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 OFFICERS 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/
Didn’t see you in here and don’t know why ping!
He’ll be barbequed.
Requesting bambam show his BC is trying to prove a negative?
For whatever reason, fear, avarice, our leaders, ignore the fact. Listening to Sean Hannity's man-on-the-street interviews, it is no surprise that most do not try to ascertain the truth. That is the currency of our confidence man in the white house. He is counting on an ignorant citizenry. It is sad that some supposed spokesmen for liberty and respect for the constitution, and whose books sell very well because of that (is that the Rahm Emmanual principle - taking advantage of a crisis?) won't even mention the Article II Section 1 disqualification.
But one assumes Obama has fought revealing birth records for some reason, even if only to embarrass his foes when he whips one out. The fact remains that Obama cannot be an “indigine or native born citizen” without both parents citizens. (Native born is equivalent to natural born, and that too can be found in USSC decisions.)
Thanks! Didn’t nully ping everyone? I’ve pinged about a zillion times today, and was trying to give everyone a break.
Why do I think that is not forthcoming?
Well, tell Major Cook thank you for standing up for what is right and for his dedicated, courageous service for our country.
It could have been a relative using him to get SS numbers, not him.
Your take on this?
I ask this question honestly, because I haven't paid her much attention.....is she not a "Truther" (the whackos who believe 9/11 was an inside job)? There are footprints pointing in that direction.
LOL....need a bigger shovel?
No. She is not.
I am in hiding from a family member. Not a joke.
That is an example of how 0 frequently innoculates himself. When the fact that his father was never a citizen and he, therefore, is not a natural born citizen, is brought up in court later, he will say "I said that my father was never a citizen a long time ago".
0 must be listened to very closely. He doesn't waste words.
That’s it in a nutshell.
While I admire, and will support this fine Officer, he’s messed up his carerr for life.
The Powers that be want Obama, and short of God plucking him up, we are stuck with him.
God...feel like plucking?
Please?!
For the record, I served in the Gulf War, for a President I didn't like. When his son won the presidency, I almost expected some to cry that because they believed he “stole” the office from Gore, they were standing down. Since the courts ruled the results official, I backed him as my president. If only courts would back Obama...oh..wait...
bump.
Okay....don't worry, I won't tell anyone.
I’m with y’all in spirit. Prayers Incoming.
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.