Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Article 138 UCMJ Redress of Grievances Solution (Military file a compliant about a BC?)
Oil for Immigration blog ^ | 2-3-2009 | Morgan Ward

Posted on 02/03/2009 7:32:48 AM PST by Frantzie

In a comment on Leo Donofrio’s stite Morgan Ward published that what probably will proof the most effective way to getting the Usurper out of The Whitehouse. During a great show on Plains Radio Network , co-hosted by Wish, he further expanded on the concept convincing many of us, and myself in particular, of the effectiveness his approach. In the coming day’s this blog will further update you on details and developments.

By Morgan Ward

Leo,

I am a retired US Army SFC. Few people in the military are familiar with an article 138 Investigation of the UCMJ. While on active duty, at one time I felt I was wronged by my Commanding Officer so I researched the UCMJ and found this.

I filed an Article 138 Investigation upon my commander and had never witnessed such a “hot potato”. I brought my Field Artillery Battalion to a standstill for 2 days while the commander researched what to do, and how to handle my complaint.

To make a long story short, I was given exactly what my request of redress was , which was a written appology and an Oral appology in front of 500 fellow officers and soldiers. The beauty is that the soldier filing the complaint or grievance, MUST be given a final disposition, so it will eventually reach the Secretary of the particular branch of service in which it is filed. In my case it would have been the Secretary of the Army. Another great aspect is it will and cannot harm the career of the individual filing it.

So , a soldier files a written complaint and states in words to the effect:

(Excerpt) Read more at oilforimmigration.org ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: article138; birthcertificate; birthers; birtherstruthers; certifigate; election; eligibility; hawaii; ineligible; kenya; military; obama; truthers; ucmj
This man Morgan Ward was in the US Army and was being hassled by his commanding officer aka like a Commander in Chief. It appears members of the military can files these and they cannot be retaliated against.

Mr. Ward on the blog is passing this idea to Leo Donofrio. There are some very interesting comments in the blog about General Petraeus and Orly plus a follow up comment by Mr. ward.

1 posted on 02/03/2009 7:32:48 AM PST by Frantzie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

I dunno about this.

Remember the guy who refused to serve wearing a NATO patch because it was against regs to wear “foreign insignia”?

I don’t think he got far or did well after that.

His name and exact circumstance escapes me.


2 posted on 02/03/2009 7:37:05 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

A little more history on the suit.

http://jbjd.wordpress.com/


3 posted on 02/03/2009 7:37:20 AM PST by luv2ndamend (May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. — Samue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

ping


4 posted on 02/03/2009 7:39:48 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

How important to Americans is this issue that it is not worth the sacrifice of many?
I think it would be easier to find a new career than a new free country.


5 posted on 02/03/2009 7:53:00 AM PST by o_zarkman44 (Since when is paying more, but getting less, considered Patriotic?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

“”His name and exact circumstance escapes me.””

Michael New. The last I heard he was still fighting in court. Over the years I have received solicitations for fund raising to help him out. I’ll check it out for current update on his case.


6 posted on 02/03/2009 7:55:34 AM PST by Thank You Rush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

Michael New.

Discharged.
Dishnorably? I can’t remember.

Yep.
He didn’t get far at all.
I think he’s still fighting this in the courts.


7 posted on 02/03/2009 7:56:59 AM PST by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie; All
The UCMJ’s definition of “Commanding Officer” only includes those having General Courts-Martial authority and below.

IOW: you can't use it for the CinC.

8 posted on 02/03/2009 8:48:58 AM PST by ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY ( The Constitution needs No interpreting, only APPLICATION!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

That was Specialist Michael New


9 posted on 02/03/2009 8:51:27 AM PST by GISax (Still waiting for the Iron Chef electric eel battle...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

Will read again later.


10 posted on 02/03/2009 9:13:16 AM PST by LuxMaker (The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, Thomas J 1819)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GISax

Michael New was brought court martialed on charges because he refused order(s) from his chain of command.

This is totally different from filing a civilian law suit against Obama on Constitutional grounds initiated by a service member.


11 posted on 02/03/2009 11:48:51 AM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie; All

Unfortunately, the POTUS is not subject to the UCMJ, even though he is CinC. So, an Article 138 investigation would not apply to him.


12 posted on 02/03/2009 1:33:34 PM PST by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY

The Commander-in-Chief most assuredly DOES have General Courts-Martial convening authority!


13 posted on 02/03/2009 3:21:34 PM PST by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie; mnehrling

I like your thinking unfortunately it can’t be applied to the President as he is not subject to the UCMJ.

I refer you to http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#SUB%20CHAPTER%201.%20GENERAL%20PROVISIONS specificaly Sect. 802 Art. 2.

Nice try though.


14 posted on 02/03/2009 4:21:12 PM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson