Well, since I was 11B I didn't spend enough time in the office to pick up on all the intricacies involved.
And thank you for your service! We're all on the same team! 
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"
Well, since I was 11B I didn't spend enough time in the office to pick up on all the intricacies involved.
And thank you for your service! We're all on the same team!
First, I apologize for the delay in my answer, somehow I missed your post.
When I say, "That's how it works", I'm speaking about our adversarial system of justice, and specifically the burden of proof as it pertains to that system. When you file a civil action, you - as the plaintiff - have what's known in law as onus probandi, or the burden of proof. It's your responsibility to prove what you're alleging in your action - that you are entitled to remedy or relief from the court. It is not the defendants burden to prove that your allegation is wrong. The defendant enjoys what is known as the benefit of assumption.
To put it as simply as I can, if this Obama eligibility case were ever to be heard on the merits, Obama would begin with the presumption that he is eligible to be president. It's entirely up to the plaintiff to prove that he isn't.
I understand your frustration. Obama, in your opinion I presume, doesn't qualify to hold the office. You want some relief, or justice. The problem is the courts don't distribute justice, they settle arguments based on the application of US law, nothing more. In this instance, most of the law and rules of trial heavily favor Obama.
It's not a perfect system, but it's the best one we have. Sometimes, it falls short.
Since the Congressman from Samoa bought up the paper trail in Indonesia and Hussein put a gag order on the Kenyan tribe and sealed all records there, in Indonesia, and the US then it's not likely. Even if 15 eye witnesses to his miraculous birth accompanied Orly to the next hearing, the judge would claim there was no merit. It's all a game and it's going according to plan. The idea is to keep everyone on the bc and hopefully not get around to demanding other info be made public. Smoke and mirrors.
Captain is an O-3 in the Army, Air Force and Marines. Captain is an O-6 in the Navy and Coast Guard.
Okey dokey. I suppose they made the effort to verify this though I haven’t seen any effort to solve the murder.
Totally agree. Preachin’ to the choir.
I'm not a SCOTUS watcher, as many are. But, it's my recollection that they've denied certiorari in a number of cases, and all without comment. It's the "without comment" part that's telling - in addition to the outright denial of cert.
Now, it's not uncommon or unusual for the Supremes to deny a motion without comment. But, it is unusual in a case(s) with such exigent (I would think that an illegal President to be immediate in importance) circumstances and such profound Constitutional implications, not to give any comment. It's Supreme Court-speak for, we aren't going to go down this road. I would say it also empowers or reaffirms lower courts to dismiss similar cases. FWIW.
I did say might. Although, I do think it's highly unlikely that they won't get her ob time from her. I could be wrong, but I've seen plenty of officers get administratively separated, immediately after their obligated time has expired.
That of course is predicated on the fact that she shows up and shuts up - a big if.
*sigh* Yeah. A black man gets murdered and no one cares.
Like that never happens.
Dammit.
Two points:
1) He was born with British citizenship. Something we agree on. Therefore, how then, could someone be considered a NBC of the US if they were governed by Great Britain at birth? There's no indication the framers would have considered a person with dual citizenship at birth to be NBC. There is evidence and a definition to the contrary.
2) He may has lost his British citizenship via the 1963 Kenyan Independence Act...and he may have "gotten it back" (as if never loosing it to begin with) by way of the amended Act. There is further supporting statements out of British law that indicate he remains a British citizen (barring a record of him renouncing it).
The following, from Attorney Apuzzo's site: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-president-of-us-is-currently-also_29.html
"Under the Kenyan Constitution of 1963, Obama’s father and Obama became citizens of Kenya. But neither Kenya’s independence from Great Britain, nor the Kenyan Constitution, nor the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963, as amended, caused Obama to lose his British citizenship with which he was born"
The fact that Obama still has British citizenship is further supported by the following:
"Under United Kingdom law as it has been since the British Nationality Act, 1948, the acquisition of another nationality by a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, of whatever age, makes no difference whatever to his status as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and, therefore, he remains a British subject.
Moreover, it is not possible, under United Kingdom law, for the nationality of a child who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies to be changed by the decision of his parents. Only the child, when he reaches the age of 21, can renounce his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he is then in possession of another nationality, but during the child's minority neither the child nor his parents can do anything to forfeit his birthright of British nationality." Children Bill [Lords], HC Deb 27 June 1958 vol 590 cc743-830.
"It is now the law that all persons born in the United Kingdom or its Colonies, or in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born, have British nationality whether they are legitimate or illegitimate. . . .
Also, it is part of our law that children of a British male born abroad can have British nationality." British Nationality, HC Deb 16 July 1963 vol 681 cc341-3.
Additionally, if one examines the British Nationality Act of 1981, as amended, there is nothing there which shows that Obama, once having the British citizenship that he acquired by descent from his father at the time of his birth, automatically lost it at age 21. On the other hand, the act contains provisions concerning "declaration of renunciation" at Section 10, 12, and 13. Not that doing so would make Obama an Article II “natural born Citizen,” there is no evidence that Obama ever filed any "declaration of renunciation" of his British citizenship.
Again, though, the bottom line here is the term "Natural Born Citizenship" and weather or not someone born with dual allegience can be considered such for the position of Commander in Chief.
Kind thanks.
CPT Rhodes will need as much if not more than me.
Except this black man knew a bit more than the average murdered black man.
Let me preface this with saying, I don't agree with it - But, to shed some light on what they might be thinking, let me offer this...
The Supreme Court has a history of trying NOT to wade into political controversies that revolve around who the President is and how he got their. Who is or isn't The President, is about as political as you can get, even if there's a profoundly Constitutional question underlying the case in question. This Supreme Court, especially has been reticent to wade into these kinds of cases, preferring to have them settled with a more purely political mechanism.
Take a look at Bush v. Gore. They were so gun-shy about setting a precedent with that case, they took the unprecedented step of writing a forward to their decision that said essentially - "This is a one-time, this-time only ruling, not to be applied to any future rulings". That's a remarkable statement coming from the highest court in the land, truly historic.
Lastly, I think it's telling that this whole "natural born" question has never been litigated in over 235 years. I can't think of any other Constitutional terms or phrases that haven't challenged, except for perhaps "Letters of Marque". It seems that like this court, no other court wanted to get their feet wet with such a question. I don't agree with it, but I do find it interesting.
It appears that the courts are probably not going to entertain Obama's eligibility at this time without any other concrete evidence besides the common knowledge of Obama once holding a foreign citizenship and having a foreigner as a father. It becomes apparent to search documents for evidence that Obama controls access to that are held by various government agencies. If you were the plaintiff's lawyer, how would you convince a presiding judge to grant you motion for general discovery? Any ideas?
ROTFLOL!
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. Effectively, if the court can't "fix it", or provide relief that the plaintiff is seeking, the original question becomes moot in the court's perspective.
Just a thought.
You should read my post to El Gato at 377, just above, it touches on your question a bit.
The Captain's case notwithstanding, I think it becomes a question for the court of "what's next". Even if the plaintiff can prove their case, how does the court provide relief to the plaintiff? Without an answer to that question, I don't see how the court would entertain such a case.
The otherside of the argument says if Obama never qualified to be president in the first place, in accordance with the 20th Amendment, therefore impeachment would not be necessary.
Just a thought.
If I understand what I think you just said, the only legal/constitutional avenue we have is to elect enough patriots to the house and senate to impeach him.
With ACORN ruinning the elections that will be challenging.
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.