Posted on 07/15/2009 5:09:42 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
A controversial suit brought by a U.S. Army reservist has been joined by a retired Army two-star general and an active reserve Air Force lieutenant colonel.
Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook filed the suit July 8 in federal court here asking for conscientious objector status and a preliminary injunction based upon his belief that Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
But before the issue got to court, Cook’s orders to deploy to Afghanistan were revoked. Lt. Col. Maria Quon, U.S. Army Public Affairs Officer, U.S. Army Human Resources Command-St. Louis, said Tuesday that Cook was no longer expected to report Wednesday to MacDill Air Force Base in Florida for mobilization to active duty. Cook, who claims he is now the victim of retaliation due to his suit, received his mobilization orders to report for active duty at MacDill on July 15. From there he was to go to Fort Benning, on July 18, for deployment to Afghanistan.
Cook is an Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA). This means he’s a reserve soldier assigned to an active component unit consisting of active duty soldiers instead of a reserve unit, which is composed entirely of reserve soldiers. He is assigned to the U.S. Army Element of U.S. Southern Command.
Last week Cook filed a request in federal court seeking a temporary restraining order and status as a conscientious objector represented by California attorney Orly Taitz.
The government, in its response to the suit, claims that Cook’s suit is “moot” in that he has already been told he doesn’t have to go to Afghanistan, so the relief he is seeking has already been granted.
“The Commanding General of SOCCENT (U.S. Special Operations Central Command) has determined that he does not want the services of Major Cook, and has revoked his deployment orders,” the response states.
Taitz argues in a pleading revised following the revocation of Cook’s orders, that the application for preliminary injunction is not moot and that retired Maj. Gen. Carol Dean Childers and U.S. Air Force Active Reservist Lt. Col. David Earl Graeff have joined the suit “because it is a matter of unparalleled public interest and importance and because it is clearly a matter arising from issues of a recurring nature that will escape review unless the Court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction.”
Cook’s resubmitted Application for Preliminary Injuction is meant to encompass the possibility of Cook receiving future orders for deployment as well as to address and prevent “negative collateral consequences such as retaliation against Major Stefan Frederick Cook ...”
As to the retaliation issue, the revised suit states Cook lost his job at Simtech, Inc., a corporation that does Department of Defense contracting in the field of information technology/systems integration, because of the suit and has additionally been subjected to “gossip” from people who believed Cook was “manipulating his deployment orders to create a platform for political purposes.”
Taitz, who has also challenged the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency in other courts, filed the original suit with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
In the filing, Cook states he “would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this President’s command. ... simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties.”
A hearing to discuss Cook’s requests is scheduled to take place in federal court here this morning at 9:30 a.m.
Obama’s thinking he could spread the wealth around to help him keep his illegal presidency.
Correct! He is buying votes by starting a worldwide welfare system and over taxing people who work.
An officer does not swear to obey the orders of the President. Rather, he assumes the obligation to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (for example, a possible Presidential Usurper, if it were shown by clear-and-convincing evidence that a person took the office under false pretenses of constitutional qualifications). The Founding Fathers had the foresight to protect and secure against a situation such as that now facing the United States. The officer oath is a safeguard to protect the Constitution against a corrupt elected government. Officers have an obligation to defend the Constitution.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/
I wonder just who is paying for O’s legal fees to avoid producing his BC. Probably us.
Yes, I was reading that. Against enemies foreign or domestic? I’m trying to understand which one Obama was.
You wrote-
“From the application for injunction . . .
An officer does not swear to obey the orders of the President. Rather, he assumes the obligation to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (for example, a possible Presidential Usurper, if it were shown by clear-and-convincing evidence that a person took the office under false pretenses of constitutional qualifications). The Founding Fathers had the foresight to protect and secure against a situation such as that now facing the United States. The officer oath is a safeguard to protect the Constitution against a corrupt elected government. Officers have an obligation to defend the Constitution.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ “
If it’s his money, he’ll be out soon. The money is probably coming from campaign donations and our tax dollar.
You wrote-
“I wonder just who is paying for O’s legal fees to avoid producing his BC. Probably us.”
I think Taitz really has something going, but in my humble opinion its not the birth certificate or lack thereof.
My personal opinion is Mr NoBama is about to soil his unpresidential pants about the 39 Social Security cards issue that the PI working for Dr Taitz managed to dig up.
I cannot imagine the massive blast of negative public opinion that would descend upon him IF the allegation of his use of a SS # showing him to be 119 years of age and that originally belonged to someone else was PROVEN to be true.
He can dig up old printers and paper and forge a passable BC, I don’t think even he could escape the massive amount of paper proof that would have been generated by a Social Security numbers use over multiple years.
Orly DOES have something going here. The birth certificate is exposing so many other possible crimes including the 39 social security numbers. On top of that, hopefully, Pelosi will also be removed from office for the coverup.
There are three lines of defence that protect this country from tyranny.
The first line of defence is our governments obedience to the Constitution.
Sadly as we see a man who should not be president doing things like funding the losses of banks, and taking control over businesses like the auto industry, and the healthcare system, and quite literally figuring out how to tax the very gases we exhale,the first line of defence has been breached.
The second line of defence is our military oath to defend the constitution, the sacred oath our individual soldiers swear to when they become part of the defence of this country.
We are at a point inn time when that oath is about to be tested, as it was tested in 1861, our nation’s defenders will have to decide if the constitution has been violated or abided by as has only happened twice in this nation’s history.
The last line of defence is the American citizen himself, are we going to allow someone to hold the office of the presidency that has violated the constitution requirements for the office of the presidency.
In this heady times we have seen our government fail to obey the Constitution, we are seeing a single member of our military dare to request proof that Obama is legally eligible to be president, and we may yet set American Citizens fight against tyranny.
Such exciting times are these.......
please tell me what you are referring to about the SS cards....have not heard anything about this.
The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the “I was only following orders” defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port.
However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port.
Pursuant to the President's instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port.
The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders “act at their own peril” when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal. Or in Obama's case -- (possible) illegitimate order from a illegitimate CinC.
See more on the 1799 President John Adams case (the "Flying Fish" case) here:
Reports of cases argued and adjudged in the Supreme Court of the United States (Google Books)
hi -
I wrote you a response on the DoD orders Soldier fired thread - below comes from a related thread about other officers joining the lawsuit. The comment below refers to USSC law from the beginning of our Republic, specifically about officers following “illegal” orders.
JG
The Founding Fathers had the foresight to protect and secure against a situation such as that now facing the United States. The officer oath is a safeguard to protect the Constitution against a corrupt elected government. Officers have an obligation to defend the Constitution.
The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the “I was only following orders” defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port.
However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port.
Pursuant to the President’s instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port.
The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders “act at their own peril” when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal. Or in Obama’s case — (possible) illegitimate order from a illegitimate CinC.
See more on the 1799 President John Adams case (the “Flying Fish” case) here:
Reports of cases argued and adjudged in the Supreme Court of the United States (Google Books)
I agree. How hard is it to get that long form. Twenty bucks or so would solve the issue.
I would drag the State Department into this as he must have had a passport prior to 2009. Maybe that is Hillary’s job to cover up.
Finally this week, this case has broken open. In California, Judge Carter informs Orly that the case will go to trial. In the Georgia case, Obama revokes Major Cook’s deployment and has him fired from his civilian defense job. Obama may have performed some very, very foolish strategy.
This whole issue against Obama is really beginning to grow some legs. Add to it that Obama didn’t have the authority to revoke the Major’s deployment, had him fired, and Obama’s COLB is probably a forgery (etc., etc., etc.,), and soon he’ll be packing his bags for a move out of the White House.
You wrote-
“The Founding Fathers had the foresight to protect and secure against a situation such as that now facing the United States. The officer oath is a safeguard to protect the Constitution against a corrupt elected government. Officers have an obligation to defend the Constitution.
The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the “I was only following orders” defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port.
However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port.
Pursuant to the President’s instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port.
The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders “act at their own peril” when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal. Or in Obama’s case — (possible) illegitimate order from a illegitimate CinC.
See more on the 1799 President John Adams case (the “Flying Fish” case) here:
Reports of cases argued and adjudged in the Supreme Court of the United States (Google Books)”
The whole upper circle of Democrats are probably covering it up!
You wrote-
“Maybe that is Hillary’s job to cover up.”
Taitz misspelled General Childers’ first name in the filing. She is actually a he, and he spells it with two r’s and two l’s. That will get the injunction thrown out right off the bat
Orly Taitz is a woman!
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.