The judge who dismissed a complaint by Capt. Connie Rhodes, the medical doctor and Army officer who wanted a restraining order to prevent her overseas deployment on the basis President Obama has not demonstrated himself to be a natural-born citizen under the U.S. Constitution, has been accused of exhibiting “subservience” to that “same illegitimate chain of command.”
Orly Taitz, the California attorney handling many of the lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility, filed a request today on behalf of Rhodes for reconsideration of the dismissal, even though she was threatened by the judge with sanctions.
“Plaintiff avers that there is increasing evidence that the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and, mostly likely, subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which plaintiff has previously protested in this case, except that the de facto president is not even nominally the commander-in-chief of the Article III Judiciary,” the request said.
Military litigation team attending earlier emergency hearing on Sept. 14
As WND reported, Rhodes 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.
“After conducting a hearing on plaintiff’s motion, the court finds that plaintiff’s claims are frivolous,” Land’s 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.”
Taitz, however, followed with today’s emergency request for stay of deployment pending motions for rehearing.
“Plaintiff was denied her Fifth Amendment right to due process of law, in particular, by this court’s violation of Local Rule 7 of the United States Middle District of Georgia,” the motion said. That specifies that the plaintiff was entitled to respond to the government’s motion to dismiss the case “not sooner than Thursday, October 1, 2009.”
“The court should, upon this ground alone, vacate its September 16, 2009, order of dismissal and stay the deployment of plaintiff Connie Rhodes. Further, both plaintiff and her counsel were denied meaningful access to the courts by the very fact that this court entered its September 16, 2009, ruling without reference to any of the key issues actually raised in plaintiff’s complaint or TRO. The fact that the court’s 14 page order does not address any actual statements in plaintiff’s complaint by page or paragraph number, or any page citation to her TRO, suggests to a reasonable and objective mind that the court either did not read these documents or was summarily instructed by that same illegitimate ‘chain of command’ alleged above not to address [the questions,]” the motion said.
The motion described the judge’s decision as “manifestly unjust and incorrect.”
“It is reasonably certain that the men who framed the Constitution did not anticipate the election of a man as a president who appears to have prevaricated about his place of birth and then ordered his loyal followers to ridicule all those who questioned the contradictions inherent in his own biography,” the motion said.
“Plaintiff submits that to advocate a breach of constitutional oaths to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is in fact a very practical form of ‘adhering’ to those enemies, foreign and domestic, and thus is tantamount to treason,” the motion says.
Land claimed in his ruling Rhodes had no credible evidence and didn’t have factual allegations.
It is not the first time a judge and attorney have disagreed vehemently over a challenge to Obama’s presidency.
The judge, James Robertson, threatened the attorney, John D. Hemenway, 82, with sanctions. Hemenway responded by ripping the judge for using blog hearsay in his decision.
In his statement, Robertson ridiculed the complaint, which never had a court hearing, ruling that the eligibility issue had been “blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged.”
His dismissal ordered the attorney to respond immediately and explain why there should not be financial sanctions. Hemenway complied, pointing out that the assumption of Obama’s eligibility “assumes facts not in evidence.”
Hemenway also suggested that if there were to be sanctions, court rules would allow him to require the release of Obama’s birth information.
“If the court persists in pressing Rule 11 procedures against Hemenway, then Hemenway
should be allowed all of the discovery pertinent to the procedures as court precedents
have permitted in the past,” he wrote to the judge.
“The court has referred to a number of facts outside of the record of this particular
case and, therefore, the undersigned is particularly entitled to a hearing to get the truth of
those matters into the record. This may require the court to authorize some discovery,” Hemenway said.
Robertson immediately backed off, issuing only a reprimand to Hemenway, which now is on appeal.
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.