Department of Defense Retaliation is perhaps swift and brutal...
and So the plot thickens... and apparently the Cook case is proceeding.
After refusing to deploy to Afghanistan based on Obama's eligibility issue as Commander in Chief... and after his orders were abruptly revoked perhaps because the government did not wish to see this go to court... U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, got fired from his civilian job at Systems Integration Management Technologies, Inc (Simtech Inc.), which does DOD contracting in the general field of information technology/systems integration. Maj. Cook is/was a senior systems engineer and architect for that company.
The Department of Defense has allegedly compelled a private employer to fire a U.S. Army Reserve major from his civilian job after he had his military deployment orders revoked for arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office.If you are interested at all in contacting the CEO of Simtech Inc., Larry Grice, here is the information:
According to the CEO of Simtech Inc., a private company contracted by the Defense Security Services, an agency of the Department of Defense, the federal government has compelled the termination of Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook.
Cook's attorney, Orly Taitz, wrote in her blog that Simtech CEO Larry Grice said he would try to find another position within the company for Cook, but nothing is currently available.
"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's heavy-handed interference with plaintiff Cook's private-sector employment as is plaintiff Cook himself."
17608 Pasture Rd
Odessa, FL 33556
Phone: (813) 240-0296
Ok - first of all it should be worth mentioning that this guy, Maj. Cook, is not someone of lower rank that is just afraid of being deployed... he is an educated and experienced Major, one who takes his military oath very seriously. His rank demands that one understand that there is a difference between lawful orders and unlawful ones.
He has stated that: "As an officer in the armed forces of the United States, it is [my] duty to gain clarification on any order we may believe illegal. With that said, if President Obama is found not to be a 'natural-born citizen,' he is not eligible to be commander-in-chief, [then] any order coming out of the presidency or his chain of command is illegal. Should I deploy, I would essentially be following an illegal [order]. If I happened to be captured by the enemy in a foreign land, I would not be privy to the Geneva Convention protections," he said.Below is the oath that he took - and it looks like he intends to abide by it - knowing full well that he could experience the type of retribution that he is allegedly experiencing.
This Plaintiff, at the time of his original induction into service, took the United States, military oath of an enlisted man, in which he stated:
“I, Stefan Frederick Cook, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God”This major takes this oath very seriously -
Later, however, he took the oath of an officer of the United States Armed Forces, as follows:
“I, Stefan Frederick Cook, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of Major do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
This oath is based on 5 U.S.C. §3331:
Additionally, it is worth noting - Maj. Cook has also had some high ranking military join his lawsuit.
It should be noted from the report:
An officer does not swear to obey the orders of the President. Rather, he assumes the obligation to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (for example, a possible Presidential Usurper, if it were shown by clear-and-convincing evidence that a person took the office under false pretenses of constitutional qualifications). The Founding Fathers had the foresight to protect and secure against a situation such as that now facing the United States. The officer oath is a safeguard to protect the Constitution against a corrupt elected government. Officers have an obligation to defend the Constitution.What is even more unfortunate and alarming in this case, is that if indeed this call for Maj. Cook's termination at his civilian job is at the behest of the military, then we have a bigger problem then just Obama's birth certificate!
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.