They take the “Queens shilling.”

The “birthers” within the military community continue their legal quest to have President Obama declared not legally president and for their orders to active duty cancelled.

Here is the initial part of a pleading filed on behalf of a medical doctor called to active duty with a 5 September report date.

Plaintiff Captain Dr. Connie Rhodes has received what appear to be facially valid orders mobilizing her to active duty with the United States Army in Iraq on September 5th, 2009 (Exhibit A). Captain Rhodes is both a US army officer and a medical doctor, a flight surgeon. On May 15th of this year 501 brigade out of Fort Campbell, KY, currently stationed in Iraq, has requested a support of medical personal in Iraq. Two days ago, August the 23rd, an order was given through the chain of command via e-mail for Captain Rhodes to arrive in San Antonio TX, Fort Sam Houston for Tactical Combat Medical Care Course (TCMC) to be held from August 30th till September 4t and next day, on September the 5th to arrive in Fort Benning in Columbus GA for immediate deployment to Iraq for a period of one year and twelve days from September 5th, 2009 until September 17th 2010. Captain Dr. Connie Rhodes wants to serve her country and fulfill her tour of duty, however as a US army officer and a medical doctor she has severe reservations regarding legitimacy of Barack Obama as the Commander in Chief and repercussions of her service under his orders, particularly in light of mounting evidence of him having allegiance to other Nations and citizenship of Kenya, Indonesia and Great Britain.

Plaintiff presents the key question in this case as one of first impression, never before decided in the history of the United States: Is an officer entitled to refuse orders on grounds of conscientious objection to the legitimate constitutional authority of the current de facto Commander-in-Chief? In the alternative, is an officer entitled to a judicial stay of the enforcement of facially valid military orders where that officer can show evidence that the chain-of-command from the commander-in-chief is tainted by illegal activity? In the alternative, does the issuance of orders based on a constitutionally infirm chain-of-command under Article II create or render military service as a mere “involuntary servitude” in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment which may be judicially enjoined?

Up until now the Captain has been content to take the ‘Queens shilling.’  By that I mean that up until this time she appears to have been a commissioned officer in the United States Army Reserve.  As such, so long as she does her monthly drills and two weeks annual AT, she receives a paycheck funded by Congress in the defense budget.  Prior to her current orders she has had no objection to that, even though since January 2009, she would have been serving under an illegal president if her argument is correct.  The same applies to others in a similar situation.  I’ve posted before about the case of Major Cook [scroll down].

The petition describes the need for the Captains services as a medical officer in a combat situation, and one who, “voluntarily joined the army and placed her life on the line for the defense of the country.”  But hold up, maybe just not yet.  A new wrinkle is that the captain, a medical doctor objects to maybe having to give flue shots.  Some of us will remember the Anthrax issue from Gulf I.

Unlike Major Cook, it appears this captain’s orders from the Department of the Army to active duty are involuntary.  Now what?  Will this be another Watada, or a Cook, or will she end up as the three objectors in Texas – in jail?

Like the case of Major Cook, the litigation does not address the following questions.

1.  Who will provide the vitally needed medical care if she’s not there?

2.  Who will receive unexpected orders to replace her on deployment?

3.  What will be said to the family of the person who gets those unexpected orders?

4.  Will a medical officer already in country be required to extend pending a replacement?

5.  What will be said to the family of the person who gets those unexpected orders?