Category Archives: Election Law

Larry Sinclair for Congress, Contract with Florida congressional district 24, Contract with America, Taxpayer money, Transparency

Larry Sinclair is running for Congress in Florida congressional district 24 as an independent. Larry Sinclair, despite the multitude of lies told about him, has done everything he has told me he was going to do, including writing and publishing a book about his drug and sex encounter with Barack Obama in 1999. I spoke at length with Larry several days ago about the disgusting behaviour of congressmen, especially their out of control spending of taxpayer money. Ever since I began following Larry Sinclair and his allegations early in 2008, it was apparent that Larry was not in this for the money. In fact, I have proof.  If I did not believe that Larry Sinclair is sincere about his contract below, I would not publish it.

Larry Sinclair is going to need contributions to have any chance of success. He is also in need of volunteers in Florida. I will be posting more information about this soon.

Larry Sinclair and I are on the same page in regard to frugality and not wasting taxpayer money. I believe that Larry means every word below.

From Larry Sinclair for Congress:

Larry’s Contract with Florida’s 24.

I, Larry Sinclair (employee) do enter into “Larry’s Contract With Florida’s 24,” with all residents of Florida’s 24th Congressional District (employer) effective upon my election on November 2, 2010 to the United States House of Representatives.

The terms of “Larry’s Contract With Florida’s 24” will remain valid from the date elected (November 2, 2010 through such date Larry Sinclair is replaced by the voters of Florida’s 24th Congressional District.

I, Larry Sinclair, do agree to resign immediately from the U.S. House of Representatives (FL-24) upon the failure to comply with a single term of “Larry’s Contract With Florida’s 24” as set forth below:

1. I Larry Sinclair will NOT use one-cent of Tax-payer money to pay for any housing of any kind in Washington, D.C. or the surrounding areas while occupying Florida 24’s Congressional seat.

2.  I Larry Sinclair will NOT use one-cent of Tax-payer money, directly nor indirectly, for any travel necessary and/or associated with my holding of Florida’s 24th Congressional Seat (including no use of military aircraft)

3.  I Larry Sinclair WILL require that every Bill and/or amendment to any Bill be read aloud on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in its entirety before any vote can take place.

4.  I Larry Sinclair will NOT vote in favor of a single House Bill that contains one-cent of ear-marks for any congressional district of any kind.  In addition I will immediately call out every member of Congress who seeks ear-marks.

5.  I Larry Sinclair will NOT use one-cent of Tax-payer money to pay for a single meal, beverage, hotel room, airline ticket, etc…even if related to my job.  I will pay for any and all such items in full from my salary as Rep. from Florida 24.

6.  I Larry Sinclair will be on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives for every single vote during my term in the U.S. House.

7.  I Larry Sinclair will fill any and all positions in my office with persons from Florida’s 24th Congressional District; I will NOT attend and/or participate in any political fund raisers during any time the U.S. Congress is in session;and, I WILL personally return every call from residents of Florida’s 24th Congressional District within 72 hours.

8.  I Larry Sinclair will clearly post on the Internet a complete list of all persons meeting with me in my House Office each week.  This list will include the names, Company/Organization represented, date, time and the exact amount of time each meeting took.  In addition all meetings will be recorded and made available to residents of Florida 24.

9.  I Larry Sinclair will return home to Florida’s 24th Congressional District every week/weekend the U.S. House is not in session and will meet with residents of Florida’s 24th Congressional District every weekend (each Saturday I will meet with FL-24 residents in two (2) different areas of the district.)

10.  I Larry Sinclair will NOT sell my vote in Congress, and I WILL listen to ALL residents in FL-24 (I will not be bullied, threatened or intimidated by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi or anyone else.)

Senate Health Care Bill, Democrat Party politics, Party first, 2008 DNC Convention Rules, Why Democrats push unwanted bill

I constantly hear people on TV and around me ask why Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Democrat controlled Congress keep pushing a bad Health Care Bill that most Americans are against. Many Americans believe that for modern day Democrat politicians it is party and party politics first and the hell with the country. Below are some exerpts from the 2008 Democratic National Convention party rules.

“As Adopted by the Democratic National Committee, February 2, 2007”

Citizen Wells:  This helps explain the convoluted, excessive size of the proposed Health Care Bill. A small portion of the calculation is presented.

“I. DISTRIBUTION OF DELEGATE VOTES

The distribution of votes, delegates and alternates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention shall be in
accordance with the following:”

“A. The number of Convention votes for delegates to the Convention shall be as set forth in the
compilation included in this resolution and determined as provided in paragraphs B, C, D, E, F,
G, H1, and I.

B. A base of 3,000 delegate votes is distributed among the 50 states and the District of Columbia
according to a formula giving equal weight to the sum of the vote for the Democratic candidates
in the three (3) most recent presidential elections and to population by electoral vote. The formula
is expressed mathematically as follows:”

Citizen Wells: “faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States”

“II. QUALIFICATIONS OF STATE DELEGATIONS”
“C. It is presumed that the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, when certified
pursuant to the Call, are bona fide Democrats who are faithful to the interests, welfare and
success of the Democratic Party of the United States, who subscribe to the substance, intent and
principles of the Charter and the Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States, and who
will participate in the Convention in good faith. Therefore, no additional assurances shall be
required of delegates to the Democratic National Convention in the absence of a credentials
contest or challenge.”
Citizen Wells: Priorities. The DNC is beholden to unions.
“V. THE 2008 DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION COMMITTEE, INC.”
“1. Contractors: The DNCC shall as a policy seek to engage the services of unionized
firms, including those owned by minorities, women and people with disabilities.”

Citizen Wells: Presidential qualifications. The only thing that matters is allegiance to the party.

“VI. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

The term “presidential candidate” herein shall mean any person who, as determined by the National
Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, has accrued delegates in the nominating process and
plans to seek the nomination, has established substantial support for his or her nomination as the
Democratic candidate for the Office of the President of the United States, is a bona fide Democrat whose
record of public service, accomplishment, public writings and/or public statements affirmatively
demonstrates that he or she is faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the
United States, and will participate in the Convention in good faith.”

Citizen Wells

This is presented not to praise the Republicans or other political parties. It is also recognized that rules are necessary for any organized group. However, it is clear that the 2008 DNC rules are convoluted, overly complicated and designed as self serving for the preservation of the Democrat Party. The only qualification for the presidency that they address is allegiance to the party. And saddest of all, there is no mention of looking out for the best interest of the United States and citizens.

This should help you understand what is going on in the senate and White House. It is all about the Democrat Party.

ACORN funding cut, Judge Nina Gershon, December 14, 2009, Open Thread, Left hypocracy, Separation of powers, Judicial out of control, US Constitution

I have been reading and analyzing the ruling from US District Court Judge Nina Gershon, the complaint filed by ACORN attorneys and associated legal opinions and definitions. Judge Gershon, appointed by Bill Clinton, has a far left liberal view of the world and this comes through in her decisions.

How convenient and how liberal

When Obama obtained the electoral college vote and sanction from Congress (in defiance of the US Constitution) it was touted as the will of the people.
Now Congress has cut off funding to ACORN, it has the authority to do so, and District Court Judge Gershon (in defiance of the US Constitution) has ruled this unconstitutional.

Judge Gershon refers to the separation of powers and mistakenly does so when she buys into or embraces the alleged Bill of Attainder from Congress. In reality, she is violating the separation of powers when she impedes Congress from exercising their consitutional mandate to fund or remove funds on behalf of the American people.

This pattern of being guided by far left liberal agendas followed by  irresponsible rulings has been manifest for many years. You may remember the case from November 1999, the so called art exhibit containing a painting of the Virgin Mary that includes some elephant dung. It was apparent from Judge Gershon’s ruling then that she had an agenda that was contrary to protecting the American public and taxpayers.

“Mayor Says Judge Rushed Decision in Museum Case”

“Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani accused a federal judge yesterday of rushing to issue her ruling in the Brooklyn Museum of Art case to block city lawyers from fully investigating the finances of the museum’s ”Sensation” exhibition.

Mr. Giuliani stepped up his attacks on Judge Nina Gershon of United States District Court in Brooklyn one day after she ruled that he had no right to cut the museum’s city financing because he felt ”Sensation” was offensive and blasphemous. The exhibition includes displays of dead animals and a painting of the Virgin Mary that includes some elephant dung.”

Read more:

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/03/nyregion/mayor-says-judge-rushed-decision-in-museum-case.html

The trend is obvious. Judge Nina Gershon has an agenda that blinds her from a realistic interpretation of the US Constitution, one that protects the citizens of the US.

I hope to present a more technical analysis of Judge Gershon’s ruling soon.

WE must insist that Congress not comply with this radical ruling. Tell them to press on.

Rush Limbaugh, Simple question, Citizen Wells challenge, Obama birth certificate, US Constitution, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Birth certificate fair question, Obama attorneys, Why Obama avoids

Sarah Palin, Alaska Governor, Vice Presidential Candidate, author and rookie journalist said that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a fair question.

“Palin Says Obama Birth certificate is Fair Question”
“Sarah Palin on the Rusty Humphreis Show discussing Obama’s birth certificate. She argues that just as she showed trigs birth certificate Obama should have to show his.”

Sean Hannity recently maintained journalistic standards on his radio show.

“On the Hannity Radio Show, yesterday, December 8, 2009, Sean Hannity echoes what Sarah Palin stated about Obama’s birth certificate being a fair question. He stated that World Net Daily was just doing due diligence by questioning the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate. He stated that a lot of people are afraid to ask the question.”

Recently, the Citizen Wells blog challenged Rush Limbaugh to ask the simple question regarding Obama and his efforts to hide his records.

“”Sacred honor” isn’t a phrase we use much these days, but every American life is touched by the bounty of this, the Founders’ legacy. It is freedom, tested by blood, and watered with tears.”… Rush H. Limbaugh, Jr. (father of radio host)”
“There are at least 3 reasons why Rush Limbaugh will ask the question of the century:
1. It is a self evident truth. Rush will risk ridicule for a just cause.

2. Rush Limbaugh is the man of the hour. This question will define this century.

3. Rush Limbaugh’s father would have asked this question.”

our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor

To: Rush Limbaugh

From: Citizen Wells
We are not asking you to delve deep into legal matters, into court cases, into legal precedents or definitions. We are simply asking you to ask the question that a fifth grader could ask and answer.

 
The question is why?

“1. Barack Obama has employed a legion of private and government attorneys to prevent revealing his country of birth. Innocent and eligible persons seeking the office of president do not do that.”

Sean Hannity, Obama birth certificate, Hannity Radio Show, Sarah Palin, Birth certificate fair question, Fox, Obama not natural born citizen, World Net Daily, Obama attorneys

Sean Hannity, yesterday, December 8, 2009, on the Hannity Radio Show, set a caller straight about questioning Obama’s birth certificate. Hannity stated that sites like World Net Daily were just doing due diligence when  they questioned the birth certificate.

“Sean Hannity on Fox in July 2009 reveals that Major Stefan Cook challenged Obama’s eligibility and had his orders to deploy revoked.

On the Hannity Radio Show, yesterday, December 8, 2009, Sean Hannity echoes what Sarah Palin stated about Obama’s birth certificate being a fair question. He stated that World Net Daily was just doing due diligence by questioning the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate. He stated that a lot of people are afraid to ask the question.”

From The Post & Email

“Hannity’s Comments are revealing
Hannity’s comments are not just significant, because of his exposure as a television personality, but revealing because of what they say and do not say. The Post & Email will therefore comment on them in turn:
“What was so wrong in saying that, ‘Can we see your birth certificate?’ …”
Evidently, this is made in the context of a reporter who has been consistently told by his editors not to mention the topic, and badgered by colleagues who disdain its discussion.  It reflects a work environment which is nothing like one in which freedom of speech and the freedom of the press flourish.
It also reflects a professional environment where political correctness has replaced ethical standards and the common sense notions of duty and loyalty to the nation, first and foremost.
“We were told early on that, in fact, somebody else had looked at it and confirmed that it was legitimate.“
Evidently, Hannity admits that he recognized from the beginning the difference between the claim made by the image of the online COLB, published by Obama’s campaign, and the actual document.
Obama’s supporters, however, seem politically obligated or at least mentally afflicted, to such an extent as to deny this distinction.”

Read more:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/09/sean-hannity-says-obama-should-show-real-birth-certificate/

Sean Hannity

The other part of the obvious question, the question that begs to be answered is:

Why has Obama spent so many resources, spent well over a million dollars of somebody’s money, employed legions of private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and other records. Innocent and eligible presidential candidates do not do that.

If you ask the first question, you are bound by decency and honor to ask the second question.

Sean Hannity, Where’s the birth certificate?, Sarah Palin, Birth certificate fair question, Obama not natural born citizen, Obama attorneys

From World Net Daily, December 8, 2009.
“Sean Hannity: ‘Where’s the birth certificate?'”

“Sean Hannity today defended Sarah Palin’s recent comments about Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the presidency and WND’s pursuit of the story.

He said the question about his original, long-form birth certificate has still not been answered.

“What was so wrong in saying that, ‘Can we see your birth certificate?’ … We were told early on that, in fact, somebody else had looked at it and confirmed that it was legitimate. So, I mean, what was wrong with people saying, ‘Wait a minute. You know what? In light of the fact of where your, your father came from, et cetera, uh, let’s just make sure that this is a legitimate birth certificate’? … It was not asked by the mainstream media. It was asked by places like WorldNetDaily, who, I think, were just doing due diligence considering it’s a constitutional mandate. … I think a lot of people were just afraid to ask the question.””

“Last week, Palin, the former Alaska governor and vice-presidential candidate in 2008, said the public is “rightfully” asking questions about Obama’s eligibility.”

“”I think it’s a fair question, just like I think past association and past voting records – all of that is fair game,” Palin said. “The McCain-Palin campaign didn’t do a good enough job in that area.””

Read more:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118435

This is a good start

 

The other part of the obvious question, the question that begs to be answered is:

Why has Obama spent so many resources, spent well over a million dollars of somebody’s money, employed legions of private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and other records. Innocent and eligible presidential candidates do not do that.

If you ask the first question, you are bound by decency and honor to ask the second question.

Kerchner V Obama and Congress, Support Kerchner lawsuit, Charles Kerchner CDR USNR, Attorney Mario Apuzzo, US Constitution, Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury V Madison, Obama birth certificate, Father Kenyan British, Barack Obama not natural born citizen, No birth certificate, Obama spends millions to avoid

“Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.”

“So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of  these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

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.” …Chief Justice Marshall, “Marbury V Madison”

 

I have been in contact with lead plaintiff Charles Kerchner and attorney Mario Apuzzo since the inception of their lawsuit against Obama and Congress. The lawsuit is still alive and they are actively engaged in raising public awareness about the lawsuit and eligibility issues. One of their efforts has been to advertise in the Washington Times. Advertising and court cases require much money. Charles Kerchner has asked for my assistance. The Citizen Wells blog has a new page devoted to the Kerchner V Obama lawsuit and there is a link on that page and blog front page for donations to the cause.

Why is this lawsuit and other lawsuits important, aside from the obvious objection of removing an illegal usurper from office and saving this country?

By mid 2008, two things were abundantly clear:
1. There was enough evidence against Obama to stop his campaign for the presidency and the mainstream media was in bed with him.

  • Documented close ties to Tony Rezko, Rod Blagojevich and numerous crime and corruption figures.
  • Obama had kept hidden almost all of his important records.
  • There was no legitimate evidence that Obama was eligible and much compelling evidence that Obama was not a natural born citizen.

2. A Chicken V Egg scenario was emerging due to the Orwellian public perception crafting of the Obama camp and mainstream media. The court cases must emerge and move forward.

  • The US Constitution must be upheld.
  • The US Citizens must know the truth.
  • A constitutional crisis had to be avoided by preventing an illegal usurper from taking the presidency.

The merits of eligibility lawsuits will not be discussed here. That exercise has it’s place in the classrooms, court rooms and forums of the nation. No one desires to diminish the protocols and thought processes. However, it is clear from reading the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall, in “Marbury V Madison” that he adheres to the intent of the founding fathers to follow the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land, trumping other legislation and procedures. It is also clear that judges and state officials have forgotten or ignored their solemn oaths to uphold the US Constitution. Judges appear to be more concerned about subtle nuances, protocol, and yes, politics, than fulfilling their constitutional roles.

“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?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.”…Chief Justice Marshall, “Marbury V Madison”

So even though the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility is governed by the US Constitution and subsequent Admendments, judges and state officials have chosen to ignore their sacred duties and leave the American people devoid of the crucial protection of checks and balances and the protection of the supreme law of the land.

This has transformed the many eligibility lawsuits into a watershed role probably not envisioned by the founding fathers. We now have the lawsuits proving a point, critical to the survival of this nation, in the court of public information and common sense. Before the appearance of the multitude of lawsuits, the mainstream media in cahoots with the Obama camp, controlled public perceptions of Obama’s records and eligibility as well as legal definitions such as natural born citizen. Public awareness of Obama’s eligibility is still to a large extent governed by these Orwellian attempts. The straw that broke the camel’s back, imprisoned Al Capone and ultimately will be the Achilles heel of Obama, is a detail. In Capone’s case he was indicted on tax evasion charges. In Obama’s case it is the fact that he has spent so many resources to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and other records. This has been the blessing of the court cases. Despite the best attempts to pass the buck, play party politics and ignore constitutional responsibility, the truth about Barack Obama’s eligibility is emerging.
So why should you support an eligibility lawsuit? First and foremost we must demand that the US Constitution be adhered to as the supreme law of the land. Secondly, and what will ultimately indict Obama in the hearts and souls of the American public…

Why?

Barack Obama has employed a legion of private and government attorneys to prevent revealing his country of birth. Innocent and eligible persons seeking the office of president do not do that.
Support the Kerchner V Obama lawsuit and make certain you inform as many people as possible, Ask the simple question above.

From the new page at Citizen Wells.

 

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr, V Barack Hussein Obama II

Charles Kerchner
CDR USNR (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

Donate To The Cause

Charles Kerchner, Attorney Mario Apuzzo interview.

For more information about the history of this case:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

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

  

Obama birth certificate, Lou Dobbs, Palin says fair question, Proof positive, Obama not eligible, Billboard, Barack Obama not natural born citizen, US Constitution, Father Kenyan British, No birth certificate, Obama spends millions to avoid

INTERNET BILLBOARD

 

Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 of the US Constitution

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

From the 20th Amendment to the US Constitution.

“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;”

December 7, 2009

Attention: Proof positive for Americans of the left, center and right.

It is not a conspiracy theory. Using the term “birther” in a condescending, Orwellian manner to discredit decent, hard working Americans who believe that the US Constitution is the law of the land, will not be tolerated.

1. Barack Obama has employed a legion of private and government attorneys to prevent revealing his country of birth. Innocent and eligible persons seeking the office of president do not do that.

2. Barack Obama’s father was a citizen of Kenya and a British citizen.  “natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” was explicitly written to deal with the issue of foreign allegiances at the time of the writing of the US Constitution.

3. Barack Obama’s citizenship and allegiance was further tainted when he was adopted by his stepfather Lolo Soetoro and Obama became an Indonesian citizen.

4. Some combination of the above allowed Obama to travel to Pakistan in 1981 when travel there was restricted to US citizens.

5. The only document presented by the Obama camp is a Hawaii COLB. There has been no substantiation that it is authentic and it does not establish country of birth. As Lou Dobbs stated, “It is a piece of paper that refers to another piece of paper.”

6. All other documentation, all school records, that would establish country of birth have been kept hidden and restricted.

7. No authentic documentation has been presented to establish that Barack Obama was born in the US.

8. The records of all hospitals in Hawaii have been searched. There is no record of Stanley Ann Obama ever having given birth to a child.

9. Barack Obama’s paternal grandmother in Kenya has stated on multiple occasions that she was present at Obama’s birth in Mombasa.

10. Others have stated, including multiple family members, officials and press, that Obama was born in Kenya.

This has been presented in a manner that a fifth grader can understand. However, if you have any questions, please contact me on this blog.

Failure to learn more about and understand this critical issue and take appropriate measures can only be construed as apathy,  ignorance or having an un American agenda. This includes the Mainstream Media and the Fox network.

Lou Dobbs and Sarah Palin believe Obama’s birth certificate is a fair question.

Proof Positive

Why?

1. Barack Obama has employed a legion of private and government attorneys to prevent revealing his country of birth. Innocent and eligible persons seeking the office of president do not do that.

Obama birth certificate, Records, One simple question, No conspiracy theory, Sarah Palin fair question, Obama ineligible, Barack Obama not natural born citizen, US Constitution, Father Kenyan British, No birth certificate, Obama spends millions to avoid

Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 of the US Constitution

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

From the 20th Amendment to the US Constitution.

“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;”

Barack Obama

and

Your children’s future

There is only one question you need to ask.

 

This is not a conspiracy theory.

 

WHY?

1. Barack Obama has employed a legion of private and government attorneys to prevent revealing his country of birth. Innocent and eligible persons seeking the office of president do not do that.

Sarah Palin believes that this is a fair question. So does any rational person who cares about this country.