Obama – Eligibility – UCMJ – Unlawful Orders – Joe the Private – Larry Sinclair – The BOPAC Report

The BOPAC Report:

Today, I want to inform readers of the rapid growth of a new line of discussion/advocacy regarding Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States. There appears to be the beginnings of a movement calling for the utilization of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to address the eligibility issue. This approach could have serious unintended consequences if not studied very carefully.

A couple of days ago, I wrote an article titled, Obama, Oaths of Allegiance, the UCMJ, Unlawful Orders, Joe the Private, and a Call to Protect the Republic. It was written without any personal knowledge of the tactical decisions currently in play by attorneys involved with this issue. My article suggested that certain senior officers in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, in my opinion, have the ability to prevent lower ranking members of our military from taking the drastic step of challenging orders originating from Mr. Obama. (I am reposting this article below for your consideration in light of recent developments.)

How I became aware of this new line of discussion/advocacy on the internet.

Yesterday, Google had their big fiasco labeling millions of internet sites as potentially harmful to computers. As it happens, I had performed a Google search of the terms ‘Obama, Oaths of Allegiance, the UCMJ’ and my blog, zachjonesishome.wordpress.com, and any site mentioning this phrase was included in Google’s supposedly innocent error. I have to say, I’m more than a little skeptical that there is not more to the Google story than many believe. The official line is that all Google searches resulted in the warning message. However, I had conducted several other Google searches at the same time as my Google search regarding the UCMJ article and ALL other search results returned without the error message. (However, that is another story for another time.)

Due to Google’s apparent screw-up, I started closely monitoring the article that was posted regarding the military and the UCMJ. I soon discovered that this article had received a bit of coverage and some criticism.

As part of a broader search, I soon discovered a few chat rooms talking about “how” soldiers should challenge the legality of Mr. Obama’s orders. PlainsRadio chatrooms had a few threads discussing the issues. There were several posts suggesting possible avenues to explore/pursue. There was a “Message to the military” thread, a “Letter to the Joint Chiefs” thread, and a thread exploring the use of Article 138 of the UCMJ. The Article 138 argument caught my attention:

I am a retired US Army SFC. Few people in the military are familiar with an article 138 Investigation of the UCMJ. While on active duty, at one time I felt I was wronged by my Commanding Officer so I researched the UCMJ and found this. I filed an Article 138 Investigation upon my commander and had never witnessed such a “hot potato”. I brought my Field Artillery Battalion to a standstill for 2 days while the commander researched what to do, and how to handle my complaint. To make a long story short, I was given exactly what my request of redress was , which was a written apology and an Oral apology in front of 500 fellow officers and soldiers. The beauty is that the soldier filing the complaint or grievance, MUST be given a final disposition, so it will eventually reach the Secretary of the particular branch of service in which it is filed. In my case it would have been the Secretary of the Army. Another great aspect is it will and cannot harm the career of the individual filing it.

So , a soldier files a written complaint and states in words to the effect: As a soldier I do not feel President Barrack Obama has demonstrated actual proof that he is qualified to be the President of The United States by his failure to be a Natural Born Citizen of the USA. The only document that has been provided in no way can verify where he was born. Therefore I feel any order given by him is invalid.

My request for redress is that President Barack Obama be made to show a Vault copy of his actual Birth certificate , complete with where he was born, the hospital name, the name of attending physicians and name of parents as a minimum.

I have a couple of quick comments about the Article 138 course of action. I am not an expert, but my reading of Article 138 indicates a major problem regarding challenges to Mr. Obama directly:


Any member of the armed forces who believes himself wronged by his commanding officer, and who, upon due application to that commanding officer, is refused redress, may complain to any superior commissioned officer, who shall foreword the complaint to the office exercising court- martial jurisdiction over the officer against whom it is made. The officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction shall examine into the complaint and take proper measures for redressing the wrong complained of; and he shall, as soon as possible, send to the Secretary concerned a true statement of that complaint, with the proceedings thereon.

The language “exercising court- martial jurisdiction over the officer against whom it is made” would require Mr. Obama to be subject to court-martial under the UCMJ. Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe Mr. Obama is subject to court-martial under the UCMJ given that there are specific provisions detailing how CONGRESS has the power to impeach the President. Of course, that brings up the counter-argument that Mr. Obama cannot be subject to impeachment if he is not legitimately occupying the Presidency.

Not withstanding, it is my personal opinion that our civilian courts should determine this issue and remove Mr. Obama if he is not a “Natural Born Citizen”. If he can answer the allegations and demonstrate that he is a “Natural Born Citizen”, my apologies to President Obama. However, I must point out that Mr. Obama has not provided any proof of his citizenship status that is without serious legal challenge; and that, Mr. Obama has utilized teams of lawyers and hundred of thousands of dollars to keep his original long form birth certificate undisclosed. No reasonable person would go to such lengths if there were not something to hide. To date, American courts appear to be allowing this deception to continue by not ordering a hearing for presentation of all available evidence and put this issue to rest. Right now the issue is festering.

I’ll come back to the Article 138 approach.

Anyway, I next came upon two posts by Leo Donofrio, a lawyer who was involved in an early legal challenge to Obama’s eligibility that was effectively silenced by the Supreme Court.

The first was this post:

Active Military POTUS Eligibility Suit Advocates Should Not Be Instructing Soldiers to Disobey Orders

[UPDATED: 02.01.09 Everybody concerned please read the following blog post by an active military person on this issue.

In that article I learned and became deeply distressed that an attorney put the following in a consent form for potential military plaintiffs:

“I would be unable to follow any orders given by a Constitutionally unqualified Commander In Chief, since by doing so I would be subject to charges of aiding and abetting fraud and committing acts of treason.”


…I am doing much legal research on this issue and I will post my findings and all applicable legal analysis going forth.  There is no point right now in any soldiers sticking their necks out when the issue has not been properly researched by anyone as far as I can tell.  My previous blog post said active military have the best possible chance of getting past the standing hurdles… but there are other concerns which must be addressed.

I agree completely with Mr. Donofrio’s statement that NO SOLDIER NEEDS TO DISOBEY AN ORDER”! More appropriate and less drastic avenues remain to be considered.

In Mr. Donofrio’s second post, he states the following:

I have seen some really sick comments posted recently which encouraged the military to disobey orders.   That is wrong.  I strongly suggest that all active military step back and refrain in any way from taking advice over the Internet on a matter of this importance.  Consult with your family attorney or a JAG advocate. This is my final statement on the matter.  I pass on having anything to do with military suing over POTUS eligibility.  I don’t have the resources to guide such a litigation, nor do I see that any court would ever provide true justice after what I’ve experienced with my case and Cort’s.  I have absolutely NO faith in the US legal system.  None.  Nada.  Zilch. Zippo.  So I don’t see the point of subjecting our troops to legal harm for a case they will NEVER win in the cult’s courts.  The military can deal with any situation in their own court system.

Again I agree with most of Mr. Donofrio’s statement. Especially the part, “I strongly suggest that all active military step back and refrain in any way from taking advice over the Internet on a matter of this importance.  Consult with your family attorney or a JAG advocate.”

I sincerely hope that Leo Donofrio will not abandon this issue and will continue to research as he said he would do in his first post. Regrettably, I too am beginning to believe Mr. Donofrio’s last comment is correct. “I have absolutely NO faith in the US legal system.  None.  Nada.  Zilch. Zippo.”

So where are we?

I believe that there are many people, myself included, who believe that Mr. Obama is not legally eligible to serve as President. Considering that Mr. Obama should be aware that this issue would be very troubling to many in the military and that it could be resolved by very little effort and/or cost, it seems reasonable to suspect that something important is being hidden. Why would Mr. Obama put so many Americans through this? If he is not legally eligible to hold the Office, reason dictates that he cannot legally sign legislation or issue any “lawful orders”.

In one of Mr. Donofrio’s posts he raises the possibility that if one goes too far, he or she could be guilty of inciting sedition. I suppose that could be a possible outcome, but to be guilty of sedition one must have the:

intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition; …(Article 94, UCMJ)

Therefore, “Intent” and “lawful civil authority” would seem to be appropriate defenses. Nevertheless, whether guilty or not, any charges brought against a person would be devastating – emotionally and financially. Therefore, Mr. Donofrio’s warning must be strongly considered.

Does this mean that the topic cannot be discussed and the military cannot be made aware of the issues surrounding Mr. Obama’s possible lack of eligibility? I hope not. If it does, then we, as citizens concerned that certain people are trampling on the Constitution, are losing the rights and means to hold our government accountable through civil discourse.

Back to Article 138:


Any member of the armed forces who believes himself wronged by his commanding officer, and who, upon due application to that commanding officer, is refused redress, may complain to any superior commissioned officer…

It seems to me that one possible path forward could be for someone like Lt. Col. Earl- Graef (utilizing the Article 138 provision) making “due application” to the Joint Chiefs and formally stating the wrong(s) suffered by their failure to cause an investigation into the possibility that the current President of the United States does have not have legitimate power to issue any lawful orders. In effect, Mr. Obama is impersonating the highest Officer in the Chain of Command if the allegations against him are true. Depending on the response, further appropriate legal action could be taken by someone like Lt. Col. Earl-Graef.

I am using the Lt. Col.’s name because he has already taken proactive steps of his own initiative by writing Chief Justice Roberts and more recently Senator Warner. I believe addressing the Joint Chiefs is appropriate because they are the highest military commanders in the chain of command subject to court martial jurisdiction under Article 138 and who may have the ability to address the underlying issue by convening a “Court of Inquiry”. To me, the utilization of all appropriate legal means to address the possibility of such a serious offense, “issuing unlawful orders” should be commended. It is merely another of the checks and balances, necessary to maintain “lawful” civilian control of our military.

If Lt. Col. Earl-Graef could first obtain written assurances from the primary attorneys spearheading the legal challenges against Obama that they would be willing to attend a “Court of Inquiry” and present whatever evidence they have (disclosed and undisclosed), then Lt. Col. Earl-Graef’s appeal to the Joint Chiefs might be strengthened. Some sort of letter writing campaign to the Joint Chiefs may also give them pause to reflect on the seriousness of the concern of citizens that their military could possibly be controlled by a usurper.

It seems to me that while Mr. Obama may not be subject to the UMCJ for purposes of court-martial, any “orders” the President issues might be and therefore would be a proper subject under the “Court of Inquiry” provisions. (Article 135) Article 135 provides that:

…Courts of inquiry to investigate any matter may be convened by any person authorized to convene a general court-martial or by any other person designated by the Secretary concerned for that purpose, whether or not the persons involved have requested such an inquiry…

…Any person subject to this chapter whose conduct is subject to inquiry shall be designated as a party. Any person subject to this chapter or employed by the Department of Defense who has a direct interest in the subject of inquiry has the right to be designated as a party upon request to the court. Any person designated as a party shall be given due notice and has the right to be present, to be represented by counsel, to cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence…

The nice thing about Courts of Inquiry is that they provide that witnesses and documents can be summoned. (Article 135 and Article 46)

Further, Courts of Inquiry can make findings of fact.

..Courts of inquiry shall make findings of fact but may not express opinions or make recommendations unless required to do so by the convening authority…Article 135

The scope of personal jurisdiction under the UCMJ regarding the President may be something JAG attorneys may disagree, but there does seem to be a legitimate legal argument to be made that the Constitutional foundation of Presidential orders could fall within the jurisdiction of the UCMJ. In order to insure that only “lawful” civilian control of the military is exercised, a “Court of Inquiry” should look at credible allegations that would undercut the legitimacy of orders coming from the Office of the President.

We have all heard of the Blue Wall of Silence as it pertains to the police protecting their own. I strongly believe the main obstacle to having the allegations against Obama investigated and definitively determined has been that the Media has been actively promoting a positive image of Obama and refusing to report on any issue that may tarnish that image. They failed to objectively report on Ayers, Wright, Rezko, Larry Sinclair, etc., etc., etc. Given that Judges and Members of Congress are first and foremost politicians, they will not take up the issue until Obama’s poll numbers fall.

Can you imagine what would happen to Obama’s poll numbers if a military court issued finding of fact that indicates sufficient evidence exists to justify a Congressional Investigation into Obama’s eligibility to serve as President?

The media walls of silence would have to tumble down. Therefore, the only ones who may be guilty of sedition are the MEDIA.

Obama, Oaths of Allegiance, the UCMJ, Unlawful Orders, Joe the Private, and a Call to Protect the Republic

By zachjonesishome

The BOPAC Report:

Obama, Oaths of Allegiance, the UCMJ, Unlawful Orders,

Joe the Private, and a Call to Protect the Republic

Throughout the history of America, there have been those special individuals of courage and principle who have answered the call to protect the Republic. I believe in these extraordinary times, the call to protect the Republic is being sounded again. In over 30 courts throughout these United States, lawsuits have been trying to be heard on the merits of the primary allegation that Barack Obama does not meet the Constitutional requirements to serve as President because he is not a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States.

To date, the call to protect the Republic has been primarily sounded by concerned lawyers and those they represent. The Plaintiffs in these actions are as diverse as is America. They represent different political ideologies, races, ethic backgrounds, religious backgrounds and regions. However, the courts have thus far been silent, relying on technical legal arguments to prevent the airing of citizens’ concerns in the public square. Normally in America, these Plaintiffs would have strong allies in the American Media. However, in these extraordinary times, the media have thrown in their lot with Obama and the extreme wing of the Democratic Party. (The reasons for the media abandoning the profession of journalism are a bit complicated and should the subject of another article.)

Nevertheless, these attorneys and Plaintiffs have not been the only ones demanding the government make certain that America’s Constitution has been complied with. There are thousands of supporters across America giving voice to these concerns. In fact, World Net Daily has had a petition drive ongoing and to date, over 226,000 people have signed. The American citizens who are bringing these lawsuits, signing petitions, and searching for alternatives to the main stream media are mostly ordinary Americans, with ordinary families, who are extremely concerned that our Constitution has been violated and undermined.

Most of these ordinary Americans have been relying solely on the courts to protect the Republic and are extremely frustrated that the courts are thwarting the basic, simple, common sense resolutions of this vital issue. One such ordinary American is Lt Col. David A. Earl-Graef, who recently expressed his concerns and disappointment with the courts in an open letter to Chief Justice John Roberts. The only thing these citizens and Lt Col. Earl-Graef are asking is that Barack Obama answer the allegations and establish with his long form Hawaiian birth certificate that he is a “Natural Born Citizen”. To date, this has not been done. It is important to note that instead of simply providing proof, Obama has resisted this request with legal teams and hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The circumstance that a person might be serving as President of the United States who is not a “Natural Born Citizen” creates a Constitutional crisis of enormous proportion in that every legislative act such a person signs and every “order” he or she gives is invalid and “unlawful”.

This last word “unlawful” is of the utmost importance and gives rise to questions of individual responsibility, criminal liability and morality on the battlefield. It is well established that when an “order” is given to an individual soldier, such an order (in effect) comes through the entire chain of command. Consider that:

…Authority is the legitimate power of leaders to direct soldiers or to take action within the scope of their position. Military authority begins with the Constitution, which divides it between Congress and the President. The President, as commander in chief, commands the armed forces, including the Army. The authority from the Commander-in-Chief extends through the chain of command, with the assistance of the NCO support channel, to the squad, section or team leader who then directs and supervises the actions of individual soldiers. When you say, “PFC Lee, you and PFC Johnson start filling sandbags; SPC Garcia and SPC Smith will provide security from that hill,” you are turning into action the orders of the entire chain of command.…

It is also well established that individual soldier have a legal and moral obligation NOT to follow “unlawful orders”.

509. Defense of Superior Orders … b. In considering the question whether a superior order constitutes a valid defense, the court shall take into consideration the fact that obedience to lawful military orders is the duty of every member of the armed forces; that the latter cannot be expected, in conditions of war discipline, to weigh scrupulously the legal merits of the orders received; that certain rules of warfare may be controversial; or that an act otherwise amounting to a war crime may be done in obedience to orders conceived as a measure of reprisal. At the same time it must be borne in mind that members of the armed forces are bound to obey only lawful orders (e. g., UCMJ, Art. 92)….

So the question becomes, when does an individual soldier, Joe the Private, have sufficient reason to know or believe that an order flowing down the “chain of command” from the Office of the President constitutes an “unlawful order”?

Does it happen when an individual member of the military comes across reports on the internet of more than 30 lawsuits challenging the eligibility of the current occupant of the Oval Office?

Does it happen when superior Officers such as Lt Col. Earl-Graef start raising their heart felt concerns?

Does it matter that the main stream media may be deliberately ignoring the issue for their own purposes?

What should the individual soldier do if he or she in their heart of hearts believes the President of the United States is a fraud and cannot issue any “lawful order”?

This is the extremely difficult and perilous judgment call that every young military man or woman who is trying to do what they believe is right could be facing! Facing the possibility of jail and losing career or following one’s convictions, it doesn’t get much tougher than that.

It is very troubling that Obama shows no consideration for the position he puts the members of our military in by his refusal to provide any credible evidence demonstrating his status as a “Natural Born Citizen”.

So what’s our serviceman or woman to do?

Almost everyone involved in this issue has sworn an oath to defend the Constitution and may also have additional ethical obligations. The lawyers who are representing the Plaintiffs in these actions are bound by their rules of ethics to not bring “frivolous actions”. The Judges have also sworn oaths to defend the Constitution. Obama has sworn in election forms that he is eligible to run for the Office of President. And the individual soldier has also sworn his or her own oath to defend the Constitution:

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.

The enlisted service member’s oath provides explicitly that he or she “will obey the orders of the President of the United States”.  Therefore, if Obama is not constitutionally eligible to serve as President, then Joe the Private is facing a huge conflict regarding his sworn allegiance. It is interesting to note that the oath that Officers swear to does not include the language that they will “obey the orders of the President”.

What a horrific situation Obama has created for our military men and women! The soldier has his or her oath to consider, his or her duty to follow “lawful orders”, his or her duty to NOT follow “unlawful orders”, and the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that could take a huge bite out of his or her liberty and career.

The intention of the each individual soldier is the key to him or her making any noise what so ever! Every soldier must be very careful because they are walking a tightrope with only sharks below. The soldier could be determined in a Court Martial to be fulfilling the obligations of their oaths or they could be found to be committing mutiny or sedition under the UCMJ!

The UCMJ provides:


(a) Any person subject to this chapter who–

(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;

(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition; …

There is however another important group of people (besides the civilian Judges) who, I believe, have the power to investigate and resolve Obama’s ineligibility issue. If just one person of this group has courage and conviction for the truth, he or she can remove the possibility that a another member of our armed forces, acting alone, would decide that they must as a matter of conscience refuse to obey an “Order” coming from Mr. Obama.

This group is made up of every person in the military chain of command that has the power to convene a “Court of Inquiry” under the Uniform Code of Military Justice!

The UCMJ provides for Courts of Inquiry as follows:


(a) Courts of inquiry to investigate any matter may be convened by any person authorized to convene a general court-martial or by any other person designated by the Secretary concerned for that purpose, whether or not the persons involved have requested such an inquiry.

So who are these men and women of the military who have the power to convene a Court of Inquiry? “Any person authorized to convene a general courts-martial” can convene such an inquiry.

They are listed in the UCMJ:


(a) General courts-martial may be convened by–

(1) the President of the United States;

(2) the Secretary of Defense;

(3) the commanding officer of a unified or specified combatant command;

(4) the Secretary concerned;

(5) the commanding officer of a Territorial Department, an Army Group, an Army, an Army Corps, a division, a separate brigade, or a corresponding unit of the Army or Marine Corps;

(6) the commander in chief of a fleet; the commanding officer of a naval station or larger activity of the Navy beyond the United States.

(7) the commanding officer of an air command, an air force, an air division, or a separate wing of the Air Force or Marine Corps;

(8)any other commanding officer designated by the Secretary concerned; or

(9) any other commanding officer in any of the armed forces when empowered by the President.

Therefore, in order to prevent the terrible consequences that could befall the individual Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine who in good faith refuses to follow an order that he or she believes to be an “unlawful order” given by Barack Obama, I urge those listed above to remove this burden from the shoulders of our military and investigate the allegations against Barack Obama to determine once and for all his eligibility to hold the Office of the Presidency. Again I say, Mr. Obama could easily do the right thing and demonstrate his eligibility by answering the allegations made against him!

Just a thought as to a possible starting point for a Court of Inquiry:


Any person who–

(1) procures his own enlistment or appointment in the armed forces by knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment as to his qualifications for the enlistment or appointment and receives pay or allowances thereunder…

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the status as Commander and Chief of the Military an appointment conferred upon the person who legitimately holds the Office of the Presidency?

If this does not suffice as legal justification to investigate Obama’s eligibility to hold the Office and/or issue lawful orders, I’m sure there are some brilliant JAG Officers who can provide much better legal arguments for a Court of Inquiry. (Maybe Article 134?)

In conclusion, and to eliminate any possible misunderstandings (CYA), it is solely my intention to follow the oath that I took when I joined the Navy as a 19 year old and to protect the Constitution of the United States of America. It is NOT my intention to express anything that could be remotely be interpreted as an “intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority”!

Further, I would like to request that everyone who is remotely concerned become more aware regarding the eligibility lawsuits that are ongoing such as Berg v Obama, Hollister v Barry Soetoro, Broe v Reed, Kerchner et al v. Obama and research this important issue. One thing is certain, the American media will not be telling the complete story about this issue anytime soon.

Hopefully, Dr. Orly Taitz will see this article and forward it to Lt Col. Earl-Graef.

Obama Pledge

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

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: