Posted on 07/13/2009 2:24:35 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook filed a request last week in federal court seeking a temporary restraining order and status as a conscientious objector with the intent to stall and eventually prevent an upcoming deployment to Afghanistan.
In the 20-page document — filed July 8 with the United States District Court, Middle District of Georgia — Cook’s California-based attorney, Orly Taitz, asks the court to consider granting his client’s request based upon Cook’s belief that President Barrack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of U.S Armed Forces.
Cook further states he “would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this President’s command, and that Plaintiff would thus be simultaneously unable to perform his duties in good Rule 65(b) Application for Temporary Restraining Order 22 conscience and yet be simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties.”
Cook received the orders mobilizing him to active duty on June 9, 2009. According to this document, which accompanies Cook’s July 8 application for a temporary restraining order, he has been ordered to report to MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla. on July 15. From there, the Florida resident will to go to Fort Benning, Ga. before deploying overseas.
A hearing to discuss Cook’s request for an injunction or temporary restraining order will take place in federal court Thursday at 9:30 a.m.
I’m hoping other senior officers and attorneys will join the effort to require Obama to prove that he qualifies as a natural born citizen per Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Joe 6-pack wrote- “He’s correct in that he’s seeking clarification of the legality of a questionable order. A big stumbling block he will face is that his efforts to do so will raise the question as to why other officers senior to him have not questioned the same order.”
It's a her. And if her legal advice is suspect it could be because she got her law degree online at William Howard Taft University.
Career JAG. I don't think so.
Most US military personnel have an eye out for this guy. They could care less where he was born...and worry more about his intentions with the United States.
If you like to scuba dive, we are bribing the Government of Belize. I’m pretty sure I can get you in. All on taxpayer dollars. What a country.
Oh brother. You learn something new everyday. I didn't realize any state bar associations recognized on-line law degrees.
Foolish is the word. But perhaps he's in on the setup for this, as that's all it is. Orly Taitz is an activist that has been cluttering various courts with Obama birth cert issues for months. It's his pet project.
This case, just like the birth cert issue, and now this Major's career... is going nowhere.
So if its the “president’s pleasure” that a soldier kill American citizens, the soldier should obey and do his duty?
Note that he said “Although a subordinate can challenge the legality of an order...”
Although my guess is you don’t really care about the law here, you just want to argue.
Yes of course! The Messiah will spread our wealth around, bill taxpayers, reward those on welfare for being on welfare in the first place, and pay for my Hotel Hilton Penthouse Suite in Belize!
You wrote- “If you like to scuba dive, we are bribing the Government of Belize. I’m pretty sure I can get you in. All on taxpayer dollars. What a country.”
All commissioned officers, LDOs and warrant officers in the US armed forces, serve at the pleasure of the President. Exactly like civilians who serve in specific billets inside the executive branch of government.
All uniformed personnel can, and in fact have a sworn obligation, to question unlawful orders. What you've describe, would clearly be an unlawful order. Reporting for duty, deploying to a duty station and the like are not unlawful orders.
Uniformed service personal, however, are forbidden under the UCMJ to question command authority, there's a special word for it call "insubordination", and there a specific Article contained inside the UCMJ that addresses insubordination. What this officer is doing is clearly insubordination, as well as about 10 other violations of specific articles in the UCMJ, and that's just off the top of my head.
This is a mistake for this young officer. A career killer at least, and perhaps even something that will land him in the brig (or stockade more appropriately for him).
Orly Taitz is a her and she has my support. She WILL get somewhere with these cases! Obama must be a natural born citizen to serve as President. Lack of legitimate proof WILL catch up to him.
It’s a decent strategy, actually.
All BHO has to do is provide a valid COLB, and the Major gets on his plane. Guy’s got a point - if he isn’t President, and he executes orders under his authority without questioning them, then he’s essentially guilty under the same logic that our troops were guilty at Mi Lai. Officers can follow lawful orders. If there’s a question as to whether they are lawful, they don’t have the luxury of shooting first and asking the question later.
Has a pretty good chance of working.
So is that a yes or a no to my question?
It isn’t complicated.
Is English not your first language?
This was my concern prior to the election. Would soldiers be open to prosecution for obeying unlawful orders if the president were to be ineligible.
The troops need better counsel than Orly but until he provides his BC he is an usurper. Our soldiers are sworn to uphold the Constitution.
That isn’t an answer so I’m going to assume you can’t answer.
I believe California is the only one which allows graduates of online schools to sit for the bar.
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.