Cpt Connie Rhodes, MD refuses deployment to Iraq until Obama’s legitimacy for CinC is verified

U.S.D.C. Western District of Texas ^ | 8/28/2009 | rxsid

[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"

[OldDeckHand]

"You are a new FReeper posting “I know everthing” responses. What you don’t seem to understand is, most of your arguments have been debated on this board for over a year."

I don't know about "everything", but I can predict with a reasonable amount of certainty how an case about an officer in the US Armed Forces disobeying a direct and lawful order will turn out. And, I might add that there have been a number of prior-service JAGs that have agreed, entirely.

I'll add you to the growing list of people that refuse to listen to reason, and who lob insults when they hear something that they don't agree with.

If you've got holes in my legal arguments, let's hear them. Of course, please cite case law, relevant procedural rules and statutes, as I have, when you do. Otherwise, you're just background noise.

[Kevmo]

You left out Star Traveler. Looks like a new CoLB Troll list has been started. Don’t be surprised if JimRob tells you to stop hunting trolls, like he did to me and little J

[MHGinTN]

The other night, ST was told by the mod to stay off of the BC threads. And by the way, I’m not troll hunting. I just can’t abide liars like WOSG spewing lies without be confronted. On another thread, WOSG is telling bold-faced lies in service to the obamanoid cause.

[Kevmo]

The other night, ST was told by the mod to stay off of the BC threads.
***Got a link? I’d like to update something.

[Kevmo]

And by the way, I’m not troll hunting. I just can’t abide liars like WOSG spewing lies without be confronted. On another thread, WOSG is telling bold-faced lies in service to the obamanoid cause.
***Sounds good to me. If your approach works I might steal it.

[rolling_stone]

from a google search according to the author supposedly it was corrected...

[rolling_stone]

Well Sotomeyer would have to recuse herself as she was appointed by the usurper.

[rolling_stone]

The framers did anticipate it, that is why we have the second amendment.

[Kevmo]

Good Answer. And one, I suspect, that covers a lot of ground that the framers probably felt was left unsaid as long as the 2nd Amendment is in place.

[El Gato]

British law matters if they are making the argument that his British citizenship disqualifies him even if born on US soil.

But I don't accept that argument. Rather I think that it is the lack of US citizenship of his father that matters, not his, or his father's, British citizenship. If that is, BHO Sr. was his legal father and married to Stanley Ann. My conclusions are no different, but the path to them is, and the path has the "advantage" of not depending on any foreign law.

[Aurorales]

You might think I am “just background noise”, but at least ' FReepers aren't thinking of adding me to the troll list.

So go ahead and “predict” away. Just be sure to keep adding that extra punch of emphasis by adding your vast resume to at least every other response you post.

We just love it when you do that. It is sooooo wonderful to hear a know-it-all tell tell us over and over and over again how he knows it all.

I was taught when I was in the military to “pay your dues”.
Big Hint: you haven't paid your dues around here yet.

[Kevmo]

Post of the day.

[xzins]

There is no war if the congress doesn’t give its blessing within 60/90 days per the war powers act. In this case, Congress gave its blessing twice. Once with the Sep 18, 2001 congressional resolution and then in 2003 with a resolution specific to Iraq.

So, while the president can issue an overall command to retreat/redeploy to the US, and he can direct both tactics and strategy in the conduct of the war, the continuation of it and the regulation of it is at the behest of Congress.

Therefore, the Cpt defies regulations and not the president. She defies the “orders of the officers appointed over her” as specified in her oath of commissioning.

We’ll see if anyone chooses to pursue this.

[OldDeckHand]

"We just love it when you do that. It is sooooo wonderful to hear a know-it-all tell tell us over and over and over again how he knows it all."

As I suspected. No legal citations, no reference to rules of procedure or case law. Nothing new or insightful to add to the debate. Just name calling covered in vitriol topped with a dash of huffing & puffing. Just. Noise. Sleepy. Sleepy. Noise.

[little jeremiah]

Thanks for the ping - maybe we’re allowed to go a-hunting now?

I appreciate any pings to this topic - it interests me greatly. as you know. I am currently so busy I don’t get much time to hunt down articles on FR. Maybe after a few weeks...

[Kevmo]

Check out #564 & say good bye to an old annoyance.

plus you have freepmail

[El Gato]

There's no statutory (or Constitutional) requirement for a Presidential nominee to prove that he's eligible, only that he be eligible. That's a gaping hole

I don't see that as big a problem as the lack of a clear defintion of "natural born citizen". Proof would be easy. If an NBC must have two US Citizen parents and be born under US Jurisdiction, then BHO does not meet the definition. If it only requires being born in the US, then if he produced a real Certification, rather than an image of one, and it agrees with the image, then he'd have proved that he is eligible.

Producing such a certified COLB certainly would have been cheaper than continuing to fight it in Court. Thus many of us "Smell a Rat". I know that is not a legal term. But the law has to be about justice, and finding the truth, or it's useless and needs to be changed.

which brings up something dimly remembered from 1974/5, when I was a LT. I served on some sort of judicial board or panel. It was run like a Court Martial, but it wasn't quite one, the terms escape me. But the point is, when they were briefing us, they described the difference between a military court and a civilian one. One of these was the lack of a true adversarial system. Yes, each of the JAG officers involved had an area of interest. One was the counsel for the accused, one represented the convincing authority, and one functioned something like a civilian judge but was described as more of a legal adviser to the panel. We, as members of the panel could ask questions, unlike a civilian jury. But all were interested in the truth, and that justice be done. In this special "court" or whatever it was, we were to determine the facts of the case, which everyone stipulated anyway, and make a recommendation to the convening authority, who in turn could issue a lessor, but not greater punishment than we recommended.

Two questions. First, what was this thing I served on? Secondly, was/is the relative lack of an adversarial system true?

BTW, the senior ranking officer of the panel, a Colonel, was really PO'd at this guy's commander and first sergeant for not intervening before the guy pleaded guilty in a civilian court, on the advice of some civilian jailhouse lawyer's advice. That left us little leeway in our findings of fact, since the fact was that he had a civilian conviction.

[El Gato]

one further point....you are getting hung up on the word national. They are using it to mean citizen

The law makes a clear distinction between the two. All citizens are nationals, but not all nationals are citizens.

After looking at the State FAM, I'll concede that they are enforcing it as if it "nationality status" meant "citizen" or Non citizen national. Thus if the unwed mother is a non citizen national, the baby born outside the US is non-citizen national, if she's a citizen he's a citizen. But in either case, by law, not necessarily natural born per the Constitution. The FAM says that too.

[rxsid]

Please post the law that would refute his British citizenship at birth, and the proof of his parents circumstances that would make it valid in his case. Thanks.

[rxsid]

Assumed by all. That’s all we have at the moment. The guy’s past is under lock and key at the moment.