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/
“Since you are an old country lawyer, could you please counsel and enlightened us with your expertise from your keyboard how this should be handled, so that we laypeople (none-lawyers) can follow your lead to remove this illegal impostor of a scam artist from the White House???”
Find a credible candidate who can appeal to a very broad spectrum of the American people, like the Ds did in 2008, and vote him out of office in 2012...unless of course you “none-lawyers” think that would be too difficult in which case I have no suggestions for you.
What relationship does this have to the usurper???
Not very many of the links will touch this issue with a ten foot pole!!
For some strange and "un-known" reason, they have all been very effectively muzzled by higher ups
"And how can we best do that in real actions???"
All I can do right now is spread the word to as many folks as I can about Major Cook and ask them to keep this thread bookmarked and watch for more updates.
We know his hearing is to take place this coming Thursday morning. I will post if I hear anything new to report.
By this, however, I read that the old country lawyer here thinks that our Constitution is not worth more than the tissue paper in our bathrooms???
Is that a straight line?
The guy admitted to having been born with foreign citizenship (of which he never indicated he "lost" somehow, or even renounced). My money is on the framers never in their wildest intentions meant for someone born with British citizenship to be eligible...post Independence birth. History will (at least, eventually) record Barry as the fraudulent POTUS he is. Our Constitution will suffer in the mean time.
You know, sometimes it’s those refugees who sometimes end up being bigger patriots than most other people because they know what it’s like not to have the freedoms that most people take for granted.
And what I mean by “other people” are those 63+ million morons that voted for Pres__ent with no ID 0bama, as well as all these others who bitch and moan about the way things are going and yet do not even bother to vote OR worse they vote to keep these corrupt POS’s in office.
I hope the Major and Miss Taitz wins their cases against the usurper.
“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.”
No, you are thinking National Guard. The Reserves are federal.
“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.”
Sadly, the democrats control both the house and the senate and would probably remove any judge that rules in favor of these suits.
The media will remain silent of course.
The only ones I do not know about for certain are the Academy Cadets/Midshipmen. ROTC Cadets/Midshipmen are enlisted into the reserve component, inactive, of their service. Then, as you say, if they don't succeed in being commissioned, (and it could be 4 years later for some ROTC cadets, although non scholarship cadets don't enlist until they've completed the first two years, scholarship cadets are committed, and enlisted, from day one) Officer Candidate School (or whatever a particular service might call it at any particular time) is similar, and of course many OCS cadets have already served as enlisted members, as have some ROTC cadets, although that was fairly rare in my day. We did have one, a high school classmate as it happens, who had served as an enlisted Marine in Vietnam, before joining Air Force ROTC.
I think it is worse than that!
The Constitutional crisis caused by this PINO fraud (and USSC put a blind eye willfully to it as well) is something I can't see can be repaired!!
Our nation and maybe the whole world will suffer for years in a way most people cannot phantom!!!
With the thinking of people like the old country lawyer, is it then any wonder that our nation is in spinning downhill to be a banana republic???
“You know, sometimes it’s those refugees who sometimes end up being bigger patriots than most other people because they know what it’s like not to have the freedoms that most people take for granted.”
Remember, this brave little Russian refugee lady, Dr. Orly, has put her life on hold to try to bring Obama down and save YOUR country. 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/
.
Indeed I was, thanks for the correction.
Definitely precedent. I can’t recall now all the details of the issues presented in the Jones case, but the “Commander in Chief” and Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act argument got thrown out as a defense against POTUS being sued personally, civilly.
The SCOTUS decision is online as are the various arguments presented and issues raised ... now the question is if anyone can actually get far enough along (standing) to get a SCOTUS hearing.
With the thinking of people like the old country lawyer, is it then any wonder that our nation is in spinning downhill to be a banana republic??
I think it's safe to say - some things are more difficult to phantom than others. Of course others claim rhubarb will never grow on a busy street.
In your posts #223 and #232 you claim “in time of WAR”.
Could you please provide a link to the WAR that has been Congressionally declared pursuant to The Constitution, Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have the power to ... declare WAR.”
Thanks. I would like to know against what sovereign nation(s) we have declared WAR.
If you are unable to provide evidence or a link to a Congressionally declared WAR pursuant to the The Constitution, then are you merely grossly incompetent, or are you maliciously dishonest in your posts? I would think that a lawyer would know what WAR is and what The Constitution has to say about it.
I also find your use of the word Mutiny (post #223) at a minimum loose verbage and perhaps scurrilous. Do you have any evidence of this?
>>But no one dares call attention to it lest they be the ones scorned by the DBM.<<
DBM ?
“If you are unable to provide evidence or a link to a Congressionally declared WAR pursuant to the The Constitution, then are you merely grossly incompetent, or are you maliciously dishonest in your posts?”
What sort of nonsense is this? Are you implying that our servicemen and women have been engaged in banditry and terrorism and our naval personnel in piracy since the Bush Administration sent our forces into Afganistan and Iraq? Are you asserting that the Viet Nam generation of veterans are in faqct criminal brigands?
As for mutiny, look up Article 94 of the UCMJ.
“By this, however, I read that the old country lawyer here thinks that our Constitution is not worth more than the tissue paper in our bathrooms???”
Do you think the Constitution needs protecting by frivolous lawsuits destructive of the military command structure, rather than by elections? If you do, I’d suggest that your total lack of confidence in the institutions and processes the Founders left us must make living here very, very difficult for you....What do you plan to do about that? :)
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.