Army Major Who Questioned Obama's Legitimacy Receives Orders Revoking Orders To Report

[WeDidIt]

This comes from Orly Taitz' site:

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

U.S. ARMY HUMAN RESOURCES COMMAND

1 RESERVE WAY

ST. LOUIS, MO 63132-5200

AHRC-PLM-S 14 JUL 2009

ORDERS A-06-916551R

COOK STEFAN FREDERICK EAD8 MAJ EN XXX XX XXXX

STREET ADDRESS REDACTED W096AA

LUTZ FL 33558

THE FOLLOWING ORDER IS REVOKED OR RESCINDED AS SHOWN.

ACTION: REVOKE

The ever optimistic Orly Taiz is claiming this as a great victory.

Knowing the military as I do, I suspect quite the opposite. I suspect he's about to be brought up on charges before a full court martial for his statements within the legal affidavit. Those statements were a crime under the UCMJ, and he made such statements as to be culpable multiple times under both Articles 88 and 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

He could do time.

EDITED TO ADD: HOLY FUCK!! I had to delete the guy's SSN. Orly Taitz posted his SSN And Address on the fucking internet!!!

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

1. This guy is an officer, no way he can be allowed to pull this stunt.

[JVS]

2. He won't do time. He'll could well get a DD, but they won't make him a "political prisoner"

[WeDidIt]

4. If it's just Article 88, he'll probably be dishonorably discharged

If it's also Article 92, he's fucking toast.

Most likely scenario, they offer a plea deal for Article 88 with a dishonorable, loss of pay, fine, etc. If he doesn't take it, they go the full boat and charge him with mutiny.

[Greybnk48]

3. I hope they throw him out of the military. He doesn't belong there.

[hootinholler]

5. I'm not sure which is worse

Hard time in Leavenworth or identity theft.

Pwned by his own lawyer!

Ain't kharma a bitch, he could get both. ;)

-Hoot

[WeDidIt]

6. She's corrected it now

Some kind soul must have left a comment on her moderated boards explaining the problem ;)

[DaveinJapan]

7. If I were him, I'd be

shitting myself in terror right about now.

THAT is one of the scariest "letters" I've ever seen!

Makes me wish I could do political cartoons. I'd draw a lobster in the hands of a chef being removed from the tank, with his thought bubble reading "Ah, glorious freedom!".

[WeDidIt]

8. Could eb a setup, too

HE volunteered to go on May 8 and as a Reserve officer who volunteers for active duty, he had a right to request revocation of the orders.

In essence, he had until tomorrow to decide he didn't want to go and the Army would comply.

[Sukie]

9. This freak of a guy is an

Individual Mobilization Augmentee. He volunteered to go and can ask for a revoke of his orders. He is basically free and clear. But I will bet he has lost total respect from his fellow comrades.

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/165/story/777472.html?storylink=omni_popular



U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, the reserve soldier who says he shouldn't have to go to Afghanistan because he believes Barack Obama was never eligible to be president, has had his deployment orders revoked, Army officials said.

Lt. Col. Maria Quon, U.S. Army Public Affairs Officer, U.S. Army Human Resources Command-St. Louis, said Tuesday evening, Cook was no longer expected to report Wednesday to MacDill Air Force Base in Florida for mobilization to active duty.

Cook is an Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA), meaning he is a reserve soldier assigned to an active component unit for duty. He is assigned to the U.S. Army Element of U.S. Southern Command. Last week he filed a request in federal court seeking a temporary restraining order and status as a conscientious objector through his California-based attorney, Orly Taitz.

[WeDidIt]

10. They said he never requested revocation

so the Army could eb getting ready to file Article 88 charges.

But who knows what happened?

[sabrina 1]

47. 'Cook', some people are so aptly named! n/t

[jody]

11. In a court martial the defense can demand proof of Obama's birth and it could be up to SCOTUS to

determine whether documents presented by Obama prove he was born in Hawaii.

[WeDidIt]

12. So? He's already presented the necessary documents?

What's your point?

[jody]

14. Has a federal court ruled on the documents to which you refer? n/t

[WeDidIt]

15. Why should they?

The campaign complied with the requirements of 51 separate election officials to obtain a spot on the ballot of those 51 jurisdictions.

IT's a nonsense issue.

But I notice you're arguing in favor of Birfer bullshit.

[jody]

17. Because that's the issue that would come up in a court martial that you suggest. n/t

[WeDidIt]

18. No, it wouldn't

Requests for such information would be further contemptuous language against the president. Every time he claims that the president of the United States has to present his birth certificate to a major in the United States Army, he is violating Article 88 of the UCMJ.

[jody]

19. That's a question for the courts to decide and you and I have only opinions. Have a good day. n/t

[WeDidIt]

20. No, it's not

IT's for a court martial to decide.

Civilian courts have NO jurisdiction.

And the UCMJ is very different from civilian law.

[jody]

23. Suggest you read 28 USC 1259

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001259----000-.html

[WeDidIt]

24. How many times has Certiorari been denied in Birfer cases?

Answer:

EVERY TIME

[jody]

25. You said "Civilian courts have NO jurisdiction" and that's clearly wrong as I proved. n/t

[WeDidIt]

26. They do not

IT's a Court Martial proceeding.

Civil courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever in the matter.

IF the Major is convicted of a crime, he can try to appeal. IT'll be denied, though.\

Thanks for showing your Birfer colors, though.

[jody]

27. Either you didn't read 28 USC 1259 or you have a reading comprehension problem. Good bye. n/t

[WeDidIt]

28. Either you don't understand jursisdiction or have never been subject to the UCMJ

The SCOTUS can only become involved if there is a conviction. They ahve no jurisdiction at this time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. UCMJ... try to read a little

the charges will be not on the certificate, but disobeying a legal lawful order, and other beauts.

Ever served?

[sabrina 1]

48. That issue isn't even an issue.

Why would a judge allow a non-issue to be raised? The judge will be a military judge, subject to the same rules as this soldier. Should there be a court martial, it will be because this soldier has basically attacked the POTUS. Do you think the judge would be foolish enough to join these morons and do the same thing?

Or do YOU think these lunatics have a point?

[Bandit]

33. The Extreme Court refused to hear it.

Another lower court has indeed ruled Obama's birth certificate to be legitimate.

[jody]

39. A General Court Martial would hear the case if charges were preferred as the OP recommended.

Wasn't the lower court ruling you cited a civil matter which would be quite different than criminal charges tried in a General Court Martial.

If the officer was convicted in a trial as the OP suggested, the conviction would probably be reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces composed of five civilian judges appointed for 15-year terms by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

"The Supreme Court of the United States has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1259 to review cases under the UCMJ on direct appeal where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has conducted a mandatory review (death penalty and certified cases), granted discretionary review of a petition, or otherwise granted relief. If the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has denied a petition for review or a writ appeal, consideration by the Supreme Court may be obtained only through collateral review (e.g., a writ of habeas corpus)."

Whether SCOTUS would review the results of a conviction in the court martial recommended by the OP is problematic as I stated "11. In a court martial the defense can demand proof of Obama's birth and it could be up to SCOTUS to determine whether documents presented by Obama prove he was born in Hawaii."

As I pointed out above, the OP's author said in #20 "Civilian courts have NO jurisdiction."

The OP's author is clearly wrong because 28 USC 1259 says "Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari in the following cases:" and the last time I checked SCOTUS is still a civilian court.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. And I am willing to bet that this will be refused by the USSC

the appeal is automatic... but I can bet to you that nowhere in the court martial the Cert will be even presented. Why? This is about disobeying a legal lawful order.

[BlooInBloo]

21. Hi birther!

:rofl:

[scheming daemons]

36. Wow... been here since 2001 too.....

[Mrs. Overall]

42. Yes, surprising.

I never dreamt a DUer would fall for this shit.

[jberryhill]

43. AB-SO-FRICKIN-LUTELY NOT!

At a court martial, a conviction would be obtained.

The facts are quite simple.

On January 20, 2009, having been duly certified by Congress in accordance with the vote of the Electoral College on January 8, Barack Obama became the President of the United States.

He is the President of the United States and will remain the President unless he is impeached.

It is an indisputable LEGAL FACT that Barack Obama is the President of the United States.

This Major POS has NO ground on which to challenge the lawfulness of his orders. His orders are lawful - even if you buy into his position - because there is absolutely no question who is the President of the United States.

He will also be convicted for unauthorized use of his uniform at his court appearance the other day. He is not on active duty, and it was not a military function.

Aside from which, the Supreme Court does not review facts, such as examining a document, in the first place.

[myrna minx]

13. His own attorney

posted his address and SSN on the internet? Sheesh! I can't imagine what kind of "legal" advice she's giving him--he's screwed--not only by his bizarre assertions, but by his obviously incompetent attorney.

[WeDidIt]

16. She has pulled it now

buit it was out there for a good two hours first.

[blogslut]

22. And it's still in Google cache

Winky winky. Dr. Taitz forgot to thinky.

[myrna minx]

30. Good gravy!

It's a good thing the birthers chose such a component "champion", huh? :eyes:

[bullwinkle428]

34. I'm shocked...SHOCKED, that someone with an online law degree

would make such a critical error!!! :rofl:

[myrna minx]

29. 2 hours? Wow.

I can't believe how incompetent she is to have allowed that to happen! She's the *chosen* one the birthers are hanging their pathetic hopes on? *facepalm*

[zbdent]

31. okay ... what shi*hole spot in the world CAN this guy

be shipped off to?

[Bandit]

32. So why would these new orders be any more valid than his last orders?

If he obeys these new orders he has just blown his case.

[tekisui]

35. I guess he's going to deploy, then?

:rofl:

[Rwalsh]

37. This is just a BS political stunt

If he were sincere, he would have done what some military officers did when Bush took over: resign

[chat_noir]

38. This birther soldier is also a FReeper

Obama Birther Soldier is a FreeRepublic Poster (Maj. Cook)

Washington Independent ^ | 7-14-09 | David Weigel

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2292880/posts

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

40. Well, I've yet to see a birther who's not a freeper. If you catch my drift. -nt

[Maru Kitteh]

46. Yup. The one we have here on DU apparently deserves some kind of endurance award.

[mikeytherat]

41. Of course he can't be deployed - he filed for CO status last week:

And it's from Fox Snooze:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/15/soldier-claims-obama-isnt-legal-president-doesnt-deploy/

"Cook filed a request last week in federal court seeking a temporary restraining order and status as a conscientious objector through his attorney, Orly Taitz, the newspaper reported."

It is my understanding that once he's in the system as seeking CO status, he cannot be deployed until the matter is reviewed and resolved by the Pentagon.

mikey_the_rat