Here is the Law Read it for yourself:
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C115.txt
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE
ACTIVITIES
Sec. 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally
-STATUTE-
(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or
influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:
(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes
or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny,
or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or
(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written
or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges
insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States -Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his
conviction. (b) For the purposes of this section, the
term “military or naval forces of the United States” includes the Army of the United States,
the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Navy
Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve of the United States; and, when any merchant vessel is
commissioned in the Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy, includes the master, officers, and crew of such vessel. ]
***********************************************************
And this is what Orly allegedly said to Military.com about her knowledge of said Law:
California dentist turned attorney Orly Taitz, who has brought the lawsuit, told Military.com Tuesday that it is her “understanding that there will not be a serious consequence to his career [for his statements], but I don’t know for sure.”
At the very least Orly owes a duty to her clients to posts said Laws on her Blog and state her understanding of said Laws.
You said — “At the very least Orly owes a duty to her clients to posts said Laws on her Blog and state her understanding of said Laws.”
I would suggest to Orly’s clients — to “get a lawyer” before they join up with *that* lawyer... LOL..
The Oklahoma legislator who is putting through that bill to make it a law to show specific documentation to prove that one is qualified for office (not just the President, but all offices, too...) — was also thinking about joining in the case. BUT, he also wisely said he would be consulting with some oversight committee in the legislature about what legislators are allowed to do and what is proper and what is not — and in addition to that, he is going to consult with his own lawyer, first, too — before he proceeds. And he won’t proceed until he gets that “okay” from them...
That’s probably why he’s successful at the current time. And it’s the ignoring of these kinds of things that get other people “in trouble”, too... :-)
—
Really! It’s one thing if you know exactly what you’re getting into and you are willing to *pay the price* for it. That would be what a good lawyer would do, let you know about any such consequences and what can happen. If one goes ahead on that basis and their life is ruined from that point forward — at least they can’t say that they didn’t understand or thought that their “cause” was “righteous enough” so that they couldn’t lose...
Oh..., one more thing about that. What a lot of people don’t realize (it seems...) is that we’ve got a *system* of government — and that *both sides* of the political spectrum have a vested interest in *preserving* that system. That means supporting its *mechanisms* regardless of political persuasions.
One particular example of that, would be that no President or Congressman, no matter what side of the aisle they were on, would tolerate a military that was not under the command of the Commander in Chief, no matter what the political troubles were — and short of an Impeachment and Conviction process. That would “break down the system” to allow anything like rebellion to occur, no matter what your own political persuasion was or is. Neither side will allow that to happen, no matter what.
And the military itself, within its own ranks would never tolerate any dissension based on unproven allegations or political talk or anything else — interfering with orders and commands from the Commander in Chief, coming down the line of command. If they allowed even a *hint* of this to happen — at all — it would break down the system in short order. They can’t allow this to happen, in order to preserve for *all holders* of the Office of President of the United States — for him to be Commander in Chief.
Those are the kinds of precedents that agencies and other administrators and workers have to think of — for preserving the system and making sure it can function well, in spite of political disagreements or dissension in the public.
—
And *part of that system* is to get a court of law to decide things and validate evidence if it is going to be used against someone, and also, for a President, to go through the methodology of removing a President from office, by using the Constitutional provision of Impeachment and Conviction. That’s the system and it will be *preserved* throughout all this stuff — no matter what. All three branches of government will work towards that main goal, while trying to sort out anything else.