Captain Connie Rhodes, to War!

US. ARMY CAPTAIN FOLLOWS IN MAJ. STEPHEN COOK’S FOOTSTEPS, SEEKING JUDICIAL REVIEW OF OBAMA’S LEGALITY AS CIC

By John Charlton

(Sept. 10, 2009) — Last Friday the crusading attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz, filed in Federal District Court, Middle District of Georgia, Columbus Division, the action Rhodes vs. Mac Donald et al., on behalf of Captain Connie Rhodes, who is seeking temporary injunction on her redeployment overseas, on the grounds that Barack Hussein Obama, not being a Natural Born Citizen, and hence incapable of lawful excercise of the US Presidency, cannot lawfully redeploy Military personnel as Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Armed Forces.

While similar to the case of Maj. Stephen Cook, U.S. Army Reserve, this suit is more involved, as it seeks Class Action status and requests a trial by jury.

In this case, Attorney Taitz argues pointedly that Title 10,  § 928 of the Uniform Service  Code (Article 138 UCMJ) is unconstitutional on its face, and as implemented in Army Reg. 27-10, on the grounds that it deprives service men and women a means of verifying the lawfulness of orders, since it fails to allow for such a verification, esp. in the case of the usurpation of the U.S. Presidency by Barack Hussein Obama, obedience in fact to whom would render Captain Rhodes, in her opinion, incapable of observing her military oath, and result in irreparable damages.

Rhodes specifically files suit in the name of herself and all other commissioned officers serving under the de facto presidency of Barack Obama.

In the pleadings Attorney Taitz argues that the current Army regulations fail to include the nationally and internationally recognized principle that “responsible military officers must and should at all times question the legality and propriety of orders which come from doubtful and questionable sources, or under circumstances which arise which give the appearance of impropriety or illegitimacy.”

Taitz further argues that Rhodes, “submits and charges that the current de facto President is an illegal usurper, an unlawful pretender, an unqualified imposter . . . and that she (Capt. Rhodes) cannot lawfully act under his authority, but that she is being forced to do so without ANY opportunity or remedial avenue whatsoever.” (sic).  And that failure to grant remedy to such commands by a usurper, “would constitute involuntary servitude or judicially sanctioned rape of her individual autonomy.”

The pleadings declare that there is “convincing evidence” and admissions “beyond reasonable doubt that the President is an alien, possible even an unnaturalized or even an unadmitted illegal alien (admitted just a few days ago, by the United States Representative Diane Watson of California’s 33rd Congressional District to have been born in Kenya), without so much as lawful residency in the United States.”

Rhodes requests the right to be heard in virtue of the 1st, 5th and 9th Amendments.

Her specific requests from the Court are an injunction “suspending her deployment ot Afghanistan”, scheduled for Sept. 5; an order “temporality enjoining the enforcement of 10 U.S.C §§ 937-938, and for injunctive protection from the Secretary (of Defense) and the Department of Defense, the Defense Security Services Agency, and the President from engaging in retaliatory conduct”; and for a mandatory injunction or other equitable order that the U.S. Army amend its procedures regarding unlawful orders and provide a means for commissioned officers to make such inquiries or challenges.

Captain Connie Rhodes was represented by Taitz as early as April of this year in an attempt to question the legality of the President through letters send to the DOD and various authorities in Georgia.  The DOD, through the Joint Chiefs of Staff office informed plaintiffs counsel that currently no remedy exists for such challenges of lawfulness of orders.

This action follows the instantaneous rejection of a similar appeal made by the same plaintiff in in the Federal Court, Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, before Judge Xavier Rodriguez, who held that the complaint was based on opinion, belief, and conjecture.

In addition the pleadings seek judgments and injunctions on a variety of other bases, related to the same circumstances, against harassment, retaliation, unlawful commands, force used against the dictates of conscience etc..

Taitz argues that to prove his lawfulness to be CIC, Obama must “invalidate the overwhelming evidence that he was born abroad, as articulated” by Congressional Representative Diane Watson; must produce a “long-form” Hawaiian birth certificate, and prove that both his parents were “citizens of the United States”, and present “in Honolulu, Hawaii”, “in or about” 1961; and cites Obama’s admissions in his public birth story of having a British (Colonial) or specifically Kenyan (Colonial or Independent) nationality, which would make it impossible for the de facto President to ever be a natural born citizen.

Taitz in sum, merely requests that Obama “humbly acknowledge and produce his true and complete ‘original’ birth certificate, and that he then confirm and acknowledge that, no matter where he was born, he cannot be President because one of his parents (Obama’s natural father) was not a U.S. Citizen at the time of his son’s birth.”