Category Archives: amended complaint

Philip J Berg lawsuit, US Supreme Court, Obama not eligible, Supreme Court Justices, Berg appeal, Help defend the US Constitution

Posted on November 13, 2008 | 9 comments

I just received the following email from Philip J Berg’s office. Mr. Berg’s
lawsuit is one of two lawsuits currently before the Supreme Court of the
United States. Both lawsuits state that Barack Obama is not eligible
to be president. Here is the email:

“November 13, 2008

 

 

We have received a lot of emails asking what you can do to be heard regarding the issues pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.  Although we cannot tell you to do anything, we can answer your questions and inform you what is available so you may be heard.

 

You as citizens can individually address letters to all the Court Justices and address your concerns regarding Mr. Obama’s eligibility to serve as the President of the United States according to the requirements of Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution.

 

United States Supreme Court

1 First Street NE

Washington DC 20543

 

 

The Supreme Court Justices are as follows:

 

Supreme Court Justice John Stevens

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy

Supreme Court Justice David Souter

Supreme Court Justice Thomas Clarence

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer

Supreme Court Justice Samual Alito

 

Respectfully,

 

Lisa

Assistant to Philip J. Berg

LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG

 

Obamacrimes.com”

9 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, 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, Natural born citizen, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , ,

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

Ҥ 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.”

Read more here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_enforces_the_constitutions.html

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. Washington wrote the following response to the Philip J Berg lawsuit and Judge Surrick ruling in a World Net Daily article dated November 8, 2008 :

“Unfortunately, just 10 days before the election, a court of appeals judge threw out Berg’s lawsuit challenging the veracity of Obama’s U.S. citizenship status on technical grounds. Judge R. Barclay Surrick, a Jimmy Carter-appointed judge, amazingly (and with a tinge of irony), stated his opinion in part:

In a 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order, the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick concludes that ordinary citizens can’t sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.
Surrick defers to Congress, saying that the legislature could determine “that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency,” but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.

“Until that time,” Surrick says, “voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring.”

Judge Surrick, quoting from Hollander, concludes, “The alleged harm to voters stemming from a presidential candidate’s failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury.”

Surrick also quotes Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, which stated, in part, “The Supreme Court has consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government – claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large – does not state an Article III case or controversy.”

Constitutionally speaking, Judge Surrick’s reasoning is completely illogical and a total dereliction of his duty as a judge to substantively address this most vital constitutional controversy. Instead, in a gutless manner, Surrick dismissed Berg’s complaint 10 days before the elections on a technicality of standing, which to any rational person begs the question: If Philip J. Berg as an American citizen, a respected Democratic operative and former attorney general of Pennsylvania doesn’t have the “standing” to bring this type of lawsuit against Obama, then who in America does have standing? The good judge in all 34 pages of legal mumbo jumbo didn’t bother to answer this pivotal question.

That Berg’s complaint is not “concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury” is an amazing admission by any person that went to law school and even more so given the fact that Surrick is a respected appellate judge!

I am somewhat hopeful that Berg will successfully appeal Surrick’s outrageous decision to 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court if necessary, even if technically he doesn’t have standing to hold Obama accountable to the Constitution. Why? Because this is America, and out of 300 million people, someone should give a damn enough about this republic to make sure the person who holds the highest elected office in the land holds it legitimately based on the black letter text of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.”

Read the complete article here:

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

Leo C. Donofrio has a New Jersey lawsuit before the US Supreme Court

“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.”

“The cause of action first accrued on September 22, 2008, when Secretary Wells certified to county clerks, for ballot preparation, a written “statement”, prepared under her seal of office, that was required by statute to contain names of only those candidates who were “by law entitled” to be listed on ballots in New Jersey.  The statement is demanded by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22.

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.

The key fact, not challenged below, surrounds two conversations between the plaintiff-appellant and a key Secretary of State Election Division official wherein the official admitted, twice, that the defendant-Secretary just assumed the candidates were eligible taking no further action to actually verify that they were, in fact, eligible to the office of President.  These conversations took place on October 22nd and 23rd.” 

“Now, post-election, plaintiff is seeking review by the United States Supreme Court to finally determine the “natural born citizen” issue. Plaintiff alleged the Secretary has a legal duty to make certain the candidates pass the “natural born citizen” test.  The pre-election suit requested that New Jersey ballots be stayed as they were defective requiring replacements to feature only the names of candidates who were truly eligible to the office of President.”

Read more here:

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

Summary

The states have power and control over the general elections. With this
power comes a duty to uphold the Constitution. The states, rather than
enact laws to uphold the constitution and protect the voting rights
of their citizens, have acted more on tradition. This traditional
approach has worked up until the 2008 election. We now have a candidate,
Barack Obama, who has refused to provide legal proof of eligibility in
the face of compelling evidence he is not qualified. When presented
with this evidence, the states had an obligation to require proof from
Obama.

The states had an obligation to enact legislation and did not. The states
have not exercised their inherent power and duty to require proof of
and eligibility. Therefore, by virtue of the powers reserved for the
people of the US in the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, US citizens have the power and obligation to demand proof of eligibility from Obama.

Citizen Wells is asking that US citizens contact state election officials
and Electoral College Electors and demand that they request proof of
eligibility from Obama. If they do not do so, initiate lawsuits and
make sure that your rights are protected and that the Constitution is
upheld. 

Citizen Wells is also issuing a caution to the US Supreme Court, Supreme
Court Justices, Federal Judges, State Judges, State Election Officials
and Electoral College Officials. You all have an overriding obligation
to uphold and defend the US Constitution. You are all accountable and
the American public is watching.

34 Comments

Posted in amended complaint, Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizen, 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, John McCain, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, NC voters, New Jersey, 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, Uncategorized, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

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”

Read more here:

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

Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

53 Comments

Posted in amended complaint, Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, 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, John McCain, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, NC voters, New Jersey, 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 , , , , , , , ,

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.”

“Now, post-election, plaintiff is seeking review by the United States Supreme Court to finally determine the “natural born citizen” issue.  Plaintiff alleged the Secretary has a legal duty to make certain the candidates pass the “natural born citizen” test.  The pre-election suit requested that New Jersey ballots be stayed as they were defective requiring replacements to feature only the names of candidates who were truly eligible to the office of President. ”

“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 , , , , , , ,

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:

boindonesia1

boindonesia2

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 , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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 , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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 , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Philip J Berg Lawsuit, Press Release, November 7, 2008, US Supreme Court, Writ of Certiorari, Waiting on response from Obama, DNC

Posted on November 8, 2008 | 17 comments

Philip J Berg provided a press release on Friday, November 7, 2008. Here is Mr. Berg’s press release:

“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.

#  # #

Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
philjberg@obamacrimes.com philjberg@obamacrimes.com ”

Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

17 Comments

Posted in amended complaint, 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, 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, Secretary of State, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Philip J Berg lawsuit, Supreme Court petition, Update, November 3, 2008, Jeff Schreiber, Eve of Election ,Berg Cautiously Optimistic

Posted on November 3, 2008 | 17 comments

Philip J Berg is cautiously optimistic regarding his petition to the US Supreme Court to delay the election until a ruling can be made. Jeff Schreiber has Mr. Berg’s latest remarks:

“Monday, November 3, 2008
Berg Cautiously Optimistic on Eve of Election
 
On a day which saw another eligibility-related lawsuit, this one in Connecticut, bite the dust, Philadelphia attorney Philip Berg remains cautiously optimistic after taking his own dismissed case to the highest court in all the land.

“At this point, we’re waiting and hoping and praying that Justice Souter rules in our favor and delays tomorrow’s election,” said Berg, mentioning as well that he filed a supplemental argument with the Court today. “They have the power. The United States Supreme Court has the power. They stopped the count in Florida in 2000, I was there in the panhandle when they stopped the count.”

As has been written in these pages before, the odds are extremely long that Berg’s case is given an audience with the Supreme Court, as only 70 to 120 of the 8,000 or so petitions are granted, and the odds are infinitely longer that Berg’s emergency motion is granted.

“The odds are slim,” Berg said. “If the election goes on tomorrow as planned, we start going after the Electoral College on Wednesday. December 15 becomes our deadline. There’s still time. The Electoral College requires that a candidate be eligible, so we’re not stopping, that’s for sure.”

Unless, of course, Obama does not prevail tomorrow, in which case Berg says that he will continue his efforts “to bring out the truth about the fraud perpetrated against this nation.””

Read more here:

http://www.americasright.com

Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

17 Comments

Posted in amended complaint, Announcements, Attorney General, 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, Jeff Schreiber, Justice, Kenya, Natural born citizen, NC voters, News, Obama 2006 Kenya, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Obama not eligible, Obama Indonesian, US Constitution, Lawsuits, Philip J Berg, State lawsuits, Electoral College Electors, State election officials, Uphold Constitution

Posted on November 3, 2008 | 3 comments

US Constitution


Tenth Amendment


“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.”


Election laws vary from state to state.
The states control the election process up to the vote by the Electoral
college. States accept the nominee of the major political party and claim
that they have no jurisdiction to qualify or exclude.
However, Citizen Wells’ position is that the US Constitution clearly
defines eligibilty for the presidency and the Constitution rules.


UNITED STATES 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.”


US Constitution, Federal Election Laws, State Election Laws


Legal Notice. NC law cited on ineligible or disqualified


Article on eligibility


Article on Electoral College


Caution to state election officials, Electors


Warning sent to Secretary of State, election officials of all states


There is compelling evidence that Obama is ineligible to be president and
no proof that he is. There is an obligation and duty to uphold the
Constitution. The states indicate they are powerless to remove someone
from the ballot. I have read no law that prohibits a state from removing
someone from the ballot and some states have provisions for removing
unqualified candidates.


Therefore, the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution gives power to the people to challenge candidates for removal. Many have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. This includes, but is not limited to, Electoral College Electors.


In addition to Philip J Berg’s lawsuit in federal court that is now before
the Supreme Court, there are numerous state lawsuits and now lawsuits
initiated by Electoral College Electors. Consider the following:


“FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:   Vice presidential Candidate filing lawsuit against Obama


Contact: Steve Marquis
Telephone Number: 425-698-7084
Email Address: peoplesvoice@peoplespassions.org
Web site address: http://peoplespassions.org


 Wiley S. Drake, Sr.  wileydrake@hotmail.com


 


Vice presidential Candidate Wiley S. Drake Sr. to file in court asking to
de-certify Barack Obama because he has refused to release proof of being a Natural Born Citizen, thereby disqualifying Obama in his bid for the Office of President.


The recent Lawsuit in Washington State demanding their Secretary of State to vet the citizenship credentials of Barack Obama has spawned a slew of similar suits with new lawsuits filed and/or prepared in WA, FL, NC, CO, CA, OH, FL, CT, GA, TX, MI.  Related lawsuits HI, US District.


As part of this effort, this group of citizens from states across the union made an outreach to the whole presidential slate asking each candidate for president and vice president to offer up a certified copy of their birth certificates and any related candidate declarations to be placed in a library made available to the public via a non-partisan web site. 


At least one VP candidate Wiley S. Drake Sr. went the next step and agreed to file a lawsuit of his own to demand the disqualification of Barack Obama unless he can prove status as a ”Natural Born Citizen” as the constitution and federal statues demand and define.


In another unrelated action, though also aimed at forcing Obama to release proof or step down, 24 potential Electoral College electors are filing action Monday morning in court also demanding proof. A call is herein being issued to any elector in any state, especially democrat electors who would like to join that effort.  Electors interested in adding their name to this lawsuit can contact Mr. Marquis who will put you in contact with the attorney handling that case.


Contact: Steve Marquis
Telephone Number: 425-698-7084
Email Address: peoplesvoice@peoplespassions.org


Wiley S. Drake, Sr.  wileydrake@hotmail.com“


Read more here:


http://peoplespassions.org/Press_Release_08_10_31.htm


Citizen Wells has contacted Peoples Passions and will keep you informed on the progress of the legal actions.


Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:


http://obamacrimes.com


 


 



 

3 Comments

Posted in amended complaint, Announcements, Attorney General, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil 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, Natural born citizen, NC voters, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United Nations, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , ,