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/
“this coward major”
Your choice of words will suggest to reasonably well informed readers that while you have an agenda you do not have a clue.
I will stipulate I haven’t read all the pleadings in this case, but it is not clear to me that Major Cook, to date, has refused to obey any lawful order.
Hate to break the news to you, Pardner, but you are totally clueless. “Coward Major” my ass. Keep on drinking the Kool Aid, numbnuts!
What he should is resign his commission and get the Hell out of Obama’s Army like ASAP. Personally,I would not serve under his sorry ass.
"“Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen,” said Leahy."
" “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.
“That is mine, too,” said Leahy."
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html
While discussing their understanding of what it means to be NBC, they both state parents in the plural. They go on to pass the resolution that J.M. is NBC, even though he was born outside the country (the 'gist' of why they thought they needed the resolution). A conclusion that I disagree with, b.t.w.
"Do you have definitive evidence to the contrary?" Your simply missing the obvious point here. As I stated in the previous post, you have no proof he was born in HI, I have no proof he was born in HI (or B.C. or Kenya). NOBODY has proof he was born anywhere. We simply know he was born. That's the whole point of the entire birth certificate issue. No proof of birthplace (a secondary issue IMO).
What we do know for a fact, at least according to Barry and unless he lied...he was born with foreign citizenship (primary issue, IMO). Furthermore, there is no evidence that he either lost, or renounced his British citizenship.
Being born with foreign citizenship isn't a conspiracy theory...unless of course he lied about who his father is/was.
"i hope he’s thrown in jail" Thrown in jail for what?
"Even if he suspects Obama ain’t legit, the congress certified the president" Did they call for any objections during that certification? That is, did they follow proper procedure?
“Why do you think he gets a kook dentist who got her law degree online?” Where did you get the idea she received her law degree online?
It's common knowledge, but you can look her up on the California Bar Association site here. Her law degree is from William Howard Taft University, which is a distance-learning only institution. It's not accredited by the American Bar Assocation. California is one of a handful of states that accept their graduates. All that aside, though, she did pass the bar exam, and California has one of the tougher ones.
And yes, from what I've heard CA has some of the toughest exams for not only Attorneys, but for Medical Doctors, Dentists, Pharmacists and other professionals.
This is getting absurd. It’s no longer a cute little game that some thirteen year old can play in mommy’s basement (”What if, despite all of the evidence right in front of my face, I continue to stubbornly assert as true something that is clearly not”), now it is affecting the morale and even the obediance of our troops. What is the difference between this guy and those “conscientious objectors” of yesteryear, besides the fact that this one is using OUR conspiracy theories to defend his actions?
Barry, for the sake of our country and our military, should stop playing his game of "hide the B.C." and simply show it...proving once and for all that he was born in country to two citizen parents.
I'm sure he is not even close to being being tapped out.
Bump !!!!!!!!!
Fox Special Edition just did a teaser on this and the item should be up shortly
bump !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, that's just what we need.... military officers who won't follow orders unless they considers the president (and others) to be "legitimate" according to a definition of their own choosing.
That concept has worked so well elsewhere (Latin America, Africa, ancient Rome, etc.....) It's a wonder the Founders were so stupid to have said otherwise.
“Fox Special Edition just did a teaser on this and the item should be up shortly” Awesome. Please post a link when/if you find it. I’ll do the same.
Major Cook's orders were just revoked as of 1700 hrs today. Will advise further later.
Very interesting. Please keep the thread posted!
Yes, indeed. Major Cook’s order were revoked today!
Fox News' Bret Baier today mentions both Major Cook's case as well as the Dr. Keyes case.
Political Grapvine: 7/14
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=6894952&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/specialreport/index.html
From around minute 1:52 to 1:03 (counting down).
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.