Bottom line folks is these cases need to be filed in SCOTUS upon Original Jurisdiction.
Notwithstanding Donofrio’s “wussy” post and Orly’s protestations, SCOTUS has been very considerate of these cases.
The same can not be said of the lower courts for a variety of reasons.
Again, these cases need to be filed in SCOTUS.
Despite this setback, Berg has the best shot at producing a winning case at this time.
Orly’s problems with her client Easterling have put what may be an overwhelming burden on her ability to continue prosecuting her cases.
There are a number of cases being developed that are not yet reported. So the curious cases against bo are far from over.
We have only begun this legal fight.
This is very interesting, and from Orly's Site:
Military Officer Oath Analysis
There is a huge difference between the military enlisted oath and the officer oath.
The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:
Enlisted Oath
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Officer Oath -
“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
As you can see, the officer does not swear to obey the orders of the President. We only have an obligation to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (for example, a Presidential Usurper).
Our forefathers were so brilliant to foresee a situation like we find ourselves in now. The officer oath is a safeguard to protect the Constitution against a corrupt elected government. Officers only have an obligation to defend the Constitution. Military officers have a lot of legal clout when it comes to Constitutional matters. The officer oath does not mention following the UCMJ laws as does the enlisted oath.
Let's see if SCOTUS runs and hides again. They failed to live up to their oaths by ignoring the prior cases. I pray they will wise up very soon and honor their oath to defend the Constitution.
http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/05/open-letter-from-brigadier-general-charles-jone.aspx
Open Letter from Brigadier General Charles Jones
http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/24/major-general-commanding-general-carroll-d-childers-joins-military-suit.aspx
Major General Commanding General Carroll D. Childers Joins Military Suit
http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/23/col-riley-former-division-chief-national-security-agency-joins-our-action-2.aspx
Col. Riley former division chief national security agency joins our action
http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/23/dr-taitzs-military-action-welcomes-officer-easterling.aspx
Officer Easterling, Active military officer deployed with the US military in Iraq