Obama Eligibility Appeals Case Winds Up In Alabama Supreme Court With Established Birther Judges
Posted on Sunday, March 31, 2013 12:33:30 PM by Cold Case Posse Supporter
The case is called McInnish-Goode-v-Chapman. What is interesting about this case is that newly elected Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court is Roy Moore.
In the past, he has expressed doubts of where Obama was born. Also interesting is that another Alabama Supreme Court Justice named Tom Parker has gone on record arguing that McInnish’s charges of “forgery” on Obama’s ‘Short Form’ birth certificate and ‘Long Form’ birth certificate were legitimate cause for concern mainly due to Sheriff Joe Arpaio‘s Maricopa County Sheriff Office investigation conclusions. Justice Parker wrote on March 27, 2012:
Judicial elections across the United States, largely ho-hum affairs that only stand out when members of the black robes commit a crime, have turned white-hot in Iowa, where residents are organizing and campaigning to fire three of the state Supreme Court members who created same-sex marriage for the state.Supporters of the judges – Marsha Ternus and Justices David Baker and Michael Streit – are countering with arguments that Iowans who want the three removed from office have abandoned the rule of law and become “the mob.
“But former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, who was removed from office himself when state officials refused to allow him to challenge an order he considered illegal, said the judges in Iowa didn’t even follow their own state law – which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Instead, Moore said, they joined advocates for homosexuality in calling such couples “similarly situated” to traditionally married couples.Understand the dark side of what’s really happening in America. Read “HOW EVIL WORKS”– autographed!That view is accurate, said Moore, who runs the Foundation for Moral Law, only if one cannot tell the difference between a man and a woman.
The justices’ stance, he suggested, is why polls show they could be ejected from their highly paid positions of influence, even though they usually are the benefactors of approval from 80 percent or 90 percent of the voters.Several polls show that support for the three is running only percentage points above the portion of the citizenry already committed to voting them out. Several polls suggested the small percentage of undecideds probably ultimately will be the deciding factor.
Story continues below
Army judge tells officer: Shut up and be punished! Defense counsel warns ‘fair trial’ impossible under military rulings
| This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
BORN IN THE USA?
Army judge tells officer:
Shut up and be punished!
Defense counsel warns ‘fair trial’
impossible under military rulings
Posted: September 28, 2010
9:01 pm Eastern By Brian Fitzpatrick
FORT MEADE, Md. – An Army judge has made it “impossible” for a career medical officer to get a fair hearing on charges he refused to deploy to Afghanistan because of concern that obeying orders in the chain of command under an ineligible commander in chief would be illegal, his attorney says.
The rulings came today from Col. Denise Lind, who in so many words told Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin to pound sand. Rocks actually. He faces up to four years at hard labor if convicted in his case.
“We got absolutely slammed today,” said Paul R. Jensen, lead counsel for the defense. “It’s impossible for us to have a fair trial under these rulings.”
Jensen continued, “The judge did what she thought was right, but the result is to deprive us of any opportunity to have a defense.”
Lakin believes any order issued under Obama’s authority as commander in chief of the armed forces may not be valid because his eligibility to serve as president is unproven. After fruitlessly requesting the Army to verify Obama’s eligibility to serve as president, Lakin wrote directly to Obama asking for proof of eligibility.
(Story continues below)
But without a response, Lakin decided it was his duty to refuse an order to deploy with his unit as part of Obama’s Afghanistan surge. As one of the defense briefs states, he “… [took] the distasteful route of inviting his own court martial.”
Note: A legal-defense fund has been set up for Lt. Col. Terry Lakin. Click for information.
In her decision, Lind, acting as judge in the case, censored the last remaining arguments Lakin planned to make in his defense: motive and duty. Lakin had intended to explain his motive for disobeying the order and contend that it was his duty as a good soldier to disobey orders that he believes to be illegal.
The defense also planned to call as witnesses Ambassador Alan Keyes and retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney. Keyes was to explain the constitutional issues involved in the case, and McInerney was to talk about the training soldiers receive regarding when they should question and even disobey orders.
Lind was following up on her rulings from Sept. 2, when she rejected defense plans to introduce evidence concerning Obama’s eligibility. The defense also requested for Lakin’s defense documents referencing Obama’s birth records on file in Hawaii, but Lind refused to allow that either, noting that providing the documents might prove “embarrassing” to Obama.
“Our arms were cut off last time,” said Jensen. “Our legs are being cut off this time.”
In rejecting Lakin’s right to discovery of Obama birth documents, Lind joined a host of other judges – in civilian courts – who have refused to allow plaintiffs suing Obama to obtain his birth records. Jensen told WND he had hoped the court would permit Lakin to go to discovery, because Lakin is the defendant in a criminal case and has the right to mount a full defense.
In objecting to the participation of Keyes and McInerney and the presentation of Lakin’s planned arguments, the prosecution argued that all issues related to Obama’s eligibility, Lakin’s motives and the good soldier doctrine were “irrelevant.”
“We have to have the opportunity to present some defense!” Jensen countered.
Just before Lind recessed the hearing to prepare her decision, Jensen asked rhetorically whether the government intended to allow him to call any witnesses at all and thundered, “This is all we had left!”
Jensen’s pleas fell on deaf ears. Less than two hours after the court recessed following arguments, Lind returned to the bench to render a lengthy, detailed decision. Reading in a dry monotone, Lind reaffirmed her Sept. 2 decision and ruled out discussions of motive and duty.
Lind, with her rulings, effectively has restricted the scope of Lakin’s trial to what the government wanted: the simple questions of whether the officer had received orders to deploy to Afghanistan and whether he complied.
Neither of these facts is in dispute
But Jensen said the trial will not end the case.
Retired JAG Officer Says Judge’s Ruling Against Discovery for Lakin Could Derail Case Based on Legal Precedent###A retired JAG officer with over 23 years of experience, says the military judge who ruled against discovery for a Greeley Army officer may have derailed the government’s case based on precedent from another high profile case involving a military officer.
Lt. Col John Eidsmoe, a retired Air Force officer who works for former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore at the Foundation for Moral Law, said Lakin is “raising legitimate constitutional questions” regarding President Obama’s eligibility to be commander-in-chief.Eidsmoe said the issue has been around for several years and was first raised by Phillip Berg, a liberal Democrat who was a Hillary Clinton supporter.
“If he is a legitimate citizen of the United States, he could easily clear that up just by releasing the information to prove it,” Eidsmoe said“
When the national interest is at stake, he has a duty to put personal feelings aside and show us he’s legitimate, if he is.”Last week at a hearing on the motion for documents relating to the President’s eligibility under the Constitution, the judge ruled Lakin did not have any rights to discovery.
excerpt ~ continues @ link below…
The military judge who curiously noted without explanation that uncovering evidence about President Obama’s birth records could prove “embarrassing” and denied an officer the right to obtain potentially exculpatory evidence in a court-martial simply has forgotten the Constitution, the supreme rule of the United States.So says Judge Roy Moore, who battled the politically correct climate as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court a decade ago and ultimately was removed from office by a state panel that refused to review the constitutionality of a federal court order.
“Lt. Col. Lakin has every right to question the lawfulness of the orders of the commander in chief. He’s not only the commander in chief, he dictates the whole war effort, as shown by the recent firing of [Gen. Stanley McChrystal],” Moore said.It doesn’t matter, he said, that orders come from a colonel, or a general or even the Pentagon.
BORN IN THE USA?
Battle-scarred judge says Lakin decision ignores Constitution‘
Highest law in this country is not Supreme Court, not commander in chief
‘Posted: September 04, 201012:00 am EasternBy Thom Redmond© 2010
WorldNetDailyMONTGOMERY, AL –
NOVEMBER 18: The Ten Commandments memorial rests in the lobby of the rotunda of the State Judicial Building November 18, 2002 in Montgomery, Alabama. U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson ruled November 18, 2002 that the monument violates the constitution’s ban on government promotion of religion and must be removed.
Thompson gave Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore 30 days to remove the 5,300-pound granite monument. Photo by Gary Tramontina/Getty ImagesFORT MEADE, Md. – The military judge who curiously noted without explanation that uncovering evidence about President Obama’s birth records could prove “embarrassing” and denied an officer the right to obtain potentially exculpatory evidence in a court-martial simply has forgotten the Constitution, the supreme rule of the United States.
So says Judge Roy Moore, who battled the politically correct climate as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court a decade ago and ultimately was removed from office by a state panel that refused to review the constitutionality of a federal court order.His comments came today in an interview with WND about Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who yesterday was denied permission by Army Col. Denise R. Lind to obtain evidence that could document Obama is not eligible to occupy the Oval Office.
Lakin refused to follow his latest deployment orders to go to Afghanistan, because he was unable through Army channels to document Obama’s eligibility, and the president himself has declined opportunities to do so.Judge Moore, who now operates through the Foundation for Moral Law, has personal experience with challenging the powers that be to follow the Constitution. His dispute centered on a Ten Commandments display he put in a state building to recognize the God who inspired the Founders of America.
Story continues below