Army warrior terminated from job after questioning Obama eligibility
By Chelsea Schilling and Joe Kovacs
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.
According to the CEO of Simtech Inc., a private company located in Tampa, Fla., and 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.
The Department of Defense does contracting in the general field of information technology/systems integration, at which Cook, a senior systems engineer and architect, was employed until taking a military leave of absence on July 10 in preparation for his deployment to Afghanistan.
“Grice told plaintiff, in essence, that the situation had become ‘nutty and crazy,’ and that plaintiff would no longer be able to work at his old position,” Taitz wrote.
Grice made clear that it was Defense Security Services that had compelled Simtech to fire Cook, Taitz wrote.
According to the report, Grice told Cook “there was some gossip that ‘people were disappointed in’ the plaintiff because they thought he was manipulating his deployment orders to create a platform for political purposes.”
The Simtech CEO then discussed Cook’s expectation of final paychecks, without any severance pay, and wished the soldier well.
Messages left with Grice’s office had not been returned at the time of this report.
“A federal agency (such as the Department of Defense, acting through the Defense Security Services Agency) clearly violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if it takes or fails to take (or threatens to take or fail to take) a personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant because of any disclosure of information by the employee or applicant that he or she reasonably believes evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety,” Taitz wrote.
“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.”
As WND reported, Taitz confirmed to WND the military rescinded Maj. Cook’s impending deployment orders.
“We won! We won before we even arrived,” she said with excitement. “It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!”
She continued, “They just said, ‘Order revoked.’ No explanation. No reasons – just revoked.”
A hearing on the questions raised by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, an engineer who told WND he wants to serve his country in Afghanistan, is still scheduled for July 16 at 9:30 a.m.
Join the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!
“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,” he told WND only hours after his case was originally filed.
“[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.
The order for the hearing in the federal court for the Middle District of Georgia from U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land said the hearing on the request for a temporary restraining order would be held Thursday.
Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president’s birth certificate documentation here.
Cook said without a legitimate president as commander-in-chief, members of the U.S. military in overseas actions could be determined to be “war criminals and subject to prosecution.”
He said the vast array of information about Obama that is not available to the public confirms to him “something is amiss.”
“That and the fact the individual who is occupying the White House has not been entirely truthful with anybody,” he said. “Every time anyone has made an inquiry, it has been either cast aside, it has been maligned, it has been laughed at or just dismissed summarily without further investigation.
“You know what. It would be so simple to solve. Just produce the long-form document, certificate of live birth,” he said.
Cook said he was scheduled to report for duty today to deploy to Afghanistan as part of President Obama’s plan to increase pressure of insurgent forces there.
He told WND he would be prepared for a backlash against him as a military officer, since members of the military swear to uphold and follow their orders. However, he noted that following an illegal order would be just as bad as failing to follow a legal order.
Just before news of the orders being revoked were reported, MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann called Cook a “jackass” and Taitz a “conwoman,” as he labeled both of them the “worst persons in the world.” He flayed the soldier as “an embarrassment to all those who have served without cowardice.”
Named as defendants in the case are Col. Wanda Good, Col. Thomas Macdonald, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Obama, described as “de facto president of the United States.”
According to the court filing, Cook affirmed when he joined the military, he took the following oath: “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.”
However, he later took the following officer oath: “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.”
According to the claim, “Plaintiff submits that it is implicit though not expressly stated that an officer is and should be subject to court-martial, because he will be derelict in the performance of his duties, if he does not inquire as to the lawfulness, the legality, the legitimacy of the orders which he has received, whether those orders are specific or general.”