Travesty, a Kangaroo Court, and Military Dereliction of duty by a Judge

A career officer in the U.S. Army acting as a judge in the prosecution of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin Court Martial said Lt. Col. Lakin will be denied access to any of Obama’s records as well as any testimony from those who may have access to the records and opening up such evidence could be an “embarrassment” to the president, and it’s up to Congress to call for impeachment of a sitting president.

The evidence in question is Barack Hussein Obama’s records, such as his long form Birth Certificate. Barack Hussein Obama ‘claims’ to have been born in Hawaii. A claim that has never been proven or corroborated as factual. These records are but one aspect of Barack Hussein Obama’s failure to qualify as a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ eligible to hold the office of the United States President. Barack Hussein Obama’s failure to qualify is not only against Article 2 sec 5 of the United States Constitution, but also the 20th Amendment Section 3

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Barack Hussein Obama claims to eligible by producing a computer generated form posted on the internet as an authentic and factual record of his supposed birth. However, the computer generated ‘certification of live birth’ posted on the internet is not a valid or authentic document. It is a forgery. No hospital has stated that Barack Hussein Obama was born at their facility, nor have any records been produced that Stanley Ann Dunham was admitted to either hospital or birthing facility in Hawaii in 1961 or at any other time. Nor has any documents been presented showing that Stanley Ann Dunham was in fact pregnant, recieved any obstetrical and gynecological care during the time she was supposedly pregnant, or that any pediatrician or pediatric care was given to Barack Hussein Obama in Hawaii after his supposed birth there in 1961.

Paul Rolf Jensen, Lakin’s civilian attorney, said the case would continue. But he said the courts now have denied his client the opportunity to present his defense. Jensen argued that under U.S.C. Rule 46, a defendant put on court martial has the right to call any and all witnesses and obtain any evidence in his or her defense.

Denying Lt. Col. Lakin defense amounts to travesty and treason by the Judge. The root of this case is the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, and that eligibilty is based on the United States Constitution, the Judge in this case [a military officer] has sworn to uphold and protect the United States Constitution, the supreme law of ‘our’ Constitutional Republic. Denying Lt. Col. Lakin a defense is tantamount to turning the United States Military Judicial system into a ‘kangaroo court system’, in order to protect an illegal undocumented foreigner from producing the very documents that little league football players are required to submit for registration. Think about it.

Unethical Lawyer – FBI, BAR, and Local Authorities Contacted

Is anonymous speech a right?

Yes. Anonymous speech is presumptively protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Anonymous pamphleteering played an important role for the Founding Fathers, including James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, whose Federalist Papers were first published anonymously. And the Supreme Court has consistently backed up that tradition, ruling, for example, that an Ohio law requiring authors to put their names on campaign literature was a violation of the First Amendment. Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled that protecting anonymous speech has the same purpose as the First Amendment itself: to “protect unpopular individuals from retaliation ­ and their ideas from suppression.”

Was Loren violating my 1st Amendment Constitutional rights when he posted his blog entry?

The U.S. Supreme Court characterized in 1995 as “an honorable tradition of advocacy and dissent.” Accordingly, Steele wrote, a court should not order the unmasking of an anonymous Internet poster unless a plaintiff offers strong proof of defamation.

“We are concerned that setting the standard too low will chill potential posters from exercising their First Amendment right to speak anonymously,” Steele wrote. “The possibility of losing anonymity in a future lawsuit could intimidate anonymous posters into self-censoring their comments or simply not commenting at all.”


A statement is defamatory if it “tends to injure the plaintiff’s reputation and expose the plaintiff to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, or degradation.” Phipps v. Clark Oil & Ref. Corp., 408 N.W.2d 569, 573 (Minn. 1987).

Anonymous Speech

First, the First Amendment protects anonymous speech. See Buckley v. Am.Constitutional Law Found., 525 U.S. 182, 200 (1999). The Supreme Court has noted that “Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Common, 514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995). Indeed, “Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent.”

Second, the protections of the First Amendment extend to the Internet. See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997). Courts also recognize that anonymity is a particularly important component of Internet speech.

“Internet anonymity facilitates the rich, diverse, and far ranging exchange of ideas [;] … the constitutional rights of Internet users, including the First Amendment right to speak anonymously, must be carefully safeguarded.” Doe v. 2 The, Inc., 140 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1092, 1097 (W.D.Wash.2001).

Why is anonymous speech important?

There are a wide variety of reasons why people choose to speak anonymously. Many use anonymity to make criticisms that are difficult to state openly ­ to their boss, for example, or the principal of their children’s school. The Internet has become a place where persons who might otherwise be stigmatized or embarrassed can gather and share information and support ­ victims of violence, cancer patients, AIDS sufferers, child abuse and spousal abuse survivors, for example. They use newsgroups, Web sites, chat rooms, message boards, and other services to share sensitive and personal information anonymously without fear of embarassment or harm. Some police departments run phone services that allow anonymous reporting of crimes; it is only a matter of time before such services are available on the Internet. Anonymity also allows “whistleblowers” reporting on government or company abuses to bring important safety issues to light without fear of stigma or retaliation. And human rights workers and citizens of repressive regimes around the world who want to share information or just tell their stories frequently depend on staying anonymous ­ sometimes for their very lives.

Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

This lawyer, in an attempt to VERIFY my credentials, has accessed my personal information, which is none of his damn business and posted my identity on the internet, without my permission and fully knowing to incite vindictive action and personal bodily harm.  Therefore I will post his to expose his unethical action, in violating my 1st Amendment Constitutional Right.

Unlike myself Loren aka LorenC posts links from his blog to his web-site and biography, therefore in no way attempting to blog anonymously or protect his or his family’s identify, based on the sensitive nature of my research and material.

I have been in contact with the local authorities, the FBI, and am in the process of filing with The Georgia Bar Association.

I have also forwarded all e-mails, blog posting that reference anything relation to the unethical action by Loren Collins.  Most of the information that he has is wrong. 

INTERNET LAW – Employee Blogs Pose Potential Problems for Businesses

Georgia Bar Assoc search has the following information posted on Loren Collins
Mr. Loren Christopher Collins
Law Office of W Bryant Green III PC
Atlanta, GA 30308
Here is what Loren has to state about himself;

Loren has divulged  personal information without my consent or permission.

I have screenshots of his posts from other blogs that have been sent by others;  wherehe boasts about ‘oust’ing’  me.

Loern Collins is a member of the Georgia Bar Association

Google has the following information on 

Loren Christopher Collins

260 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 522-5330

Loren was a write in candidate for Independent write-in candidate campaign I guess this explains his ethics. He wants to part of the DC cesspool.

 In light of the current political situation, if anything happens to me or my family.  I wanted  some to be able to see where this Obot was involved.  

I have contacted the local FBI office and local authorities am forwarding any and all threats recieved to both them and the local authorities.  I  have filed a complaint with the local Police Department and have contacted his employer listed and have sent three messages, to this end. I have not hear back.  

I have also sent copies of his information and actions to the local news, both TV and paper.

I will be expanding this entry.

Updated; Additional information and references added. Layout changed and text revised.