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/
Correct! She's knee deep in this herself:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Certified Obama’s Nomination
"via Virgil, Count Us Out Reader I have a PDF sent from Virginia SOS that is signed by Nancy Pelosi that specifically states she certified OBAMA’s qualifications. This is important because if OBAMA is not qualified by pending lawsuits, she can be held responsible for fraud , high crimes and misdemeanors, and misrepresentation." http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1237
And really, what are WE here at FR risking???
I feel this is the key to unravel the affirmative action's PINO and expose him as an illegal alien and the usurper in the White House. GO Orly and Cooper, GO!!!
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Certified Obama’s Nomination
“via Virgil, Count Us Out Reader I have a PDF sent from Virginia SOS that is signed by Nancy Pelosi that specifically states she certified OBAMA’s qualifications.
This is important because if OBAMA is not qualified by pending lawsuits, she can be held responsible for fraud , high crimes and misdemeanors, and misrepresentation.”
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1237
~~ Trying to keep up Ping ~~
(Thanks, danamco.)
No, most news outlet including Conservative hosts have been muzzled from higher ups!!!
Pelosi, acting on behalf of the DNC, certified that Obama and Biden were duly elected by the DNC as their official candidates for the national Presidential election, and that the DNC are now officialy committed to campaign for them.
HOWEVER, there is absolutely NOTHING in this that attests to any Constitutional qualifications to BE President.
Why in the world are we grasping at old straws?
Pelosi, acting on behalf of the DNC, certified that Obama and Biden were duly elected by the DNC as their official candidates for the national Presidential election, and that the DNC are now officialy committed to campaign for them.
HOWEVER, there is absolutely NOTHING in this that attests to any Constitutional qualifications to BE President.
Why in the world are we grasping at old straws?
Does that mean Bo, Bideb, Nanzi would all have to step down? Who’s next in line Bird.....Hillary....
Read from Orly's Application for Restraining Order. the oath is stated bottom of page 1:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17266905/05311066823
ping for later
You think maybe Orly messed up the pleading? Hers has
the enlisted version instead of the Officers version !?
How can you sue for something before his nomination, huh???
“…the oath is stated bottom of page 1:”
It would be more accurate to say “an” oath is stated.
Orly was careful to use the phrase “original induction”. And that may be because at one time Cook was an enlisted member.
Many (probationary) officer candidates take, or already have taken, the enlisted oath. If they are not successful with the curriculum they serve a stipulated period of time as enlisted. However, if successful, they are re-sworn with the oath appropriate for officers upon commissioning.
Without reading the entire Application and trying to understand her legal theory, it may be she thinks there is value in using the enlisted oath and emphasizing an obligation to the President. In the alternative, she may have screwed up.
(By the way, we are not arguing about this, just trying to get the facts sorted out.)
How can you sue for something before his nomination, huh???”
Easy; sue to keep his name off the ballot in primaries or to keep him from electing delegates committed to him in caucus states on the grounds that he isn't qualified for election...if you think you can prove it. Suits along those lines are not uncommon on the local and state level. The courts might well have looked at a suit or suits like that, but of course back then no one was a sore loser with no confidence in our institutions, now were they? It has been my experience over the past 33 years that the courts aren't impressed with whining losers of any political persuasion and even less so with their lawyers.
“You think maybe Orly messed up the pleading?”
It seems possible. As they say in the south, “bless her heart”, she is a warrior but she may have too much on her plate.
She has a huge portion of the public hoping/praying for her success; more importantly, she has Major Cook’s future and that of his family, in her hands. It is time for her to fight smart.
Precedent.
Are YOU a Bozo too???
It would very much be appreciated!!!
You establish your creds with that question.
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.