O’Reilly and two fawning females belittled Dr. Orly Taitz and millions of Americans who support the US Constitution and want proof that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. Commenter Jacqlyn Smith of this blog has presented a video that explains Obama’s eligibility issues in a manner that even Bill O’Reilly can understand.
From the Youtube video:
“Life and Liberty PAC presents the Proof Positive Series with Molotov Mitchell. In this fifth episode, Molotov takes a closer look at the people Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman call “kooks” and “cowards”, Dr. Alan Keyes and Maj. Stefan Cook.”
“Proof Positive: Just Some Guy”

LA Times, blog, July 13, 2009, Alan Keyes, et al. v Barack H. Obama, et al, Orly Taitz, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, Opponents of Barack Obama’s presidency claim small court victory

From the LA Times blog, July 13, 2009:

“Opponents of Barack Obama’s presidency claim small court victory”

“Supporters of a case that disputes the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency claimed a small victory today when U.S. District Judge David O. Carter told them to fix their paperwork and that he would listen to “the merits” of their case. But others present for the hearing Monday at the federal courthouse in Santa Ana stressed that the case remains a long way from ever getting a full airing in court and may never get to that point.

The case, Alan Keyes, et al. v Barack H. Obama, et al. was filed on Inauguration Day and is one of a raft of suits alleging Obama is ineligible to be president because he is not a “natural born citizen.” Such claims have fared badly in court to date. In December, for example, the Supreme Court dismissed without comment a case challenging Obama’s right to take the oath of office.

Perhaps because of that history, Orly Taitz, the lawyer who filed the current suit, was greatly cheered by Monday’s hearing. “He’s very determined to hear the case on the merits,” Taitz said, referring to the judge. “He stated, the country needs to know if Mr. Obama is legitimate, if he can legitimately stay in the White House.””

Read more:

 http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/opponents-of-barack-obamas-presidency-claim-small-court-victory.html

The Right Side of Life has a complete update:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=6655

Alan Keyes, Obama, oaths and the end of constitutional government, Worldnetdaily.com, January 20, 2009, Alan Keyes and John Haskins, US Constitution, Supreme Law, United States, Obama not eligible

God bless Alan Keyes

From World Net Daily:
“Obama, oaths and the end of constitutional government”
“Posted: January 20, 2009
By Alan Keyes and John Haskins”
 
“Now steps onto the stage of world history a man apparently quite
conscious that the Supreme Law of the United States prevents him
from being president of the United States.

For why else would anyone hire lawyers and expend millions of
dollars to avoid producing a $12.50 birth certificate to show
eligibility under the Constitution? ‘Midst the rhythmic chants of
a delirious, sycophantic media, inaugural splendor will substitute
for simple proof that the United States of America will have a
constitutionally legitimate president.

If Obama is not eligible, legally, the United States of America
will have no president. A usurper will wield such power as few men
have ever held, having no constitutional warrant. However beloved of
the media or adored by racialist groupies, and irrespective of
public support, Obama will be a tyrant, in the original sense of the
word (from the Greek tyrannos meaning one who wields power to which
he has no lawful claim). As he sends young soldiers to die, even the
appearance of his usurpation of presidential powers will insult their
sacrifice and thwart the Constitution they give their all to preserve.
Even as he utters the oath – hand on Lincoln’s Bible – he will betray
it, not upholding, protecting and defending the Constitution, but
subverting it.

The elites insist that we should pretend to be convinced by an
exhibition of a “certificate of live birth” via the Internet, lacking
the very information the Constitution requires. On the strength of
this we are to exercise blind faith and risk the consequences of an
unconstitutional usurpation of the presidency?

“Put not your faith in men, but bind them down with the chains of the
constitution,” Jefferson warned us. Caesar rose to power on the
passions of men, and killed a republic. Napoleon did the same. So did
Hitler, with strong support from the secularized, university-educated
elite. But the elites approve as Obama whistles past the Constitution,
just as they did when Mitt Romney flushed away the Constitution he’d
sworn to uphold. They regard the Supreme Law of the United States as
a dead letter, “living and breathing” of course, which is their code
for dead and buried.

Like the sophisticated, educated elites in Weimar, Germany, they long
to live under what they presume will be a benevolent dictatorship.
This one will be different, they are quite sure: soft, touchy-feely,
agreeably in tune with the restless, ever-mutating consensus of the
chattering class. Thus was it in human history, until the Declaration
birthed our state and federal constitutions, now just archaic
platitudes, to shape naïve youths in American History classes as
docile subjects of bureaucratic tyranny.

It would not be hard to clarify Obama’s eligibility to be president.
The Constitution provided an entire branch of government to adjudicate
constitutional questions. But judges have concocted various “rules”
over the years that they cite as their license to violate the
Constitution and to excuse their failure to uphold it. These they now
use to claim that Americans lack standing to ask their courts for a
judgment of fact required by our Supreme Law. They dismiss lawsuits
that ask only that judges fulfill their oaths and uphold the
Constitution. Are solemn oaths now meaningless?

Whether rooted in incompetence, cowardice or calculated cynicism,
these dismissals of valid lawsuits are willful subversions of the
Constitution, the inevitable result of legal education that
substitutes judicial decrees for the authority of real laws and
constitutions.”

Read more here:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=86611

2008 Election Certificate of Vote, Electoral College Electors, California example, Secretary of State, US Constitution, Governor, Alan Keyes, Lawsuit, Obama not eligible, Citizen Wells, Democratic Disaster, December 16, 2008

“Ignorance is not bliss.”

“Knowledge is Power.”

The Citizen Wells blog and many other citizens have been busy for months
informing state officers, election officials, Electoral College Electors
and judges of eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama and reminding
those people of their duty under the US Constitution, federal and state
laws. Despite these warnings and reminders, the states have plodded along
based on tradition, ignorance and party politics. Numerous lawsuits in
state and federal courts as well as the US Supreme court should have served
as a huge warning that something was wrong. We need someone like Harry
Truman to remind everyone that “The buck stops here.”

The Electoral College met yesterday and the next step in the process is for
state officials to prepare a certificate of vote and send it to the US Senate
and other locations described below. This is a very important document and in
highest sense of the word a legal document. The format of the document is
left up to the states. Remember, all of those people involved in the election
process are sworn to uphold the US Constitution. However, some of the states
have wording in their documents as a reminder of the obligation to uphold
the various laws.

We will focus on California for multiple reasons.

The following is taken from the 2004 certificate of vote:

“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and the state of california, do hereby certify”

From the dictionary:

pursuant to

in conformance to or agreement with; “pursuant to our agreement”; “pursuant to the dictates of one’s conscience”  

Now consider the following:

Electoral College Questions and Answers

Citizen Wells letter to Electoral College Electors

The Alan Keyes lawsuit is still alive questioning the eligibility
of Barack Obama.

The CA Secretary of State was contacted by the Citizen Wells blog,
the Democratic Disaster organization and numerous other entities.

It is clear to even a casual observer that Barack Obama is not
eligible to be president and that Electors in CA and throughout
the nation, despite compelling evidence that Obama is not eligible,
plodded along and engaged in the worst kind of party politics, and
violated the US Constitution.

2004 CA Certificate of Vote

cacertofvote2004

Electoral College Vote and subsequent procedures:

4.   Hold the Meeting of Electors
On the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (December 15, 2008), the electors meet in their respective States. Federal law does not permit the States to choose an alternate date for the meeting of electors – it must be held on December 15, 2008. The State legislature may designate where in the State the meeting will take place, usually in the State capital. At this meeting, the electors cast their votes for President and Vice President.

If any electors are unable to carry out their duties on the day of the Electoral College meeting, the laws of each State would govern the method for filling vacancies. Any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of electors must be decided under State law at least six days prior to the meeting of the electors.

See Title 3, Section 6 of the U.S. Code
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law requiring electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their States. Some States have such requirements.

5.   Prepare the Certificate of Vote
Federal law does not govern the general appearance of the Certificate of Vote. The format is determined under the law or custom of the submitting State. The electors must execute six Certificates of Vote. Federal law requires that the Certificates be prepared and authenticated in the following manner:
The Certificates of Vote must contain two distinct lists, one for President and one for Vice President.
The Certificates must list all persons who received electoral votes for President and the number of electors who voted for each person.
The Certificates must list all persons who received votes for Vice President and the number of electors who voted for each person.
The Certificates do not contain the names of persons who did not receive electoral votes.
Each of the six Certificates of Vote must be signed by all of the electors.

One of the six Certificates of Ascertainment provided to the electors by the Governor must be attached to each of the six Certificates of Vote.

Finally, each of the six pairs of Certificates must be sealed and certified by the electors as containing the list of electoral votes of that State for President and Vice President.
6.   Distribute the Paired Certificates of Vote and Certificates of Ascertainment
The six pairs of Certificates must be sent to the designated Federal and State officials as follows:
One is sent by registered mail to:
The Honorable Richard B. Cheney
President of the United States Senate
The Capitol
Washington, DC 20510

Two are sent by registered mail to:
Allen Weinstein
Archivist of the United States
National Archives and Records Administration
c/o Office of the Federal Register (NF)
8601 Adelphi Road
College Park, MD 20740-6001

Two are sent to:

The Secretary of State of each State.

One of these is held subject to the order of the President of the United States Senate or the Archivist of the United States in case the electoral votes fail to reach the Senate or the Archivist.
The other one is to be preserved by the Secretary of State for public inspection for one year.
One is sent to:

The Chief Judge of the Federal District Court located where the electors meet.

It is held subject to the order of the President of the United States Senate or the Archivist of the United States in case the electoral votes fail to reach the Senate or the Archivist.
The statutory deadline for the designated Federal and State officials to receive the electoral votes is December 24, 2008. Because of the very short time between the meetings of the electors in the States on December 15 and the December 24 statutory deadline, followed closely by the counting of electoral votes in Congress on January 6, 2009, it is imperative that the Certificates be mailed as soon as possible.

We strongly recommend that the sealed pairs of Certificates be taken to the Post Office on December 15, or no later than the morning of December 16, to minimize delays that could occur during the holiday mail season. Some States may find it useful to alert their local Postmaster to the extraordinarily important nature of the mailing. When the paired Certificates of Vote and Certificates of Ascertainment have been delivered to the designated Federal and State officials, the States’ Electoral College duties are complete.

Prior to the election this year, the Legal Staff of the Office of the Federal Register will telephone Secretaries of State and other election officials to establish contact with the States and assure the smooth operation of the Electoral College process.

Read more here:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/state_responsibilities.html#vote