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/
But still if this story had any hard facts to back it up I think even Bill O’reilly would mention it.
“By this, however, I read that the old country lawyer here thinks that our Constitution is not worth more than the tissue paper in our bathrooms???”
Do you think the Constitution needs protecting by frivolous lawsuits destructive of the military command structure, rather than by elections? If you do, I’d suggest that your total lack of confidence in the institutions and processes the Founders left us must make living here very, very difficult for you....What do you plan to do about that? My bet is that you’ll waste your time hollering about foolish lawsuits rather than work to support candidates who can both share your ideas and win. God willing, however, no candidate who shares your disdain for our institutions, including the military, will ever win anything. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEnaAZrYqQI
Do you need more proof???
Yes I do think our Constitution needs protection from frivolous lawsuits, which those are NOT, and the Constitution is not a document to play judicial mumbo jumbo words with !
However, our Founders made crystal clear the THEY did NOT wanted a foreigner to be our president, which is now occupying our White House as our “tenant”!!
They also mad sure to put in a grandfather clause for our protection of the Constitution that you refrained yourself to uphold to the price of our brave military’s rights and security. That same clause require us to remove this illegal alien and usurper playing PINO in OUR White House immediately, not until 2012 if you have the cajones to do that. The affirmative action’s protege, by fraud, used the race card very effectively to silence anybody who would questioning his eligibility, including DNC, RNC, USSC, SRM, the Clintons, and apparently you too!!!
If that’s how the Greeks did you better go back to your forefathers???
No way him either, unfortunately, just look how our USSC is mum!!!
The Hondurans had the cajones to protect their Constitutions, don't you think???
Your "pacifistic" opinion about our Constitution is flawed!!!
“That same clause require us to remove this illegal alien and usurper playing PINO in OUR White House immediately, not until 2012 if you have the cajones to do that.”
Well, if you won’t wait for an election, the courts won’t help you and the chances of impeachment are exactly zero, what, pray tell, do you intend to do about what you believe has happened? I myself am content to deal with the Obama presidency at the ballot box. I believe in our institutions, d.
Now, d, you’ve made a lot of noise with your uninformed notions of what Art. II requires but its still just noise. Again, what do YOU intend to do about this perceived travesty? :)
“If that’s how the Greeks did you better go back to your forefathers???”
In your United States, who gets to live here, d?
What institutions are you referring to???
I took an oath to swear to uphold and protect our Constitution, did you ever???
“The Hondurans had the cajones to protect their Constitutions, don’t you think???”
Surely you, a poster here on FR, aren’t advocating a military coup are you, d? Are you discussing this with others?
Yes, you are right, I do make a lot of noise on this matter (informed!!!) So according to you, the Congressman from Ohio Bingham's interpretation of that article is also only just noise, huh???
- W O W !
Military coup to uphold their Constitution, again W O W !!
Than can only come from the mouth of an old country lawyer!!!
“What institutions are you referring to???”
Oh please! This from a fellow who apparently gets his guidance from the members of a military junta in Central America!
“I took an oath to swear to uphold and protect our Constitution, did you ever???”
Indeed I did, several times.
“So according to you, the Congressman from Ohio Bingham’s interpretation of that article is also only just noise, huh???”
Yup. Sadly, there is no IQ test given to people running for Congress.
Is yours 96???
I doesn't seems to me that you "practice" it
Sorry got to run, there is some work to be done, bye-bye——!
I cannot support you on this one. I understand your decision and support your right to challenge it. I just think it is a waste of time. Additionally, let’s say he does step down. Who’s next in line?
I knows the constituinality is an issue. This issue has already been addressed. All I see coming from this is your stagnated advancement in the military.
What I am saying is, “This would not be the moral hill I would choose to die on.”
How about the hard fact that his birth hospital is unverified and thus unknown as is the delivering Dr. and/or other birth witnesses as well as birth metrics (height/weight etc)? May seem trivial on the surface, but it points to the fact that clearly he has something to hide on his original long form. Otherwise, he wouldn't fight the dozens of court battles to revile that 'trivial' info.
How about the hard fact that outfits like snopes (that some in Congress reference as being credible on this issue) stated Barry's place of birth was Queens hosp, yet Barry (allegedly) sends a letter to Kapi'olani saying he's proud to have been born there. Then...snopes just this last week changes their story to reflect Kapi'olani all the while Kapi'olani takes down the letter on their web site from Barry. There's plenty of inconsistencies in the story there, to report on.
How about the hard fact that Barry admits to having been born with foreign citizenship?
Wouldn't that be a great journalistic journey...to attempt to determine what the intent of the framers was re: the very specific "Natural Born Citizen" requirement for only 1 government position, namely Commander in Chief? Do you believe the framers intended for our Commander in Chief to be eligible if they were born with foreign citizenship...no matter what their place of birth was?
How about O'Reilly doing a little history inquiry to find out if there was a competing definition for NBC, to that of Vattel's? Especially, from a source the founders knew so well (even referenced during the Constitutional convention itself).
There's plenty for "them" to look into and report on. They won't though cause the puppet masters won't let them. Why should someone more concerned with their muti-million dollar contract, press pass into cocktail parties abound, etc...risk all that for our Constitution? /s
That remains to be seen, and would presumably be determined by Congress, supported by the SCOTUS. Yes, this situation is unprecedented in our country's history.
"This issue has already been addressed."
How so?
"Honduras's Supreme Court gave the order for the military to detain the president, according to a former Supreme Court official who is in touch with the court.
Later, Honduras's Congress formally removed Mr. Zelaya from the presidency and named congressional leader Roberto Micheletti as his successor until the end of Mr. Zelaya's term in January. Mr. Micheletti and others said they were the defenders, not opponents, of democratic rule." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124619401378065339.html
"Today's events originate from a court order by a competent judge. The armed forces, in charge of supporting the constitution, acted to defend the state of law and have been forced to apply legal dispositions against those who have expressed themselves publicly and acted against the dispositions of the basic law," the country's highest court said."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/honduras/5677026/Honduras-supreme-court-ordered-army-coup.html
Technically, can that even be called a coup d'etat?
From the dictionary: " the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coup%20d%27%C3%A9tat
It would appear, from the reports, that the Honduran high court determined that Zelaya was an un Constitutional President and thus ordered their military to remove him. Their Congress then followed by "formally" removing him. In other words, two branches of their government ordered and backed the military action of enforcing the ruling. Not sure that that scenario qualifies as a 'military coup.'
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.