U.S. soldier gagged on prez's eligibility

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | March 03, 2009 | Bob Unruh

[Man50D]

A member of the U.S. military whose suspicions about Barack Obama's eligibility to be president prompted him to sign onto a legal demand being sent to Attorney General Eric Holder has been silenced.

Attorney Orly Taitz, the California activist who through her DefendOurFreedoms.us foundation is assembling the case, told WND today she's been informed one of the members of the military has been ordered by commanding officers not to speak with media.

The officer's identity was withheld to prevent further actions against him.

However, Taitz confirmed to WND there would be no lack of plaintiffs in her action, which challenges Obama to prove by what authority he operates as commander in chief.

Another active-duty soldier, who identified himself as Staff Sgt. Alan Craig James, volunteered to be identified publicly as a plaintiff in the case, Taitz said.

She said she already has a list of 101 volunteers in her case demanding Obama's proof of eligibility.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

[cripplecreek]

That isn’t surprising. What is surprising is the fact they said nothing about dropping the case.

[He who knoweth not his name]

This dog has to wake up soon...more and more people are asking why not show the damn birth certificate. This so called open person and administration won`t let us see ANY records for this man and we are supposed to just be cool with that?

[BonRad]

ping-

sounds pretty good!

[originalbuckeye]

I have heard that officers cannot speak against the President or Cabinet Secretaries at any time or they will be subjected to a court martial. Can anyone verify?

[Jet Jaguar]

Officers cannot. But, enlisted can.

But enlisted still have to follow the orders of the officers appointed above them.

[MHGinTN]

Why yes, you are supposed to ‘be cool with that’. You see, Obama’s voters are sheepel and they expect you to be one also. You are behind the times. That Constitutional contract is no longer to be cited because it might interfer with the ascendency of the affirmative action kenyan klown they worship. This is affirmative action at its highest form ... you better remain PC and not challenge the almost black Marxist messiah, if you know what’s good for you.

[Sequoyah101]

Yes, I am shocked they have not shut this down. Either

1. They can’t stop it, the military seems very cognizant (more than out politicans) about the rule-of-law
2. They can’t stop it and will let it run its course knowing the repercussions for these officers are severe and that they know the consequence of their action and honor their right to do this
3. Back them, quietly and within the law.

The new angle under the 9th amendment that has some latin phrase with it seems to be gaining some traction.

[Frantzie]

If he is an ineligble POTUS then they have violated no law or rule.

Orly needs an experienced attorney running her cases ASAP. She is trying very hard but she need an experienced attorney running the cases and making the legal calls. Wealthy Americans and talk show hosts should be raising millions for this effort before O destroys America.

[Candor7]

He may be silenced, but we are not. Neither is Orly.

GOOD STUFF!

[Charlespg]

Better be careful or somebody might call you a birther

and I want to know if there nothing to this then why is obama spending so much on this

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

This mite get nasty for the folks in the Military...

[IrishPennant]

The new angle under the 9th amendment that has some latin phrase with it seems to be gaining some traction.

Can you expound? The ninth is an underused amendment meant to say, forgive the casualness, all other rights people should have. How does it tie in here?

[Sequoyah101]

The premise is Quo Warranto

Please see the article referenced for further information and follow the links as appropriate. Meanwhile,

According to the online Constitution.org resource: “The common law writ of quo warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States, and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents.”

[MinuteGal]

I hope one or more courts don't pull any more of that "no standing" garbage.

If members of the military don't have standing to bring a suit in a case like this, I don't know who does.

Of course, we ordinary plebians have no standing in anything any more, as we find out every day.

Leni

[redlegplanner]

Article 88, UCMJ:

“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.”
Elements.
(1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;
(2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;
(3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and
(4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element
(5) That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.
Explanation.
The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither “Congress” nor “legislature” includes its members individually. “Governor” does not include “lieutenant governor.” It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, ad-verse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.
Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not rdinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.
Lesser included offense. Article 80—attempts
Maximum punishment. Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

[BIGLOOK]

Would you rather be a Hammer or a Nail, JJ?

Aricle 88 of the UCMJ is a catch all.....'Contempt for officials'.

[Belle22]

It’s one thing to try to implement socialism via the budget, the DOW & Porkulus.

It’s another to try to dismantle the military & replace it with the National Service Storm Troopers. That’s the one crazy thing they haven’t tried to do ... yet.

Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice precludes commissioned officers from using “contemptuous words” towards the President; VP; Congress; Secretary of Defense; military Secretaries or (go figure) the Secretary of Transportation; or towards the Governor of a state where he/she is present or on duty.

[Jet Jaguar]

Well aware of the UCMJ. Just saying.

888. 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.

889. ART. 89 DISRESPECT TOWARD SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER

Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

[IrishPennant]

Not seeing how this would be contempt...

con·tempt Listen to the pronunciation of contempt Pronunciation: \kən-ˈtem(p)t\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin contemptus, from contemnere Date: 14th century 1 a: the act of despising : the state of mind of one who despises : disdain b: lack of respect or reverence for something2: the state of being despised3: willful disobedience to or open disrespect of a court, judge, or legislative body

Military personnel, sworn to protect and defend the Constitution have determined that there is cause to believe a Usurper has been appointed as their CiC. Granted, careers will be over if he is found a NBC, but I see no criminal charges, UCMJ or otherwise.