Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rhodes v. MacDonald(Obama) Dismissed (Judge Land's 14 page court ruling inside)
US Archives ^ | 9-16-09 | USDJ Clay D. Lands

Posted on 09/17/2009 10:10:11 AM PDT by Jpd

Captain Rhodes entered the Army in March of 2005 and presently serves as a medical doctor. The American taxpayers paid for her third and fourth years of medical school and financially supported her during her subsequent medical internship and residency program. In exchange for this valuable free medical education, Captain Rhodes agreed to serve two years in active service in the Army. She began that term of active service in July of 2008 and had no concerns about fulfilling her military obligation until she received orders notifying her that she would be deployed to Iraq in September of 2009.

Captain Rhodes does not seek a discharge from the Army; nor does she wish to be relieved entirely from her two year active service obligation. She has not previously made any official complaints regarding any orders or assignments that she has received, including orders that have been issued since President Obama became Commander in Chief. But she does not want to go to Iraq (or to any other destination where she may be in harm’s way, for that matter). Her “conscientious objections” to serving under the current Commander in Chief apparently can be accommodated as long as she is permitted to remain on American soil.


The Judge does not seem amused

Court Ruling

This is a PDF file open with Adobe Acrobat reader

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Government; History; Military/Veterans; Politics
KEYWORDS: certifigate; orly; orlytaitz
I like Orly for her courage I just dont understand why there is not a astute conservative lawyers or constitutional scholar in counsel with her in these fillings? shes doing a disservice to the cause and these good soldiers, with her obtuseness to our court systems
1 posted on 09/17/2009 10:10:11 AM PDT by Jpd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jpd
You do that judge and sanction her with a fine. You may not like what a can of worms that you may open.

Clay Land - " Accordingly, her application for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 3) is denied, and her Complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel is hereby notified that the filing of any future actions in this Court, which are similarly frivolous, shall subject counsel to sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)."

From March, 2009 Hollister v. Soetero [Obama]

"63. For the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff’s Counsel, John D. Hemenway should not be sanctioned under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11(b)(1) and 11(b)(2). If the Court persists in pressing Rule 11 procedures against Hemenway, then Hemenway should be allowed all of the discovery pertinent to the procedures as Court precedents have permitted in the past. Case 1:08-cv-02254-JR Document 23 Filed 03/16/2009 Page 27 of 28 28"

Yes, go for it judge.

2 posted on 09/19/2009 1:03:01 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jpd
Looks like Rhodes came to her senses with Orly, hopefully she can find a more competent lawyer to pursue this litigation.

3 posted on 09/19/2009 4:02:54 AM PDT by Jpd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jpd

4 posted on 09/19/2009 6:28:56 AM PDT by MrLuigi (incompetence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jpd

Gosh, who’s left to like? Taitz is clearly a loose cannon (cf. Rhodes letter to Land). And Land is the worst example of a biased judge I have seen in recent memory. (I agree that the sanctions against Orly would be a source of much-needed publicity. Hopefully the SRM will go for the bait.) I guess we need to turn our eyes to California and pray that Judge Carter’s desire for justice will win out—and that he’ll have patience with counsel for the plaintiff.

5 posted on 09/19/2009 6:57:33 AM PDT by Genoa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

“...should be allowed all the discovery pertinent to the procedures...”

I wonder how much leeway there is concerning “pertinent to the procedures.”

6 posted on 09/19/2009 7:02:27 AM PDT by Genoa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson