If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

Welcome Back!


Are today's military members loyal to the Constitution of the United States, or has it become all about a paycheck?

contributed by Joe E. Sheldon

From: Joe E. Sheldon
To: daniel.driscoll@amedd.army.mil
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 9:58 AM
Subject: Your recent ruling memorandum on the defense’s evidence/witness request.

The first thing to recognize is that you swore an oath to support and defend the United States Constitution in your military capacity.

By proffering your ruling in the subject memorandum, you have, very simply, broken that oath.  Please re-read the United States Constitution since you seem not to have done so recently – if at all.   Especially pertinent is Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 ,which specifies, using mandatory language, that to be President a person must among other things be a “natural borm Citizen” of this country.

Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor anyone else has shown that the man meets that requirement (setting aside the other two in the Article).  He has never shown himself to be eligible to hold the office he now occupies.  The man is putatively your Commander-in-Chief and certainly, that means if he is not legally that, then your actions in helping to shield him grossly violate the black letter law of our country, as does his promulgation of orders, funding, etc. for all of the military – you included.  His waging of war (whether declared or undeclared) is not valid if he is not legally eligible to hold the office, and much of that sort of reasoning, along with the pretense of underlings such as you in carrying out all orders from on high without question, is what the Nuremberg Trials were all about after World War II.  Perhaps you are too young to remember those, but I am not.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 32 Investigation, paragraph 1, reads:

“(a) No charge or specification may be referred to a general court-martial for trial until a through and impartial investigation of all the matters set forth therein has been made. This investigation shall include inquiry as to the truth of the matter set forth in the charges, consideration of the form of charges, and recommendation as to the disposition which should be made of the case in the interest of justice and discipline.”

Paragraphs 5 and 6 in your memorandum are patent nonsense.

In paragraph 5, you speak of “facially proper” orders given to the defendant as though that were some inarguable justification for your rulings.  It is not, since, as should be obvious to you, the orders given to the defendants at Nuremberg were also “facially proper,” but despite that, several of those being tried were executed.  You should keep that in mind as you seek to violate the mandatory language for Presidential eligibility in the Constitution.  It does not say the man SHOULD BE but rather that he SHALL BE a “natural born Citizen,” which is a particular term of art in that document.  In the military legal proceeding at hand, you are not being asked to prove or disprove the Constitutional eligibility of the putative President, but merely that evidence be gathered and presented to the court on that matter.

For whatever reason (and please do not regurgitate paragraphs 5 and 6, as they are pathetically weak), you have elected to join with the Legislative Branch of the Government in actually attacking the Constitution which you swore an oath to defend.  Not only does that fly in the face of common sense, it is shameful in the extreme.  By advocating the position in your memo, you are not at all neutral but are siding with those who say “the Constitution be damned” while in fact all you are being asked to do is NOT make the sort of Constitutional ruling you presume to with your ruling.  The Supreme Court might do so, but the military certainly cannot.  Your position should be to help gather the evidence and witnesses rather than to help the Legislative Branch hide them…and as a result of your ruling, you join in that very refutation and usurpation of the law of this country that is higher than any military court, whether you believe that or not!

Your “odd” statement in paragraph 6 making a unilateral (and erroneous) ruling on the role Congress may or may not play in any eligibility determination is paltry indeed and quite transparent as to its intent.  Obama has been sued prior to his (presumably) legally becoming President since he had never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold that office.  Your pretense that somehow Congress could impeach a person ineligible to hold the office is completely off the mark if, indeed, he is not legally eligible to hold that office.  As a military man, you are rightfully not required – or allowed, for that matter – to make such Judicial determination as those which will eventually be done by the Supreme Court.  Your paragraph 6 is merely another shameful and misguided attempt to justify your grossly inequitable ruling.

Instead you should allow the presentation of the documents and witnesses the defense requests so that a full and legally complete (from a military standpoint) court record may be discerned.  If Mr. Obama can show his Constitutional eligibility, that’s fine.  If he cannot, that’s fine, too.  In either event you will have done your proper job and will not have violated the oath to the Constitution that you swore …which you are now in serious jeopardy of doing.

Please rethink and revise your ruling!

Joe E. Sheldon, citizen

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

    1. REPEAT

      So then if I have this right, some official or non-official papers were “Filed”
      with the DOH to register a Hawaiian birth in Honolulu by a relative of BHO.
      Those papers were deemed not complete enough to generate an official
      long form Hawaiian Birth Certificate and the online COLB shows this “Filed”
      status, never “Accepted” as other COLB’s indicate.

      So there is a true long form BC, but it is NOT Hawaiian

    2. It will be interesting to know if this clerk has or knows of evidence that would support his “professional opinion”. Seems to me that he would be someone to call as a witness in an eligibility lawsuit.

  1. All a dog and pony show to obfuscate the truth. Lakin’s lawyer is certainly not acting in the interest of the USC since he does not address the Dual citizenship at birth issue, and falls into the BC trap (puposefully). The question is, is Lakin part of it or just a dupe?

  2. Who is Lakin’s JAG lawyer? We should all be sending letters to him as well for his part in not properly defending our Constitution. He should come up with the scholarly argument the Judge wants. They are all corrupt.

  3. This is a well-written and very thoughtful letter, but I wonder NOW how much good it will do since Paul Jensen, one of Lt. Co. Lakin’s supposedly very competent lawyers, has been so unsuccessful in gaining the needed “discovery” so far.

    In April, I posted this description of Jensen on my http://einhornpress.com/ObamaVersusLakinBirthCertificateNews.aspx page:

    TPMMuckracker reported on April 26, 2010 that Roger Stone, a friend and sometimes client of Jensen’s, wrote in an email that “Jensen is a bulldog. A true student of the law. A brilliant litigator. Not adverse to high profile cases and high risk legal strategies,” and “He understands public relations and the damage this case can do to Obama. Won’t be adverse to trying to call Obama for testimony.”

    Paul Jensen should be able to successfully handle Lt. Col. Lakin’s court-martial since he worked in the chambers of the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces as a law clerk to the late Chief Judge Robinson O. Everett.


  4. Great letter, Mr. Sheldon! I think we all need to remember that it was the last straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back. Americans who care deeply about this country will continue working to expose the travesty called Barack Obama, thug, community organizer/agitator, liar, thief, coward, empty suit, marxist-lover, and enemy enabler against the United States of America.

    The PostEmail is on the front lines in this fight and I do believe there is a new smell in the air rising up through the stench of the Democrats and RINOs in Congress and the office of the usurper–it smells like freedom being exhaled from the heart and souls of millions of Americans as they rise up in anger and renewed patriotic fervor all across this land.

    LtCol Driscoll will have to choose which side he will be on. If he chooses unwisely, he will indeed rue the day, because history will not vindicate him or any of the others who have been actively and vociferously “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness”.

    God, give us truth, light, and strength for this battle until victory is won!

  5. Use Obama’s own website “Fight the Smears” against him. On his website he has it posted, “The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.” The site does not say anywhere that he is a Natural Born Citizen, which is required!

  6. A very good letter Mr. Joe E. Sheldon! I hope that Driscoll has received many, like yours, by now and is rethinking his decision. We are just 3 days to the court martial and need a miracle to keep Lt Col Lakin from spending years of his life behind bars when it should be the ‘usurper’ POTUS serving time for fraud and treason.

  7. Here is my email I sent to Daniel Driscoll:

    Dear LTC. Driscoll,

    Regardless of where you or the Army stand on the issue of Barack Obama’s eligiblity and Lt Col. Terry Lakin’s actions, I want to convey to you some very elegant words of wisdom which I hope you and the Army will take to heart. I will not attempt to argue the issue with you or try to justify Lakin’s actions, although I am sure you are receiving numerous emails about the issue. I will simply leave you with these fine words:

    “Let me remind you, it’s not good for the country. It’s not good for the country, if he is qualified to be POTUS, that these rumors swirl. And if he is not, it’s not good for the country that he is Commander In Chief.” – Judge David O. Carter, Federal District Court of California.

    I hope you will consider these words when deciding what to do regarding Lt. Col. Terry Lakin’s actions.

  8. Great letter, Mr. Sheldon, unfortunately Driscoll is not interested in the Constitution and is a BO lunatic as proven by his ruling. He is so perverse that nothing said or proven will stay him from his fatal course. Good riddance to trash.
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: It never hurts to try.

  9. The Election Process Revisited
    By Neal Avaliktos published 2004

    Natural Born Citizen……Most constitutional scholars interpret this language as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the “natural born” requirement.

    Note that this is a 2004 interpretation of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN that is printed on page 193 of his book, also note that he says “parents who are U.S. citizens” not “one parent” or “a parent” but “PARENTS”! Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen!

    Now the part about “outside the United States” is still subject to debate for some. That is not the point here though. The point here is that this is a 2004 acknowledgment that the Founding Fathers wanted a presidential candidate to be the offspring of a mother and father who are both U.S. citizens which goes to further prove that Obama is the ILLEGAL PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

    1. Obama indeed fails the two-parent US citizen half of the natural born citizen equation, but the issue of foreign-born children to US citizens is most certainly part of the point, as it concerns the other half of the equation (born on US soil).

      Foreign-born children of US citizens are US citizens by federal statute. A natural born citizen is a US citizen by the laws of nature and not of man (such as a statute).

      Furthermore, foreign-born children of US citizens are often born subject to the foreign country of their birth, due to the laws of the foreign country. The US has such laws — a child born in our country to foreigners is a US citizen at birth, and so we have no basis upon which to ignore these same types of laws in foreign countries.

      The US citizenship at birth of a natural born citizen is self-evident to all by the laws of nature, and the allegiance at birth of a natural born citizen is exclusively to that of the US. These are the types of citizens our Founding Fathers envisioned for future Presidents.