OT: Military Officer Refuses Order from Obama

[partypup]

[quote=patb][quote=Casca]

Obama’s Kenyan relatives claim he was born in Kenya, and that his mother flew home weeks after his birth, and obtained his certificate of live birth in Hawaii.

[/quote]

even if this were true, so what?

Obama’s US Citizenship comes via the Blood of his mother.

As a legal citizen, he is entitled to serve as president.[/quote]

That’s incorrect. Do some research on the archived threads. The issue is much more complicated because of laws in existence at the time (1961) governing the determination of naturalized citizens.

Short answer: having a natural born mother isn’t sufficient if you were born on foreign soil in 1961. It may be a silly law, but someone needs to come clean and address it. Perhaps now that the Dems control Congress Obama can amend the Constitution – while he’s going through the trouble of dismantling our capitalist foundations. Kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. Then Schwarzenegger can be president. Yippee!!!

[Zeitgeist]

Pup,
Many people have no interest in truth or the rule of law here. It is all about wanting it the way they want it. This generation has been taught that it depends on what “it” is. They are cultural relativists. I am afraid your cogent and well reasoned arguments fall on deaf ears. They are still in denial and keep seeing the Emperor fully clothed. They will be truly disappointed when they figure it out.

[Zeitgeist]

Pup,
Many people have no interest in truth or the rule of law here. It is all about wanting it the way they want it. This generation has been taught that it depends on what “it” is. They are cultural relativists. I am afraid your cogent and well reasoned arguments fall on deaf ears. They are still in denial and keep seeing the Emperor fully clothed. They will be truly disappointed when they figure it out.

[Zeitgeist]

Pup,
Many people have no interest in truth or the rule of law here. It is all about wanting it the way they want it. This generation has been taught that it depends on what “it” is. They are cultural relativists. I am afraid your cogent and well reasoned arguments fall on deaf ears. They are still in denial and keep seeing the Emperor fully clothed. They will be truly disappointed when they figure it out.

[Zeitgeist]

Pup,
Many people have no interest in truth or the rule of law here. It is all about wanting it the way they want it. This generation has been taught that it depends on what “it” is. They are cultural relativists. I am afraid your cogent and well reasoned arguments fall on deaf ears. They are still in denial and keep seeing the Emperor fully clothed. They will be truly disappointed when they figure it out.

[Zeitgeist]

Pup,
Many people have no interest in truth or the rule of law here. It is all about wanting it the way they want it. This generation has been taught that it depends on what “it” is. They are cultural relativists. I am afraid your cogent and well reasoned arguments fall on deaf ears. They are still in denial and keep seeing the Emperor fully clothed. They will be truly disappointed when they figure it out.

[PCinSD]

[quote=partypup]
Actually, I really don’t care what you believe. The super-duper-important “fact” that you are strangely clinging to was irrelevant to the point I was making, which is why I chose not to bring it up in my post. It was really a silly sidebar to get caught up on, and the court obviously isn’t clinging as tightly to this fact as you are – or it would not be hearing the case.

And you know what? At least I responded to your question. I explained why the fact you pointed to was irrelevant to my analysis. But what do you do? Ignore all of the other follow-up questions I posed above and retreat to the one fact you think unhinges my entire argument. Give your mind some practice and try actually responding to points raised in a debate instead of ignoring the ones that are inconvenient for you.

I don’t know what you do for a living, but I sincerely hope it doesn’t involve reasoned argument or analysis, because your response demonstrates that both are lacking. *Sigh*[/quote]

Partypup, my sincere apologies for calling you nutty and questioning whether you were a lawyer. I should have done additional research before my first post. My 2nd post was brief because I don’t have time to engage in lengthy internet debates in the middle of the work day. I thought my argument was somewhat obvious.

And, I generally don’t engage in the back and forth debates on here because they are not enjoyable. The only time that was fun was when Marion was here. I remember the schooling you gave her after she attacked you. I loved it. For what it’s worth, I am not an Obama supporter, but don’t have a clue whether he is a legitimate president or not. It will play out one way or another.

My only issue is with this Major Cook guy. My understanding of your post is that you felt there would be huge implications as a result of the Major’s filing his TRO. Those implications being, that tens of thousands of other military personnel could do the same thing. The result would be the military would simply just rescind the orders of all of them. You felt this would be bad. I hope we can agree that was the point you were making in your initial post entitled “Military Officer Refuses Order From Obama”.

The facts:

1) On May 8, 2009 the Major volunteers by way of a formal written request to serve for one year in Afghanistan w/Special Operations Command, U.S. Army, Central Command beginning July 15, 2009. He volunteered. He was under no contractual obligation or otherwise to go overseas;

2) On June 9, 2009, his request was granted;

3) On July 8, 2009 he files a restraining order in federal court. It’s a standard “conscientious objector” TRO. They’ve been around for about as long as the military has. Military personnel bring them all the time in bases all over the world. His particular argument is that since he doesn’t think Obama is the rightful President, he would be violating international law by engaging in military actions outside the U.S.;

4) There is a standard procedure in the Army that allows someone that has volunteered to serve overseas to subsequently request the order be rescinded. Seems reasonable under those circumstances. The Major never asked that his orders be rescinded. As a Major, he would necessarily be well versed on the standard procedures and know this option was available to him, yet chose to forego it. You feel this fact is irrelevant. I disagree. No problemo.

My thoughts: His case is moot. He no longer has orders to go overseas. There is nothing left to rule on. In my opinion, the Army did the right thing by unilaterally rescinding his orders. The Major never intended to go overseas. When he “volunteered”, it was solely for the purpose of teaming up with attorney Taitz and getting this matter in a courtroom. Basically false pretenses. In my opinion, it would have been grossly negligent for the Army to send this guy to serve in Afghanistan w/Special Operations Command once they discovered he only volunteered solely to claim “conscientious objector” status based on Obama’s illegitimacy – and jump the chain of command and go straight to court. In my opinion, this was orchestrated by his attorney, who also represents Mr. Keyes – in a completely separate lawsuit. Major Cook obviously couldn’t do his job, couldn’t command troops, would be a detrimental effect on morale, and is an obvious liability. It’s tough to be effective in Afghanistan when you are a conscientious objector based on the fact that you are in Afghanistan. Good thing he filed his TRO before getting over there, so they could put a stop to it.

I didn’t address the Keyes lawsuit in my response to you. It’s a completely different lawsuit. Keyes is not in the military, he is not a conscientious objector, it has nothing to do with the Major’s case. It has nothing to do with the Major refusing “Obama’s Orders” and the tens of thousands of military personnel who could follow suit. Keyes is challenging whether Obama is qualified to be President. This case is at its inception. That’s because the Plaintiff didn’t properly serve the President.

The judge told attorney Taitz to get everything filed properly and then he would address the merits of the case. Nothing spectacular there. However, the Defendant hasn’t even responded to the lawsuit yet. They still have 60 days. I’m guessing their response will be in the form of some type of dispositive motion. So far, not much to get excited about in that case – yet. It will be interesting to see what kind of response gets filed.

Again, the Court in the Keyes case isn’t clinging as tightly to the facts of the Major’s case as I do because it is a completely unrelated case. The facts in the Major’s case aren’t before the court in Keyes’ case. Different plaintiffs, different courts, different judges.

The Major’s case is a joke. He deliberately volunteered to go to Afghanistan just to give this attorney a platform in federal court. Bad Major, Bad. By the way, he’s been fired from his civilian job as a result. I would imagine he’s going to have a rough time of it with the military legal office as well.

Two completely separate, unrelated cases. One is bogus, the other we’ll have to wait and see.

By the way, officers aren’t “reservists or enlisted”. They are just officers. In the military, you can either be an officer or enlisted. Either of those are either on active duty, or they are some form of reservist.

pabloesqobar,
veteran/lawyer

puff, puff, pass 😉

[PCinSD]

[quote=partypup]
Actually, I really don’t care what you believe. The super-duper-important “fact” that you are strangely clinging to was irrelevant to the point I was making, which is why I chose not to bring it up in my post. It was really a silly sidebar to get caught up on, and the court obviously isn’t clinging as tightly to this fact as you are – or it would not be hearing the case.

And you know what? At least I responded to your question. I explained why the fact you pointed to was irrelevant to my analysis. But what do you do? Ignore all of the other follow-up questions I posed above and retreat to the one fact you think unhinges my entire argument. Give your mind some practice and try actually responding to points raised in a debate instead of ignoring the ones that are inconvenient for you.

I don’t know what you do for a living, but I sincerely hope it doesn’t involve reasoned argument or analysis, because your response demonstrates that both are lacking. *Sigh*[/quote]

Partypup, my sincere apologies for calling you nutty and questioning whether you were a lawyer. I should have done additional research before my first post. My 2nd post was brief because I don’t have time to engage in lengthy internet debates in the middle of the work day. I thought my argument was somewhat obvious.

And, I generally don’t engage in the back and forth debates on here because they are not enjoyable. The only time that was fun was when Marion was here. I remember the schooling you gave her after she attacked you. I loved it. For what it’s worth, I am not an Obama supporter, but don’t have a clue whether he is a legitimate president or not. It will play out one way or another.

My only issue is with this Major Cook guy. My understanding of your post is that you felt there would be huge implications as a result of the Major’s filing his TRO. Those implications being, that tens of thousands of other military personnel could do the same thing. The result would be the military would simply just rescind the orders of all of them. You felt this would be bad. I hope we can agree that was the point you were making in your initial post entitled “Military Officer Refuses Order From Obama”.

The facts:

1) On May 8, 2009 the Major volunteers by way of a formal written request to serve for one year in Afghanistan w/Special Operations Command, U.S. Army, Central Command beginning July 15, 2009. He volunteered. He was under no contractual obligation or otherwise to go overseas;

2) On June 9, 2009, his request was granted;

3) On July 8, 2009 he files a restraining order in federal court. It’s a standard “conscientious objector” TRO. They’ve been around for about as long as the military has. Military personnel bring them all the time in bases all over the world. His particular argument is that since he doesn’t think Obama is the rightful President, he would be violating international law by engaging in military actions outside the U.S.;

4) There is a standard procedure in the Army that allows someone that has volunteered to serve overseas to subsequently request the order be rescinded. Seems reasonable under those circumstances. The Major never asked that his orders be rescinded. As a Major, he would necessarily be well versed on the standard procedures and know this option was available to him, yet chose to forego it. You feel this fact is irrelevant. I disagree. No problemo.

My thoughts: His case is moot. He no longer has orders to go overseas. There is nothing left to rule on. In my opinion, the Army did the right thing by unilaterally rescinding his orders. The Major never intended to go overseas. When he “volunteered”, it was solely for the purpose of teaming up with attorney Taitz and getting this matter in a courtroom. Basically false pretenses. In my opinion, it would have been grossly negligent for the Army to send this guy to serve in Afghanistan w/Special Operations Command once they discovered he only volunteered solely to claim “conscientious objector” status based on Obama’s illegitimacy – and jump the chain of command and go straight to court. In my opinion, this was orchestrated by his attorney, who also represents Mr. Keyes – in a completely separate lawsuit. Major Cook obviously couldn’t do his job, couldn’t command troops, would be a detrimental effect on morale, and is an obvious liability. It’s tough to be effective in Afghanistan when you are a conscientious objector based on the fact that you are in Afghanistan. Good thing he filed his TRO before getting over there, so they could put a stop to it.

I didn’t address the Keyes lawsuit in my response to you. It’s a completely different lawsuit. Keyes is not in the military, he is not a conscientious objector, it has nothing to do with the Major’s case. It has nothing to do with the Major refusing “Obama’s Orders” and the tens of thousands of military personnel who could follow suit. Keyes is challenging whether Obama is qualified to be President. This case is at its inception. That’s because the Plaintiff didn’t properly serve the President.

The judge told attorney Taitz to get everything filed properly and then he would address the merits of the case. Nothing spectacular there. However, the Defendant hasn’t even responded to the lawsuit yet. They still have 60 days. I’m guessing their response will be in the form of some type of dispositive motion. So far, not much to get excited about in that case – yet. It will be interesting to see what kind of response gets filed.

Again, the Court in the Keyes case isn’t clinging as tightly to the facts of the Major’s case as I do because it is a completely unrelated case. The facts in the Major’s case aren’t before the court in Keyes’ case. Different plaintiffs, different courts, different judges.

The Major’s case is a joke. He deliberately volunteered to go to Afghanistan just to give this attorney a platform in federal court. Bad Major, Bad. By the way, he’s been fired from his civilian job as a result. I would imagine he’s going to have a rough time of it with the military legal office as well.

Two completely separate, unrelated cases. One is bogus, the other we’ll have to wait and see.

By the way, officers aren’t “reservists or enlisted”. They are just officers. In the military, you can either be an officer or enlisted. Either of those are either on active duty, or they are some form of reservist.

pabloesqobar,
veteran/lawyer

puff, puff, pass 😉

[PCinSD]

[quote=partypup]
Actually, I really don’t care what you believe. The super-duper-important “fact” that you are strangely clinging to was irrelevant to the point I was making, which is why I chose not to bring it up in my post. It was really a silly sidebar to get caught up on, and the court obviously isn’t clinging as tightly to this fact as you are – or it would not be hearing the case.

And you know what? At least I responded to your question. I explained why the fact you pointed to was irrelevant to my analysis. But what do you do? Ignore all of the other follow-up questions I posed above and retreat to the one fact you think unhinges my entire argument. Give your mind some practice and try actually responding to points raised in a debate instead of ignoring the ones that are inconvenient for you.

I don’t know what you do for a living, but I sincerely hope it doesn’t involve reasoned argument or analysis, because your response demonstrates that both are lacking. *Sigh*[/quote]

Partypup, my sincere apologies for calling you nutty and questioning whether you were a lawyer. I should have done additional research before my first post. My 2nd post was brief because I don’t have time to engage in lengthy internet debates in the middle of the work day. I thought my argument was somewhat obvious.

And, I generally don’t engage in the back and forth debates on here because they are not enjoyable. The only time that was fun was when Marion was here. I remember the schooling you gave her after she attacked you. I loved it. For what it’s worth, I am not an Obama supporter, but don’t have a clue whether he is a legitimate president or not. It will play out one way or another.

My only issue is with this Major Cook guy. My understanding of your post is that you felt there would be huge implications as a result of the Major’s filing his TRO. Those implications being, that tens of thousands of other military personnel could do the same thing. The result would be the military would simply just rescind the orders of all of them. You felt this would be bad. I hope we can agree that was the point you were making in your initial post entitled “Military Officer Refuses Order From Obama”.

The facts:

1) On May 8, 2009 the Major volunteers by way of a formal written request to serve for one year in Afghanistan w/Special Operations Command, U.S. Army, Central Command beginning July 15, 2009. He volunteered. He was under no contractual obligation or otherwise to go overseas;

2) On June 9, 2009, his request was granted;

3) On July 8, 2009 he files a restraining order in federal court. It’s a standard “conscientious objector” TRO. They’ve been around for about as long as the military has. Military personnel bring them all the time in bases all over the world. His particular argument is that since he doesn’t think Obama is the rightful President, he would be violating international law by engaging in military actions outside the U.S.;

4) There is a standard procedure in the Army that allows someone that has volunteered to serve overseas to subsequently request the order be rescinded. Seems reasonable under those circumstances. The Major never asked that his orders be rescinded. As a Major, he would necessarily be well versed on the standard procedures and know this option was available to him, yet chose to forego it. You feel this fact is irrelevant. I disagree. No problemo.

My thoughts: His case is moot. He no longer has orders to go overseas. There is nothing left to rule on. In my opinion, the Army did the right thing by unilaterally rescinding his orders. The Major never intended to go overseas. When he “volunteered”, it was solely for the purpose of teaming up with attorney Taitz and getting this matter in a courtroom. Basically false pretenses. In my opinion, it would have been grossly negligent for the Army to send this guy to serve in Afghanistan w/Special Operations Command once they discovered he only volunteered solely to claim “conscientious objector” status based on Obama’s illegitimacy – and jump the chain of command and go straight to court. In my opinion, this was orchestrated by his attorney, who also represents Mr. Keyes – in a completely separate lawsuit. Major Cook obviously couldn’t do his job, couldn’t command troops, would be a detrimental effect on morale, and is an obvious liability. It’s tough to be effective in Afghanistan when you are a conscientious objector based on the fact that you are in Afghanistan. Good thing he filed his TRO before getting over there, so they could put a stop to it.

I didn’t address the Keyes lawsuit in my response to you. It’s a completely different lawsuit. Keyes is not in the military, he is not a conscientious objector, it has nothing to do with the Major’s case. It has nothing to do with the Major refusing “Obama’s Orders” and the tens of thousands of military personnel who could follow suit. Keyes is challenging whether Obama is qualified to be President. This case is at its inception. That’s because the Plaintiff didn’t properly serve the President.

The judge told attorney Taitz to get everything filed properly and then he would address the merits of the case. Nothing spectacular there. However, the Defendant hasn’t even responded to the lawsuit yet. They still have 60 days. I’m guessing their response will be in the form of some type of dispositive motion. So far, not much to get excited about in that case – yet. It will be interesting to see what kind of response gets filed.

Again, the Court in the Keyes case isn’t clinging as tightly to the facts of the Major’s case as I do because it is a completely unrelated case. The facts in the Major’s case aren’t before the court in Keyes’ case. Different plaintiffs, different courts, different judges.

The Major’s case is a joke. He deliberately volunteered to go to Afghanistan just to give this attorney a platform in federal court. Bad Major, Bad. By the way, he’s been fired from his civilian job as a result. I would imagine he’s going to have a rough time of it with the military legal office as well.

Two completely separate, unrelated cases. One is bogus, the other we’ll have to wait and see.

By the way, officers aren’t “reservists or enlisted”. They are just officers. In the military, you can either be an officer or enlisted. Either of those are either on active duty, or they are some form of reservist.

pabloesqobar,
veteran/lawyer

puff, puff, pass 😉

[PCinSD]

[quote=partypup]
Actually, I really don’t care what you believe. The super-duper-important “fact” that you are strangely clinging to was irrelevant to the point I was making, which is why I chose not to bring it up in my post. It was really a silly sidebar to get caught up on, and the court obviously isn’t clinging as tightly to this fact as you are – or it would not be hearing the case.

And you know what? At least I responded to your question. I explained why the fact you pointed to was irrelevant to my analysis. But what do you do? Ignore all of the other follow-up questions I posed above and retreat to the one fact you think unhinges my entire argument. Give your mind some practice and try actually responding to points raised in a debate instead of ignoring the ones that are inconvenient for you.

I don’t know what you do for a living, but I sincerely hope it doesn’t involve reasoned argument or analysis, because your response demonstrates that both are lacking. *Sigh*[/quote]

Partypup, my sincere apologies for calling you nutty and questioning whether you were a lawyer. I should have done additional research before my first post. My 2nd post was brief because I don’t have time to engage in lengthy internet debates in the middle of the work day. I thought my argument was somewhat obvious.

And, I generally don’t engage in the back and forth debates on here because they are not enjoyable. The only time that was fun was when Marion was here. I remember the schooling you gave her after she attacked you. I loved it. For what it’s worth, I am not an Obama supporter, but don’t have a clue whether he is a legitimate president or not. It will play out one way or another.

My only issue is with this Major Cook guy. My understanding of your post is that you felt there would be huge implications as a result of the Major’s filing his TRO. Those implications being, that tens of thousands of other military personnel could do the same thing. The result would be the military would simply just rescind the orders of all of them. You felt this would be bad. I hope we can agree that was the point you were making in your initial post entitled “Military Officer Refuses Order From Obama”.

The facts:

1) On May 8, 2009 the Major volunteers by way of a formal written request to serve for one year in Afghanistan w/Special Operations Command, U.S. Army, Central Command beginning July 15, 2009. He volunteered. He was under no contractual obligation or otherwise to go overseas;

2) On June 9, 2009, his request was granted;

3) On July 8, 2009 he files a restraining order in federal court. It’s a standard “conscientious objector” TRO. They’ve been around for about as long as the military has. Military personnel bring them all the time in bases all over the world. His particular argument is that since he doesn’t think Obama is the rightful President, he would be violating international law by engaging in military actions outside the U.S.;

4) There is a standard procedure in the Army that allows someone that has volunteered to serve overseas to subsequently request the order be rescinded. Seems reasonable under those circumstances. The Major never asked that his orders be rescinded. As a Major, he would necessarily be well versed on the standard procedures and know this option was available to him, yet chose to forego it. You feel this fact is irrelevant. I disagree. No problemo.

My thoughts: His case is moot. He no longer has orders to go overseas. There is nothing left to rule on. In my opinion, the Army did the right thing by unilaterally rescinding his orders. The Major never intended to go overseas. When he “volunteered”, it was solely for the purpose of teaming up with attorney Taitz and getting this matter in a courtroom. Basically false pretenses. In my opinion, it would have been grossly negligent for the Army to send this guy to serve in Afghanistan w/Special Operations Command once they discovered he only volunteered solely to claim “conscientious objector” status based on Obama’s illegitimacy – and jump the chain of command and go straight to court. In my opinion, this was orchestrated by his attorney, who also represents Mr. Keyes – in a completely separate lawsuit. Major Cook obviously couldn’t do his job, couldn’t command troops, would be a detrimental effect on morale, and is an obvious liability. It’s tough to be effective in Afghanistan when you are a conscientious objector based on the fact that you are in Afghanistan. Good thing he filed his TRO before getting over there, so they could put a stop to it.

I didn’t address the Keyes lawsuit in my response to you. It’s a completely different lawsuit. Keyes is not in the military, he is not a conscientious objector, it has nothing to do with the Major’s case. It has nothing to do with the Major refusing “Obama’s Orders” and the tens of thousands of military personnel who could follow suit. Keyes is challenging whether Obama is qualified to be President. This case is at its inception. That’s because the Plaintiff didn’t properly serve the President.

The judge told attorney Taitz to get everything filed properly and then he would address the merits of the case. Nothing spectacular there. However, the Defendant hasn’t even responded to the lawsuit yet. They still have 60 days. I’m guessing their response will be in the form of some type of dispositive motion. So far, not much to get excited about in that case – yet. It will be interesting to see what kind of response gets filed.

Again, the Court in the Keyes case isn’t clinging as tightly to the facts of the Major’s case as I do because it is a completely unrelated case. The facts in the Major’s case aren’t before the court in Keyes’ case. Different plaintiffs, different courts, different judges.

The Major’s case is a joke. He deliberately volunteered to go to Afghanistan just to give this attorney a platform in federal court. Bad Major, Bad. By the way, he’s been fired from his civilian job as a result. I would imagine he’s going to have a rough time of it with the military legal office as well.

Two completely separate, unrelated cases. One is bogus, the other we’ll have to wait and see.

By the way, officers aren’t “reservists or enlisted”. They are just officers. In the military, you can either be an officer or enlisted. Either of those are either on active duty, or they are some form of reservist.

pabloesqobar,
veteran/lawyer

puff, puff, pass 😉

[PCinSD]

[quote=partypup]
Actually, I really don’t care what you believe. The super-duper-important “fact” that you are strangely clinging to was irrelevant to the point I was making, which is why I chose not to bring it up in my post. It was really a silly sidebar to get caught up on, and the court obviously isn’t clinging as tightly to this fact as you are – or it would not be hearing the case.

And you know what? At least I responded to your question. I explained why the fact you pointed to was irrelevant to my analysis. But what do you do? Ignore all of the other follow-up questions I posed above and retreat to the one fact you think unhinges my entire argument. Give your mind some practice and try actually responding to points raised in a debate instead of ignoring the ones that are inconvenient for you.

I don’t know what you do for a living, but I sincerely hope it doesn’t involve reasoned argument or analysis, because your response demonstrates that both are lacking. *Sigh*[/quote]

Partypup, my sincere apologies for calling you nutty and questioning whether you were a lawyer. I should have done additional research before my first post. My 2nd post was brief because I don’t have time to engage in lengthy internet debates in the middle of the work day. I thought my argument was somewhat obvious.

And, I generally don’t engage in the back and forth debates on here because they are not enjoyable. The only time that was fun was when Marion was here. I remember the schooling you gave her after she attacked you. I loved it. For what it’s worth, I am not an Obama supporter, but don’t have a clue whether he is a legitimate president or not. It will play out one way or another.

My only issue is with this Major Cook guy. My understanding of your post is that you felt there would be huge implications as a result of the Major’s filing his TRO. Those implications being, that tens of thousands of other military personnel could do the same thing. The result would be the military would simply just rescind the orders of all of them. You felt this would be bad. I hope we can agree that was the point you were making in your initial post entitled “Military Officer Refuses Order From Obama”.

The facts:

1) On May 8, 2009 the Major volunteers by way of a formal written request to serve for one year in Afghanistan w/Special Operations Command, U.S. Army, Central Command beginning July 15, 2009. He volunteered. He was under no contractual obligation or otherwise to go overseas;

2) On June 9, 2009, his request was granted;

3) On July 8, 2009 he files a restraining order in federal court. It’s a standard “conscientious objector” TRO. They’ve been around for about as long as the military has. Military personnel bring them all the time in bases all over the world. His particular argument is that since he doesn’t think Obama is the rightful President, he would be violating international law by engaging in military actions outside the U.S.;

4) There is a standard procedure in the Army that allows someone that has volunteered to serve overseas to subsequently request the order be rescinded. Seems reasonable under those circumstances. The Major never asked that his orders be rescinded. As a Major, he would necessarily be well versed on the standard procedures and know this option was available to him, yet chose to forego it. You feel this fact is irrelevant. I disagree. No problemo.

My thoughts: His case is moot. He no longer has orders to go overseas. There is nothing left to rule on. In my opinion, the Army did the right thing by unilaterally rescinding his orders. The Major never intended to go overseas. When he “volunteered”, it was solely for the purpose of teaming up with attorney Taitz and getting this matter in a courtroom. Basically false pretenses. In my opinion, it would have been grossly negligent for the Army to send this guy to serve in Afghanistan w/Special Operations Command once they discovered he only volunteered solely to claim “conscientious objector” status based on Obama’s illegitimacy – and jump the chain of command and go straight to court. In my opinion, this was orchestrated by his attorney, who also represents Mr. Keyes – in a completely separate lawsuit. Major Cook obviously couldn’t do his job, couldn’t command troops, would be a detrimental effect on morale, and is an obvious liability. It’s tough to be effective in Afghanistan when you are a conscientious objector based on the fact that you are in Afghanistan. Good thing he filed his TRO before getting over there, so they could put a stop to it.

I didn’t address the Keyes lawsuit in my response to you. It’s a completely different lawsuit. Keyes is not in the military, he is not a conscientious objector, it has nothing to do with the Major’s case. It has nothing to do with the Major refusing “Obama’s Orders” and the tens of thousands of military personnel who could follow suit. Keyes is challenging whether Obama is qualified to be President. This case is at its inception. That’s because the Plaintiff didn’t properly serve the President.

The judge told attorney Taitz to get everything filed properly and then he would address the merits of the case. Nothing spectacular there. However, the Defendant hasn’t even responded to the lawsuit yet. They still have 60 days. I’m guessing their response will be in the form of some type of dispositive motion. So far, not much to get excited about in that case – yet. It will be interesting to see what kind of response gets filed.

Again, the Court in the Keyes case isn’t clinging as tightly to the facts of the Major’s case as I do because it is a completely unrelated case. The facts in the Major’s case aren’t before the court in Keyes’ case. Different plaintiffs, different courts, different judges.

The Major’s case is a joke. He deliberately volunteered to go to Afghanistan just to give this attorney a platform in federal court. Bad Major, Bad. By the way, he’s been fired from his civilian job as a result. I would imagine he’s going to have a rough time of it with the military legal office as well.

Two completely separate, unrelated cases. One is bogus, the other we’ll have to wait and see.

By the way, officers aren’t “reservists or enlisted”. They are just officers. In the military, you can either be an officer or enlisted. Either of those are either on active duty, or they are some form of reservist.

pabloesqobar,
veteran/lawyer

puff, puff, pass 😉

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Pablo: I am curious about one thing, though: It would appear that the Major was USAR and not RA (Regular Army) because you mention termination from a civilian job.

Being former Army myself, the situation plays out somewhat differently if an officer is RA, versus Army Reserve or National Guard. When I was in, there were even differences in Army Reserve status (i.e. IRR or Individual Ready Reserve, which was an awful lot like the National Guard, only you didn’t even muster out once a month but were on this weird “standby” status. IRR was definitely a product of the Cold War, in that IRR members would probably only get called up if a big war broke out with the Russkies).

I guess my two points would be: First, if the Major was RA, I sincerely doubt that this shit would have gone this far, because a stunt like this is a career ender and, second, volunteering for a force like SOCOM isn’t for the faint hearted and, God forbid he volunteers under false pretenses and winds up there and brother officers and members of his command find out. That’s the kind of situation where you go out on night patrol and don’t happen to come back. Or, as we used to say, you get “Neidermeyered”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Pablo: I am curious about one thing, though: It would appear that the Major was USAR and not RA (Regular Army) because you mention termination from a civilian job.

Being former Army myself, the situation plays out somewhat differently if an officer is RA, versus Army Reserve or National Guard. When I was in, there were even differences in Army Reserve status (i.e. IRR or Individual Ready Reserve, which was an awful lot like the National Guard, only you didn’t even muster out once a month but were on this weird “standby” status. IRR was definitely a product of the Cold War, in that IRR members would probably only get called up if a big war broke out with the Russkies).

I guess my two points would be: First, if the Major was RA, I sincerely doubt that this shit would have gone this far, because a stunt like this is a career ender and, second, volunteering for a force like SOCOM isn’t for the faint hearted and, God forbid he volunteers under false pretenses and winds up there and brother officers and members of his command find out. That’s the kind of situation where you go out on night patrol and don’t happen to come back. Or, as we used to say, you get “Neidermeyered”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Pablo: I am curious about one thing, though: It would appear that the Major was USAR and not RA (Regular Army) because you mention termination from a civilian job.

Being former Army myself, the situation plays out somewhat differently if an officer is RA, versus Army Reserve or National Guard. When I was in, there were even differences in Army Reserve status (i.e. IRR or Individual Ready Reserve, which was an awful lot like the National Guard, only you didn’t even muster out once a month but were on this weird “standby” status. IRR was definitely a product of the Cold War, in that IRR members would probably only get called up if a big war broke out with the Russkies).

I guess my two points would be: First, if the Major was RA, I sincerely doubt that this shit would have gone this far, because a stunt like this is a career ender and, second, volunteering for a force like SOCOM isn’t for the faint hearted and, God forbid he volunteers under false pretenses and winds up there and brother officers and members of his command find out. That’s the kind of situation where you go out on night patrol and don’t happen to come back. Or, as we used to say, you get “Neidermeyered”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Pablo: I am curious about one thing, though: It would appear that the Major was USAR and not RA (Regular Army) because you mention termination from a civilian job.

Being former Army myself, the situation plays out somewhat differently if an officer is RA, versus Army Reserve or National Guard. When I was in, there were even differences in Army Reserve status (i.e. IRR or Individual Ready Reserve, which was an awful lot like the National Guard, only you didn’t even muster out once a month but were on this weird “standby” status. IRR was definitely a product of the Cold War, in that IRR members would probably only get called up if a big war broke out with the Russkies).

I guess my two points would be: First, if the Major was RA, I sincerely doubt that this shit would have gone this far, because a stunt like this is a career ender and, second, volunteering for a force like SOCOM isn’t for the faint hearted and, God forbid he volunteers under false pretenses and winds up there and brother officers and members of his command find out. That’s the kind of situation where you go out on night patrol and don’t happen to come back. Or, as we used to say, you get “Neidermeyered”.

[Author]

Posts