Category Archives: Founding Fathers

Founding Fathers

Steven Lee Craig, Obama lawsuit, June 22, 2009, Second amended complaint, Natural born citizen

Posted on June 22, 2009 | 17 comments

 From Steven Lee Craig:

“These are the operative filings to the merits, there are othe Docs of process.

These Docs are pending at the 10th Circ 09-6082 and are part of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari at Scotus 08-10817”

Steven Lee Craig

1309 Hisel Rd.

Del City, Oklahoma 73115

Plaintiff

Vs.                                       

The United States of America

C/o U.S. Attorney

Washington, D.C.  

Defendant    

 

 

 

 

)

)

)
)
)
)
)    Case No. Civ-09-0343-F
)
)        
)
)
)    10th Circuit 09-6082
)
)
)
)

 

 

 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

 

NOW COMES, Steven Lee Craig, Claiming to be of Constitutionally recognized form of Citizenship known as Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America under the definition as found expressed in a published work of general use by the Framers of the Constitution of the United States of America in formulating many of the principles and specific Articles, Sections and Clauses found therein. That

 

Cont.;

publication being Emmerich de Vattel’s,  “The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns”, and specifically;

BOOK I. OF NATIONS CONSIDERED IN THEMSELVES. CHAP. I. OF NATIONS OR SOVEREIGN STATES.§ 212. Citizens and natives.

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on

 

Cont.;

 

their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

 

Claimant submits further evidence of the Framers considerations and intent regarding the differing forms of Citizenship found within the Constitution;

 

Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (3 vols., 1833),  of Joseph Story, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, February 3, 1812 – September 10, 1845

 

Volume 3: § 1473.

“It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced

 

Cont.;

 

(for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. A residence of fourteen years in the United States is also made an indispensable requisite for every candidate; so, that the people may have a full opportunity to know his character and merits, and that he may have mingled in the duties, and felt the interests, and understood the principles, and nourished the attachments, belonging to every citizen in a republican government. By “residence,” in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy

 

Cont.;

 

within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States. No one has supposed, that a temporary absence abroad on public business, and especially on an embassy to a foreign nation, would interrupt the residence of a citizen, so as to disqualify him for office. If the word were to be construed with such strictness, then a mere journey through any foreign adjacent territory for health, or for pleasure, or a commorancy there for a single day, would amount to a disqualification. Under such a construction a military or civil officer, who should have been in Canada during the late war on public business, would have lost his eligibility. The true sense of residence in the constitution is fixed domicil, or being out of the United States, and settled abroad for the purpose of general inhabitancy, animo manendi, and not for a mere temporary and fugitive purpose, in transitu.”

 

The entire text of the Chapter is included herein to show that Associate Justice Joseph Story touched upon many of the circumstances of Citizenship as they occur in the political and natural world and how they ought be regarded when making Uniform Laws

 

Cont.;

of Naturalization of which many are to be found in the full volumes of Vattel.

Specifically Claimant points to the parenthetical passage,

 “…for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct…”

 

in support of Claimants assertion of the intended definition of “natural born citizen”.

Whereas ALL first Citizens of the United States of America were necessarily Naturalized by the Ratification of the Constitution and therefore the exception allowing for those of that generation to be eligible for the Executive Office as Naturalized Citizens noting that, in the authors words, “will soon become wholly extinct”, thereby meaning that as that generation of First Citizens passed it would devolve to the Second Generation of those

 

Cont.;

Citizens to be the eligible Natural Born Citizens, this conforming with Vattel’s definition noted above and as also considered in the House of Representatives as found in;

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

[Elliot’s debates,Volume4]Seamen’s Bill.–For the Regulation of Seamen on Board the Public Vessels, and in the Merchant Service of the United States.

House of Representatives, February, 1813.

 

Mr. ARCHER. “The framers of our Constitution did not intend to confine Congress to the technical meaning of the word naturalization, in the exercise of that power–the more especially when the comprehensive word rule was made use of. The principle upon which the power was to be exercised was left to the judicious exercise of Congress; all that was required was, that the rule should be uniform throughout the states. In the grant there is no other specification, as to the exercise of it, than that of its uniformity. The term naturalization was borrowed from England. It must be understood here in the sense and meaning

 

Cont.;

 

which was, there attached to it. Whether it was absolute or qualified, it was still a naturalization. But the grant of a power in general terms necessarily implied the right to exercise that power in all its gradations. It Was in the political as it was in the natural world: the genus included the species. Besides, the power to naturalize was an attribute to sovereignty. It was either absolute or qualified; and if the grant to Congress only implied a power of unlimited naturalization, the power to qualify existed in the states or in the people, for what was not specifically granted was reserved.

 

In treating of the executive power, the Constitution defines the qualifications of the President. It declares that he should be a natural–born citizen, or a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution. This article is unquestionably no limitation of the power of Congress upon the subject of naturalization. It was impossible to abridge a specific grant of power without a specific limitation, and the article alluded to could not be tortured, by the most ingenious mind, to diminish, even by implication, the authority of Congress upon a subject to which it was totally irrelevant.”

 

 

 

 

Cont.;

 

Claimant asserts that the “genus” mentioned in the first paragraph is referring to the First Naturalized Citizens as being the natural born citizens and that the “species” are the thereafter naturalized citizens who, with time and circumstance, beget their own natural born citizens, increasing the ‘genus’, in keeping with the political and natural world. In the second paragraph Mr. Archer acknowledges that the Congress has no mandate to ‘abridge’ the authority of Article II Section I Clause V and thereby the inability of the Congress to politically ‘limit’ nature in the performance of the mandate to promulgate laws of naturalization. Neither the Fourteenth Amendment or the Nineteenth Amendment abridged, nullified or amended Article II Section I Clause V, neither do their words say so nor do their words require it. In the former case the

 

Cont.;

source of future natural born citizens was increased and in the latter the source of conferring citizenship, which had been wholly of the father, was then split equally amongst the two parents.

The chief author of the 14th Amendment, Sen. John A. Bingham, wrote,

 

“…[E]very human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen,'”

 

Therein is read, “Parents”, being plural and after the Nineteenth Amendment, with each “not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”, which implies domestic domicile and being naturalized or otherwise, for how else could the conditions and circumstances be examined.

 

Cont.;

That the source of the subject of ‘natural born citizen’ is found in the Constitutional Articles concerning the executive offices of the Government does not exclude it or diminish it in the concerns of the general population but rather elevates it to the most fundamental concerns of our Citizenry’s national allegiance, pride and protection of the nations sovereignty. The first duty of the Government and the Citizens thereof is to ‘Preserve, Protect and Defend’ the Constitution of the United States of America. That the Government is ‘of the People, by the People and for the People’ it can not be denied and must be hoped that those People with the greatest understanding, the greatest regard, the greatest interest, and the greatest allegiance to the Nation are those who

 

 

Cont.;

have longest been bound and blessed by the liberties shared as contemplated by Vattel;

“…The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it…”

 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

 

1.  This case involves diversity of citizenship and this Court has jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §1343  (a)(4), and/or, § 1346 (a)(2), and/or § 1357

2. This case further arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and presents a federal question within this Court’s jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

 

Cont.;

3. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(3).

The issue of who is a “natural born citizen” under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 is an issue of legal interpretation outside the Constitutional authority of Congress.

 

Only the judicial branch can interpret the laws of this nation.

 

III. PARTIES

 

4. Plaintiff,    Steven Lee Craig

                 1309 Hisel Rd.

                 Del City, OK 73115

 

10. Defendant,   The United States of America

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cont.;

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

VIOLATIONS OF THE FOURTH, EIGHTH, NINTH, TENTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUION

 

 

Claimant incorporates by reference all of the foregoing allegations as if set forth herein at length.

Claimant alleges that the United States of America and, specifically, the Representatives elected, appointed or otherwise engaged in the publics trust, have failed to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the Amendments thereto in overt acts of lack of defense of the definition of Natural Born Citizen as a specific form of Citizenship acknowledged within the Constitution and the preservation of the original intent of its usage in the Constitution

 

Cont.;

and its protection in its relation to the term of Citizen(s), found within the same Article of the Constitution and elsewhere, thereby violating Claimants Ninth and Tenth Amendment Rights of equal protection.

 

Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 pg 174;

 

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, ……”

 

Elk Grove Unified School District et al v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004).

Justice O’Connor, concurring in the opinion;

 

“There are no de minimis violations of the Constitution — no constitutional harms so slight that the courts are obliged to ignore them”.

 

 

Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479

 

“The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are

 

Cont.;

additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . .

 

Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment.

 

Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.”

 

United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941).

 

“While the Tenth Amendment has been characterized as a ‘truism,” stating merely that ‘all is retained which has not been surrendered,’ [citing Darby], it is not without significance.

 

 

 

Cont.;

Although the Tenth Amendment has seldom been used to assert and/or exert a personal reserved power the Claimant, nevertheless, asserts the ‘reserved power’, individually as one of the People, granted by the Tenth Amendment for retaining that which has not been surrendered; that being the Constitutionally recognized circumstance, of the political and of nature, that confers the naturalness of a natural born citizen.

Claimant alleges said lack of definition of Natural Born Citizen violates Claimants Fifth Amendment Rights of Due Process of the Law in that the Claimants intrinsic personal property guaranteed by the Ratification of the Constitution and enunciated as a form of American Citizenship, natural born citizen, having not been duly codified as have the numerous Laws promulgated that provide for the

 

Cont.;

Naturalizing of new Citizens, thereby deprives and denies the Claimant of his rights and privileges of claiming the natural inheritance as a Citizen born of multiple generations of Citizens as contemplated by the distinctions of Citizenship within the Constitution.

Claimant alleges that the United States of America and, specifically, the Representatives elected, appointed or otherwise engaged in the publics trust and in the performance of their mandate to make uniform the Laws of Naturalization have been discriminatory in that the form of Citizenship, natural born citizen, has been ‘excluded and omitted’ while every circumstance, situation, happenstance, possibility and probability of Naturalization of new Citizens has been and continues to be Codified and / or adjudicated.

 

Cont.;

Claimant alleges that unequal treatment has occurred against the Claimants intrinsic personal property guaranteed by the Ratification of the Constitution by the United States of America and, specifically, the Representatives elected, appointed or otherwise engaged in the publics trust in performance of its mandate to make uniform the Laws of Naturalization, by the “exclusion and omission” of the definition and acknowledgement of that citizenship known as natural born citizen within any and all the Acts, Bills, Laws, Rules and / or Regulations hereto promulgated regarding Citizenship and Naturalization.

Currin v. Wallace, 306 U.S. 1 (1939)

“The Constitution has never been regarded as denying to the Congress the necessary resources of flexibility and practicality which will enable it to perform its function in laying down policies and establishing standards while leaving to

 

Cont.;

 

selected instrumentalities the making of subordinate rules within prescribed limits and the determination of facts to which the policy as declared by the Legislature is to apply. Without capacity to give authorizations of that sort, we should have the anomaly of a legislative power which in many circumstances calling for its exertion would be but a futility.”

 

United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting. (re: 14th Amendment)

 

“Nobody can deny that the question of citizenship in a nation is of the most vital importance. It is a precious heritage, as well as an inestimable acquisition, and I cannot think that any safeguard surrounding it was intended to be thrown down by the amendment.”

 

Claimant alleges that, upon recounting the 222 years of Legislation regarding Citizenship and Naturalization it amounts to a gross negligence of the United States of America and, specifically, the Representatives elected, appointed or otherwise

 

Cont.;

engaged in the publics trust, in the performance of the mandates to Legislate and then delegate administrations the Legislated Laws making Naturalization uniform without looking to the Constitutional forms of Citizenship found within the Constitution its self, Article II Section I Clause V, and the intent of the distinctions thereof, thereby denying Claimant of his rights and privileges of the American form of Citizenship, natural born Citizen, without due process and with discriminatory Un-Uniform promulgation of Naturalization Laws.

Perez v. Brownell 356 U.S. 44

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

“…By the early 1930’s, the American law on nationality, including naturalization and denationalization, was expressed in a large number of provisions scattered throughout the statute books. Some of the specific laws enacted at different times

 

 

Cont.;

seemed inconsistent with others, some problems of growing importance had emerged

that Congress had left unheeded. At the request of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, see 86 Cong.Rec. 11943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established a Committee composed of the Secretary of State, [p53] the Attorney General and the Secretary of Labor to review the nationality laws of the United States, to recommend revisions and to codify the nationality laws into one comprehensive statute for submission to Congress; he expressed particular concern about “existing discriminations” in the law. Exec.Order No. 6115, Apr. 25, 1933…”

 

Claimant alleges that the United States of America and, specifically, the Representatives elected, appointed or otherwise engaged in the publics trust, in having violated Claimants Fourth Amendment Rights by extension have violated Claimants Eighth Amendment Rights against cruel and unusual punishment in that denying Claimant of that natural portion of Claimants American Constitutionally Guaranteed Citizenship Rights and

Cont.;

Privileges have imposed upon Claimant a penalty of separation from the Constitution and the internalized allegiance derived from the Claimants asserted definition of ‘natural born citizen”.

Trop v. Dulles 356 U.S. 86

We believe, as did Chief Judge Clark in the court below, [n33] that use of denationalization as a punishment is barred by the Eighth Amendment. There may be involved no physical mistreatment, no primitive torture. There is, instead, the total destruction of the individual’s status in organized society. It is a form of punishment more primitive than torture, for it destroys for the individual the political existence that was centuries in the development. The punishment strips the citizen of his status in the national and international political community. His very existence is at the sufferance of the country in which he happens to find himself. While any one country may accord him some rights and, presumably, as long as he remained in this country, he would enjoy the limited rights of an alien, no country need do so, because he is stateless. Furthermore, his enjoyment of even the limited rights of an alien might be subject to termination [p102] at any time by reason of deportation. [n34] In

short, the expatriate has lost the right to have rights.

 

Cont.;

This punishment is offensive to cardinal principles for which the Constitution stands. It subjects the individual to a fate of ever-increasing fear and distress. He knows not what discriminations may be established against him, what proscriptions may be directed against him, and when and for what cause his existence in his native land may be terminated. He may be subject to banishment, a fate universally decried by civilized people. He is stateless, a condition deplored in the international community of democracies. [n35] It is no answer to suggest that all the disastrous consequences of this fate may not be brought to bear on a stateless person. The threat makes the punishment obnoxious. [n36]

 

… When it appears that an Act of Congress conflicts with one of these provisions, we have no choice but to enforce the paramount commands of the Constitution. We are sworn to do no less. We cannot push back the limits of the Constitution merely to accommodate challenged legislation. We must apply those limits as the Constitution prescribes them, bearing in mind both the broad scope of legislative discretion and the ultimate responsibility of constitutional adjudication. We do well to approach this task cautiously, as all our predecessors have counseled. But the ordeal of judgment cannot be shirked. “

 

 

 

Cont.;

Denationalization, being a “punishment more primitive than torture,”, then is not denying that natural portion of citizenship, that portion which is required to make one eligible to the highest office of the land, no less than  a severing of generational ties and an involuntary amputation upon that Citizenship?

 

WHEREFORE Plaintiff request, on any one or all alligations, the same:

1.  An immediate Order of Declaratory Judgement expressing Courts Opinion of the Constitutional and Legal Definition of “Natural born Citizen”.

2.  Entry of Judgment

 

By leave of the Court I pray it be so ordered

 

 

 

 

 

Pro Se, In Forma Pauperis

 

_________________________

Steven Lee Craig

1309 Hisel Rd.

Del City, Oklahoma 73115

(405) 670-1784

17 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, DC, Democrats, Election, Election 2008, Election Law, Federal Court, Founding Fathers, Government, Hawaii, indictment, Indonesia, Judges, Natural born citizen, News, Obama indictment, Obama records, Politics, Presidential candidate, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, US District Court, Washington DC

Tagged , , , , ,

Flag controversy, Kindred Hospital in Mansfield, American flag, Supervisor found flag offensive

Posted on May 28, 2009 | 10 comments

From CBS 11 News in Dallas Fort Worth May 27, 2009:

“Mansfield Flag Controversy Draws Worldwide Outrage”

“Is it okay to show your patriotism at the office?

For one Arlington woman, the answer was “no” after she hung an American flag in her office just before the Memorial Day weekend.

Debbie McLucas is one of four hospital supervisors at Kindred Hospital in Mansfield. Last week, she hung a three-by-five foot American flag in the office she shares with the other supervisors.

When McLucas came to work Friday, her boss told her another supervisor had found her flag offensive. “I was just totally speechless. I was like, ‘You’re kidding me,'” McLucas said.

McLucas’ husband and sons are former military men. Her daughter is currently serving in Iraq as a combat medic.

Stifling a cry, McLucas said, “I just wonder if all those young men and women over there are really doing this for nothing.”

McLucas said the supervisor who complained has been in the United States for 14 years and is formerly from Africa. McLucas said that supervisor took down the flag herself.

“The flag and the pole had been placed on the floor,” McLucas said. But McLucas also said hospital higher-ups had told her some patients’ families and visitors had also complained.

“I was told it wouldn’t matter if it was only one person,” she said. “It would have to come down.”

McLucas said hospital bosses told her as far as patriotism was concerned, the flag flying outside the hospital building would have to suffice.”

“It was midnight in Iraq when she spoke to CBS 11. Talking about the stand her mother took which could have cost her job, Lillian said, “If it’s the right thing to do, it’s the right thing to do. And, I think we need more people to stand up for what’s right in America.””

Read the entire article:

http://cbs11tv.com/local/patriotism.at.office.2.1020415.html

Thanks to GBAmerica for the heads up.

If the supervisor from Africa is offended by the US flag, they should move back to Africa. We will take up a collection to send them back.

10 Comments

Posted in American flag, American Revolution, Announcements, Civil rights, Election, Election 2008, Founding Fathers, Hate crimes, Immigrants, Iraq War, Memorial Day, News, Patriotism, Society, Thought Police, TV, United States, US Constitution, US Military, US Soldier

Tagged , , ,

Philip J Berg, Memorial Day press release, Honor brave men & women, Barack Obama disgraces their memory, Obama ineligible, US Constitution

Posted on May 25, 2009 | 7 comments

From Philip J. Berg:

Press Release

 

 

For Immediate Release:  – 05/23/2009   
 
 

 

As We Honor our Brave Men & Women who have died and been wounded protecting our U.S. Constitution

It is appalling how Barack Obama disgraces their memories by being Constitutionally ineligible to be President

Total U.S. Military Deaths 1775 to 2008 = 1,593,124

Total U.S. Military Injuries 1775 to 1991 = 1,581,631

 
 

      (Lafayette Hill, PA – 05/23/2009) – 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 his three [3] cases that are still pending, Berg vs. Obama [2 cases – 1 under seal] and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, et al announced today that he and the obamacrimes.com supporters are Honoring those that died and were wounded defending our most sacred document, our U.S. Constitution.

      Berg said, “It is appalling how Barack Obama disgraces their memories by being Constitutionally ineligible to be President and not showing his Birth Certificate, Immigration Records, Adoption Papers and documents showing he legally changed his name from ‘Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama’ and other records to prove his eligibility.  We are asking our supporters to send an e-mail to Barack Obama asking him to honor the fallen by showing that either he is or is not constitutionally eligible to be President, and if not, to resign from the Presidency now.

       

      We are asking all of our supporters to:  
 

          [1] Stop what they are doing on Memorial Day, Monday, May 25, 2009 for a moment of silence at 3:00 p.m. in honor of the fallen who have sacrificed their lives in defense of our U.S. Constitution and the United States of America and those that were wounded; 
     

          [2] Send this Press Release to everyone in their e-mail address book and ask them to send on so that as many people we can reach will pause to honor our fallen on Memorial Day; 
     

          [3] Send an e-mail to Barack Obama by filling out his contact form located at http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ asking him to honor the fallen by showing that either he is or is not constitutionally eligible to be President. 
     
     

Deaths and Injured of U.S. Military: 1775 – 3/25/2008 
 

Per War:

Revolutionary War 1775-1783:

Total Enlisted (Serving):  290,000

Death Total  4,435

Non-Mortal Wound Total:  6,188 
 
 

War of 1812-1815:

Total Enlisted (Serving):  286,730

Death Total 2,260

Non-Mortal Wound Total 4,505

 
 

Mexican War 1846-1848:

Total Enlisted (Serving):  78,718

Death Total 13,283

Non-Mortal Wound Total 4,152

 
 
 

Civil War 1861-1865:

Union Forces Only

Total Enlisted (Serving): 2,213,363

Death Total 504,925

Non-Mortal Wound Total 281,881 
 

Spanish American War 1898-1902:

Total Enlisted (Serving): 306,760

Death Total 2,831

Non-Mortal Wound Total 1,662

 

World War I  1917-1918:

Total Enlisted (Serving): 4,734,991

Death Total 169,918

Non-Mortal Wound Total 204,002

 

World War II  1941-1946:

Total Enlisted (Serving):  16,112,566

Death Total 696,596

Non-Mortal Wound Total 671,846 
 

Korean War 1950-1953:

Total Enlisted (Serving):  5,720,000

Death Total 70,315

Non-Mortal Wound Total 103,284 
 

Vietnam Conflict 1964-1973:

Total Enlisted (Serving):  8,744,000

Death Total 105,633

Non-Mortal Wound Total in-patient hospital   153,303

Non-Mortal; Wound Total out-patient hospital 150,341

 

Persian Gulf War 1990-1991:

Total Enlisted (Serving):  2,225,000

Death Total 3,295

Non-Mortal Wound Total 467

 

Total U.S. Military Deaths:  1775 – 2008:  1,593,124

Total U.S. Military Injuries: 1775 – 1991:  1,581,631

 Read more and view the cemetaries:

http://www.obamacrimes.info/

7 Comments

Posted in American Revolution, Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Colonel Hollister, Court of Appeals, Declaration of Independence, Democrats, District Court, Election, Election 2008, Election Law, Federal Court, Founding Fathers, Government, Hawaii, Hollister lawsuit, indictment, Indonesia, Judges, Justice, Kenya, Memorial Day, Natural born citizen, News, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, press conference, Quo Warranto, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, US District Court, Usurper, Voter fraud, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , ,

Christopher Strunk, Obama lawsuit, QUO WARRANTO DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION, May 25, 2009, 5/27/09 final memorandum of law, Memorial Day

Posted on May 25, 2009 | 12 comments

Here is an update from Christopher Strunk on his Quo Warranto:

“On this weekend of Memorial Day in remembrance of my ancestors who fought in the Revolution for Independence from Britain, and from whom I inherit from my Great Grandfather John Quigley Strunk, Freemason Grandfather Moses Strunk and Father Earl Henry Strunk the obligation to remember my great uncles John and Charles Strunk who as soldiers served the USA and Pennsylvania died in the war to end all wars; and therefore as a courtesy WE attach the DRAFT of the NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION OF QUO WARRANTO DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND DECISION ON QUESTION OF FIRST IMPRESSION  IN RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AS TO ALLEGED POTUS:  BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IN ESSE
 
and
 
The DRAFT of the AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION OF QUO WARRANTO DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND DECISION ON QUESTION OF FIRST IMPRESSION  IN RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AS TO THE CORPORATE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ALLEGED: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IN ESSE
 
Such is ready for filing without the addition of various dates in the context with the Exhibits, that will only be attached when the final Memorandum of Law which I am working on when ready is withheld until Wednesday 5/27/09 when the email of the PDF is sent to you all.
 
I would not entertain  an intervention from anyone; and even if  attorney John D. Hemenway’s injury were remanded to district, because the cowboy DJ Robertson acted with questionable impetuousness when he even failed to admit the pro hac vice motion counsel, even the Hollister case is still a matter to find the wet signatures on file there.
 
I appear as the only “interested party” with standing in the Quo Warranto matter and as such oppose any other intervention.
 
Best regards to you all for you have provided me with instruction by your actions to date and we are all grateful accordingly.
 
Chris Strunk”

View the draft:

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=121761372bd24521&mt=application%2Fpdf

12 Comments

Posted in American Revolution, Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Birth Certificate, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Colonel Hollister, Declaration of Independence, Democrats, District Court, Election, Election 2008, Election Law, Federal Court, Founding Fathers, Government, History, indictment, Indonesia, Judges, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, Memorial Day, Natural born citizen, Obama, Obama indictment, Obama records, Politics, Quo Warranto, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, US District Court, Usurper, Voter fraud, voters, Washington DC

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Wikipedia, Internet scrubbing, Obama thugs, John Bingham, Natural born citizen, Wikipedia or Ministry of truth, Big Brother, Orwellian tactics, 1984

Posted on May 21, 2009 | 30 comments

We have the second instance of internet scrubbing reported on this blog in the past several weeks. Today, one of the great commenters on this blog, GBAmerica brought this to our attention:

“They scrubbed Wiki!Our founding father John Bingham from the state of Ohio defined Natural Born Citizen!To hold highest office you must be a natural born citizen which means to be born on US soil and BOTH PARENTS to be BORN on US soil with no Foreign or Domestic Soverigty from any of them!It doesn’t matter where he is born his father was NOT BORN HERE!!!John Bingham put that there to protect WE THE PEOPLE!!!Look it up at the library!”

Recently the Citizen Wells blog caught Wikipedia scrubbing the internet:

Norman Thomas, American Socialist Party article altered

Another great commenter on this blog, Patriot Dreamer,  provided a followup to Wikipedia’s Orwellian action:

“http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Bingham&diff=278117261&oldid=276290691

Here’s what was removed:

John Bingham confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:”

[http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/imp_account2.html”]
–
– {{cquote|[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that ”every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is”, in the language of your Constitution itself, ”a natural born citizen”…. . .}}

If you go to the article’s “history” page, it says that Wiki user AmesG “Remove quote unsupported by the cited source, and added by a biased “birther” user. Get a life, Birthers” at 15:08 on 18 March 2009:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Bingham&action=history”

John Bingham, and other statesmen in our country’s  past understood the distinction between citizen and Natural Born Citizen. The question is, does Wikipedia know the distinction between fact and fiction. Who is controlling Wikipedia?

This is another example of a “1984” world envisioned by George Orwell. A frightening world where history is reshaped, remolded by the “Ministry of Truth”,  aka, the Obama thugs, to suit their own private agenda.

This is the final straw, I will no longer access Wikipedia or be able to trust them as a reference.

30 Comments

Posted in American Revolution, Barack Obama, Big Brother, Citizens for the truth about Obama, doublespeak, Election 2008, Founding Fathers, George Orwell, Government, History, Internet, Internet scrubbing, John Bingham, Ministry of Truth, Natural born citizen, News, Obama indictment, Obama records, Obama thugs, Orwell, Politics, Quotes, Smear campaigns, The Case Against Barack Obama, Thought Police, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

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

Posted on May 19, 2009 | 34 comments

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

34 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Chicago, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Colonel Hollister, corruption, Court of Appeals, Democrats, DNC, Dr. Orly Taitz, Election, Election 2008, Election Law, Founding Fathers, Government, Hawaii, Hollister lawsuit, illegal aliens, Illinois bar, Inauguration, indictment, Indonesia, Judges, Justice, Kenya, Michelle Obama, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, passport, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Presidential candidate, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, US District Court, Usurper, voters, Washington DC

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

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

Posted on May 14, 2009 | 32 comments

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

32 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Birth Certificate, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Crime, Criminal Complaint, Declaration of Independence, Democrats, Election, Election 2008, Election Law, First Amendment, Founding Fathers, Government, Grand Juror, Grand Jury, Grand Jury Indictment, Hawaii, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Hitler, illegal aliens, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Journalism, Justice, Law enforcement, media, Military officers, Natural born citizen, Nazi Germany, NC, NC voters, News, Newspapers, North Carolina, Obama administration, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, Politics, Senator Obama, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, US Department of Justice, US Military, Usurper, Voter fraud, voters, Warrant

Tagged , , , , , , ,

NC State Tea Party, June 3, 2009, Raleigh, North Carolina, Halifax Mall, General Assembly Building, Legislative Office Building, Take Back Our State Tea Party

Posted on May 14, 2009 | 3 comments

I just received this in an email about a statewide Tea Party in North Carolina in Raleigh, NC on June 3, 2009. The Take Back Our State Tea Party  will be held from 4:30 – 7:30 PM at the Halifax Mall which is behind the General Assembly Building and beside the Legislative Office Building. Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbachr will be one of the speakers.

 
http://capwiz.com/americansforprosperity/utr/1/NNHAKMTVIK/HFCWKMUCHK/3340571146

Americans for Prosperity and the Take Back Our State Coalition encourages you to make your voice heard at the

Take Back Our State Tea Party

A Protest Against the Billion Dollar State Tax Increase

Wednesday, June 3
4:30-7:30 pm
Halifax Mall
Raleigh, NC

Halifax Mall is the large lawn behind the General Assembly Building and beside the Legislative Office Building. Halifax Mall is on Lane Street between North Salisbury and North Wilmington Streets.

On June 3rd, Let’s tell our Legislators we are Taxed Enough Already!

In these difficult economic times, our State Representatives are considering over a billion dollars in new taxes. North Carolina taxpayers are losing their jobs and their homes.

Come to Raleigh to tell them Not Another Dime!

REGISTER HERE

The Take Back Our State Tea Party Speakers will Include

Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbachr

We are planning to bring buses from the following cities: Asheville, Charlotte, Goldsboro, Greensboro, Jacksonville, New Bern, Pinehurst, Sanford, Statesville, Wilmington, and Winston-Salem. Departure times and locations to be announced.

Schedule of Events
2:00 Registration begins
2:30 Buses arrive/register
2:00-4:15 Legislative visits/briefing
4:30 Tea Party begins
7:30 Buses depart

REGISTER TODAY

 

– Food Vendors!

– Exhibitor Tables!

– Live Beach Music-The Craig Woolard Band!

– Casual Attire!

– Rain or Shine!

 

No charge for Take Back Our State Tea Party. Food available for purchase onsite. Donations welcome. For more information, visit www.takebackourstate.org, call 919.839.1011, or e-mail info@afpnc.org

 

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is the nation’s premier grassroots organization committed to advancing every individual’s right to economic freedom and opportunity. AFP believes reducing the size and scope of government is the best safeguard to ensuring individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans. AFP educates and engages citizens in support of restraining state and federal government growth, and returning government to its constitutional limits.

For more information, visit www.americansforprosperity.org

 
 

3 Comments

Posted in 2009 Stimulus Bill, Announcements, Barack Obama, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Congress, Declaration of Independence, Democrats, Election, Election 2008, Financial crisis, First Amendment, Founding Fathers, Government, indictment, Joe the Plumber, Justice, NC, NC voters, News, North Carolina, Obama indictment, Obama records, Obama taxes, Obama thugs, press conference, Reform, Socialists, Speech, Tea Party, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, Usurper, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

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

Posted on May 14, 2009 | 18 comments

 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 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

18 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Birth Certificate, Citizens for the truth about Obama, COLB, Crime, Criminal Complaint, Election, Election 2008, Election Law, Federal Court, Founding Fathers, Government, Grand Juror, Grand Jury, Grand Jury Indictment, Hawaii, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, illegal aliens, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Judges, Jury, Justice, Kenya, Law enforcement, Military officers, Natural born citizen, NC, NC voters, North Carolina, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, Politics, Prosecution, Senator Obama, The Case Against Barack Obama, Treason, United States, US Constitution, US Department of Justice, US Military, US Soldier, Usurper, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , ,

Obama Manchurian Candidate, Obama Russian puppet?, Obama communist?, Obama was member of Democratic Socialists Party, New Party, The First Time I Heard of Barack, Tom Fife, Russia 1992

Posted on May 13, 2009 | 39 comments

“I’ll post this in full, in case it disappears. Was it written in 1992, or as predictive satire in 2008?”    John Lee, executive producer Pirate News TV, PirateNews.org

Obama

Manchurian Candidate

Part 4

Obama Russian Puppet?

Was Barack Obama groomed by Soviet and Russian communists to be a Manchurian Candidate?

Did Tom Fife (or whatever name he has) relate a real tale of learning about Barack Obama from Russians during a vist to Russia in 1992?

I have no proof that what Tom Fife related is factual. I am not questioning Mr. Fife or his motives.
I simply need more validation. I have just gotten word back from Jeff Rense, who interviewed Tom Fife in late 2008, that he has received no further corroboration.

Mr Fife, if you are out there, please contact me. I have already attempted to contact you by email. I will keep your real identity private.

So, what are we left with here? I have known about the essay and interview for some time. The content of the essay and the overall effect of the interview are quite believable. The first three parts of this series are factual based and paint a clear picture of Barack Obama and his long time ties to socialists, leftists, Marxists, radicals and communists.
Obama was a member of the Democratic Socialists Party, which in cahoots with Acorn, formed the New Party.
Obama Manchurian Candidate, Part 1

“The Illinois New Party is working intensively on Willie Delgado’s state representative campaign. Delgado is part of anemerging Latino network in Chicago. We’re also backing Danny Davis in a Congressional race, Barack Obama for state representative”

“Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).”
Part 1

Obama Manchurian Candidate, Part 2

“In a Russian class at the University of Hawaii, she met the college’s first African student, Barack Obama. They marriedand had a son in August 1961, in an era when interracial marriage was rare in the United States.”

“The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member. What’s more, anti-communist congressional committees, including the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), accused Davis of involvement in several Communist front organizations,” Kincaid said. Kincaid noted Obama has admitted attending “social conferences” and seeing Marxist literature. “But he ridicules the charge of being a ‘hard-core academic Marxist,’ which was made by his colorful and outspoken 2004 U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes.”

“Decades ago, the CPUSA had tens of thousands of members, some of them covert agents who had penetrated the U.S. government. It received secret subsidies from the old Soviet Union,”

“Raila Odinga’s politics, like the politics of his father, Odinga Odinga, are on the far left. Raila Odinga was educated at the Technical University in Magdeburg in east Germany, where he graduated in 1970″

“By supporting Odinga, Senator Obama is also seen in Kenya as siding with the extreme left wing of Kenyan politics, going back to the overt communism of Odinga Odinga. Odinga’s current party, the Orange Democratic Movement, or ODM, is a leftist-socialist political party that stops short of being openly communist.”

“Russia’s Dmitry Medvedev hailed Barack Obama as “my new comrade“”
Part 2

Obama Manchurian Candidate, Part 3

Communist goals 1963 was a last minute addition, but I am glad that I included it. Read the the list of goals and as your jaw drops, consider how many of these goals have been achieved.

“Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.”

“Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.”

“Do away with all loyalty oaths.”

“Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.”

“Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum.”

“Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.”

“Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.”

“Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.””

“Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.”
Part 3

Here is the essay by Tom Fife. Real or not it is completely believable based on what we know about the past and actions of Barack Hussein Obama.
“Oct 14, 2008
The First Time I Heard of Barack       
Written by Thomas Fife    
by Tom Fife

During the period of roughly February 1992 to mid 1994, I was making frequent trips to Moscow, Russia, in the process of

….

….starting a software development joint-venture company with some people from the Russian scientific community.  One of the men in charge on the Russian side was named V. M.; he had a wife named T.M.

V. was a level-headed scientist while his wife was rather deeply committed to the losing Communist cause – a cause she obviously was not abandoning. 

One evening, during a trip early in 1992, the American half of our venture were invited to V. & T.’s Moscow flat as we were about to return to the States.  The party went well and we had the normal dinner discussions.

As the evening wore on, T. developed a decidedly rough anti-American edge – one her husband tried to quietly rein in.
The bottom line of the tirade she started against the United States went something like this:
“You Americans always like to think that you have the perfect government and your people are always so perfect.  Well then, why haven’t you had a woman president by now?  You had a chance to vote for a woman vice-president and you didn’t do it.”
The general response went something along the lines that you don’t vote for someone just because of their sex.  Besides, you don’t vote for vice-president, but the president and vice-president as a ticket.
“Well, I think you are going to be surprised when you get a black president very soon.”
The consensus we expressed was that we didn’t think there was anything innately barring that.  The right person at the right time and sure, America would try to vote for the right person, be he or she black or not.
“What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?”  

The out-of-the-blue remark was met by our stares.  She continued, “Well, you will; and he will be a Communist.”
It was then that the husband unsuccessfully tried to change the subject; but she was on a roll and would have nothing of it.  One of us asked, “It sounds like you know something we don’t know.”
“Yes, it is true.  This is not some idle talk.  He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now.  You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents.  He is what you call “Ivy League”.  You don’t believe me, but he is real and I even know his name.  His name is Barack.  His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa.  That’s right, a chocolate baby!  And he’s going to be your President.” 

She became more and more smug as she presented her stream of detailed knowledge and predictions so matter-of-factly – as though all were foregone conclusions.  “It’s all been thought out.  His father is not an American black so he won’t have that social slave stigma.  He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist.  He’s gone to the finest schools.  He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America.”
We sat there not knowing what to say.  She was obviously very happy that the Communists were doing this and that it would somehow be a thumbing of their collective noses at America: they would give us a black president and he’d be a Communist to boot.  She made it quite obvious that she thought that this was going to breathe new life into world Communism.  From this and other conversations with her, she always asserted that Communism was far from dead.
She was full of little details about him that she was eager to relate.  I thought that maybe she was trying to show off that this truly was a real person and not just hot air.

She rattled off a complete litany.  He was from Hawaii.  He went to school in California.  He lived in Chicago.  He was soon to be elected to the legislature.  “Have no doubt: he is one of us, a Soviet.”
At one point, she related some sort of San Francisco connection, but I didn’t understand what the point was and don’t recall much about that.  I was just left with the notion that she considered the city to be some sort of a center for their activity here.

Since I had dabbled in languages, I knew a smattering of Arabic.  I made a comment: “If I remember correctly, ‘Barack’ comes from the Arabic word for ‘Blessing.’  That seems to be an odd name for an American.”  She replied quickly, “Yes.  It is ‘African’”, she insisted, “and he will be a blessing for world Communism.  We will regain our strength and become the number one power in the world.” 

She continued with something to the effect that America was at the same time the great hope and the great obstacle for Communism.  America would have to be converted to Communism and Barack was going to pave the way.
So, what does this conversation from 1992 prove? 

Well, it’s definitely anecdotal.  It doesn’t prove that Obama has had Soviet Communist training nor that he was groomed to be the first black American president, but it does show one thing that I think is very important.  It shows that Soviet Russian Communists knew of Barack from a very early date.  It also shows that they truly believed among themselves that he was raised and groomed Communist to pave the way for their future.  This report on Barack came personally to me from one of them long before America knew he existed.

Although I had never before heard of him, at the time of this conversation Obama was 30+ years old and was obviously tested enough that he was their anticipated rising star.”
The interview with Jeff Rense can be heard here along with a copy of the essay:
Jeff Rense interview

For what it is worth, I found the following comments on the American Town Meeting website:
“This is Tom Fife

Background: I have a degree in Physics and have worked primarily in aerospace and software development. In 1991 I became involved with an Englishman who was performing relief efforts into the collapsing Soviet Union. These efforts were performed through Orthodox churches in Britain and the US plus some churches in Germany. Money was raised from all over and sent to Germany to purchase the goods, which were then trucked into Moscow to be distributed by the Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church.While doing all of this, I met many talented people in the Russian Academy of Science and eventually formed a Joint-Venture with some to develop sophisticated software.Dr. M. headed the Russian side. He had a wife whom people told me was a staunch Communist. It is my understanding that she was one of the party officials that worked in a company to be the contact point and keep a party eye on things. She was degreed in her own right and was a solid right hand to her husband.Why did she get so loose-tongued? I am not sure, but there were traditional Russian toasts being delivered through the evening and each of those were punctuated by a shot of very cold vodka. Also, there were some remarks made by an American in our group concerning his observations of the racial make up of the Russian people. This visibly irritated her, and I believe that was the emotional trigger for her to want to predict a racial comeuppance for the white America to which we were returning.Why didn’t I publish the story upon my return in 1992? At that point it was talk. It was very disturbing talk, but I had a life that I was living and that kept me busy while I wasn’t sure how I could every attempt to track down this mystery man she mentioned. In the end, he never left my mind really, but I didn’t ruminate on it, either. I did mention this to my son upon my return and it was because of that that he is my most solid defender. He remembers me warning him in 1992 to beware of a mulatto guy running for president with such and such laundry list of attributes.”
“Tom Fife is legitimate. I worked with him in the aerospace industry that he makes reference to. I was also associated with him in an ultimately unsuccessful research company. I have known Tom since 1982. I have never know him to lie about anything. Everything he says in his original essay and in this blog are consistent with the facts as I know them. He has told me the full names of V. and T. He does not want to reveal their names before they are tracked down and interviewed.

When this is all verified and fully exposed it will be the biggest news in at least a generation.”
American Town Meeting

I will continue to seek Tom Fife and try to substantiate the story.

Is this story true? For all I know it could be another Obama camp diversion, used as a “preemptive strike” to discredit any attempts to reveal Obama’s true agenda, much like the disclosure of Obama’s earlier drug use.

Obama’s reputation stands on it’s own without this story.

We do not need this story to remove Obama from office and have him charged with treason.

39 Comments

Posted in Afghanistan, Alan Keyes, American Revolution, Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Communist party, Communists, Community Organizer, Congress, Congress Watch, corruption, CPUSA, Crime, Democratic Socialists of America, Democrats, Election, Election 2008, FBI, Founding Fathers, Government, Hawaii, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, indictment, Indonesia, Jeff Rense, Kenya, Leftist, Liberalism, Manchurian Candidate, Marxist, New Party, News, Obama administration, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, Obama thugs, passport, Politics, Radicals, Railla Odinga, Russians, Senator Obama, Smear campaigns, Socialists, Society, Soviets, The Case Against Barack Obama, Treason, United Nations, United States, US Constitution, US Department of Justice, Usurper, Voter fraud, voters, Washington DC

Tagged , , , , , , ,