Request For Stay Of Deployment Pending Reconsideration

Request For Stay Of Deployment Pending Reconsideration. The entire Orly
Taitz Esq. Motion is below. See for yourself. [Folks - there are email &
phone Numbers below, lets support the Capt.]

[previous article Fed Judge ... Shreds Constitution see:
http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/content/view/1419/2/]

(Renewed Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice

U.S.D.C. Middle District of Georgia Filed 09/04/2009)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMUS DIVISION
120 12th Street P.O. Box 124 Columbus, Georgia 31902

CAPTAIN CONNIE RHODES, M.D. F.S., §

Plaintiff, § CivilAction No 4:09-cv-00106-CDL

§

v. §

COLONEL THOMAS D. MACDONALD, §
GA RRISON COMMANDER, FORT §
BENNING, GEORGIA, §
GEORGE STEUBER, DEPUTY § PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
COMMANDER, FORT BENNING, § STAY OF DEPLOYMENT
DR. ROBERT M. GATES, UNITED § PENDING MOTIONS FOR
STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, § REHEARING AND TO AMEND
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, de facto § OR ALTER JUDGMENT
PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES, §

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY REQUEST FOR STAY OF DEPLOYMENT
PENDING MOTIONS FOR REHEARING PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE
7.6 and to AMEND and/or ALTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 59(e)
Plaintiff Connie Rhodes files this request for stay of Deployment pending

Plaintiff’s Motions for Rehearing and to Amend and/or Alter Judgment
pursuant
to Rule 59(e).

By this Court’s summary grant (on the afternoon of Wednesday, September
16, 2009) of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Document #8, filed on Friday
September 11, 2009), 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, to wit:

7.2 RESPONSE. Respondent's counsel desiring to submit a
response, brief, or affidavits shall serve the same within twenty (20)
days after service of movant's motion and brief.

Plaintiff was entitled to respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss not
sooner than Thursday, October 1, 2009, without penalty or prejudice,
absent a specific warning from the Court of intention to vary from the
local rules. 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 Court in fact had provided the Plaintiff with no such notice of any
intention to vary the procedural framework of the local rules in this
case. 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 at
least the three key questions asserted in

Plaintiff’s complaint including (1) a U.S. ARMY OFFICER’S OATH TO UPHOLD
THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, (2)

the historical importance of an independent army corps to the
constitutional balance of powers and Republican Form of Government
guaranteed by the Constitution, and (3) the

Ninth Amendment reservation of rights in the people to question the
legitimacy and eligibility of their elected officials when questions
arise from time-to-time which were not contemplated by the Founding
Fathers.

The Court’s failure to address these three key issues again, standing
alone, is suggestive that the executive branch is exercising control
over the Court’s decision-making process, and is a sufficient ground, by
itself, to justify this Court’s grant of an EMERGENCY STAY OF DEPLOYMENT
for at least TEN DAYS until Plaintiff’s Counsel can exercise Plaintiff’s
rights under Local Rule 7.6 of the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Georgia to file her Motion for Reconsideration and
Motion to Amend or Alter Judgment a because it is “absolutely necessary”
within the meaning of Local Rule 7.6 and because the judgment entered
September 16, 2009, is manifestly unjust and incorrect within the
meaning of jurisprudence construing Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, and will surely result in a VOID JUDGMENT for denial of
due process within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(4) by reason of

the Court’s unexpected wild deviation from the 20 day response period
provided by the Local Rules of this very Middle District of Georgia.

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, such as the obvious fact that his Father
was an (admittedly disloyal and possibly treacherous) Subject of the
British Crown when he was born, even though this fact alone would
disqualify the President as a “natural born citizen”, regardless of his
place of birth.

This Court has threatened the undersigned counsel with sanctions for
advocating that a legally conscious, procedurally sophisticated, and
constitutionally aware army officers corps is the best protection
against the encroachment of anti-democratic, authoritarian,
neo-Fascistic or Palaeo-Communistic dictatorship in this country,
without pointing to any specific language, facts, or allegations of fact
in the Complaint or TRO as frivolous. Rule 11 demands more of the Court
than use of its provisions as a means of suppressing the First Amendment
Right to Petition regarding questions of truly historical, in fact epic
and epochal, importance in the history of this nation.

This Court has threatened the undersigned counsel with sanctions for
failure to present facts, and yet has ignored or disregarded the facts
concerning Barack Hussein Obama's birthplace sub iudice aliena which
were submitted to the Court in the form of the 1961 Hospital Birth
Certificate submitted in the Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice
(Document 10, entered September 11, 2009) in addition the consistent but
later dated Certificate which was submitted as an Exhibit to the
Complaint and original Application for Temporary Restraining Order.
These documents are FACTS and they went unimpeached, unquestioned, and
yet utterly unaddressed in this Court’s order of summary dismissal. The
fact that the President has admitted his Father was not a citizen, but a
British Subject, at the time of birth, is an incontrovertible fact,
which supports Plaintiff’s charges that the President is an alien. The
Court’s opinion ridicules this point, along with the evidence that “the
President is either a wandering nomad or a prolific identity fraud
crook,” (Document 13, Pages 7-8). But in so ruling, albeit in obiter
dicta this Court ignores some of the soundest and most carefully
researched and professionally assembled and presented evidence, collated
and substantiated by a former agent of

England’s Fabled “Scotland Yard”. By its contradictory and condescending
tone, the Court thereby denigrates its own asserted standard of
adherence to evidence as the primary arbiter of legitimacy of any
position asserted in litigation.

Plaintiff submits that the clear preponderance of the credible evidence
is that, in quite a few ways, Defendant Barack Hussein Obama has toyed
with and manipulated his identity in order to obtain the President, and
therefore won the “hard fought” Presidential Campaign of 2008 by fraud
and trickery against the American People. The Court should reconsider
the seriousness of its swift dismissal of this Plaintiff’s claims.

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, as Defined in Article III,
Section 3, even when pronounced in Court. The People of the United
States deserve better service and loyalty from the most powerful, and
only life-tenured, officers of their government.

The Court’s failure to address the facts which this Plaintiff has
offered into evidence constitutes a Third Set of Independent grounds for
vacating the September 16, 2009 Order of Dismissal and Entry of Judgment
in Defendants’ favor, and of granting this Plaintiff at least a ten day
Emergency Stay of Deployment Pending Motions for

Rehearing Pursuant to Local Rule 7.6 and to Amend and/or Alter Judgment
Pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finally, Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes submits that the Court has
misunderstood that she has no objection to obeying the de facto
Commander-in-Chief’s orders via chain of command within the United
States. Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes clarifies that she objects to
every order entered under the authority of this illegitimate regime.
Plaintiff merely clarifies that she believes herself to be at risk of
international prosecution for war crimes absent protection of the Geneva
Convention if she follows this particular Commander-in-Chief’s wartime
policy abroad. The situation in Iraq may indeed be much the same as it
was a year ago under a different President and Commander-in-Chief, but
the international status of that President as Commander-in-Chief may be
radically different owing to the frauds, which led to his election victory.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes asks and requests this Court
retract and vacate its sarcastic and biting dismissal of September 16,
2009, and grant her EMERGENCY REQUEST FOR STAY OF DEPLOYMENT PENDING
MOTIONS FOR REHEARING PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7.6 and to AMEND OR ALTER
JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff asks this Court to take Judicial Notice of the “Fact” that
both Local Rule 7.6 and Rule 59(e) allow ten business days from the
entry of an order to be reconsidered, or for

which amendment or alteration is sought. Accordingly, absent judicial
warning to the contrary, for good and just cause, Plaintiff expects that
she should have ten Court

business days, which is to say until September 30, 2009, to file her
Motions for Reconsideration and to Amend or Alter Judgment, although it
would be just and right and therefore authorized by law for the Court to
vacate its own judgment of dismissal immediately and simultaneously
grant this Plaintiff’s Emergency Request for Stay of Deployment.

Respectfully submitted,

THURSDAY September 17, 2009

By:_________________________

Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq.