The Ledger-Enquirer has reported the results of Cook v. Good: (videos at link):

U.S. District Judge Clay Land sided with the government, represented by Maj. Rebecca Ausprung, which claimed Cook’s suit was “moot” because the Army had already told him he doesn’t have to deploy, so the relief he is seeking has been granted.

“The same Constitution upon which Major Cook relies in support of his contention that President Barack Obama is not eligible to serve as President of the United States very clearly provides that federal courts shall only have the authority to hear actual ‘cases and controversies,’” Land stated in his written order. “By restricting the Judiciary’s power to actual ‘cases and controversies,’ our founders wisely established a separation of powers that would ensure the freedom of their fellow citizens. They concluded that the Judicial Branch, the unelected branch, should not inject itself into purely ‘political disputes,’ and that it should not entangle itself in hypothetical debates which had not ripened to an actual legal dispute.”

Land’s decision to dismiss the entire action came an hour and 15 minutes after the hearing began.

Cook arrived at the federal courthouse in uniform about an hour before his 9:30 a.m. hearing.

Dr. Orly Taitz was reported accordingly:

During the proceedings, Land heard from Orly Taitz, Ausprung and Cook’s attorney.

Taitz argued that her client is not opposed to military service. Instead, Cook, who claims he has been the victim of retaliation to his suit, fears that if he executed Obama’s orders, he could be prosecuted as a war criminal for following the orders of an illegitimate commander-in-chief.

Land asked Taitz whether Cook requested to simply have his orders rescinded, instead of filing a lawsuit. …

Taitz said she filed an Article 138 complaint with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen. An Article 138 complaint gives members of the armed forces under the Uniform Code of Military Justice the right to request redress if they believe they had been wronged by their commanding officer.

According to Ausprung, an Article 138 complaint has to go through the soldier’s chain of command. Cook did not go through his chain of command, Ausprung said. …

The government argued in court that Cook was using the issue of his deployment to address the constitutional and political issue of whether Obama is qualified to serve as president.

Land agreed, saying that Cook’s claim failed to meet the criteria for seeking federal jurisdiction.

According to Land’s order, Cook had not “experienced an ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and particularized” because his orders have been revoked, he hasn’t received future orders and there’s no evidence that he is subject to future deployment. …

“This entire action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,” Land continued in his order. “The parties shall bear their own costs.”

As to the retaliation issue, the revised suit states Cook lost his job at Simtech Inc. — a corporation based in Florida that does Department of Defense contracting in the field of information technology and systems integration — because of the suit. It also states that Cook has been subjected to “gossip” from people who believed Cook was “manipulating his deployment orders to create a platform for political purposes.”

Land said in court he was not going to decide on the issue of Cook’s dismissal from his job.

“There’s an appropriate forum in a court where there is jurisdiction over those parties,” Land said.

Regarding the refiling, the Ledger-Enquirer reported:

Following the hearing, Taitz said she would be filing a suit in a Florida court, asking for an injunction and damages. She also told the media gathered outside the courthouse that she was disappointed with Land’s ruling.

“It makes absolutely no sense, it’s totally illogical,” Taitz said. “It defies common sense. It defies any sense of decency. …

“We’re not a banana republic where el presidente decides. We are a nation of law and order,” she added. “We’re a nation of Constitution of the United States of America and the orders have to be lawful.”

WorldNetDaily reported the following on the refiling:

Land told Taitz the issue now appeared to be a dismissal complaint, and it needed to be handled in Florida where Cook is a resident and was employed.

“Since the Army revoked its orders and we asked for a Temporary Restraining Order,” Taitz said, the judge concluded it was a dispute over retaliation.

“He says he no longer has jurisdiction and to refile the case in Florida,” Taitz told WND shortly after the hearing.

“It’s basically dismissed in Georgia. He advised us to have it refiled in Florida, because now he’s not being deployed from Ft. Benning, he’s not a resident of the state. He’s a resident of Florida, his employer is in Florida. The judge wants us to refile the case where he feels the case’s jurisdiction is proper,” she said.

“Now we are re-doing the case. Now it’s not about the order to deploy but fighting retaliation he experienced on the part of the military. His employer stated he was under enormous pressure to fire him,” she continued.

“We will be refiling the case in Florida.”

New Plaintiffs that had been added:

In a pleading revised after the revocation of Cook’s orders, Taitz argues that the application for preliminary injunction is not moot and that retired Maj. Gen. Carol Dean Childers and active U.S. Air Force reservist Lt. Col. David Earl Graeff have joined the suit “because it is a matter of unparalleled public interest and importance and because it is clearly a matter arising from issues of a recurring nature that will escape review unless the Court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction.”

Cook’s resubmitted Application for Preliminary Injunction is meant to encompass the possibility of Cook receiving future orders for deployment as well as to address and prevent “negative collateral consequences such as retaliation against Major Stefan Frederick Cook …”

Update: As many commenters have already chimed in, the Ledger-Enquirer has reported the following concerning Major General (Retired) Carroll D. Childers:

An e-mail purporting to be from the two-star general listed as a plaintiff in the controversial federal lawsuit questioning Barack Obama’s eligibility as president says he never agreed to be a party to the suit.

On Wednesday night, the Ledger-Enquirer received an e-mail from a person identifying himself as Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Carroll D. Childers.

“You have bad information,” the e-mail says. “I have not joined the lawsuit brought by Maj. Cook. Please retract that information and do not print it again.” …

The suit said in part: “Major General Carol (sic) Dean Childers retired but subject to lifetime recall, and Lt. Col. David Earl Graeff – Medical Surgeon in U.S. Airforce (sic) Active Reserves, subject to recall any day, join in this Application for Preliminary Injunction because it is a matter of unparalleled public interest and importance and because it is clearly a matter arising from issues of a recurring nature that will escape review unless the Court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction.”

Reached for comment on her cell phone Thursday afternoon, the plaintiffs’ California-based attorney, Orly Taitz, said she had a signed consent form from Childers.

“Probably it’s some kind of mistake,” Taitz said. “I don’t know what happened.”

Later Thursday afternoon, the person identifying himself as Childers in an e-mail said several months ago he signed a “motion” Taitz filed requesting that a judge unseal specific personnel records, which Taitz thinks will either verify or disprove Obama’s status as a natural born citizen of the United States.

“Not being a lawyer, I was not aware that other subsequent court filings, in such cases as Major Cook, might also tie me to such subsequent cases,” the e-mail said. “I have notified Dr. Taitz that I am no longer a plaintiff in any motion she might process.”

Memo to Dr. Taitz (from me):

Dear Dr. Taitz,

I commend you for being quite the voracious proponent to uncover the truth about the President’s eligibility (regardless of whether or not you agree that Mr. Obama is, in fact, the President); I don’t think anyone could think of matching your energy and tenaciousness on this issue.

But, please — get your class of Plaintiffs correct! Nothing will make you look worse than the idea that you’ve missed crucially important details with your suits. Don’t stop moving forward, just slow down to mach 1.5.

Moreover, a very large 180 degree change in your presentation is absolutely in order. In order to be an effective communicator in front of full-court press, you absolutely must be able to state your mission or answer questions directed to you in short, 15-second responses.

Nobody wants a torrent of verbiage spewed towards them at 150mph. People want to know that not only do you care about this issue, but you care enough about people listening to you to give them a reason to listen to you.

Short and sweet. Keep it simple. In other words, even though you two aren’t on the best of terms, I really have to say — Philip Berg does an excellent job of delivery. You don’t have to like the guy to appreciate that he’s good at speech delivery and getting to the point.

Again, you’re a machine with your activism. If 10% of all Americans proceeded forth with the same vigor as you, Washington, D.C. would be a completely different place today than it was yesterday.

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

-Phil

Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

Photo courtesy Ledger-Enquirer