Category Archives: Election Law

Kerchner v Obama, Mario Apuzzo, Lawsuit, Update, May 18, 2009, Declaration Opposing Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time to Answer or Otherwise Move as to the Amended Complaint Returnable June 1, 2009

From Mario Apuzzo website,  May 18, 2009:

“Monday, May 18, 2009

Declaration Opposing Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time to Answer or Otherwise Move as to the Amended Complaint Returnable June 1, 2009

Activity in Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Lawsuit – On 18 May 2000 I filed a Declaration Opposing Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time to Answer or Otherwise Move as to the Amended Complaint Returnable June 1, 2009. The defendants have already had almost three months to answer, move, or otherwise respond. Regular citizen defendants get 20 days. The government normally gets 60 days. They have already had almost 90 days. What they are asking for would get them to over 120 days before having to answer or otherwise move. In our opinion, they have had an adequate amount of time to answer or move or other wise respond. Thus I have filed our opposition to any further extensions of time to answer or otherwise move on this case. More on that in a subsequent post.

Link to a copy of the Declaration Opposing Defendants’ Motion:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15610545/

Link to view Advertorial on page 11 in 18 May 2009 edition of Washington Times National Weekly:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15611836/

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com”

More here:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Philip Berg update, May 17, 2009, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Michelle Obama, Hoax, Constitutional crisis, Obama ineligible, illegal alien, Michelle Obama disbarred

From Philip J Berg, may 17, 2009:

“For Immediate Release: – 05/17/2009
For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
philjberg@obamacrimes.com
Berg states the Obama’s give Commencement Addresses but
fail to be honest with the graduates about who they really are.
Barack Obama is really Barry Soetoro, an illegal alien, an
Usurper who is Constitutionally “ineligible” to be President
of the United States.
Michelle Obama is a “disbarred” attorney in Illinois – how
and why ?
Why does the public not know the backgrounds of the
phonies in the White House ?
Obama is the biggest “HOAX” against the United States in
over 230 years !
Time to e-mail !
(Lafayette Hill, PA – 05/17/2009) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first
Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator
Obama’s lack of Constitutional “qualifications/eligibility” to serve as
President of the United States and has three [3] cases that are still pending
in the Federal Court system, Berg vs. Obama [2 cases – 1 under seal] and
Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, et al, announced today that he is asking
everyone to e-mail the messages below to DEMAND THE OBAMA’S to
release the “truth” about their backgrounds.
The purpose of our President is to protect our Country, the U.S.A.
and “We The People”, not to leave us with doubts and fears. If “We The
People” and our Country, the United States of America, are important to
Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack H. Obama, he would do everything in his
power to put all doubts and fears to rest. It is a very easy solution; all he
has to do is provide his Constitutional eligibility credentials and records.
Yes, transparency and openness as promised by Obama !
Our country is in a financial crisis, BUT WORSE, a “Constitutional
Crisis” as Obama is not “Constitutionally eligible/qualified” to be
President.
Send one [1] e-mail to the following: The White House, Vice
President Biden – http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/; Nancy Pelosi –
AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov; ASSOCIATED PRESS – traum@ap.org; New York
Times – letters@nytimes.com, oped@nytimes.com, editorial@nytimes.com, nytnews@nytimes.com,
executive-editor@nytimes.com, managing-editor@nytimes.com, news-tips@nytimes.com,
national@nytimes.com, washington@nytimes.com; Washington Post – letters@washpost.com,
national@washpost.com, sundaysource@washpost.com; Washington Times –
oped@washingtontimes.com, yourletters@washingtontimes.com; Los Angeles Times –
Tim.Garrison@latimes.com, Michael.Owen@latimes.com, Tenny.Tatusian@latimes.com,
David.Johnson@latimes.com, Marc.Olson@latimes.com, Michael.Muskal@latimes.com,
Roger.Smith@latimes.com, Ashley.Dunn@latimes.com, Steve.Padilla@latimes.com,
Mark.Barabak@latimes.com, Connie.Stewart@latimes.com, Robin.Abcarian@latimes.com,
Bob.Drogin@latimes.com; The Chicago Tribune – tips@tribune.com, bdold@tribune.com,
ctc-editor@tribune.com, JHirt@tribune.com, JWinnecke@tribune.com, KAlleynemorris@tribune.com,
Rxbecker@tribune.com, SBenzkofer@tribune.com; The Sacramento Bee – oped@sacbee.com,
letters@sacbee.com: ATLANTA JOURNAL – CONSTIUTION – bsteiden@ajc.com,
cwarmbold@ajc.com, cynthia@ajc.com, gmathis@ajc.com, hklibanoff@ajc.com, hpost@ajc.com,
jmallory@ajc.com, jbookman@ajc.com, jdwallace@ajc.com, letters@ajc.com, insideajc@ajc.com,
pgast@ajc.com, rnarayanan@ajc.com, rhenry@ajc.com; BOSTON GLOBE –
goodman@globe.com, kcooper@globe.com, johnson@globe.com, letter@globe.com,
brelis@globe.com, oliphant@globe.com; BUSINESS WEEK – lettersbwol@businessweek.com,
richard_dunham@businessweek.com; ABC – netaudr@abc.com, nightline@abcnews.com,
2020@abc.com; CBS – evening@cbsnews.com, earlyshow@cbs.com, 60minutes@cbsnews.com,
48hours@cbsnews.com, ftn@cbsnews.com; NBC – today@nbc.com; FOX News –
comments@foxnews.com, Special@foxnews.com, Foxreport@foxnews.com, Oreilly@foxnews.com,
Hannity@foxnews.com, Colmes@foxnews.com, Ontherecord@foxnews.com; CNN and CNN
Headline News – http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form1.html?6,
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/; aaron.brown@turner.com, andrea.koppel@turner.com,
bill.schneider@turner.com, bruce.morton@turner.com, candy.crowley@turner.com; MSNBC,
dateline@nbc.com, hardball@msnbc.com, joe@msnbc.com, nightly@nbc.com; CNBC –
info@cnbc.com; PBS – newshour@pbs.org; NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO –
ombudsman@npr.org; THE RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW – ElRushbo@eibnet.com;
SEAN HANNITY SHOW – phil.boyce@citcomm.com;
“To Barack Hussein Obama a/k/a Barry Soetoro and Michelle
Obama: As your administration is to be “open and transparent,” why will
you not divulge your backgrounds? I know why.
As both of you are addressing graduates of college, you are being
dishonest to all of them as you fail to tell them about your backgrounds.
What a disgrace !
Because both of you are putting on the biggest “HOAX” in our
country in over 230 years.
Barack or rather Barry [Soetoro], you know you are an illegal alien,
not only “Constitutionally ineligible/unqualified” to be President, but also
it was illegal for you to have served as a United States Senator from
Illinois for 3 ½ years.
Michelle, just be honest ! You are being honored as First Lady
without explaining to the citizens of our country that you were “disbarred”
from being an attorney in 1993 – why ? The public has a right to know.
Michelle and Obama, you both know that you are putting forth this
great “HOAX,” that is so dangerous to all of us, the people of this great
nation.
Reveal yourselves and Obama resign, as President “now” as
everything you do is void or voidable. Why are you putting our nation
through this turmoil ?
Thank you,
Respectfully,
__________________________ [your name]”
For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to:
obamacrimes.com”

 

Read more:

 

http://www.obamacrimes.info/index.html

NC Grand Jury Indictment of Obama, update, May 14, 2009, media attention, Observer News Enterprise in Newton, NC, Media and Congress will be accountable

I was born and raised in NC and though I have traveled over much of the US and some abroad, I have lived in NC all of my life. NC is a great state and I was always proud of it until this last election cycle. People known for having common sense and voting their conscience, regardless of political affiliation, lost their compass and like their counterparts in Nazi Germany, were mesmerized into voting for “change” and a candidate they knew little about.

The veil covering reality has been partially lifted and the real Barack Obama is beginning to appear. Citizen Grand Juries across the country are presenting indictments against the unqualified, usurper Obama. A strong case for treason is also being presented. Earlier today, the Citizen Wells blog brought news of a Grand Jury Indictment in NC. We have just been notified that a newspaper in Newton, NC has inquired about the indictment. It is hoped that the Observer News Enterprise will do their job and report on this important historic action. The Citizen Wells Blog will follow up on this and with your help we can “coax” other news media to actually do their jobs. Let your news outlets know that you want this covered.

Here is the update that we received:

“Believe it or not, I just received an e-mail from the editor of the Observer News Enterprise in Newton, NC, requesting that I answer a number of questions about my recent filing of the Obama indictment with Catawba County. (letter on request)  Here is my response in the form of a Letter To The Editor:”

“As many know, there is quite a controversy concerning Barack Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States.  This controversy has spread to other nations and America’s credibility is now at stake among foreign governments.
 
On May 13, 2009, I filed, with the Catawba County Clerk of Court’s office, an indictment of Barack Hussein Obama for the commission of fraud and treason.  This indictment was handed down, on May 9, by a Citizen’s Grand Jury composed of jurors located in various states of the United States.  All laws governing Grand Juries were complied with.  The indictment was filed locally because it is the duty of any and all district attorneys to act on criminal charges… and I live here.  As I understand it, the indictment has been filed in other states in addition to North Carolina.
 
It is the hopes and expectations of the Grand Jury, and others, that District Attorney James C. Gaither will honor his Oath of Office and investigate these accusations.  If he will do so, it will require his bringing this case before a judge.  Once that is done, the judge will grant discovery.  “Discovery” is a term used to require that both sides put their cards on the table.  This is to avoid “trial by ambush”.  Once Mr. Obama is forced to submit his actual birth certificate, his school records, his college records and his immigration records, (which he has spent approximately one million dollars in concealing) the controversy will be settled.  He will either continue to be president or he will be removed from office.
 
This is not about Barack Obama. It is about our Constitution which states, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…” 
 
Mr. Obama has not satisfied this question.  It is now up to the courts to decide.”

“I also included the info below:”

“FYI
 
On his first day in office, January 21, 2009, Obama signed Executive Order 13489.  This order was entered into the Federal Register on January 26, 2009.

What this executive order says, is that only the Attorney General (Eric Holder) and Council to the President, (Gregory Craig) are able to review presidential records requests and determine if they can be made public or not. (See Section 3)

In other words, you aren’t going to see any records or documents that Obama doesn’t want you to see.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Obama’s first official act was to deny access to his records.  Obama has lived for 48 years without leaving any footprints — none!  There is no Obama documentation — no bona fides — no paper trail — nothing.

Original, vault copy birth certificate — Not released
Certificate of Live Birth — Released — Counterfeit
Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Obama/Dunham divorce — Released (by independent investigators)
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Soetoro adoption records — Not released
Soetoro/Dunham divorce — Released (by independent investigators)
Fransiskus Assisi School  School application — Released (by independent investigators)
Punahou School records — Not released
Selective Service Registration — Released — Counterfeit
Occidental College records — Not released
Passport — Not released and records scrubbed clean by Obama’s terrorism and intelligence adviser.
Columbia College records — Not released
Columbia thesis — Not released
Harvard College records — Not released
Harvard Law Review articles — None
Baptism certificate — None
Medical records — Not released
Illinois State Senate records — None
Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost
Law practice client list — Not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles — None”

If anyone from the Observer News Enterprise in Newton, NC, or any other media outlet has any questions, I will answer them.

Citizen Wells

NC Grand Jury indictment of Obama, Walter Fitzpatrick complaint, American Grand Jury, Obama not eligible, Obama British citizen, Obama has committed treason

 I received the following email this morning:

“On May 9, 2009, the American Grand Jury met and, after reviewing the evidence presented, indicted Barak Obama, aka Barry Soetoro for fraud and treason.  Wednesday, May 13, 2009, the indictment was filed with the Clerk of Court, Catawba County, NC (file #09R81) and a copy of the indictment was sent by Certified Mail to District Attorney James C. Gaither (NC District 25B), for further action according to his Oath of Office.” 

Here is the indictment:

Presentments:  American Grand Jury
  •  
    •  
              MAY 9th, 2009

On April 29, 2009 the American Grand Jury convened and conducted a hearing with regard to CRIMINAL activity, complaints and allegations presented before said Grand Jury;

Such charges and presentments of criminal activity were handed down against the person(s) known as Barack Obama, aka: Barack Obama, Jr., aka: Barack Hussein Obama, aka: Barry Soetoro; aka: Barry Obama; aka: Barack Obama, presumed President of the United States (hereinafter known as Obama);

Said Grand Jury was duly organized and empowered under the laws of the Constitution of United States of America as follows:

Scope and Authority of the Grand Jury

The Constitution of the United States, Amendment 1 and Amendment 5, known as portions of the Bill of Rights states:

Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,

Said Grand Jury was convened under the power and authority vested with the people as guaranteed under the Constitution, Amendment 5, Bill of Rights.

The convened Grand Jury was “national” in nature, represented by people of the United States, said people being citizens as were sworn under Oath as to Eligibility for and Service in behalf of the Grand Jury:

Each Jury member was eligible as follows:

      1) A citizen of the United States;

      2) A citizen of eighteen (18) years or older;

      3) A resident of a State chartered within the United States of America

    4) Were in possession of his/her natural faculties, of ordinary intelligence, of sound judgment and of fair character;

      5) Possessed a sufficient knowledge of the English language;

      6) Were not serving as a trial juror in any court;

    7) Had not been convicted of a malfeasance in office, a felony, or other high crime; 
    8.  Were not serving as an elected public officer.  
     
     
     
     

Each Jury member did SWEAR or AFFIRM as follows:

“That I (jury member) shall diligently inquire, and true presentment make, of all such matters as may be given me before the jury, or shall come to my knowledge, touching such service. I shall present no person through prejudice or ill will, nor leave any un-presented through fear or favor, but in all my presentments shall endeavor to present the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (affirmed) or so help me God (sworn).”

Said affirmation or sworn oath was duly subscribed by appearance of each jury member before a notary public whereby each jury member affirmed or swore the Oath of Office for service to the Grand Jury; furthermore each jury member verbally repeated the “oath” and acknowledged their eligibility in front of said notary by signing their name in execution. Said notary acknowledged that said jury member executed the “Eligibility and Oath of Office” document for the purposes therein contained by placing their notary hand and seal upon the document.

Each original jury member’s “Oath of Office and Eligibility” document was sealed and recorded in a central location for purposes of empowering the Grand Jury.

A jury foreman (moderator) and alternate jury foreman were appointed to conduct the Grand Jury hearing.

Said Grand Jury hearing was conducted in secrecy. All evidence was sealed and protected. All witnesses were sworn under oath. All presentments (charges) were voted upon. Said Grand Jury was comprised of 34 regular Grand Jury members, 1 Jury Foreman and 1 Alternate Jury Foreman  

Criminal complaints were placed before the Grand Jury 

    COUNT ONE:
    That Obama is NOT eligible under the laws of the Constitution of the United States as provided for in Article II, Section 1.

    Page –2- 
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    Said Article II, Section 1 states:
    “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
    Wherefore, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” for the following reasons:
    1) Obama was NOT born of mother and father who were BOTH US Citizens.

    “These facts are not in dispute: Under the British Nationality Act 1948, Obama’s father was a British citizen/subject when he was born in the English colony of Kenya. Obama’s father continued to be such and not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born in 1961. Under the same BNA 1948, at birth, regardless of where he was born, Obama also became a British citizen/subject by descent from his British father.

    As applicable only to a Presidential Article II ‘natural born Citizen’:

    …the individual must be born in the United States to a mother and father who are themselves United States citizens (by birth or naturalization). This is to assure that a would-be, all powerful President and Commander in Chief of the Military has sole allegiance and loyalty to the United States from the time of birth.

    It is public knowledge that Obama has admitted in his writings and otherwise that when he was born, his father was a British citizen/subject and not a United States citizen and that at that time he himself also became such. In fact, his father was not even a permanent resident of the United States, but rather only a student who would probably have been here only on a temporary student visa. Hence, not only was Obama’s father not a United States citizen but Obama himself was born a British subject/citizen. Hence, clearly, Obama is not and cannot be an Article II ‘natural born Citizen.’ The operative facts are not in dispute.”

    Page –3-

     
     
     
     
     
     

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. 
    Licensed Attorney 
    Jamesburg NJ 08831

    2) Obama was a British citizen ‘at birth.’

    “Since Barack Obama’s father was a citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Obama’s birth, then Obama was a British citizen ‘at birth.’ ”

    “The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth,” Donofrio writes, “were also British citizens, and that’s why the Framers declared that, while they were citizens of the United States, they themselves were not ‘natural born citizens.”

    “Therefore,” Donofrio summarizes, “even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on U.S. soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be president.”

    Leo Donofrio, Esq. 
    Licensed Attorney 
    State of New Jersey

    COUNT TWO:
    The charge of “Treason” against Obama is before the people of the United States of America. That such complaint is CRIMINAL, of high crimes, and extremely damaging against the people.
    Said complaint was formally brought by a Military Officer (retired) of the United States of America. All United States Military Officers are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States and such complaint is valid, explicit and proper; when an Officer is aware of such malfeasance of Treason by an offender it is that Officer’s SWORN duty to come forward and present such accusation and complaint;
    The Military Officer who filed the complaint is Lt. Commander Walter Fitzpatrick, III, retired, United States Navy and a graduate of the United States Naval Academy;

    Page –4- 
     
     
     

    Lt. Commander Fitzpatrick on March 17, 2009 did hereby make such criminal accusation and complaint against Obama and presented said complaint before the U.S Attorney Russell Dedrick, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward Schmutzer, Eastern District, Tennessee;
    An original photocopy of said complaint was submitted to the Grand Jury as evidence for immediate investigation;
    Said original photocopy of the complete criminal complaint is attached as Exhibit “A” hereto and made a part hereof;
    Lt. Commander Fitzpatrick was sworn under oath before the Grand Jury to testify as to the true nature and details regarding said criminal complaint filed against Obama;
    Said criminal complaint by Lt. Commander Fitzpatrick and his “accusation of Treason” is quoted in the excerpt below:

“Now you [Obama] have broken in and entered the White House by force of contrivance, concealment, conceit, dissembling, and deceit. Posing as an impostor president and commander in chief you have stripped civilian command and control over the military establishment. Known military criminal actors-command racketeers-are now free in the exercise of military government intent upon destruction of America’s constitutional government.

We come now to this reckoning. I accuse you and your military-political criminal assistants of TREASON. I name you and your military criminal associates as traitors. Your criminal ascension manifests a clear and present danger. You fundamentally changed our form of government. The Constitution no longer works.

Confident holding your silent agreement and admission, I identify you as a foreign born domestic enemy.

My sworn duty Mr. Obama is to stand against what you stand for. You are not my president. You are not my commander in chief.”

Scope of Investigations and Deliberations of the Grand Jury hearing

Page –5- 
 
 
 
 
 

Wherefore on April 29, 2009 at approximately 7:00 pm Central Standard Time,

the American Grand Jury met in closed session comprising an attendance of 34 jury members, including a Jury Foreman (as moderator) and an Alternate Jury Foreman.  The Jury Foreman and Alternate Foreman did not vote.  The final vote included 32 jury members.

Said hearing lasted for approximately 3 hours. Such meeting was conducted online in a private website for the express purpose of conducting said Grand Jury assembly and hearing. Such hearing was secure and unencumbered by outside intervention or public intrusion.

Each Jury member had full access to the evidence, written and visible (in the form of scanned and photographed documents embedded in said private website). Each Jury member was given a full week (in advance) in private session (using the facilities of the private website) to study the evidence, present questions and form an opinion as to the validity and truthfulness of said evidence.

The final Grand Jury hearing of April 29, 2009 was scheduled in secrecy and privacy following said week of evidence review.

All counts (as listed above) were voted upon by the 32 jury members.

All communications (email, chat messages, jury foreman messages, surveys, reports, testimony) were conducted in written English. All said communications were securely saved in a database server on the private website. All recorded communications have been placed in a secure evidence file and saved for any proper authority to review.

The final vote was unanimous.  All 32 members voted “Yea” to hand down the presentments against Obama.

The Grand Jury concluded the hearing after handing down the final vote and affirming said counts and presentments.  
 
 
 
 
 

Page –6- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The Presentments and such Remedies as prayed for by the Grand Jury

Now therefore:

The Grand Jury hereby prays the Court take said presentments and formally charge AND prosecute Obama under Count One:  fraud against the people of the United States of America by reason of:

    That Obama is NOT eligible under the laws of the Constitution of the United States as provided for in Article II, Section 1.  

Furthermore, the Grand Jury hereby prays the Court will formally charge AND prosecute Obama with “treason” as attested to in Count Two:

    That the charge of “Treason” against Obama is before the people of the United States of America. That such complaint is CRIMINAL, of high crimes, and extremely damaging against the people.

Given on this day and year of April 29, 2009 by unanimous vote of the Jury Members of said American Grand Jury; 

Said presentments are hereby attested to and verified by my hand on this day and year as first above mentioned: 
 

  •  
    •  
              Your browser may not support display of this image.      _______________________________________
  •  
    •  
        Robert John Campbell, Jury Foreman

Page –7-

 
 
 
Your browser may not support display of this image.

_________________

Identification of Jury Foreman

  •  

            Name:  Robert John Campbell

  •  

            Status:  United States Citizen

  •  
    •  

        Address: P.O. Box 1513, Nogales, AZ 85628 

  •  
            Signature:Your browser may not support display of this image. 

      Passport number is concealed for privacy.  This information is available to the proper authorities, if required.  Thanks, Robert Campbell 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Ann Dunham Obama, Seattle, WA, Obama birth, passport files, CIA, Manchurian Candidate, British citizenship

A thought provoking article from the Lame Cherry blog, May 9, 2009.

“Seattle Ann Dunham”

AnnDunhamSeattle

“Something needs to be explained in the birth of Barack Hussein Obama jr. in that if the records were simply there for the dropping out of the sky, the records would be public, or, like in the case of the group which data mined Barack Obama’s passport files, and that individual started cooperating with authorities, he would be found dead as he was outside his Church with bullet holes in him.

If there was evidence which did exist, it is now sitting in the archive files of the cartels which run this world as the blackmail puppet strings to keep Birdie Obama in line.
Of course, Obama is so Mugabe Marxist that he makes Karl Marx look like George Washington.”

 

“That is why this blog noted the arena which Obama was vulnerable in was his passport files and his student loans, because that is where one person died already and where Obama has spent almost a million dollars in legal fees hiding the evidence there.”

“The tale of Washington state is the evidence which no one has really reviewed as it shows information and the most bizarre of circumstances.
We know for a fact that a friend at Mercer Island, Washington, stated Stanley arrived on the Island in August 1961. Arrived means she was travelling from some location. Airlines do indeed have records of flights, so if she was flying from Africa, Pan Am would have that data. Those records are stored in Florida.
My attempt to have someone in the archive search those records was met with as much silence as the Pakistani government reviewing their Barack Soetero records.”

“A key understanding in Washington is not long after Birdie was born, the fake address of residence in Hawaii was not the Obama residence. In fact, in 1961, while she was supposed to be married to Barack sr. she was in fact living at an apartment in Seattle at 516 13th Avenue E, Capitol Hill.
There she was going under the name Mrs. Anna Obama as an alias. She also at this time enrolled at the University of Washington.”

“As this blog has pointed out, Stanley Ann apparently tried a last ditch effort to make something of her wayward, drugged out son, Barry in what would be termed an intervention. It seems to be based upon the CIA studies to create Manchurian type candidates and why Obama is so phobic about the terrorists held in captivity at Gitmo, in releasing them.”

“So that is the continuing tale of Stanley and Birdie Obama. If the evidence was there, it is no doubt now laundered, and those who have seen it, have died from lead poisoning. It is an unsafe venture for people to delve into as the cartels are not about to allow this to upset the Obama boat.
By their actions, their concerns are the college and passport records and not the birth records any longer.

This is why I advocated certain London or American lawyers file cases based upon British Law due to Breyer and Ginsburg incorporating foreign law into American Law to test the standard as these cases would have standing in answering the question, which laws does Barack Obama have to follow first, American Constitutional Law or British Commonwealth Law, as he was born British and is British Indonesian currently.”

Read the entire article:

http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2009/05/ghost-of-stanley-ann-duham-obama.html

Orly Taitz, Update, April 13, 2009, Dr. Taitz new website, Defend our Freedoms, San Antonio TX tea party, FBI, Citizens Grand Jury

I just got off the phone with Dr. Orly Taitz. We spoke for a while about her website and the recent controversy. Dr. Taitz has a new website for Defend Our Freedoms.

http://repubx.com/

Orly stated that Defend our Freedoms is her foundation and that she has been blocked from accessing her data on the previous website. She is still committed to the cause of exposing the truth about Barack Obama.

We also spoke about the US Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Roberts and law clerk Danny Bickell. She and I are both concerned that Bickell is still employed at the Supreme Court after all of the shady dealings that she and other attorneys experienced from Danny Bickell.

Dr. Orly Taitz will attend the San Antonio, TX tea party and stated she will be willing to stay an extra day if enough citizens are willing to meet with the local FBI office and initiate a Citizens Grand Jury. She also stated that her expenses are very high. Every time that she travels she spends at least a thousand dollars. She is providing her services pro bono, so it is not asking too much for people to donate to the cause to help with expenses.

Dr. Orly Taitz new site:

http://repubx.com/

God bless Orly Taitz

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.

Chief Justice John Roberts, Orly Taitz, Dr Taitz confronts Justice Roberts, March 21, 2009, YouTube video, University of Idaho, Bellwood lecture, Obama not eligible, Barack Obama not natural born citizen

Dr. Orly Taitz, the courageous immigrant from Russia,
the true American, can be seen and heard confronting
Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Roberts,
at the conclusion of the Bellwood lecture at the
University of Idaho. Dr. Taitz is involved in multiple
lawsuits at the state and Supreme Court level that
state that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen
and is ineligible to be president. Orly Taitz has
enlisted numerous military officers and soldiers as
plaintiffs in her lawsuits.

Read more from Dr. Orly Taitz:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/

Orly Taitz interview, March 17, 2009, Rollye James interview, Obama’s Identity, Obama’s Money, Scotus Tampering, US Supreme Court, YouTube videos

Rollye James interview of Dr. Orly Taitz
March 17, 2009

Orly Taitz intro

Obama’s Identity

Obama’s Money

Scotus Tampering I

Scotus Tampering II

Dr. Orly Taitz website:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/

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”