Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
This decision was reviewed by West editorialstaff and not assigned editorial enhancements.
United States District Court,M.D. Georgia,Columbus Division.Major Stefan Frederick COOK, Plaintiff v.Colonel Wanda L. GOOD, et al., Defendants.
No. 4:09-cv-82 (CDL).
July 16, 2009.Orly Taitz, Law Offices of Orly Taitz Esq, MissionViego, CA, for Plaintiff.Hugh Randolph Aderhold, Jr., Macon, GA, for De-fendants.ORDERCLAY D. LAND, District Judge.
To make the record complete and easily access-ible to the parties and other persons interested inthe Court's oral ruling today, the Court files thiswritten order that puts in writing the oral order thatthe Court issued from the bench at the conclusionof the hearing today on the Defendants' motion todismiss.The same Constitution upon which Major Cook re-lies in support of his contention that PresidentBarack Obama is not eligible to serve as Presidentof the United States very clearly provides that fed-eral courts shall only have the authority to hear ac-tual “cases and controversies.” By restricting theJudiciary's power to actual “cases and controver-sies,” our founders wisely established a separationof powers that would ensure the freedom of theirfellow citizens. They concluded that the JudicialBranch, the unelected branch, should not inject it-self into purely “political disputes,” and that itshould not entangle itself in hypothetical debateswhich had not ripened to an actual legal dispute.The Courts have therefore consistently held that inorder to have legal “standing” to pursue a claim infederal court, a party seeking federal jurisdictionmust establish the following three elements: 1) thathe has experienced an “injury in fact” that is con-crete and particularized and actual or imminent, asopposed to merely conjectural or hypothetical; 2)that there is a causal connection between the injuryand the defendant's conduct that is traceable to thechallenged action of the defendant; and 3) that a fa-vorable decision will likely redress the complainedof injury.In this case, Major Cook cannot satisfy these ele-ments. His orders have been revoked. He is not be-ing deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq. He is under nopresent order to report anywhere. There is no evid-ence that he is subject to future deployment. Anysuch contention is sheer speculation and entirelyhypothetical. Thus, he has suffered no particular-ized or concrete injury. There is no causal connec-tion between any conduct by the defendant and anyalleged injury. And the only remedy he sought fromthis court, avoiding deployment, has already beenprovided, and thus there is no remedy that this courtmay provide that will redress his alleged injury.Based on all of these reasons, Major Cook does nothave standing to pursue this action. Thus, no caseor controversy exists under the United States Con-stitution, and this Court consequently has no sub- ject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accord-ingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss must be gran-ted.Recognizing that his opportunity to air his griev-ance over the President's eligibility to serve as Pres-ident of the United States was slipping by,Plaintiff's attorney seeks to rescue the claims withPage 1Slip Copy, 2009 WL 2163535 (M.D.Ga.)
(Cite as: 2009 WL 2163535 (M.D.Ga.))
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Gov't Ex. 1, 10-0151 (RCL)
Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL Document 18-1 Filed 03/31/10 Page 1 of 2