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/
And it has been going on for centuries. Quote from Jefferson:
“To constrain the brute force of the people, the European governments deem it necessary to keep them down by hard labor, poverty and ignorance, and to take from them, as from bees, so much of their earnings, as that unremitting labor shall be necessary to obtain a sufficient surplus to sustain a scanty and miserable life.” —Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823.
Maybe having secret White House Independence Day parties with a secret list of presstitutes sworn to secrecy helps...
When you have the media in your pocket, you control what 'is' and what 'isn't'.
Maybe that is what Clinton was talking about...
Go Major Cook! This is exactly what the legal system is meant for and thanks for your service.
amen
Godspeed Major Cook!!!!
For whatever reason/rationale/excuse, no one in media anywhere wants to touch this. Yet it sits there like a piece of dung in the punch bowl. But no one dares call attention to it lest they be the ones scorned by the DBM.
obumpa
Welcome to FR. It might be better to learn the local culture and build a reputation before trying to oppose that culture.
“Does the military oath requirement rise to the level of “standing?””
My quick opinion is no. I believe the courts have reasoned that because the various plaintiffs didn’t sue prior to Obama’s nomination, they have waived any right they might have to raise the ART. II Sec. 1 issue and thus have no standing. The military oath wouldn’t change that.
I meant to add, I wonder if in any event the courts should intrude into the command structure and process in the military as a matter of policy? Should a service member be able to go into court for extraordinary relief in the form of an injunction against the enforcement of an order? What about going in simply for relief like a declaratory judgment on the validity of any random order? I hope the answer is no.
Yes, we are stuck with Mickey as Pres until he is properly replaced. The Major is a Bozo I'm afraid.
Not only that, Orly also recommend that we all become a Grand Jury ourselves, so that we can follow Lt. Commander Fitzpatrick’s example, I have, so we can keep the “pressure cooker” going 24/7/365!!!
Words???
You can prove this by Orly's recommendation to be a Grand Jury yourself and follow Lt. Commander Fitzpatrick's example, see post #154!!!
Hope to see you soon.
5.56mm
bookmark
One aspect of every briefing given every member of the military is that one must always disobey an unlawful order. That's codified, but one also must be damned sure about it before one pulls that rabbit out of a hat. The consequences of a misread would be prison.
That's within the military system, however. One doesn't take even that to a civilian court. At the same time, there are many issues (divorce, for example) that JAG doesn't handle, which, when they arise, the military member is pointed to a civil court.
Questioning the legitimacy of an order from the Commander in Chief would seem to me to fall into the military court system and not the civil...IF this non-lawyer were asked to guess.
“Questioning the legitimacy of an order from the Commander in Chief would seem to me to fall into the military court system and not the civil...IF this non-lawyer were asked to guess.”
I’d say you’re doing just fine for a non-lawyer, Padre! I’d also say that this major has gotten some very, very bad legal advice. My gut says he’s being used to advance a losing political agenda. I say that for a couple of reasons. First, in light of the past decisions, the case doesn’t pass the milk through the nose test and second, despite the fact that it hasn’t a chance of success, it is nevertheless a frontal assault on the command structure. The involvement of the courts in the military is necessarily destructive of military discipline. One would hope a major would have more concern for proper discipline. A lawyer with a political agenda, or the agenda driven paymaster(s) of such lawyer, wouldn’t let that stop them.
God protect you, Major Cook. You have my deep respect, support and thanks.
Leni
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.