- WND - http://www.wnd.com -
Judge ridicules eligibility case
Posted By Chelsea Schilling On 09/16/2009 @ 2:09 am In Front Page | Comments Disabled
Military litigation team attending earlier emergency hearing on Sept. 14
Judge Clay Land – the same judge who earlier dismissed a similar case filed by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook – has rejected another request for restraining order from a medical doctor and Army officer and threatened sanctions against attorney Orly Taitz if she files any future “frivolous” actions with his court.
As WND reported, Capt. Connie Rhodes, a medical doctor and Army officer, filed suit in U.S. District Court in Columbus, Ga., earlier this month, requesting a restraining order preventing her deployment overseas on the basis that the top of the chain of command, President Barack Obama, has not demonstrated himself to be a natural-born citizen under the U.S. Constitution.
Land rejected Rhodes’ request for a temporary restraining order today.
“After conducting a hearing on plaintiff’s motion, the court finds that plaintiff’s claims are frivolous,” his ruling states. “Accordingly, her application for a temporary restraining order is denied, and her complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Furthermore, plaintiff’s counsel is hereby notified that the filing of any future actions in this court, which are similarly frivolous, shall subject counsel to sanctions.
He described Taitz as a “self-proclaimed leader in what has become known as ‘the birther movement.’ … Her modus operandi is to use military officers as parties and have them allege that they should not be required to follow deportation orders because President Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be president.”
The ruling states that Taitz is attempting to “press her birther agenda” and references a purported certification of live birth available online:
“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.”
Furthermore, it states, “[M]ere allegations of a constitutional violation unsupported by reasonable factual foundation are insufficient to warrant judicial review [of a military decision]. To hold otherwise would be to create chaos within the military decision-making process and chain of command.”
The injunction application stated, “Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D., F.S, submits and charges that the current de facto president never provided any evidence of his eligibility, and Connie Rhodes, M.D., F.S., submits that she cannot lawfully act under his authority.”
The complaint continued, “Plaintiff contends, that in reality, to force her to serve under this illegitimate commander in chief, this secretary and Department of Defense appointed by an imposter or ineligible, fraudulently elected, illegitimate usurper would constitute involuntary servitude or judicially sanctioned rape of her individual autonomy.”
At a Sept. 14 hearing, the Ledger-Enquirer reports, the judge listened intently for 90 minutes but challenged Taitz repeatedly on her charges against Obama.
“Whenever I give you a minute, you go off on these talking points,” Land reportedly said.
“We have not seen Mr. Obama’s birth certificate,” Taitz responded.
“This is not a forum to lay ground work for a press conference,” Land said. “This is a court of law.”
In her final argument, the Ledger-Enquirer reports, Taitz asked Land why she had to prove an alleged Barack Obama Kenyan birth certificate she submitted as evidence was authentic, yet her opponents didn’t have to prove Obama had an authentic United States birth certificate.
Today’s ruling states, “[T]he court finds that it is not authorized to interfere with plaintiff’s deployment orders. First, plaintiff’s challenge to her deployment order is frivolous. She has presented no credible evidence and has made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations and conjecture that President Obama is ineligible to serve as president of the United States. Instead, she uses her complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric, such as her claims that the president is ‘an illegal usurper, an unlawful pretender, [and] an unqualified imposter.’”
It continues, “Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, plaintiff unashamedly alleges that the defendant has the burden to prove his ‘natural born’ status. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel, who champions herself as a defender of liberty and freedom, seeks to use the power of the judiciary to compel a citizen, albeit the president of the United States, to ‘prove his innocence’ to ‘charges’ that are based upon conjecture and speculation. Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our country was founded in order to purportedly ‘protect and serve’ those very principles.”
The judge ruled that Rhodes’ complaint “is not plausible on its face.”
“To the extent that it alleges any ‘facts,’ the complaint does not connect those facts in any actual violation of plaintiff’s individual constitutional rights. Unlike in ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ simply saying something is so does not make it so.”
Land warned that court interference with military orders would have “serious implications,” encouraging other deploying soldiers to look to courts if they “are not satisfied with their deployment destination.”
“Presumably, some other military doctor, who does not resort to frivolous litigation to question the president’s legitimacy as commander in chief, would be required to go to Iraq in plaintiff’s place,” the ruling states. “Similarly, the doctor who plaintiff is being sent to relieve and who has likely been there for months would be delayed in receiving his well deserved leave because his replacement seeks special treatment due to her political views or reservations about being placed in harm’s way.”
Land said Rhodes’ claims are based on conjecture and speculation, with no factual basis for her “hunch or feeling or subjective belief that the president was not born in the United States” and that she has failed to show that “the alleged ‘cloud’ over the president’s birthplace amounts to a violation of her constitutional rights.
Furthermore, he noted that “Congress is apparently satisfied that the president is qualified to serve. Congress has not institutes impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in a road bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the president is not eligible for office.”
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
Some of the lawsuits over the dispute question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Complicating the situation is Obama’s decision to spend sums estimated at more than $1 million to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions.
WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption records.
Because of the dearth of information about Obama’s eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: “Where’s the birth certificate?”
“Where’s The Birth Certificate?” billboard at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip
The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 450,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.
The “certification of live birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true “long-form” birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.
Your donation – from as little as $5 to as much as $1,000 – can be made online at the WND SuperStore. (Donations are not tax-deductible. Donations of amounts greater than $1,000 can be arranged by calling either 541-474-1776 or 1-800-4WND.COM. If you would prefer to mail in your contributions, they should be directed to WND, P.O. Box 1627, Medford, Oregon, 97501. Be sure to specify the purpose of the donation by writing “billboard” on the check. In addition, donations of billboard space will be accepted, as will significant contributions specifically targeted for geographic locations.)
If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND.
Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com
URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2009/09/110000/
© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.