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"
Your joking...right? By what authority does a HI dept of health official make the determination that someone born Governed by Great Britain, is considered a “natural-born American citizen”?
“Obama has a Certification of Live Birth, that at least two HI government officials have publicly stated is legitimate, including the Governor. I’m assuming that those HI officials would swear to that in an affidavit. If so, that Certification of Live Birth is prima fascia evidence of birth - it’s settled US law.”
The state of Hawaii has refused to authenticate, according to WND, the COLB that Obama has published on the net. Fukino said she looked at the "vital records." Is that the hard copy birth certificate on file or did she only look at what the computer database says? What the defense needs to discover all the documentation that backs up the 'Vital Records' in the database. And Fukino's opinion on who is a natural born citizen is not relevant.
It would take a small book to answer this completely. But, we aren't talking about "war crimes", we're talking about deployment orders. There's nothing remotely "unlawful" about a deployment order. It's like arguing that an order to take out the trash is unlawful. Irrespective of what they're arguing in the request for TRO, they aren't questioning the lawfulness of the order per se (deployment orders could never be considered unlawful, in any way). This captain is questioning the legitimacy of the President - big difference. In other words, she's questioning command authority - not something that's taken lightly by a military that has deep reverence for civilian control of the military. Do you understand the distinction?
Soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines don't get to litigate the complexities of domestic politics while serving - questioning the legitimacy is a political question, not a question of an order that could be found to be a "war crime".
Finally, a compounding element is that these deployment orders (like all deployment orders) aren't signed by the President, they're signed by the Secretary of Defense - a man who's been confirmed by the US Senate, twice.
"By your posts(which could be correct, for all I know), the whole military is filled with Adolf Eichmanns waiting to happen, as no officer has any ability to challenge an order as unlawful prior to executing it, without opening themselves up to felony prosecution, though they are told again and again to ignore unlawful orders."
You can, and in fact have an obligation to question unlawful orders. But, you can't question the authority of the chain of command. It may sound like a difference without a distinction, but in fact it's very different. Here's an example...
Order: Shoot the unarmed civilian
Response: I refuse as it's a violation of the UCMJ, Army Field Manual and Article 49 of the Geneva convention to intentionally kill unarmed non-combatants
It's the soldier's duty to refuse that order. It's clearly an unlawful order. Try this one...
Order: Pick up that trash.
Response: Go "f" yourself, I don't recognize your command authority.
Well, let's see. There's certainly nothing against picking up trash in any manual in which I'm familiar, nor is it against the UCMJ, nor is it against the Geneva Convention. Picking up trash, in and of itself - like a deployment order - is inherently a legal order. Assuming the person is in your chain command, it's not your prerogative to argue his command authority. As it's not the prerogative of an officer to challenge the command authority of the President. They can challenge unlawful orders, but not command authority. Does that make sense?
Fighting an undeclared war on orders of an usurper President is in war crime territory as it is. The lady has the right to question her potential status and liability.
They military has deep reverence for the US Constitution. Officers and enlisted alike have sworn to uphold the US Constitution. If Obama does not have the Constitutional legitimacy to give orders to the troops to engage in warfare are those lawful orders even if they conform the the law of armed conflict or any other order he gives? And if they are not lawful orders from the top of the chain of command to who are just 'following orders' exposes them, the military personnel, to criminal and civil court action? It's an overarching issue that really goes beyond just deployment order.
See post #125 which explains the stuation very well and is quite concise.
Excellent point!
I was wondering why there aren’t more of these, based on the lack of proof of citizenship. The more the merrier! This could definitely get dicey.
Would that not cause the state of Hawaii to open the sealed "birth certificate" for examination?
That 'statement' will need to be made in a court of law under oath, not as a quote on an internet website, correct?
Just as the original paper-copy of the Certification of Live Birth (showing the Seal and Stamp) will need to be shown.
I’ll second that and kudos to Dr. Rhodes for standing tall.
Thanks for the ping, Nully.
I’m unaware of the statements you speak of — the two Hawaii officials stating that the scanned document on Daily Kos and FactCheck.org is legitimate.
I AM aware that the Governor and a Public Health Official has said there is a long-form BC ON FILE in Hawaii, but I don’t believe they have EVER said ANYTHING about the scanned/photographed copy floating around on the internet... Do you happen to remember where you heard/read those statements?
Also, I’m curious as to why you think these two officials would sign an affadavit without personally examining the document in question.
Lucy, or Fred, perhaps you can help me remember where, but I thought I read that there was some sort of proof that Obama had NEVER applied for a copy of his COLB in 1997 (the date on the scanned COLB)? And, if that is true, then I doubt ANY official is going to sign anything putting their neck on the line for a document they’ve never seen and have no record of having processed, ODH.
I was offline for most of the summer, so maybe I missed something. Just trying to get all my facts straight...
LOL — As per my post to you a moment ago, you can probably guess that I didn’t scroll down past the comment I was replying to yet... My bad! [However, I KNEW this guy was wrong!]
*snicker*
Obama blinked believing it was simply go away; destroying Major Cook’s civilian and military career was a touch of revenge with the assumption others would be scared away from filing suit.
Obama, could not and does not understand the mentality of our military. I expect if they rescind Cpt. Rhodes MD orders, there will be another and another - a continual line of those serving our country willing to put it all on the line and go against “The One”.
Cook’s orders being rescinded made some waves; what happens when dozens of our military file suit, all to have their orders revoked?
Ones head would have to be buried very high up their posterior to not realize somethings not kosher in Obama-Land.
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.