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

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

SUBJECT: Obama Eligibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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