Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.More ↓Less ↑
A case brought by a military officer whose order to deploy to Afghanistan was revoked now has been refiled in a federal court in Florida, and it raises the specter of a class action claim among members of the military that their orders aren’t valid because of Barack Obama’s ineligibility to be president.
The possibility already had been raised by WND columnist Vox Day, who wrote, “Not only every deployment order, but every order issued from an officer in the line of command can now be challenged in the knowledge that the top brass are afraid to respond for fear that their commander could be exposed for a fraud.”
His comments came after the military, in its attempt to resolve the questions raised by Maj. Stefan Cook in his original claim, simply revoked his orders to deploy. As a result, a federal judge in Georgia dismissed his case. It now has been refiled in Florida, where he lives.
“The Pentagon’s decision to back down rather than risk exposing Obama’s birth records to the public means that every single American soldier, sailor, pilot and Marine now holds a ‘get out of war free’ card,” Day wrote.
Now that scenario has been raised again in the new claim.
“It was already obvious that this case had and still has the potential to be converted into a class action on behalf of all military servicemen and women who require the means of establishing the legality of their orders with certainty,” the document states.
Cook said he hopes the case can be resolved soon.
“And based on the merits of the arguments – not on the basis of procedural grounds,” he said. “My expectations are that I shall ultimately be vindicated through either this injunction filed in Florida or through the case filed in California. I passionately want to restore faith in both the Constitution of the United States of America as well as its government.”
The complaint was filed by attorney Orly Taitz on behalf of Cook in the U.S. District Court for the middle district of Florida.
Dr. Orly Taitz
It seeks damages and a declaratory judgment. Named as defendants are Simtech, Cook’s former civilian employer, and several officials, including Col. Louis B. Wingate and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
WND previously reported a judge in Georgia dismissed Cook’s case when the government suddenly revoked his orders to report to Ft. Benning for deployment to Afghanistan.
Cook told WND he’s ready, willing and able to carry out the military needs of the United States, but he raised the challenge to Obama’s eligibility to be president because if he would be captured by enemy forces while serving overseas under the orders of an illegitimate president, he could be considered a “war criminal.”
“As an officer in the armed forces of the United States, it is [my] duty to gain clarification on any order we may believe illegal. With that said, if President Obama is found not to be a ‘natural-born citizen,’ he is not eligible to be commander-in-chief,” he told WND only hours after the original case was filed.
“[Then] any order coming out of the presidency or his chain of command is illegal. Should I deploy, I would essentially be following an illegal [order]. If I happened to be captured by the enemy in a foreign land, I would not be privy to the Geneva Convention protections,” he said.
Cook said without a legitimate president as commander-in-chief, members of the U.S. military in overseas actions could be determined to be “war criminals and subject to prosecution.”
He said the vast array of information about Obama that is not available to the public confirms to him that “something is amiss.”
“What I want to do is deploy to Afghanistan, do my job as an Army officer, engineer. I do not want to subject myself to the possibility that I might be violating the [Uniform Code of Military Justice],” Cook told WND.
“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,” according to the original complaint. “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 of 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.”
Cook said the action was filed to “clarify how he can both obey all lawful orders and avoid dereliction of his duties so as to escape court-martial under the UCMJ if he does NOT question the legality of the orders he has received.”
The new complaint says it seeks Cook’s reinstatement with his civilian employer, Simtech Inc., as well as protection from the Department of Defense and president “from further retaliation for plaintiff’s challenge to the president’s constitutional authority.”
“Plaintiff Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook submits and contends that he had an absolute and unassailable obligation to question the legality of his deployment orders,” the new filing explains. “And, for this reason, and this reason alone, because he obeyed his oath and moral conscience, he was terminated from employment.
“Under the 1st and 9th Amendments, because Cook’s termination was a direct result of his questioning the legality of the chain of command underlying his deployment orders (Cook took a military oath to question all orders if he believes those orders might be unlawful) and actually questioned those orders, the DOD and DSS threatened Cook’s employer SIMTECH acting by and through to fire him which amounts to coercion to commit the crime of extortion on the part of the Department of Defense and the Defense Security Services Agency,” the document alleges.
“The threats … made to Cook’s employer to force his employer to terminate Cook, rise to the level of extortion. … Circumstances suggest almost conclusively that the DSS told Larry Grice and SIMTECH that if they did not immediately terminate Cook, Simtech‘s status as a government contractor would go the way of Cook’s career in the Army,” the complaint states.
The action explains the military’s decision to revoke Cook’s orders “did not in any way, shape or form moot the application … in that the new order revoking prior orders to active duty was apparently subject to all the same objections and defects in the chain of command.”
“The simple and plainly apparent truth is that, by revoking his orders the Department of Defense attempted in Georgia and for that one moment at least successfully evaded review of the two underlying constitutional issues, namely (1) the lawful status and constitutional validity of any chain of command starting with an unconstitutional president, and (2) the legal and constitutional avenues open to an officer to comply with his oath to obey only lawful orders by challenging their lawful status,” the complaint states.
It also suggests the military’s action possibly violated various whistleblower protection acts.
It cited the likelihood of more soldiers following Cook’s example.
“The certification of a class action will be sought in the complaint to be filed herein,” it continued.
“An officer does not swear to obey the orders of the president. Rather, he assumes the obligation to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Plaintiff Stefan Frederick Cook asks this court to declare and adjudge that it is lawful, right and proper and in fact mandated by his oath that an officer, pursuant to his oath to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic, should challenge the chain of command against, if evidence exists to support a reasonable suspicion in the officers mind, a possible presidential usurper.”
It also asks the court to “declare and adjudge that if it were shown by clear-and-convincing evidence that a person took the office under false pretenses of constitutional qualifications, such person is a domestic enemy, and constitutes a clear and present danger as an enemy to the constitution and laws of the United States of America.”
It cites the founding fathers, who, the document said, “had the foresight to protect and secure against a situation such as that now facing the United States. ”
Columnist Day wrote the military backed off immediately in Cook’s case, “suggesting that the Pentagon generals are not entirely confident that they can demonstrate the legitimacy of their purported commander in chief.”
He said that under the precedent set by the military, any number of “sea and barracks lawyers” now could challenge orders.
“If even a small number of soldiers elect to do so, the effect on military discipline could rapidly become catastrophic,” he wrote.
“It is hard to comprehend why Obama has been so obsessively secretive about his personal records, but it is now time for him to call off his lawyers and show the American public his cards. It would be the height of irresponsibility for the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces to be the source of destroying American military discipline,” Day wrote.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Complicating the situation is Obama’s decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.
“Where’s The Birth Certificate?” billboard in Pennsylvania
The billboard campaign follows an ongoing petition campaign launched several months ago by WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah.
The billboards are intended to raise public awareness of the fact that Obama has never released the standard “long-form” birth certificate that would show which hospital he was born in, the attending physician and establish that he truly was born in Hawaii, as his autobiography maintains.
WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.