Category Archives: Citizen

Obama inauguration, January 20, 2009, Chief Justice John Roberts, Obama not eligible, Treason, US Constitution, Natural Born Citizen, Kenya, Indonesia, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, US Supreme Court, Electoral college, FBI arrest, Citizens arrest

US Supreme Court
Chief Justice

John Roberts

and

President Elect

Barack Obama

Chief Justice Roberts:

You have been forewarned and informed of the eligibility
issues surrounding Obama. Such excuses as the people have
chosen are meritless in regard to your responsibility to
uphold the US Constitution. The Electoral College was
designed to protect the American people from just such
a constitutional crisis. You are certainly aware that
Obama has spent huge sums of money and employed an army
of attorneys to prevent being held accountable to the
US Constitution and American people.

Barack Obama is not eligible to be President of the United
States under the natural born citizen provision of the US
Constitution and until credible proof is provided, is not
even a US citizen.

Chief Justice Roberts, answer this question
for me and the American public.

If you swear in Barack Obama and Obama takes the oath,
can you explain to me and the American people why one of
the following should not occur?

  • Both you and Obama should be arrested by the FBI or the
    military for treason and High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
  • Both you and Obama should be arrested for the same offenses
    under the citizen’s arrest provision of common law and
    Washington DC statutes.
  • Both you and Obama should be Impeached for the same offenses.

We have been waiting.

We are still waiting.

** Addendum **

The following comments on this blog are so revealing of the
judicial travesty taking place and the outrage that typical
Americans are experiencing, that I was compelled to add them
to this post.

Commenter Therese:

“Let me add to this I no longer consider we have a government after
January 20,2009. I will no longer look to this government to solve
our problems since it clearly and deliberately turned its back on
the American people.

Not until every elected and appointed official on this current slate
is publicly exposed, removed. arrested, tried, and sent to jail for
misrepresentation, conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and treason
will I ever again acknowledge this government.

Hence forward the nine Supreme court judges, all the Senate, all
Congress, and all judges who dismissed lawsuits against Obama on the
basis of standing are proven criminals who are getting away with more
crimes against the American people. They need to be named. Their
crimes need to belisted after their names, We need to let them know
not only will we never vote for them in another term, we will do
everything in our power to take them out of office before their term
ends.

Just what was the January 14, 2009 meeting between Justice Sh*t head
Roberts and Obama and Biden about? How to make more deals to rape the
Constitution and rip off America and get away with it?

Commenter Reese in response to above:

““Just what was the January 14, 2009 meeting between Justice Sh*t head
Roberts and Obama and Biden about? How to make more deals to rape the
Constitution and rip off America and get away with it?”

To say I was floored when I read the news item is an understatement.
A ‘ceremonial’ meeting between a president elect and justices of the
Supreme Court is somewhat traditional. HOWEVER, in this instance, it’s
flat out wrong. Chief Justice Roberts has cases on the docket where
Obama is the defendant or is the subject of the litigation. Roberts
and the other eight justices have already held two ‘Distribution for
Conferences’ on the Donofrio and Wrotnoski cases on Obama’s citizenship
ineligibility.

Does anyone see major conflict of interest here? How can Chief Justice
Roberts meet with Obama behind closed doors under such circumstances?
Even if they just chatted up the weather, it is highly inappropriate
in my humble opinion. Roberts should have notified Obama that under
the circumstances, he would not be able to meet with him, private or
with photogs in attendance. There must be zero appearance of any bias
or preference when it comes to judges and justices of the Supreme Court.

When a defendant in a case before the supreme court decided to fly one
of the judges, in the company jet, up for a few rounds of golf, and the
press reported it (because the judge in question was particularly hated
by the reporters), the judge was asked to “abstain” from the proceedings.
The court’s response was “get bent”. Do you remember the impeachment
proceedings held by congress? No? There weren’t any.

If a judge can take a bribe, in public, and suffer absolutely no
repercussions (not even waste a day in a congressional hearing), what
reason is there to not “take things into his office”?

If it wasnt for the huge amount of potentially ill gotten dollars obama
has been spreading around he would be a poor second for dog catcher. Now
it looks like he is buying supreme court judges, there is no way the
truth about him will surface if he has bought all parties that can shed
some truth on the fiction he is spewing.

He will be untouchable.

This is not how the system is supposed to work. I feel sorry for America
and the dim witted dolts that fell for his lies.”

RestoreTheConstitutionalRepublic.org, Restore the Constitutional Republic website, January 17, 2009, Dean Haskins Chairman, Blog, Forum, Videos, US Constitution, Obama not eligible, Obama not natural born citizen

Dean Haskins, Chairman of Restore the Constitutional Republic has
just notified me that the new website is up. We have been working
with Dean and the group to inform congress, other officials and the
American public of the eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama
and the importance of upholding the US Constitution. Even if Obama
is inaugurated, there is a groundswell of concern over violation
of the US Constitution, degradation of the rule of law and disregard
for this country. Please visit the new site and get involved in
saving this country.

New website description:

Welcome to Restore the Constitutional Republic

Restore the Constitutional Republic is an organization dedicated to those patriots who recognize that our government has become unresponsive to the will of those who desire . . . no demand . . . that our Constitution be upheld, defended, and preserved.

Our Beginnings . . .

During the latest presidential campaign, it became apparent to many Americans that there were some questions surrounding Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president of the United States. Several lawsuits were filed simply asking that he produce the necessary documentation to prove his “natural born” qualifications, as required by our Constitution. Article II 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.

Barack Obama Hired Lawyers

Instead of doing what every one of us has had to do (by just showing his birth certificate), Mr. Obama chose to fight the more than twenty lawsuits filed across the country (a number that continues to grow).

Knowing that common sense dictates that one doesn’t fight to hide something he doesn’t want kept secret, Restore the Constitutional Republic was born. We believe it is time to hold our government accountable, or to reclaim it for “We the People.”

Please join us in our forum and volunteer to help us take back America!

From the blog:

Shall They Now Have Died in Vain?

January 17th, 2009

Dean C. Haskins

Before now, I never felt compelled to regard myself as a “patriot.” It’s not that I didn’t consider myself patriotic; it’s that nothing had occurred in my 49 years that even remotely challenged my deep, abiding trust in our Constitution. My national naivety ended in 2008. My political innocence was the victim of a brutal rape. The media-fueled presidential campaign that ubiquitously ravaged the senses and sensibilities of our general public, held remotely in its grasp a deceptively shrouded secret―an obfuscation so wily, so destructive of the pristine document that had brilliantly guided our republic, that only the most astute, watchful amongst us chose to voice their very founded concern.

Simply put, the Democratic National Committee chose a candidate for president who had never been required to produce even the most basic proof that he was constitutionally eligible to hold the office. That party cavalierly assumed that merely contriving a campaign with all the glitz and glitter of a broadway production would blind the common sense of common people (you know, those “smelly” Washington, DC tourists), and amidst the cunning smoke and mirrors in which they shrouded the ascension of their modern day messiah, they believed all the palm frond waving through which their deity entered the Jerusalem gates would preclude any possible question about his qualifications from those so far beneath them.”

Read more here:

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.org/

Senator Sherrod Brown, Ohio, US Constitution Hall of Shame, Obama not eligible, US Congress, Electoral College Votes, Obama’s eligibility must be challenged, OH 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 Sherrod Brown of Ohio
regarding Barack Obama’s eligibility issues:

“Thank you for contacting me regarding President-Elect Barack Obama.

President-Elect Obama has provided several news organizations with a
copy of his birth certificate, showing he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii
on August 4, 1961. Hawaii became a state in 1959, and all individuals
born in Hawaii after its admission are considered natural-born United
States citizens. In addition, the Hawaii State Health Department
recently issued a public statement verifying the authenticity of
President-Elect Obama’s birth certificate.

Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,
Sherrod Brown”

Senator Sherrod Brown, as a US Senator, the public expects for you to be
well informed on important matters and a presidential election certainly
qualifies as important.

Every word of your paragraph was wrong!!

Obama has provided no one a copy of his birth certificate.

Mr. Brown, do you know what “natural born citizen” means in the
eligibility provision of the US Constitution?

Being born in Hawaii does not make one a natural born citizen of the US.
If it did, then British citizens vacationing in Hawaii and delivering
a child would enable that British child to be president.

The Hawaii Health Department Official stated that they had Obama’s
birth certificate. Read more below. You should have already learned this.

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.”

ohbrown

Senator Carl Levin, Michigan, US Constitution Hall of Shame, Obama not eligible, US Congress, Electoral College Votes, Obama’s eligibility must be challenged, MI 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.”

 

US Constitution

Hall of Shame

A letter received from Senator Carl Levin of Michigan
regarding Barack Obama’s eligibility issues:

“From: senator_levin@levin.senate.gov senator_levin@levin.senate.gov
Subject: Re: Your Concerns
To: xxxxxxxxx.com
Date: Friday, December 5, 2008, 12:53 PM

Dear xxxxxxxxxx:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the false rumors surrounding
President-elect Obama’s citizenship status. I appreciate you
sharing your thoughts with me.

As you may know, Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution
states that, “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.”
President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii as documented by his
official birth certificate. He is, therefore, a natural born citizen
of the United States. Thank you again for writing.

Sincerely,

Carl Levin”
Is Carl Levin related to Barbara Mikulski? There are three
distinct parts to this letter that are wrong:

1. “rumor that President-elect Obama is ineligible”
This is no rumor, it is a fact.

2. “President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii as documented by
his official birth certificate.”
No one has seen a copy of his birth certificate!!!
Obama has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and used
numerous attorneys to avoid producing his real birth certificate.

3. “He is, therefore, a natural born citizen of the United States.”
Being born in Hawaii does not make Obama a natural born citizen.
Here we have another reason why the approval rating of Congress is
approaching single digits and why so little good comes from it.
Senator Levin, you are ill informed on many important aspects of
the 2008 election and Barack Obama’s eligibility. If you have any
questions or comments please respond. A non answer will be the same as
an answer.

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.”

milevin

Senator Barbara Mikulski, Maryland, US Constitution Hall of Shame, Obama not eligible, US Congress, Electoral College Votes, Obama’s eligibility must be challenged, MD 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.”

 

US Constitution

Hall of Shame

A letter received from Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland
regarding Barack Obama’s eligibility issues:

“Thank you for getting in touch with me. It’s nice to hear from you.

I appreciate knowing of your concern over a rumor that President-elect Obama is ineligible to serve as President because he is not a U.S. citizen.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Since President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii two years after it was admitted as the 50th state, he is a natural-born citizen. He has released a copy of his birth certificate and it has been authenticated by experts. Following Obama’s overwhelming and undisputed victory in the recent election, the Supreme Court has considered challenges to his citizenship and dismissed them as being without merit.

Thanks again for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to let me know if I can be of assistance to you again in the future.

Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senator”
With this letter we have a whole new level of stupidity, ignorance
and/or political bias. There are five distinct parts to this letter
that are wrong:

1. “rumor that President-elect Obama is ineligible”
This is no rumor, it is a fact.

2. “Since President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii two years after
it was admitted as the 50th state, he is a natural-born citizen.”
Being born in Hawaii does not make Obama a natural born citizen.

3. “He has released a copy of his birth certificate”
He has not released a copy of his birth certificate!!!
Pay attention! He put up a highly suspect COLB on his site.
Learn more about Hawaii statutes below.

4. “it has been authenticated by experts”
You can’t authenticate what you do not have access to.

5. “the Supreme Court has considered challenges to his citizenship
and dismissed them as being without merit.”
The Supreme Court has dismissed none of the eligibility based
lawsuits on not having merit. Berg’s lawsuit is still before the
Supreme Court.

It is intuitively obvious why the approval rating of Congress is
approaching single digits and why so little good comes from it.
Senator Mikulski, you are ill informed on many important aspects of
the 2008 election and Barack Obama’s eligibility. If you have any
questions or comments please respond. A non answer will be the same as
an answer.

What you have stated is an embarassment to the entire country. If you
really care about this country, learn the facts and apologize for
your statements. Please respond with your questions and comments.

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.”

mdmikulski

Senator Mike Crapo, Idaho, US Constitution Hall of Shame, Obama not eligible, US Congress, Electoral College Votes, Obama’s eligibility must be challenged, ID 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.”

 

US Constitution

Hall of Shame

A letter received from Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho
regarding Barack Obama’s eligibility issues:

“Thank you for contacting me regarding citizenship and other
eligibility requirements for public office. I appreciate hearing
your thoughts and welcome the opportunity to respond.

As you know, some have raised questions about the eligibility
of President-elect Barack Obama (D-Illinois) and Senator John
McCain (R-Arizona) for the office of President of the United
States. Having confidence in the electoral process and our public
officials is critical to maintaining public confidence in our
democracy. As such, the voters must be confident in the integrity
of the electoral process and our electoral institutions.

The Constitution and federal law require that, among other things,
only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to
parents who were both American citizens) may be President of the
United States. In President-elect Obama’s case, some individuals
have filed lawsuits in state and federal courts alleging that he
has not proven that he is an American citizen, but each of those
lawsuits have been dismissed. Furthermore, both the Director of
Hawaii’s Department of Health and the state’s Registrar of Vital
Statistics recently confirmed that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu,
Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and, as such, meets the constitutional
citizenship requirements for the presidency. If contrary
documentation is produced and verified, this matter will necessarily
be resolved by the judicial branch of our government under the
Constitution.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to contact me
in the future on this or other matters of interest to you. For more
information about the issues before the U.S. Senate as well as news
releases, photos, and other items of interest, please visit my Senate
website, http://crapo.senate.gov.

Sincerely,”
Senator Mike Crapo states the following:

“The Constitution and federal law require that, among other things,
only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to
parents who were both American citizens) may be President of the
United States.”

Mr. Crapo is close but not exact. The Constitution says “Natural
Born.” Having parents that are US citizens is required no matter
where the presidential candidate is born.

Mr. Crapo apparently is not well informed regarding the many lawsuits
that challenge Obama’s eligibility.

Mr. Crapo goes on to make one of the more popular ill informed
statements:

“Furthermore, both the Director of Hawaii’s Department of Health
and the state’s Registrar of Vital Statistics recently confirmed
that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and,
as such, meets the constitutional citizenship requirements for
the presidency.”

That statement is wrong on two counts.
1. The Hawaii Health Department Official did not state that Obama was
born in Hawaii.

2. Being born in Hawaii would not meet the constitutional requirement
for natural born citizen.

Mr. Crapo then states.

“If contrary documentation is produced and verified, this matter will
necessarily be resolved by the judicial branch of our government
under the Constitution.”

Contrary documentation exists. Obama’s father being a citizen of
Kenya under British rule disqualifies Obama as being a natural born
citizen. What is equally disturbing about the statement is that it
is another example of buck passing that has endlessly been going on
during the 2008 election. It is important for Mr. Crapo and all
congressmen to remember that Congress as well as the judicial system
is part of the checks and balances that we rely on.

Senator Crapo, You are ill informed on several important aspects of
the 2008 election and Barack Obama’s eligibility. If you have any
questions or comments please respond. A non answer will be the same as
an answer.

Why Obama is not eligible

What Hawaii Health Official really said

idcrapo

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

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

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

COUNTY OF PENDER File # 08CV_____________

 

 

Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan, )

Plaintiff ) NOTICE AND DEMAND ) FOR

v. ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

) (CLASS ACTION)

North Carolina Board of Elections, and )

Elaine F. Marshall, Secretary of State )

For North Carolina, )

Defendants )

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

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

1. PARTIES

1.1.

 

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

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

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

2.     JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2.1.

 

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

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

3. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF CLASS ACTION STATUS

 

 

3. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF CLASS ACTION STATUS

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.

 

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

4.1.

 

I

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

4.2.

 

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

4.3.

 

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

s minimum qualifications for office.

4.4.

 

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

4.5.

 

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

4.6.

 

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

5. DEMAND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF – PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

5.1.

 

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

5.2.

 

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

5.3.

 

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

5.4.

 

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

5.5.

 

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

5.6.

 

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

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

5.7.

 

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

5.8.

 

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

5.9.

 

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

5.10.

 

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

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

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

5.12.

 

 

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

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

5.12.2.

 

Irreparable

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

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

5.13.

 

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

 

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

6.1.

 

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

6.2.

 

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

6.3.

 

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

6.4.

 

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

6.5.

 

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

6.6.

 

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

6.7.

 

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

6.8.

 

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

6.9.

 

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

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

6.10.

 

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

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

6.12.

 

  

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

6.13.

 

  

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

6.14.

 

    

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

6.15.

 

  

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

5.16.

 

   

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

6.17.

 

   Mr.

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

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

6.19.

 

    

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

6.20. Upon information and belief, M

 

r.

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

6.21.

 

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

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

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

7.1.

 

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

7.2.

 

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

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

7.3.

 

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

7.4.

 

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

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

8.    

 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court:

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

 

 

8.2.

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

8.3.

 

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

8.4.

 

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

8.5.

 

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

8.6.

 

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

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

 

electee

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

8.8.

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

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

 

VERIFICATION

 

 

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

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

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

 

 

 

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

 

For Attorney General for the State of North Carolina:

Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina

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

114 E. Edenton Street

PO Box 629

Raleigh, NC 27626-0629

For Defendant Board of Elections:

North Carolina Board of Elections

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

POB 27255

Raleigh, NC 27611

For Defendant Elaine F. Marshall, Secretary of State:

Office of North Carolina Secretary of State

ATTN: Ms. Ann Wall, Process Agent

PO Box 29622

Raleigh, NC 27626

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

 

 

BY: ___________________________

Donald Sullivan, Lt Col, USAFR (Ret)

Plaintiff, In Pro per and Sui JurisPO Box 3061

Wilmington, NC 28406

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

To:

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

The US Constitution must be upheld

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

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

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

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

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

Facts and References

US Constitution

Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

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

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

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

viz.

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

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

The US Constitution defines presidential eligibility

US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.

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

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

Article. II.

Section. 1.

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

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

Federal Election Law: 

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

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

State Electoral College example: Pennsylvania Law

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

Philip J Berg lawsuit
Judge Surrick ruling exerpts:

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

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

Philip J Berg response to ruling:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the complete article here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more here:

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

The US Constitution must be upheld

         Part 1

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

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

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

US Constitution, Amendment I

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

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

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

“For Immediate Release: – 11/07/08

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing is more important than enforcing the Constitution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more here (This is a must read):

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

Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

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

Obama ineligible, Obama born in Kenya, Obama Indonesian, US Constitution, States, Secretary of State, Board of Elections, Electors, States must uphold US Constitution, 2008 Election

“In late December 1783, when General Washington resigned as commander in chief, he visited the Continental Congress for the last time…. General Washington read a brief statement praising the officers and soldiers of the Continental Army for their eight years of service. He also commended “our dear country to the protection of Almighty God.” As he said these words, his voice broke and tears streamed down the general’s cheeks and he was unable to speak for a full minute.”

From “Washington’s Secret War” by Thomas Fleming

“The collective wisdom of the founding fathers astounds me.”

Citizen Wells 

2008 Presidential Election

  States must uphold US Constitution

  

 

The DNC, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, et al ramroded Obama through the
DNC Convention and nomination.

Obama stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton. Documented evidence
reveals widespread voter fraud involving Acorn and the Obama camp in
the primaries and general election.

Barack Obama is not eligible to be president. He was born in Kenya and
became an Indonesian citizen. Obama is still Indonesian and is an illegal alien. There is ample proof of this and more is being revealed. Obama has failed to repudiate these facts.

Election officials and Electors in all 50 states and DC will be held
accountable to uphold the US Constitution
.

The Philip J Berg lawsuit will be taken to the Supreme court if necessary. Lawsuits are constrained by the level of proof placed on the plaintiff.
However, there is no such standard for those bound to uphold the
Constitution. Those swearing an oath of allegiance to the Constitution are being forewarned that with the oath comes a responsibility  and a higher level of recourse for violation of that oath. Consider the following:

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

Citizen Wells will be contacting the secretary of state or commonwealth
in all states and will email the following article that reveals the duties to uphold the Constitution:

US Constitution, Federal Election Laws, State Election Laws 

Each state will be notified of the article and the fact that they will be
held accountable. Taking their cue from the Democratic party or other
excuses will not be accepted. Each person sworn to uphold the Constitution will be personally held accountable. Citizen Wells also urges the citizens of each state to make known their desire to uphold the Constitution.

Below is a list of the 50 states and DC. As each state is contacted, this
article will be updated. Please comment with your information and concerns
about your state election officials and electors.

Alabama Emailed 10/27/08

Alaska Email 10/27/08

Arizona Email 10/28/08

Arkansas Email 10/27/08

California Email 10/27/08

Colorado Email 10/27/08

Connecticut Email 10/27/08

Delaware Email 10/28/08

Florida Telephone/email 10/27/08, Florida response – see comment below

Georgia Email 10/28/08

Hawaii Email 10/27/08

Idaho Email 10/27/08

Illinois

Indiana Email 10/28/08

Iowa Email 10/28/08

Kansas Email 10/28/08

Kentucky Email 10/28/08

Louisiana Email 10/28/08

Maine Email 10/28/08

Maryland Email 10/28/08

Massachusetts Email 10/28/08

Michigan Email 10/28/08

Minnesota Email 10/27/08

Mississippi Email 10/28/08

Missouri Email 10/27/08

Montana Email 10/28/08

Nebraska Email 10/28/08

Nevada Email 10/28/08

New Hampshire Email 10/28/08

New Jersey Email 10/28/08

New Mexico Email 10/27/08

New York Email 10/28/08

North Carolina Telephone/email 10/27/08

North Dakota Email 10/28/08

Ohio Email 10/28/08

Oklahoma Email 10/28/08

Oregon Email 10/28/08

Pennsylvania Telephone/email 10/27/08

Rhode Island Email 10/28/08

South Carolina Email 10/28/08

South Dakota Email 10/28/08

Tennessee Email 10/28/08

Texas Email 10/28/08

Utah Email 10/28/08

Vermont Email 10/28/08

Virginia    

Washington Email 10/28/08

West Virginia Email 10/28/08

Wisconsin Email 10/27/08

Wyoming Email 10/28/08

Dictrict of Columbia