Category Archives: Chief Justice

Senator Saxby Chambliss, Georgia, US Constitution Hall of Shame, Obama not eligible, US Congress, Electoral College Votes, Obama’s eligibility must be challenged, GA senator

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge
the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
Congressional oath of office

US Constitution

Hall of Shame

A letter received from Senator Saxby Chambliss of
Georgia regarding Barack Obama’s eligibility issues:

“Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns over President-
elect Obama’s citizenship. I appreciate hearing from you.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution
states, “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.” President-elect Obama demonstrated his citizenship

during his campaign by circulating copies of his birth certificate,
which showed he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.

On December 8, 2008, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case filed
by a New Jersey attorney, Mr. Donofrio, regarding President-elect
Obama’s citizenship. Unlike many of the lawsuits regarding President-
elect Obama’s citizenship, which claim he was really born on foreign
soil, Mr. Donofrio’s case concedes that President-elect Obama was born
in Hawaii but contends he still held foreign citizenship at birth. Mr.
Donofrio’s lawsuit argues that since President-elect Obama’s father was
a Kenyan citizen and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the
United Kingdom at the time of President-elect Obama’s birth, then Obama
was a British citizen at birth and not eligible to be President of the
United States.

Another attorney, Mr. Berg, has filed a lawsuit regarding President-
elect Obama’s citizenship and is waiting to hear whether the Supreme
Court will take up the case or not. A federal judge in Eastern
Pennsylvania threw out Mr. Berg’s lawsuit in October, saying he lacked
legal standing to bring the challenge since he could not show he faced
individual harm even if he could prove his claims about President-elect
Obama’s citizenship. The judge did not get to the merits of the case.
Mr. Berg is appealing the standing issue to the Supreme Court.

If a person is born in the United States, a certificate of live birth
issued where one is born is sufficient proof of U.S. citizenship. The
certificate, confirmed by the Hawaii Department of Health as authentic,
shows that President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii.

If you would like to receive timely email alerts regarding the latest
congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my
web site at: http://www.chambliss.senate.gov . Please let me know
whenever I may be of assistance.”

Senator Saxby Chambliss stated:

“President-elect Obama demonstrated his citizenship during his campaign
by circulating copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was
born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”

The Obama campaign has never produced a birth certificate despite
many attempts in court to force him to. Obama, instead has spent
hundreds of thousands of dollars and employed numerous attorneys
to avoid proving eligibility.

Senator Chambliss then stated:

“If a person is born in the United States, a certificate of live birth
issued where one is born is sufficient proof of U.S. citizenship.”

That may be true. However, one must prove that one is born in the US.
NOtice he begins with “If a person is born in the United states.”

Senator Chambliss then stated:

“The certificate, confirmed by the Hawaii Department of Health as
authentic, shows that President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii.”

Hawaii Health Dept. Officials never stated that Obama was born in
Hawaii. See below.

Why Obama is not eligible

What Hawaii Health Official really said

Latest information on court cases

From the Alan Keyes lawsuit

“A press release was issued on October 31, 2008, by the Hawaii Department
of Health by its Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino. Dr. Fukino said that she
had “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of
Health has Senator Obama’s original birth certificate on record in
accordance with state policies and procedures.” That statement failed to
resolve any of the questions being raised by litigation and press accounts.
Being “on record” could mean either that its contents are in the computer
database of the department or there is an actual “vault” original.”

“Further, the report does not say whether the birth certificate in the
“record” is a Certificate of Live Birth or a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.
In Hawaii, a Certificate of Live Birth resulting from hospital documentation,
including a signature of an attending physician, is different from a
Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. For births prior to 1972, a Certificate of
Hawaiian Birth was the result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness
and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate could be obtained up
to one year from the date of the child’s birth. For that reason, its value
as prima facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the
allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained.
The vault (long Version) birth certificate, per Hawaiian Statute 883.176
allows the birth in another State or another country to be registered in
Hawaii. Box 7C of the vault Certificate of Live Birth contains a question,
whether the birth was in Hawaii or another State or Country. Therefore,
the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified
copy or the original vault Certificate of Live Birth and compare the name of
the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor against the
birthing records on file at the hospital noted on the Certificate of the
Live Birth.”
gachambliss

Philip J Berg questions and answers, Jeff Schreiber interview, Berg answers, January 5, 2009, Interpleader explained, Air Force colonel Hollister, Obama ineligible, Obama not natural born citizen, Constitutional crisis, US Supreme Court

Whether you agree or not with everything that Philip J Berg believes,
the man deserves a lot of credit for his efforts to hold Barack
Obama accountable in regard to presidential eligibility. Likewise,
Jeff Schreiber, a law student,legal writer and blog owner has done
a great job of covering the Philip J Berg lawsuits. Here are some
exerpts from questions Jeff Schreiber asked of Mr. Berg:
Jeff Schreiber reports:
Questions and answers with Philip J Berg.

“As an aside, despite the way he is painted by supporters and detractors alike,
and despite his views on the attacks of September 11, 2001–which I absolutely
abhor and he knows it–I’ve always found Berg to be rational and to be gracious.
I spoke with him this weekend, and this is the result.”

“You filed a new lawsuit last week. Tell me about it.

This lawsuit is an interpleader action, and the reason we went this way is
because an interpleader action will shift the burden of proof to Barack Obama.
Notice that we didn’t sue Obama, though. We sued Barry Soetoro, mainly because
we believe that is his real name. We’ve seen no documentation showing that he
has changed his name from Soetoro to Obama. So, when he was registering himself
in all of the states—and there are 50 states, Barack—he was registering with
the wrong name. That’s fraud. His name was Barry Soetoro when he was adopted in
Indonesia, and nothing shows that it has been changed since.

Take for example if I adopt someone from Kenya, if I adopt a girl from Kenya,
she would take my last name, Berg. And, if anything changed in the future, if
she wanted to use another name for any reason, she would have to legally change
that name.”
“Tell me about Col. Hollister.

Col. Hollister, the plaintiff, is a retired Air Force colonel, he’s about 52
years old or so, and served this country from 1978 to 1998 before being honorably
discharged. During that time, when he served this country, he swore to protect
America against all enemies foreign and domestic – which is interesting because,
right now, we may have a domestic crisis going on.

Hollister contacted us. He’s not the only military man we’ve had contact us in
hopes to help. We’ve had quite a few who, over the past few months, called to offer
their support. He called us because he is perplexed. Here he is, on the Individual
Ready Reserve—meaning that he is able, that he is subject to Presidential recall
now and for the rest of his life—and he sees what’s going on across the world and
he’s perplexed as to whether he could, if called up to serve again, follow orders
from a Commander in Chief who may or may not be constitutionally eligible for that
position. If Obama is sworn in on January 20th, if he takes that Oath of Office,
he is usurping the powers of the president of the United States. And, when the
truth comes out, and it will, it will mean that all of Obama’s laws and orders will
be deemed invalid and will come back.

So Col. Hollister is perplexed. If he is called up, he has a duty to obey lawful
orders from the Commander in Chief and on down the chain of command. And he would
also have a duty to disobey unlawful orders. He took an Oath of Enlistment to fight
for and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, but he’s
confused because he doesn’t know who these duties will be owed to if Obama is sworn
in. Is he qualified to be Commander in Chief? What if he was born in Kenya? What if
he is an illegal alien?”

“Speaking of timing, what do you think is the significance of January 9th? Is it
significant? Why do you think you were the first case into the Supreme Court, but
the last case out?

I don’t want to say anything to blow it, you know, but I think we’ve got a great shot.
They could have thrown us out weeks ago. January 9th could very well be a significant
day in all of this, because Obama will actually be president elect instead of
designate.

On November 4th, he just got the popular votes. We tried to show that he shouldn’t
have been on the ballot so we could avoid a constitutional crisis, but that obviously
didn’t work. On December 15th, he just got the electoral votes. We pushed to stop
that vote but were obviously unsuccessful. Those votes will be counted on Thursday,
and barring anything drastic like a congressman standing up to protect, he will
finally be President-Elect Barack Obama.”
“Let’s say for a moment that it works. Obama is deemed ineligible. What next for the
country? What next for you?

I don’t know. It depends upon when Barack Obama is declared ineligible. If it happens
before Thursday, it means one thing. If it happens after Thursday but before January
20th, it means another thing. If it happens after January 20th, it appears that Biden
would be president, but who knows? After all, he was selected by someone who shouldn’t
have been running for president and selecting vice presidents in the first place.

I just hope and pray, every night, for calm and peace in this country, and if Obama is
found to be unqualified, I would urge political and cultural leaders to come forth with
something like a national broadcast and appeal for peace. This was Barack Obama’s doing,
this was caused by one man, and nobody else. In fact, Barack Obama himself come out and
say “I’m proud to have made history on November 4th, in getting more votes than anybody
else, but because of some issues with my past, I have no choice but to step down.” And
he should appeal for peace and calm.”

Read the rest of this great article here:

http://www.americasright.com/

Obama civil complaint, January 5, 2009, Send to legislators, Factcheck.org, Annenberg, Citizen Wells US Constitution Hall of Shame, Obama not natural born citizen, Obama COLB, No birth certificate provided, Attorney complaint

I received the following from an attorney I have been in touch with
on the internet. The attorney’s name will be withheld for the
moment:

“I want this summary to go out to legislators before tomorrow.  Can
you please post this on your blog?

I added a blurb about Annenberg.  I was putting together the comments
from the Wall of Shame on Citizen Wells and found that several
legislators have relied on FactCheck to make their decisions for them. 
So, I explained in this summary, FactCheck is BO’s former employer!”

Here is an updated complaint:

 http://jbjd.wordpress.com/

 

Patrick Fitzgerald special prosecutor, Write President Bush, Dr. Orly Taitz request, Chicago corruption, Chicago mob, drorly.blogspot.com, Saturday, January 3, 2009, Write to Pres Bush appoint Patrick Fitzgerald a special prosecutor

I spoke to Dr. Orly Taitz for some time this morning. She is an attorney,
a concerned American and the driving force behind several lawsuits in the US
Supreme Court and California Courts. Dr. Taitz came to this country from
Russia and she cares deeply about the US. She and I have both contacted
Patrick Fitzgerald’s office regarding Obama’s ties to corruption in
Chicago. Dr. Taitz is urging all to write President Bush to make Patrick
Fitzgerald a special prosecutor. Here is her request:

“Saturday, January 3, 2009
Write to Pres Bush: “Appoint Patrick Fitzgerald a Special Prosecutor”
As of now the only person that is actively investigating New Chicago Mafia
is Patrick Fitzgerald. Keep in mind, God works in mysterious ways. Elliott
Ness didn’t get Capone and old Chicago Mafia on murder, he got them on tax
evasion.

Unless things change, as of now, Fitzgerald is hard at work cleaning up new
Chicago mob and corruption. Obama might be forced to resign or will be
removed before his Natural Born status is adjudicated in courts. There is
more and more evidence coming and being evaluated on the issue of public
corruption, financial dealings, tax evasion. The investigation might last
past the 20th. Just to be on the safe side, please write to Pres. Bush,
asking him to appoint Patrick Fitzgerald a special prosecutor. That will
asure us that BO will not fire him come 20th. Of course the best assurance
is indictment before the 20th. Let’s work hard.

Orly

Contact Information

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Phone Numbers:

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461

Email:

comments@whitehouse.gov
vice_president@whitehouse.gov
Senate Judiciary Committee:

Chairman Patrick Leahy (D), contact information (senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov)
Ranking Member Arlen Spector (R), contact information

House Judiciary Committee:

Chairman John Conyers (D), contact information
Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R), contact information
Remember that House and Senate members are more likely to pay attention to contacts from constituents.”

Read more here:

http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/write-to-pres-bush-appoint-patrick.html

Lightfoot v. Bowen, US Supreme Court, Dr. Orly Taitz Request to Re-file Petition, Chief Justice John Roberts, January 2, 2009, Obama not natural born citizen

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Dr. Orly Taitz has has requested a re-file petition of Lightfoot v. Bowen,
to Chief Justice John Roberts of the US Supreme Court.

Cover Letter

Request to Re-file Petition; Lightfoot v. Bowen with Chief Justice John Roberts

 

 

 

Dear Justice Roberts,

This is an open cover letter and it is being posted on the Internet, YouTube, and will be read on a number of radio stations, particularly radio stations around military bases, forwarded to Congress, Senate, Governors of the States and mass media. This legal action, as 20 other actions filed in the past few months, is seeking judicial intervention due to the fact that Mr. Barack Obama, whose father was a Kenyan-British citizen, is not a Natural Born Citizen and is not eligible to be the President of this country.

It also states that Mr. Obama did not prove his citizenship at all, since the state of Hawaii allows issuance of Hawaiian Birth Certificates to foreign born children of Hawaiian residents and there is mounting evidence that Mr. Obama was not born in Hawaii, whereby he will not be a citizen at all.

The plaintiffs in this action are a vice-presidential candidate on the ballot, electors and voters. The majority of the plaintiffs have served many years of their lives in the U.S. military and risked their lives pursuant to their oath, to defend the Constitution of this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The plaintiffs and other members of the U.S. military are deeply concerned about the fact that none of the cases related to Mr. Obama’s lack of eligibility were heard on their merits. The plaintiffs are also concerned about the following: You have recorded a program “Conversations with Chief Justice Roberts.” Numerous high schools students were flown in to D.C. and participated in a discussion about the Constitution, law and the Supreme Court with you.

This program was fully funded by the Annenberg foundation, as it clearly states on the video released, and it appears that as a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court you consider Annenberg to be a reputable organization, supporting the Constitution and you support their efforts. The problem with it is that Annenberg has been employing on their Annenberg Challenge Board, William Ayers, a non-repentant terrorist that participated in the bombing of a police headquarters in 1970, the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972. As late as 2001, Mr. Ayers stated in a NY times interview: “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel I didn’t do enough.”

From 1995, the Chairman of Annenberg Challenge was none else, but Mr. Barack Obama. Annenberg has created an offshoot, called FactCheck.org, Annenberg political FactCheck, that was supposed to provide an unbiased checking of the facts. In reality, Annenberg FactCheck has actively and intentionally defrauded the American public in leading them to believe that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen and is eligible for the U.S. presidency. Annenberg FactCheck intentionally omitted:

 

Definition of

Law of Nations (Emmerich De Vattel), stating that a natural born citizen is one that is born in the country to parents who are citizens. They omitted a statement by John A. Bingham, framer of the 14th amendment, stating that a natural born citizen is one that was born in the U.S. territory to parents that don’t owe allegiance to any other sovereignty. Due to the fact that Mr. Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen and owed his allegiance to Kenya and Great Britain, Mr. Obama did not qualify as a natural born citizen and does not qualify for the presidency.
FactCheck intentionally omitted Hawaii statute 338, that allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residence to obtain a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth (COLB).

It omitted the fact that such certification can be obtained based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence.

It omitted the fact that there was no corroborating evidence of Mr. Obama’s birth from any hospital, nurse or hospital administrator from Hawaii, while there were numerous statements from Mr. Obama’s Kenyan grandmother, Baptist Bishop and ambassador of Kenya about Mr. Obama being born there. If that is the case, Mr. Obama is not a U.S. citizen and will need to apply and wait for his Green Card.

As of now, the American public has only information from Annenberg, a political organization, some of whose members have very questionable moral qualities (to say the least).

My clients, as well as 300 million American citizens, including thousands of members of the military that are asked to risk their lives to defend the Constitution of this country would like to know if the Supreme Court Justices, particularly Chief Justice Roberts, (who will swear in the President on the Bible) are willing to give a few hours of their time to hear the Oral Arguments in defense of our Constitution. They want to know if the justices believe in the Constitution on which this country was built, or whether they are prepared to tear it apart in favor of some new world order.

Sincerely,

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

Counsel for the Petitioners

26302 La Paz Suite 211
Mission Viejo Ca 92691

Ph: (w) 949-586-8110 (c) 949-683-5411
Fax: 949-586-2082

 

Senator Barack Obama, Illinois, US Constitution Hall of Shame, Obama not eligible, US Congress, Electoral College Votes, Obama’s eligibility must be challenged, IL senator, Obama Man of the Year

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge
the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
Congressional oath of office

US Constitution

Hall of Shame

2008 Man of the Year

Senator Barack H Obama

Barack Obama is named the US Constitution Hall of Shame Man of the Year
for obvious reasons. Obama, whose father was a Kenyan citizen and under
British rule, and therefore not a natural born citizen and not eligible
to be president, has worked all of the 2008 election year to steal the
presidency. What is even more scary, is that Obama was probably born
in Kenya, not a US citizen at all and therefore an illegal alien.

Barack Obama has thumbed his nose at the US Constitution, rule of law
and American people. His arrogance and “me me me” attitude is a product
of the “government owes me” mentality and Chicago crime and corruption
that engenders a position of being above the law. Obama has looked
down upon the US Constitution despite taking an oath to “support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic”

Obama’s disregard for the rule of law goes back for many years to strong
ties to crime and corruption in Chicago and Illinois involving such
corruption figures as Rezko, Levine, Blagojevich and many others and
continues as he attempts to avoid proving he is eligible to be
president. Here are some prominent examples of Obama’s flagrant disregard
for the US Constitution and Rule of law.

Barack Obama has run for the office of President of the United States and
is clearly not eligible. For his own selfish gain he has ignored the US
Constitution, unfairly impacted other candidates and disenfranchised
millions of voters. He has also obtained millions of dollars of campaign
donations under fraudulent circumstances and caused many others to spend
enormous amounts of time and money trying to expose Obama’s fraud.

Here are some facts regarding Obama’s eligibility:

Why Obama is not eligible

What Hawaii Health Official really said

Latest information on court cases

One of the hallmarks of the Obama camapaign was repeated attempts to
discredit those questioning Obama. This included massive internet armies
utilized by the Obama camp to make personal attacks on internet users
and websites, prominent people like Jon Voight and many others as well
as scrubbing internet data and attempts at revisionist history. Many
voters and campaign workers were harrassed and theatened during the
primaries and general election. The Obama camp even threatend news
organizations.

Consider the following from Missouri Governor Matt Blunt:

“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.”

In Obama’s own words:

“I want you to argue with them and get in their face…You are my Ambassadors”
Obama quoted in San Francisco Gate, by Kathleen Hennessey, September 17, 2008

Philip J Berg states:

“Defendants (Obama and DNC) 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.”

Barack Obama visited Kenya in 2006 and campaigned for his far left leaning
cousin Raila Odinga. Obama was in possible violation of the Logan Act but at
the very least was guilty of “High crimes and misdemeanors.” Here is an exerpt
from the official Kenyan Government response to Obama’s visit:

“RESPONSE TO AMERICAN SENATOR BARACK OBAMA’S POORLY INFORMED COMMENTS
ABOUT TERRORISM, WANTED GENOCIDE CRIMINALS AND GOVERNANCE IN KENYA”

“Senator Barack Obama indicated that he was visiting Africa to help nurture
relations between the continent and the United States. His mission, therefore,
was warmly welcomed by the Government and the people of Kenya. The fact that
he has roots in Kenya endeared him to the people of this country.

However, during his public address at the University of Nairobi, Senator Obama
made extremely disturbing statements on issues which it is clear, he was very
poorly informed, and on which he chose to lecture the Government and the people
of Kenya on how to manage our country.”

 
Dr. Alfred N. Mutua
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION SECRETARY &
GOVERNMENT SPOKESPERSON

August 31, 2006″″

Here is a video of Obama and Raila Odinga:

Obama continues contact with leftist Odinga

Obama lied on his Illinois Bar Application by not listing his aliases
and having multiple oustanding traffic tickets. He then relinquished
his law license early to avoid prosection.

The following videos reveal much about what Obama
thinks about the US Constitution.

Obama speaks about fundamental flaws in the
Constitution .

Constitutinal Lawyer’s perspective on exactly WHAT
Obama said during his 2001 radio interview.

US Constitution Hall of Shame, 2008 Election, US Congress, Senators, Representatives, Constitutional crisis, Electoral College votes, Connecticut, Secretary of State, CT Supreme Court Justice, Attorney General, Susan Bysiewicz, Chase T. Rogers, Richard Blumenthal

This is the kickoff article on a series called “Constitution Hall of Shame.”
It is clear that we already have a constitutional crisis in the country before
Barack Obama theoretically gets inaugurated. The US Constitution has been
ignored, misunderstood and trampled on during the 2008 election year. We not
only have a candidate, Obama, that is clearly ineligible, but probably is not
a US citizen, i.e, illegal alien. Barack Obama, who has sworn to uphold the
Constitution, has thumbed his nose at the rule of law and American public.
So, to add to the normal political bias and posturing and tradition based
election processes, we now have a total disregard for the US Constitution.

The US Congress will meet soon to count and authenticate the Electoral
College vote.

“January 8, 2009

Counting Electoral Votes in Congress
Public Law 110-430 changed the date of the electoral vote in Congress in 2009
from January 6 to January 8. This date change is effective only for the 2008
presidential election. The Congress meets in joint session to count the
electoral votes (Congress may pass a law to change the date). The President
of the Senate is the presiding officer. If a Senator and a House member jointly
submit an objection, each House would retire to its chamber to consider it.
The President and Vice President must achieve a majority of electoral votes
(270) to be elected. In the absence of a majority, the House selects the
President, and the Senate selects the Vice President. If a State submits
conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting
concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes
of the electors certified by the Governor of the State would be counted in
Congress.” Read more

Since the Electoral College vote can be challenged in Congress, we will focus
on senators and representatives that have made comments that clearly indicate
that they do not take their oath of office seriously. We will give them a
chance to respond and atone for their dereliction of duty. This will also
serve as a forum to educate and hold accountable their colleagues.

The first member of the Constitution Hall of Shame is not a congressman. It
is the state of Connecticut and includes the Secretary of State, Susan
Bysiewicz, State Supreme Court Justice Chase T. Rogers and State Attorney
General Richard Blumenthal. Here is the damning paragraph in a
letter received from Susan Bysiewicz:

“On November 3, 2008 Connecticut State Supreme Court Chief Justice
Chase T. Rogers dismissed the case after hearing testimony from my
attorneys and State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and the
Greenwich resident who filed the action.  The plaintiff, Cort Wrotnowski,
alleged that I should not have placed Senator Obama’s name on the ballot.
The court was satisfied that officials in Hawaii have stated
that there is no doubt that the Democratic presidential candidate
was born there and that the state’s health department possesses
Senator Obama’s original birth certificate.  This is now a matter
of public record
.”


Why Obama is not eligible

What Hawaii Health Official really said

From the Alan Keyes lawsuit

“A press release was issued on October 31, 2008, by the Hawaii Department
of Health by its Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino. Dr. Fukino said that she
had “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of
Health has Senator Obama’s original birth certificate on record in
accordance with state policies and procedures.” That statement failed to
resolve any of the questions being raised by litigation and press accounts.
Being “on record” could mean either that its contents are in the computer
database of the department or there is an actual “vault” original.”

“Further, the report does not say whether the birth certificate in the
“record” is a Certificate of Live Birth or a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.
In Hawaii, a Certificate of Live Birth resulting from hospital documentation,
including a signature of an attending physician, is different from a
Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. For births prior to 1972, a Certificate of
Hawaiian Birth was the result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness
and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate could be obtained up
to one year from the date of the child’s birth. For that reason, its value
as prima facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the
allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained.
The vault (long Version) birth certificate, per Hawaiian Statute 883.176
allows the birth in another State or another country to be registered in
Hawaii. Box 7C of the vault Certificate of Live Birth contains a question,
whether the birth was in Hawaii or another State or Country. Therefore,
the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified
copy or the original vault Certificate of Live Birth and compare the name of
the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor against the
birthing records on file at the hospital noted on the Certificate of the
Live Birth.”

So, Susan Bysiewicz, Chase T. Rogers, Richard Blumenthal,
what is your excuse?

Ignorance
Apathy
Party politics
Fear

Please respond with your reasons for your behaviour.

An apology to the American public is in order.

ct3

A new page at the top of the Citizen Wells blog will be devoted to the
Constitution Hall of Shame.

2008 Electoral College votes, Certification of Voters, State laws, US Constitution, Electors signed Certification, Certifications invalid, Obama ineligible, Violators should be prosecuted, Constitution violated

The ultimate objective of a presidential election to inaugurate a
constitutionally qualified president that as closely as possible
reflects the will of the people.
The states have been given the power and the duty to control presidential
elections by the US Constitution.

The pervasive attitudes of the state officers and election officials is
that they, incorrectly, have no power to qualify presidential candidates
and/or they depend on political parties to vet the candidates.

The political parties have evolved and changed since the creation of the
US Consitution and are given no powers. However, members of the parties,
as US Citizens have an implied duty to uphold the Constitution and party
officers typically have taken oaths as elected officials to uphold the
US Constitution.

Clearly, the intent of the US Constitution and Federal Election Law is
for an eligible candidate to move through this election process to allow
for a constitutionally valid vote by Electors.

All officers and election officials, most judges and most Electoral
College Electors were informed prior to the general election and
particularly prior to the Electors meeting and voting, of compelling
evidence that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president. Despite
these warnings, Electors met and voted on the basis of party loyalty or
perceived directives from the states. State or party policies dictating
how an Elector votes violate the spirit and letter of constitutional
and federal law.

Even though the manner of Electoral College voting in clearly defined by
the US Constitution and Federal Election Law, some states have included
explicit references to law in their Certificates of Voters that are
signed by Electors and state officers. Below are certificates from 2004.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004_certificates/

Alabama

“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and this state, certify”

Alaska

“by authority of law vested in us”

Arizona

“by authority of law in us vested”

Arkansas

“as provided by law”

California

“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and the state of california, do hereby certify”

Connecticut

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States
and in the manner provided by the laws of the state of Connecticut”

Hawaii

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States”

Idaho

“having met agreeably to the provisions of law”

Illinois

“as provided by law”

Indiana

“as required by the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States”

Iowa

“in accordance with law”

Kansas

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

Kentucky

“In accordance with the Twelfth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and with sections 7-11 of Title III of the
United States Code”

UNITED STATES CODE

TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT

Manner of voting

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

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.”
Minnesota

“In testimony whereof, and as required by the Twelth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States we have hereunto set
our hands”

Montana

“agreeable to the provisions of law”

Nevada

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

New Jersey

“proceeded to perform the duties required of us by the Constitution
and laws of the United States.”

North Carolina

“by authority of law in us vested”

Pennsylvania

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

Rhode Island

“in pursuance of law”

South Carolina

“pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
this state”

Tennessee

“pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
this state”

Utah

“in pursuance of the statutes of the United States and of the statutes
of the State of Utah”

Virginia

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States”

Washington

“pursuant to the provisions of federal and state law”

Conclusion

  • The US Constitution is clear on presidential eligibility and how
    Electoral Colleges Electors are to vote.
  • Ignorance is no excuse. Everyone involved was forewarned. Voting
    party line over law will not be tolerated.
  • Electors and state officers have signed or will sign Certificates of Voters
    for the 2008 Election. As you can see from the above, they will
    certify that they are aware of the law and are abiding by the law.
  • Kentucky gets the award for the most constitutionally clear wording
    and should be applauded for doing so.
  • There are consequences for false attesting.
  • One of the consequences is that the votes of many Electors are now
    null and void.
  • Impeachment, recall, firing, criminal charges forthcoming?

Constitution 101 classes will begin soon.

State officers, election officials, judges and, of course,
US Supreme Court Justices will be invited. Stay tuned for a
class near you. I suppose Washington DC should be first.

2008 Election Certificate of Vote, Electoral College Electors, California example, Secretary of State, US Constitution, Governor, Alan Keyes, Lawsuit, Obama not eligible, Citizen Wells, Democratic Disaster, December 16, 2008

“Ignorance is not bliss.”

“Knowledge is Power.”

The Citizen Wells blog and many other citizens have been busy for months
informing state officers, election officials, Electoral College Electors
and judges of eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama and reminding
those people of their duty under the US Constitution, federal and state
laws. Despite these warnings and reminders, the states have plodded along
based on tradition, ignorance and party politics. Numerous lawsuits in
state and federal courts as well as the US Supreme court should have served
as a huge warning that something was wrong. We need someone like Harry
Truman to remind everyone that “The buck stops here.”

The Electoral College met yesterday and the next step in the process is for
state officials to prepare a certificate of vote and send it to the US Senate
and other locations described below. This is a very important document and in
highest sense of the word a legal document. The format of the document is
left up to the states. Remember, all of those people involved in the election
process are sworn to uphold the US Constitution. However, some of the states
have wording in their documents as a reminder of the obligation to uphold
the various laws.

We will focus on California for multiple reasons.

The following is taken from the 2004 certificate of vote:

“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and the state of california, do hereby certify”

From the dictionary:

pursuant to

in conformance to or agreement with; “pursuant to our agreement”; “pursuant to the dictates of one’s conscience”  

Now consider the following:

Electoral College Questions and Answers

Citizen Wells letter to Electoral College Electors

The Alan Keyes lawsuit is still alive questioning the eligibility
of Barack Obama.

The CA Secretary of State was contacted by the Citizen Wells blog,
the Democratic Disaster organization and numerous other entities.

It is clear to even a casual observer that Barack Obama is not
eligible to be president and that Electors in CA and throughout
the nation, despite compelling evidence that Obama is not eligible,
plodded along and engaged in the worst kind of party politics, and
violated the US Constitution.

2004 CA Certificate of Vote

cacertofvote2004

Electoral College Vote and subsequent procedures:

4.   Hold the Meeting of Electors
On the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (December 15, 2008), the electors meet in their respective States. Federal law does not permit the States to choose an alternate date for the meeting of electors – it must be held on December 15, 2008. The State legislature may designate where in the State the meeting will take place, usually in the State capital. At this meeting, the electors cast their votes for President and Vice President.

If any electors are unable to carry out their duties on the day of the Electoral College meeting, the laws of each State would govern the method for filling vacancies. Any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of electors must be decided under State law at least six days prior to the meeting of the electors.

See Title 3, Section 6 of the U.S. Code
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law requiring electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their States. Some States have such requirements.

5.   Prepare the Certificate of Vote
Federal law does not govern the general appearance of the Certificate of Vote. The format is determined under the law or custom of the submitting State. The electors must execute six Certificates of Vote. Federal law requires that the Certificates be prepared and authenticated in the following manner:
The Certificates of Vote must contain two distinct lists, one for President and one for Vice President.
The Certificates must list all persons who received electoral votes for President and the number of electors who voted for each person.
The Certificates must list all persons who received votes for Vice President and the number of electors who voted for each person.
The Certificates do not contain the names of persons who did not receive electoral votes.
Each of the six Certificates of Vote must be signed by all of the electors.

One of the six Certificates of Ascertainment provided to the electors by the Governor must be attached to each of the six Certificates of Vote.

Finally, each of the six pairs of Certificates must be sealed and certified by the electors as containing the list of electoral votes of that State for President and Vice President.
6.   Distribute the Paired Certificates of Vote and Certificates of Ascertainment
The six pairs of Certificates must be sent to the designated Federal and State officials as follows:
One is sent by registered mail to:
The Honorable Richard B. Cheney
President of the United States Senate
The Capitol
Washington, DC 20510

Two are sent by registered mail to:
Allen Weinstein
Archivist of the United States
National Archives and Records Administration
c/o Office of the Federal Register (NF)
8601 Adelphi Road
College Park, MD 20740-6001

Two are sent to:

The Secretary of State of each State.

One of these is held subject to the order of the President of the United States Senate or the Archivist of the United States in case the electoral votes fail to reach the Senate or the Archivist.
The other one is to be preserved by the Secretary of State for public inspection for one year.
One is sent to:

The Chief Judge of the Federal District Court located where the electors meet.

It is held subject to the order of the President of the United States Senate or the Archivist of the United States in case the electoral votes fail to reach the Senate or the Archivist.
The statutory deadline for the designated Federal and State officials to receive the electoral votes is December 24, 2008. Because of the very short time between the meetings of the electors in the States on December 15 and the December 24 statutory deadline, followed closely by the counting of electoral votes in Congress on January 6, 2009, it is imperative that the Certificates be mailed as soon as possible.

We strongly recommend that the sealed pairs of Certificates be taken to the Post Office on December 15, or no later than the morning of December 16, to minimize delays that could occur during the holiday mail season. Some States may find it useful to alert their local Postmaster to the extraordinarily important nature of the mailing. When the paired Certificates of Vote and Certificates of Ascertainment have been delivered to the designated Federal and State officials, the States’ Electoral College duties are complete.

Prior to the election this year, the Legal Staff of the Office of the Federal Register will telephone Secretaries of State and other election officials to establish contact with the States and assure the smooth operation of the Electoral College process.

Read more here:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/state_responsibilities.html#vote

 

Wrotnowski V Bysiewicz, US Supreme Court, December 15, 2008, Justices decide Cort Wrotnowski versus Connecticut Secretary of State Bysiewicz, Writ of Mandamus, Obama not eligible, Stay denied

The US Supreme Court today, Monday, December 15, 2008, the same day
that the Electoral College is meeting to vote for president and vice
president, has decided:

 

08A469

 

 

WROTNOWSKI, CORT V. BYSIEWICZ, CT SEC. OF STATE

 

 

The application for stay and/or injunction addressed

 

 

to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court is denied.

 

 

 

Most of the Electors believe, falsely, that they have an overriding
obligation to vote base on political party dictates and/or state laws
dictating they must vote based on the popular vote. The Electors owe
allegiance only to the US Constitution and the American public.

Electoral College Questions and Answers

Citizen Wells letter to Electoral College Electors

This is the opinion of Citizen Wells and I will stand by the following:

The US Supreme Court, on multiple occasions, in regard to several
lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to be president, have not
addressed three distinct constitutional issues that need to either
be ruled on or clarified:

  • Obama’s eligibility to be president and the relevance of natural
    born citizen.
  • Clarification of state powers and duties to ensure that Electoral
    College Electors have a qualified candidate on the ballot to vote for.
  • Applicability of oaths taken to uphold and defend the Constitution
    to the election process. Marbury V Madison is clear on oaths. Why are
    the states ignoring this?

I respect the institution of the US Supreme Court. That respect does
not automatically flow to the individual Justices. Respect must be
earned. Every citizen of this country has a duty to uphold the US
Constitution. Supreme Court Justices have the highest duty to
uphold the US Constitution. They are not above the law. We will hold
them accountable.

Unless I read something soon that encourages me to believe that the
US Supreme Court is functioning as it should, I am compelled to
believe that some or all of the Supreme Court Justices are guilty of
dereliction of duty, if not “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Here is the heart of the complaint

“HOLDING BY THE PLAINTIFF

 

Holding Regarding the Role of the State Supreme Court
 

The plaintiff asserts that Connecticut law is not explicit with respect to taking action against potential election fraud at the national level.  It neither authorizes nor prohibits.  In fact, it is silent on this important issue.  The only statutes providing direction are 9-323, and for Federal Election Disputes, sec. 10-13, 10-14, 10-15, and 10-17(a) (as found in  Connecticut Appellate Practice and Procedure, 3rd Edition, chapter titled:  Original Proceedings in the Supreme Court, pages 385-387.)

We do not have a federal ballot controlled by the federal government, we have Connecticut state election for electors who are pledged for a particular candidate which allows each state to determine how and in what manner they choose to project their power at the National Electoral College.

 
In the special case of individuals seeking the office of President of the United States, the US constitution prescribes a system of electors where citizens of the respective state have a state controlled election wherein electors representing the interest of the named individual on the state ballot are so elected as to represent the interests of the respective state at the Electoral College.
 

State law determines how the electors are determined and act. Since this is in actual fact a state election, our Secretary of State has prevue over certification of not just the counts of the ballots so cast for the named candidate for President, but also the veracity of the system which including publishing and promoting the ballot and for certifying or decertifying challenged candidates; in this case the electors who act as proxies for the candidate.
 

The plaintiff argues that the Connecticut constitution and statutes and enforcement should be consistent with the principles of the U.S. constitution.  When Connecticut law provides no guidance, then an electoral duty ascribed at the national level applies at the state level as well.  If there are national standards for preventing fraud in an election, then there need to be similar standards at the state level.  The state Supreme Court is responsible for ensuring that that Connecticut laws follows the U.S. Constitution.  In particular, Sec. 10-17(a) sets forth how the State Supreme Court can provide remedy.

 

Holding regarding Responsibility of the Secretary of State in National Elections
 

It is argued that the lack of language in the state law does not preclude the Secretary of State, as the Chief of Elections, from verifying national candidates for whom her constituents will vote especially so when allegations of blatant profound fraud is widely asserted.

 

She has threaded a path to inaction by her selective choice of words.  Hers is a “sin of omission” argument.  Estopple argument would say otherwise. Furthermore, without explicate legislative direction, there are still very clear “implied duties” that follow from Connecticut Statutes, Connecticut Constitution and  the U.S. Constitution that demand consideration and action from this independent branch of Government charged with action.

 

There are at least four statutes that set forth the duties of the Secretary of  State.  Plaintiff bolded passages in Sec. 9-3 for emphasis.

 

From:  Connecticut General Statutes

 

Sec. 3-77. General duties; salary. Office of Secretary full time.

…  provisions of section 11-4c. The Secretary may give certified copies of any entries in such records, files, books or other papers and of the files and records of said Superior Court and of the Supreme Court, remaining in the office, which copies shall be legal evidence. … The Secretary shall receive an annual salary of one hundred ten thousand dollars and shall devote full time to the duties of the office.

 

 Sec. 9-3. Secretary to be Commissioner of Elections. Presumption concerning rulings and opinions.

The Secretary of the State, by virtue of the office, shall be the Commissioner of Elections of the state, with such powers and duties relating to the conduct of elections as are prescribed by law and, unless otherwise provided by state statute, the secretary’s regulations, declaratory rulings, instructions and opinions, if in written form, shall be presumed as correctly interpreting and effectuating the administration of elections and primaries under this title, except for chapter 155, provided nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the right of appeal provided under the provisions of chapter 54.

 

 

The bolded language in Sec. 9-3  demonstrates that the legislature fully expected the Secretary of State to act independently and proactively to address situations germane to the task of executing elections consistent with all requirements of the constitutions and statutes.

 

The implied duty argument is vital for circumstances where questions about candidates remain, even up to Election Day.  She claims no such responsibility, yet the “national system” to which Secretary Bysiewicz refers to does not exist and/or has provided no remedy.  Despite popular misunderstanding, the FEC provides no verification whatsoever.  As the Chief of Elections, the Secretary of State is responsible for protecting Connecticut voters from fraud and unfair elections. Buck stops there.

 

Eligibility is a fundamental issue that strikes at the heart of fair elections.  Where the question of eligibility has become so obvious and clear, as in the case of Sen. Obama’s missing birth certificate, the Secretary of State must move to protect the voters, investigating the allegations of fraud or directing such agency as deemed proper such as the SEEC which would investigate and inform the Secretary of State of their findings.”

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Citizen Wells comment

“There is apparently more chicanery going on at the US Supreme Court. First, Leo Donofrio had an unjust encounter
with clerk Danny Bickell. Now, Cort Wrotnowski has filed an emergency stay application with the US Supreme
Court and he is receiving the same unjust treatment from clerk Danny Bickell.”
Leo Donofrio

 

“US Supreme Court stay clerk Danny Bickell is guilty of obstruction of justice for the second time. Yesterday, Cort Wrotnowski filed an emergency stay application in the case WROTNOWSKI V. BYSIEWICZ, CONNECTICUT SECRETARY OF STATE, which is coming directly from a Connecticut Supreme Court order of Chief Justic Chase Rogers.

Mr. Wrotnowski was informed by Danny Bickell that Mr. Bickell denied Cort’s motion based on Rule 23.3, the same grounds Mr. Bickell had illegally improperly relied on to obstruct Donofrio v. Wells, the same case which is now going before the entire Supreme Court for Conference of Dec. 5th and to which Donofrio has pointed out Mr. Bickell was guilty of attemping to overturn Justice Powell’s holding in McCarthy v. Briscoe 429 U.S. 1317 n.1 (1976) and Justice O’Conner in Western Airlines, Inc. v. Teamsters, 480 U.S. 1301 (1987).”

“Donofrio (me) believes Mr. Wrotnowski’s case is at least as strong as his own, if not stronger. And Donofrio warned Wrotnowski that Bickell was going to try the same tactic again.”

“Courageously, Mr. Wrotnowski refused to back down and eventually Bickell said he would, reluctantly, docket the case.”

December 2, 2008

Leo Donofrio

“Cort Wrotnowski, (SCOTUS Docket No. 08A469), a day after facing the shock of his life when told by a SCOTUS clerk that his renewed application to Justice Scalia would be held back for 7 days due to anthrax screening, hand delivered 10 copies of his renewed application to the Security booth at SCOTUS this morning at 10:30 AM.  Cort was told by the Clerk’s office that the papers would “probably” be in the Clerk’s office by 2:00 PM.   Cort’s application, according to Supreme Court Rule 22.1, should be “transmitted promptly” to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.  Keep your eyes on that Docket to see if they will follow the Rules of Court.