Category Archives: constitution

Obama aka der Fuhrer nazi tactics in National Parks, Gestapo tactics meet senior citizens at Yellowstone, Park Service official told make life as difficult for people as we can

Posted on October 9, 2013 | 13 comments

Obama aka der Fuhrer nazi tactics in National Parks, Gestapo tactics meet senior citizens at Yellowstone, Park Service official told make life as difficult for people as we can

“Someone is paying the National Park Service thugs overtime for their efforts to carry out the order of De Fuhrer… where are our Constitutional Sheriffs who can revoke the Park Service Rangers authority to arrest??? Do we have any Sheriffs with a pair?”…AZ representative Brenda Barton

“Obama is by character and preference, a dictator…Like Hitler, he needs a powerful domestic army to terrify any opposition that might arise…Obama will put a thin veneer of training and military structure on urban gangs and send them out to channel their violence against Obama’s enemies.”…Orson Scott Card, Rhino Times May 16, 2013
“I received an important comment this morning. It is more of the same. Threats and attempts to silence those questioning Obama from the Nazi like Obama Camp. I have written several articles about the similarities between the Obama Campaign and Nazi Germany. These analogies are beginning to resonate with and frighten many people.
The comment made on this blog today refers to a Democrat Party Delegate being threatened to not speak out about Obama and another anti Obama website being shut down.”…Citizen Wells, August 12, 2008

 

 

Achtung!

Ich bin der Fuhrer.

Machen sie schnell.

ObamaHope

Still don’t believe the analogies?

From GOP USA October 9, 2013.
“Gestapo’ tactics meet senior citizens at Yellowstone”
“Pat Vaillancourt went on a trip last week that was intended to showcase some of America’s greatest treasures.

Instead, the Salisbury resident said she and others on her tour bus witnessed an ugly spectacle that made her embarrassed, angry and heartbroken for her country.

Vaillancourt was one of thousands of people who found themselves in a national park as the federal government shutdown went into effect on Oct. 1. For many hours her tour group, which included senior citizen visitors from Japan, Australia, Canada and the United States, were locked in a Yellowstone National Park hotel under armed guard.

The tourists were treated harshly by armed park employees, she said, so much so that some of the foreign tourists with limited English skills thought they were under arrest.

When finally allowed to leave, the bus was not allowed to halt at all along the 2.5-hour trip out of the park, not even to stop at private bathrooms that were open along the route.”

“The bus stopped along a road when a large herd of bison passed nearby, and seniors filed out to take photos. Almost immediately, an armed ranger came by and ordered them to get back in, saying they couldn’t “recreate.” The tour guide, who had paid a $300 fee the day before to bring the group into the park, argued that the seniors weren’t “recreating,” just taking photos.

“She responded and said, ‘Sir, you are recreating,’ and her tone became very aggressive,” Vaillancourt said.”

“The National Parks’ aggressive actions have spawned significant criticism in western states. Governors in park-rich states such as Arizona have been thwarted in their efforts to fund partial reopenings of parks. The Washington Times quoted an unnamed Park Service official who said park law enforcement personnel were instructed to “make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.””

Read more:

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/10/09/gestapo-tactics-meet-senior-citizens-at-yellowstone/?subscriber=1

 

13 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, constitution, Government, Hitler, Nazi Brownshirts, Nazi Germany, News, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Obama thugs, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, Washington DC

Tagged , ,

Obama de Fuhrer, Arizona representative Brenda Barton Facebook posting, National Park Service thugs carry out orders of de Fuhrer Obama, Acting as an Imperial President

Posted on October 9, 2013 | 31 comments

Obama de Fuhrer, Arizona representative Brenda Barton Facebook posting, National Park Service thugs carry out orders of de Fuhrer Obama, Acting as an Imperial President

“Someone is paying the National Park Service thugs overtime for their efforts to carry out the order of De Fuhrer… where are our Constitutional Sheriffs who can revoke the Park Service Rangers authority to arrest??? Do we have any Sheriffs with a pair?”…AZ representative Brenda Barton

“Obama is by character and preference, a dictator…Like Hitler, he needs a powerful domestic army to terrify any opposition that might arise…Obama will put a thin veneer of training and military structure on urban gangs and send them out to channel their violence against Obama’s enemies.”…Orson Scott Card, Rhino Times May 16, 2013
“I received an important comment this morning. It is more of the same. Threats and attempts to silence those questioning Obama from the Nazi like Obama Camp. I have written several articles about the similarities between the Obama Campaign and Nazi Germany. These analogies are beginning to resonate with and frighten many people.
The comment made on this blog today refers to a Democrat Party Delegate being threatened to not speak out about Obama and another anti Obama website being shut down.”…Citizen Wells, August 12, 2008

 

From WebProNews October 9, 2013.

“Brenda Barton: Calls Obama “De Fuhrer”, Takes Heat”

“However, some might say she crossed the line with a Facebook post that compared Obama to Hitler. Some would say it’s her constitutional right. Either way, it’s certainly strong language that has people talking.

“Someone is paying the National Park Service thugs overtime for their efforts to carry out the order of De Fuhrer… where are our Constitutional Sheriffs who can revoke the Park Service Rangers authority to arrest??? Do we have any Sheriffs with a pair?””

““The Chief Executive is acting as an Imperial President,” she added, “without regard to his citizens, only caring about his agenda. With all the exemptions he has unilaterally bestowed on many interest groups, could he not delay the ACA Individual Mandate for a single year? Without regard for the elected House of Representatives. What do you call that?”

Barton is not backing down. She has been confronted by the Arizona Capitol Times about her comments and she replies,“He’s dictating beyond his authority,” she said of Obama. “It’s not just the death camps. (Hitler) started in the communities, with national health care and gun control. You better read your history. Germany started with national health care and gun control before any of that other stuff happened. And Hitler was elected by a majority of people.””

Read more:

http://www.webpronews.com/brenda-barton-calls-obama-de-fuhrer-takes-heat-2013-10?utm_source=Life_sidebar

31 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, constitution, Government, History, Hitler, Nazi Germany, News, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Obama thugs, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , ,

Corrupt Obama Justice Dept sues NC over voter law, NC law does not discriminate, Law applies equally to all citizens, Revenge for NC rejecting Obama in 2012 elections?

Posted on October 1, 2013 | 77 comments

Corrupt Obama Justice Dept sues NC over voter law, NC law does not discriminate, Law applies equally to all citizens, Revenge for NC rejecting Obama in 2012 elections?

“According to the 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, the unemployment rate for non-Hispanic black residents in North Carolina was almost twice the rate for non-Hispanic white residents (19.2% compared to 10.5%).”…Eric Holder’s US Justice Dept lawsuit against NC

“‘the Framers of the Constitution intended the States to keep for themselves, as provided in the Tenth Amendment, the power to regulate elections.’”

“The Voting Rights Act sharply departs from these basic principles. It suspends “all changes to state election law—however innocuous—until they have been preclearedby federal authorities in Washington, D. C.” Id., at 202. States must beseech the Federal Government for permission to implement laws that they would otherwise have the right to enact and execute on their own”… Chief Justice Roberts, Shelby County, AL vs Holder, Attorney General, et al 

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

The corrupt Obama US Justice Dept. led by Obama’s pal Eric Holder is sueing the state of NC over its recent changes to the voter laws.

First of all I would like to thank Eric Holder for helping to highlight the impact of the Obama Administration on blacks in NC.
“According to the 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, the unemployment rate for non-Hispanic black residents in North Carolina was almost twice the rate for non-Hispanic white residents (19.2% compared to 10.5%).”

Eric Holder claims that the new NC voting law changes are discriminatory.

“Provisions of HB 589
23. HB 589 makes several significant changes to North Carolina’s election law. Among other changes, HB 589 alters existing law by reducing the number of early voting days available to voters, eliminating same-day voter registration during the early voting period, and prohibiting the counting of provisional ballots cast by voters who attempt to vote in their county, but outside their home precinct. HB 589 also imposes a new photo identification requirement for in-person voters.
”

“the discriminatory impact of photo identification requirements on minority voters, and the challenges people encounter in obtaining the underlying documentation needed to acquire the types of photo identification that would be required by the proposed law.”

“Implementation of HB 589 Will Have a Discriminatory Result”

“The reduction of the number of days of early voting and elimination of the first seven days of early voting, including the first weekend days of early voting, will have a discriminatory impact on African-American voters in North Carolina.”

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/646201393013723793555.pdf

Legal definition of discrimination.
“In Constitutional Law, the grant by statute of particular privileges to a class arbitrarily designated from a sizable number of persons, where no reasonable distinction exists between the favored and disfavored classes. Federal laws, supplemented by court decisions, prohibit discrimination in such areas as employment, housing, voting rights, education, and access to public facilities. They also proscribe discrimination on the basis of race, age, sex, nationality, disability, or religion. In addition, state and local laws can prohibit discrimination in these areas and in others not covered by federal laws.”

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/discrimination

The NC voting laws are clearly not discriminatory. They apply equally to all citizens.

A fifth grader can understand that.

From Gateway Pundit September 30, 2013.

“So, will Holder sue the majority of US States?

  • 14 states allow straight party voting. North Carolina now joins the 36 other states that do not.
  • 15 states allow NO early voting or no-excuse absentee voting. (Those include NY and Mass)
  • 32 states allow early voting ranging from 4 days prior to election day to 45 days with an average 19 days. North Carolina allows 10 days but requires the same number of hours of early voting that was available in 2012 and 2010 when the early voting period was 17 days.
  • Only 1 state allows same day registration during early voting. NC was the only other state to allow this and has now joined 49 states in not allowing same day registration during early voting.
  • 11 states allow same day registration on Election Day. North Carolina does not.
  • 5 states allow 16 and 17 year olds to pre-register to vote. 45 states do not, including now, North Carolina.

Illinois and Delaware require voter ID. Hawaii has even stricter voter ID requirements. Why is Holder not suing those states?”

Read more:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/09/hyper-partisan-obama-doj-to-announce-suit-against-north-carolina-voting-laws/

FURTHERMORE

Even though the recent US Supreme Court decision in Shelby County, AL vs Holder, Attorney General, et al addressed the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act, Chief Justice Roberts emphasized the constitutional provisions giving the states most of election powers.

“Outside the strictures of the Supremacy Clause, States retain broad autonomy in structuring their governments and pursuing legislative objectives. Indeed, the Constitution provides that all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or citizens. Amdt. 10. This “allocation of powers in our federal system preserves the integrity, dignity, and residual sovereignty of the States.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___
(2011) (slip op., at 9). But the federal balance “is not just an end in itself: Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted).
More specifically, “‘the Framers of the Constitution intended the States to keep for themselves, as provided in the Tenth Amendment, the power to regulate elections.’” Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 461–462 (1991) (quoting Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U. S. 634, 647 (1973); some internal quotation marks omitted). Of course, the Federal Government retains significant control over federal elections. For instance, the Constitution authorizes Congress to establish the time and manner for electing Senators and Representatives. Art. I, §4, cl. 1; see also Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., ante, at 4–6. But States have “broad powers to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised.” Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S. 89, 91 (1965) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Arizona, ante, at 13–15. And “[e]ach State has the power to prescribe the qualifications of its officers and the manner in which they shall be chosen.” Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer, 143 U. S. 135, 161 (1892). Drawing lines for congressional districts is likewise “primarily the duty and responsibility of the State.” Perry v. Perez, 565 U. S. ___, ___ (2012) (per curiam) (slip op., at 3)(internal quotation marks omitted).
Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty” among the States. Northwest Austin, supra, at 203 (citing United States v. Louisiana, 363 U. S. 1, 16 (1960); Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, 223 (1845); and Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725–726 (1869); emphasis added). Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation “was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority.” Coyle v. Smith, 221 U. S. 559, 567 (1911). Indeed, “the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized.” Id., at
580. Coyle concerned the admission of new States, and Katzenbach rejected the notion that the principle operated as a bar on differential treatment outside that context. 383 U. S., at 328–329. At the same time, as we made clear in Northwest Austin, the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty remains highly pertinent in assessing subsequent disparate treatment of States. 557 U. S., at 203.
The Voting Rights Act sharply departs from these basic principles. It suspends “all changes to state election law—however innocuous—until they have been precleared by federal authorities in Washington, D. C.” Id., at 202. States must beseech the Federal Government for permission to implement laws that they would otherwise have the right to enact and execute on their own, subject of course to any injunction in a §2 action. The Attorney General has 60 days to object to a preclearance request,longer if he requests more information. See 28 CFR §§51.9, 51.37. If a State seeks preclearance from a three judge court, the process can take years.
And despite the tradition of equal sovereignty, the Act applies to only nine States (and several additional counties). While one State waits months or years and expends funds to implement a validly enacted law, its neighbor can typically put the same law into effect immediately, through the normal legislative process. Even if a non covered jurisdiction is sued, there are important differences between those proceedings and preclearance proceedings; the preclearance proceeding “not only switches the burden of proof to the supplicant jurisdiction, but also applies substantive standards quite different from those governing the rest of the nation.” 679 F. 3d, at 884 (Williams, J., dissenting) (case below).
All this explains why, when we first upheld the Act in 1966, we described it as “stringent” and “potent.” Katzen
bach, 383 U. S., at 308, 315, 337. We recognized that it“may have been an uncommon exercise of congressional power,” but concluded that “legislative measures not otherwise appropriate” could be justified by “exceptional conditions.” Id., at 334. We have since noted that the Act “authorizes federal intrusion into sensitive areas of state and local policy making,” Lopez, 525 U. S., at 282, and represents an “extraordinary departure from the traditional course of relations between the States and the Federal Government,” Presley v. Etowah County Comm’n, 502 U. S. 491, 500–501 (1992). As we reiterated in Northwest Austin, the Act constitutes “extraordinary legislation otherwise unfamiliar to our federal system.” 557 U. S., at 211.”
Is this just another Obama administration race baiting move or retribution for NC rejecting Obama and the Democrat Party in 2012?
What a bunch of morons.
In their zeal to attack the state of NC they reveal the plight of blacks under Obama.
“According to the 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, the unemployment rate for non-Hispanic black residents in North Carolina was almost twice the rate for non-Hispanic white residents (19.2% compared to 10.5%).”
Thanks to commenter Jonah.

77 Comments

Posted in Attorney General, Barack Obama, Bill of Rights, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Courts, Eric Holder, Founding Fathers, NC, NC voters, News, North Carolina, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, US Department of Justice, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , ,

Obama crony crime in Chicago Cook County causes cramping in criminal courts and correction houses, US v Cook County IL, 1:10-cv-02946, Jail conditions violate Eighth Amendment

Posted on July 27, 2013 | 67 comments

Obama crony crime in Chicago Cook County causes cramping in criminal courts and correction houses, US v Cook County IL, 1:10-cv-02946, Jail conditions violate Eighth Amendment

“79.6 percent of Chicago homicide victims to date in 2013 were black”…Citizen Wells July 20, 2013 
“The misery index for blacks in Chicago and Illinois is not only exacerbated by the high unemployment, but also the high crime rates and jail overcrowding.”…Citizen Wells 
“Because Cook County, like so much of Illinois local government and the state government as well, is operating deep in the red (its deficit is expected to be $400 million this year), considerations of cost loom large in any analysis of alternatives to a prisoner release order.”…USA v Cook County case 1:10-cv-02946

Obama, et al.

Masters of diversions.

They speak of the plight of young blacks like Trayvon Martin. Yet they are a huge part of the problem.

For example, Illinois has the second highest unemployment rate in the country at 9.2 percent.

As of a few days ago, 79.6 percent of Chicago homicide victims  were black.

Much of the crime in Chicago is black on black.

From the courtroom of Judge Virginia Kendall ( you remember Judge Kendall, the presiding judge in FDIC v Mutual Bank, Amrish Mahajan, et al, you know, the bank that loaned Rita Rezko the money for the Rezko Obama lot transaction, you know, the bank that fired whistleblower Kenneth J. Conner ).

“Tuesday, July 30, 2013 (As of 07/27/13 at 06:45:41 AM )

Honorable Virginia M. Kendall Courtroom 2319 (VMK)

1:10-cv-02946 United States of America v. Cook Cou 09:00 Notice of Motion”

http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/DailyCal/3.htm#Kendall

“Opinion of Three‐Judge District Court PER CURIAM.

The Sheriff of Cook County, who is the administrator of the Cook County Jail, has moved in this case for the entry of a prisoner release order, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626. Since at least 1974 the jail has been a target of litiga‐tion claiming that conditions in the jail violate the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishments clause (which has been held applicable to state and local government by interpretation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) in the case of convicted criminals, or, in the case of pretrial detain‐ees‐‐the major part of the jail’s population—the due process clause directly; but the courts “apply the same legal standards to deliberate indifference claims brought under either the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment.” Minix v. Canarecci , 597 F.3d 824, 830–31 (7th Cir. 2010); see City of Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital , 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983); Bell v. Wolfish , 441 U.S. 520, 535 n. 16 (1979). Consent orders in this long‐running litigation have included prisoner release provisions premised on the belief that the jail’s chronic overcrowding was con‐tributing to the constitutional violations.”

“We further, and crucially, find that overcrowding is a primary cause of un‐constitutional conditions at the jail. Those conditions, which include as noted ear‐lier resort to excessive force by guards, grossly unsanitary and unhealthy condi‐tions, and grossly inadequate medical (including mental‐health) care, might well exist, to an extent, even if the jail were not overcrowded (hence the need for the Agreed Order). But we interpret the statute as authorizing a prisoner release or‐der if overcrowding is a primary cause of unconstitutional violations beyond what would exist without overcrowding. Cf. Hutto v. Finney , 437 U.S. 678, 688 (1978) (“the order [a 30‐day limitation on sentences to punitive isolation] is supported by the interdependence of the conditions producing the violation. The vandal‐ized cells and the atmosphere of violence were attributable, in part , to over‐crowding and to deep‐seated enmities growing out of months of constant daily friction”) (emphasis added).”
“Because Cook County, like so much of Illinois local government and the state government as well, is operating deep in the red (its deficit is expected to be $400 million this year), considerations of cost loom large in any analysis of alternatives to a pris‐oner release order.”

http://www.slashdocs.com/kvtwhx/usa-v-cook-county-1-10-cv-02946-20110111.html

67 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Chicago, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, constitution, corruption, Crime, Illinois, Judges, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Department of Justice

Tagged , , ,

Jurors oaths in NC 50 states and US, NC Senate Bill 528, Lt. Col Donald Sullivan Constitutionalists victory, NC Senator Thom Goolsby, Constitution of North Carolina

Posted on July 13, 2013 | 54 comments

Jurors oaths in NC 50 states and US, NC Senate Bill 528, Lt. Col Donald Sullivan Constitutionalists victory, NC Senator Thom Goolsby, Constitution of North Carolina

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

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for through this in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”…George Washington

 

 

 

From retired Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan July 10, 2013.

“You all remember my ranting about the improper jurors’ oaths in NC, the fifty States and the United States.  I brought the issue up with Senator Thom Goolsby last year.  He got excited about it and said he would be sure it was addressed the next session of the General Assembly which just happened to be this past spring.  He did as he said he would do, and the results are attached.  It’s time to celebrate this major victory!!  Senate Bill 528 is no doubt the most important piece of legislation passed this session, and nothing was said about it.  I only found out today!!!

Now, if we can just get a criminal attorney to go back and appeal the trial in his defendant’s case on the grounds that there was no jury, this will be a complete success.  The defendant who comes to mind is Thomas Wright, former State representative.  Every convicted defendant who demanded his jury trial must be either set free or given a new trial.  What a wonderful day for us Constitutionalists!!!”

“GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
SESSION 2013
SESSION LAW 2013-164
SENATE BILL 528
*S528-v-5*
AN ACT TO CLARIFY THAT PETIT JURORS ARE REQUIRED TO TAKE THE OATH  SET FORTH IN THE NORTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION AND TO PROVIDE  CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE STATUTES SETTING FORTH THE OATHS TO BE TAKEN BY PETIT JURORS.
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. G.S. 9-14 reads as rewritten:
Ҥ 9-14. Jury sworn; judge decides competency.
The clerk shall, at the beginning of court, swear all jurors who have not been selected as grand jurors. Each juror shall swear or affirm that he will take (i) the oath required by Section 7  of Article VI of the Constitution of North Carolina, by swearing or affirming to support and maintain the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina not inconsistent therewith and (ii) the oath required under G.S. 11-11, by swearing or affirming
to truthfully and without prejudice or partiality try all issues in criminal or civil actions that come before him the juror and render give true verdicts according to the evidence. Nothing herein shall be construed to disallow the usual challenges in law to the whole jury so sworn or to any juror; and if by reason of such challenge any juror is withdrawn from a jury being selected to try a case, his place on that jury shall be taken by another qualified juror. The
presiding judge shall decide all questions as to the competency of jurors.”
SECTION 2. G.S. 11-11 reads as rewritten:
Ҥ 11-11. Oaths of sundry persons; forms.
The oaths of office to be taken by the several persons hereafter named shall be in the words following the names of said persons respectively, in all cases after taking the separate oath required by Article VI, Section 7 of the Constitution of North Carolina:
…
Oath for Petit Juror
You do solemnly swear (affirm) that you will truthfully and without prejudice or partiality try all issues in civil or criminal actions that come before you and give true verdicts according to the evidence, so help you, God.

SECTION 3. This act becomes effective October 1, 2013, and applies to oaths
taken on or after that date.
In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 11th day of June,
2013.
s/ Daniel J. Forest
President of the Senate
s/ Thom Tillis
Speaker of the House of Representatives
s/ Pat McCrory
Governor
Approved 4:28 p.m. this 19th day of June, 2013”

An email from Mr. Sullivan June 16, 2013.

“ARTICLE FOR JULY:  JUDICIAL CONSPIRACY and the IRS

When I started out in 1999 to learn about how the Godforsaken government works in the United States, I sincerely believed in the separation of powers and that I could get at least one of the three branches of government to see the light and right the wrongs that were being perpetrated against me in the interest of the “public safety” and the “general welfare”.  I believed that I had rights, and I could use those rights to convince the government and its “myriad of offices” and “swarms of agents” to leave me alone.  I was wrong.
I first tried to influence my elected “representatives” in the legislative branch by informing and educating them on the threat we faced regarding our lost rights and how the laws were being improperly enforced by the executive and judicial branches.  This effort fell on deaf ears.  I have since rescinded my voter registration in full understanding of the uselessness of trying to right the wrongs by the ballot box and recognizing that there is no “right to vote”.
I then worked with the executive branch thru the governor, the Attorney General, local and State law enforcement, the district attorney (a curious mixture of the executive and judicial branches) and the Sheriff to help them understand how the law was being improperly enforced against us with the sole intent of abusing and eliminating our protected rights.  In this endeavor, I often placed myself in harm’s way by getting ticketed, arrested and worse as a means of getting my message out.  Another failure.
That led, of course, to the judicial branch, which I absolutely believed would do its duty to protect and maintain the law and my rights under the law.  As reported previously, I was totally disappointed, but along the way learned about the “judicial conspiracy” to prolong and encourage the insidious and incremental destruction of our protected rights.  Judges are, after all, employees of the state.  Thus, anytime the state is a party to a case, judges have a conflict of interest which cannot be denied; and they will nearly always defer to the state.  There will be no impartiality on the part of the judiciary, and we can’t get a fair trial.  This conspiracy is nowhere more obvious than in the matters of revenue.
You may recall from a previous article one Judge Marion Warren, a Brunswick County, NC, State Judge involved in a “right to travel” case.  In our discussion of invalid jurors’ oaths, he initially agreed with me that jurors were improperly sworn and even apologized for the mistake.  After over a year of being impossible to reach, he reversed and confided in me that it turns out jurors are not parties to the group mentioned in the statute “as required” to swear an oath to the Constitution when, in fact, the law specifically identifies jurors as requiring the constitutional oath.  When I pressed him further on the issue of the “right to travel” where licenses, titles, tags, registrations, etc. are unnecessary, he admitted jokingly that, “No judge is going to disrupt the revenue stream in North Carolina.”
When that “revenue stream” is the IRS, the judicial conspiracy really takes off.  Nowhere is it more evident than in adjudication of income tax issues.  For example, in the widely known case, Sullivan v. United States, 03CV39 (2003) where I was trying to prevent or stop the fraudulent Iraq “War”, Senior Federal District Court Judge James C. Fox, in an effort to rationalize Congress’ attitude that the “Constitution has been overwhelmed by events and by time”, stated the following on the record:
“I will say I think, you know, Colonel, I have to tell you that there are cases where a long course of history in fact does change the Constitution, and I can think of one instance, I believe I’m correct on this, I think if you were to go back and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th amendment, which was the internal revenue, income tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment; and, nonetheless, I think it’s fair to say that it is part of the Constitution of the United States, and I don’t think any court would ever, would set it aside. Well, I’ve seen that – I’ve seen somewhere a treatise on that, and I think it was — I think I’m correct in saying that actually the ratification never really properly occurred. Yet nonetheless, I’m sure no court’s going to say that the 16th amendment permitting income tax is void for any reason, although I wouldn’t mind filing for a rebate myself.”
He was right.  Since then, the courts have ruled that the 16th Amendment was properly ratified when the evidence, which was not allowed to be presented, indicated the exact opposite.  This phenomenon is known as “legal memory”, or the “everybody knows” syndrome.
Like the way IRS itself was apparently created, or at least validated, by the courts:  “We can all agree the Department of the Treasury is created at 31 U.S.C. Section 301(a) by Congress” (See Hoodenpyle, 461 Fed. Appx. at 682).  The Tenth Circuit went on to say that “the IRS is an agency of the United States” as a matter of well settled law, citing 5 U.S.C. Section 101; but the words “Internal Revenue Service” do not appear at Section 101.  It is true the Department of Treasury is listed at Section 101.  But the IRS is not.
There also appears to be no doubt that the IRS has a planned program to keep judges in line in tax related cases with their “attitude adjustment” program defined in February, 1973, by IRS’ Western Regional Commissioner Homer O. Croasmun, in a Memorandum which included the minutes of the meeting held on February 9, 1973 pertaining to the “Tax Rebellion Movement”.  The memo, now known as the “Croasmun Memorandum”, opened the door to the realization that a planned program was already in operation to infiltrate and destroy the tax patriot movement and to implement an attitude adjustment on federal judges.  From those minutes we find,
“Mr. Croasmun pointed out that seven months ago we changed our direction on Tax Rebellion cases from a defensive posture and have now seized the initiative by infiltration of their organizations so we now know in advance their plans before they execute them.”
“Mr. Hansen [Chief of IRS Intelligence from Los Angeles] commented on the problem of federal judges appearing to be anti-IRS based on the belief that IRS is ‘highhanded’.”
“Mr. Howard [Chief of IRS Intelligence from San Francisco] reported on a change of attitude of federal judges inSan Francisco after he met with a number of them and discussed the gravity of the Tax Rebellion Movement and the importance of giving prison sentences as deterrents.”
This “attitude adjustment” is continuing today.  It is mentioned in the IRS’ System of Records, specifically in their “Case Management and Time Reporting System, Criminal Investigation Division” – Treasury/IRS 46.002, which can be found in the Federal Register by searching the Privacy Act Issuances Compilation for the Treasury/IRS, available on line through the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington D.C. 20408.
In this system of records, under the sub-heading “Categories of Individuals Covered by the System”, are listed the “Subjects of Criminal Investigation Division Investigations, U.S. Attorneys, Special Agents, and U.S. District Court Judges”. Under other sub-headings is stated:
“This system of records may not be accessed for purposes of determining if the system contains a record pertaining to a particular individual”; “This system of records contains investigative material compiled for law enforcement purposes whose sources need not be reported”; and, “This system has been designated as exempt from certain provisions of the Privacy Act.”
We know this conspiracy is happening because the judges have told us. Take a look at what Judge Wyzanski said in Lord v. Kelley, 240 F. Supp. 167 at 169 (1965):
“When this court found that the Internal Revenue agents had violated the law and directed that the improperly seized records were to be returned, the agents were, to say the least, not happy. The original appearance in this Court by counsel for the Government was, if not insolent, at least none too respectful. The brief filed following the Court’s adverse decision asking for reconsideration thereof showed more than hurt feelings and came close to being worthy of a rebuke.”
“More than once, the judges of a court have been indirectly reminded that they personally are taxpayers. No sophisticated person is unaware that even in this very Commonwealth, the Internal Revenue Service has been in possession of facts with respect to public officials which it has presented or shelved in order to serve what can only be called political ends, be they high or low. And a judge who knows the score is aware that every time his decisions offend the Internal Revenue Service, he is inviting a close inspection of his own returns. But I suppose that no one familiar with this Court believes that intimidation, direct or indirect, is effective.”
Though truthful, Judge Wyzanski may have been a bit naïve.  He was obviously not aware that this was not just a casual happening on the part of the IRS. And neither was he aware of the federal judges like Judge Harry Claiborne in Nevada, who dared to cross the IRS, was prosecuted and jailed; or Judge Walter Nixon in Mississippi, who was prosecuted for perjury, but had acted as an IRS pimp and was not jailed; or Judge Alcee Hastings of Florida who, having a habit of coming in conflict with the IRS and the powers that be, was prosecuted and found innocent, but later impeached by Congress.
 Having knowledge of this judicial conspiracy, we may be able to use it to our own advantage.  Judges are required to be “impartial” and act as a mere referee.  In 1971, Justice Thurgood Marshall, in the Supreme Court case of Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493 at 502, said:
“Moreover, even if there is no showing of actual bias in the tribunal, this Court has held that due process is denied by circumstances that create the likelihood or the appearance of bias. This rule was well established long before the right to jury trial was made applicable in state trials and does not depend on it.  As this court said in In Re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 at 136 (1955), ‘(f)airness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness.’”
We now know that judges cannot be impartial in an income tax case or any case where the IRS is a party.  Knowing this, we can and should demand recusal of any judge who files and pays income tax, because he cannot be impartial, if for no other reason than the attitude that, “If I have to file and pay income tax, so do you.”  In the case of a judge who, for whatever reason, does not pay income tax, challenge him on whether the IRS has compromising information on him.
The United States relies upon judicial conspiracy to allow the government to usurp well established federal law by saying the law is something else. Life-tenured federal judges are the most powerful public officers in the whole American government.  They are unaccountable and, consequently, without risk.  They engage in wrongdoing so coordinated, routine, and widespread as to have turned it into the institutionalized modus operandi of the Federal Judiciary, a safe haven for their wrongdoing.”

54 Comments

Posted in constitution, Donald Sullivan, Government, Judges, Jury, NC, News, North Carolina

Tagged , , , ,

Edward Snowden update, June 18, 2013, US government not able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me, Mainstream media ignores largest program of suspicion less surveillance in human history

Posted on June 18, 2013 | 12 comments

Edward Snowden update, June 18, 2013, US government not able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me, Mainstream media ignores largest program of suspicion less surveillance in human history

“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed,
If you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly,
You may come to the moment when you will have to fight
with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.”…Winston Churchill

“If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast.”… William Tecumseh Sherman

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

From the Canberra Times June 18, 2013.

“US government can’t stop the truth: Ed Snowden”

“NSA leaker Edward Snowden defended his disclosure of top-secret US spying programs in an online chat on Monday with The Guardian and attacked US officials for calling him a traitor.

“The US government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me,” he said. He added the government “immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home,” by labelling him a traitor, and indicated he would not return to the US voluntarily.

Congressional leaders have called Mr Snowden a traitor for revealing once-secret surveillance programs two weeks ago in the Guardian and The Washington Post. The National Security Agency programs collect records of millions of Americans’ telephone calls and Internet usage as a counterterror tool.

The disclosures revealed the scope of the collections, which surprised many Americans and have sparked debate about how much privacy the government can take away in the name of national security.

“It would be foolish to volunteer yourself to” possible arrest and criminal charges “if you can do more good outside of prison than in it,” he said.
Mr Snowden dismissed being called a traitor by former Vice President Dick Cheney, who made the allegations in an interview this week on Fox News Sunday. Mr Cheney was echoing the comments of both Democrats and Republican leadership on Capitol Hill, including Senate Intelligence committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein.

“Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honour you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him, Feinstein … the better off we all are,” Mr Snowden said.”

“In answer to the question of whether he fled to Hong Kong because he was spying for China, Mr Snowden wrote, “Ask yourself: if I were a Chinese spy, why wouldn’t I have flown directly into Beijing? I could be living in a palace petting a phoenix by now.”
He added later, “I have had no contact with the Chinese government.”

Mr Snowden dismissed the US government’s claims that the NSA surveillance programs had helped thwart dozens of terrorist attacks in more than 20 countries, including the 2009 al-Qaeda plot by Afghan American Najibullah Zazi to blow up New York subways.

“Journalists should ask a specific question: … how many terrorist attacks were prevented SOLELY by information derived from this suspicionless surveillance that could not be gained via any other source? Then ask how many individual communications were ingested to acheive (sic) that, and ask yourself if it was worth it.””

“Mr Snowden explained his claim that from his desk, he could “wiretap” any phone call or email — a claim top intelligence officials have denied. “If an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc. analyst has access to query raw SIGINT (signals intelligence) databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want,” he wrote in the answer posted on the Guardian site. “Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on — it’s all the same.”

The NSA did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment. But Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has said that the kind of data that can be accessed and who can access it is severely limited.”

“In one of his final replies, Mr Snowden attacked the “mainstream media” for its coverage, saying it “now seems far more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like rather than, say, the largest program of suspicion-less surveillance in human history.”

Read more:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/it-pro/security-it/us-government-cant-stop-the-truth-ed-snowden-20130618-2oexh.html#ixzz2WZAuqcXm

Thus far, I am inclined to believe Mr. Snowden.

12 Comments

Posted in 1984, Americans, Barack Obama, CIA, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, Congress, constitution, Government, Justice, News, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Orwell, Orwellian, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Department of Justice, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

Fathers Day June 16, 2013, Founding fathers, White House blog replaced fathers with founders, Founding Fathers contributed to the development of independence and nationhood.

Posted on June 16, 2013 | 106 comments

Fathers Day June 16, 2013, Founding fathers, White House blog replaced fathers with founders, Founding Fathers contributed to the development of independence and nationhood.

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for through this in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”…George Washington

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin”…Samuel Adams, 1776

“With those children [Winston] thought, that wretched woman must lead a life of terror. Another year, two years, and they would be watching her night and day for symptoms of unorthodoxy. Nearly all children nowadays were horrible. What was worst of all was that by means of such organizations as the Spies they were systematically turned into ungovernable little savages, and yet this produced in them no tendency whatever to rebel against the discipline of the Party.”…George Orwell, “1984”

Happy Fathers Day.

It is my belief that the collective wisdom of a father and mother, like the collective wisdom of the founding fathers, is important in the raising of children, i.e., 2 heads are better than one.

From ConstitutionFacts.com.

“United States (U.S.) Founding Fathers

The U.S. Constitution brought together, in one remarkable document, ideas from many people and several existing documents, including the Articles of Confederation and Declaration of Independence. Those who made significant intellectual contributions to the Constitution are called the “Founding Fathers” of our country.

Many of the United States Founding Fathers were at the Constitutional Convention, where the Constitution was hammered out and ratified. George Washington, for example, presided over the Convention. James Madison, also present, wrote the document that formed the model for the Constitution.

Other U.S. Founding Fathers were not there, but made significant contributions in other ways. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, was serving as ambassador to France at the time of the Convention. He kept abreast of the proceedings in Philadelphia by carrying on correspondence with James Madison. John Adams, as ambassador to Great Britain, wrote “Defense of the Constitution of the Government of the United States of America.” Thomas Paine wrote the influential pamphlet “Common Sense,” which immeasurably influenced the philosophy reflected in the Declaration of Independence. One of the U.S. Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry, was initially opposed to the very idea of the Constitution! He wanted to keep the Articles of Confederation, the predecessor to the Constitution. However, when an agreement was made to add a “bill of rights” to the Constitution, Henry fought hard for its ratification.

The term “framers” is sometimes used to specify those who helped “craft” the Constitution. “Founding Fathers” often refers to people who contributed to the development of independence and nationhood. However, the notion of a “framer” or a “Founding Father” is not easily defined. For purposes of this website, “Founding Fathers” are individuals who had a significant impact on the Constitution either directly or indirectly. The following list is by no means complete, but it does identify people who played a large role in the development of the Constitution at this crucial time in American history.”

http://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-founding-fathers/

It came as no surprise to me when I recently read about the omission of “father” from the founding of this nation on the White House Blog.

From The Daily Caller June 13, 2013.

“Throughout United States history, the group of men who assembled in Philadelphia in 1787 to write the nation’s Constitution had been known as the “Founding Fathers,” a moniker used even on official government websites.

But the use of the “fathers” may have been a step too far for the Obama administration. In a Thursday post on the White House’s blog, Keith Donohue, the communications director for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission at the National Archives, announced that the papers of the “Founding Founders,” otherwise known as the Founding Fathers, are available online.

Charles C.W. Cooke, writing for National Review Online, pointed out the strange phrase, and sometime after 10 p.m. ET, the site was revised with the headline reading “Founding Fathers.”

It’s not clear whether the original headline was a typo or a brief effort to retcon some gender neutrality into early American history. Donohue did not reply to an inquiry on Twitter.

“What was the original intent behind the Constitution and other documents that helped shape the nation?” Donohue wrote in his blog post. “What did the Founders of our country have to say? Those questions persist in the political debates and discussions to this day, and fortunately, we have a tremendous archive left behind by those statesmen who built the government over 200 years ago.””

Read more:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/13/white-house-originally-opts-for-founding-founders-over-founding-fathers-then-reconsiders/

I miss my dad.

106 Comments

Posted in America, American Revolution, Americans, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Declaration of Independence, Founding Fathers, Government, Natural born citizen

Tagged , , , ,

Marco Rubio on Obama birth certificate Arpaio investigation, Natural born citizen status, Rubio downplays Obama’s constitutional eligibility, Philip J. Berg constitutional crisis

Posted on June 6, 2013 | 75 comments

Marco Rubio on Obama birth certificate Arpaio investigation, Natural born citizen status, Rubio downplays Obama’s constitutional eligibility, Philip J. Berg constitutional crisis

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Soetoro/Obama is not ‘Constitutionally Eligible’ to be President and therefore, everything he has done, all appointments and all signings are voidable.”…Philip J. Berg

 
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

Marco Rubio, when asked about Obama’s birth certificate and the Arpaio investigation, down played the significance of the issue and changed subject, in typical politician style, to other pressing issues.

However, Philip J. Berg, in 2008 nailed it:

“if Obama is voted into the Office of the President and allowed to assume said position, in violation of Article II, Section of our Constitution as he is not a “natural born” citizen, it would be Unconstitutional.”

“any act or action that Obama executes is Unconstitutional.
This would create massive litigation and a complete disarray of our government and a Constitutional crisis.”

We have that crisis now. It will worsen.

From commenter GORDO at Citizen Wells yesterday:

“BREAKING! MARCO RUBIO STEPS INTO IT BIG TIME!…Says that if Sheriff Arpaio has evidence of Obama fraud…he needs to present it to the public!…He personally is not aware of a problem (ROTFLMAO!!!)…

UPDATE: Mike Zullo has been personally informed as to this development as of 3:30 p.m. PST”

http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2013/06/breaking-marco-rubio-steps-into-it-big.html
===============
GaryW’s comments at ORYR:

“It’s time for Zullo to march into Rubio’s office. Furthermore…this video clip needs to be disseminated far and wide and all patriot’s need to bombard Rubio with the evidence. Hold his feet to the fire! This is an opening that needs to be exploited! He said it…hold him to it!”

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/06/shock-video-senator-marco-rubio.html#IDComment656172599
—
“BTW…Zullo was informed personally 15 mins ago about this. I know this to be a fact.”

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/06/shock-video-senator-marco-rubio.html#IDComment656172816

CDR Charles Kerchner:

“Chief Investigator Mike Zullo Needs to Call and Send a Followup Confirmation Letter to Senator Marco Rubio and Offer to Publicly Brief and Present Senator Rubio with the Evidence of Obama’s ID Document Fraud”

“Watch this shocking and shameful video demonstrating the either total naivety and deviousness by Senator Rubio, or one non-natural born Citizen of the USA with presidential aspirations who is protecting Obama the non-natural born Citizen of the USA and fraud, as John McCain did in 2008, or is engaging in a bald-faced disinformation attempt, and change the subject attempt, to bamboozle the questioner and the listeners, and pretend he does not know about the extent of the absolute forged and fabricated Obama’s PDF Birth Certificate on WhiteHouse.gov, which fact has now been verified as such by a court certified document examiner:”

http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/chief-investigator-mike-zullo-needs-to-call-senator-marco-rubio-and-offer-to-brief-and-present-rubio-with-the-evidence-of-obamas-id-document-fraud/

75 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election Law, Eligibility, Florida, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, US Senate, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , ,

Florida election corruption bias incompetence, Secretary of State, Judges, Voeltz v Obama treatment obstruction of justice, Obama eligibility case ignored obfuscated and delayed

Posted on June 2, 2013 | 123 comments

Florida election corruption bias incompetence, Secretary of State, Judges, Voeltz v Obama treatment obstruction of justice, Obama eligibility case ignored obfuscated and delayed

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to
particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that
rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must
decide on the operation of each.”

“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the
constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature;
the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the
case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all
cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention
of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the
constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising
under the constitution should be decided without examining the
instrument under which it arises?  This is too extravagant to
be maintained.”

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

“As a general rule the law contemplates the Secretary of State is to accept qualifying instruments from anyone who swears he is eligible and pays the qualifying fees. This rule should not be construed to require the Secretary of State to place the name of a person on the ballot who is obviously not eligible and when such lack of eligibility is known to him as the state’s chief elections officer.”…Justice Boyd, STATE EX REL. SHEVIN v. STONE, FL, August 10, 1972

I was asked recently why I had not included Florida with Alabama and Vermont supreme court challenges to Obama’s eligibility.

The reasons are simple.

First, no eligibility hearing has yet been scheduled for the FL Supreme Court. Why has the Voeltz v Obama eligibility challenge not reached the FL Supreme Court, unlike AL and VT?

Some combination of corruption, bias and incompetence within the executive, judicial and perhaps even legislative bodies of the State of Florida.

Secretary of State duty.

From the Florida statutes.

“97.012 Secretary of State as chief election officer.–The Secretary of State is the chief election officer of the state, and it is his or her responsibility to:

(1) Obtain and maintain uniformity in the interpretation and implementation of the election laws.”

OATH OF OFFICE
(Art. II. § 5(b), Fla. Const.)

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of”

THE STATES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRIMARIES, GENERAL ELECTION AND EVENTS THROUGH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE.

US Constitution
Article II
Section 1

“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.”

From page 2 of the Florida “2012 Federal Qualifying Handbook”

“PART II: PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT

Qualifications

1. Must be a natural born citizen of the United States.
2. Must be at least 35 years of age.
3. Must be a resident of the United States for 14 years.”

“Must be” is not a suggestion.

Florida Election statutes

“Title IX

102.168 Contest of election.–
“(1) Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively.

(2) Such contestant shall file a complaint, together with the fees prescribed in chapter 28, with the clerk of the circuit court within 10 days after midnight of the date the last board responsible for certifying the results officially certifies the results of the election being contested.

(3) The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the election on a submitted referendum. The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:”

“(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.”

The FL Secretary of State has a ministerial duty in the elections.

Ministerial defined.

Merriam Webster.

a : being or having the characteristics of an act or duty prescribed by law as part of the duties of an administrative office
b : relating to or being an act done after ascertaining the existence of a specified state of facts in obedience to a legal order without exercise of personal judgment or discretion.

Legal dictionary.

“Ministerial describes an act or a function that conforms to an instruction or a prescribed procedure. It connotes obedience. A ministerial act or duty is a function performed without the use of judgment by the person performing the act or duty.”

Obedience is the common denominator. To a legal order or conforming “to an instruction or a prescribed procedure.”

This includes the US Constitution and US Code.

Furthermore.

Justice Boyd in STATE EX REL. SHEVIN v. STONE from August 10, 1972 states:

“As a general rule the law contemplates the Secretary of State is to accept qualifying instruments from anyone who swears he is eligible and pays the qualifying fees. This rule should not be construed to require the Secretary of State to place the name of a person on the ballot who is obviously not eligible and when such lack of eligibility is known to him as the state’s chief elections officer. The burden of litigating the matter should be upon the one seeking to qualify.”

Response from FL elected officials and judges.

From Citizen Wells February 1, 2012.

A  challenger discovered this recently.

“Below and attached is a scanned copy of the letter I just received from the Secretary of State, AKA Florida Supervisor of Elections, in response to the Obama Ballot Challenge I filed 9 January 2012 with him and Attorney General Pam Bundi. The Constitution of the State of Florida (1838) and as amended through 2008 and by adoption of the 2012 Federal Qualifying Handbook (October 2011) the State of Florida has accepted the qualifications for President and Vice President listed therein, based solely on the Certifications of Qualifications from the Political Parties.Read carefully, looks like we have no protection from fraud by either Party. Still waiting for response from the Attorney General.

Vern H. Goding, Ret. OathKeeper.
Melbourne Village, Fl 32904″

Response from Gary Holland, Assistant General Counsel.

“After an election, section 102.168, Florida Statutes, provides that any unsuccessful candidate for the office being sought, any voter qualified to vote in the election, or any taxpayer may file an election contest in the circuit court based upon the successful candidates’s ineligibility for the office sought. Such contest must be brought within 10 days of the date the last board responsibe for certifiying the results officially ceetified the results of the election being contested.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/fl-primary-opens-door-to-obama-eligibilty-challenge-florida-statutes-allow-contest-10-day-window-circuit-court-obama-natural-born-citizen-deficiency/

Read the entire response from Assistant General Counsel Holland here:

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/sunshine-state-shenanigans

Voeltz v Obama was presented before 2 courts in FL. I will leave it to the reader to decide what combination of corruption, bias and incompetence applies to the judges.

Michael Voeltz filed a contest of election in Leon County Circuit Court on February 15, 2012.

A motion to dismiss from Obama and Secretary of State Ken Detzner was granted by Judge Terry Lewis on June 29, 2012.

The entire response from Judge Lewis will not be evaluated at this time. However, enough of the judge’s suspect reasoning will be presented to raise eyebrows.

Judge Lewis presents a flawed description of Natural Born Citizen and quotes a flawed decision in Akeny v Governor of Indiana. That is scary enough.

The next example is clearly more black and white.

Judge Lewis quotes a small portion of Cherry v Stone from August 4, 1972. This is not the better ruling to quote and not the latest.

From STATE EX REL. SHEVIN v. STONE from August 10, 1972.
“The resign law is not Secretary Stone’s to administer by such a determination, any more than the campaign spending law. His charge under the constitution and statute does not extend to the substance or correctness or enforcement of a sworn compliance with the law — with “matters in pais”, as it were. Once the candidate states his compliance, under oath, the Secretary’s ministerial determination of eligibility for the office is at an end. Any challenge to the correctness of the candidate’s statement of compliance is for appropriate judicial determination upon any challenge properly made, as here.”

Justice Boyd adds

“I agree with the majority opinion disposing of Miller and Wright.

As a general rule the law contemplates the Secretary of State is to accept qualifying instruments from anyone who swears he is eligible and pays the qualifying fees. This rule should not be construed to require the Secretary of State to place the name of a person on the ballot who is obviously not eligible and when such lack of eligibility is known to him as the state’s chief elections officer. The burden of litigating the matter should be upon the one seeking to qualify.

The Attorney General is properly bringing this action as the Attorney for the State. Few matters in a democracy can be of greater importance to the people than those relating to qualifications of candidates for public office.”

From above:

“Once the candidate states his compliance, under oath, the Secretary’s ministerial determination of eligibility for the office is at an end.”

No oath, no written compliance with the law was provided by Obama.

Plaintiff Voeltz took the case to the Second Judicial Circuit Court of Leon County.

On December 20, 2012 Judge Kevin Carroll dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Judge Carroll states that “the Electoral College met and voted on December 17, 2012.”

“this court cannot now alter the Electoral College process.”

How convenient, the state of FL dragged out this process instead of acting and expediting it.

Judge Carroll also states:

“the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County, Florida does not have jurisdiction to determine the issue of qualification for the Office of President of the United States, particularly at this date in the process.”

Judge Carroll paraphrases “Miracle on 34th Street”, that the US government recognizes Obama as president and again with the element of elapsed time as if that was prohibitive.

Judge Carroll is wrong and should be impeached!

Let’s go through some of the references to the president and candidates in general not being qualified. There are mechanisms in place for removing them from office.

At the state level, the federal government gives the states the power to control elections through the submission of the electoral count to congress.

The State election officials are not prohibited from questioning eligibility.

Even in FL, as noted above:

“Once the candidate states his compliance, under oath, the Secretary’s ministerial determination of eligibility for the office is at an end.”

From 2 southeastern states:

NORTH CAROLINA

NC Statute § 163-114.  Filling vacancies among party nominees occurring after nomination and before election.

“If any person nominated as a candidate of a political party for one of the offices listed below (either in a primary or convention or by virtue of having no opposition in a primary) dies, resigns, or for any reason becomes ineligible or disqualified before the date of the ensuing general election, the vacancy shall be filled by appointment according to the following instructions:
Position

President 

Vacancy is to be filled by appointment of national executive
committee of political party in which vacancy occurs”

GEORGIA

§ 21-2-5.  Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; determination of qualifications
“(a) Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.

(b) The Secretary of State upon his or her own motion may challenge the qualifications of any candidate at any time prior to the election of such candidate. Within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying, any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate may challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State giving the reasons why the elector believes the candidate is not qualified to seek and hold the public office for which he or she is offering. Upon his or her own motion or upon a challenge being filed, the Secretary of State shall notify the candidate in writing that his or her qualifications are being challenged and the reasons therefor and shall advise the candidate that he or she is requesting a hearing on the matter before an administrative law judge of the Office of State Administrative Hearings pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 13 of Title 50 and shall inform the candidate of the date, time, and place of the hearing when such information becomes available. The administrative law judge shall report his or her findings to the Secretary of State.”

Electoral college vote.

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.

Congress certifies electoral count.

“If any objections to the Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and one Senator. If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law.”

After the certification, the Constitution reveals the protocol for dealing with a president or candidate who is not qualified.

AMENDMENT XX

“Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall
end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators
and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January,
of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article
had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall
then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every
year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of
January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of
the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice
President elect shall become President. If a President shall not
have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his
term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then
the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President
shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the
case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect
shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President,
or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and
such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice
President shall have qualified.”

AMENDMENT XXV

“Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or
of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become
President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice
President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall
take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of
Congress.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he
transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such
powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as
Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either
the principal officers of the executive departments or of such
other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the
President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House
of Representatives their written declaration that the President is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice
President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the
office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists,
he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the
Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of
the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by
law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their
written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide
the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if
not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after
receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not
in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to
assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the
President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his
office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as
Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers
and duties of his office.”

As you see, there are laws and procedures in place from early in the nomination process and past inauguration to remedy a president or candidate who is not eligible.

It is a damn shame that we have judges and election officials in Florida and other states who shirk their constitutional duties and make such idiotic statements.

For more information and commentary visit.

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/

123 Comments

Posted in Attorney General, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, corruption, Courts, Election 2008, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Eligibility, Florida, Lawsuits, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

Florida courts corrupt biased incompetent?, Voeltz v Obama eligibility case, Obama not natural born citizen, AL VT Supreme Courts eligibility hearings, Election officials ignore laws duties

Posted on May 30, 2013 | 35 comments

Florida courts corrupt biased incompetent?, Voeltz v Obama eligibility case, Obama not natural born citizen, AL VT Supreme Courts eligibility hearings, Election officials ignore laws duties

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why do state election officials continue to ignore the US Constitution, federal election code and their own state election statutes?”…Citizen Wells

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

I have reported on the Obama eligibility hearings in the Alabama and Vermont Supreme Courts. The reason that I have not written about an eligibility hearing in the Florida Supreme Court is because one has not been scheduled there yet.

Why?

Good question.

The answer appears to be some combination of corruption bias and incompetence.

Here are some crucial points of law and fact. More details will be forthcoming.

Let’s start at the beginning.

The states are responsible for the primaries, general election and events through the Electoral College vote.

US Constitution
Article II
Section 1

“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.”

All state officials take an oath to uphold or defend the US Constitution.

In Florida they take the following oath.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of”

From page 2 of the Florida “2012 Federal Qualifying Handbook”

“PART II: PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT

Qualifications

1. Must be a natural born citizen of the United States.
2. Must be at least 35 years of age.
3. Must be a resident of the United States for 14 years.”

“Must be” is not a suggestion.

Florida Election statutes

“Title IX

102.168 Contest of election.–
“(1) Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively.

(2) Such contestant shall file a complaint, together with the fees prescribed in chapter 28, with the clerk of the circuit court within 10 days after midnight of the date the last board responsible for certifying the results officially certifies the results of the election being contested.

(3) The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the election on a submitted referendum. The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:”

“(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.”

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.”

Many of the Secretaries of State or other election officials claim to have only a “ministerial” duty in the elections.

In the recent Vermont Supreme Court hearing with appellant H. Brooke Paige, state attorney Todd Doloz stated that the VT Secretary of State has only a ministerial duty in the elections.

Ministerial defined.

Merriam Webster.

a : being or having the characteristics of an act or duty prescribed by law as part of the duties of an administrative office
b : relating to or being an act done after ascertaining the existence of a specified state of facts in obedience to a legal order without exercise of personal judgment or discretion.

Legal dictionary.

“Ministerial describes an act or a function that conforms to an instruction or a prescribed procedure. It connotes obedience. A ministerial act or duty is a function performed without the use of judgment by the person performing the act or duty.”

Obedience is the common denominator. To a legal order or conforming “to an instruction or a prescribed procedure.”

The US Constitution makes this clear.

The Secretary of State swears an oath to the Constitution.

Florida law explicitly states the requirements for the eligibility of the president.

The attorney for Vermont, in his obfuscation efforts, raised the spectre of each Secretary of State or chief election official proactively verifying the eligibility of each candidate.

No reasonable person is requesting that.

However, there is a clear distinction between that and knowingly, after being alerted of a candidate’s eligibility deficiency, taking no action, ignoring a clear mandate from the US Constitution and allowing a candidate to remain on the ballot potentially disenfranchising thousands if not millions of voters.

This is what should have taken place in FL and all of the states:

Once alerted or challenged on a potential deficiency in eligibility of a candidate, the Secretary of State or other election official should investigate.

In the case of Obama and his natural born citizen status, if there is confusion about the definition, the state attorney general should be queried and if there is still confusion, a court ruling requested.

Passing the buck is dereliction of duty.

In Florida, the situation is much worse.

Not only did the FL Secretary of State fail in their constitutional duty, subsequent court hearings have been delayed and failed in their judicial duties.

Why has the judicial system failed the citizens in Florida?

More details to come.

35 Comments

Posted in Attorney General, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election 2012, Election Law, Election update, Electors, Eligibility, Florida, Judges, Judicial misconduct, Lawyers, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Secretary of State, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, Voter fraud, white house

Tagged , , , ,