Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Donofrio: Active Military Suit is Best Chance at Challenging POTUS Eligibility (Important-See #18 )
Right Side... ^ | 1/30/09 | Phil

Posted on 01/30/2009 10:38:28 AM PST by Sorry screen name in use

Today, Leo Donofrio posted an article in which he posits that the best way to achieve standing in challenging an ineligible President, in his view, is to gather as many active military personnel and file suit in federal court:

(Excerpt) Read more at therightsideoflife.com ...


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: 911truthers; barackobama; berg; bho2008; bho2009; bho44; birthcertificate; birthers; boguspotus; certifigate; constitution; coverup; donofrio; eligibility; ineligible; leodonofrio; military; obama; obamanoncitizenissue; orly; orlytaitz; scotus; taitz; tinfoilhats; toofers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last

1 posted on 01/30/2009 10:38:29 AM PST by Sorry screen name in use
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sorry screen name in use

BUMP


2 posted on 01/30/2009 10:39:01 AM PST by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sorry screen name in use

This is EXACTLY what I have been saying. Leo rocks!


3 posted on 01/30/2009 10:39:21 AM PST by Frantzie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sorry screen name in use

ping


4 posted on 01/30/2009 10:39:47 AM PST by NowApproachingMidnight (Sell the left short this cycle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

Ping, thoughts?


5 posted on 01/30/2009 10:44:58 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sorry screen name in use

Good for him. Anything that weakens the Obamanation works for me.


6 posted on 01/30/2009 11:23:56 AM PST by agere_contra (So ... where's the birth certificate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Thanks for all of your pings. I am now returning the favor. :)


7 posted on 01/30/2009 11:30:06 AM PST by CaribouCrossing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sorry screen name in use

Deuteronomy 28:15-68 (New International Version)

43 The alien who lives among you will rise above you higher and higher, but you will sink lower and lower. 44 He will lend to you, but you will not lend to him. He will be the head, but you will be the tail

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+28:15-68


8 posted on 01/30/2009 11:46:39 AM PST by FromLori (FromLori)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sorry screen name in use

Rocky: “But that trick never works.”
Bullwinkle: “This time for sure!”


9 posted on 01/30/2009 11:47:08 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sorry screen name in use

Unfortunately, this will be as effective as urinating against the wind.


10 posted on 01/30/2009 11:49:39 AM PST by verity ("Lord, what fools we mortals be!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie; FreeManN; BP2
Favorite paragraph:

Lawyer” told me to look at footnote 1 wherein the Obama legal team requests that the court take Judicial Notice of something written at Factcheck.org. As if something written at Factcheck.org (a phony baloney name for a shill site if there ever was one) was proof of the matter asserted and just by their making a blog post a Federal Court should simply accept its veracity. Just because a blogger writes a story doesn’t mean that a Federal Court should accept that story as true. It’s patently ridiculous. Additionally, while Hawaii has gone on record to say they have a long form BC, they have never said that the long form BC proves Obama was born in Hawaii. This isn’t really my issue as I believe Obama isn’t eligible wherever he was born, but the way they are spinning words to make things look legit must make one wonder why they don’t just show the damn long form BC.

11 posted on 01/30/2009 11:52:31 AM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sorry screen name in use; All

Okay let’s break down Bo’s lawyer Bob’s footnote.

1 President Obama has publicly produced

False. No proof that bo produced the BC.

a certified copy of a birth certificate

False. False. Not certified copy. Not a BC.

(concluding that the birth certificate is genuine,

False. False. Not certificate and not genuine


12 posted on 01/30/2009 12:04:00 PM PST by FreeManN (Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sorry screen name in use

Executive orders are being signed: these would appear to open up “standing” to millions, not just millitary service members.

Example: Union workers impacted by work rule changes should have immediate standing, and if an action was taken by union members from several States, SCOTUS should have original jurisdiction.


13 posted on 01/30/2009 12:08:30 PM PST by MkB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MkB

if a active member of the military challenges the pres. on not being qualified to hold the office, in my opinion him or her are going to need plenty of support from the american people to make the voice loud enough so that the powers to be can not ignore it,we must demand of our political leaders, judges etc. to bring out the truth and let the chips fall where they may


14 posted on 01/30/2009 12:56:39 PM PST by roylll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sorry screen name in use

obumpa


15 posted on 01/30/2009 2:16:50 PM PST by Dajjal (Obama is an Ericksonian NLP hypnotist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN
bo's lawyer's argumentation can only be seen--by unbiased viewers--as an attempt to provide corrupt cover for jurists who desire to see bo skate out of his problems wrt these suits. No judge that escaped the sixth grade could fail to see the multiple fallacies in such argumentation.

If such putrid stench prevails in court, we are the banana republic we've long feared we could become.

HF

16 posted on 01/30/2009 2:23:32 PM PST by holden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: holden; All

Allow me to preface my remarks by saying that pro bono I have drafted a brief that overcomes the Standing problem among other troublesome issues.

I have been in daily communication with Orly and I think she is going to incorporate my brief with hers and file it for her next suit.

I have also offered my brief to Berg but I have not heard back from him. Donofrio could have it too, now that he is inclined to get back in the game.

The problem here is that other than Orly, we have lawyers who are letting their egos and political considerations get in the way of not getting the job done for the good of our Country.


17 posted on 01/30/2009 2:40:07 PM PST by FreeManN (Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

Any service member that does this is treading on very dangerous ground and should check with JAG before signing on.


18 posted on 01/30/2009 2:42:06 PM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

Thanks, I knew that was definitely a not recommended action re the UCMJ during the election, but that is good advice for anyone who wants to jump in this.. it is important to be aware of personal legal risks.


19 posted on 01/30/2009 2:45:04 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling; All

B.S.!


20 posted on 01/30/2009 2:48:14 PM PST by FreeManN (Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN; SandRat
B.S.!

Pinging Sandrat, he always has good information. During some of the early calls for this, we also had several JAG officers here that recommended against this action. I think there is absolutely no problem with SandRat's suggestion that you do check with JAG on potential legal implications prior to taking action. That is sound advice for any legal move by uniformed service personnel.

21 posted on 01/30/2009 2:50:33 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

Oh, my fingers are so crossed! Great news.


22 posted on 01/30/2009 2:52:51 PM PST by azishot (I just joined the NRA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

Nothing in my brief that is the least bit contrary to UCMJ.

But you know that don’t you obot?

That is why you obots are so fearful on all the threads today.


23 posted on 01/30/2009 2:55:20 PM PST by FreeManN (Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling; All

http://www.drorly.blogspot.com/

Evidently someone in Senator Lamar Alexander’s office has followed up with the FBI.

List of US Attorneys Offices to provide information regarding crimes committed during the 2008 Election:

http://defendourfreedoms.org/usattorneys.html


24 posted on 01/30/2009 2:56:54 PM PST by FreeManN (Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN; SandRat

lol.. obot, very funny newbie.. you all said that when you posted similar recommendations during the elections and the mods pulled those threads agreeing it wasn’t a recommended action.

All the recommendation is, is to check with a JAG officer before taking action... why are you so concerned about a uniformed officer checking with JAG before taking legal action.. as I said, this is sound advice for any legal action, not just this..

Resorting to just calling this simple advice ‘obot’ really makes me question your sincerity for the legal protection of our uniformed service members.. if anything, a JAG officer may agree they can do this but help them put into place safeguards, you do want our uniformed service members to have every possible legal protection don’t you?


25 posted on 01/30/2009 2:58:39 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

You’re so right. Jumping on this if you’re in the service active, reserves, or state guard can be a very dagerous action personally. There are DoD rules as well as potential violations of the UCMJ that ought to be checked out with JAG first and then if the go-ahead is given make sure that it is in writting and signed by the JAG and by all means hang on to that document for self preservation.


26 posted on 01/30/2009 2:59:46 PM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN

The Obots do seem to come out of the woodwork and they are always the usual suspects. You never see them in any other posts.

If O’s lawyers best defense and evidence is factcheck.org then that have to be getting pretty desparate.


27 posted on 01/30/2009 3:03:09 PM PST by Frantzie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling; All

If this amuses you obots so then why are you so upset about it?

http://www.drorly.blogspot.com/

Evidently someone in Senator Lamar Alexander’s office has followed up with the FBI.

List of US Attorneys Offices to provide information regarding crimes committed during the 2008 Election:

http://defendourfreedoms.org/usattorneys.html


28 posted on 01/30/2009 3:03:38 PM PST by FreeManN (Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: verity

golden shower anyone?? lol...


29 posted on 01/30/2009 3:03:43 PM PST by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN

Knock off the attacks- Garnering the advice and consent of a Judge Advocate General’s office council is sound legal advice and in no way is trolling.


30 posted on 01/30/2009 3:05:06 PM PST by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN; mnehrling; SandRat
Nothing in my brief that is the least bit contrary to UCMJ.

But you know that don’t you obot?

That is why you obots are so fearful on all the threads today.

shut up and that as nicely as I'll put it.
31 posted on 01/30/2009 3:05:56 PM PST by usmcobra (Your chances of dying in bed are reduced by getting out of it, but most people still die in bed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN

You’re funny.

I’m no obot.

I’ve already forwarded Leo’s solicitation to the local JAG for a review.

Being a military retiree and as a government contractor still living under a lot of the same rules I must disagree politely with you.


32 posted on 01/30/2009 3:08:05 PM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator; All

I didn’t advise anyone not to consult JAG.

I merely stated that there is nothing in my Brief that is contrary of UCMJ.


33 posted on 01/30/2009 3:09:03 PM PST by FreeManN (Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN

Who is upset, I am suggesting (actually, I originally just asked) that before signing up, a uniformed service member get legal advice. At that, chapter VII of the JAGMAN actually provides for uniformed service members legal services for all legal action, they can draft whatever documents are needed for self protection without going through another attorney.

This isn’t about discouraging the action, this is about legally protecting uniformed service members.


34 posted on 01/30/2009 3:09:38 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN
I didn’t advise anyone not to consult JAG. I merely stated that there is nothing in my Brief that is contrary of UCMJ.

You immediately attacked other members who recommended this course of action. That crosses the line of personal attacks but also could be casually read by some that there is no need to get this advice. It was sound advice, it was not trolling, and it doesn't stop anyone from joining this. That is all.

35 posted on 01/30/2009 3:12:10 PM PST by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling; All

I am suggesting (actually, I originally just asked) that before signing up, a uniformed service member get legal advice. At that, chapter VII of the JAGMAN actually provides for uniformed service members legal services for all legal action, they can draft whatever documents are needed for self protection without going through another attorney.

This isn’t about discouraging the action, this is about legally protecting uniformed service members.

Well, I guess we agree then?


36 posted on 01/30/2009 3:12:12 PM PST by FreeManN (Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

No Problem here.


37 posted on 01/30/2009 3:13:05 PM PST by FreeManN (Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN

If you have no problem with someone going to JAG, then we do agree.... heck, I understand, these threads can be very contentious..


38 posted on 01/30/2009 3:15:07 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling; All

“If you have no problem with someone going to JAG, then we do agree.... heck, I understand, these threads can be very contentious..”

Thank you for your advice, Sir!


39 posted on 01/30/2009 3:16:35 PM PST by FreeManN (Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN

What do you know of the UCMJ?

What is your experience?

The UCMJ as well as the laws of this nation prevent a serving member of our military from filing suit against the government, the only way something like this can happen is that a serving member of the military has to disobey a direct order from the president.

and there will be a heavy price to be paid if they do.

But you won’t be paying it....

Will you?


40 posted on 01/30/2009 3:18:11 PM PST by usmcobra (Your chances of dying in bed are reduced by getting out of it, but most people still die in bed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN; SandRat

lol.. no need to call me Sir.. Sandrat is the one that should get that honor.. if you look up, I started by asking him because I knew this was an issue before and he had the information straight from the UCMJ, Hatch Act, and others.


41 posted on 01/30/2009 3:19:14 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling; All

I salute you both, Sir!


42 posted on 01/30/2009 3:22:37 PM PST by FreeManN (Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: SandRat
Actually, I doubt there's a specific rule that the military can cite that says a service member cannot sue a public official in government.

The JAG would also have to tread very softly. If they used some general UCMJ law as blanket cover are they going to offer NJP? This is beyond NJP, and if they did go the NJP route, the suing service member would most likely refuse it. So that leaves court martial. Is the military going to start a case that says you cannot sue in civilian court a public office holder? I doubt it.

The former service member could turn around after his court martial trial and sue the military for violating his civil rights. And if at a later date Obama does turn out not to be a natural born citizen it would only strengthen the former service members case against the military.

JAG from what I see here would be better to leave this alone. Leave them worms in the can.

43 posted on 01/30/2009 3:29:03 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Sorry screen name in use

Interesting. Verrrrrry interesting. I believe that Orly Taitz is looking to this option as well.


44 posted on 01/30/2009 3:30:35 PM PST by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

See Reply#41.


45 posted on 01/30/2009 3:33:57 PM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; All

I agree.

I regret my failure to communicate properly with the Officers and Gentlemen, here.

I sense that the obots know full well where they are most vulnerable legal attack and they know they have no effective defense.


46 posted on 01/30/2009 3:35:26 PM PST by FreeManN (Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american; All

Yes, Orly knows how to get the job done.


47 posted on 01/30/2009 3:38:38 PM PST by FreeManN (Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN

It’s understandable. The issue can get are dander up.


48 posted on 01/30/2009 3:39:32 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

The Hatch Act, as I recall, covers overt public political activities while associating the protest of the federal employee with their job.

As an example, a service member in uniform protesting that is covered by the press. This may convey to the public that the military is also behind the protester(s).

I have to see where it says that specifically that service members cannot sue individual government office holders in civilian court.


49 posted on 01/30/2009 3:52:20 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; SandRat

I only mentioned that because it differentiated when this came up during the election because of something about attempting to influence the outcome of an election was prohibited in the Hatch Act. That’s why I checked this time because the circumstances are different.


50 posted on 01/30/2009 3:57:39 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson