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"
I don't think I quite understand what you're asking with respect to citations and Obama's birth records. I don't know if you're looking from some prior-case precedent where a military service member claimed an affirmative defense based on the ineligibility of the President to issue lawful order. If so, I'm not aware of any exiting case law with those specific circumstances.
The closest you'll find are the countless number of cases - many in the last 8 years - in which service members have refused orders based claims such as "this war isn't a legal war". Those all ended poorly for the accused. And, although some have motioned for the testimony of members of the Executive Branch - I believe including the SecDef, VP and President, none of those motions were ever granted.
One of the many prominent cases that comes to mind is that of a young marine reservist named Funk. He too attempted the affirmative defense of "I didn't show up because this is an unjust war". It went nowhere. He was sentenced to 6 months confinement and a BCD, which is about the average outcome for these kinds of cases. And no, the President, the SecDef, SecNav or any other officer or civilian authority has been forced to testify to the legality of the war, although many a defendant has tried.
In any court of law, affirmative defenses have to meet certain guidelines - to long to go into here - but, an "ineligible President" argument doesn't fall into one of those categories as an allowable affirmative defense. It's tough to win any motions for discovery if the trial judge isn't buying the premise of your defense. And to date, none of those cases has been overturned on appeal because the bench didn't indulge such a defense.
Lastly, if you want some guidance with respect to what constitutes an "official record or document" you can refer to the Federal Rules for Civil Procedure, Rule 44 (you can google it, I'm sure that there's plenty of sources for it). In that rule, it's clear that a "Certification of Live Birth" - assuming one actually exists for Obama - would clearly meet the required standard for "Proving an Official Record". I don't believe that direct testimony or an affidavit would even be required (as in something from Dr. Fukino), so long as the appropriate signature and a seal were embossed on the document in question.
I hope this helps to further clarify your question.
BTW, an onager is an Asian wild ass, a heuristic estimate is a guess, so that make this a Wild Ass Guess, or WAG.
Look into BOAC...They had a flight from Mombassa to Glascow to Vancouver and often did mercy flights for free...If SADO was accompanied from a person who worked with new borns/mothers like a nurse of missionary, they may have allowed her to take the red eye the next day.
If Obama submited a COLB as evidence the defense would have a right to discovery that may lead to admissible evidence to counter the document. Every thing would be open as to his citizenship and NBC status IMO.
I believe Pan Am and United were the main air carriers from Hawaii to the mainland in 1961, thus contacting a retired employee might be of some use. Currently each airline has their own policy on newborns flying some 7 days some with doctors note and/or due date etc...
I did find a cargo ship that took some passengers to Kenya in the 60’s but could find no more info and misplaced the name.
They claim there was a rule prior to the 70s. However, I want to see independent verification of anything coming from WND.
I find it very curious that they just now ..all of a sudden...found the info from the Polk directory about Dunhams living at that address.....after they had hired a PI last year.
Under FROE 902 (1)(4)(11) rule, they might be able to challenge it, but discovery wouldn't necessarily be granted. That rule is pretty clear what qualifies as an official record. So long as appropriate notice was given to opposing counsel, I believe a certified copy, with seal and signature would be admitted into evidence, without much fanfare.
If it was challenged, this is how we'd see either sworn testimony or an affidavit from HI official to authenticate such a record. That testimony of authenticity - if provided by HI official - would be a HUGE hurdle to get past. As a practical matter, it's tough to argue that a certified copy isn't genuine and accurate if the certifying official swears that it is.
Seals are important on official government records. They carry tremendous legal weight and aren't there merely for decoration. FWIW.
I reread your post. Are you suggesting that a military court is going to compel Barack Obama to provide his birth certificate or certified copy? Yeah, that's not going to happen.
I thought you were speaking about the possibility of one of these civil suits being litigated on the merits. That's the only place we'd possibly see Obama submit any kind of document, and even that is unlikely.
There most definitely were three JAG officers, each with his own role to play. One, a red headed guy, was the "defense", another was the "prosecutor", representing the convening authority, and one, a slightly chubby Jewish looking fellow, quite bored most of the time, sat off to the side, he was described as the legal adviser for the panel/court, certainly he was the one who laid out the requirements of the regulations UCMJ, and what our options were, and were not. Since this was regular court room, he sat in the what I presume would be he judges spot, and occasionally chimed in, or answered questions that the members of the panel had. All the JAGs were Captains. The panel, all officers, IIRC, at the "defendant's choice. (He had that much good advice from his JAG representative.)
The service member was enlisted, probably was an E-3 or E-4, but I don't recall. Skinny kid, not the best military bearing.
I don't remember if one of our options was to recommend a BCD or not, but separation from the service definitely was an option. The kid wanted to stay in. His supervisor spoke well of him, his first sergeant, well he didn't show up. One of our options was a sort of discinpliary baracks kind of thing, where he'd spend his time when wasn't on duty, and he'd be restricted to the base. We gave him that, but let him stay in the service. I think the Colonel, the senior officer on the panel, would have taken a bite out of our asses if we had done otherwise, but there did seem to be general agreement. Although we did a secret ballot, I don't recall how that went. Don't know if that was required or just our option. The other piece was that our recommendation was binding on the convening authority, unless he chose to do something less stringent. He didn't.
But you're right, there was nothing to the finding of facts, they were stipulated, and documented, he was convicted of a civilian crime, well not convicted, he plead to a lessor offense, thinking that was a "good deal", but it wasn't because he was military.
The thing was, the "prosecutor" was almost as supportive of the "defendant" as the "defense", but from a different perspective.
You have to understand the times. The military had not yet recovered from the excesses of the Vietnam era. Moral overall was not that great. I was amazed how much it had changed, even in the reserve forces, when I went back to active reserve status, after a 4 year break, and even that was a bit before your time. By the time you came on board, during the Reagan era, everything had changed. I could see it during my IDT in Texas and my annual tour in Ohio. There was an energy that had been missing in the mid 70s. Before my break, one of the two troops that I rated, in the Air Guard, was the last "draft induced" enlisted member in the unit. He didn't want to be there, wore a wig to drills (that was allowed, which shows had bad things had gotten. All the officers, about 8 or 9, were past their obligated service, even if they had been draft induced in the first place. Same for the NCOs. Things were almost the same at the active unit I served in as an IMA reservist, right after I left active duty.
As I recall there was no additional UCMJ charge, but not knowing what an Article 86 is, I can't say for certain. Ah, I looked it up, although it would have been courteous to say what it is.
No there was no AWOL charge.
I don't know that anyone would swear that the information is accurate, but rather than it reflects the information on the original Certificate, which might have been fraudulently submitted. This would be easy to do, if one claimed a "home birth". In '61 the child would not have needed to be physically present in Hawaii for that to happen.
I of course mean "morale".
I remember when I first came in, the failure rate for mandatory drug screens was much higher than it is today - mostly left over from the rejects of the 70's that were born from the destructive forces of the Carter administration. Reagan started to issue sizable signing bonuses, even for the infantry. That, along with a lagging economy, did wonders to rebuild the military through the 80s. But, I certainly heard plenty of horror stories about the discipline and moral problems, post-Vietnam.
Yes, I would think that's right. It would be impossible to swear that the information was "accurate" without having some first hand information of the birth itself. They would be attesting that the form was completed commensurate with the information that the state's information systems had on file, which presumably mirrors what the original had or has.
Would that be enough? I don't know.
That's actually easier, since the way is clear to follow the great circle route. At least up to the entrance to Juan de Fuca strait, where you go in, turn right for Seattle, left for Vancouver. About the same distance to either.
That's about 2400 nautical miles. So the trip would take 120 hours, 160 hours or 240 hours at 20, 15, and 10 knots respectively. If it's a liner, 20 knots might even be a little slow, so I'll also do 24 knots for 100 hours.
That's 4 1/4 days, 5 days, 6 2/3 days and 10 days for 24, 20, 15 and 10 knots respectively.
Whether you like it or not and whether you see it or not, this issue is coming to a head and needs to be resolved before Civil Disobedience or worse by the people takes on the government to resolve their grievances.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306351/posts?q=1&;page=9948
“since two separate “sovereigns” would be involved, how is that different from being tried in state and federal court for the same actions?”
As follows: Generally, if a crime is committed downtown, the military authorities will let the locals handle it. Although AD members are subject to the UCMJ 24/7, military authorities will cede jurisdiction to the locals if the major impact was in the local community (off-base DWI, assault on a civilian, etc.) AND it isn’t a peculiarly military offense (AWOL, Stupid on Station, Art 133-134, disobeying lawful order, etc.). There’s case law that makes a subsequent court martial after civilian conviction double-jeopardy but I don’t have it at my fingertips. Even multiple charges and specifications within a CM can be duplicative (”duplicious”, we call it - dunno why...) for sentencing purposes, meaning dual punishment for the same conduct.
Colonel, USAFR
Those of us who were born in the Canal Zone although it was a U.S. territory knew from the beginning none of us, to include McCain, could run for president. (Who cares. We weren’t schooled to be crooks. We had a great school system in the Canal Zone and great parents.)
I knew a mother who use to ship herself out to the U.S. before giving birth to make sure that child was a 100% U.S. citizen should that child want to run for U.S. #1 crook.
By the way, what the hell is an NBC?
BIG P.S.:
Important correction!!!
could run for president = could NOT run for president.
None of us born in the Canal Zone can run for president.
Again who cares. We are above this trash.
Leo just released another article
CONFIRMED: Factcheck.org Published Bogus Fact Regarding Obama’s Kenyan Citizenship.
...
Factcheck.org – Inaccuracy #1: President Obama’s Kenyan Citizenship did not expire on August 4, 1982.
...
Factcheck.org was absolutely wrong when they reported Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired on August 4, 1982.
...
Factcheck.org – Inaccuracy #2: While Obama’s status as a British citizen may have been short lived, Factcheck.org failed to state that his status as a British subject was not short lived.
Obama remained a British subject from his birth and after the Kenya Independence Act went into effect in 1963, all the way up until that status changed to Commonwealth Citizen in the BNA 1981.
...
My research has discovered multiple legal mechanisms which have the potential to establish that President Obama is now a full citizen of Kenya as well as the United Kingdom, the European Union, the Commonwealth of Nations and the Republic of Indonesia. Unfortunately, information available in the public domain cannot answer these questions.
...
It’s time for the nation to call on the President to officially and legally renounce all foreign allegiance. And it’s time for the President to respond.
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.