Main Menu

Major Cook sues again!

Orly Taitz photo I said I'd never use

Orly Taitz photo I said I’d never use

Just when you thought it was safe to open your browser…. With the ink hardly dry on the decision dismissing Cook v. Good, crusading champion of liberty (in her own mind) Dr. Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq., has filed a second lawsuit on behalf or Army Reserve Major Stefan Cook, naming Barack Obama.

The lawsuit seeks to stop Simtech from firing Major Cook from his civilian job, and to prevent the government from harassing him. But of course, the motion for a temporary restraining order would be nothing without a rant about Obama being ineligible to be president (and having a darned sight too many Social Security numbers).

ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-FIVE PAGES including the Appendix, is this motion for a temporary restraining order!

(33) However, Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as President, basically needs only produce a single unique historical document for the Plaintiff’s inspection and authentication: namely, the “long-form” birth certificate which will confirm whether Barack Hussein Obama was in fact born to parents who were both citizens of the United States in Honolulu, Hawaii, in or about 1961.

Of course no such requirement exists in US Law.

, ,

39 Responses to Major Cook sues again!

  1. avatar
    asiliveandbreathe July 23, 2009 at 6:52 am #

    Taitz has clearly moved into a dictatorial frame of mind. According to her rants she has prejudged that there is no way Obama is a citizen in spite of her claiming she’ll be satisfied if he showed his BC. In her blog she played judge, jury, and executioner by calling on “Grand Juries” to FORCIBLY remove Obama because, well for no other reason, she wants them to.

  2. avatar
    misha July 23, 2009 at 7:02 am #

    Taitz has dual US/Israel citizenship. Under her reasoning, her US born sons are not NBC.

    She could be a Mossad agent, trying to undermine Obama, and drive him from office. It’s worth looking into.

  3. avatar
    misha July 23, 2009 at 7:16 am #

    No – she has told her cultists that Obama can never be NBC because of his father, and she is trying to drive him from office.

    She states this around 2:20.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNHIR1NcuL4

  4. avatar
    kimba July 23, 2009 at 9:23 am #

    Under WTF?

    Page 17 Heading Title:
    “WHO IS THIS PLAINTIFF WHO DARES TO COMPASS THE KING? WHO DARES TO CHARGE THAT THE EMPEROR HAS NOT CLOTHES?”

    Just freaking bizarre to write nonsense like that in a legal document. Do she and her new “ghost writer” think that kind of thing impresses judges? It’s like they never got out of the 7th grade. Other than the fact that it’s typed double-spaced, it’s no different than the gibberish in Dr Roy’s complaint.

  5. avatar
    kimba July 23, 2009 at 9:33 am #

    It will be ironic if 30 years from now if one of her preciouses decides to run for President, Orly isn’t right out front explaining why her son IS eligible.

    Here’s one them.( scroll down for pic).
    http://cornellsun.com/section/arts/content/2009/03/30/flavorful-flight-fancy

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 23, 2009 at 9:42 am #

    Clearly Cook has standing to bring this suit against his employer, but not to challenge who is president.

  7. avatar
    misha July 23, 2009 at 10:51 am #

    Yes, poor Isaac Taitz 2011, is not NBC, according to his dentist/lawyer/mom.

    Being born here is not enough, so tough luck kids. Mom says so. Orly put on her blog that she forbade one son to attend Occidental, close to home, because they are part of the conspiracy.

    Boo, hoo.

  8. avatar
    misha July 23, 2009 at 10:55 am #

    That turgid prose is written by her BFF, the thrice disbarred lawyer. He also mourns the passing of the Confederacy. I say, let ’em go. In fact, give Texas back to Mexico.

    She can barely put a paragraph together.

  9. avatar
    kimba July 23, 2009 at 10:56 am #

    Maybe you already got this Doc, but Jon Stewart took on the birthers last night.

    It’s wet your pants funny.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/23/jon-stewart-eviscerates-t_n_243383.html

  10. avatar
    Bob July 23, 2009 at 11:23 am #

    Love his outfit!

  11. avatar
    Bob July 23, 2009 at 11:55 am #

    Here’s another article about Lincoln and his writing style.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 23, 2009 at 12:25 pm #

    One must carefully read what Orly said. She said that she would be satisfied by a birth certificate that showed Obama born in the US to two citizen parents. Of course Obama’s father was not a US citizen, and no such document ever existed. Orly is being disingenuous when she makes her comment.

  13. avatar
    Bob July 23, 2009 at 12:26 pm #

    Fortunately for the poor law clerk assigned this, the basis for the denial is in the FIRST paragraph: A TRO is used to maintain the status quo; it can’t be used to unfire anybody. The prayer for relief is similarly amusing, with its Christmas list of demands that could never, ever been granted in a TRO.

    Real lawyers, BTW, file a complaint, which describes the basis of the lawsuit, and then file concurrently a motion for a TRO, which seeks to enjoin specific acts from happening. They don’t throw it all into one pot.

    The basis for the TRO against Simtech is amusing: Florida law prevents employers from punishing those who carry out their military obligation. From there, Lincoln (excuse me, Taitz) argues that speaking out against Obama is an “obligation” that Simtech must respect. Unsurprisingly, no law is cited to support this argument. (I saw this exact argument raised a couple of days ago on the We The People ning site; can’t believe it made it into a suit.)

    Also of note is Taitz’s local counsel: Inger Garcia-Armstrong, who looks to be a solo practitioner specializing in real estate law (add in some dental malpractice, and it would be another Taitz).

    Garcia-Armstrong appears to be a member of the Cyber Citizens for Justice, a property owner advocacy group, that, ironically, also supports Citizens Against Legal and Moral Abuse, which is “dedicated to implementing strategies to help prevent the atrocious abuse of our legal system.”

  14. avatar
    misha July 23, 2009 at 12:34 pm #

    Not to argue with you, but in the video I linked, she flatly states ‘a natural born citizen is a citizen whose both parents are citizens. Obama can never be a natural born citizen because of his father.’

    The meat of the matter starts around 2:20.

    She is trying to drive Obama out of office, because she feels he is bad for Israel. She and her mob should slither back under their rocks.

  15. avatar
    Bob July 23, 2009 at 3:50 pm #

    Clearly Cook has standing to bring this suit against his employer, but not to challenge who is president.

    This case will likely be dismissed after two Rule 12 motions.

    The government will argue Cook doesn’t have standing to raise the eligibility issue, enjoin the military from giving orders to others “similarly situated”, etc. It will concede he does have standing to challenge the rescission of his own deployment orders, and suspension of his ability to access classified information, but then argue Cook fails to state a claim regarding those actions, as there was nothing wrong with what the military did.

    With regard to Simtech, Cook does have standing to challenge his termination. Simtech, instead, will argue Cook has failed to state a claim, as there was nothing wrongful about the termination (as Florida is an at-will state, his lawsuit was not a communication protect by the retaliation statutes, and suing the military is not an “obligation” protected by Florida law).

    Cook may get tricky/lucky, and convince the court that he has stated a claim against Simtech. Which means Cook can proceed to discovery…against Simtech. Any attempt to use this discovery power to explore Obama’s eligibility will be met with motions to quash (think Occidental College all over again).

    Of course, the court could dismiss out the federal government defendants, and remand the rest to state court, as there’s no federal jurisdiction otherwise. Then what will Taitz do?

  16. avatar
    Bob Weber July 23, 2009 at 4:06 pm #

    “That turgid prose is written by her BFF, the thrice disbarred lawyer. He also mourns the passing of the Confederacy. I say, let em go. In fact, give Texas back to Mexico.”

    First, you want to dump Orly onto poor old Moldova, now you want to dump Texas onto poor old Mexico! Really, this is most unbecoming!

    What do you have against these unfortunate countries? [:^)

  17. avatar
    Bob July 23, 2009 at 4:49 pm #

    I find it amusing that Taitz announces she was interviewed by El Mundo, but can’t be bothered to announce that she’s suing Simtech to get Cook his job back.

    Priorities, eh?

  18. avatar
    misha July 23, 2009 at 4:56 pm #

    Well, Orly is from Moldova, and Russian is her first language. So for me to wish her to go back is fairly reasonable. Avigdor Lieberman is also from Moldova. What is it with them?

    Remember when Georgia’s gov threatened to leave? Let them. If Georgia left the Union, our dental expenses would go way down. And Mark Sanford made his staff ride in coach, while he dropped $1900 of state money on first class, on the same flight. He, and Palin, billed the state for personal travel.

    Just your typical conservative hypocrites.

  19. avatar
    misha July 23, 2009 at 5:03 pm #

    “Then what will Taitz do?”

    Go on a rant. Maybe throw a forceps across the room. Scream about hundreds of social security numbers. Any number of choices.

  20. avatar
    NBC July 23, 2009 at 5:13 pm #

    The case was thrown out because Orly failed to file a complaint. She can of course refile but this is just ‘par for the course’

  21. avatar
    NBC July 23, 2009 at 5:15 pm #

    Well, she is not really suing Simtech but rather wants Simtech to be added as non-voluntary plaintiffs…

  22. avatar
    NBC July 23, 2009 at 5:32 pm #

    Text of the order

    This cause comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Major Stefan Frederick Cook’s Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. The Court observes that Plaintiff’s Application is not accompanied by a complaint and, therefore, fails to comply with the requirements of Local Rules 4.05(b)(2) and 4.06(b)(1). Furthermore, as the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has observed, “[t]here is no such thing as a suit for a traditional injunction in the abstract.” Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092, 1097 (11th Cir. 2004).

    4.05(b)

    Due to previously scheduled business it will not ordinarily be possible for the Court to interrupt its daily calendar in order to conduct a hearing or entertain oral presentation and
    argument incident to an application for a temporary restraining order. The Court’s decision, of necessity, will usually be made solely on the basis of the complaint and other supporting papers submitted pursuant to this rule. Accordingly, all applications for temporary restraining orders must be presented as follows:

    (2) The motion must be supported by allegations of specific facts shown in the verified complaint or accompanying affidavits, not only that the moving party is threatened with irreparable injury, but that such injury is so imminent that notice and a hearing on the application for preliminary injunction is impractical if not impossible (Rule 65(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.)

    4.06(b)

    All hearings scheduled on applications for a preliminary injunction will be limited in the usual course to argument of counsel unless the Court grants express leave to the contrary in
    advance of the hearing pursuant to Rule 43(e), Fed.R.Civ.P. In order to develop a record and the

    (1) The party applying for the preliminary injunction shall fully comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 4.05(b)(1) through (b)(5) of these rules pertaining to temporary restraining orders positions of the parties in advance of the hearing, the following procedure shall apply

    Smackdown This is a non-nonsense judge who also ruled when Hillary was suing for her electors to be added.

  23. avatar
    Bob July 23, 2009 at 5:41 pm #

    Oh, Cook is really suing Simtech (and its CEO). They’re the first two defendants.

    I understand what you are saying, but this lawsuit forces Simtech to hire a lawyer that’ll argue that the court has no power to force it to rehire Cook. (Now, if Simtech is feeling generous, it could pay Cook to drink coffee in the break room….)

  24. avatar
    NBC July 23, 2009 at 5:44 pm #

    Oops her delegates

  25. avatar
    NBC July 23, 2009 at 5:45 pm #

    True it does require them to hire a lawyer but the TRO asks to have them redefined to become plaintiffs as they are victims as much as Major Cook.

  26. avatar
    Bob July 23, 2009 at 5:45 pm #

    pro se Plaintiff Major Stefan Frederick Cook

    Double smackdown!

  27. avatar
    NBC July 23, 2009 at 5:48 pm #

    Yes, seems Orly may have forgotten to sign her document or she was not allowed as pro hac vice…

  28. avatar
    NBC July 23, 2009 at 5:48 pm #

    As they say “the jury is still out” on that one

  29. avatar
    Bob July 23, 2009 at 6:02 pm #

    Nolo chun’s dissection.

  30. avatar
    Bob July 23, 2009 at 6:11 pm #

    True it does require them to hire a lawyer but the TRO asks to have them redefined to become plaintiffs as they are victims as much as Major Cook.

    Perhaps someone ought to tell Taitz that’s not how it works? Nah….

    (If Simtech wants to sue the government, it can file a cross-complaint. But of course Simtech doesn’t want to do that, as it won’t bite the hand that feeds it. And the court can’t force Simtech to file anything, of course.)

  31. avatar
    NBC July 23, 2009 at 6:15 pm #

    Are you telling me that Orly does not understand how these things work… Shocking

  32. avatar
    Bob July 23, 2009 at 6:16 pm #

    Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 19.

    Epic fail on how to read Rule 19(a)(2).

  33. avatar
    Bob July 23, 2009 at 7:15 pm #

    nativeborncitizen’s coverage.

  34. avatar
    nbc July 23, 2009 at 7:23 pm #

    Thanks, I just noticed another smackdown wrt rule 12.

    Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d

    As the first factor makes clear, any motion or suit for a traditional injunction must be predicated upon a cause of action, such as nuisance, trespass, the First Amendment, etc., regarding which a plaintiff must show a likelihood or actuality of success on the merits. There is no such thing as a suit for a traditional injunction in the abstract. For a traditional injunction to be even theoretically available, a plaintiff must be able to articulate a basis for relief that would withstand scrutiny under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim). See, e.g., Paisey v. Vitale, 807 F.2d 889, 892 (11th Cir.1986) (”[T]he district court did not err in denying [the plaintiff’s] motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissing the injunctive count of [the plaintiff’s] complaint because [the plaintiff] has failed to state a claim for relief….”).

  35. avatar
    Bob July 24, 2009 at 3:52 am #

    Dismissal order in Cook (for the docket).

  36. avatar
    Bob Weber July 24, 2009 at 3:36 pm #

    If Orly is a Mossad agent, this shatters forever the meme of Mossad super-competence.

  37. avatar
    nbc July 24, 2009 at 4:53 pm #

    Orly refiled, even more funnies…
    here

    Man, I can’t wait for the Judge to respond to this one…

  38. avatar
    TRUTH July 25, 2009 at 8:59 am #

    Well there may be HOPE after all. You use a picture you say you’d never use, maybe he’ll show the document he’s sworn(to himself) we’ll never see. … I couldn’t pass that one up even though I couldn’t care less if i ever see it. I hope he doesn’t, or you all would have almost nothing to chat about.

  39. avatar
    kimba July 25, 2009 at 5:58 pm #

    From Orly’s site today:
    “We need an attorney with FL license”
    And…..
    “I will be taping Steven Colbert show on Tuesday”
    Scrumptious, I’m staying up to watch that!