Cpt Connie Rhodes, MD refuses deployment to Iraq until Obama’s legitimacy for CinC is verified

U.S.D.C. Western District of Texas ^ | 8/28/2009 | rxsid

[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"

[null and void]

Oddly enough, “Connie Rhodes” types into Google News doesn’t yield even ONE result.

I haven't used google for any serious search since July 2008.

In mid-July 2008 I watched in horror as google "disappeared" over half a million hits on image searches for "Obama birth certificate". The remaining images were birthday cakes, bowls of bananas, silver certificates, stock certificates, pictures of Obama, birth certificates from random states of random individuals and pretty much anything but an Obama birth certificate.

[OldDeckHand]

"No, young man, this is a court of Law, where law is applied, sometime we achieve justice, but out goal is to follow the law. "

Bingo.

[OldDeckHand]

"What expertise does Dr Fukino have to declare anyone a natural born citizen ?"

None. She added an unfounded and gratuitous sentence to her statement. But, that doesn't negate the other relative facts she publicly testified for and about.

Again, I was answering a hypothetical about what would happen if the case is heard on the merits. Presuming that Obama has his hands on a physical copy of this Hawaiian issued Certification of Live Birth, and this Dr Fukino would affirm what's she's already stated either through an affidavit or sworn personal testimony, that alone would be a very high mountain for a plaintiff to overcome.

[null and void]

For crying out loud, can’t the man simply show the public his birth certificate?

No.

Obama's Birth Certificate a "serious embarrassment"

[fabian]

yes, and this fraud and big government weirdo has awakened a sleeping giant! Time to wake up William...time to wake up...as in Braveheart when the lady in his vision spoke to him.

[hoosiermama]

If you'd been around here for a while you would know that there are several freepers who have distinguished careers in the law that have given legal opinions for years.....But since you've only been here since June, it's apparent you haven't met them yet.

We've had a large group of legal eagles (including my father who graduated at the top of his class, clerked in the federal court, and practiced law for over fifty years.

We also have successful private investigators, excellent legal researchers working on this for almost eighteen months. Some have located the documentation we now have pointing to questions regarding BO’s eligibility.

You joined on June 24th this year.....You can either get up to date on the material they have already presented and then join in with the discussion or act like a “know it all jerk” and disrupt the threads which is what people have been trying tell you your acting like. The choice is yours.

As to my abilities....are you qualified for Mensa? I am.

[bitt]

“Plaintiff has no substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiff presents nothing but conjecture and subjective belief to substantiate the basis for her claims, citing, for example, “opinion” and “doubt.” See, e.g., Application for TRO” 9, 20. Given that the underlying bases for Plaintiffs claim cannot succeed on the merits, there is no irreparable injury that Plaintiff can suffer. A review of Plaintiffs verified complaint shows that it presents speculation and vague claims that fail to rise to the requirement that it present “specific facts ... [to] clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result ....” See FED. R. Cry. P. 65(b). As an officer of the United States armed services, Plaintiff is aware that she could receive orders to compel her attendance to fulfill her military duties. Rhodes has received such orders, which are commensurate with the orders issued by commanding officers. Consequently, there is no irreparable injury for this Court to evaluate. Finally, Plaintiff presents no compelling argument that the issuance of a temporary restraining order would serve the public interest.”
Conclusion
Plaintiffs application for a temporary restraining order is hereby DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this 28th day ofAugust, 2009.

[fabian]

wake up William...wake up...it’s time. Anyone need help waking up to this fight...go to fhu.com for the be still free download. It will show you the silent prayer that Jesus used. We need great strength now and it is not of ourselves.

[null and void]

EDINVA ~ but it’s an ALL VOLUNTEER Army.

null and void ~ LOL!

wow, just wow.

EDINVA ~ har har dee har har

So name me one person in today’s Army who was drafted, conscrpted or had a gun held to his/her head to sign up.

Anyone else want to dignify that with an answer?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Enterprise]

I’m not surprised.

[Sibre Fan]

“Presuming that Obama has his hands on a physical copy of this Hawaiian issued Certification of Live Birth, and this Dr Fukino would affirm what’s she’s already stated either through an affidavit or sworn personal testimony, that alone would be a very high mountain for a plaintiff to overcome.”

---

Agreed. Under Federal Rules of Evidence 901 and 902, IF he presented an “original” certified/stamped copy of the COLB and IF Fukino, or someone else at the DOH responsible for records filed an affidavit stating that that document was generated under standard DOH procedures, that would be a very high mountain - as in Everest-like mountain - to overcome.

[OldDeckHand]

"There are circumstances where "Pick up that trash." is an unlawful order. "

Unlawful to give or unlawful to follow? Your presuming that whomever was the subject of the order is well-versed in laws of evidence and that that subject was cognizant that he was destroying evidence - a tremendous leap.

If whomever gave that order was complicit in the crime and was attempting to intentionally conceal or destroy evidence of that crime, then the ISSUE of the order would be illegal, but not the order itself, per se. In other words, the issuer would be in criminal peril for issuing the order, but the follower wouldn't be in peril unless he reasonably should have been aware that he was destroying evidence or abetting after the fact. Big difference.

Unlawful orders are orders that either plainly violate civilian federal or state laws or violate the rules of war, which are spelled in a number of places and that all uniformed combatants are legally briefed on at least once a year - that briefing is recorded in their SRB, just in case they would ever be charged with a war crime, that can't plead ignorance.

[null and void]

Just FYI...

It’s Lieutenant Quarles Harris Jr.

Lieutenant is his first name, not a rank...

[rxsid]

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.

I never said his father's status would determine his American citizenship...did I? No. The British nationality act of 1948 gave Barry his British citizenship. There is no U.S. law can negate the British and their law on that, other than if Barry were to go through the Naturalization process.

“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.

Other than Naturalization, US law can not strip foreign citizenship from a person. Therefore, his born with British citizenship is his and his alone to renounce (which it appears he hasn't done).

“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.

Your making my case for me. As I stated, the US can not strip someone of their foreign citizenship (and vice versa). You mention that he had (American) "citizenship" at birth. This, of course, assumes birth in HI in this case. That's yet to be proven. So far, there's only the allegation he was. Let's assume (as I did in my original post) that he was born in HI. Yes, he would then have American citizenship by way of his mother and place of birth and British citizenship by way of his father. A dual citizen.

“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)

Not true. There are two way's he could loose is born with British citizenship. 1) Become Naturalized in the U.S. or 2) a British law that takes his British citizenship away from him. Please provide the British law that stripped Barry of his British citizenship.

“5)Therefore, unless he prooves otherwise, he remains a British citizen today (& possibly a U.S. citizen. TBD).”

Incorrect.

Actually, your incorrect. Again, provide evidence that he's been Naturalized in the U.S. or the British law that stripped him of that British citizenship.

You go on to say: "1963 Per the Kenyan Independence Act, citizens of Kenya lose their UK Citizenship. "

In effect, what your saying here is that the British can't strip US citizenship from someone (true) and I've equally said that the US can't strip British citizenship from someone (true, unless Naturalization) and then you saying that somehow, Kenya has the all powerful ability to strip British citizenship from someone. That, of course, isn't possible. The government of Kenya and it's Constitution has no such power.

The facts remain. He was born with British citizenship (& possibily US Citizenship), there's no record of him renouncing the British citizenship. So, he is either a dual citizen AT BIRTH, or simply a British citizen to date. Therefore, the question remains. Can a Commander in Chief be a dual citizen (either at birth, or while in the office), or...an outright British citizen.

[OldDeckHand]

"You can either get up to date on the material they have already presented and then join in with the discussion or act like a “know it all jerk” and disrupt the threads which is what people have been trying tell you your acting like. The choice is yours."

Lady, respectfully, I don't need to "get up to speed" on the US Manual for Courts-Martial by reading the musings found on a political chat board. It's how I made my living for well over half my life.

This thread is about a female Army officer who's contemplating disobeying a direct order. I've lent my opinion to that discussion. If you have a different opinion on her case, let's here it. But, you can keep your insults to yourself - I'm not biting.

[null and void]

Thanks.

Good answer.

[null and void]

*sigh*

[OldDeckHand]

"So name me one person in today’s Army who was drafted, conscripted or had a gun held to his/her head to sign up."

Oddly enough, the very last conscripted soldier JUST (a month or two ago) retired from active duty. You can probably find his name, as several media outlets ran his story - through a google search.

IIRC, he was conscripted very late in the draft - I don't believe he was a Vietnam Vet (although I could be wrong). After his conscription ended, he continued to reenlist, attaining the rank of Sgt.Maj. - I believe. An interesting story, or so I thought at the time.

[Red Steel]

My only caveat would be that it is a defense to disobedience of a lawful order that the order was not lawful - in fact, that’s one of the elements the prosecution has to prove, and if a proper defense motion was filed, OR the 32 officer (ought to be a JAG, but the Army doesn’t normally do that) had the stones, it might be come an issue at the 32.

Bingo...and that is the heart of the matter. It would be court negligence not to confirm the lawfulness of the order, and more than an embarrassment to the Army and Department of Defense to successfully prosecute this captain only to find out at a later date that Obama had no Constitutional authority. Mr Deckhand will argue that the deployment order did not come from the President but from the Secretary of Defense, but where does and who does the Secretary of Defense work for? That's right, he works in the executive branch of government and at the pleasure of the president.

As of right now, it is a civilian civil court matter and that's probably where it will stay.