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/
“It is very, very difficult to prove a negative”
People say that, but it’s done all the time. For instance, when defendants give alibis. “I didn’t kill him. I was watching a movie at the time. Here’s my ticket stub.”
There are two ways to prove the negative in Obama’s case. One, if you demonstrate his having been born elswhere. Two, if he is unable to comply when he’s compelled to provide evidence of his having been born here.
Can you please direct me to the text of the lawsuit?
Wow. Thanks for finding that.
This is interesting, thanks for the link.
It is a better action than CDR Fitzpatrick’s case in that this officer is active duty outbound under orders to a warzone (do we still have those?).
It is also an extremely dangerous action by the officer.
He is saying by what authority am I going?
The response ultimately will be “By the President’s authority”.
He will then likely argue it is not possible for Obama to be the President.
The response will be, “Wrong, the Congress said he was the President.”
The issue will be to what extent can he challenge that action by the Congress?
“Wise” people tell me its a done deal, that there is no Constitutional means of challenging the President in this regard.
I disagree and ask: If the Electoral College votes for Mickey Mouse and the Congress certifies that vote, is the nation bound by that action?
In the alternative, if the burglar makes a clean get away does he no longer have any criminal liability?
Or, if one achieves an office through a fraud that is later discovered does he nonetheless retain the office?
Bingo your #37!
Stefan is definitely a good man...godspeed!
Therein lies the issue, IMO, as to why nobody in a position of power to address this Constitutional crisis will do so. (fear).
Bump
Interesting how you creeps ooze out of thew woodwork when Dr. Taitz issues another suit challenge. Coward that your messiah is, he will never allow any case to get to discovery phase if his federal oligarchs can prevent it. And if one ever does, he will resign forthwith because he is a criminal fraud and proven liar/perjurer.
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 this lawsuit can force The One to prove his place of birth, than we all win. If it establishes standing to challenge our leaders' in court, we all win.
Good luck!
If this is true B.Husain should be removed from office however isn't there some provision that a sitting president cannot be sued until after they leave office? I'm no lawyer so I'm asking this as a serious question. If that is the case than it sets up a catch-22. There can't be a discovery phase until after B. Hussain is out of office. Could someone with a background in constitutional law enlighten me.
B U M P
bfl
Leni
If I had sons, I'd discourage them from joining the military, much as I was proud to be in under Reagan. It's just not safe anymore. I predict this guy and his cast of amateurs will get us into a major conflict before he leaves and once the troops are committed he'll pull the plug on them (think Vietnam).
Everytime I see the half muslim pretender I weep for our country.
Hopefully, Orly Taitz will be able to mention that from within Obama’s own family, he has been born at 3 different hospitals.
“...a person can be elected POTUS without satisfying some diminimus objective standard for proving natural born citizenship...”
You may be aware that our Congress on January 8, 2009 absolutely could have demanded that O provide proof of his eligibility, in which event he was obligated to provide verifiable proof if he wanted to sit as President.
The Congress with full notice of the controversy sat on its hands, failed to request the proof, and he sits.
(see my About Page for details.)
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.