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"
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.
Thank you for the post.
BO is "The Squatter."
Do you understand that a federal judge (or any judge for that matter) can't separate the two?
Irrespective of the fact Obama may or may not be eligible to be President, he is President.
He was on the ballot in 50 states. A legally binding election was held to select electors. Those electors met and voted for Obama. Those electors were certified in the Congress and Obama was sworn (twice) into office by the appropriate authority. He is the President.
There's is no Constitutional basis upon which the judiciary can remove a sitting President. If the court can't provide a remedy or relief for the plaintiff, there's no use in holding a trial. It's as simple as that.
In my previous response, I didn’t even get it right on commissions. I will let you read and official Army publication of regular commissions (she is a regular):
Regular Army
Integration: One Army, One Commission
Since September 30, 1996, public law has required that “no person may receive an original appointment as a commissioned officer in the Regular Army (RA)”. This past October, the 2005 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) required all officers on the active duty list to be commissioned RA. As a result, all new officer accessions are being appointed RA as of 1 May 2005. Eligible commissioned officers currently on AD will be automatically converted to RA on/or after Veteran’s Day, 11 November 2005.
RA integration does not apply to Active Guard Reserve (AGR), mobilized, or Extended Active Duty (EAD) officers.
Human Resources Command (HRC) - Alexandria is using a three phase process to transition all active duty officers to RA. Phase I, which started 1 May 2005, affects all new accessions (e.g., ROTC, USMA and OCS). Phase II will affect current eligible USAR officers serving on the Active Duty list. They will be automatically converted to RA on/or after Veteran’s Day, 11 November 2005. Phase III will affect how HRC - Alexandria processes retirements and separations for current USAR officers (primarily 2LT through CPT).
- Phase I starts with the Commissioning sources (ROTC, USMA, OCS and the Special Branches) certifying that new officers meet the requirements to be appointed RA. Under Title 10, this includes the requirement to be a US citizen, hold a SECRET security clearance or higher, and be of good moral character. HRC - Alexandria will publish RA Orders which will allow all newly accessed officers to enter active duty as Regular Army Officers.
- Phase II affects all eligible USAR commissioned officers who are currently serving on active duty and are on the Active Duty List (ADL). This does not include those officers who are part of the ADL but are flagged for adverse actions, warrant officers or officers in special Branches. Officers in Special Branches will receive additional guidance from their perspective specialty branch. Computer programs will be in place to automatically switch ADL active duty officers to RA on/or after 11 November 2005. Since officers do not have the option to decline RA, there will not be a need for them to take a new Oath of Office. Officers will not incur an additional Active Duty Service Obligation (ADSO) as a result of this transition to RA.
- Phase III addresses how HRC - Alexandria processes retirements and separations for current USAR officers. There is no change to the current retirement application procedures contained in AR 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Dischargers. Officers may withdraw their retirement application to continue to serve in RA status. Officers with approved retirements or those on transition leave after 11 November 2005 will be automatically converted to RA. HRC - Alexandria will continue to process Declination to Voluntary Indefinite (VI) memos until 1 Oct 05. After Veteran’s Day, 11 November 2005, HRC - Alexandria will issue resignation orders (not REFRAD) for separations. MILPER Message 05-236, published 22 September 2005, provides additional information concerning retirements and separations actions
Changing the status of all officers to Regular Army illustrates that, regardless of commissioning source, all officers serve as equals and are all part of the total Army.
For further information concerning RA Integration of Army Competitive Category, Judge Advocate General (JAG), and Chaplains (CH) Branch (Infantry, Armor, Field Artillery, etc.) officers, contact Ms. Webster at 1 (800) 654-7298, commercial: (703) 325-3760 or DSN: 221-3760 or e-mail Cora.F.Webster@us.army.mil.
For further information on application procedures for Army Medical Department (AMEDD) (Physicians, Nurse Corps, etc.) officers, contact Mrs. Kuhl at 1 (800) 654-7298, commercial: (703) 325-3759 or DSN: 221-3759 or e-mail Patricia.Kuhl@us.army.mil.
For Chaplains, contact commercial: (703) 601-1126 or DSN: 327-1126.
For Judge Advocate General officers, contact commercial: (703) 588-6774 or DSN: 425-6774.
How can this be?
It's because of a massive hole in the Constitution, a lack of specificity in terms and and an apathetic legislature with respect to this issue - for 230+ years.
The Framers should have been more definitive with "natural born". They should have outlined in the USC a mechanism for verifying or assuring that their presidential eligibility requirements were met, or the legislative sessions immediately after the adoption of the USC should have addressed this issue. But they didn't. And now, were are where we are.
I suggest looking at Attorney Apuzzo’s Prayer for Relief starting on page 69 below:
I don't intend to debate this with you but I will try to explain it one more time.
The standing and case or controversy issues pertain to the relief question. That's why you have a better plaintiff with a military officer--the relief is easy; the Military Order is invalid because it was issued under the authority of a Commander in Chief who isn't.
Once you get to a final judicial determination that the office of CIC is vacant, you then reach the issue you are trying to get to--how do you get the squatter out of the White House.
None of this stuff about the electors or certifying or swearing in is relevant, at least under the mechanical rule of law in the Constitution. Obama is not eligible to be President; the office is vacant.
You aren't removing a sitting President--he isn't. I think the Joint Session correctly certified the election of a Vice President who acts as President under the 20th Amendment until an eligible President is declared elected.
The legal process that ultimately needs to be attacked is the certification by the Joint Session--I assume the Military has standing and the capability to move Congress to look at that issue. I have not looked or researched or even much considered the follow on legal issues other than to recognize that there is a significant issue not addressed by any controlling legal principles I can see.
The Constitution says that when the first get is ineligible, the list of possible persons from whom the Joint Session can choose is limited to the next three persons who got votes. Problem is that only one other person got electoral college votes and he isn't elegible either. It isn't clear where the Congress must go from there--Joe is acting President until they figure it out.
Once you get a final federal court judicial determination that he is not President, no one is going to accept the legal effect of any action he takes--and you have removed the need to go to the courthouse and prove his status. The issue is res judicata.
I doubt that any citizen would individually have standing to make him a trespasser in the White House but there are enough individuals who have an interest who would have standing to be pretty confident that he will be removed.
Talk about "legislating from the bench". That's exactly what the granting of plaintiff's request for relief would be. I especially like...
"Declare that Obama be removed, excluded and ousted from the Office of The President which he presently holds"
Based on what Constitutional authority would a Federal District Court (or Supreme Court) do such a thing? The judiciary can't remove a sitting president from office any more than they can force the Queen of England to sell her crown.
The fact that this case hasn't been bounced yet, doesn't speak to it's merits, so much as it speaks to the competence of lead counsel, Puzzo. He hasn't made any clerical or incompetent procedural errors. It doesn't mean that he's any more likely to prevail in the litigation.
FRiend, the thing Obama placed on the INternet in lieu of being open and honest was a forgery, a fraudulent exhibit. It is easy to show that it was not a genuine CoLB, yet you would have us believe it would not be gernmaine to a criminal preceeding? Even an Internet viewing of the thing Obama first tried to slip over as a genuine CoLB can reveal it had no raised seal since the raised seal on the back or front would have distorted the crosshatch pattern in a jpg format or any other net viewing format. ... So now I'm questioning your sincerity. Do you have an agenda? Have you ever gone beyond mere apologetics for the fraud-in-chief, and looked at the Internet exhibits?
You understand the plaintiff's application for TRO has already been denied in the Rhodes case, right?
From the ruling (a Bush appointee to the federal bench, and a former Texas SCOTUS Justice)...
"Plaintiffhas 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. Civ. 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."
The bench doesn't mince words in it's ruling when it says about the action it "cannot succeed on it's merits".
British law matters if they are making the argument that his British citizenship disqualifies him even if born on US soil.
This is what happens when lay people try to play Perry Mason.
Tell me, what documents has Barack Obama submitted to any court? None, nada, Zip, zilch nothing O. I don't care if air-drops millions of fraudulent BC's across the skies of Manhattan. It's irrelevant to the court.
There seems that there's no shortage of people who wish that the law would operate the way the think it should operate, rather than the ways the Rules of Civil Procedure or Federal Statute mandate that it operate. Sadly, when someone tries to explain these difference, in the simplest terms possible, they get branded an Obama-sympathizer. Ridiculous. But, that's your MO. If you don't like what someone says, you call 'em a name.
You can look Up FRCP Rule 44. Proving an Official Record. If you can find something to bolster you argument in that, I'd love to hear it.
It's common sens FRiend. You should try a little of it. It could do you some wonders.
You are seeking an argument!
It is not certain that he was born with British Citizenship. In fact, it is more likely that he wasn’t a British Citizen at birth.
There is one particular section of the law that Rolling Stone pointed out. I don’t believe it is applicable because it discusses legitimizing an illegitimate birth through subsequent marriage - and that is not the case here with the facts as we know them. Even if it did apply, you would have to prove that Sr was domiciled in Hawaii..and he wasn’t. He was here as a Student.
Fair enough. My take, and what I believe to be the Court's likely interpretation, is that a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. One could, and some do, argue that the child of one US citizen and one foreign national born (assuming for the sake of argument) in the US is not a NBC; that is, I believe an erroneous argument, but a reasonable argument to make.
The post to which I was responding, though, was an analysis of British law discussing whether Obama was a British citizen at birth and possibly to this day. That point is irrelevant to his eligibility to be president. A great many Americans are eligible for another country's citizenship -- Ireland and some other countries extend automatic citizenship to anyone with an Irish (etc.) grandparent, and Israel's Law of Return considers every Jew a citizen of Israel. That is irrelevant to US citizenship status.
Here's the problem. Judges can only apply the law as it exists. There's no statutory (or Constitutional) requirement for a Presidential nominee to prove that he's eligible, only that he be eligible. That's a gaping hole. The legislative branch should have written a statute that defined 1) To whom this proof is to be submitted and 2) How would this proof be verified or challenged.
That statute doesn't exist. It's not my fault. It's the fault of the Framers and the Congress.
one further point....you are getting hung up on the word national. They are using it to mean citizen. You can see this on US State Dept websites and well as in the seminal US Supreme Court decision listed on my profile that discusses this very law.
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.