Lt. Scott Easterling has entered a novel fight while serving in Iraq: he is suing President Barack Obama. Easterling is calling the President an “impostor” and challenging his right to issue commands while his birth status is in question. It is one of a series of lawsuit challenging the right of the President to serve on the basis of his birth status. It appears that he could be joined by Senator Richard Shelby in the litigation. Shelby has refused to accept Obama citizenship until he sees a birth certificate.
Easterling is supporting challenges filed by California attorney Orly Taitz and her Defend Our Freedom Foundation. He issued a statement: “As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States,” wrote Scott Easterling in a “to-whom-it-may-concern” letter.
The statement will raise an interesting question for an active soldier. It appears that Lt. Easterling is still following orders and he does have a right to file a lawsuit. However, calling the Commander-in-Chief an “impostor” in an out-of-court statement could be the grounds for discipline under the military code. Here is the statement that he released to the public:
To Any and All Interested Parties,
As an active-duty Officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the Office of President of The United States. He has absolutely refused to provide to the American public his original birth certificate, as well as other documents which may prove or disprove his eligibility. In fact, he has fought every attempt made by concerned citizens in their effort to force him to do so.
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.
My conviction is such that I am compelled to join Dr. Orly Taitz’s lawsuit, as a plaintiff, against Mr. Obama. As a citizen, it pains me to do this, but as an Offficer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this action.
I joined the Army at age 40, after working in Iraq as a contractor with KBR in ‘05/’06. I chose to work with KBR to support my troops and then left that lucrative position when the Army raised it’s maximum enlistment age to 40. Upon completion of Basic Training, I entered Officer Candidate School and commissioned as a 2LT in August 2007. After completing the subsequent Basic Officer Leadership courses, I was assigned to Ft. Knox and shortly therafter deployed to Balad, Iraq. I was promoted to 1LT on Feb. 2, 2009 and I have approximately five months remaining of our fifteen month deployment.
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.
Very Respectfull,
Scott R. Easterling
1LT OD/LG
United States Army
[Update: Now a second soldier has reportedly joined Easterling in his challenge to the President’s legitimacy.
The case may follow the same course as the court martial of Lt. Ehren Watada for his public comments against the Iraq war. His case led to some novel appeals and a mistrial. 
Thanks, Mike. I am actually directing the logic to you and the other readers of this blog rather than to shadow.
Here at jonathanturley.org, VOTED THE #1 LEGAL THEORY AND LAW PROFESSOR BLOG OF THE TOP 100 LEGAL BLOGS BY THE ABA JOURNAL ™(c)(all rights reserved) the stadards are high.
Oops,
“It can happen here” and other failure to proofread. Sorry.
Vince,
The only quibble that one could have for your marvelous work on this thread was that you took the guy to be open to logic. I read everything you posted and went to the links you provided. I also read everything he posted and went to his links. The difference between the two of you was huge. When you gave a synopsis of your links it rang true to the original. He on the other hand parsed his links to come out the way he wanted. for instance his link on providing a birth certificate to someone born outside Hawaii. He made it into a smoking gun, while you demolished its relevance to the debate.
What we were dealing with was a clever propagandist, utilizing Rove/Norquist/Goebbels debating tactics. He separates himself from the run of the mill “Dittoheads” in that he is more articulate, however, the result is the same. He kept asking the question “Why doesn’t Obama release the evidence?” On three occasions I provided him a reason for Obama not to do so and on each occasion he ignored my point, rather than refute it.
This whole operation is a mirror of the tactics that the faux
conservatives have used since for decades, which is to de-legitimize their opponents through barrages of innuendo.
As I said elsewhere it started with Clinton, even before his election, when it was deemed he could be a threat to their power. Obama, feel what you will about his policies, represents a tremendous threat to the powers-that-be of the
Corporatists. As we saw this weekend the infamous Koch Family of John Birch Society fame has helped fund a $50 million campaign to do just that.
What I find the most disturbing in this is that out there on the fringes exist the crazies who ingest this crap whole. They are typically angry, violent individuals with psychopathic tendencies. The concerted effort to make Obama’s
Presidency to be illegitimate is an effort to stir up these forces, with possible violent, tragic consequences. I lived through the killings of the 60’s, where this demonizing of the opponent led to the deaths of four great leaders and resulted in Nixon’s Presidency. As I know, you know, it can’t happen here. Thank you though Vince for a wonderful exercise in debunking this propagandist.
Shadow said “according to the law of the time, Obama needed to be born to a woman who was a 5 year resident after the age of 14. SA Dunham was not.”
Then he said “Acquiring citizenship has different guidelines that have to do with the citizenship of the parent and grandparents. On Aug 4, 1961 the law is that for a birth in which ONE PARENT is a citizen, said parent needs to be 5 years citizen after age 14. SA Dunham does not meet this and therefore she does NOT transmit NBC status to her son, Barack Obama. That is why his place of birth is critical.”
What is he talking about? Obama’s mother was a “natural born” American citizen, her parents (his grandparents) were natural born citizens, and she lived her entire life up until the birth of her son in 1961 in the United States. Where does he get this stuff about “5 year resident after the age of 14”?
Here are excerpts from the wiki bio: QUOTE ON (footnotes and sentences omitted) Stanley Ann Dunham was born on November 29, 1942 at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, USA while her father was serving in the U.S. Army.
Her parents, Madelyn Payne and Stanley Dunham, were born in Kansas, met in Wichita, and married on May 5, 1940. Her father’s ancestors settled in Kempton, Indiana in the 1840s and her mother’s ancestors settled in Dinsmore, Arkansas also in 1840s. Ann had mainly English ancestors, and smaller amounts of Irish, German, Dutch, Scottish and French ancestors. She was a distant cousin of former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and former U.S. President Harry S Truman.
After the attack on Pearl Harbor her father joined the U.S. Army and her mother worked at a Boeing plant in Wichita. At the end of World War II she moved with her parents from Wichita to Ponca City, Oklahoma, from there to Vernon, Texas, and then to El Dorado, Kansas. In 1955 the family moved to Seattle, Washington, where her father was a furniture salesman and her mother was a vice president of a bank.
In 1956 the family moved to Mercer Island, an Eastside suburb of Seattle, so that 13-year-old Ann could attend Mercer Island High School which had just opened.
In 1960, after she graduated from high school, the Dunham family moved to Hawaii so that her parents could pursue further business opportunities in the new state, and she enrolled at the University of Hawaii at Mānoa. There she met Barack Obama, Sr., a student… QUOTE OFF
FFLeo:
I ‘ll send you the club newsletter then.
Mespo,
I have a profound respect for the law and I respect many lawyers; however, I most often do not comprehend either.
rafflaw:
Where’ve you been?
FFLeo:
“Often, the courts are not there to argue the legitimacy or accuracy of facts—especially when deference is involved—but whether or not the legal reasoning is relevant and/or the law was violated.”
**********
Alas, FFLeo you are a keen observer again. The law prefers finality to absolute scientific accuracy. Breathing life into that cliche, “good enough for government work.” And so it is.
Shadow,
There are 5 lawyers, including Professor Turley, who are satisfied that Mr. Obama has met all of the requirements. One lawyer, Bob Esq., appears to prefer a bit more evidence to resolve all the questions. As a non-lawyer, I read all that I could regarding Obama’s birth certificate controversy, I decided I had enough evidence, I voted, although I still prefer Mr. Obama’s full submission of all the evidence to quash any speculation completely and unequivocally.
In science, all evidence, especially that which is contrary to a supposed or assumed position is critical to consider and all facts must be open to refutation. That *same* standard does not apply to the law. I have often been perplexed with legal issues when scientific facts I submitted to legal teams did not matter in a legal case (factual v. legal case). Often, the courts are not there to argue the legitimacy or accuracy of facts—especially when deference is involved—but whether or not the legal reasoning is relevant and/or the law was violated. The lawyers here can phrase that last sentence much better than I just did.
Aye, good show all.
I go away for a couple of days and find out on my return that the “Obama is not a citizen” nonsense is still being put forth as if it is fact. Shadow, since the Supremes have already decided this issue, you might as well say your were wrong now.
Mespo and the rest, good work.
We’ve come to an end here, then. I find that to be OK.
The question is, when something comes out, will you be here to say you’re sorry?
If I’m wrong I’ll return and say if I was wrong.
Patty C:
I am thinking jaw breakers or salt-water taffy or maybe just biting down on a bullet! Jujubes make sense too as we while away the time listening to the crickets chirp.
‘Even more than the fool who is certain, I love the bigger one who, having his logical errors exposed, declares victory with the smug but invariably incorrect dismissal line, “End of story.”…
—
mespo, jujubes…?
Bron98:
Thank you for the compliment — either way it seems.
Not my favorite work, but on the topic of the “Rubaiyat,” I am sure you know that FitzGerald translated these quatrains several times with slightly different syntax and arrangement in each of the five editions he created. The original work from great mathematician Khayyam was quite nihilistic and fatalistic, and since it was sure to offend the devout Muslims of his day, was penned anonymously. Khayyam it seems was both brilliant and prudent. The thrust of his work was the fragility of human life, and the inevitability of death. Khayyam seems to be dealing with the same topic as Dylan Thomas in his classic work depicting rage against death.
Compare, however, Thomas’ obstinacy:
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
with Khayyam’s resignation:
XXIV
Ah, make the most of what we yet may spend,
Before we too into the Dust descend;
Dust into Dust, and under Dust to lie
Sans Wine, sans Song, sans Singer, and–sans End!
XXV
Alike for those who for To-day prepare,
And those that after some To-morrow stare,
A Muezzin from the Tower of Darkness cries
“Fools! your Reward is neither Here nor There.”
At least some are lurking and see the validity of my points.
It is true that until I have undeniable proof, people won’t be persuaded. Patty, I don’t blame you. I personally believe that not showing is unreasonable. I know others want the ultimate in smoking gun. I believe they will get it because I cannot answer the question of why the President will not show. If he’s legit he has nothing to lose and guys like Berg will go away, as they’ve said. Sit back and as Terrell Owens says, “Get your popcorn READDDDDDDDDDDY!” The ride is just beginning.
Bron,
I read what I posted and it is clear to me. Acquiring citizenship has different guidelines that have to do with the citizenship of the parent and grandparents. On Aug 4, 1961 the law is that for a birth in which ONE PARENT is a citizen, said parent needs to be 5 years citizen after age 14. SA Dunham does not meet this and therefore she does NOT transmit NBC status to her son, Barack Obama. That is why his place of birth is critical … and in question.
‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I am still waiting for Shadow’s.’
—–
Popcorn…?
Shadow:
I take that back about Mespo being polite, but he still has a wonderful way with words and now I know he dosent suffer fools very well.
Shadow:
I think the owner of this blog is against DC statehood too.
Ok but what does it say about the mother being born in the US? it sounds to me as if they are talking about a mother that came from another country say at the age of 10 so then she would have to reside in the US from her 14th birthday to her 19th and that makes sense to me, it establishes some credibility, but someone whose parents are born here, I think there grandchild is a citizen. I think you are reading this wrong.
Shadow:
Even more than the fool who is certain, I love the bigger one who, having his logical errors exposed, declares victory with the smug but invariably incorrect dismissal line, “End of story.” Did you work for the Bush White House?