Skip to comments.Cpt Connie Rhodes, MD refuses deployment to Iraq until Obama’s legitimacy for CinC is verified
Posted on 08/28/2009 8:21:55 PM PDT by rxsid
click here to read article
You can always ask him (Major Cook), he’s a Freeper
Which is what happened last time.
They won’t go for court martial - under UCMJ she will have the right to discovery.
Discovery to Obama is like sunlight to a vampire.
Right. And that would be everything Obama is hiding. Every nook and crannies from all sources one could think of. Obama would be laid bare.
Another AMERICAN hero steps forward. Thank you Captain!
Will she be granted a discovery motion for Barack Obama's birth records? Not a chance. "My President isn't really my president" isn't an affirmative defense that any presiding officer is going to entertain, let alone grant discovery motion for.
Don’t mess with TEXAS! Is the good doctor captain a gal from Texas? Thank you very much Captain!
I was in the airport today and there were Army youngsters in BDU cammo. I felt so sorry for them. Hussein is a Islamist and any military action in an Islamic country now is folly. HUssein’s Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood moles in the white hut will be leaking intel to our enemies to kill our soldiers.
Sadly the RINOs and many Repubs are cowards and the Dems are far worse. McCain is the biggest disgrace! He sold out POWs and is selling out our military now.
The question is if Obama is Constitutionally legal to give orders to the military? If that’s the essence of the matter to why she refused her orders until verification, You can bet your butt the judge will grant discovery.
Enough question exists to question his ability to hold office.
Obama has the responsibility to prove he is eligible to hold the office. It is a requirement of the Constitution that a any person who becomes POTUS must meet certain criteria, one being NBC. The Document also provides the means in which a person who does not qualify is handled. The proof is on Obama, not the other way - as so many want to contend.
We can hope.
I’m sure there are reams of precedence that you can stack to Saturn and back that discovery was granted for a lot less. Any judge trying to protect Obama’s past from discovery will get his rear handed to him in appeal. Obama blinked for a reason in the Major Cook case. I expect Obama to do so again by rescinding her orders.
I guess I would ask you to clarify, which judge, the federal district judge, or the presiding officer at her general court-martial.
I suppose anything is possible in the federal district court, unlikely, but not impossible. In the general court-martial, however, absolutely no military jurist is going to issue a discovery motion for this president, or any president's birth records. In fact, an affirmative defense based on such supposition wouldn't be allowed. No way, no how and under no circumstances. It's not spelled out as an allowable affirmative defense in UA cases according to the manual for courts-martial, or in any case law in which I'm familiar.
Good point. The constitution says he must actually meet the criteria, not just claim to meet the criteria. The onus is clearly on Zero to prove his legitimacy.
This may just be the first trickle of what will become a large flood of military folks refusing orders until Zero breaks out the long-form BC.
What say you?
Obama will feel compelled to not rescind her orders. This is just too much of an in-your-face challenge to his authority....by a female officer/doctor no less-—he thinks she is a traitor to her gender, and to him.
Prayers up for Capt. Rhodes.
That's not the way things work in civil law in this country. The onus operandi lays with the plaintiff, not the defendant. The defendant has the benefit of assumption. In other words, the court assumes that the president is legal invested in his office. Assuming that a district court entertains such a challenge, the burden of proof will be on the plaintiff, not the defendant - as always.
Here's the other problem. Obama has a document that is prima fascia evidence of his birth in HI. The evidentiary burden then falls to the plaintiff to prove that it's either fraudulent or invalid in some other way. That's a HUGE mountain to climb, probably insurmountable from a legal standpoint.
We will just see what happens. My bet Obama doesn’t even let this get to court. He had the same chance to charge Major Cook for refusing movement orders but he did not. Obama is afraid of discovery - he will not chance it in court. Likewise, he will cancel her orders.
As I said in an earlier post, if this doctor is an obligated officer - a big "if" - no way does the Army blink this time. It would set such precedent as to place them in an untenable position, flood gates would open to all manor of challenges on this premise.
Rescinding or revoking orders for an reserve officer who volunteered is quite different from revoking the orders of someone who's contractual obligated to the Army.
That's what the Army will do. What the district court will do is another matter altogether. I'm guessing that they'll dismiss on the basis of lack of standing - not saying I agree with it or that they should - I just think that's what will happen.
But if they keep on revoking orders, the word is going to get out that if you don't want to be deployed, just file a BC demand. I don't see how they can keep revoking without serious consequences.
I don't either, which is precisely why I think that they won't blink.
Obama certainly didn't "feel" the same for Major Cook. He did it once he will do it again.
Yes he will. Look at the post 72 above.
“it doesnt appear the officer volunteered for deployment”
The officer whose orders were rescinded (Cook) is in the Reserves and had already done a tour in Iraq; this officer is in the active Army. As an M.D./Capt., her rank would indicate that she is a recent med school grad, and may well have gone through ROTC .. but it’s an ALL VOLUNTEER Army.
I saw that link on another thread and couldn’t believe it was from 2006.
Can’t believe it’s still up...or are they ‘messing’ with us again?
What picture are you looking for? Maybe Fred Nerks can help.
Split alot of hairs and dance pinheads.
Is there a link for that?
Obama weaseled his way out of that litigation by saying Major Cook ‘volunteered’ for deployment, so he had the DoD unvolunteer him. Issue became moot.
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.
My 2 cents.
I see the link - thanks
AHA great news. Sooner or later obumbass is gonna have to put up or get out.
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.
Makes ya’ wonder don’t it ?...
Then this will lead to Obama's comeuppance moment.
Lord willing and the creeks don’t rise.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.