Maj. Stefan Cook Wins Obama Illegitimate (Birth Certificate) Case: Military Orders Re

[rh287]

Now if you can imagine a commissioned officer refusing to follow orders of deployment based on the grounds that he needs proof the President's birth certificate is authentic to prove he is eligable to be Commander in Chief. (This is not an Enlisted man, this is an Officer for God's Sake!!!). The Officer's charge is that if he was employed and ordered men under his command in combat he could face prosecution,(as well as all soldiers now in combat),for war crimes if the President was not in fact elible to be President and most importantly in his arguement eligble to be Commander in Chief. Now I was in the Military...I can tell you now...no way no how would any soldier...ESP a relativly high ranking commissioned officer would not face a MAJOR Court Martial over this. He would be quickly arrested and charged with derelection of duty and actions not becoming an officer, then summerly court martialed, stripped of rank, most likely put in military prison and kicked out of the Military with loss of all benifits! So my question is why were his orders simply revoked? It made national news and they have not even arrested him and brought charges against him yet... Something is seriously wrong with this picture... Is Obama afraid of a major media blitz if the officer is court martialed as he should be court martialed...i should say, should be IF there is no merrit to the officer's arguement. Final thought...is Obama's birth certificate a fake..I'm sure a fair court martial could easily prove once and for all either way using document forensics... Why the hell has this soldier not been arrested and charged????...the military justice system moves very fast in situations of this magnatude....

 

[geauxtohell]

Now if you can imagine a commissioned officer refusing to follow orders of deployment based on the grounds that he needs proof the President's birth certificate is authentic to prove he is eligable to be Commander in Chief. (This is not an Enlisted man, this is an Officer for God's Sake!!!). The Officer's charge is that if he was employed and ordered men under his command in combat he could face prosecution,(as well as all soldiers now in combat),for war crimes if the President was not in fact elible to be President and most importantly in his arguement eligble to be Commander in Chief. Now I was in the Military...I can tell you now...no way no how would any soldier...ESP a relativly high ranking commissioned officer would not face a MAJOR Court Martial over this. He would be quickly arrested and charged with derelection of duty and actions not becoming an officer, then summerly court martialed, stripped of rank, most likely put in military prison and kicked out of the Military with loss of all benifits! So my question is why were his orders simply revoked? It made national news and they have not even arrested him and brought charges against him yet... Something is seriously wrong with this picture... Is Obama afraid of a major media blitz if the officer is court martialed as he should be court martialed...i should say, should be IF there is no merrit to the officer's arguement. Final thought...is Obama's birth certificate a fake..I'm sure a fair court martial could easily prove once and for all either way using document forensics... Why the hell is this soldier not being court martialed?????

Welcome to the board, what not with your four posts, it's obvious to see that you have an agenda, so you can stop spinning right now. Cook didn't win anything. The facts:

1.) Cook joint a class action suit in February with other military represented by Orly Taitz to dispute Obama's role as CINC under the BC clause.
2.) The case was dismissed in March.
3.) Cook volunteered to be depoloyed in May.
4.) Cook gets mobilization orders in June.
5.) Cook files suit in federal court in July to be classified as a CO and for Temporary Restraining Order until Obama can prove he is a citizen of the country.
6.) Cook's gaining commander, The CG of SOCOM, specifically requests that Cook's orders be rescinded, which they are. Under Army policy this is all legit and cook was not involuntarily mobilized. He could have in fact, opted out of his orders immediately for any reason prior to reporting and it would have been proper and legal.
7.) Cook and his lawyer press their case in federal court (yesterday) and lose. In a strongly worded opinion the judge basically smacks down both Cook and Taitz.

In the meantime, Cook, a civilian contractor for SOCOM has lost his job (remember, he pissed the SOCOM commander off) and most likely will lose his TS clearance.

He also very well may be court martialed. However, it will most likely be for using his rank to try and advance a political cause.

To answer your question, the orders were rescinded because Cook's gaining commander didn't want such a moron to go downrange and endanger soldier's lives. Of course, you birthers will alledge a conspiracy, but you birthers are insufferable like that.

There is a whole other thread on this.

 

[rh287]

He won't get court martialed...if he was going to be he would have already been charged...he commited a very serious military crime...even if he did volunteer for duty in Afgan...I'm beginning to think that Obama may very well have been born in Kenya as many believe...The White House does not want this to be a huge media shit storm...Obama could easily put this whole issue to rest by subjecting his birth certificate to forensic review...hje refuses to do it why???...where's the transparency he promissed?..if millions of people think he is not eligable to be President because of his birth, then why does he not offer up his birth certificate for review?

The courts smacked down his case simply because you can imagine the cival unrest that would happen if the President was found to be not legitimately legal to be President...they can't even take that chance...

 

[geauxtohell]

He won't get court martialed...if he was going to be he would have already been charged...he commited a very serious military crime...even if he did volunteer for duty in Afgan...I'm beginning to think that Obama may very well have been born in Kenya as many believe...The White House does not want this to be a huge media shit storm...Obama could easily put this whole issue to rest by subjecting his birth certificate to forensic review...hje refuses to do it why???...where's the transparency he promissed?..if millions of people think he is not eligable to be President because of his birth, then why does he not offer up his birth certificate for review?

The courts smacked down his case simply because you can imagine the cival unrest that would happen if the President was found to be not legitimately legal to be President...they can't even take that chance...

"Beginning to think"? Give me a break. Your mind was made up long ago.

If he's going to get court martialed it won't be for refusing to deploy, he had that right since he volunteered, it will be for his actions to prompt this (as well as making political statements in uniform in front of a camera).

The court smacked it down because it was moot, the judge further said that a civil court has no authority to intervene in the UCMJ's orders process. You should read his actual decision, before inferring falsehoods.

Finally, drop the act. You birthers all use the same langauge and we can spot you from a mile away.

It doesn't help that you basically stole the WND byline.

 

[Alan Partridge]

Suit tossed again from court.

Army doesn't want this guy back.

knuff psaid

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And was the case tossed on merit or did they once again claim no standing?

I keep waiting for someone to show me where a court has actually ruled on the merits of the case and not procedural BS to dismiss. Gunny claims they have but has not cited the case at all.

 

[geauxtohell]

And was the case tossed on merit or did they once again claim no standing?

I keep waiting for someone to show me where a court has actually ruled on the merits of the case and not procedural BS to dismiss. Gunny claims they have but has not cited the case at all.

The case was tossed because Cook had no damages since the orders had been rescinded.

In the judges opinion, he went the extra step and gave the opinion that the federal court would have no jurisdictional hold over this anyways.

Here is the Judge's opinion. You can make your own judgements.

ORDER

To make the record complete and easily accessible to the
parties and other persons interested in the Court’s oral ruling
today, the Court files this written order that puts in writing the
oral order that the Court issued from the bench at the conclusion
of the hearing today on the Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The same Constitution upon which Major Cook relies in support
of his contention that President Barack Obama is not eligible to
serve as President of the United States very clearly provides that
federal courts shall only have the authority to hear actual “cases
and controversies.” By restricting the Judiciary’s power to actual
“cases and controversies,” our founders wisely established a
separation of powers that would ensure the freedom of their fellow
citizens. They concluded that the Judicial Branch, the unelected
branch, should not inject itself into purely “political disputes,”
and that it should not entangle itself in hypothetical debates
which had not ripened to an actual legal dispute.

The Courts have therefore consistently held that in order to
have legal “standing” to pursue a claim in federal court, a party
seeking federal jurisdiction must establish the following three
elements: 1) that he has experienced an “injury in fact” that is
concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, as opposed to
merely conjectural or hypothetical; 2) that there is a causal
connection between the injury and the defendant’s conduct that is
traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and 3) that a
favorable decision will likely redress the complained of injury.
In this case, Major Cook cannot satisfy these elements. His
orders have been revoked. He is not being deployed to Afghanistan
or Iraq. He is under no present order to report anywhere. 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. There is no
causal connection between any conduct by the defendant and any
alleged injury. And the only remedy he sought from this court,
avoiding deployment, has already been provided, and thus there is
no remedy that this court may provide that will redress his alleged
injury.

Based on all of these reasons, Major Cook does not have
standing to pursue this action. Thus, no case or controversy
exists under the United States Constitution, and this Court
consequently has no subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

3

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss must be granted.
Recognizing that his opportunity to air his grievance over the
President’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States
was slipping by, Plaintiff’s attorney seeks to rescue the claims
with two arguments: First, she argues that the Court should
exercise jurisdiction because the complained of conduct is “capable
of repetition, yet evading judicial review.” Second, she seeks to
amend the complaint to add two additional parties, Maj. Gen. Carol
Dean Childers (Retired) and Lt. Col. David Earl Graef. Plaintiff’s
efforts to maintain this political controversy in federal court
must fail.

First, there is no evidence that Major Cook is likely subject
to future deployment orders. In fact, the evidence is to the
contrary. He is not likely to be deployed in the future.
Therefore, it is speculation that he will be under the command of
President Obama as a member of the United States Military. Second,
there is no evidence that he would not have an opportunity to have
any future claim reviewed. There is simply no evidence that this
claim falls within the narrow “capable of repetition, yet evading
review” principle of federal jurisdiction.

Second, the Court finds that Major General Childers and Lt.
Col Graef do not have standing to pursue their claims. They have
alleged no concrete particularized injury. They simply maintain
that they do not believe President Obama is eligible to serve as
President of the United States, and that hypothetically they “may”
one day be subject to orders while he is Commander in Chief. They
have no standing orders to report to duty. They are under no order
for future deployment. They have made no showing that they will
not have a process available to them to protest any orders should
they be issued. Their political claim does not give rise to a case
or controversy to be heard in federal court.

This Court has a duty to follow the United States
Constitution. That Constitution limits jurisdiction to actual
cases and controversies. To extend jurisdiction beyond its limits
would be a violation of that very Constitution upon which Plaintiff
relies in support of his claims. This the Court refuses to do.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And was the case tossed on merit or did they once again claim no standing?

I keep waiting for someone to show me where a court has actually ruled on the merits of the case and not procedural BS to dismiss. Gunny claims they have but has not cited the case at all.

The case was tossed because Cook had no damages since the orders had been rescinded.

In the judges opinion, he went the extra step and gave the opinion that the federal court would have no jurisdictional hold over this anyways.

Here is the Judge's opinion. You can make your own judgements.

ORDER

To make the record complete and easily accessible to the
parties and other persons interested in the Court’s oral ruling
today, the Court files this written order that puts in writing the
oral order that the Court issued from the bench at the conclusion
of the hearing today on the Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The same Constitution upon which Major Cook relies in support
of his contention that President Barack Obama is not eligible to
serve as President of the United States very clearly provides that
federal courts shall only have the authority to hear actual “cases
and controversies.” By restricting the Judiciary’s power to actual
“cases and controversies,” our founders wisely established a
separation of powers that would ensure the freedom of their fellow
citizens. They concluded that the Judicial Branch, the unelected
branch, should not inject itself into purely “political disputes,”
and that it should not entangle itself in hypothetical debates
which had not ripened to an actual legal dispute.

The Courts have therefore consistently held that in order to
have legal “standing” to pursue a claim in federal court, a party
seeking federal jurisdiction must establish the following three
elements: 1) that he has experienced an “injury in fact” that is
concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, as opposed to
merely conjectural or hypothetical; 2) that there is a causal
connection between the injury and the defendant’s conduct that is
traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and 3) that a
favorable decision will likely redress the complained of injury.
In this case, Major Cook cannot satisfy these elements. His
orders have been revoked. He is not being deployed to Afghanistan
or Iraq. He is under no present order to report anywhere. 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. There is no
causal connection between any conduct by the defendant and any
alleged injury. And the only remedy he sought from this court,
avoiding deployment, has already been provided, and thus there is
no remedy that this court may provide that will redress his alleged
injury.

Based on all of these reasons, Major Cook does not have
standing to pursue this action. Thus, no case or controversy
exists under the United States Constitution, and this Court
consequently has no subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

3

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss must be granted.
Recognizing that his opportunity to air his grievance over the
President’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States
was slipping by, Plaintiff’s attorney seeks to rescue the claims
with two arguments: First, she argues that the Court should
exercise jurisdiction because the complained of conduct is “capable
of repetition, yet evading judicial review.” Second, she seeks to
amend the complaint to add two additional parties, Maj. Gen. Carol
Dean Childers (Retired) and Lt. Col. David Earl Graef. Plaintiff’s
efforts to maintain this political controversy in federal court
must fail.

First, there is no evidence that Major Cook is likely subject
to future deployment orders. In fact, the evidence is to the
contrary. He is not likely to be deployed in the future.
Therefore, it is speculation that he will be under the command of
President Obama as a member of the United States Military. Second,
there is no evidence that he would not have an opportunity to have
any future claim reviewed. There is simply no evidence that this
claim falls within the narrow “capable of repetition, yet evading
review” principle of federal jurisdiction.

Second, the Court finds that Major General Childers and Lt.
Col Graef do not have standing to pursue their claims. They have
alleged no concrete particularized injury. They simply maintain
that they do not believe President Obama is eligible to serve as
President of the United States, and that hypothetically they “may”
one day be subject to orders while he is Commander in Chief. They
have no standing orders to report to duty. They are under no order
for future deployment. They have made no showing that they will
not have a process available to them to protest any orders should
they be issued. Their political claim does not give rise to a case
or controversy to be heard in federal court.

This Court has a duty to follow the United States
Constitution. That Constitution limits jurisdiction to actual
cases and controversies. To extend jurisdiction beyond its limits
would be a violation of that very Constitution upon which Plaintiff
relies in support of his claims. This the Court refuses to do.

In other words another cop out on Procedural grounds.
I would argue that IF Obama were ineligible to be President that ALL of us are in fact INJURED and that ALL US Citizens have standing to work through the courts to rectify the potentially illegal unconstitutional placement of him as President.

It is CLEAR that if one is ineligible to be President by the established criteria of the Constitution that it is then ILLEGAL for someone to be elevated to that position. Otherwise what is the point of having criteria at all? Further by having criteria it then becomes the responsibility of the Courts to rule on facts presented in evidence whether or not the claimed ineligibility exists.

The Government is supposed to be one OF the people, which would then give standing to any PERSON from the group standing to challenge the legal ability of someone to hold office. A process that would not cost thousands of dollars to adjudicate as all one need do is present a LEGAL birth Certificate to a Judge in OPEN court.

 

[Liberty]

i love my lib friends...they are so funny...but they use gay insults? I dont get it...

me (7:59:14 PM): dude, obama wasn't born in the US!!!
him(7:59:43 PM): ok
me (7:59:51 PM): i proved it just now
him (8:00:15 PM): how?
me (8:00:35 PM): ok, his lawyers put out a "certification of birth" to prove he was born in hawaii right?
me (8:00:58 PM): well a certification of birth is not a legal document, it is a secondary source used when one can not find a CERTIFICATE of birth.
me (8:01:04 PM): according to hawaii statute
him (8:01:09 PM): you like men

made me laugh.

 

[AllieBaba]

i love my lib friends...they are so funny...but they use gay insults? I dont get it...

me (7:59:14 PM): dude, obama wasn't born in the US!!!
him(7:59:43 PM): ok
me (7:59:51 PM): i proved it just now
him (8:00:15 PM): how?
me (8:00:35 PM): ok, his lawyers put out a "certification of birth" to prove he was born in hawaii right?
me (8:00:58 PM): well a certification of birth is not a legal document, it is a secondary source used when one can not find a CERTIFICATE of birth.
me (8:01:04 PM): according to hawaii statute
him (8:01:09 PM): you like men

made me laugh.

They are also most likely to use racial slurs.

Of course, they attribute them to the racial "thoughts" of the other side.

But if you scan the site, you'll see most of the racial slurs originate from the lefties.

 

[geauxtohell]

In other words another cop out on Procedural grounds.

Procedure is part of the law. If the venture wasn't governed by rule, there would be no point. To bring suit, you have to show damages or harms. Cook had no suit once the Army lifted his orders. As a result, Cook's lawyer scrambled around at the last second to change the parameters of the suit and added two other defendents.

This means that the issue was never Cook's damages, but trying to utilize the courts to force the BC issue. The judge recognized this and was displeased, as anyone who reads this opinion can see.

This Judge was a W. appointee by the way.

I would argue that IF Obama were ineligible to be President that ALL of us are in fact INJURED and that ALL US Citizens have standing to work through the courts to rectify the potentially illegal unconstitutional placement of him as President.

Many people are argueing that. You have the right to your opinion in this country, the court has a right and duty to decide which cases it wants to hear and if they have any merit.

Have you ever wondered why the best conservative legal scholars aren't argueing this case? Instead you have a bunch of incompetents like Orly Taitz and Phil Berg.

It is CLEAR that if one is ineligible to be President by the established criteria of the Constitution that it is then ILLEGAL for someone to be elevated to that position. Otherwise what is the point of having criteria at all? Further by having criteria it then becomes the responsibility of the Courts to rule on facts presented in evidence whether or not the claimed ineligibility exists.

The cry of the birth control crowd is "hear the case on the merits", however, they can't even get their case in front of a court.

You will be happy to know that a federal judge in California just ruled that one such case will be allowed to be heard.

The Government is supposed to be one OF the people, which would then give standing to any PERSON from the group standing to challenge the legal ability of someone to hold office. A process that would not cost thousands of dollars to adjudicate as all one need do is present a LEGAL birth Certificate to a Judge in OPEN court.

At face value giving every citizen standing to challenge an election sounds very democratic, but think about it for a second.

If any citizen could have standing to challenge the elgibility of an election or candidate, then any citizen oculd file suit. That means the legal precedent would be esablished that would have every election in this country would be tied up in court for years for the most frivelous of matters.

There is a reason that it was "Bush V. Gore" and "Franken V. Coleman".

Standing is not some abstract legal concept or a technicality. It exists for good reasons.

 

[geauxtohell]

i love my lib friends...they are so funny...but they use gay insults? I dont get it...

me (7:59:14 PM): dude, obama wasn't born in the US!!!
him(7:59:43 PM): ok
me (7:59:51 PM): i proved it just now
him (8:00:15 PM): how?
me (8:00:35 PM): ok, his lawyers put out a "certification of birth" to prove he was born in hawaii right?
me (8:00:58 PM): well a certification of birth is not a legal document, it is a secondary source used when one can not find a CERTIFICATE of birth.
me (8:01:04 PM): according to hawaii statute
him (8:01:09 PM): you like men

made me laugh.

Thanks for that awesome contribution to the thread, dude.

 

[EriktheRed]

If any citizen could have standing to challenge the elgibility of an election or candidate, then any citizen oculd file suit. That means the legal precedent would be esablished that would have every election in this country would be tied up in court for years for the most frivelous of matters.

There is a reason that it was "Bush V. Gore" and "Franken V. Coleman".

Standing is not some abstract legal concept or a technicality. It exists for good reasons.

Not to open a whole new can of worms here, but imagine, too, how it would have been if the people who were obsessed with the Diebold issue after the '04 election could have filed a bunch of suits for their pet grievance.

 

[geauxtohell]

If any citizen could have standing to challenge the elgibility of an election or candidate, then any citizen oculd file suit. That means the legal precedent would be esablished that would have every election in this country would be tied up in court for years for the most frivelous of matters.

There is a reason that it was "Bush V. Gore" and "Franken V. Coleman".

Standing is not some abstract legal concept or a technicality. It exists for good reasons.

Not to open a whole new can of worms here, but imagine, too, how it would have been if the people who were obsessed with the Diebold issue after the '04 election could have filed a bunch of suits for their pet grievance.

Exactly. They had no standing either. The birthers would be happy to utilize standing this time, but the precedent will exist long after Obama is out of office.

The whole cognitive dissonance of the birthers is strange to me. Cook ruins his career, gets fired, loses his court case, and his security clearance (thus ruining his options for future employability) and it's a "win"

The mental gymnastics they have to employ to support their case is indicative of the futility of the matter in my mind.

 

[Fatality]

why should liberals care if obama gets tossed, they still have biden

 

[rh287]

AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group Americans for Freedom of Information has Released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking.

Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as president. When reached for comment in London, where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue.

Britain 's Daily Mail also carried the story in a front-page article titled, Obama Eligibility Questioned leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K.

In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.

 

[geauxtohell]

AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency.....

Now I know why you refuse to post any links on this.

Would you stop posting this bullshit, please? It only makes you look ignorant.

FactCheck.org: Has a "smoking gun" been found to prove Obama was not born a U.S. citizen? Did he attend Occidental College on a scholarship for foreign students?
Obama Citizenship - Obama's Occidental College Transcripts - Urban Legends

 

[EriktheRed]

AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency.....

Now I know why you refuse to post any links on this.

Would you stop posting this bullshit, please? It only makes you look ignorant.

FactCheck.org: Has a "smoking gun" been found to prove Obama was not born a U.S. citizen? Did he attend Occidental College on a scholarship for foreign students?
Obama Citizenship - Obama's Occidental College Transcripts - Urban Legends

Oh, get off it, GTH!

You know factcheck.org is just a tool of the commie left meant to undermine the values of our great country.

 

[Gunny]

Now if you can imagine a commissioned officer refusing to follow orders of deployment based on the grounds that he needs proof the President's birth certificate is authentic to prove he is eligable to be Commander in Chief. (This is not an Enlisted man, this is an Officer for God's Sake!!!). The Officer's charge is that if he was employed and ordered men under his command in combat he could face prosecution,(as well as all soldiers now in combat),for war crimes if the President was not in fact elible to be President and most importantly in his arguement eligble to be Commander in Chief. Now I was in the Military...I can tell you now...no way no how would any soldier...ESP a relativly high ranking commissioned officer would not face a MAJOR Court Martial over this. He would be quickly arrested and charged with derelection of duty and actions not becoming an officer, then summerly court martialed, stripped of rank, most likely put in military prison and kicked out of the Military with loss of all benifits! So my question is why were his orders simply revoked? It made national news and they have not even arrested him and brought charges against him yet... Something is seriously wrong with this picture... Is Obama afraid of a major media blitz if the officer is court martialed as he should be court martialed...i should say, should be IF there is no merrit to the officer's arguement. Final thought...is Obama's birth certificate a fake..I'm sure a fair court martial could easily prove once and for all either way using document forensics... Why the hell has this soldier not been arrested and charged????...the military justice system moves very fast in situations of this magnatude....

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

For one thing, he's a Nat'l Guardsman. Different set of rules and your having served time in the active military gives you no insight into this.

The logical conclusion is that his orders were revoked pending the outcome of a board of inquiry (which precedes any questionable charges), and/or because he has a pending legal case which makes him ineligible to deploy.

Those orders can be re-cut as quickly as they were revoked.

Try again.

Doesn't this stupid topic exist somewhere else?

 

[Modbert]

doesn't this stupid topic exist somewhere else?