Posted on 09/04/2009 11:36:07 AM PDT by Sibre Fan
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, and INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: 10 U.S.C. §938 and Army Regulation 27-10
COUNT I: DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF DUE TO UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES, ILLEGAL ORDERS, AND LACK OF ADMINISTRATIVE OR LEGAL REMEDY
COUNT II: INJUNCTION AGAINST RETALIATION FOR CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR STATUS
COUNT III: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT: EXECUTIVE ORDERS OF Jan. 21, 2009
COUNT IV: Declaratory Judgment & Permanent Injunction PLAINTIFF SEEKS A FIVE-PART DECLARATORTY JUDGMENT AS WELL AS A PERMANENT INJUNCTION TO PROTECT CONSCIENTIOUS DISOBEDIENCE TO UNLAWFUL ORDERS FROM RETALIATION
COUNT V: AN OFFICER’S RIGHT OR DUTY TO CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT?
COUNT VI: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT---5 U.S.C. §702, AND FEDERAL COMMON LAW apply to the PRESIDENT AS COMMANDER-in-CHIEF
COUNT VI: THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE PEOPLE; THE PATTERN OF RACKETEERING AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATION
COUNT VIII: CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS ACTIONABLE UNDER 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1988(a)(a)
(Excerpt) Read more at archive.org ...
No. When I took the oath it was to defend the Constitution. But I also swore to well and faithfully discharge the duties of an officer in the U.S. Navy. So how does violating half a dozen articles of the UCMJ square with that?
If these active/reserve serving officers have reservations, based on information they believe to require an answer, they would be derelict by not asking the question-they can only ask the question by court action; there is no provision for the UCMJ to ask the question-as the president is NOT subject to it.
Then would you agree that Ehren Watada was correct in questioning the Constitutionality of the war in Iraq and refusing to deploy as ordered? And that any other officer with similar reservations has a similar duty to refuse to deploy? If not why not?
The folks you mentioned refused orders, they did not ask the question in legitimate venues-they had a purpose of evasion for which they were dealt with.
Not at all. Watada and New and all the rest have all claimed that they weren't against serving and defending the country. That their refusal is not for the purpose of avoiding service, but to avoid what they all claimed to be illegal orders. So where are their positions different from Cook and Rhodes?
The purity of intent that both Cook and Rhodes claim is no different than those professed by Watada and all the rest. If the stands that Rhodes and Cook are taking are to be saluted then I don't see how you can condemn any other officer or enlisted who refused to obey orders for what they claim are moral or legal reasons as well.
If Captain Rhodes wants to pursue her suit through the courts then she's free to do so, accepting a commission doesn't deny her that right. But while she's holding an army commission then she's duty bound to obey the orders she's given. If she feels that she can't do that then the only honorable position open to her is to resign.
Watada simply missed movement-he did not file any case to support his claim, he simply avoided movement. I agree that that was his choice, only problem he made it indefensible-Cook would have had a leg to stand on if the orders were not revoked BEFORE his case was heard-and he missed movement or failed to report.... Cases are no where near the same issue.
Watada and New apparently failed to make the case in court before being in violation of the UCMJ. They hoped the military would blush- oops, not so easy (unlike Cook's case, I think).
I strongly support the exercise of conscience-and encourage other officers and troops to do so-but they must know the dance AND the consequences. I support CO status-with reservations in most cases.
Inferring that officers should seek redress through the courts after resigning? That is silly-you would have no standing outside the military in view of the questions being asked? Their issue is based on their service, not apart from it.
She is duty bound to execute faithfully the office (you cannot dictate what that means-she must figure it out!), again you seek “blindly follow orders” where it does NOT exist!
If she fails, refer to my quote.... I executed orders knowing that those orders would likely put myself and my men in danger-indeed they did. I long ago accepted the concept that my duty was of necessity a dangerous endeavor; but for that I am a better man. I saw others not survive the burden of responsibilty-good men all. We must agree to disagree on this issue, I suppose. Fair winds and following seas!
Same person. But she was in Texas for some fairly short training, then is supposed to go on to Ft. Benning, but was apparently ordered back to Ft. Riley for some sort of "advising" by a Colonel. The judge, Land, postponed the hearing in Georgia, which was supposed to have been Friday, because while her attorney was there, she was still in Kansas. The Army says she will be there on Monday.
Because it became moot, that is no longer a "controversy", when his orders were revoked.
No they haven't. They haven't even authenticated the image of a Certification of Live Birth that was posted to Daily Kos, Stop the Smears, and Factcheck.org, among other such sites.
They've even denied issuing the COLB during 2007, which it shows as being issued, at least by some accounts.
Certified copies of State records are presumptively authentic in all courts of law. That does not mean they are not subject to challenge if there is conflicting evidence. Documents can be filed with incorrect information, happens all the time. I know a lady with 3 kids, and several grandkids, maybe even some great grandkids by now, whose long form birth certificate shows or showed her to be a he.
That of course was an innocent mistake, but sometimes the "mistakes" aren't so innocent.
2. Even assuming that Pres. Obama was illegitimate - that doesn't make the orders for her to deploy illegal. SecDef Gates, and other personnel confirmed by Congress - NOT the President - cut her orders. They are legal.
The Constitution says the President is commander in chief. The others lower down in the chain of command get their authority from him, not from being confirmed by Congress.
No, a natural born citizen. In the course of doing that, it might be found that he is not a citizen at all, but the Constitutional requirement is "natural born citizen". You could look it up.
Sooner or later we’ll have a case that’ll fly.
Maybe not in this case. A Captain in the Medical Corps is a brand new officer. I think they serve about 2 years before making Major.
A high school classmate of mine was an Air Force Dentist, he retired about decade ago, after just 20 years, including the time he spent in dental school, as a full bird Colonel.
I don't see anything there about any "Certificate of Live Birth", which is what you wrote that Hawaii had authenticated, nor even a "Certification of Live Birth".
But that commissioned officer did have to supply his/her birth certificate or naturalization papers before receiving that commission. Thus it's reasonable to assume that any commissioned officer is a citizen, or she/he would not be commissioned.
Obama never showed a certified copy of his birth certificate, short or long form, with raised seal,etc to anyone before running for or assuming the office of President.
The President is Commander in Chief, all the time, war or no war.
1. The State of Hawaii has authenticated his Certificate of Live Birth.Maybe, but with questions unanswered.
That is game, set, match.False.
Don't feed me the "he won't show the long form version" bullcrap. Not buying. Certified copies of State records are presumptively authentic in all courts of law.Not true, try studying the issue. More which COLB are you accepting? More than one has been tossed about. More, see this:
Maya Soetoro was born to Indonesian businessman Lolo Soetoro and American cultural anthropologist Ann Dunham and half-sister to the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama. While living in Indonesia, she was home schooled by her mother and then attended Jakarta International School and returned to Hawaii and attended the private Punahou School in Honolulu, Hawaii, graduating in 1988.Besides being the First Sister Maya has a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth despite be born in Jakarta Indonesia. Supposedly this certificate was used by the Daily Kos to forge an Obama version. Anyone find it odd that Maya, undisputedly born in Indonesia, would have the same type of document as Barack Obama to forge?
Actually not even that. Dr. Chiyome Fukino spoke of "original vital records" in her second statement. (I'd never noticed the plural, 'records' before.) and "original birth certificate" in her first statement. Neither time did she use the term "Certificate of Live Birth". There are other types of documents that fit either description.
Could you possibly get a scan of one or more of those, with names, signatures, and file number redacted. (IOW, make copy, tape or mark over the redacted data, then scan in). Of particular interest is where the COLB says they were born. Although not of all that much interest, since the COLB posted on KOS, etc, is a known forgery.
Eventually, The Supreme Court of The United States.
“1. The State of Hawaii has authenticated his Certificate of Live Birth.”
No, not really. There is a piece of paper, supposedly issued by a bureacrat, which says that a birth certificate really, really does exist, cross my heart and hope to be a lying liberal piece of crap.
This piece of paper doesn’t have an actual signature on it. Someone impressed upon it a stamp that is supposed to be a replica of the aforementioned bureaucrat’s signature.
In many contexts a rubber stamp is not recognized as a legal signature. And why would an official not sign such an important document?
“Certified copies of State records are presumptively authentic in all courts of law.”
I believe that a certified copy has an embossed seal and the actual signature of the certifying official.
“2. ...SecDef Gates, and other personnel confirmed by Congress - NOT the President - cut her orders.”
Allow me to quote the relevant section of the Constitution: “(The president)... by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States...”
The president appoints these officers; the Senate can only agree or disagree. If the president occupies his office fraudulently, Shirley these appointments are invalid.
“They are legal.”
As Julius Paulus wrote, “What is right is not derived from the rule, but the rule arises from our knowledge of what is right.”
We can all cite examples of things that were both legal and despicable.
What will you do if the Bamtard orders you to fire on US Citizens? Don’t answer that publicly; just think about it, because the odds of it happening are higher than we probably realize.
Not according to the Constitution.
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
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.