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/
My letter will go out in Mondays mail.
One hundred forty-nine addresses and 30 SSNs! Jesus H. Christ! What the hell is goining on here?
Absolutely, joining the military now would be quite foolish
Bump!
It was, and still is a hoax. The AP did not publish this alleged story.
Fake ID’s in Chicago busted by DOJ in 2007. Active since 1993 (according to DOJ).
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2007/pr1024_01.pdf
Perhaps having more than one ID in Chicago was expected if you were connected.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/indict/2007/us_v_sanchez_et_al_super.pdf
thanks!
Please see this snoops page.
Zero Soetero is fraud and a hood. Alfonse C. would be proud.
http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/19116
I don't disagree. however the proof is in the facts, not misinformation. We need the facts to come out to put this thug in prison, where he belongs.
http://www.paperweapons.net/dbulletin2.html
BTW, sentence was one year in prison and deportation
http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/fake.id.ring.2.328205.html
Here’s a political connection
http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/fake.ID.Little.2.327849.html
Maybe THEY don’t get to decide, but I do... and if you do not hold fast to conserving the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, in its original intent and meaning, and shrinking the Federal Government to its intended size and (VERY) limited authority, you are anything BUT a conservative. If you want any foreign entanglements outside of what the Founders prescribed, if you want one single government program not specifically authorized by the Constitution, you are NOT a conservative. I don’t know what you ARE, but conservative you AIN’T.
The Chicago fake document story was posted on FR last year but drew little attention
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1991836/posts
I missed wishing you a good morning, but wishing you a great afternoon! :)
Looking forward to seeing you and yours again too! Hubby and I are sure looking forward to 9/11-9/13 in DC! Will be great to meet FReepers from all across the US and see many of our Florida Freepers again! We are really looking forward to meeting JimRob and his family too!
Here is a Saturday afternoon bump for Freepers to join in support of Major Cook in his quest for answers EVERY American should be demanding!
God Bless Major Cook and God Bless America!
THanks! So it seems to be a hoax.
More about Munoz
1. CHICAGO SAVES IMMIGRANTS’ JOBS — Members of Chicago ACORN have persuaded an AOL Time Warner company to back down on its attempt to fire 31 workers after receiving letters from the Social Security Administration saying that the workers’ SS numbers did not match those in SSA’s records.
Workers at a CD packaging and shipping plant owned by AOL Time Warner’s WEA subsidiary had been told to straighten out their “SSA no match problems” or July 31st would be their last day of work. Fourteen of them are ACORN members.
ACORN sent letters to WEA demanding immediate negotiations to stop the firing of the workers. The company said they were interested in a meeting with ACORN after they had time to review the matter with their lawyers.
In the meantime ACORN planned a protest at WEA’s shop in Aurora, Ill., for noon on the 31st with the workers and other ACORN members during the lunch break.
When ACORN members were on their way there along with TV news reporters, workers let them know that victory was at hand.
By lunch time, each worker had been called into the HR office and told they could remain on the job. For more information, link to http://www.acorn.org/acorn10/otheracornwork/releases/cic.htm or contact Madeline Talbott at ilacorn@acorn.org or 312-939-7488.
2. CHICAGO CITY COUNCIL OPPOSES NO-MATCH LETTERS — ACORN has persuaded the Chicago City Council to pass a resolution opposing the Social Security Administration’s policy of issuing no-match letters, and urging businesses to follow a code of conduct intended to minimize the damage done to Chicago’s residents and economy by this practice.
On July 31, Chicago Alderman Ricardo Munoz and the rest of the Latino Caucus sponsored the resolution, which passed without objection.
The code of conduct includes:
1. That the employer not assume that the workers on the no-match list are undocumented;
2. That the employer not fire, suspend, intimidate or threaten any employee whose name appears on the no-match list;
3. That the employer will not ask for immigration related documents;
4. That the employer will provide all employees on the “no-match” list with a copy of the letter;
5. That the employer provide employees with information on employee rights and an opportunity to correct any errors.
For more information, link to http://www.acorn.org/acorn10/otheracornwork/releases/cic.htm or contact Madeline Talbott at ilacorn@acorn.org or 312-939-7488.
And JUST WHERE — besides on the insides of your eyelids — is it written that this battle is “unwinnable?”
Sure glad you weren’t at Lexington, Concord Bridge or Yorktown!!
Major Cook is deserving of all the public support we can muster. His public stand against the control of our military forces by a presidential poser is a brave and selfless act.
Kind thoughts and supportive prayers going out for him and all military personnel everywhere.
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.