“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
So help me God.”
US Military officer’s oath of office

Officers in the service of the United States are
bound by this oath to disobey any order that
violates the Constitution of the United States.

To:

Judge Clay D. Land, US District Judge

Thomas D. MacDonald, Colonel, Garrison Commander Fort Benning

Is there any reason that I and the American public should not consider you cowards, un American or guilty of treason?

You both have taken oaths to defend the US Constitition against enemies, both foreign and domestic.

The motion made by Connie Rhodes, Captain, is not about the beliefs of her legal counsel, Orly Taitz, it is about the refusal of the usurper, Barack Obama, to prove that he is eligible to be president. The very fact that Obama has gone to such lengths to avoid proving he is a natural born citizen, should be enough to raise many large red flags.

The motion of Captain Connie Rhodes, an active military officer, who apparently takes her oath to defend the US Constitution, very seriously, was flawed. Of course, every motion, every pleading before any court in this nation is flawed. This is not a perfect world. Judge Land has made a ruling not based on merits, not based on facts and apparently, with malice aforethought, for reasons unknown. Judge Clay D. Land, a US District Court judge, has denied Captain Rhodes’ motion on September 16, 2009. The motion was for a temporary restraining order to prevent her pending deployment to Iraq based on the fact that the orders and any future orders come from an illegal, usurper Commander in Chief, Obama.

Judge Land has referred to this motion as frivolous. Based on the following, Judge Land should minimally be subject to judicial review.

I can state with certainty that the following is true:

• We are in the middle of the Constitutional crisis foretold by attorney Philip J Berg in 2008.
• Barack Hussein Obama is not President of the United States.
• Obama is by any reasonable definition a usurper.
• Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States.
• Obama’s father was a citizen of Kenya and therefore a British citizen.
• There is absolutely no evidence that Obama was born in the US.
• There is much compelling evidence that Obama does not have a long form birth certificate proving eligibility.
• Obama has expended enormous resources to hide his past and associated documents that would clear up eligibility.
• Barack Obama signed a form in Arizona before the primaries stating that he was a natural born citizen.
• Barack Obama has kept hidden all documents recording his past except for a few notable exceptions such as his IL bar application. Obama lied on his bar application regarding his numerous traffic tickets and aliases.
• Commander Walter Fitzpatrick (Ret.) and other military officers have charged Obama with treason.
• By all indications, Captain Connie Rhodes is following her oath to defend the US Constituton.

Consider the following exerpts from Judge Land’s ruling:

“Plaintiff alleges that her deployment orders are unconstitutional and unenforceable because President Barack Obama is not constitutionally eligible to act as Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces. After conducting a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous.”

Judge Land, you are either uninformed, complicit in treason or incompetent.

“Plaintiff’s counsel speculates that President Obama was not born in the United States based upon the President’s alleged refusal to disclose publicly an “official birth certificate” that is satisfactory to Plaintiff’s counsel and her followers. She therefore seeks to have the judiciary compel the President to produce “satisfactory” proof that he was born in the United States. Counsel makes these allegations although a “short-form” birth certificate has been made publicly available which indicates that the President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.3”
“3 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. See
Federal Election Commission, Presidential Pre-Nomination Campaign
Disbursements 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 who
received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the
President. Press Release, Federal Election Commission, 2008 Presidential
Campaign Financial Activity Summarized (June 8, 2009), available at
http://www.fec.gov/press/press2009/20090608PresStat.shtml. 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.
Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is
qualified to serve. Congress has not instituted impeachment proceedings,
and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner has
rejected 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 44th
President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August
4, 1961”).”

There is no alleged refusal to disclose an “official birth certificate.” Obama has gone to great lengths to avoid this. Judge Land, if you have a legitimate copy, please share it.
A short form birth certificate has not been produced. Even Lou Dobbs of CNN was able to discern that the document produced by the Obama camp, a COLB, Certification of live birth, is just a document referring to another document and we have no proof that the COLB is genuine.

Judge Land, and/or his assistants, reveal ignorance about the vetting process and are complicit with Congress in this coverup.

“Moreover, mere allegations of a constitutional violation unsupported by a reasonable factual foundation are insufficient to warrant judicial review. To hold otherwise would be to create chaos within the military decision-making process and chain of command. As explained below, the Court must balance several factors to determine whether judicial review of a military decision is authorized.”

Judge Land, all we have are allegations that Obama is qualified to be president. We have a constitutional crisis caused by the deceit of Obama and non vetting by the Democrat party.

“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.””

Once again, Judge Land exhibits ignorance of the facts. The only document that the Obama camp has produced is a COLB that has not been proven to be legitimate.

“As explained previously, Plaintiff has demonstrated no likelihood of success on the merits. Her claims are based on sheer
conjecture and speculation.”

Conjecture?

Judge Land, you are the one guilty of conjecture.
Judge Land, you have taken a similar oath one or more times. Do you take this oath seriously?

Her likelihood for success is only limited by your bias and lack of knowledge.

Colonel Thomas D MacDonald, are we to believe that you take your oath to defend the US Constitution seriously?

I understand that the court must weigh interfering with the Military. But this goes to the core of military rule and order, having a  Commander in Chief who is legitimate.

I do not criticize Judge Land for his comments on how the case was plead, however, given the serious nature of the motion, I do criticize Judge Land for calling this a frivolous motion and accusing the plaintiff of conjecture when most of his basis for attacking Captain Rhodes’ position was based on conjecture and misinformation.

Judge Land referring to concerned American patriots as “birthers” is condescending, uninformed and unacceptable.

It is apparent that of the three major players in this motion, Captain Rhodes, Judge Land and Colonel MacDonald, Captain Rhodes is the only one that lives out her oath to defend the US Constitution.

I am shocked and infuriated by the attitude of Judge Clay D Land and believe that his actions should be investigated.

Citizen Wells