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/
I believe the CO pleading is a "way in" to have standing.....the bugaboo that has thwarted other law suits that have failed for lack of "standing".
BTW, the judge hearing his plea for a stay is a Bush appointee. Not that this is guaranteed to help win, but at least it's better than a non compos mentis lefty like Sotomeyer wielding the gavel.
GO MAJOR COOK!
Leni
11. July 2009 by Spiritual Patriot.
Dr. Orly Taitz has filed on my behalf a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in Columbus Georgia to prevent me from deploying to Afghanistan until such time as Barack Obama produces definitive proof that he is a natural born US citizen. The basis for the TRO is this: It is my duty as an officer in the US Army to seek clarification as to the legality of orders directed to me by someone in my chain of command (The President of the United States/Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States) who is not eligible to do so. Should Barack Obama be found not to be a natural born citizen of the US and I follow such an illegal order, I could be subject to punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) as well as should I have the misfortune of being captured by the enemy in Afghanistan, I could be subject to prosecution for war crimes as I was conducting military operations illegally. I will not subject myself to such a possibility. As an extension of this, each and every Soldier, Sailor, Airman and Marine who is deployed overseas could possibly find themselves in the same situation as I detailed above. This is an unacceptable position. However, should Barack Obama definitively prove that he is in fact a natural born citizen of the US, and as such, eligible to be President of the US/Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the US, I shall deploy to Afghanistan as so ordered. This deployment to Afghanistan was a voluntary request on my part. I am a patriotic citizen of the USA and Officer in the US Army and want to discharge those duties assigned to me in an honorable and legal fashion. I have thought long and hard on my decision to file this TRO. I realize that this action may well end my career as an Army Officer. I have discussed this decision with my family and they are understanding and supportive. This has been a gut-wrenching decision to make.For my entire career in the Army, it has been pounded into us that it is our duty to seek clarification on orders we deem to be questionable in their legality. You sit through the academic exercise and have a discussion about it and move on to the next subject. But when the situation actually arises (like my current situation), well that’s something else entirely. You experience that “holy crap” moment and have to make a decision that may well affect your life from that point on. I find myself in that position right now. I have to have the moral courage to prosecute a course of action that is most distasteful, but yet needs to be done.
Onward into the breach, and faciendum est.
Stefan F. Cook
Major, US Army
The Major’s official Statement can also be found at:
I must confess that I didn't read the original article thoroughly so I might have missed or misunderstood that.I must say that I've never heard of an officer of the US Armed Forces challenging or questioning in any way an order to deploy in a Federal court.
I still have trouble posting some links, even with the trick of putting the cursor at the end and hitting enter. For some reason it works sometimes, and sometimes not on various links! I always know it is operator trouble, meaning ME! :)
Right on! Also, the Judge in Lightfoot vs. Bowen is an ex Marine, nearing retirement and thus doesn’t have to battle the political arena.
You wrote- “I read the entire case. Don’t be deceived by his pleading conscientious objecter. The Major wants to go to Afghanistan, he is not a peacenik, an anti-war radical or anyone of that ilk.
I believe the CO pleading is a “way in” to have standing.....the bugaboo that has thwarted other law suits that have failed for lack of “standing”.
BTW, the judge hearing his plea for a stay is a Bush appointee. Not that this is guaranteed to help win, but at least it’s better than a non compos mentis lefty like Sotomeyer wielding the gavel.
GO MAJOR COOK!
Leni”
As former USNR myself, it is the President who is Commander and Chief, and ALL ACTIVE DUTY (including called up Reserves) are under the command of the POTUS once they are in active status.
Good Luck!
Yes, as hocndoc points out, that's often the appropriate way to behave. One wouldn't attend a group's meeting or someone's party and presume to have it change to meet your preferences. The current* predominant** culture at FR is that opinions or facts don't matter unless they fit preconceived notions, a sad state of affairs.
To your point, the courts have not even allowed a discovery phase to proceed, indicating they have little support for these filings against The 0ne. But nothing definitive has come out.
I do, however, find the implications of this request--if granted--disturbing. The request suggests that if we ever have a question of presidential succession, etc., our military is paralyzed...(?!?) Why cannot the orders and validity of the Major's superiors remain in effect from GWB's authority?
*I go back to the black-background days, and FR culture has had many flavors through those many years since.
**Different parts of FR have different cultures, varying by such things as forum or even topic.
That's correct, and what I read as well (in the court documents themselves).
"JAG HUNTER here:
I've was asked to comment on this news development regarding Major Stephan Cook acting under the advisement of Orly Taitz.
This is what I answered:
"My first reaction to solicitations for comment from now on will be a tennis return response to the requester:
* Have you filed a federal criminal complaint naming OBAMA in commission of the crime of TREASON?
* If not, why not?
Continuing now to explain my stance: THE ONLY PEACEFUL PATH FORWARD I believe that can be followed in persevering and prevailing to effect OBAMA's removal from office most expediently and most effectively is the standing criminal complaint declaring OBAMA in commission of the crime of TREASON.
I will steadfastly support ANY other peaceful avenue of attack found to be more expedient and more effective.
Major Cook's administrative request to be categorized as a "Conscientious Objector" following the guidance of Orly Taitz is neither more expedient nor more effective than the standing criminal complaint.
For Dr. Taitz: You are a fool. One very simple government response to Major Cook's request is to grant Cook's administrative request, wave the magic wand, delcare Cook a "CO," then move along.
Meanwhile, no one's laid a glove on OBAMA.
I can offer other methods to dispatch your (Dr. Taitz) misguided and stupid methods. One is all I need.
I ask this of both Taitz and Cook right now:
* Have you filed a federal criminal complaint naming OBAMA in commission of the crime of TREASON?
* If not, why not?
In closing I ask this of you J.B., and every other public addressee on this email:
* Have you filed a federal criminal complaint naming OBAMA in commission of the crime of TREASON?
* If not, why not?"
HERE ENDTH ANOTHER LESSON?"
He’s probably correct, in that the CO will be granted. Why? Barry can not afford to have it go to trial (i.e. discovery).
” Hey I wish the Major luck.
I think it’s a horrible precedent that a person can be elected POTUS without satisfying some diminimus objective standard for proving natural born citizenship, and I think it’s equally bad precedent that nobody in the whole damn country has standing to challenge it. “...................
If you are willing, you can do more than just wish the Major luck. Orly has recommended that we all become a Grand Jury supporting Lt. Commander Fitzpatrick, etc.!!!
Also, Robert Gates and the Colonels are NOT the President!!!
Are you just willing to roll over and sit idle do nothing???
You see we still have a Constitution, and "with certain ineligible rights, etc.(???)" which apart from the birth certificate refers to a Natural Born citizens born by two American parents, notice the plural. Also, please see post #154!!!
They did that with John McCain’s eligibility, even the usurper was on the book to approve that!!!
Bookmarked.
BTTT
And that is addressed in the TRO request. What are your comments on how it's addressed?
".....I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and ..."
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.