Category Archives: Electors

January 3, 2012, Obama eligibility press conference, New Hampsire House of Representatives, Laurence Rappaport, Obama not Natural Born Citizen

Posted on January 1, 2012 | 178 comments

January 3, 2012, Obama eligibility press conference, New Hampsire House of Representatives, Laurence Rappaport, Obama not Natural Born Citizen

“Why did Obama, prior to occupying the White House, employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to assist him in avoiding the presentation of a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

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

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

From the Post & Email January 1, 2012.

“New Hampshire House of Representatives Members to Hold Press Conference on Obama’s Eligibility on January 3”

“WE NEED TO INFORM THE PUBLIC”
“On January 3, 2012, several members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives will hold a press conference with the primary purpose of informing New Hampshire citizens and registered voters that Barack Hussein Obama may not be eligible to serve as president and therefore should not have his name appear on the 2012 presidential ballot.

The time and place are tentatively set for 10:00 a.m. outside of the Legislative Office Building in Concord.

The website of the New Hampshire House of Representatives provides the following history regarding its beginnings:

Although threatened with reprisals from the British Crown and a bitterly divided constituency, New Hampshire’s leaders set the course for self-government in January 1776. Determined to keep the government close to the people, our forefathers fixed the size of the House of Representatives as a direct ratio to the state’s population. The first House consisted of 87 members, each one representing 100 families. As time passed and the population increased, the number of Representatives grew, until there were 443. In 1942, a constitutional amendment limited the size of the House to 400 but not less than 375 members. As a result, the New Hampshire House is the largest state legislative body in the United States.
New Hampshire has the largest House of Representatives in the nation. The Concord Monitor has stated that New Hampshire has “the most localized representation of any state in the country.”

On November 15, 2011, Atty. Orly Taitz filed a complaint with the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission regarding the placing of Obama’s name on the state ballot, citing his use of a social security number not assigned to him as well as having presented two forged birth certificates as proof that he was born in Hawaii. Several state representatives joined the complaint, and citizens from around the country filed challenges as well. A U.S. Army reserve retired colonel has launched a campaign to prevent Obama’s name from being included on the New Hampshire ballot.
The New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission responded to Taitz by holding a hearing on November 18, during which Taitz presented her case challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility, focusing on the crimes which she alleged he committed.

Although the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s office has disallowed candidates from running for the presidency due to foreign birthplaces in the recent past, the decision of the Ballot Law Commission was that because Obama completed the application and paid the requisite $1,000 fee, it could not prevent his name from appearing on the 2012 ballot.

Atty. Taitz has since stated that “massive election fraud” is occurring in New Hampshire because it appears that in 2008, boxes of ballots were left out on tables rather than locked in a vault, which Gardner admitted in a video to be a deviation from standard protocol.

Nine members of the New Hampshire House attended the hearing of the Ballot Law Commission, one of whom was Rep. Laurence Rappaport (R-Coos). Rappaport stated that there were nine representatives present at the Ballot Law Commission hearing and that some or all of them organized the press conference to be held on Tuesday, January 3, 2012.

We first asked him about his reaction to the outcome of the Ballot Law Commission hearing, he responded, “I was extremely disappointed.”
We then asked him about the investigation called for by Attorney General Michael Delaney regarding alleged misconduct on the part of some of the representatives at the Ballot Law Commission hearing. Rappaport’s response was, “There were two investigations. One was by the House Security, run by Randy Joyner, and he reported to the Speaker of the House, and the Attorney General asked the State Police to investigate. Neither one of them contacted me, probably because although I was there, I never said anything. The results of the investigation, as I understand it, were that there were no threats made, and it was basically a non-event.”

Rappaport said that at the time we spoke with him on December 31, a statement to be made at the press conference was in second-draft format. Working on the statement with him are Reps. Lou and Carol Vita and Harry Accornero.

“What we really need to do is emphasize that Barack Obama was not eligible and is not eligible to become president. At the Ballot Law hearing, the Commission and the Assistant Secretary of State said publicly, under oath, on the record, that their authority was only to see that the paperwork was properly filled out and that the $1,000 fee was paid. If you go back a little farther, you find out that they had disqualified a man named Sal Mohamed and another named Abdul Hassan. There are letters, of which we have copies, signed by Karen Ladd, the Assistant Secretary of State. So we applied for a rehearing, which was denied, and we applied to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and last week they denied us a hearing. We can provide complete copies of all of these challenges.””

Read more:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/01/new-hampshire-house-of-representatives-members-to-hold-press-conference-on-obamas-eligibility-on-january-3/

Thanks to commenter Imuha.

178 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Eligibility, Founding Fathers, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , ,

Obama Georgia ballot challenge, Natural born citizen status deficient, Attorney Van Irion for David Weldon Files Blistering Opposition to Obama Motion to Dismiss

Posted on December 29, 2011 | 41 comments

Obama Georgia ballot challenge, Natural born citizen status deficient, Attorney Van Irion for David Weldon Files Blistering Opposition to Obama Motion to Dismiss

“Why did Obama, prior to occupying the White House, employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to assist him in avoiding the presentation of a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

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

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

First, I would like to thank Birther Report for their efforts to monitor the unconstitutional machinations of Obama, et al.

From Birther Report December December 28, 2011.

“Attorney Van Irion on behalf of David Weldon Files Blistering Opposition to Defendant’s(Obama) Motion to Dismiss in Georgia Ballot Access Challenge”

“For the reasons set forth below, none of the facts asserted by the Defendant are relevant. The only fact relevant to this case is the fact that the Defendant’s father was not a U.S. citizen. This fact has been repeatedly documented and stated by the party opponent, Defendant Obama. This fact is also evidenced by Plaintiff’s exhibit 6, previously submitted with Plaintiff’s pre-trial order and apparently authenticated by Defendant’s citation to this exhibit in Defendant’s “Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute,” number 7.”

“C. Right to Associate Doesn’t Negate Georgia Election Law

The Democratic Party of Georgia’s Constitutional right to determine its membership coexists with Georgia’s right to govern Georgia. Georgia code does not interfere with the autonomy of the political party’s internal decision making because it does nothing to prohibit the parties from submitting any name to the Secretary of State for inclusion in the Presidential primary. The Party is free to submit Saddam Hussein or Mickey Mouse as their next Presidential candidate. However, Georgia is not required to accept such submissions and waste taxpayer money on ballots for such candidates.

Georgia code does not prevent the political parties from submitting any name. Instead the code simply determines what the State does with the Party’s list of candidates after the Party has forwarded its list to the State. See O.C.G.A. §21-2 et seq. This code does nothing to prevent any political party from excluding, or including, any person they choose to exclude or include. Nor does it prevent the Party from choosing candidates to submit, in its “sole discretion.” Georgia’s code simply exercises the State’s right to administer elections in a manner that best serves the citizens of the State.

In the instant case Georgia’s Election code does nothing to infringe on the Democratic Party of Georgia’s right of association because the Party can and did include the Defendant in its organization. The Party can and did include the Defendant in the Party’s list of candidates. The Party’s rights, however, end there. Its rights cannot force the State to place the Defendant’s name on a ballot after the State determines that the Defendant is obviously not qualified “to hold the office sought.” §21-2-5. The rights of the Party and of the State simply do not conflict.4

The Defendant’s argument would logically require a conclusion that no state can preclude any candidate from any primary ballot for any reason without violating a political party’s right to freely associate. Since many candidates have been disqualified from primary ballots for lack of qualification to hold the office sought, we can safely conclude that the Defendant’s argument fails. If his argument succeeds, many election codes across the country will need to be re-drafted.

D. Defendant’s Conclusion is Offensive to the Constitution

The Defendant states that the issue raised by the Plaintiff was “soundly rejected by 69,456,897 Americans in the 2008 elections.” See Def.’s Mtn. at 5. This statement reflects a complete lack of understanding regarding Constitutional protections.

Contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, voters are not the final arbiters of whether an individual is qualified to hold office. America is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy without a constitution. In a Constitutional Republic the power of the majority is limited and cannot infringe upon protected rights of a minority.

The Constitution is an anti-majoritarian document; meaning that it protects individuals from invasions and usurpations by the majority. Constitutionally protected rights are held inviolate regardless of the majority’s desire to violate them. Without such protections any law enacted by Congress would be valid, even if it denied an individual their right to life, liberty, or property. Without the anti-majoritarian protection of the Constitution, Congress could legalize the killing of all Jews, for example, as was done in World War II Germany. Constitutional requirements are absolute, and must be followed regardless of how popular or unpopular such requirements may be, because they are in place to protect the minority.

The Defendant’s presumption that popular vote overrides the Constitution demonstrates his lack of understanding of the Constitution and emphasizes the critical role played by this Court in protecting Americans from a tyrannical majority. Contrary to the Defendant’s statement, a minority of Americans have an absolute right to be protected from a non-natural-born-citizen being elected President.

E. Contrary to the Defendant’s Assertion, No Court has Ruled on the Question Presented”

Read more:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/12/attorney-van-irion-files-opposition-to.html

Thanks to commenter Pat 1789.

41 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, constitution, Democrats, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electors, Eligibility, Judges, Lawyers, Lies, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , ,

David Farrar V Barack Obama, Georgia ballot, Obama not natural born citizen, Obama attorney Michael Jablonski motion, GA election laws

Posted on December 20, 2011 | 67 comments

David Farrar V Barack Obama, Georgia ballot, Obama not natural born citizen, Obama attorney Michael Jablonski motion, GA election laws

“Why did Obama, prior to occupying the White House, employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to assist him in avoiding the presentation of a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

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


“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

Obama has engaged private attorney Michael Jablonski to respond to the Pre Trial order filed by David Farrar. The order requests that Barack Obama’s name be removed from the Georgia State ballot because Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore not qualified for the office of the president.

Some information on Attorney Michael Jablonski.

“Michael Jablonski represents select clients in matters related to politics: campaigns with contract problems; candidates facing ethics charges; political consultants charged with trademark and copyright violations; media buyers and candidates confused by the FCC’s lowest unit charge rules; businesses with campaign contribution problems; citizens using the Georgia Open Records Act or the Federal Freedom of Information Act; and others that have been caught in the mire of campaign finance and ethics law.”

Read more:

http://taarradhin.net/

Looks like Obama has picked the right attorney.

From David Farrar V Barack Obama.
“(4) The issues for determination by the Court are as follows:
A. Is the candidate’s proffered birth certificates, authentic state-issued documents that verify his actual, physical birth in Hawaii?
B. Is the candidate an Article II natural born citizen of the United States as established in US. Supreme Court case: Minor vs Happersett 1875 Page 88 U. S. 163
C. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-560 Making of False Statements Generally. Is the candidate’s Social Security number, authentic?”

Two segments from Mr. Jablonski’s motion.

“The Democratic Party of Georgia determines names to include on its Presidential Preference Primary ballot at its sole discretion. O.C.G.A. 21 -2-193. A state political party “enjoys a constitutionally protected freedom which includes the right to identify the people who constitute this association to those people only.”
“Furthermore, the citizenship issue the plaintiff seeks to raise was soundly rejected by 69,456,897 Americans in the 2008 elections, as it has been by every judicial body ever to have considered it.”

My response.

The GA Democratic Party may put anyone they want on the ballot. However, that right does not trump the US Constitution dictate that the president must be a natural born citizen. GA election law clearly provides the Secretary of State and electors the power to challenge the qualifications of candidates. Also, to my knowledge, no court in this country has ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen.

I was born and raised in NC, have some experience reading legal documents and we also have some good dictionaries in NC. I have read the motion from Mr. Jablonski as well as the 2008 and 2011 versions of Georgia election laws. I will leave it for the reader to evaluate the accuracy of the following statements by Michael Jablonski in the hope that good dictionaries and logical thought capabilities exist in other parts of the country.

From the motion filed December 16, 2011 by attorney  Michael Jablonski.

“President Obama asks for dismissal of this attempt to deprive the Democratic Party of Georgia of its statutory right to name candidates to the Presidential Preference Party held to apportion Gerogia’s delegates to the Democratic National Convention. No provision of Georgia law authorizes a challenge to a political party’s identification of names it wishes its members to consider in a preference primary for purposes of apportioning delegates to its National Convention.The Democratic Party of Georgia properly identified Barack Obama as a candidate to whom National Convention delegates will be pledged based upon votes in the preference poll. Georgia law does not authorize the Secretary of State to exercise any discretion or oversight over the actions of a political party participating in a preference primary. Indeed, any review by the Secretary of State would interfere with associational rights of the Democratic Party guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
“The Time Limit for filing any challenge under O.C.G.A. 21-2-5 (if it appplies) specifies a two week period after qualifying in which a challenge can be filed.”
“The Secretary of State’s involvement in the Presidential Preference Primary process, other than conducting balloting, is limited to receiving names submitted by political parties for inclusion in the preference primary, publishing the submitted names on a website, and including the names on the ballot.”
“O.C.G.A. 21-2-193. The Presidential Preference Primary statute does not empower the Secretary of State to review submissions of names by political parties.”
“O.C.G.A. 21-2-5 does not apply to the Presidential Preference Primary because the preference primary is not an election”
“Nothing in the context of O.C.G.A. 21-2-5 “clearly requires” applicability to the preference primary.”

From the Georgia Election Statutes.

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193  (2011)

§ 21-2-193.  List of names of candidates to appear on ballot; publication of list
   On a date set by the Secretary of State, but not later than 60 days preceding the date on which a presidential preference primary is to be held, the state executive committee of each party which is to conduct a presidential preference primary shall submit to the Secretary of State a list of the names of the candidates of such party to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot. Such lists shall be published on the website of the Secretary of State during the fourth week immediately preceding the date on which the presidential preference primary is to be held.”

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-200  (2011)

§ 21-2-200.  Applicability of general primary provisions; form of ballot
   A presidential preference primary shall be conducted, insofar as practicable, pursuant to this chapter respecting general primaries, except as otherwise provided in this article. In setting up the form of the ballot, the Secretary of State shall provide for designating the name of the candidate to whom a candidate for delegate or delegate alternate is pledged, if any.”

“TITLE 21.  ELECTIONS 
CHAPTER 2.  ELECTIONS AND PRIMARIES GENERALLY 
ARTICLE 1.  GENERAL PROVISIONS

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5  (2011)

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

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

(c) The Secretary of State shall determine if the candidate is qualified to seek and hold the public office for which such candidate is offering. If the Secretary of State determines that the candidate is not qualified, the Secretary of State shall withhold the name of the candidate from the ballot or strike such candidate’s name from the ballot if the ballots have been printed. If there is insufficient time to strike the candidate’s name or reprint the ballots, a prominent notice shall be placed at each affected polling place advising voters of the disqualification of the candidate and all votes cast for such candidate shall be void and shall not be counted.”

“TITLE 21.  ELECTIONS 
CHAPTER 2.  ELECTIONS AND PRIMARIES GENERALLY 
ARTICLE 5.  PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARY

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-191  (2011)

§ 21-2-191.  Parties entitled to hold primaries; dates; decision to elect delegates to presidential nominating convention in primary; qualifying periods for candidates for delegate
   As provided in this article, a presidential preference primary shall be held in 2012 and every four years thereafter for each political party or body which has cast for its candidates for President and Vice President in the last presidential election more than 20 percent of the total vote cast for President and Vice President in this state, so that the electors may express their preference for one person to be the candidate for nomination by such person’s party or body for the office of President of the United States; provided, however, that no elector shall vote in the primary of more than one political party or body in the same presidential preference primary. Such primary shall be held in each year in which a presidential election is to be conducted on a date selected by the Secretary of State which shall not be later than the second Tuesday in June in such year. The Secretary of State shall select such date no later than December 1 of the year immediately preceding such primary. A state political party or body may by rule choose to elect any portion of its delegates to that party’s or body’s presidential nominating convention in the primary; and, if a state political party or body chooses to elect any portion of its delegates, such state political party or body shall establish the qualifying period for those candidates for delegate and delegate alternate positions which are to be elected in the primary and for any party officials to be elected in the primary and shall also establish the date on which state and county party executive committees shall certify to the Secretary of State or the superintendent, as the case may be, the names of any such candidates who are to be elected in the primary; provided, however, that such dates shall not be later than 60 days preceding the date on which the presidential preference primary is to be held.”

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-521  (2011)

§ 21-2-521.  Primaries and elections which are subject to contest; persons who may bring contest
   The nomination of any person who is declared nominated at a primary as a candidate for any federal, state, county, or municipal office; the election of any person who is declared elected to any such office (except when otherwise prescribed by the federal Constitution or the Constitution of Georgia); the eligibility of any person declared eligible to seek any such nomination or office in a run-off primary or election; or the approval or disapproval of any question submitted to electors at an election may be contested by any person who was a candidate at such primary or election for such nomination or office, or by any aggrieved elector who was entitled to vote for such person or for or against such question.”

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-522  (2011)

§ 21-2-522.  Grounds for contest
   A result of a primary or election may be contested on one or more of the following grounds:

   (1) Misconduct, fraud, or irregularity by any primary or election official or officials sufficient to change or place in doubt the result;

   (2) When the defendant is ineligible for the nomination or office in dispute;

   (3) When illegal votes have been received or legal votes rejected at the polls sufficient to change or place in doubt the result;

   (4) For any error in counting the votes or declaring the result of the primary or election, if such error would change the result; or

   (5) For any other cause which shows that another was the person legally nominated, elected, or eligible to compete in a run-off primary or election.”

David Farrar filing:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/12/david-farrar-v-barack-obama-first.html
Attorney Michael Jablonski filing

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/12/obamas-private-attorney-files-motion-to.html

67 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Courts, Delegate, democratic convention, Democrats, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, First Amendment, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Secretary of State, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

Tenth Amendment, Standing, Supreme Court ruling, Obama eligibility cases, No Supreme Court ruling on Obama eligibility

Posted on June 22, 2011 | 60 comments

Tenth Amendment, Standing, Supreme Court ruling, Obama eligibility cases, No Supreme Court ruling on Obama eligibility

“Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”

“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?”… Chief Justice Marshall opinion, Marbury versus Madison

“If Philip J. Berg as an American citizen, a respected Democratic operative and former attorney general of Pennsylvania doesn’t have the “standing” to bring this type of lawsuit against Obama, then who in America does have standing?”…Ellis Washington, professor of law

 From Citizen Wells Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

“The SCOTUS, Supreme Court of the United States, provided a decision in Bond v. United States on June 16, 2011. The ruling addressed standing and the Tenth Amendment.”

“Before accessing the impact of the ruling, especially regarding eligibility cases, the Citizen Wells blog will revisit some articles from 2008. It was apparent to us and many legal scholars that any citizen had standing to question the eligibility of Barack Obama, especially when many states indicated they had no authority or responsibility to do so. Per the Tenth Amendment, that gave the power to citizens.

It is also important to remember that the US Supreme Court did not render a decision on any eligibility case. It was lower courts that deemed that the plaintiffs had no standing.”

Read more

There are probably multiple reasons why the US Supreme Court chose to not take on any of the Obama eligibility cases. Clearly one of them is the fact that there are provisions in place to safeguard elections. One of them, grossly ignored, is the right of citizens to uphold the Constitution via Tenth Amendment Rights.

From Citizen Wells November 17, 2008.

NC State Officers and Election

Officials are in Violation of the Law
             2008 Presidential Election

Eligibility for presidency

US Constitution
Article II
Section 1

“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

How President is elected

UNITED STATES ELECTION LAW

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

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

The states are responsible for the primaries, general election and events leading up to the Electoral College vote

US Constitution
Article II
Section 1

“Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.”

NC Officials responsible for upholding the US Constitution and Federal and State Election Laws

Governor Mike Easley has overall responsibilities as well as Electoral College certification.

Attorney General Roy Cooper is charged with compliance with all Federal and State laws.

Secretary Elaine Marshall is responsible for the NC Election process.

NC Board of Elections is responsible for the NC Election process.

NC Electoral College Electors are responsible for complying with Federal and State laws.

NC Judges ruling on election matters are bound to uphold the US Constitution and Federal and State laws.

Laws that apply to NC State Officials

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1. Presidential eligibility.

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1. States are responsible for Presidential Elections up to Electoral College vote.

Federal Election Law dictates that Electors must vote in a “manner directed by the Constitution.”

Article VI of the US Constitution states:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislators, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by
Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;”

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

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

President 

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

NC Statute § 163‑19.  State Board of Elections; appointment; term of office; vacancies; oath of office.

“At the first meeting held after new appointments are made, the members of the State Board of Elections shall take the following oath:

I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States; that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of North Carolina, and to the constitutional powers and authorities which are or may be established for the government thereof; that I will endeavor to support, maintain and defend the Constitution of said State, and that I will well and truly execute the duties of the office of member of the State Board of Elections according to the best of my knowledge and ability, according to law, so help me, God.”
NC Statute § 163‑23.  Powers of chairman in execution of Board duties.

“In the performance of the duties enumerated in this Chapter, the chairman of the State Board of Elections shall have power to administer oaths, issue subpoenas, summon witnesses, and compel the production of papers, books, records and other evidence. Upon the written request or requests of two or more members of the State Board of Elections, he shall issue subpoenas for designated witnesses or identified papers, books, records and other evidence. In the absence of the chairman or upon his refusal to act, any two members of the State Board of Elections may issue subpoenas, summon witnesses, and compel the production of papers, books, records and other evidence. In the absence of the chairman or upon his refusal to act, any member of the Board may administer oaths. (1901, c. 89, s. 7; Rev., s. 4302; C.S., s. 5923; 1933, c. 165, s. 1; 1945, c. 982; 1967, c. 775, s. 1; 1973, c. 793, s. 4.)”

The following facts and conclusions are self evident:

  • The State of NC, State Officials and Election Officials are responsible for the Presidential Election in NC up to and including the vote by the Electoral College Electors of NC.
  • The Electoral College Electors of NC are bound by the US Constitution and Federal and State Election law to vote for an eligible presidential candidate.
  • The Governor’s office, the Secretary of State’s office, the NC State Board of Elections and the Electoral College of NC has been notified in public and private of major issues surrounding the eligibility of Barack Obama.
  • The office of the Secretary of State and Board of Elections was notified multiple times, prior to the general election, of the Philip J Berg lawsuit and facts regarding Barack Obama’s ineligibility. The notification was via telephone conversation and emails as well as notification on the internet. The Board of Elections stated they had been aware of these issues for several months.
  • There are pending lawsuits in NC courts, other state courts, as well as US Supreme Court, challenging the eligibilty of Barack Obama.
  • Barack Obama has refused to supply legal proof of eligibility.
  • Pending or dismissed lawsuits have no bearing on the obligation of NC officials to uphold the rule of law.
  • Failure of NC officials to uphold the law and their election duties may result in the disenfranchisement of millions of voters.
  • The state of NC has complete control of the presidential election process in NC up to and including the Electoral College vote.
  • Placing a candidate on the ballot at the direction of a major political party does not relieve NC election officials of their duty to ensure eligibility of candidates.
  • The state of NC in NC Statute § 163-114 provides for replacing a candidate that “for any reason becomes ineligible or disqualified”.
  • The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution gives power to the people not reserved for the federal government or the states.
  • The laws on the books not only allow, but require that NC officers and Elections Officials demand proof from any presidential candidate of eligibility.

If the officers and Election Officials do not perform their legal obligation to demand proof of eligibility from Barack Obama or any other presidential candidate, they will be subject to one or more of the following:

  • Prosecution
  • Lawsuit
  • Impeachment
  • Recall
  • Expulsion
  • Dismissal

Citizen Wells will be providing this information to the officers and Election officials of NC. If a satisfactory answer is not received soon, petitions will be initiated to remove non compliant officials from office. Judges are not immune.

What is the alternative?

The answer is in the Declaration of Independence.

Read more

60 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, constitution, Courts, Election Law, Electors, Eligibility, Judges, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, NC, NC primary, News, North Carolina, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Secretary of State, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

Obama not president per Constitution, Constitution 101, Natural born citizen requirement trumps Electoral College

Posted on January 31, 2011 | 60 comments

 Obama not president per Constitution, Constitution 101, Natural born citizen requirement trumps Electoral College

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

US President eligibility requirements 

US Constitution
Article II
Section 1

“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

Twelfth Amendment – Election of President

“then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.”

Twentieth Amendment

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

It is clear from the language above, if you have reading comprehension skills of a fifth grader and an IQ greater than a squirrel, that one must be a natural born citizen to be president, irrespective of Electoral College votes, certification or swearing in ceremonies. It is sad that so many in Congress have these deficiencies.

Many of the states have statutes layered beneath the US Constitution clarifying duties and eligibility to run for office.

North Carolina

Elections and Election Laws.

§ 163-114.  Filling vacancies among party nominees occurring after nomination and before election. If any person nominated as a candidate of a political party for one of the offices listed below (either in a primary or convention or by virtue of having no opposition in a primary) dies, resigns, or for any reason becomes ineligible or disqualified before the date of the ensuing general election, the vacancy shall be filled by appointment according to the following instructions:

Position

President 

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

§ 163-122.  Unaffiliated candidates nominated by petition.

 “(d)       When any person files a petition with a board of elections under this section, the board of elections shall, immediately upon receipt of the petition, inspect the registration records of the county and cancel the petition of any person who does not meet the constitutional or statutory qualifications for the office, including residency.”

§ 163-123.  Declaration of intent and petitions for write-in candidates in partisan elections.

“(f1)     When any person files a petition with a board of elections under this section, the board of elections shall, immediately upon receipt of the petition, inspect the registration records of the county and cancel the petition of any person who does not meet the constitutional or statutory qualifications for the office, including residency.”

§ 163-127.2.  When and how a challenge to a candidate may be made.

“(c)       If Defect Discovered After Deadline, Protest Available. – If a challenger discovers one or more grounds for challenging a candidate after the deadline in subsection (a) of this section, the grounds may be the basis for a protest under G.S. 163-182.9. (2006-155, s. 1.)”
§ 163-127.5.  Burden of proof.

(a)       The burden of proof shall be upon the candidate, who must show by a preponderance of the evidence of the record as a whole that he or she is qualified to be a candidate for the office.”

Article 5.

Precinct Election Officials.

§ 163-41.  Precinct chief judges and judges of election; appointment; terms of office; qualifications; vacancies; oaths of office.
“As soon as practicable, following their training as prescribed in G.S. 163-82.24, each chief judge and judge of election shall take and subscribe the following oath of office to be administered by an officer authorized to administer oaths and file it with the county board of elections:

“I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States; that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of North Carolina, and to the constitutional powers and authorities which are or may be established for the government thereof; that I will endeavor to support, maintain and defend the Constitution of said State not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States; that I will administer the duties of my office as chief judge of (judge of election in) ______precinct, __________County, without fear or favor; that I will not in any manner request or seek to persuade or induce any voter to vote for or against any particular candidate or proposition; and that I will not keep or make any memorandum of anything occurring within a voting booth, unless I am called upon to testify in a judicial proceeding for a violation of the election laws of this State; so help me, God.””

Kentucky

“In accordance with the Twelfth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and with sections 7-11 of Title III of the
United States Code”

UNITED STATES CODE

TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT

Manner of voting

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

US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

It is clear that NC and KY require that a presidential candidate be a natural born citizen in compliance with the US Constitution. Congratulations to Kentucky for their explicit language.

60 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, constitution, Courts, Election, Election Boards, Election Law, Electoral College, Electors, Eligibility, Government, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, NC, News, North Carolina, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, US House of Representatives, US Senate, Usurper, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , ,

Constitution 101, State election laws, US Constitution rules, State election officials and electors legal duties

Posted on January 30, 2011 | 194 comments

Constitution 101, State election laws, US Constitution rules, State election officials and electors legal duties

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

In men’s minds, as in nature, once a seed is planted, it many take many months to germinate, but the seed must be planted.

I was searching through Citizen Wells articles from 2008 on election laws and natural born citizen references when I came across this:

“Constitution 101 classes will begin soon.
State officers, election officials, judges and, of course,
US Supreme Court Justices will be invited. Stay tuned for a
class near you. I suppose Washington DC should be first.”

From Citizen Wells December 17, 2008.

The ultimate objective of a presidential election to inaugurate a
constitutionally qualified president that as closely as possible
reflects the will of the people.
The states have been given the power and the duty to control presidential
elections by the US Constitution.

The pervasive attitudes of the state officers and election officials is
that they, incorrectly, have no power to qualify presidential candidates
and/or they depend on political parties to vet the candidates.

The political parties have evolved and changed since the creation of the
US Consitution and are given no powers. However, members of the parties,
as US Citizens have an implied duty to uphold the Constitution and party
officers typically have taken oaths as elected officials to uphold the
US Constitution.

Clearly, the intent of the US Constitution and Federal Election Law is
for an eligible candidate to move through this election process to allow
for a constitutionally valid vote by Electors.

All officers and election officials, most judges and most Electoral
College Electors were informed prior to the general election and
particularly prior to the Electors meeting and voting, of compelling
evidence that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president. Despite
these warnings, Electors met and voted on the basis of party loyalty or
perceived directives from the states. State or party policies dictating
how an Elector votes violate the spirit and letter of constitutional
and federal law.

Even though the manner of Electoral College voting in clearly defined by
the US Constitution and Federal Election Law, some states have included
explicit references to law in their Certificates of Voters that are
signed by Electors and state officers. Below are certificates from 2004.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004_certificates/

Alabama

“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and this state, certify”

Alaska

“by authority of law vested in us”

Arizona

“by authority of law in us vested”

Arkansas

“as provided by law”

California

“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and the state of california, do hereby certify”

Connecticut

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States
and in the manner provided by the laws of the state of Connecticut”

Hawaii

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States”

Idaho

“having met agreeably to the provisions of law”

Illinois

“as provided by law”

Indiana

“as required by the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States”

Iowa

“in accordance with law”

Kansas

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

Kentucky

“In accordance with the Twelfth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and with sections 7-11 of Title III of the
United States Code”

UNITED STATES CODE

TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT

Manner of voting

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

US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Minnesota

“In testimony whereof, and as required by the Twelth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States we have hereunto set
our hands”

Montana

“agreeable to the provisions of law”

Nevada

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

New Jersey

“proceeded to perform the duties required of us by the Constitution
and laws of the United States.”

North Carolina

“by authority of law in us vested”

Pennsylvania

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

Rhode Island

“in pursuance of law”

South Carolina

“pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
this state”

Tennessee

“pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
this state”

Utah

“in pursuance of the statutes of the United States and of the statutes
of the State of Utah”

Virginia

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States”

Washington

“pursuant to the provisions of federal and state law”

Conclusion

  • The US Constitution is clear on presidential eligibility and how
    Electoral Colleges Electors are to vote.
  • Ignorance is no excuse. Everyone involved was forewarned. Voting
    party line over law will not be tolerated.
  • Electors and state officers have signed or will sign Certificates of Voters
    for the 2008 Election. As you can see from the above, they will
    certify that they are aware of the law and are abiding by the law.
  • Kentucky gets the award for the most constitutionally clear wording
    and should be applauded for doing so.
  • There are consequences for false attesting.
  • One of the consequences is that the votes of many Electors are now
    null and void.
  • Impeachment, recall, firing, criminal charges forthcoming?

Constitution 101 classes will begin soon.

State officers, election officials, judges and, of course,
US Supreme Court Justices will be invited. Stay tuned for a
class near you. I suppose Washington DC should be first.

194 Comments

Posted in Attorney General, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, constitution, Courts, DC, Election, Election Boards, Election Law, Electoral College, Electors, Eligibility, Government, Judges, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Secretary of State, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, US House of Representatives, US Senate, Usurper, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , ,

Obama is ineligible to occupy White House, Obama must resign immediately or be arrested, US Constitution clear, Many state laws clear, NC officials in trouble

Posted on January 27, 2011 | 150 comments

Obama is ineligible to occupy White House, Obama must resign immediately or be arrested, US Constitution clear, Many state laws clear, NC officials in trouble

If Obama is not a natural born citizen, and it appears that he is not, then he is not president and must resign or be arrested. The US Constitution is clear on that requirement. No amount of electoral college votes, certification by Congress or swearing in attempts can remedy that deficiency. There are more clauses in the Constitution that add clarity to that requirement.

From the Twelfth Amendment to the US Constitution.

” then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.”

There is and was some confusion about the responsibility of state election officials to insure that presidential candidates are qualified. In 2008 I made sure that the office of the Secretary of State of NC as well as the State Board of elections was notified of the Philip J Berg lawsuit and serious questions regarding Obama’s eligibility. Instead of following their oaths to uphold the US Constitution and in some cases state law, they played party politics. Now is the time to pay the piper.

From Citizen Wells October 30, 2008.

Legal Notice

To:

The State of North Carolina

The Governor of North Carolina

The Attorney General of North Carolina

The Secretary of State of North Carolina

The NC Board of Elections

The Electoral College Electors of North Carolina

Whereas: Barack Obama was placed on the ballot in NC in the primary and
General Election.

Whereas: The NC Board of Elections placed Barack Obama on the ballot
solely on the basis of the direction of the DNC, Democratic National
Committee.

Whereas: The NC Board of Elections has not requested proof of eligibilty
for Barack Obama to be president from Barack Obama or the DNC despite
strong evidence that Barack Obama is not eligible.

Whereas: The NC Board of Elections has been aware of the lawsuit and
associated evidence of Philip J Berg for several months.

Whereas: Citizen Wells contacted the NC Board of Elections by email
and telephone conversation on or about 10/06/08 and provided
information that Barack Obama is ineligible.

Whereas: Citizen Wells contacted the office of the Secretary of State
of NC by email and telephone conversation on or about 10/27/08 and provided information that Barack Obama is ineligible.

Whereas: Most, if not all, NC Officers and Election officials have sworn
an oath to uphold the US Constitution.

Whereas: The US Constitution clearly defines the requirements to be
president of the US.

Whereas: The following NC statute provides for replacing a presidential
candidate if “for any reason becomes ineligible or disqualified“.
“Chapter 163.

Elections and Election Laws.

§ 163-114.  Filling vacancies among party nominees occurring after nomination and before election. If any person nominated as a candidate of a political party for one of the offices listed below (either in a primary or convention or by virtue of having no opposition in a primary) dies, resigns, or for any reason becomes ineligible or disqualified before the date of the ensuing general election, the vacancy shall be filled by appointment according to the following instructions:

Position

President 

Vacancy is to be filled by appointment of
national executive committee of
political party in which vacancy occurs”
Whereas: Barack Obama is ineligble to be President of the United States
and the NC State Board of Elections and the NC Secretary of State have
been notified by email and telephone.

Citizen Wells, a citizen of the State of North Carolina, demands that
the NC State Board of Elections obtain proof of eligibility from
Barack Obama or the Democrat Party in the form of a vault copy of
a birth certificate or pledge of allegiance to the US, and in the absence
of proof, remove Barack Obama from the ballot and request that the DNC
provide a replacement candidate per NC Law.

Citizen Wells further requests that the citizens of NC contact the NC
Board of elections and demand that they uphold the US Constitution and
NC Law.

Furthermore, all NC officials and election officials will be held
accountable if a non eligible presidential candidate is allowed to remain
on the ballot. The severity of the consequences will increase if the
ineligible candidate receives votes in the general election and Electoral
College. Many voters have been disenfranchised by Barack Obama being on
the ballot in the primary election. The further disenfranchisement of
voters, and the potential constitutional crisis must be taken seriously.
Citizen Wells              October 30, 2008

Attachments:
Email sent to NC Board of Elections:

Hi.
What I am about to share is serious and not a joke.
I am going to post this on my blog.
You may or may not be aware of the lawsuit filed by Philip J Berg
in federal court on August 21, 2008. Mr. Berg states that Obama
is not qualified to be president. I helped break this story and I am
in contact with Mr. Berg. He is trying to avoid a constitutional
crisis.
 
Here is a subchapter from the NC statues:
 
(Changes effective January 1, 2007)
§ 163-114. Filling vacancies among party nominees occurring
after nomination and before election.
If any person nominated as a candidate of a political
party for one of the offices listed below (either in a primary
or convention or by virtue of having no opposition in a primary)
Current through September 7, 2008
Page 118 of 429
dies, resigns, or for any reason becomes ineligible or
disqualified before the date of the ensuing general election,
the vacancy shall be filled by appointment according to the
following instructions:
Position
President vacancy is to be filled by
Vice President appointment of national
executive committee of
political party in which
vacancy occurs

I am a NC voter.

Citizen Wells
Email sent to NC Secretary of State:

This email is a followup to a phone coversation with the Secretary
of State’s office.

The following article was posted on my blog. My viewership is in
the hundreds of thousands. A response is most welcome.
Citizen Wells
https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/

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

Benjamin Franklin

“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high
duties of a good (officer), but it is not the highest. The laws of
necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger,
are of higher obligation.”

Thomas Jefferson

“The ballot is stronger than the bullet.”

Abraham Lincoln

Up to this point, the political parties and the individual states have been in control of the election process. The state boards of elections, in conjunction  with the major political parties have controlled which candidates will be on the ballots. However, the US Constitution still rules and just beneath that the Federal election laws rule. The states have control over their respective elections and electors, but are still governed by federal law.

Several weeks ago, Citizen Wells contacted the NC State Board of Elections.
After a brief phone call dominated by the Board of Elections staff member,
Citizen Wells was told that they had been aware of the Philip J Berg
lawsuit for several months and that they took their cue from the
Democratic Party regarding Obama’s eligibility. Once again, the US
Constitution rules and we will hold the NC State Board of Elections
accountable.

Once the individual state electors meet on December 15, 2008, the Federal
Government takes control of the process. Lawsuits in courts require
the burden of proof on the part of the plaintiff. This burden is not necessary
for those charged with upholding and defending the Constitution.
Consider the following:

Both John McCain and Barack Obama are US Senators. When they took office they spoke the following pledge:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

UNITED STATES ELECTION LAW

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

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

Pennsylvania Law

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

NC Law

“At the first meeting held after new appointments are made, the members of the State Board of Elections shall take the following oath:

“I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States; that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of North Carolina, and to the constitutional powers and authorities which are or may be established for the government thereof; that I will endeavor to support, maintain and defend the Constitution of said State, and that I will well and truly execute the duties of the office of member of the State Board of Elections according to the best of my knowledge and ability, according to law, so help me, God.””
“§ 163-114.  Filling vacancies among party nominees occurring after nomination and before election.

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

President

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

This is not a situation where Obama is on trial and the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.

The government of the US has not filed a lawsuit with the burden of proof placed on the plaintiff.

Barack Obama is running for the office of president of the US, This is no different than applying for any other job involving competition.
As in any other situation involving a job application, the burden of
proof regarding qualification to hold office, falls on Obama. The
rules are spelled out in the US Constitution. The preponderance of
evidence reveals that Obama was born in Kenya, became an Indonesian
citizen and is in fact an illegal alien. Those who choose to ignore
these facts and allow Obama to proceed are violating the law and
will be held accountable.

Regardless of how the Philip J Berg lawsuit plays out, the US Constitution
must be upheld. Many people involved in the election process are
charged with upholding the US Constitution and will be held accountable.
This article will be emailed to the Secretary of State in each state
after a phone call to explain that the citizens are watching them. The
individual electors will also be held accountable. The Citizen Wells
blog will also create an accountability page for each state and will
provide feedback on how each state cooperates with the letter and spirit
of the Constitution.

I urge all of you to contact your Secretary of State and Board of Elections
in your state. Let them know you do not want an illegal alien on the
ballot or voted for by state electors. While you are at it, let them
know that voter fraud will not be tolerated. Let us know about the level
of concern and cooperation in your state.

The Philip J Berg lawsuit Timeline can be accessed at the top of this blog.”

150 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil Complaint, Civil rights, constitution, Courts, Democrats, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Electoral College, Electors, Eligibility, Government, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, NC, NC voters, North Carolina, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Secretary of State, Sullivan v. NC Secretary of State, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

LTC Lakin incarceration, Surrender to Obama?, Nuts!, General Anthony McAuliffe, Defeat enemy, Free Lakin

Posted on December 18, 2010 | 96 comments

LTC Lakin incarceration, Surrender to Obama?, Nuts!, General Anthony McAuliffe, Defeat enemy, Free Lakin

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

“Nuts!”…General Anthony McAuliffe response to Germans December 22nd, 1944

Nuts! is also my response to the enemy. The Obama camp and those that fight to keep a usurper in the White House and ignore the US Constitution.

I next want to point out a couple of interesting things that came out of the LTC Terry Lakin court martial.

First, LTC Lakin’s efforts to get answers and his encounters with congressmen.

“He testified that he started to have concerns about the Constitution during the primary elections, when he was stationed at Aberdeen Proving Grounds. He learned that there was controversy as to the natural-born-citizen status of both major political parties’ general election candidates.  He said Senator McCain provided everything he could to address his status, including a birth certificate with the doctor’s name and hospital’s name.  He compared that with

the lack of scrutiny that Senator Obama received.  He had questions about the image of a certificate of live birth on the Internet and relatives stating they were present at his birth in Kenya.  He said he had an open mind, but he was skeptical.  One candidate went through scrutiny, but there was a lack of information as to the other.

Mr. Puckett pressed, “Why were you so interested in this?”  I think he expected the answer to be because of the oath of office, but LTC Lakin instead gave an answer about reading newspapers.  LTC Lakin testified that after the election, he became “extremely concerned.”  He said the issue wasn’t about politics or anything else (probably an implicit denial of racism) but the Supreme Law of the Land.  He stated that he “wanted a valid Commander-in-Chief.”  He testified that after the election, he was no longer comfortable with being selected for deployment.  He was “concerned that the Constitution wasn’t being followed.” 

He believes his “oath as an officer is to protect and defend the Constitution.”  He believed questions about the President’s eligibility “may weaken the Constitution.”  He said he doesn’t know if the President is ineligible and he doesn’t believe that anyone can know.

Neal Puckett asked, “What did you do as a soldier.”  LTC Lakin said his “sought out advice” from his command and from his friends.  He contacted legal assistance at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, who said they would research the issue and get back to him, but then they would never return his calls.  He talked to his  commander and supervisor who said there was an issue and there were questions, but they did not know what to do to answer them.  He then filed an Article 138 complaint.  He was asking, “Please, someone in my command, tell me there’s not an issue about illegal orders.”  He submitted the Article 138 complaint to his company commander and asked him to forward it.  The reply he received back was that his Article 138 complaint was deficient, so the Army didn’t have to answer it.

LTC Lakin then wrote letters to his two Senators and Congressman.  One Senator didn’t reply.  One said the issue had been raised “and Twittered about and been found not to be an issue.”  His Congressman forwarded his letter to Military Affairs.”
“LTC Lakin then became aware he was “on the short-list for deployment.  This greatly concerned me.”  He went to Capitol Hill for face-to-face meetings with one Congressman and high-level staffers.  He was told that the issue was a concern, but the media ridiculed it, so they let it go.”

http://www.caaflog.com/2010/12/16/lakin-court-martial-day-two-part-v/

Second, Neil Puckett uses the word Obsesses about LTC Lakin’s concern over presidential eligibility. I assume that Mr. Puckett is merely trying to protect his client.

“Dr. Lakin innocently and naively thought” that disobeying orders “was the only choice he had.”  Mr. Puckett told the members that “the Army didn’t fail him.  The Chief of Staff didn’t fail him.  He had questions and concerns.  And it became an obsession with him.”  He compared LTC Lakin to someone with obsessive -compulsive disorder.  Mr. Puckett then explained that he obsesses over people who don’t board airplanes and “get their butts in the seat” quickly enough. But Dr. Lakin’s obsession was the President’s eligibility.  “And it ate away at him.”

http://www.caaflog.com/2010/12/17/lakin-court-martial-finale-part-iii/

I will address the word “obsess” used by Neil Puckett.

“But Dr. Lakin’s obsession was the President’s eligibility.”

Obsession is a rather odd word to use for survival instincts and duty.

I will try to write real slow so that the folks on the left and mainstream media can understand. Folks like Maureen Dowd.

Oxygen
Water
Food
Shelter
Safety

The above list of items fall under the heading of basic survival. Do you speak in terms of being obsessed about breathing? Drinking water, etc.?

The list is prioritized with safety last, but still crucial to survival. Referring to presidential eligibility as an obsession is like calling breathing an obsession. What good is breathing if you are not safe in your home, safe from unwarranted arrest or nuclear attack.

Now Congress.

I personally was involved in 2008 in trying to get the attention of three congressmen as well as NC election officials. I prepared an article on what a Natural Born Citizen is and it was made into a video. We had a friend of the family of Ron Paul as an intermediary. Here is the response that we got from Ron Paul:

Late in December of 2008, Congressman Paul was asked if he would
challenge the Electoral votes in Congress. Here is his response:

“If I did that, I would be laughed out of Congress.”

You probably know where this is leading. The US Congress let the whole country down in 2009 when they failed to challenge Obama’s eligibility. This led to the patriot LTC Terry Lakin being court martialed. We are going to hold Congress accountable.

I, by God, had better not hear another congressman quote Twitter or Factcheck.org.

Let’s roll!

96 Comments

Posted in American hero, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, constitution, Constitution Hall of Shame, Court martial, Courts, Election, Election Boards, Election Law, Electors, factcheck.org, Government, Judges, Justice, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Military officers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Patriotism, The Case Against Barack Obama, Twitter.com, United States, US Army, US Constitution, US House of Representatives, US Senate, US Soldier, Usurper, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , ,

Congressional Research Memo, Jack Maskell, April 2009, Constitutional qualifications for presidency, Congressional offices

Posted on November 7, 2010 | 38 comments

Congressional Research Memo, Jack Maskell, April 2009, Constitutional qualifications for presidency, Congressional offices

I read the memo below earlier. I have mulled it over and will further analyze the Orwellian “attorney speak” . Without further analysis some things are perfectly clear.

  • Obama is not a natural born citizen by the most consistent definitions, corroborated by the vetting of John McCain and the reference to both of his parents being US Citizens.
  • No documented birth certificate of any kind has been presented by Obama or the Obama camp.
  • Inconsistent COLB’s were posted on various websites and not authenticated.
  • There is no concrete evidence of any sort that Obama was born in Hawaii.
  • Obama has employed private and government attorneys for over two years to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records.

From We the People of the United States November 7, 2010.

“This was the spin that the Members of Congress were given to keep the American electorate at bay and confused in the debate about Obama’s eligibility issues.  All the while, Congress did nothing to investigate the matter in a congressional hearing like they did for similar concerns about John McCain.
We have obtained a copy of the talking points memorandum put out by a lawyer for the Congressional Research Service to the Members of Congress back in April 2009 as to what to tell their constituents when they write to the Members of Congress and ask questions about Obama’s eligibility.
Now we know why all the answers coming back to constituents sounded like they were written by the same person and were full of the same obfuscations and half truths and non-truths.
This copy was obtained via the diligent and persistent efforts of a patriot going by the pen name of “Tom Deacon” who obtained it from a Senator’s office.    Now we know the talking points the DC insiders and politicians have been groomed with to feed to their constituents who have been asking questions about the eligibility issues.”

Read more:

http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/obamas-eligibility-congresss-memo-revealed/

Memo link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/41131059/Members-of-Congress-Memo-What-to-Tell-Your-Constituents-in-Answer-to-Obama-Eligibility-Questions

Thanks to GORDO

38 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, constitution, Election, Election Law, Electoral College, Electors, Government, Hawaii, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama indictment, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Orwellian, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

Florida district 24 congressional elections, Larry Sinclair, Filing deadline, Obama challenge, Obama impeachment, Larry Sinclair book, Larry Sinclair for Congress

Posted on March 31, 2010 | 499 comments

Florida district 24 congressional elections, Larry Sinclair

For Want of a Nail
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail…Ancient Proverb

I spoke to Larry Sinclair last night. He reminded me that the deadline for his receiving contributions for the Florida district 24 congressional election filing fee is April 19, 2010. He also wanted everyone to know that without the filing fee, there will be no running for Congress in November. Larry is receiving coverage from some of the big MSM players now. If you cannot contribute, help spread the word. There is strength in numbers.
Larry Sinclair has done as much as anyone to expose the truth about Barack Obama. He has been doing so for well over 2 years. His continued presence in the Florida congressional race will bring even more attention to Obama’s past. Imagine the possibilities. Imagine Larry Sinclair in Congress. All of you who want Obama impeached. Sinclair will do what he says. Larry will do everything in his power to get Obama removed from office. Contributing a few dollars seems like a small price to pay for this. Larry has paid the ultimate price.

To help Larry Sinclair and this country, donate here.

http://larrysinclairforcongress2010.victorydiy.com/

More info on Larry Sinclair and his run for Congress

March 13, 2010

American Revolution version

If one battle had changed.
British general John Burgoyne receives reinforcements.
The British win the Battle of Saratoga in 1777.
American General Horatio Gates flees with his men.
France and Spain withdraw support.
Colonies surrender…. “For Want of a Nail”, alternate history, by Robert Sobel

January 2008 Version
Citizen Wells and millions of Americans know little about Barack Obama.
Some journalists are asking questions of Obama.
Obama is hiding his past.
Larry Sinclair decides to remain silent about his story.
Americans remain mostly clueless about Obama until after the election.
A few lawsuits are filed but no one takes them seriously.
The Rezko, Blagojevich corruption connections remain hidden from the public.
(even more than now)

March 2010
For want of a messenger.

 
Whether or not you believe Larry Sinclair’s allegations of a drug and sex encounter with Obama in November 1999 (and how could you possibly not believe it now). Whether or not you like or agree with Larry Sinclair. Larry Sinclair was a huge catalyst for questioning Obama at a time when Obama was getting little scrutiny.
Larry Sinclair is running for Congress, unaffiliated, in Florida District 24. Larry Sinclair has done as much as anyone on this planet to expose the truth about Barack Obama. Sinclair has not backed down from incessant attacks and death threats from the Obama camp. Sinclair has had his Social Security Disability benefits threatened twice and was even arrested on trumped up charges by Joe Biden’s son, Beau. The arrest happened at the conclusion of Larry Sinclair’s press conference at the National Press Club in 2008.”

Read more:

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2010/03/13/larry-sinclair-for-congress-update-march-13-2010-for-want-of-a-nail-for-want-of-a-dollar-obama-and-sinclair-truth-about-obama-obama-thugs-florida-district-24-election/

499 Comments

Posted in America, Americans, Announcements, Barack Obama, Board of Elections, Books, Citizen, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Congress, constitution, DC, Democrats, down low, drugs, Election, Election 2010, Election Boards, Election update, Electors, First Amendment, Florida, Government, impeachment, indictment, Larry Sinclair, Larry Sinclair blog, Larry Sinclair book, Larrysinclair0926, larrysinclairbarackobama.com, Money, News, Obama, Obama administration, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Obama thugs, Pay to play politics, politicians, Politics, Reform, republicans, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, US House of Representatives, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , , ,