Yet another lawsuit...


February 25, 2009
Military.com|by Bryant Jordan

Using words such as "imposter" and "usurper," an active-duty Army officer in Iraq has joined a California lawyer's lawsuit intended to force President Barack Obama to prove he is a legal U.S. citizen, and therefore able to legally serve as the commander in chief.

"Until Mr. Obama releases a 'vault copy' of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office -- an impostor," 1st Lt. Scott R. Easterling states in his letter published at Defendourfreedoms.com.

An Army spokesman told Military.com today that officials are aware of Easterling's letter.

Poll: Should a Soldier serve if he doesn’t think the president is legitimate?

"We are taking a look at that ourselves right now," Lt. Col. Christopher Garver said. "We are always trying to balance our ... military requirements under the Uniform Code of Military Justice versus critical freedoms that all Americans enjoy."

California dentist turned attorney Orly Taitz, who has brought the lawsuit, told Military.com Tuesday that it is her "understanding that there will not be a serious consequence to his career [for his statements], but I don't know for sure."

"I told him 'you're doing something very brave for this country, and that you can call me any time, 24/7 [for advice],' " she said. "If you're investigated by [the judge advocate general] and if there are any hearings ... and if an officer is defending you, I will provide documents totally proving it's illegitimate for [Obama] to be president."

The story was first reported in the right-leaning World Net Daily news site Feb. 24.

Taitz said she is willing to go to Iraq for Easterling's defense. Her Web site includes names and photos of congressmen and retired service members who she says are supportive of the lawsuit intended to force Obama to present documents showing he is an American citizen.

While Obama has presented a legal Hawaiian birth certificate, Taitz and others claim the state historically has permitted American parents of children born in other countries to apply for such documents. Easterling says he wants to see a "vault copy," which is not explained in his letter but is taken to mean the original document.

In his letter, Easterling said he was a KBR contractor in Iraq in 2005 and 2006, then joined the Army when it raised the maximum enlistment age to 40. He said he attended Officer Candidate School and was commissioned a second lieutenant in August 2007.

After an assignment to Fort Knox, Ky., he was deployed to Balad. He was promoted to first lieutenant on Feb. 2.

He said in his letter that it pains him to join the lawsuit against Obama, "but as an Officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this action."

"I implore all Service-members and citizens to contact their Senators and Representatives and demand that they require Mr. Obama prove his eligibility. Our Constitution and our great nation must not be allowed to be disgraced."

Attorney Mathew B. Tully of the Washington, D.C.-based firm Tully Rinckey PLLC, cautioned "that nobody's actually heard directly from this ... lieutenant. We're getting this from a third party with an axe to grind."

It has happened in the past, he said, that stories emerging from the combat theater turn out to be wholly or partially false.

If true, however, Easterling, as an Army officer, "is subject to ... [provisions] against using contemptuous language toward the president." There were such incidents in the 1990s, he said, when service members were disciplined for comments made against President Clinton. In one case brought under the provisions of Article 88 of the UCMJ a major general was forced to retire for comments he made, Tully said.

Easterling also could be charged with conduct unbecoming an officer, he said.

If an officer actually believes there has been some misconduct by the president, Tully said, there are ways he could have responded.

Under Article 138, he said, any person can bring an allegation of misconduct by a commander through the chain of command, "though I don't think [it] has ever been used to allege misconduct by the president."

He may also have tried reporting his allegations under the whistleblower protection act, Tully said. But the Defense Department directive on that spells out the inspector general and the Congress as the places to take allegations, he added.

"People in the military ... have rights protecting them for reporting [alleged] misconduct, but there are strict procedures," Tully explained. "And joining a civil lawsuit and calling the president of the United States an imposter is not one of those avenues."

Tully said there already is extensive case law involving these allegations about Obama's birth and citizenship -- at least 10, he said -- that have been dismissed.

"And on TV last night I saw the chief of staff of the Army salute President Obama, so there are a lot of people who believe he is the president," Tully said.

wow I'd like to see Easterling's original birth certificate myself, along with his original social security card and his official medical records and tax statements.

When will this b.s. stop???

when people realize it is stupid and pointless.

What's the Uniform Code of Military Justice have to say about this action?

I am not familiar with military law and frankly I am to lazy to look it up now but I do know while serving those in the military typically have to work within the chain of command when reporting misconduct or when involved in other issues related to their service obligations.

Those in the military also have different right's and obligations than civilians as I am sure most know.

Since Obama is the commander-in-chief wouldn't this issue fall under the Uniform Code?

Anyone knowledgeable about the Uniform Code of Military Justice that can comment about the appeal through the chain of command?

If they rufuse to obey a lawful order, they can be charged for dereliction of duty.

assimilate!!!! assimilate!!!!! stop bucking the system, the system is always right, assimilate!!!!! when will these poor souls realize that they don't have the right to ask who their president really is? don't they know that it is just futile to mess with the borg and not assimilate? people need to realize that it is not their job to question the government or government motives. if RHAM EMANUEL of all people in the world salutes the man who gave him his high ranking position, then that is good enough for me!!

damn right!!!!

who are these lowly servants to question the New American Messiah?

Yikes you truly worry me

Awww hell...I was just asking about a point of law and hoping posting the question regarding the Uniform Code would prompt someone who knew what they were talking about to answer.

I answered the question. Regardless of whether the person thinks Obama is qualified or not, failing to obey a lawful order is a chargeable offense. Dereliction of duty.

Bush didn't tell my flight sergeant that I had to keep my barracks clean. If it was inspected and not up to his standard, my ass was in trouble.

What else do you want?

actualy in the service there is a chain of command , and orders must be followed without question . unless said order violates the laws of war or goes against your moral beliefs or violates civil rights or goes against the constitution . there are instances of soldiers disobeying orders and being found not to be in the wrong . there are also instances of soldiers following orders and being punished because they should have refused because the order was unconstitutional or immoral or violated a law or civil right .

danged if you do, danged if you don't

as a mater of fact LT. william calley was prosecuted and jailed . for following orders and slaughtering a villiage in vietnam in 1968 .dureing the ordered raid on the villiage they slaughterd 504 unarmed villiagers. he served 3 years of a life sentance and was released but after that there was a law institued in the ucmj protecting soldiers from retribution and prosecution for dissobeying a hanous order . 3 soldiers stoop up in 1968 against the raid on the villiage and were honored .

"lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

notice it says a soldier has an obligation to disobey an unlawfull order . i hope this answers you question lynann

What is the chain of command in this instance the individual would be required to work within?

I imagine he would be required to report to his immediate superior and file some sort of grievance with that person?

I understand being insubordinate is grounds for discharge.

What, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, is this persons avenue for relief?

Thanks dantaylor28 for that information. It was helpful. I still have some questions regarding process I suppose.

disobeying does not constitute insubordenation . an order is considered unlawfull when it violates civil rights , a moral religious beliefe , violates the rules of engagement , or goes against the constitution , when a soldier finds he has been given an unlawfull order he files a complaint with his commanding officer . there are higher up links in the chain a soldier can come to because of the" open door policey " , as well as being paperwork you can file through the judge advocate general (J.A.G.) .

interesting

so what do you do meantime? just obey the unlawful order?

not realy the ucmj is long boreing reading took me about 20 min. to find it in the copey you can pull up on line