Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cpt Connie Rhodes, MD files new complaint in Georgia seeking class action statuse
Federal District Court, Middle District of Georgia ^ | September 4, 2009 | Orly Taitz

Posted on 09/04/2009 11:36:07 AM PDT by Sibre Fan

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-217 next last
To: TXDuke
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an order, but you also have to keep in mind the Major (I don’t readily remember his name) who recently got his orders rescinded for questioning Obama’s eligibility.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.

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.

151 posted on 09/09/2009 12:26:18 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

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.


152 posted on 09/09/2009 2:21:45 PM PDT by TXDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

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.


153 posted on 09/09/2009 2:33:31 PM PDT by TXDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: TXDuke
However, I am not aware that she has failed to report as of yet.

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.

154 posted on 09/09/2009 2:54:30 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: TXDuke
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 had heard that, but I don't know what name the case was filed under so I don't know the details.

155 posted on 09/09/2009 2:55:26 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: wintertime; jude24

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.


156 posted on 09/09/2009 7:33:46 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: xzins
If Obama is not a natural born citizen he is dressed up in the White House costume and is no more a president than the Germans who dressed in officers uniforms in the Battle of the Bulge.

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?

157 posted on 09/09/2009 8:00:08 PM PDT by wintertime (People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

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.


158 posted on 09/12/2009 6:34:28 AM PDT by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret) "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior
Lawful orders, no?

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.

159 posted on 09/12/2009 7:26:49 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
You seem bent on the “loyalty to the person” mentality well beyond “loyalty to the constitution” no?

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.

http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm

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.

160 posted on 09/12/2009 9:10:33 AM PDT by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret) "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior
You seem bent on the “loyalty to the person” mentality well beyond “loyalty to the constitution” no?

No. When I took the oath it was to defend the Constitution. But I also swore to well and faithfully discharge the duties of an officer in the U.S. Navy. So how does violating half a dozen articles of the UCMJ square with that?

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.

Then would you agree that Ehren Watada was correct in questioning the Constitutionality of the war in Iraq and refusing to deploy as ordered? And that any other officer with similar reservations has a similar duty to refuse to deploy? If not why not?

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.

Not at all. Watada and New and all the rest have all claimed that they weren't against serving and defending the country. That their refusal is not for the purpose of avoiding service, but to avoid what they all claimed to be illegal orders. So where are their positions different from Cook and Rhodes?

The purity of intent that both Cook and Rhodes claim is no different than those professed by Watada and all the rest. If the stands that Rhodes and Cook are taking are to be saluted then I don't see how you can condemn any other officer or enlisted who refused to obey orders for what they claim are moral or legal reasons as well.

If Captain Rhodes wants to pursue her suit through the courts then she's free to do so, accepting a commission doesn't deny her that right. But while she's holding an army commission then she's duty bound to obey the orders she's given. If she feels that she can't do that then the only honorable position open to her is to resign.

161 posted on 09/12/2009 10:31:51 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Questioning an order one believes to be illegal IS faithfully discharging one’s duties. You may not agree. I would return to Iraq or Afghanistan if on active duty w/o so much as blink about who is the CinC. The war was approved by congress (and the UN-not that that matters one iota), and by a legitimate president. Any concern about the current president is moot to me on this matter; it is the same endeavor. These officers seem to be asking the questions before they are in violation....

Watada simply missed movement-he did not file any case to support his claim, he simply avoided movement. I agree that that was his choice, only problem he made it indefensible-Cook would have had a leg to stand on if the orders were not revoked BEFORE his case was heard-and he missed movement or failed to report.... Cases are no where near the same issue.

Watada and New apparently failed to make the case in court before being in violation of the UCMJ. They hoped the military would blush- oops, not so easy (unlike Cook's case, I think).

I strongly support the exercise of conscience-and encourage other officers and troops to do so-but they must know the dance AND the consequences. I support CO status-with reservations in most cases.

Inferring that officers should seek redress through the courts after resigning? That is silly-you would have no standing outside the military in view of the questions being asked? Their issue is based on their service, not apart from it.

She is duty bound to execute faithfully the office (you cannot dictate what that means-she must figure it out!), again you seek “blindly follow orders” where it does NOT exist!

If she fails, refer to my quote.... I executed orders knowing that those orders would likely put myself and my men in danger-indeed they did. I long ago accepted the concept that my duty was of necessity a dangerous endeavor; but for that I am a better man. I saw others not survive the burden of responsibilty-good men all. We must agree to disagree on this issue, I suppose. Fair winds and following seas!

162 posted on 09/12/2009 12:55:57 PM PDT by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret) "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
I thought a military lady doctor filed a case in Texas courts?

Same person. But she was in Texas for some fairly short training, then is supposed to go on to Ft. Benning, but was apparently ordered back to Ft. Riley for some sort of "advising" by a Colonel. The judge, Land, postponed the hearing in Georgia, which was supposed to have been Friday, because while her attorney was there, she was still in Kansas. The Army says she will be there on Monday.

163 posted on 09/12/2009 8:29:41 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sibre Fan
Judge Land is the judge who denied Taitz’s motion for a similar TRO filed on behalf of Maj. Stefan Cook last month.

Because it became moot, that is no longer a "controversy", when his orders were revoked.

164 posted on 09/12/2009 8:31:36 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jude24
1. The State of Hawaii has authenticated his Certificate of Live Birth.

No they haven't. They haven't even authenticated the image of a Certification of Live Birth that was posted to Daily Kos, Stop the Smears, and Factcheck.org, among other such sites.

They've even denied issuing the COLB during 2007, which it shows as being issued, at least by some accounts.

Certified copies of State records are presumptively authentic in all courts of law. That does not mean they are not subject to challenge if there is conflicting evidence. Documents can be filed with incorrect information, happens all the time. I know a lady with 3 kids, and several grandkids, maybe even some great grandkids by now, whose long form birth certificate shows or showed her to be a he.

That of course was an innocent mistake, but sometimes the "mistakes" aren't so innocent.

2. Even assuming that Pres. Obama was illegitimate - that doesn't make the orders for her to deploy illegal. SecDef Gates, and other personnel confirmed by Congress - NOT the President - cut her orders. They are legal.

The Constitution says the President is commander in chief. The others lower down in the chain of command get their authority from him, not from being confirmed by Congress.

165 posted on 09/12/2009 8:42:53 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Jersey Republican Biker Chick
A military Captain is asking for BHO to be proven a citizen

No, a natural born citizen. In the course of doing that, it might be found that he is not a citizen at all, but the Constitutional requirement is "natural born citizen". You could look it up.

166 posted on 09/12/2009 8:45:17 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sibre Fan
thanks, for the information / thread / post.

167 posted on 09/12/2009 8:45:47 PM PDT by skinkinthegrass (Zer0 to the voter: "Welcome to 'MY' DeathCARE ® Plan"...Sucker! ...now just die. :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sibre Fan

Sooner or later we’ll have a case that’ll fly.


168 posted on 09/12/2009 8:48:17 PM PDT by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand;but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior
While I do not know this offcier’s history, she , like Cook, probably have served in harm’s way already

Maybe not in this case. A Captain in the Medical Corps is a brand new officer. I think they serve about 2 years before making Major.

A high school classmate of mine was an Air Force Dentist, he retired about decade ago, after just 20 years, including the time he spent in dental school, as a full bird Colonel.

169 posted on 09/12/2009 8:48:41 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jude24
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.

I don't see anything there about any "Certificate of Live Birth", which is what you wrote that Hawaii had authenticated, nor even a "Certification of Live Birth".

170 posted on 09/12/2009 8:52:42 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: jude24
"Only if you show me your birth certificate" (since in order to be a commissioned officer I must be an American Citizen),

But that commissioned officer did have to supply his/her birth certificate or naturalization papers before receiving that commission. Thus it's reasonable to assume that any commissioned officer is a citizen, or she/he would not be commissioned.

Obama never showed a certified copy of his birth certificate, short or long form, with raised seal,etc to anyone before running for or assuming the office of President.

171 posted on 09/12/2009 8:58:22 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
President who is the Commander In Chief in times of war.

The President is Commander in Chief, all the time, war or no war.

172 posted on 09/12/2009 9:01:10 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jude24; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...
1. The State of Hawaii has authenticated his Certificate of Live Birth.
Maybe, but with questions unanswered.
That is game, set, match.
False.
Don't feed me the "he won't show the long form version" bullcrap. Not buying. Certified copies of State records are presumptively authentic in all courts of law.
Not true, try studying the issue. More which COLB are you accepting? More than one has been tossed about. More, see this:
Maya Soetoro was born to Indonesian businessman Lolo Soetoro and American cultural anthropologist Ann Dunham and half-sister to the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama. While living in Indonesia, she was home schooled by her mother and then attended Jakarta International School and returned to Hawaii and attended the private Punahou School in Honolulu, Hawaii, graduating in 1988.

Besides being the First Sister Maya has a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth despite be born in Jakarta Indonesia. Supposedly this certificate was used by the Daily Kos to forge an Obama version. Anyone find it odd that Maya, undisputedly born in Indonesia, would have the same type of document as Barack Obama to forge?


173 posted on 09/12/2009 9:09:20 PM PDT by narses (http://www.theobamadisaster.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sen Jack S. Fogbound
The State of Hawaii only confirmed that a Certificate of Live Birth exists and is in the Vault.

Actually not even that. Dr. Chiyome Fukino spoke of "original vital records" in her second statement. (I'd never noticed the plural, 'records' before.) and "original birth certificate" in her first statement. Neither time did she use the term "Certificate of Live Birth". There are other types of documents that fit either description.

174 posted on 09/12/2009 9:09:38 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: jude24

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100451


175 posted on 09/12/2009 9:09:58 PM PDT by narses (http://www.theobamadisaster.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: yadent
Actually you were holding your own until you posted the COLB. Nearly anyone whose parent/parents are residents of Hawaii but they themselves were not born there can obtain a Hawaiian COLB. Work with 2 individuals who have Hawaiian COLB’s, one was born in Japan, the other in the Philippines. Parents (U.S. citizens) were missionaries out of Hawaii. A Hawaiian COLB is not solid proof of place of birth.

Could you possibly get a scan of one or more of those, with names, signatures, and file number redacted. (IOW, make copy, tape or mark over the redacted data, then scan in). Of particular interest is where the COLB says they were born. Although not of all that much interest, since the COLB posted on KOS, etc, is a known forgery.

176 posted on 09/12/2009 9:13:37 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: narses
If his birth certificate is sealed that means nobody can see it to verifi it.
177 posted on 09/12/2009 9:13:49 PM PDT by jarofants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: longjack
I would think where he was born is irrelevant in that regard. Who would have authority to qualify him as a NBC?

Eventually, The Supreme Court of The United States.

178 posted on 09/12/2009 9:17:58 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: jude24

“1. The State of Hawaii has authenticated his Certificate of Live Birth.”

No, not really. There is a piece of paper, supposedly issued by a bureacrat, which says that a birth certificate really, really does exist, cross my heart and hope to be a lying liberal piece of crap.

This piece of paper doesn’t have an actual signature on it. Someone impressed upon it a stamp that is supposed to be a replica of the aforementioned bureaucrat’s signature.

In many contexts a rubber stamp is not recognized as a legal signature. And why would an official not sign such an important document?

“Certified copies of State records are presumptively authentic in all courts of law.”

I believe that a certified copy has an embossed seal and the actual signature of the certifying official.

“2. ...SecDef Gates, and other personnel confirmed by Congress - NOT the President - cut her orders.”

Allow me to quote the relevant section of the Constitution: “(The president)... by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States...”

The president appoints these officers; the Senate can only agree or disagree. If the president occupies his office fraudulently, Shirley these appointments are invalid.

“They are legal.”

As Julius Paulus wrote, “What is right is not derived from the rule, but the rule arises from our knowledge of what is right.”

We can all cite examples of things that were both legal and despicable.

What will you do if the Bamtard orders you to fire on US Citizens? Don’t answer that publicly; just think about it, because the odds of it happening are higher than we probably realize.


179 posted on 09/12/2009 11:12:02 PM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
The President is Commander in Chief, all the time, war or no war.

Not according to the Constitution.

Section. 2.

Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

180 posted on 09/13/2009 5:55:50 AM PDT by rjsimmon (1-20-2013 The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

That last phrase applies to the militia of the several States, not the Army and Navy. But even if it did, they are *always* in the actual service of the United States.

181 posted on 09/13/2009 8:10:45 AM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

I know that...I was typing a quick summary.


182 posted on 09/13/2009 2:38:31 PM PDT by Jersey Republican Biker Chick (You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Jersey Republican Biker Chick
I know that...I was typing a quick summary.

I figured you did. But it's a very important point. If BO was born in Hawaii, then under the 14th amendment he's a citizen. Or he could have been naturalized and he'd be a citizen. (IIRC his Indonesian half sister was naturalized). But that's not enough. He must be a natural born citizen. Like "well regulated militia", "natural born citizen" is a "term of art", having a meaning that is more than the sum of it's constituent words. Especially words in their more modern usage.

183 posted on 09/13/2009 2:59:24 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
That last phrase applies to the militia of the several States, not the Army and Navy. But even if it did, they are *always* in the actual service of the United States.

The last clause applies to both phrases, not just the militia.

The clause "actual service" indicates war or armed conflict, not just existing.

184 posted on 09/14/2009 5:46:33 AM PDT by rjsimmon (1-20-2013 The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Followup. I have seen their COLB’s. Both say born in Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii along with the other info a COLB would have from the 70’s. They would NOT let me copy the info nor would they show me their ‘real’ birth certificates. So I guess I’m in the same ‘nutter’ boat with a few others and should have never brought it up. It is frustrating because both of these individuals have used their circumstances to justify 0bama’s circumstance since the election so I KNOW they are not lying. But they are both GOOD SEIU members..so I plead guilty.


185 posted on 09/15/2009 9:23:54 AM PDT by yadent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: yadent

If the President is not Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy when there is no war or armed conflict, then who is under the Constitution, and where does it indicate this?


186 posted on 09/15/2009 10:31:42 AM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; pissant; MHGinTN; Red Steel; kellynla
This just in from Georgia:

"For reasons previously stated, Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order is denied and Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Defandants shall recover their costs from Plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 (d)."

It is so ordered this 16th Day of September, 2009."

/s Clay D. Land
U.S. District Judge

Link

187 posted on 09/16/2009 8:32:30 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

See 187


188 posted on 09/16/2009 8:35:32 AM PDT by Jet Jaguar (A mob of one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: jude24
In your opinion, then, the UCMJ trumps the Contitution. It's the old Nuremberg defense. As I recall that's the one you learned about in the first year of your law school. How would your teachings apply in the Hollister case?
189 posted on 09/16/2009 9:02:36 AM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

You’re surprised?


190 posted on 09/16/2009 9:25:51 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: pissant
You’re surprised?

Not really, no. And deep down I suspect you're not all that surprised as well. The judge made it clear in the preliminary that there is a great deal of precedent for civilian court's reluctance to get between the military brass and it's people.

Well, it's back to California now.

191 posted on 09/16/2009 9:39:02 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Well, it's back to California now.

Any prediction on how Orly is going to authenticate the Lucas Smith BC now that they have parted ways and he's made all those accusations against her?
192 posted on 09/16/2009 9:41:16 AM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: jude24; pissant
Nope. Under Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 1005, those are presumptively valid.

An unsworn and unsigned statement purported to be by an Hawaiian official does not comply with Evidence Rule 1005, which is:

Rule 1005. Public Records

The contents of an official record, or of a document authorized to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed, including data compilations in any form, if otherwise admissible, may be proved by copy, certified as correct in accordance with rule 902 or testified to be correct by a witness who has compared it with the original. If a copy which complies with the foregoing cannot be obtained by the exercise of reasonable diligence, then other evidence of the contents may be given.

193 posted on 09/16/2009 9:46:13 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Sibre Fan
Any prediction on how Orly is going to authenticate the Lucas Smith BC now that they have parted ways and he's made all those accusations against her?

Actually my prediction is that it won't get that far, and the case won't survive the motion to dismiss.

194 posted on 09/16/2009 9:48:14 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; BP2; ...
Thanks, Jet Jaguar. (love your tagline.)

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

See #187.

195 posted on 09/16/2009 10:05:12 AM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; Non-Sequitur

From page 3 of the pdf file

Counsel makes these allegations although a “short-form” birth certificate has been made publicly available which indicates that the President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. (footnote 3)

And here is foot note 3 on that page

“The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million. See Federal Election Commission, Presidential Pre-Nomination Campaign
Disbursements Dec. 31, 2008,
http://www.fec.gov/press/press2009/20090608Pres/3_2008PresPrimaryCmpgnDis.pdf
(last visited Sept. 15, 2009).
Then the President faced a formidable opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President. Press Release, Federal Election Commission, 2008 Presidential Campaign Financial Activity Summarized (June 8, 2009), available at

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2009/20090608PresStat.shtml.
It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought. Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not instituted impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Cong. (2009) (commemorating, by vote of 378-0, the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and stating, “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961”). “


196 posted on 09/16/2009 10:14:08 AM PDT by Sparko (Obama & Czars: neutering the American Voter, perverting the Constitution, all on our dime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Actually my prediction is that it won't get that far, and the case won't survive the motion to dismiss.

Oh yeah, forgot about that. So, any prediction on how she's going to authenticate it in the NEXT case that she files?
197 posted on 09/16/2009 10:18:09 AM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Sibre Fan
Oh yeah, forgot about that. So, any prediction on how she's going to authenticate it in the NEXT case that she files?

You really believe that Orly is capable of thinking that far ahead?

198 posted on 09/16/2009 10:21:05 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; LucyT; All

From Judge Land's Order:

“birther movement”

“birther claim”

“birther agenda”

Are you freakin' kidding me?!

Shame on Judge Land for flagrantly displaying ALL of his pre-conceived notions in the courtroom and this order.

Impeach and disbar this obtusely-bloviating and biased judge, who notoriously wears his personal opinion as he dons his robe. Judicial misconduct in the raw!

Photobucket
Blind justice, my arse!


199 posted on 09/16/2009 10:27:22 AM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: mickie
You just joined Free.

Yeah. nearly NINE YEARS AGO!!!!

200 posted on 09/16/2009 10:32:59 AM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 238 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-217 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson