Forum Post: How Does A Soldier Defend The Constitution From A Domestic Enemy? (Inspired by Shamar Thomas and MIchael Ruppert)

Article 5 convention NOW!

After viewing the "Shamar Thomas speaks to NYPD video",

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmEHcOc0Sys

Then seeing another by Michael Rupert regarding, Shamar Thomas, warriors, honor and right, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUKeZLeGTDk&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL13AA7ADC3EB2E934

I realized that the soldiers oath and constitutional intent were hand in hand with the citizens allegiance and the use of article V to defend the constitution. A perspective a soldier might have is seen in the "Soldiers Inquiry".

Another is seen in a 4.5 minute video with article 5 strategy and the constitutional position a citizen might have regarding the ultimate constitutionality of the "Soldiers Inquiry".

http://vimeo.com/33945510

The below is a draft needing substantial revision no doubt, but the constitutional concepts are sound. This is the realm of the citizen using simple reason. If the republic stands for "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", is it logical the only way a soldier can defend the constitution is to start shooting? No, that cannot ever be constitutional.

I've listened to a few soldiers talk on this matter, most shake their head and look to the ground, then say there's nothing that can be done. I am a citizen and I understand the constitution, I also understand the structure of legal pleadings some. If something like seeing that a soldier has a legal method to defend the constitution or at least formally and competently inquire if there is a need must be created; and the fact that the UCMJ basically does have laws for that, just as US code has it for citizens and soldiers; use of all those laws needs to be done to defend the constitution immediately.

Of course anyone who has legal experience might have useful input but I'm mostly interested in the soldiers and veterans thoughts, particularly since congress has been in violation of the constitution for 100 years by failing to call an article 5 convention.

There is an aspect of social fear when it comes to unifying for actual change in both the civilian world and the military, and it is not constitutional to allow any of it to impair defense of the constitution.

SOLDIERS APPLICATION FOR ORDER OF INQUIRY INTO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CIVIL AUTHORITY; STATUS ESTABLISHMENT OF LAWFUL MILITARY AUTHORITY.

This Soldier, acts in obedience of the mandate of the soldiers oath, dutifully to defend the constitution for the United States of America from enemies domestic and foreign in suppression of sedition by legal means to primarily expose then suppress said sedition and to avoid any chance of violation or compromise to the intent of articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, ARTICLE 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION, 10. Punitive Articles, (a) Any person subject to this chapter who– (3) Failure to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition. (4) Failure to report a mutiny or sedition. Failure to "take all reasonable means to inform" and seeks venue in the Military justice system for binding, legal inquiry regarding what must be violations of,

ARTICLE 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION

1. Punitive Articles (a) Any person subject to this chapter who– (1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority

This Soldier States on common knowledge that beginning September 11, 2001, an event after great public deliberation showing to large numbers of citizens, substantial likelihood to be an act of sedition disguised as a terrorist attack, an allegation evidenced to them by the many officially unexplained inconsistencies of common knowledge, following a questionable presidential election in the year 2000, collectively as a part of a much broader basis of evidence than what is stated herein; this soldier can evidence as public common knowledge, and seeks opportunity to present and satisfy with justice such evidence; as citizens hold in confidence as proof of attack upon the constitution; and the oath taken, to satisfy ARTICLE 94, 10.-(a)(3), as a soldier with justification for this application for military inquiry, under the authority and jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The chain of command this soldier would normally respect without question, is now questioned at the civil level in defense of the constitution to assure lawful military authority. It is shown in common knowledge, and logical that in the case of murder of 2,970 innocent people, that The United States of America suffered a prime obstruction of justice from enemies within, as yet not fully defined but responsible for events well evidenced. These crimes saw intentional deprivation of constitutional due process by unknown and unidentified agents of sedition at the top of the chain of civil command over the United States Military and perhaps influencing the military chain of command compromising its lawful status. This United States Soldier knows and can evidence these acts must include violations of

ARTICLE 106a. ESPIONAGE (a) (1) Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, ........... (3) A thing referred to in paragraph (1) is a document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, a violation of 18 USC CHAPTER 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, 1506. Theft or alteration of record, 1510. Obstruction of criminal investigations into sedition; or the creation of violence; concealed by misprision of treason; the usurping and overriding of civil authority that ordinarily provides constitutional civil authorization of lawful military authority in command of this Soldier.

Other recent unconstitutional actions of courts relating to the constitutionality of civil authority indicate that civil judiciary as well as military can be unduly influenced by seditious behaviors and have failed to follow United States Codes to expose sedition and treason compromising the factual constitutionality of civil government.

Under the priority of a Soldier; and that of democratic control over the republic under the constitution I have taken oath to defend; with consideration that constitutional scholars of the public agree that congress has intentionally mis interpreted article V of the United States Constitution numerous times, indicating reasonably to this Soldier, a "pattern and practice" of defiance of their oaths of office, which are taken "without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;", showing obvious evasion to this soldier, establishing to a reasonable degree that the chain of command is not under the constitution and compromising the lawful status of military authority in command of this Soldier. Therefore, in pursuit of duty and service to my oath in loyalty to my constitution, I declare with all conscience and will as a soldier under oath with respect to law of civilian jurisdiction, as well as this application under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, that this United States of America Military Division _ , in order to remain acting "in defense of the constitution" with absolute certainty, must take legal action within the MIlitary Justice System, upwards in command, to civilian levels, to intervene to defend the constitution and citizens rights under it found through their states. The loud and desperate pleading of a damaged and threatened citizenry; and it is shown that their right to free speech is abridged; compel this soldier who acts with all intent of assuring the status of "lawful military authority" in defense of the constitution, invoking the constitution for its own defense, with its own intent, at this initial level, through reasonable and logical uses of the military justice system to inquire and establish itself as a lawful military authority under a constitutional civil authority, with inquiry, and if that constitutionally cannot be fully satisfied to relieve in aid of the peoples efforts at petition and redress; then compel congress to immediately begin to convene a convention to propose amendments by the legislatures of the states as the constitution defines a duty of congress. This soldier takes this action, pursuant to the intent of the oath taken, to assure a restoration of a constitutional congress and civil authority who can then authorize lawful military authority status in command of this and all Soldiers.

This request is not be taken as a refusal to follow orders. Orders that tend to impede, intercept, defeat or oppose this soldiers effort to defend the constitution will be noted as such and freely shared with citizens in furthering their defense of the constitution as well as that of all United States soldiers. Any undue harassment or prejudice towards this soldier for pursuing performance consistent with the oath taken will be noted and proper authority, civil or otherwise will be advised.

Respectfully submitted

A page that will be updated, . . . if I can get an Americans with legal knowledge or opinion to communicate on this matter to refine the above draft.

http://algoxy.com/ows/soldiersinquiry.html