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]

Interesting.

I was looking more for something on the lines of not being able to “un-volunteer” once one has volunteered, no matter the change in circumstances.

Sorta like trying to back out of a deal with the Devil.

(OTOH St Teddy signed up for a 4 year stint, but it magically got reduced to 2, after a judicious application of political force)...

[null and void]

I though I had you in the ‘To:’ slot for #221.

Sorry.

[Kevmo]

Just who would have “standing”?
***No one. We’ve been finding that out in this Certifigate scandal. It’s a loophole in our constitution that zer0bama drove a truck and now a presidency through.

[Kevmo]

but the judge won’t grant it in the 39a, he or she will let the appeals court deal with it.
***Same BS, different court system. It looks like zer0bama’s strategy was well planned.

[hoosiermama]

If that is true, then stick to that subject and not make comment on others...It was brought to your attention you ARE not up to date on some of the subject you are posting about....At lease get up to date before you make comments.

I offered to help you get up to date, and you came back defensively, calling names....Therefore I have no regard for any of your opinions...You may or may not be knowlegeable but your attitude has diminished any comment legit or otherwise you have made.

[Sibre Fan]

Just who would have “standing”?
***No one. We’ve been finding that out in this Certifigate scandal. It’s a loophole in our constitution that zer0bama drove a truck and now a presidency through.

---

Not quite.
(a) Before the election, an opposing primary or general election candidate would have standing — at least an opposing candidate with a “realistic chance” of winning (although I think one court said that an obscure 3rd party candidate with no realistic chance of winning had no more standing than the average citizen)

(b) After the election, any representative who attempted to lodge an objection in Congress when counting Electoral votes would have standing.

[Kevmo]

(although I think one court said that an obscure 3rd party candidate with no realistic chance of winning had no more standing than the average citizen)
***That’s Alan Keyes. It doesn’t look like his lawsuit is going anywhere.

(b) After the election, any representative who attempted to lodge an objection in Congress when counting Electoral votes would have standing.
***And that didn’t happen. So zer0bama continues to drive his truck and this presidency through that loophole in the constitution.

[null and void]

Yep. EVEN AN OPPOSING CANDIDATE didn't have "standing"

What right does the court have to decide a priori which candidates can and can't win????

(Note that it's a Chicago newspaper)...

[OldDeckHand]

"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."

I agree that the case gets interesting once it's on appeal. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld proves that there are plenty of JAGs out there that aren't afraid to push the envelope in defense of their clients. I do think, however, irrespective of any unlikely success she might enjoy at the appellate level, I think her Article 86 spec is going to stick like glue even if she prevails in some of her other charges, which is unfortunate as that alone may be enough to cost her medical license.

In answering a prior question that was directed at me, I've taken a little heat with respect to the advice I would have given her. My advice would have been then, and would be now for this young officer to report for duty and to leave the presidential eligibility battle to others don't have quite as much to lose - like her liberty and livelihood.

[Red Steel]

***That’s Alan Keyes. It doesn’t look like his lawsuit is going anywhere.

At least his case will have a motion for discovery hearing on September 8th.

[null and void]

The entire country is not worth a risk to liberty and livelihood?

[jagusafr]

We are in violent agreement on her best course of action: There are a few on this thread who appear to be wanting to put her money where their mouths are.

Colonel, USAFR

[El Gato]

From the morale/good order and discipline angle, I’m not sure how helpful it’ll be for those in the AOR already.

In the short term, it will certainly cause more uncertainly.

But having a potentially ineligible CinC isn't exactly great for moral. Doesn't do much for "good order" if the top of the chain of command is actually empty. It would be much better if issue would be settled, whichever way it comes out. IMHO of course.

[OldDeckHand]

"The entire country is not worth a risk to liberty and livelihood?"

Legal advice is NEVER given based on what's best for the country, but what's best for the client. Anything else, would be gross malpractice. Even in a military court, defense counsel is an advocate for the defendant, not the military, or even the country. I was asked my legal advice would be to such a client. It remains, "report for duty".

[Red Steel]

The entire country is not worth a risk to liberty and livelihood?

Right. She made the determination to pursue this. The captain, a doctor, is an erudite individual and must have contemplated the downside for her decision. Some people have principled viewpoints and have more guts than others.

[null and void]

Ah.

[null and void]

Yes. It’s her life and career. That makes it her call.

[Red Steel]

Noted what you have just said, but the people who are pursuing this issue are not looking for cover of what is best to protect themselves from the legalities.

[GreenLanternCorps]

The Kenya Independence Act 1963 is the legal means by which the Kenyan state came into being and by which the UK relinquished it's authority for the territory.

Here is a link to the original text of the Kenya Independence Act (1963)

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1963/pdf/ukpga_19630054_en.pdf

Here is a link to the Act today:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1963/cukpga_19630054_en_1

Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the original Act reads as follows:

“(2) Save as Provided by section 3 of this Act, any person who immediately before the appointed day is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall on that day cease to be such a citizen if on that day he becomes a citizen of Kenya.”

Sections 2 & 3 of the Kenya Independence Act were repealed by the British Nationality Act of 1981, but per section 1 of the Kenya Independence Act, those modifications did not effect Kenya or Kenyan citizens.

The British Nationality Act 1981 is below:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1981/cukpga_19810061_en_1

Obama gained his Kenyan citizenship per Chapter VI, section 87 of the Constitution of Kenya (Accordingly, he lost his UK citizenship per the Kenya Independence Act).

Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship (and residual status as a Commonwealth citizen) per Chapter VI, section 97 of the Constitution of Kenya because he di not, as provided by US law renounce hs US citizenship.

http://kenya.rcbowen.com/constitution/chap6.html#94

[hoosiermama]

Have we determined that the Hague conference of 1933 has/has no relevance to BO’s Indonesian citizenship? IIRC it states that a country that does not allow joint citizenship negates the citizenship of the second country. Indonesia did not allow joint citizenship when Obama’s step father declared him a citizen of Indonesia to register him for school.

Have we heard any more from the blogger from Indonesia who found the school document....

BTW I did find a statement from Indonesia that said BO was born in Kenya. (dated 2006)