Found this online, it's pretty interesting I think the lengths the Govenment goes to protect Obama's Birth Certificate:

Columbus Ledger-Enquirer (Georgia)
July 17, 2009 Friday
Federal judge dismisses lawsuit questioning Obama's natural born citizen
status;
By Lily Gordon
BYLINE: Lily Gordon
LENGTH: 885 words
A federal judge tossed out a controversial lawsuit Thursday brought here by a U.S. Army reservist seeking to avoid
deployment to Afghanistan because he questions Barack Obama s eligibility as president.
Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook filed the suit July 8 with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia seeking
conscientious objector status and a temporary injunction.
U.S. District Judge Clay Land sided with the government, represented by Maj. Rebecca Ausprung, which claimed Cook
s suit was moot because the Army had already told him he doesn t have to deploy, so the relief he is seeking has been
granted.
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, Land stated in his written order. 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.
Land s decision to dismiss the entire action came an hour and 15 minutes after the hearing began.
Cook arrived at the federal courthouse in uniform about an hour before his 9:30 a.m. hearing.
Outside, before the proceedings began, the officer defended his position and declared his devotion to the military.
I love the Army, and I want to continue to serve in the Army, Cook said. If we can establish that he is in fact president
of the United States legally, I m on the airplane the next day over to Afghanistan if they cut my deployment orders, so I can
do the job that I want to do.
During the proceedings, Land heard from Orly Taitz, Ausprung and Cook s attorney.
Taitz argued that her client is not opposed to military service. Instead, Cook, who claims he has been the victim of
retaliation to his suit, fears that if he executed Obama s orders, he could be prosecuted as a war criminal for following the
orders of an illegitimate commander-in-chief.
Land asked Taitz whether Cook requested to simply have his orders rescinded, instead of filing a lawsuit.
Taitz said she filed an Article 138 complaint with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen. An
Article 138 complaint gives members of the armed forces under the Uniform Code of Military Justice the right to request
redress if they believe they had been wronged by their commanding officer.
According to Ausprung, an Article 138 complaint has to go through the soldier s chain of command. Cook did not go
through his chain of command, Ausprung said.
Lt. Col. Maria Quon, a public affairs officer with the U.S. Army Human Resources Command-St. Louis, said Thursday
that Cook could have requested revocation of his orders up until the day he was due to report for active duty. He did not
make such a request, she said.
The government argued in court that Cook was using the issue of his deployment to address the constitutional and
political issue of whether Obama is qualified to serve as president.
Land agreed, saying that Cook s claim failed to meet the criteria for seeking federal jurisdiction.
According to Land s order, Cook had not experienced an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized because his
orders have been revoked, he hasn t received future orders and there s no evidence that he is subject to future deployment.
This Court has a duty to follow the United States Constitution, Land wrote. 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.
This entire action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Land continued in his order. The parties shall bear
their own costs.
As to the retaliation issue, the revised suit states Cook lost his job at Simtech Inc. a corporation based in Florida that
does Department of Defense contracting in the field of information technology and systems integration because of the suit. It
also states that Cook has been subjected to gossip from people who believed Cook was manipulating his deployment orders
to create a platform for political purposes.
Land said in court he was not going to decide on the issue of Cook s dismissal from his job.
There s an appropriate forum in a court where there is jurisdiction over those parties, Land said.
Following the hearing, Taitz said she would be filing a suit in a Florida court, asking for an injunction and damages. She
also told the media gathered outside the courthouse that she was disappointed with Land s ruling.
It makes absolutely no sense, it s totally illogical, Taitz said. It defies common sense. It defies any sense of decency.
We re not a banana republic where el presidente decides. We are a nation of law and order, she added. We re a nation of
Constitution of the United States of America and the orders have to be lawful.
Copyright 2009 Columbus Ledger-Enquirer
All Rights Reserved