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/
No I am not discussing this with somebody else except with you, and here is what I am getting out of Honduras as a contradiction to what you are calling a military coup, so what do you think? Hmmm!
Background on the referendum, which Zelaya insisted on in spite of it having been declared unlawful: * When the armed forces refused to distribute the ballots, Zelaya fired the chief of the armed forces, Gen. Romeo Vásquez, and the defense minister, the head of the army and the air force resigned in protest. * Yesterday the Supreme Court ordered by a 5-0 vote that Vásquez be reinstated. * Honduras’s Supreme Electoral Tribunal ordered authorities to pick up all the ballots and electoral material, which were held by the country’s air force. * The country’s Attorney General requested yesterday that Congress oust Zelaya. * The courts have declared the referendum unlawful. Last Tuesday the Congress passed a law preventing the holding of referendums or plebiscites 180 days before or after general elections. Congress has also named a commission to investigate Zelaya.
This lying bastard of a usurper and his beatnik mom were scamming the Social Security system. He was hard up for dough before Sugar Daddy Soros and Arab/foreign money came along.
Under the UCMJ, that's grounds for prosecution. (Insubordination).
My ass is being deployed by this. Sure walks, talks, and quacks like a declaration of war.
White House won't confirm Obama's 'birth letter' exists
Spokesman belittles WND reporter, asks 'what reporting' has been done.
"The issue arose today when Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House, asked Gibbs about the letter, which the hospital also used in a magazine fundraising article.
...
Gibbs' answer came in response to Kinsolving's question:
While you and the president were overseas on July the 7th, there was on the Internet a copy of a letter on White House letterhead dated January the 24th, 2009, with the signature "Barack Obama," which stated, "The place of my birth was Honolulu's Kapi'olani Medical Center." And my question is, can you verify this letter? Or if not, would you tell us which Hawaiian hospital he was born in, since Kapi'olani, which used to publicize this, now refuses to confirm?
Gibbs said, without responding directly to the question about the veracity of the letter, "Goodness gracious. I'm going to be, like, in year four describing where it is the president was born. I don't have the letter at my fingertips, obviously, and I don't know the name of the exact hospital."
...
When Kinsolving asked when Gibbs could check, he responded.
"I will seek to interview whoever brought the president into this world. But can we just – I want to do this once and for all, Lester. Let's just do this once and for all. You can go on this – I hope you'll take the time not just to Google 'President, January 24, Hawaii hospital, birth' and come up with this letter, but go on the Internet and get the birth certificate, Lester, and put…"
When Kinsolving pointed at that the image posted on various website's was not been a birth certificate or a certificate of live birth, but a different "Certification of Live Birth" document, Gibbs said, "I know. Just a document from the state of Hawaii denoting the fact that the president was indeed born in the state of Hawaii.
...
more:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103898
In reference to post #228:
"News sites swap Obama's birthplace like magic UPI, Snopes change location within hours of WND report"
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103465
"Obama's 'birth hospital' in astonishing cover-up Once proudly celebrated president, now in active mode to hide 'proof'
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103633
What a joke that 'administration' is.
So has the Macon Ledger-enquirer:
Soldier balks at deployment; says Obama isn’t really president
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/breaking_news/story/776335.html
Both articles/sites appear to have a comment section.
CASE NAME CORRECTION KEYES V. OBAMA (Not Keyes v. Bowen)
Major Cook just got off the phone with Orly Taitz, the attorney in Keyes v. Obama.
At the hearing today at the Federal Court building in Santa Ana, Judge Carter said the following:
1. There will be a trial.
2. It will be heard on the merits.
3. Nothing will be dismissed on procedural issues.
4. The trial will be expeditious, and the judge pledged to give case priority.
5. Being a former Marine he realizes the importance of having a Constitutionally qualified POTUS/CIC.
6. Judge stated that if Obama isn’t Constitutionally qualified he needs to leave the White House.
The DOJ will be involved with the case also.... It wasn’t clear if they would be trying to get to the truth or they would just be blindly representing Obama.
Orly will be adding members of the military from California as plaintiffs also.
Orly, asked me to disseminate this information out for her, she will be doing a posting later after she gets some sleep.
Please say a prayer of protection for Orly, her family, and Judge Carter. Please also pray that the truth will come to light regarding Obama and justice will be done.
More will be posted as I learn more. God Bless Major Cook!
The U.S. Constitution provides for military operations under both war and other contingencies. There is a clear recognition of reprisal and permission to seize assets.
The U.S. Congress has updated those other contingencies for our era in a War Powers Act of a number of years ago. That has never been challenged in court, and I doubt Scotus would see differently than Congress that it can engage in other military operations besides all-out war.
America, of course, wants that to be so. Some offenses require a response other than all-out war, and I want Congress to have the flexibility to pursue those.
For the record:
1. I wish WAR had been declared in this instance that we "call" the "War on Terrorism."
2. Congress authorized acts against anyone in any way connected to 9/11 on 9/18/2001. They all authorized a specific action against Iraq in 2002, I believe. (I'd have to check the date on that.) The first vote was unanimous less a few, iirc. The 2nd nearly the same.
3. I am neither a lawyer nor the son of a lawyer. (But I did read the U.S. Constitution for comprehension last night at a Holiday Inn Express.)
Praying for them and their safety and the country.
bttt
Giddy up...
I just received this via E-Mail:
Dr. Orly being interviewed by LA Times re; her good news about hearing today From abc| 07/13/2009 6:28:54 PM PDT read
______________
Obama eligibility case will be heard on merits Please distribute everywhere. Just got off the phone with Orly Taitz, the attorney in Keyes v. Obama. At the hearing today at the Federal Court building in Santa Ana, Judge Carter said the following:
1. There will be a trial.
2. It will be heard on the merits.
3. Nothing will be dismissed on proceedural issues.
4. The trial will be expeditious, and the judge pledged to give case priority.
5. Being a former Marine he realizes the importance of having a Constitutionally qualified Potus/cinc.
6. Judge stated that if Obama isn’t Constitutionally qualifed he needs to leave the White House.
http://www.plainsradio.com/radio.html
Is this Ed Hale saying this stuff?
If your not on the ping list it’s amust see judge will hear Obama case on it’s merits.
I found this news story that just came out on the Obama court case (Lightfoot vs. Bowen):
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103918
It’s SHOWTIME!!
Praise the Lord!
With no insinuation about the merits of this case against Obama, I do believe it’s in the best interests of the U.S. for there to be some body (Justice Department) that receives and displays the proof by any candidate for any federal level office that has qualifications mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution mentions the qualifications, it does not mention a process whereby candidates must prove their meeting those qualifications.
This was an issue that touched on Obama, McCain, and it was mentioned in regard to Romney’s father, iirc. They are not the first to have the issue arise.
There should be a clear, specific law that gives some office the responsibility to both verify and to publicize candidate’s constitutional qualifications.
Rush, fox etc email and ask them to verify and report.
oh..don’t worry...it’s coming. Apparently the LA Times interviewed Dr. Orly today.
Please read post #307. Those words are exactly what I received in email from Major Cook.
Only the last sentence is mine.
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.