er_giveaway_banner.jpg (39000 bytes)

Lt. Col. Lakin waives Article 32 Hearing

DECORATED ARMY DOCTOR WHO HAS REFUSED TO FOLLOW ORDERS DUE TO DOUBTS ABOUT OBAMA’S LEGITIMACY WILL GO STRAIGHT TO COURT MARTIAL

by Sharon Rondeau

Lt. Col. Lakin has waived the initial hearing which had been scheduled for June 11, 2010. He now expects to go straight to court martial.

(Jun. 10, 2010) — Army flight surgeon Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin has waived a preliminary, or Article 32, hearing which had been scheduled for this Friday, June 11, 2010 at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, DC.

According to the press release of June 9, 2010, Lakin waived the hearing because the Army had “made it impossible” for him to adequately defend himself.  Information which Lakin had requested for his defense had included records from the Hawaii Health Department which purportedly has Obama’s birth information; the testimony of Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Health Department, school and college admission records, and financial aid information.  He had also asked that Obama testify.  His requests were denied by Lt. Col. Daniel J. Driscoll, Investigating Officer.

A video has been released wherein Lt. Col. Lakin describes what he expects to happen next and what he sees as Obama’s questionable documentation released on the internet during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Cody Robert Judy, candidate for U.S. Senate from Utah and former presidential candidate, has filed an Amicus Curiae brief with the U.S. Army on behalf of Lt. Col. Lakin.

When The Post & Email asked Tim Harrington, former Marine and author of the Citizens’ Tsunami blog, if the new development was favorable or unfavorable to Lakin’s case, he answered:

Yes.  By waiving the (Article) 32, it brings it right into the court-martial atmosphere.  It’s the perfect way to do it.  What we put up at The Jaghunter and I’m getting ready to put up on Citizens’ Tsunami will show you all of the government agencies who came on as soon as that went up, because they cannot get around it.

The only standing the American people have right now, with the amount of time we’ve spent in the War Articles, or the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice), is the court martial.  The only change of the War Articles was the name in 1950.  The interesting part of 1949, going into 1950, brings us back to 1881.  In 1881, in the War Articles, they came up with a new idea called the Rules of Procedure.  So if you take what’s happened and you take the changes of what they’ve inflicted on the citizens’ common-law courts of 1946, which actually took the power of the individual in the Grand Jury process (because that’s where the power lies; it does not lie in the judge, the court, or the prosecutor).  The Constitution guarantees you two protections:  a grand jury and a petit jury.  Nobody can be indicted without the permission of a grand jury.  They tried to use an Article 32 as if it were a grand jury process.  It is not.  It’s not even connected in any shape, manner or form to the Constitution or the Judiciary of the United States.

But by making up the rules that they came up with in 1946, they took away the citizen oversight of any criminal activities at the federal or state level. If a case were brought in front of a grand jury, and through the process of that grand jury, they found other events that were criminal, they had the right to investigate that and place a presentment, or indictment, on those events.  That’s why they were called a “runaway grand jury.”

In 1946, they came up with the Rules of Procedure, whether they’re criminal rules of procedure or civil rules of procedure, which the states afterward adopted in their own ways through their own state legislation. They physically took away your standing, as you keep hearing from everyone, because of their rules.  Basically, you have been under a form of martial law by your own judiciary since 1946.  Your common-law court under the Constitution ceased to exist.

The Post & Email then asked:  However, that could not trump the Constitution, could it?

Mr. Harrington replied:

It doesn’t change the Constitution at all.  What it did was take your rights, your protection (your rights come from your protection; the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are your protection; they’re not your rights) as a citizen of the United States, whether you’re naturalized or natural born, it doesn’t matter; those are your protections.  So what they did was usurp your constitutional protections by inserting Rules of Procedure.  And that’s why  when the American Grand Jury made those presentments and a gentleman named Mack Ellis brought them into the Circuit Court in DC, Judge Lamberth came back with an opinion and said, “You’re absolutely correct.  Under the First Amendment you have the right to assemble, do this, and make a presentment.  But under the Rules of Procedure which are now in place, I don’t have to recognize that.”

Now you have a federal judge on record telling you, the people, that he no longer has to listen to you because they came up with their own rules, just like the Uniform Code of Military Justice and War Articles.

The Post & Email:  As if that trumps the Constitution?

Mr. Harrington:  That’s exactly how they’ve gotten away with it since 1946.  As we both know, you can’t pencil in a change to the Fifth Amendment without a ratification or a constitutional convention.  They just did it, and for 46 years,  it has grown to where it is today.  The court system is operating under Admiralty Law, international law; there’s no doubt about that.  I’m not big into the flag deal, but it makes sense, because in 1959, all of a sudden you had military flags in all public, federal and state institutions.

The Post & Email:  Was that done purposely?

Mr. Harrington:  Yes, because you’re in an Admiralty Law environment.  If Obama has done anything, he has at least gotten the country to wake up to what they’ve lost to date for not paying attention for the last 65 years.

The Post & Email:  Which is longer than many of us have been alive.

Mr. Harrington:  Exactly.  But this Article 32 or this court martial is the only standing that the American people have today to get the answers which 80% of the country wants.

The Post & Email:  Because of those rules that were put into place in 1946?

Mr. Harrington:  No, the rules in 1946 go to the civilian judiciary, and that is where they took away your standing.  The only place you have standing right now in this situation is in a military court martial, because the military cannot operate or exist without a legitimate commander-in-chief.  They cannot even convene this court martial.  Every court martial since the day this man (Obama) was inaugurated revolves around the commander-in-chief.  They will argue that the system stands on itself; it does not.  The only power Congress has, especially when this idiot reviewing officer who said it’s a constitutional problem and not the military’s problem – the military can’t make those statements unless they know that their orders are lawful.

The Post & Email:  Do you think Investigating Officer Daniel Driscoll has checked to see if Obama is a legitimate commander-in-chief?

Mr. Harrington:  It doesn’t matter.  It’s not his right to assume; it’s no one’s right to assume.  This goes directly to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  With the amount of questions that are there about the man’s background and whether or not he’s legitimate, the military is obligated to make sure he is.  Otherwise, there has not been a lawful order given to the military since the January 20, 2009 inauguration.

The Post & Email:  Why has Driscoll issued an opinion which says that Lakin can have certain pieces of the information he requested for his defense but not all of it?

Mr. Harrington:  Because he’s an idiot.  Let me give you an example.  Walt and I have been involved in some other military cases such as the Iron Triangle.  Sergeant Hutchins is sitting in a brig at Camp Pendleton today as you and I are speaking.  On April 22, an en banc appellate jury, which is all nine judges, overturned his conviction.  So on April 22, this young sergeant became an innocent man.  But today he’s still in solitary confinement in Camp Pendleton.

The Post & Email:  Why is that?

Mr. Harrington:  Because they can’t afford to let him out.  The bigger question is, “Why is he behind bars?”  This is a kid who has no conviction any more, no charges, no nothing, but he is still, in fact, incarcerated.  It’s called “preventive detention.”

The Post & Email:  Is there any chance he will be released?

Mr. Harrington:  There’s a hearing on Monday on whether they will let him out.  But the thing is, as you and I are talking, there’s no reason to have that hearing to make that decision because there are no charges against him to keep him there.  They’re going to bring it to COMA (Court of Military Appeals) and go in front of COMA and argue, but they have no merit to argue in front of COMA to overturn the appellate process because what was done to him was egregious, according to the UCMJ.  His defense counsel was released without notification to the defendant, and he was left without an attorney.  And their only other avenue, which they should have done immediately, as far as the JAG Corps, was to bring him back, if he was guilty, on the original charges on which they convicted him.  They cannot add anything; they have to bring him back on the exact same charges.  The problem there is that they can’t, because the military, especially the Marine Corps, the Department of Defense, and the media will be exposed.  What does happen is that the defense gets to bring in all the stuff we’ve dug up in four years of what has been done and withheld and enter it into evidence.  They can’t afford to have that happen.

The Post & Email:  So what is going on with the military?

Mr. Harrington:  The military is completely corrupt at the leadership level.  Another Marine who does a lot of writing came up with a description, and it made sense:  You have two parts of the military:  You have the band of brothers, who are your heavy lifters, your young men and women on the lower end of the food chain and their families.  That is the backbone of the military.  Then you have the corporation, and the corporation is in bed with what is going on in DC today.  They turned their heads away from the Constitution years ago.

The Post & Email:  Before Obama?

Mr. Harrington:  Way before Obama.  The military complex is nothing about power and money; the military and the JAG Corps is the biggest law firm in the world.  What do you need that for when you have the Department of Justice?  In the changes of 1950 in the UCMJ, the only thing that was supposed to happen at that point, besides just changing the name, was to have officers of the court, attorneys who had graduated and had state licenses, to be defenders and prosecutors.  The other major change was instead of having just any old officer as a reviewing officer, you actually had appointed officers and judges by the name, but only appointed by the Department of Defense.  That’s no judge.  It’s an attainted system.

Now ask yourself, on a state license, to be an officer of the court as an attorney, how do you then go in the military and all of a sudden become a federal attorney?  The military, right now, is in every aspect of law there is:  international law, contract law; they’re in your neighborhoods; they’re in civilian law.  Then what is the DOJ for?  Either you have this law firm or you have that law firm.  The problem is that they’re combined, and that’s why we kept saying that the military system is coming into the citizenry.  You couldn’t have Northcom; you couldn’t have what went on in Samson, AL; you can’t have a lot of the things that you see going on on a daily basis that people just take for granted.  Your Constitution doesn’t exist.

The Post & Email: Has Obama done away with it?

Mr. Harrington:  Obama is the force and function to bring this all to the front burner.  Because of what’s happened, and if, in fact, by not producing anything in 15 or 16 months, the government has already shown its guilt.  If in fact anything could have been produced to substantiate Obama’s birth in Hawaii, it could have been done in ten minutes.  And what you have going on here is a major meltdown of the entire system, because it’s corrupt not just at the federal level; you’re corrupted all the way to the state level.  Your state attorneys general, elections commissions and electoral colleges are all responsible for vetting the person who’s on the ballot, so they all have become co-conspirators if, in fact, he’s illegitimate, in the act of treason.

The Post & Email:  All of those entities said they weren’t responsible or that it was a non-issue.

Mr. Harrington:  It’s also bigger than that, because if you go back to Philip Berg’s case in Washington, DC, Judge Robertson said that Obama had been vetted by having been “twittered and blogged.”  The most important part of that is in his opinion to Berg, he said that Berg did not meet the requirements prior to the president taking office.  That meant that he didn’t contact his attorney general to make a complaint; he didn’t go to the Elections Commission, and he didn’t contact the Electoral College to make a complaint there.  Everyone got into it after the election had taken place.

Commander Fitzpatrick and I have the paperwork to show that months prior to that decision, every one of those things had been done in a timely manner.  Walter got a hold of the state elections commission in Tennessee; he contacted the attorney general; we have that all on record as well as the receipts for certified mail.

The Post & Email:  And they didn’t do anything?

Mr. Harrington:  All the way to Dick Cheney.  We have the date of November 14 when Dick Cheney’s office signed for that letter prior to when Cheney, as president of the Senate, convened the Congress to count the electoral college votes.

The Post & Email:  And Cheney failed to ask for objections.  According to the Constitution, he was supposed to have asked, “Are there any dissenters?”

Mr. Harrington:  Exactly.  You have had a coup in Washington for power.  That’s the only explanation.  And through the time of these last three presidents, if you look at the extensions of the Insurrection Act and all the things that have been put in place through Homeland Security and the powers given to Homeland Security, Northcom, all these executive orders, etc. – the only way you get away with an executive order without protest after 30 days in Congress is if we are at war on our own soil.  We’re not at war.  The only way for a court martial or military tribunal to take place is if we were at war.  The only legitimate time was during President Lincoln’s time in office, when martial law was declared.

The Post & Email:  Was that unconstitutional?

Mr. Harrington:  Some say it is, but it was not.  It was constitutional.  It was the only time in United States history that state and federal courts couldn’t be open.  The North was fighting the South.  So as far as a legitimate time of martial law, it had to happen, because it was the only time in our country when we were at war with ourselves.  The only other time I know of when martial law was implemented was during the earthquakes in the 1920s in California.  You had martial law during Hurricane Katrina, but nobody ever actually declared it.

The Post & Email:  If Obama declared martial law, would the military follow the order?

Mr. Harrington:  That’s why Northcom is set up; they’re already prepared to do that.  The first reports which came out on Northcom were talking about 20,000 troops.  The problem is that 20,000 combat troops are rotating in and out of theater.  Why are they now up to over 80,000?

When you get into police-state activities, just go back to the G-20 meetings in Pittsburgh.  Look at the pictures to see what went on at the G-20.  Look at all these new federalized agents.  Every town everywhere in the United States has at least one or two federalized officers.  It’s out of control, and it’s because the government has usurped its powers.  If the Constitution was in place, the health bill couldn’t go through.  People say that we have no way of removing these people.  The answer is, “Yes, you do.”  The Constitution shows you a bill of attainder is, in fact, for sitting representatives for one crime for which they can held accountable federally:  the AIG bailout.  Remember that Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the whole crew wanted to single out the people who got the bonuses and tax 98% of that back to the federal government.  That’s a bill of attainder.  They’re being put upon without the permission of a jury.  Now, not only is that an act of attainder (and that’s exactly why the Senate didn’t pick it up), it doesn’t matter whether it became law or not.  You have a voting record, and you have a bill that was presented.  So you have all the ayes and all the nays there, but all of them combined allowed it to happen.  That is a bill of attainder.

The criminals in command are aligned with the criminals in government.  By allowing a usurper to ascend to the office of president, there is no control over the armies and navies.  We are in a constitutional crisis and national security crisis at the same time.

Mr. Harrington:  If, in fact, these folks don’t use this one chance I see they have with the military and force the military to abide by its own rules and prove there are lawful orders…think how terrible this is:  if, in fact, it comes out somewhere down the road that this man is not eligible (and I could care less about his birth certificate; this is a constitutional crisis, and they can hide behind any name they want), every one of our young men and women in uniform, which is the highest part of our citizenry, is a combatant on somebody else’s soil.

Now who holds them accountable?  The international court which Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are trying to bring in to the United States?  How do you even talk about the UN and the International Court as long as the U.S. Constitution is in existence?  This has been an attack on the Constitution for well over 100 years.  But now they’re at a point where they have taken your standing as a United States citizen away from you.

Your only stand right now for the truth is the patriotism of Lt. Col. Lakin.  You can forceably make the military, through the internet and every avenue we have to make people understand it is their only standing to get an answer.

The Post & Email:  So do you feel that the waiver of the Article 32 hearing is a good thing?

Mr. Harrington:  Absolutely, because the onus goes back on the government.  If in fact his defense is worth their salt, the first question that would be asked that day to the reviewing officer, “Do you believe, sir, that this is a lawful assembly because your commander-in-chief is legitimate?”  He has to answer “yes.”

The Post & Email:  The defense attorney would have to ask that, correct?

Mr. Harrington:  Absolutely, on the record.  Once that is stated, then the government has to back and prove that legitimacy.  End of discussion.

The Post & Email:  By waiving the Article 32, doesn’t that give the government an “out,” because then it would just go to the next step?

Mr. Harrington:  Absolutely not.  The next step is:  how do they prosecute him?  How do they prove that he denied an unlawful order?  He is, in fact, in his actions, if they are lawful orders, guilty of “missing movement,” but he notified everyone in the chain of command as to what his intentions were and why, and nobody in the chain of command did anything to rectify the problem.  And all that problem would have been was to prove the Commander-in-Chief was legitimate.  So the chain of command going all the way into the Pentagon where he works, the Department of Defense, all the way to the White House, had been broken at that point.It is his lawful right under his officer’s oath to ask that question.  He is obligated under that oath to ask that question.  So is every officer and everybody serving in uniform today.  That’s why it’s so important.

The Post & Email:  Is that why you said that this puts the onus back on the government?

Mr. Harrington:  Absolutely.  The UCMJ is not a justice system; it’s a penal system.  It does not work on law; it works on orders, and the only way the orders are lawful are through the Commander-in-Chief.  Regarding Congress, it makes law; it doesn’t investigate whether or not the president is legally holding office.  They don’t have that ability.

The Post & Email:  Even though the judges have said that it is up to the Congress to determine?

Mr. Harrington:  What they’re doing is passing the buck.  If people want something to stand on, start bringing suits around this country to the federal judges and the state judges who have thrown these things out, and hold them accountable for not upholding the law, and instead of going after the judges in the states that are going to protect them, go after the bonding companies.  Then courts will be shut down around this country.  They wouldn’t be able to practice if the bonds were taken away.

The Post & Email:  Can anyone do that?

Mr. Harrington: Anybody.  Any American citizen can file a complaint anywhere in this country.  That is your right.

Getting back to Commander Fitzpatrick, we both realize that on March 17, 2009, Commander Fitzpatrick wrote and distributed a criminal complaint of treason.  It’s the only criminal complaint.  If you look at all the civil complaints, all of these folks have been doing one thing, and they have one thing in common:  they are all smart attorneys, some brilliant; they know they can’t get the answer to remove Barack Obama in a civilian court.  It can’t be done.

The Post & Email:  Then why are they filing the suits?

Mr. Harrington:  Exactly.  What is their compensation?  Their compensation is everybody donating money to them as they do it.  And what it’s done is take attention away from the facts, because each time one is thrown out by a federal judge because you don’t have standing, the administration and everybody else can make fun of it and make it so that it is politically incorrect to talk about it.  This is all part of the game.

You have federal legislators, state legislators, all looking for amnesty when their only job and obligation and oath is to uphold federal law.  There is no reason, and each state can do the same thing – they can file suits to remove these people around the country for failing to uphold state and federal law.  If someone is an officer of the court and you know a crime is being committed, you are obligated to expose it or you become part and an accessory of a felony.  What’s going on around the country?  This is where everybody needs to focus.  These are the tools that we’ve been trying to give people that have teeth in it to actually get something done.

Holding signs, driving across the country in a bus and using patriot money to take a salary and hold a sign is foolishness.  Go to the circus; you get more out of it.  This is where folks have to focus and come together.

Print Friendly

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Categories: National

14 Responses to Lt. Col. Lakin waives Article 32 Hearing

  1. TZ

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 11:21 PM

    Just an idea… I think someone needs to hookup that clerk Adams (who said he would testify under oath that obama is not eligible) with Lt Col Lakin… to help him with his case. Seems Lt. Col. Lakin has the best chance to uncover what most already know… Looks like the Army is playing their dirty tricks & will want to discredit Col. Lakin.

  2. Tom the veteran

    Sunday, June 13, 2010 at 8:00 PM

    Somebody tell Mr. Harrington that this election clerk, Tim Adams, is willing to testify in court that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii! I hope Mr. Adams has personal protection!

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=165981

  3. Bob

    Sunday, June 13, 2010 at 12:44 PM

    In keeping with my above statement “but unfortunately if one were to take a poll… 51% of Americans would say we should interrupt the crime”… when in actual fact the answer should be 100%, the following email someone sent me, unfortunately spells it out better than I did, as follows… The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.
    —author unknown

  4. Zach Jones

    Sunday, June 13, 2010 at 9:01 AM

    I agree and I too hope you are not wrong! Zach

  5. CC SEATTLE

    Saturday, June 12, 2010 at 11:22 PM

    When my late husband served during Vietnam I came to understand the chain of command. Every officer knows that the safety of this country rests on this. Obama, as the Commander in Chief should be held accountable if not for not showing his birth certificate for allowing an officer to be punished when he is the head of that chain of command. Every officer CARES about his men and when a good man is honoring the chain of command, the commander in chief should be honoring his service. If he does NOT rescue his officer we should impeach Obama for dereliction of duty.
    —————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Well said, madam. May God continue to bless you.

  6. Cody Judy

    Saturday, June 12, 2010 at 8:52 PM

    This is unbelievable! How could our U.S. Representatives in The U.S. House and The U.S. Senate even stand to see this man burn in a Court Martial situation. Where is their loyalty to our U.S.C, how can they idly stand by and do nothing? Where is their honor? Where is their integrity? Where is their responsibility? Here is Lt. Col. Lakin’s new video link

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv60KwoL9mo

  7. Thomas

    Friday, June 11, 2010 at 8:37 PM

    I have a Strong Feeling that this Lt. Col. Lakin is going to be a major Hero for bringing America back , I surely hope I am not wrong !!

  8. old1

    Friday, June 11, 2010 at 2:15 PM

    Here’s what Abraham Lincoln said:
    “This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.”
    Well, if that time is not with us today, it is surely within sight in our future and that future we can not let come to pass! Write your Congressmen and Senators. Call your local papers. Email your friends and family. Talk about things at break and lunch. DO NOT BE AFRAID to tell those around you we are at war! We are! Help defeat this World Wide Communist Coup! Let FREEDOM Live! Defeat the Evil!

  9. ObamaReleaseYourRecords

    Friday, June 11, 2010 at 12:47 PM

    ORANGE REVOLUTION!!!

  10. Bob

    Friday, June 11, 2010 at 11:37 AM

    Another excellent interview Sharon Rondeau, with a great follow-up Starla, especially the last two very accurate and descriptive paragraphs. The sooner America wakes up and realises what we have in our midst, the better. Exactly same as Maj. Gen Paul E. Vallely, I truly believe that we don’t have the luxury of waiting until the next election(s) to save America, IF THERE IS GOING TO BE ANYTHING LEFT TO SAVE. If you see a serious crime in the progress, do you wait until it is over before reporting same?, or do you call the Police immediately to try and interrupt the process? Should be a rather simple answer, but unfortunately if one were to take a poll… 51% of Americans would say we should interrupt the crime, 32% would say “I just don’t know”, and 17% would say “absolutely not to interrupt”. And “Yo”, I agree with you and what Abraham Lincoln said. IT’S NOW TIME TO STOP THIS MADNESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  11. impeachtheboob

    Friday, June 11, 2010 at 9:55 AM

    That’s better news than expecting.

    Also, I was under the impresion that the “judge” has the right to set the whole thing aside if he so pleases. N trail at all. Is that correct?

    Mr. Harrington, what are all the options the “judge” has at this point??

  12. yo

    Friday, June 11, 2010 at 7:46 AM

    starla asked:
    “Mr. Harrington, can you please be specific and state what We The People can do, in your opinion Mr. Harrington, to remove these criminals who have usurped Illegal and Unconstitutional power in the USA government outside of the USA Constitution?”

    Here’s what Abraham Lincoln said:
    ““this country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.”

    from http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Douglas-MacKinnon-Todays-PC-police-would-arrest-Abe-Lincoln-for-sedition-96098849.html

  13. ObamaReleaseYourRecords

    Friday, June 11, 2010 at 2:26 AM

    Very informative report…

  14. Starla

    Thursday, June 10, 2010 at 11:45 PM

    Can you discard the other post and use this one with less typos please?

    Thank you for posting as you always do a very excellent and a very informative article, Ms. Rondeau. I would like to ask Mr. Harrington a question. When Mr. Harrington stated, “It’s out of control, and it’s because the government has usurped its powers. If the Constitution was in place, the health bill couldn’t go through. People say that we have no way of removing these people. The answer is, “Yes, you do.” The Constitution shows you a bill of attainder is, in fact, for sitting representatives for one crime for which they can held accountable federally: the AIG bailout.

    Mr. Harrington, can you please be specific and state what We The People can do, in your opinion Mr. Harrington, to remove these criminals who have usurped Illegal and Unconstitutional power in the USA government outside of the USA Constitution? Are you saying we can and should use the legal Constitutional “bill of attainder” that is in place in the USA Constitution to solve this?”

    How do we go about doing this? And what are the steps? Please list everything you can think of and suggest that We The People can do to remove these criminals out of our USA government when the Executive Branch, Congress, and also the Judicial Branch are all corrupt in the USA.

    And since the USA Judicial system today is overrun with criminally corrupt judges who won’t listen to, refuse to grant, and who refuse to give the USA American citizens’ cries for righteousness and justice for legal redress of our grievances even a hearing on the merits of the legal issues, this provides extremely clear and direct evidence for USA American citizens, that many judicial judges in the USA
    are sitting on the bench as enemies to Americans and criminal and criminal judges. Mr. Harrington, what do you think, and what do you suggest We The People do?

    We The People are today living in a DAILY COUP D’ETAT WAR that the Foreign Born Domestic Enemy Serial Criminal and the Illegal Alien Terrorist Usurper Barack Obama VICIOUSLY
    DECLARED in an Attack Of War on ALL 310 + Million USA American citizens on January 20, 2009. The Foreign Born Domestic Enemy Terrorist Illegal Immigrant Barack Hussein Obama II DECLARED a Communist/Fascist/Marxist Radical Islamic Muslim Terrorist COUP D’ ETAT WAR on the USA Constitution, and on the entire 50 states in the United States of America, and on ALL 310 + Million USA American Citizens!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>