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 ...
I agree if a private is required to report to duty and he doesn’t then he is insubordinate. However, you just validated my argument...the difference between a lawful and unlawful order.
I agree that an order is presumed to be valid, but that only holds true if there is no evidence to the contrary. The whole point of these court actions are to validate those orders since there appears to be evidence to the contrary.
If you blindly follow an order when you have credible evidence indicating that the order is invalid for whatever reason then you can be guilty of a multitude of crimes. There appears to be credible evidence that Obama, thus his orders, are invalid. If true, then the service member has an obligation to question the order.
I agree that if an order is questioned solely because you disagree with the ideology of the person giving the order or with the order itself, then you are insubordinate. However, with the Obama eligibility issue, that does not appear to be the case. It is all about good faith and credible evidence, which is why this rightly needs to be sorted out in court.
But again, Captain Rhodes has taken it upon herself to decide whether an order is lawful or not. The military does not take kindly to members who do that, and she can and should face a court martial if she refuses to report. Her position is no different than Michael New or Ehren Watada or any soldier or sailor who has been court martialed for refusing to report for duty in Iraq or Afganistan.
The whole point of asking to see the birth certificate is that it has NOT been seen. Therefore, there is no evidence that Obama is NOT elibible. He is duly elected, sworn in, and holding office.
He signs things every day.
By custom of service, he is the Potus until he isn’t.
Please read my other posts. I agreed with you about following a lawful order. However, if credible evidence exists that leads a service member to believe that the order is not valid, then the service member has an obligation to speak up. That is what this court proceding is for. She (and others) believe they have credible evidence showing that the order to deploy is not valid, by proxy of the fact that the person giving the order is not valid. As such, the Cpt has a duty and right to question the order. If done so with credible evidence and in good faith, the the Cpt is not insubordinate. However, if the courts rules against her, then she had her day in court, and should deploy.
An honest, straightforward, and upright person occupying the White House would be **HONORED** to immediately prove they were a natural born citizen. What are we to think about the character of those defending Obama’s refusal to prove he is natural born?
Being “duly elected” or “sworn in” has little to do with the Constitution. We can elect Osama bin Laden if we want or Congress, with a majority in either party can swear in Putin if they want, but neither scenario would conform to our Constitution.
Besides, if he is not eligible, then he would never have been elected. He couldn’t have been elected. So basically, he would have deceived and committed fraud against the American people. That is a crime and military members are duty-bound to protect the U.S. against foreign and DOMESTIC enemies. Everything he has signed will be nullified.
Based on previous SCOTUS rulings and the facts about Obama’s birth and past (some even provided by Obama in his book), seem to indicate his ineligibility for POTUS. Clarification of his eligibility has been fought to extremes by Obama, rather than just proving his eligibility. Now further evidence of Obama’s education records, his possible Kenyan BC, and other records seem to indicate his ineligiblity.
Now I’m not a “birther” by any means, but I know people don’t spend as much money or time, as Obama has to hide his BC, for no reason at all. Either way, these people that must die on the front lines of “Obama’s war” have a right to have the evidence heard and evaluated.
I bet’cha it would never get that far. Just like Major Cook some reason will be found for her not to deploy.
The discovery process of a court martial would likely lead to Obama being imprisoned, not the Captain.
You mentioned those people that got into trouble for refusing an order, but you also have to keep in mind the Major (I don’t readily remember his name) who recently got his orders rescinded for questioning Obama’s eligibility. Obama instructed the DOJ and DOD not to fight the Major in court, which set a scary precedent.
Many service members now believe the Major called Obama’s bluff and believe that Obama will not court martial them if he is required to show his BC. Obama’s deceptive behavior only fuels the suspicion that he is not eligible.
Now with Obama not being firm on Iraq or Afghan and Obama not taking the advice of his military advisers, many military members believe we will lose the Afghan war and the Iraq war will experience horrible setbacks. As long as the dems have a Vietnam mentality and refuse to allow our military to win the war, then I can’t really blame the military people for being fearful of fighting a losing war with their hands tied behind their backs.
I'm not denying her right to file the suit, though I question her choice of attorneys. But if she refuses to follow orders while waiting for this case of her's to work its way through the court then she deserves what's coming to her. Her restraining order was tossed. If she doesn't report as ordered then she's liable for the court martial. If she truly feels that the order is invalid then she should either resign or accept what the army decides to do to her.
That also happened within a day or two of his filing his case. Captain Rhodes filed her's about two or more weeks ago. Her TRO was denied. So far as I know the orders are still pending. If she hasn't reported as ordered then we'll see what happens next.
I believe that after her TRO was tossed, her attorney refiled in the same court that the Major had his hearing. She filed this as a class-action and reapplied for the TRO, which is currently pending.
I can’t say much about the attorney, other than her general publicity.
I also agree that if her new TRO is rejected then the Cpt has the option resigning or being deployed. She certainly can’t refuse the order indefinitely. However, I am not aware that she has failed to report as of yet. Normally, the DOD has been giving most reserve/guard units nearly a year advanced notice of deployment. If she loses in court then she also will have little choice, but to deploy or resign.
I was not disputing the ramifications of missing deployment, but only defending her right to question the order, if done in good faith and/or with credible evidence. Some believe that to question an order makes you less of a patriot and I would agree with that if you question the order in bad faith or simply because you don’t want to do it. After all we are a volunteer army. However, I think it takes courage to question an order believed to be invalid, but you better have some evidence to back the claim.
I just wish Obama would provide any and all documentation to prevent this kind of controversy if it is truly unwarranted. His lack of compliance only lends credence to the argument.
Based on the original case filed in Texas she was due to report to a base in Texas on August 30th. I've no idea if she did or not either.
I was not disputing the ramifications of missing deployment, but only defending her right to question the order, if done in good faith and/or with credible evidence.
I cannot speak for her good faith or her evidence. But if she's chosen to refuse to report as ordered then she deserves what comes to her.
I had heard that, but I don't know what name the case was filed under so I don't know the details.
Your analogy doesn’t work. You’d have to have the Germans go to West Point, train in the states with the troops they misled, and then deploy with them overseas.
Obama went to our colleges, law school, worked in Chicago, was in the Illinois legislature, won election as a US Senator, went through a potus primary campaign, ran for the Presidency, and was elected in full view of everyone in the entire country.
The bottom line is that you cannot prove that he does not meet the requirements of the constitution to be president.
You can only say that you BELIEVE he does not meet them.
If anyone could prove it, then we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
Oh...And...By the way, some of the officers who did dress up as American officers, like Obama, went the most prestigious American colleges and universities, and had jobs here in the U.S. That's why they got away with it and caused so much confusing and lost American lives.
An honest man would be **HONORED** to promptly prove that he is a natural born citizen and qualified to be president. What does that say about the people who defend him?
Duties-include weighing your actions against the constitutional provisions that are the bedrock of those duties.
Lawful orders, no?
We all must apply reason and pridence to every directive or order we are given. Otherwise, we are just a mindless minion.
The military takes a dim view of soldiers who decide for themselves what orders are lawful and what are not. Ask Michael New, Ehren Watada, Mathis Chiroux, Suzanne Swift, and all the other's who have tried. The best results in all these cases were less than honorable discharges. Worst results were court martials.
As an officer of the US Army, I took an oath that no where mentioned obeying any orders; rather only to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic. Enemies of what? The constitution. Not my feelings, not my government, not my beliefs, rather the US CONSTITUTION.
While I was enlisted, my oath required me to obey orders of the president and officers appointed over according to regulations and the UCMJ, as well as and primarily to the constitution.
The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
Now that I am retired (an AD regular Army guy) I still am bound by my oath-which I took freely and with no reservations-still, no mention of the government-only the constitution....
If these active/reserve serving officers have reservations, based on information they believe to require an answer, they would be derelict by not asking the question-they can only ask the question by court action; there is no provision for the UCMJ to ask the question-as the president is NOT subject to it.
Stephan Cook has asked the question, legally-he did not miss movement, nor did he have anything to gain-rather his conscience required him to risk much-which is what we expect our military and naval officers to do....
You may feel that this is some BS stunt to avoid duty-you apparently have not looked into (at least) Cook's service to date. He has been deployed in GWOT theaters more than once.
As far as the military taking a dim view of those who ask about lawfulness of orders-the military is one of the few institutions where conscience is protected, albeit at risk of liberty if found wrong and prosecuted. Have to ask to find out.
The folks you mentioned refused orders, they did not ask the question in legitimate venues-they had a purpose of evasion for which they were dealt with. If Cook had missed movement/failed to report, then he would have been in the same boat so to speak. The government/military punted, removing his standing by revoking the orders before the bewitching hour. “Birthers” were hoping for a day in court-federal or military (would have allowed “discovery” etc.). Says much to those are seeking.
Thanks for your service as well.