Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Obama Citizenship Blogs -> Natural Born Citizen

Obama Citizenship

: Natural Born Citizen

Military POTUS Eligibility Madness

By naturalborncitizen

A few weeks ago, I suggested hypothetically that active military might have standing to bring a class action to question Obama’s POTUS eligibility.  After reviewing various sections of the Uniform Code of Military Justice pointed out to me by various readers, I came to the conclusion that such a law suit would probably not only fail, but would also subject soldiers to potential court martial.

I decided to have nothing to do with any such law suit involving military plaintiffs.  Their burden is already so large.  This is our burden.

Then, after seeing a consent form issued by Orly Taitz within which active military were being asked to state that they might disobey orders from President Obama, I realized that these men were truly being put in serious jeopardy.  I  responded with a blog which suggested that any soldiers who had a problem with Obama’s eligibility should consult a JAG lawyer or their personal attorney rather than going to the internet for advice.

I hoped the issue would go away, but it didn’t.  This week an active military officer signed a consent form to be a plaintiff in a future law suit brought by Orly Taitz.   Besides erroneously reporting that the officer had defied a Presidential order, the officer’s name was released and inflammatory and contemptuous statements were also released via World Net Daily, Orly’’s blog and the Drudge Report.

I complained vehemently and eventually the incorrect headline which grossly and erroeneously stated that the officer had defied a Presidential order was changed at all three sources.

Unfortunately, the damage had already been done. Review the following statement by the officer:

“Until Mr. Obama releases a ‘vault copy’ of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office – an impostor…”

This statement should never have been made public. If Orly Taitz is going to solicit active military to join her potential law suit and sign consent forms thereto, then she should be charged with the responsibility of knowing the exact punishment her clients will be subjected to, and she should be protecting them from any unnecessary jeopardy.

There was absolutely no need for contemptuous language to have been uttered as such language is clearly in violation of Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which states:

Article 88—Contempt toward officials

a. Text of statute.

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, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Maximum punishment. Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

Clearly, calling the President an “imposter” and a “usurper” is contemptuous language by any possible definition of the word.

And now, as an article at military.com has pointed out, this officer is in serious jeopardy of facing charges.  And for what?  Publicity?  There is no law suit right now. The statement was completely and utterly not necessary.  It was enough to say that an active military officer had consented to be a plaintiff and leave it at that.  The man’s name did not have to be released and the contemptuous statement is irrelevant to any pleadings which may or may not be filed.

Furthermore, attorney Orly Taitz could have gagged her potential military client as to any such inflammatory statements thereby warning that, in order to protect him and any other possible soldier/plaintiffs from unnecessary legal jeopardy, she would refuse to represent them if they did not follow her instructions.

These statements released by attorney Taitz and Officer Easterling, while sensational, will have absolutely no effect on the outcome of any potential litigation she may file.  So putting her client in harm’s way at this point in time by allowing such blatant contempt to be uttered appears to be terribly reckless.

It’s not that the officer expressed his doubts, it’s the lack of tact used to have done so.  A person is allowed to think even if he is a soldier.  He is allowed to have thoughts cross his mind and if those thoughts create conflict and the soldier feels that he is willing to risk punishment for expressing those thoughts, then any attorney who seeks to represent that soldier owes it to that soldier to make sure those questions are asked judiciously and in a manner which reduces the risk of court martial to that soldier as much as is humanly possible.

If a soldier is questioning the eligibility of the President by agreeing to be a plaintiff in a potential law suit, then there is absolutely no reason for his attorney to release his name and inflammatory statements.  And if a statement is made by that soldier, it is enough to state the issue with dignity and respect.

For example, a much less dangerous statement to the officer could have simply said:

“Due to extensive major media coverage by MSNBC, CNN, ABC and other news sources of two law suits questioning President Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to hold the office of President that were referred to the full United States Supreme Court by Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia, I respectfully submit that I have serious questions regarding President Obama’s eligibility to be President and to order me as Commander In Chief.

It has come to my attention that both Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia had the option of denying these cases outright but instead determined they should be discussed in full conference by the entire Supreme Court.   It has also come to my attention that while the Supreme Court did not accept the cases for review at this time, they also did not decide against those cases on the merits.   As such, I have come to learn that those cases may have been denied certiorari on the basis of procedural errors in the lower courts and that the merits of those cases may eventually be decided against the President’s eligibility.

Because I have studied the issues involved with these cases and discussed them with my attorney, I have legitimate doubts about President Obama’s eligibility under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution to hold the office of President of the United States since he has admitted that, at the time of his birth, his nationality status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.  Due to this admission, I do not understand how President Obama can be considered a ‘natural born citizen’ of the United States as is required by the US Constitution which I have taken an oath to defend.

I have faith that had the issues raised in these law suits been frivolous and without merit, such esteemed Justices as Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia would have denied these cases rather than refer them to the full court as they have done.

Furthermore, because President Obama has refused to provide a long form birth certificate proving who he is, as was required of me by various Government agencies throughout my life, I am confused beyond reason as to there being any legitimate reason for his steadfast insistence upon burdening multiple judicial venues by fighting such requests to see his credentials.

As a soldier who is willing to die for my nation, and a citizen, I regretfully insist that my conscience is made heavy by all of this information.  In order to be the best citizen and soldier I can be, I respectfully intend to be a plaintiff in a future law suit to confront these issues.  I mean no disrespect to President Obama and I hope that he will respect my effort to defend the Constitution of the United States, not just in the danger zones of Iraq where I am now stationed, but also in the courts of the United States.”

This hypothetical statement would have served the soldier’s cause much better than the inflammatory cannon fodder released in his name via World Net Daily, the Drudge Report and his potential attorney Orly Taitz.

I cannot say for sure that such a statement would protect the officer from any possible legal jeopardy under the UCMJ.  Nor am I suggesting any soldier make such a statement.  But damn it, if you’re going to mix it up with a foe, you ought to make it as hard as possible for them to hit you.  There’s no offense like a good defense.

The above hypothetical statement contains no contemptuous language, makes a strong point, contains potential for empathy and informs the uninformed while any possible charges under Article 88 may have been voided.

Additionally, such a statement would have demanded much more respect for the issues raised by the soldier’s willingness to join a potential law suit.  After all, Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia were not required to refer my case and Cort Wrotnowski’s case to the full court, but that’s exactly what they did.

The issues were covered in detail by the major media.   Who could blame a soldier for being confused and concerned when a sophisticated attorney like Georgetown law professor Jonathan Turley even stated that the Supreme Court should decide the case on the merits and that he was also confused as to why Obama hadn’t produced a birth certificate:

“Moreover, I am not sure why the original isn’t simply produced for a more open review…  It is a shame for such cases to be resolved on purely technical standing grounds. This is the type of claim that should not be allowed to fester and enter the realm of conspiracy theory on the blogosphere… The value of court review is to remove such clouds of doubt and to assure citizens that the constitutional requirements have been satisfied.”

Unfortunately, this confused soldier was not carefully protected by his attorney and now faces potential charges as many others at military.com have suggested.

And I think it’s a damn shame.

Full post as published by Natural Born Citizen on February 25, 2009 (boomark / email).