Cook v. Good: Job Threatened; Keyes v. Obama: Judge Will Hear Case Merits
With Major Stefan Cook’s deployment orders to Afghanistan having been revoked after he filed to have a TRO on those orders in federal Court in Columbus, GA, Dr. Orly Taitz, his attorney in Cook v. Good, has filed an Application for Injunction as a protection against what appears to be allegations of malicious intent on the part of the Defense Department.
The actual verbiage of the Injunction can be found on Dr. Taitz’ site. The excerpt, below, explains Major Cook’s current predicament:
DOD RETALIATION AGAINST MR. COOK IS SWIFT AND BRUTAL
Moreover, however, retaliation has occurred or begun against Plaintiff Stefan Frederick Cook for the exercise of his First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances and Plaintiff Cook accordingly here seeks an injunction against the continuance or full implementation of this official governmental retaliation or in the alternative for a writ of mandamus, order to show cause, or rule nisi be issued to the Department of Defense commanding it to cease, cure, or remedy all retaliation against Plaintiff Cook. The circumstances are as follows:
Late on Tuesday afternoon, July 14, 2009, at around about 4:30 pm, Plaintiff Stefan Frederick Cook returned a call to an unknown telephone call from (813) 828-5884 and was told that his services were no longer required in Afghanistan and that he need not report for duty. In addition Plaintiff an e-mail with the revocation order attached from Master Sargent Miguel Matos (Exhibit C). Upon receipt of the revocation, Plaintiff Major Cook called his civilian boss, the CEO of Simtech, Inc., a closely held corporation that does DOD contracting in the general field of information technology/systems integration, at which Plaintiff Major was employed until taking a Military Leave of Absence on Friday July 10, 2009, a senior systems engineer and architect, in preparation for his deployment to Afghanistan. (Plaintiff has five Cisco Systems certifications in information technology dating from 2000 and just recertified in June 2009 for the Cisco Certified Design Expert qualification exam.)
The CEO of Simtech, Inc., Larry Grice, explained to Plaintiff over a series of four conversations within the next two hours, that he had been terminated. Grice told the Plaintiff that he would no longer be welcome in his former position at SOCOM but that Grice wanted to see whether he could find something within the company (Simtech, Inc.) for Cook. The upshot was that at this time Grice did not have anything for Plaintiff to do. Grice told Plaintiff, in essence, that the situation had become “nutty and crazy”, and that Plaintiff would no longer be able to work at his old position. …
Grice explained that he had been in touch with Defense Security Services (an agency of the Department of Defense, with regional offices located in SOCOM Headquarters at McDill Airforce Base in Tampa, Florida), and that DSS had not yet made a determination whether Plaintiff Major Cook’s clearances would be pulled, but Grice made clear to Cook that it was DSS who had compelled Cook’s termination. Essentially, because of the “nutty and crazy” situation and the communications received from DSS was no longer employable by him at all. So he was not optimistic about getting me another job at the company. Grice also reported to Plaintiff that there was some gossip that “people were disappointed in” the Plaintiff because they thought he was manipulating his deployment orders to create a platform for political purposes. Grice then discussed Plaintiff’s expectation of receiving final paychecks (including accrued leave pay) already owed, without any severance pay, and wished the Plaintiff well.
A federal agency (such as the Department of Defense, acting through the Defense Security Services Agency) clearly violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if it takes or fails to take (or threatens to take or fail to take) a personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant because of any disclosure of information by the employee or applicant that he or she reasonably believes evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. What has happened in the present case of Stefan Frederick Cook is that a federal agency appears to have taken action against Stefan Frederick Cook’s private employer, Simtech, Inc., which is a closely held corporation owned and operated by members of a single family, who are as much victims of the Department of Defense’ heavy-handed interference with Plaintiff Cook’s private-sector employment as is Plaintiff Cook himself. [emphasis mine]
The following comes from portions of WorldNetDaily’s coverage of the above:
Messages left with Grice’s office had not been returned at the time of this report. …
A hearing on the questions raised by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, an engineer who told WND he wants to serve his country in Afghanistan, is still scheduled for July 16 at 9:30 a.m. …
Taitz said she will attend the hearing to amend the temporary restraining order to an injunction because more members of the military have joined the cause.
“We are going to be asking for release of Obama’s records because now this completely undermines the military. It revoked this order, but it can come up with another order tomorrow. It can come up with orders for other people,” she said. “Am I going to be flying around the country 1,000 times and paying the fees every time they issue an order?”
Defendant Col. Wanda Good filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s action for a temporary restraining order “for lack of jurisdiction” today.
“This case no longer presents a live case or controversy, nor does Major Cook have standing to pursue his claim,” it states, “therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over his claims and they should be dismissed.”
It continued, “The Commanding General of SOCCENT has determined that he does not want the services of Major Cook, and has revoked his deployment orders. .. Without mobilization orders, Major Cook lacks standing to pursue his claims.”
But Taitz said the issue “must be resolved immediately,” and she will continue working to ensure Obama proves he is eligible for office.
“We’re going to be asking the judge to issue an order for Obama to provide his vital records to show he is legitimately president,” she said. “We’re going to say, we have orders every day, and we’ll have revocations every day. This issue has to be decided.”
She said there cannot be any harm to the president if he is legitimately holding office.
“If he is legitimate, then his vital records will prove it,” Taitz said. “If he is illegitimate, then he should not have been there in the first place.”
Asked what this decision means for every other serviceman who objects to deployment under a president who has not proven he is eligible for office, Taitz responded:
“Now, we can have each and every member of the military – each and every enlistee and officer – file something similar saying ‘I will not take orders until Obama is legitimately vetted.’”
I think that Dr. Taitz or associate should also be looking at issues surrounding wrongful termination of an employee. I don’t think that a business can terminate someone’s employment solely because of what the employee does on their own time, unless that company can show, via published corporate policy, that such a reason for termination is clearly defined and the employee had every reason to know of that policy’s existence.
Circumstantially, based on the above, it is becoming clearer that the reason for Major Cook’s order revocation wasn’t just about getting rid of the case, but also about getting him out of the military so that not only does this not happen again, but that an example can be set.
In related news, Dr. Taitz filed her First Amended Complaint in the case, Keyes v. Obama:
In what appears to be further testimony on the part of non-”birthers,” the site YesToDemocracy.com posted the following regarding another perspective on Dr. Taitz’ experience with US District Court Judge “King David” O. Carter:
13 July – Orly had her court date for Keyes v Obama today. And, courtesy of Politijab reader “Wavy Davey”, we have a description of what happened.
“WAVEY DAVEY’S REPORT OF THE MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING IN KEYES V OBAMA 7/12/09
AS DICTATED TO ME BY BB
I received a call from wavey davey who attended today’s hearing in the Central District of California. The outcome is not what we expected, but it is clear that the judge wants to position the case so that he can rule on the merits.
The judge had stern words for Orly a number of times, although he showed a lot of patience. She kept going off on her litany regarding the hundreds of Social Security numbers, and the judge let her bather on for a while. She also repeatedly asked the Court, “Why are the United States attorneys here? They have no standing, they’re not allowed to be here,” and the Court corrected her on that.
She wanted to talk about the merits of the case and the court said, “Today is not about merits, it is about procedure.”
The court made clear, several times, that he wants this case to go forward on the merits but he did say that proper service had not been achieved on Obama. The U.S. Attorney’s office was represented by DeJute. At first Mr. DeJute said that he was not authorized to accept service on behalf of the United States but it was determined that the U.S. Attorney for the district could accept service and so the court ordered Orly and DeJute to confer and to march downstairs together to properly serve the United States Attorney.
Charles Lincoln was present as a “law clerk.”
Wavey davey described him as “short, dumpy, early middle-age, balding.”
Orly continually argued with the judge. The judge responded, “I’m giving you a gift.” When she continued to want to argue the merits and that she had achieved service the judge said, “I think you must be deaf. You aren’t listening. You’re stubborn.”
The judge kept saying that he wanted “what gets this case into court on the merits.”
So what was agreed was that the service would be achieved on the United States Attorney, the United States would have 60 days to respond, and the United States many not ask for any extensions of time.
Orly still wasn’t even satisfied with this result and the judge kept saying, “If you want this expedited I’ll do this, but we need to get this resolved for once and all.”
At one point then Orly said she wanted mediation. The judge’s response was, “What’s to mediate? Either Obama is president or he is not.”
At one point Orly started to read the motion that she filed today. The judge cut her off saying, “I can read.” He noted that he had worked all weekend and would have been available to read this had she filed it earlier. “I’ve seen it. It’s not relevant, you’re wasting your time reading it into the record.”
Waveydavey did note that, as expected, Orly exhibited that she really does not have the socialization skills of others in the legal community. He said it was rather funny, when she first came into the courtroom she was beaming at her Orlybots — there were a number of them there — he was the only Obamabot or Obot there — she had a huge bag stuffed full of things, as well as her purse, and she marched right up beyond the gate and sat down at counsel table.
The courtroom deputy to whom she had not entered her appearance, spoke to her and told her, “It’s not your turn. Go back to the gallery and sit down. Your case will be called,” and Orly was quite flustered because she obviously doesn’t know the custom of a docket call.
Waveydavey also described her as being very pushy and that the judge, on a number of occasions, cut her off. At one point he called for a recess saying, “You need to calm down.”
The judge, several times, indicated that he wants to be able to rule on the merits of the case stating, “This needs to be resolved. We need to get rid of all these doubts.”
Orly indicated that she intends to file a FOIA request. The Court said, “Go ahead, but it would be a waste of time. If we’re going to hear this on the merits there may be rulings, you know, regarding documents.”
END OF REPORT BY WAVEYDAVEY”
Regardless of anyone’s accounting of what went on in the Courthouse, we will still need to confirm via reporter notes exactly what was said. However, it is interesting that this individual, someone clearly not aligned with challenging the President’s eligibility, provides for some very interesting direct quotes of Judge Carter; if we were to rely solely on this testimony, I could see why Dr. Taitz is upbeat about her chances, however low they may be.
If I were advising Dr. Taitz, I would simply recommend that she take a very large chill pill in terms of her presentation. To date, as I’ve said via commentary on my blog, she has done an excellent job of being an activist — defined as taking absolutely every opportunity available to advance the cause. Now that she has two good leads (and by “good,” I mean that she hasn’t been tossed out of Court on a techicality at this point), she should proceed assertively but judiciously so as to give each Courtroom every reason to consider her position.
That’s how I would do it if I were in her shoes. Let the evidence sell itself.
Site Note: For those of you who would have regularly partaken in my site’s RSS feed, I have fixed it such that it should now be working correctly (as opposed to having been a week behind). The feed ended up being too big content-wise, so I reduced the number of postings from 30 to 15. My apologies for the issue.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
- Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
- What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a Birth Certificate?
- Keyes v. Lingle: Forensic Examiner and IT Expert Disprove Certification of Live Birth
- Obama Citizenship Facts
- The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
- Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing
45 responses to Cook v. Good: Job Threatened; Keyes v. Obama: Judge Will Hear Case Merits