Soldier doubts eligibility, defies president's orders

darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Barry Goldwater also went through something similar as he was Born in AZ BEFORE it became an official state.
This is not the first time citizenship has come up, so to say it is an ethnic thing is a bit ignorant in my opinion, also to say it is only a democrat thing is as well, since the two I listed were Republicans.
What needs to be done, I am not sure, because a posting on an internet site can be faked. I have seen the picture and you really can't tell if it is real or a fake.....would be the same thing as me posting my driver's license.....can't tell if it is forged or not. Crimzy, in a court of law is a picture of a picture presentable as credible eveidence. No, the supreme court cn just take a quick hearing, Obama present the evidence and bam done.....the highest court has ruled on it and the "nut jobs" can go back to other things...................Wait, we did that with the court ruling on the 2000 election and that didn't matter....nevermind.
 
crimzy

crimzy

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2967572
What needs to be done, I am not sure, because a posting on an internet site can be faked. I have seen the picture and you really can't tell if it is real or a fake.....would be the same thing as me posting my driver's license.....can't tell if it is forged or not. Crimzy, in a court of law is a picture of a picture presentable as credible eveidence. No, the supreme court cn just take a quick hearing, Obama present the evidence and bam done.....the highest court has ruled on it and the "nut jobs" can go back to other things...................Wait, we did that with the court ruling on the 2000 election and that didn't matter....nevermind.
To answer your question, the Best Evidence Rule requires that an original or a photocopy of evidence is required. Generally a photo or photocopy is admissable, and if there are challenges it would still be admitted. However that challenge would go to the weight of the evidence and not its admissability.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2967568
He has no subpoena power, nor is he entitled to interrogate the President. So actually, he is not "entitled" to anything. He has access to the courts, just like anyone else. As a citizen of this country and a soldier, that is all he "deserves". If he has a legitimate constitutional challenge then he can bring it. But since he doesn't, he's just pissing in the wind. And where is it written that a soldier cannot be a prejudice nutjob? I have the right to criticize an agent of the government, remember.
Kind of hypocritical that anyone can support this guy calling the president an "imposter" but objects to me calling him a crazy, prejudice, conspiracy-theorist nutjob who is an embarassment to the American flag.

He dosent need to interrogate the President in order to get to the truth just a his day in court with the opportunity to defend his claim.
LOL and i will argue that the Lawmakers ,Politicians and ill toss in Lawyers are an embarrassment to this country.Not the men and women of our armed forces.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2967576
To answer your question, the Best Evidence Rule requires that an original or a photocopy of evidence is required. Generally a photo or photocopy is admissable, and if there are challenges it would still be admitted. However that challenge would go to the weight of the evidence and not its admissability.

We will never know until it reaches the court room.
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2967532
Just to clarify the liberal point of view here...
A soldier questioning if the President is Constitutionally allowed to be President=treason
Elected officials, calling our troops rapists, murderers and nazis, and declaring we have "lost the war" is not treason.
That sum it up?
A soldier questioning if the President is Constitutionally allowed to be President=allowable
A soldier refusing an order from the President=mutiny. A soldier refusing a lawfully given order from the President in a war zone=mutiny in the face of the enemy.
Elected officials smearing our troops with any broad-brush accusation=(anything I put here will be censored by the site software, but it wasn't going to be a nice thing).
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
And technically his orders come from his commanding officer...who gets his orders from his commanding officer....who gets their orders from the general....who gets his orders from the pentagon....see where I am going with this?
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2967561
You can ALWAYS count on a liberal to bring race up.

Actually McCain's eligibility was challenged too. He was born in Panama... But he proved his citizenship. There is a difference between hospital paper work (which was what was released) and state paper work...
As any malpractice lawyer will tell you, of the two, hospital paperwork is most likely to be falsified.
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2967592
that statement helps your argument how?
It doesn't make any argument, except that the poster asserted that since Mcain had offered his hospital records, that "proved" his citizenship. Malpractice lawyers learned many years ago not to trust hospital paperwork since it is easily and frequently changed after the fact to cya.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2967597
It doesn't make any argument, except that the poster asserted that since Mcain had offered his hospital records, that "proved" his citizenship. Malpractice lawyers learned many years ago not to trust hospital paperwork since it is easily and frequently changed after the fact to cya.
Exactly my point.
1. This dosent look like a original Birth Certificate to me.
2.Its a piece of paper that proves nothing.

So if there is doubt and this soldier is subject to punishment due to his refusal take orders from what he claims is a illegitimate president,then he deserves the right to defend himself .In that defense he should and is allowed to have his allegations proved to be true and if not hes up the creek.
BTW if you look at the fine print on the bottom it is in fact a copy
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2967597
It doesn't make any argument, except that the poster asserted that since Mcain had offered his hospital records, that "proved" his citizenship. Malpractice lawyers learned many years ago not to trust hospital paperwork since it is easily and frequently changed after the fact to cya.
You misread, In Obama's case it was hospital paperwork, not state.
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2967612
You misread, In Obama's case it was hospital paperwork, not state.
The paragraph is about Mcain, so I assumed that the reference was to how he proved his citizenship. Sorry.
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2967611
Exactly my point.
1. This dosent look like a original Birth Certificate to me.
2.Its a piece of paper that proves nothing.
Except that the keeper of records in Hawaii has certified that it is a true copy.
So if there is doubt and this soldier is subject to punishment due to his refusal take orders from what he claims is a illegitimate president,then he deserves the right to defend himself .In that defense he should and is allowed to have his allegations proved to be true and if not hes up the creek.
BTW if you look at the fine print on the bottom it is in fact a copy
He won't be charged with not obeying an order of the President, he will be charged with failure to follow an order from his immediate commander, in the face of the enemy. Most courts wouldn't allow him to introduce the legitimacy question since that has already been adjudicated, and has even made it to the Supreme Court twice. Just as a person on trial cannot simply allege that a Martian did it, the courts wouldn't allow the introduction of the settled legitimacy question, imho. That could change if one of the extant cases goes the other way, but the record of dismissals and declination to review is pretty strong.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2967629
Except that the keeper of records in Hawaii has certified that it is a true copy.Ok so he has said it is so. Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" or "Read my lips,No new taxes"......
He won't be charged with not obeying an order of the President, he will be charged with failure to follow an order from his immediate commander, in the face of the enemy. Most courts wouldn't allow him to introduce the legitimacy question since that has already been adjudicated, and has even made it to the Supreme Court twice. Just as a person on trial cannot simply allege that a Martian did it, the courts wouldn't allow the introduction of the settled legitimacy question, imho. That could change if one of the extant cases goes the other way, but the record of dismissals and declination to review is pretty strong.
The exception here is that this isnt a act of cowardice its his claim that he has sworn a oath to support and defend the US Constitution and Article II, Section 1 is part of the US Constitution. In the other Supreme Court Cases a mans Life and Liberty where not at stake,This may change their decision and force them to intervene if this case gets that high.
.
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
The exception here is that this isnt a act of cowardice its his claim that he has sworn a oath to support and defend the US Constitution and Article II, Section 1 is part of the US Constitution. In the other Supreme Court Cases a mans Life and Liberty where not at stake,This may change their decision and force them to intervene if this case gets that high.
I agree, this isn't an act of cowardice, it is a mutinous act, treated under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Someone else will have to fact check my belief that cases brought under UCMJ are not appealable to the Supreme Court. I would suspect that any military court would reason that the identity of the Supreme Commander is irrelevant, since the order was given by an immediate superior. Any other interpretation would lay the groundwork for any soldier to refuse to follow any order by claiming that it stems from an illegitimate commander anywhere in the chain of command.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2967647
I agree, this isn't an act of cowardice, it is a mutinous act, treated under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Someone else will have to fact check my belief that cases brought under UCMJ are not appealable to the Supreme Court. I would suspect that any military court would reason that the identity of the Supreme Commander is irrelevant, since the order was given by an immediate superior. Any other interpretation would lay the groundwork for any soldier to refuse to follow any order by claiming that it stems from an illegitimate commander anywhere in the chain of command.
870. ART. 70. APPELLATE COUNSEL
(a) The Judge Advocate General shall detail in his office one or more commissioned officers as appellate Government counsel, and one or more commissioned officers as appellate defense counsel, who are qualified under section 827(b)(1) of this title (article 27(b)(1)).
(b) Appellate Government counsel shall represent the United States before the Court of Military Review or the Court of Military Appeals when directed to do so by the judge Advocate General. Appellate Government counsel may represent the United States before the Supreme Court in cases arising under this chapter when requested to do so by the Attorney General.
(c) Appellate defense counsel shall represent the accused before the Court of Military Review, the Court of Military Appeals, or the Supreme Court--
(1) when requested by the accused;
(2) when the United States is represented by counsel; or
(3) when the Judge Advocate General has sent the case to the Court of Military Appeals.
(d) The accused has the right to be represented before the Court of Military Review, the Court of Military Appeals, or the Supreme court by civilian counsel if provided by him.
(e) Military appellate counsel shall also perform such other functions in connection with the review of court-martial cases as the Judge Advocate General directs.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
* 867a. ART. 67a. REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT
(a) Decisions of the Unites States Court of Military Appeals are subject to review by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari as provided in section 1259 of title 28. The Supreme Court may not review by a writ of certiorari under this section any action of the Court of Military Appeals in refusing to grant a petition for review.
(b) The accused may petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor and without filing the affidavit required by section 1915(a) of title 28.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top