Posted on 07/16/2009 9:59:09 AM PDT by Fizziks
A federal judge this morning dismissed the suit filed here by a U.S. Army reservist who says he shouldn't have to go to Afghanistan because he believes Barack Obama was never eligible to be president.
Judge Clay Land sided with the defense, which claimed in its response to Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook's suit, filed July 8 with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, that Cook’s suit is "moot" in that he already has been told he doesn’t have to go to Afghanistan, so the relief he is seeking has been granted.
"Federal court only has authority of actual cases and controversies," Land said. "The entire action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."
Thanks for posting that. Although it appears that this comes from an Obama-friendly source, it confirms what I have been thinking for several days, this Orly character is in over her head. Having said that, the judge seems to be an entirely earnest jurist who's giving her all the opportunity in the world to make her case - something that can't be said about all federal judges, FWIW. There are other courtrooms in which she would have been bounced long-ago, and perhaps even facing contempt charges.
When I first heard of this Obama BC issue, I was skeptical to say the least. Now, I'm firmly in the camp that there's something on the long-form BC that Obama doesn't want people to see, and his place of birth may indeed be it.
It's too bad that the press has successfully painted this as a fringe/kook movement. It keeps qualified and competent attorneys from tackling the issue. Well played by Obama's friends in the media.
If Orly pulls this off, which appears highly unlikely at this point, she'll be able to chisel her name next two two other guys, David and Goliath.
I saw a reference that he had been “separated”. Whether this is in the military sense, I’m not sure, but normally an officer “serves at the pleasure of The President” [The Real President]and can be ‘separated’[ or discharged ] if The [Real] President so desires.
I think I am in that line already. LOL
Apparently the DOD revoked his security clearance
and his civilian employer had to lay him off as a result.
How about not even knowing it was neccessary to affect service on the defendant ? Even a half-trained para-legal knows that !
How about filing a case when you know (or should know) the client can resolve the matter with a simple written request ? That’s abuse of the legal process,and the federal courts very commonly fine attorneys who practice it.
good points also, and there’s no denying it’s right there, in black and white.
Considering that much of the suit stressed the legitimacy issue, could this portion of the prayer for relief be construed as an “out” which the judge availed himself of? Because given the tenor of subcase (3), the spirit of the lawsuit strikes me as being one of challenging the NCA’s qualifications. The restraining order on deploying to a combat theater was but a part of the order.
JG
Really? Link a few examples please....
Link a few examples of duty-station orders being revoked or amended? Where would I find such information - except for my more than two decade's worth of experience as a Naval officer.
Orders are revoked with some frequency for other extenuating circumstances, including medical, personal, marriage and other seemingly pedestrian reasons.
Fair enough, I can't argue with that......grrrr.
A Major **knows** that as well.
Also, the Major wanted to serve in a lawful manner.
He stated plainly that he wanted to obey a lawful order. He wanted to serve in a **lawful** manner. The **only** way to know if the order was lawful, and serve lawfully, was to take it to court!
Have you read the Major's petition to the court?
If you are an attorney, you a missing the mark by a mile.
Member since 2009? What motivated you to join?
They could have given this field grade officer a direct order to deploy, and had he disobeyed what would have been a lawful order on its face, he should have been subjected to court-martial. The Army would have been entirely within its rights to discipline and make an example of this officer, should others have the same idea.
I believe to a moral certainty that improper command influence was exerted from the very top of the chain of command to protect this lying crypto Marxist usurper bastard of a counterfeit POTUS from the exposure of trial discovery.
They could have given this field grade officer a direct order to deploy, and had he disobeyed what would have been a lawful order on its face, he should have been subjected to court-martial. The Army would have been entirely within its rights to discipline and make an example of this officer, should others have the same idea.
I believe to a moral certainty that improper command influence was exerted from the very top of the chain of command to protect this lying crypto Marxist usurper bastard of a counterfeit POTUS from the exposure of trial discovery.
Member since 2000.
Didn’t know he appeared to discuss this.
Who’s show was he on?
~~You’re right, seek .. that interview was VERY well done... PING to watch .. scroll down on the left. Major, ya did great ! God bless and protect you.
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/292/story/779031.html
FYI ~~
This is the accurate title of the article now:
Federal judge dismisses reservist’s suit questioning Obama’s presidency
~~~~~~~~
Was the headline changed after the thread was posted? Interesting journalistic take, if that was the original headline.
I see his request as saying he is being sent overseas and wants to know if he should follow the orders and he has reason to beliegve the orders are from a CIC that should not be CIC.
To me, his orders are no longer in effect so the suit loses its reason for existence.
~~PING .. #176 .. watch
thanks for the ping, Major done good! (What a nice man!)
Well, he would be, he’s a FREEPER!
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.