Category Archives: Donald Sullivan

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

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.”

Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan, Update, February 11 2010, Lawsuit, Obama not eligible, North Carolina Board of Elections, NC Secretary of State, Elaine F. Marshall

From Lt. Col Donald Sullivan, February 9, 2010.

FYI – Following are the comments I made verbatim to the court in my last hearing on the Obama eligibility matter.  The hearing was held in Superior Court in Roxboro, NC, on January 4, 2010, at 2:00.  I have attached the motion to amend which was the subject of the hearing and the documents indicated below.  The judge denied the motion, and I objected on constitutional grounds.  I am not planning to appeal.  That is bad news for Obama.  In my opinion, the movement to unseat Obama due to his citizenship may be the only thing keeping him alive.  When the last two cases go away, there will be no other way to get rid of this imposter than the old fashioned way.  I, for one, hope that does not happen. 
If any of you have any ideas for an appeal, I would like to hear them.  Otherwise, this is the end of the road on this subject for me.  The United States is on a dead-end road as far as I am concerned.  In a conversation today with the opposing counsel for the State of NC, I was told that it didn’t look like there was any way for the court to get jurisdiction over this matter such that an order could be issued to accomplish what I was after.  I told her that I agreed with that assessment if the court continues to disregard its constitutional authority and its oath to support and maintain the constitution.  I could almost hear her sigh on the other end of the line.
It is worthy of note that this case was not dismissed for lack of standing, as were so many others.  It would appear the “class action” status cured that.  It’s just too bad we can’t find a constitutional judge. 
DS
 
**************************************8
My comments to the court – Sullivan v. NC Board of Education, Wake County File #08CVS21393, Motion to Amend, Vacate or Alter Order (attached), Superior Court Judge Osmond Smith, III, presiding:
 
Good afternoon, Your Honor, and thank you for hearing this motion to vacate your order in this matter today.  Can I presume that you are familiar with my motion?  First let me remind the court that I am here specially and not generally.  I am not an attorney, nor have I been schooled in the practice of law.  I ask the court to consider the substance of my pleadings and arguments and not the form; as the filings of a litigant acting on his own behalf, such as myself, are not to be held to the same stringent standards as those of a practicing lawyer, pursuant to Haines v. Kerner, 404 US 519.  I appear at law and not of law. I don’t call myself a “Birther”.  I call myself a “constitutionalist”. Without the Constitution, there is no lawful State or federal government.  The Constitution of NC at Art. 1, Sec.5, requires us to follow the federal Constitution.  The federal Constitution requires the office of President be held a natural born citizen at Article II, Section 1, Cl. 6.  The key question before us today is the status of  Barack Obama’s citizenship and whether or not this case can go forward to challenge it.
 
1.                   First, due to the ruling by Judge Cobb this past December in a prior case, I move to voluntarily dismiss the Secretary of State as a defendant, res judicata.
2.                   Presentation of “Born in the USA” – Wong Kim Ark – Three types of citizenship (attached).
3.                   My motion today is based upon new evidence not available to me in our earlier hearing. (Introduce and present exhibits A, B, C, and D as described in the motion.
4.                   I believe the evidence I have introduced today and previously presents a prima facie case that Obama is not eligible for the office of President and was not a viable candidate in the first place.
5.                   Discuss INS affidavit attached to original complaint, my interview with the Secret Service, and “Unintended Consequences”.
6.                   “Overwhelmed by events and by Time”.  I became concerned that our government was no longer bound by the chains of the Constitution many years ago.  But after my hearing before Judge Jim Fox in federal court on March 21, 2003, I knew we were in trouble.  I had filed a case to prevent the war in Iraq due to the failure of the Congress to declare war.  During the House International Affairs Committee review of the Resolution to Authorize the President to use Military Force in Iraq, the chairman, Henry Hyde, said in response to Ron Paul’s amendment that we declare war as required by the Constitution that, “The Constitution has been overwhelmed by events and by time.  It is not relevant.”  I took this denial of the Constitution personally and made it the crux of my complaint.  Although Judge Fox agreed with most of my arguments, he denied my demand for a TRO to order Bush to stop the war which had begun two days earlier.  During the hearing, he admitted that our Constitution was no longer viable, having been overwhelmed by events and by time.  I read to you from the transcript of that hearing.  This quote has been featured in a Hollywood Movie by Aaron Russo.  [I read two pages from the transcript of “Sullivan v. United States, et al, 03CV039, USEDNC, March 21, 2003)
7.                   Read “Obama’s Own Words” (attached).
8.                   Read Judge Smith’s oath to support and maintain the US and NC Constitutions.  Do not raise the “Oath Question”, although Judge Smith’s oath is improper.  State:  “The people elect their judges to support and maintain the Constitution of the United States and that of the State of North Carolina, where it is not in contravention thereto.  An unconstitutional act is void from the beginning.  It creates no office and grants no authority.  (16AmJur2d)
9.                   Your Honor, failure to allow your order to be vacated and this complaint to move forward in a proper form to provide relief from this probable violation to our Constitutional law would be a treasonous act, a violation of our oaths to the Constitution and to the people of this country.  There is a constitutional remedy for my complaint and this court at law has the authority to grant it.  While I have admitted previously that the court has no equity jurisdiction in this matter, it does have jurisdiction at law under the Constitution and the authority to grant the relief I seek.
 
That having been said, it is apparent from the passage of more than a year since I filed this class action complaint for injunctive relief that this is no longer a matter seeking equitable relief, but instead one seeking a remedy at law, in this case constitutional law.  That remedy must be in the form of common law mandamus authority rather than injunctive relief due to the overwhelming events of this past year and the judicial delays starting from day one.  In any event, the relief I am seeking has not changed: An order to the remaining Defendant Board of Elections to validate the eligibility of Barack Obama to be the President of the United States of America.  Therefore, I request this court vacate the order dismissing my complaint and grant leave to amend the complaint as a petition for the common law writ of mandamus in this matter.  Thank you for listening, Your Honor.
 
[After denying my motion, off the record, the judge asked me if there were any more cases out there on the subject of Obama’s eligibility.  I told him there were two that I knew of, the Barnett case in California federal court, and the recently filed Quo Warranto in DC.]
 
10.               Jury demand after positive ruling.  [The judge denied my motion, so I didn’t pursue this option.]
11.               POINT OF ORDER – Oath question after negative ruling.  [I presented the discussion of the impropriety of Judge Smith’s oath, along with nearly all other officers in the State, including attorneys and all grand and petit juries.  He took home with him my written summary of the issue along with a copy of his oath, a proper oath by Judge Allen Cobb, a copy of the oath sheet used by the clerk of Pender County criminal court, copies of NCGS 11-11 and 11-7, and a copy of the oath given to attorneys written by the State Bar.  He and the judicial officers in the court seemed genuinely interested in the arguments presented.  I informed the judge that his privilege of immunity was not in effect until he is properly sworn and the oath filed with the county clerk of court.  He assured me he would research my information and inform me as to what action he would take, if any.]

View motion:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26718710/Lt-Colonel-Donald-Sullivan-vs-NC-Board-of-Elections-Obama-Lawsuit

Lt Col Donald Sullivan V NC Board of Elections, Elaine Marshall, NC Secretary of State, Update, December 7, 2009, Obama eligibility, Obama Kenyan born

 Here is the latest update December 7, 2009, from Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan, plaintiff in a lawsuit against North Carolina Board of Elections, and Elaine F. Marshall, Secretary of State For North Carolina. Following the update is a copy of the lawsuit.

“Sullivan v. Secretary of State for North Carolina, 08CVS1076
RE:  Obama Eligibility
 
12-4-09:  Hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to amend, alter or vacate Judge Cobb’s order of October 10, 2008, dismissing subject lawsuit with prejudice.
 
Judge Cobb called the case for hearing at 11:00 AM.  Present were myself and Brandon Truman, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the Defendant.  I made my statement in support of my motion to delete the words “with prejudice” from the order dismissing the case.  I wanted this done because my filing of the second complaint against Obama’s eligibility included as defendants both the secretary of state and the board of elections.  The “with prejudice” made any future complaint against the secretary of state filed by me, including mine, moot “res judicata”. 
 
I argued that the case had been dismissed, not on its merits, but on procedural arguments from the State.  I argued that the order had been drafted by the State’s attorney at the request of the judge, and that the term “with prejudice” had not been the subject of any discussion during the hearing on the complaint.  Further, the Rule governing dismissals makes it clear that dismissals for procedure in first complaints typically are considered to be without prejudice unless otherwise noted.  Such a dismissal on a second complaint in the same matter is typically “with prejudice”.  This was my first case in the series.  I had no way of knowing whether or not the attorney put those words into the order or if the judge had done that himself; since I was not given the privilege of reviewing the proposed order prior to its being given to the judge.  I also made a “point of order” on the court’s not being properly set, since, upon information and belief, the State’s attorney did not have a proper oath of office.  I did this without argument, just for the record.
 
The State’s attorney responded that he did not recollect adding that language to his order, but he might have.  He just couldn’t be sure.  He argued that the case was not only dismissed on procedural errors, but also due to the fact that the Secretary of State has no statutory duty to do that which I requested the court to order her to do.  He also introduced the dismissal order from my second Obama case showing its mootness since Obama had already been inaugurated.  I objected to that order as being irrelevant to the instant case, but the judge allowed it. 
 
I responded that I agreed there was no statutory duty of the Secretary to do as I requested, but that there was a higher, constitutional authority to do so. 
 
Judge Cobb denied the motion, telling me in no uncertain terms that it was he who put the words “with prejudice” into the order.  I had told the State’s attorney I would not appeal this ruling prior to the hearing.  I will put all my effort into Obama II.  The denial in this case means the second case will lose the Secretary of State as a defendant, leaving only the Board of Elections to carry the ball.  Again, the only argument in that case is the constitutional duty also.  I have a hearing being scheduled for later this month or early in January to hear a similar motion to amend, alter or vacate the dismissal order from last March, 2009.  It will be heard by Judge Osmond Smith III out of Caswell County.”

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF WAKE File # 08CV21393
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan, )

Plaintiff ) NOTICE AND DEMAND ) TO AMEND FINAL

v. ) JUDGMENT ORDER

) (CLASS ACTION)

North Carolina Board of Elections, and )

Elaine F. Marshall, Secretary of State )

For North Carolina, )

Defendants )

________________________________________________________________________

 
NOTICE AND DEMAND
 
 

 

Now come I, Lt. Colonel Donald Sullivan, Plaintiff, on behalf of myself and all others similarly situated, pursuant to Rule 59(a)(7), (8) and (e) and Rule 60 (b)(2), et seq., to notice and demand this court vacate, amend or alter its final order “signed” March 16, 2009, but dated October 2, 2009, and received by me on October 6, 2009, dismissing this action. This demand is based upon the newly discovered evidence infra, and upon the sworn duty of this court to “support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States” (Art. VI, Section 7, NC Const.).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
 
 

 

On November 7, 2008, and on behalf of all those similarly situated, I filed a class action complaint in this instant matter with the Pender County Clerk of Court demanding 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. Defendants moved for a change of venue to Wake County; Motion was granted December 1, 2008. I filed in this action a Notice and Demand for a TRO on November 26, 2008, to prevent the NC Board of Elections from certifying the vote for the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States until the defendants had certified the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of President of the United States under Article II, Section 1. The Honorable R. Allen Baddour, Jr., presiding Superior Court Judge, denied said motion for TRO on December 15, 2008. On December 19, 2008, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss my complaint in its entirety pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to mootness, res judicata, and lack of standing; and pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. I filed by mail a Motion to Amend my Notice and Demand for Injunctive Relief on December 19, 2008, seeking to add as defendants the Governor and the General Assembly, delete Para. 8.7, and delete the attachment of the claims for relief to the timing of the inauguration of the President, since the unreasonable and calculated court delays in this matter had rendered that element moot (A demand for injunctive relief being an extraordinary remedy which is normally heard immediately rather than being handled routinely as in the instant matter). On January 19, 2009, I filed a Notice and Demand for Class Certification seeking to represent all voters of North Carolina. Hearing was held on March 16, 2009, on the defendantÕs Motion to Dismiss and my Motion to Amend. On September 16, 2009, the attorney for the defendant e-mailed for my review a copy of the proposed order dismissing my case and denying my Demand. On September 21, 2009, I submitted my Objections to the Proposed Order by return e-mail. The subject order dismissing this action was issued by the Honorable W. Osmond Smith, Jr., on October 2, 2009, and dated March 16, 2009, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The final order contained no changes from that originally proposed.

PRESENTATION OF NEW EVIDENCE
 
 
 

 

The following is a statement of newly discovered evidence which was not available to me prior to the hearing on the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and which was unknown and unavailable to me at that time:

1. A syndicated report by the Associated Press, published Sunday, June 27, 2004, by the Kenyan Standard Times and available in their electronic edition for that date at http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/ap-declares-obama-kenyan-born/ . The article, though well concealed by Google, may also be found posted at http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm  The AP reporter stated the following:

“Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat…” (Emphasis added).

One would expect that an AP reporter is too professional to submit a story which was not based on confirmed sources (ostensibly the Obama campaign in this case), the inference seems inescapable: Obama himself was putting out in 2004 that he was born in Kenya. This article was not refuted by the Obama camp. Further, during that same campaign in 2004, Mr. Obama, for the record and in response to Mr. Alan Keyes’ statement that Obama was not a Ònatural born citizenÓ, stated in quick retort, “So what? I am running for Illinois Senator, not the presidency”.

2. On September 4, 2009, an Affidavit was filed as evidence in a federal case with the United States District Court in Santa Ana, California, by Mr. Lucas Smith. In this affidavit, he certified the legitimacy of a certified copy of a Kenyan birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., which he had personally obtained from Kenyan records. A copy of this birth certificate was filed concurrently with the affidavit, including a baby footprint, for the man who is currently referred to as President Barack Hussein Obama. The document is a legal affidavit that declares Lucas Smith to be of sound mind and judgment. Lucas Smith could go to jail if he lied on this affidavit.

3. On November 24, 2008, the following excerpts from an article by Chelsea Schilling appeared in the World Net Daily:

“A radio interview with Kenyan Ambassador Peter N.R.O. Ogego has been widely publicized since the ambassador called President-elect Barack Obama’s Kenyan birthplace a ‘well-known’ attraction – but the embassy is now telling WND the hosts misunderstood his comments.

“On Nov. 6, only two days after the election, Detroit radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF’s ‘Mike In The Morning’ called the Embassy of Kenya in Washington, D.C., to speak with Ambassador Ogego.

“The radio hosts were surprised when their light-hearted interview with Ogego reignited suspicions that Obama may have been born in Kenya.

“An assistant to the ambassador, referring to herself only as ‘Trudy,’ confirmed today that Ogego had indeed participated in the radio interview. But she said the show made leading statements and took the following comments out of context:

‘Clark: “We want to congratulate you on Barack Obama, our new president, and you must be very proud.”
‘Ogego: “We are. We are. We are also proud of the U.S. for having made history as well.”
‘Fellhauer: “One more quick question, President-elect Obama’s birthplace over in Kenya, is that going to be a national spot to go visit, where he was born?”
‘Ogego: “It’s already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive.”

‘Fellhauer: “His birthplace, they’ll put up a marker there?”

‘Ogego: “It would depend on the government. It’s already well known.'”

…”‘If you listen to the call in its entirety, you will find it was very obvious we were all talking about President-elect Barack Obama and not his father,’ Clark said.”

4. Here’s what it says at Obama’s web portal, Fight The Smears:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United KingdomÕs dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.”
(Emphasis and italics added.)Obama is telling us himself that his status was “governed” by a foreign jurisdiction.  This is no theory.  This is a fact. Like it or not, rich or poor, great or strong, Democrat or Republican, Obama was born under the jurisdiction of Great Britain via Kenya.  There is nothing conspiratorial about saying that.  Obama has it posted on his own web site. So, even if we accept that Mr Obama was born in Hawaii of a black Kenyan father and a 17-year-old white American mother, his citizenship is and constitutional eligibility for the presidency is still in question, since he is either a Brtish or Kenyan by birth, not an American. His American citizenship has never been confirmed or reinstated.
 
 

 

5. A letter dated 2 Februrary, 2009, from Michael Angelus to US Senator Maria Cantwell (D., VA) submitted four attachments including the following:

A. The actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795;

B. The actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790;

C. The actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789;

D. The actual text in a January 26, 2009 letter issued by United States Senator, Mark R. Warner.

Mr. Angelus also went on to include, Òand we also witness the apparent denial in the current United States Congress to address the phrase “natural born citizen.”

The purpose of the letter is to define what the Congress has concluded “natural born citizenship” to mean. Mr. Obama fails each of these tests for being natural born as required by Article 2, Section 1.

6. Upon information and belief, as one of his first acts as the newly installed “President”, Mr. Obama issued an executive order which sealed his personal papers, documents, records, transcripts, etc. from public scrutiny.

CONCLUSION
Therefore, because of the sworn duty of this court “to support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States”, and pursuant to the provisions of Rule 59 and Rule 60, supra, this court has the subject matter jurisdiction and the authority to grant the relief I am requesting based upon the new evidence herein provided, to vacate or alter the order of the court dismissing my complaint for injunctive relief and force the State of North Carolina, in the form of its elected and appointed officials, to properly and adequately protect the combined citizens of this State from an unconstitutionally elected chief executive of the United States; or, in the alternative, to confirm that Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., is indeed eligible to hold that office. Each of these elected and appointed officials, including this Honorable Court, has taken a solemn oath to do no less.
 
 

 

Any act repugnant to the Constitution is void ab initio. It carries no authority and creates no law. We learn this the first week of law school. Ignorance of the law, therefore, does not apply in this matter. I demand this court do its duty to the People, to this country and to themselves and confirm the constitutionality of the Obama “Presidency”. We have seen already the unintended consequences of enthroning an apparent imposter. There will be more unless we all do our duty. Honor requires no less.

Respectfully submitted this the Twenty-Ninth Day of October, 2009.

____________________________________ Donald Sullivan, Plaintiff, sui juris Lt. Col., USAFR(R) PO Box 3061 Wilmington, NC 28406 910-617-2559

 
 
 
 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do certify I have this Tewenty-Ninth Day of October, 2009, served a copy of the foregoing “Notice and Demand Amend Final Judgment Order” 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 Defendant Board of Elections:
State of North Carolina Department of Justice

ATTN: Susan K. Nichols, Special Attorney General

PO Box 629

Raleigh, NC 27602-0629

For Defendant Elaine F. Marshall, Secretary of State:

Brandon L. Truman

Assistant Attorney General

PO Box 629

Raleigh, NC 27626-0629

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

BY: ________________________________

Donald Sullivan, Lt Col, USAFR (Ret)

Plaintiff, Sui JurisPO Box 3061

Wilmington, NC 28406

  

Lt Col Donald Sullivan, update March 30, 2009, Sullivan’s son’s arrest, Burgaw, NC, Miranda rights, Obama thugs, Lt Col Sullivan lawsuits, NC state trooper, Son arrested for not answering questions

We have illegal aliens getting benefits an illegal president but
the son of a Lt Col, Donald Sullivan, gets arrested for not
answering questions. Here is an update from Lt Col Donald Sullivan
on the arrest of his son.

“Events of March 24, 2009 – My son’s Arrest for not being from NC; and the beat goes on, only it’s getting more personal.

Short Version:  On March 24, 2009, my son was stopped at a checkpoint; arrested for not answering questions; and jailed under $50,000.00 bond for committing no crime.

Long Version:  Just when I thought it could get no more ridiculous, Tuesday came.  It was the 24th of March, 2009, and I was in Burgaw, NC, the county seat, at the courthouse to serve the DA timely with my record on appeal for the right to bear arms trial of November, 2008.  As I walked into the courthouse from the bright North Carolina sunshine, I saw a familiar face just coming down the stairway from the courtrooms upstairs.  Not only did the face look familiar, it was my son; and he was in handcuffs!  I casually walked up to him and the State policeman who had him in tow and said, “Well, I see they finally broke your cherry, Myson.”  He smiled, and said, “Looks that way, Dad.”

I turned to the officer, introduced myself, and asked him why my son was being charged.  He told me straight up, “He wouldn’t answer my questions.”  “That’s the way I taught him”, I said.  “He doesn’t have to answer your questions.”  I turned to my son and asked him what was going on, not thinking the trooper would let him answer; but he did.  He said he was on his way to my house along NC Highway 210 when he ran up on a police checkpoint. When I interrupted and asked why he didn’t just turn around and go the other way, he said there was no need, since he was not breaking any laws.  Besides, he said he was towing my trailer and turning around on a two-lane road would have been difficult. 

He continued with his story saying the trooper had asked him for his license and registration, which he tendered.  Both are from Michigan, since my son is still a resident of Michigan, but the trooper asked him what his local address was.  (The trooper was aware of my son’s trial a few months ago when the charge was dismissed against him for no NC license for lack of evidence and jurisdiction.  I know for a fact my son has no NC address.)  He responded with, “You have my license.  I’m not going to answer any of your questions.”  The trooper asked him if he had insurance, and my son responded, “I told you I am not going to answer any of your questions.”  The trooper told him he would go to jail if he didn’t answer.  My son persisted, so the trooper ordered him to pull his pick-up off to the side of the road and get out of it.  He complied, and the trooper read him his Miranda rights, the first of which is, “You have the right to remain silent.”  The trooper then told him he would be arrested unless he answered the questions about his local address and his proof of insurance.  My son maintained that he didn’t have to answer any questions, so he was handcuffed and brought to the courthouse for his “probable cause” hearing.  This is where I came in.

I asked the trooper how he could arrest my son for not answering his questions when he had a right not to answer.  He responded that there is a law in NC which requires everyone to give their address when asked by a law enforcement officer or the courts.  When I asked how that could be with our right to remain silent and not incriminate ourselves, and he said he was just doing his job.  How I hate that response.  One day 9it will be the death sentence of anyone who uses it.  I told the officer I had some quick errands to run in the courthouse, but that I would join them upstairs where the magistrate was holding small claims court.  After depositing my record on appeal with the DA, I went upstairs to the courtroom. 

Once inside, I saw that the trooper was about to finish briefing the magistrate on the charges:  No NC operator’s license; no proof of insurance; expired MI registration; no trailer license plate; and refusal to answer questions divulge his local address.  The magistrate called my son forward and asked him for his address.  He told her he was not answering any of his questions, that he had a right to remain silent.  She then asked if he could be in court on the 20th of May, to which he responded, “Yes, Ma’am.”  She then put him under FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS SECURED BOND ($50,000.00), BECAUSE HE REFUSED TO ANSWER HER QUESTIONS!  When he told her he was not a flight risk, nor was he a threat to anyone, and should be released on his own recognizance by law, she responded, “You won’t answer my questions or those of the trooper.  Your license says you are from out of state.  You could be an ‘axe-murderer’ for all we know, so the bond stays.”  I then interrupted and asked, “How much was that bond?!”  She said “$50,000.00.”  I then asked her if she would accept cash or a check.  She said, “Certified check or cash.”  I told her I would be back in an hour with the money.  My son went to jail, and I went to get the cash. 

Needless to say, I was very upset, but controlled.  This whole charade was obviously due to the amount of harassment my many legal filings have caused the local law enforcement agencies and the courts along with the several criminal proceedings and appeals I have active at the present.  There was no need whatsoever to arrest my son for alleged statutory violations which do not have jurisdiction over an out-of-state individual, and the $50,000.00 bond was an aberration not seen before in Pender County!

When I returned to the jail with the cash, the magistrate was busy in her office.  I struck up a conversation with some other unfortunates who were waiting in the lobby for their friends and loved ones and told them I was there to pick up my son who had been arrested for “Not answering their questions” and held under $50,000.00 bond.  They were astounded, of course, since no one had ever been heard of such; and it was completely illogical.  I told them it was vindictive and retaliatory, that “they” were using my son to get at me, and I was not going to stand for it.  I said things like, “They’ve made it personal now by going after my children, and they’ve crossed the line!”  These things I said loud enough for the magistrate to hear.  Then, I walked over to her open door and asked if she was ready for me to bail out my son; that I had $60,000.00 cash just in case she upped the ante.  She replied in the affirmative and said, “All he had to do was to answer my questions, and he wouldn’t be here.  And it was not vindictive.  I didn’t know he was your son and had ties to the county.  If I had, I could have reconsidered the bond.”  I told her it was not too late to reconsider, especially since he had a right to remain silent in the first place, and it was a violation of his constitutional rights to deny him his liberty for exercising his rights.   She replied that she had reconsidered, that the bond was reduced to $2,000.00 unsecured.  I told her that was not good enough, that he had objected to any bond due to his not being a flight risk or a threat to anyone’s life, liberty or property.  She said she had to leave the bond in place, since that was the guideline she was given “in school”.  (I assumed she was referring to the same “school” my jailer had mentioned when she told me my “stay would be prolonged” if I didn’t submit to being photographed last month.)  She tapped on the window at the back of her office and told the jailers to “Bring Mr. Sullivan out.  He doesn’t need handcuffs.)  So, they brought my son out; he collected his things and filled out the necessary paperwork; and we left to recover his truck.  I told her it was a good thing she had “reconsidered”, or my son would have filed a civil suit against her.  As it was, he would only file against the trooper, but she might be a co-defendant.

When we got to his truck about 90 minutes later, the State trooper who had arrested him was there waiting in his car, right by my son’s truck.  I got out of my car, with my S&W 9mm strapped on my hip as always, and walked up to his car and tapped on is window.  He rolled the window down, and I asked him if he was waiting to arrest us again when we moved the car.  He replied that he was just stopped doing some paperwork.  I then asked if he would arrest my son when he drove off in the car, or did we have to trailer it home, which I was prepared to do.  He told me he couldn’t drive off if he had no insurance.  I told him my son had insurance, but he just hadn’t felt the need to answer the trooper’s questions.  When he said the truck couldn’t move on its own without proof of insurance, I asked my son to show the officer his proof of insurance, which he readily did.  This set the officer back a bit, and he asked, “Why didn’t you show me this before?”  My son responded, “Because, it’s like I told you, ‘I don’t have to answer your questions if the answer might tend to incriminate me”, so I don’t answer any questions.”

We then proceeded to have a very nice and informative chat with the officer for over an hour, during which time I said nothing to compromise my son’s case, but I did take the opportunity to educate the trooper a little bit.  He admitted he was not so sure things were always as they appear, or as the government tells them, and that he regularly listened to local conservative radio hosts and to Neil Bortz.  As we parted, I informed the trooper that he had violated my son’s rights, and that my son would file a civil suit against him as soon as the charges were dismissed.  He said, “Do what you have to do”, to which I responded, “It’s the only way you and your buddies are going to learn to leave us alone.”  Oh, and as to my sidearm, the trooper asked me just before we parted what kind of weapon it was.  I told him, “S&W 9mm”.

DS
3-29-09″

Lt Col Sullivan, sir, if you need any assistance say the
word, and thousands will come to your aid.

Sullivan v. NC Secretary of State and Board of Elections, Update March 20, 2009, Lt Col Donald Sullivan, Obama not eligible, NC lawsuit, Judge W. Osmond Smith, III, Wake County Superior Court, Raleigh, NC, US Constitution, First Lieutenant Scott Easterling, US Military

I just received this update from Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan:

“Personal Transcript of Hearing:  Sullivan v. NC Secretary of State and Board of Elections; Case #08-CVS-021393

SUBJECT: Obama Eligibility

On March 16, 2009, the calendar was called by Judge W. Osmond Smith, III, presiding, in Wake County Superior Court, Raleigh, NC.  My case was #23 on the calendar and required the hearing of three separate “motions”:  My demand for class action certification; my demand for leave to amend; and the State’s motion to dismiss.  When he got to #23, the judge said he would pass over this item until he had completed calling the calendar.  (Odd, this.  It was apparent there had been discussion of my case prior to the hearing.  I am not at all sure these discussions did not include the defendant State.) Upon completion of calling the calendar, and after dividing the calendar between himself and another superior court judge, A. Leon Stanback, Jr., Judge Smith called the first case without mentioning mine again.  I stood and called his attention to his oversight, and he apologized.  The case was then scheduled for hearing last.  

When my case was called (actually next to last as it worked out), the judge asked the parties how long the arguments would take.  I answered it would depend upon which of the three “motions” he decided to hear first.  After a brief discussion, the judge chose to hear my demand to amend first.  It being my action with the burden of proof on my shoulders, I began my arguments in support of my demand with a statement of the justification for my amendment to the original pleadings. The original filing was a demand for injunctive relief which the court had decided to consider only a “routine” case.  The case was filed on November 7th, 2008, and in anticipation of an expedited ruling to take place prior to the inauguration on January 20th, 2009.  By considering the case “routine”, the court had condemned the action to becoming moot upon the completion of the inauguration.  Thus, it was necessary to amend the complaint to prevent the necessity of filing a completely new action.  It was only due to the scheduling by the court that the case had taken three months to be heard.  I also was demanding I be allowed to add the Governor and the State of NC as defendants, since the necessary actions required in my demand for injunctive relief were interstate actions and would necessitate the Governor be a party.

I then presented that it was the sworn duty of the court to support the Constitution of the United States in accordance with the court’s ( and all others involved in this action) Article VI, Section 7, (NC Constitution) oath, in accordance with Article VI, Section 2, (US Constitution), and in accordance with Article 1, Section 5, of the NC Constitution.  I admitted there was no statutory requirement for the State to do as I had demanded, but that the obligation and responsibility was a constitutional one, this being both an equity court and a constitutional court.  I listed the evidentiary facts which appeared to assert the ineligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of President in contravention to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 5, of the US Constitution including, but not limited to, his failure to reveal his original birth certificate from Hawaii; his apparent use of an Indonesian passport in 1981, his multiple citizenships by birth and residence, none of which he has renounced; his failure to release his collegiate records which allegedly show he attended as a foreign student under an FS-1 foreign student visa; statements by the ambassador to the US from Kenya and his paternal grandmother which attest to his being born in Mombasa, Kenya; his having given false information on his application for an Illinois license to practice law in 1989, in that he averred he had no other names than Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., when, in fact, he has used at least four other names over his lifetime; and the apparent falsity of his selective service registration.  I also showed the court the current issue of “Globe” magazine I had purchased that morning on the way to the courthouse, which highlighted on its cover, and in the article inside, the peril faced by the US military in its confusion over whether to execute the orders of a “President” who may in fact not be qualified.  The cover pictured 43-year-old First Lieutenant Scott Easterling, in uniform and in Iraq, one of many US soldiers who are questioning the authority of Obama’s presidency.  I explained that, should Obama survive the first four years of his presidency and decide to run again (a likelihood for which I admitted having very little hope), the issue of his eligibility would most certainly come up again; and, in the event he was proven ineligible, every action, appointment, order and law he had committed to during his first four years would be invalidated.   I tried to impress upon the court that this constitutional crisis could be averted by nipping the “rumors”, if in fact that is what we are dealing with here, of Obama’s ineligibility in the bud by allowing my amendment so that the complaint could continue.

Having exhausted my arguments to the court, I turned it over to the defense, which merely argued that the case against the Secretary of State was res judicata (judged previously), having been heard in my prior filing against her and dismissed; that my arguments were moot, since the inauguration had passed, and there was no claim upon which relief could be granted by the court; and that I lacked standing before the court to pursue this case.  Their arguments were brief, and the judge listened.  When the two attorneys for the State sat down, the judge denied my motion to amend.

We then proceeded directly to the State’s motion to dismiss.  They presented the same arguments in brief that had already been presented in the first hearing on the demand to amend, except they added that the ruling should be “with prejudice”.  Part of my defense against the motion to dismiss had already been presented as to the res judicata claim in the form of my prior complaint had been dismissed “without prejudice”, such that I could file the same complaint again. They also argued the issues of standing, mootness and jurisdiction.  When it was my turn, I repeated most of my arguments as well in the rebuttal, adding that mootness was not a valid defense because the offense of Obama’s illegitimacy was a continuing offense against the Constitution, not degraded nor invalidated merely on the grounds that he was now inaugurated falsely as President.  My argument against “standing” was my filing as a “class action”, and the argument against jurisdiction was, of course, the constitutional obligations of the court.  As to res judicata,
I explained to the judge that a ruling “without prejudice” did not deny leave to refile the case at a later date.

The judge didn’t buy any of it and allowed the motion to dismiss, along with the prayer for finding “with prejudice”, due to “mootness” (the inauguration issue); “failure to state a claim against which relief could be granted” (the “No State statute requires it” issue, which denies any constitutional duty or obligation); and “res judicata”.  Conspicuously absent from this list was the issue of “standing” which has killed all the other suits around the country, of which I am aware.  This last supports my theory that I had resolved the “standing” issue by filing a class action suit”, for which I offered myself as the representative of the registered voter “class” of North Carolina. I advised the court that I intended to appeal, but would appeal in writing within the allotted 30 days after the order is signed. 

I have no intention of appealing this ruling.  I will file a new case and improve on that one as I did from the first one filed in October to the second one filed in November.  It is ironic that, had the judge allowed my demand to amend the names of the Governor and the State of NC to the defendant list, I would be precluded from filing a new case against them as it would be “res judicata”. 

It is important that we continue to push this issue of legitimacy in government, if only because we are currently involved in two foreign armed conflicts with more on the horizon, and the economy is on the edge of collapse.  Our military cannot continue to question the orders of the Commander-in-Chief because of the confusion of his nationality, and the “Stimulus Plan” is not going to help the economy.  As Sun Tsu told us, we must know the enemy and ourselves, or we can never be victorious in battle.  In the case of the United States government, the enemy is a mystery who changes with the tide; and, with Obama in the White House, even we ourselves are an unknown quantity.  We cannot win if we continue on this course.
END
March 20, 2009
DS”