Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09

Addie
Posts: 45366
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09

#1

Post by Addie »



I just saw this posted in a thread on [/break1]oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=3145#comment-16716]The Betrayal by Morgan Ward, one of the ones turning against her, but formerly very supportive, from what I can gather.



You want to see a laughing stock? Wait till the new lawsuit Orly is fixing to present, wherin she is going to try and sue the US Government asking for an injunction challenging the US Constitution! That sounds just like something this Charles Lincoln, II would talk her into. Talk about utter nonsense?That has been his MO with all of the courts he has been in. When they rule against him, he sued the Judge, and you wonder why the Courts have no respect for this convicted felon?



I can assure you if this happens as I have been informed is soon coming, Orly will become the laughing stock of the Nation. That doesn’t help us or our cause. It will destroy the movement, what is left of it by then.--



9/3/09 Editing



This is from [/break1]oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=3178]The Betrayal and was posted in the Texas case thread:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

COLUMUS DIVISION

120 12th Street

P.O. Box 124

Columbus, Georgia 31902



Rule 23, Class Action Alleged

Certification Requested

TRIAL-BY-JURY DEMANDED



CAPTAIN CONNIE RHODES, M.D. F.S., ß

Plaintiff,



v.



COLONEL THOMAS D. MACDONALD,

GARRISON COMMANDER, FORT

BENNING, GEORGIA,

GEORGE STEUBER, DEPUTY

COMMANDER, FORT BENNING,

DR. ROBERT M. GATES, UNITED

STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, and

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, de facto

PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES,

Defendants.



COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, and INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: 10 U.S.C. ß938 and Army Regulation 27-10



Comes now the Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D. F.S., with this Complaint, Declaratory Judgment, and Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.



COUNT I: DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF DUE TO UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES, ILLEGAL ORDERS, AND LACK OF ADMINISTRATIVE OR LEGAL REMEDY



Plaintiff Rhodes’ seeks an immediate temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction pending entry of a permanent injunction and final declaratory judgment that this court restrain the Army from enforcing its orders against her until this Court has rendered a final determination that Title 10 U.S.C. ß938 (Article 138 UCMJ), both on its face and as implemented by Army Regulation 27-10, are unconstitutional.



Plaintiff alleges that these statutes are unconstitutional on their face and as applied because they do even address the question of army determination of the “lawful” status of orders or the identity of national enemies, foreign or domestic. In short, Plaintiff alleges that she requires injunctive relief because she has no adequate remedy at law: if she is forced to comply with illegal orders, rendered by an unconstitutional chain of command, in violation of her oath and conscience, the damage will be done and irreparable by any legal remedy including damages.



Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff sues on behalf of herself and all other commissioned officers similarly situated, who have been since January 21, 2009, or may be at any time in the future deployed outside of the United States based on orders issued by any of the Defendants while 10 U.S.C. ß938 and/or Army Regulation 27_10 remain in place depriving Plaintiff and all other similarly situated officers from obtaining stays of orders to deploy to theatres of international conflict pending determination of the lawful status of such orders, or the Constitutional status of the Presidency and Presidentially appointed Secretary of Defense, and Department of Defense of this current de facto administration.


"The very least you can do in your life is to figure out what you hope for." - Barbara Kingsolver
User avatar
Highlands
Posts: 3600
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:19 am
Location: 3rd Rock From the Sun

Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09

#2

Post by Highlands »





If you took out all of the blood vessels in your body and lined them up, you would be dead. #science
User avatar
realist
Posts: 35660
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09

#3

Post by realist »



I just saw this posted in a thread on [/break1]oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=3145#comment-16716]The Betrayal by Morgan Ward, one of the ones turning against her, but formerly very supportive, from what I can gather.



You want to see a laughing stock? Wait till the new lawsuit Orly is fixing to present, wherin she is going to try and sue the US Government asking for an injunction challenging the US Constitution! That sounds just like something this Charles Lincoln, II would talk her into. Talk about utter nonsense?That has been his MO with all of the courts he has been in. When they rule against him, he sued the Judge, and you wonder why the Courts have no respect for this convicted felon?



I can assure you if this happens as I have been informed is soon coming, Orly will become the laughing stock of the Nation. That doesn’t help us or our cause. It will destroy the movement, what is left of it by then."Morgan Ward" has indeed been a staunch supporter of Orly for quite a while (pretty much until the Rhodes filing fiasco). "He" also has posted many times of coming events from Orly's camp and has been dead on, so I would suspect there is some truth to what he says and there's at least been talk of that type suit.



If so, he's right, it will end at least Orly's reign as Queen of the Birthers and will make her a complete laughing stock and the "movement" will lost many supporters. They'll still be around, but no one can carry the torch like Orly, so so speak.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image
elliewyatt
Posts: 2675
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 12:31 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09

#4

Post by elliewyatt »





"Morgan Ward" has indeed been a staunch supporter of Orly for quite a while (pretty much until the Rhodes filing fiasco). "He" also has posted many times of coming events from Orly's camp and has been dead on, so I would suspect there is some truth to what he says and there's at least been talk of that type suit.



If so, he's right, it will end at least Orly's reign as Queen of the Birthers and will make her a complete laughing stock and the "movement" will lost many supporters. They'll still be around, but no one can carry the torch like Orly, so so speak.Ward claims to be in close contact with Orly:



I have been close to her and we talked frequently and I still recieve personal e-mails on occasion from her, especially when she needs my help. I don’t want her to fail in her efforts and surely am not pulling against her. I just know I can no longer help save her from herself!





[highlight]You don’t have a clue as to what the courts are considering in taking action against her and her license in the near future. I do! She isn’t going to be to good for the cause when she has lost her License to practice law![/highlight]



Smells a lot like a letter from the California bar.


User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 47277
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09

#5

Post by Sterngard Friegen »



[highlight]You don’t have a clue as to what the courts are considering in taking action against her and her license in the near future. I do! She isn’t going to be to good for the cause when she has lost her License to practice law![/highlight]Smells a lot like a letter from the California bar.


zeelin
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 12:58 am

Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09

#6

Post by zeelin »



Ah, yes. A lawsuit challenging the U.S. Constitution filed by someone born in Russia will do wonders for the birthers and patriots.


User avatar
LM K
Posts: 8290
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:59 pm
Location: Oregon
Occupation: College Professor

Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09

#7

Post by LM K »



[highlight]You don’t have a clue as to what the courts are considering in taking action against her and her license in the near future. I do! She isn’t going to be to good for the cause when she has lost her License to practice law![/highlight]Smells a lot like a letter from the California bar. I truly think that Orly has received a letter from the bar. She has NEVER been this quiet or reclusive. She hasn't done any interviews in 1-2 weeks. She barely posts anything on her blog. And, she has a new lawyer coming to help her. Could this new lawyer be taking over her cases? We know that this new lawyer will be helping Orly.



The only thing that would shut Orly up would be a letter from the bar. I think that the investigation has started.



Has the CA state bar ever suspended a lawyer from practicing while the lawyer is being investigated?



To the beloved folks who authored and submitted the 1st and 2nd bar complaint, I you!



Question: what the hell would an injunction challenging the Constitution look like?



So, let me get this straight. This entire eligibility issue is all about protecting the Constitution. So, Orly is going to sue the gov challenging the Constitution?! I thought the birfers were pretty happy with the current Constitution.



WTFWTFWTFWTFWTFWTFWTF!


"The jungle is no place for a cello."
Take the Money and Run
User avatar
PatGund
Posts: 7809
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Everett. WA
Occupation: Middle Aged College Student

Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09

#8

Post by PatGund »



I thought the birfers were pretty happy with the current Constitution.Not really. The current Constitution has this pesky problem of not saying what they think it says or want it to say.


Curious Blue
Posts: 2462
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:42 am

Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09

#9

Post by Curious Blue »



Has the CA state bar ever suspended a lawyer from practicing while the lawyer is being investigated?Yes, they can and they have -- but any such suspension would be a public action. That is, you'd be able to find out out about it by checking Orly's public bar record. So far, nothing on record:[/break1]calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=223433]http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/mem ... x?x=223433


User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 47277
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09

#10

Post by Sterngard Friegen »



[highlight]You don’t have a clue as to what the courts are considering in taking action against her and her license in the near future. I do! She isn’t going to be to good for the cause when she has lost her License to practice law![/highlight]Smells a lot like a letter from the California bar. I truly think that Orly has received a letter from the bar. She has NEVER been this quiet or reclusive. She hasn't done any interviews in 1-2 weeks. She barely posts anything on her blog. And, she has a new lawyer coming to help her. Could this new lawyer be taking over her cases? We know that this new lawyer will be helping Orly.



The only thing that would shut Orly up would be a letter from the bar. I think that the investigation has started.



Has the CA state bar ever suspended a lawyer from practicing while the lawyer is being investigated?



To the beloved folks who authored and submitted the 1st and 2nd bar complaint, I you!



Question: what the hell would an injunction challenging the Constitution look like?



So, let me get this straight. This entire eligibility issue is all about protecting the Constitution. So, Orly is going to sue the gov challenging the Constitution?! I thought the birfers were pretty happy with the current Constitution.



WTFWTFWTFWTFWTFWTFWTF!Catlover - I agree with you. And the answer to your question, highlighted above, is yes. Happens all the time, especially in cases where a lawyer is partnering with a criminal or disbarred attorney.



I have it on good authority that the California State bar now has irrefutable proof that Taitz has committed numerous offenses relating to Charles Lincoln, that they have an open investigation, and that they have almost certainly contacted her. I believe she will be out of business soon after September 8.


User avatar
LM K
Posts: 8290
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:59 pm
Location: Oregon
Occupation: College Professor

Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09

#11

Post by LM K »



Catlover - I agree with you. And the answer to your question, highlighted above, is yes. Happens all the time, especially in cases where a lawyer is partnering with a criminal or disbarred attorney.



I have it on good authority that the California State bar now has irrefutable proof that Taitz has committed numerous offenses relating to Charles Lincoln, that they have an open investigation, and that they have almost certainly contacted her. I believe she will be out of business soon after September 8.OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG!!!



Seriously, this could be why Orly is getting another lawyer to move to CA! They HAVE opened an investigation!?



I think I just had a blorgasm. ; ; ;



Bless you, dog lover!


"The jungle is no place for a cello."
Take the Money and Run
Addie
Posts: 45366
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09

#12

Post by Addie »



This is wonderful news. I've actually been dreaming about the bitch being disbarred. =D> I have it on good authority that the California State bar now has irrefutable proof that Taitz has committed numerous offenses relating to Charles Lincoln, that they have an open investigation, and that they have almost certainly contacted her. I believe she will be out of business soon after September 8.


"The very least you can do in your life is to figure out what you hope for." - Barbara Kingsolver
elliewyatt
Posts: 2675
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 12:31 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09

#13

Post by elliewyatt »



... the 1st and 2nd bar complaint...We have never seen the content of the supposed second complaint, have we?


Litlebritdifrnt2
Posts: 2885
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:36 pm

Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09

#14

Post by Litlebritdifrnt2 »



"I have it on good authority that the California State bar now has irrefutable proof that Taitz has committed numerous offenses relating to Charles Lincoln, that they have an open investigation, and that they have almost certainly contacted her. I believe she will be out of business soon after September 8."Woot! That calls for a drink.


User avatar
LM K
Posts: 8290
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:59 pm
Location: Oregon
Occupation: College Professor

Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09

#15

Post by LM K »



... the 1st and 2nd bar complaint...We have never seen the content of the supposed second complaint, have we?Not at this time. Hopefully it will surface when the author(s) feel safe enough to do so. That Orly is one nasty bitch. But, with her followers dropping left and right, there may be few to worry about in the future. Question: Who is the nastier evil bitch? Orly or Livia Soprano (Tony Soprano's mother in The Sopranos)?I vote Orly.


"The jungle is no place for a cello."
Take the Money and Run
User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 47277
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09

#16

Post by Sterngard Friegen »



... the 1st and 2nd bar complaint...We have never seen the content of the supposed second complaint, have we?I saw the first but have never seen the second complaint. I also know of nos. 3, 4 & 5. I have it on good authority that the author of nos. 3, 4 & 5 has been advised by the State Bar that they have opened an active investigation. And based on what I know about what kinds of things get the State Bar's attention, the State Bar is now attentiveAnd for Catlover I have just one thing to say: "Woof!"


User avatar
Sequoia32
Posts: 4753
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:47 pm

Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09

#17

Post by Sequoia32 »



This is wonderful news. I've actually been dreaming about the bitch being disbarred. =D>Me too!Oh how I miss mocking her on her blog.


So far every case of Ebola in this country got it by helping people. So relax, Republicans, you're in the clear. - Tina Dupuy
User avatar
realist
Posts: 35660
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09

#18

Post by realist »



This is wonderful news. I've actually been dreaming about the bitch being disbarred. =D> I have it on good authority that the California State bar now has irrefutable proof that Taitz has committed numerous offenses relating to Charles Lincoln, that they have an open investigation, and that they have almost certainly contacted her. I believe she will be out of business soon after September 8.Adelante: I don't think I'd get my hopes up real high for "disbarment" just yet, but a suspension would certainly not be out of order in the meantime, considering all the ethical breaches that have been reported.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image
Addie
Posts: 45366
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09

#19

Post by Addie »



Okay, I'll settle for that, but I've really been dreaming about disbarment, literally. You'd think I'd dream about winning the lottery.





Adelante: I don't think I'd get my hopes up real high for "disbarment" just yet, but a suspension would certainly not be out of order in the meantime, considering all the ethical breaches that have been reported.


"The very least you can do in your life is to figure out what you hope for." - Barbara Kingsolver
User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4381
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09

#20

Post by Tesibria »



... the 1st and 2nd bar complaint...We have never seen the content of the supposed second complaint, have we?No, and we shouldn't b/c then it would be public before it's time, although anyone following the case (and/or this site) likely would not be far off as to some of its content. However, to use horse-lover's words, I have it on good authority that official, a multi-part, "signed"/nonanonymous complaint was filed, which means that it WILL be investigated.



Re...I believe she will be out of business soon after September 8.... I share that HOPE, but NOT that expectation. I know some folks here think i'm a bit too cautious, and that's fine ... but ... I'm just sayin....



(a) She will not be disbarred in September. That simply can't happen without a trial - and one can look at the State Bar Calendar and see that it's already booked THROUGH OCTOBER.



(b) She *could* be "out of business" in that they could enjoin her from working pending the investigation. HOWEVER, I have not been able to find a single situation where that happened to ANYONE in any situation other than one where an attorney is fleecing (literally - taking money) from unsuspecting clients (not supporters), through fraudulent means.



I'm sorry to poo on the rug, but I just don't see that happening in this situation. She could be issued a warning. She could be ordered to not do certain things. However, I just do not think that any such limitation will affect her ability to continue her birther cases. (And, if I'm wrong, I'll eat any crow-pie that Stern sends me )



... that "rain on the parade" notwithstanding, I agree that it is very likely that she is already under investigation. And, I agree that the bar has plenty of documentation/evidence supporting allegations of violations.



Time will tell whether the Bar considers it irrefutable proof.

I just don't want my good friends here to get our collective hopes and joys up too quickly.



Folks, this is a MARATHON, not a sprint.


“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline
User avatar
Epectitus
Posts: 3669
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:55 pm

Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09

#21

Post by Epectitus »



Let us not celebrate too early. I myself may already have an excellent 30 year old Tawny on the shelf waiting for the moment, but I for one insist on full throated gloating from a position of acknowledged victory before it will be opened.My anticipatory celebration will never rise above a Jewel of Russia martini, up, dirty with gorgonzola stuffed olives.


"Hell, I would wear a dress and ruby red slippers all year if we can prove this" - Mike Zullo
User avatar
June bug
Posts: 6366
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Northern San Diego County

Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09

#22

Post by June bug »



OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG!!!This is wonderful news. I've actually been dreaming about the bitch being disbarred.Okay everybody, slow down - you're scaring me. We're starting to sound like the people on Ed's old, new and opposing forums! Always salivating that "this is the one that'll get rid of the usurper, for sure!"Until we know something for sure, Or, as Foggy might say, don't count your chickens till they're hatched!


User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 47277
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09

#23

Post by Sterngard Friegen »



Let us not celebrate too early. I myself may already have an excellent 30 year old Tawny on the shelf waiting for the moment, but I for one insist on full throated gloating from a position of acknowledged victory before it will be opened.My anticipatory celebration will never rise above a Jewel of Russia martini, up, dirty with gorgonzola stuffed olives.Epictetus - When the time comes I will share a glass of your Tawny and some ouzo with you.


User avatar
LM K
Posts: 8290
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:59 pm
Location: Oregon
Occupation: College Professor

Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09

#24

Post by LM K »



I totally understand that this is a marathon. But just knowing that Orly is being actively investigated thrills me. I know weird things could happen, but I cannot imagine Orly not being disbarred or suspended from practicing once the investigation and trial are completed. Maybe Orly will voluntarily give up her license, but I doubt that. Other than disbarment and suspension, what other disciplinary actions could Orly face? Now, assuming Orly has received a letter regarding an investigation by the CA bar. I would have killed to have been in the room with Orly when she opened that letter. The howling must have been ear-shattering. God, I feel for that woman's children. I really do. I wish I could celebrate with a drink! But certain meds and alcohol don't mix...3 sips and I am under the table! And really, non-alcoholic beer is just wrong.


"The jungle is no place for a cello."
Take the Money and Run
Litlebritdifrnt2
Posts: 2885
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:36 pm

Rhodes v. MacDonald et al - Georgia, 9/4/09

#25

Post by Litlebritdifrnt2 »



And boiled peanuts.


Post Reply

Return to “Orly Taitz”