Posted on 09/18/2009 4:09:29 PM PDT by GoldStandard
Edited on 09/18/2009 4:48:36 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Federal Judge Clay Land may have made good on his threat of sanctions against a lawyer for an army officer fighting deployment on the claim that President Barack Obama was not born in this country. In an order today Judge Land denied a motion for a Stay of Deployment for Captain Connie Rhodes, filed by Attorney Orly Taitz yesterday. The motion was filed after Judge Land threatened sanctions and dismissed the complaint calling it frivolous. Taitz has 14 days to show why a $10,000 penalty as a sanction should not be imposed against her. We tried reaching Taitz. She has not returned our calls.
In a bizarre twist, News 3 has received a copy of a letter to Judge Clay Land, written by the officer in this case, Captain Connie Rhodes. In it she writes she is shipping out to Iraq and asks the Judge to withdraw the Motion to Stay the Deployment. She denies authorizing Taitz to file on her behalf.
Related: Rhodes v MacDonald
No one is seeking to destroy the military command structure.
We need to make sure the holder of the office of President is Constitutionally qualified.
There have been questions raised as to his eligibility, questions which despite all the "tinfoil hat-conspiracy theorist-'birther'-etc." denial of the Left continue to exist, have not been addressed, and will continue to exist until they are put to rest with evidence, not rhetoric or name calling.
If he is ineligible, replace him, reissue the orders, and make sure our service personnel are operating under a lawful command. The remainder of the military command structure will remain intact, in any event.
In order for him to be Commander-in-Chief, Obama must be Constitutionally qualified to hold the office. He refuses to prove his eligibility. It has been called into question, and the documentation to prove it is allegedly available to him, and should be forthcoming.
In the event it exists, the only damage being done to the military command structure is being done by one who refuses to prove he is in fact eligible, and that his orders are lawful orders, not only by the standards of our Constitution, but by all international law as well.
If you in fact support our military, you would support the release of documents which would verify the eligibility of Obama, to prove that orders are lawful and keep our service men and women from being accused internationally of operating unlawfully and being common criminals.
Shoving the issue under a rug won't cut it.
If Obama is ineligible, he places our people at risk. If he is eligible, he should prove it and remove doubt as to the validity of his actions as Commander in Chief.
His failure to do so causes any dissent, not our pointing out that he has failed to do so.
BTTT for excellent comments that should be read by all.
Bingo.
Nope. I'm pretty sure she and/or her colleagues-in-arms will be ACUSED of war crimes.
You do know the difference between accusations and facts don't you?
Don't you?
“Since she threw in gratuitous insults of Judge Land (including accusing him of treason!), I wouldn’t bet on the sanctions order being reversed.”
Why should anyone show respect for a stinking judge, they aren’t any better than anyone else!
“No one is seeking to destroy the military command structure.”
Of course they are. Disruption in the ranks could advance the cause of those here on FR and elsewhere, including doubtless the Russian lawyer Taitz though likely for her own reasons, who look to the military to undo the last election which is really what this is all about.
“We need to make sure the holder of the office of President is Constitutionally qualified.”
Fewer and fewer people believe that this is what this is about. More and more people in a position to do something about sedition believe that this is about undoing the election in an unlawful manner.
“The remainder of the military command structure will remain intact, in any event.”
Think for just a minute about what you’ve just written.
“He refuses to prove his eligibility.”
Who says he has to? Where do you people get this from? And don’t say the Constitution. There is nothing which says an individual has to satisfy you that he is eligible to be president. The electors and the secretaries of state need to be satisfied, and apparently they were as are the Courts.
“If you in fact support our military, you would support the release of documents which would verify the eligibility of Obama, to prove that orders are lawful and keep our service men and women from being accused internationally of operating unlawfully and being common criminals.”
The only people making such accusations are seditionists here. The whole argument is a specious one designed to give someone standing to sue and now that’s been disposed of.
“If Obama is ineligible, he places our people at risk. If he is eligible, he should prove it and remove doubt as to the validity of his actions as Commander in Chief.”
Bull. Exactly how? You do understand how the system works, don’t you?
“His failure to do so causes any dissent, not our pointing out that he has failed to do so.”
Oh please. What nonsense; what dangerous nonsense. When one or more of our military gets killed because some mutineer refuses to follow orders having been encouraged by Birther propaganda, I’m sure the families of the dead will take great comfort that the sedition spouted in our courts and on the internet was all in the interest of supporting a Constitution which very, very, very few of the Birthers seem even to have read let alone understand.
Young lady, are you trying to show your contempt of court?
No, your honor, I'm trying to conceal it.
“Why should anyone show respect for a stinking judge, they aren’t any better than anyone else!”
Frankly, most of them are a lot better than many people. This idea that some lout’s or incompetant’s opinion of the law is as good as a judge’s is pernicious. But even if they weren’t, they have the legal authority to sanction people who are disrespectful to them.
Its always fun to watch some loon mouth off at a judge, play the tough guy, the know it all, and then see him held in contempt and begin to shake when he’s led off to jail!
:)
War Crimes? She's a flight surgeon. What war crimes will she be committing? Tongue depressor abuse? Cold Stethoscope in the extreme? Un-lubricated finger torture?
Because of two little things called the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the California Rules of Professional Conduct. For a California officer of the court, there no more two important reasons than these.
The law requires that I prove I'm eligible to work in the US to get a job as a dishwasher.
Should our 'betters' be exempt from proving their eligibility?
Isn't the job of president and commander-in-chief of the world's largest nuclear equipped more important than dishwasher at Denny's?
Shouldn't we know exactly who the person with the capability of incinerating half a planet really is?
Or do you favor holding our 'betters' to a far lower standard than they hold us?
Why?
Hedging again, are we??? "IF" ???? So then you don't know, right????
Ohhh and then there is that word "appears"???? So then even IF he was born in Hawaii, it would just "appear" as if he is an NBC, right??? Kind of like a ghost. Hmmmm!!!
Y'all haven't been able to disprove that claim so far.
It's not a claim, remember??? Its an apparition. And Obama is your ghost. Happy Halloween.
“The law requires that I prove I’m eligible to work in the US to get a job as a dishwasher.”
Do you contend that Obama isn’t even a citizen now? That aside, there is no law that says that I, for example, need to be satisfied that you are eligible to work in the US. As I said earlier, the electors and the secretaries of state and the courts and, I suppose, the Congress need to be satisfied about Obama’s eligibility, not you.
“Should our ‘betters’ be exempt from proving their eligibility?”
In this case, Obama has proved it to the satisfaction of those entitled to be satisfied, your betters as you put it.
“Shouldn’t we know exactly who the person with the capability of incinerating half a planet really is?”
That’s what the campaign was about, n&v.
“Or do you favor holding our ‘betters’ to a far lower standard than they hold us?”
You get to vote your betters out if they don’t meet your standards. My suggestion is you vote against Obama in 2012 if he doesn’t meet your standards.
Maybe the Sunday talk shows will challenge Øbama to show a birth certificate before they allow him to speak on legislation he would be ineligible to sign without
When one or more of our military gets killed because some mutineer refuses to follow orders having been encouraged by Birther propaganda,
But getting killed because an illegal president* issues absurd rules of engagement (which has happened and will happen again), is A-OK with you?
* non-natural born citizen, foreign raised, with known communist, muslim, and hate America first affiliations.
Explain yourself. Where exactly do your ultimate loyalties lie?
I’ll take the contempt and jail, I have absolutly no respect for judges!!!
i’ll call them an ass hole to their face!
Maybe to you, an army of one.
Every service person engaged in operations on foreign soil who operates under the orders of this commander in chief is in peril of being held personally accountable for their actions under local law if they are serving under a Commander in Chief who has no claim to the office due to being ineligible.
Failure to remedy the situation by rendering proof of eligibility (should such proof exist) places them at risk, and any dissent in the ranks should not be laid at the doorstep of the people who have been raising eligibility questions since well before the election, but at the feet of the one who continues to fail to releast the documents which would prove him eligible. The question, once asked--and it was asked BEFORE the election--will not go away until answered.
In order to have sedition, you have to have a lawful government.
There are those of us who have been seeking proof of the Constitutional eligibliity of the candidate, now in office, and who have been seeking that proof since well before the election,
Calling those of us who want that proof seditionists requires the proof that the government is, in fact lawful, or there can be no sedition.
It is a fine circular reasoning that you claim we are something you cannot prove unless the current occupant of the White House proves his eligibility.
If such proof is not forthcoming, there can be no sedition.
As for dissention in the ranks, only a few have sought proof that their deployment orders are lawful. There is no apparent move toward mutiny, and even those have followed their deployment orders when denied legal redress, if the orders were not changed.
Instead of supporting those who put their careers on the line to protect their fellow service personnel from being tried in foreign lands as common criminals, you call those of us who also question the credentials of the current occupant of 1600 PA Ave "seditionists". The question will not go away, whatever you call us.
So join, if you will, the Left, the Marxists, and others who decry those who seek to resolve this problem, one unforseen by the Founders, and a measure of how far we have become removed from the Constitutional Republic they intended, in that while the tentacles of Socialism wrap themselves around economic sector after economic sector we cannot determine whether our alleged President is, in fact a Natural Born Citizen.
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.