Today, the suit was dismissed for being frivolous in the most awesome way possible.
Every so often, I like reading legal opinions. Plenty of judges have writing ability I wish I had a percent of. Frankly, had I written this opinion, I'd have summed it up with, "This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard," and then say why. The Honorable Judge Land says the same thing, but between the lines. For example, on page 8, Judge Land writes:
Acknowledging the existence of a document that shows that the President was born in Hawaii, Plaintiff alleges that the document, "cannot be verified as genuine, and should be presumed fraudlent."The judge's footnote to page 10 reads,
One piece of, "evidence," Plaintiff's counsel relies upon deserves further discussion. Counsel has produced a document that she claims shows the President was born in Kenya, yet she has not authenticated that document.and goes on to detail her claims of how she obtained it (i.e. she paid Kenyan officials for it).
The suit wasn't dismissed just because the claims are stupid, mind you. As Judge Land states, civilian courts generally don't have jurisdiction in military cases, except in specific circumstances and since Capt. Rhodes has allegations that aren't supported by fact, well, that's not enough. The judge notes that there must be a military procedure first, but there may not be one for allegations that one's Commander-in-Chief is a fraud.
Even so, there's another factor to consider and that is that the courts will not review something that would be, "an inappropriate intrusion into military matters." Since Capt. Rhodes was apparently using her suit as a, "platform for spouting political rhetoric," and not asking to be discharged, excused from service, or, "seeking to avoid taking military orders under President Obama's watch," she failed the tests established by Mindes v. Seaman, so the judge declined to intervene.
Capt. Rhodes was seeking a restraining order since being deployed to Iraq would put her in serious danger. That makes sense, she's going to a war zone afterall.
Nope, sorry. Courts won't count that since such a ruling could hamper the military.
This is the part where her complaint both makes sense and the decision to dismiss it also makes sense. Obviously, heading into a war zone is imminent danger, but if you allow soldiers to sue for a restraining order to be relieved, political opportunists will take advantage, for one.
When you enlist, you are volunteering to walk into bad situations. Things are very likely going to suck and suck hard. Enlisting means giving up some of your freedoms to defend this country. When you're ordered into a war, unless you're a conscientious objector (and if you were, why are you in the military), you go. If you have complaints, you take them up the chain of command. If your chain of command is corrupt and you actually have facts, then you go to the civilian courts.
Except for Capt. Rhodes, since
To the extent that it alleges any, "facts," the Complaint does not connect those facts to any actual violation of the Plaintiff's individual consititutional rights. Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.the suit was deemed frivolous and dismissed and, "the Defendants shall recover their costs from Plaintiff."
I have no idea how this would be viewed in military circles. It looks like she was trying to avoid deployment and used a conspiracy theory to do it. She didn't want out of the military. She just didn't want to go to Iraq, apparently.
Here's hoping Capt. Rhodes comes back home safe, sound, and whole, at least.
No comments:
Post a Comment