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 ...
Perhaps stormer is a mosh of STORM, the Van Jones anti-cop/anti-American org. This blustering prick may be one of or even Van Jones’s iterations.
>You are calling every person above her in the chain of command a criminal. Give me a break.
Actually that’s exactly what it is. This is, like it or not, the result of denying soldiers the “I was following orders” defense and forcing them to worry about legal/illegal orders. (See the Nurmburg trials.)
Furthermore, the officers in the chain of command derive their authority from the person commanding them, all the way to the president, who in turn, derives his authority from the Constitution. Now, therefore, if the “President” is not qualified, Constitutionally, to be President then he is also not qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. (That is, in that scenario, the “president” would have as much authority as I would if I dressed up as a Brigadier General: none.)
All lawful orders are given under authority of the chain of command. It is not a defense to say “I was following orders”.
No, just a Democrat.
That’s pretty harsh.
Get real ... please
You’re quite the fruitloop aren’t you? LOL
I believe OldDeckHand is a military lawyer, and has discussed this on other threads, notably this one.
I am sorry that you do not understand HOW this countries system works. Were you brought up in a public school?
So how long are you birthers going to let yourselves be strung along by these televagelist wannabe’s before you realize you are being played. This has nothing to do one way or the other with the validity of your argument, but you are penning your hopes on people with the about same level of credibility as Jim and Tammy Fay Baker. So really, at what point will you stop buying into their promises of the truth being just around the next corner?
I haven't followed this particular case that closely since the first request for TRO was dismissed, but in a nutshell, this is what's going to happen, IMHO.
The district court will dismiss this complaint as well. So long as the Captain doesn't miss a formation or a movement, she won't be in much, if any, trouble. That is of course, if she doesn't speak disparagingly about anyone in her chain of command, including the CIC.
If she doesn't report, if she speaks contemptuously about command or if misses a movement, she'll face an Article 32 investigation which will undoubtedly lead to a court-martial for a number of UCMJ violations. She'll be found guilty and she'll see a little jail time - and as an officer - probably more time than has been doled out to the many people that have refused to report over the "legality" of the Iraq or Afghanistan wars under Bush.
That's it in a nutshell.
1 Certified copy of original birth certificate
2 Columbia University transcripts
3 Columbia thesis paper
4 Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups
5 Harvard University transcripts
6 Illinois State Senate records
7 Illinois State Senate schedule
8 Law practice client list and billing records/summary
9 Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mother
10 Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)
11 Occidental College Transcripts
12 Parent’s marriage Certificate
13 Record of baptism
14 Selective Service registration records
15 Schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
16 Passport records for all passports
17 Scholarly articles
18 SAT and LSAT test scores
19 Access to his grandmother in Kenya
20 List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists
21 Punahou grade school records
22 Noelani Kindergarten records are oddly missing from the the State of Hawaii Department of Education.
Anyone who cares about their country would be very concerned that a POTUS had hidden every scrap of information of his life that he possibly could.
The President as “Commander-in Chief” is in charge of the Army, it is he that orders the Joint Chiefs what to do do, so yes all orders flow from him.
What? One of the craziest statements I've seen - perhaps ever. Of course the the Chiefs are in the chain of command - in their respective branches of service. In fact, they are at the TOP of the uniformed chain of command of their respective branch of service.
The incorrect selection of articles was only one puzzlement. Have you noticed, by the way, that Obama often uses "a" where "an" is the correct choice?
The rest of my question pertains to the following portion: (read all the words very slowly & carefully)
"... if a Army captain fighting deployment to Afghanistan because of the challenged the legitimacy..."
The only thing that is clear in the the entire first tortured sentence is that the hearing has been postponed until Monday. It does not complete the thought about the Army captain. What are they seeking on his behalf?
I don’t believe she has disobeyed any orders yet.
Is it a crime to ask for clarification of orders prior to the date they must be followed?
Oh great, a barracks lawyer.
_______________________________________
If that slur is against my status as a bona fide former member of the US military, I’ll just consider where it came from and ignore it...
As an homnorably discharged veteran of the United States Armed Forces, I am glad I was never forced into the ghastly situation that Captain Rhodes is in right now...
She is responsible for the health and safety of those under her in “the chain of command”
and I do not envy her the decision she had to make due to Barry Dunham-Soetoro’s continual flaunting of the question of his eligibility under the Constittuion of the United States to be president....and Commander-in-chief over the US military...
But I am proud that she is sticking up for herself and the men and women who would serve under her, and the oath she took to protect and defend that same Constitution...
I am reminded of the Germans who dressed in U.S. uniforms and pretended to be U.S. officers. They caused delay, destruction, and loss of lives during the Battle of the Bulge.
It seems to me that a fraudulent president, dressed in the trappings of the White House could also do a lot of damage. In fact, he may already have done so with his order on rules of engagement in Afghanistan.
2-22 are all completely irrelevant to the legality of his presidency. So that leaves one issue. The birth certificate. Which the State of Hawaii says is valid. That’s going to be pretty tough to overcome. I’m just curious as to how long you are going to allow yourselves to be told the answer is just around the next corner? Oh well, whatever floats your boat. Good luck.
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.