NATIONAL GUARD: THE PERFECT MILITARY PLAINTIFFS FOR A LAWSUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT

Now that BO has indicated he might call up the National Guard to federal service in the conflict along the US-Mexican border, it is time to re-visit my original proposal to use NG Plaintiffs in a federal Declaratory Judgment suit to determine his Constitutional eligibility to be POTUS.

Obama Says National Guard Might Be Sent To US-Mexican Border
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/12/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4861510.shtml

Early last November, I posted a memo entitled, FIND OUT WHETHER BARACK OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AS REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE II OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND STOP THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE FROM VOTING FOR HIM, IF HE IS NOT! This explained my then new solution to gaining standing to challenge BO’s Constitutional eligibility in federal court, by using military Plaintiffs. In that memo, I specifically proposed using National Guard, about to be deployed. As I recently explained in detail on my blog, in responses to comments posted by my readers, NG are under the control of the Governor of the state until called up to serve in the military and are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice until federalized. Plus, the federal Declaratory Judgment Act, under which my Complaint is brought, acts as sort of a class action mechanism, without having to certify the class. That is, the ruling received by one Plaintiff applies to all similarly situated Plaintiffs. In effect, this means that if one Plaintiff gets called up to active duty, meaning he is federalized and under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ, he can drop out; and another NG member not yet called up can be substituted, no harm, no foul.

Please pass the word about this safe viable option to vet the CIC.

Advertisements

4 Responses to NATIONAL GUARD: THE PERFECT MILITARY PLAINTIFFS FOR A LAWSUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT

  1. Mick says:

    jbjd,
    I think that your idea and Leo’s idea should be used in concert with each other. If Leo is afraid of the UCMJ affect on the military, then the Title 32 NG commanders would be a perfect group to petition the AG and US Attorney of DC to act on Quo Warranto, making the argument that the public doubt and controversy would have detrimental effects on their men. This would be a better group than retired military officers that Leo proposes using, don’t you think? At the same time, this federal Declaratory Judgement Act can be used since the NG faces an “actual controversy”. Maybe the pressure exerted on 2 fronts would elicit a response from the judiciary. Can you explain the concept of “actual controversy” as it relates to the FDJA, and how it relates to the controversy that the NG faces when called up to Title 10?

    Mick: I saw your comment on Leo’s blog, regarding the fact that NG are not subject to the UCMJ until federalized. (You might have included a cite to your source of information; or a link to this blog.) I saw no response from Leo. Please keep in mind, he has already wrongly declared that the federal Declaratory Judgment Act cannot be the basis of an action brought in federal court because that court cannot hear matters requesting only advisory opinion, mistakenly characterizing Declaratory Judgments brought in federal court, pursuant to this federal act, as merely seeking advisory opinions. As to your proposal of using NG instead of retired military… Leo was only proposing that retired military should direct the request to bring a Quo Warranto proceeding to AG Holder or U.S. Attorney Taylor. Either of these men would actually file and ‘prosecute’ the Quo Warranto case. No other ‘Plaintiffs’ would be required, as the named Plaintiff would be the U.S. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. Mick says:

    jbjd,
    I apologize for not citing this blog to Leo, I assumed he proably knew where it came from. Logically i can see where the “actual controversy” is, but is it an “actual controversy” according to the law that NG face a controversy as to whether they are heeding legal orders? What exactly is an “Actual Controversy”? Are you saying that that court would make a judgement that is that much of a Bombshell, and just let it lie there w/o remedy? Have any NG contacted you about this? I realize that the AG and US attorney would file the QW, but using active NG commanders would be a more powerful source of the request, since they face the imminent controversy.

    Mick: I am sorry, I did not answer that aspect of your previous question. The federal Declaratory Judgment Act specifically states that, Plaintiffs satisfy standing where they face either actual or imminent liability as Defendants in the future. As to the efficacy of utilizing NG facing imminent recall to ask Holder or Taylor to file a Quo Warranto, versus retired military, you should direct this question to Leo, since he is embarking on this endeavor. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. Northshorelover says:

    jbjd:

    Now Mr.Donofrio says all law suits became moot due to the “separation of powers.”

    And he wrote; “If SCOTUS ever did remove a usurper President without Constitutional authority, ie. by writ of quo warranto exercising original jurisdiction (which SCOTUS doesn’t have) — the villain, though he might be removed, would have won — even if he be tossed from office. He would have struck a blow to destroy the separation of powers,” destroying the Constitution.

    Again he changed his mind from removing an usurper President by writ of quo warranto to every law suits is now moot position. What is your opinion on this?
    Was he hired by Obama team so he isn’t asking the donation??? Just sayin’

    Northshorelover: You made me laugh. Thank you. Leo is the first attorney who refuted my legal acumen, in these matters; and got it wrong. Then, realizing his mistake, he posted a comment to another reader, utilizing the correct legal information, which I had provided, never citing me or apologizing for having gotten it wrong in the first place. (I mentioned his error in the 2 posts, below.) As for the likelihood of success on a Quo Warranto case… I gather that if you want to remove BO from the White House using this means, first, you have to overcome the hurdle of getting one of two people – the AG or the US Attorney – to initiate prosecution. So far, neither man has even responded to such request. I stand solidly behind my military Complaint as the court case most likely to achieve its desired result. But the court is not the only way to go. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. Great idea, but will this work over the long run?

    Martina-Roulette: Welcome. The idea of this Complaint came last November, when people were already petitioning both state and federal courts trying to establish that BO is not a NBC, in an attempt to forestall the EC vote for POTUS scheduled for December 15. I only came up with the idea to use the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, fashioned with NG Plaintiffs, because I wanted to help all of those people spinning their wheels on infirm pleadings. (And, of course, at the same time, I wanted to avoid jeopardizing the military status of anyone filing suit.) But personally, I would not have advocated a judicial cure to the problem of BO’s ineligible status.

    I still think such a lawsuit could work, updated, of course, to include subsequent revelations. (Have you read, for example, these 2 articles on this blog, “RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS'” and “IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS un-AMERICAN THEN, IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS MUST BE un-AMERICAN, TOO”) No, I would rather individual citizens use those means already available within state and federal government constructs to get to the heart of the matter. Specifically, I have been advocating the call for investigations by state A’sG into election fraud, in those states with laws that require the candidate for POTUS from the major political party to be eligible for the job. Because as my latest articles point out, NP Certified BO was Constitutionally eligible for the job but, strong circumstantial evidence indicates, she failed to determine he was eligible before Certifying his eligibility, so that state elections officials would print his name next to the D on the general election ballot. That’s election fraud. But I think only a few citizens have petitioned their A’sG to conduct such investigations.

    However, my best plan by far is being laid out as we speak in the article to be posted shortly. ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: