She is the conveneing authority in the court, and she is stateing that her court can not allow the opening of Obamas records because that might cause embarrassment to Congress, not solely because Mr. Lakin is not entitled to them. If so, then Mr. Lakin has been denied a fair trial from the start. Period.
Congress's embarrassment, in part or whole, is being weighed against a mans right to evidence in his trial, with his freedom hanging in the balance??? That, in my opinion is a travesty of justice.
This is blowing my mind. How this could not go to the supreme court is the big question. How will they avoid this?
This Judge may not be doing any thing wrong. In effect, What she did do, in my opinion, is tell the world that she can not serve justice for Mr. Lakin because the Congress is her master, and it is in their realm to provide justice in this particular case.
Mr. Lakin, in my opinion, now has injury and standing for a hearing in the Supreme court the moment he is convicted or punished in anyway.
While reading your words, something just R A N G a bell.
Do you recall in the summer of 2008, months before the election, when there was.... I believe it was in a court in Hawaii.... where the DEFENSE attorney stated that the birth certificate of Barry Soebarkah Soetoro Obama Whats-HIZ-Name could not be released because... it would cause severe embarrassment to the Democrat Party.
Anyone else remember that outre position???
MAYBE it was in relation to some suit brought by Andy Martin of Chicago? OR maybe by the friend of Hillary who went to Hawaii? I don't think it was Jerome Corsi, but I could be mistaken.
Seems peculiar that the same word, EMBARRESSMENT is once again highlighted in a court of law.