Below is a post that was in defense of Phil Berg’s Assistant Lisa Liberi! THANK GOD some one had the foresight to go and research and post it. Please feel free to post this on any and all Blogs or Web Sites you have or connected to. Maybe this will stop some of the craziness that Phil and Lisa are going through since Orly’s attack.
MommaE”
“Comment: It never fails to amaze me how people will run with the slightest bit of uncorroborated information as if it were the God’s honest truth. Take for example the Lisa Liberi/Ostella issue. I looked Ms. Liberi up in the San Bernardino Court records. Unless this woman is a shape shifter, there is no way the California Liberi and the Pennsylvania Liberi are the same woman.
Yes, there is a Lisa Liberi in California who is originally from New Mexico and has a history of felony fraud. However, she resides in California, has been here for over a decade, and the only reason she shows up as a resident of New Mexico is because she is still on probation in that state. This is a matter of public record and is available (free) online. She was in custody in the State of California at the same time that the Pennsylvania Liberi was working as Berg’s assistant.
Now, I’ve heard of liberal “work release” programs, but the State of California did not allow an incarcerated felon to skip off to go work for Phil Berg.
The fact that two people have the same name does not offer any proof that they are the same person. It’s a huge jump in logic, with no verifiable documentation, that is being stated by some as FACT.
How these very same people have managed to fabricate a connection between Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella is even more mind boggling. The only substantiated connection is that these two women share the same first name.”
“Don’t know about 9/11 conspiracy, but do know from DC source that an Administration team is working on perfecting a forgery of the long-form birth certificate. They plan on presenting it in a a month or so. The source is FBI agent who has drinking buddy from University of Illinois now in the Administration. Its second hand, but the source is supposed to be solid.
They have already prepared the forgery with special paper and ink. The document was printed on a fully functional 1960 Heidelberger printing press located at a print museum in Toronto. Access was arranged by a trustee of the museum who is connected to a large Canadian banking/investment firm with major US interests.”
Consider the following (ignoring the COLB controversy).
Obama, Kundra, Yusuf Acar and forged documents
“Yesterday, the Citizen Wells blog presented a second article on
the arrest of 2 individuals in the Washington DC office
that was headed by Obama’s technology czar, Vivek Kundra, as
recently as a few days ago. This article came from a Washington
Post article dated March 13, 2009. Last night Citizen Wells
was notified that the Washington Post article had been changed.
After some investigating, it was discovered that the whole
nature of the article had been changed. Consider the
following:”
“Vivek Kundra, who was tapped as the White House technology czar
March 5, oversaw technology projects and budgets for 86 D.C.
government agencies as head of the District’s Office of the Chief
Technology Officer.”
“Yusuf Acar, 40, who has worked in the technology office since
2004, was charged with bribery, conspiracy, money laundering and
conflict of interest.”
“FBI agents carted away boxes and envelopes from the Office of
the Chief Technology Officer throughout the day.”
“Acar also told the informant that he could use computers to
create fake D.C. birth certificates, Hibarger said.”
“A high-powered team of Los Angeles attorneys representing President Obama in his effort to keep his birth certificate, college records and passport documents concealed from the public has suggested there should be “monetary sanctions” against a lawyer whose clients have brought a complaint alleging Obama doesn’t qualify for the Oval Office under the Constitution’s demand for a “natural born” citizen in that post.”
“Obama’s top terrorism and intelligence adviser, John O. Brennan, heads a firm that was cited in March for breaching sensitive files in the State Department’s passport office, according to a State Department Inspector General’s report released this past July.”
“During a State Department briefing on March 21, 2008, McCormack confirmed that the contractor had accessed the passport files of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain, and that the inspector general had launched an investigation.
Sources who tracked the investigation tell Newsmax that the main target of the breach was the Obama passport file, and that the contractor accessed the file in order to “cauterize” the records of potentially embarrassing information.”
“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.”
I just got off the phone with Dr. Orly Taitz. We spoke for a while about her website and the recent controversy. Dr. Taitz has a new website for Defend Our Freedoms.
Orly stated that Defend our Freedoms is her foundation and that she has been blocked from accessing her data on the previous website. She is still committed to the cause of exposing the truth about Barack Obama.
We also spoke about the US Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Roberts and law clerk Danny Bickell. She and I are both concerned that Bickell is still employed at the Supreme Court after all of the shady dealings that she and other attorneys experienced from Danny Bickell.
Dr. Orly Taitz will attend the San Antonio, TX tea party and stated she will be willing to stay an extra day if enough citizens are willing to meet with the local FBI office and initiate a Citizens Grand Jury. She also stated that her expenses are very high. Every time that she travels she spends at least a thousand dollars. She is providing her services pro bono, so it is not asking too much for people to donate to the cause to help with expenses.
The NY Times, long known to be biased, pulled a story about Barack
Obama’s campaign ties to ACORN. The story was pulled on October 21,
2008 because it would have been a “a game changer.”
“‘New York Times’ Spiked Obama Donor Story”
“Congressional Testimony: ‘Game-Changer’ Article Would Have Connected
Campaign With ACORN
By Michael P. Tremoglie, The Bulletin
Monday, March 30, 2009
A lawyer involved with legal action against Association of Community
Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) told a House Judiciary subcommittee
on March 19 The New York Times had killed a story in October that would
have shown a close link between ACORN, Project Vote and the Obama campaign
because it would have been a “a game changer.”
Heather Heidelbaugh, who represented the Pennsylvania Republican State
Committee in the lawsuit against the group, recounted for the ommittee what
she had been told by a former ACORN worker who had worked in the group’s
Washington, D.C. office. The former worker, Anita Moncrief, told Ms.
Heidelbaugh last October, during the state committee’s litigation against
ACORN, she had been a “confidential informant for several months to The New
York Times reporter, Stephanie Strom.”
Ms. Moncrief had been providing Ms. Strom with information about ACORN’s
election activities. Ms. Strom had written several stories based on
information Ms. Moncrief had given her.
During her testimony, Ms. Heidelbaugh said Ms. Moncrief had told her The
New York Times articles stopped when she revealed that the Obama presidential
campaign had sent its maxed-out donor list to ACORN’s Washington, D.C. office.”
““If true, The New York Times is showing once again that it is a not an
impartial observer of the political scene,” he said. “If they want to be a
mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, they should put Barack Obama approves
of this in their newspaper.””
There is plenty about Acorn, what their style of community organizing
really is and Obama’s ties to Acorn, voter fraud and socialism that
the MSM could have covered, but mostly chose to gloss over or ignore.
From the Citizen Wells blog:
We have illegal aliens getting benefits an illegal president but
the son of a Lt Col, Donald Sullivan, gets arrested for not
answering questions. Here is an update from Lt Col Donald Sullivan
on the arrest of his son.
“Events of March 24, 2009 – My son’s Arrest for not being from NC; and the beat goes on, only it’s getting more personal.
Short Version: On March 24, 2009, my son was stopped at a checkpoint; arrested for not answering questions; and jailed under $50,000.00 bond for committing no crime.
Long Version: Just when I thought it could get no more ridiculous, Tuesday came. It was the 24th of March, 2009, and I was in Burgaw, NC, the county seat, at the courthouse to serve the DA timely with my record on appeal for the right to bear arms trial of November, 2008. As I walked into the courthouse from the bright North Carolina sunshine, I saw a familiar face just coming down the stairway from the courtrooms upstairs. Not only did the face look familiar, it was my son; and he was in handcuffs! I casually walked up to him and the State policeman who had him in tow and said, “Well, I see they finally broke your cherry, Myson.” He smiled, and said, “Looks that way, Dad.”
I turned to the officer, introduced myself, and asked him why my son was being charged. He told me straight up, “He wouldn’t answer my questions.” “That’s the way I taught him”, I said. “He doesn’t have to answer your questions.” I turned to my son and asked him what was going on, not thinking the trooper would let him answer; but he did. He said he was on his way to my house along NC Highway 210 when he ran up on a police checkpoint. When I interrupted and asked why he didn’t just turn around and go the other way, he said there was no need, since he was not breaking any laws. Besides, he said he was towing my trailer and turning around on a two-lane road would have been difficult.
He continued with his story saying the trooper had asked him for his license and registration, which he tendered. Both are from Michigan, since my son is still a resident of Michigan, but the trooper asked him what his local address was. (The trooper was aware of my son’s trial a few months ago when the charge was dismissed against him for no NC license for lack of evidence and jurisdiction. I know for a fact my son has no NC address.) He responded with, “You have my license. I’m not going to answer any of your questions.” The trooper asked him if he had insurance, and my son responded, “I told you I am not going to answer any of your questions.” The trooper told him he would go to jail if he didn’t answer. My son persisted, so the trooper ordered him to pull his pick-up off to the side of the road and get out of it. He complied, and the trooper read him his Miranda rights, the first of which is, “You have the right to remain silent.” The trooper then told him he would be arrested unless he answered the questions about his local address and his proof of insurance. My son maintained that he didn’t have to answer any questions, so he was handcuffed and brought to the courthouse for his “probable cause” hearing. This is where I came in.
I asked the trooper how he could arrest my son for not answering his questions when he had a right not to answer. He responded that there is a law in NC which requires everyone to give their address when asked by a law enforcement officer or the courts. When I asked how that could be with our right to remain silent and not incriminate ourselves, and he said he was just doing his job. How I hate that response. One day 9it will be the death sentence of anyone who uses it. I told the officer I had some quick errands to run in the courthouse, but that I would join them upstairs where the magistrate was holding small claims court. After depositing my record on appeal with the DA, I went upstairs to the courtroom.
Once inside, I saw that the trooper was about to finish briefing the magistrate on the charges: No NC operator’s license; no proof of insurance; expired MI registration; no trailer license plate; and refusal to answer questions divulge his local address. The magistrate called my son forward and asked him for his address. He told her he was not answering any of his questions, that he had a right to remain silent. She then asked if he could be in court on the 20th of May, to which he responded, “Yes, Ma’am.” She then put him under FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS SECURED BOND ($50,000.00), BECAUSE HE REFUSED TO ANSWER HER QUESTIONS! When he told her he was not a flight risk, nor was he a threat to anyone, and should be released on his own recognizance by law, she responded, “You won’t answer my questions or those of the trooper. Your license says you are from out of state. You could be an ‘axe-murderer’ for all we know, so the bond stays.” I then interrupted and asked, “How much was that bond?!” She said “$50,000.00.” I then asked her if she would accept cash or a check. She said, “Certified check or cash.” I told her I would be back in an hour with the money. My son went to jail, and I went to get the cash.
Needless to say, I was very upset, but controlled. This whole charade was obviously due to the amount of harassment my many legal filings have caused the local law enforcement agencies and the courts along with the several criminal proceedings and appeals I have active at the present. There was no need whatsoever to arrest my son for alleged statutory violations which do not have jurisdiction over an out-of-state individual, and the $50,000.00 bond was an aberration not seen before in Pender County!
When I returned to the jail with the cash, the magistrate was busy in her office. I struck up a conversation with some other unfortunates who were waiting in the lobby for their friends and loved ones and told them I was there to pick up my son who had been arrested for “Not answering their questions” and held under $50,000.00 bond. They were astounded, of course, since no one had ever been heard of such; and it was completely illogical. I told them it was vindictive and retaliatory, that “they” were using my son to get at me, and I was not going to stand for it. I said things like, “They’ve made it personal now by going after my children, and they’ve crossed the line!” These things I said loud enough for the magistrate to hear. Then, I walked over to her open door and asked if she was ready for me to bail out my son; that I had $60,000.00 cash just in case she upped the ante. She replied in the affirmative and said, “All he had to do was to answer my questions, and he wouldn’t be here. And it was not vindictive. I didn’t know he was your son and had ties to the county. If I had, I could have reconsidered the bond.” I told her it was not too late to reconsider, especially since he had a right to remain silent in the first place, and it was a violation of his constitutional rights to deny him his liberty for exercising his rights. She replied that she had reconsidered, that the bond was reduced to $2,000.00 unsecured. I told her that was not good enough, that he had objected to any bond due to his not being a flight risk or a threat to anyone’s life, liberty or property. She said she had to leave the bond in place, since that was the guideline she was given “in school”. (I assumed she was referring to the same “school” my jailer had mentioned when she told me my “stay would be prolonged” if I didn’t submit to being photographed last month.) She tapped on the window at the back of her office and told the jailers to “Bring Mr. Sullivan out. He doesn’t need handcuffs.) So, they brought my son out; he collected his things and filled out the necessary paperwork; and we left to recover his truck. I told her it was a good thing she had “reconsidered”, or my son would have filed a civil suit against her. As it was, he would only file against the trooper, but she might be a co-defendant.
When we got to his truck about 90 minutes later, the State trooper who had arrested him was there waiting in his car, right by my son’s truck. I got out of my car, with my S&W 9mm strapped on my hip as always, and walked up to his car and tapped on is window. He rolled the window down, and I asked him if he was waiting to arrest us again when we moved the car. He replied that he was just stopped doing some paperwork. I then asked if he would arrest my son when he drove off in the car, or did we have to trailer it home, which I was prepared to do. He told me he couldn’t drive off if he had no insurance. I told him my son had insurance, but he just hadn’t felt the need to answer the trooper’s questions. When he said the truck couldn’t move on its own without proof of insurance, I asked my son to show the officer his proof of insurance, which he readily did. This set the officer back a bit, and he asked, “Why didn’t you show me this before?” My son responded, “Because, it’s like I told you, ‘I don’t have to answer your questions if the answer might tend to incriminate me”, so I don’t answer any questions.”
We then proceeded to have a very nice and informative chat with the officer for over an hour, during which time I said nothing to compromise my son’s case, but I did take the opportunity to educate the trooper a little bit. He admitted he was not so sure things were always as they appear, or as the government tells them, and that he regularly listened to local conservative radio hosts and to Neil Bortz. As we parted, I informed the trooper that he had violated my son’s rights, and that my son would file a civil suit against him as soon as the charges were dismissed. He said, “Do what you have to do”, to which I responded, “It’s the only way you and your buddies are going to learn to leave us alone.” Oh, and as to my sidearm, the trooper asked me just before we parted what kind of weapon it was. I told him, “S&W 9mm”.
DS
3-29-09″
Lt Col Sullivan, sir, if you need any assistance say the
word, and thousands will come to your aid.
Zach, of the Zach Jones is Home blog has written another hard
hitting article exposing the antics, hypocrisy and deception
of Obama and his Democrat cronies.
“The Obama Show – Vilification, Manipulation and Distraction
(“All this has happened before, and it will happen again” – Battlestar Galactica)
I’ve heard it said that there are only a handful of archetypal stories from which all variations come. Today, in politics, this appears truer than ever before. The same motivations are at play, the same goals and agendas, the same use of vilification and manipulation, the same attachments and vulnerabilities to draw out, the same diversions, the same subordination of truth – all to be used as “legitimate” means to the obtain the politician’s goals. Regrettably, the archetypal story of almost every politician today is the quest for power.”
“Power and manipulation! We all need to let that sink in and flow over us because in our regular lives we don’t think that way. Take a moment and say to yourself the words Hollywood, nothing is as it appears, the words mean nothing, the agendas are conflicting, all may be an elaborated distraction.
Now to American Politics 2009 –
This past week a poorly choreographed political theater has been taking place in the nation’s capital. It is the best example of political Kobuki theater we’ve had this year. We’ve had Pelosi and Barney Frank shrieking and pointing mephitic fingers at everyone but themselves. Senator Dodd, who has played a pivotal role in the entire financial mess, has been first denying knowledge of any AIG bonuses, kind of admitting the bonuses, admitting he wrote the amendment that exempted AIG so they could get the bonuses, and finally saying the Obama administration asked him to do everything. Timothy Geithner saying I didn’t know anything about anything until a few days ago and now a tape surfaces clearing indicating that he knew about the AIG bonuses at least by March 3, 2009. And finally, Obama saying I didn’t know anything about the AGI bonuses – which could be true since he was quickly planning a trip out of town to appear on the Tonight Show to talk about Special Olympics and his bowling skills.
The outcome of all the drama and CYA’ing was that the Congress of the United States, led by Nancy Pelosi, passed legislation attempting to tax anyone who received an AIG bonus out of any and all money. Congress decided that they must do “something”. Nancy was yelling and screaming, hell yes we’re mad and we are not going to take it, our voters are mad and we’re going to punish AGI employees who took these Congressional authorized bonuses. Oh my. The Kobuki result so far is that the House of Representatives have passed a likely unconstitutional bill of attainder in the attempt to cover their (not reading the original bill) tracks.”
“As entertaining as people with pitchforks can be; it’s now time to consider Mr. Obama’s actions.
Where was he? Was he bowling, picking his NCAA basketball teams, appearing on The Tonight Show? Why wasn’t he in Washington? I would suggest that it is/was part of the chorography that team Obama is executing to manipulate the public and maintain the Obama illusion. They want to try to keep Obama above it all, spouting lofty words and symbolizing calm.
During the Vietnam War, Nixon went to China. During this financial crisis, Obama goes to Hollywood and back to the campaign trail. It’s all diversion, manipulation and theater.”
Dr. Orly Taitz, the courageous immigrant from Russia,
the true American, can be seen and heard confronting
Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Roberts,
at the conclusion of the Bellwood lecture at the
University of Idaho. Dr. Taitz is involved in multiple
lawsuits at the state and Supreme Court level that
state that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen
and is ineligible to be president. Orly Taitz has
enlisted numerous military officers and soldiers as
plaintiffs in her lawsuits.
I just received this update from Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan:
“Personal Transcript of Hearing: Sullivan v. NC Secretary of State and Board of Elections; Case #08-CVS-021393
SUBJECT: Obama Eligibility
On March 16, 2009, the calendar was called by Judge W. Osmond Smith, III, presiding, in Wake County Superior Court, Raleigh, NC. My case was #23 on the calendar and required the hearing of three separate “motions”: My demand for class action certification; my demand for leave to amend; and the State’s motion to dismiss. When he got to #23, the judge said he would pass over this item until he had completed calling the calendar. (Odd, this. It was apparent there had been discussion of my case prior to the hearing. I am not at all sure these discussions did not include the defendant State.) Upon completion of calling the calendar, and after dividing the calendar between himself and another superior court judge, A. Leon Stanback, Jr., Judge Smith called the first case without mentioning mine again. I stood and called his attention to his oversight, and he apologized. The case was then scheduled for hearing last.
When my case was called (actually next to last as it worked out), the judge asked the parties how long the arguments would take. I answered it would depend upon which of the three “motions” he decided to hear first. After a brief discussion, the judge chose to hear my demand to amend first. It being my action with the burden of proof on my shoulders, I began my arguments in support of my demand with a statement of the justification for my amendment to the original pleadings. The original filing was a demand for injunctive relief which the court had decided to consider only a “routine” case. The case was filed on November 7th, 2008, and in anticipation of an expedited ruling to take place prior to the inauguration on January 20th, 2009. By considering the case “routine”, the court had condemned the action to becoming moot upon the completion of the inauguration. Thus, it was necessary to amend the complaint to prevent the necessity of filing a completely new action. It was only due to the scheduling by the court that the case had taken three months to be heard. I also was demanding I be allowed to add the Governor and the State of NC as defendants, since the necessary actions required in my demand for injunctive relief were interstate actions and would necessitate the Governor be a party.
I then presented that it was the sworn duty of the court to support the Constitution of the United States in accordance with the court’s ( and all others involved in this action) Article VI, Section 7, (NC Constitution) oath, in accordance with Article VI, Section 2, (US Constitution), and in accordance with Article 1, Section 5, of the NC Constitution. I admitted there was no statutory requirement for the State to do as I had demanded, but that the obligation and responsibility was a constitutional one, this being both an equity court and a constitutional court. I listed the evidentiary facts which appeared to assert the ineligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of President in contravention to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 5, of the US Constitution including, but not limited to, his failure to reveal his original birth certificate from Hawaii; his apparent use of an Indonesian passport in 1981, his multiple citizenships by birth and residence, none of which he has renounced; his failure to release his collegiate records which allegedly show he attended as a foreign student under an FS-1 foreign student visa; statements by the ambassador to the US from Kenya and his paternal grandmother which attest to his being born in Mombasa, Kenya; his having given false information on his application for an Illinois license to practice law in 1989, in that he averred he had no other names than Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., when, in fact, he has used at least four other names over his lifetime; and the apparent falsity of his selective service registration. I also showed the court the current issue of “Globe” magazine I had purchased that morning on the way to the courthouse, which highlighted on its cover, and in the article inside, the peril faced by the US military in its confusion over whether to execute the orders of a “President” who may in fact not be qualified. The cover pictured 43-year-old First Lieutenant Scott Easterling, in uniform and in Iraq, one of many US soldiers who are questioning the authority of Obama’s presidency. I explained that, should Obama survive the first four years of his presidency and decide to run again (a likelihood for which I admitted having very little hope), the issue of his eligibility would most certainly come up again; and, in the event he was proven ineligible, every action, appointment, order and law he had committed to during his first four years would be invalidated. I tried to impress upon the court that this constitutional crisis could be averted by nipping the “rumors”, if in fact that is what we are dealing with here, of Obama’s ineligibility in the bud by allowing my amendment so that the complaint could continue.
Having exhausted my arguments to the court, I turned it over to the defense, which merely argued that the case against the Secretary of State was res judicata (judged previously), having been heard in my prior filing against her and dismissed; that my arguments were moot, since the inauguration had passed, and there was no claim upon which relief could be granted by the court; and that I lacked standing before the court to pursue this case. Their arguments were brief, and the judge listened. When the two attorneys for the State sat down, the judge denied my motion to amend.
We then proceeded directly to the State’s motion to dismiss. They presented the same arguments in brief that had already been presented in the first hearing on the demand to amend, except they added that the ruling should be “with prejudice”. Part of my defense against the motion to dismiss had already been presented as to the res judicata claim in the form of my prior complaint had been dismissed “without prejudice”, such that I could file the same complaint again. They also argued the issues of standing, mootness and jurisdiction. When it was my turn, I repeated most of my arguments as well in the rebuttal, adding that mootness was not a valid defense because the offense of Obama’s illegitimacy was a continuing offense against the Constitution, not degraded nor invalidated merely on the grounds that he was now inaugurated falsely as President. My argument against “standing” was my filing as a “class action”, and the argument against jurisdiction was, of course, the constitutional obligations of the court. As to res judicata,
I explained to the judge that a ruling “without prejudice” did not deny leave to refile the case at a later date.
The judge didn’t buy any of it and allowed the motion to dismiss, along with the prayer for finding “with prejudice”, due to “mootness” (the inauguration issue); “failure to state a claim against which relief could be granted” (the “No State statute requires it” issue, which denies any constitutional duty or obligation); and “res judicata”. Conspicuously absent from this list was the issue of “standing” which has killed all the other suits around the country, of which I am aware. This last supports my theory that I had resolved the “standing” issue by filing a class action suit”, for which I offered myself as the representative of the registered voter “class” of North Carolina. I advised the court that I intended to appeal, but would appeal in writing within the allotted 30 days after the order is signed.
I have no intention of appealing this ruling. I will file a new case and improve on that one as I did from the first one filed in October to the second one filed in November. It is ironic that, had the judge allowed my demand to amend the names of the Governor and the State of NC to the defendant list, I would be precluded from filing a new case against them as it would be “res judicata”.
It is important that we continue to push this issue of legitimacy in government, if only because we are currently involved in two foreign armed conflicts with more on the horizon, and the economy is on the edge of collapse. Our military cannot continue to question the orders of the Commander-in-Chief because of the confusion of his nationality, and the “Stimulus Plan” is not going to help the economy. As Sun Tsu told us, we must know the enemy and ourselves, or we can never be victorious in battle. In the case of the United States government, the enemy is a mystery who changes with the tide; and, with Obama in the White House, even we ourselves are an unknown quantity. We cannot win if we continue on this course.
END
March 20, 2009
DS”
I received the following email request on December 26, 2008:
“XXXXX XXXXXX of TX has today gotten off the phone with Ron Paul.
Her parents live in the same city as RP.
Bad news. He does NOT intend at this time to stand up on Jan
8th. Part of the reason XXXXX mentioned was that RP said no
one knew the definition by either the law cases and Constitution
itself as to the real menaing of natural born.
Citizen Wells, I immediately thought of all your great research
on natural born that you’ve posted on our website. Its too much
to expect RP or any Congress critter to read it all BUT…
Here’s you assignment. Condense into no more than 3 pages with
full legal references on as many pages as needed. The more the
RELEVANT references the better. Can we have this done by Dec 28th?
I also ask that XXXXX, XXX and you coordinate the naturing of Ron
Paul. Your goal is to get him to agree to file the written
objection NLT Jan 3rd.
Are you’ll up to that challenge? If Ron Paul does sign on, he
will bring other Constitutionalists along in both the Senate and
House.”
Obviously Ron Paul is not paying attention.
I spent most of my time trying to debunk what I believed
about natural born citizen and after much reading posted
the following on the Citizen Wells blog on December 28,
2008:
Dean Haskins used this information to
produce this excellent video:
Exactly What IS a Natural Born Citizen?
Leo Donofrio has posted his most recent opinion about natural
born citizen and the influence of Vattel on the founding
fathers. Thanks to Phil at the Right Side of Life website
for the heads up.
“ONE FINAL POINT ABOUT THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE.
The more I read Vattel (pictured above), specifically the passage which defines “natural-born citizen”, the more convinced I become that the framers understood Vattel much better than we have on this issue. I now am firmly convinced that the framers relied on Vattel’s definition when they included the natural born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.
Yesterday, I had a revelation as to what Vattel meant and what the framers intended “natural born citizen” to mean in the Constitution. It’s obvious that the framers drew a distinction between the meaning of “citizen” and the meaning of “natural born citizen”. A “citizen” can be Senator or Representative, but in order to be President one must be a natural born citizen.
It’s the difference between a fact and a legal status.
Whether you are a natural born citizen is a fact of nature which can’t be waived or renounced, but your actual legal citizenship can be renounced. The difference is subtle, but so very important. “Natural born citizen” is not a different form of “citizenship”. It is a manner of acquiring citizenship. And while natural born citizens may end their legal tie to the country by renouncing citizenship, they will always have been naturally born into that nation as a citizen.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
Two different sentences. Two different civil groups are being discussed.
Examine the subject heading given by Vattel, “Natives and Citizens”. Two separate groups of the civil society are addressed in the heading. And here is the start of the greatest proof that the framers relied on Vattel as to the natural born citizen clause.
In the passage above, the first sentence defines who the “citizens” of a civil society are. Vattel states; “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.”
In the very next sentence he describes a different set of people wherein he states, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
There are natives and citizens, just as the header says. All citizens are members of the civil society, but not all citizens are natives or natural-born citizens. A native can’t renounce his “nativeness”. He’s a native forever. He might renounce the citizenship he gained through being a native, but he can’t renounce the FACT of his birth as a native.
Vattel equates natives with natural-born citizens. They are the same. According to Vattel, in order to be a native, one must be born of the soil and the blood of two citizen parents.
He goes on as follows:
“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights…I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Some have argued that this passage indicates only one parent – the father – is necessary for one to be a natural born citizen. That is false. The above passage only mentions the word “citizen”. It says the children of the father are “citizens”, but it does not say they are “natives or natural-born citizens”. Vattel is discussing the legality of citizenship, not the fact of one’s birth as being native.
When Vattel wrote this in 1758, he wasn’t arguing for its inclusion in a future US Constitution as a qualification for being President. But the framers did read his work. And when it came to choosing the President, they wanted a “natural-born citizen”, not just a citizen. That is clear in the Constitution. Vattel doesn’t say that “natives or natural-born citizens” have any special legal rights over “citizens”. He simply described a phenomenon of nature, that the citizenship of those who are born on the soil to citizen parents (plural) is a “natural-born citizen”.
Citizen = legal status
Native or natural-born citizen = fact of birth which bestows citizenship.
Vattel also wrote:
“The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.
Once again, he does not mention natives or natural-born citizens in this passage, just citizens. Furthermore, he states that the citizens may renounce their citizenship when they come of legal age. But nobody can renounce a fact of birth. The fact is true or it is not true. You’re either “born” a natural-born citizen or you are not. The legal citizenship which attaches to this fact of birth may be renounced, but the fact will be with you forever.
And it is that fact of birth the framers sought to guarantee for each President of the United States. The framers ruled that the commander in chief be a natural born citizen. Like Vattel, the framers purposely distinguished between “citizens” and “natural born citizens”. And to that distinction there can only be one effect:
ONLY A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CAN BE PRESIDENT.
According to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, the 14th amendment cannot make the natural born citizen clause from Article 2 Section 1 superfluous. If being born as a 14th Amendment citizen was enough to be President, then the natural born citizen clause would have no effect. According to Marshall, that argument is inadimissible.
President Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States whethe he was born in Hawaii or not.
FAREWELL.
I am not going to protest any longer. As a Christian, I’m somewhat convinced this nation has been judged by the almighty and his fury may be descending as we speak. Such fury appears to be in the form of Constitutional cancer. I have prayed over my continuing role in this battle and the answer to those prayers said I am done here. As a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, I place my faith not in any organized religion but in the words of the lamb and the voice of God. Peace be with you.
I respectfully disagree with Leo Donofrio on one important aspect.
Barack Obama is not president under the US Constitution. No amount
of swearing in makes one president. Only a combination of the
election process and being qualified under the US Constitution makes
one president.
Citizen WElls 