Popular Posts

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Retired general, lieutenant colonel join reservist’s lawsuit over Obama's birth status

A controversial suit brought by a U.S. Army reservist has been joined by a retired Army two-star general and an active reserve Air Force lieutenant colonel.

Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook filed the suit July 8 in federal court here asking for conscientious objector status and a preliminary injunction based upon his belief that President Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.

However, before the issue got to court, Cook’s orders to deploy to Afghanistan were revoked. Lt. Col. Maria Quon, a public affairs officer with the U.S. Army Human Resources Command-St. Louis, said Tuesday that Cook was no longer expected to report Wednesday to MacDill Air Force Base in Florida for mobilization to active duty. Cook, who claims he is now the victim of retaliation due to his suit, received his mobilization orders to report for active duty at MacDill on Wednesday.

The government, in its response to the suit, claims 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.

“The Commanding General of SOCCENT (U.S. Special Operations Central Command) has determined that he does not want the services of Major Cook, and has revoked his deployment orders,” the response states.

In a pleading revised after the revocation of Cook’s orders, Taitz argues that the application for preliminary injunction is not moot and that retired Maj. Gen. Carol Dean Childers and active U.S. Air Force reservist Lt. Col. David Earl Graeff have joined the suit “because it is a matter of unparalleled public interest and importance and because it is clearly a matter arising from issues of a recurring nature that will escape review unless the Court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction.”

Cook’s resubmitted Application for Preliminary Injunction is meant to encompass the possibility of Cook receiving future orders for deployment as well as to address and prevent “negative collateral consequences such as retaliation against Major Stefan Frederick Cook ...”

As to the retaliation issue, the revised suit states Cook lost his job at Simtech Inc., a corporation that does Department of Defense contracting in the field of information technology/systems integration, because of the suit. It also states that Cook has been subjected to “gossip” from people who believed Cook was “manipulating his deployment orders to create a platform for political purposes.”

Taitz, who has challenged the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency in other courts, filed the original suit with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. Two similar suits have previously been thrown out of federal court.

3 comments:

  1. This will be interesting to follow. The suit brought against Obama before was on the Constitution; upholding and protecting the constitution of the USA, and the court basically came out and stated that no USA citizen had standing to protect the constitution of the USA (which in my opinion was bullshit and should have outraged every USA citizen). In this suit, we are looking at his authority to be Commander in Chief. If Obama has no right to be president of the USA, then he certainly has no right to be the Commander in Chief. In order for him to prove that he has the right to be Commander in Chief, he has to prove that he has the right to be president. This is rather brill if you think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is absolutely correct. For military personnel to comply with their oath of office and Uniform Code of Military Justice, they must have absolute confidence that orders are being lawfully given, and have an obligation to NOT follow illegal orders. Ergo, if the de facto POTUS is found to be unqualified, all orders under that persons authority are void...and what of the laws he has signed...equally invalid?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have been waiting for this issue to be addressed since pre-election days. How on earth it has been allowed to be shuffled about for this long? My family and I were just discussing this, yesterday. What a field day the media "SHOULD" be having over this issue and yet it goes almost un-noticed. This is indeed going to prove quite an interesting following.

    ReplyDelete