Posted on 09/14/2009 1:33:00 PM PDT by SvenMagnussen
During a hearing in U.S. District Court Monday, an attorney for an Army officer fighting deployment to Iraq questioned Barack Obama’s legal right to serve as president, asserting he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii.
Judge Clay Land, inquisitive throughout the 90-minute hearing, said he will issue a decision on Capt. Connie Rhodes’ request for a temporary restraining order by noon Wednesday.
Rhodes was represented by Orly Taitz, a California lawyer and a national figure in the “birther” movement that claims Obama does not meet the qualifications to be president.
California attorney Orly Taitz, the president of the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, stands on the steps of the Columbus federal courthouse Friday with what she claims is a copy of a birth certificate for President Barack Obama from Mombass, British Protectorate of Kenya.
Maj. Rebecca Ausprung, with the Department of the Army, Litigation Division in Washington, told Land this case was about Rhodes, not Obama.
“There was a lack of any reference to Capt. Rhodes,” Ausprung said. “This case is about Capt. Rhodes and her deployment.”
Taitz kept going back to Obama’s birth certificate. Twice she called Obama a “usurper.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ledger-enquirer.com ...
Why would I want to lie?
I do, but in the end what you and I believe is irrelevant. It's what the judge believes, and he doesn't seem impressed with Orly's arguments.
Thanks for the ping, Lucy.
My big problem with this whole thing, and the judge’s statements in particular is that for every job, license, identification, security check, or proof of eligibility for various professional capacities we have in our country, the only one that seems to have shifted burden of proof on the investigators and not the investigated is the office of President as it pertains specifically to one Barack Hussein Obama. They changed the rules just for him.
Doubtful. None of the plaintiffs in earlier cases have.
You seem to love seeing obama getting away with thumbing his noes at the Constitution.
.... to #58.
No, I love seeing the law upheld.
Would you be a lawyer by chance?
No, but I know quite a few people who are.
And which law, chinslurp, did Obama follow when he proved himself legitimately qualified for CIC?
I have wondered about discovery and burden for while and I cannot think of any way to compel Barry O. for proof.
Would attacking the COLB as a fraud give cause?
I forgot the fellow and he seemed interesting, if you recall can you include him in this discussion?
Not like your posts are - irrelevant.
I repeat again for you from my post at #39:
"The Afghanistan or the Iraq deployment order came from the Secretary of Defense who works in the Executive Branch of government. The SECDEF works for Obama at his pleasure. It’s the same as if Obama gave her the order."
This particular order, deployment order, to go to war does comes from Obama himself.
For your edification. Here is what her chain of command in descending order possibly looks like... it comes close:
Obama
SECDEF
CINC USCENTCOM
USFOR-A
Corp Commander
Division Commander
Brigade Commander
Battalion Commander
Unit Commander
Immediate supervisor
But in your case, it would be the truth - you defend Obama with obfuscation and anything else that you can get away with.
Bump Dat...
Thanks.
You are not funny.
Hasn’t precedent already been set by the Army(?not sure which branch it was) already rescinding another soldiers orders based on the same complaint?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.