Posted on 03/04/2009 3:08:10 AM PST by FreeManN
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 now 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
I think Dr. Teitz was well aware of this...she has 101 plaintiffs signed onto her actions (not all military, as it includes police and who knows what other professions).
Sorry for typo...it’s “Taitz” not “Teitz”
Have you ever communicated with Orly about this matter?
So that is the extent of your communication from Dr. Taitz?
Hell, I gag every time I hear the name Obama.
“I have wondered more than once whether Orly Taitz is a plant.” unspun
The BO supporters at NBC would not have sent this story about Orly and Lt. Easterling to all their TV Stations across the US unless they wanted to publicize Orly’s Military Cases because BO’s lawyers set her up knowing that Orly was not an experienced enough lawyer to win a case against BO.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/us_world/US-Soldier-Calls-Obama-an-Impostor.html
And regarding Quo Warranto, 3 weeks ago Orly didn’t even know what the term meant. I had to explain it to her.
Furthermore, Phil Berg had already stated the theory of Quo Warranto in his lawsuits months ago.
So for Orly to now claim that Quo Warranto is a legal action that she thought of is simply a joke.
I see steam a gatherin’.
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 now 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.
A Couple of points.We should not be like the liberals. We should just be honest.
1.If he is still part of the suit then he has not been silenced.
2.If he is still active duty Military then the military has ever right to require he not use the media for political purpose.
3. All US Military personnel are subject to the same restrictions and know this going in.
Just state the facts.
Yeah, those Patriots of ‘75 (17, that is) should have heeded those warnings too, huh!
“A Couple of points.We should not be like the liberals. We should just be honest.”
Are U saying Joe Farah and the Reporters at World Net Daily are dishonest “liberals?”
Where does that lame brain thought come from?
Have you been communicating with Orly?
Joe Farah and the Reporters at World Net Daily fairly report the News, better than most, if not all the rest of the media.
I would say Joe Farah peronally might have a conservative viewpoint, but are the first person that I have ever seen refer to WorldNetDaily as “liberal,” U must be joking, right?
This is an illegal order. Free speech rights are not surrendered when a person signs on to the military. This commander is a fool for even getting involved.
The tried a true method for muzzling soldiers who said things one didn’t like is the officer or enlisted efficiency report. It is fairly easy to cobble together a case of incompentence that would, in effect, ruin the person’s career.
That said, the soldier in question would probably have a bunch of other negatives against him before a commander would set out to ruin his career. Ordinarily, simple political talk would not be in and of itself sufficient reason to take this draconian step. That is, if the commanding officer did not have an agenda of his own. In this case, it sounds like the guy is an Onada supporter and can’t bear to have his Messiah challenged.
I give all the military folks who’re party to this suit a big HooAaa for courage. It should inspire some of the rest of us to get up off our dead whining butts and do something meaningful to defeat The Marxist Onada.
“A Couple of points.We should not be like the liberals. We should just be honest.”
Are U saying Joe Farah and the Reporters at World Net Daily are dishonest “liberals?”
Where does that lame brain thought come from?
Have you been communicated with Orly?
Joe Farah and the Reporters at World Net Daily fairly report the News, better than most, if not all the rest of the media.
I would say Joe Farah peronally might have a conservative viewpoint, but U are the first person that I have ever seen refer to WorldNetDaily as “liberal,” U must be joking, right?
Correction to add “U.” I do not want my thoughts to be confused with UR’s.
Not necessarily correct.
An commander can restrict the speech of a soldier when it undermines “good order and discipline”, or when the speech of that soldier violates the UCMJ.
Enlisted soldiers, IIRC, are not under the same limitations as officers, but the unit commanders DO have some latitude in these things.
Namely, The President is the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. As such, a soldier may not make derogatory against the chaing of command, which includes The President.
You’d be surprised at the number of civil rights a soldier gives up when they enlist.
When you take that oath you are under a completely different set of rules from that point on. The Uniform Code of Military Justice becomes your constitution when comes to matters involving the military and your service.
I see nothing wrong with a gag order to prevent an active duty member of the military from discussing his or her questions regarding the legality of an order, even if it comes from the CiC.
If you're military and off duty, out of uniform and/or off base then you are certainly bound by civilian laws, but when you doing something based on your military status you are under the UCMJ.
IMHO.
“This is an illegal order. Free speech rights are not surrendered when a person signs on to the military. This commander is a fool for even getting involved.”
Who is the “commander” that you are referring to? What is his name?
“It is fairly easy to cobble together a case of incompentence that would, in effect, ruin the person’s career.”
U got that right!
“That said, the soldier in question would probably have a bunch of other negatives against him”
Please have the courage to speak plainly, openly and honestly. Be specific. Are you afraid to name “the soldier in question?” If so, why are you so afraid that you a “muzzling” yourself.
Have you communicated with Orly about any of this?
I wonder if all of us vets can sign on, since, in theory, we are subject to call?
PING
I'm sure that Taitz would say the more the merrier. Just don't expect this latest attempt to be any more successful that her other ones.
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.