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/
Ping. Other list got yanked for not being ‘breaking news.’
Cook v Good et al
I will post the pleadings, but the case filed on behalf of Major Cook, states that he is being deployed to Afghanistan and he is seeking a TRO (it is like a stay) of his deployment until Obamas legitimacy (eligibility ) for presidency is ascertained. The judge is Federal District Judge for the middle district of GA -Clay D. Land.
If you want to write to the judge it is as follows:
Federal District Judge Clay D. Land
Middle District of Georgia
Columbus Division
PO Box 124
Columbus GA 31902
Defendants in this case are the supervising officers Col Wanda Good (hence the name of the case Cook v Good), Col Macdonald, in their capacity as commanding officers, Dr. Gates in his capacity of the Secretary of Defence and Barack Hussein Obama-de facto president of the United states.
Officer Cook is not only a highly decorated officer, being on staff of the Southern Command, he is also a family man, a father of a 16 y.o. and a highly educated professonal with the degrees in Economics, Business and Management.
His grave concern is about soldiers under his command, all US officers and enlisted and about our children- what future will they have, when the person sitting in the White House as the commander in chief, is consealing all his vital records, spends over a million dollars to seal an otiginal birth certificate, that costs $12 to produce, who has multiple social security numbers in National databases and statements of experts, showing multiple signs of forgery in his Certification of live birth and selective service sertificate.
Orly
PS computer screen on my laptop cracked on the flight from MO, cant see half of what I am writing, so my apology for any mistakes.
What we need is for a few hundred conservative patriot military to do likewise. Might accidentally get someones attention in the MSM and a few other places.
Every one of these is a little crack in Oislamistbama’s armor.
Why “get over” a law breaker.....................
Thank God Dr. Taitz has the balls to pursue this eligibility issue. I am behind her 100%. She is doing more then what OUR countryman and women have done!
Nope, I have rights and he doesn't have legal authority to take my rights away.
He is not a "dick" as you have stated but a patriot. And neither he, nor I, will "get over it". It is such a simple thing to prove Obama's citizenship, why I ask doesn't he do it and end the mystery?
I'll answer myself. He won't because he can't.
What’s the matter with you?
If its found that this usurper is in fact NOT ELIGIBLE to be prez, you want the nation to just ignore the constitution and say “Oh Well?”
NOT!
I took an oath to uphold that constitution. It is the LAW of this land, and if some scumbag violates that law, then let them take the consequences.
We are a nation of laws. If you start looking the other way when they are broken, or start making excuses for breaking them, then we are nothing but a banana republic.
This is really big. And it must be pursued.
Ya think they don’t all know about it?
Their position is clear - It Doesn’t Matter If He Is Not Natural Born. They want him as POTUS even though it trashes the constitution.
You fold up pretty damn easy.
It OUR constitution and I WILL NOT GET OVER IT, regardless of the wimp-out advice of surrender monkeys.
Yah, let’s spend out time refighting battles already lost. /sarc
You fold up pretty damn easy. It OUR constitution and I WILL NOT GET OVER IT, regardless of the wimp-out advice of surrender monkeys.
The battle is not lost just because you wave the white flag when the going gets a little difficult.
Sure doesn't take much to stop you.
Here's a bumper sticker you may want to use.
You wish. When the usurper is kicked out of the office - even if it happens on his last day as POTUS - this whole presidency will be erased from the records. Like floor 13 in some buildings. The 45th President of the USA will follow immediately after the 43d.
Seems like the wrong venue. This is a military matter. Thus I would think a military court is the place to bring it up. OTOH, I'm not a lawyer let alone a JAG officer, so what do I know? The pleading does address the issue though.
This battle is far from “lost”.
When you just give up and give in, you are the loser.
This usurper is going to feel the heat every day he sits in that seat, and the demoKaRatz will feel the heat for letting him be there.
If you are so willing to just roll over and let them take you, you are not worthy enough to stand with the many who fought and died for this country.
At the Alamo, the whole company was wiped out, to the last man. None rolled over and said “oh well, the fight is lost, lets just surrender”. Our country was built on such heroism.
Maybe you are just a product of the new “dumbed down” publik skoolz system and don’t know that letting a corrupt, illegitimate law breaker head up our souvereign country is out right treason.
The betrayal of the trust and confidence of the people of this country is a breach of faith. It is nothing short of treachery.
I can not for the life of me understand your thinking.
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.