Cook v Good Appeal

8/14/2019 Cook v Good Appeal

1/22

12/8/09 12:ppellant brief in Major Cooks case was received by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta GA : Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire

Page 1ttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=6739

Home

Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation 29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, ste 100, RanchoSanta 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 Cooks case was receivedby the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in AtlantaGA

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#respondhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=6739#respondhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=6739http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/


2/22



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


3/22



(949) 683-5411

Counsel for Appellant

December 7, 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CITATIONS iii

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.1

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE2


4/22



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 Doctrine8

1. Standing of Additional Plaintiffs10

1. Ignoring Whistleblower Acts10

1. Not Providing Opportunity to File Complaint.10


5/22



CONCLUSION ..11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT..11



6/22



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


7/22



Oregon Advocacy Ctr v. Mink,

322 F.3d 1101, 1118 (9th 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 Assnn 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


8/22



STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This court has jurisdiction, as the order being reviewed came from the 11 th circuit, US District court, MiddDistrict of Georgia, Columbus division. The case revolves around the issues of Federal law and USConstitution and there was a complete diversity between the parties and because the jurisdiction does not lsolely in the Supreme Court of Georgia under the Georgia Constitution, Art. 6 6, PII. See GA Const., Ar6, 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 o07.16.09, while not giving the Plaintiffs-Appellants counsel any time to respond to the Motion to Dismisfiled by the defendants only a day prior to dismissal, by not giving the plaintiff an opportunity to file anactual complaint beyond the Motion for TRO and injunction, and by disregarding most of the facts of thecase, 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 rightsto question legitimacy of the Commander in Chief due to the split allegiance and lack of legitimate vitalrecords for the Commander in Chief?

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Statement of Facts


9/22



The Plaintiff-Appellant Major Stefan Frederick Cook is a high ranked US military officer, who has servedthis country for some twenty years on active duty or active reserves. He worked for a military contractorSimtech in the area of security and computer security, and he has advanced degrees and training inEngineering, Management, Business, Computer Science and Economics. Major Cook has served in the fieof 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 alicensed investigator and former elite unit Scotland Yard investigator Mr. Sankey, has used some 39different social security numbers, several of them were used in Georgia, several of these numbers belongeto deceased individuals, some are never assigned numbers, none of these numbers were issued in the stateof Hawaii, where Mr. Obama was born, according to Mr. Obamas claims. Major Cook was also concerneabout the fact that according to a leading US Forensic Document expert Sandra Ramsey Lines the shortversion Certification of Life Birth, issued in 2007, and presented by Mr. Obama to the public, cannot beconsidered genuine without examining the original supposedly on file in the Health Department in HawaiiIn spite of over 100 legal actions in state and federal courts demanding to see Mr. Obamas vital records,

Mr. Obama has refused to unseal his original records, such as original birth certificate from 1961 fromHawaii, his birthing file from Kapiolani hospital, his college and university enrollment records, and insteahas instructed his private attorney, currently White House Counsel, Mr. Robert Bauer from Perkins Coieand Department of Justice, US Attorneys office to quash all subpoenas for production of records. This is particular concern, since Hawaii statutes going back to 1911 consistently allowed foreign born children ofHawaiian residents to get Hawaiian birth certificate and Hawaiian statute 338-5 allows one to obtain a birtcertificate based on a statement of one relative only, who of course can be biased, without any corroboratievidence from any hospital. Even more troubling is the fact that the director of the Health department ofHawaii 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, to what document is there, is it a 338-5 document supplied by a parent only without any corroboratingevidence, is it a 338-17 document given to a foreign born child of a Hawaiian resident, is it an amendedbirth certificate, given upon Mr. Obamas adoption by his Indonesian step father and showing him as acitizen of Indonesia? Major Cook brought this current action to stop his deployment and stop anyretaliatory actions by the military until the legitimacy of the Commander in Chief is verified and there is adeclaratory relief on this issue. When the military revoked Major Cooks deployment orders, it onlyexacerbated unrest in the military, as it became clear that Mr. Obama and the military have nothing to showit became a political story number 5 in the World, and in order to prevent future similar actions the militaryapplied tremendous pressure on Major Cooks employer, small military contractor Simtech, to have himfired from his $120, 000 position, to teach a lesson anybody who dares to exercise his First Amendmentright 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 hisposition. The inference of this case is that it appears that the US district judge Clay D. Land has colludedwith Obama administration and the top brass of the military by throwing out the whole legal action, byrefusing to grant the injunction, by not giving the undersigned counsel any time to respond to the motion todismiss, by completely ignoring most of the facts of the case, specifically the fact of retaliation by themilitary and claiming that the case needs to be dismissed due to lack of injury and lack of standing. JudgeLand didnt see a loss of $120,000 a year position as an injury. Judge Land equally ignored all legalargument, specifically the fact that two other high ranked officers joined the current action and the fact tha


10/22



this is specifically type of an repeated injury that evades the judicial review and falls under the exception 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 discretionin dismissing the case within one day after receiving the motion to dismisswithout giving the undersigned counsel any time to respond, while she was allowed 20 days according tolocal rules, by ignoring most facts of the case, specifically the fact that more members of the military withproper standing have joined the action and the fact that the plaintiff-appellant was subjected to retaliationby 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 occurrenthat evades judicial review

3. Whether the district court has erred in applying the facts while reaching conclusion that the plaintiffshave suffered no injury and had no immenent injury.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

ARGUMENTPlaintiff-Appellant Major Stefan Fredrick Cook appeals the order to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction due tofollowing 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 Defendants motion dismiss was filed. The courts action was on the same day as that motion was even seen by the plaintiffsand 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 begiven to the non-moving party to respond to the motion:

-7.2 RESPONSE. Respondents counsel desiring to submit a response, brief, or affidavits shall serve thesame within twenty (20) days after service of movants motion and brief.

The court dismissed the legal action before the undersigned counsel had an opportunity to even read themotion. These actions by Judge Land are not only a flagrant error and violation of the local rules, but are a


11/22



violation of the appellants rights to due process under the 4th and 9th amendment and 42 U.S.C1983,1988, 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 nostanding. 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 Cooks statement that the military retaliated against him by pressuringhis employer, a small defense contractor to fire Major Cook from his $120,000 a year position. How can tcourt miss such an important issue and not address it in the order? Judge Land read his order to dismissimmediately after a short TRO hearing. It was quite clear that he prepared the order in advance, beforehearing the arguments in court and without reading the Rule 65 Application for Preliminary Injunction thawas submitted to court shortly before the hearing. Either judge Land didnt read the Application forPreliminary Injunction, which would show negligence on part of the court or he read the Application andconsciously decided to ignore such an important issue, which would show bias and bad faith on part of thecourt. Omitting the issue of pressure applied on the plaintiffs 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 todismiss.

III. Imminent Not Hypothetical Injury

The court argued that There is no evidence that he is subject to future deployment. Any such contention issheer speculation and entirely hypothetical. Thus he has suffered no particularized or concrete injury p2order. Here the court assumes facts not in evidence and ignores fact in evidence. Actually, major Cooksubmitted evidence showing that he has been in the military for over 20 years either as an active dutyofficer or active reserve. Active reserve officers are deployed every year. Therefore the evidence shows thfuture 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 injurfrom being fired from his position as a defense contractor under pressure from the military. Therefore, thplaintiff-appellant has suffered actual injury and he is additionally subject to imminent injury. Thecourt 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 counselors argument that this issue fallswithin the narrow capable of repetition, yet evading review issue. P3 order. There are thousands ofsoldiers and officers who are being deployed on a daily basis. They are entitled to know whether the ordercoming from the Commander in Chief are lawful. In Gerstein v Pugh, 420 US 102, 110 n. 11, 95 S.Ct. 8543 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975) the Supreme Court of the US held the exception to mootness doctrine for violationscapable of repetition, yet evading review applied because the Constitutional violation was likely to berepeated but would not last long enough to be reviewed before becoming moot.. In oral argument theundersigned counselor equated this issue toRoe 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 wasrendered moot after each delivery, at which time the above doctrine was introduced. It was actually arguedthat some cynics might say that Obamas refusal to unseal any of his vital records equates to abortion of


12/22



legitimacy of the American Presidency.In Oregon Advocacy Ctr v Mink,322 F.3d 1101, 1118 (9th

Cir.2003). itwas held that plaintiffs have standingif they are challenging an ongoing governmental policyeven if specific injury no longer exists. Here we have an ongoing policy of concealment of records of theCommander in Chief. To this point is the DC Circuit court held that when a complaint challenges anacknowledged or apparent governmental policy, the government cannot prevail by arguing that thecontroversy became moot when the particular situation at issue resolved itself. UkranianAmerican BarAssnn v Baker,893 F.2d 1374, 1377 (D.C. Cir 1990). Not only is this specifically an issue that is capab

ofrepetition, yet evading review, Judge Lands finding evades the premises of basic human logic. Even Major Cooks orders were revoked shortly after this legal action was filed, there are thousands of similarorders issued every day. Therefore the court erred in its assertion that this issue does not fall withincapable of repetition, yet evading review principle of federal jurisdiction. Therefore the order needto 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 topursue their claimsp3. Again the court assumed facts not in evidence and ignored facts in evidence. One othe officers is lifetime subject to recall, and the other is in active reserves and can be called to deploy at an

time with but a few days notice. Per the argument above, the court erred in assuming that the additionplaintiffs 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 themilitary to have Major Cook fired from his $120,000 position as a defense contractor may be a violation ogeneral and specific military Whistleblower acts as well as the First and Ninth amendment civil rights. ThApplication 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. Atthe 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 thematter at hand was urgent, the counselor had filed a TRO and then an application for preliminary injunctioAs the situation was changing by the day, the plaintiff needed time to respond to the motion to dismiss fileby the Department of Defense and Department of Justice and file an actual complaint. While the court couhave jurisdiction to deny the TRO, it had no jurisdiction to deny the Application for Injunction and not givthe 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 ofJurisdiction. The Appellant respectfully requests reversal of this order.

Respectfully submitted,


13/22



/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

[email protected]

Rebecca Elaine Ausprung

US Army Litigation Division

901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 400


14/22



Arlington, Virginia 22203

(703) 696-1614

[email protected]

/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,


15/22



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


16/22



MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT

Undersigned counsel respectfully motions the court for leave of court to file documents out of time due tothe fact that she did not receive the briefing schedule. Additionally her Pro Hac Vice was approved only laweek on December 2, 2009 and was received in her office only two days ago on December 5, 2009. Thismotion is submitted on December 7, 2009 within allowed 14 days since the dismissal on November 24, 20as 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


17/22



Designation of Records

Counsel for the appellant herewith designates the following documents to be transmitted for the purpose oappeal heretofore filed in the above entitled case:

1. 07.16.09. Order to dismiss from Judge Clay D. Land2. Transcript of the TRO hearing on the 07.16.09.3. Motion for TRO4. 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


18/22



(478) 752-3511

[email protected]

Rebecca Elaine Ausprung

US Army Litigation Division

901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 400

Arlington, Virginia 22203

(703) 696-1614

[email protected]

/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)

[email protected]

Website

Comments
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=13http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=8http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.orlytaitzesq.com%2F%3Fp%3D6739&linkname=Appellant%20brief%20in%20Major%20Cook%26%238217%3Bs%20case%20was%20received%20by%20the%2011th%20Circuit%20Court%20of%20Appeals%20in%20Atlanta%20GA


19/22



Submit Comment

Contact Orly!

email: [email protected] Urgent? Call: 949-683-5411

Recent Posts

Appellant brief in Major Cooks case was received by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in AtlantaGAThere are millions of people behind you6737You got it. FBI is covering up Obama sitting in the White House with stolen ss numbers and they pume 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)
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=1http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=3http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=11http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=14http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=9http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=6http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=7http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=13http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=8http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=22http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=15http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=12http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=23http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=10http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=5http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?cat=29http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=6731http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=6732http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=6737http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=6736http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=6739


20/22



Archives

December 2009November 2009October 2009September 2009August 2009July 2009June 2009May 2009April 2009

December 2009

M T W T F S S

Nov

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31

Categories

Select Category

Search for: Search

Blogroll

Conservative MonsterJudges Hall of ShamePaypal Donate

Advertisement / Sponsors
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=6543056http://hallofshame.cjb.net/http://theconservativemonster.com/http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?m=20091208http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?m=20091207http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?m=20091206http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?m=20091205http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?m=20091204http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?m=20091203http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?m=20091202http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?m=20091201http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?m=200911http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?m=200904http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?m=200905http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?m=200906http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?m=200907http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?m=200908http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?m=200909http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?m=200910http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?m=200911http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?m=200912


21/22



-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

Sponsored Links
http://www.taitzofficesuites.com/http://www.drtaitz.com/http://www.bepreparednow.net/


22/22


Powered by WordPress | Copyright Defend Our Freedoms Foundation

Company facinglawsuit?Is your smallcompany dealingwith frivolouslawsuit? Share

your storywww.FacesOfLawsuitAb

Cheap Acrobat9 ExtendedDownloadLegally NowVoted Number 1Software Sitewww.SoftwareKing.com

WA DivorceOnline $149Complete AllRequired FormsOnline Fast,Lawyer-Free,100% Guaranteewww.DivorceWriter.com

Request BirthCertificateFree BirthCertificateRequest FormAbsolutely Free-Print, Save &SendRocketLawyer.com/Birth
http://www.google.com/url?ct=abg&q=https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/request.py%3Fcontact%3Dabg_afc%26url%3Dhttp://www.orlytaitzesq.com/%253Fp%253D6739%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dca-pub-0110837535197939%26adU%3Dwww.FacesOfLawsuitAbuse.org%26adT%3DCompany%2Bfacing%2Blawsuit%253F%26adU%3Dwww.SoftwareKing.com%26adT%3DCheap%2BAcrobat%2B9%2BExtended%26adU%3Dwww.DivorceWriter.com%26adT%3DWA%2BDivorce%2BOnline%2B%2524149%26adU%3DRocketLawyer.com/Birth-Certificate%26adT%3DRequest%2BBirth%2BCertificate%26gl%3DUS&usg=AFQjCNFI9Y6eH0ozsepL3gT0LLx_HlrfYQhttp://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/aclk?sa=l&ai=BOiFzY7oeS52qM8K0nAfx4PhGid22lAGXkN6WE8CNtwHQyhYQBBgEIMXUwxIoBDgAUKCrg5QBYMmOxo30pNAZoAHXnPnyA7IBFHd3dy5vcmx5dGFpdHplc3EuY29tugEKMTIweDYwMF9hc8gBAdoBI2h0dHA6Ly93d3cub3JseXRhaXR6ZXNxLmNvbS8_cD02NzM5gAIByALf8_cHqAMByAMH6ANL6ANM9QMAAACE&num=4&sig=AGiWqtwAVL57_iUqy28OXnWJeF7vQ7kNQA&client=ca-pub-0110837535197939&adurl=http://www.rocketlawyer.com/documents/legal-form-Birth%2BCertificate%2BRequest%2BLetter.aspx%3Fpartner%3D103%26utm_source%3DGoogle2%26utm_medium%3DCPC-Personal%26utm_campaign%3DCPChttp://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/aclk?sa=l&ai=BRqSQY7oeS52qM8K0nAfx4PhGjdv2aZ--hYULwI23AaC7ShADGAMgxdTDEigEOABQz5bRmQZgyY7GjfSk0BmgAYXpv_8DsgEUd3d3Lm9ybHl0YWl0emVzcS5jb226AQoxMjB4NjAwX2FzyAEB2gEjaHR0cDovL3d3dy5vcmx5dGFpdHplc3EuY29tLz9wPTY3MzmAAgGoAwHIAwfoA0voA0z1AwAAAIQ&num=3&sig=AGiWqtxc7VY_B84pI4A-GkNX4KbFyxSvQw&client=ca-pub-0110837535197939&adurl=http://www.divorcewriter.com/Start_the_Process.asp%3Fsrc%3Dg_wadiv_1bhttp://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/aclk?sa=l&ai=B7r5KY7oeS52qM8K0nAfx4PhGyMnSbpS38K8HwI23AZCLQBACGAIgxdTDEigEOABQgJfNfmDJjsaN9KTQGaAB5IT-_gOyARR3d3cub3JseXRhaXR6ZXNxLmNvbboBCjEyMHg2MDBfYXPIAQHaASNodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm9ybHl0YWl0emVzcS5jb20vP3A9NjczOYACAagDAcgDB-gDS-gDTPUDAAAAhA&num=2&sig=AGiWqtyqHoWL5aZEdTRJSUnMxKFhnWLz_g&client=ca-pub-0110837535197939&adurl=http://www.softwareking.com/acrobat.htmlhttp://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/aclk?sa=l&ai=BB2BhY7oeS52qM8K0nAfx4PhG-4K5vgHbnvauEcCNtwGwiUsQARgBIMXUwxIoBDgAUK7Cv678_____wFgyY7GjfSk0BmgAemo5O4DsgEUd3d3Lm9ybHl0YWl0emVzcS5jb226AQoxMjB4NjAwX2FzyAEB2gEjaHR0cDovL3d3dy5vcmx5dGFpdHplc3EuY29tLz9wPTY3MzmAAgHIAu3ZsBGoAwHIAwfoA0voA0z1AwAAAIQ&num=1&sig=AGiWqtyHk49jC4Qw3gQunBvfccHUknuasQ&client=ca-pub-0110837535197939&adurl=http://www.FacesOfLawsuitAbuse.org/tell/

Documents

Cook v Good Appeal