Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Department of Defense Orders Soldier Fired for Challenging Prez
wnd.com ^ | July 15, 2009 3:08 pm Eastern | Chelsea Schilling

Posted on 07/15/2009 12:31:54 PM PDT by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: agenda; alteredtitle; bhodod; birthcertificate; certifigate; chicagoway; corruption; democrats; dod; fired; imposter; obama; orlytaitz; simtech; simtechinc; stefancook; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 241-257 next last
To: kellynla

This is surely a Security Clearance issue.


81 posted on 07/15/2009 1:20:08 PM PDT by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
Maybe you should do research about this subject before opening your mouth and proving to people that you're a fool. This man is a true patriot that's willing to stand behind the oath he took when he joined the military to protect us from all enemies - foreign and DOMESTIC!
82 posted on 07/15/2009 1:20:11 PM PDT by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org | Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wireplay

There are laws protecting whistleblowers from government retalliation. All this might irk the judge into moving forward against Obama. He’s a marine in a previous lifetime.

It would help if there were politicians who demanded the protection of whistleblowers as well. We have none of those these days.


83 posted on 07/15/2009 1:21:00 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

I was once scolded by the “We’re above that” group for referring to NOBAMA as der FUHRER.

It now appears I was Correct and will go back to doing so.

HEIL FUHRER OBAMA!


84 posted on 07/15/2009 1:21:00 PM PDT by gwilhelm56 (Orwell's 1984 - To Conservatives, a WARNING - to Liberals, a TEXTBOOK!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: MilspecRob

So do I. I think he should have resigned his commision first.


85 posted on 07/15/2009 1:21:38 PM PDT by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: kellynla; roaddog727

overhere!


86 posted on 07/15/2009 1:21:46 PM PDT by Rightly Biased (We are all equal here but some of us are more equal than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
You must not be a contractor. The DoD can do just about anything it wants, and contractors will obey. It’s all about the $$$

What you say may be painfully true - but I don't think it is legal.
87 posted on 07/15/2009 1:21:55 PM PDT by phelix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: pissant; Polarik; LucyT; STARWISE; null and void; ASA Vet; BIGLOOK; Ernest_at_the_Beach; ...

This will get very messy before our side wins.


88 posted on 07/15/2009 1:22:35 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (Does Zer0 have any friends, who are not criminals, foreign/domestic terrorists, or tax cheats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I am Richard Brandon

I guess we all know what happens after legal recourse?


89 posted on 07/15/2009 2:14:57 PM PDT by wolfcreek (KMTEXASA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: leapfrog0202
If the Major meets all the requirements no one should be allowed

"should" is the operative word.

We are now officially in a tyranny.

90 posted on 07/15/2009 2:22:34 PM PDT by paulycy (Liberal DOUBLE-STANDARDS are HATE crimes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

I wrote earlier today that those who thought it was a victory when his orders to deploy were revoked are extremely naive.

The Department of Defense can not and should not tolerate this type of behavior. Regardless of who the POTUS is, it is astonishing and disturbing here that people here are tolerating mutiny of our military.

WE ARE FIGHTING A WAR AGAINST TERRORISTS IN AFGHANISTAN, REMEMBER FOLKS?


91 posted on 07/15/2009 2:28:12 PM PDT by rubeng
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rubeng
"WE ARE FIGHTING A WAR AGAINST TERRORISTS IN AFGHANISTAN, REMEMBER FOLKS?"

Which is precisely why we should be focusing on the snake in our foxhole before we try to service the 300 meter target.

92 posted on 07/15/2009 2:30:37 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: rubeng

He stepped up to ask a simple question - were is the mutiny part?


93 posted on 07/15/2009 2:33:48 PM PDT by unique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Sick sick bastards.


94 posted on 07/15/2009 2:38:35 PM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (-0 retreats, Iraq explodes! NK fires missiles! Iran erupts! China erupts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rubeng

Did you ever serve in the military? It is a part of our DUTY to this country and to the constitution to REFUSE illegal and unlawful orders. If President Obama orders you to kill unarmed civilians, are you supposed to follows blindly?

If he is illegally filling the White House, by usurping the Constitution, then his orders were ILLEGAL and it is his duty to refuse those orders.


95 posted on 07/15/2009 2:39:39 PM PDT by ExTxMarine (For whatsoe'ver their sufferings were before; that change they covet makes them suffer more. -Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I believe the company is complaining that the major is getting them mixed up in his political windmill-tilting. And who here want's to bet that the next step won't be a letter from the Secretary of the Army telling him his services as an officer in the Army Reserve are no longer needed?

With regard to "windmill tilting," let's the consider the timeline:

Feb. 1 - Cook voluntarily  joined Taitz’ Class Action Suit (per a posting of his letter to Taitz on FR)

May 8 -  Cook volunteers for deployment

June 9 -  Cook gets order to deploy to Afghanistan on July 15

July 10 - Taitz files a TRO for Cook

July 14 - Cook's  orders (which he could have cancelled himself at any time up to July 15) are cancelled by U.S. Army Human Resources Command.

Why did Cook volunteer for deployment, after signing on to Taitz' class action suit?

96 posted on 07/15/2009 2:42:46 PM PDT by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

Yes. You are correct. I worked for a large information systems DoD contractor after I retired. I was somewhat amazed at the leverage the government. In some contracts, they actually approved who was on a project.

I believe that in this Major’s case, he burned that bridge, and now “miraculously” there is no other position for him with the contractor.

This doesn’t surprise me. Happens often in the DoD contracting world.


97 posted on 07/15/2009 2:42:48 PM PDT by Babalu ("Tracer rounds work both ways ...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

What goes around, comes around. Maybe obama will be fired when it’s proven that he’s not eligible to serve as president.


98 posted on 07/15/2009 2:44:25 PM PDT by jersey117
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rubeng

They don’t. They didn’t when Clinton did it either.


99 posted on 07/15/2009 2:45:34 PM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (-0 retreats, Iraq explodes! NK fires missiles! Iran erupts! China erupts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: John O

Not true. I worked on several DoD contracts where the “people list” had to be approved by the government project officer for that contract.


100 posted on 07/15/2009 2:45:45 PM PDT by Babalu ("Tracer rounds work both ways ...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 241-257 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson