Posted on 07/10/2009 3:22:39 PM PDT by rxsid
"MAJOR STEFAN FREDERICK COOK, Plaintiff,
v.
COLONEL WANDA L. GOOD, COLONEL THOMAS D. MACDONALD, DR. ROBERT M. GATES, UNITED § STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, Rule 65(b) Application for BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, de facto Temporary Restraining Order PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES, Defendants.
APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Plaintiff Major Stefan Frederick Cook has received from the Defendants in this cause what appear to be facially valid orders mobilizing him to active duty with the United States Army in Afghanistan on July 15, 2009 (Exhibit A).
AN OFFICER’S DUTY TO OBEY LAWFUL ORDERS: This Plaintiff, at the time of his original induction, took the United States military oath, which reads: "I, Stefan Frederick Cook, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God" Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II of the United States Code contains the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 10 U.S.C. §890 (ART.90), makes it an offence subject to court-martial if any military personnel “willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer," 10 U.S.C. §891 (ART.91) "lawful order of a warrant officer", and most importantly, 10 U.S.C. §892 (ART.92) provides court-martial for any officer who (1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation; (2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or (3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; In each case, Plaintiff submits that it is implicit though not expressly stated that an officer is and should be subject to court-martial, because he will be derelict in the performance of his duties, if he does not inquire as to the lawfulness, the legality, the legitimacy of the orders which he has received, whether those orders are specific or general. Unfortunately the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not provide a means for ascertaining the legality of orders, and accordingly, this Plaintiff is left with no choice but recourse to the ordinary civil courts of the United States to seek a determination of what he considers to be a question of paramount constitutional and legal importance: the validity of the chain of command under a President whose election, eligibility, and constitutional status appear open to serious question.
Plaintiff Major Stefan Frederick Cook is not a pacifist. He does not object to war or the use of military force in the implementation of national policy or the enforcement of international law. Above all, Plaintiff is not a coward, he is not engaged in mutiny, sedition, insubordination, contempt, disrespect, or any kind of resistance to any general or specific lawful order of which he knows or has received notice. Plaintiff Major Stefan Frederick Cook realizes and accepts as a matter of political reality (although it is very hard for him to bear personally) that many may criticize or even shun him, saying that he is not acting in the best interests of his country for trying to uphold the plain letter of the Constitution. Others may cynically ridicule this Plaintiff when, as an officer responsible not only to obey those above him but to protect those under his command, he comes to this Court asking for the right to establish the legality of orders received not only for his own protection, but for the protection of all enlisted men and women who depend on HIS judgment that the orders he follows are legal. Above all, when Plaintiff Major Stefan Frederick Cook submits and contends that he files and will prosecute this lawsuit and seeks an injunction or temporary restraining order against the enforcement of potentially illegal orders for the benefit of all servicemen and women and for the benefit all officers in all branches of the U.S. Military, he knows that those in power illegitimately may seek to injure his career. He knows that he risks all and he does so in the conscientious belief that he does so for not merely his own, but the general good. But Plaintiff cannot escape from the mandates of his conscience and his awareness, his educated consciousness, that all military personnel but especially commissioned officers have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.
NEVER BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES
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? ..."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17266905/05311066823
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/
Ping. Other list got yanked for not being ‘breaking news.’
Cook v Good et al
I will post the pleadings, but the case filed on behalf of Major Cook, states that he is being deployed to Afghanistan and he is seeking a TRO (it is like a stay) of his deployment until Obama’s legitimacy (eligibility ) for presidency is ascertained. The judge is Federal District Judge for the middle district of GA -Clay D. Land.
If you want to write to the judge it is as follows:
Federal District Judge Clay D. Land
Middle District of Georgia
Columbus Division
PO Box 124
Columbus GA 31902
Defendants in this case are the supervising officers Col Wanda Good (hence the name of the case Cook v Good), Col Macdonald, in their capacity as commanding officers, Dr. Gates in his capacity of the Secretary of Defence and Barack Hussein Obama-de facto president of the United states.
Officer Cook is not only a highly decorated officer, being on staff of the Southern Command, he is also a family man, a father of a 16 y.o. and a highly educated professonal with the degrees in Economics, Business and Management.
His grave concern is about soldiers under his command, all US officers and enlisted and about our children- what future will they have, when the person sitting in the White House as the commander in chief, is consealing all his vital records, spends over a million dollars to seal an otiginal birth certificate, that costs $12 to produce, who has multiple social security numbers in National databases and statements of experts, showing multiple signs of forgery in his Certification of live birth and selective service sertificate.
Orly
PS computer screen on my laptop cracked on the flight from MO, can’t see half of what I am writing, so my apology for any mistakes.
What we need is for a few hundred conservative patriot military to do likewise. Might accidentally get someones attention in the MSM and a few other places.
Every one of these is a little crack in Oislamistbama’s armor.
Why “get over” a law breaker.....................
Thank God Dr. Taitz has the balls to pursue this eligibility issue. I am behind her 100%. She is doing more then what OUR countryman and women have done!
Nope, I have rights and he doesn't have legal authority to take my rights away.
He is not a "dick" as you have stated but a patriot. And neither he, nor I, will "get over it". It is such a simple thing to prove Obama's citizenship, why I ask doesn't he do it and end the mystery?
I'll answer myself. He won't because he can't.
What’s the matter with you?
If its found that this usurper is in fact NOT ELIGIBLE to be prez, you want the nation to just ignore the constitution and say “Oh Well?”
NOT!
I took an oath to uphold that constitution. It is the LAW of this land, and if some scumbag violates that law, then let them take the consequences.
We are a nation of laws. If you start looking the other way when they are broken, or start making excuses for breaking them, then we are nothing but a banana republic.
This is really big. And it must be pursued.
Ya think they don’t all know about it?
Their position is clear - It Doesn’t Matter If He Is Not Natural Born. They want him as POTUS even though it trashes the constitution.
You fold up pretty damn easy.
It OUR constitution and I WILL NOT GET OVER IT, regardless of the wimp-out advice of surrender monkeys.
Yah, let’s spend out time refighting battles already lost. /sarc
You fold up pretty damn easy. It OUR constitution and I WILL NOT GET OVER IT, regardless of the wimp-out advice of surrender monkeys.
The battle is not lost just because you wave the white flag when the going gets a little difficult.
Sure doesn't take much to stop you.
Here's a bumper sticker you may want to use.
You wish. When the usurper is kicked out of the office - even if it happens on his last day as POTUS - this whole presidency will be erased from the records. Like floor 13 in some buildings. The 45th President of the USA will follow immediately after the 43d.
Seems like the wrong venue. This is a military matter. Thus I would think a military court is the place to bring it up. OTOH, I'm not a lawyer let alone a JAG officer, so what do I know? The pleading does address the issue though.
This brave little Russian refugee lady has put her life on hold to try to bring Obama down. She is working harder and doing more than anyone to accomplish this. She needs donations, researchers and lawyers. Please go to her website and do what you can to help her. PayPal: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ .
This battle is far from “lost”.
When you just give up and give in, you are the loser.
This usurper is going to feel the heat every day he sits in that seat, and the demoKaRatz will feel the heat for letting him be there.
If you are so willing to just roll over and let them take you, you are not worthy enough to stand with the many who fought and died for this country.
At the Alamo, the whole company was wiped out, to the last man. None rolled over and said “oh well, the fight is lost, lets just surrender”. Our country was built on such heroism.
Maybe you are just a product of the new “dumbed down” publik skoolz system and don’t know that letting a corrupt, illegitimate law breaker head up our souvereign country is out right treason.
The betrayal of the trust and confidence of the people of this country is a breach of faith. It is nothing short of treachery.
I can not for the life of me understand your thinking.
If he's not not eligible, was he ever President? I don't think so. Thus whoever takes over will be the 44th, with perhaps an asterisk for the ashole.
I believe Major Cook is not active duty, but rather reserves. He is being activated. As a reservist, I believe he would still fall under the command of the Governor of the state his unit is located and would not be under federal military jurisdiction...that is, until activated.
I read the entire text of the lawsuit and came across the following on page 9 and 10 which was an absolute shock to me as I am sure it will be to anyone. If it is true Obama should be immediately thrown out of office:
“The evidence contained in exhibit B shows that Barrak Hussein Obama might have used as many as 149 addresses and 39 Social Security Numbers prior to assuming office as president. The Social Security number most commonly used by Barrak Hussein Obama is one issued by the state of Connecticut, the state where Barrak Hussein Obama never resided and shows him to be 119 years old.
This coupled with the fact that Mr Obama’s grandmother, Madeline Dunham was a volunteer at the Oahu Circuit Court Probate department and had access to the Social Security Numbers of the deceased, constitutes circumstantial evidence casting serious doubt on the legitimacy of Mr Obama and his claims of being born on U.S. territory.”
(I think the use of 39 different social security numbers would put most anyone behind bars?)
I for one will never “get over it”!!
~~PING!
This usurper is going to feel the heat every day he sits in that seat, and the demoKaRatz will feel the heat for letting him be there
______________________________
Every tea party, every march, every grand jury, every lawsuit and Larry Sinclair’s book is a poke in the eye of the Marxist/Muslim usuper. Keep the heat on. NO REST for the usuper. Death by a thousand paper cuts..
.
.
News/Activism forum, on a thread titled MAJOR STEFAN FREDERICK COOK v [et. al] (RE: Obama eligibility - Dr. Taitz), flash2368 wrote:
I read the entire text of the lawsuit and came across the following on page 9 and 10 which was an absolute shock to me as I am sure it will be to anyone. If it is true Obama should be immediately thrown out of office:
“The evidence contained in exhibit B shows that Barrak Hussein Obama might have used as many as 149 addresses and 39 Social Security Numbers prior to assuming office as president. The Social Security number most commonly used by Barrak Hussein Obama is one issued by the state of Connecticut, the state where Barrak Hussein Obama never resided and shows him to be 119 years old.
This coupled with the fact that Mr Obama’s grandmother, Madeline Dunham was a volunteer at the Oahu Circuit Court Probate department and had access to the Social Security Numbers of the deceased, constitutes circumstantial evidence casting serious doubt on the legitimacy of Mr Obama and his claims of being born on U.S. territory.”
(I think the use of 39 different social security numbers would put most anyone behind bars?)
I for one will never “get over it”!!
____________________________________________
I have read this before about his having all those social security numbers. (Dr. Orly lists where she found them on her site)
WTH???
HOW does the sob get away with this?
THIS IS INSANE
.
"Important
An officer has contacted me a few days ago (I will not provide his name), stating that he is about to be deployed to Afghanistan on July the 15th from Fort Benning. We were supposed to file an injunction, a stay of the deployment of this officer to Afghanistan until the eligibility of of Barack Hussein Obama as Commander in Chief is verified. The documents were supposed to be filed in the middle district of Georgia today. Due to personal reasons this officer cannot be the plaintiff at the moment, however all the pleadings in the case are ready to go. If you know any enlisted or officers, who are ready to be deployed, but want to stay their deployment until Obama’s legitimacy for the posittion of Commander in Chief is verified, please have them contact me. As the case is ready, it can be filed within hours."
I like your thinking. This narcissist will dwell on these things to the point that he will, in true Stalinist, Pol Pot character, act in a way that will enable the country to put him in an orange jump suit and lock him away with his cronies.
If I gave money to even 10% of these nutcase lawsuit filers I would be broker than I already am. Reminds me of that guy, Larry something, who sued Clinton every other day and then did the same thing to Bush. So far, the courts are refusing to even hear these cases. It is very, very difficult to prove a negative, especially in a Federal Court. Flame away!
From Amazon re; Larry Sinclair’s book:
http://www.amazon.com/Barack-Obama-Larry-Sinclair-Cocaine/dp/0578013878/ref=tag_gam_ptcn_edpp_url
Editorial Reviews
Product Description
The biggest untold story of the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election... Finally, the no-holds-barred, 100% true story of Barack Obama’s use and sale of cocaine; his homosexual affairs and the December 23, 2007 murder of Barack Obama’s former lover and choir director of Obama’s Chicago church of 20 years, Donald Young, just days before the 2008 Iowa Caucus. This searing candid story begins with Barack Obama meeting Larry Sinclair in November, 1999, and subsequently procuring and selling cocaine, and then engaging in consensual, homosexual sex with Sinclair on November 6th and again on November 7, 1999.
You’ll read in riveting detail how Sinclair, in 2007, repeatedly contacted and requested that the Obama campaign simply come clean about their candidate’s 1999 drug use and sales. You learn how the Obama campaign, David Axelrod and Barack Obama used Donald Young (the homosexual lover of Barack Obama) to contact and seek out information from Sinclair about who he had told of Obama’s crimes and actions.
You’ll read how the Obama campaign used internet porn king Dan Parisi and Ph.D. fraud Edward I. Gelb to conduct a rigged polygraph exam in an attempt to make the Sinclair story go away. The Obama team and the controlled media - specifically MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, the New York Times, CNN, Politico’s Ben Smith, The DailyKos, The Huffington Post and others - attacked the National Press Club for making its facilities available to Larry Sinclair for a news conference to present his evidence and allegations to the world media. You’ll read how Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, issued an arrest warrant on completely false, fabricated charges to attempt to discredit Mr. Sinclair’s National Press Club news conference. This is a staggeringly true story of how the sitting U.S.President with the help of the Mainstream Media, the Chicago Police Department, the FBI, the Delaware Attorney General and others got away with murder and more....
“The evidence contained in exhibit B shows that Barrak Hussein Obama might have used as many as 149 addresses and 39 Social Security Numbers prior to assuming office as president. The Social Security number most commonly used by Barrak Hussein Obama is one issued by the state of Connecticut, the state where Barrak Hussein Obama never resided and shows him to be 119 years old.”
There’s a good reason, by itself, to make him produce his BC.
Federal District Judge Clay D. Land was appointed by George W. Bush in 2001. Let’s hope he shows some interest in finding out the truth.
I am in full support of Major Cook and will be closely following this case.
Major Cook has great courage to follow through and demand answers that EVERY American should be demanding from Obama!
Now THAT is funny. I can't wait to see the proof.
All this will end up being another pile of steaming horeshit...
Time will tell. All it takes is one judge that believes in the law enough to demand to see the full truth of the matter. If it’s ‘horeshit’ as you cliam, so be it. If it’s legit, you’ll need some salt and pepper for the crow you’ll be eating.
If he's a guardsman, he's under state control, except when activated. However, almost all Guardsmen are "dual hatted" as reservists, and carry the same ID card as a reservist (I've been both).
But even so, the states have their own military justice systems, much abbreviated, to handle military matters arising in their Guard units.
Simply put, reservists are not subject to the UCMJ except when in a "duty" status. Guardsmen only when activated. However, they are subject, when in duty status, to their state's code of military justice.
Of course if hasn't yet been activated, and is not in any kind of duty status, then he's not subject to the UCMJ.
However once he's ordered to report for duty, he is subject to the UCMJ as of the reporting date, whether he reports or not.
I think if I were a Lt Colonel in the military and filed a Federal Lawsuit of that nature I would think long and hard about including information like that as an exhibit to the lawsuit if I had not verified it to be factual.
Maybe I just have too much respect for the Federal Court system.
“At the Alamo, the whole company was wiped out, to the last man. None rolled over and said “oh well, the fight is lost, lets just surrender”.”
Dude, you’re on a roll and I’m behind you 100% in spirit, but as I recall my Alamo history, a small number of defenders did surrender and were promptly executed by the Mexicans.
The lesson remains.
Besides, riodacat is simply troll-baiting you and isn’t worth your attention.
A negative may be hard to prove, but a "positive" is not. If, by some miracle, proof that BHO was born in Vancouver or Mombassa, should be found, it would also serve to "prove the negative", ie. that he was not born in the United States.
I think you are right. (blush) But the fact remains that most of those guys went down swinging.
I’ll do my homework on the Alamo and get my facts straight for the next round. I started school back in the ‘50s. We were taught that everyone went down. But, as with all things, there is usually some spin involved. (sigh)
Thanks.
“It is very, very difficult to prove a negative”
People say that, but it’s done all the time. For instance, when defendants give alibis. “I didn’t kill him. I was watching a movie at the time. Here’s my ticket stub.”
There are two ways to prove the negative in Obama’s case. One, if you demonstrate his having been born elswhere. Two, if he is unable to comply when he’s compelled to provide evidence of his having been born here.
Can you please direct me to the text of the lawsuit?
Wow. Thanks for finding that.
This is interesting, thanks for the link.
It is a better action than CDR Fitzpatrick’s case in that this officer is active duty outbound under orders to a warzone (do we still have those?).
It is also an extremely dangerous action by the officer.
He is saying by what authority am I going?
The response ultimately will be “By the President’s authority”.
He will then likely argue it is not possible for Obama to be the President.
The response will be, “Wrong, the Congress said he was the President.”
The issue will be to what extent can he challenge that action by the Congress?
“Wise” people tell me its a done deal, that there is no Constitutional means of challenging the President in this regard.
I disagree and ask: If the Electoral College votes for Mickey Mouse and the Congress certifies that vote, is the nation bound by that action?
In the alternative, if the burglar makes a clean get away does he no longer have any criminal liability?
Or, if one achieves an office through a fraud that is later discovered does he nonetheless retain the office?
Bingo your #37!
Stefan is definitely a good man...godspeed!
Therein lies the issue, IMO, as to why nobody in a position of power to address this Constitutional crisis will do so. (fear).
Bump
Interesting how you creeps ooze out of thew woodwork when Dr. Taitz issues another suit challenge. Coward that your messiah is, he will never allow any case to get to discovery phase if his federal oligarchs can prevent it. And if one ever does, he will resign forthwith because he is a criminal fraud and proven liar/perjurer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.