A judge in Georgia has dismissed as frivolous the case of Captain Doctor Connie Rhodes, who asked to be excused duty in Iraq on the grounds that President Obama is not a U.S. citizen and lacked the authority to order her deployment.
Whew! The Republic is saved, yet again.
But what was really terrific was that the court’s finding made savage fun of the plaintiff and her claims for fourteen whole pages. It’s pretty wonderful reading.
As I can testify based on my time as a court reporter, judges taken as a class are not known for their comedic stylings; and it’s nothing but terrific when a judge, faced with a baseless and witless case, points out with vicious, logical irony just how baseless and witless it is.
I was once the subject of such a lawsuit. My former agent sued my then-agent, a quondam employee of the former agent, for poaching me (and sundry other young writers) from his agency and for stealing confidential information (to-wit: my phone number, otherwise available from the phone directory). The suit was for seven figures. (I was impressed by my former agent’s estimation of my earnings potential, or ten percent thereof.) Anyway, the plaintiff probably realized he was in trouble when the judge started ridiculing his case from the bench, during the course of the trial. That’s never a good sign.
The comedy in this case was so good that my then-agent photocopied the trial transcript and sent it round to his clients. I still have a copy of it somewhere, just in case I’m ever in need of a good laugh.
But in the meantime, here are some choice excerpts from Judge Land’s recent decision. (Sorry about the formatting problems, I can’t seem to fix them.)
The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million. Then the President faced a formidable opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President.
It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought. To press her “birther agenda,” Plaintiff’s counsel has filed the present action on behalf of Captain Rhodes.
Captain Rhodes entered the Army in March of 2005 and presently serves as a medical doctor.
The American taxpayers paid for her third and fourth years of medical school and financially supported her during her subsequent medical internship and residency program. In exchange for this valuable free medical education, Captain Rhodes agreed to serve two years in active service in the Army. She began that term of active service in July of 2008 and had no concerns about fulfilling her military obligation until she received orders notifying her that she would be deployed to Iraq in September of 2009.
Captain Rhodes does not seek a discharge from the Army; nor does she wish to be relieved entirely from her two year active service obligation. She has not previously made any official complaints regarding any orders or assignments that she has received, including orders that have been issued since President Obama became Commander in Chief. But she does not want to go to Iraq (or to any other destination where she may be in harm’s way, for that matter). Her “conscientious objections” to serving under the current Commander in Chief apparently can be accommodated as long as she is permitted to remain on American soil . . .
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.” (Compl. ¶ 21.) She continues with bare, conclusory allegations that the President is “an alien, possibly even an unnaturalized or even an unadmitted illegal alien . . . without so much as lawful residency in the United States.” ( Id. ¶ 26.) Then, implying that the President is either a wandering nomad or a prolific identity fraud crook, she alleges that the President ” might have used as many as 149 addresses and 39 social security numbers prior to assuming the office of President.” ( Id. ¶ 110 (emphasis added).) Acknowledging the existence of a document that shows the President was born in Hawaii, Plaintiff alleges that the document “cannot be verified as genuine, and should be presumed fraudulent.” ( Id. ¶ 113 (emphasis added).) In further support of her claim, Plaintiff relies upon “the general opinion in the rest of the world” that “Barack Hussein Obama has, in essence, slipped through the guardrails to become President.” ( Id. ¶ 128.) Moreover, as though the “general opinion in the rest of the world” were not enough, Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that according to an “AOL poll 85% of Americans believe that Obama was not vetted, needs to be vetted and his vital records need to be produced.” ( Id. ¶ 154.) Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, Plaintiff unashamedly alleges that Defendant has the burden to prove his “natural born” status. ( Id. ¶¶ 136-138, 148.) 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 preserve” those very principles . . .
Plaintiff has not sought to be excused from all military service. She does not seek a discharge from the Army. She does not even seek to avoid taking military orders under President Obama’s watch. She simply seeks to avoid being deployed to Iraq.
So much for the claims of Captain Doctor Rhodes. But on the other hand, she’s still a captain. In the army. And still a doctor.
If you were a serviceman and you were sent to Captain Doctor Rhodes, wouldn’t you— I dunno— tremble? Feign wellness? Run screaming from the room? Because, y’know, some of the hay has clearly escaped the loft here, and our servicemen deserve something better.
(snort)
A friend of mine got his MD on the government dime…Navy in his case. He went to battle with SEALs. Time for the Capt. to gear up.
Here's a properly formatted version you can copy back to the post.
The American taxpayers paid for her third and fourth years of medical school and financially supported her during her subsequent medical internship and residency program. In exchange for this valuable free medical education, Captain Rhodes agreed to serve two years in active service in the Army. She began that term of active service in July of 2008 and had no concerns about fulfilling her military obligation until she received orders notifying her that she would be deployed to Iraq in September of 2009.
Captain Rhodes does not seek a discharge from the Army; nor does she wish to be relieved entirely from her two year active service obligation. She has not previously made any official complaints regarding any orders or assignments that she has received, including orders that have been issued since President Obama became Commander in Chief. But she does not want to go to Iraq (or to any other destination where she may be in harm’s way, for that matter). Her "conscientious objections" to serving under the current Commander in Chief apparently can be accommodated as long as she is permitted to remain on American soil . . .
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." (Compl. ¶ 21.) She continues with bare, conclusory allegations that the President is "an alien, possibly even an unnaturalized or even an unadmitted illegal alien . . . without so much as lawful residency in the United States." ( Id. ¶ 26.) Then, implying that the President is either a wandering nomad or a prolific identity fraud crook, she alleges that the President " might have used as many as 149 addresses and 39 social security numbers prior to assuming the office of President." ( Id. ¶ 110 (emphasis added).) Acknowledging the existence of a document that shows the President was born in Hawaii, Plaintiff alleges that the document "cannot be verified as genuine, and should be presumed fraudulent." ( Id. ¶ 113 (emphasis added).) In further support of her claim, Plaintiff relies upon "the general opinion in the rest of the world" that "Barack Hussein Obama has, in essence, slipped through the guardrails to become President." ( Id. ¶ 128.) Moreover, as though the "general opinion in the rest of the world" were not enough, Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that according to an "AOL poll 85% of Americans believe that Obama was not vetted, needs to be vetted and his vital records need to be produced." ( Id. ¶ 154.) Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, Plaintiff unashamedly alleges that Defendant has the burden to prove his "natural born" status. ( Id. ¶¶ 136-138, 148.) 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 preserve" those very principles . . .
Plaintiff has not sought to be excused from all military service. She does not seek a discharge from the Army. She does not even seek to avoid taking military orders under President Obama’s watch. She simply seeks to avoid being deployed to Iraq.
Thanks.
It's still formatted a little weird, but it's a good deal more readable.
If I were still wearing green, I'd want her the hell out of my Army, and don't let the door hit you on the way out. Oh, and here's a bill for med school.
Actually, now that I'm just a taxpayer, I want the same thing.
I just spent the evening blogging about my visit to the Market-Garden battlefields in June (tomorrow's the 65th anniversary of the drop). Looking at a picture of the monument commemorating the 504th crossing the Waal (the "Hail Mary, full of grace" scene from A Bridge Too Far), 50 feet from where John Towle won his Medal of Honor (posthumously) and then reading about this… I'm glad the judge let her have it with both barrels, but it makes me sick inside that this bitch is wearing the uniform.
Sounds like strictly selfish concerns, which I can understand. Who the hell wants to be sent to Iraq? Sorry if that's how the contract reads…
I'm curious that the title is Captain Doctor rather than Doctor Captain. Is this only while she's in service, or has the government officially declared that military service is more important than medical care? I know that's how things work, but is it how they are written?
John, my father was a part of Market-Garden, in an ambulance company accompanying Guard Armored.
The anniversary of the battle was the only day when he could be counted upon to get totally plastered. He lost too many friends in that action.
Mr. Williams – I totally get that, even though I never saw combat. I'll be thinking of your father and his comrades today, along with a family friend who was wounded in Beek, near Nijmegen.
At the risk of further hijacking, I suggest a trip to Holland with a copy of "Major & Mrs. Holt's Battlefield Guide Operation Market Garden" if you haven't done something like that already. Just knowing someone who served there makes for an incredibly moving experience – with your personal connection I'd think it would be even more so.
I read that a few days ago, laughing my way all the way through. Saved it as a text file. Those dames got no class.
Comments on this entry are closed.