Cook V Good Appeal

Appellant brief in Major Cook’s case was received by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta GA : Dr.
Orly Taitz Esquire 12/8/09 12:50 PM
Home
Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation – 29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, ste 100, Rancho
Santa Margarita CA, 92688 – Copyright 2009
World's Leading Obama Eligibility Challenge Web Site

Your donations to the cause are much appreciated.
Appellant brief in Major Cook’s case was received

by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta
GA
Posted on | December 8, 2009 | No Comments
US Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit – Brief Upload Result Page
Successfully Received Appellant – Initial Brief for Docket #09-14698 at December 08, 2009 03:16:22 PM from Orly Taitz (016671115)
PLEASE NOTE: All submissions are subject to review.
No. 09-14698-CC
___________________________
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=6739 Page 1 of 22
Appellant brief in Major Cook’s case was received by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta GA : Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire 12/8/09 12:50 PM
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
___________________________
STEFAN FREDRICK COOK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WANDA L. GOOD et al,
Defendants-Appellees.
___________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
___________________________
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT
___________________________
Dr. Orly Taitz

29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, Suite 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
(949) 683-5411
Counsel for Appellant
December 7, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CITATIONS …………………………………………………………………iii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………….1
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES…………………………………………………………1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE……………………………………………………………2
1. Nature of the Case and Proceedings Below……………………………..6
1. Statement of Facts………………………………………………………………..3
STANDARD OF REVIEW……………………………………………………………….12
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT………………………………………………………….13
ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………………………………..16
I. Lack of Time to Respond…………………………………………………….6
1. Omitting Military Pressure on Employer……………………………….7
1. Imminent Not Hypothetical Injury………………………………………..8
1. Exception to Repetition, Evasion Mootness Doctrine………………8
1. Standing of Additional Plaintiffs…………………………………………10
1. Ignoring Whistleblower Acts………………………………………………10
1. Not Providing Opportunity to File Complaint……………………….10
CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………………………..11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT…………………………………………………..11
TABLE OF CITATIONS
CASES
Gerstein v. Pugh,
420 U.S. 102, 110 n. 11, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975)…………13
Oregon Advocacy Ctr v. Mink,
322 F.3d 1101, 1118 (9 th Cir. 2003)……………………………………………14
Roe v. Wade,
410 U.S. 113, 125, 93 S,Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973) ………………13
Ukranian American Bar Assn’n v. Baker,
893 F.2d 1374, 1377 (D.C. Cir 1990) …………………………………………14
STATUTES
4th Amendment to the US Constitution ……………………………………………11
9th Amendment to the US Constitution …………………………………………..11
Rule 65 Application for Preliminary Injunction…………………………………….12
State of Hawaii Statute 338-5……………………………………………..12
Local Rule 7-2 US District Court, Middle District of GA …………….12
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This court has jurisdiction, as the order being reviewed came from the 11th circuit, US District court, Middle
District of Georgia, Columbus division. The case revolves around the issues of Federal law and US
Constitution and there was a complete diversity between the parties and because the jurisdiction does not lie
solely in the Supreme Court of Georgia under the Georgia Constitution, Art. 6 §6, PII. See GA Const., Art
6, §5, III
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED

Did the District court err in law and fact in dismissing the whole Legal action of Cook et al v Good et al on
07.16.09, while not giving the Plaintiff’s-Appellant’s counsel any time to respond to the Motion to Dismiss,
filed by the defendants only a day prior to dismissal, by not giving the plaintiff an opportunity to file an
actual complaint beyond the Motion for TRO and injunction, and by disregarding most of the facts of the
case, most egregiously the fact that the military acted in bad faith and pressured the plaintiffs employer,
small military contractor to have the Plaintiff-Appelant fired after he exercised his first Amendment rights
to question legitimacy of the Commander in Chief due to the split allegiance and lack of legitimate vital
records for the Commander in Chief?
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Statement of Facts
The Plaintiff-Appellant Major Stefan Frederick Cook is a high ranked US military officer, who has served
this country for some twenty years on active duty or active reserves. He worked for a military contractor
Simtech in the area of security and computer security, and he has advanced degrees and training in
Engineering, Management, Business, Computer Science and Economics. Major Cook has served in the field
of battle before and is ready, willing and able to serve again as member of US active reserves.
Recently Major Cook became aware of extremely troubling facts regarding the Commander in Chief,
specifically the fact that the Commander in Chief according to National databases and affidavit by a
licensed investigator and former elite unit Scotland Yard investigator Mr. Sankey, has used some 39
different social security numbers, several of them were used in Georgia, several of these numbers belonged
to deceased individuals, some are never assigned numbers, none of these numbers were issued in the state
of Hawaii, where Mr. Obama was born, according to Mr. Obama’s claims. Major Cook was also concerned
about the fact that according to a leading US Forensic Document expert Sandra Ramsey Lines the short
version Certification of Life Birth, issued in 2007, and presented by Mr. Obama to the public, cannot be
considered genuine without examining the original supposedly on file in the Health Department in Hawaii.
In spite of over 100 legal actions in state and federal courts demanding to see Mr. Obama’s vital records,
Mr. Obama has refused to unseal his original records, such as original birth certificate from 1961 from
Hawaii, his birthing file from Kapiolani hospital, his college and university enrollment records, and instead
has instructed his private attorney, currently White House Counsel, Mr. Robert Bauer from Perkins Coie
and Department of Justice, US Attorneys’ office to quash all subpoenas for production of records. This is of
particular concern, since Hawaii statutes going back to 1911 consistently allowed foreign born children of
Hawaiian residents to get Hawaiian birth certificate and Hawaiian statute 338-5 allows one to obtain a birth
certificate based on a statement of one relative only, who of course can be biased, without any corroborating
evidence from any hospital. Even more troubling is the fact that the director of the Health department of
Hawaii Ms. Chioumi Fukino has only provided a cryptic statement, that there is a document on file,
according to Hawaiian rules and regulations, however she consistently refused to provide a clear answer, as
to what document is there, is it a 338-5 document supplied by a parent only without any corroborating
evidence, is it a 338-17 document given to a foreign born child of a Hawaiian resident, is it an amended
birth certificate, given upon Mr. Obama’s adoption by his Indonesian step father and showing him as a
citizen of Indonesia? Major Cook brought this current action to stop his deployment and stop any
retaliatory actions by the military until the legitimacy of the Commander in Chief is verified and there is a
declaratory relief on this issue. When the military revoked Major Cook’s deployment orders, it only
exacerbated unrest in the military, as it became clear that Mr. Obama and the military have nothing to show,
it became a political story number 5 in the World, and in order to prevent future similar actions the military
applied tremendous pressure on Major Cook’s employer, small military contractor Simtech, to have him
fired from his $120, 000 position, to teach a lesson anybody who dares to exercise his First Amendment
right to free speech and redress of Grievances and question legitimacy of the Commander in Chief. The
Plaintiff in his Motion for injunction was asking to stop retaliation by the military and reinstatement in his
position. The inference of this case is that it appears that the US district judge Clay D. Land has colluded
with Obama administration and the top brass of the military by throwing out the whole legal action, by
refusing to grant the injunction, by not giving the undersigned counsel any time to respond to the motion to
dismiss, by completely ignoring most of the facts of the case, specifically the fact of retaliation by the
military and claiming that the case needs to be dismissed due to lack of injury and lack of standing. Judge
Land didn’t see a loss of $120,000 a year position as an injury. Judge Land equally ignored all legal
argument, specifically the fact that two other high ranked officers joined the current action and the fact that
this is specifically type of an repeated injury that evades the judicial review and falls under the exception to
mootness doctrine. This order to dismiss necessitated current appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review is Whether the district court has
1.abused its discretion in dismissing the case within one day after receiving the motion to dismiss
without giving the undersigned counsel any time to respond, while she was allowed 20 days according to
local rules, by ignoring most facts of the case, specifically the fact that more members of the military with
proper standing have joined the action and the fact that the plaintiff-appellant was subjected to retaliation
by the military, and ignoring all legal argument by the plaintiff.
2. Whether the district court has erred in applying the law, specifically on the issue of repeated occurrence
that evades judicial review
3. Whether the district court has erred in applying the facts while reaching conclusion that the plaintiffs
have suffered no injury and had no immenent injury.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
ARGUMENT
Plaintiff-Appellant Major Stefan Fredrick Cook appeals the order to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction due to
following errors of law and fact:
I. Lack of Time to Respond
Judge Land has dismissed the whole legal action on July 16, the second day after the Defendant’s motion to
dismiss was filed. The court’s action was on the same day as that motion was even seen by the plaintiffs
and the undersigned counsel, who were traveling from out of state to the hearing. The court dismissed the
whole case within one day without providing the undersigned counsel 20 days allowed by local rules to be
given to the non-moving party to respond to the motion:
“-7.2 RESPONSE. Respondent’s counsel desiring to submit a response, brief, or affidavits shall serve the
same within twenty (20) days after service of movant’s motion and brief.”
The court dismissed the legal action before the undersigned counsel had an opportunity to even read the
motion. These actions by Judge Land are not only a flagrant error and violation of the local rules, but are a
violation of the appellant’s rights to due process under the 4th and 9th amendment and 42 U.S.C
§§1983,1988, which would provide valid grounds to reverse the order to dismiss.
II. Omitting Military Pressure on Employer
In the order to dismiss the court argue that the court has no jurisdiction because the plaintiff Cook has no
standing. The court argues that the plaintiff cannot satisfy the requirement for standing, – of having injury
that is concrete and actual or permanent, – because “his orders to deploy were revoked” p.2 of the order.
The court completely ignores Major Cook’s statement that the military retaliated against him by pressuring
his employer, a small defense contractor to fire Major Cook from his $120,000 a year position. How can the
court miss such an important issue and not address it in the order? Judge Land read his order to dismiss
immediately after a short TRO hearing. It was quite clear that he prepared the order in advance, before
hearing the arguments in court and without reading the Rule 65 Application for Preliminary Injunction that
was submitted to court shortly before the hearing. Either judge Land didn’t read the Application for
Preliminary Injunction, which would show negligence on part of the court or he read the Application and
consciously decided to ignore such an important issue, which would show bias and bad faith on part of the
court. Omitting the issue of pressure applied on the plaintiff’s employer to have him fired from his
$120,000 a year job represents a clear error of material fact, which justifies reversal of the order to
dismiss.
III. Imminent Not Hypothetical Injury
The court argued that “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” p2
order. Here the court assumes facts not in evidence and ignores fact in evidence. Actually, major Cook
submitted evidence showing that he has been in the military for over 20 years either as an active duty
officer or active reserve. Active reserve officers are deployed every year. Therefore the evidence shows that
future deployment is imminent, completely opposite to what the court ruled. Additionally, as stated
previously, not only the plaintiff-appellant is subject to imminent future deployment, he also suffered injury
from being fired from his position as a defense contractor under pressure from the military. Therefore, the
plaintiff-appellant has suffered actual injury and he is additionally subject to imminent injury. The
court has made an error of fact, which necessitates reversal of order.
1. IV. Exception to Mootness Doctrine
The court ruled that there was no evidence for the undersigned counselor’s argument that this issue falls
within the narrow “capable of repetition, yet evading review” issue. P3 order. There are thousands of
soldiers and officers who are being deployed on a daily basis. They are entitled to know whether the orders
coming from the Commander in Chief are lawful. In Gerstein v Pugh, 420 US 102, 110 n. 11, 95 S.Ct. 854,
43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975) the Supreme Court of the US held the exception to mootness doctrine for violations
“capable of repetition, yet evading review” applied because the Constitutional violation was likely to be
repeated but would not last long enough to be reviewed before becoming moot.. In oral argument the
undersigned counselor equated this issue to Roe v Wade 410 US 113,125,93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147
(1973) and the issue of women getting pregnant and not being able to have their case reviewed, as it was
rendered moot after each delivery, at which time the above doctrine was introduced. It was actually argued
that some cynics might say that Obama’s refusal to unseal any of his vital records equates to abortion of
legitimacy of the American Presidency. In Oregon Advocacy Ctr v Mink, 322 F.3d 1101, 1118 (9 th
Cir.2003). it was held that plaintiffs have standing if they are challenging an ongoing governmental policy,
even if specific injury no longer exists. Here we have an ongoing policy of concealment of records of the
Commander in Chief. To this point is the DC Circuit court held that when a complaint challenges an
acknowledged or apparent governmental policy, the government cannot prevail by arguing that the
controversy became moot when the particular situation at issue resolved itself. UkranianAmerican Bar
Assn’n v Baker, 893 F.2d 1374, 1377 (D.C. Cir 1990). Not only is this specifically an issue that is capable
of repetition, yet evading review, Judge Land’s finding evades the premises of basic human logic. Even if
Major Cook’s orders were revoked shortly after this legal action was filed, there are thousands of similar
orders issued every day. Therefore the court erred in its assertion that this issue does not fall within
“capable of repetition, yet evading review principle of federal jurisdiction. Therefore the order needs
to be reversed.
1. V. Standing of Additional Plaintiffs
The court found that two officers who joined this action as additional plaintiffs “do not have standing to
pursue their claims”p3. Again the court assumed facts not in evidence and ignored facts in evidence. One of
the officers is lifetime subject to recall, and the other is in active reserves and can be called to deploy at any
time with but a few days notice. Per the argument above, the court erred in assuming that the additional
plaintiffs have no standing, and thus the order has to be reversed.
VI. Ignoring Whistleblower Acts
The court erred in completely avoiding the legal argument that the fact of retaliatory pressure from the
military to have Major Cook fired from his $120,000 position as a defense contractor may be a violation of
general and specific military Whistleblower acts as well as the First and Ninth amendment civil rights. The
Application seeks a writ of Mandamus to be issued to the Department of Defense commanding it to cease,
cure, or remedy retaliation against Plaintiff Cook P2, 3 Rule 65 Application for Preliminary Injunction. At
the very minimum this issue warrants standing, discovery and determination by the jury.
VII. Not Providing Opportunity to File Complaint
The court erred in not giving the undersigned counsel an opportunity to file an actual Complaint. As the
matter at hand was urgent, the counselor had filed a TRO and then an application for preliminary injunction.
As the situation was changing by the day, the plaintiff needed time to respond to the motion to dismiss filed
by the Department of Defense and Department of Justice and file an actual complaint. While the court could
have jurisdiction to deny the TRO, it had no jurisdiction to deny the Application for Injunction and not give
the plaintiff time to file the actual complaint.
CONCLUSION
Due to the above mentioned the district court erred in dismissing the above action due to lack of
Jurisdiction. The Appellant respectfully requests reversal of this order.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Orly Taitz
______________________
Dr. Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway
(949)-683-5411
December 7, 2009 Counsel for Appellant
I hereby certify that on this date I am causing two copies of the foregoing
brief to be served by first-class mail, postage pre-paid, on the following counsel:
Hugh Randolph Aderhold, JR
Assistant US Attorney
P.O. Box 1702
Macon, Georgia 31202-1702
(478) 752-3511
Randy.Aderhold@usdoj.gov
Rebecca Elaine Ausprung
US Army Litigation Division
901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 400
Arlington, Virginia 22203
(703) 696-1614
Rebecca.Ausprung@usarmy.mil
/s/Orly Taitz____________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
December 7, 2009
No. 09-14698-CC
___________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
___________________________
STEFAN FREDRICK COOK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WANDA L. GOOD et al,
Defendants-Appellees.
___________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
___________________________
MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT
___________________________
Dr. Orly Taitz

29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, Suite 100

(949)-683-5411
Counsel for Appellant
December 7, 2009
MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT
Undersigned counsel respectfully motions the court for leave of court to file documents out of time due to
the fact that she did not receive the briefing schedule. Additionally her Pro Hac Vice was approved only last
week on December 2, 2009 and was received in her office only two days ago on December 5, 2009. This
motion is submitted on December 7, 2009 within allowed 14 days since the dismissal on November 24, 2009
as provided by local rules 42-1, 42-2 and 42-3. Appellant brief and record excerpts are attached.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Orly Taitz
______________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway
(949)-683-5411
December 7, 2009 Counsel for Appellant
Designation of Records
Counsel for the appellant herewith designates the following documents to be transmitted for the purpose of
appeal heretofore filed in the above entitled case:
1. 07.16.09. Order to dismiss from Judge Clay D. Land

2. Transcript of the TRO hearing on the 07.16.09.
3. Motion for TRO
4. Rule 65 motion for injunction
Certificate of word count
The undersigned counsel certifies that the appellant brief is 21 pages long and does not exceed allowed 30
page count or 14,000 word count.
I hereby certify that on this date I am causing two copies of the foregoing
brief to be served by first-class mail, postage pre-paid, on the following counsel:
Hugh Randolph Aderhold, JR
Assistant US Attorney
P.O. Box 1702
Macon, Georgia 31202-1702
(478) 752-3511
Randy.Aderhold@usdoj.gov
Rebecca Elaine Ausprung
US Army Litigation Division
901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 400
Arlington, Virginia 22203
(703) 696-1614
Rebecca.Ausprung@usarmy.mil
/s/ Orly Taitz__________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
December 7, 2009
Category: Latest News, Legal Actions
Comments
Leave a Reply
Name (required)
Edward Paard
Email Address(required)
edpaard@yahoo.com
Website
Comments
Submit Comment
Contact Orly!
email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com Urgent? Call: 949-683-5411
Recent Posts
Appellant brief in Major Cook’s case was received by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta
GA
There are millions of people behind you
6737
You got it. FBI is covering up Obama sitting in the White House with stolen ss numbers and they put
me on the terrorist watch list for trying to bring this massive fraud and treason to trial. Thank you
judge Land and Judge Carter for dispensing justice.
6731
Categories
Dossiers (25)
Dr. Orly TV; Videos (45)
Events (74)
Health & Safety (5)
Help Needed (61)
HOT ITEMS! (217)
Humor (27)
Latest News (159)
Legal Actions (79)
Letters from Readers and Patriots (128)
Letters/Feedback from Readers (139)
LINKS (23)
Other Criminal or Suspicious Activities (38)
Radio and Media Broadcasts (86)
Supporting Documentation (55)
Uncategorized (1689)
Archives
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
December 2009
M T WT F S S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
« Nov
Categories
Select Category
Search for: Search
Blogroll
Conservative Monster
Judges Hall of Shame
Paypal Donate
Advertisement / Sponsors
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
Sponsored Links
Company facing
lawsuit?
Is your small
company dealing
with frivolous
lawsuit? Share
your story
www.FacesOfLawsuitAbuse.org
Cheap Acrobat
9 Extended
Download
Legally Now
Voted Number 1
Software Site
www.SoftwareKing.com
WA Divorce
Online $149
Complete All
Required Forms
Online Fast,
Lawyer-Free,
100% Guarantee
www.DivorceWriter.com
Request Birth
Certificate
Free Birth
Certificate
Request Form
Absolutely Free-
Print, Save &
Send
RocketLawyer.com/Birth-Certificate
Powered by WordPress | Copyright Defend Our Freedoms Foundation

Cook V Good Appeal

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Cook V Good Appeal

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Appellant brief in Major Cook’s case was received by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta GA : Dr.

Orly Taitz Esquire 12/8/09 12:50 PM

Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire

World's Leading Obama Eligibility Challenge Web Site

Appellant brief in Major Cook’s case was received

US Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit – Brief Upload Result Page

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

STEFAN FREDRICK COOK,

WANDA L. GOOD et al,

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT

Dr. Orly Taitz

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

Counsel for Appellant

TABLE OF CITATIONS …………………………………………………………………iii

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES…………………………………………………………1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE……………………………………………………………2

1. Nature of the Case and Proceedings Below……………………………..6

I. Lack of Time to Respond…………………………………………………….6

1. Omitting Military Pressure on Employer……………………………….7

1. Imminent Not Hypothetical Injury………………………………………..8

1. Exception to Repetition, Evasion Mootness Doctrine………………8

1. Standing of Additional Plaintiffs…………………………………………10

1. Ignoring Whistleblower Acts………………………………………………10

1. Not Providing Opportunity to File Complaint……………………….10

MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT…………………………………………………..11

420 U.S. 102, 110 n. 11, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975)…………13

Oregon Advocacy Ctr v. Mink,

322 F.3d 1101, 1118 (9 th Cir. 2003)……………………………………………14

Ukranian American Bar Assn’n v. Baker,

893 F.2d 1374, 1377 (D.C. Cir 1990) …………………………………………14

4th Amendment to the US Constitution ……………………………………………11

9th Amendment to the US Constitution …………………………………………..11

Rule 65 Application for Preliminary Injunction…………………………………….12

State of Hawaii Statute 338-5……………………………………………..12

Local Rule 7-2 US District Court, Middle District of GA …………….12

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

I. Lack of Time to Respond

II. Omitting Military Pressure on Employer

III. Imminent Not Hypothetical Injury

1. IV. Exception to Mootness Doctrine

1. V. Standing of Additional Plaintiffs

VI. Ignoring Whistleblower Acts

VII. Not Providing Opportunity to File Complaint

Dr. Orly Taitz

29839 Santa Margarita Parkway

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

December 7, 2009 Counsel for Appellant

brief to be served by first-class mail, postage pre-paid, on the following counsel:

Hugh Randolph Aderhold, JR

P.O. Box 1702

Macon, Georgia 31202-1702

Rebecca Elaine Ausprung

US Army Litigation Division

901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 400

Arlington, Virginia 22203

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

STEFAN FREDRICK COOK,