The controversy over President Barack Obama continues with an interesting twist: Maj. Gen. Carroll Dean Childers (ret.) and active U.S. Air Force reservist Lt. Col. David Earl Graeff are supporting the litigation. On July 8th, Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook filed the suit July 8th in federal court demanding conscientious objector status and a preliminary injunction based upon his claim that President Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States. He argued that, since Obama cannot serve as president of the United States, he cannot order him to deploy as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
What is curious is the decision by the military to suddenly revoke the deployment orders of Cook. That served to fuel the growing movement spreading this rumor. The government is now claiming that the lawsuit is “moot” since Cook doesn’t have to go to Afghanistan. Cook in turn has added a claim to this lawsuit that he was retaliated against for his lawsuit after he was terminated at Simtech Inc., a Department of Defense contractor.
The addition of a retired major general and active colonel will have more of a promotional and legal benefit for these litigants. It was an unfortunate decision to revoke these orders. The Administration should have fought the lawsuit on the merits rather than try to moot the matter. The optics are perfect for those alleging a grand conspiracy to conceal Obama’s birth certificate (which has been viewed as third parties) and hide his alleged foreign born status.
For the full story, click here.
Notarized statement from Cpt Connie rhodes MD, attesting to the fact that she was forbidden to leave the base and appear in court
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wft5MM5SDCM/Sq0RbrCEJLI/AAAAAAAAAzk/4_ZoBJtcn54/s1600-h/connie-rhodes-statement-621×1024.png
Birther lets be civil Vince is the only one willing to stay actively involved in the debate.
Just trying to keep it honest Vince and I appreciate you involved in the debate.
All readers. Hawaiian birth records have been examined by the officially legally authorized custodians. They have attested that Obama was born in Hawaii. They have twice issued official statements.
And the last statement provided from a SPOKESPERSON for the Hawaiian health dept. affirms the president is a natural born citizen even though no court in the rule of the land ever determined what a natural born citizen is.
Sorry, bd. As you well know, birther said it.
Vince,
You just quoted an article stating the Capt. Rhodes was in Kansas, then you declare that she was in Texas.
Is it Cook or is it Rhodes? Was she in Kansas on Friday or was it Texas?
Take a break. Familiarize yourself with the facts and get back to us.
It is said by bd that Rhodes was “prohibited by her superior to attend her own emergency federal hearing.” Wrong again.
Still more misinformation. The article expressly says that the Army litigation attorney would make Rhodes available for the Monday hearing. She will attend here own hearing.
Thats why the case was postponed until today from Friday. The judge wants her in court. She was prevented from doing so on Friday. She was told that if she did not meet with her superior on Friday she would be listed as AWOL and court martialed. She has given a sworn affidavit stating just that.
Bd says Obama could not get a security clearance.
Where did I say that
“I never mentioned Cook, except to warn Rhodes of a similar fate”
At 10:24 AM today, you mentioned Cook twice. While I’m sure it was a mistake; nevertheless you did mention Cook.
There sure is a lot of confusion, most of it by bda and birthdaman. I never mentioned Cook, except to warn Rhodes of a similar fate. My posting had all the relevant information:
QUOTE Rhodes, a medical doctor who was with her unit in Fort Riley, Kan., did not attend the hearing. That prompted Land to reschedule it for noon Monday.
Ausprung said the Army would make Rhodes available.
Rhodes is scheduled to arrive at Fort Benning Saturday and deploy within seven days.
Rhodes’ attorney Orly Taitz — a national figure in the “birther” movement — was in Land’s court. Rhodes was ordered by her commanding officers not to leave Kansas, Taitz told the court.
“That is not the information I have from Fort Riley,” said Maj. Rebecca Ausprung, with the Department of the Army, Litigation Division in Washington. Rhodes had not informed her supervisor, Ausprung told the court. UNQUOTE
So Rhodes unit was not due in Benning until Saturday. It is not surprising that she could not make a Friday hearing. According to the Army attorney, Rhodes never informed her supervisor. Taitz is the only source for the idea that Rhodes was barred from court. The credibility of Orly Taitz is at an all time low.
So, readers, there was no credible evidence of a malign conspiracy to keep Rhodes out of court. Her unit was in TEXAS on the day scheduled for the hearing. She was not even in the jurisdiction of the Georgia federal court. She arrived Saturday. She may be in court Monday.
I am not going to spend much more time on this. Bd and birther can wrestle it to death. I will check back in after the case is dismissed.
Bd says Obama could not get a security clearance.
That is a false statement, and he has no support for it.
Obama could get a security clearance with the COLB, just like every other person born in Hawaii. I have posted the legal basis for this conclusion. The COLB meets the definition in section 7211.
Further, “Regardless of what his birth certificate says, Obama’s presidential eligibility will never be settled or resolved”.
If it says that Grandma Dunham affirmed his birth; it will settle a lot.
“Regardless of what his birth certificate says, Obama’s presidential eligibility will never be settled or resolved, until the Supreme Court decides whether the U.S.-born children of non-U.S.-citizen parents are Constitutional natural born citizens.”
Then why avoid it? Is that how we resolve contraversies in this country? Do we use legal tactics to avoid legal decisions? Is that the way honorable people resolve disputes?
It’s nice to see that you (Vince) finally recognize that an unsettle dispute does exist.
The transparency and integrity of Obama is evidenced by his unwillingness to have the controversy resolved. Hide everything, and run from anything that may challenge his legitimacy has become his mantra.
Obama could not obtain a security clearance with the information he has made public. However, he has been granted the authority to make use of our nuclear arsenal solely on the basis of an unsigned piece of paper. That scares the hell out of me.
This is from Tonchen’s site. If anyone still believes the birthers when they say that Obama can end the controversy by releasing the long form or vault copy or underlying original records or whatever it is that they want, then read this over. The birth records will never end the controversy.
QUOTE ON
21. If President Obama’s birth certificate shows conclusively that he was born in Hawaii, would it end the eligibility controversy?
Definitely not! President Obama has stated publicly that his father was not a U.S. citizen. According to the birthers’ understanding of history and law, if his father was not a U.S. citizen, President Obama cannot be a Constitutional natural born citizen, regardless of where he might have been born. If President Obama was born in Hawaii, he could be regarded as a statutory natural born citizen, but he would not necessarily be a Constitutional natural born citizen.
Regardless of what his birth certificate says, Obama’s presidential eligibility will never be settled or resolved, until the Supreme Court decides whether the U.S.-born children of non-U.S.-citizen parents are Constitutional natural born citizens. QUOTE OFF
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#ref20
All readers. Hawaiian birth records have been examined by the officially legally authorized custodians. They have attested that Obama was born in Hawaii. They have twice issued official statements.
The COLB meets all the requirements of a legal birth certificate under United States law. See section 7211 of Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It is issued by the local government agency and the authorized custodian of record. It was produced from birth records maintained by the agency and custodian.
I have posted section 7211 many times. It is amazing to me that a debate continues over birth certificates at a legal blog without any reference to the legal definition of a birth certificate.
It is prima facie legal evidence of birth in the US.
It has been given to at least two news agencies for verification.
It shows Obama was born in the United States. He is eligible to be President.
If anyone else from Hawaii runs for President in 2012, and is asked for a birth certificate, they will have to ask the state for the certificate. They will get a COLB. The state issues no other form of certificate any more. They can then run against Obama, who, unique among all 2008 candidates, DID release his certificate.
Over against all of this, the birthers keep asking for the name of the hospital and witnesses and a myriad of other items. But these are just idle questions. They do not cast any doubt on the regularity of the public records
And, they are irrelevant to the issue of birth in the US.
The birthers are totally disingenuous, cynical and hypocritical on this issue. They have nearly all said in advance that they will continue to challenge Obama’s eligibility, no matter what or how many records he may released. They know the state records show birth in the US. They have admitted they still challenge him. So, many of them are just lying when they say that Obama can end the controversy by authorizing release.
They will still claim that he had to have two US parents, or that dual citizenship disqualified him. These claims, too, have been analyzed here and found wanting.
Finally, the different Kenyan birth certificates are such transparent phonies that even the World Nut Daily has disavowed them. One of them was only shown on hazy video, for crying out loud. They are going nowhere.
I am just posting this for the readers so that the bd and birther claims do not appear to be uncontested.
Vince, take a minute to familiarize yourself with the players.
Major Cook was a different case. This is the case of Capt. Rhodes.
Being prevent from attending Firday’s hearing has nothing to do with attendance at today’s hearing.
“Cook was prohibited from the hearing, since the article said she would appear on Monday, and I wanted to clarify that point for the readers.”
According to Taitz, Rhodes was prevented from attending the hearing that took place last Friday.
The Army representative said that she would make sure Rhodes was present at the hearing on Monday (today).
It’s hard to clarify a point when you don’t know the players, and you don’t know the difference between Friday and Monday.
A little more research, and a little less copy and paste might be beneficial.
Birther has a lot of opinions. It is my opinion that Orly was lying, and that Army lawyer Rebecca Auspring was telling the truth.
It is just not a fact to say, as bd did, that Cook was prohibited from the hearing, since the article said she would appear on Monday, and I wanted to clarify that point for the readers.
Cook said nothing since she was not at the hearing, so there was no reason to ask if she had a reason to lie. This is pretty weak stuff that birther is coming up with, grasping at straws. I am just trying to get some information out to the readers of this site.
Vince continues:
“I just noticed something about the Smith birth certificate which I missed before. The stamp identifies the hospital administrator as Helton Haganga, but the signature says Helton Maganga.”
There is no way to conclude, with any accuracy, from the published, purposely distorted, Smith birth certificate that the letter “M” is acutally the letter “H”.
Vince, You and Rich (at Dr. Conspiracy) are grasping at straws.
MORE MISINFORMATION: COURTESY OF VINCE TREACY
“Vince states; “It is said by bd that Rhodes was “prohibited by her superior to attend her own emergency federal hearing.” Wrong again.
Still more misinformation. The article expressly says that the Army litigation attorney would make Rhodes available for the Monday hearing. She will attend here own hearing.”
THE TRUTH: At Fridays hearing the Judge asked where Capt. Rhodes was. He was informed by her attorney that she was not granted leave to attend the hearing. The Army Officer who attended the hearing said that was not the case, and that she would make Capt. Rhodes available for today’s hearing.
Either Orly and/or Capt. Rhodes is lying, or the Army Officer (attorney) is lying. Why would Capt. Rhodes lie? Why wouldn’t she want to attend the hearing? That wouldn’t make any sense.
We will likely never know what prevented Capt. Rhodes from attending (unless she submitted a leave request, and it was denied -a record with signatures).
Vince’s claim that bdaman’s information is “misinformation” may just be a misunderstanding on Vince’s part.
Here are all the reasons that point to a loss by Rhodes:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
____________________________________
CAPTAIN CONNIE RHODES, M.D.,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLONEL THOMAS D. MACDONALD)
et al.
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
COMES NOW Defendants, by and through counsel, the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia, and respectfully submit their Motion to Dismiss the Complaint and the accompanying Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction submitted by Plaintiff, Captain Connie Rhodes. In support of this submission, we rely upon Plaintiff’s Complaint, her Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, the following brief, and its attached exhibit.
I. NATURE OF THE CASE
Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D. is an active duty Army officer assigned to Fort Riley, Kansas. She is a medical doctor currently serving as a Flight Surgeon at Fort Riley. On August 25, 2009, the Army issued orders for Captain Rhodes to report to Fort Benning, Georgia on September 12, 2009, for deployment with the 501st Medical Company to Iraq. DEX A. Captain Rhodes comes before this Court seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent her deployment to Iraq, claiming that the President’s legitimacy is “open to serious question” and compliance with her orders would constitute”involuntary servitude or judicially sanctioned rape of her individual autonomy.” Pl. TRO App. at 8. Captain Rhodes previously filed an application for a temporary restraining order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, challenging these deployment orders, also citing reservations regarding the legitimacy of President Barack Obama as the Commander-in-Chief. Rhodes v. Gates, et al., (No. 09-cv-703, August 28, 2009). On August 28, 2009, the Western District of Texas court denied Captain Rhodes’ application for a temporary restraining order, finding that she had no likelihood of success on the merits, there was no irreparable injury that she would suffer from compliance with her orders, and she failed to demonstrate that the issuance of a temporary restraining order would serve the public interest. Id.
As in her previous case in the Western District of Texas, Captain Rhodes fails to meet her burden for obtaining injunctive relief. First, she has no likelihood of success on the merits. The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas has already ruled on the transactional facts that Captain Rhodes seeks to re-litigate here. Therefore, she is barred from bringing this cause of action anew in this Court. Moreover, even if her claim were not barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, her claims are nevertheless barred because they are nonreviewable under the political question doctrine and would require review by this Court of nonjusticiable military decisions. Given these impediments to Captain Rhodes’ claims, her request for injunctive relief should be denied, and her complaint should be dismissed.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the Court were to find that Captain Rhodes claims were not barred, she does not meet the standard for injunctive relief. Captain Rhodes has failed to demonstrate that she will suffer irreparable harm from complying with her deployment orders. Captain Rhodes maintains that she has no objection to military service–only military service in Iraq. Captain Rhodes, as with every other service member in today’s military, voluntarily entered military service with full knowledge that she may be required to deploy overseas. As such, she cannot demonstrate that service in Iraq, as opposed to service at Fort Riley, subjects her to irreparable harm.
Moreover, the harm to the Army from the precedential effect of such an injunction far outweighs any speculative injury Captain Rhodes may suffer. Finally, the public interest does not lie with excusing Captain Rhodes from her obligation to comply with her orders. As such, her request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction should be denied. UNQUOTE
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/rhodes-v-mcdonald-doc-8-motion-to-dismiss/
This summary sets out all of the facts, and clears up a lot of distortions. My question is why the officer objects only to the order to deploy to Iraq. If her theory is correct, then EVERY order given to her every single day in the Army is illegal. She should protest by sitting naked in a tree like Yossarian.
Note that a suit has already been filed and dismissed in Texas. Normally, the remedy for an unjust or illegal dismissal is appeal. Yes, appeal. Appeal the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals, and if you lose there, then on to the Supreme Court on cert.
Orly is either incompetent (preferred hypothesis) or sees legal doctrines heretofore invisible to the entire legal profession.