If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
PRE-TRIAL FILINGS SUMMARIZED
by John Charlton
(Sept. 14, 2009) — At high noon today, Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D., with her attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz, esq. will join battle to challenge the usurpation of the United States Presidency by Barack Hussein Obama II. The battle will play out before Judge Clay D. Land, in the U.S. District Court-Middle Division of Georgia, located at the William Augustus Bootle Federal Building & Court House, 1201 12th Street, Columbus, Georgia, at 2 PM.
Representing the Defense is Major Rebecca E. Ausprung, U.S. Army Litigation Division, as lead attorney —and attorney for Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense — and Ms. Sheetul Sheth Wall, District U.S. Attorney and former president of the GA Spaulding Country Bar Association, who represents Colonel Thomas McDonald, U.S. Army Garrison Commander at Fort Benning, GA, Major George Steuber, U.S. Army Retired, Deputy commander at the same, and Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, de facto President of the United States.
Captain Rhodes’ pleadings were summarized on Thursday by The Post & Email. She is seeking an emergency stay on her redeployment to Afghanistan, 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.
Today Judge Clay D. Land, is to hear two motions: Attorney Orly Taitz’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, and Attorney Sheetul S. Wall’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages, Declaratory Judgment, and Injunctive Relief and Application, on behalf of the defendants.
Rhodes is requesting a trial by jury. Judge Land ordered the U.S. Government to make Rhodes available in court today.
Fundamental Questions of Usurpation ignored by Defense
On Friday, Sept. 11, 2009, Attorney Wall filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that “Plaintiff has failed to establish any of the factors required for injunctive relief.” The Motion was filed by Acting U.S. Attorney, G. F. Peterman, III.
To support this claim Attorney Wall asserts that Rhodes,
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 judicataand 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. — (formatting added by the P&Em)
It does not seem clear at the present time why, Rhodes’ pleadings speak of her redeployment to Afghanistan, and the Defense only argues against her redeployment to Iraq.
Reading Wall’s filing, it appears that her arguments are very weak, and that her Motion to Dismiss ought to be rejected, if the Constitution means anything to the Court.
First, Attorney Wall requests the Court dismiss for lack of jurisdiction — though gives no basis for her claim for such a ruling; then says that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim — but makes an argument against the facts, even though the Court must accept as true the facts claimed by Plaintiff; and then argues that Rhodes cannot litigate the same facts of the case, as adjudicated in Texas Federal District Court, which was summarily rejected, without a hearing.
Wall then repeats the implausible arguments that the U.S. Federal Courts cannot address questions of usurpation of the Presidency, on grounds that this is a political question — but says nothing about usurpation; and that Rhodes claims are not justiceable by the Courts, because she objects to Military decisions which are not reviewable — which is to misconstrue the circumstance of her miliary service as the principle reason for her objection to redeployment; finally Walls argues that for a military officer to be sent to a war zone does not constitute a basis to claim “that she will suffer irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction . . ..”
Finally, Attorney Wall continues, by arguing, that if the Court were to grant Rhodes Motion for injunction, it would result in “likelihood of irreparable harm” to Military discipline — what harm would a Usurper cause?; and that such an injunction against patently unlawful Chain of Command would not serve the “the public interest,” as if the usurpation of the Presidency does not impact the public interest.