More Retired and Inactive Military Personnel Sign Up for Eligibility Lawsuit
Submitted by Phil on Sun, Mar 8, 200921 Comments
Dr. Orly Taitz reported yesterday that 3 more would-be Plaintiffs have agreed to become a part of a future lawsuit designed to order the President to publicly furnish his vital documentation to establish his eligibility for the presidency:
- 1st Sergeant William Shires (Retired)
- Paul Murphy, Deputy Sheriff (Inactive Staff Sergeant, Air Force)
- Mark Loaiza (Retired Officer)
Other Plaintiffs in the upcoming lawsuit include the following:
- New Hampshire (1 State Rep)
- Tennessee (4 State Reps)
- Oklahoma (unverified 1 State Rep)
- Missouri (2 State Reps)
- Army:
- Sgt. Matthew Edwards (National Guard)
- Major General Carroll D. Childers P.E. [Professional Engineer] (Retired)
- 1st Lt. Scott Easterling
- Col. Harry Riley, NSA (Retired)
- Navy:
- Air Force:
- Lt. Col. Chuck Miller (Retired)
- Marines:
- Anonymous Officer
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.
-Phil
I think more people are worried about Obama’s eligibility than we see in the mainstream news. I know a number of people that have expressed concern. Most of us don’t seem to be in a position to need to know and we already know that the courts won’t listen to the average American. From everything I’ve read I don’t see even a sliver of possibility that Obama is a natural born citizen. How did he go to school in Indonesia (probably because he became a citizen of Indonesia). Why is the Kenyan Ambassador placing a plaque in Kenya where Obama was born. If Obama was born outside of the U.S., then he is not a natural born citizen and is ineligible for the presidency. His mother was too young and did not reside long enough in the U.S. to confer natural born status to her son. McCain went through this too, but he was born on a military base, which counts as American soil. Obama’s ineligibility will be discovered and we will have another American crisis. It would have been better to have fixed this problem before the election, rather than let imposter and usurper destroy our country in office. Better late than never. The issue should be resolved quickly with the release of all of Obama’s documentation, birth records, school records, etc. I’m starting to think that our government has been taken over by corrupt mobocrats and they don’t care what true Americans think.
JeffM says:
March 10, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Bob,
That is untrue. The U.S. Military is under the direct jursidiction of the U.S. Constitution first, then the Executive branch for enlisted personnel ONLY. May I re-re-recite all 4 oaths taken by active duty/reserve personnel:
It is nice but somewhat naive to quote the oaths. The military is under the jurisdiction of civilian authority, i. e., the executive branch. That is one of the pillars of the Constitution and one of the things that prevents the US from becoming just another banana republic. It sounds like you do not agree with that but you would be completely wrong.
Commander in Chief is not just a cool sounding title. It actually means the head cheese, the top banana, the big guy. That guy is Barack Obama.
I think the military chain of command would pay a lot more attention to enforcement of the UCMJ than they would be becoming amateur constitutional lawyers. That’s just a guess. Do you actually think that they give a crap about what COLB means?
Bob,
That is untrue. The U.S. Military is under the direct jursidiction of the U.S. Constitution first, then the Executive branch for enlisted personnel ONLY. May I re-re-recite all 4 oaths taken by active duty/reserve personnel:
Enlisted Armed forces:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
National Guard Enlisted:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.
Military officers:
I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the (service branch name) under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.
National Guard Officers:
I, (insert name), do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___ against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___, that I make this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the Office of [grade] in the Army/Air National Guard of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___ upon which I am about to enter, so help me God.
Note the Constitution is first. Only enlisted must “bow down” to the almight president. And that’s assuming the president is actually legal.
Practical Kat:
I agree that this approach will certainly draw well-deserved attention of the U.S. Justice and U.S. Military Justice departments, but most certainly not in the ways that you are expecting.
See U.S.C. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
sus
Unlike Wikipedia, just because I may not like your viewpoint doesn’t mean I won’t allow it to be posted, front and center, along with everyone else’s.
I fail to see what is so stupid about asking the Associate about her case.
I’ve already made it known that I don’t think the meeting with President-Elect Obama and VP-Elect Biden had any kind of negative connotations at all about pending cases.
If you care to reply back on my new Headliner posting, go right ahead. Even if you disagree with me, but are civil about it, I’ll post the comment!
-Phil
Phil, what do you think of Orly’s ex parte communication with Scalia? She slipped him a 164 page dossier! She asked him about her case. I would ask how stupid can she be. But, you don’t like that kind of talk here. Yet, when Obama/Biden had a courtesy meeting… with others present… and didn’t talk about the stupid case… that was written up by Orly. It doesn’t get any crazier.
Phil, wrote, “I never once said, “only brygenon,” now, did I?”
I was responding to what you actually did write. Maybe try reading it again.
“Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t you the commenter that claimed that the government is not the holder or, essentially, the harbinger of everything that is true?”
Yes, and you clearly needed that clue at the time. The point of looking at your score with electors, courts, and members of the U.S. congress is not that they are only ones that can clue you in, but that they are the ones you had to convince.
What you are hearing from the courts, from U.S. senators and representatives, from the mainstream media, and now from Wikipedia — these are great opportunities to learn. Alas, you guys tend to take them as opportunities to teach.
brygenon,
Must I correct and re-establish context for you? Where, in the following quote, by me, did I ever say I was speaking of only you?
I never once said, “only brygenon,” now, did I?
However, that’s being nit-picky on both of our parts. Let’s move on to the real issue:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t you the commenter that claimed that the government is not the holder or, essentially, the harbinger of everything that is true? This was in context of my chiding you for why, say, Sen. Kyl didn’t go to a public records depository — instead of a private web site, such as snopes.com — to confirm/deny the President’s eligibility. You were able to make a reasonable point, legally at least, that the Senator was not necessarily addressing the eligibility issue, per se, but rather rumors surrounding the eligibility issue.
So, if that was you, then you are contradicting yourself by simultaneously claiming, now, that Congress “knows the truth” — or enough thereof — to subsequently proclaim that Obama is eligible to be President.
Whatever the case may be, this is still an insufficient analysis, as I am not aware of any public records whereby any federal officeholder has recorded their communicating with any public vital records depository to specifically confirm that Mr. Obama’s vital records actually show that he is a natural born citizen (remember that the HI Health Dept.’s press release stated nothing about Mr. Obama being a natural born citizen (it’s against State statute, in my view, even for an official to view vital records without permission or a Court order to do so), just that they could confirm that Mr. Obama’s records were on file, and this release was not in response to a federal officeholder!).
The point to all of this is that the results of the many lawsuits and activist activities being so far unsuccessful in no way detracts from the question of eligibility. In fact, all that this failed behavior shows is that the correct strategy has yet to be implemented.
I’m kind of surprised I have to point out that kind of fundamental flaw in reasoning. It’s very much of a non sequitor, actually; the conclusion in no way supports the premise of lack of merit to the question. In reality, if that were the case, then one must necessarily say that, for example, since the Democrats could never bring President Bush up on charges of impeachment, that must mean, therefore, that there’s nothing with which to impeach the President. That’s not necessarily the case.
-Phil
Jeff says,
“They expect a court martial. That is the entire intent of this case. A court martial allows the U.S. Military to handle the case. It is not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Judicial Branch and therefore not subject to the control of this branch or the Executive Branch which may answer to the presidential cabinet. Therefore a court martial is the appropriate step to take against a usurper such as Soetoro because there is little, if any, opportunity for corruption.”
This is WHY there has been no court martial so far. Obama can’t risk record release, and it is his 5th Amendment right to ‘try’ to keep them sealed. There is no other rational theory as to the continued DNC and Obama record release blocking/sealing.
“Not to worry, folks. Dear brygenon’s modus operandi is for everyone (except himself (I’m guessing), of course) to “get a clue.””
Just me? Now Phil, you’re just making stuff up again. There are several of us here trying to clue you guys in.
“[...] where the presumption must always be that non-illegitimizers cannot possibly have a point (except with themselves, of course).”
Then let’s check again how your points are doing: Birthers wrote to many electoral college electors and swayed zero of them, then wrote to congress and convinced zero members to object to certifying the election. Birthers have racked up an impressive record in court, at least 20 cases decided, dozens of dispositive rulings, 100% failure. Now members of Congress from both both sides of the isle — the only people who can remove Obama — are informing birthers politely but decisively that the eligibility complaints are bunch of myths already debunked.
That’s reality Phil. Don’t shoot the messenger.
A court martial allows the U.S. Military to handle the case. It is not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Judicial Branch and therefore not subject to the control of this branch or the Executive Branch which may answer to the presidential cabinet.
The military is under the jurisdiction of the executive branch. POTUS is the commander-in-chief, appoints the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, etc. If charges are filed, in essence, it will be the executive branch that will be prosecuting these soldiers and seamen.
1Lishell,
They expect a court martial. That is the entire intent of this case.
A court martial allows the U.S. Military to handle the case. It is not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Judicial Branch and therefore not subject to the control of this branch or the Executive Branch which may answer to the presidential cabinet.
Therefore a court martial is the appropriate step to take against a usurper such as Soetoro because there is little, if any, opportunity for corruption.
Not to worry, folks. Dear brygenon’s modus operandi is for everyone (except himself (I’m guessing), of course) to “get a clue.”
It is fascinating to me the conclusions that illegitimizers draw about what other people (except themselves, of course) are doing, where the presumption must always be that non-illegitimizers cannot possibly have a point (except with themselves, of course).
-Phil
“Badly hurt? By whom?”
In some of her recent screeds, Orly Taitz has said that if the courts and congress do not legally remove Obama, it will then be up military to remove him. Check it out; I’m not making this up. She wants armed overthrow if her legal efforts fail, as of course they will.
On the one hand, Taitz calling on the leaders of the armed services to overthrow the President is about as dangerous as me calling on the Earth to crash into the Sun. That much is just a self-indulgent fantasy.
On the other hand, consider a low level soldier so naive as to take Taitz seriously, so he publicly and in uniform advocates for Taitz’s effort. He could be charged with Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline, and at the very least, it sure ain’t a good career move.
“Are you suggesting that military active duty who are adamantly upholding their oath they swore to uphold the Constitution can have harm done to them for doing the right thing?”
No, I’m suggesting that you get a clue.
If they refuse to obey orders or make claims that President Obama is not the legitimate commander-in-chief, they are exposing themselves to court-martial.
“[N]othing gives a soldier “authority for a self-help remedy of disobedience.” 55 M.J. at 108 (quoting United States v. Johnson, 45 M.J. 88, 92 (C.A.A.F.1996)). Two of the canonical factors from Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), “an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made,” 369 U.S. at 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, and “the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question,” id., are uniquely powerful when the context is a soldier’s use of the “self-help remedy of disobedience.” Also supporting a broader sweep to the political question doctrine in military trials is the point made by Judge Effron in his concurring opinion — that the doctrine “ensur[es] that courts-martial do not become a vehicle for altering the traditional relationship between the armed forces and the civilian policymaking branches of government” by adjudicating the legality of political decisions. Id. at 110. Thus we find no defect in the Court of Appeals’ application of the political question doctrine, even though that application might be highly contestable in another context. Compare Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19, 24-28 (D.C.Cir.2000) (Silberman, J., concurring) (finding that no “judicially discoverable and manageable standards” exist for application of the Constitution’s war powers clause or the War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. § 1541 et seq.), with id. at 37-41 (Tatel, J., concurring) (concluding that such standards do exist). Given the threat to military discipline, see Court-Martial Transcript at 433, we have no difficulty accepting the military courts’ reliance on the doctrine.” New v. United States, 448 F.3d 403 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
I agree that this approach will certainly draw the well-deserved attention of the US Justice Department, but probably not in ways that Orly Taitz is planning.
See: UCMJ Articles 88, 94.
brygenon,
Badly hurt? By whom? Are you suggesting that military active duty who are adamantly upholding their oath they swore to uphold the Constitution can have harm done to them for doing the right thing? I believe you underestimate the diligence and fortitude of our U.S. Military.
Surely you can’t believe that Orly has some kind of subliminal power to force her delusions onto others or coerce people into joining her case. These active duty members are following their own path. They reached out to Orly. They know full well what they are doing. They do not fear tyranny, and more will join.
Watch and see.
That is a problem. Low-level military personnel are not expected to have any expertise in the law, and they could get badly hurt if they believe Orly Taitz. The prospect she’s pitching is her own delusion.
Plaintiffs should not be fearful. If they are we live in a fascist state.
What I would hope to see is a massive class action suit where all the eligibility attorneys claiming the same issue join forces and create a 500 plantiff class action suit. Attorneys should include:
Taitz
Donofrio
Apuzzo
Pidgeon
Kreep
Martin
Get as many people as possible to join in. The more the better. Go Quo Warranto and call it a day. This should get the attention of a few federal DA’s for sure and combine efforts to one cause.
It’s the logical and sensible way.
This is becoming a bit contageous. I guess it took the first one to break the ice sort of speak. It will be interesting to see how the plaintiff list grows. Scott did a brave thing but I wish he didn’t have to put himself at risk to get somebody to take notice. Whether Orly has a good case or not, I do not know but I think these plaintiffs wouldn’t mind sticking with it until they got it down right. I would think the rest of them would sign up anonymously. Be careful, look what they did to Mike New.