Department of Defense Orders Soldier Fired for Challenging Prez

wnd.com ^ | July 15, 2009 3:08 pm Eastern | Chelsea Schilling

[kellynla]

The Department of Defense has compelled a private employer to fire a U.S. Army Reserve major from his civilian job after he had his military deployment orders revoked for arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office.

According to the CEO of Simtech Inc., a private company contracted by the Defense Security Services, an agency of the Department of Defense, the federal agency has compelled the termination of Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook.

Cook's attorney, Orly Taitz, wrote in her blog that Simtech CEO Larry Grice said he would try to find another position within the company for Cook, but nothing is currently available.

The Department of Defense does contracting in the general field of information technology/systems integration, at which Cook, a senior systems engineer and architect, was employed until taking a military leave of absence on July 10 in preparation for his deployment to Afghanistan.

"Grice told Plaintiff, in essence, that the situation had become 'nutty and crazy,' and that plaintiff would no longer be able to work at his old position," Taitz wrote.

Grice made clear that it was Defense Security Services that had compelled Simtech to fire Cook.

According to the report, Grice told Cook "there was some gossip that 'people were disappointed in' the plaintiff because they thought he was manipulating his deployment orders to create a platform for political purposes."

The Simtech CEO then discussed Cook's expectation of final paychecks, without any severance pay, and wished the soldier well.

[Interesting Times]

Last I heard, Steve was working with a whistleblower organization led by former FBI agent Gary Aldrich.

[Grampa Dave]

“Last I heard, Steve was working with a whistleblower organization led by former FBI agent Gary Aldrich.

Wonder if they might be interested in Roaddog727’s situation?

Can you contact them?

[Interesting Times]

No, but they're easy enough to find:

Patrick Henry Center

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for the info re Gary Aldrich and the Patrick Henry Center:

The Patrick Henry Center is located in scenic Farifax, VA, just minutes from our nation’s capital. Feel free to contact us by mail, phone, fax, or e-mail at the following:

The Patrick Henry Center
10611 Balls Ford Road, Suite 120

Manassas, VA 20109

Phone: (703) 257-0140 Fax: (703) 257-0142

For general questions and those regarding the website, please contact the site administrator at: SamanthaPHC@aol.com

[Grampa Dave]

fyi

[wireplay]

But for anyone in Washington to muscle Simtech to fire the Major is a clear abuse of governmental power.

I disagree. We have come up with all of these bizarre rules for how the govt should operate. let's imagine it is all private enterprise. I am Mike working for SimTech and contracting to JLE. JLE asks SimTech to send Mike (and 12 other contractors) to Alabama. Mike says 'no, i won't' and files suit against JLE. JLE would logically respond to this by dropping SimTech and, in the process, Mike. SimTech must protect its interests and should logically can Mike and protect the other 12. In the real world, SimTech did exactly what I would expect them to do.

[worst-case scenario]

But was Maj. Cook disobeying an UNLAWFUL order when he chose not to redeploy? The command itself was lawful. His argument was the that commander who gave the argument wasn’t legitimate.

Does a soldier - especially responsible for hundreds of men under his command - have the choice to determine on his own whether his commanding officer holds his position legitimately? Does he then have the right to disobey commands on that basis?

What if a Lieutenant or Sergeant further down the chain took that approach with the Maj. himself? “The commands were lawful, but I do not believe you are legitimately occupying you job, so I will not obey them.”

That is mutiny. How do you deal with it?

[worst-case scenario]

I am not in the Army. No one is going to give me an order like that, and if they did, I wouldn’t have to follow it.

But when you join the military, you take an oath. And many, many, many American soldiers have followed orders and shot civilians who had not proved to be a threat, but presented the possibility of a threat. Fallujah and other actions in Iraq provide examples.

Or is the issue here the inherent unlawfulness of shooting a “fellow American,” as opposed to just a citizen civilian?

[HotLead61]

Cook didn’t disobey an order. The order was rescinded before its effective date had been reached.

And another thing. What’s at issue here is not just the legitimacy of “some superior officer” in the chain of command, but the legitimacy of the COMMANDER IN CHIEF! The potential for disaster is INFINITELY higher in this case, as it would be if we were talking about even a General or Admiral.

[S.O.L.]

Why isn’t his firing on Drudge? Anyone know?

Any further info on way his orders were pulled?

[worst-case scenario]

There were soldiers who firmly believed in 2001 that Bush had not been legitimately elected. They believed that Bush had stolen it.

Should they, also, have been able to disregard orders because Bush was “COMMANDER IN CHIEF!” and “the potential for disaster [was] INFINITELY higher”? What happened to the soldiers who refused to participate in the Iraq invasion, or go back for additional deployments? There traditionally has been no sympathy here for officers who refuse their deployments. You can easily search FR and find numerous threads where the firm group conviction was “court-martial him and make him pound rocks.”

What makes this case different from those?

[HotLead61]

Information has been hard to come by in the “State-Run Media” (SRM). Drudge briefly had something on his site about the case yesterday, I believe. I haven’t checked to verify that, though.

World Net Daily has been in the forefront, along with some other Conservative news sites.

As you may know, the SRM prefers to keep any information potentially damaging to Hussein...out of the public eye, so to speak. Anyone who reports on what’s really going on is often labeled as part of the “Right-Wing Fringe”.

[HotLead61]

Totally different scenario there. But first of all, Cook didn't disregard anything. The order was rescinded prior to its taking effect.

As far as your point about Bush, no one doubted his ELIGIBILTY to hold the Office, as is the issue with Hussein. The Democrats, Gore, etc., received the full "Due Process" to which they were entitled, up to & including a ruling by the USSC.

Cook is NOT claiming that Hussein stole the election (though there are some who do suspect that to be the case), but he is questioning his conformity to the Constitutional qualifications clearly laid out in that Sacred Document [which, as has been repeated here fairly often, that Major Cook has sworn to defend]. Kudos to him for trying to defend the Constitution, instead of just "going along to get along" (which history has repeatedly shown to be an essential ingredient for tyranny).

[Theodore R.]

This is exactly what the American people like — sticking it to those who dare talk truth to power.

[Theodore R.]

He and his supporters don’t like being second guessed, for they are “all-knowing”.

[Munz]

Just found this
http://tiny.pl/hh7mg

Soldier’s suit against Obama presidency dismissed:

A federal judge this morning dismissed a suit filed by a U.S. Army reservist who objected to deployment in Afghanistan because he said he believes Barack Obama was never legally eligible to be the president.

U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook filed a request with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia on July 8 seeking a temporary restraining order and status as a conscientious objector.

Cook believes that Obama was ineligible to become president and commander-in-chief because he is not a natural-born U.S. citizen, the paper reported.

Cook’s orders to report to MacDill Air Force Base in Florida for mobilization Wednesday were revoked, public affairs officer Lt. Col. Maria Quon told the Ledger-Enquirer. She said she could not say why the deportment orders were revoked.

Judge Clay Land sided with the defense, led by Maj. Rebecca Ausprung, who said that because Cook’s deployment orders were revoked, his suit is “moot,” the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer reported.

[rudman]

JG - again, a compellingly worded letter. I can’t say why or why not the administration doesn’t produce a birth certificate, and in fact won’t even go there.

I understand that this is good legal strategy for Dr. Taitz - recruiting active duty for the lawsuits - but to me, good legal strategy takes a back seat to the points I raised in the earlier post.

I understand your points - I just can’t share your final viewpoint on the matter.