Cpt Connie Rhodes, MD refuses deployment to Iraq until Obama’s legitimacy for CinC is verified

U.S.D.C. Western District of Texas ^ | 8/28/2009 | rxsid

[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"

[BIGLOOK]

Thanks for the reply.

I'm no Sea Lawyer nor one who's ever stood before the Mast but as former NSG, I had the rules read to me in six ply and signed off on them multiple times without benefit of council. Just a hazard of occupation.

So, her obligation super cedes her objection? Monetary investment vs challenge to political authority?

I hope she's sensible and a quick study.

[OldDeckHand]

"Yes he will. Look at the post 72 above. "

The facts surrounding Maj. Cooks ordered deployment are dissimilar in almost every what from the facts surrounding this physician's deployment. Cook was an reserve officer who volunteered for deployment. Then, a month or two later, he files a civil suit for a TRO (could have been injunctive relief, I can't remember anymore) to stop his deployment. The Army took it as a de facto request to withdraw his voluntary orders. As it turns out, officers who volunteer for duty, can withdraw their submission up until the time they're deployed. The Army granted that de facto request, rendering the civil suit moot.

This is completely different, as it appears that this is in a involuntary deployment order. The soldier can't refuse involuntary deployment orders, so there's no de facto request that the Army can acquiesce to. In short, they're painted into a corner with court-martial as the only way out, assuming the Capt actually doesn't report for duty.

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

Makes ya’ wonder don’t it ?...

[Red Steel]

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.

Then this will lead to Obama's comeuppance moment.

[reagandemocrat]

Lord willing and the creeks don’t rise.

[rolling_stone]

First off Orly needs to check her gender he she is mixed up all over the place.
Second stakes are going up, it takes a brave or ignorant person to fight this battle if her MD license is possibly at stake.

[OldDeckHand]

"but it’s an ALL VOLUNTEER Army."

Don't believe everything you read. If she indeed is a recent med-school grad, and the Army helped to pay for her school, she's SOL. They've got her for a period of time, based upon how much of her medical school they paid for. Like you, I'm guessing as just a Captain, she probably still owes them some time.

[Red Steel]

This is completely different, as it appears that this is in a involuntary deployment order. The soldier can't refuse involuntary deployment orders, so there's no de facto request that the Army can acquiesce to. In short, they're painted into a corner with court-martial as the only way out, assuming the Capt actually doesn't report for duty.

Reserve personnel are reserve until they are activated (active duty) which Major Cook was being put on active duty. I've been a volunteer for certain assignment before, and if I received orders to go where I wanted to go, it then becomes "orders" as in involuntary.

Like I said you dance on pinheads.

[OldDeckHand]

"Reserve personnel are reserve until they are activated (active duty) which Major Cook was being put on active duty."

There's absolutely no dancing going on here, at least on my part. I'm just telling you what the differences are.

Cook volunteered, he filed suit requesting a TRO to stop his deployment, which the Army took to as a request withdraw his submission to volunteer. His orders were revoked before (the day before I believe), he was to report.

From the suit that this Captain filed, it appears that this is an involuntary mobilization. Of course, given the limited information contained in Orly's filing, I suppose that it's possible this Captain volunteered as well, but I think - given her rank and facts outlined in her request for TRO - that is HIGHLY unlikely.

I don't know how much better I can explain the wide divide in circumstances and relevant facts between the two cases, and what those differences mean as a practical matter to the Army - it means it's virtually impossible for the Army to make this one go away like they did the last one.

[Red Steel]

If she refuses to go and the Army goes the Court Martial route, Obama will be open for discovery no matter what you think.

[OldDeckHand]

"If she refuses to go and the Army goes the Court Martial route, Obama will be open for discovery no matter what you think."

No Red, he won't. Let's just take the charge of Unauthorized Absense. You have two possible defense arguments, one that says you really weren't absent, which would be impossible to argue in this case. And the other would be what's called an "affirmative defense". In other words, you stipulate that you indeed were absent, but you had a "good reason".

Now, what are those "good reasons". Well, it's fairly straight forward, and not entirely dissimilar to affirmative defenses that might be found in a civilian criminal case - things like insanity, or temporary insanity. Another is called a defense of impossibility, as in it was impossible for you to be there because you were hospitalized or incapacitated. A third might be because of duress of some kind, usually to mean the threat of immediate bodily harm by superiors in some way.

There's no way that a presiding officer is going to entertain an affirmative defense based on the eligibility of the POTUS, as such, no discovery motions are going to be granted on such a defense.

[EDINVA]

by signing up for ROTC or whatever program through which the Army paid for her education, Capt Rhodes, M.D. volunteered. She wasn’t drafted. And no one held a gun to her head.

Let’s assume she DID do ROTC. When she signed up for that, whether undergrad or med school, she knew she would have a 5 year commitment after graduation, that she’d be commissioned as either a 2d Lt or Capt, and that she would have to follow orders, even if ordered to a war zone. She didn’t have to sign up for (volunteer) for ROTC.

That doesn’t remove the legitimacy of her question about the legitimacy of the person doing the ordering to hold his position.

[Aurorales]

“Here's the other problem. Obama has a document that is prima fascia evidence of his birth in HI.”
_______________________________________________

What “prima fascia evidence” “document” are you referring to?

I know of no document Barry has shown or turned over to any legal authority.

If you know of this “document”, please enlighten us all on its contents.

Defendants are allowed to put up a defense in court. Even a military court.
Don't be so quick to dismiss the importance of these type of cases.

[Fred Nerks]

obamabot deleted several images from his blog and defaced the images.

[OldDeckHand]

"What “prima fascia evidence” “document” are you referring to?"

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.

"Defendants are allowed to put up a defense in court. Even a military court."

I'm not sure how long you practiced law in the military, but I did it for almost 25 years. Yes, you can certainly "put up a defense", but you can't put up any affirmative defense. That's a defense that comes with some strings attached. Questioning command authority is not an allowable affirmative defense in any UA case in which I'm familiar.

[Red Steel]

There's no way that a presiding officer is going to entertain an affirmative defense based on the eligibility of the POTUS, as such, no discovery motions are going to be granted on such a defense.

Noway huh? That a possible illegal order from the top of the chain of command is not enough for the court to entertain the discovery motion for the defense? I find that highly unlikely, especially if it is the cornerstone of the defendant's case.

What's that saying? ... See you in court.

[OldDeckHand]

"That doesn’t remove the legitimacy of her question about the legitimacy of the person doing the ordering to hold his position."

No. But it does mean that the Army would have great difficulty just revoking the orders that they've already issued for an involuntary deployment, without opening the flood gates to a host of other challenges - something I'm sure that they don't want. That was the point I was making.

[EDINVA]

I’m not expert in either the Army or law, or politics for that matter ... but I don’t see how they could rescind her orders, either. But I imagine if nothing goes her way in court before 9/12, she will report to Benning and go on to Iraq rather than face court martial.

[rxsid]

IMO, all she would have to present in court is the known "facts" (assuming Barry isn't lying about who his biological father really is):

1)Barry was born to a foreign national father who had no perminant attachment to this country.
2)Bary was born with British citizenship via his father's British citizenship...no matter where he was born.
3)Assuming birth in HI, he was BORN with dual citizenship (i.e. potential for divided loyalties).
4)There is no known record of him renouncing his born with British citizenship.
5)Therefore, unless he prooves otherwise, he remains a British citizen today (& possibly a U.S. citizen. TBD).

So, she ask's the military court...does our Constitution allow for the Commander in Chief to be a British citizen or...possibly a dual citizen?

They can waive the "prima facia" short form HI colb all they want. Question is, "HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?"

[OldDeckHand]

"Noway huh? That a possible illegal order from the top of the chain of command is not enough for the court to entertain the discovery motion for the defense? I find that highly unlikely, especially if it is the cornerstone of the defendant's case."

And you base that on how many years, prosecuting, defending or presiding over general courts-martial?

I've said this before, but it's worth repeating. Too many people think and project how they instinctively think things should work, rather than trying to understand how things actually work in a court of law - either a civilian or military court of law. Many times, what might be perceived as a simply logical argument with respect to a criminal defense is the polar opposite from what defense is actually allowed. It's tough to swallow for law school students, and sometimes impossible to grasp for the layman.