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"
First, Clinton, or any of the other democratic primary contenders would have had standing. McCain would had standing.
Second, Alan Keyes didn’t have standing in a case against McCain. Whether Judge Carter will find that he has standing isn’t yet determined, since Orly only just this week finally served the defendants. They’ll file the motion to dismiss in about 60 days, and after that, we’ll find out whether this judge thinks Keyes has standing.
Third, Red Steel said, “At least his case will have a motion for discovery hearing on September 8th.”
I’m afraid that reports of that hearing have been greatly exaggerated and incomplete at the same time. According to the judge’s order, there are four different things to be heard on September 8:
(a) Orly’s motion to recuse Judge Nakazato. Since he struck her motion for not following the rules, he must be biased against her.
PREDICTION: She’s not going to win that motion because she did not follow the rules. There is no bias in applying the rules.
(b) Whether Orly has properly served the Defendants yet. When the Judge filed that order, she had still (!!!) not yet properly served defendants. It appears that she may have finally properly served them, although her proofs of service still have technical problems.
PREDICTION: The judge is going to accept the service, since the defendants accepted the service, regardless of the technical problems with her proof of service.
(c) Robinson & Drake’s Motion accusing Orly of improperly attempting to dismiss them from the case when they asked to substitute Gary Kreep as counsel.
PREDICTION: This is not going to be pretty for Orly. Kreep is going to appear on behalf of Robinson and Drake and accuse Orly of improper actions, and if their exhibits hold up during the hearing, it’s not going to be a good result for Orly.
(d) Orly’s motion to review Judge Nakazato’s order striking her motion for pre-Rule 26 discovery based on the photo of the Kenyan birth certificate she submitted.
This motion is not for general discovery. It’s a motion for the judge to make an exception to the general rule to let her take discovery before the standard time, and before defendants have even responded to her complaint.
The motion seeks to(i) compel Secretary of State Clinton to testify in a deposition about Passport files and (ii) issue letters rogatory to Clinton to transmit to Kenya seeking vital statistics information.
Orly’s basis for the motion is, apparently, that the deposition needs to take place before someone is killed, citing to the unsolved murder of the State Department worker involved in the passport tampering incident last year.
PREDICTION: The Judge is not going to grant a motion to let Orly depose the sitting Secretary of State, before defendants have even responded to the complaint. We don’t even have a treaty with Kenya that would make any letters rogatory applicable.
In other words, September 8 is not going to be a redletter day for Orly, least not in a positive way.
There you are incorrect. No one has ever certified that the CoLB displayed on various websites was issued by the state of Hawaii, nor that the information on it agrees with what is on his "birth records" held by the state. The head of the health department, responsible for the vital statistics office, did say she had seen the "birth records" and that they indicate that he is a natural born citizen. The governor and the same health department head earlier said they had seen that the state had a "birth certificate" for BHO, indicated that they had not looked at its contents.
But of course there is another issue apart from the birth certificate, be it CoLB or long form. That of his "natural born" status, due to his father not being a citizen at the time of his birth. A certified copy of either the long form or the CoLB would be legal proof of who his father was. The Health Director is not an expert in that area, so what she said about the records indicating that BHO is a natural born citizen carries no weight, and since no court has ever ruled on the matter, it wouldn't hold any weight if she was such an "expert".
He must be reading another Constitution than the one I have posted next to my computer.
This appears to be the only weakness to zer0bama’s strategy. He’s been avoiding discovery like a Kennedy avoiding responsibility. It wouldn’t surprise me if he has a few more tricks up his sleeve for that.
Another one? Great!
So our only hope for this moving forward are that Clinton or Keyes will have standing? It doesn’t look good, Yogi.
Since neither Clinton nor McCain have showed any signs of wanting to file suit, the only “hope” is that a judge will find that Keyes has standing. And since one California court has already found that he wouldn’t when suing McCain, it’s highly doubtful that another court will find that he does when suing Obama, so, yeah, it “doesn’t look good.”
Honestly, I wish you had found some brilliant way to disagree with me.
Well, I would’ve said that there’s always 2012, but knew that I’d get slammed for that ...............
What you will find is that the Public spokesperson said that it looks like one of theirs, but that you really can't tell from the images.
The head of the Health department and the governor said that they had "seen the original birth certificate, but then that same spokesperson said that they meant that they verified that their is a "birth certificate" on record. The head of the health department more recently said she had actually seen the "birth records" and it/they indicate he was born in Hawaii and is a natrual born citizen. Of course that was probably a violation of the state's "privacy" laws.
But as I said above, born in Hawaii may or may not indicate "natural born citizen".
There are irregularities in the displayed CoLB, both as a document, and in the information shown in it. Primarly the file number and date filed. It shows BHO being born less than a day before the Nordke twins, who were later his classmates at that private school he attended. However it also shows his certificate being accepted by the registrar 3 days before theirs, but with a file number 3 higher than the younger twin's. (The twins file numbers are consecutive). Now, since he was born after normal business hours (~7PM) on a Friday, and they about 2 PM on Saturday, it's hard to see how that could happen. His CoLB shows that it was filed with the state on the 8th, which would be the following Tuesday, while the twins was filed on the 11th, the following Friday.
I'm trying to do my best not to get sucked into the complexities of the BC claims, as frankly, I don't think they're entirely all that germane to the Captain's case.
Be that as it may, I was answering a hypothetical question posed by an earlier poster - What happens if this civilian TRO case is heard on it's merits. To answer such a hypothetical, I engaged in some presumption. As in, I presume that the HI officials have made good faith and earnest representations of the facts. If that's true, and they'll be willing to provide sworn testimony as such, that presents a significant challenge to the plaintiff.
Moreover, if the official aren't lying, the logical conclusion is that either an Obama COLB exists, or a duplicate can easily be officially created. In any case, that COLB is prima fascia evidence of US birth - in any courtroom in America - it's tested and settled law.
Some people will claim that a COLB can be issued to people who aren't actually born in HI. Perhaps that's true. I have no experience in that area of law, nor am I familiar with Hawaii's 1960's era birth record's procedures. If it's a legitimate point of contention, and the plaintiff can prove as such, then they'd probably be able to challenge the defendant's exhibit 1 and the matter would be decided in a evidentiary hearing. It's actually quite straightforward.
If that evidentiary hearing favors the plaintiff, then there might be a case. If not, we move on, and that COLB (if it exits now or in the future) coupled with sworn testimony from the HI officials presents a serious and formidable obstacle to plaintiff's claim. As such, their chances of prevailing in the case would be minuscule, at best.
And, barring any procedural mistakes by the presiding judge, I doubt that an appellate court would even hear an appeal. Plus, SCOUTS has already signaled to the lower courts that they have no interest in hearing, much less deciding, the Constitutional merits of these kinds of challenges.
That's all I'm saying.
I read somewhere she corrected the filing mistake and resubmitted the questionable Obama BC to the court for authentication?
b) Whether Orly has properly served the Defendants yet. When the Judge filed that order, she had still (!!!) not yet properly served defendants. It appears that she may have finally properly served them, although her proofs of service still have technical problems.
How hard is it to re-serve the defendants? I do not think it would be. Someone should ask Orly about this.
PREDICTION: The judge is going to accept the service, since the defendants accepted the service, regardless of the technical problems with her proof of service.
As I recall, Obama used the Secret Service as a firewall to keep from being served at the White House, and the server was told to go to the State Department to drop it off there. Later, the Obama lawyers argued Obama was not properly. Appears to be a BS maneuver to avoid justice. The judge should take this into account.
You thought wrong - very wrong. Which is exactly why a Navy JAG sued Rumsfeld in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and prevailed in the Supreme Court. Here, a JAG was defending a sworn enemy of the US and it's Constitution in a military tribunal, but that didn't preclude him from providing his best legal counsel possible, in any way.
Your commander is about to be relieved by higher authority, and knows it. You've heard rumors, but you've not actually seen any orders or been formally advised of the situtation. She tells you to issue a contract to FlyByNight Paving, to repave all the roads on the post, along with the parking lots, motor pools and the post runways. What do you do? What are the ramifications of letting that contract if it turns out that she had no authority to issue that order? If you do let the contract, is the contract itself enforceable by FlyByNight?
“What expertise does Dr Fukino have to declare anyone a natural born citizen ?”
” None. ..... But, that doesn’t negate the other relative facts she publicly testified for and about.”
I don’t believe she has publicly testified , just issued two press releases from her office.
And we don’t know , considering her non legal background, whether those were actually her words
or she lent her name to someone else’s opinion.
Hasn’t she in effect, made herself an expert witness on the Constitutional matter of natural born citizen ?
And in doing so, shouldn’t her background and qualifications to make such a judgement be examined ?
I’m not a lawyer, but, I have testified on occasions as an expert witness,
sometimes for the defense and sometimes for the plaintiff.
And my bona fides to declare myself an expert witness were presented and examined in great detail by both sides during the trials.
I don’t understand why Dr Fukino would get a pass.
And would not have to testify about her bona fides or cite the evidence and documents she used to support her conclusion.
” Presuming that Obama has his hands on a physical copy of this Hawaiian issued Certification of Live Birth,..”
We don’t know if he has ever had his hands on his COLB.
But, we do know that at one time in his life, according to Obama himself,
he had his hands on his actual birth certificate.
Page 26 “ Dreams From My Father “
It was 2007, not 1997.
The judge did. Freepers were in the court room. IIRC When Orly explained what happened when she tried to serve the paper, the judge took the paper from her and handed them to the US Attorneys (who have offices on the next floor of the building/The same ones who tried to defend and generally make excuses for BO because counsel had not appeared for him).
Comments of the judge was “considered them served”
Is this the bar exam? Like many things, it would be complicated, touching on both civilian and military law. Short answer, her Commanding Officer IS her Commanding Officer until relieved of command. If it was her responsibility to issue such a contract (of course you know that with the GSA, that's not they way things work on base, but it's a hypothetical so we'll let it slide), and she did so in good faith, then yes, the contract would probably be upheld, irrespective of any looming changing of command, rumored or otherwise.
However, if she were aware or reasonably should have been aware that there was something "improper or illegal" afoot between this contractor and your commanding officer, things could get very sticky and there would be multiple issues that would need to be litigated. How it would turn out, would be anyone's guess.
In this instance, her press release from her office and bearing her name is her public testimony. Don't confuse that with sworn testimony.
Anything else she said or added outside the scope of her responsibilities with respect to HI state records, would be immaterial and irrelevant in a court proceeding. Al the court would care to hear her discuss would be the authenticity of any Hawaiian issued records. That's it. Everything else is just noise.
Being a citizen and being a "natural born citizen" for purpose of Article II Section 1 eligibility to the office of President are not the same thing. Congressmen and Senators must be citizens, and must have been such for particular periods of time. Presidents, and Vice Presidents, must be "natural born citizens".
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.
But his father lack of US citizenship at the time of his birth may be a factor, and does not depend on the actions of any foreign government. Under US law, his father was not a citizen. It remains to be determined if a "natural born citizen" must have two US citizen parents.
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.