Yes it takes a while to get everything posted.
July 16, 2009
Updated list of birth certificate posts
Application for TRO
Major Cook’s active duty revocation order
Application for Injunction
Cook v Good dismissed
Orly Taitz re: Cook dismissal (video)
As expected, Cook v Good was dismissed. The relief Major Cook sought with his TRO was provided by the Army’s decision to rescind his deployment — something Major Cook could request up until he deployed. There was no issue for the judge to rule on – so case dismissed.
The dismissal does not mean the question of barry’s citizenship is frivolous. There was no judgment made on barry’s eligibility. There was no ruling on whether he is indeed a natural born citizen. There was no determination on whether he actually has produced sufficient proof of birth/citizenship.
The case was dismissed because Major Cook did not have standing – without which there is no case – and because he had already gotten the remedy he sought when the Army revoked his deployment orders.
Here is the video from the LEDGER-ENQUIRER of Major Cook and Orly Taitz outside the Courthouse. I can’t embed it for some reason. I’m not positive–but from the questions asked and since they go in and don’t discuss the ruling — I think this is before the hearing. Plus there is another video from after the ruling.
It’s clear how uninformed the male questioner is. He actually asks Major Cook if he shouldn’t just respect his deployment orders no matter who the president is.
It’s hard to blame (some of) the anti-birthers when this is the type of interview and lack of awareness of the issue they repeatedly see and hear. Kitty Pilgrim on her bit started with “the facts” and “the evidence” and got almost everything wrong. How can someone go on camera and risk their own integrity – and act so indignant – when they have no clue what they are talking about? I’ll be getting to her interview next as well as Lou Dobbs little segment.
MALE QUESTIONER: Does the Barack Obama Administration make you change the way you feel about the United States Military?
MAJOR COOK: Not at all. I love the Army. I want to continue to serve in the Army.
If Barack Obama was indeed a citizen would you [unintelligible] to Afghanistan?
In a heartbeat. If we can establish that he is in fact president of the United States, legally, I’m on the airplane the next day over to Afghanistan — if they cut my deployment orders – so I can do my job that I want to do.
How long have you been in the military?
I’ve been in the military 21 years.
What if someone said you signed up for the US Military, and no matter what your president is, you should, you know, respect your, uhm, orders to deploy? What would you say about that no matter who your president was?
That’s irrelevant. What’s relevant is the legality of the order. And if one cannot establish the validity and legality of the order, by the very nature of the oath we serve – the oath we swear and how we serve – we would be following illegal orders and subject to prosecution. If captured, if I am following illegal orders, I could be prosecuted both by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And if captured, I would not be privy to protections under the Geneva Convention.
What’s the sentiment among your fellow soldiers during this trial that’s coming up?
Thus far, I’ve received quite a bit of popular support from officers in my grade and some officers a grade above and some officers a grade below. So, thus far, I would say 90 percent positive that I’m getting – the traffic I’m seeing.
What kind of precedent do you think this is going to set for future cases such as this? [Such as this??]
This is a critical precedent to set because, with this–there needs to be a mechanism established to accurately and positively identify and verify the validity of someone whose running for such high office as President of the United States.
================
Video comments after the ruling. Provided by Ledger-Enquirer.com, which is now demanding registration to get in.
FEMALE REPORTER: You knew he was president when you volunteered in May — what happened?
MAJOR COOK: At that time it didn’t occur to me that it would be germane to my deployment. And as the deployment got closer and closer and closer, I was thinking I now will be going into harm’s way and I have to verify, for sure, that the orders I’m following are lawful orders. And that’s at which time I began to question that and…not so much the deployment – butthe legality of the deployment.
I am more than happy, ready, willing and able to deploy and do my duty in Afghanistan as so ordered. But only under lawful orders.
Alot of people have accused you of being a modern day draft dodger trying to get out of deployment? You don’t think that’s the case?
He shouldn’t have dignified her question with an answer but he went on to detail his service, which included combat. He also deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in Jan/Feb 2009 on a fact finding mission as a contractor.
MAJOR COOK: Whatever capacity, I am happy to serve and do my job, as either an officer in the Army of the United States or as a defense contractor working for the Department of Defense.
And that’s where it gets dicey. It looks like it will neither right now. In the injunction Tait filed (SEE LINK ABOVE), she alleged Major Cook was fired from his civilian job at Simtech, Inc, which is a Department of Defense contractor, because he brought suit. Major Cook had taken a military leave of absence from his job in preparation to deploy and within hours of the Army telling him he didn’t need to deploy, his employer told him he didn’t have a job. I don’t know anything else.
And then the female reporter talks as if Major Cook isn’t standing in front of her.
No one’s doubting his service (please re-read her last question) and his commitment – he says he’ll deploy – that’s not the question.
Taitz answers that the orders have to be legal…and barry’s arrogant…
In terms of if you want to deploy again – what would you need to be see for you to be able to volunteer again?
For me to volunteer to deploy, I need to see that the individual who is sitting the Office of the Presidency – the President of the United States – is legally able to do so. That’s all I need to see.
Note the tense: “need” to see – not “would need” to see.
No comments:
Post a Comment