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?”