News – Fort Benning
By Lily Gordon – lgordon@ledger-enquirer.com
The government, in its response to the suit, claims that Cook’s suit is “moot” in that he already has been told he doesn’t have to go to Afghanistan, so the relief he is seeking has been granted.
Here is an interesting tidbit from ledger-enquirer.com about this major unwilling to serve.
On May 8, Cook submitted a formal written request to Human Resources Command-St. Louis volunteering to serve one year in Afghanistan with Special Operations Command, U.S. Army Central Command, beginning July 15, Quon said.
The soldier’s orders were issued on June 9.
Note the name of his cat.
Hollister v. Soetoro, No. 08-2254 (D.C. 3 May 2009).
Mr. Berg and Lawrence J. Joyce, an attorney who lives in Tucson, Arizona, signed the complaint in this case. (They have been filing electronically although they have not been admitted pro hac vice, see [#10].) They are agents provocateurs –- and any attempt to sanction them for misuse of the public and private resources that have had to be devoted to this case would only give them a forum to continue their provocation. John D. Hemenway, on the other hand, is a member of the Bar of this Court. He may have been enlisted by Messrs. Berg and Joyce as a foot soldier in their crusade, but he is nevertheless directly responsible to this Court for the pleadings that have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Because it appears that the complaint in this case may have been presented for an improper purpose such as to harass; and that the interpleader claims and other legal contentions of plaintiff are not warranted by existing law or by non-frivolous arguments for extending, modifying or reversing existing law or for establishing new law, the accompanying order of dismissal requires Mr. Hemenway to show cause why he has not violated Rules 11(b)(1) and 11(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and why he should not be required to pay reasonable attorneys fees and other expenses to counsel for the defendants.
JAMES ROBERTSON
United States District Judge
Dianna Cotter, Breaking: Major has orders revoked, by questioning Obama’s legitimacy, Examiner.com, 14 July 2009.
This story has been slipping under the Main Stream Media Radar for some time now.
U.S. Army Major Stefan Frederick Cook Filed a restraining order asking for legitimate confirmation that his Commander in Chief was legitimately in Office, giving him his orders to Deploy to Afghanistan with his unit.
Soldier Refuses to Deploy; Says Obama Isn’t President
/tip: FederalEvidenceBlog.
Don’t Panic! Rehearings and DuBays Are Not the End of the World
This case is relevant to both the prosecution and the defense. And not just on cross-examination, but also on direct.
On defense claim that the defendant did not affirmatively consent but only “acquiesced” to the search, defense counsel’s use of the word “acquiesced” in cross-examining the officer was inadmissible under FRE 701 for attempting to force the officer to adopt a legal conclusion, in United States v. Canipe, __ F.3d __ (6th Cir. June 30, 2009) (No. 08-5534).
/tip FederalEvidenceBlog.
Prof. Colin Miller has this very useful post on the character of a "victim" when a defense of self-defense is raised.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
