LTC Lakin verdicts, Terry Lakin patriot, Obama Congress Supreme Court State Election Officials Mainstream Media guilty
“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans
“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”…Thomas Paine
LTC Terry Lakin
Guilty of Treason: Barack Hussein Obama
Guilty of dereliction of Duty:
US Supreme Court
State Election Officials
Guilty of conspiracy to Defraud the American Public: US Mainstream Media
From Citizen Wells November 12, 2008.
“What I am about to write is so inherently simple and self evident,
that it may appear on the surface to be implausible. However, the
following facts and arguments flow from the founding fathers’ wisdom
and desire to protect the American citizens from tyrrany. I have read
the US Constitution, Federal election law and numerous state election
laws. I have had dialogue with offices of a number of Secretaries of State
and Election Boards. The US Constitution gives the states power over
the general election. The states control which candidates are placed
on ballots and regardless of the methodology used for doing so, I
believe the states have the power and obligation to verify eligibility
of presidential candidates. I find no federal or state law prohibiting
states from doing so and instead a constitutional duty to ensure that
a qualified candidate becomes a ballot choice for the Electoral College
Electors. Failure to do so effectively may lead to voter disenfranchisement.
I have believed and stated for weeks that the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution gives US citizens the power to demand that a presidential
candidate prove eligbility and certainly standing in a lawsuit. A lawsuit
should not be necessary. We already have the power, directly from the
US Constitution Bill of Rights.
- The US Constitution clearly defines the eligibiity requirement for president.
- The US Constitution rules.
- The US Constitution gives states the power to choose electors. With this power comes the obligation to uphold the Constitution and protect voter rights.
- State laws vary but are consistent in their approach to placing
presidential candidates on the ballot.
- Presidential Balloting evolved from tradition.
- The two party system evolved from tradition.
- States place presidential candidates on ballots from instructions of
the major political parties.
- States should have enacted laws to require proof of eligibility.
- States are not exercising their duty to the Constitution.
- States have the power and obligation to ensure that only eligible candidates remain on ballots. Despite compelling evidence that Barack Obama is not eligible, and notification, the states left him on the ballot.
- States claim no power to remove a candidate when in fact they do have power over the general election process.
- The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution gives the people power, including Phil J Berg, Leo C. Donofrio and others that have had their lawsuits dismissed in state courts.
By virtue of the powers given to the people in the Tenth Amendment in The BIll of Rights of the US Constitution, we do not have to file lawsuits to demand proof of eligibility or require state election officials to do so.
A US citizen filing a lawsuit demanding that a presidential candidate provide proof of eligibility has standing.”
“Philip J Berg lawsuit
Judge Surrick ruling exerpts:
“If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.”
“…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.”
Philip J Berg response to ruling:
“an American citizen is asking questions of a presidential candidate’s eligibility to even hold that office in the first place, and the candidate is ducking and dodging questions through legal procedure.”
“This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution,” “If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States–the most powerful man in the entire world–is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?”
Mark J. Fitzgibbons is President of Corporate and Legal Affairs at American Target Advertising:
“October 29, 2008
Who Enforces the Constitution’s Natural Born Citizen Clause?”
“So if the Framers established that courts “shall” hear cases arising under the Constitution, and failed to authorize Congress to otherwise establish who may sue to enforce the document, then where might we find conclusively that Berg has standing to sue?
The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, remain with the states or the people. Therefore it seems that any state or any person has standing to sue to enforce not just the Natural Born Citizen Clause, but other constitutional requirements and rights, absent some expressly written bar within the Constitution itself.”
“Chief Justice John Marshall, writing in Marbury v. Madison, said that judges have a duty to decide cases under our paramount law, the Constitution. I have lamented previously about how some judges tend to evade their duty to decide constitutional matters by resorting to court-made doctrines. Judge Surrick’s reliance on case law to dismiss Berg’s suit for lack of standing is reasoned from a lawyer’s perspective, but not heroic and perhaps evasive of his larger duty.
His decision to “punt” the matter to Congress creates, I suggest, a dangerous, longer and perhaps more painful constitutional quagmire than had he heard the evidence in the case. Even had the case lacked merit, the Constitution would not have been harmed.”
Read more here:
Ellis Washington, currently a professor of law and political science at Savannah State University, former editor at the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute, is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history, political philosophy and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including “The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law” (2002). See his law review article “Reply to Judge Richard Posner.” Washington’s latest book is “The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust.”
Mr. Washington wrote the following response to the Philip J Berg lawsuit and Judge Surrick ruling in a World Net Daily article dated November 8, 2008 :
“Unfortunately, just 10 days before the election, a court of appeals judge threw out Berg’s lawsuit challenging the veracity of Obama’s U.S. citizenship status on technical grounds. Judge R. Barclay Surrick, a Jimmy Carter-appointed judge, amazingly (and with a tinge of irony), stated his opinion in part:
In a 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order, the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick concludes that ordinary citizens can’t sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.
Surrick defers to Congress, saying that the legislature could determine “that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency,” but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.
“Until that time,” Surrick says, “voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring.”
Judge Surrick, quoting from Hollander, concludes, “The alleged harm to voters stemming from a presidential candidate’s failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury.”
Surrick also quotes Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, which stated, in part, “The Supreme Court has consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government – claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large – does not state an Article III case or controversy.”
Constitutionally speaking, Judge Surrick’s reasoning is completely illogical and a total dereliction of his duty as a judge to substantively address this most vital constitutional controversy. Instead, in a gutless manner, Surrick dismissed Berg’s complaint 10 days before the elections on a technicality of standing, which to any rational person begs the question: If Philip J. Berg as an American citizen, a respected Democratic operative and former attorney general of Pennsylvania doesn’t have the “standing” to bring this type of lawsuit against Obama, then who in America does have standing? The good judge in all 34 pages of legal mumbo jumbo didn’t bother to answer this pivotal question.
That Berg’s complaint is not “concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury” is an amazing admission by any person that went to law school and even more so given the fact that Surrick is a respected appellate judge!
I am somewhat hopeful that Berg will successfully appeal Surrick’s outrageous decision to 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court if necessary, even if technically he doesn’t have standing to hold Obama accountable to the Constitution. Why? Because this is America, and out of 300 million people, someone should give a damn enough about this republic to make sure the person who holds the highest elected office in the land holds it legitimately based on the black letter text of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.”
Read the complete article here: