Should these US military commanders be Court Marshaled?

[justone]

Disclaimer: I am not questioning birth of Obama or Obama at all. I fully understand that such questioning belongs to conspiracy tread.

I posted the filed lawsuit on the Law and Order forum, pointing to the danger of conspiracy lawsuits filed by loons to our legal system . But because of military commanders involved I have a questions to our military members about the danger of the conspiracy lawsuit filed by the loons to the US military. It has been my understanding that in military moral commanders is very important as well as it is important to follow orders of the President the United States. Shouldn’t be the commanders joining the loony lawsuit immediately Court Marshaled and at least get dishonorable discharge if not be put in jail? I understand that all possible attempts have been made by DoD to keep the lawsuit in secret from members of military, but I am afraid about leaks or even rumors.

Any information – except classified one – remember I am a KGB spy – would be appreciated.

I would appreciate if non-military members can abstain from comments, though members of foreign militaries are mostly welcome.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SANTA ANA (SOUTHERN) DIVISION
………………….
Captain Pamela Barnett,
Lt. Colonel Richard Norton Bauerbach
Captain Robin D. Biron
Colonel John D. Blair,
MIL officer US Army Lita M. Lott
Commander David Fullmer LaRoque
MSGT Steven Kay Neuenschwander
SFC E7 Robert Lee Perry ,
Colonel Harry Riley,
………………………..


………………………………….
Lt. Commander John Bruce Steidel,
……………………………………

Plaintiffs,
v.

Barack Hussein Obama,
Michelle L.R. Obama,
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State,
Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense,
Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and
President of the Senate,
Defendants.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to seek, above all, a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201-2202, deciding whether Defendant Barack Hussein Obama can show by clear and convincing evidence that he is a natural born citizen of the United States of America within the meaning of Article II, Section I of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore whether he is qualified, or unqualified, for the position which he has held, de facto if not de jure since January 20, 2009

Additionally, however, the Plaintiffs herein seek injunctive relief against all four office-holding defendants to limit their powers to order new deployments or assignments of any armed forces of the United States
Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire

 

[celticlord]

Shouldn’t be the commanders joining the loony lawsuit immediately Court Marshaled and at least get dishonorable discharge if not be put in jail?

For what offense would you subject them to courts-martial?

Consider the oath an Army officer takes upon commissioning:

I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.

The officer's pre-eminent duty is to the Constitution. His obligation is not, as one might think, to the President or even his superior officers. In this regard, the officer's oath and obligation are decidedly different from that of enlisted personnel. His obligation is to preserve the Constitution; if any seek to subvert the Constitution, as a person ineligible to the Office of President of the United States might arguably do, should that person manage to obtain election to that Office, the duty of the military officer is to protect the Constitution--in that regard, the duty of the military officer would be to lawfully seek the removal of a person fraudulently occupying the Office of President of the United States.

Thus the question: For what offense would you subject them to courts-martial?

In what regard does this lawsuit measure a failure to defend the Constitution? In what manner does this lawsuit represent a failure to well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office?

In order to be subjected to courts martial, these officers must have violated an article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Title 10, Chapter 47 of the US Code). Specifically, they must have violated one of the punitive Articles (Subchapter X).

Were they ordered not to participate in such lawsuits, and would such orders be lawful? If yes, then they might be tried in a court-martial under Article 92:

Any person subject to this chapter who—

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;​

shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

I do not see them being court martialed under Article 88

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

I do not see any contemptuous words in the cited pleading.

Neither do I see them being guilty of Mutiny or Sedition (Article 94):

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who—

(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.​

(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

If it can be shown that these officers either violated their commissioning oath or otherwise violated an applicable article of the UCMJ, then yes, they should be tried in a court-martial and punished appropriately. Otherwise, they retain their rights under the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[jamesrage]

If they were refusing to obey orders then yes they should be court marshaled.Simply filing a frivolous lawsuit,no .These people are no different than the conspiracy nuts who tried to weasel out of military service by falsely claiming Iraq was an illegal war or that the president lied to get them to Iraq. The fact these men are commissioned officers means they should be held to a higher standard of discipline because as commissioned officers they set the example for their subordinates should follow.

 

[justone]

For what offense would you subject them to courts-martial?

Consider the oath an Army officer takes upon commissioning:

Consider the oath an Army officer takes upon commissioning
You shipped ‘’and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States’’

And I was asking exactly about that. Then you keep on going on with your diversion.

As well I asked if it is not classified - would rumors and leaks bypassing the appropriate measures taken by the DoD undermine moral in military? Would you think that we have assurance that when they will be turned away another group of commanders wouldn't file a similar suit or attempt to do that. Even if it is not mutiny i - which it is, grouping together and not obeying the orders of the president, the oath- I see it as a deterition of moral. Am I wrong?

 

[justone]

If they were refusing to obey orders then yes they should be court marshaled.Simply filing a frivolous lawsuit,no

filing the frivolous lawsuit against their CoC is NOT Simply filing a frivolous lawsuit.

 

[celticlord]

Consider the oath an Army officer takes upon commissioning:


You shipped ‘’and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States’’

And I was asking exactly about that. Then you keep on going on with your diversion.

First, the oath I quoated was from the US Army Center of Military History, a directorate within the Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army. The linked page states that the oath I quoted is the current oath for officers. The phrase "and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States" is from the oath of enlistment that enlisted personnel take:

I, _____, 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.

This oath is found on the same page as the officers' oath.

Second, there is no diversion. You asked if these military personnel should be tried at courts-martial. If there is to be a court-martial, there needs be offense within the Punitive Articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Do you argue my interpretation of the specific articles I cited? Do you assert a violation in a different article of the UCMJ?

For there to be a trial, there must be a crime. For there to be a crime, there must be a particular statute violated. In the case of courts-martial, the statute violated must be in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I ask you again: what specific violation of the UCMJ do you allege these military personnel to have committed that they should be tried at courts-martial? What specific article have they violated?

As well I asked if it is not classified - would rumors and leaks in spite ofathe appropriate measures taken by DoD undermine moral in military. Would you think that we have assurance that when they will turned away another group of commanders wouldn't file a similar suit or attempt to do that. Even if it is not mutiny i see it as a deterition of moral. Am I wrong?

Is such a lawsuit deterimental to the morale of the armed forces? Personally, I do not see how. However, if such a lawsuit IS deemed detrimental to the morale of the armed forces, then the proper course of action would be for the Pentagon to issue a directive banning such litigation, and thence to apply such action on the persons filing the litigation as may be appropriate should they refuse to comply.

What would almost certainly be detrimental to the morale of the armed forces would be an arbitrary denial of First Amendment rights merely because a named defendant is the President of the United States. The issues raised in the lawsuit are not addressed within the body of the UCMJ. Absent a prohibiting order on the matter, there is no bar to military persons filing such a lawsuit, nor should there be.

 

[celticlord]

filing the frivolous lawsuit against their CoC is NOT Simply filing a frivolous lawsuit.

Yes, it is, unless and until an order is issued proscribing such lawsuits by military personnel.

 

[jamesrage]

filing the frivolous lawsuit against their CoC is NOT Simply filing a frivolous lawsuit.

Since their lawsuit is based on a conspiracy theory then yes it is frivolous. This is no different than 9-11 truffers suing the government or the government invent aids and crack to kill the black man conspiracy theorist suing the government or any other conspiracy nut suing. These nuts however most likely were trying to use this to weasel out of deploying.

 

[justone]

First, the oath I quoated was from the US Army Center of Military History, a directorate within the Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army. The linked page states that the oath I quoted is the current oath for officers. The phrase "and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States" is from the oath of enlistment that enlisted personnel take:

Are you saying that none of the commanders signed under the suit has been enlisted and has sworn I will obey the orders of the President of the United States"? Should we go name by name?

Is such a lawsuit deterimental to the morale of the armed forces? Personally, I do not see how.

Do you think nobody sees it? Disobeying orders of CoC? Challenging CoC while bypassing the chain of commands ( leading to the CoC)?

However, if such a lawsuit IS deemed detrimental to the morale of the armed forces, then the proper course of action would be for the Pentagon to issue a directive banning such litigation, and thence to apply such action on the persons filing the litigation as may be appropriate should they refuse to comply.

Thanks. Now I see the course the events will take.

What would almost certainly be detrimental to the morale of the armed forces would be an arbitrary denial of First Amendment rights merely because a named defendant is the President of the United States.

‘’Pentagon to issue a directive banning such litigation’’. OK.
If ‘’Pentagon does not issue a directive banning such litigation’’, then a chain of commanders will line up in courts room to file a suite vs. the CoC but that would not be deteration of military moral. And if does it will shut up the Ammendment and that is OK.
I need some time to digest that.

Thanks to all military members. I am grateful to you for serving our country. I need to reload my ammo, so I will be back, may be today, may be other day. Stay alert.


And thanks to non-miltary members for abstaining from trolling.

 

[celticlord]

Are you saying that none of the commanders signed under the suit has been enlisted and has sworn I will obey the orders of the President of the United States"? Should we go name by name?

No need. I am quite aware of the presence of enlisted personnel among the plaintiffs. However, you should realize that the term "commanders" is typically applied to officers and not enlisted personnel.

However, to expand the argument to address enlisted personnel as well, unless there is an order from the President proscribing such litigation, enlisted personnel enjoy the same First Amendment rights as officers, and are subject to similar constraints within the UCMJ.

When did Dear Leader order the military to refrain from such litigation or public activism?

 

[jamesrage]

Do you think nobody sees it? Disobeying orders of CoC? Challenging CoC while bypassing the chain of commands ( leading to the CoC)?

Disobeying orders of the CoC is a separate issue from filing the lawsuit.

 

[celticlord]

Disobeying orders of the CoC is a separate issue from filing the lawsuit.

And requires there be a specific order from the CinC of which the lawsuit represents disobedience.

 

[justone]

No need. I am quite aware of the presence of enlisted personnel among the plaintiffs. However, you should realize that the term "commanders" is typically applied to officers and not enlisted personnel.

Not only my English is far from being English, but also I have never served in the US military so I may not know terms, I deserve and ask of for correction, but pointing that the fruits in the basket are called apples and not oranges does not change the fact discussed – that they are fruits and are in the basket.

However, to expand the argument to address enlisted personnel as well, unless there is an order from the President proscribing such litigation, enlisted personnel enjoy the same First Amendment rights as officers, and are subject to similar constraints within the UCMJ.

However, if you could address the points made: Not even mentioning 1. The constitution puts different demands on military in certain cases. 2. Not even mentioning that the 1st does not let you scream ‘’fire’’ in a theater - are you keep on suggesting that it is written to allow and to promote undermining of military spirits and the military oath or you are suggesting that the oath should and may be re-written because of the suits, that it has not too much of a meaning when you decide to scream Fire! or ‘’The CoC is not one to give me commands!’?

When did Dear Leader order the military to refrain from such litigation or public activism?

If he did wrong, 2 wrongs do not make the second one right.

 

[justone]

Disobeying orders of the CoC is a separate issue from filing the lawsuit.

Disobeying orders of the CoC is a separate issue from filing the lawsuit claiming the right to desobey orders of the CoC?

 

[justone]

Thus the question: For what offense would you subject them to courts-martial?

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.



I don’t know how do you take the oath and do not understand the simplest promise you make: ‘’I will, no reservation’’. The loonies in their actions are explicitly reporting – I reserve the right not to obey direct orders or orders passed to me through the chain of command. I will not. I don’t know how that cannot be absolutely clear.

1. Breaking the oath.

2. Effective actions undermining moral spirits of miltary nad thus damaging military no less than terrosit bombing.

 

[justone]

If they were refusing to obey orders then yes they should be court marshaled.Simply filing a frivolous lawsuit,no .These people are no different than the conspiracy nuts who tried to weasel out of military service by falsely claiming Iraq was an illegal war or that the president lied to get them to Iraq. The fact these men are commissioned officers means they should be held to a higher standard of discipline because as commissioned officers they set the example for their subordinates should follow.

We have established that.

The question remains the same – Don’t they undermine moral spirit of military? Look, the 1st law suite of one military man was thrown in the garbage and conspiracy theorists were moved where they belonged – to the mental institution call “Conspiracy theory” forum, which obviously was agreed upon by all society, it has already been established as the truth. What is the need to repeat? But the man was not Court Marshaled, nor DoD issued orders preventing such suites, yet. He was not even put in a mental institution, when obviously he had mental issues. In the result we have now not justone but a whole bunch military commanders trying to use this to weasel out of deploying. And it is a law of nature that when 10 are acting, they also represent thoughts and morals of 1000s who are not acting yet.


You are lucky not to be under their command. But what is about thousands who are/may be under a command of an officer who is known that he snapped once very seriously, even if so far he has not snapped on you or his unit yet? He snapped once on his CoC AND the chain of command. How is it to serve under a commander perceived by society and by yourself as a loonie? When you and Celticlord keep on telling me – ‘’I personally see nothing wrong and troubling in that” I cannot reconcile it with my experience and common sense.



So far to this point, please be honest, nobody has expressed any clear argument and/ or REASONABLE objection to my point that such a situation in the US military is unacceptable, that, clearly, we have undermining of moral spirits of military which are known as the base weapon, strategy and tactics of any military. How you cannot see that such a situation which is no more than expression and result of partisan politics is more dangerous and brings a lot more damage than any terrorist bombing? As a citizen I am extremely troubled by such a situation and tyou partisan blindness. Can you provide a clear objection backed by arguments that moral spirits of military have not been under the increasingly heavy bombardment? Can you provide an assurance that the bombardment is going to stop when the court will overturn them, that the business will go as usual, no more suits? This is what I have been asking. Can you, instead of going back to partisan politics each and every time, explain, prove that I shouldn’t worry, that if I were a republican or democrat or even a loonie I shouldn’t worry military is ready to protect me evenly and in high moral spirits?

And if there are other military members besides 2 of you, are they going to keep on showing the same attitude – oh, shut up, a civilian, who cares about your worries? Is it guys how you are building my opinion about the moral of the US military? I am justone acting and asking, but I know there millions who are waiting for your answer.

 

[celticlord]

However, if you could address the points made: Not even mentioning 1. The constitution puts different demands on military in certain cases. 2. Not even mentioning that the 1st does not let you scream ‘’fire’’ in a theater - are you keep on suggesting that it is written to allow and to promote undermining of military spirits and the military oath or you are suggesting that the oath should and may be re-written because of the suits, that it has not too much of a meaning when you decide to scream Fire! or ‘’The CoC is not one to give me commands!’?

First off, the Constitution does not put different demands on the military. The Congress, being empowered by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution to "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" does that. Those "different demands" are encapsulated in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which I have already cited.

Therefore, in order to try military personnel at courts-martial for filing these lawsuits, there must be specific violation of specific articles of the UCMJ alleged. I have stated what I see to be potentially applicable articles, and my reasoning for not considering these lawsuits to be violative of those articles. Which articles of the UCMJ do you allege these members of the armed forces to have violated, and how do you see the lawsuits as being violative of those articles? These are specific questions and require specific answers, with citation of the relevant portions of the UCMJ--something you have not provided herein.

Second, that these lawsuits are detrimental to the morale of the armed forces, and the maintenance of good order and discipline therein, is an assertion that has yet to be proven. This much is certain--the primary concern of the military as regards the public conduct of military personnel is the maintenance of good order and discipline as well as sustaining morale. Do these lawsuits threaten either? I do not see that they do, but if you wish to argue that they do, please bring forth your arguments on that point. That is a topic worthy of discussion.

Finally, I am not suggesting, hinting, or implying that oaths be re-interpreted or re-written for anyone's convenience or to indulge the feckless few who wish to challenge Dear Leader's citizenship. I am stating that the oaths as I have quoted previously, with the meanings and significances attached to the words selected--and without the significances reserved to the words not used. The central quality of military oaths, for both enlisted personnel and officers, is that their pre-eminent obligation is to the Constitution. Their oath, their obligation, and their loyalty is to that document before it is to any other person or institution. THAT is the significance of the oath every military person takes.

If he did wrong, 2 wrongs do not make the second one right.

That does not answer the question.

 

[celticlord]

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.



I don’t know how do you take the oath and do not understand the simplest promise you make: ‘’I will, no reservation’’. The loonies in their actions are explicitly reporting – I reserve the right not to obey direct orders or orders passed to me through the chain of command. I will not. I don’t know how that cannot be absolutely clear.

1. Breaking the oath.

2. Effective actions undermining moral spirits of miltary nad thus damaging military no less than terrosit bombing.

First, the oath of enlisted personnel circumscribes their obedience to orders by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Article 92 of the UCMJ (Title 10 USC Section 892) mandates obedience of lawful orders. Article 90 uses similar language, and the result is that lawful orders must be obeyed, unlawful orders must not be obeyed.

Second, the phrase "without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion" found within the officer's oath signifies that the oath is taken without duress or coercion, and that it is entirely of the officer's own volition. It is not a blanket concession to blindly follow all orders given--officers and enlisted personnel have a legal and moral obligation not to obey unlawful orders. Officers are, in the form of their oath, given wider latitude with regards to obedience to lawful orders--a concession to the practical realities of combat, where a junior officer on the scene may need to countermand an order coming from the rear echelon.

The substance of the challenge posed by the lawsuits is that deployment orders proceeding from directives made by a President whose citizenship is claimed to be suspect are unlawfully given (as they originate from one not eligible to give them) and are thus unlawful orders. Whether the challenge has merit or no is a matter of law that is for a court to adjudicate.

Thus, unless and until there is adjudication affirming that the orders are indeed lawful, followed by continued refusal to obey orders affirmed to be lawful, there has been no breaking of any oath.

As regards to the effects of these lawsuits on morale and the good order and discipline of the armed forces, you have yet to substantiate your claim of ill effect upon either. Merely repeating these assertions does not advance your argument by so much as a nanometer.

Unless and until the military personnel attached to these lawsuits can be shown to have violated the UCMJ and/or their oaths, any call for courts-martial is inappropriate and unsupportable as a matter of law. Merely filing the lawsuit itself is not, so far as I can see, violative of either.

 

[jamesrage]

Disobeying orders of the CoC is a separate issue from filing the lawsuit claiming the right to disobey orders of the CoC?

Willfully disobeying the orders of a Superior officer is a punishable offense in the military as willful disobedience



Article 90—Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer

Article 92—Failure to obey order or regulation

He can file all the loony bin lawsuits he wants,but if he is refusing to obey orders regardless of what his lawsuit alleges he should be court marshaled. So yes his lawsuit is a separate issue.

 

[justone]

For both of you, shortly, please try to read what I am saying.

It does not have to be that they have already disobeyed a particular order. They denounced the oath that made them officers/commanders/enlisted personnel. The oath says I will obey orders of the President (not only Constitution but equally with the Constitution, Celtic stop snipping). In the laws suit and by the law suit they are declaring – I will not/I will at my personal discretion obey the orders. They make themselves free of the oath. They cannot be a part of military anymore. It is as simple as that.

CelticLord, please read my post addressed to jamesrade and you both please read. However you have been trying to twist the Constitution and the Military codes it is obvious that they cannot be written in the way allowing undermining military moral spirits. I submitted arguments and asked for arguments if you have any except for being in denial.

However you have been trying to twist the Constitution and the Military codes it is obvious that they cannot be written in the way allowing loonies to be in command of the personnel. They snapped big and consistently, they are loonies, James, yourself have pointed many times to this fact, how would it be for you if your commander was a loonie known to snap big and persistently even once in his life and never be given any medical treatment for the condition? Please reread my points and address them, I have repeated them shortly the 3rd time.

 

[apdst]

Disclaimer: I am not questioning birth of Obama or Obama at all. I fully understand that such questioning belongs to conspiracy tread.

I posted the filed lawsuit on the Law and Order forum, pointing to the danger of conspiracy lawsuits filed by loons to our legal system . But because of military commanders involved I have a questions to our military members about the danger of the conspiracy lawsuit filed by the loons to the US military. It has been my understanding that in military moral commanders is very important as well as it is important to follow orders of the President the United States. Shouldn’t be the commanders joining the loony lawsuit immediately Court Marshaled and at least get dishonorable discharge if not be put in jail? I understand that all possible attempts have been made by DoD to keep the lawsuit in secret from members of military, but I am afraid about leaks or even rumors.

Any information – except classified one – remember I am a KGB spy – would be appreciated.

I would appreciate if non-military members can abstain from comments, though members of foreign militaries are mostly welcome.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SANTA ANA (SOUTHERN) DIVISION
………………….
Captain Pamela Barnett,
Lt. Colonel Richard Norton Bauerbach
Captain Robin D. Biron
Colonel John D. Blair,
MIL officer US Army Lita M. Lott
Commander David Fullmer LaRoque
MSGT Steven Kay Neuenschwander
SFC E7 Robert Lee Perry ,
Colonel Harry Riley,
………………………..


………………………………….
Lt. Commander John Bruce Steidel,
……………………………………

Plaintiffs,
v.

Barack Hussein Obama,
Michelle L.R. Obama,
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State,
Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense,
Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and
President of the Senate,
Defendants.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to seek, above all, a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201-2202, deciding whether Defendant Barack Hussein Obama can show by clear and convincing evidence that he is a natural born citizen of the United States of America within the meaning of Article II, Section I of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore whether he is qualified, or unqualified, for the position which he has held, de facto if not de jure since January 20, 2009

Additionally, however, the Plaintiffs herein seek injunctive relief against all four office-holding defendants to limit their powers to order new deployments or assignments of any armed forces of the United States
Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire

Court martialed for what? Excercising their rights, as described by DoD regulations? I would love to see that.

 

[celticlord]

For both of you, shortly, please try to read what I am saying.

I have read what you are saying. The problem is you are wrong.

It does not have to be that they have already disobeyed a particular order. They denounced the oath that made them officers/commanders/enlisted personnel. The oath says I will obey orders of the President (not only Constitution but equally with the Constitution, Celtic stop snipping). In the laws suit and by the law suit they are declaring – I will not/I will at my personal discretion obey the orders. They make themselves free of the oath. They cannot be a part of military anymore. It is as simple as that.

First of all, they did not denounce the oath. This lawsuit does not of itself violate either the officer's oath or the oath of enlistment, nor have you shown how it could be. I have asked you repeatedly to present that argument and am still waiting for the substance of that argument.

Further, the orders of the President and/or superior officers are not co-equal an obligation with preserving the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. THAT is the pre-eminent duty of all US military personnel, and supersedes all other obligations. Even the President of the United States lacks the authority to order any officer or enlisted person to take an action violative of the Constitution. Such orders are unlawful, and the duty of every member of the armed forces is to decline such orders, and to take appropriate measures to uphold the Constitution and, secondarily, the lawful orders and chain of command.

Third, I am not "snipping." Oaths have the meanings assigned to the words within the oath, and no more. Officers do not swear to obey the orders of the President of the United States. Enlisted persons do swear to obey such orders, within the parameters of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which limits the obligation of obedience to lawful orders only. An order which is unlawful carries no obligation of obedience; this also is per the UCMJ.

The lawsuit asserts that deployment orders emanating from the Oval Office are unlawful orders, because Dear Leader is ineligible to be Commander in Chief. While Dear Leader's citizenship and eligibility are a question of fact, the status of deployment orders given on his watch is a question of law, and an assertion that such orders are unlawful is a matter to be adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Should by some unlikely chain of events the deployment orders be deemed unlawful, then the duty of the plaintiffs, per their respective oaths, would be to decline such orders. Should the orders be deemed lawful, the duty of the plaintiffs would be to obey those orders, and failing to do so would at that time be violative of their oaths as well as the UCMJ.

CelticLord, please read my post addressed to jamesrade and you both please read. However you have been trying to twist the Constitution and the Military codes it is obvious that they cannot be written in the way allowing undermining military moral spirits. I submitted arguments and asked for arguments if you have any except for being in denial.

You have submitted no arguments. You have made generalized assertions but you offer no supporting facts, evidence, or even cogent reasoning. To every repetition of your assertion of "undermining military morale" I repeat the same as yet unanswered question: "How?" State with specificity how these lawsuits undermine morale and we have a basis for discussing an appropriate response by the military, in keeping with the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Make an argument.

However you have been trying to twist the Constitution and the Military codes it is obvious that they cannot be written in the way allowing loonies to be in command of the personnel. They snapped big and consistently, they are loonies, James, yourself have pointed many times to this fact, how would it be for you if your commander was a loonie known to snap big and persistently even once in his life and never be given any medical treatment for the condition? Please reread my points and address them, I have repeated them shortly the 3rd time.

Calling these persons "loonies" does not deprive them of their rights under the Constitution, under the First Amendment, or under the UCMJ. However ill-considered and ill-advised this litigation may appear to be, until you can cite a section of the UCMJ that precludes their filing such litigation, their First Amendment rights prevail and allow them to petition for redress of greivance.

They are only "loonies" because you say they are. Before the court they are American citizens. Within their chains of command they are enlisted personnel, or officers and gentlemen.

Your entire argument reduces to you think these people should not be wearing the uniform while filing such lawsuits. That is your opinion; it is not an opinion which, of itself, carries any force of law, nor even particular moral heft or gravitas. If you have an argument to make in support of your opinion, please do so.

 

[justone]

Court martialed for what? Excercising their rights, as described by DoD regulations? I would love to see that.

Show me the DoD regulations you are referring to. I would love to see them. Show me where DoD ignores military Codes. Show me where Military Codes allow you breaking/denouncing, not following the 1st and foremost sentence of the oath you take in application to this particular case.

There is no possible way that within the Constitution and the Military Codes you are allowed to exercise your rights when exercising goes against the Codes and the oath. You have the right to the free speech, but it is not like you can leave the battle to exercise it on streets of LA or in Courts whenever you feel like exercising. That would be not a Constitutional Republic, but anarchy; not a Military, but a gang of hippies.

And you, guys, are one of my facts showing how this case is bombing the moral when you misread and misinterpret the Oath. You all should talk to a military attorney, because when you talk to me you make my hair go up. For now I would advise you, - you better follow orders of A Constitutional POTUS without giving them a 2nd thought.

(I'll be back for Celtic.)

 

[celticlord]

Show me the DoD regulations you are referring to.

It's called the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I have cited it numerous times in this thread.

The challenge is upon you, sir, to provide for once some semblance of analysis or dissection that explains how filing a lawsuit challenging the veracity of Dear Leader's claims of citizenship is violative of either the Uniform Code of Military Justice or of the oath of enlistment or commissioning.

You call for courts-martial; which of the Punitive Articles within the UCMJ do you allege to have been violated?

If none of the Punitive Articles have been violated, what are the grounds for courts-martial, and with what jurisdiction?

How does challenging the veracity of Dear Leader's claim of citizenship represent a failure to defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic?

How does challenging the veracity of Dear Leader's claim of citizenship represent a failure to obey lawful orders?

If you cannot answer each and every one of these questions in detail, you have no basis for suggesting that courts-martial are a fit response to these lawsuits.

The challenge is upon you. Answer these questions, or quit this thread and this nonsense.

 

[justone]

Guys, I pronounced the offenses 3 times at least. I couldn’t think that you wanted me to put ## of articles in front.

ART. 88 - CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct
ART. 92 Mutiny and sedition
"Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuse, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;

(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;


Article 90— or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer

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.

Let me repeat: originaly pointed by me

I don’t know how do you take the oath and do not understand the simplest promise you make: ‘’I will, no reservation’’. The loonies in their actions are explicitly reporting – ''I reserve the right not to obey direct orders or orders passed to me through the chain of command. I will not''. I don’t know how that cannot be absolutely clear.

Well, may be not Court Marshaled for the 1st time, but disciplined so nice and easy, that nobody in my unit would ever think to think about his rights and Ammendments.

Let's say I am your commander. You tell me, write me, show me that you will not obey my orders.
You go Court Marshaled nice and easy, - for all 3 offenses. With a good atorney you may get off 1 or 2, but you are out of my unit.

I don’t know how that cannot be absolutely clear.

These are 3. And there are more. The offenses are described in my posts. Any chance of stopping red herring and getting back on the truck? Any chance you’d address my ASSERTIONS and facts?