If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by John Charlton

(Sept. 14, 2009:  PM) — Federal Judge Clay D. Land held an Emergency Stay hearing in Rhodes vs. Mac Donald today at the William Augustus Bootle Federal Building & Court House, Columbus, Georgia, at noon.

Present at the hearing was Captain Connie Rhodes, M. D., who was seeking judicial remedy in her particular circumstances against usurpation of the presidency by Barack Hussein Obama.

Her attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz, in court explained at length the fundamental constitutional issues, the extensive evidence tying Obama to SSN fraud, and the particular necessity for Rhodes to be granted an emergency stay of her deployment, until the court provides remedy for determining Obama’s lawfulness to be Commander-in-Chief of U.S. armed forces.

Judge Clay D. Land said that he would issue his ruling on Wednesday, according to published accounts on the web.

This was confirmed for The Post & Email, by Mr. Neil B. Turner, veteran, Captain U.S. Army-Aviation, who spoke by phone with Attorney Taitz, as she prepared to leave for California.

Turner says he read the news report filed by Chuck Williams of the Ledger-Inquirer, about the hearing, to get Taitz’s reaction:

I read to her the biased report, especially the part that said:

 “Who has the burden of establishing that the president of the United States is not eligible to serve in his office?” Land asked Taitz. 

And that: The judge pointed out that burden fell on Rhodes because she sought the restraining order to stop her deployment.

I suggested that that sounds like an opening for the Court to order ‘discovery’, so that Captain Rhodes could, in fact, meet the burden of proof that the Judge is asking for. 

Orly said that that is exactly what she did — it seems that the Ledger-Inquirer reporter failed to catch those comments— but Judge Land will not answer that request until a decision is entered on Wednesday.

Indeed according to Attorney Stephen Pidgeon, interviewed last week by The Post & Email, it is an established political fact, that Obama has never proven he is eligible:

We can say now, after a year of chasing this wild rabbit called a birth certificate, that a bona fide birth certificate for Mr. Obama does not exist as a matter of political fact.  We can say, therefore, categorically, that Mr. Obama has failed to establish his eligibility – that he cannot and that he will not.


Mr. Turner provided additional information about Monday’s hearing, in Columbus, GA, not published elsewhere:

Orly said that JAG attorney Maj. Rebecca Ausprung argued that Lucas Smith ‘bribed’ officials in Kenya for his document (thereby rendering is useless, I suppose),

and Orly countered with the fact that Captain Connie Rhodes, a Medical Doctor, has pointed out that the Hawaiian C.O.L.B. proves nothing, as there is no hospital or delivering doctor named on it.

Captain Turner also confirmed, that Dr. Taitz will publish her own views about the case, tomorrow at her blog.  Turner is a plaintiff in one of Dr. Taitz’s suits.

Judge Land’s question regarding the determination of eligibility echoes others in public service.  Numerous citations from members of Congress, before and after the Joint Session of January 8, 2009, revealed widepread ignorance and complete apathy by many politicians on the necessity of the one claiming to be eligible, to prove that he is.  Though Congress held several hearings regarding Citizenship and the Natural Born requirement of Article II, Section 2, paragraph 5, of the U.S. Constitution, in the last 9 years, no Congressman seems willing to go on record, to affirm the testimony advanced by 7 Supreme Court rulings, which clearly state, that a natural born citizen, is one born in the U.S.A., of parents who were both U.S. citizens, at the time of one’s birth.


CORRECTIONS:  The Post & Email corrected its identifcation of Mr. Neil B. Turner, veteran, Captain U.S. Army-Aviation (1957-1964) in this article,  at his request — (Sept. 15, 2009).

Join the Conversation

No comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Then what DOES this mean? IF as was previously written here, Obama is not in possession (or maybe he IS and it’s hidden among those papers he’s secreted someplace) of his original birth certificate and wants to continue this ruse because, like ACORN, it suits him, what then? Leon, HOW I hope YOU are correct! Beth, in Maine.

  2. If the burden of proof is on the plaintiff,…. then I see it as this: Discovery has to be issued so that “THE BURDEN OF PROOF” can be made. I am not an attorney,… but, HOW ELSE?

  3. God Bless the Post & Email for reporting the news that even FOX is running scared from, let alone the so-called
    Main Stream Media. MSM sets new low standards across
    the board for “Lies of Omission,” while their “Great Leader”
    Obama is the “Liar in Chief,” with “Lies of Commission.”

    May God Bless and Protect Dr. Orly Taitz, as she carries
    the judicial fight for truth and freedom in America today.

  4. Thanks for the antidote to that Ledger-Inquirer slanted piece. All it will take is one key ruling against Obama’s defense and everything will start to come undone. With discovery will come embarrassment and suddenly long silent politicians will find their voices. Time is not on Obama’s side.

    Leon Brozyna
    CW2, USA (Ret)