Case 4:09-cv-00106-CDL Document 23 Filed 10/02/2009 Page 1 of 62 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION CAPTAIN CONNIE RHODES, M.D., Plaintiff, vs. THOMAS D. MACDONALD, ET AL. , Defendants . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 4:09-CV-106 September 14, 2009 TRO HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE CLAY D. LAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography; transcript oroduced bv comDuter. BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 10/02/2009 Page 2 of 62 2 APPEARANCES FOR THE PLAINTIFF: ORLY TAITZ dr_taitz0yahoo . com Law Offices of Orly Taitz , Esq. 26302 La Paz Suite 211 Mission Viego, California 92691 (949) 683-5411 FOR THE DEFENDANTS: SHEETUL S. WALL sheetul . s . wall0usdo j . gov Assistant U.S. Attorney Middle District of Georgia 1246 First Avenue Post Office Box 2568 Columbus, Georgia 31902-2568 (706) 649-7700 REBECCA ELAINE AUSPRUNG rebecca . ausprung0usarmy . mil U.S. ARMY LITIGATION DIVISION 901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 400 Arlington, Virginia 22203 (703) 696-1614 CAPTAIN ADAM KERSEY COURT REPORTER: BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter P. O. Box 81 Columbus, GA 31902 (706) 317-3111 BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 3 of 62 3 INDEX EXAMINATION INDEX CONNIE MICHELLE RHODES, M.D. BY THE COURT 7 BY MS. TAITZ 15 BY CAPTAIN AUSPRUNG 23 BY MS. TAITZ 24 BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 4 of 62 4 (Proceedings on September 14, 2009, ccmnencing at 12 : 31 p .m. , as follows : ) THE COURT: Please be seated. Good afternoon. This is in the case of Connie Rhodes versus Thomas D. MacDonald, Case 4:09-CV-106. The plaintiff is represented by Ms. Orly Taitz, who is present. Ms. Taitz, I assume this is Captain Rhodes, your client, seated with you. Is that correct? MS. TAITZ: Yes, that's right. THE COURT: The defendant is represented by Assistant U.S. — defendants are represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Sheetul Wall. MS. WALL: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Along with Major Ausprung and Captain Kersey. MS. AUSPRUNG: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Ms. Taitz, you have the burden with regard to the request for a temporary restraining order. Do you wish to put lip any evidence beyond what you have already submitted in the form of affidavits, or do you wish to rely solely upon the affidavits? MS. TAITZ: I will proceed upon evidence that was already submitted to court. THE COURT: You don't have any testimony that you wish to present; is that correct? BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 5 of 62 5 MS. TAITZ: Unless you have any specific questions to Captain Rhodes. She does have a concern. She was warned that if she provides testimony it might be used by JAG to punish her in any way, and that is the concern that she has. She would be happy to testify, but that is the concern. And as a matter of fact, I wanted to clear up one more point. As we were here on Friday, I presented the statement, notarized statement, by Captain Rhodes. And the attorneys for the defendants stated that that was not true, that she simply wasn't willing to be here in court. And what Captain Rhodes would like to submit to Court is the fact that, indeed, on Friday, at four o'clock, central time, she was at this meeting with her commander, Colonel Jeffrey Johnson, as she stated. And moreover, she would be willing to provide her cell phone and she would sign release. THE COURT: Well, I would like to hear from Captain Rhodes rather than you telling me what you think she's going to say. Captain Rhodes, come to the witness stand, please, straight ahead. Step right there for a moment, raise your right hand, and take the oath. CONNIE MICHELLE RHODES, M.D., PLAINTIFF, SWORN THE WITNESS: I affirm so, sir. THE COURT: She affirms the oath. Please be seated. MS. AUSPRUNG: Is it possible to have a side bar BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 6 of 62 6 before Captain Rhodes testifies? THE COURT: For what purpose? MS. AUSPRUNG: Just to discuss something that may be pertinent to Your Honor's knowledge before questioning her regarding her presence here on Friday. If you intend to question her on that matter. If you don't, then we can move on. THE COURT: We'll see. MS. AUSPRUNG: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: If you want to put something on the record to set the record straight from your perspective, then I'll let you do that. MS. AUSPRUNG: All right. Your Honor. THE COURT: Do you want to go ahead and do it now? MS. AUSPRUNG: I would just like to let you know that the information we had on Friday that we conveyed to you, that Captain Rhodes did not want to attend the hearing, was accurate as of the time that we presented it, and we obtained it on Thursday. However, subsequent to that, while I was traveling, we did find out after the hearing that Captain Rhodes had in fact made a request to attend the hearing this day, and there was a misunderstanding from her chain of command based upon her earlier statement that the lawsuit would proceed in her absence. They did not realize that she was required to be here, so they denied that request for leave, because she had a BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 7 of 62 7 meeting with her commander scheduled for 4 p.m. on Friday. So we don't want any implication that she was lying in that regard. THE COURT: The record is clear to the Court that Ms. Rhodes was unable to be here on Friday through no fault of her own. EXAMINATION BY THE COURT: Q. Captain Rhodes, state your name, please. A. That's Connie Michelle Rhodes, sir. Q. And you are the plaintiff in this case? A. Yes, sir. Q. I want to just get some clarification on a few thing that were not clear to me from the complaint . When did you first enter the military? A. I originally commissioned approximately March of 2005 and went active duty approximately June 18 of 2007. Q. So when you say you were commissioned in March of 2005, were you commissioned as an officer at that time? A. Yes, sir. Q. And what was your rank at that time? A. You go in as a lieutenant, sir. Q. And then you went from lieutenant to active duty on June — in June of 2007? A. Yes, sir. BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 8 of 62 8 Q. So what happened between March of 2005 and June of 2007? A. I graduated medical school. Q. Okay. So you graduated medical school when? A. It was May of 2007. Q. Okay. And you started medical school when? A. Approximately it was either 2001, 2002, because I took a one-year leave of absence. Q. Okay. And did you receive your medical training at the expense of the government based upon you subsequently agreeing to serve in the Army as a medical doctor? A. Partly, sir. tty third and fourth year were covered through the scholarship. Q. And what ccmnitment did you have to make to the Army for them paying for your third and fourth year of medical school? A. After completing military internship which, when you apply, you are required to apply to military programs; and if you are picked rip, you have to take that. After completing the internship, then it was an additional one year for one year. So it ends up being two years. And the active duty service obligation was to complete July 1st of 2010, sir. Q. So you were commissioned in March of '05, and that would have been — you would have been starting your third year of medical school. A. I would be getting ready to start the third year that fall, yes, sir. BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 9 of 62 9 Q. So for your third year and your fourth year, the Army paid your tuition and what else? Living expenses? A. There's a stipend that's also given, sir. Q. Okay. And then when you completed medical school in June of 2007, you became active duty. A. Yes, sir. Q. And that's when you started your internships? A. Yes, sir. Q. At Army facilities. A. Yes, sir. Q. And you completed those internships when? A. I completed the first year of a general surgery internship the following sumner, so it would have been July of 2008. Q. And upon the completion of your internship, that's when your two-year commitment began? A. Yes, sir. Q. So you committed to serve as an Army doctor until July of 2010 ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And subsequent to your — where did you go to medical school? A. University of Illinois, at Urbana Champagne. Q. And subsequent to graduating from medical school, during your internships, where have you been stationed? A. tty internship was at Eisenhower Army Medical Center. Upon BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 10/02/2009 Page 10 of 62 10 completion of that, I worked at the Troop Medical Center there at Fort Gordon for a short time prior to — Q. Where is Fort Gordon? A. It's where Eisenhower Army Medical Center is. It's in Augusta, Georgia, sir. After that, I went to — I was sent to the flight surgeon course at Fort Rucker Alabama, and then I was transferred to Fort Riley, Kansas, sir. Q. And have you been doing your — after you completed the internship, which would have been June of 2007, have you been at Fort Riley since that time? A. I went to Fort Riley — I believe my report date was November of this past year. Q. Let me correct that. You actually you started — you completed your internship in July of '08; correct? A. Correct. Q. So where did you — did you go to Fort Riley in July of '08? A. No, sir. I went to Fort Rucker, I believe it was, October of that year. Completed the flight surgeon course. And upon completion of that, I went to Fort Riley, which was November of this last year. Q. So you have been in Fort — at Fort Riley, Kansas, since November of ' 08 . A. Yes, sir. BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 10/02/2009 Page 11 of 62 11 Q. And you haven't been deployed overseas at all. A. No, sir. Q. And was there any commitment made to you as to whether or not during your two-year commitment you would or would not be deployed overseas? A. No commitment was made, sir. Q. You understood that was a possibility? A. Yes, sir. Q. And when you accepted the benefits from the Army, you agreed at that time that if they deployed you overseas, you would go; correct? A. Yes, sir. I will follow orders. Q. And in fact, your objection today is not to the fact that you have been deployed overseas; is that true? A. That is true, sir. Q. And is your deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan? A. It is to Iraq, sir. Q. Your current objection to that deployment is based solely upon your concerns over the legitimacy of the current commander in chief; is that correct? A. tty concern is that I am following a lawful order, sir. Q. Well, I just want to get it boiled down to what it's really all about. You have concerns as to whether your current deployment order is lawful based upon who is presently commander in chief; BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 10/02/2009 Page 12 of 62 12 is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. So, for example, hypothetically, if Senator McCain had won the election and were president and commander in chief, you would have no objection to being deployed to Iraq; is that true? A. If there was not a question that existed regarding his citizenship . Q. Let me make it easier, maybe. A. Yes, sir. Q. If our former commander in chief, President Bush, were still the president of the United States, do you know of any reason that you would have any objection to being deployed to Iraq? A. No, sir. Q. So you are not fearful of going to Iraq. A. No more than normal, sir. Q. And you understand that was part of your commitment . A. Yes, sir. Q. The concern with going is, you do not feel that the current commander in chief is eligible to hold that office. A. I would like to confirm that that is the case to ensure that I'm following a lawful order, just because of, from what I understand, some of the secondary fall-out that potentially there is. BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 10/02/2009 Page 13 of 62 13 Q. You are not seeking a discharge from the Army, are you? A. No, sir. Q. And you are not seeking to avoid your two-year ccaunitment, are you? A. No, sir. Q. When you were deployed to Fort Riley in November of '08, you had no objection to that; correct? A. Correct, sir. Q. And you have received orders since January of 2009 from your chain of command; correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. You have followed those orders, have you not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you filed any litigation expressing your concerns over those orders that you received while you were in Fort Riley, Kansas? A. No, sir. The orders I received — for example, I was sent to officer basic in San Antonio, which is a requirement of all officers and such. Q. When did you receive that order? A. I believe it was January or February, because I left in March. Q. Of 2009? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you have the belief at that time that there was a BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 10/02/2009 Page 14 of 62 14 question about the eligibility of the current commander in chief at that time to hold that office? A. I hadn't thought about it in that respect. The concern came up when my understanding is the protection you have from the Geneva Convention, if it's under an unlawful order, then there's potentially some loss of protection. And in San Antonio, for example, that's less of an issue as it would be in Iraq, sir . Q. So you have had no concerns about following orders from your chain of command as long as you remained on United States soil; is that correct? A. As long as I'm protected, so to speak, yes, sir. Q. Well, you have felt sufficiently protected while you were in the United States; is that correct? A. Correct, sir. Q. So you have no concerns about following orders as long as you remain physically in the United States; is that true? A. I believe it suggests an intent that isn't necessarily there. But, yes, sir, in fact, yes. Q. Your objection is being deployed overseas as long as there is this, quote, alleged cloud on the eligibility of the current commander in chief; is that correct? A. Yes, sir, because we do lose Geneva Convention protection, from what I understand, sir. Q. Prior to filing this lawsuit, did you make any complaints BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 10/02/2009 Page 15 of 62 15 within your chain of command about your concerns of the eligibility of the President to be president and commander in chief? A. No, sir. THE COURT: All right. I think she's answered the questions that I wanted clarification on. Does the — Ms. Taitz, do you want to ask her any follow-lip questions? MS . TAITZ : Absolutely . EXAMINATION BY MS. TAITZ: Q. So I just wanted you to clarify for the Court. This action has nothing to do with your obligations to repay the military and serve. A. Correct. Q. You are willing to serve. You are willing to serve in Iraq. A. Correct. Q. Whatever you need to do. A. Yes, ma'am. Q. You have mentioned that your concern started when you worked as a doctor in Chicago. Right? A. When I was a medical student in Illinois. Q. In Illinois. A. Yes, ma'am. BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 10/02/2009 Page 16 of 62 16 Q. Where Mr. Obama was a senator. A. At the time there was question even then, yes, ma'am. Q. Can you provide for the Court your knowledge, your professional knowledge as a doctor, what was the concern, in your opinion, and what did you observe? A. Are you asking in regards — Q. In regards to Mr. Obama and his qualifications. A. Typically, when there is a child bom, you have a birth certificate that's provided. It has a location. It has an attending physician, time, date, even sometimes a footprint, and that sort of thing. And I just — I guess I don't understand, since it's so common, why the production of those documents is — has become such a difficult thing to occur. Q. So you believe that if Mr. Obama would be legitimate as — and what he is saying would be true — he would have just provided that hospital birth certificate with the name of the doctor. A. I'm simply asking for the clarification of such. Q. And you see, as a doctor in a hospital in Chicago — first medical student, then doctor — have you seen a number of such birth certificates? A. I have seen a few, yes, ma'am. Q. Did those have the name of the hospital? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Did those have the name of the attending physician, like BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 10/02/2009 Page 17 of 62 17 you? A. Typically, yes, ma'am. Q. And they would have other signatures. A. Typically, yes, ma'am. Q. Have you seen what Mr. Obama posted on the Internet? A. That he personally has, not specifically. I have seen copies . Q. Yeah. Copy, I meant. Of course, nobody has seen the original . A. Yes, ma'am. Q. And did it have the name of any specific hospital? A. I have not seen that personally. Q. Did you see any names of any doctors? A. I have not seen that personally. Q. Any signatures? A. I have not seen that personally. Q. Now, have you seen what I have provided just recently to this court and in a previous case in California, the declaration of Mr. Smith and the birth certificate from Kenya? A. I know of it. I haven't personally seen it. Q. But you are aware of it. A. Yes, ma'am. Q. That it was a hospital birth certificate with the — A. Yes, ma'am. MS. AUSPRUNG: Objection, Your Honor. The witness — BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 10/02/2009 Page 18 of 62 18 THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. You don't have any idea whether or not this document that suggests that President Obama was bom overseas, whether that's an authentic, legitimate document; you have got no idea, do you? THE WITNESS : Correct . THE COURT: You have no idea. THE WITNESS: Correct, sir. BY MS. TAITZ: Q. Would you like the court to request such authentication? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. So if Your Honor were to request such authentication from the government of Kenya or from the State Department, that would be sufficient to resolve the matter. A. Yes, ma'am. Q. I have another question. As a medical doctor, you are supposed to give vaccinations to the military personnel. A. Correct. Q. And are those vaccinations indeed mandatory? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. You have to give them. Have you heard, or are you aware, of the problem with such vaccinations and specific vaccines having live virus? A. Yes, ma'am. MS. AUSPRUNG: Objection, Your Honor. This is not BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 10/02/2009 Page 19 of 62 19 relevant to this proceeding, and it's hearsay. MS. TAITZ: Would you like to explain to Your Honor how you are aware of this and why is it relevant? THE COURT: How is this relevant? MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, one of — we have to explain — for the TRO hearing, we need to show that if indeed harm is being done to the plaintiff and whether this harm outweighs the harm to the defendants. It was reported in Canada free press, in European press, and as a matter of fact — THE COURT: Well, she needs to testify based upon her personal knowledge and expertise and not what she's read with regard to some Canadian press. MS. TAITZ: Well, as a medical doctor, she reads medical publications. BY MS. TAITZ: Q. Dr. Rhodes, have you seen any publications relating to medicine that you in your experience has read about those vaccines? A. I have seen editorials in journals regarding the concern of the quickness of the vaccination process. THE COURT: So you're concerned about the vaccines that you will have to receive before you are deployed overseas? THE WITNESS: Sir, I have already received my BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 20 of 62 20 vaccines . BY MS. TAITZ: Q. But you as a doctor will have to give vaccines to people, and there is a concern that, just like some of those vaccines sent to Europe had live virus, other vaccines might have live virus as well. A. I'm certainly required to give vaccines, yes, ma'am. Q. Do you have a concern that this might happen again? A. Of course. THE COURT: Concerns when you get overseas? THE WITNESS: Concerns either here or overseas, but yes, sir. THE COURT: I'm not following this entire line of inquiry . You have no problem with following the orders, even with the present ccrrrnander in chief, if you are on American soil, so how is the giving of vaccines in the United States a concern of yours that you wouldn't have — that you would not otherwise have if you were being deployed? I'm not following this. THE WITNESS: I'm simply answering the questions asked. THE COURT: I understand. Maybe you are not following at what your attorney is getting at. Do you want what she's getting at? BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 10/02/2009 Page 21 of 62 21 THE WITNESS: I'm not a hundred percent, sir. THE COURT: Let's move on to something else. BY MS. TAITZ: Q. Have you heard — are you familiar with the Tuskegee Experiment? A. Yes, ma'am. THE COURT: We're not — the vaccines has got nothing to do with this case. Let's move on to another subject matter. BY MS. TAITZ: Q. You have mentioned that you are concerned about protection of Geneva Convention when you are deployed overseas if you are not following lawful orders. A. Yes, ma'am. Q. What would be the consequences for you if indeed you are captured and you don't have the protection of Geneva convention? A. tty understanding — I don't have the Geneva Convention specifications in front of me, but my understanding is that if you are not following a lawful order, you are not afforded convention protections, which includes basically what I understand is a bill of rights of sorts, as a prisoner, for example. Q. Have you heard of American servicemen being beheaded in Iraq? A. Yes, ma'am. BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 22 of 62 22 Q. So if you don't have such protection, you can be beheaded. A. In theory, yes, ma'am. Q. Have you heard of instances where — MS. AUSPRUNG: Objection, Your Honor. This line of questioning is also not relevant to these proceedings. THE COURT: Sustained. She said that — she said that she is concerned about going over there with the present ccrrmander in chief as president because she thinks that she may lose some of her Geneva protection rights. That's her contention. She's said that. I don't think she can add anything to it. BY MS. TAITZ: Q. So — THE COURT: Go on to something else. Let's go on to something else. Q. So I'm nearly done here. Just to wrap it up. When you signed up for military service, Mr. Obama was not the President; right? A. Correct, ma'am. Q. And from January 9th, when he became the President, this is the first time where you have an order that would significantly change your life, that would significantly impact your life; right? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. And you weren't here on Friday, but — and probably haven't BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 23 of 62 23 seen the pleadings — but the military has concern that if now you would be granted temporary restraining order, in future, each and every order that somebody doesn't like would end lip in court and that would affect the military. So in your case, you are not objecting to each and every order; you are objecting just to one order that can potentially — that would harm your life or would have a grave impact on your life. A. I'm seeking clarification on the order, ma'am. MS. TAITZ: Okay. That's it. THE COURT: All right. Ms. Ausprung, do you have any questions you would like to ask this witness? MS. AUSPRUNG: Just a few questions, Your Honor. EXAMINATION BY CAPTAIN AUSPRUNG: Q. Captain Rhodes, when you are deployed over in Iraq, you are going to be serving as a medical doctor? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. And you are going to be caring for sick and injured soldiers . A. Among others, yes, ma'am. Q. And you have no projection right now to be performing combat duties. A. No projection at this time. However, it is my understanding — I mean, it is a war zone and there's always BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 24 of 62 24 that possibility. Q. Well, you seem to be pretty familiar with the Geneva Conventions. I assume that you are aware that, under the Geneva Conventions, you are considered a nonccmbatant as a medical doctor. A. Yes, ma'am. Q. So you would be a nonccmbatant and unable to perform any ccmbat duties; correct? A. Correct, ma'am. MS. AUSPRUNG: Thank you. MS. TAITZ: If I might redirect, specifically in regards to those questions. EXAMINATION BY MS. TAITZ: Q. Ms. Ausprung has mentioned that possibility of Dr. Rhodes being beheaded was improper line of questioning. Now, if she is not a combatant but a medical doctor — if you are captured, even if you are not combatant, if you are captured, can you be beheaded as — A. In theory, yes. Q. There was — MS. AUSPRUNG: Your Honor, this line — THE COURT: Sustained. BY MS. TAITZ: Q. There was — BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 25 of 62 25 THE COURT: I assume the objection was irrelevant? MS. AUSPRUNG: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Let me just make sure that I understand this. If a medical doctor goes to Iraq, as a medical doctor, and not to serve in the combat zone, and they are therefore designated as a nonccmbatant, if some terrorist in Iraq were to capture that doctor and behead them, that would be a violation of the Geneva Convention regardless of who's president; correct? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: So the concern about being beheaded as a noncombatant medical doctor exists whether the President is Obama, Bush, Reagan, or George Washington; correct? THE WITNESS: Correct, sir. THE COURT: Let's go on to something else. BY MS. TAITZ: Q. I'll just ask one follow-up question. Have you heard of increased number of death just recently in Afghanistan? A. Yes. THE COURT: That's hearsay. Q. Okay. As a military officer, do you receive information in regards — through the military, in regards to the deaths in Afghanistan? BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 26 of 62 26 MS. AUSPRUNG: Objection . Your Honor, that's still hearsay and it's irrelevant. THE COURT: Ms. Taitz, I think the Court can accept the fact that being deployed to Iraq, not Afghanistan — THE WITNESS: Correct, sir. THE COURT: — but either — is dangerous. The question is not whether it's a dangerous place. The question is how that relates to her claim that it's somehow denying her her Constitutional rights to be deployed there under the current ccnmander in chief. MS. TAITZ: If — THE COURT: So all this testimony about how dangerous it is, is not directly relevant to her claim. MS. TAITZ: Well, Ms. — THE COURT: So ask her questions that are relevant. MS. TAITZ: Well, if there are many more people dying under the rule of Mr. Obama, then her chances of being killed are just skyrocketed, because the president is Mr. Obama. And specific policy — THE COURT: I have seen no evidence in the record in this case that there have been any more servicemen killed in Iraq during President Obama's presidency than under President Bush's presidency. I'm not saying it is or it isn't. I'm just saying there is no evidence in the record in this case to that effect. So let's move on to something that is relevant and BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 27 of 62 27 that is substantiated by the record in this case. MS. TAITZ: I think at this point I will just argue my point for the TRO. THE COURT: Any further questions? MS. AUSPRUNG: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: You may step down. All right. All of the evidence is in with regard to the motion for a temporary restraining order. Ms. Taitz, I'll let you present your argument. MS. TAITZ: May I be seated? THE COURT: If you feel comfortable doing that, you can do it from your seat, yes, ma'am. Just make sure you speak into the microphone. MS. TAITZ: Sure. Your Honor, in order to grant TRO, one has to provide explanation on several points: first, likelihood of success on the merits; two, harm to the plaintiff and whether this harm outweighs the harm to the defendants and how does it affect the public policy. And I submit to you, Your Honor, that, in light of the fact that Mr. Obama has never provided any, any of his vital records, and now we have received a declaration, under penalty of perjury, that is part of the record in this case, together with Mr. Obama's birth certificate from Kenya, shows — BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 28 of 62 28 THE COURT: Explain to me the procedure that you contend you have followed in authenticating this document that you suggest is his actual birth certificate from the records in Kenya. MS. TAITZ: Well — THE COURT: I have seen the document and, you know, it's got a name, Barack Obama, II, or something to that effect; and then it purports to list his parents; and then it purports to have a baby's footprint. But what have you done in the record here to establish the authenticity of that such that the Court should even consider it? MS. TAITZ: Well — THE COURT: You have got — as I understand it, you have got an affidavit from some individual, who is not affiliated in any way with the Kenyan authorities, who claims that he went into the office over there in Kenya and told than that he wanted this birth certificate, and they gave it to him. Is that the essence of how you are attempting to authenticate that as a document that can be considered by a court of law? MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, if you would give me a minute, I would be happy to explain. THE COURT: Explain. That's my understanding of what you are doing. If my understanding is incorrect, having — because I have read all the papers. BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 29 of 62 29 MS. TAITZ: Yeah. THE COURT: If my understanding is incorrect, then tell me what's incorrect about it. MS. TAITZ: I'll be happy if you'll give me a minute to explain my point. THE COURT: Explain to me whether I'm understanding what you are trying to do correctly. MS. TAITZ: Yes. It's incorrect. THE COURT: Okay. Tell me how. MS. TAITZ: First of all, and the main point is that nobody has ever authenticated what Mr. Obama posted on the Internet in saying — THE COURT: No, no. That's not my question. You understand, this is a court of law — MS. TAITZ: Yes, sir. THE COURT: — where the Court has to follow certain Federal Rules of Evidence. MS. TAITZ: Okay. THE COURT: And you understand that one of the Federal Rules of Evidence is that for a court to consider a document as documentary evidence in a court of law — I'm not talking about at a press conference or on a TV show or in a Fox and Friends. I'm talking about, in a court of law, the judge has to determine whether there's been sufficient foundation laid as to authenticity to consider a document that's admitted BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 30 of 62 30 into evidence. Tell me what it is that you've done to establish the evidentiary foundation for this Kenyan document. tty understanding of what you have done is, you have got an individual who went and got this piece of paper, who says he got it from this office in Kenya, and he says they gave it to him as this birth certificate. There's no official — MS. TAITZ: Your Honor — THE COURT: — in Kenya that signed any authenticity certificate MS. TAITZ: Your Honor — THE COURT: Is that true? Am I correct in reading your papers? MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, if you will give me a minute to explain, I will. But you are not giving me — THE COURT: Because whenever I give you a minute, you want to go off into these talking points about something else. I want to focus in directly about what you have done, under the Federal Rules of Evidence, to authenticate this document. What is it that makes it — MS. TAITZ Your Honor — THE COURT — admissible? MS. TAITZ If you can give me a minute, again, I will explain. As Dr. Rhodes explained, we have not seen Mr. Obama's BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 10/02/2009 Page 31 of 62 31 hospital birth certificate from — THE COURT: That's not my question. That is not my question . tty question is focused solely at this point on the document that you produced that you claim came from Kenya. That's the document that I want to focus on now. MS. TAITZ: This document is consistent with the registrar birth certificate that was obtained from Kenya. I have — THE COURT: What do you mean, "consistent with"? MS. TAITZ: All of the information is the same in the registrar birth certificate from Kenya and the hospital birth certificate. I went — THE COURT: Have you produced in this case a copy of the document you contend is the hospital birth certificate? MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, if you decided for yourself that you will not let me speak and you will not grant us TRO, then we're just wasting time. THE COURT: Let me make it clear to you, Ms. Taitz. This is not a forum to give speeches. This is not a forum to lay the foundation for a press conference. This is a court of law where we follow certain rules. One of those rules is that in order to have evidence considered by a court, you must follow the Federal Rules of Evidence. I have asked you on more than one occasion to show BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 32 of 62 32 for me how you have established the authenticity of the document that you contend came from Kenya. That's what I'm interested in at the present time. I'll let you complete your argument. But at this time you rely upon that heavily; and therefore, I want you to tell me, under the rules of law, how you have established its authenticity. MS. TAITZ: I have gone to the consulate of Kenya, and I have talked to the acting counsel, who has stated that he does not have authority to authenticate the document; and therefore, I'm asking for the TRO and discovery. I'm asking you to give me 60 days and discovery, whereby I can go to and send letters interrogatory to Kenya and to the health department in Hawaii and to Mr. Obama. You have nothing, Your Honor. How can you attack me and saying that I did not obtain proper authentication, when you are not saying a word to those three attorneys that provided zero authentication of some piece of garbage that Mr. Obama posted on the Internet and wants the whole country to consider as a document. It was never authenticated by anybody. Nobody said that this piece of garbage is a document. THE COURT: Ma'am, how did you obtain the document that you claim comes from Kenya? MS. TAITZ: The person who has submitted this document has — THE COURT: No. You submitted it in this court. BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 33 of 62 33 MS . TAITZ : Yes . THE COURT: And therefore, you have made the representation, under Rule 11 that we practice under, that you have made some investigation — MS. TAITZ: Yes, I did. THE COURT: — that this is a legitimate piece of evidence . MS . TAITZ : Yes . THE COURT: How did you obtain the document from Kenya? MS. TAITZ: The person that obtained this document is currently in my office. He is actually currently at the meeting with the — with two of my assistants, with two U.S. Attorneys in Los Angeles, California. I observed the document, the original, that's in his possession. It looks authentic. However, until I have a court order from you, Your Honor, to the government of Kenya to authenticate, I cannot do it. I attempted to do so. I went to the consulate of Kenya, and I was told that they cannot just authenticate. The only way I can do it, if you, Your Honor, will give me a letter interrogatory and give my client 60 days' reprieve so that I can go with this letter interrogatory to the consulate or embassy of Kenya who — THE COURT: Is the person that obtained the document that you have filed with the court an employee of yours? BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 34 of 62 34 MS. TAITZ: He is not my employee . He is a witness. THE COURT: He went over there. And how did he get it? MS. TAITZ: He went to the hospital. And, as you know, this hospital, Host General Hospital, in Moiribasa, is the only hospital that is protected by the military. Any other hospital, you can just go in and out, no problem. This particular hospital, according to the document Mr. Obama was bom, is protected by the military; and he had to pay a financial consideration in order to go in and in order to get the documents. And he has stated that he has given the administrator 20 minutes. He said, Look, if within 20 minutes I can get this document, this is the consideration that I'm willing to pay. So he stated that this is something that could not have been forged, because there was so little time to forge anything. And that's — THE COURT: Let me make sure I understand this. So this is a United States citizen that went over there . MS . TAITZ : Yes . THE COURT: And this hospital, under their rules and regulations and the applicable law, would not allow him to come into that hospital and review their medical and birth records. MS. TAITZ: Not because of rules or regulations but because Mr. Obama's cousin, Raila Odinga, is the Prime Minister BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 35 of 62 35 of Kenya. That is the reason why that hospital is specifically protected. THE COURT: Well, if you sent this same person to a hospital here in Columbus, and he said, "I would like to go through your birth records," you don't think that person would be authorized to do that, do you, in the United States? MS. TAITZ: Well, let me tell you — THE COURT: It's a rhetorical question. You don't have to answer it. But I want to make sure I understand this, because you have left the impression with me that this witness you have bribed an official in Kenya in order to obtain this document that you have submitted as evidence in this court. Now, if you did not intend to leave that impression, I will let you clarify that. But as I understood what you just said, the person otherwise did not have access to these hospital records; and he had to pay somebody in order to get access that he otherwise did not have; and upon paying that person, he therefore got this document. That sounds to me like a bribe. If that's not the impression that you tried to leave, then I'll let you straighten that out on the record. MS. TAITZ: I would like to straighten it out. To me, the fact that our judiciary, when, after a hundred lawsuits were filed, and our judiciary, in many cases, BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 36 of 62 36 and our U.S. Attorney and JAG, are unwilling to provide the citizens of this country with documents that shows — THE COURT: No, ma'am. That's just another speech. That may work fine out on the front steps of the courthouse when the press is listening, but that is not an answer to my question . I gave you the opportunity to dispute the fact that this sounded like a bribe, and you did not wish to answer that question . Go ahead and finish your argument, and then I'll let the government respond. MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, just like my client, you took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, not an individual that happens to sit in the White House but the Constitution of this country, that states the person who occupies the White House in the position of President and ccumanding chief has to be a natural-bom citizen . The evidence that we have that, according to records, Mr. Obama, in national records, has 39 different Social Security numbers. One of them that was used most ccnmonly is a Social Security number of a deceased individual. We have statements from forensic document experts showing that what Mr. Obama has posted on the Internet does not represent a genuine document, and the original needs to be seen. BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 37 of 62 37 So I am concerned, Your Honor, considering the fact that you took an oath to protect the Constitution, how are you protecting us when you are asking question after question, how did you authenticate this document, but you did not concern yourself with the fact that what Mr. Obama posted on the Internet was never ever authenticated by anybody. It's a jpeg, it's a picture, and, according to a number of statements, has numerous sense of forgery; selective service certificate, according to the experts, has numerous signs of forgery. And it would have been so easy to issue an order of discovery and let my client go to Iraq with clear and clean conscience that she is following lawful orders. What is preventing you from issuing a simple order to the health department in Hawaii to release hospital birth certificate? There is no information there that can be private or harmful. After all, Mr. Obama posted his birth certificate, supposed birth certificate, on the Internet. As such, the issue of privacy doesn't exist, only authentication. So you would attack me, saying that what I had is not authentic, but yet you couldn't care less if what Mr. Obama, who is in position of ccnmander in chief, that what he posted was never authenticated by anybody, specifically in light of the fact that the State of Hawaii allows foreign-bom children of Hawaiian residents to receive Hawaiian birth certificates. They allow one to get a birth certificate based on a statement BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 38 of 62 38 of one relative only, without any corroborating evidence from any hospital. THE COURT: All right. Let's narrow it back down to the fact that we're in a court of law and not a political debate. What is the Constitutional right that you claim is being violated by requiring your client to be deployed to Iraq? Not whether you think she should be under the current president or not. But what is the specific individual Constitutional right of Captain Rhodes that is being violated? MS. TAITZ: Well, her life and her — THE COURT: No. Constitutional right. MS. TAITZ: May I — THE COURT: Yes. MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, her life and her liberty can be taken when she goes to Iraq following those orders. And I need, and you need, to put on the scale her rights against what? A right of Mr. Obama to take five minutes — THE COURT: What Constitutional right? MS. TAITZ: I have already stated. She has Constitutional rights for her liberty, her life. Her life and her liberty cannot be taken without proper proceedings, without the proper legal proceedings. THE COURT: So is it your contention that she is being denied due process under the United States Constitution BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 39 of 62 39 by being forced to go to Iraq under the current commander in chief? Is that your contention? MS . TAITZ : Yes . THE COURT: That's it. MS. TAITZ: She is also denied her right under the First Amendment, her right for redress of her grievances. On behalf of some — THE COURT: How is she denied the right to redress her grievances under the First Amendment? MS. TAITZ: On behalf — before Captain Rhodes came to this courtroom, on behalf of seme 200 members of U.S. military who signed lip to be plaintiffs in my legal actions, I have filed proper concern with the legal counsel for Admiral Mullin, Chairman of Joint Chief of Staff. THE COURT: tty understanding from her testimony was that she sought no redress for this grievance until you filed a lawsuit on her behalf. Now, tell me what it is, how she's been denied her First Amendment right. MS. TAITZ: Okay. And she — for her to go again through the chain of command, after I have already posted on the Internet the letter from the legal counsel from Admiral Mullin that stated that military cannot address this particular grievance because ccnmander in chief is a civilian. So through the military channels, she cannot — BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 40 of 62 40 THE COURT: tty understanding is that, for the purposes of this particular proceeding, the government is not taking the position that she was required to exhaust her intraservice remedies at this particular point. But you have just indicated — Is that correct, Ms. Ausprung? You are not making that specific argument in this case, are you? MS. AUSPRUNG: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: But you have said that somehow, even though they are not even making that argument, that she should have exhausted her remedies. You are making an argument to me that she has been denied her First Amendment right. MS . TAITZ : Yes . THE COURT : How? MS. TAITZ: Well, this is Catch 22. On the one hand, they have already stated in prior proceedings, where we were here on the case of Major Cook, that the members of the military needed to go through military channels. That — THE COURT: We're talking about this case. This case — how — just tell me in a sentence how her First Amendment right has been violated. MS. TAITZ: Let me finish that one sentence. You are not letting me finish one sentence. THE COURT: You are talking about another case. I want to talk about this case. BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 10/02/2009 Page 41 of 62 41 MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, if the military previously stated that members of the military have to go through proper military channels, and the very top of the military is saying there is nothing that we can do in military channels, she came here to the court of law. Now the military is filing this brief, a motion to dismiss, where they are saying that the court of law cannot intervene in something that is part of the military actions, that she cannot challenge her orders because it's a purview of the military. So we have a situation, and specifically, in regards to the commander in chief, where she is denied her First Amendment Constitutional rights, because she cannot do it through the military; and when she came here to court, the military is saying, no, no, no, wait a minute, we are going back, this is part of the military matter. THE COURT: How do you distinguish the United States Supreme court case of Orloff versus Willoughby? MS. TAITZ: I — THE COURT: Are you familiar with that decision — MS. TAITZ: I — THE COURT: — which indicates that federal courts should exercise great restraint in providing judicial review of decisions by the United States military? Are you familiar with that case? MS. TAITZ: Well, I can — all I can state to that is that I'm familiar with another legal action called Watergate BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 42 of 62 42 and — THE COURT: No, no. So you are not familiar with Orloff versus Willoughby. Is that correct? MS. TAITZ: It's completely — THE COURT: Either you are or you are not. Do you know that case? MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, I'm familiar with the case, but it's totally irrelevant because — THE COURT: How do you distinguish that case from this case? If you are familiar with the case, tell me how you distinguish it. That's what we're doing in a court of law. MS . TAITZ : Yes . THE COURT: I'm bound to follow previous decisions of the United States Supreme Court. If you don't think they apply, you need to tell me why not. MS. TAITZ: Absolutely. THE COURT: Distinguish for me Orloff versus Willoughby . MS. TAITZ: Well, because, according to James — Captain James Crawford, legal counsel for Chairman of Joint Chief of Staff, the commander in chief is not part of the military. So each and every argument that the military brought here is completely irrelevant. THE COURT: Okay. I still haven't heard anything about Orloff versus Willoughby and how it's different, but it's BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 43 of 62 43 your right not to distinguish a case if you don't want to do so. All right. Ms. Ausprung, do you want to present your argument? MS. AUSPRUNG: Yes, Your Honor. Your Honor, I think the most striking thing about Ms. Taitz's argument today is the lack of any reference to Captain Rhodes in that argument. This case is about Captain Rhodes and Captain Rhodes seeking an injunction to prevent her deployment to Iraq and challenging her deployment orders, not these other issues. Ms. Taitz did mention that we were in this courtroom with a different plaintiff two months ago. And at that time the government asked you to put this matter to rest swiftly and soundly, and we ask that again today. And that's why we come before you, not only seeking denial of her application for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, but also dismissal of the complaint as a whole, on multiple grounds . Your Honor, I think that there is a basic misunderstanding here by Captain Rhodes between the lawfulness of an order and the identity of the individual giving the order. And that's a fundamental misunderstanding on her part. As she testified here today, pursuant to your questions, she stated that her only concern was that she follow lawful BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 44 of 62 44 orders. There has been no contention that the order that she has received is unlawful in any way. To the contrary, it is quite lawful, and it is for her to deploy, just as all the other service members are, as we fight wars on two fronts currently. The identity of the individual giving the order is of no concern to her in this court of law, because this is no different than an enlisted soldier who doesn't believe that their lieutenant is qualified to be in the position he is in. She has unquestionably been given a lawful order. But beyond that, there are multiple reasons why this court should not entertain this matter. First of all, Captain Rhodes has no likelihood of success on the merits, for multiple reasons. First of all, this matter is barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. Just two weeks ago, Captain Rhodes attempted to do this exact same thing in the District Court for the Western District of Texas, where she filed an application for a temporary restraining order, seeking to challenge these exact same deployment orders under these exact same theories. And the Court in that case dismissed her cause of action and said she had no likelihood of success on the merits, that she had filed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and that an injunction was not in the public interest. Those issues have already been decided by one court of competent jurisdiction . And plaintiff BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 45 of 62 45 should not be permitted to forum-shop and go around seeking to challenge these orders in any court that she can find to listen to her arguments. But even if Your Honor — THE COURT: Are you familiar — are you familiar with any case filed by Ms. Taitz on behalf of persons contesting the legitimacy of military orders based upon the President's birth place — are you familiar with any of those actions where the government has been required to even respond to any discovery? In other words, are you familiar with any of those actions that have made it beyond the motion to dismiss stage? MS. AUSPRUNG: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: You may continue. MS. AUSPRUNG: Your Honor, even — I think what Your Honor is going to is, for res judicata purposes, there needs to be a final judgment on the merits. But we contend that this is barred by collateral estoppel as well, that the issues have been decided. The issues of particular identity — THE COURT: Didn't the — the court in Texas seemed to sunmarily dismiss it, but the judge there was directly addressing the temporary restraining order requirements and found that those had not been met, and that was the essence of that ruling. And then apparently the judge went on to dismiss it because, in making that ruling, the Court had found that there was no likelihood of success on the merits. But a fair reading of that order is that the primary ruling was based upon BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 46 of 62 46 the plaintiff not being entitled to a temporary restraining order. Do you agree with that? MS. AUSPRUNG: Yes, Your Honor. That is correct. THE COURT: So, I mean, that's not as clear a case of res judicata as if you had a case that went all the way to a decision on the merits. MS. AUSPRUNG: Yes, Your Honor. And — THE COURT: So let's get away from res judicata and collateral estoppel and focus on why this entire action should be dismissed on the merits. MS. AUSPRUNG: Yes, Your Honor. And that's the next reason why this should be dismissed at this point, is it presents non justiciable political questions. The claims that Captain Rhodes is bringing are at the very heart of the political question doctrine. THE COURT: Do you read the political question doctrine, as you are seeking to have it applied here, the same as the doctrine that's set out in cases like Orloff versus Willoughby, that caution the district courts to abstain from interfering in military matters unless it is clear that the challenged action is being done with no authority? MS. AUSPRUNG: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Are those two different doctrines the way you view them, or are you including that within the political question doctrine as you argue it in your brief? BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 47 of 62 47 MS. AUSPRUNG: Your Honor, we view them as two separate doctrines that both caution this court against entertaining this matter. THE COURT: And your brief did not focus much on the abstention doctrine. Why is that? MS. AUSPRUNG: On the abstention doctrine, Your Honor? THE COURT: The Orloff line of cases, that there was not much focus on that in your brief, is because did you not feel you have had the time to do that in the short period of time that you had to brief the issue, or you don't feel that that line of cases is applicable? MS. AUSPRUNG: Your Honor, they are absolutely applicable; and if there wasn't sufficient briefing on that, then we would like to clarify that now. We certainly believe that there is ample grounds for judicial restraint under those scenarios. THE COURT: The concern I have is that if I accepted your argument with regard to the political question doctrine, that would mean, under no circumstances, could a court ever interfere in a decision questioning the legal authority of the ccnmander in chief, under any circumstances. And that may be your argument, that that is always a political question. But even if there was a case presented that the ccnmander in chief was clearly not authorized to be President of the United BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 48 of 62 48 States, then no judicial officer would be authorized to intervene in that action; whereas I understand it, under the abstention doctrine, under Orloff versus Willoughby, that means that you have got to look at each particular case and determine whether the factors are such that you should abstain from ruling in that particular case under these particular facts. Do you agree with that distinction? MS. AUSPRUNG: I agree with that distinction, Your Honor . THE COURT: All right. And it's your position that the abstention under Orloff versus Willoughby and the other cases applies equally here as does the political question doctrine . MS. AUSPRUNG: Absolutely, Your Honor, equally. THE COURT: Are you familiar with the Mindes decision in the Eleventh Circuit, the M-i-n-d-e-s decision? MS. AUSPRUNG: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Do you think that applies here? MS. AUSPRUNG: Absolutely, Your Honor. THE COURT: Was that included in your brief? MS. AUSPRUNG: No, it was not, Your Honor. THE COURT: Isn't it right on point with this situation, except that it dealt with exhaustion of intraservice remedies; but as far as the Mindes factors, would they not apply here? BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 49 of 62 49 MS. AUSPRUNG: They do apply, Your Honor, as to the justiciability. However, in cases in which there is no contention of nonexhaustive administrative remedies, that hasn't been the way that we have been typically arguing it. But certainly, Your Honor, we think that Mindes is applicable, and the Eleventh Circuit has reaffirmed the applicability of Mindes as early as 2003 in Wink versus England. THE COURT: Now, the Wink case involved intraservice remedies. MS. AUSPRUNG: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: But Mindes was broad enough to apply in the context where there was an exhaustion of administrative intraservice remedies ; correct? MS. AUSPRUNG: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: And they said that under that situation, you look at these four factors, and you should only intervene with judicial review of military decisions if those factors weigh in favor of intervention; correct? MS. AUSPRUNG: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Why would that not apply directly in this case, that analysis? MS. AUSPRUNG: It does directly apply, Your Honor. THE COURT: Why did you not brief it? MS. AUSPRUNG: Your Honor, we were under a very short time constraint. BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 50 of 62 50 THE COURT: Candor is always important . I appreciate that. Ms . Taitz . MS. TAITZ: I would like to — THE COURT: Have you read the Mindes decision? Just please answer that question. Have you read the Mindes case in the Eleventh Circuit? MS. TAITZ: I read it. And — THE COURT: What is your understanding of the holding of that decision? MS. TAITZ: It is my understanding that at this time this would be the time that intervention would be warranted, because, first, the issue at hand is an issue of paramount importance for the whole county — THE COURT: What are the four factors under Mindes? MS. TAITZ: From what I recall, one of the factors dealt with exhaustion of remedies. And on behalf — THE COURT: No. Assuming that administrative remedies have been exhausted, what are the four factors that the Eleventh Circuit has said this court should consider in determining whether there shall be judicial review of a military order? If you don't know, just tell me you don't know. MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, from what I remember the holding, it provides for basically a balancing act, whether BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 10/02/2009 Page 51 of 62 51 intervention will be warranted or not. And in general, it deals with the importance of the issue; it deals with the — provided that, indeed, the administrative remedy was exhausted; and whether there is justiciability. And I would like to — THE COURT: Captain — I mean Major — do you know the four factors from Mindes? MS. AUSPRUNG: Your Honor, my understanding of the factors are that there must be an allegation of a deprivation of a Constitutional — or an allegation of a Constitutional right or an allegation that the military has acted in violation of its own applicable statutes — a deprivation of a Constitutional right or an allegation the military has acted in violation of its own applicable statutes or regulations and exhaustion of available intraservice corrective measures. THE COURT: Is it your understanding under Mindes that the Court preliminarily must evaluate the nature of the claim so that the Court can give weight to that in weighing whether or not the intervention in military affairs is warranted? MS. AUSPRUNG: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. You may complete your argument, Major, and then I'm going to allow Ms. Taitz one last chance to respond in rebuttal. MS. AUSPRUNG: Your Honor, I think that the application of those factors in this case and the line of BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 52 of 62 52 questioning that you previously asked of the plaintiff demonstrates that this is clearly a nonjusticiable military decision. When you asked what was the Constitutional right that Captain Rhodes is being denied, she has not made any showing that she would be denied any Constitutional right by compliance with her orders. Her own statements and her own testimony belie that claim, where she said that she has no objection to military service in general; she has no objection to deployment if it were a different ccnmander in chief. And I think that this goes back to the heart of the issue of is she confusing the lawfulness of the order with the identity of the individual giving the order. And she — there's no allegation this is an unlawful order to deploy. In fact, she said she would comply with the order if it had come from President Bush. But it is not her position to judge the qualifications of the individual giving the order. Therefore, she can't make any straight-faced argument that she would be deprived of a Constitutional right by complying with orders in accordance with the military service that she states that she has no problem with, the contract that she says that she will fulfill, and the deployment that she was fully aware of when she signed lip for military service, and the orders that she has been following since January of 2009, even deploying — or being relocated to Fort Sam Houston, Texas. She doesn't have any objection to military service, only military service in Iraq. BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 53 of 62 53 THE COURT: What is your understanding of what her duties will be upon being deployed? She'll be deployed to a hospital there that would be taking care of soldiers that are injured or ill? MS. AUSPRUNG: As far as I'm aware, Your Honor, she will be providing medical services as a doctor to sick and injured soldiers. THE COURT: And if she weren't required to go, there would have to be some other doctor sent in her place, I take it. MS. AUSPRUNG: Absolutely, Your Honor. THE COURT: Or, I take it, she's probably being sent there to relieve some other doctor that's likely been there for months. MS. AUSPRUNG: Undoubtedly, sir. THE COURT: And that doctor's leave would be delayed if she were not required to go, I assume. Is that — MS. AUSPRUNG: It would probably take some time for the Army to find a replacement for Captain Rhodes were she not to go. THE COURT: And what is your understanding of when she would likely leave Fort Benning if the Court does not grant the temporary restraining order? MS. AUSPRUNG: She will be leaving in approximately a week, Your Honor. BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 54 of 62 54 THE COURT: Is there any chance that she will leave before Wednesday at noon? MS. AUSPRUNG: Unlikely, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Ms. Taitz , you may wrap up with any rebuttal that you have. Let me just — if I haven't already made it clear, I know you think that I'm attacking you in some way. But I don't know how they do litigation in California. It may be the judge just sits here and stares and lets lawyers talk. But you'll find from lawyers that appear in my court, I'm a fairly active participant in the proceedings and — MS. TAITZ: May I respond? THE COURT: No, no. — and I ask questions. And simply because I may ask one side more questions than the other that are more pointed does not mean that that necessarily is the direction that I am leaning. But I will tell you that what I focus on is the law and these case decisions that are binding on me. And you'll be far more effective if you cite to me legal precedent rather than arguments that are more political based than they are legal based. So — MS. TAITZ: May I respond? THE COURT: I'm going to give you a chance to give rebuttal. I'm just trying to tell you, to be helpful to you, that your rebuttal will be more effective with me if you will make it in a way that analyzes legal cases and legal precedent BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 55 of 62 55 in support of your argument. But go ahead. MS. TAITZ: Well, Your Honor, my concern is that it shows bias when you are asking me how was the — Mr. Obama's hospital birth certificate authenticated, the one that was received from Kenya, and yet you did not ask those three attorneys, how in the world did they authenticate Mr. Obama's birth certificate from United States. First of all, he has never shown one. He did not show one from any hospital in the United States. So what exactly did those three attorneys authenticate? You did not find it necessary to ask than this question . THE COURT: Let me — I'm not going to respond to everything that you have to say. But this is just so fundamental that I'm having a hard time understanding how you are not grasping it. Who has the burden of proof in a legal proceeding for a temporary restraining order? What is your understanding of that legal rule? MS. TAITZ: Well, yes. THE COURT: Who has that burden? MS. TAITZ: The moving party. THE COURT: Under the law, who has the burden of showing that there is a substantial likelihood that you will be able to prove the denial of a Constitutional right? Who has BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 56 of 62 56 that burden? You or government? MS. TAITZ: I do. THE COURT: Who has the burden of establishing that the President of the United States is not eligible to hold that office? Who has that burden in a legal proceeding for a temporary restraining order? Who has that burden? You or the government? MS. TAITZ: Well, I have — THE COURT: Who has it? MS. TAITZ: I have this burden. However — THE COURT: All right. That — I'm going let you complete your argument. But that is the reason that I asked you these questions, because you have that burden, and I am attempting to elicit from you how you have carried that burden. And the response I get from you is not, Here is evidence that allows me to carry this burden; but the response I get is, Your Honor, you should shift that burden to the government to prove that he is the legitimate coitmander in chief. Now, that may be a good argument politically. That may be an argument that you can take to the Congress in an attempt to impeach the president because he's not the ccnmander in chief, as you allege. But that is not the burden in a legal judicial proceeding. You have that burden. That's why I have asked you those questions. It wasn't to pick on you or be BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 57 of 62 57 mean. It was simply to clarify in my mind whether there was any other evidence that you wanted to present to carry that burden. That's the only reason I asked those questions. But you may go ahead, and I'll give you five minutes to make a rebuttal argument, uninterrupted. MS. TAITZ: I would be able to meet my burden more fully if I can get from Your Honor an order, a judicial subpoena, an order for discovery, and which would give me an opportunity to more fully meet such burden, because, otherwise, no citizen of the United States of America is able to meet such a stringent burden. We can go only by the circumstantial evidence, because the government is not doing its job. It was their responsibility to make sure that we don't have a usurper sitting in the White House and as the commander in chief. They did not meet their burden to check proper documentation. And that's why people like Connie Rhodes and others are rising and will be in your courtroom day after day after day after day. So instead of having multiplicity of lawsuits, and in the interest of judicial economy, and in order not to have this resentment that is now very clear in the military — and not military. Just this Saturday, according to the police, four and a half million people gathered. And, by the way, in regards to the proceedings, what I have been showing — the order from Judge Carter in California, that stated that the date was set for trial, and BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 58 of 62 58 order where Judge Carter, in my proceedings in California, the Court encourages the parties to begin discovery before the scheduling conference. That drew more cheers than anything or anybody else. The citizens of this country want the answers. The Department of Justice has failed them, failed to do proper background check. The military has failed them, failed to do proper background check. We have a situation where Ms. Rhodes is saying that she will be denied her Constitutional rights, her life and liberty can be taken by the orders of a usurper, somebody who is not legitimate in his position. Now, in regards to Mindes, you have mentioned — and we talked about several prongs. One of them, it's where the government and the military use its own regulations. The problem is that, in regards to the ccnmander in chief, right now we do not have any regulations. And for that reason alone, where there is no way of redress, where there is no intergovernmental or interservice regulation or reprieve, there is a need to get regulation. It is a case of first inpression. It never happened in the history of this county. And that's why we do need a mechanism from you, Your Honor. We have asked for a jury trial. We do need the jury to — she is entitled. It's her Constitutional right to have her case be heard by the jury of her peers, on the merits. The government is saying that they want you to sweep it under the rug swiftly. Well they didn't say "sweep it under BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 59 of 62 59 the rug, " but decide it swiftly on the merits . We haven ' t heard anything on the merits. And it was specifically us that each and every issue to be heard by the jury of her peers. So I don't believe that this is the case where the government can just throw away the case swiftly because it's inconvenient. She has a right to see the jury of her peers who would hear the case on the merits. We have the case of first impression . Right now there is no regulation where — that would affect the commander in chief to — that would provide any proof that the ccumander in chief is indeed legitimate. She took an oath. She has a right to make sure that she is following lawful orders, that she is true to her oath to — her oath to protect the Constitution. We have this system of checks and balances. Your Honor, I was bom and raised in Russia, where I had relatives that were sent to Siberia to labor camps, when the military, just like this three people, wanted to move swiftly; and they sent those people to Siberia for 10 years. Your Honor, my three children are named after relatives that were killed during World War II, when officers, just like Ms. Rhodes or other officers, were just blindly following the orders, where three of my relatives, who were three children, young children, were told to dig a grave, and those officers just emptied their revolvers and threw them in BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 60 of 62 60 the grave, and they were not questioning the orders. We don't want this country become like Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany, where the military is just asking to swiftly do away with Constitutional rights of the citizens. We have high likelihood of success on the merits, because nobody has ever seen any vital records, any authenticated vital records of Mr. Obama. Nobody in this whole country. So far, what we have seen were statements from the experts saying that there are signs of forgery and documents from Kenya. I have already provided the request for schedule of depositions in the case where I'm representing 48 plaintiffs in California. By October 17th, Mr. Obama and Mr. Gates are supposed to appear in depositions with proper documents. So what I am asking from you, Your Honor, is just give my client a reprieve of 60 days. Within 60 days, we should have proper information. So instead of coming here time after time after time, why not resolve this issue once and for all. If they want to resolve it swiftly, we will have an opportunity to do so, where we can provide the results of the deposition and documents obtained in those depositions in the case currently in California. We can provide it in this court. THE COURT: I have given you fifteen instead of five. Go ahead and wrap up. BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 10/02/2009 Page 61 of 62 61 MS. TAITZ: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. I'm going to issue a written order in this case analyzing the issues and addressing the issues that are raised by the motion for TRO and the motion to dismiss. I will have that order completed no later than Wednesday at noon. I don't know if I'll have it completed tomorrow or not, but it will be completed no later than Wednesday at noon. Ms. Ausprung, if there's any suggestion that she is going to be deployed prior to that time, I'm asking you to inform the Court. I would like to make my ruling, regardless of what it is, prior to her being deployed. MS. AUSPRUNG: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: That order will obviously be docketed in the normal and ordinary course of our business, and we will also post it on our court Website in case there's any interest beyond the parties as to exactly how the Court may rule on this matter . Is there anything else we need to take up today from the plaintiff? MS. TAITZ: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: From the defendants? MS. AUSPRUNG: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Ms. Taitz, have you filed your application to practice in this court pro hac vice yet? BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4:09-cv-001 06-CDL Document 23 Filed 1 0/02/2009 Page 62 of 62 62 MS. TAITZ: Oh, I have one more form that I need to give to them, yes. THE COURT: You understand I have been somewhat flexible in allowing you to appear here pro hac vice, but we do expect lawyers practicing in our court to follow our rules, so make sure you take care of that before you leave today. MS. TAITZ: Of course, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. We are adjourned. (Proceedings Concluded) CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER I, Betsy J. Peterson, Official Court Reporter of the United States District Court, in and for the Middle District of the State of Georgia, Columbus Division, a Registered Professional Reporter, do hereby CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings were reported by me in stenographic shorthand and were thereafter transcribed under my direction into typewriting; that the foregoing is a full, complete, and true record of said proceedings. This 2nd day of October, 2009. S/Betsy J. Peterson, RPR,CCR Federal Official Court Reporter BETSY J. PETERSON, RPR, CCR Federal Official Court Reporter Post Office Box 81 Columbus, Georgia 31902 (706) 317-3111