Maj. Cook pleadings waived Obama British Birth Issue; Judge Lazzara holding technically accurate

Major Stefan Cook was a soldier set to be deployed to Afghanistan. Attorney Orly Taitz sued on his behalf for a temporary restraining order stopping his deployment based on the allegation that President Obama does not meet the Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 constitutional requirement that the President be a “natural born citizen”. Thereafter, the Department of Defense rescinded Cook’s deployment orders before the case was heard in court.

This is quite amazing. In this we are seeing the stench of rot in the chain of command – a stench that could one day lead to civil war. Keep that in mind as you read the rest of this report.

While it’s true that a volunteer reservist may request his deployment be canceled, he is not entitled to have those orders canceled. The DOD may enforce the deployment regardless of any request by the soldier not to deploy. According to the Ledger-Enquirer newspaper, Cook’s law suit was treated by the military as a request not to deploy and then the quasi-request was granted. The story further states that the military refused to say why the request was granted by invoking privacy laws. This makes no sense.

If Cook never made an official request to the DOD to cancel deployment, then there is nothing to keep private on his behalf. The DOD states that they treated his law suit as a request not to deploy. Cook’s law suit is a matter of public record. There is nothing for the DOD to keep private other than their own motivations. Major Cook should issue a Freedom Of Information Act request as to the official reason listed by the DOD for his deployment orders to have been cancelled.

THE COOK PLEADINGS WAIVED THE GENUINE LEGAL QUESTION PERTAINING TO OBAMA’S BRITISH BIRTH ADMISSION.

I have stated for some time now that the birth certificate issue – regardless of merit – acts as a smokescreen for the genuine legal question regarding Obama’s birth as a Great British citizen – a fact he openly admits is true. (The issue of whether Obama is currently a citizen/subject of Great Britain and/or other nations is the subject of a forthcoming report I will soon publish.)

- Whether Obama was not born in Hawaii is a conspiracy theory which would include the acquiescence of a long cast of characters.

- Whether a person who was a citizen of a foreign nation – at the time of his birth – can be President and Commander In Chief of the US armed forces is a legal question, not a conspiracy theory.

It’s been very convenient for Obama’s protectors to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater by lumping this genuine legal question in with the conspiracy theory. When my case was being litigated, virtually every main stream media source other than the Washington Times – where Tom Ramstack interviewed me and checked everything before publishing an accurate story – mentioned my case as a conspiracy theory concerning Obama’s BC despite all of my efforts to keep the issues separate.

The law suit brought on behalf of Major Cook now wreaks further havoc upon the sober legal question. I find it amazing that these pleadings perfectly make it appear as if the British birth issue was raised while – in fact – the pleadings fail to raise the issue and the pleadings actually waive the issue. Amazing but true.

Since it looks to the whole world like the issue was raised, Judge Lazzarra’s comments also appear to be directed to the British birth issue. I can assure you, his holding is not directed to that issue since the pleadings fail to raise this legal question.

Plaintiff’s first attempt to involve a federal district court in this ongoing conspiracy theory that President Obama is unqualified to be President of the United States of America because he is not a native-born citizen was rebuffed just eleven days ago by United States District Judge Clay D. Land of the Middle District of Georgia based on lack of standing. …

First of all, we’re not talking about “native-born” cititzenship (I do believe this was the term that Major Cook used in his case); we’re talking about “natural born” citizenship, and even that with respect to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution. I think we can all admit that the Judiciary hasn’t exhaustively nailed that definition down yet.

Secondly, what in the world is the Judge doing calling what is otherwise a legitimate question of eligibility a “conspiracy theory?”

I can appreciate Phil’s frustration, and I do believe Judge Lazzarra went beyond the call of duty with the loaded passage above, but due to the failure of Taitz to properly raise the genuine legal question pertaining to Obama’s British birth, Judge Lazzarra’s holdings are technically accurate.

(24) However, Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as President, basically needs only produce a single unique historical document for the Plaintiff’s inspection and authentication: namely, the “long-form” birth certificate which will confirm whether Barack Hussein Obama was in fact born to parents who were both citizens of the United States in Honolulu, Hawaii, in or about 1961…

At first glance, it would appear that Taitz did raise the legal issue on behalf of Cook. However, the request fails to separate the conspiracy theory from the legal question. Separate counts were necessary. The court should have been asked to analyze two separate issues, but the above wording only raises one issue – a request for production of a long form BC.

The pleading does not actually require that both parents be US citizens for Obama to be a legal President. The paragraph only requests that a long form birth certificate be produced for Cook to inspect. Then it says that the BC… “will confirm whether Barack Hussein Obama was in fact born to parents who were both citizens of the United States in Honolulu, Hawaii, in or about 1961…”

But nowhere in the pleadings is it alleged that both of his parents had to have been US citizens at the time of his birth.

The pleadings request a BC and then state that a BC will confirm whether his parents were US citizens. Yes, I imagine that the long form BC would certainly confirm who Obama’s parents were. But nowhere in these pleadings is it asserted that Obama must have been born to two US citizen parents.

This is shady. Pleadings must be specific and accurate. These pleadings appear cleverly designed to fail the British birth issue.

I’m not saying that the pleadings were intended to be deceptive in this regard, I’m just saying these pleadings fail to raise the issue while making it appear as if the issue was raised. If this was done on purpose, then it was written by a disingenuous legal genius.

Everyone knows Obama, Sr. was not a US citizen. These pleadings are actually misleading to the court in that they imply that Obama’s father might have been a US citizen. Nowhere in the pleading does it suggest that Barack Obama, Sr. might not have been Obama’s real father. This one terrible paragraph lumps that conspiracy theory in with the BC conspiracy theory. And one must read Judge Lazzara’s holding under this light.

(26) All that is asked of the President is that he humbly acknowledge and produce his true and complete “original” birth certificate. So long as this form proves the Barack Hussein Obama’s status as a “natural born” citizen, the President and the Presidency will not only have suffered no harm, but will have reaffirmed the faith of the people in the rule of law as dominating all men, including the President of the United States. (27) As discussed above, the balance of the equities and hardships shows that, so long as the President is and has always been honest and truthful about his place of birth and parentage, he will suffer no harm at all— (Emphasis added.)

And with this paragraph, Taitz and Cook have essentially entered what’s known as a “stipulation”. A stipulation is when you tell the court that you agree to facts which would otherwise hurt your case. For example, if your client was being sued for a car accident and you stipulate that he was the driver then you have admitted a fact which favors your opponent.

The stipulation – made by Taitz on behalf of Cook – is encoded in this statement:

“…so long as the President is and has always been honest and truthful about his place of birth and parentage, he will suffer no harm at all

The stipulation provides two criteria by which Cook stipulates Obama is a legal President:

Therefore, according to the stipulation, if Obama can prove he was born in Hawaii, and that Obama Sr. was his father, then he is a legal President regardless of his British birth since Obama has always stated that his father was Barack Obama, Sr.

The statement waives the issue of whether Obama’s birth to a British father disqualifies him from being POTUS.

So it is proper – based upon the actual pleadings before him - for Judge Lazzarra to characterize the pleadings as only relating to the issue of whether Obama is a “native born citizen” because the issue of where Obama was born is the only issue the court was actually asked to litigate. Furthermore, that issue is a conspiracy theory and Judge Lazzarra was correct in so labelling it. I don’t like the tone of the Judge’s holding, but he is technically accurate. Any confusion must be placed on the person who drafted the pleadings.

What really has me scratching my head is that the pleadings appear to be very well written and thought out in all other respects. Very professional. And I cannot help but wonder if the document was written by more than one mind?

Finally, I hope this case is not brought to the District Court for the District of Columbia as a test case for Quo Warranto standing based upon the SCOTUS Newman decision. I have been wondering – now that Cook has been fired from his civilian job due to orders by the Government – why Taitz didn’t bring this action to the DC District Court citing the Newman holding wherein the SCOTUS stated that persons effected by the “civil service” laws might be “interested persons” under the federal Quo Warranto statute. (See my prior 3 part series on Quo Warranto.)

I even wrote an article suggesting such a course of action back in July. But my intuition thought the better of it and now I feel justified in holding back. Since Taitz both failed to properly raise the issue in the relevant TRO pleadings – while at the same time waiving the issue in the very same pleadings – I am afraid the case would be tossed out of the DC District Court just as it was tossed by Judge Lazzarra.

As a retired AF member I can tell you having your orders canceled prior to any court proceeding is the norm. They will offer Maj Cook a couple of options, all leading to his eventual dismissal from the service. Depending on if he stays in front of a the news cameras or not, will determine if he just gets a discharge or a dishonorable discharge.

I personally don’t think BHO is a eligible to be POTUS, but as soon as the Chief Justice swore him in it became a moot point. No one, not Congress, or the Court will remove him from office. It just ain’t going to happen. We have to vote him out in 3 years. Then we can start to repair the damage.

All we can do make him look like the fool he is and attack him for his broken promises, crazy policies, poor choices and lack of transparency.

It is working so far, just look at his plummeting polls.

Dr. Orly storms Israel:
Go Lady Liberty!!

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132880

______________________________

Canada Free Press
JB Williams

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12999

(snip)
Every member of the Supreme Court, every member of congress, every member of the Joint Chiefs, most members of the DOD, CIA, FBI, Secret Service and state run media, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, MSNBC, Fox and print news, knows that Barack Hussein Obama does NOT meet Article II – Section I constitutional requirements for the office he holds. By his own biography, there is NO way he can pass the test. The hard evidence is so far beyond overwhelming, it is ridiculous.

(snip)
But not ONE member of America’s most powerful people will dare confront Obama and his anti-American cabal on the subject. The Constitution does NOT stand.

(snip)
Half of the people you expect to stop this insanity are quiet co-conspirators in the silent coup. The other half is paralyzed by fear, motivated only by political self-preservation.

(Snip)
Americans keep asking what they can do because they see that none of their leaders are doing anything to stop the demise of their beloved country. It’s the right question, because those leaders are NOT going to stop this thing.

(Snip)
WHO WILL SAVE FREEDOM?
A brave few… This is how it was in the beginning, how it has always been and how it will be.

(Snip)
DR. ORLY TAITZ, Phil Berg and Gary Kreep, ALL OF WHOM HAVE MADE DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE A PERSONAL AMBITION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONSTITUTION LEADERSHIP.

(Snip)
A PRECIOUS FEW, BUT THEY EXIST… and the walls are indeed closing in on Obama and his evil cabal. IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FAIL TO GET BEHIND THESE BRAVE FEW WHO ARE SEEKING PEACEFUL REDRESS, ALL THE PEACEFUL OPTIONS WILL EVAPORATE AS IF THEY NEVER EXISTED. WE WILL RETURN TO A PRE-1776 AMERICA OVERNIGHT..

Do YOU fear Obama?
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12999

___________________________________

A precious few, indeed. Lets get behind those few brave patriots who are out there in the trenches every day working to prove Obama’s inelgibility:

Dr. Orly is the ONLY one out there in the trenches EVERY day hitting Obama on multiple fronts and trying to bring him down. It is reported that she is more than $8,000 in debt from using her own funds for expenses in her flights across the U.S for interviews, speeches, serving papers and meeting with officials!

Dr. Orly’s official website:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/
Or Dr. Orly’s blog:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/

Whether a person who was a citizen of a foreign nation – at the time of his birth – can be President and Commander In Chief of the US armed forces is a legal question, not a conspiracy theory.

That's actually not the issue. A foreign nation could make all sorts of people citizens at birth. Germany for instance could say all persons with X% German ancestory are German nationals, unless X is greater than 50%, that would sweep up an awful lot of Americans, including me.

The real legal/Constitutional question is whether someone whose father (or mother) was not a citizen at the time of his birth is "eligible to the office of President".

While those are related conditions, they are not the same. A country could not recognize the children of it's citizens as citizens under some circumstances, and yet a parent from that country would still not be a US citizen.

Would not the long form indicate "father's place of birth?". It would not indicate "citizenship" it's true, but would give "probable cause" for further investigation. But it would show, legally, who his father actually was, and if his father was not a US citizen at the time of BHO's birth.. well there you go.

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.