[ED.: Judging from some comments since this first-hand report of Maj. Cook's mock trial,
it escaped notice by most, being the last post on page 58. I repost it for that reason.]
Maj. Gen. Childers, Lt. Col. Graef, Maj. Cook v. Col. Good, Col. Wingate, Col. MacDonald, Dr. Robert M. Gates, USSecDef, Barack Hussein Obama, [de facto] President of the United States
Courtroom proceedings are unfamiliar to me, but Major Stefan Cook v. Col. Goode et al was a disheartening eye-opener about how unjust "justice" can be. This morning at 9:30 AM, July 16, 2009, I saw either a preview of the Tribulation or a look back at the Inquisition, in U.S. Distruct Judge Clay Land's second-floor courtroom in the U.S. Post Office and Federal Courthouse, Columbus, Georgia - eight miles north of Ft. Benning.
Everything in this courtroom seemed backwards and turned upside down.
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/6...donitshead.jpg
Judge Land acted like an aggressive prosecutor, Dr. Taitz, the prosecuting attorney, acted like a defender of her wrongly attacked client, and the Army defense attorneys acted like bystanders who refused to get involved. Perhaps this travesty would be better understood if you were to read this account in reverse order, so you could see how the usual eventualities and bogus arguments, such as lack of standing, were pre-addressed and ruled out before they were brought forward anyway.
_________________________________________________
1) Dr. Taitz asked that this case serve as representative of the other 170 or so military personnel. She told Judge Land that if he did not accept a representative case on behalf of the others, she would potentially have to bring each one before his court. He declined her request without comment, apparently not taking it seriously.
The first blonde female Army defense attorney mentioned Navy Capt. Schiver, Maj. Cook's civilian job supervisor at defense subcontractor Simtech in Pensacola. Capt. Harris had named a July 15, 2009 (yesterday), date of deployment to Afghanistan for Maj. Cook because Maj. Cook had asked for a July 15th date. He had volunteered before Mr. Obama took office, and reaffirmed that on May 15, 2009. She claimed that he should not be allowed to change the request he had so recently made. She said the proper procedure was a ???????-43 review process as to whether orders should be revoked.
She stated that the 11th Circuit has addressed this military [deployment?] procedure as early as 2003; yet, Maj. Cook did not use those channels.
__________________________________________
2) Dr. Taitz only made a ten or fifteen minute presentation, in which she presciently disassembled and defused the "no standing" ruling which Judge Land would make a half hour thereafter. This was hardly a shot in the dark, there having been 48 previous "no standing" rulings by self-shielding judges, none of whom has been willing to step out of line and get involved in actually judging between the fraud and the victim.
An almost as blonde female Army Major followed Dr. Taitz with a ten or fifteen minute recitation of how the military expected issues to be addressed through channels [in an ideal, untainted world]. The Army defense attorney stated that Maj. Cook had not taken an Article 138 complaint through channels, which is the prescribed procedure.
Dr, Taitz objected to that statement as not true, because she had taken the presentment to Adm. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asking what was the proper route for determining the legitimacy of the chain of command for orders. Adm. Mullen's legal counsel told her that because the [de facto] Commander-in-Chief is a civilian, he is not subject to the military determination of legitimacy of chain of command. Therefore, an Article 138 complaint could not require verification of legitimacy of a civilian CinC. [Therefore, Article 138 through channels would be pointless in this particular case.]
Then the Army defense attorney simply restated the necessity of submitting an Article 138 complaint through channels. Otherwise, the Army defense attorney comported herself satisfactorily and without offense.
Judge Land asked Dr. Taitz if she had evidence of her statement. "Evidence... Evidence!" She said she could present a written affidavit, but she had not brought the original determination, not expecting that the Army attorney would make such a false statement. Judge Land then denied Dr. Taitz' testimony in lieu of written evidence, leaving the argument in the Army's favor, that an Article 138 complaint had not been submitted through channels, and Maj. Cook had gone outside of channels and filed in a civilian court.
The Army defense attorney claimed that filing in a civilian court was improper for determination of legitimacy of chain of command, and the judge appeared to agree. N.B. the Catch-22: the JCS had already determined that a military complaint process cannot validate a civilian Commander-in-Chief, yet Maj. Cook cannot validate a military chain of command in a civilian court;. Did anyone mention that this eventuality had never happened before, and that it would cause a Constitutional crisis?
Although this contradiction was apparent to all, Judge Land accepted it into the record. More than once, I feared I would be reprimanded for my involuntary gasps of disbelief. I should have been able to restrain one moan, though. By contrast, Maj. Stefan Cook sat ramrod straight and, although I could not see his face, he did not make any untoward motions throughout.
__________________________________________
3) After a 15 minute recess, Judge Clay Land closed the case by rebuking Dr. Taitz for four or five minutes in a statement apparently prepared BEFORE the trial, the gist (NOT AN EXACT QUOTE) of which was the following:
"This court is ruled by the same Constitution your client uses to prompt his refusal of military orders. You came here intending to uncover Pres. Obama's birth certificate. The Constitution defines the separation of powers, and this court will not overstep those bounds to rule on the Executive Branch.
"Maj. Cook, your orders to Afghanistan have been revoked; you will not be getting any more orders. Retired Maj. Gen. Childers and Lt. Col. Graef attached their names to this case based on possible orders; this court will not rule on hypotheticals. Your employment in Pensacola is beyond the jurisdiction of this court. Your complaint fails to meet the three requirements for standing. Therefore, this case is dismissed for lack of standing.
"You have your orders revoked; that is what your restraining order demanded."
Of course, that was not at all the intent of Maj. Cook's request for a temporary restraining order. As a volunteering officer, he could have revoked his own orders at any time up to deployment. Maj. Cook's plaint was for clarification of the chain of command, so that he could lawfully go to Afghanistan, as he had volunteered to do and wanted to do. But the judge specifically said he would not order discovery of Mr. Obama's birth certificate, that being interference by the judicial branch with the executive branch according to the separation of powers . . .
Actually, that is what is necessary, and what was intended by the checks and balances of a tripartite government. Separation of powers and checks and balances are opposing weights on the scales of justice. They must balance, or there is no justice.
__________________________________________
4) "Federal court only has authority of actual cases and controversies," Judge Land said. "The entire action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."
This bland statement does not communicate the contemptuous glare and hostile tone of voice which Judge Land showed the plaintiff, and especially Orly Taitz, when he read aloud the requirements for standing. Such "justices" hate her for challenging their unjust tyranny from the bench, their throwing the law under the bus and ruling according to agenda and worldview.
Quote:
Originally Posted by U.S. District Judge Clay Land - read, not written
Thus, he spotlighted the irony:
I) Maj. Cook suffered injury in that his reserve status is probably revoked along with the orders for Afghanistan. The judge told him he would not be receiving further orders from the Army. The injury is concrete and particularized to him alone, actual and imminent, like day before yesterday.
II) Maj. Cook suffered injury in that the DOD had leaned on his boss to fire him from his job at defense subcontractor Simtech. Maj. Cook was fired from his civilian job less than 24 hours after his orders were revoked. Of course, DOD will claim there was no causal connection.
III) Injury would not only be addressed by a favorable decision, but a mere court order for discovery of the usurper's birth documents would end the reign of terror for everyone before it gets really, really dire.
Dr. Orly Taitz replied to Judge Land, "This is a mockery of justice."
And so it was. It merely covered the judge upon judicial review.
We all rose to show respect for the judge upon his two entrances. I had to force myself to rise to show him respect when he finally left. But, after the trial, I did render respect where respect was due - to Maj. Stefan Cook. I saluted him and told him he was the bravest man I had ever met. He said, "It's moral courage." I continued to stare at him, wanting to weep. He turned away, saying, "You make me want to cry." He could feel the emotion. Pray for this just man, unjustly persecuted to hide the wickedness of another [snip].
Someone said afterward that this was just the wrong judge. We all expressed our hopes for U.S. District Judge David O. Carter in California for Keyes v. Obama.
But today, this was truly a kangaroo court; the judge had even prepared his final opinion before the case began.
__________________________________________________ ____
5) On the sidewalk in front of the U.S. Post Office and Federal Courthouse, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., and much-decorated Middle East combat veteran Major Stefan F. Cook patiently explained to hostile and provoking reporters about:
his uniform sprinkled with medals and ribbons and combat buttons;
his four combat tours in the Middle East vs. the "coward objector" slander thrown at him;
his volunteering for another Afghanistan tour under Pres. Bush, but since March, having second thoughts (Geneva Convention) about serving in combat under a de facto Commander-in-Chief who had not demonstrated his natural born citizenship so as to be a legitimate head of state;
the intricacies of citizenship vs. natural born citizenship;
non-binding Sen. Res. 511 approving Sen. John McCain's purported natural born citizenship vs. the absence of examination of Sen. Obama's bona fides (Dr. Taitz misspoke that John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, although his Panama birth certificate states he was born in Colon Hospital, Colon, Republic of Panama);
that natural born citizenship required two citizen parents, not just one, plus birth on soil under U.S. jurisdiction;
Emmerich de Vattel's The Law of Nations, and how its principles of international law were incorporated into the U.S. Constitution;
the 14th Amendment definition of citizenship and why that was irrelevant to natural born citizenship; yet its primary author, Rep. John Bingham, incidentally described natural born citizenship as birth on U.S. soil to parents who are citizens;
and so much more, in her inimitable meticulous detail.
That contrasted with the lack of opportunity given in court to present the same character witness and the history of natural born citizenship. It just didn't come up in the courtroom. Neither did Mr. Obama's proof of qualification or the lack thereof.
- MinutemanCDC_SC .... 7/16/09
I learned today that if you're lost in the backwoods of west Georgia at midday, with no shadows,
no road signs, the gas gauge on "E", and no bars on the cellphone, you're REALLY LOST!