Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
JB Williams - A Right to Lawful Command

JB Williams - A Right to Lawful Command

Ratings: (0)|Views: 22 |Likes:
Published by Juan del Sur
Members of the United States Military have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and protect the American people from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines have voluntarily accepted the duty to follow all lawful commands and whether Barack Obama & Co. likes it or not, lawful command begins with a lawful Commander-in-Chief. The US Constitution defines what a lawful Commander-in-Chief is, in Article II—Section I—Clause V.

More than 400 civil and criminal suits have been filed in countless courts across the country raising a myriad of challenges to Barack Obama’s legitimacy for the office of president, or Commander-in-Chief.

So far, every court has declined to hear any evidence against Barack Obama. Name one time in history when you could find not one court willing to ask the most obvious questions on a matter as pressing as who the president of the nation really is?
Members of the United States Military have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and protect the American people from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines have voluntarily accepted the duty to follow all lawful commands and whether Barack Obama & Co. likes it or not, lawful command begins with a lawful Commander-in-Chief. The US Constitution defines what a lawful Commander-in-Chief is, in Article II—Section I—Clause V.

More than 400 civil and criminal suits have been filed in countless courts across the country raising a myriad of challenges to Barack Obama’s legitimacy for the office of president, or Commander-in-Chief.

So far, every court has declined to hear any evidence against Barack Obama. Name one time in history when you could find not one court willing to ask the most obvious questions on a matter as pressing as who the president of the nation really is?

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Juan del Sur on Jun 05, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/05/2010

pdf

text

original

 
JB Williams – A Right to Lawful CommandPage 1 of 6
 A Right to Lawful Command
 Author:
 
 JB Williams
 
Date: Friday, June 4, 2010http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23920Members of the United States Military have sworn an oath to uphold and defend theConstitution and protect the American people from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines have voluntarily accepted the duty to follow all lawfulcommands and whether Barack Obama & Co. likes it or not, lawful command begins with alawful Commander-in-Chief. The US Constitution defines what a lawful Commander-in-Chief is, in Article II—Section I—Clause V.More than 400 civil and criminal suits have been filed in countless courts across the country raising a myriad of challenges to Barack Obama’s legitimacy for the office of president, orCommander-in-Chief.So far, every court has declined to hear any evidence against Barack Obama. Name one timein history when you could find not one court willing to ask the most obvious questions on amatter as pressing as who the president of the nation really is?
 An Unlawful Commander
Under an unlawful commander, every order is an unlawful order. This means that above allother citizens, members of the military have a unique stake in the matter of who is issuingmilitary orders, and as a result, a very real right to get an answer to that question.It has been well established that no matter who Barack Obama’s real father might be, or where on earth he might have been born, he is NOT a “natural born citizen” of the UnitedStates and he is, therefore, ineligible for the office he currently holds.Most of what Obama has stated we already know to be a lie. He has refused to release any records to document any part of his life, his birth, his education, his travel, his adoption inIndonesia or his association with a laundry list of anti-American evil-doers. Beyond the factthat most of the public propaganda on the man is not true, we know literally nothing aboutthis person.Members of the US Military are not obligated to take orders from such an individual.Commanding our troops is an honor and a privilege. The honor is reserved for only oneindividual at a time, and that individual must meet certain specific requirements or the honoris not theirs.Members of the military not only have a right to question the lawfulness of their orders, they have a responsibility and an obligation to do so. If they act on unlawful orders, they have lostthe protection offered by their uniform.
 
JB Williams – A Right to Lawful CommandPage 2 of 6
 Another Attainder Courts Martial
 Army Flight Surgeon Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin will stand before the military’s probable causehearing commonly referred to as the “Article 32” hearing on June 11th. On June 3
rd
, Lt. Col.Lakin received word that his defense team will not be allowed to present or pursue any evidence concerning the lawful standing of his Commander-in-Chief. As reported by Bob Unruh at WorldNet Daily, (see:http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=161961) an Army Investigatornamed Daniel J. Driscoll issued an opinion stating the following;“In my view our constitutional jurisprudence allows Congress alone, and not amilitary judicial body, to put the president’s credentials on trial,” - “It is my opinion the discovery items pertaining to the president’s credentials are notrelevant to the proof of any element of the charges and specifications set forth inthe charge sheet,” he continued. “Consequently I will not examine the documentsor witnesses pertinent to the president or his credentials to hold office.”“While Driscoll cited “Rule for Courts-Martial 405” which allows “the productionof witnesses ‘whose testimony would be relevant…’” he said questions aboutObama’s eligibility—[which could certainly bear on the validity of military orders]—will be ignored.”—WNDDriscoll said those who have custody of Obama’s records—several Hawaii and various school officials—also will not be allowed to testify.
Driscoll declined torespond to a WND request to comment on his ruling. – WND
It must be noted that without having delivered an official birth certificate, Driscoll himself could not put on a military uniform and could have no opinion in this matter at all. Anallegedly forged COLB, such as that presented by FactCheck and Daily KOS on behalf of Barack Obama, would not be accepted by the US Military as an official “birth certificate.”Further, the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) is a punishment system based uponthe antiquities of Roman martial law the British later adopted and sophisticated.Revolutionary war leaders—primarily John Adams—adopted the British Articles of War as amatter of urgent necessity. Both the colonial Revolutionaries and the British fought under thesame rules for discipline. America’s Articles of War (since renamed the Uniform Code of Military Justice) have never been reconciled with the United States Constitution. Hence the birth of the attainder court-martial (no juries allowed).In fact, Winthrop cites in quotation on page 49, Volume I of his treatise on Military Law andPrecedents;The UCMJ - “Not belonging to the judicial branch of the Government, it follows that courts-martial must pertain to the executive department; and they are in fact simply instrumentalities of the executive power, provided by Congress for the President asCommander-in-chief, to aid him in properly commanding the army and navy and enforcingdiscipline therein, and utilized under his orders or those of his authorized military representatives.”
 
JB Williams – A Right to Lawful CommandPage 3 of 6
This means that Lakin’s accused is also his accuser, the head of the Executive Branch, theCommander-in-Chief. It also means that Driscoll’s refusal to allow any evidence concerningObama is both incorrect and highly suspect.In a June 3
rd
press release from Margaret Hemenway, Lakin’s press representative issued thefollowing statement;“Army refuses Lakin’s request to have president Obama testify and refuses toallow any witness or evidence from Hawaii or elsewhere on eligibility question—hearing to proceed on June 11
th
.” — “LTC Lakin faces lengthy prison term forrefusing to deploy to Afghanistan” — Obama Administration unleashes Army lawyers instead of releasing birth certificate…In essence, Lt. Col. Lakin is being denied any real defense. Without being able to presentevidence supporting his claims that he has been issued unlawful orders, by an unlawfulCommand, he has no defense. Yet every member of the military is sworn to follow only “lawful orders.” The penalty for following unlawful orders can be extreme. The issue of “lawful orders” is clearly of utmost importance to every American in uniform.
 A Failed Grand Jury Effort
 At the same time, across the country in Monroe County Tennessee, another decorated careerofficer awaits his fate, in the hands of a corrupt Grand Jury which has also declined to acceptevidence against Barack Obama for more than a year now.LCDR Walter Fitzpatrick III began his search for truth and justice more than a year ago, whenhe attempted to enter evidence against Barack Obama’s legitimacy to hold office, into his localGrand Jury in Monroe County Tennessee.Fitzpatrick was repeatedly blocked from entering that evidence into court by way of thecitizens Grand Jury, which Tennessee code allegedly allows to be entered by any citizenpresenting evidence or wrong doing by any elected or appointed official. The Grand Jury issupposed to be the checkpoint between the people and their government, wherein any citizencan present evidence against corrupt government officials. After months of blocks from local law enforcement officers and court officials, Fitzpatrick filed a criminal complaint against local officials for obstruction of justice and was shortly thereafter arrested on April 1, 2010 - while trying to affect a citizen’s arrest upon members of the local system. Tennessee has some of the strongest citizen arrest laws in the country. But when it comes to Obama, no law seems to be in effect, anywhere in the country.Fitzpatrick was incarcerated for days without food or water, while denied visitors, and standscharged with “committing actual RIOT””—based upon the four supporters present to videodocument events on April 1, “resisting arrest” for actually resisting police officers unlawfulphysical assault, while being frog marched off public property by the local Sheriff’sDepartment, “interrupting a meeting” by trying to affect a citizen’s arrest upon people in thatmeeting and “disorderly conduct” by trying to expose corruption and obstruction of justice inhis local community.On May 26, 2010, Fitzpatrick filed a challenge asserting that the Grand Jury he had already 

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->