Shannon Szwarc sszwarc@ledger-enquirer.com Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook speaks to the press along side his attorney, Orly Taitz, after his case was dismissed by a federal court judge in
Posted on 07/16/2009 9:59:09 AM PDT by Fizziks
I don't think that would be wise. The Army dispatched this case in the manner they did because the plaintiff was a non-ob officer who, while serving in the IRR, volunteered to be augmented to active duty to support an active-duty unit that was scheduled for deployment. Essentially, he volunteered for active duty so that he could file this TRO application - at least that's the way the Army viewed.
If another soldier, an active-duty enlisted man or an obligated officer, were to file a similar lawsuit, the Army would have no choice but to litigate it. It would get ugly and I really wouldn't foresee a favorable outcome for the plaintiff.
“Instead, there was an empty,needless lawsuit, filed by parties who have shown a strong inclination to pull down the US government.”
I do not believe that anyone is interested in pulling down the US government; pulling down Obama, yes, but he is not the government. Based on your statement, if you equate Obama=US government, then I have got to question as to what your intent is here in this forum. You are new here to this site and you sound like a plant from moveon.org or DU. Where is the viking kitty when you need it.
What has happened to those cases?
This is very interesting. Where do you get your info?
The case with Major Cook is far from over. Only this particular filing was dismissed. Similar cases, after a period of time, have ruled with the plaintiff (i.e. Major Cook).
Then what would normally happen is the officer or enlisted service member would face the consquences of the UCMJ, perhaps a court martial for failure to obey a lawful order or deriliction of duty. The military never responds to a refusal to deploy by rescinding the orders, then saying "carry on."
Ever been in the military? The rescinding of Maj. Cook's orders is highly unusual. In fact, I'd venture to guess that it's unprecedented - which tells that something else has to be going on.
Also, those who rescinded the order in a case like this, - involving the CoC (sic) himself - didn't simply act on their own accord without being pushed or at least having the most careful consultation at the very highest level. Army brass exists in perpetual CYA mode, so rescinding the orders in a case like this either came from the very top or at least had the appropriate "blessings."
Shannon Szwarc sszwarc@ledger-enquirer.com Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook speaks to the press along side his attorney, Orly Taitz, after his case was dismissed by a federal court judge in
Sooner or later all the truth will be known. These questions WILL be answered, and this issue will NOT GO AWAY until the truth is known!
Mac, you need to look around a bit.
FYI, I’m hardly new here-unless 9 years is considered “new”.
There was another little “side effect” of Orly’s “glorious victory” : Because of the last-minute removal of Major Cook-a volunteer- his billet will probably have to be filled by compelling some non-volunteer to take his place.
Want to pull down Obama ? Find a good strong candidate to run against him in 2012.
There are elements of a "show trial" present here. That's for sure.
But, technically speaking, Maj. Cook was not seeking recession of that order. He was seeking to confirm its validity.
Whether or not the whole deal with his volunteering for call-up was a set-up is really quite beside the point.
Lawyer Taitz, who is getting lots of OJT, has a good solid base hit here. Her goal is to get a court ... any court ... to be in a position to ask Obama for his documentation. Her motives? Perhaps not as pure as you (or I) might like. But remember your Dickens
But it is our law. And i f Obama was not constitutionally eligible to run for President, I certainly would like to know. Wouldn't you?
Exactly! This guy is not the shirker some are making him out to be. This whole series of events just further soldifies the fact that Obama is hiding something because the military is not in the habit of handling things this way.
What about the capable of repetition yet evading review standard the Court used to take up Roe v. Wade and get around the “moot”/”ripe” issue? I would think it would apply here as well.
If the relief he sought was simply to get out of going to Afghanistan, this was a majorly self-destructive way to do it. He may have gotten out of the Afghanistan rotation, but BHO is still his Commander-in-chief, unless they also booted him out of the Reserves. The original point was, “Is BHO a legitimate Commander-in-chief,” and this soldier was using his standing, as being under that chain-of-command, to ask the question. How could the Court now declare the case moot?
This could be THE reason the Army rescinded the deployment order. OTOH, put yourself in the place of the Army -- you don't know for sure IF the CinC is constitutionally eligible to serve. Canceling the Major's order is a way to 'punt' on the issue, hoping some other institution walks point on the issue of Obama.
Pardon me; but didn’t the Obama guys just set this military man up?
Of course - even though singling out 1 president in 44 might look a bit fishy !
Technically, you are right - even though he resorted to unneccessary litigation.
From what I’ve seen (so far)the Army did Orly a favor by mooting the case.Had it proceeded on its merits, she would have been lucky to escape disbarment proceedings.
For example?
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.