As we noted earlier this week, a U.S. District Court recently denied Army Captain Connie Rhodes’ request to avoid her pending deployment to Iraq. The judge found the captain’s complaint — which alleges that the President is ineligible to hold his office — to be “frivolous,” and warned the captain’s attorney, Orly Taitz, that further such filings could subject her to Rule 11 santions. We discussed the ruling here.

CPT Rhodes yesterday filed an “Emergency Request for Stay of Deployment,” alleging that her suit raises issues “of truly historical, in fact epic and epochal, importance” which demand reconsideration. Accusing the President of “fraud and trickery against the American People [sic],” the captain avers that she “objects to every order entered under the authority of this illegitimate regime.”  She argues that should she deploy, she may be subject to international criminal sanction for violations of the Geneva Convention.  CPT Rhodes’ request is available here: [PDF].

The Court unsurprisingly denied the request today, and has ordered Ms. Taitz to appear and show cause why she should not be sanctioned. The order can be seen here: [PDF].

[UPDATE]  Apparently, CPT Rhodes has now advised the court that she did not authorize Ms. Taitz’ latest filing, does not want to be represented by her any longer, and intends to file a complaint against her former counsel with the California State Bar.  The captain’s letter to Judge Land is here.

15 Responses to “Rhodes v. MacDonald: The saga continues”

  1. Phil Cave says:

    Well, It seems to me that CPT Rhoades has exercised some officership. It’s not clear to me why she got involved in this litigation the way it developed. But at this point it seems like she should have a benefit of the doubt on that.
    At this point, let’s see what the court and the California Bar do.

  2. Moderate Middle Lawyer says:

    Even though this doctor has a crazy civillian lawyer….

    At least in the military context, this Doc is making us military lawyers look better than the military Docs!

  3. Bridget says:

    I don’t know about the court action, a self-set trap into which Ms. Taitz have jumped, the Rule 11 sanctions will get the Cal Bar’s attention. However, I anticipate that the letter from the (former) client will be very persuasive. All said about the CPT who seems to have been diligently seeking to save herself, not sure it is uncommon to have clients think that you go to court to make law and change the law. The Taitz Watch continues.

  4. Bridget says:

    Oops, that is “has jumped”

  5. MJW1 says:

    Rhoades is a piece of work, just like Taitz. Match made in hell I say. I think they should both lose their licenses.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Cossio,

    Let’s just say for argument’s sake that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. Why would that make her deployment orders illegitimate?

  7. Anonymous says:

    Anon 1519, you are digging in a dry well if you know what I mean.

  8. Bill C says:

    My guess is she got some sound, independent legal advice.

  9. Anonymous says:

    More likely a few of the soldiers she works with let her know how they felt about her unwillingness to deploy.

  10. John O'Connor says:

    I’ll go with Bill C that someobody pointed out the jeopardy she was causing herslef by casting her lot with this counsel.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Let me risk my sanity and ask this one more time.

    Over a year ago IIRC, the following proof of Obama’s citizenship was provided:

    2 separate newspaper announcement in Hawaii in 1964
    A short-form birth certificate which is what Hawaii issues
    The word of the republican governor of Hawaii
    An examination of the document including raised seal, signature of the registar, etc
    The word of the head of Hawaiian vital statistics
    The collected investigations of democratic and republican investigators many of whom would have loved to push out candidate Obama for their preferred candidate

    What is left to check?

  12. Phil Cave says:

    I would imagine DOJ has a “payscale” list of expenses that they would proffer a court in any situation where DOJ is awarded attorney’s fees, expenses, etc. I doubt Rhoades is the first time we the taxpayer have been awarded “costs” in litigation. I suspect those monies go into the general treasury, or perhaps some other type of account?

  13. Gov't Atty says:

    What is this about a payscale? I don’t know about other atty’s who work for the gov’t, but I work for free!….I’m just patriotic that way I guess.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Phil – I agree; I think every department has a scale of reimburseable rates.

    Here’s a link to DoD’s:

    http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/rates/

  15. Christopher Mathews says:

    Cossio: “Judge Mathews brought up an excellant point on other’s who ran for President that may not have been naturalized citizens. They never got as far as Obama did, but …”

    The only other person I mentioned in this regard was Leslie King, who did, in fact, become President. You may know him better under the name Gerald R. Ford, Jr.