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Land asked Taitz whether Cook requested to simply have his orders rescinded, instead of filing a lawsuit.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.”