Skip to comments.Did Supreme Court clerks fail to pass on Obama Conference information to 5 Justices?
Posted on 02/24/2013 6:02:20 AM PST by IbJensen
click here to read article
So then, let's play a game: Imagine I go out to the PX grab me some rank and insert myself into the command of a sizable group of soldiers. Now suppose that I issue orders to my men to forcibly shut down the invasion in AZ, lethal force and all, under the Constitutional authorization of Art 4, Sec 4.
Would following my orders condemn my men? Myself? (Take into consideration the stances of the political caste & their willingness to 'overlook' rules/regulations/laws.) Yes or no? Explain your answer.
Tom Paine was a real character, a genuine radical. I don’t think anyone ever accused him of being too conservative for his time.
“Grabbing yourself some rank” is not acting under the Color of Law which is a legal requirement for the application of the De Facto Officer Doctrine. There is well defined process in law for establishing the legitimate military hierarchy of command.
Color of Law:
The appearance of a legal right.
The act of a state officer, regardless of whether or not the act is within the limits of his or her authority, is considered an act under color of law if the officer purports to be conducting himself or herself in the course of official duties.
Under the civil rights act of 1871 (42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983), color of law is synonymous with State Action, which is conduct by an officer that bears a sufficiently close nexus to a state so that the action is treated as though it is by the state.”
To have an analogous situation for the “game,” you would have to have announced that you intended to “grab some rank” a year and half before you showed up at the PX. Then you would have to compete against seven other members of your unit for the right to be in command. Then you would have to compete against a “rank grabber” from another unit; then win the approval of enough members of your branch of the service who cared to participate in the selection process, and then win at least 50% of the votes of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and withstand 202 courts martial hearings challenging your right to the position over a five year period without a single ruling going against you. Finally, you would need to be sworn in to your position by the Judge Advocate General for your branch of the military.
If you accomplished all that, then I would say “yes,” De Facto Offcer applies to your command and use of lethal force at the border.
Therefore the question is: would their actions be lawful or unlawful? (Legal or illegal? Legitimate or illegitimate?) -- Moreover would the federal government's judgements be in line with that?
Their actions would be legal, lawful and legitimate under the Uniform Code of Military Justice if they had no knowledge that your command was unlawful.
Military discipline and effectiveness is built on the foundation of obedience to orders. Recruits are taught to obey, immediately and without question, orders from their superiors, right from day-one of boot camp.
Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors risk serious consequences. Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY disobey a superior commissioned officer. Article 91 makes it a crime to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer. Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the disobedience does not have to be “willful” under this article).
In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death.
So the men under your command should obey your orders if they have no knowledge of the fact that you “grabbed some rank” illegally. The accusation that you “grabbed some rank” is not good enough, there would need to have been an official finding to that effect.
So, let me get this straight: "just following orders" would be a valid defense in this case where the orders are, you say, unlawful.
That's reminiscent of the "It's ok when we deem it ok" style of governance which is characteristic of tyranny.
Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors risk serious consequences. Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY disobey a superior commissioned officer. Article 91 makes it a crime to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer. Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the disobedience does not have to be willful under this article).
Question: How can an order which is to follow the Constitution (Art 4, Sec 4, in this case) ever be unlawful?
So the men under your command should obey your orders if they have no knowledge of the fact that you grabbed some rank illegally.
It's not illegal to grab some rank. The USSC has even struck down law prohibiting one presenting oneself as having some military experience that one did not actually have. (See here) As ABC summarized it: "In its 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court justices said today that as written, the act is too broad and ignores whether the liar is trying to materially gain anything through his or her false statement, which would be more akin to fraud."
The accusation that you grabbed some rank is not good enough, there would need to have been an official finding to that effect.
So which is it: are thees soldiers who are compelled upon penalty of death to obey allowed to question my legitimacy or not?
It is best to follow the order of a superior unless you know that the order is patently illegal on its face.
The instances in the military when it is impossible to get confirmation of an order are relatively few and far between, particularly an order involving the possible use of deadly force.
Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 134 - Impersonating a commissioned, warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer, or an agent or official
(1) That the accused impersonated a commissioned, warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer, or an agent of superior authority of one of the armed forces of the United States, or an official of a certain government, in a certain manner;
(2) That the impersonation was wrongful and willful; and
(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
Note 1: If intent to defraud is in issue, add the following additional element after (2), above: That the accused did so with the intent to defraud a certain person or organization in a certain manner;.
Note 2: If the accused is charged with impersonating an official of a certain government without an intent to defraud, use the following additional element after (2) above: That the accused committed one or more acts which exercised or asserted the authority of the office the accused claimed to have;.
(1) Nature of offense. Impersonation does not depend upon the accused deriving a benefit from the deception or upon some third party being misled, although this is an aggravating factor.
(2) Willfulness. Willful means with the knowledge that one is falsely holding ones self out as such.
(3) Intent to defraud. See paragraph 49c(14).
Lesser included offenses. Article 80attempts
Maximum punishment. Impersonating a commissioned, warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer, or an agent or official.
(1) With intent to defraud. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 3 years.
(2) All other cases. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.
Which wouldn't apply to me (UCMJ Art 2).
Even with a House impeachment, the trial is in the Senate. Do you think the Dem senators will bother looking at the evidence if we impeach the druggie? Considering their reaction to irrefutable evidence against the philandering perjurer, I don’t see any point in dividing our efforts in that direction.
There are a lot of constitutional issues that are not the place to start fighting. As one of many examples, the Department of Education is not authorized by the enumerated powers. As much as I would like to see that department dissolved (and I approve of public education as a State responsibility) along with half of the cabinet, fighting to eliminate that department is not the best use of our energy.
We should be fighting for real progress toward a balanced budget with lower spending in real dollars and not just cuts in the scheduled growth rate - there is a chance to win that important battle. We should be fighting for the First Amendment and battling the HHS abortion mandate in every court and for every company (private individuals and not just church-affiliated employers).
We should be fighting for the Second Amendment and peeling back those federal and state laws that infringe on our God-given and constitutionally-protected human right to defend ourselves.
There are many battles that are more urgent and more likely to lead to success than a battle to remove the affirmative action occupant of our White House - a battle that is, unfortunately, a certain loser.
I think the challenge is worse than that. I don't think that there is any evidence to show them. I don't know of anyone who will show up to testify as a witness to Obama being born anywhere other than Hawaii. Do you? I don't know of anyone who will show up to testify as a witness to his conception and thus to his paternity. Do you?
The worst thing that could happen to Orly is for someone to ask her to put on her case. I don't think there is anything. That's why so few in the public support her quixotic quest.
Perhaps federal law would apply to you? Both impersonating a member of the military and wearing the uniform of the US military with the intent to deceive are federal crimes.
The people will be able to see if a conspiracy is happening by carefully watching to see if Congress and Obama once again sign a banking contract for the USA which continues to put the USA banking system under control of international bankers especially Rothchild banking interests. The last contract was made by POTUSA Wilson in 1913 for 100 years. Think Federal Reserve-not a USA owned bank.
Here’s how it works at the USSC. All but a couple of justices are part of a pool of justices and all the petitions are distributed to the clerks for the Justices. For the most part, only one clerk for one justice reads - maybe - each petition; and then writes about a one-page summary with a recommendation to either grant or deny review. There is a great deal of pressure to simply recommend denial of review.
It is also true that the Court has greatly reduced the number of cases it accepts for a decision on the merits. Where they used to take over 200 cases a year, they are hardly ever deciding even 100 per year.
Unless you have a high-powered lawyer you are pretty much screwed no matter how badly your rights were abused in the lower courts.
Because of this, state supreme courts pretty much know they can screw you over and get away with it; especially in cases involving government corruption at the state level.
Unfortunately, I know this from personal experience.
“Imagine I go out to the PX grab me some rank and insert myself into the command of a sizable group of soldiers.”
You would have to get someone higher up to issue you written orders making you their commanding officer. And if you walked into a squadron and just announced you were the new commander, the current commander would probably have your butt tossed in jail.
“Now suppose that I issue orders to my men to forcibly shut down the invasion in AZ, lethal force and all...”
You would need deployment orders, and support for the issuing of weapons, ammo, equipment, transportation, etc. You couldn’t do it on your own initiative - no commander can.
These things don’t happen in a vacuum. Neither did Obama’s election. He ran against other candidates, was voted on by the people, won the Electoral College, had the vote certified by Congress with NO objections, was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court...sounds like he IS the President. I believe God is going to (and currently) judge America for electing an evil baby-killer, and for approving homosexuals, etc - but God will judge Obama in His time.
Right now, Obama IS the President. And I suspect he is because God is using him to punish America by giving us what the majority want - evil.
What Orly Taitz submitted in Noonan v Bowen was not a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari but an application for a stay. Any one Justice can approve an Application for a Stay. In Noonan v Bowen both Justice Kennedy, the circuit Justice for California and Chief Justice Roberts declined to issue the requested stay. Roberts referred the application to the full Court but there were no takers.
Dr.Taitz was asking the Court to stay events that had already taken place before the Supreme Court received the application; a tough task.
If it does apply to me, then does it not also apply to Obama?
Absolutely, federal law applies to Obama. But in order to apply federal law a few items are required, like a formal law enforcement investigation, credible evidence turned over to a prosecuting attorney, a grand jury investigation, an indictment, a trial, a guilty verdict and a sentence. None of that has occurred yet. Every eligibility action directed against him has been via civil lawsuits.
What about the cold case posse and sheriff arpaio?
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.