Monthly Archives: November 2008

Obama Selective Service records, debbieschlussel.com, Federal agent examined, November 13, 2008, Possible Federal Crime, FOIA request, Obama fraud?

Posted on November 13, 2008 | 19 comments

Debbie Schlussel, on her website, debbieschlussel.com, has a breaking story about Barack Obama’s Selective Service record and how it may be fraudulent. Here are some exerpts from the article dated November 13, 2008:

“November 13, 2008

EXCLUSIVE: Did Next Commander-in-Chief Falsify Selective Service Registration? Never Actually Register? Obama’s Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions

By Debbie Schlussel“

“Did President-elect Barack Hussein Obama commit a federal crime in September of this year? Or did he never actually register and, instead, did friends of his in the Chicago federal records center, which maintains the official copy of his alleged Selective Service registration commit the crime for him?

It’s either one or the other, as indicated by the release of Barack Obama’s official Selective Service registration for the draft. A friend of mine, who is a retired federal agent, spent almost a year trying to obtain this document through a Freedom of Information Act request, and, after much stonewalling, finally received it and released it to me.

But the release of Obama’s draft registration and an accompanying document, posted below, raises more questions than it answers. And it shows many signs of fraud, not to mention putting the lie to Obama’s claim that he registered for the draft in June 1979, before it was required by law.”

“The official campaign for President may be over. But Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration card and accompanying documents show that questions about him are not only NOT over, but if the signature on the document is in fact his, our next Commander-in-Chief may have committed a federal crime in 2008, well within the statute of limitations on the matter. If it is not his, then it’s proof positive that our next Commander-in-Chief never registered with the Selective Service as required by law. By law, he was required to register and was legally able to do so until the age of 26.

But the Selective Service System registration (“SSS Form 1”) and accompanying computer print-out (“SSS Print-out), below, released by the Selective Service show the following oddities and irregularities, all of which indicate the document was created in 2008 and backdated:”

Obama not eligible, NC lawsuit, Donald Sullivan, Lt Col, Elaine Marshall, NC Secretary of State, North Carolina Board of Elections, NC Electoral College, November 7, 2008, Class Action Lawsuit, Support and defend Constitution

Posted on November 13, 2008 | 10 comments

Here is the lawsuit filed on November 7, 2008, by Lt Col. Donald Sullivan against Elaine Marshall, the NC Secretary of State, and the NC Board of Elections:

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

COUNTY OF PENDER File # 08CV_____________

Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan, )

Plaintiff ) NOTICE AND DEMAND ) FOR

v. ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

) (CLASS ACTION)

North Carolina Board of Elections, and )

Elaine F. Marshall, Secretary of State )

For North Carolina, )

Defendants )

________________________________________________________________________

Now comes Lt. Colonel Donald Sullivan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, to notice and demand this court provide injunctive relief in the matter of the citizenship of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., his eligibility to have been a candidate on the North Carolina ballot for the office of President of the United States of America and his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States of America.

1. PARTIES

1.1.

I, Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan, Plaintiff, am an adult individual with an address of PO Box 3061, Wilmington, NC, and Citizen of the State of North Carolina and of the United States of America.

1.2 Defendant, North Carolina Board of Elections, is an appointed agency of the State of North Carolina General Assembly, with oversight authority in matters pertaining to State elections and election irregularities including, but not limited to, candidate/electee eligibility, with offices at 506 Harrington Street, Raleigh, NC, 27611, and with a mailing address of PO Box 27255, Raleigh, NC, 27611-7255. Upon information and belief, the Process Agent for said entity is Director Gary O. Bartlett of the same address.

1.2. Defendant, Elaine F. Marshall, a/k/a Elaine Marshall is an adult individual with an office address of Old Revenue Building, 2 S. Salisbury Street, PO Box 29622, Raleigh, NC, 27626-062, and the elected North Carolina State Secretary of State. Upon information and belief, the Process Agent for said individual and entity is Ann Wall at PO Box 29622, Raleigh, NC, 27626.

2. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2.1.

As we do not have a federal ballot, per se, as there is no federally guaranteed right to vote and there is no popular federal election held, North Carolina State, through the office of the North Carolina Board of Elections, creates its own ballot, supervises the same, and allows its citizens to vote in a popular election to choose electors to represent our choice for the Office of President to the Congress under the 12

^{th Amendment. This case arises under Article VI, of the North Carolina State Constitution and North Carolina General Statute 163, et. seq., and the laws and Constitution of the United States, and presents a state question within this Court’s jurisdiction.}

3. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF CLASS ACTION STATUS

I bring this action on my motion for class certification on behalf of my self and all others similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23 of the N.C.R. of Civ. P. and state as follows:
Pursuant to said Rule 23, I request a determination that all voters be certified as a single class based upon the following grounds:

3.1. I bring this action now maintained by the named plaintiff as a class action on behalf of myself and all persons similarly situated, comprising the class.
3.2. I am informed and believe that there are approximately over 4,000,000 members of the class so that joinder of all members is impracticable.

3.3. My claims are typical of the claims of all members of the class above.

3.4. I will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class above, to the best of my ability.

3.5. There are common questions of law and fact affecting the rights of each member of the class, as against the named defendants.

3.6. The common questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting individual members only, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversies between the class described above and the named defendants.

For the reasons stated infra, I respectfully request this court to grant my request for class certification. As discussed above, all requirements of NC Civil Rule 23 have been satisfied, and the goal of judicial economy will be well served by resolving these claims contained infra in a single action. [English v Holden Beach Realty, 41 NC App 1, 254 SE 2d 217 (1979) and Crow v. Citicorp Acceptance, 319 NC 274, 354 SE 2d 459 (1987)]

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR AN ORDER FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

4.1.

I

, Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan, Plaintiff, hereby offer this memorandum in support of my motion for injunctive relief and to demand performance of constitutional duties related to the offices of the North Carolina Board of Elections and the North Carolina State Secretary of State, Elaine F. Marshall, a/k/a Elaine Marshall, [hereinafter Defendants”]. Upon information and belief, all my allegations and aversions herein are true and verifiable.

4.2.

My complaint challenges Mr. Barack Hussein Obama’s, eligibility to run for, or hold, the Office of President of the United States and demands that the Offices of the Board of Elections and the Secretary of State make such determination by acquisition of original documentation or by receipt of verifiable information from other government entities so charged with overseeing the election process, such as the Federal Elections Commission.

4.3.

I argue that when a challenge is received by the North Carolina State Board of Elections to the qualification for office of an individual appearing on the North Carolina State Ballot, that the entire burden of proof falls on the candidate for Office to present such information and documentation to the North Carolina State Board of Elections as would be normal and customary to establish one’

s minimum qualifications for office.

4.4.

I further argue that the Office of the Board of Elections has the Constitutional and Statutory authority to make such determinations as part of certifying and executing fair and open elections.

4.5.

I further argue that it is sufficient to show only reasonable cause for complaint to the Board of Elections for that Board to require documentation of the respective individual relevant to determination of minimum qualification; that, lacking explicit statute defining the requisite documentation, the Board of Elections has the intrinsic authority to set those reasonable standards that would establish certain confidence in the people in the electoral process.

4.6.

Plaintiff seeks focused and expedited review, to protect the veracity of the electoral process, maintain the people’s confidence in the government and to support defend the Constitutions of North Carolina and of the United States of America.

5. DEMAND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF – PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

5.1.

Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, states in particular part, “No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

5.2.

Mr. Barack H. Obama was a candidate for United States Office of President on the 2008 North Carolina ballot. However, to have been a candidate, Mr. Obama must have met those qualifications specified for the United States Office of the President, which include, but are not limited to, being a “natural born” citizen. Upon information and belief, Mr. Obama has failed to demonstrate that he is a “natural born” citizen. There are other legal challenges before the Federal Courts regarding aspects of lost or dual citizenship. Those challenges further demonstrate my argument that reasonable doubt exists as to the veracity of the electoral process that would allow such fundamental questions to exist at this late hour preceding the election.

5.3.

The North Carolina State office of the Board of Elections is responsible for the veracity of the North Carolina State election process, for verifying ahead of time the qualification of the voters, the ballots themselves, the candidates and the final counting and certification of results. That office is intended to be non-biased and to provide the critical sense of fairness and correctness necessary for the people to have faith in the fundamental underpinnings of the democratic basis for our republic.

5.4.

There is a reasonable and common expectation by the people that to qualify for the ballot the individuals so listed meet the minimum qualifications as outlined in our Constitutions, and that proof of those minimum qualifications has been received by the officials executing the election process. Heretofore, upon information and belief, only a signed statement from Mr. Obama attesting to meeting those qualifications was requested and received by the office of the Board of Elections, with no verification demanded. This practice, it should be noted, represents a much lower standard than that demanded of one when requesting even a driver’s license. Since the office of the Board of Elections has at its core the mission of certifying and establishing the veracity of the election process, this demand seeks a directive to the North Carolina State Office of the Board of Elections to receive appropriate verifiable documentation and certify any individual’s qualification for Office whose basic credentials for that Office have been challenged by this formal demand to the Office of the Board of Elections from a citizen of North Carolina State.

5.5.

In the case of individuals seeking the Office of President of the United States, the US constitution prescribes a system of electors where citizens of the respective state have a state controlled election with electors representing the interest of the named individual on the state ballot being elected to represent the interests of the respective state at the electoral college. Thus, we do not have a federal ballot controlled by the federal government. We have a North Carolina State ballot where we choose electors who in turn represent the named individual on the ballot. That is one more reason that the North Carolina Board of Elections has purview over the certification of not just the counts of the ballots so cast, but also the veracity of the contents of the ballot.

5.6.

This statement of failure to carry out a key task in our election system could be satisfied should verification of Mr. Obama’s qualifications be received from original or certified documents from primary sources or from a verifiable report generated from government agencies such as the Federal Elections Commission. It is the North Carolina Board of Elections’ duty, through the State Secretary of State’

s authority, to demand or request such information from foreign governments and to certify the veracity of documents or reports so received.

5.7.

To avert likely civil unrest and a constitutional crisis which would certainly accrue after the inauguration through laborious legal challenges and impeachment processes, this demand seeks to resolve such complaints prior to the inauguration. It was incumbent on the candidates to present such documentation, but to date Mr. Obama has failed to do so.

5.8.

This demand seeks specifically to verify through the office of the North Carolina Board of Elections, assisted by the Secretary of State, that Mr. Obama is a “natural born” citizen.

5.9.

Up to now, Mr. Obama, or the governments in question, has not allowed independent or official access to his birth records and supporting hospital records. Mr. Obama’s citizenship status has and is being challenged in the federal courts, which challenges will cast doubt on the veracity of the electoral system regardless of outcome if not resolved prior to the inauguration. Upon information and belief, the North Carolina Board of Elections is specifically charged with certifying and guaranteeing the veracity of official documents and overseeing the elections such that the people’s confidence in the fundamental aspect of our representative Republic is maintained. Upon information and belief, to date the Board of Elections has not carried out that fundamental duty regarding the eligibility of Mr. Obama.

5.10.

The Federal Elections Commission FEC is generally tasked with providing oversight and verifications of federal candidates. Upon information and belief, to date the FEC has not produced either certification or verifiable documentation regarding Mr. Obama’

s basic qualifications for office. Lacking that certification from the FEC, this demand requires that the Defendants formally request Hawaii State Health Department officials produce forthwith a certified copy of his “Vault” [original long version] Birth Certificate.

5.11. This demand requires that the Defendants formally request primary backup materials if they exist of hospital records that would lend veracity to a Hawaii live birth declaration. A court order of discovery is demanded to assist that investigation directed to the respective hospital, if so identified on a live birth certificate.

5.12.

Should Mr. Obama be discovered, whether by virtue of malfeasance, negligence or ignorance on his part not to have a valid certified US birth certificate; or, by such examination of original records, be found ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and thereby his election be declared void by the appropriate authorities acting under the law, I as well as other Americans will suffer irreparable harm including but not limited to:

5.12.1. Functional, or actual, disenfranchisement of large numbers of citizens, being members of the Democratic Party, who would have been deprived of the ability to choose a qualified nominee of their liking;

5.12.2.

Irreparable

harm to the structure and integrity of the Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee. In turn, this too would lead to disenfranchisement.

5.12.3. As Mr. Obama has now secured the election, should he later be discovered ineligible, the resulting constitutional and national security crisis that would ensue would generate a severe and genuine likelihood of civil disturbance by virtue of reaction to said disenfranchisement and upset with global ramifications.

5.13.

   It was well expected that, after all the public concern that has been raised over the preceding months, Mr. Obama would have released for public or official scrutiny the relevant documentation to back up his claim of qualification as a “natural born citizen”. His reaction to public concern and his recent actions in Federal District Court on 9/24/2008 demonstrate that Mr. Obama has no intentions of releasing said documentation for review or cannot because they do not exist. The late hour of this request was dictated by the delaying tactics of Mr. Obama, and the non-responsiveness to citizens’ repeated requests to the Obama campaign for proof of eligibility.

6.     FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS THAT DEMOSTRATE THE NEED TO PROVE MR. OBAMA’S MINIMUM CONSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATION.

6.1.

These allegations and statements are not intended to be proof of the status of Mr. Obama’s citizenship or lack thereof. That will be determined in the venue of the US District court on action by the Federal Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The listing of the allegations detailed below are included to demonstrate the reasonable assertion of the need for the Defendants to reestablish public confidence in the veracity of the electoral process and the obvious need for pre-certification as to a candidate’s meeting the minimum constitutional requirements.

6.2.

Pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, in order to run for office of the President of the United States, one must be a “natural born citizen” and may not hold dual citizenship or multiple citizenships with foreign countries. (U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1)

6.3.

There are questions as to where Mr. Obama was actually born, whether in the United States or abroad, and if his birth was subsequently registered in Hawaii. There are further questions regarding Mr. Obama’s United States citizenship, if he ever held such, being expatriated, and his failure to regain his citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance once he turned eighteen (18) years of age. There are additional questions regarding Mr. Obama’s multi-citizenships with foreign countries, which he may still maintain. To date, Mr. Obama has refused to prove he is qualified under the U.S. Constitution and eligible to run for the office of President of the United States despite requests and recent opportunities to do so in Federal Court.

6.4.

The “certificate” that Mr. Obama has posted on his official WEB site is a “Certification of Live Birth,” and not a “Birth Certificate” from Hawaii. There is no indication on even this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place.

6.5.

Researchers have claimed to have been unable to locate any birthing records in island hospitals for Mr. Barack Obama’s mother. Mr. Obama has offered none for review.

6.6.

Three forensic document experts have published extensive reports claiming that there is evidence of tampering on even the Obama WEB site displayed certificate.

6.7.

Numerous Freedom of Information Act Requests have been sent to Officials in Hawaii with no response from the public officials, nor has Mr. Obama granted access for release of the information, lending to the concern over the veracity of the attestation of eligibility on Mr. Obama’s application for candidacy for the office of President of the United States.

6.8.

The facts are undisputed by Mr. Obama that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a U.S. citizen; however, his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a citizen of Kenya. Mr. Obama’s parents, according to divorce records, were married on or about February 2, 1961.

6.9.

Mr. Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961; however, he has never given the name of the hospital in which he was born; whereas there are reports that Mr. Obama’s grandmother on his father’s side, his half brother and his half sister claim Mr. Barack H. Obama was born in Kenya. Reports further reflect that Mr. Obama’s mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy. Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal as a contributing writer published an article on June 9, 2008, stating that a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr., at a Kenya Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen, and his mother, a U.S. citizen. There are claims of records of a “registry of birth” for Mr. Obama, on or about August 8, 1961, in the public records office in Hawaii; but these have not been released for scrutiny. It is alleged in the Federal trial and is a matter of much general speculation that Mr. Obama’s mother was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. It is likely that Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Mr. Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Mr. Obama’s birth. In apparent confirmation that Mr. Obama was born in Kenya, an ABC newsman, reporting from Nairobi, Kenya, the morning after the elections, stated that the Kenyan people were celebrating the victory of their “own native son”

in the race for the presidency in the United States. Mobs of Kenyans were shown in the streets of Nairobi proudly waving their American flags and chanting words of support for their brother, Mr. Obama.

6.10.

Regarding the alleged birth of Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., in Honolulu, Hawaii, it is variously circulated that Mr. Obama’s birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital. Mr. Obama has provided no proof of birth from either of these or any other US based facility. He has made no effort to address these public concerns.

6.11. Upon information and belief, there are no published or known hospital birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama), Obama’s mother. There are only claims of records of a “registry of birth” for Mr. Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii.

6.12.



There is even a Canadian Birth Certificate posted on the Internet in the name of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.; however, the date of birth shows to be August 23, 1961.

6.13.



At the time of Mr. Obama’s birth in 1961, Kenya was a British Colony. Subsequently, under the Independence Constitution of Kenya, Mr. Barack H. Obama, Jr., became a Kenyan citizen on December 12, 1963. There are no indications or reports that Mr. Obama ever renounced that dual citizenship conferred either by nature of birth or by virtue of his father’s Kenyan citizenship. On Mr. Obama’s Senate web site, Mr. Obama acknowledges his father holds Kenyan nationality but avoids addressing that he (Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.) also held/holds Kenyan nationality.

6.14.



If in fact Mr. Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books in the United States at the time of his birth stated that if a child is born abroad and one parent is a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Mr. Obama’s mother would have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Mr. Obama’s birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) years of age and, therefore, did not meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship much less the status of “natural born”. Thus, the laws in effect at the time of Mr. Obama’s birth prevented U.S. Citizenship at birth of children born abroad to a U.S. Citizen parent and a non-citizen parent, if the citizen parent was under the age of nineteen (19) at the time of the birth of the child. Mr. Obama’s mother did not qualify under the law on the books to register Mr. Obama as a “natural born” citizen. Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27,1952,66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S.C. §1401(b), Matter of S-F-and G-, 2 I & N Dec. 182 (B.I.A.) approved (Att’y Gen. 1944). Thus, Mr. Obama could have only been Naturalized, and a Naturalized citizen is not qualified or eligible to run for Office of the President. (U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5)

6.15.



Furthermore, if Mr. Obama had been born in Kenya, his birth father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a citizen of Kenya; therefore, Mr. Obama would have automatically become a citizen of Kenya.

5.16.



The Nationality Act of 1940 provided for the loss of citizenship when the person became naturalized upon the naturalization of his or her parent having custody of such person. Arguably, Mr. Obama’s mother expatriated her U.S. Citizenship when she married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia and relocated herself and her son (Obama) to Indonesia.

6.17.

   Mr.

Obama was enrolled by his parents in a public school, Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia. Copies of the school registration are available which clearly state Mr. Obama’s name as Barry Soetoro and list his citizenship as Indonesian. Mr. Obama’s father is listed as Lolo Soetoro; his date of birth and place of birth are listed as August 4, 1961, in Honolulu; and Mr. Obama’s Religion is listed as Islam. This document was verified by the television show Inside Edition, whose reporter, Matt Meagher, took the actual footage of the school record.

6.18. In or about 1971, Mr. Obama’s mother sent him back to Hawaii. He was ten (10) years of age upon his return to Hawaii.

6.19.



Sometime after the return of Mr. Obama to Hawaii, His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham returned to Hawaii and divorced her husband, Lolo Soetoro. At the time of the divorce, Mr. Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, could have regained her U.S. citizenship. In order to regain her citizenship, she would have had to take the oath of allegiance required for such recognition. Said oath of allegiance may be taken abroad before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or in the United States before the Attorney General, a judge or clerk of a court. Such Oath of Allegiance would have been entered in the records of the appropriate embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General. Upon demand, a certified copy of the proceedings, including a copy of the oath administered, under the seal of the embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General can be delivered. The certified copy would be evidence of the facts stated therein before any court of record or judicial tribunal and in any department or agency of the Government of the United States. (8U.S.C.§1435)

6.20. Upon information and belief, M

r.

Obama’s mother failed to take the oath in order to regain her U.S. Citizenship. Therefore, Mr. Obama would not have been able to regain his U.S. Citizenship until he turned eighteen (18) years of age, and then only after he took the Oath of Allegiance before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or in the U.S. before the Attorney General, the judge or clerk of court. Since the Oath of Allegiance would have been entered in the records of the appropriate embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General, then Mr. Obama should be able to produce in court a certified copy of the proceedings, including a copy of the oath administered. Upon information and belief, no such copy has been to date produced for public examination.

6.21.

   After many attempts of the public to obtain Mr. Obama’s Certificate of Birth, a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was placed on Mr. Obama’s campaign website. However, as posted all over the internet, three (3) independent Document Forensic Experts performed extensive forensic testing on the Certificate of Live Birth as posted on Mr. Obama’s campaign website. The Forensic Expert findings were that the posted Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was a forgery. It was further discovered that the posted COLB had evidence of having been created from an altered/forged COLB issued to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, born in 1970. Maya Kasandra Soetoro is Mr. Obama’s half sister who was born in Indonesia and her birth later registered in Hawaii. The altered and allegedly forged COLB is still on Mr. Obama’s website located at http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert. Thus, if these allegations prove to be true, Mr. Obama may not only not be born in the United States, he may also very well be an illegal alien.

6.22.    Even if Mr. Obama had and subsequently maintained his United States Citizenship, which citizenship he has failed before District Court to demonstrate, he may still carry citizenships in Kenya and/or Indonesia. These facts call into question what the constitution attempted to address regarding potentially divided loyalties with foreign countries. Thus, Mr. Obama carries multiple citizenships and would be ineligible to run for President of the United States. (United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1)

7.     Failure to grant injunctive relief will realize these detriments:

7.1.

Failing to officially and publicly vet the status of the citizenship claims of Mr. Obama will cast a pall of doubt on the election process and taint the election results themselves.

7.2.

Failure to grant injunctive relief would allow a potentially corrupted, fraudulent nomination and election process to continue and an ineligible individual to “assume”

(Assume – To adopt in order to deceive) the office of President of the United States.

7.3.

Failure to grant injunctive relief demanding the Defendants certify the minimum qualifications of challenged Mr. Obama not only allows, but promotes an overwhelming degree of disrespect and creates such a lack of confidence in voters of the primary and electoral process itself that it would cement a prevailing belief that no potential candidate has to obey the laws of this country, respect our election process, follow the Constitution, or even suffer any consequence for lying and defrauding voters to get onto the ballot when they have no chance of serving if they fraudulently manage to get elected.

7.4.

As stated above, I as well as all American citizens will suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief is not granted. I do not have any other way of redress regarding these very significant and important issues and have made the general counsel for the Board of Elections and the Office of the Attorney General aware of my concerns that Mr. Obama may very well be an illegal alien. In this regard, I filed an affidavit on Friday, October, 31, 2008, with the Wilmington Office of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement which provided Agent-In-Charge Al Fitchett, or his successor, with the information contained herein in hopes he would use his extensive authority and resources to resolve this matter. (Exhibit A)

7.5. Despite many complaints, the FEC may have failed me and the entire class of American and North Carolinian citizens by their failure to date to perform due diligence and inquire into Mr. Obama’s eligibility to run for Office of the President. Lacking such certification, it is incumbent on the Defendants to certify or decertify as to Mr. Obama’s eligibility for the office of President of the United States based on the availability of clear documentation demonstrating that minimum qualifications for the respective office have been met by Mr. Obama.

8.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court:

8.1. Certify this action as a class action under Rule 23 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.

8.2.

Grant injunctive relief demanding that Defendants immediately acquire primary documents or certified copies from primary sources such as Health Department and hospital records or verifiable reports regarding same from the FEC.

8.3.

Direct that Defendants immediately demand such verifiable report from the FEC or demand a certified copy of Mr. Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth and subpoena as needed for the release of hospital records, if so claimed, on said Live Birth Certificate to further prove he was born in Hawaii as Mr. Obama claims.

8.4.

Direct that Defendants certify or decertify the challenged Mr. Obama prior to the inauguration based on the availability of clear documentation.

8.5.

Order the Defendants to demand immediately a certified copy of Mr. Obama’s Oath of Allegiance proving he regained his United States Citizenship if, in fact, he is found not to have been born in the United States.

8.6.

If Defendants are unable to document a certified record of Mr. Obama’s oath of allegiance and birth and hospital records, the Defendant Board of Elections must immediately decertify Mr. Obama as a valid North Carolina electee for the office of President of the United States Office under the United States Constitution, Article II, Section I.

8.7 If Defendants are unable to document a certified record of Mr. Obama’s oath of allegiance and birth and hospital records, the Defendant Secretary of State must immediately demand Mr. Obama be stripped of his

“electee”

status, and decertified as such, nationwide, including, but not limited to, removing his status as the Senator from Illinois.

8.8.

Award me such costs and fees applicable by law; and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted this the 7th day of November, 2008.

________________________________________ Donald Sullivan, in pro per and sui juris Lt. Col, USAFR(R) Plaintiff PO Box 3061 Wilmington, NC 28406

VERIFICATION

I, Donald Sullivan, hereby state that I am the Plaintiff in this action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Notice and Demand for Injunctive Relief (Class Action) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of law relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

_____________________________________ Donald Sullivan, Plaintiff, in pro per and sui juris PO Box 3061 Wilmington, NC 28406

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I do certify I have this 7th Day of November, 2008, served a copy of the foregoing “Notice and Demand for Injunctive Relief (Class Action)” by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mails, certified with return receipt requested, or hand-delivered, and addressed as follows:

For Attorney General for the State of North Carolina:

Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina

ATTN: Mr. Roy A. Cooper, III, Attorney General

114 E. Edenton Street

PO Box 629

Raleigh, NC 27626-0629

For Defendant Board of Elections:

North Carolina Board of Elections

ATTN: Mr. Gary O. Bartlett, Director and Process Agent

POB 27255

Raleigh, NC 27611

For Defendant Elaine F. Marshall, Secretary of State:

Office of North Carolina Secretary of State

ATTN: Ms. Ann Wall, Process Agent

PO Box 29622

Raleigh, NC 27626

A copy is also being filed with the Clerk of Court for Pender County.

BY: ___________________________

Donald Sullivan, Lt Col, USAFR (Ret)

Plaintiff, In Pro per and Sui JurisPO Box 3061

Wilmington, NC 28406

10 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Attorney General, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizen, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Criminal Complaint, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Justice, Kenya, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, NC, NC primary, NC voters, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Sarah Obama, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged 2008, Class Action Lawsuit, Donald Sullivan, Elaine Marshall, Lt Col, NC Electoral College, NC lawsuit, NC Secretary of State, North Carolina Board of Elections, November 7, Obama not eligible, Support and defend Constitution

Obama not eligible, US Constitution, Tenth Amendment, Bill of Rights, US Supreme Court, Federal Judges, State Judges, State Election Officials, Electoral College Electors, Philip J Berg lawsuit, Leo C Donofrio lawsuit, Citizen Wells facts and arguments

Posted on November 12, 2008 | 34 comments

To:

Justice Souter
Justice Thomas
US Supreme Court
Federal Judges
State judges
State election officials
Electoral College Electors
US Citizens

The US Constitution must be upheld

US citizens have the right, the power and the duty to require proof of
eligibilty of presidential candidates

What I am about to write is so inherently simple and self evident,
that it may appear on the surface to be implausible. However, the
following facts and arguments flow from the founding fathers’ wisdom
and desire to protect the American citizens from tyrrany. I have read
the US Constitution, Federal election law and numerous state election
laws. I have had dialogue with offices of a number of Secretaries of State
and Election Boards. The US Constitution gives the states power over
the general election. The states control which candidates are placed
on ballots and regardless of the methodology used for doing so, I
believe the states have the power and obligation to verify eligibility
of presidential candidates. I find no federal or state law prohibiting
states from doing so and instead a constitutional duty to ensure that
a qualified candidate becomes a ballot choice for the Electoral College
Electors. Failure to do so effectively may lead to voter disenfranchisement.
I have believed and stated for weeks that the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution gives US citizens the power to demand that a presidential
candidate prove eligbility and certainly standing in a lawsuit. A lawsuit
should not be necessary. We already have the power, directly from the
US Constitution Bill of Rights.
Argument:

The US Constitution clearly defines the eligibiity requirement for president.
The US Constitution rules.
The US Constitution gives states the power to choose electors. With this power comes the obligation to uphold the Constitution and protect voter rights.
State laws vary but are consistent in their approach to placing
presidential candidates on the ballot.
Presidential Balloting evolved from tradition.
The two party system evolved from tradition.
States place presidential candidates on ballots from instructions of
the major political parties.
States should have enacted laws to require proof of eligibility.
States are not exercising their duty to the Constitution.
States have the power and obligation to ensure that only eligible candidates remain on ballots. Despite compelling evidence that Barack Obama is not eligible, and notification, the states left him on the ballot.
States claim no power to remove a candidate when in fact they do have power over the general election process.
The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution gives the people power, including Phil J Berg, Leo C. Donofrio and others that have had their lawsuits dismissed in state courts.

By virtue of the powers given to the people in the Tenth Amendment in The BIll of Rights of the US Constitution, we do not have to file lawsuits to demand proof of eligibility or require state election officials to do so.

A US citizen filing a lawsuit demanding that a presidential candidate provide proof of eligibility has standing.

Facts and References

US Constitution

Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution;

viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The US Constitution defines presidential eligibility

US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The US Constitution gives powers to the states for the general election.
US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

Federal Election Law:

“The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended):

§ 8. The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.”

State Electoral College example: Pennsylvania Law

“§ 3192. Meeting of electors; duties.
The electors chosen, as aforesaid, shall assemble at the seat of government of this Commonwealth, at 12 o’clock noon of the day which is, or may be, directed by the Congress of the United States, and shall then and there perform the duties enjoined upon them by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Philip J Berg lawsuit
Judge Surrick ruling exerpts:

“If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.”

“…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.”

Philip J Berg response to ruling:

“an American citizen is asking questions of a presidential candidate’s eligibility to even hold that office in the first place, and the candidate is ducking and dodging questions through legal procedure.”
“This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution,” “If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States–the most powerful man in the entire world–is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?”

Mark J. Fitzgibbons is President of Corporate and Legal Affairs at American Target Advertising:

“October 29, 2008
Who Enforces the Constitution’s Natural Born Citizen Clause?”

“So if the Framers established that courts “shall” hear cases arising under the Constitution, and failed to authorize Congress to otherwise establish who may sue to enforce the document, then where might we find conclusively that Berg has standing to sue?

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, remain with the states or the people. Therefore it seems that any state or any person has standing to sue to enforce not just the Natural Born Citizen Clause, but other constitutional requirements and rights, absent some expressly written bar within the Constitution itself.”

“Chief Justice John Marshall, writing in Marbury v. Madison, said that judges have a duty to decide cases under our paramount law, the Constitution. I have lamented previously about how some judges tend to evade their duty to decide constitutional matters by resorting to court-made doctrines. Judge Surrick’s reliance on case law to dismiss Berg’s suit for lack of standing is reasoned from a lawyer’s perspective, but not heroic and perhaps evasive of his larger duty.
His decision to “punt” the matter to Congress creates, I suggest, a dangerous, longer and perhaps more painful constitutional quagmire than had he heard the evidence in the case. Even had the case lacked merit, the Constitution would not have been harmed.”

Leo C. Donofrio, Obama not eligible, US Supreme Court, New Jersey lawsuit, Secretary of State, Nina Mitchell Wells, Constitutional duty, Justice Souter, Justice Thomas

Posted on November 12, 2008 | 53 comments

Leo C. Donofrio, a retired attorney in New Jersey, has an appeal before the US Supreme Court. The appeal is the result of a lawsuit filed against the New Jersey Secretary of State, Nina Mitchell Wells. The lawsuit states that Ms. Wells did not adequately perform her statutory duty to ensure the integrity of ballots and the electoral process for the November 4th, 2008 election. Mr. Donofrio presented the facts regarding the case on Tuesday, November 12, 2008. Below is an exerpt that reveals the experience Mr. Donofrio had with the US Supreme Court:

“On Sunday evening, I left New Jersey in order to be in DC to file the application before the court closed at 4:30 PM. This would assure that the Supreme Court had a chance to stay the popular vote in the National Election before election day polls opened.

26. The Application For Emergency Stay was filed by me on Monday November 3rd, 2008, at 3:33 PM. A few minutes later, while still in the Supreme Court, I phoned the Stay Clerk, Mr. Danny Bickell, and we spoke for 7:00 minutes (according to my phone log). I told Mr. Bickell the whole story insisting that the Court Rule required the Application to be delivered promptly to Justice Souter. Mr. Bickell assured me that Justice Souter would have the case on his desk that evening if my papers were in order, which they were.

It was very important that the Court Rules be followed since I didn’t expect Justice Souter to grant the application, but I was ready to resubmit it to Justice Clarence Thomas with along with a letter to His Honor and ten copies of the original application shoulld he pass it on to the entire Court.

27. I arrived at the SCOTUS on Monday Nov 3rd, got the case filed and stamped at 3:30PM, then went back inside and pleaded with the stay clerk for 7 minutes (as shown by my phone log) to please follow the rules and get this on Justice Souter’s desk as was required by Rule 22(1):

“1. An application addressed to an individual Justice shall be filed with the Clerk, who will transmit it promptly to the Justice concerned if an individual Justice has authority to grant the sought relief.” (Emphasis added.)

Mr. Bickell agreed that if my papers were in order, Justice Souter would receive the case that night, sometime after 4:30 pm.

“Rule 22(6). The Clerk will advise all parties concerned, by appropriately speedy means, of the disposition made of an application.”

It’s important that the disposition be delivered by “speedy means” because the denial of a stay sets the trigger for resubmission to a Justice of your choice under Rule 22(4).

28. The next day, election day, I received no message from the Court. I went back to the SCOTUS on Election Day with my sister who is also retired from the practice of law (she was an Assistant DA in Detroit for many years), and was told Mr. Bickell wasn’t available to speak with me. And he was not picking up his phone.

29. On Thursday, I finally got through to Mr. Bickell and was informed by him that the case was never passed on to Justice Souter because Mr. Bickell didn’t think it was an appropriate Application. I was absolutely astounded. He made a substantive law judgment thereby effectively impersonating a Supreme Court Justice. Mr. Bickell told me that I should have made a full Petition for Writ of Certiorari and since I didn’t then my stay application was defective. And that’s not only illegal for him to make such a decision, but this decision itself is not grounded in law or precedent, but rather the exact opposite. And I told him he was flat out wrong, because :

– I followed the Court Rules perfectly

– he and I spoke all about this on Monday in a seven minute phone conversation wherein he agreed to forward the Application

– the case was properly before the court from the Supreme Court of NJ

– the precedent was Bush v. Gore where no Petition was necessary since the court decided to treat the Stay application as a full Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

It’s not the Clerk’s job job to play Supreme Court Justice. The stay clerk’s job is to collect the papers and pass them onto the Justices, but as to this action Mr. Bickell basically made a substantive judgment of law and denied my application on his own. That must be criminal in some way, perhaps impersonating a US Supreme Court Justice, or subordination of Judicial intent? It’s just wrong and Mr. Bickell needs to be called on it.Either he did this on his own volition or somebody pressured him to do it. After explaining the precedent in Bush v. Gore, where the Supreme Court treated the Stay application as a Petition for Cert. and then granted that virtual Petition, he blinked and agreed to Docket the case.[See Bush v. Gore, page 1, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html ]

Mr. Bickell also stated that, “Justice Souter will deny it and so will Justice Thomas”, but I wouldn’t let it go and finally he agreed to Docket the case.

30. The next day, I checked the Supreme Court Docket and the case had finally been docketed but in a completely incorrect manner. Mr. Bickell docketed the case incorrectly as follows (this is from my recording of the original Docket):

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 6 2008 Application (08A407) for injunction pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.

Three glaring errors:

– The case was actually filed and stamped received on November 3rd, not November 6th as Mr. Bickell had listed above.

– My application was for a “Stay” not an “injunction”. Filing for an injunction does not bring expedited review, while a Stay is entitled to the most expedited review the SCOTUS has to offer. The distinction is very important.

– I never submitted a full Petition nor did I submit a letter stating any such intention to do so. The Stay Clerk just took this out of thin air. He made it up out of the blue. Nothing in my Application indicates I intended to file a full Petition for Write of Certiorari. There was no time for that. The proper procedural tool was a Stay application as per the precedent set in Bush v. Gore.

31. I then called Mr. Bickell and left three loud and direct messages to the effect of, “Fix my docket or I’m going to suggest criminal charges against you as well as a civil suit against the Clerk’s office.” I also told Mr. Bickell that I suspected he was being pressured from within, and that he should inform whoever was pressuring him that I’d kept solid phone records and that my pleadings were stamped, “Nov. 3rd.”

32. Later than morning, I checked the US Supreme Court docket search engine again, and saw that Mr. Bickell had corrected the Docket to reflect that the case had been filed on November 3rd and he also now had it listed as a “Stay” application.

However, this second Docket listing was equally bizarre. Whereas the first Docket listing discussed a pending application for injunction, the new Docket reflected that Justice Souter had already denied the Stay application a day earlier on Nov. 6th, which is very confusing since this was now Friday November 7th and the first Docket listed no such disposition.

Here is the Docket as it appeared one hour after the first Docket listing. And this is also how it appears today, Nov. 11th:

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A407) for stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.

Nov 6 2008 Application (08A407) denied by Justice Souter.
————————————————————————————————————

None of this makes any sense. Calling this activity “unorthodox” is to be very kind. It’s Judicial misconduct and perhaps it’s even worse.
The reference to a “pending” Petition is incorrect and should be removed because it effects the favor-ability of review available to the case as resubmissions for Stay applications are not looked on favorably if the Stay denial is “without prejudice”. If I were actually in the process of submitting a full Petition for Cert., which I’m not, then the denial might be considered “without prejudice”, and in that case, Mr. Bickell might , once again, decide not to pass on the Stay Application to Justice Clarence Thomas.

Seeing as how the Electoral College is just one month away, this is still an emergency, and Bush v. Gore is still precedent. I have made no submission of a full Petition, so the Docket is still incorrect as I intend to resubmit the “Stay Application” this week and the case will live or die on the resubmission.

These Court Rules are no joke. They have a purpose. On Monday November 3rd, Mr. Bickell disposed of my Application acting as if he were a United States Supreme Court Justice. That’s certainly bad enough, if not criminal, but then he did nothing between then and Thursday November 6th to notify me, certainly not by “speedy means”, of the disposition of my Stay Application. This is Judicial misconduct.

Mr. Bickell took my cell number on Monday Nov. 3rd, and had I been notified properly, by a phone call, that my Stay Application was not going to be forwarded to Justice Souter, then I could have corrected Mr. Bickell as I did on Thursday Nov. 6th.

This case was stopped in its tracks starting in the Appellate Division and leading right to the US Supreme Court. The shame of the delay lies in the fact that the case was bi-partisan and should have been decided before the election when nobody knew what the outcome would be. Now, once Obama is disqualified, which I believe will be the final disposition of this case, it’s going to cause so much more pain to the country.

The law and the facts of this case have the ability to strip Obama of the Presidency just as the law and the facts of this case would have had the power to also strip McCain of the Presidency if he had won. I argued the same law as to McCain and Roger Colera as well as Obama.

This is NOT the way the US Supreme Court usually does business. And the citizens of this country should be angry that this institution has slipped to this level.

“I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.”

______________________________________
Leo C. Donofrio, Pro Se”

Bishop Ron McRae, Sarah Obama, Affidavit, Obama born in Kenya, Obama grandmother present at birth, Bishop McRae statement on Obama, November 11, 2008

Posted on November 11, 2008 | 27 comments

“Hier Stehe Ich” (Here I stand)
Martin Luther
Bishop Ron McRae, who signed an affidavit stating that he witnessed
Sarah Obama, Barack Obama’s paternal grandmother, say that she was
present at Obama’s birth in Kenya, has issued a statement. Bishop McRae
speaks of the law of God and the law of man as it relates to our current
situation in this country and the 2008 election. Bishop McRae echoes
my position in the following statement:

“Take my lands, my liberty and my life for my refusal to neither serve nor obey this god-man Obama. But you will never have for your lies the surrender of my conscience before God, my family and this Republic. God Almighty helping this old man for Christ sake!”

Here is Bishop McRae’s statement:

Declaro Di¹

“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

-Psalm 11:3

The very foundation of this country was laid upon this precept, “that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”. ² Howbeit, with that foundational declaration came two other “self evident” truths, the first of which was our fore fathers’ declaration of the very existence and dependence upon our Creator who endowed such rights as we suppose them to be upon us; and also this exhortation of cautious patience, that “prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed”.

Yet in these dark days where Governmental ends have in Tyrants’ minds, justified their means, to an irreversible hour that the inexplicable corruptions and abuse of Governmental powers “derived from the consent of the governed” have created even in the minds of a peaceful, obedient people these very same revolutionary thoughts that fearfully started this great country, and yet now contemplate the abolishment of that very state which for over two centuries has been the noblest means for securing a peoples’ undeserved endowment from their Creator. This author dares say “undeserved” in that, if such “unalienable rights” be endowed from our Creator, then such endowment lands upon we Creatures³ here below, the mere acknowledgment of such doth bind us to serve Him for the indebtedness of such endowment; and by such noble servitude we soundly proclaim that in this one universal state of being “all men equal”, we are not before God a Free People in deed of this single most indebtedness to God.

“Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves

Servants to obey, his servants ye are

To whom ye obey?”

-Romans 6:16

Our freedoms and liberties are pluralistic only in those things that are beyond that endowment that binds us to God our Creator in acknowledgement of “the Truth” that stands so self evident to all. In word and thereby in deed we are a Free People in things related to man, but not free from God who created “all men equal” in things relating to man.

“If God therefore shall make you free,

ye shall be free indeed.”

-John 8:36

“Mighty in deed and word

before God and all the people.”

-Luke 24:19

Vox Vero⁴: The deed by which we are endowed by our Creator is signed by our fore fathers in word of that very Declaration of our Independence from the Tyranny of Man, by which we declare our freedom and liberty from the bondage of Tyrants and Despots that would usurp God’s authority as the Author and Mover of our Happiness and the Endower of our rights; by wresting that form of government so “derived from the consent of the governed”, and replace it with the tyranny of an antichrist rule⁵, where mere men exalt their seats of government so “derived from the consent of the governed” into the throne of God as the absolute Despot to decide what rights we have and to whom they apply and do not apply.

“Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God,

or that is worshipped; so that he AS GOD

sitteth in the temple of God,

shewing himself that he is God.”

–2 Thessalonians 2:4

Howbeit, it is God alone and not man that endowed these unalienable rights to we His subjects. And Governments are created when in the wisdom of God and man, a Free People consent to give certain powers to men like ourselves, chosen from among us as being like us, to “organiz[e] its powers in such form” as to secure to themselves and their fellows that chose them, these unalienable rights of the people they serve in such capacity as we call Government of the People, for the People and by the People. Without Government, men rule as gods, dictators and monarchs. By the Declaration of Independence we threw off the latter, and by love of liberty we repudiate the second! But shall we as men serve men as gods?

“I have said, Ye are gods;

And all of you are children of the most High.

But ye shall die like men.”

-Psalm 82:6, 7

God Almighty lives; and governments will live on, but only so long as men are free to serve God and not man. Free to enjoy as equals those unalienable rights endowed upon them from God alone and not man. Free to consent to be governed by their fellows who never forget they are fellow men and not gods; and the consent of their fellows to allow them to govern rests only in their duty before God of being true men, qualified and Constitutionally elected for the securing of the rights of their fellows and the protection of the same. Howbeit, none of these shall prevail or long endure unless there remains an absolute final authority that constitutes the laws by which men consent to be governed by themselves, and an absolute final authority by which both man and his governments are subject unto God. America’s Constitution stands as the former. The word of God stands alone as the latter. The throwing off of the latter gave birth to secularistic humanism with a devilish craving to eat up the former on its way to becoming a god and not man. The destruction of the former is the end of the Republic, the fall of equal rights, and the damnation of America as she has always been known before God.

The hour has come when the unalienable rights of a Free People are threatened with a tyrannical destruction from Government that wrests such powers derived by the consent of the governed, into a satanical belief that they can use such powers to force the governed into likewise consenting to the surrender of those unalienable rights. In these last days of a most vicious war loving administration, that same Government has grown into such a Tyrant that it would kill its own people in mass to establish a warlord political agenda for destroying all that remains of our Constitution by which we consent to be governed, and under which we have these unalienable rights as a Free People. It has long been established before the Highest Court of this Government, that our unalienable rights cannot be taken from us, or transferred to another. They can only be surrendered, and once surrendered there is no discovered way to get them back. Our rights so constituted are not pluralistic in the various concepts for which they stand. They are not a deck of cards to played over and again. They are singular in each regard, whether it be freedom to speak, freedom to assemble, freedom to bear arms, or freedom to worship. There exist no “freedoms to speak”, that allow the speaker to play his hand over and over as he wishes for convenience sake, so long as he does not use up the last of his deck of cards. Non Secus, Haud Secus! Not so! Even as the courts have long held that the accused right to self incrimination is singular and not plural, so that once given up for one statement, it cannot be gathered back to protect against further statements. That surrendered right is gone forever. So too belongs this doctrine of factual reality to all our rights as a Free People.

“We the people” have suffered long since America’s first civil unrest to throw off tyranny, in repeated suppressions and violations of our Constitutional rights. Howbeit, as our fathers ably stated, “we are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed”; and so we have since the last Great War suffered repeated violations of individual rights, as long as we could appeal to the Highest Court for redress, in order to right those grievances so tyrannically loaded upon us by mere men under color of law. And thus would a peaceful people continue therein, as long as the Courts granted standing to the people to redress these wrongs under the authority of our Constitution’s clear language. But alas, now Tyrants think to deny even our standing to suit for redress and relief from unconstitutional oppressions and violations.

And to add to these unbearable torments, in these last days, Government now forces upon us an unbearable injustice, and trampling of the Constitution of the United States, in thinking to force the people to accept a foreigner as the President of this Republic, ignoring the single most important qualification for the highest office in our land, that such a one, not just gain such “power by the consent of the governed”, but that he be naturally born amongst us as one of us. There has never been an alternative option to replace “a natural born citizen” as the President of these United States. The Constitution knows no such option. Howbeit, the Federal Courts have repeatedly refused the people’s right to challenge such unprecedented trampling and violation of what the Constitution clearly says, and to date refuses to require such an Imposter to prove his “natural born” citizenship. Those who challenge such facts are libeled as racists, when nothing further could be true. With repeated Constitutional challenges to this Dreamer’s fraud upon the Constitutional requirements that he be “naturally born” among us, lying dormant before the Highest Court, where Justice Souter has no ears to hear it Constitutionally, nor courage to act to enforce such, What are Peaceable Men to Do? What is it that God requires of Peaceable Men and lovers of liberty to do? For fifty years the Tyrants in Washington have taken God from the minds of the people foremost, so that the Law is King, and tyranny will decide what is law! Now men cower under an overwhelming despotism that rattles its sword and murders its own people, to suppress the voice of God and the people, so that silence is the sound of good men dying as Tyrants march them over the precipice of an antichrist rule of death over the Republic for which we all once stood! Men are want to know what saith the Lord God and Creator of all men equal!

Juris Prudence has held in every state of our Union, and before the Highest Court of our Republic this principle of a Constitutional Government of Laws and not men, “An unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but wholly null and ineffective for any purpose. It imposes no duty, confers no rights, CREATES NO OFFICE, BESTOWS NO POWER OR AUTHORITY ON ANYONE, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional statute, and no courts are bound to enforce it.”⁶

With the Unconstitutional ascension to the highest office of our Land, a man that by means of his very birth, is by the Constitution unqualified to hold the Office of President, we are now faced with an unprecedented constitutional challenge to the free people of this Republic, to either surrender that blessed document that our fathers laid as the very “foundation” of law from which we define and derive all unalienable rights from God Almighty, or map for ourselves as our fathers mapped for us, another course of history, guided by prudence, supported by the Constitution, and blessed and directed of God. To fail in any of these three, will ultimately and tragically destroy the very foundation we seek to preserve, and abolish all that history has known as the United States of America.

Because our system of fairness and hope to all peoples that they may be, like we, free and independent from the tyranny of men and devils, we establish means to migrate others to this land of liberty and promise, that they like our fathers may live to give unto their children that rightful inheritance of being “natural born citizens” and not mere immigrants naturalized to a citizenship not theirs from birth.

“And the chief captain came, and said unto him,

Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.

And the chief captain answered, With a great sum

obtained I this freedom. And Paul said,

But I was Free Born.”

-Acts 22:27, 28

But never should this Free People, naturally born to such a precious inheritance of freedom by birth as natural born citizens ever allow such an endowment, purchased with the blood of countless fathers and sons throughout our rich heritage, to so cheaply pass to foreigners born abroad, or citizens of other countries. None should so presume to falsify and deceive and repudiate the very foundational right of we natural born citizens, to be governed by none but those like unto us. God deliver us. But what are men to do? When all that lands upon their ears is from Tyrants’ mouths, and liberal puppets tied by strings to an agenda so vile before God and man, that to voice any difference is to be set upon with such vile hatred as to make strong men shutter and weak men lament like widows for the husbands of their youth⁷.

“The vile person shall be no more called Liberal

…for the vile person will speak

villany, and his heart will

work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy,

and to utter error against the Lord.

But the liberal deviseth liberal things;

and by liberal things shall he stand.”

-Isaiah 32:5-8

Yet in the beginning of this Republic, voices were heard before shots were fired to re-enforce the thoughts of those voices so daring as to utter righteousness before man in God’s stead. And the words so written from our forefathers were convincing even unto this day, that the Founding Fathers knew the mind of God, and thus were not intimidated by threats of imprisonment or death. Yet in these last days, where Tyrants’ minds have “devised liberal things”, and uttered so much error before the Creator of all men, that the liberal, vile cacophony resounds throughout the land to drown out doubtful voices, whose only authority rests in the Document now being trampled under foot of Tyrants with the innocent blood of their citizens dripping from their hands. Voices so accustomed to being stifled by the drumming of the majority’s whims and fancies to be free from God and laws of righteousness unalienable to all men, those weakened utterances have little or no effect, for lack of any authority that runs deep to the conscience of man’s soul! The halls of Congress are silent in sounds and words of the Creator of all men, where endless laws are passed to rid even the memory of the God of America’s fore fathers. Pulpits are filled with errant diatribes about a god no one knows, and none have heard in fifty years or more! Much is said and scribbled across reams of paper of all these injustices, and that which is heard is of little effect having no authority to stand to in support thereof.

“And they were astonished at his doctrine:

for he taught them as one that had authority,

and not as the scribes.”

-Mark 1:22

O, what are men to do in this hour? Without God, they can do nothing⁸, and so it cometh to pass that they do nothing! And what they do by voice without God is ignored for lack of authority or impact, and lack of conscience to stand at all costs behind their given voice. Men will not stand for a piece of paper unless God is in it. Their conscience forbids it, and without such strength of conscience, their voice gives way to fear for lack of authority behind what they say they believe. But the time has come when this lack of conscience and authority and courage to stand at all costs goes no further; but rather gives place to the foundational truths that established this great nation, even at the costs of our lives and fortunes. As our fathers Declared their Independence from the tyranny of monarchial men, it now behooves all free men of courage and conscience to declare of God Almighty what course they now take when the consent of the governed has now diabolically transformed such writ into the enslavement of the governed to foreign influence, foreign political agendas and now a foreign head of state.

“ Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace–but there is no peace…

What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have?

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased

at the price of chains and slavery?

Forbid it, Almighty God!

I know not what course others may take;

but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

-Patrick Henry

The hour has come and passed already, wherein this preacher weighs opinions any further in this matter. It matters not what others say or wish to do, or what they would have for another day of peace, “when there is no peace”⁹. Having walked these many years with God as a child of the King, whose supremacy is above all others, this old man knows the Declaration of God for this hour, and cannot go back, come what may. DECLARO DI!

“We ought to obey God rather than men!”

-Acts 5:29

Let weaker men and women enslave themselves at will in surrendering what cannot be taken from them, to gain what they cannot keep or long enjoy, while liberals and devils laugh them to scorn. But as for this old man, my conscience forbids that I go that way to save another day at large without God or conscience! It has long been established in the Declaration of God that “if thou seest the oppression of the poor, and violent perverting of judgment and justice in a province, marvel not at the matter: for he that is higher than the highest regardeth; and there be higher than they” (Ecclesiastes 5:8). So too cometh this Declaration of God, that “if the spirit of the ruler rise up against thee, leave not thy place; for yielding pacifieth great offences” (10:5).

Let Justice Souter and his fellows ignore their consciences along with the Constitution, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord with a clear conscience; and will never surrender the liberty of our conscience to the lies and frauds of a foreigner who seeketh to govern not by consent of the governed in accordance to the Constitution or the Word of God, but by lies and deceit without conscience towards God or the people of this United States. Forbid it Almighty God! It matters not what course the majority may take, this child of God will not serve, obey or recognize an unlawful governor or head of state that is not natural born to these United States. Take my liberty, my house and lands and by force of strength my life, but you will not get the liberty of my conscience before God Almighty to refuse an unlawful command or office before God and the Constitution of these United States. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Corinthians 3:17), and that is all that the Constitution of these United States and the Declaration of Independence is about. That is all that the history of America is about. That is the Declaration of God and the gift of God, and such liberty of conscience before God is so right, that neither men nor devils will ever take it by force from a Free People in service of the God that created them so. Only by deceit can such an unalienable right of liberty be surrendered to the tyranny of men.

It is the darkest of hours for this country, but one of the greatest to be one of the brave and one of the free! It matters not what a corrupt and murderous government may say of itself, or threaten to others. Now is the time to stand to one’s conscience before God and his family. There is no scripture from God compelling men and women to obey lies, frauds and the murderous declarations of unrighteous governments bent for hell to over throw the consciences and wills of a Free People. Whether civilian or military, the laws of this land forbid it. I can do no less! Before God Almighty, with whom we have to do, we cannot render tribute nor honor unto those to whom no tribute nor honor is due (Romans 13:7). The hour is come that to ignore what is true and clearly factual, because others wish for comforts to do the same, is the destruction of conscience and standing before God Almighty. We need no ruling of Court howsoever high, to clearly see and know that the present government of these United States murdered its own people in mass at New York and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001. Terrorists, howsoever radical in their religious extremism killed no one on that fateful day, and God Almighty is witness against the souls of the President and Vice President of this country, for their hands are dripping red with blood, that no vain religious lies will ever cleanse. The souls of every policeman and fireman and citizen of this country that died needlessly that day, cry out against the executive Tyrants of the Bush Administration that killed them! And the Declaration of God stands firm that “Be sure your sin will find you out!”¹⁰

Take my lands, my liberty and my life for my refusal to neither serve nor obey this god-man Obama. But you will never have for your lies the surrender of my conscience before God, my family and this Republic. God Almighty helping this old man for Christ sake!

By the grace of God alone,

Ron McRae

Presiding Bishop

Anabaptists Churches of North America

P.O. Box 5607

Johnstown, PA 15904

VULTUS IMAGO DI

27 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Bishop Ron McRae, Christian, Christianity, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Congress, Crime, Criminal Complaint, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Faith, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Jerome Corsi, Justice, Kenya, Leftist, Marxist, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, News, Obama 2006 Kenya, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, ODM, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Railla Odinga, Sarah Obama, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged 2008, Affidavit, Bishop McRae statement on Obama, Bishop Ron McRae, November 11, Obama born in Kenya, Obama grandmother present at birth, Sarah Obama

Obama and McCain, Natural born citizen lawsuit, US Supreme Court, DONOFRIO v. WELLS, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Souter, Leo Donofrio, Standing not challenged in lower courts

Posted on November 11, 2008 | 5 comments

We have another lawsuit before the US Supreme court challenging Barack
Obama’s eligibility to be president:

“UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Docket #: 08A407

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Application for Emergency Stay and supporting brief: ScotusStayAppBrief.doc

NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT ORDER

On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being “natural born citizens” as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution.

Unlike other law suits filed against the candidates, Berg etc., this action was the only bi-partisan suit, which sought to have both McCain and Obama removed for the same reason. (Later, Plaintiff also sought the removal of Nicaraguan born Roger Colera, the Presidential candidate for the Socialist Workers Party). The Berg suit will almost certainly fail on the grounds of “standing”, but Donofrio v. Wells, having come directly from NJ state courts, will require the SCOTUS to apply New Jersey law, and New Jersey has a liberal history of according standing to citizens seeking judicial review of State activity.”

“The law suit raises a novel contention that the statutory code undergoes legal fusion with the Secretary’s oath of office to uphold the US Constitution thereby creating a minimum standard of review based upon the “natural born citizen” requirement of Article 2, Section 1, and that the Supremacy clause of the Constitution would demand those requirements be resolved prior to the election.”

“It appears Justice Suoter was misinformed by the US Supreme Court Stay Clerk, Mr. Danny Bickle. A full Petition for Writ of Certiorari is listed as “pending” on the Supreme Court docket, and such Petition having not been dismissed by Justice Suoter indicates the serious merits of the case, but plaintiff-appellant did not make any such full Petition, and so its existence is a procedural fiction. But the case is still live and pending as an Emergency Stay Application. ”

“However, due to some very unorthodox treatment of the case in the NJ Appellate Division, and also by the US Supreme Court Clerk’s office, a press conference is now being prepared to coincide with the resubmission of the Stay application to Justice Clarence Thomas.”

Read the full article here:

http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

I would like to thank commenters Missy and BerlinBerlin for bringing this to my attention.

5 Comments

Posted in amended complaint, Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Congress, Criminal Complaint, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, NC voters, New Jersey, News, Obama home for sale, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged DONOFRIO v. WELLS, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Souter, Leo Donofrio, Natural born citizen lawsuit, Obama and McCain, Standing not challenged in lower courts, U.S. Supreme Court

Electoral College votes, 2008 Election, Obama not eligible, Obama Indonesian, Obama birth certificate, Kenya, Hawaii, US Constitution, Congress, Philip J Berg, Proof Obama Indonesian, November 10, 2008

Posted on November 10, 2008 | 5 comments

The US Constitution must be upheld

Part 4

“Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise
that it will last; but nothing in this world is certain but death and
taxes.”

Benjamin Franklin

Proof of Obama’s Indonesian citizenship from Philip J Berg’s lawsuit, First Amended Complaint:
“FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS”

“45. Obama was enrolled by his parents in a public school, Fransiskus Assisi School, a public school, in Jakarta, Indonesia. Plaintiff has received copies of the school registration in which it clearly states Obama’s name as “Barry Soetoro,” and lists his citizenship as Indonesian. Obama’s father is listed as Lolo Soetoro, Obama’s date of birth and place of birth are listed as August 4, 1961 in Hawaii, and Obama’s Religion is listed as Islam. This document was verified by Inside Edition, whose reporter, Matt Meagher, took the actual footage of the school record. At the time Obama was
registered the public schools obtained and verified the citizenship status and name of the student through the Indonesian Government. All Indonesian students were required to carry government identity cards, or Karty Tanda Pendudaks, as well as family card identification called a Kartu Keluarga. The Kartu Keluarga is a family card which bears the legal names and citizenship status of all family members.”

Here are the AP photos entered By Mr. Berg as evidence:

Facts regarding Obama’s Indonesian citizenship from Mr. Berg’s complaint:

“41. Even if Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii, he lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother re-married and moved to Indonesia with her Indonesian husband. In or about 1965, when Obama was approximately four (4) years old, his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia, whom she had met at the Hawaii University, and moved to Indonesia with Obama. Obama lost his U.S. citizenship, when his mother married Lolo Soetoro, and took up citizenship of and residency in Indonesia. Loss of citizenship, in these circumstances, under U.S. law (as in effect in 1965) required that foreign citizenship be achieved through “application.” Such type of naturalization occurred, for example, when a person acquired a foreign nationality by marriage to a national of that country. Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317(b). A minor child follows the naturalization and citizenship status of their custodial parent. A further issue is presented that Obama’s Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, either signed an acknowledgement acknowledging Obama as his son or Lolo Soetoro adopted Obama, giving Obama natural Indonesia citizenship which explains the name Barry Soetoro and his citizenship listed as Indonesian.

42. Obama admits in his book, “Dreams from my father” Obama’s memoir (autobiography), that after his mother and Lolo Soetoro were married, Lolo Soetoro left Hawaii rather suddenly and Obama and his mother spent months in preparation for their move to Indonesia. Obama admits when he arrived in Indonesia he had already been enrolled in an Indonesia school and his relatives were waiting to meet him and his mother. Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian State citizen, could not have enrolled Obama in school unless Lolo Soetoro signed an acknowledgement acknowledging Obama as his son, which had to be filed with the Government. Under Indonesian law, when a male acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the son, in
this case Obama, as an Indonesian State citizen. Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958 Law No. 12 of 2006 dated 1 Aug. 2006 concerning Citizenship of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 9 of 1992 dated 31 Mar. 1992 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie) states in pertinent part, State citizens of Indonesia include: (viii) children who are born outside of legal marriage from foreign State citizen mother who are acknowledged by father who is Indonesian State citizen as his children and that acknowledgment is made prior to children reaching 18 years of age or prior to marriage; Republic of Indonesia Constitution 1945, As amended by the First Amendment of 1999, the Second Amendment of 2000, the Third Amendment of 2001 and the Fourth Amendment of 2002, Chapter X, Citizens and Residents, Article 26 states, “(1) Citizens shall consist of indigenous Indonesian peoples and persons of foreign origin who have been legalized [sic] as citizens in accordance with law. (2) Residents shall consist of Indonesian citizens and foreign nationals living in Indonesia.”

43. Furthermore, under the Indonesian adoption law, once adopted by an Indonesian citizen, the adoption severs the child’s relationship to the birth parents, and the adopted child is given the same status as a natural child, Indonesian Constitution, Article 2. Thus, where Obama was actually born and what his mother’s citizenship status at the time of this birth is irrelevant.

44. The laws in Indonesia at the time of Obama’s arrival did not allow dual citizenship. If an Indonesian citizen married a foreigner, as in this case, Obama’s mother was required to renounce her U.S. citizenship and was sponsored by her Indonesian spouse. During this time, Indonesia was a Police State. The public schools did not allow foreign students, only citizens were allowed to attend as Indonesia was under strict rule and decreed a number of restrictions; therefore, in order for Obama to have attended school in Jakarta, which he did, he had to be a citizen of Indonesia, as the citizenship status of enrolled students was verified with Government records.”

“49. In addition, since Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship neither did the United States, Hague Convention of 1930.

50. In or about 1971, Obama’s mother sent Obama back to Hawaii. Obama was ten (10) years of age upon his return to Hawaii.

51. As a result of Obama’s Indonesia “natural” citizenship status, there is absolutely no way Obama could have ever regained U.S. “natural born” status, if he in fact ever held such. Obama could have only become naturalized if the proper paperwork was filed with the U.S. State Department, in which case, Obama would have received a Certification of Citizenship.

52. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges Obama was never naturalized in the United States after his return. Obama was ten (10) years old when he returned to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. Obama’s mother did not return with him, and therefore, unable to apply for citizenship of Obama in the United States. If citizenship of Obama had ever been applied for, Obama would have a Certification of Citizenship.”

Philip J Berg’s facts regarding Obama’s ineligibility

Philip J Berg’s Amended Complaint

Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

Barack Obama has provided no legal proof that he is eligible to be president.

This is the fourth part of a series of articles that are intended to inform
the American public of the election process and the applicable laws and
responsibilities of those involved. There are built in safeguards in the
election process from the Electoral College votes to the meeting of
Congress to validate the votes. It is hoped that the information provided will allow you to better understand the process and arm you as you help keep the Electoral College Electors, state officials and Congress accountable to uphold the US Constitution.

The next article in the series will present more evidence that Obama is
not eligible to be president.

5 Comments

Posted in amended complaint, Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Congress, Criminal Complaint, Democrats, DNC, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, Illinois bar, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Islam, Justice, Kenya, McCain Obama, Muslims, Natural born citizen, NC voters, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged 2008, 2008 election, Congress, Electoral College votes, Hawaii, Kenya, November 10, Obama birth certificate, Obama Indonesian, Obama not eligible, PHILIP J. BERG, Proof Obama Indonesian, US Constitution

Electoral College votes, 2008 Election, Obama not eligible, Obama Indonesian, Obama birth certificate, Kenya, Hawaii, US Constitution, Congress, Philip J Berg, Obama facts on eligibility, November 10, 2008

Posted on November 10, 2008 | 17 comments

The US Constitution must be upheld

Part 3

“Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise
that it will last; but nothing in this world is certain but death and
taxes.”

Benjamin Franklin

Barack Obama was born in Kenya. All of the evidence we have confirms
that and unlike John McCain, who when questioned about his eligibility,
presented a vault copy of his birth certificate to Congress, Obama has
refused to prove his eligibility. Despite this fact, Philip J Berg
states in his lawsuit, which is now before the US Supreme Court, that
Obama became an Indonesian citizen and still remains one and thus is
not eligible to be president. The following well crafted statements of
fact and of the law were taken from Mr. Berg’s lawsuit:

“FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS“

“26. Since the beginning of the U.S. Constitution, in order to run for Office of the President, you must be a “natural born citizen” U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1.”

“36. Obama is a representative of the Democratic People. However, Obama must meet the Qualifications specified for the United States Office of the President, which he must be a “natural born” citizen. Additionally, Obama must be at least a “naturalized” citizen to hold his Office of U.S. Senator for Illinois. Unfortunately, Obama is not a “natural born” citizen, nor is he a “naturalized” citizen. Just to name one of the problems, Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen, Lolo Soetoro who legally “acknowledged” Obama as his son in Indonesia and/or “adopted” Obama, which caused Obama to become a “natural” Indonesian citizen. Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro relocated herself and Obama to Indonesia wherein Obama’s mother naturalized in Indonesia. This is proven by Obama’s school record with the student’s name as “Barry Soetoro”, Father’s name: Lolo Soetoro, M.A., and Citizenship: Indonesia.

37. There appears to be no question that Defendant Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a U.S. citizen. It is also undisputed, however, that his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a citizen of Kenya. Obama’s parents, according to divorce records, were married on or about February 2, 1961.

38. Defendant Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and it is uncertain in which hospital he claims to have been born. Obama’s grandmother on his father’s side, his half-brother and half-sister all claim Obama was born not in Hawaii but in Kenya. Reports reflect that Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy (which, apparently, was a normal restriction, to avoid births during a flight). By these reports, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew home and registered Obama’s birth. There are records of a “registry of birth” for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii.

39. Upon investigation into the alleged birth of Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama’s birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital. The Rainbow Edition News Letter, November 2004 Edition, published by the Education Laboratory School did a several page article of an interview with Obama and his half-sister, Maya. The Rainbow Edition News Letter reports Obama was born August 4, 1961 at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii. More interesting in February 2008, Obama’s half-sister, Maya, was again interviewed in the Star Bulletin, and this time, Maya states Obama was born August 4, 1961 in Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children.

40. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen.

41. Even if Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii, he lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother re-married and moved to Indonesia with her Indonesian husband. In or about 1965, when Obama was approximately four (4) years old, his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia, whom she had met at the Hawaii University, and moved to Indonesia with Obama. Obama lost his U.S. citizenship, when his mother married Lolo Soetoro, and took up citizenship of and residency in Indonesia. Loss of citizenship, in these circumstances, under U.S. law (as in effect in 1965) required that foreign citizenship be achieved through “application.” Such type of naturalization occurred, for example, when a person acquired a foreign nationality by marriage to a national of that country. Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317(b). A minor child follows the naturalization and citizenship status of their custodial parent. A further issue is presented that Obama’s Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, either signed an acknowledgement acknowledging Obama as his son or Lolo Soetoro adopted Obama, giving Obama natural Indonesia citizenship which explains the name Barry Soetoro and his citizenship listed as Indonesian.

42. Obama admits in his book, “Dreams from my father” Obama’s memoir
(autobiography), that after his mother and Lolo Soetoro were married, Lolo Soetoro left Hawaii rather suddenly and Obama and his mother spent months in preparation for their move to Indonesia. Obama admits when he arrived in Indonesia he had already been enrolled in an Indonesia school and his relatives were waiting to meet him and his mother. Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian State citizen, could not have enrolled Obama in school unless Lolo Soetoro signed an acknowledgement acknowledging Obama as his son, which had to be filed with the Government. Under Indonesian law, when a male acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the son, in this case Obama, as an Indonesian State citizen. Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958 Law No. 12 of 2006 dated 1 Aug. 2006 concerning Citizenship of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 9 of 1992 dated 31 Mar. 1992 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie) states in pertinent part, State citizens of Indonesia include: (viii) children who are born outside of legal marriage from foreign State citizen mother who are acknowledged by father who is Indonesian State citizen as his children and that acknowledgment is made prior to children reaching 18 years of age or prior to marriage; Republic of Indonesia Constitution 1945, As amended by the First Amendment of 1999, the Second Amendment of 2000, the Third Amendment of 2001 and the Fourth Amendment of 2002, Chapter X, Citizens and Residents, Article 26 states, “(1) Citizens shall consist of indigenous Indonesian peoples and persons of foreign origin who have been legalized [sic] as citizens in accordance with law. (2) Residents shall consist of Indonesian citizens and foreign nationals living in Indonesia.”

44. The laws in Indonesia at the time of Obama’s arrival did not allow dual citizenship. If an Indonesian citizen married a foreigner, as in this case, Obama’s mother was required to renounce her U.S. citizenship and was sponsored by her Indonesian spouse. During this time, Indonesia was a Police State. The public schools did not allow foreign students, only citizens were allowed to attend as Indonesia was under strict rule and decreed a number of restrictions; therefore, in order for Obama to have attended school in Jakarta, which he did, he had to be a citizen of Indonesia, as the
citizenship status of enrolled students was verified with Government records.

45. Obama was enrolled by his parents in a public school, Fransiskus Assisi School, a public school, in Jakarta, Indonesia. Plaintiff has received copies of the school registration in which it clearly states Obama’s name as “Barry Soetoro,” and lists his citizenship as Indonesian. Obama’s father is listed as Lolo Soetoro, Obama’s date of birth and place of birth are listed as August 4, 1961 in Hawaii, and Obama’s Religion is listed as Islam. This document was verified by Inside Edition, whose reporter, Matt Meagher, took the actual footage of the school record. At the time Obama was registered the public schools obtained and verified the citizenship status and name of the student through the Indonesian Government. All Indonesian students were required to carry government identity cards, or Karty Tanda Pendudaks, as well as family card identification called a Kartu Keluarga. The Kartu Keluarga is a family card which bears the legal names and citizenship status of all family members.

46. Since Obama’s birth was legally acknowledged by Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen, and/or Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, which the evidence supports, Obama became an Indonesian citizen and bears the status as an Indonesia natural child (natural-born). For this reason, Obama would have been required to file applications with the U. S. State Department and follow the legal procedures to become a naturalized citizen in the United States, when he returned from Indonesia. If Obama and/or his family failed to follow these procedures, then Obama is an illegal alien.

47. Regardless of whether Obama was officially adopted, (which required a Court process), by his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, or his birth was acknowledged (which only required the signing of a governmental birth acknowledgement form), by Lolo Soetoro, one of which had to occur in order for Obama to have the name Barry Soetoro and his citizenship status listed as “Indonesian”, in either and/or both cases Obama’s name was required to be changed to the Indonesian father’s name, and Obama became a natural citizen of Indonesia. This is proven by the school records in Jakarta, Indonesia showing Obama’s name as Barry Soetoro and his citizenship as Indonesian. Again, the registration of a child in the public schools in Jakarta, Indonesia was verified with the Government Records on file with the Governmental Agencies.

48. The Indonesian citizenship law was designed to prevent apatride (stateless) or bipatride (dual citizenship). Indonesian regulations recognize neither apatride nor bipatride citizenship.

49. In addition, since Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship neither did the United States, Hague Convention of 1930.

50. In or about 1971, Obama’s mother sent Obama back to Hawaii. Obama was ten (10) years of age upon his return to Hawaii.

53. Furthermore, Obama traveled to Indonesia, Pakistan and Southern India in 1981. The relations between Pakistan and India were extremely tense and Pakistan was in turmoil and under martial law. The country was filled with Afghan refugees; and Pakistan’s Islamist-leaning Interservices Intelligence Agency (ISI) had begun to provide arms to the Afghan mujahideen and to assist the process of recruiting radicalized Muslim men–jihadists–from around the world to fight against the Soviet Union. Pakistan was so dangerous that it was on the State Department’s travel ban list for US Citizens. Non-Muslim visitors were not welcome unless sponsored by their embassy for official business. A Muslim citizen of Indonesia traveling on an Indonesian passport would have success entering Indonesia, Pakistan and India. Therefore, it is believed Obama traveled on his Indonesian passport entering the Countries. Indonesian passports require renewal every five (5) years. At the time of Obama’s travels to Indonesia, Pakistan and India, Obama was twenty (20) years old. If Obama would have been a U.S. citizen, which he was not, 8 USC §1481(a)(2) provides loss of nationality by native born citizens upon “taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state…after having
attained the age of eighteen years”, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1401(a)(1). Since Lolo Soetoro legally acknowledged Obama as his son and/or adopted Obama, Obama was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia, as proven by Obama’s school record.

54. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges Obama stated his citizenship as a “Kenya Citizen” when he applied for and was accepted at Columbia University. Obama has refused to release any records from Occidental College, Columbia University, Harvard Law School and any of his medical records.

55. Plaintiffs as well as many other democratic American citizens have requested proof of Obama’s citizenship status, however to no avail. Obama has promised to be an open and honest candidate, however, refuses to remove any doubts from Plaintiff’s and all the other democratic minds and prove his eligibility to serve as President of the United States.”

“62. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) does not perform background checks and/or verify their eligibility on our Candidates to hold Office. According to the FBI, once a candidate is voted into Office of Congress, they are members of Congress and therefore they are given a Secret Clearance, again, without any type of background check and/or verification processes performed.”

“66. Plaintiff has attempted to obtain the verification and proof requested herein by way of requests, filing this action, Admissions and Request for Production of Documents served upon Defendants September 15, 2008 and by Subpoenas served upon agencies who could supply the documentation to prove Obama’s citizenship status. To date, Plaintiff has not received anything. Plaintiff has received five (5) letters from agencies that were served with subpoenas claiming they need Obama’s signatures to comply and/or the confidentiality of the documents were protected from disclosure to third parties under 5 U.S. C. § 552. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) allows for the disclosure of documents. If the documents contain confidential information, the Agency is required to redact the confidential part, e.g. social security number.”

“72. Plaintiff is requesting through this lawsuit an Order for Obama, the DNC, the FEC, the U.S. Senate, Commission on Rules and Administration and the Pennsylvania Department of State, Bureau of Commissions, Elections and Legislation to immediately turn over to Plaintiff the following documents:

(a) A certified copy of Obama’s “vault” (original long version) birth
certificate;
(b) All reissued and sealed birth certificates of Obama;
(c) A certified copy of Obama’s Certification of Citizenship;
(d) A certified copy of Obama’s Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of
majority; and
(e) Certified copies of Obama’s Admission forms for Occidental College,
Columbia University and Harvard Law School.”

“75. Obama does not and has not been eligible to be constituted a United States “natural born” citizen and has failed to obtain and/or maintain “naturalized” citizenship status.

76. Obama, if born in Kenya would have made him a citizen of Kenya. Furthermore, because of the 1940 Naturalization Act, June 1952, Obama’s mother would have had to be nineteen (19) in order for Obama to be a “natural born” United States citizen. Obama’s mother was only eighteen (18) when she had Obama and therefore was not old enough to meet the residency requirements under our laws at the time of Obama’s birth and be able to register her son’s birth as a “natural born” citizen.

77. Even if Obama would have been able to be registered as a U.S. “natural born” citizen in Hawaii, which was not legally permissible, he lost his citizenship in the United States when his mother married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia, and became a naturalized citizen in Indonesia and set up residency in Indonesia with her new husband. Minor’s follow their custodial parent’s citizenship status.

78. Moreover, Obama’s Indonesian step father, Lolo Soetoro, signed a Government acknowledgement form acknowledging Obama as his son and/or legally adopted Obama, either of which changed Obama’s citizenship status to a “natural” citizen of Indonesia. Thus, Obama could have only obtained Naturalized citizenship status in the United States, if in fact he and/or his family filed the proper immigration paperwork after his return to the United States from Indonesia.

79. Obama’s Indonesian citizenship status is proven on his school record with a public school in Jakarta Indonesia, which he attended. Obama’s school record clearly states his name Barry Soetoro, his citizenship, Indonesian, his religion Islam. This information was verified by the public schools in Jakarta upon registration of the student with the Indonesian Government. Indonesia did not allow foreign students to attend their schools and Indonesia Immigration Officials and the Police frequently visited the schools to ensure the students attending were all Indonesian citizens pursuant to the laws.

80. Students attending the public school system in Jakarta Indonesia at the time Obama attended had to wear and/or carry with them identification cards, again which were verified with the Governments records in Indonesia. The student’s identification cards displayed their citizenship number, their legal name, their parents names, etc. The identification cards had to match the student’s school enrollment information.

81. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges Obama stated his citizenship as Kenyan on his College Admission forms to Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School.”

“102. Obama was born in Mombosa, Kenya, and his mother was not old enough to pass on U.S. “natural born” citizenship status to Obama, United States of America v. Cervantes-Nava, 281 F.3d 501 (2002), Drozd v. I.N.S., 155 F.3d 81, 85-88 (2d Cir.1998).

103. Additionally, Obama lost any “naturalized” citizenship status when he b e c a m e a “natural” citizen of Indonesia. Obama’s mother married Lolo Soetoro an Indonesian Citizen in or about 1964/1965. Lolo Soetoro acknowledged Obama as his son and/or adopted Obama thus changing his citizenship status to a “natural” citizen of Indonesia. Under Indonesian law, when a male acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the son, in this case Obama, as an Indonesian State citizen. Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958 Law No. 12 of 2006 dated 1 Aug. 2006
concerning Citizenship of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 9 of 1992 dated 31 Mar. 1992 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undangundang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie). Republic of Indonesia Constitution 1945, as amended by the First Amendment of 1999, the Second Amendment of 2000, the Third Amendment of 2001 and the Fourth Amendment of 2002, Chapter X, Citizens and Residents, Article 26 states “(1) Citizens shall consist of indigenous Indonesian peoples and persons of foreign origin who have been legalized as citizens in accordance with law. (2) Residents shall consist of Indonesian citizens and foreign nationals living in Indonesia.” Obama was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia and not a foreign national, as proven by his Indonesian school registration.”

“134. Obama further committed Fraud upon Plaintiff and the American people by falsifying information on his Illinois State Bar Registration and Public Disciplinary Record. Obama stated on his Application to the State Bar of Illinois, as proven by the Illinois State Bar Registration and Disciplinary Record, stating he never used any other names. Obama signed his application/registration for the Illinois State Bar under the penalty of perjury knowing the information to be false. The fact of the matter is
Obama used the name Barry Soetoro in Indonesia and was registered as a citizen of Indonesia on his school records. Obama further used the name Barry Obama and it is further believed Obama used the name Barack and/or Barry Dunham.

135. Obama attempted to defraud Plaintiff and the American people by allowing an altered and forged Hawaii Certification of Live Birth (COLB) to be placed on his campaign website. Obama was well aware the Government issued COLB was altered and forged as the original document was in the name of Maya Kasandra Soetoro born in 1970. Maya Kassandra Soetoro’s Obama’s half sister who was born in Indonesia and her birth was later registered in Hawaii. The altered and forged COLB is still on
O b a m a ’ s c a m p a i g n w e b s i t e l o c a t e d a t
http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert

136. Furthermore, Obama traveled to Indonesia, Pakistan and Southern India in 1981. The relations between Pakistan and India were extremely tense and Pakistan was in turmoil and under martial law. The country was filled with Afghan refugees; and Pakistan’s Islamist-leaning Interservices Intelligence Agency (ISI) had begun to provide arms to the Afghan mujahideen and to assist the process of recruiting radicalized Muslim men–jihadists–from around the world to fight against the Soviet Union. Pakistan was so dangerous that it was on the State Department’s travel ban list for US Citizens. Non-Muslim visitors were not welcome unless sponsored by their embassy for official business. A Muslim citizen of Indonesia traveling on an
Indonesian passport would have success entering Indonesia, Pakistan and India. Therefore, it is believed Obama traveled on his Indonesian passport entering the Countries. Indonesian passports require renewal every five (5) years. At the time of Obama’s travels to Indonesia, Pakistan and India, Obama was twenty (20) years old. If Obama would have been a U.S. citizen, which he was not, 8 USC §1481(a)(2) provides loss of nationality by native born citizens upon “taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state…after having attained the age of eighteen years”, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1401(a)(1). More importantly, in order to obtain an Indonesian Passport, you had to be an Indonesian citizen. Since Lolo Soetoro legally acknowledged Obama as his son and/or adopted Obama, Obama was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia, as proven by Obama’s school record.”

“168. Obama promises on his website to End Deceptive Voting Practices. “Obama states he will sign into law his legislation that establishes harsh penalties for those who have engaged in voter fraud and provide voters who have been misinformed with accurate and full information so they can vote.” Obama has made the promises however, has been dishonest regarding his citizenship status and has refused to prove his citizenship status so Plaintiff and other voter’s can be well educated into our Presidential candidate.

169. Obama states on his webpage at http://factcheck.barackobama.com “I want to campaign the same way I govern, which is to respond directly and forcefully w i t h the truth” ~ Barack Obama, 11/08/07. Unfortunately, this is not true, Obama has not been honest about his citizenship and he has refused to provide proof of his citizenship status. Instead, Obama and his campaign placed an image on Obama’s website purporting to be an original Certification of Live Birth (COLB) of Obama’s from Hawaii. It was later determined the COLB on www.fightthesmears.com turned out to be an altered and forged COLB.”

Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

This is the third part of a series of articles that are intended to inform
the American public of the election process and the applicable laws and
responsibilities of those involved. There are built in safeguards in the
election process from the Electoral College votes to the meeting of
Congress to validate the votes. It is hoped that the information provided
will allow you to better understand the process and arm you as you
help keep the Electoral College Electors, state officials and Congress
accountable to uphold the US Constitution.

The next article in the series will present evidence of Obama being an
Indonesian citizen. Remember, according to Mr. Berg, this is the primary
reason Obama is not eligible to be president.

17 Comments

Posted in Acorn voter fraud, amended complaint, Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Congress, Criminal Complaint, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, Illinois bar, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, John McCain, Justice, Kenya, Natural born citizen, NC voters, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, republicans, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Smear campaigns, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged 2008, 2008 election, Congress, Electoral College votes, Hawaii, Kenya, November 10, Obama birth certificate, Obama facts on eligibility, Obama Indonesian, Obama not eligible, PHILIP J. BERG, US Constitution

Electoral College votes, 2008 Election, Obama not eligible, Obama Indonesian, Obama birth certificate, Kenya, Hawaii, US Constitution, Congress, Philip J Berg, Obama camp threats, November 10, 2008

Posted on November 10, 2008 | 10 comments

The US Constitution must be upheld

Part 2

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be
eligible to the Office of President;”

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

US Constitution, Amendment I

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude.”

US Constitution, Amendment XV, Section 1

Are any of the above provisions of the US Constitution not important?

All during the 2008 election, people have received personal attacks and
death threats for questioning Barack Obama. Obama has contributed to
this Nazi Germany, Brownshirt like atmosphere. Obama is not eligible to
be president. The US Constitution must be upheld despite threats of
recial tensions and race riots. Do the people threatening race riots
want to ignore the Constitution? If so, perhaps they want the part
ensuring the right to all people to vote to be ignored. The following is from the Philip J Berg amended complaint that states Obama is not eligible
to be presidednt. The lawsuit is currently before the US Supreme Court:
“94. On September 2, 2008, an avid Obama supporter, Fatimah Ali, an Opinion writer for The Philadelphia Daily News reported Ms. Ali’s opinion, “If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war, fueled by a deflated and depressed country, soaring crime, homelessness – hopelessness!”

95. Fox News followed this story publishing, “A fanatical Obama supporter in Philadelphia is threatening a race war if John McCain wins”

96. Obama stated to a crowd of his supporters, “I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face…You are my Ambassadors”, as quoted in a newspaper article published in the San Francisco Gate, by Kathleen Hennessey, Associated Press Writer, on September 17, 2008. Obama is furthering racial tension and promoting attacks on non-supporters, which is creating racial tension and violence in our communities, of which Plaintiff has been victim too.

97. Obama and his campaign have abused their position and the law for intimidation purposes to stop people from free speech when the speech includes criticism or questioning of Obama in violation of Plaintiff’s and other American’s civil Rights.

98. Missouri Governor Matt Blunt issued a Press Release stating in pertinent part, “What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words…… abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment. This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election. “Barack Obama needs to grow up……Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts – not a free society.”

99. As a result of Obama’s message to the People of America, Plaintiff has suffered damage to his reputation and discrimination and fears for his safety as a result of attempting to protect his rights and verify the eligibility of Obama to serve as President of the United States. Plaintiff has been repeatedly called a racist and verbally assaulted for bringing forward this lawsuit against Obama. Plaintiff is not a racist and is a paid Life Member of the NAACP. Plaintiff has received numerous nasty emails accusing him of being a racist as a result of filing this action against Obama. Moreover, Plaintiff has been verbally assaulted by black individuals at a local store he frequents as well as in public for bringing suit against Obama questioning his citizenship status. All of which is in violation of Plaintiff’s right’s to due process of the law, equal protection of the laws and the Liberty Clause secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

100. Defendants are attempting to change our United States Constitution without proper due process of law by allowing Obama to continue his campaign and continue seeking election as the President of the United States, knowing he is not a “natural born” citizen and the fact he may not even be a “naturalized” citizen.

101. It has been announced in the main stream media that Obama’s “briefing” has already begun into our National Secrets, our Nations Top Secrets, which Obama is not privy too and in violation of our National Security, as Obama is not a legal citizen of the United States. This has placed Plaintiff and other citizens of the United States in grave danger. Plaintiff’s Life, Liberty and Property rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution will further be violated if Obama is allowed to be voted into and assume the position of President of the United States; Plaintiff will be further damaged and is in serious jeopardy.”

The US Constitution must be upheld for the good of all citizens regardless of the consequences. The rule of law must be maintained.

I hope that Justice Souter and the US Supreme Court will uphold the US Constitution. God help us if they do not.

Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

This is the second part of a series of articles that are intended to inform
the American public of the election process and the applicable laws and
responsibilities of those involved. There are built in safeguards in the
election process from the Electoral College votes to the meeting of
Congress to validate the votes. It is hoped that the information provided
will allow you to better understand the process and arm you as you
help keep the Electoral College Electors, state officials and Congress
accountable to uphold the US Constitution.

Many people have been confused about the Philip J Berg lawsuit and the main contention of Mr. Berg and others regarding Obama not being eligible to be president. The next article, part three, will present the arguments from Mr. Berg’s lawsuit, separated from the other parts of the lawsuit. Mr. Berg maintains, as I do, that Obama was born in Kenya. However, the main argument of the Berg lawsuit is that Obama became an Indonesian citizen, he remains an Indonsian citizen and is an illegal alien, regardless of where he was born.

10 Comments

Posted in Acorn voter fraud, amended complaint, Announcements, Attorney General, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Chicago machine, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Criminal Complaint, Democrats, DNC, Donna Brazile, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hate crimes, Illinois bar, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Justice, Kenya, Natural born citizen, Nazi Brownshirts, NC voters, News, Obama 2006 Kenya, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, ODM, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Railla Odinga, School propaganda, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Smear campaigns, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, Uncategorized, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged 2008, 2008 election, Congress, Electoral College votes, Hawaii, Kenya, November 10, Obama birth certificate, Obama camp threats, Obama Indonesian, Obama not eligible, PHILIP J. BERG, US Constitution

Electoral College votes, 2008 Election, Obama not eligible, Obama Indonesian, Obama birth certificate, Kenya, Hawaii, US Constitution, Congress, Philip J Berg, Ellis Washington article, November 9, 2008

Posted on November 9, 2008 | 21 comments

The US Constitution must be upheld

Part 1

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be
eligible to the Office of President;”

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

US Constitution, Amendment I

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude.”

US Constitution, Amendment XV, Section 1
The US Constitution and Amendments were fought for by the blood of thousands of Americans of all races and religions. Is there anyone reading this that would allow the US Constitution to be ignored or trampled on? Which of the above provisions would you ignore? If one is not adhered to, aren’t the rest subject to not being upheld?

We have a unique situation in US History. Barack Obama has passed the first hurdle of obtaining the US Presidency without being eligible. Philip J
Berg filed a lawsuit in Federal Court on August 21, 2008 that stated Obama
is Indonesian and not eligible to be president. That lawsuit is now before
the US Supreme Court. Here is the latest statement from Mr. Berg:

“For Immediate Release: – 11/07/08

U. S. SUPREME COURT AWAITS RESPONSE TO
BERG’S WRIT OF CERTIORARI
FROM OBAMA, DNC and Co-DEFENDANTS
(Contact information and PDF at end)

(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 11/07/08) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States filed a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on October 30, 2008, requesting review of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Surrick’s Dismissal of Philip J. Berg’s lawsuit against Barack H. Obama, Jr., the DNC and the other co-Defendants. Accordingly, the U. S. Supreme Court has set dates in which Barack Obama, the DNC and all co-Defendants are to respond to the Writ, which is on or before December 1, 2008.

Mr. Berg remarked today, “I look forward to receiving Defendant Obama’s response to the Writ and am hopeful the U. S. Supreme Court will review Berg v. Obama. I believe Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally-qualified natural-born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of President of the United States.”

Mr. Berg’s case, Berg vs. Obama was dismissed from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Docket # 08-cv-4083 for lack of standing. Mr. Berg filed a Writ of Certiorari for review of the case and an injunction to stay the election pending review. Justice Souter denied the injunction. It is expected that the Court will decide whether or not to review Berg v. Obama after the Defendants file their response, and Mr. Berg has replied to the Defendant’s response.

The Defendants’ response is due by December 1st and Mr. Berg’s reply will be submitted thereafter.”

Mr. Ellis Washington, is a constitutional expert. Here is his background:

“Ellis Washington, currently a professor of law and political science at Savannah State University, former editor at the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute, is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history, political philosophy and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including “The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law” (2002). See his law review article “Reply to Judge Richard Posner.” Washington’s latest book is “The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust.””

Mr. Ellis Washington has written an article for World Net Daily on Mr. Berg’s lawsuit, Judge Surrick’s ruling and the consequences of not addressing this important constitutional issue. Here are some exerpts:

“I was in the delivery room in [Mombosa,] Kenya, when he was born Aug. 4, 1961.
~ Obama’s paternal grandmother

Nothing is more important than enforcing the Constitution.

~ Philip Berg, petitioner – Philip J. Berg v. Barack Obama, et al. (2008)

As President-elect Barack Obama ascends to the presidency of the United States, there still remains a looming cloud above his head like the sword of Damocles. If and when that sword will fall plunging America into a constitutional crisis depends on a number of desperate and remarkable variables.

Before I get into these variables, let’s examine what the Constitution says. What are the requirements to become president? Section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution states that a president must:

be a natural born citizen of the United States;
be at least 35 years old;
have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years.
The inevitable constitutional crisis regarding Obama, of course, revolves around his inability (or unwillingness) to produce an authentic Hawaiian birth certificate with the raised certificate stamp that the Federal Elections Commission can independently verify.

I know there are those who say Obama has produced an authentic birth certificate and posted it on his website, but experts and amateurs alike quickly found numerous errors in that document and deemed it a forgery (and a bad one at that).

Philip J. Berg, a Democratic operative and former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, has assumed the tragic role of Prometheus, ascended Mount Olympus, the abode of Zeus, and has launched a one-man campaign to force Obama to verify his U.S. citizenship by suing the senator, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission, to verify that indeed he is worthy to be president of the United States by producing a real birth certificate.”

Read more here (This is a must read):

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80435

Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

This is the first part of a series of articles that are intended to inform
the American public of the election process and the applicable laws and
responsibilities of those involved. There are built in safeguards in the
election process from the Electoral College votes to the meeting of
Congress to validate the votes. It is hoped that the information provided
will allow you to better understand the process and arm you as you
help keep the Electoral College Electors, state officials and Congress
accountable to uphold the US Constitution.

21 Comments

Posted in African Press, American Revolution, Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizen, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Congress, Criminal Complaint, Declaration of Independence, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Founding Fathers, Government, Hawaii, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Justice, Kenya, Natural born citizen, NC voters, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, republicans, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged 2008, 2008 election, Congress, Electoral College votes, Ellis Washington article, Hawaii, Kenya, November 9, Obama birth certificate, Obama Indonesian, Obama not eligible, PHILIP J. BERG, US Constitution

	CitizenWElls on Parler surpasses Twitter in bl…
	oldsailor88 on Parler surpasses Twitter in bl…
	AFB on Parler surpasses Twitter in bl…
	CitizenWElls on Parler surpasses Twitter in bl…
	oldsailor88 on Parler surpasses Twitter in bl…

Monthly Archives: November 2008

Obama Selective Service records, debbieschlussel.com, Federal agent examined, November 13, 2008, Possible Federal Crime, FOIA request, Obama fraud?

“November 13, 2008

EXCLUSIVE: Did Next Commander-in-Chief Falsify Selective Service Registration? Never Actually Register? Obama’s Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions

Obama not eligible, NC lawsuit, Donald Sullivan, Lt Col, Elaine Marshall, NC Secretary of State, North Carolina Board of Elections, NC Electoral College, November 7, 2008, Class Action Lawsuit, Support and defend Constitution

Obama not eligible, US Constitution, Tenth Amendment, Bill of Rights, US Supreme Court, Federal Judges, State Judges, State Election Officials, Electoral College Electors, Philip J Berg lawsuit, Leo C Donofrio lawsuit, Citizen Wells facts and arguments

The US Constitution must be upheld

US citizens have the right, the power and the duty to require proof of
eligibilty of presidential candidates

Facts and References

Leo C. Donofrio, Obama not eligible, US Supreme Court, New Jersey lawsuit, Secretary of State, Nina Mitchell Wells, Constitutional duty, Justice Souter, Justice Thomas

Bishop Ron McRae, Sarah Obama, Affidavit, Obama born in Kenya, Obama grandmother present at birth, Bishop McRae statement on Obama, November 11, 2008

Obama and McCain, Natural born citizen lawsuit, US Supreme Court, DONOFRIO v. WELLS, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Souter, Leo Donofrio, Standing not challenged in lower courts

Electoral College votes, 2008 Election, Obama not eligible, Obama Indonesian, Obama birth certificate, Kenya, Hawaii, US Constitution, Congress, Philip J Berg, Proof Obama Indonesian, November 10, 2008