previous post
next post
Major Cook and his seeking a clarification of the validity of his orders to deploy...
Barb asked in the comments of the H&I post (the one above this one) about the new soldier refusing to deploy, this time not over an objection to the war, but rather as an assertion that President Obama is potentially unqualified to serve in the position, therefore his orders are not legitimate. My personal take is that if the war was legal under President Bush, the orders to deploy in support of it are still legal, as the Congressional authorizations are still valid, if for no other reason. This guy is pushing novel legal theories, to my untrained legal mind. I will accept instruction from trained legal minds. I think Major Cook would have a better argument for refusing to deploy to a new theater opened under the Obama administration. We'll see what the courts think. Here's the meat of Major Cook's argument:
You may commence. Greyhawk has some thoughts.
MAJOR STEFAN FREDERICK COOK v [et. al] (RE: Obama eligibility - Dr. Taitz)
7/10/2009 | rxsid
Posted on Fri Jul 10 2009 18:22:39 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) 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 OFFICER’S 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/
I hope he's sincere, and ready to accept what happens next...
The curious matter regarding the whole notion in general, though, does slightly intrigue me. Why in the world does Obama and his people not put this thing to rest once and for all. Either there IS a genuine certificate or there is not. If there is, it is a simple matter to release it, redact certain personal info while leaving enough proof, and this whole matter is put to bed. End of story.
The only theory I can come up with is that they are working from the notion that responding to any given attack thus gives the attacker, and the attack itself, credibility. Which in this instance is also immediately debunked with no harm done. In my own opinion, right or not, the longer this goes on without definitive proof one way or the other (and I'm assuming the proof IS available and Mr. Obama IS therefore eligible to hold the office he was voted into), the longer the 'questions' fester and grow, and ultimately, the more damage it does.
Neffi is probably right, that Major Cook is in a world o' sheet over this. I hope the best for him, and if it just gets some questions answered, well, that wouldn't be a bad thing either.
Seems genuine, though there *is* one thing - on the face of it- that seems a bit.... um, inconsistent, if you will...
Anyone?
No court will touch this. It will be dismissed for some reason. MAJ Cook is done.
I think the most interesting thing to come out of the "nirther" tempest-in-a-teacup was that there is no agency, federal or state, that is tasked with checking the bona fides of candidates for president. Thus, even if it was true that Wormtongue isn't a natural-born citizen, there was and is nothing that can be done about it.
Except a Federal judge did that, the DNC and the Obie campaign failed to produce the document in court within the time specified, and -- the case was then summarily dismissed.
First, there was an LT who was already deployed to Iraq when he filed his objections and became a plaintiff. Now, they would have covered it from another side - an active duty who is deploying.
If I was a conspiracy nut, I would say the fact that the Army revoked his orders clearly indicates the WH does not want the case to ever get to the SCOTUS - they would have compelled the guy to produce the actual certificate or be in contempt of court...
Again, the guys took it for the team and so many people are quick to call them names and worse...
Much more of this though, and I might start think there's something smoldering there somewhere! Would be really interesting for a newsjunkie like me to follow what would happen if indeed it was proven that our President is not legally eligible to hold the office. Would there be hearings? Impeachment (charges could be fraud and misrepresentation, perhaps forgery)? Martial Law? Does Plugs just move up one notch, or do we have a special election? The possibilities are endless.
Naww, on second thought, I won't hold my breath.
Me, I figure he was born in Hawaii, but there's something on the actual certificate that would make trouble, somehow. Father not listed, citizenship claimed as father's, mother's religion not "n/a"....something. Shoot, at one point I joked that he'd been born Betty Obama, since that's another reason someones COLB would differ from the BC. The only other option (I can think of) is that there's nothing damaging or even interesting, and for some reason Team Obama is just refusing to solve an utterly simple problem for no good reason.
No, he needs to be checked. Yesterday.
Look for the entire leadership of the DNC to decamp for a country with which we have no extradition treaty -- they affirmed his eligibility.
And if they did so without examining the evidence of his eligibility, which they are *required* to do...'nuff sed.
Of course, they could also make the case that, like paying taxes, the requirement only holds for them if they get caught *not* doing it.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is reporting that MAJ Cook is an IMA (Individual Mobilization Augmentee, a reservist who has a standing moblization assignment to an active-component organization, for those who do not speak fluent Army Creole,) who evidently sent a letter to Human Resources Command on May 8 volunteering to serve a one-year tour in Afghanistan. Then he files the lawsuit and files a request for CO status.
I suspect that revoking his orders was done to make the lawsuit moot while the Army figures out what they are going to do
towith him. I hope that he didn't plan on having any retirement benefits.*THE FIRST THING TO BE SAID TO THIS MAJOR, "GET LEGAL COUNSEL!"*
Now, comes the complex mix of Conscientious Objector status, Supreme Court of the US, "Court Standing" and the relationship of the Uniformed Military with politics, argghh! Let's split this mess apart. Olga, you raise a critically important issue and inferred question on SCOTUS and court standing. Is it possible for this Major to gain SCOTUS, court standing? How? The only way for him to gain the *possibility* is to go through the Military Court System in uniform, those last two words are extremely important. Now, as you go through the different layers, you must have permission to appeal the decision, from each layer. The permission equals standing.
Part of the problem, in this issue is the political nature of it. Then you have DOD's view on the mixture of politics and the wearing of the Uniform of the US Military. SECDEF has already made himself quite clear, *NO.*
The CO status is for a very limited group of absolutely non-political reasons, with a proven long established history.
As y'all can tell, I'm no lawyer, I walk upright. But as I assess this man's situation, there are two words that come to mind, "snowball" and "hell".
for the SCOTUS case, you just need to be an active duty in order to have legal standing to compel BO to produce the actual certificate. The previous case filed by the same attorney, who is now being called the loony and such, had several retired general officers but was dismissed or 'certiorari was denied' because as a retired personnel they did not have standing to sue or could not show an imminent personal harm. Being an active duty who is deployed or being deployed under the orders to the CIC (no matter how you slice it, who signs it, the order does come from the CIC) puts one in a position to be harmed if the orders are given by a person who is not eligible to be the CIC, thus he has standing.
There is another guy who was already in Iraq when he declared his objection and joined as a plaintiff. With Cook deploying to Afghanistan, they would have had 2 plaintiffs with standing covering both conflicts.
So, once he got his orders, he gained that elusive legal standing for the SCOTUS case.
Once the case is filed in the Fed Ct, it would have been kicked up to the SCOTUS, very quick, as I am sure the fed bench has no desire to deal with this issue.
So, here is the legal strategy behind this event.
And yet,
I need to renew my drivers license. Guess what.....
I am REQUIRED to providre a certified copy of my BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
The government requires ME to prove that I am a CITIZEN.
However, POTUS seems to be exempt from that requirement, even though the constitution seems to have something to say about that.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat!
Major Cook Volunteered to deploy.
At any time, prior to the date they is to report, a volunteer can rescind the offer. All they need do is contact the army and tell them they have changed their mind. They heed not provide a reason, they need not ask for permission to rescind.
That is exactly what appers to have happened. Major Cook, served papers on the Army saying he was no longer volunteering. Doing it in court was a little over the top, but if he wanted to make a side show out of it that is his right.
Yes a certified copy of your Birth Certificate, not a certified copy of the "long form" of your birth certificate.
I live in New Jersey. To get a New Jersey drivers license or state ID you must produce proof that you are who you say you are. The first item of proof is a birth certificate.
According to the state:
Civil birth certificate* or certified copy from one of the 50 states, District of Columbia or a US territory. Photocopies or certificates from hospitals or religious entities are not accepted.
* All documents must be ORIGINAL or CERTIFIED COPIES, in English, and have the required state and/or municipal seals.
Therefore in New Jersey, the "long form birth certificate" that the birthers are screaming for, would NOT be accepted as proof because it is not issued by the State or Municipality and it does not have the required seal.
the certificate folks are asking for is a certified copy of the actual birth certificate, not a computer generated copy that, by law, is able to be edited for a wide range of reasons.
I can't drive or get an ID in NJ?
I'm sure I can - I'm just making the point that I suspect other documents are also acceptable.
Tim - depends on the purpose you need the certificate for, i.e., for a drivers license, in the states where I've gotten the licenses, it's used to establish age, not citizenship. For a passport, that would be a different story.
Any document not in English must be translated into English, a certified translation - translator's statement must be notarized :o)
In most states you need to prove that you are a citizen or here legally - US Birth Certificate (certified), an unexpired US passport, a green card or a valid visa.
In order to prove you are who you are, a birth certificate gives the most points, even if it is in a foreign language, just have a certified translation attached...
Ever.
Even for my security clearance updates - but that's probably because they are covered by the Naturalization Certificate, which I *do* have to produce.
That said, the COLB provided has been physically examined and photographed by FactCheck.org. They have posted the photos online. Hawaii’s Department of Health Director Chiyome Fukino has testified that she has "personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures," as has registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka.
Not only that, but it is possible to find online scans of not one, but two different Honolulu papers
which announced the birth of a son to "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama" published Aug 4, 1961. So the birthers are apparently claiming there's some sort of nearly-fifty-year-old conspiracy to propel Barry to the Oval Office.
This whole mess is at least as silly as the Florida 2000 "selected, not elected" "controversy," and it promises to get worse. It's pathetic to see so many people who complained about how crazy the "leftards" got while going after George W. Bush following the exact same path.
Well, the DNC folkses state that they went to Hawaii and *saw* the original and photographed it, so that would appear to mean it is "still in existence" -- correct?
Hawaii has a fairly restrictive privacy law in place, so the only person who could obtain the original certificate (if it still exists from 1961) would be Barry himself.
When I had to renew my passport, I got a digital scan of my original (from 1946) -- meaning, the hospital scanned the original while I watched -- in 2000. And now we come full circle -- why, since it only takes a written request from the individual, wasn't the request made? And that's part of the sticking point -- Barry had been ordered to produce it in court -- in October, 2008 -- and didn't.
...it is possible to find online scans of not one, but two different Honolulu papers which announced the birth of a son to "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama" published Aug 4, 1961.
It is also possible to find online scans of newspaper interviews with residents of Arkham recounting their encounters with Cthluhu. It's easy to alter a digital scan -- or even fabricate one -- that will pass scrutiny at low resolution. However, were those scans in agreement about *where* Obama was born? That'd be instructive, since three of his relatives each stated different locations when they were interviewed...
It's pathetic to see so many people who complained about how crazy the "leftards" got while going after George W. Bush following the exact same path.
The difference is that the "Selected, not elected" crowd was flying in the face of a flood of information and documentation. In this instance, as I stated above, there's more -- and better -- physical evidence for the existence of the Abominable Snowman than there is for the existence of a Birth Certificate stating that Obama was born in Hawaii.
The question that's bugging everyone is -- why, if all it takes to eliminate the controversy is Obama producing his BC, hasn't he done so?
Right now, the only two answers are
1. It doesn't exist
or
2. The DNC has decided it makes a convenient stalking horse to draw focus from potentially nastier questions.
3) No matter how much or how good evidence you provide conspiracy theorists will leap on it as new evidence of a conspiracy. Obama producing this birth certificate publicly will only make the conspiracy stronger. The correct response to crazies is to not feed them.
this is also combined with
4) Because Obama doesn't have to.
No, the correct response to crazies is to prove to them their fears are groundless. If that doesn't calm them down, it will at least keeptheir numbers from growing.
4) Because Obama doesn't have to.
However, he *did* have to -- in a Philadelphia court -- two months before the election. Lawyers for both the DNC and the Obama campaign agreed to produce the original BC, then *didn't*. And, instead of the defendants being cited for contempt, the case was dismissed.
Lack of evidence.
If you or I tried that stunt, we'd still be behind bars.
Sooo, here's yet another twist -- and you heard it here first! -- if the BC is legit, that means Obie was willing to see his defenders being incarcerated just to avoid the inconvenience of writing (or merely signing) a request that his BC be released to be introduced as proof of his eligibility.
On reflection, that would have meant a bunch of Democrats being tossed into the pokey. Which is an oddly *appealing* notion...
That said - Argent, about not feeding the trolls... I wonder if the nature of the Internet hasn't modified that dynamic somewhat? Usetabe, the loons were loners sitting in their kitchen, stealing non-local newspapers from their librarys, and collecting clippings that proved their pet theory, which was diagrammed out using 3x5 cards and yarn pinned to the living room wall, and they never were a blip on anyone's screen.
Now they have websites that are slicker'n the Clinton News Network or Obamaweek. Perhaps putting out the data, in a more fulsome way than has been done thus far, would be a good idea. No, it won't appease the tin-foilers, but it provides a counter-point that will serve to reassure people who stumble into things - as Bill said, keep it from growing.
I dunno what the answer is - ignoring things mostly worked for the Clintons, certainly.
This issue has a particularly corrosive effect, touching as it does the issue of the basic integrity of the system. I get concerned when I hear smart, educated, political and apolitical people discussing this - and a major segment of the discussion is "Leave this dog lie - it's better to not know, than to find out it's true, and throw everything into chaos."
That, to me, seems a dangerous path to tread.
Of course, the cynics just say, "Better an illegimate Obama as President than a legitimate Biden..." Of course, then the nit-pickers and tin-foilers respond, "No! It would invalidate the entire ticket!" to which the cynics respond, "Okay. Better an illegitimate Obama as President than San Fran Nan..."
Perzackly. That's the path that led to Pastor Niemöller's statement.
He wasn't concerned because he didn't want to know...
It doesn't actually keep the numbers from growing. The mass of evidence against 9/11 'truthers' was enormous. It only made it worse. So bad in fact that a rather large percentage of the World and Americans (one figure is 36% of Americans) actually believe it today.
I get you but when I say 'because he doesn't have to' I mean it literally as in he will not be compelled to provide it. I am not at all convinced he will ever have to provide it no matter the moral or legal need/demands or whatever the 'birthers' drum up.
BTW is San Fran Nan = Pelosi?
Ah -- I knew there was a chuckle that had eluded me.
Newspapers used to use linotype, and were "put to bed" -- meaning *finalized* -- the preceding night, which meant that the morning edition of any paper was printed, at the latest, at 3am for early morning distribution. The afternoon editions were updated and printed at noon.
Any purported scan of a newspaper dated August 4, 1961 which carried Obie's birth announcement is a forgery. Obie wasn't born until 7:42pm in the evening -- according to the "official" CoLB -- which was too late for both morning *and* afternoon editions of that date.
And the evening editions -- for those papers which published them -- only changed the front page and, rarely, page 2. And it was printed at 5pm.
Go ahead -- tell me that Barry's birth made page one and they printed a special edition at 9pm because they just *knew* he was special...