Deja vu all over again.
Posted on 08/28/2009 8:21:55 PM PDT by rxsid
New Law suit filed in the Western District of Texas. Flight Surgeon Cpt Connie Rhodes, MD refuses to be deployed to Iraq until Obama’s legitimacy for the position of the Commander in Chief is verified Orly Taitz, Esq
Attorney & Counselor at Law
26302 La Paz ste 211
[snip]
(Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice
U.S.D.C. Western District of Texas
Submitted August 28, 2009)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Western district of Texas
CPT Connie Rhodes MD,
Plaintiff,
v.
Dr ROBERT GATES, UNITED
STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, de facto
PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES,
Defendants.
APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Plaintiff Captain Dr. Connie Rhodes has received what appear to be facially valid orders mobilizing her to active duty with the United States Army in Iraq on September 5th, 2009 (Exhibit A). Captain Rhodes is both a US army officer and a medical doctor, a flight surgeon. On May 15th of this year 501 brigade out of Fort Campbell, KY, currently stationed in Iraq, has requested a support of medical personal in Iraq. Two days ago, August the 23rd, an order was given through the chain of command via e-mail for Captain Rhodes to arrive in San Antonio TX, Fort Sam Houston for Tactical Combat Medical Care Course (TCMC) to be held from August 30th till September 4t and next day, on September the 5th to arrive in Fort Benning in Columbus GA for immediate deployment to Iraq for a period of one year and twelve days from September 5th, 2009 until September 17th 2010. Captain Dr. Connie Rhodes wants to serve her country and fulfill her tour of duty, however as a US army officer and a medical doctor she has severe reservations regarding legitimacy of Barack Obama as the Commander in Chief and repercussions of her service under his orders, particularly in light of mounting evidence of him having allegiance to other Nations and citizenship of Kenya, Indonesia and Great Britain.
...
Continued: "http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=4038"
1)Barry was born to a foreign national father who had no perminant attachment to this country.
2)Bary was born with British citizenship via his father's British citizenship...no matter where he was born.
3)Assuming birth in HI, he was BORN with dual citizenship (i.e. potential for divided loyalties).
4)There is no known record of him renouncing his born with British citizenship.
5)Therefore, unless he prooves otherwise, he remains a British citizen today (& possibly a U.S. citizen. TBD).
So, she ask’s the military court...does our Constitution allow for the Commander in Chief to be a British citizen or...possibly a dual citizen?
They can waive the “prima facia” short form HI colb all they want. Question is, “HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN?” “
To address your points one at a time:
“1)Barry was born to a foreign national father who had no perminant attachment to this country.”
Yes, but his father's status does not determine American citizenship, birth location and/or mother's citizenship determine it.
“2)Bary was born with British citizenship via his father's British citizenship...no matter where he was born.”
True, but under US law that no longer effects his US citizenship. The US laws that took an American’s US citizenship away because of foreign nationality have been thrown out as unconstitutional. This is because a right created by the constitution (citizenship) was being taken without due process of law. People were losing their citizenship by administrative action, not conviction in court and that is unconstitutional.
“3)Assuming birth in HI, he was BORN with dual citizenship (i.e. potential for divided loyalties).”
If he was born in Hawaii, then he had citizenship from birth. Any foreign citizenship he may have had is not legally relevant. Foreign law cannot deprive an American of his birthright.
“4)There is no known record of him renouncing his born with British citizenship.”
He never needed to, it was taken automatically by Act of Parliament. (see below)
“5)Therefore, unless he prooves otherwise, he remains a British citizen today (& possibly a U.S. citizen. TBD).”
Incorrect.
If born in Hawaii, then Obama has US citizenship by the 14th amendment, this citizenship is a birthright that can only be taken by two methods, 1) an explicit renunciation (it MUST be explicit not implicit), or 2) conviction of Treason (if allowed by law, I'm not sure of the status today)
Separate from his US Citizenship, he did have British Citizenship per the British Nationality Act of 1948. However he lost that citizenship in 1963. The timeline of Obama’s UK citizenship is roughly as follows:
1961 Obama born, acquires UK citizenship
1963 Constitution of Kenya, Obama gains Kenyan citizenship
1963 Per the Kenyan Independence Act, citizens of Kenya lose their UK Citizenship. They retain an amorphous status of “British Subject”.
1981 British Nationality Act of 1981 abolishes the status of “British Subject” replaced with the even more amorphous status of “Commonwealth Citizen” which is only used for certain issues related The Commonwealth.
1982 Per Kenyan law, because Obama does not explicitly renounce his US citizenship, he automatically loses his Kenyan citizenship and his status as a Commonwealth Citizen
As of 1982, the only citizenship Obama has is US citizenship (There are rumors he may have gotten Indonesian citizenship, but like UK citizenship that would not have effected his US citizenship. To answer your tag line: "HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?"
It can't. The only factor in determining his natural born status is his US citizenship. The actions of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, or the Parliament of Kenya can never deprive an American of his birthright. Any foreign citizenships he may have held have no meaning in US law.
Pingin’ my General Interest and Texas Lists here
cuz I thought you’d wanna know. :)
Ping! Ping! Ping!
Oddly enough, “Connie Rhodes” types into Google News doesn’t yeild even ONE result. Eric Schmidt better change his company motto “Don’t Be Evil” to “It’s ok to be evil if you are blindly serving the prescribed liberal line - check with Rham first.”
Deja vu all over again.
Oddly enough, “Connie Rhodes” types into Google News doesn’t yeild even ONE result. Eric Schmidt better change his company motto “Don’t Be Evil” to “It’s ok to be evil if you are blindly serving the prescribed liberal line - check with Rham first.”
Your last line is a killer./Just Asking - seoul62.......
If I remember my 3rd grade civics classes correctly, and I know I do, the Constitution is the law of the land and supersedes any laws where there is a conflict.
To say “that’s not how it works” is ridiculous - show me where in the Constitution an Article exists that states any person can hold office of POTUS without pre-conditions. If that was the case there would be no need to include provisions to remove a person who does not qualify.
The very opposite of that is the case. The qualifications to be elected POTUSA are clearly defined as are the provisions t be taken if a person fails to do so.
We see judges fail to follow the Constitution, that it happens does not mean the judge is correct, what it does mean is that they are not following the very document they take an oath to uphold.
The point that others are trying to make is:
1. The MSM is in the tank for BO and have twisted the issue in his favor.
2. There are four different actions that can produce the “fake” document BO put on line.
One even involves being born out of the country.
This may help you get up to speed:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2275574/posts
There are other links if you are truly interested in truth and not just disruption of the threads. IOW be a help or get out of the way.
I guess the good doctor takes her oath to serve and protect our constitution seriously.
Yessiree! I’d say so!
Mornin’, Grampa! :^D
Obama has a document that is prima fascia evidence of his birth in HI.
Is he going to show it online?
But if they keep on revoking orders, the word is going to get out that if you don’t want to be deployed, just file a BC demand. I don’t see how they can keep revoking without serious consequences.
Then maybe he should just prove his citizenship in a clear, indisputable way, even if he doesn’t have to. Isn’t that what a leader should do? What is most effective?
***prima fascia evidence ***
Sounds like lawyer-talk.
Just exactly what is this “prima fascia” evidence of which you speak?
5.56mm
Thanks for the ping!
Hypothetically, And I'm speaking hypothetically here, what would be your conclusion if he does rescind the order?
Just who would have "standing"?
.
Dr. Orly has put her life’s blood into this fight. SHE HAS MADE DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE A PERSONAL AMBITION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONSTITUTION LEADERSHIP FROM COWARDLY REPUBLICANS AND THE SCOTUS.
Dr. Orly is the ONLY one out there in the trenches EVERY day hitting Obama on multiple fronts and trying to bring him down. It is reported that she is more than $8,000 in debt from using her own funds for expenses in her flights across the U.S for interviews, speeches, serving papers and meeting with officials.
She has even gone to Isreal and Russia to spread the message about Obama’s inelgibility!
She states the case expertly, including the bc and natural born citizen aspect, when not abused by the U.S. state-controlled media. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132880
God bless this American patriot and keep her safe.
“of course, one will be provided for her to shepherd her through the Article 32 investigation and beyond, but that JAG won’t help”
Maybe thin skin on my part, but I’d change that to “that JAG CAN’T help” in the civil action. My experience with Trial Defense Services (maybe a new name now) is that they’re very good, and very independent. As a former USAF Area Defense Counsel and Circuit Defense Counsel, I can attest that we were GLEEFULLY independent - and probably took a little more perverse pleasure in jacking the command chain around (appropriately) than we should have!
On substantive issues for this doc, I agree that she’s exposed to a number of UCMJ charges and specs, which will likely prevail at the trial court level if it goes that far. A good defense counsel will file an appropriate, and fully researched, motion to dismiss, but the judge won’t grant it in the 39a, he or she will let the appeals court deal with it. As is appropriate, if it’s going to have any precedential value.
From the morale/good order and discipline angle, I’m not sure how helpful it’ll be for those in the AOR already.
Colonel, USAFR
It's far more insidious than that.
If it is established that anyone can get out of a deployment merely by suing, then the assumption the the subsequent war crimes trials will be that anyone who went knew that the orders they were following were illegal.
The poor bastards won't even have the fig-leaf of "I was just following lawful orders".
Ah well, that didn't work in Nuremberg either. (Oddly they were following a foreign-born leader that time too)...
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.