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"
If a judge were to issue subpoenas, it would probably result in a Constitutional "crisis" of sorts. But, cases surrounding both Nixon and Clinton give weight to the belief that the subpoena would eventually be executed. But, that "what IF a judge...", is a very big and unlikely IF.
Maybe we fight fire with fire. This a$$hole was a community organizer. How about we do something he can appreciate?
Send a 1000 people every day in front of that building, demanding justice?
I'm sorry. That's just not the way it works in a "court of law", either civilian or military. In an Article 32 hearing - which will surely come if Rhodes refuses to deploy - the government will have to demonstrate that the orders are legal orders. That will be done post haste, and I can promise you no presiding officer is going to indulge a defense of "the president really isn't the president".
You're arguing how you think things should be. I'm just trying to explain how things really work. Frequently, those two thoughts are in direct opposition in the American legal system.
I'm trying as best I can not to get dragged into the BC/HI birth morass. I'm just trying to explain the judicial/punitive complexities of a decision to refuse a military order.
"You said, that all Obama needs is a sworn affidavit of those in Hawaii who have supposedly seen it to provide the court, but, that has not happen .. YET ?? So ? if you and others, and Obama believe it's legit ? then ?
I was answering a hypothetical question, "What if this case is ever heard on it's merits (in a civilian court). I outlined the evidentiary importance and weight of prima fascia evidence, and the challenge that would present to the plaintiff - in short, it would be most substantial.
why ohh why spend $ 2.5 million to squash any plaintiffs arguments to bring this to court for discovery ?
.... I have no idea how much he's spent, but if that's true, it probably means he hiding something. But, to a sitting judge hearing a case, whatever the defendant spent pre-trial wouldn't be germane, material or relevant, in any way. It has no legal bearing, at all.
Wouldn't him just showing the original birth certificate be sufficient ? ... after all ? the US Constitution requires it.
I'd have to skim the USC again, but I'm pretty sure there's nothing in there about "showing the original birth certificate". Art. II, Sec. I states..
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
What it doesn't state in that Article, or anywhere else for that matter specifically who is to verify that information, nor what would pass for verification of those requirements. It was never addressed in the Constitution, and apparently it was never addressed legislatively. That's why we're in the mess that we're in today. That's not the "courts" fault, that's the fault of the framers, and every subsequent session of Congress.
Shouldn't this be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt ? .. because many folks still have huge doubts whether he is eligible to hold the office of the President of the United States."
Courts don't (or shouldn't) worry about what should happen. Courts are concerned about the application of current law in the case that's before them - nothing more.
****Hypothetically, And I’m speaking hypothetically here, what would be your conclusion if he does rescind the order?****
Sorry for not getting back sooner...I’ve been painting a coupla rooms “City Scape”—a sort of Taupe color—don’t ask...
If Obama rescinds the order, morale will sink lower than well-diggers butt, and our military will be endangered. He can’t allow that to happen, especially since he wants to forge ahead in Afghanistan.
Obama’s cornered.
You mean “prima facie” evidence?
Nah you have it all wrong, send a couple of plumbers at night..oh wait I think that has already been done and they found his BC blocking the toilet and they retrieved it, someone is waiting for the best time to nail Obie.
Paper orders are still "cut". For reservist, it's not uncommon for the paper orders to not show up until they are in their temporary staging or training area, preparing to deploy overseas.
As an example, they'll have a "legal workshop" with a JAG officer(s), and the JAG will help them to prepare a will and the like. If these reservist need relief from creditors under the "Soldiers & Sailors" act, a copy of the sailor or marine's orders must be included in the correspondence to the creditor when requesting relief under the Act.
Believe me, there's no threat of the US military going "paperless" anytime soon.
In point of fact, orders are revoked every hour of every day in the Armed Forces. In Maj. Cooke's case, his orders were revoked because he was a non-ob officer who actually "volunteered" for deployment a few months before he filed his TRO. To the Army, it just wasn't worth the nuisance value to fight him in court - it was a decision of financial expediency, nothing more.
In this Captain's case, she's already lost her TRO. The time to "revoke" her orders would have been before the TRO was adjudicated, like it was in Cooke's case. As Rhode's is a (probably) obligated officer and this is a involuntary deployment, her orders aren't going to be changed, or revoked. If she refuses to deploy, she'll certainly be facing a court-martial for a number of UCMJ violations.
If you can find a copy of the Susan Blake video (most have been "disappeared") She clearly states that she showed Stanley Ann how to change a diaper.
How long does it take a new mom to learn that particular art?
Think about that. What was a days (or perhaps weeks?) old baby doing 2500 miles away from home? What new mom would subject her infant and herself to such a hasty journey unnecessarily?
What necessity drove that trip?
Stoopid browser-based spell checker gets me every-freakin-time.
I'll ask one of my colleges who lived 3 doors down from Barak Sr. if he always wore them.
He does seem to be narrowing his options down to nothing, doesn't he?
Nothing more dangerous than a cornered 'rat.
Especially one with his finger on The Button...
“2.02 FAILURE TO PRODUCE AVAILABLE STRONGER EVIDENCE
If weaker and less satisfactory evidence is offered by a party, when it was within that party’s ability to produce stronger and more satisfactory evidence, the evidence offered should be viewed with distrust.”
Applied here, Obama’s online computer-generated certification should be viewed with distrust.
The "defendants" (Gates, Obama) in the TRO application haven't offered any evidence to the court. The bench ruled on the strength (or in this case, the weakness) of plaintiff's argument alone.
Electronic copies of purported birth certificates floating around the internet ether aren't "evidence" of anything. Rules for weighing fact or evidence can only be applied to facts that are actually in evidence.
Hey, null and void. Good morning. (I see it is afternoon by now.) I just saw your ping; therefore, I apologize for the late acknowledgement to your post.
I am totally at a loss as to what is going on. I am sure all the congresscrooks, the Supreme Court, the Chiefs of Staff, other judges, FBI, CIA, etc, Israel, the British, the Germans, hence Chancellor Merkel’s more than just raw hatred toward Obama because she knows she is wasting her time with an imposter, and much more. Why our own people who have this information on Obama are keeping quiet and watching our country go down boggles my mind. Why? This is treason on their part.
I don’t see any civil war on the horizon. Everybody likes to talk about it and how many bullets they have purchased, but it is all talk. Take into account that gentleman who was beaten by thugs for passing out flags outside a town hall meeting. Nobody, NOBODY, stepped forward to defend him. Everybody just stood around and watched. Do these citizens who looked on sound as if they are going to defend our country if they couldn’t defend one person?
Obama’s puppeteers are becoming more and more embolden with each day for our lack of action. Everyday there is something bigger, meaner, and more dangerous from them. Words and yelling at these town hall meetings are good, at least some congresscrooks may be scared for their reelection, but they are just words. They are not sticks and stones.
The courts are in bed (I hate that expression. I apologize.) with Obama. They are protecting him even though they are supposed to be protecting we the people against injustice.
It may be too late, but should enough conservatives win the house and senate in ’10 there could be an impeachment by the house and throw the bum out by the senate to include throwing out a bunch of judges to include those on the Supreme Court who can also be impeached and given the door along with Obama. But it may be too late for us because things are rapidly escalating with a government and its agencies, judicial systems, and Chiefs of Staff who don’t care about our country and its constitution.
Why were so many lives lost in WWI and WWII? For this?
As usual, null and void, I did not answer to the comments you wanted…I really do know the answer though: The answer is lock and load. But I can’t tell someone else to do it when I am not going to be there to help.
Well, of course.
And, of course again, the TRO was denied for obvious reasons.
What I’m referring to is down the road at trial, if the case ever gets to trial, when Obama submits his computer generated certification of live birth, when there is more compelling evidence (ie a birth certificate stashed away in Hawaii) that he could produce, to support his claim of being a natural born citizen, but refuses to produce it-—then his evidence should be viewed with distruct—
according to the jury instructions.
WWI was a waste, except for a brief good times in the 20's it did nothing but set the stage for its final resolution by means of WWII.
WWII? It was worth it. It bought generations of relative peace, wealth and freedom, to a degree never before experienced in all of human history.
But all human conditions are temporary, and need to be renewed.
It's rapidly approaching renewal time, and the price of that renewal can only be paid in blood.
Perhaps our species will some day figure out a better way?
I understand what you're saying. But, that "computer generated" Certification of Live Birth has already been legally tested in another case - case name escapes me, and I don't have access to a library right now, but I believe it was a child custody case in HI - and it was affirmed in a HI Supreme Court as well.
Essentially, a mother was trying to deny parental custody rights to a father who was not the biological father, and was not the father of record on the original birth certificate. The Father, however, did posses an amended "Certification of Live Birth" that reflected he was the father. The court favored the "Certification of Live Birth" over the original birth certificate, setting the precedent for future cases that a subsequently issued "Certification of Live Birth" will have just as much evidentiary weight as an original birth certificate, and in that particular case, even more weight than the original.
I believe the name was "Inoye", like the HI Senator - but perhaps spelled a little different.
“WWI was a waste, except for a brief good times in the 20’s it did nothing but set the stage for its final resolution by means of WWII.”
You are correct. But enough of our relatives died in that war never the less thinking they were doing the patriotic thing.
WWII definitely had no unparallel. It was devastating.
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.