Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
RHODES v MacDONALD - 13 - ORDER denying 3 Motion for TRO; granting 8 Motion to Dismiss. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 09/16/2009. (CGC) (Entered: 09/16/2009) - Gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.13.0

RHODES v MacDONALD - 13 - ORDER denying 3 Motion for TRO; granting 8 Motion to Dismiss. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 09/16/2009. (CGC) (Entered: 09/16/2009) - Gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.13.0

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3,069|Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan

More info:

Published by: Jack Ryan on Sep 16, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

09/16/2009

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIACOLUMBUS DIVISIONCONNIE RHODES,Plaintiff,vs.THOMAS D. MACDONALD, Colonel,Garrison Commander, FortBenning; et al.,Defendants.******CASE NO. 4:09-CV-106 (CDL)O R D E RPlaintiff, a Captain in the United States Army, seeks atemporary restraining order to prevent the Army from deploying her toIraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Plaintiff alleges thather deployment orders are unconstitutional and unenforceable becausePresident Barack Obama is not constitutionally eligible to act asCommander in Chief of the United States armed forces. Afterconducting a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds thatPlaintiff’s claims are frivolous. Accordingly, her application fora temporary restraining order (Doc. 3) is denied, and her Complaintis dismissed in its entirety. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel ishereby notified that the filing of any future actions in this Court,which are similarly frivolous, shall subject counsel to sanctions.
See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c).BACKGROUNDPlaintiff’s counsel is a self-proclaimed leader in what hasbecome known as “the birther movement.” She maintains that President
Case 4:09-cv-00106-CDL Document 13 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 1 of 14
 
Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution
1
provides in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen. . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.”This Court dismissed an earlier action filed by Plaintiff’s counsel
2
on behalf of a military reservist based upon that plaintiff’s lack ofstanding.
See Cook v. Good 
, No. 4:09-CV-82 (CDL), 2009 WL 2163535 (M.D.Ga. Jul. 16, 2009).
2Barack Obama was not born in the United States, and, therefore, he isnot eligible to be President of the United States.
See
Dr. Orly
1
Taitz, Esquire, http://www.orlytaitzesq.com (last visited Sept. 15,2009). Counsel has filed numerous lawsuits in various parts of thecountry seeking a judicial determination as to the President’slegitimacy to hold the office of President. The present action isthe second such action filed in this Court in which counsel pursuesher “birther claim.” Her
modus operandi
is to use military officersas parties and have them allege that they should not be required tofollow deployment orders because President Obama is notconstitutionally qualified to be President. Although counsel hasmanaged to fuel this “birther movement” with her litigation and pressconferences, she does not appear to have prevailed on a single claim.
2
In fact, Plaintiff previously filed the present action in the UnitedStates District Court for the Western District of Texas. That Courtsummarily dismissed her complaint upon finding that Plaintiff “has nosubstantial likelihood of success on the merits.”
Rhodes v. Gates
,5:09-CV-00703-XR, Order Den. Mot. for TRO 3 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 28,2009). Counsel then re-filed the same action in this Court.
Case 4:09-cv-00106-CDL Document 13 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 2 of 14
 
The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in
3
a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more thaneighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million.
See
Federal Election Commission, Presidential Pre-Nomination CampaignDisbursements Dec. 31, 2008, http://www.fec.gov/press/press2009/20090608Pres/3_2008PresPrimaryCmpgnDis.pdf (last visited Sept. 15, 2009).Then the President faced a formidable opponent in the general election whoreceived $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against thePresident. Press Release, Federal Election Commission, 2008 PresidentialCampaign Financial Activity Summarized (June 8, 2009),
available at
http://www.fec.gov/press/press2009/20090608PresStat.shtml. It wouldappear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that wouldsupport any contention that the President was not eligible for the officehe sought.Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President isqualified to serve. Congress has not instituted impeachment proceedings,and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner hasrejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office.
See
H.R. Res. 593, 111th Cong. (2009) (commemorating, by vote of 378-0,the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and stating, “the 44thPresident of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August4, 1961”).
3Plaintiff’s counsel speculates that President Obama was not bornin the United States based upon the President’s alleged refusal todisclose publicly an “official birth certificate” that issatisfactory to Plaintiff’s counsel and her followers. She thereforeseeks to have the judiciary compel the President to produce“satisfactory” proof that he was born in the United States. Counselmakes these allegations although a “short-form” birth certificate hasbeen made publicly available which indicates that the President wasborn in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.
3
To press her “birther agenda,” Plaintiff’s counsel has filed thepresent action on behalf of Captain Rhodes. Captain Rhodes enteredthe Army in March of 2005 and presently serves as a medical doctor.The American taxpayers paid for her third and fourth years of medical
Case 4:09-cv-00106-CDL Document 13 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 3 of 14

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->