Posted on 09/11/2009 2:38:33 PM PDT by plenipotentiary
A U.S. District Court hearing to determine if a Army captain fighting deployment to Afghanistan because of the challenged the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency was rescheduled for Monday.
Capt. Connie Rhodes filed the complaint last week and Judge Clay Land granted an emergency hearing Friday afternoon in the Columbus federal courthouse.
Rhodes, a medical doctor who was with her unit in Fort Riley, Kan., did not attend the hearing. That prompted Land to reschedule it for noon Monday.
Rhodes is scheduled to arrive at Fort Benning Saturday and deploy within seven days.
Rhodes’ attorney Orly Taitz — a national figure in the “birther” movement — was in Land’s court. Rhodes was ordered by her commanding officers not to leave Kansas, Taitz told the court.
“That is not the information I have from Fort Riley,” said Maj. Rebecca Ausprung, with the Department of the Army, Litigation Division in Washington. Rhodes had not informed her supervisor, Ausprung told the court.
Land made it clear he wanted to hear from Rhodes.
“I am going to require her to appear, so I can ask questions of her,” Land said.
Ausprung said the Army would make Rhodes available.
(Excerpt) Read more at ledger-enquirer.com ...
“Yeah, like the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Chief of Staff of the Army, you know, those lefties.”
One thing that’s surprised Freepers over the past year is just how many people you thought were real conservatives ... aren’t. The Republican party has let conservatives down ... full of RINOs who don’t believe in enforcing THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Where do you stand? Is the constitution just a bit of paper we can ignore, or do you pick and choose which bits should be enforced so long as your saviour can remain in office?
I’m keeping a list of so-called Freepers like you so I can have a good gloat when your hero is taken out of the White house in handcuffs. I don’t normally do gloating, but I think in this case it’s justified.
Um....I’m gonna say....no.
You have to validate evidence before you submit it. No judge is going to say, “Oh...this is good enough, I guess.”
Validate it how? Kenyan officials?
That would be the most likely source.
That’s probably the best way, yes.
Think of it this way:
I have a piece of paper with your name on it. It says you owe me $50,000.00. I want to enter it as evidence in a suit against you.
Should the court just let me enter it?
If not, why?
Yes, it should be entered as evidence and then disputed by my side with MY evidence or experts refuting it.
Orly’s Lavender BC purports to be an original that can be forensically authenticated as having been created in 1964 without relying to Kenyan authentication.
Unfortunately, Smith’s BC is a certified photocopy executed in 2009 with a seal and a signature stamp of the current hospital administrator Maganga, which is not as credible as having an actual signature would have been. Trying to obtain “official” Kenyan validation with testimony from Maganga or other Kenyan officials sufficient for the document to be admitted into federal court as evidence looks problematic to my non-lawyer eye reading FRE 902:
Rule 902. Self-authentication
“(3) Foreign public documents. A document purporting to be executed or attested in an official capacity by a person authorized by the laws of a foreign country to make the execution or attestation, and accompanied by a final certification as to the genuineness of the signature and official position (A) of the executing or attesting person, or (B) of any foreign official whose certificate of genuineness of signature and official position relates to the execution or attestation or is in a chain of certificates of genuineness of signature and official position relating to the execution or attestation. A final certification may be made by a secretary of an embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent of the United States, or a diplomatic or consular official of the foreign country assigned or accredited to the United States. If reasonable opportunity has been given to all parties to investigate the authenticity and accuracy of official documents, the court may, for good cause shown, order that they be treated as presumptively authentic without final certification or permit them to be evidenced by an attested summary with or without final certification.”
http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence#Rule902
The faction of Obama’s cousin, Odinga, lost the last election and an important sounding position of “Prime Minister” was created for Odinga as a consolation prize after his followers rioted. The president, KIBAKI, has the real executive power in Kenya, but Odinga’s is the largest party faction in the parliament. It is hard to discern whether the ruling party would be more inclined to hide Obama’s BC, possibly for blackmail or to preserve the national pride in Obama if Odinga’s opposition still has that pride after the riots, or whether the ruling party would see any benefit in helping bring Obama down. Odinga’s followers could hold the threat of riots against the Kenyan gov’t.
From CIA Worldbook:
chief of state: President Mwai KIBAKI (since 30 December 2002); Vice President Stephene Kalonzo MUSYOKA (since 10 January 2008);
head of government: President Mwai KIBAKI (since 30 December 2002); Vice President Stephene Kalonzo MUSYOKA (since 10 January 2008); note - the roles of the president and prime minister are not well defined at this juncture; constitutionally, the president remains chief of state and head of government, but the prime minister is charged with coordinating government business
cabinet: Cabinet appointed by the president and headed by the prime minister, who is the leader of the largest party in parliament
election results: President Mwai KIBAKI reelected; percent of vote - Mwai KIBAKI 46%, Raila ODINGA 44%, Kalonzo MUSYOKA 9%
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ke.html
You two are the personification of "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing". And, with your internet connections, you guys are absolutely lethal. You two geniuses read a Wikipedia article on single piece of legislation, and you both believe yourselves to be expert in Naval command structure - not to mention expert constitutional law scholars, experts in trial procedures, rules of evidence and a whole host of other wildly complicated subjects in which you have zero practical experience. It's laughable, if also a little pathetic.
Do yourselves a favor and flex that internet muscle by looking up "US Navy - Administrative Command", let me know if that sheds any additional light on the matter.
I'll even be so kind to get you started a little bit. I'll use an group that's near and dear to my heart, the US Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps. Take a look at the organization chart and let me know if you see any combatant commanders in that chain of command. I guess all those time I was deployed over seas or had any other kind of PCS, I should have filed a federal lawsuit because Goldwater-Nichols stripped the CNO of ordering me anywhere. You all have clearly established that the CNO has NO COMMAND AUTHORITY. Man, that's brilliant - where were you two when I got stuck in Subic for 19 months?
Also, I said before the 7th Fleet moves anywhere, it gets an order from the CNO. I should have been a little more specific, but I didn't realize that every single word was going to be microscopically parsed by two internet fools experts. Before ANY piece of Navy equipment or any Navy unit is given over to a combatant commander, it's certified sea-worthy or combat ready. Who's responsible for assuring our Naval forces are sea-worthy/combat ready? The Chief of Naval operations, that's who, not the unified combatant commanders. Who testifies before congress about Naval preparedness, NOT the unified combatant commanders, but the Chief of Naval Operation. Quick, somebody let Congress know that they're talking to the wrong guy because Goldwater-Nichols says he's just a Presidential Adviser with NO COMMAND AUTHORITY.
And, from the CNO's own website, read this little blurb...
"The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) is the senior military officer of the Department of the Navy. The CNO is a four-star admiral and is responsible to the Secretary of the Navy for the command, utilization of resources, and operating efficiency of the operating forces of the Navy and of the Navy shore activities assigned by the Secretary.
There are TWO separate and distinct Chains-of-Command in the US Navy, as there are in all branches of uniformed US military service. The original poster said "The Joint Chiefs aren't in the chain of command" and he later said the Joint Chiefs are only advisers to the President - which is equally ridiculous. Sure, they are advisers but they also each where at least one additional hat, which is a hat of administrative COMMAND.
But, if we are to believe you two, the individual joint chiefs are merely figureheads, in place to only advise the President of the United States who have no Command Authority, whatsoever and really are only in town to dress up DC dinner parties with their fancy uniforms. Well, I said it before and I'll say it again - RIDICULOUS
Hey non-genius, you do have a comprehension problem. I gave it to you right out of a military publication that explains it very well.
Someone should write up a list of the main techniques being used. I would call the above “Baffling with Bullshit”.
I may be back later on this thread to explain the role of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in a dumb-down way for all to understand. A teaching moment.
I could definitely see disgust, distrust and contempt in those faces. Nothing like the faces of the troops when Pres. Bush or Dick Cheney visited them.
Are you a complete retard? Do you not understand the definition of COMBATANT COMMAND?
You’re getting warm ...as in a clue. Well sorta. You may eventually figure it out.
I’d like to read it; I humbly admit I need the version for dummies.
I’ll do it later. ;-)
I love your tag line... :)
:)
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.