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/
As CinC, BO ordered troops to Afghanistan. It was his order.
From http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/08/world/fg-us-afghan8
...Obama has ordered 17,000 additional combat troops and 4,000 trainers into Afghanistan, and plans to send civilian experts to help improve the Afghan government. In addition, he is asking Congress for civilian aid for Pakistan as part of a broader regional plan...
That makes him the uh, legitimate, target of the good Major’s actions. In the words of another Democrat President, Harry Truman, “The Buck stops here.”
Please explain your reasons why you believe the military, who in your words, worships the Chain of Command, yet do not believe BO is responsible for the Major’s orders to deploy. You wrote,
...the person at the top of the CoC to issue orders is “above his paygrade” so if the order from his superior was valid, the court martial will not entertain any evidence about Obama or his Birth certificate...
What happened to loyalty up/loyalty down? Catch-22?
Despite all the acceptances from 50 State’s Secretaries of States and the majority of the electors, if BO is a Kenyan or an Indonesian, he was precluded from seeking the Presidential Office. He sought it anyway. It is up to the American citizens to make the correction with all speed.
Unless we have come to believe like so many of his cohorts, rules and laws are made for everyone else, not him.
That’s reason enough to disqualify him as a valid order giver in my book. Rarely does an imposter give a valid order.
I recall a couple of phrases heard in a Parris Island classroom. A chain is as strong as its weakest link. And the chain of command can take a member of the military right into the president’s office.
That is no longer in effect? When did the CiC break away from the chain? Wouldn’t that just denigrate the whole idea of a chain of command if the initiator of military action was removed from the chain of responsibility? And where are we as a Nation when all the awareness of the accompanying sacrifice and disruption that is felt right down to the family unit is to be shunted away from the person who set the wheels of war in motion?
We be in a horrible bad place.
When men like Major Cook stand against an enveloping evil, we sometimes have to look hard to see what they see. But rarely are we capable of understanding their concern for our Republic or their devotion to God and Country and Family. I think the people are understanding this Majors action
God bless Major Cook.
Gotcha. Much appreciated.
I had feared that if Obama had 8 years he might do HALF of what he has already done TO America. I think it is already too late to save our great nation.
I think a lot of people involved in any thing that would take BO out of office, will end up mysteriously dead.
bump — keeping my eye on this one!
"The Department of Defense has compelled a private employer to fire a U.S. Army Reserve major from his civilian job after he had his military deployment orders revoked for arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office.
According to the CEO of Simtech Inc., a private company contracted by the Defense Security Services, an agency of the Department of Defense, the federal agency has compelled the termination of Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook." ...
Application for injunction
MAJ. GEN. CAROL DEAN CHILDERS,
LT. COL. DAVID EARL GRAEF,
MAJOR STEFAN FREDERICK COOK,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COLONEL LOUIS B. WINGATE, Civil Action:
COLONEL WANDA L. GOOD, 4:09-cv-00082-CDL COLONEL THOMAS D. MACDONALD,
DR. ROBERT M. GATES, UNITED
STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, Rule 65 Application for
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, de facto Preliminary Injunction
PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES,
Defendants.
APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiff Major Stefan Frederick Cook previously received from the Defendants in this cause what appear to be facially valid orders from Colonel Wanda L. Good mobilizing him to active duty with the United States Army in Afghanistan on July 15-18, 2009 (Exhibit A). Plaintiff filed his Original Application for TRO on Friday July 10, 2009, and on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 his deployment to Afghanistan was revoked by order of Colonel Louis B. Wingate, apparently Col. Good’s successor at Army Human Resources Command in St. Louis (Exhibit B). This unexpected action does not in any way, shape or form, “moot” the application for TRO, which is here amended and resubmitted as an Application for Preliminary Injunction, covering both the possibility of future orders and to prevent negative collateral consequences such as retaliation against Major Stefan Frederick Cook (which have already begun) including possible violations of the general Federal and specific military whistleblower acts, as well as the First and Ninth Amendment civil rights of Major Stefan Frederick Cook to challenge the chain of command in the U.S military. It is obvious that this case has the potential to be converted into a class action...[snip]
I would like to go on the record for saying that it is absolutely terrible that Obama won’t present his “long form” birth certificate.
I don’t know for sure whether Obama is a citizen or not, but I am with the Major for demanding that Obama prove that he is a valid commander-in-chief before he is forced to obey said “CiC’s” “lawful” orders.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Joining Lou in the Independent Nation on Wednesday will be Orly Taitz who represents Major Stefan Frederick Cook discusses the lawsuit brought about by her and Major Cook which questioned President Obama’s legal citizenship in the United States. Ambassador Alan Keyes, Americas Independent Party 2008 Nominee for President discusses his own lawsuit against the legal citizenship of President Obama.
Obama birth certificate debate & Attorney Orly Taitz interview (download available)
Your examples are right. The problem for Obama is that his birth doesn’t quite fit those. His father was not a citizen, and his mother was not a citizen who had lived at least 5 years within the U.S. after she reached the age of 16. This is so because she was only 18. The major difference with your other examples is that the president must be a “natural born” citizen, not a “naturalized” citizen. Further, the fake “birth certificate” he as produced is similar to that Hawaii used back then for “naturalized” citizens born outside the U.S. That’s why the title of the document is “Certification of Birth” rather than “Certificate of Birth.” Hawaii used these “certifications” for registering births in foreign countries of “naturalized” citizens. Hawaii used “certificates” for those born within Hawaii (U.S.).
I agree with your statements—mostly. But, were not those 50 certifications by the Secretaries of State based on Obama’s express representations in his filing papers that he is legally eligible to hold the office. I don’t think the Secretaries are required to independently determine eligibility but may rely on candidate assertions (oaths)—until proven not to be true. That proving is still in process. If Cook’s allegations are true, Obama is not only guilty of forging the birth cert, but is guilty of lying under oath on those filing papers—times 50. Recall that lying under oath (perjury) in his Arkansas sexual harrassment civil trial is the felony for which Clinton was impeached by the House and later disbarred by Arkansas, not for having an unpopular sexual encounter with a young employee in the White House. Also, if it’s proved that he lied to those 50 Secretaries when he filed to run, do not those 50 certifications by them automatically become invalid—as soon as the Cook case appeals are exhausted. I suppose the 50 states have statutes and procedures for such an event—does anybody here no what those are? Is the election overturned putting McCain in office? I don’t think the fact that Obama was sworn in to office fixes the underlying fact that he was not eligible to hold the office.
Uhbama and his cabal are spirit crunchers and want us to feel impotent and discouraged and defeated.
We will NOT!
Whether it is impeachment or revolution, we are AMERICANS and we will not let a tin pot socialist, marxist would be cradle to grave tyrant like uhbama and his sick band of advisors and appointees (have you EVER witnessed a more corrupt and vile group of tax cheating, american hating whimps?) destroy our country.
It is JUST AS MUCH YOURS AND MINE as it is uhbamas...make that IF it is uhbamas. Who in the hell knows where that SOB actually came from, or what name he will be using tomorrow. (Other than 'King')
He is one ugly mean spirited baboon who, thanks to a group of mesmerized press corp, became president.
If he keeps up threatening those who disagree...he is going to be sent back to his mansion in Chicago where he can whine and cry on bill ayers bi-sexual shoulder.
Major Cook Update:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2294045/posts?page=22#22
Hannity mentions Major Cook’s case:
Sean Hannity Pushes Obama ‘Not A Citizen By Birth Story’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLYcDV5-Iro
However, most of us here know that Hannity completely get’s the issue wrong though. This is about “Natural Born Citizen” as that is the requirement for POTUS that is clearly spelled out in the Constitution…and not “Citizen.” Clearly, CA’s govenator Arnie is a Citizen (Naturalized), but he could never be POTUS as he isn’t a Natural Born Citizen.
The Lou Dobbs interview from yesterday (Keyes and Taitz), can be found here: Lou Dobbs Interview
(and no, you don’t have to sign up or pay for that. if you click the little play icon under: “Alan Keyes and Orly Taitz on Obama’s natural-born citizenship Wednesday, Jul 15, 2009″ it will refresh the page presenting a sign up option. however, on the original page, is a little embedded MP3 flash player available).
Admiral Michael Mullen, CJCS General James E Cartwright USMC, VCJCS General George W. Casey, Jr. USA Admiral Gary Roughead, USN General Norton A. Schwartz, USAF General James T. Conway, USMC Gentlemen: We are now in a situation where those who desire to extricate themselves from the War On Terror, or any other military obligation, may do so by challenging their orders. All one needs to do is question the legitimacy of the alleged president, Soetoro, and they are immediately released. What will you do if all the military want to know the truth? What will you do then? Should not they expect their orders to be legal? Every person in the military should resist, barring absolute proof. If only our military had hundreds of thousands of others with Major Stefan Frederick Cook's bravery.
...
You cannot allow this wound to fester. It is Soetoro, at the top, who must prove himself. Not the other way around. With every damn 'i' dotted, and 't' crossed; all the way back to August 4, 1961, from Kenya, to Hawaii, to Indonesia, the passports, the Selective Service application, through school. All of it. ALL OF IT.
...
To keep this drip from becoming a torrent, you must demand that Soetoro prove his legitimacy, once and for all. First, he should be a citizen of the United States, incredibly, even that is questionable. But, to be president, he must have two citizen parents. He can be given the benefit of the doubt on the other two requirements. World leaders and intelligence agencies know he is a fraud. Foreign populations have been informed by their media, and know him to be a fraud. Our own CIA and FBI know he is a fraud. Millions of Americans know he is a fraud. Major Cook knows he is a fraud. I'm of the opinion you gentlemen also know he is a fraud.
[End Quote]
...
More here: http://www.riseupforamerica.com/citizencondemnsarmy.html
#33 - Thanks for the Link!
To Probonopublico
Great Post! Succinct and very clear.
Great going! Kenyan birth certificate of Obama surfaces, forensic testing to be done.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764
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.