Appellant brief in Major Cook’s case was received by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta GA
Posted on | December 8, 2009 | 10 Comments
US Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit – Brief Upload Result Page
| Successfully Received Appellant – Initial Brief for Docket #09-14698 at December 08, 2009 03:16:22 PM from Orly Taitz (016671115) PLEASE NOTE: All submissions are subject to review. |
No. 09-14698-CC
___________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
___________________________
STEFAN FREDRICK COOK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WANDA L. GOOD et al,
Defendants-Appellees.
___________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
___________________________
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT
___________________________
Dr. Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, Suite 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
(949) 683-5411
Counsel for Appellant
December 7, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CITATIONS …………………………………………………………………iii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………….1
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES…………………………………………………………1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE……………………………………………………………2
- Nature of the Case and Proceedings Below……………………………..6
- Statement of Facts………………………………………………………………..3
STANDARD OF REVIEW……………………………………………………………….12
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT………………………………………………………….13
ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………………………………..16
I. Lack of Time to Respond…………………………………………………….6
- Omitting Military Pressure on Employer……………………………….7
- Imminent Not Hypothetical Injury………………………………………..8
- Exception to Repetition, Evasion Mootness Doctrine………………8
- Standing of Additional Plaintiffs…………………………………………10
- Ignoring Whistleblower Acts………………………………………………10
- Not Providing Opportunity to File Complaint……………………….10
CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………………………..11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT…………………………………………………..11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
TABLE OF CITATIONS
CASES
Gerstein v. Pugh,
420 U.S. 102, 110 n. 11, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975)…………13
Oregon Advocacy Ctr v. Mink,
322 F.3d 1101, 1118 (9th Cir. 2003)……………………………………………14
Roe v. Wade,
410 U.S. 113, 125, 93 S,Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973) ………………13
Ukranian American Bar Assn’n v. Baker,
893 F.2d 1374, 1377 (D.C. Cir 1990) …………………………………………14
STATUTES
4th Amendment to the US Constitution ……………………………………………11
9th Amendment to the US Constitution …………………………………………..11
Rule 65 Application for Preliminary Injunction…………………………………….12
State of Hawaii Statute 338-5……………………………………………..12
Local Rule 7-2 US District Court, Middle District of GA …………….12
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This court has jurisdiction, as the order being reviewed came from the 11th circuit, US District court, Middle District of Georgia, Columbus division. The case revolves around the issues of Federal law and US Constitution and there was a complete diversity between the parties and because the jurisdiction does not lie solely in the Supreme Court of Georgia under the Georgia Constitution, Art. 6 §6, PII. See GA Const., Art 6, §5, III
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED
Did the District court err in law and fact in dismissing the whole Legal action of Cook et al v Good et al on 07.16.09, while not giving the Plaintiff’s-Appellant’s counsel any time to respond to the Motion to Dismiss, filed by the defendants only a day prior to dismissal, by not giving the plaintiff an opportunity to file an actual complaint beyond the Motion for TRO and injunction, and by disregarding most of the facts of the case, most egregiously the fact that the military acted in bad faith and pressured the plaintiffs employer, small military contractor to have the Plaintiff-Appelant fired after he exercised his first Amendment rights to question legitimacy of the Commander in Chief due to the split allegiance and lack of legitimate vital records for the Commander in Chief?
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Statement of Facts
The Plaintiff-Appellant Major Stefan Frederick Cook is a high ranked US military officer, who has served this country for some twenty years on active duty or active reserves. He worked for a military contractor Simtech in the area of security and computer security, and he has advanced degrees and training in Engineering, Management, Business, Computer Science and Economics. Major Cook has served in the field of battle before and is ready, willing and able to serve again as member of US active reserves.
Recently Major Cook became aware of extremely troubling facts regarding the Commander in Chief, specifically the fact that the Commander in Chief according to National databases and affidavit by a licensed investigator and former elite unit Scotland Yard investigator Mr. Sankey, has used some 39 different social security numbers, several of them were used in Georgia, several of these numbers belonged to deceased individuals, some are never assigned numbers, none of these numbers were issued in the state of Hawaii, where Mr. Obama was born, according to Mr. Obama’s claims. Major Cook was also concerned about the fact that according to a leading US Forensic Document expert Sandra Ramsey Lines the short version Certification of Life Birth, issued in 2007, and presented by Mr. Obama to the public, cannot be considered genuine without examining the original supposedly on file in the Health Department in Hawaii. In spite of over 100 legal actions in state and federal courts demanding to see Mr. Obama’s vital records, Mr. Obama has refused to unseal his original records, such as original birth certificate from 1961 from Hawaii, his birthing file from Kapiolani hospital, his college and university enrollment records, and instead has instructed his private attorney, currently White House Counsel, Mr. Robert Bauer from Perkins Coie and Department of Justice, US Attorneys’ office to quash all subpoenas for production of records. This is of particular concern, since Hawaii statutes going back to 1911 consistently allowed foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to get Hawaiian birth certificate and Hawaiian statute 338-5 allows one to obtain a birth certificate based on a statement of one relative only, who of course can be biased, without any corroborating evidence from any hospital. Even more troubling is the fact that the director of the Health department of Hawaii Ms. Chioumi Fukino has only provided a cryptic statement, that there is a document on file, according to Hawaiian rules and regulations, however she consistently refused to provide a clear answer, as to what document is there, is it a 338-5 document supplied by a parent only without any corroborating evidence, is it a 338-17 document given to a foreign born child of a Hawaiian resident, is it an amended birth certificate, given upon Mr. Obama’s adoption by his Indonesian step father and showing him as a citizen of Indonesia? Major Cook brought this current action to stop his deployment and stop any retaliatory actions by the military until the legitimacy of the Commander in Chief is verified and there is a declaratory relief on this issue. When the military revoked Major Cook’s deployment orders, it only exacerbated unrest in the military, as it became clear that Mr. Obama and the military have nothing to show, it became a political story number 5 in the World, and in order to prevent future similar actions the military applied tremendous pressure on Major Cook’s employer, small military contractor Simtech, to have him fired from his $120, 000 position, to teach a lesson anybody who dares to exercise his First Amendment right to free speech and redress of Grievances and question legitimacy of the Commander in Chief. The Plaintiff in his Motion for injunction was asking to stop retaliation by the military and reinstatement in his position. The inference of this case is that it appears that the US district judge Clay D. Land has colluded with Obama administration and the top brass of the military by throwing out the whole legal action, by refusing to grant the injunction, by not giving the undersigned counsel any time to respond to the motion to dismiss, by completely ignoring most of the facts of the case, specifically the fact of retaliation by the military and claiming that the case needs to be dismissed due to lack of injury and lack of standing. Judge Land didn’t see a loss of $120,000 a year position as an injury. Judge Land equally ignored all legal argument, specifically the fact that two other high ranked officers joined the current action and the fact that this is specifically type of an repeated injury that evades the judicial review and falls under the exception to mootness doctrine. This order to dismiss necessitated current appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review is Whether the district court has
1.abused its discretion in dismissing the case within one day after receiving the motion to dismiss without giving the undersigned counsel any time to respond, while she was allowed 20 days according to local rules, by ignoring most facts of the case, specifically the fact that more members of the military with proper standing have joined the action and the fact that the plaintiff-appellant was subjected to retaliation by the military, and ignoring all legal argument by the plaintiff.
2. Whether the district court has erred in applying the law, specifically on the issue of repeated occurrence that evades judicial review
3. Whether the district court has erred in applying the facts while reaching conclusion that the plaintiffs have suffered no injury and had no immenent injury.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
ARGUMENT
Plaintiff-Appellant Major Stefan Fredrick Cook appeals the order to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction due to following errors of law and fact:
I. Lack of Time to Respond
Judge Land has dismissed the whole legal action on July 16, the second day after the Defendant’s motion to dismiss was filed. The court’s action was on the same day as that motion was even seen by the plaintiffs and the undersigned counsel, who were traveling from out of state to the hearing. The court dismissed the whole case within one day without providing the undersigned counsel 20 days allowed by local rules to be given to the non-moving party to respond to the motion:
“-7.2 RESPONSE. Respondent’s counsel desiring to submit a response, brief, or affidavits shall serve the same within twenty (20) days after service of movant’s motion and brief.”
The court dismissed the legal action before the undersigned counsel had an opportunity to even read the motion. These actions by Judge Land are not only a flagrant error and violation of the local rules, but are a violation of the appellant’s rights to due process under the 4th and 9th amendment and 42 U.S.C §§1983,1988, which would provide valid grounds to reverse the order to dismiss.
II. Omitting Military Pressure on Employer
In the order to dismiss the court argue that the court has no jurisdiction because the plaintiff Cook has no standing. The court argues that the plaintiff cannot satisfy the requirement for standing, – of having injury that is concrete and actual or permanent, – because “his orders to deploy were revoked” p.2 of the order.
The court completely ignores Major Cook’s statement that the military retaliated against him by pressuring his employer, a small defense contractor to fire Major Cook from his $120,000 a year position. How can the court miss such an important issue and not address it in the order? Judge Land read his order to dismiss immediately after a short TRO hearing. It was quite clear that he prepared the order in advance, before hearing the arguments in court and without reading the Rule 65 Application for Preliminary Injunction that was submitted to court shortly before the hearing. Either judge Land didn’t read the Application for Preliminary Injunction, which would show negligence on part of the court or he read the Application and consciously decided to ignore such an important issue, which would show bias and bad faith on part of the court. Omitting the issue of pressure applied on the plaintiff’s employer to have him fired from his $120,000 a year job represents a clear error of material fact, which justifies reversal of the order to dismiss.
III. Imminent Not Hypothetical Injury
The court argued that “There is no evidence that he is subject to future deployment. Any such contention is sheer speculation and entirely hypothetical. Thus he has suffered no particularized or concrete injury” p2 order. Here the court assumes facts not in evidence and ignores fact in evidence. Actually, major Cook submitted evidence showing that he has been in the military for over 20 years either as an active duty officer or active reserve. Active reserve officers are deployed every year. Therefore the evidence shows that future deployment is imminent, completely opposite to what the court ruled. Additionally, as stated previously, not only the plaintiff-appellant is subject to imminent future deployment, he also suffered injury from being fired from his position as a defense contractor under pressure from the military. Therefore, the plaintiff-appellant has suffered actual injury and he is additionally subject to imminent injury. The court has made an error of fact, which necessitates reversal of order.
- IV. Exception to Mootness Doctrine
The court ruled that there was no evidence for the undersigned counselor’s argument that this issue falls within the narrow “capable of repetition, yet evading review” issue. P3 order. There are thousands of soldiers and officers who are being deployed on a daily basis. They are entitled to know whether the orders coming from the Commander in Chief are lawful. In Gerstein v Pugh, 420 US 102, 110 n. 11, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975) the Supreme Court of the US held the exception to mootness doctrine for violations “capable of repetition, yet evading review” applied because the Constitutional violation was likely to be repeated but would not last long enough to be reviewed before becoming moot.. In oral argument the undersigned counselor equated this issue to Roe v Wade 410 US 113,125,93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973) and the issue of women getting pregnant and not being able to have their case reviewed, as it was rendered moot after each delivery, at which time the above doctrine was introduced. It was actually argued that some cynics might say that Obama’s refusal to unseal any of his vital records equates to abortion of legitimacy of the American Presidency. In Oregon Advocacy Ctr v Mink, 322 F.3d 1101, 1118 (9th Cir.2003). it was held that plaintiffs have standing if they are challenging an ongoing governmental policy, even if specific injury no longer exists. Here we have an ongoing policy of concealment of records of the Commander in Chief. To this point is the DC Circuit court held that when a complaint challenges an acknowledged or apparent governmental policy, the government cannot prevail by arguing that the controversy became moot when the particular situation at issue resolved itself. UkranianAmerican Bar Assn’n v Baker, 893 F.2d 1374, 1377 (D.C. Cir 1990). Not only is this specifically an issue that is capable of repetition, yet evading review, Judge Land’s finding evades the premises of basic human logic. Even if Major Cook’s orders were revoked shortly after this legal action was filed, there are thousands of similar orders issued every day. Therefore the court erred in its assertion that this issue does not fall within “capable of repetition, yet evading review principle of federal jurisdiction. Therefore the order needs to be reversed.
- V. Standing of Additional Plaintiffs
The court found that two officers who joined this action as additional plaintiffs “do not have standing to pursue their claims”p3. Again the court assumed facts not in evidence and ignored facts in evidence. One of the officers is lifetime subject to recall, and the other is in active reserves and can be called to deploy at any time with but a few days notice. Per the argument above, the court erred in assuming that the additional plaintiffs have no standing, and thus the order has to be reversed.
VI. Ignoring Whistleblower Acts
The court erred in completely avoiding the legal argument that the fact of retaliatory pressure from the military to have Major Cook fired from his $120,000 position as a defense contractor may be a violation of general and specific military Whistleblower acts as well as the First and Ninth amendment civil rights. The Application seeks a writ of Mandamus to be issued to the Department of Defense commanding it to cease, cure, or remedy retaliation against Plaintiff Cook P2, 3 Rule 65 Application for Preliminary Injunction. At the very minimum this issue warrants standing, discovery and determination by the jury.
VII. Not Providing Opportunity to File Complaint
The court erred in not giving the undersigned counsel an opportunity to file an actual Complaint. As the matter at hand was urgent, the counselor had filed a TRO and then an application for preliminary injunction. As the situation was changing by the day, the plaintiff needed time to respond to the motion to dismiss filed by the Department of Defense and Department of Justice and file an actual complaint. While the court could have jurisdiction to deny the TRO, it had no jurisdiction to deny the Application for Injunction and not give the plaintiff time to file the actual complaint.
CONCLUSION
Due to the above mentioned the district court erred in dismissing the above action due to lack of Jurisdiction. The Appellant respectfully requests reversal of this order.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Orly Taitz
______________________
Dr. Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
(949)-683-5411
December 7, 2009 Counsel for Appellant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this date I am causing two copies of the foregoing
brief to be served by first-class mail, postage pre-paid, on the following counsel:
Hugh Randolph Aderhold, JR
Assistant US Attorney
P.O. Box 1702
Macon, Georgia 31202-1702
(478) 752-3511
Randy.Aderhold@usdoj.gov
Rebecca Elaine Ausprung
US Army Litigation Division
901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 400
Arlington, Virginia 22203
(703) 696-1614
Rebecca.Ausprung@usarmy.mil
/s/Orly Taitz____________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
December 7, 2009
No. 09-14698-CC
___________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
___________________________
STEFAN FREDRICK COOK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WANDA L. GOOD et al,
Defendants-Appellees.
___________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
___________________________
MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT
___________________________
Dr. Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, Suite 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
(949)-683-5411
Counsel for Appellant
December 7, 2009
MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT
Undersigned counsel respectfully motions the court for leave of court to file documents out of time due to the fact that she did not receive the briefing schedule. Additionally her Pro Hac Vice was approved only last week on December 2, 2009 and was received in her office only two days ago on December 5, 2009. This motion is submitted on December 7, 2009 within allowed 14 days since the dismissal on November 24, 2009 as provided by local rules 42-1, 42-2 and 42-3. Appellant brief and record excerpts are attached.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Orly Taitz
______________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
(949)-683-5411
December 7, 2009 Counsel for Appellant
Designation of Records
Counsel for the appellant herewith designates the following documents to be transmitted for the purpose of appeal heretofore filed in the above entitled case:
- 07.16.09. Order to dismiss from Judge Clay D. Land
- Transcript of the TRO hearing on the 07.16.09.
- Motion for TRO
- Rule 65 motion for injunction
Certificate of word count
The undersigned counsel certifies that the appellant brief is 21 pages long and does not exceed allowed 30 page count or 14,000 word count.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this date I am causing two copies of the foregoing
brief to be served by first-class mail, postage pre-paid, on the following counsel:
Hugh Randolph Aderhold, JR
Assistant US Attorney
P.O. Box 1702
Macon, Georgia 31202-1702
(478) 752-3511
Randy.Aderhold@usdoj.gov
Rebecca Elaine Ausprung
US Army Litigation Division
901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 400
Arlington, Virginia 22203
(703) 696-1614
Rebecca.Ausprung@usarmy.mil
/s/ Orly Taitz__________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
December 7, 2009
Comments
10 Responses to “Appellant brief in Major Cook’s case was received by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta GA”
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
December 8th, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
Excellent wording and presentation.
Is there some way you know of that we may get this wide spread and pressure media to report this appeal?
December 8th, 2009 @ 8:17 pm
the best way to preasure the media is to CALL THE ADVERTISERS and say we are going to boycott them till the media starts doing its job.. thats something that would have to be done country wide… and stick to it
will
December 8th, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
Absolutely brilliant. Concise and to the point, Just what some of us were hoping for in this titanic bad in the garden of good and evil.
I am absolutely certain you will get the result you deserve.
By the way, why do I keep hearing things when I post here?
December 8th, 2009 @ 8:43 pm
Whoops – battle not bad. Sorry!
December 8th, 2009 @ 11:56 pm
Great job, Orly! I wrote a one page letter today and am faxing it to Republican members of Congress and Senate…32 members have received it so far from me. I’ve posted it on various sites as an open letter for anyone to copy and use as they wish. Here’s the letter and anyone reading it here is welcome to use it and join my effort, I sure hope this helps:
Member of the Congress/Senate…regarding all of your posturing, all of your claims that you are for freedom, limited government, our Constitution and are on the side of We The People – if you are serious, if you REALLY mean it, you could stop the destruction of our Constitution and our country NOW. All you need to do is go public with one simple fact – the fact that Obama is NOT a natural born citizen and is illegally holding office!
The definition of natural born citizen is one who is born on US soil from parents who are BOTH citizens. This definition has been upheld by four different Supreme Court cases. Obama’s father was a British subject of Kenya and never an American citizen. Even if Obama WAS born in Hawaii, he is at most a dual citizen which is NOT allowed!
This is NOT a “birther” conspiracy, this is a legal Constitutional issue. It doesn’t matter where Obama was born, that is a distraction. Obama never was and never will be a natural born citizen – he is illegally holding office and MUST be removed. Once he’s removed, all his appointments and czars will also be removed along with everyone else shown to be complicit (Pelosi et al) in this biggest fraud in American history. Everything Obama has signed will be null and void – our Constitution will be protected and defended, our country will be saved!
Did you know there is evidence that Obama has used 39 different social security numbers? Did you know there is evidence that the one he is currently using was issued in Connecticut to a man who is now deceased? Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981 when US citizens were banned from traveling there…what passport did he use? Over 400 former students who attended Columbia at the same time and in the same area of study as Obama were interviewed and not one person remembered ever meeting him or even seeing him on campus…why? Obama has released 3 different short form certifications of live birth and a selective service registration which have all been proven to be counterfeit and he has spent almost $2 million in legal fees to seal all the rest of his documents and records…why?
STAND UP – GO PUBLIC – BE VOCAL – INVESTIGATE – DEMAND ANSWERS…ONLY THEN WILL WE THE PEOPLE TRULY BELIEVE YOU ARE ON OUR SIDE AND SERIOUSLY WANT TO SAVE OUR COUNTRY! OTHERWISE, YOU MAY BE DEEMED COMPLICIT IN THIS BIGGEST FRAUD IN AMERICAN HISTORY!
December 9th, 2009 @ 11:04 am
As I have previously respectfully suggested, if all the pleadings were all made available as PDF for easy download, they would spread far and wide.
December 9th, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
I will e-mail you the pdf. I will ask my webmaster to post the pdf
December 9th, 2009 @ 11:26 pm
You raise some very sticky issues in your briefs. The Obot lawyers may have been able to steamroll a district court judge, but this is one very appealing appeal.
Obama is going to be cooked by Cook it seems.
December 10th, 2009 @ 1:53 am
Orly,
I so wanted to see what your speech on Obama’s eligibility at the Continental Congress on Nov. 14. I wasn’t able to see the videos right away on https://freedom.tv/cc09/ and it seems they have been scrubbed from the website…how convenient. Part 2, 3 and 4 on 11/14 are all scrubbed. Do you have a copy of the video that you spoke on?
Thanks,
December 22nd, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
I definitely enjoyed reading that!