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/
IIRC, Clinton tried to use the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act to keep Paula Jones from suing him while he was in office and serving as Commander in Chief. The SCOTUS heard the case and issued a ruling that he could be sued. Immediately thereafter, her attorneys held the famous deposition at which he lied about Lewinsky and the rest, as they say, is history.
Wow, I knew he was real dirty.
The document doesn’t show the the detail of Exhibit B. Someone has been using my social security number and I want to see if mine is one of the 39 he has been using. Also, I hope he is not using my address.
Well done.
I agree. Might might not.
It sure would. Identity theft is a felony. If true, then Obama would be guilty of several counts of felony identity theft.
He is accused of not being eligible to hold the Presidency; if proven, as fraudulent Commander in Chief, his orders to the Armed Forces would not be legal. (Nor would his signature on laws and/or treaties or apologies.)
Good point!
This man is performing the career equivalent of throwing himself on a hand grenade to save his comrades.
This man is a field grade officer who may soon be facing a direct order to deploy to Afghanistan. If he refuses then the Army will be required to court-martial him. At that point he should be entitled to all the mechanisms of discovery, particularly the relevant documents that would prove or disprove this usurper’s constitutional eligibility so that he might be able to mount a proper defense.
I suspect that the Louse in the White House will then exert improper command influence to get the case dropped. He can’t afford to have discovery for any reason.
I remember one Lieutenant Watanabe who refused to deploy to Iraq and the mainstream media endlessly speculated as to whether or not he was justified by refusing to follow lawful orders to deploy. We just know those rotten bastards won’t have any interest in this case whatsoever. But the truth will out no matter what the SOB’s try to do.
My greatest fear for this courageous officer is that the affirmative action fraud will use secrecy rules to squelch him, and send him for a ‘King David and Uriah The Hittite’ maneuver. The power of being Pres__ent is something evil men and women will murder for, and Obama has what for all the world appears to be a growing body count to keep his secrets.
A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida with orders to report for deployment to Afghanistan within days has filed a court demand to be classified as a "conscientious objector" because without proof of the commander-in-chief's eligibility for office, the entire army "becomes merely a corps of chattel slaves under the illegitimate control of a private citizen."
A hearing on the questions raised by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, an engineer who told WND he wants to serve his country in Afghanistan, already has been scheduled for July 16 at 9:30 a.m., according to California attorney Orly Taitz, who is handling the claim.
Cook told WND he's ready, willing and able to carry out the military needs of the United States, but he raised the challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to be president because if he would be captured by enemy forces while serving overseas under the orders of an illegitimate president, he could be considered a "war criminal."
"As an officer in the armed forces of the United States, it is [my] duty to gain clarification on any order we may believe illegal. With that said, if President Obama is found not to be a 'natural-born citizen,' he is not eligible to be commander-in-chief," he told WND only hours after the case was filed.
"[Then] any order coming out of the presidency or his chain of command is illegal. Should I deploy, I would essentially be following an illegal [order]. If I happened to be captured by the enemy in a foreign land, I would not be privy to the Geneva Convention protections," he said.
He said the vast array of information about Obama that is not available to the public confirms to him that "something is amiss."
He told WND he is prepared for a backlash against him as a military officer, since members of the military swear to uphold and follow their orders. However, he noted that following an illegal order would be just as bad as failing to follow a legal order.
"What I want to do is deploy to Afghanistan, do my job as an Army officer, engineer. I do not want to subject myself to the possibility that I might be violating the [Uniform Code of Military Justice]," he said.
"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," explains the complaint.
More...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103626
BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE- www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/15/the-cloward-piven-strategy/ Everything that this imposter is doing is a calculated, deliberate action to create chaos and confusion and disorder in the economic world, and destroy the United States of America. And it's working pretty damn good. Check out this Cloward-Piven Strategy at the Washington Times. Everything is planned. He is not making mistakes, it is all deliberate destruction of our once great country, as we knew it.
I actually went to the site where it was posted and scrolled down to see if the Ex B SS# info was published. That is a total no no in the courts. Someone earlier posted that Dr Taitz had the info at her website, but I wasn’t that curious .. may be worth your time.
For such an uncommon name, I’m surprised how many there seem to be. Not too sure I think it’s on the up and up, and not too sure what relevance it has, but we’ll find out one day (I hope).
An African news site and an MSNBC broadcaster have delivered new references to President Obama's birthplace as being outside of the United States, even as a controversy has developed over a letter purporting to be from the president claiming Kapi'olani hospital in Honolulu as his birth location.
Network correspondent Mara Schiavocampo was reporting on the celebratory atmosphere in Accra, Ghana, immediately prior to Obama's visit to the west African nation today.
Interviewing a person who appeared to be a shop operator, she suggested, "Barack Obama is Kenyan … but Ghanaians are still proud of him."
... Meanwhile, a report at Modern Ghana also posted in advance of the president's visit cited his birthplace on the continent of Africa.
"For Ghana, Obama's visit will be a celebration of another milestone in African history as it hosts the first-ever African-American president on this presidential visit to the continent of his birth," the report said.
This man is a true American hero.
Thank you Major for what you are doing.
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.