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 ...
Not at all. Part of the oath I took said that I would well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I entered. Part of that duty is obeying the orders of my superiors. If I cannot in good conscience do that then I should feel obligated to resign.
Nah, it is not.
The Captain is questioning, the legal qualification of Obama to be President. This is not mutiny, nor is it sedition. If the person in question is not legally qualified to hold the office, then all subsequent actions are illegal.
If you are assuming the underlying assumption, then you cannot claim it not true. The argument is whether or not Obama is legally qualified to hold the office of President. Until that is settled, then the Captain has every right to question his authority.
President Obama, even if he were technically unqualified, still holds apparent authority - and Congress, by seating him, has ratified his apparent authority with actual authority.
If the Congress abdicates its authority, then we have anarchy. Simply because Congress passes a law does not mean that the law is Constitutional.
That is first year Constitutional Law stuff.
Yeah, it is. If she refuses to obey the orders of her superiors and induces others to refuse as well then it's mutiny. The military does not take kindly to junior officers and enlisted deciding what orders are valid and what are not. Ask Mike New and Ehren Watada how that works out.
The words in the Constitution are specific and not flexible. If a man fraudulently claims to be eligible in those words and fraudulently represents that a doucment proves that he meets that requirement when the document proves no such thing, why is that not actionable?
Can you show me the actionable process as enumerated and under what provisions it is to be carried out?
I would tend to agree that an online copy is not sufficient to verify anything. I do think that there MAY be political pressure to NOT verify anything if possible. JMO
Would you then perhaps think it would be OK for members of the military to question the authority of those orders?
Or as a member of the military is it incumbent upon you to obey orders, even if those orders are by nature illegal or unauthorized by the constitution?
I would love to ask Capt Watada, seeings as the government dropped the charges against him and his courtmartial was in mistrail.
However, the case is distinctly different in that the war in Iraw was lawful. The question regarding the eligibility of the President is an entirely different matter.
A soldier is supposed to obey an unlawful order, but orders from your superiors are presumed to be lawful if they are customary to service. An order to be deployed to Afghan or Iraq, a war authorized by Congress, are presumed to be legal.
Those wars have gone far beyond the approval of this president and were in place on his assuming office. They were initiated by a former president, and they have joint resolutions of congress affirming them. Soldiers are to presume them legal, AND for the sake of those already there, they are not to leave them in the lurch in threat of their lives for the sake of what at this point is a personal philosphy or opinion. They are the relief, and if the relief does not arrive, it has injured the troops on the line.
This goes to the heart of what it means to be a comrade-at-arms. You don’t desert and leave your fellow troops out there. You just don’t.
Now, if this president decides on military action against Honduras, he will first have to make his case. It’s no where near that. I watched as both Grenada and Panama built up, and the Honduran situation isn’t anywhere near the point of deploying troops.
The manual for courts martial totally supports the refusal of orders that are patently illegal...such as orders to rape or pillage. As stated previously, orders that are customary to service are presumed to be legal, AND coming THROUGH the chain, they are coming from your immediate superiors (the officers appointed over you) who DO HAVE authority constitutionally to direct the actions of soldiers on the battlefield.
P-M, I have no regard for this female doc, because she has deserted troops in the field that she knows are dependent for their lives on her unique skills. And she has done it for what at this moment is her own personal philosphy or opinion.
You also know that I, too, want to see Obama’s original birth certificate. He has yet to show it. I’m interested in facts, and the fact is that he’s not produced any of his early documents.
This, however, does not change what is customary and necessary to military service relating to OUR young lives already on the battlefield.
Watada didn't believe that the war was lawful. In his opinion it was illegal and he believed that by agreeing to participate in it he was liable for being prosecuted for war crimes. So where is it really different? Watade believed the war was unlawful, Rhodes believes the commander-in-chief is illegitimate. In both cases you have officers taking it upon themselves what orders are to be obeyed and what are not. Why is it OK for one and not for the other?
Correction: "A soldier is NOT supposed to obey an unlawful order...."
Well I could but I just will refer you to research the large amount of law on fraud. You may have heard that law suits are often filed because people engage in fraud. For example, to represent that a COLB is a “birth certificate” “proving” that one was born in Hawaii at the time (much less a “natural born citizen” is clearly a false representation. False representations in law are often found out to be fraudulent.
It would seem the correctness of the opinion, should it be allowed to be determined, would make a difference. But that is clearly a question that you, like tho One whose interests you serve, do not want to have determined.
I think Captain Rhodes deserves her day in court, and if she refuses to report as ordered then she'll get it. Her civil suit will go nowhere.
(By the way this did happen in WWII during the Battle of the Bulge.)
An honest, upright, straightforward person would be **HONORED** to prove that he was a natural born citizen of the United States.
Obama is behaving **irrationally**! It is an extremely inexpensive matter to prove natural born status, and he could do so with about $50 and the nod of his head. Yet...He now has the DOJ with government lawyers preventing this! ( Note the plural on lawyer”S”.) Our **tax dollars** are being used to prevent discovery on key documents. Tax dollars? UNBELIEVABLE!!!!
This is **not** normal behavior! Now that there is an Internet, this news can not be held back from the American people. I see one of two things happening:
1) The case will crack under the pressure of American disbelief and outrage, and Obama will be determined to be natural born or not by our highest courts.
2) The credibility of his presidency will be badly damaged and, along with it, the Democratic Party.
He can order the troops into Honduras without the approval of anyone. IIRC he must get congressional approval for any military action lasting more than 90 days, but he does not need anyone's approval to order an "incursion" into Honduras to reinstate his pal Zelaya.
the Honduran situation isnt anywhere near the point of deploying troops.
There's an election coming up. Obama clearly does not want that to happen because it will legitimize the ouster of Zelaya. If Zelaya is going to become dictator for life, he must be reinstated by November.
Now if Obama orders your son to Honduras to reinstate Zelaya, would you then maybe want to have Obama's credentials certified?
My son, and all under arms, are sworn to defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
He swears to obey the orders of the officers appointed over him.
IF this president orders US troops to Honduras — which won’t happen, but, if it did — my son’s duty is to go to Honduras.
Until out of office, this president is the president, and no one has presented evidence that he is not the president. They have ONLY at this point presented evidence that he has not been forthcoming with a birth certificate. (And he hasn’t been.)
All of this hypothetical situationing doesn’t change the fact that those troops depend on each other for their lives, and anyone who takes into their own hands their deploying or not deploying also is responsible for deaths resulting from an undermanned military unit.
Missing deployment is being AWOL.
Obama's loyalty is not to the United States of America. If he doesn't do something like invade Honduras, he's going to do something worse in the next 3 years. If I were in the service and I could find a way out before I was asked to fight on the side of Communism or some other totalitarian regime.
Look at Obama's closest friends. Van Jones, an admitted communist who worked to fight against the United States. Bill Ayers, a terrorist and his wife, Bernadette Dorn, another terrorist. Jeremiah Wright, a black supremacist and separatist who hates America. Obama BOWED to King Saud. Obama hugged and embraced Hugo Chavez, another fellow America hater. Look at his wife, Michelle who said she had NEVER been proud to be an American until her husband was nominated for the presidency. Look at his first speech as president, a speech apologizing to the Muslims who took down the twin towers for the evils of America. Look at his speech in Germany where he called out to "Fellow citizens of the World".
Now Obama is calling for the reinstatement of Manuel Zelaya, a man who by the provisions of the Honduran Constitution would be out of office in the next month and a half, yet he is calling for his reinstatement and refusing to recognize the legitimate constitutional government of Honduras that exiled him for crimes against the Constitutions. I do not trust Obama. The man is leading a country he hates. He is charged with upholding a Constitution that he hates and has no loyalty to. And he has to power to send our military anywhere in the world to do whatever the hell he wants without anyone's prior approval, and even if he needed the approval of congress to invade Honduras or Israel or any other friend of America, who is going to stop him?
It is true that our military should honor their commitment to the Afgan war, but then again, what if suddenly the mission turned to protecting the Taliban rather than killing them? Then what?
Given all the concerns you see on the horizon, and I agree with you, this is the time for the patriots in our military to STAY and not to go.
They are a sure line of our defense. The higher the percentage of patriots in the military, the more likely they will stand against any unlawful order were it to come.
And the 2d amendment.