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"

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

“It’s rapidly approaching renewal time, and the price of that renewal can only be paid in blood.”

You and I know this. But other folks don’t realize how really dangerous the situtaion is for our country and for us.

[Danae]

Rider up, here we go again.

[reagandemocrat]

Apples and oranges.

Sounds like the issue in that case was custody and support—which the law rightfully will be interpretted in favor of support for the child’s benefit.

Here, the issue is whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen eligible to be President of the US. The best evidence of that is the birth certificate, which he’s hiding. The subsequent computer generated document must be viewed with distrust.

[El Gato]

Except that the Hong Kong route doesn't go through Seattle, and the very first itty-bitty baby Barack sighting was in Seattle.

I think we were discussing the 1959 flight of BHO Sr, from Kenya to Hawaii. Apparently Senior didn't fly with the rest of the group, 81 of whom flew altogether on a Britannia aircraft into the US East Coast.

If you were going to Seattle from Mombasa, the great circle route goes over Greece, the tip of the Scandinavian peninsula, Greenland, just north of Hudson's bay and on into Seattle, or maybe Vancouver. Actual routes likely went something like Kenya, Egypt, England, Nova Scotia and on into Vancouver.

[Danae]

But they did compare the two right?

That being said, its a different case with Obama. The relevant point is that Obama could have gotten a COLB though he was NOT born in the Islands.

Furthermore, Obama Sr. was a British Citizen, and to be a NATURAL BORN citizen BOTH of Obama’s parents needed to be Citizens.

Otherwise, The American born son of Osama bin laden could be president. Or Hugo Chaves, or Kim Jong-il. Assuming Bambi was born in the islands, he is still ineligible. If he was born off the island, then he is doubly so.

Only his long form can define these things for certain. If Obama is the son of some other American, then that is a different case altogether, and perhaps that source of “Embarrassment” one of his lawyers spoke of. His COLB may reflect an amendment to his long form that was done to show another father. But I really don’t think so. I think Obama is a British citizen by birth. He is ineligible. He might also be American, but the Duality is what makes him ineligible.

At any rate, I don’t think that case will have legal relevance, because the cases are so different.

[El Gato]

As stated previously, I’m convinced that orders in an ongoing war originate in Congress.

That may be, but I think Congress merely authorizes, not orders. But it's undeniable that the chain of command terminates at the President.

Article II, Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

Think about it this way. The President could order all the troops out of Iraq, Kuwait, the 'stans, and Afghanistan, and they'd come home, regardless that Congress had authorized them to be there, and funded them to be there.

[El Gato]

There is no doubt that she received the e-mail.

Did I say there was? She admitted she received it.

I was commenting on airborne's concern over use of email to convey orders. I commented on the possible concerns, from both the issuer and the recipient of orders via email.

[El Gato]

It's a simple principle: Citizenship status, including "natural-born" status, is a question of US law. Full stop. The laws of other countries are irrelevant. We don't ask whether the Republic of Panama considered John McCain to be a Panamanian citizen, and we don't give other countries the power to make someone ineligible to be our president by the stroke of a pen.

That's all very true, but his father's *lack of US Citizenship* may indeed be a factor. No foreign government could make his father a citizen, so no foreign government could affect Junior's status or lack thereof, as a natural born citizen.

[El Gato]

If the marriage was null, and BHO was born outside the US, US law makes him a US *national*, but not a citizen.

8 USC 1409 Children born out of wedlock

Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

British law does not matter.

As a national, but not a citizen, he'd not be eligible to be a Senator, let alone President.

[OldDeckHand]

"Apples and oranges."

Since when did the mixing of apples and oranges become a problem in American jurisprudence?

Marbury v. Madison was about a judicial commission to the federal bench. It ended up changing the trajectory, the very relevance of the Court itself.

One might logically think an original government birth document is best, but the court has decided otherwise. The fact that the case that established that precedent isn't similar to the case before the court, isn't necessarily relative to the court.

The precedent of judicial review established in Marbury has been cited in an innumerable number of cases that have nothing to do with judicial appointments or commissions.

[OldDeckHand]

"That being said, its a different case with Obama. The relevant point is that Obama could have gotten a COLB though he was NOT born in the Islands."

That's the key phrase - "could have gotten" - That phrase is what would be described as conjecture or speculation. That's not a compelling argument for proof that he was. For a judge to issue grant a motion of discovery to look at Obama's birth records, someone is going to need to come up with some other than (as the bench ruled in this TRO application) "opinion" or "doubt".

Sure, there's plenty of "doubt" about Obama's birth, but thus far, no one has provided anything substantive about his birth. It's the later standard that must be satisfied for a judge to grant a motion for discovery.

[null and void]

Ooops. Sorry...

[El Gato]

Essentially, a mother was trying to deny parental custody rights to a father who was not the biological father, and was not the father of record on the original birth certificate. The Father, however, did posses an amended "Certification of Live Birth" that reflected he was the father. The court favored the "Certification of Live Birth" over the original birth certificate, setting the precedent for future cases that a subsequently issued "Certification of Live Birth" will have just as much evidentiary weight as an original birth certificate, and in that particular case, even more weight than the original.

Well, but in that case there would have been an amended Certificate of Live Birth as well. That's what field #23 at the bottom of the '61-'63 version is for. They make up an amended Certificate, and put the explanation for the amended version in that field.

But what folks are getting at is that the Certification does not contain sufficient information to unambiguously determine natural born citizen status, whereas it does clearly state, if the field is not blank, who the *legal* father is.

[Kevmo]

If Obama rescinds the order, morale will sink lower than well-diggers butt, and our military will be endangered. He can’t allow that to happen, especially since he wants to forge ahead in Afghanistan. Obama’s cornered.
***This is the same president who likely forged his selective service paperwork. I don’t think he gives one whit about morale in the military, even if he’s faced with mass exodus. He’ll just say that these people should never have been in the military to begin with.

[Kevmo]

And the calls weren’t so “discrete”.
***So it’s a strong piece of evidence that we have a president who goes out of his way to damage your career but won’t pay the $15 to produce the birth certificate. Maybe if you do a press conference soon, you could offer to pay him the $15 if it’s that much trouble for him.

[El Gato]

One might logically think an original government birth document is best, but the court has decided otherwise. The fact that the case that established that precedent isn't similar to the case before the court, isn't necessarily relative to the court.

The Certification can't possibly relate to any information not on it, but on the original. Such as place of birth of father. Attendant/Witness to the birth, etc.

[reagandemocrat]

The rules of evidence don’t apply in Family Law Court-—but they DO still apply in civil cases, like the one here.

Imagine how much fun you would have as plaintiff’s counsel when Obama tries to introduce his computer generated certification. Best evidence rule. LOL.

Like I said, apples and oranges.

[David]

I meant to add one other thing. I'm sure the court (not just the supremes but the district courts that have heard such challenges) has thought about this element, what if the plaintiff can actually prove their case? You see, in law it's not just that the plaintiff be right and that they can prove that they're right by a preponderance of the evidence, the relief that they are entitled to has to be something that the court can actually grant. I have a feeling that it's the very last part of that statement the court, any court, would struggle with. The judiciary has no Constitutional authority to remove a sitting president - only impeachment in the House and Conviction in the Senate can do that.

On the basis of a literal reading of Article II, Sec. 1, par. 5 ("no person . . . shall be eligible"), a finding that Obama is not eligible to hold the office ought to effectively result in a legal holding that the office is vacant. He isn't there. He is a squatter in the White House and the Federal Marshal ought to remove him; if the Marshal doesn't have the firepower, the military ought to do so.

You don't need to impeach him--he doesn't hold the office because he is not eligible.

So far, no court has kicked one of the challenge cases out on this basis either.

So I guess I am less concerned about the remedy than I am about the proceeding to get him out.

I have assumed that you could get the Speaker of the House to call a Joint Session or to reconvene the Joint Session held in January to hear a motion to reconsider the vote affirming certification of the Electoral College vote. Someone earlier suggested that wasn't possible but I didn't understand the legal analysis that supported the view.

[MilspecRob]

May the spirits of our Founders give wings to your quest to disclose the truth of the usurper.

And how about giving he a modicum of legal skills. She even failed to sign her complaint aside form leaving the Cook header on her document

[OldDeckHand]

"The rules of evidence don’t apply in Family Law Court-—but they DO still apply in civil cases, like the one here."

What? On what planet do "rules of evidence" not apply in any court or tribunal proceeding, to say nothing of a "family or domestic relations" court? Of course they do. Opposing counsel can challenge or move to suppress evidence, impeach witnesses etc., etc.

To address this specific situation, The Federal Rules of Civil procedure is quite clear with respect to verifying or proving an official record. Here's the relevant standard that must be met that's found in FRCP Rule 44. Proving an Official Record...

"(ii) by any public officer with a seal of office and with official duties in the district or political subdivision where the record is kept."

A HI "Certification of Live Birth" with the appropriate seal or endorsement by a relevant government official, easily meets that standard. If Obama's purported COLB is genuine and he provides that document to the court, that document clearly states he was born in HI. That is evidence of US birth that will be virtually impossible for a challenger to overcome.