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
One can tell a lot about someone by the sorts of entertainment they enjoy.
I find your lack of knowledge of the Constitution disturbing.
“i’ll call them an ass hole to their face!”
Really? What a charming fellow you must be. I take it you’ve never been jailed for contempt, yet.
Seriously, you know better, don't you?
Yes, I've picked up on that.
Mr. Tourette's, table for 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.”
Again, do you understand how the command structure works? This nonsense has been debunked whether you like it or not.
“In order to have sedition, you have to have a lawful government.”
Where did this come from? Have you and your fellow travelers now set up a parallel government up in the mountains somewhere and declatred the United States Code void, or at least not applicable to seditionists?
“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,”
And you have continued to fail to produce one single substantive or material piece of evidence to support your claim or any law to support the notion that you or your co-conspirators can compel anyone to prove to you that he is eligible to be president. It isn’t up to you.
“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.”
But sadly for you, SJ, in the real world there is a US Code and there is a crime of sedition. If and when you or anyone you know gets charged, try your defense. When the laughing stops, the convictions will start.
“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.”
Im sorry, but that’s just plain off the wall. You may have a better defense than “no lawful government” if you ever are charged with sedition.
No idea. If he was born in Africa or even Canada, of a British subject father, with an American mother who did not satisfy the US residence requirements at the time of his birth, he is a British subject.
A $12 document would clear up that confusion permanently.
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
There is if I'm your employee. The government here in the USofA works for the citizens, and a whole bunch of the citizens are NOT satisfied with his assertion that he is qualified. We want him to show us the same document that the law would require us to see of any other employee.
Of course, if you believe that we work for the government, or are its subjects and not free citizens, then by all means you should believe we should just shut up and take it.
It's the fate of serfs from time immemorial.
My suggestion is you vote against Obama in 2012 if he doesn’t meet your standards.
I surely will, if we actually have an election.
This is such a silly argument, I don't why I'm even engaging in it. But...
She can be accused of anything irrespective of who or who isn't her commander-in-chief. And, her commander-in-chief's legitimacy (or alleged illegitimacy) would have absolutely NO BEARING on the factual question of did she or did she not commit a war crime.
Yep, I know what you're going to say - He's not legitimate, therefore all orders flowing from hear are crimes - or some such nonsense. You need to familiarize with a doctrine in American common law called, "De Facto Officer Doctrine". Very simply put, even if someone is in an office that they possibly or absolutely shouldn't be in (or were eligible for) doesn't negate the legality of the decisions they've made. The principle has been upheld in a number of Supreme Court cases.
Moreover, to be convicted of a "war crime" the defendant must be guilty of - you guessed it - a war crime. Taking orders from someone who perhaps wasn't authorized to give them isn't in and of itself a war crime. What you, as a defendant, actually DO is what's determinative. If you commit a war crime, it makes no difference if the person who ordered you to do it was legally installed in their office. Make sense?
“One can tell a lot about someone by the sorts of entertainment they enjoy.”
I suppose that’s very true.
Thanks for playing, please try again...
You crack me up. Equating the "troofers" with those who seek to have proof of a doubtful Constritutional eligibility of the current resident at the White House is nuts.
All Obama has to do is release documents. total cost is less than $100.00 for birth certificate, college transcripts, and he can unseal his records with the stroke of a pen. His Wagu beef won't even get cold.
As for the 'troofers', we have video, taken and viewed live, of planes crashing into the towers. thousands of witnesses, we have the pronouncements of the perpetrators.
Releasing some other information might have compromised intelligence sources, and had the previous administration not been so busy trying to cover its tracks trying to stovepipe information about its own shady dealings, the event might have been prevented.
We don't have video of Obama being born in a Honolulu hospital, we don't have any witnesses.
We don't even have a piece pf paper saying he was born there, nor do we have one saying who daddy was, mommy was. The list of documents verifying Constitutional eligibility to hold office is not something which cannot be released, and most are simply what is required to either get a child enrolled in kindergarden or to get a job far less significant than President of the United States.
I'll take your word that this is the case, and I will declare that this is COMPLETELY INSANE.
I declare myself Wing Commander of the Air Force, order an ICBM strike on Quebec from a payphone, and you're telling me the boys who pushed the button aren't in trouble because they thought I was the real deal? That's *nuts*.
“A $12 document would clear up that confusion permanently.”
The people whop need to be satisfied as to Obama’s eligibility are not confused. That you are is neither here nor there.
“There is if I’m your employee.”
The POTUS is not your employee. Where did you get that idea?
“...a whole bunch of the citizens are NOT satisfied with his assertion that he is qualified.”
So what? That dissatisfaction means you get to run off to court and attempt to disrupt the military command because you personally have absolutely no standing to raise this issue and think that someone in the military does?
“I surely will, if we actually have an election.”
Absent the very unlikely fulfillment of the revolutionary pipe dreams of so many on the internet, including those who fantasize about a military coup, I am confident you’ll get your chance. Maybe you people can try to make Obama’s birth an issue for your candidate in that election and assure Obama’s reelection.
Does the term Reductio ad absurdum, mean anything to you? It should.
You are the one calling for the people who continue to question the unvetted eligibility of a quite possibly ineligible presidential candidate to be tried for sedition?
Allegedly, at least, this is a nation of laws. Those who have no other redress are seeking in court to see that the most basic of our laws are upheld in that the candidate, who was not vetted, who was not claimed to be vetted (not in writing), except by his 'word', and who is for all practical purposes undocumented, is eligible under the requirements for office under the United States Constitution.
As I have said, it is a simple matter of releasing the documents--documents required of any job applicant or prospective kindergardener.
The ONLY reason to fail to do so is that there is something to hide.
My concern is his Natural Born Citizen Status. For you to be loosely throwing about accusations of "sedition" for that concern is enough to indicate to me that you are a friend of the man, but not of the Republic nor its Constitution.
While specific legal means did not exist to force the divulgence of that information during the last election, they will in the future. For now, the matter has been referred to the courts, and it will continue to be until settled.
I certainly pray not. Not for her, not for any of her comrades-in-arms. Still, the left's only model for a successful (successful being defined in a leftist's pea-brain as one America lost) war is Vietnam.
They simply can't wait to revisit the highest peak experience they had way back then - My Lai. They get wet tingles down their legs just thinking about it.
It would be this generation's defining moment. It will be the time they will point to with pride as the moment when they proved that what they knew deep in those little black self-loathing clinkers they call their hearts - America is the Ultimate Evil - is "true".
Thanks again for serving your country, CPT Rhodes.
Indeed! Thanks, Godspeed, and good luck!
Why?
He's a lawyer, nully.
As a matter of fact, a fortiori, I consider a chief executive with zero documentation to be of precisely the same level of absurdity.
Yes, there is, if you are hiring, and we are the employers of our government officials, not their subjects, and not "customers of bgovernment".
Until such a time as their illegitimacy is demonstrated.
Which, by the way, is exactly what we are striving to do.
Should he be proven to have never been qualified in the first place, this would arguably nullify every law he's signed and every appointment he's made.
Don't know about you, but that would be worth it to me!
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.