Skip to comments.Cpt Connie Rhodes, MD files new complaint in Georgia seeking class action statuse
Posted on 09/04/2009 11:36:07 AM PDT by Sibre Fan
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, and INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: 10 U.S.C. §938 and Army Regulation 27-10
COUNT I: DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF DUE TO UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES, ILLEGAL ORDERS, AND LACK OF ADMINISTRATIVE OR LEGAL REMEDY
COUNT II: INJUNCTION AGAINST RETALIATION FOR CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR STATUS
COUNT III: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT: EXECUTIVE ORDERS OF Jan. 21, 2009
COUNT IV: Declaratory Judgment & Permanent Injunction PLAINTIFF SEEKS A FIVE-PART DECLARATORTY JUDGMENT AS WELL AS A PERMANENT INJUNCTION TO PROTECT CONSCIENTIOUS DISOBEDIENCE TO UNLAWFUL ORDERS FROM RETALIATION
COUNT V: AN OFFICERS RIGHT OR DUTY TO CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT?
COUNT VI: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT---5 U.S.C. §702, AND FEDERAL COMMON LAW apply to the PRESIDENT AS COMMANDER-in-CHIEF
COUNT VI: THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE PEOPLE; THE PATTERN OF RACKETEERING AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATION
COUNT VIII: CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS ACTIONABLE UNDER 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1988(a)(a)
(Excerpt) Read more at archive.org ...
Mystylplx, who had personally been trumpeting the “defect” of the mm/dd/yyyy USA-style date format in the Lucas BC had a cow and went over to Wiki and changed the Kenya entry to reflect only dd/mm/yyyy (another commenter on Lucas'site caught her and she fessed up) but she didn't (or couldn't) change the original world map with Kenya in purple indicating dual date format use. That map is still there as of today.
As Mystylplx indicates, the original source for the dual date formats for Kenya was a Microsoft page which I think was a programming guide. Apparently someone at Microsoft has done worldwide research into date formats (of course) but Mystylplx tries to dis that research as being inadequate.
I hope that someone with more skill and access than I can look in the "way back" archived Wiki page to insure against any possiblility or charge that Lucas Smith messed with Wiki before Mystylplx messed with Wiki!
No need to bother with the Wayback Machine. It's useful for gazing into the past of a lot of web sites, but it's quite useless for watching the Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages can change way faster than the Wayback Machine can possibly keep up.
But fortunately, the Wikipedia contains its own Wayback Machine, which is directly synchronized to changes. If you are wondering about the history of a Wikipedia article, simply click its History tab (here, in the current instance). It will show you when each past edit took place and allow you to compare any two versions to see what was changed.
You really think that, do you?
Want to bet? Discovery is not an open-ended fishing expedition. The defense will have the right to request subpoenas of information they deem necessary to their case, but the court has to sign off on them. Captain Rhodes may claim that Obama's birth certificate is vital to their case but the chances of the court agreeing with that hover somewhere between zilch point sh*t and none. There are enough layers of command involved that if Rhodes get's court martialled then she'll get convicted and Obama will never even enter in to it.
Following your links, there is clear evidence that Wiki showed a dual date format for Kenya before October 2008. The format is contested by a Wiki poster who doesn't support his objection, but his post affirms that the dual format for Kenya was there in Wiki before October 2008, which is well before Lucas Smith's public activity related to the Kenyan BC:
At the talk page of the map on Commons, it was said Spanish Basque and Pakistan may be big-endian. It also said Kenya and TZ may be US format, but that appears to not be the case. kwami (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Calendar_date#Kenya_uses_both.3F You state "Lucas Smith's forgery". Do you have any new forensic observations to base this opinion on, or is this just your opinion?
The COLB has been proven a fake. Hawaii says they have seen the origonal, but have never released it, and further will not state that the COLB on the web is the same one that they have seen.
Grow a set pal...
All orders origonate from the CIC, commander in charge, which is the POTUS...
Evidently you do not know the Chain of Command, also you have not read the case file, I just finished reading it, and all your statements have been rendered moot.
Read the file then get back to us.
I realize you didn't want to ruin your four day weekend getting worked up on FR about this Birth certificate issue... So, when you do come back I just want to make sure that you have the facts. What you wrote about the "authentication" of Barack's "Birth Certificate" is wrong. The state of Hawaii will NOT confirm that the "CertificatION of Live Birth" that is out on the web is authentic! There has been no document released by BHO that shows the hospital he was born in or the citizenship of both of his parents at birth. The birth certificate that he is refusing to release shows those two items. For a mere $10 he could release the document. The man is a fraud for proclaiming to be "transparent."
The war began under Pres. Bush who (1) no one questions the citizenship of, an (2) was authorized by Congress under a couple of joint resolutions.
The actions authorizing offense combat operations in Iraq and Afghan BOTH precede Obama’s swearing in and are a continuation of a long-standing “war.”
To allow individual service-people to determine if they will personally attend any war of their choice is to threaten the lives of those already deployed by (1) not offering them their time of recovery, and (2) to deny suitably trained replacements to fill vacant slots in units that are intricately designed to achieve a level of combat power based on all the parts being in place.
I’ll be damned if I’ll let some prima donna captain affect the safety of my son deployed overseas.
She should be BCD specialed and drummed out of service....which I personally think she’s hoping for, so she can attend to what is probably a more lucrative medical practice.
Not exactly true. The manual for courts martial says a an order is to be presumed to be lawful. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/mcm.pdf
(a) Lawfulness of the order. (i) Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate
A lawful order is also one that is related to the normal conduct of military operations, and while the issue authority is important it is not the final word, because:
Authorization may be based on law, regulation, or custom of the service.
At risk here is:
However, the dictates of a persons conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.
Appendix M CJCS Deployment Preparation Orders, Deployment Orders, and Redeployment Orders
1. Purpose. A DEPLOYMENT PREPARATION ORDER or DEPLOYMENT ORDER can be issued by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, after authorization by the Secretary of Defense, to do the following:
a. Increase deployability posture of units
b. Decrease deployability posture of units
c. Deploy forces
d. Redeploy forces*
e. Direct any other action that would signal planned U.S. military action or its termination in response to a particular crisis event or incident
In an ongoing war, the change of CINCs is inconsequential to the already standing congressional authorization of the combat action itself.
So, a man (SecDef) tells another man (CJCS), both of whom have been approved by the Senate, to issue an order in the ongoing war.
I would argue strongly that this falls under military regulation, and that it is critical to the safety of our troops that individual deployees are not permitted to determine the authority of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Even if personally signed by the president, I would argue that the war/combat action, once it is authorized by Congress, must also demonstrate the unconstiutionality of the Congress that authorized.
I suspect that the captain is willing to follow the order to deploy, however SOMEBODY has to have standing to challenge the authority of Obama to give legal orders if people suspect that because of his birth he is not legally eligible to give those orders.
If a military officer does not have standing to challenge the authority of the CIC, then nobody does.
Is that the way we set up the constitution?
If an imposter is sworn in as President, there is nobody on earth with the authority to challenge his status?
The constitution also says that the president must be removed from office after 8 years. What if Obama decides to pull a Zelaya? What if he, by executive order, decides the constitution does not prohibit him from appointing himself President for Life?
It can't happen here?
I think it’s called wire fraud. There seems to have been a lot of it ever since the One started his run for the White House.
“Work with 2 individuals who have Hawaiian COLBs,...”
For either of these individuals, do their Hawaiian issued COLB’s state that their birthplace was Hawaii? Or do they list a foreign location?
If it is argued that the State of Hawaii has not authenticated the COLB, doesn’t it follow that they have also not disavowed or otherwise questioned the validity of the published COLB?
I would expect that the State of Hawaii cannot ‘authenticate’ that specific document without physically inspecting that specific document. But if they had any reason to believe that the COLB is inauthentic, falsified or incorrect in any way, nothing would prevent them from saying so.
I should add that neither individual has had any problems with citizenship as both sets of parents were US born citizens. They don’t know why their parents aquired Hawaiian COLB’s.
Well, would certainly be a game changer. A clear “smoking gun”, if you will.
Though in this case it appears that both parents were US citizens (a presumption on my part).
But, as James Randi says: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”.
Can you provide anything to substantiate or support your claim?
Seriously, If what you say is true, you have a moral imperative to do everything in your power to provide clear evidence that a person who is known to be born outside the United States, presumably to American parents, can indeed obtain a Hawaiian COLB listing a Hawaiian birth under Hawaii’s current vital records system.
That this is two separate individuals, would clearly demonstrate that this isn’t just a fluke administrative error.
Rather quit than stand and fight?
Contrary to the ideals of an American officer who swore an oath to defend the constitution, no?
See my previous couple of posts this same thread.
PM, imagine a weapons system. Let’s say it is a missile intercept system. Also imagine that they’ve left off the tail fin from every 3rd interceptor missile that they’ve sent you.
This is a problem. It could be a deadly problem.
Now, imagine a military combat unit as a carefully constructed and balanced weapons system. It actually is rated in terms of its combat power and combat effectiveness. It might have any number of components: infantry, armor, aviation, cooks, clerks, and DOCS.
Doctors are critical to the maintenance and reconstruction of one’s forces, and they are critical to the morale of the force.
If you pull one out, then you’ve effectively injured that weapons system in the same way as you injured that missile by removing a tail fin from every 3rd missile.
These military members of ours do not operate in a vacuum. Everyone is dependent on and connected to everyone else.
That is why this cannot be an acceptable definition of the freedom of individual troops. Their behavior cannot be designed to threaten the lives of others.
That is why I’m confident that this officer is not understanding the nature of orders received in an ongoing war.
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.