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"
I’m sure there are reams of precedence that you can stack to Saturn and back that discovery was granted for a lot less. Any judge trying to protect Obama’s past from discovery will get his rear handed to him in appeal. Obama blinked for a reason in the Major Cook case. I expect Obama to do so again by rescinding her orders.
I guess I would ask you to clarify, which judge, the federal district judge, or the presiding officer at her general court-martial.
I suppose anything is possible in the federal district court, unlikely, but not impossible. In the general court-martial, however, absolutely no military jurist is going to issue a discovery motion for this president, or any president's birth records. In fact, an affirmative defense based on such supposition wouldn't be allowed. No way, no how and under no circumstances. It's not spelled out as an allowable affirmative defense in UA cases according to the manual for courts-martial, or in any case law in which I'm familiar.
Good point. The constitution says he must actually meet the criteria, not just claim to meet the criteria. The onus is clearly on Zero to prove his legitimacy.
This may just be the first trickle of what will become a large flood of military folks refusing orders until Zero breaks out the long-form BC.
What say you?
This lady Doc is in your corner of the desert. Especially see Post 46 and Post 63
Obama will feel compelled to not rescind her orders. This is just too much of an in-your-face challenge to his authority....by a female officer/doctor no less-—he thinks she is a traitor to her gender, and to him.
Prayers up for Capt. Rhodes.
That's not the way things work in civil law in this country. The onus operandi lays with the plaintiff, not the defendant. The defendant has the benefit of assumption. In other words, the court assumes that the president is legal invested in his office. Assuming that a district court entertains such a challenge, the burden of proof will be on the plaintiff, not the defendant - as always.
Here's the other problem. Obama has a document that is prima fascia evidence of his birth in HI. The evidentiary burden then falls to the plaintiff to prove that it's either fraudulent or invalid in some other way. That's a HUGE mountain to climb, probably insurmountable from a legal standpoint.
We will just see what happens. My bet Obama doesn’t even let this get to court. He had the same chance to charge Major Cook for refusing movement orders but he did not. Obama is afraid of discovery - he will not chance it in court. Likewise, he will cancel her orders.
As I said in an earlier post, if this doctor is an obligated officer - a big "if" - no way does the Army blink this time. It would set such precedent as to place them in an untenable position, flood gates would open to all manor of challenges on this premise.
Rescinding or revoking orders for an reserve officer who volunteered is quite different from revoking the orders of someone who's contractual obligated to the Army.
That's what the Army will do. What the district court will do is another matter altogether. I'm guessing that they'll dismiss on the basis of lack of standing - not saying I agree with it or that they should - I just think that's what will happen.
But if they keep on revoking orders, the word is going to get out that if you don't want to be deployed, just file a BC demand. I don't see how they can keep revoking without serious consequences.
I don't either, which is precisely why I think that they won't blink.
Obama certainly didn't "feel" the same for Major Cook. He did it once he will do it again.
See below:
Breaking: Major has orders revoked, by questioning Obama's legitimacy
Yes he will. Look at the post 72 above.
“it doesn’t appear the officer volunteered for deployment”
The officer whose orders were rescinded (Cook) is in the Reserves and had already done a tour in Iraq; this officer is in the active Army. As an M.D./Capt., her rank would indicate that she is a recent med school grad, and may well have gone through ROTC .. but it’s an ALL VOLUNTEER Army.
I saw that link on another thread and couldn’t believe it was from 2006.
Can’t believe it’s still up...or are they ‘messing’ with us again?
What picture are you looking for? Maybe Fred Nerks can help.
Split alot of hairs and dance pinheads.
Obama weaseled his way out of that litigation by saying Major Cook ‘volunteered’ for deployment, so he had the DoD unvolunteer him. Issue became moot.
Obama can’t weasel out of this one so easily. And, like I said upthread, Obama will take this one personally, to him Capt. Rhodes is a traitor to her gender and to him, and Rahm and Michelle won’t let him roll over.
My 2 cents.
AHA great news. Sooner or later obumbass is gonna have to put up or get out.
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.