Category Archives: Lt Col Donald Sullivan

General Stanley McChrystal, Obama, Major General Paul E. Vallely, Oath of office, Patriot or career soldier, Sunshine patriot, Defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

General Stanley McChrystal, Obama,  Major General Paul E. Vallely, Oath of office, Patriot or career soldier

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”…Thomas Paine

I read the Rolling Stone article about General Stanley McChrystal. This is the strongest statement that I read from General McChrystal.
“Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal and his new commander in chief failed from the outset to connect. The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked “uncomfortable and intimidated” by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn’t go much better. “It was a 10-minute photo op,” says an adviser to McChrystal. “Obama clearly didn’t know anything about him, who he was. Here’s the guy who’s going to run his fucking war, but he didn’t seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed.””

Read more:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236

McChrystal, is that the best you can do?
From a real General, a real patriot.
From a speech given at the Lincoln Reagan Dinner on June 5, 2010 in Virginia City, Montana by Major General Paul E. Vallely, retired.
“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
“We now must call for the immediate resignation of Barry Soetoro (AKA President Barack Hussein Obama) — based on Incompetence, Deceit, Fraud, Corruption, Dishonesty and Violation of the US Constitution.
And a call for a National Petition for new elections to select the next President of the United States of America must be initiated. We can wait no longer for a change of Power and new Government.”
http://frontpage.americandaughter.com/?p=3917
Major General Paul E. Vallely, retired

“Paul E. Vallely retired in 1991 from the US Army as Deputy Commanding General, US Army, Pacific in Honolulu, Hawaii. General Vallely graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point and was commissioned in the Army in 1961 serving a distinguishing career of 32 years in the Army. He served in many overseas theaters to include Europe and the Pacific Rim Countries as well as two combat tours in Vietnam. He has served on US security assistance missions on

civilian-military relations to Europe, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Indonesia and Central America with in-country experience in Indonesia, Columbia, El Salvador, Panama, Honduras and Guatemala.

General Vallely is a graduate of the Infantry School, Ranger and Airborne Schools, Jumpmaster School, the Command and General Staff School, The Industrial College of the Armed Forces and the Army War College. His combat service in Vietnam included positions as infantry company commander, intelligence officer, operations officer, military advisor and aide-de-camp. He has over fifteen (15) years experience in Special Operations, Psychological and Civil-Military Operations.

He was one of the first nominees for Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations under President Reagan. From 1982-1986, he commanded the 351st Civil Affairs Command that included all Special Forces, Psychological Warfare and Civil Military units in the Western United States and Hawaii. He was the first President of the National Psychological Operations Association. His units participated in worldwide missions in Europe, Africa, Central America, Japan, Solomon Islands, Guam, Belgium, Korea and Thailand. He has served as a consultant to the Commanding General of the Special Operations Command as well as the DOD Anti-Drug and Counter -Terrorist Task Forces. He also designed and developed the Host-Nation Support Program in the Pacific for DOD and the State Department. Most recently, he has in-country security assistance – experience in El Salvador, Columbia and Indonesia in the development of civil-military relations interfacing with senior level military and civilian leadership.

General Vallely is a military analyst for FOX News Channel and is a guest on many nationally syndicated radio talk shows. He is also a guest lecturer on the War on Terror. He has co-authored “Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror” & “War Footing: 10 Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World.”

Source:

http://www.intelligencesummit.org/speakers/PaulVallely.php

Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin facing court martial
“You serve as my commander-in-chief. Given the fact that the certification that your campaign posted online was not a document that the Hawaiian Department of Homelands regarded as a sufficient substitute for the original birth certificate and given that it has been your personal decision that has prevented the Hawaiian Department of Health from releasing your original birth certificate or any Hawaiian hospital from releasing your records, the burden of proof must rest with you,”

CDR Charles Kerchner, lead plaintiff in Kerchner v Obama and Congress

From a recent Post & Email interview.
“MRS. RONDEAU: That brings up another question.  Why do you think more active military members are not doing what Lt. Col. Lakin is doing?

CDR. KERCHNER: Because they risk their career.  As you can see already, Lt. Col. Lakin is not being given a fair shake; you see what’s happening with him. 

They changed his evaluation.  He had an outstanding evaluation just a couple of months ago, and they just did one at the end of May which trashed him.  He had been up for promotion to  full Colonel, and he’s no longer going to be promoted.

The military is supposed to be devoid of politics, in a sense.  It’s very, very difficult for an active-duty military person to stand up alone and buck the powers that be in Washington when they are corrupt.  It’s very dangerous and very difficult for a person in the military to do that, because you have a set of rules governing you, the UCMJ, which don’t govern the rest of the citizenry.  You’ve given up some of your freedom, so to speak.  The thing is, though, the military does take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  I never thought about that word domestic in the oath much until Obama came along.

I believe in God, I believe in my country, I believe in my family, and I will fight to the death for all three of those.  I took my oath, and I believe those words, and I meant those words, “so help me God.”  I feared for the loss of my liberty and my inalienable rights guaranteed under the Constitution for which our forefathers fought during the American Revolution.  These were codified into the fundamental law of the nation when they wrote that contract for the protection  of the sovereign and free people in the several states, the U.S. Constitution.  This contract limited the power of the new federal government and protected our rights and liberty, my rights and liberties.  I feared loss of liberty if this usurper were allowed to take office and continue to remain in office for any length of time.  I did not trust Obama to protect me.  If he and his progressive sycophants in Congress can ignore and usurp one part of the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, then he will ignore and usurp other parts, such as the Bill of Rights.  That’s why when I saw the other suits failing, I felt as if I was almost being called and told, “You have to stand up, Commander Kerchner.  You must live up to your oath to support and defend the Constitution.  You have to stand up and fight this battle.  You must do this.”

I took an oath to the Constitution of this country.  We’re a nation of immigrants, and believe me, Obama’s father wasn’t one.  But we’re a nation of immigrants, and the glue and sinew that holds this country together is that Constitution.  Without it, we never would have made it this far, and we won’t make it much further if it falls apart.  That’s the natural  and universal law that unites us all.  Our inalienable rights granted by God, nature’s law created by God – that’s what holds us together, and if we lose it, the country is doomed.

I had a lot of anxiety before I filed the case, but as soon as I filed it, a certain peace came to me, and I haven’t lost a moment’s sleep since then.  It’s as if I answered the call and now I’m being protected.  I will continue to fight this battle until the truth and Constitution are upheld and the usurper in the Oval Office is removed, so help me God.”

Read more:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/06/21/a-one-on-one-personal-interview-with-commander-kerchner-regarding-his-eligibility-challenge-and-lawsuit-against-obama-and-congress/
General McChrystal, with all due respect to your prior military service, are you going to stand up to Obama and fulfill your military officer oath? You did not pledge allegiance to Obama or the president. You pledged allegiance to the US Constitution.
General McChrystal, you voted for Obama. This reveals that you are uninformed or that you do not care.
To all active and retired military. If you do not know or understand the facts, get off your ass and get answers. I expect more from the US military. And yes, military officers, you pledged an oath to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” We expect you to follow that oath. And yes, General McChrystal, and any other US Military officer, I will face you in person and repeat these words.

Advertisements

Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan, Update, February 11 2010, Lawsuit, Obama not eligible, North Carolina Board of Elections, NC Secretary of State, Elaine F. Marshall

From Lt. Col Donald Sullivan, February 9, 2010.

FYI – Following are the comments I made verbatim to the court in my last hearing on the Obama eligibility matter.  The hearing was held in Superior Court in Roxboro, NC, on January 4, 2010, at 2:00.  I have attached the motion to amend which was the subject of the hearing and the documents indicated below.  The judge denied the motion, and I objected on constitutional grounds.  I am not planning to appeal.  That is bad news for Obama.  In my opinion, the movement to unseat Obama due to his citizenship may be the only thing keeping him alive.  When the last two cases go away, there will be no other way to get rid of this imposter than the old fashioned way.  I, for one, hope that does not happen. 
If any of you have any ideas for an appeal, I would like to hear them.  Otherwise, this is the end of the road on this subject for me.  The United States is on a dead-end road as far as I am concerned.  In a conversation today with the opposing counsel for the State of NC, I was told that it didn’t look like there was any way for the court to get jurisdiction over this matter such that an order could be issued to accomplish what I was after.  I told her that I agreed with that assessment if the court continues to disregard its constitutional authority and its oath to support and maintain the constitution.  I could almost hear her sigh on the other end of the line.
It is worthy of note that this case was not dismissed for lack of standing, as were so many others.  It would appear the “class action” status cured that.  It’s just too bad we can’t find a constitutional judge. 
DS
 
**************************************8
My comments to the court – Sullivan v. NC Board of Education, Wake County File #08CVS21393, Motion to Amend, Vacate or Alter Order (attached), Superior Court Judge Osmond Smith, III, presiding:
 
Good afternoon, Your Honor, and thank you for hearing this motion to vacate your order in this matter today.  Can I presume that you are familiar with my motion?  First let me remind the court that I am here specially and not generally.  I am not an attorney, nor have I been schooled in the practice of law.  I ask the court to consider the substance of my pleadings and arguments and not the form; as the filings of a litigant acting on his own behalf, such as myself, are not to be held to the same stringent standards as those of a practicing lawyer, pursuant to Haines v. Kerner, 404 US 519.  I appear at law and not of law. I don’t call myself a “Birther”.  I call myself a “constitutionalist”. Without the Constitution, there is no lawful State or federal government.  The Constitution of NC at Art. 1, Sec.5, requires us to follow the federal Constitution.  The federal Constitution requires the office of President be held a natural born citizen at Article II, Section 1, Cl. 6.  The key question before us today is the status of  Barack Obama’s citizenship and whether or not this case can go forward to challenge it.
 
1.                   First, due to the ruling by Judge Cobb this past December in a prior case, I move to voluntarily dismiss the Secretary of State as a defendant, res judicata.
2.                   Presentation of “Born in the USA” – Wong Kim Ark – Three types of citizenship (attached).
3.                   My motion today is based upon new evidence not available to me in our earlier hearing. (Introduce and present exhibits A, B, C, and D as described in the motion.
4.                   I believe the evidence I have introduced today and previously presents a prima facie case that Obama is not eligible for the office of President and was not a viable candidate in the first place.
5.                   Discuss INS affidavit attached to original complaint, my interview with the Secret Service, and “Unintended Consequences”.
6.                   “Overwhelmed by events and by Time”.  I became concerned that our government was no longer bound by the chains of the Constitution many years ago.  But after my hearing before Judge Jim Fox in federal court on March 21, 2003, I knew we were in trouble.  I had filed a case to prevent the war in Iraq due to the failure of the Congress to declare war.  During the House International Affairs Committee review of the Resolution to Authorize the President to use Military Force in Iraq, the chairman, Henry Hyde, said in response to Ron Paul’s amendment that we declare war as required by the Constitution that, “The Constitution has been overwhelmed by events and by time.  It is not relevant.”  I took this denial of the Constitution personally and made it the crux of my complaint.  Although Judge Fox agreed with most of my arguments, he denied my demand for a TRO to order Bush to stop the war which had begun two days earlier.  During the hearing, he admitted that our Constitution was no longer viable, having been overwhelmed by events and by time.  I read to you from the transcript of that hearing.  This quote has been featured in a Hollywood Movie by Aaron Russo.  [I read two pages from the transcript of “Sullivan v. United States, et al, 03CV039, USEDNC, March 21, 2003)
7.                   Read “Obama’s Own Words” (attached).
8.                   Read Judge Smith’s oath to support and maintain the US and NC Constitutions.  Do not raise the “Oath Question”, although Judge Smith’s oath is improper.  State:  “The people elect their judges to support and maintain the Constitution of the United States and that of the State of North Carolina, where it is not in contravention thereto.  An unconstitutional act is void from the beginning.  It creates no office and grants no authority.  (16AmJur2d)
9.                   Your Honor, failure to allow your order to be vacated and this complaint to move forward in a proper form to provide relief from this probable violation to our Constitutional law would be a treasonous act, a violation of our oaths to the Constitution and to the people of this country.  There is a constitutional remedy for my complaint and this court at law has the authority to grant it.  While I have admitted previously that the court has no equity jurisdiction in this matter, it does have jurisdiction at law under the Constitution and the authority to grant the relief I seek.
 
That having been said, it is apparent from the passage of more than a year since I filed this class action complaint for injunctive relief that this is no longer a matter seeking equitable relief, but instead one seeking a remedy at law, in this case constitutional law.  That remedy must be in the form of common law mandamus authority rather than injunctive relief due to the overwhelming events of this past year and the judicial delays starting from day one.  In any event, the relief I am seeking has not changed: An order to the remaining Defendant Board of Elections to validate the eligibility of Barack Obama to be the President of the United States of America.  Therefore, I request this court vacate the order dismissing my complaint and grant leave to amend the complaint as a petition for the common law writ of mandamus in this matter.  Thank you for listening, Your Honor.
 
[After denying my motion, off the record, the judge asked me if there were any more cases out there on the subject of Obama’s eligibility.  I told him there were two that I knew of, the Barnett case in California federal court, and the recently filed Quo Warranto in DC.]
 
10.               Jury demand after positive ruling.  [The judge denied my motion, so I didn’t pursue this option.]
11.               POINT OF ORDER – Oath question after negative ruling.  [I presented the discussion of the impropriety of Judge Smith’s oath, along with nearly all other officers in the State, including attorneys and all grand and petit juries.  He took home with him my written summary of the issue along with a copy of his oath, a proper oath by Judge Allen Cobb, a copy of the oath sheet used by the clerk of Pender County criminal court, copies of NCGS 11-11 and 11-7, and a copy of the oath given to attorneys written by the State Bar.  He and the judicial officers in the court seemed genuinely interested in the arguments presented.  I informed the judge that his privilege of immunity was not in effect until he is properly sworn and the oath filed with the county clerk of court.  He assured me he would research my information and inform me as to what action he would take, if any.]

View motion:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26718710/Lt-Colonel-Donald-Sullivan-vs-NC-Board-of-Elections-Obama-Lawsuit

Lt Col Donald Sullivan V NC Board of Elections, Elaine Marshall, NC Secretary of State, Update, December 7, 2009, Obama eligibility, Obama Kenyan born

 Here is the latest update December 7, 2009, from Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan, plaintiff in a lawsuit against North Carolina Board of Elections, and Elaine F. Marshall, Secretary of State For North Carolina. Following the update is a copy of the lawsuit.

“Sullivan v. Secretary of State for North Carolina, 08CVS1076
RE:  Obama Eligibility
 
12-4-09:  Hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to amend, alter or vacate Judge Cobb’s order of October 10, 2008, dismissing subject lawsuit with prejudice.
 
Judge Cobb called the case for hearing at 11:00 AM.  Present were myself and Brandon Truman, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the Defendant.  I made my statement in support of my motion to delete the words “with prejudice” from the order dismissing the case.  I wanted this done because my filing of the second complaint against Obama’s eligibility included as defendants both the secretary of state and the board of elections.  The “with prejudice” made any future complaint against the secretary of state filed by me, including mine, moot “res judicata”. 
 
I argued that the case had been dismissed, not on its merits, but on procedural arguments from the State.  I argued that the order had been drafted by the State’s attorney at the request of the judge, and that the term “with prejudice” had not been the subject of any discussion during the hearing on the complaint.  Further, the Rule governing dismissals makes it clear that dismissals for procedure in first complaints typically are considered to be without prejudice unless otherwise noted.  Such a dismissal on a second complaint in the same matter is typically “with prejudice”.  This was my first case in the series.  I had no way of knowing whether or not the attorney put those words into the order or if the judge had done that himself; since I was not given the privilege of reviewing the proposed order prior to its being given to the judge.  I also made a “point of order” on the court’s not being properly set, since, upon information and belief, the State’s attorney did not have a proper oath of office.  I did this without argument, just for the record.
 
The State’s attorney responded that he did not recollect adding that language to his order, but he might have.  He just couldn’t be sure.  He argued that the case was not only dismissed on procedural errors, but also due to the fact that the Secretary of State has no statutory duty to do that which I requested the court to order her to do.  He also introduced the dismissal order from my second Obama case showing its mootness since Obama had already been inaugurated.  I objected to that order as being irrelevant to the instant case, but the judge allowed it. 
 
I responded that I agreed there was no statutory duty of the Secretary to do as I requested, but that there was a higher, constitutional authority to do so. 
 
Judge Cobb denied the motion, telling me in no uncertain terms that it was he who put the words “with prejudice” into the order.  I had told the State’s attorney I would not appeal this ruling prior to the hearing.  I will put all my effort into Obama II.  The denial in this case means the second case will lose the Secretary of State as a defendant, leaving only the Board of Elections to carry the ball.  Again, the only argument in that case is the constitutional duty also.  I have a hearing being scheduled for later this month or early in January to hear a similar motion to amend, alter or vacate the dismissal order from last March, 2009.  It will be heard by Judge Osmond Smith III out of Caswell County.”

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF WAKE File # 08CV21393
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan, )

Plaintiff ) NOTICE AND DEMAND ) TO AMEND FINAL

v. ) JUDGMENT ORDER

) (CLASS ACTION)

North Carolina Board of Elections, and )

Elaine F. Marshall, Secretary of State )

For North Carolina, )

Defendants )

________________________________________________________________________

 
NOTICE AND DEMAND
 
 

 

Now come I, Lt. Colonel Donald Sullivan, Plaintiff, on behalf of myself and all others similarly situated, pursuant to Rule 59(a)(7), (8) and (e) and Rule 60 (b)(2), et seq., to notice and demand this court vacate, amend or alter its final order “signed” March 16, 2009, but dated October 2, 2009, and received by me on October 6, 2009, dismissing this action. This demand is based upon the newly discovered evidence infra, and upon the sworn duty of this court to “support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States” (Art. VI, Section 7, NC Const.).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
 
 

 

On November 7, 2008, and on behalf of all those similarly situated, I filed a class action complaint in this instant matter with the Pender County Clerk of Court demanding injunctive relief in the matter of the citizenship of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., his eligibility to have been a candidate on the North Carolina ballot for the office of President of the United States of America, and his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States of America. Defendants moved for a change of venue to Wake County; Motion was granted December 1, 2008. I filed in this action a Notice and Demand for a TRO on November 26, 2008, to prevent the NC Board of Elections from certifying the vote for the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States until the defendants had certified the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of President of the United States under Article II, Section 1. The Honorable R. Allen Baddour, Jr., presiding Superior Court Judge, denied said motion for TRO on December 15, 2008. On December 19, 2008, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss my complaint in its entirety pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to mootness, res judicata, and lack of standing; and pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. I filed by mail a Motion to Amend my Notice and Demand for Injunctive Relief on December 19, 2008, seeking to add as defendants the Governor and the General Assembly, delete Para. 8.7, and delete the attachment of the claims for relief to the timing of the inauguration of the President, since the unreasonable and calculated court delays in this matter had rendered that element moot (A demand for injunctive relief being an extraordinary remedy which is normally heard immediately rather than being handled routinely as in the instant matter). On January 19, 2009, I filed a Notice and Demand for Class Certification seeking to represent all voters of North Carolina. Hearing was held on March 16, 2009, on the defendantÕs Motion to Dismiss and my Motion to Amend. On September 16, 2009, the attorney for the defendant e-mailed for my review a copy of the proposed order dismissing my case and denying my Demand. On September 21, 2009, I submitted my Objections to the Proposed Order by return e-mail. The subject order dismissing this action was issued by the Honorable W. Osmond Smith, Jr., on October 2, 2009, and dated March 16, 2009, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The final order contained no changes from that originally proposed.

PRESENTATION OF NEW EVIDENCE
 
 
 

 

The following is a statement of newly discovered evidence which was not available to me prior to the hearing on the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and which was unknown and unavailable to me at that time:

1. A syndicated report by the Associated Press, published Sunday, June 27, 2004, by the Kenyan Standard Times and available in their electronic edition for that date at http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/ap-declares-obama-kenyan-born/ . The article, though well concealed by Google, may also be found posted at http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm  The AP reporter stated the following:

“Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat…” (Emphasis added).

One would expect that an AP reporter is too professional to submit a story which was not based on confirmed sources (ostensibly the Obama campaign in this case), the inference seems inescapable: Obama himself was putting out in 2004 that he was born in Kenya. This article was not refuted by the Obama camp. Further, during that same campaign in 2004, Mr. Obama, for the record and in response to Mr. Alan Keyes’ statement that Obama was not a Ònatural born citizenÓ, stated in quick retort, “So what? I am running for Illinois Senator, not the presidency”.

2. On September 4, 2009, an Affidavit was filed as evidence in a federal case with the United States District Court in Santa Ana, California, by Mr. Lucas Smith. In this affidavit, he certified the legitimacy of a certified copy of a Kenyan birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., which he had personally obtained from Kenyan records. A copy of this birth certificate was filed concurrently with the affidavit, including a baby footprint, for the man who is currently referred to as President Barack Hussein Obama. The document is a legal affidavit that declares Lucas Smith to be of sound mind and judgment. Lucas Smith could go to jail if he lied on this affidavit.

3. On November 24, 2008, the following excerpts from an article by Chelsea Schilling appeared in the World Net Daily:

“A radio interview with Kenyan Ambassador Peter N.R.O. Ogego has been widely publicized since the ambassador called President-elect Barack Obama’s Kenyan birthplace a ‘well-known’ attraction – but the embassy is now telling WND the hosts misunderstood his comments.

“On Nov. 6, only two days after the election, Detroit radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF’s ‘Mike In The Morning’ called the Embassy of Kenya in Washington, D.C., to speak with Ambassador Ogego.

“The radio hosts were surprised when their light-hearted interview with Ogego reignited suspicions that Obama may have been born in Kenya.

“An assistant to the ambassador, referring to herself only as ‘Trudy,’ confirmed today that Ogego had indeed participated in the radio interview. But she said the show made leading statements and took the following comments out of context:

‘Clark: “We want to congratulate you on Barack Obama, our new president, and you must be very proud.”
‘Ogego: “We are. We are. We are also proud of the U.S. for having made history as well.”
‘Fellhauer: “One more quick question, President-elect Obama’s birthplace over in Kenya, is that going to be a national spot to go visit, where he was born?”
‘Ogego: “It’s already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive.”

‘Fellhauer: “His birthplace, they’ll put up a marker there?”

‘Ogego: “It would depend on the government. It’s already well known.'”

…”‘If you listen to the call in its entirety, you will find it was very obvious we were all talking about President-elect Barack Obama and not his father,’ Clark said.”

4. Here’s what it says at Obama’s web portal, Fight The Smears:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United KingdomÕs dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.”
(Emphasis and italics added.)Obama is telling us himself that his status was “governed” by a foreign jurisdiction.  This is no theory.  This is a fact. Like it or not, rich or poor, great or strong, Democrat or Republican, Obama was born under the jurisdiction of Great Britain via Kenya.  There is nothing conspiratorial about saying that.  Obama has it posted on his own web site. So, even if we accept that Mr Obama was born in Hawaii of a black Kenyan father and a 17-year-old white American mother, his citizenship is and constitutional eligibility for the presidency is still in question, since he is either a Brtish or Kenyan by birth, not an American. His American citizenship has never been confirmed or reinstated.
 
 

 

5. A letter dated 2 Februrary, 2009, from Michael Angelus to US Senator Maria Cantwell (D., VA) submitted four attachments including the following:

A. The actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795;

B. The actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790;

C. The actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789;

D. The actual text in a January 26, 2009 letter issued by United States Senator, Mark R. Warner.

Mr. Angelus also went on to include, Òand we also witness the apparent denial in the current United States Congress to address the phrase “natural born citizen.”

The purpose of the letter is to define what the Congress has concluded “natural born citizenship” to mean. Mr. Obama fails each of these tests for being natural born as required by Article 2, Section 1.

6. Upon information and belief, as one of his first acts as the newly installed “President”, Mr. Obama issued an executive order which sealed his personal papers, documents, records, transcripts, etc. from public scrutiny.

CONCLUSION
Therefore, because of the sworn duty of this court “to support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States”, and pursuant to the provisions of Rule 59 and Rule 60, supra, this court has the subject matter jurisdiction and the authority to grant the relief I am requesting based upon the new evidence herein provided, to vacate or alter the order of the court dismissing my complaint for injunctive relief and force the State of North Carolina, in the form of its elected and appointed officials, to properly and adequately protect the combined citizens of this State from an unconstitutionally elected chief executive of the United States; or, in the alternative, to confirm that Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., is indeed eligible to hold that office. Each of these elected and appointed officials, including this Honorable Court, has taken a solemn oath to do no less.
 
 

 

Any act repugnant to the Constitution is void ab initio. It carries no authority and creates no law. We learn this the first week of law school. Ignorance of the law, therefore, does not apply in this matter. I demand this court do its duty to the People, to this country and to themselves and confirm the constitutionality of the Obama “Presidency”. We have seen already the unintended consequences of enthroning an apparent imposter. There will be more unless we all do our duty. Honor requires no less.

Respectfully submitted this the Twenty-Ninth Day of October, 2009.

____________________________________ Donald Sullivan, Plaintiff, sui juris Lt. Col., USAFR(R) PO Box 3061 Wilmington, NC 28406 910-617-2559

 
 
 
 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do certify I have this Tewenty-Ninth Day of October, 2009, served a copy of the foregoing “Notice and Demand Amend Final Judgment Order” by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mails, certified with return receipt requested, or hand-delivered, and addressed as follows:
For Defendant Board of Elections:
State of North Carolina Department of Justice

ATTN: Susan K. Nichols, Special Attorney General

PO Box 629

Raleigh, NC 27602-0629

For Defendant Elaine F. Marshall, Secretary of State:

Brandon L. Truman

Assistant Attorney General

PO Box 629

Raleigh, NC 27626-0629

A copy is also being filed with the Clerk of Court for Wake County.

BY: ________________________________

Donald Sullivan, Lt Col, USAFR (Ret)

Plaintiff, Sui JurisPO Box 3061

Wilmington, NC 28406

  

Lt Col Donald Sullivan, update March 30, 2009, Sullivan’s son’s arrest, Burgaw, NC, Miranda rights, Obama thugs, Lt Col Sullivan lawsuits, NC state trooper, Son arrested for not answering questions

We have illegal aliens getting benefits an illegal president but
the son of a Lt Col, Donald Sullivan, gets arrested for not
answering questions. Here is an update from Lt Col Donald Sullivan
on the arrest of his son.

“Events of March 24, 2009 – My son’s Arrest for not being from NC; and the beat goes on, only it’s getting more personal.

Short Version:  On March 24, 2009, my son was stopped at a checkpoint; arrested for not answering questions; and jailed under $50,000.00 bond for committing no crime.

Long Version:  Just when I thought it could get no more ridiculous, Tuesday came.  It was the 24th of March, 2009, and I was in Burgaw, NC, the county seat, at the courthouse to serve the DA timely with my record on appeal for the right to bear arms trial of November, 2008.  As I walked into the courthouse from the bright North Carolina sunshine, I saw a familiar face just coming down the stairway from the courtrooms upstairs.  Not only did the face look familiar, it was my son; and he was in handcuffs!  I casually walked up to him and the State policeman who had him in tow and said, “Well, I see they finally broke your cherry, Myson.”  He smiled, and said, “Looks that way, Dad.”

I turned to the officer, introduced myself, and asked him why my son was being charged.  He told me straight up, “He wouldn’t answer my questions.”  “That’s the way I taught him”, I said.  “He doesn’t have to answer your questions.”  I turned to my son and asked him what was going on, not thinking the trooper would let him answer; but he did.  He said he was on his way to my house along NC Highway 210 when he ran up on a police checkpoint. When I interrupted and asked why he didn’t just turn around and go the other way, he said there was no need, since he was not breaking any laws.  Besides, he said he was towing my trailer and turning around on a two-lane road would have been difficult. 

He continued with his story saying the trooper had asked him for his license and registration, which he tendered.  Both are from Michigan, since my son is still a resident of Michigan, but the trooper asked him what his local address was.  (The trooper was aware of my son’s trial a few months ago when the charge was dismissed against him for no NC license for lack of evidence and jurisdiction.  I know for a fact my son has no NC address.)  He responded with, “You have my license.  I’m not going to answer any of your questions.”  The trooper asked him if he had insurance, and my son responded, “I told you I am not going to answer any of your questions.”  The trooper told him he would go to jail if he didn’t answer.  My son persisted, so the trooper ordered him to pull his pick-up off to the side of the road and get out of it.  He complied, and the trooper read him his Miranda rights, the first of which is, “You have the right to remain silent.”  The trooper then told him he would be arrested unless he answered the questions about his local address and his proof of insurance.  My son maintained that he didn’t have to answer any questions, so he was handcuffed and brought to the courthouse for his “probable cause” hearing.  This is where I came in.

I asked the trooper how he could arrest my son for not answering his questions when he had a right not to answer.  He responded that there is a law in NC which requires everyone to give their address when asked by a law enforcement officer or the courts.  When I asked how that could be with our right to remain silent and not incriminate ourselves, and he said he was just doing his job.  How I hate that response.  One day 9it will be the death sentence of anyone who uses it.  I told the officer I had some quick errands to run in the courthouse, but that I would join them upstairs where the magistrate was holding small claims court.  After depositing my record on appeal with the DA, I went upstairs to the courtroom. 

Once inside, I saw that the trooper was about to finish briefing the magistrate on the charges:  No NC operator’s license; no proof of insurance; expired MI registration; no trailer license plate; and refusal to answer questions divulge his local address.  The magistrate called my son forward and asked him for his address.  He told her he was not answering any of his questions, that he had a right to remain silent.  She then asked if he could be in court on the 20th of May, to which he responded, “Yes, Ma’am.”  She then put him under FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS SECURED BOND ($50,000.00), BECAUSE HE REFUSED TO ANSWER HER QUESTIONS!  When he told her he was not a flight risk, nor was he a threat to anyone, and should be released on his own recognizance by law, she responded, “You won’t answer my questions or those of the trooper.  Your license says you are from out of state.  You could be an ‘axe-murderer’ for all we know, so the bond stays.”  I then interrupted and asked, “How much was that bond?!”  She said “$50,000.00.”  I then asked her if she would accept cash or a check.  She said, “Certified check or cash.”  I told her I would be back in an hour with the money.  My son went to jail, and I went to get the cash. 

Needless to say, I was very upset, but controlled.  This whole charade was obviously due to the amount of harassment my many legal filings have caused the local law enforcement agencies and the courts along with the several criminal proceedings and appeals I have active at the present.  There was no need whatsoever to arrest my son for alleged statutory violations which do not have jurisdiction over an out-of-state individual, and the $50,000.00 bond was an aberration not seen before in Pender County!

When I returned to the jail with the cash, the magistrate was busy in her office.  I struck up a conversation with some other unfortunates who were waiting in the lobby for their friends and loved ones and told them I was there to pick up my son who had been arrested for “Not answering their questions” and held under $50,000.00 bond.  They were astounded, of course, since no one had ever been heard of such; and it was completely illogical.  I told them it was vindictive and retaliatory, that “they” were using my son to get at me, and I was not going to stand for it.  I said things like, “They’ve made it personal now by going after my children, and they’ve crossed the line!”  These things I said loud enough for the magistrate to hear.  Then, I walked over to her open door and asked if she was ready for me to bail out my son; that I had $60,000.00 cash just in case she upped the ante.  She replied in the affirmative and said, “All he had to do was to answer my questions, and he wouldn’t be here.  And it was not vindictive.  I didn’t know he was your son and had ties to the county.  If I had, I could have reconsidered the bond.”  I told her it was not too late to reconsider, especially since he had a right to remain silent in the first place, and it was a violation of his constitutional rights to deny him his liberty for exercising his rights.   She replied that she had reconsidered, that the bond was reduced to $2,000.00 unsecured.  I told her that was not good enough, that he had objected to any bond due to his not being a flight risk or a threat to anyone’s life, liberty or property.  She said she had to leave the bond in place, since that was the guideline she was given “in school”.  (I assumed she was referring to the same “school” my jailer had mentioned when she told me my “stay would be prolonged” if I didn’t submit to being photographed last month.)  She tapped on the window at the back of her office and told the jailers to “Bring Mr. Sullivan out.  He doesn’t need handcuffs.)  So, they brought my son out; he collected his things and filled out the necessary paperwork; and we left to recover his truck.  I told her it was a good thing she had “reconsidered”, or my son would have filed a civil suit against her.  As it was, he would only file against the trooper, but she might be a co-defendant.

When we got to his truck about 90 minutes later, the State trooper who had arrested him was there waiting in his car, right by my son’s truck.  I got out of my car, with my S&W 9mm strapped on my hip as always, and walked up to his car and tapped on is window.  He rolled the window down, and I asked him if he was waiting to arrest us again when we moved the car.  He replied that he was just stopped doing some paperwork.  I then asked if he would arrest my son when he drove off in the car, or did we have to trailer it home, which I was prepared to do.  He told me he couldn’t drive off if he had no insurance.  I told him my son had insurance, but he just hadn’t felt the need to answer the trooper’s questions.  When he said the truck couldn’t move on its own without proof of insurance, I asked my son to show the officer his proof of insurance, which he readily did.  This set the officer back a bit, and he asked, “Why didn’t you show me this before?”  My son responded, “Because, it’s like I told you, ‘I don’t have to answer your questions if the answer might tend to incriminate me”, so I don’t answer any questions.”

We then proceeded to have a very nice and informative chat with the officer for over an hour, during which time I said nothing to compromise my son’s case, but I did take the opportunity to educate the trooper a little bit.  He admitted he was not so sure things were always as they appear, or as the government tells them, and that he regularly listened to local conservative radio hosts and to Neil Bortz.  As we parted, I informed the trooper that he had violated my son’s rights, and that my son would file a civil suit against him as soon as the charges were dismissed.  He said, “Do what you have to do”, to which I responded, “It’s the only way you and your buddies are going to learn to leave us alone.”  Oh, and as to my sidearm, the trooper asked me just before we parted what kind of weapon it was.  I told him, “S&W 9mm”.

DS
3-29-09″

Lt Col Sullivan, sir, if you need any assistance say the
word, and thousands will come to your aid.

Sullivan v. NC Secretary of State and Board of Elections, Update March 20, 2009, Lt Col Donald Sullivan, Obama not eligible, NC lawsuit, Judge W. Osmond Smith, III, Wake County Superior Court, Raleigh, NC, US Constitution, First Lieutenant Scott Easterling, US Military

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

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

SUBJECT: Obama Eligibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Congress, US Military, US Constitution, Obama ineligible, Obama not qualified, Obama not Natural Born Citizen, Orly Taitz lawsuit, Lt Col Donald Sullivan lawsuit, Military officers, Congresmen, Oath of Office

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

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

Officers in the service of the United States are
bound by this oath to disobey any order that
violates the Constitution of the United States.

Officers in the US Military and members of Congress take an oath of
office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” To the surprise of no one,
members of the US Military take their oath seriously. Many members of
Congress were contacted before and after the presidential election.
To a person, all members contacted replied with political, evasive
and inaccurate statements about Barack Obama’s eligibility. Lt Col
Donald Sullivan, a retired Air Force officer, file a lawsuit in NC
on November 7, 2008. Now members of the military are coming on board
to support and defend the US Constitution and signing on as plaintiffs
in the Orly Taitz lawsuit.

The WHY initiative and other efforts are attempting to get straight
answers from congressmen as to why they believed Obama was eligible
and why no member of Congress stood up to challenge the Electoral
votes. Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama responded with a typical
absurd response when queried about Obama’s eligibility. Recently,
when interviewed, Senator Shelby gave a different response. Without
focusing on just one member of Congress, Senator Shelby, we still
need to find out what Senator Shelby’s position is on the US
Constitution.

Senator Shelby’s response

Senator Shelby, members of Congress, consider
the following officers in the US military
that have come on board to support and defend
the US Constitution:

 

“5.13.
It was well expected that, after all the public concern that has been
raised over the preceding months, Mr. Obama would have released for
public or official scrutiny the relevant documentation to back up his
claim of qualification as a “natural born citizen”. His reaction to
public concern and his recent actions in Federal District Court on
9/24/2008 demonstrate that Mr. Obama has no intentions of releasing
said documentation for review or cannot because they do not exist.
The late hour of this request was dictated by the delaying tactics
of Mr. Obama, and the non-responsiveness to citizens’ repeated
requests to the Obama campaign for proof of eligibility.”

Lt Col Donald Sullivan lawsuit

“I can present a long list of reasons, taken individually, which
convinced me NOT to vote for Barack Hussein Obama; his crime associates
in the USA, his lack of experience, the mystery of his citizenship,
his promise to make coal power industry bankrupt through excessive
regulations, his constant adjustment of position on issues, his tax
plan, his spread the wealth admission, his obvious socialistic goals,
his associations with foreign leaders unfriendly to the USA, the lies
he tells about a range of subjects including perhaps who his biological
father really is, his most recent revelation of having a “National
Security Force” (whatever that is)……………all of these says he is a person
of mystery, of no integrity, and in fact paints him with the same
narcissist paint of Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, and Kim Jong Ill.”

 Major General Carroll D. Childers Joins Orly Taitz lawsuit

 
“We the People of the United States of America” are entitled to know
the legal qualifications of the President and Commander in Chief.
For the better good and National Security of “We the People of the
United States” and for Absolute Command of the Military Forces of the
United States, I whole heartedly support the efforts of Dr. Orly Taitz,
ESQ for taking legal action to determine whether or not Barack Hussein
 Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, Citizen of Indonesia and possibly citizen
of Kenya, is eligible to become President of the United States and
Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces.

 Brigadier General Charles E. Jones Joins Orly Taitz lawsuit

“A Retired Colonel, Riley is “the recipient of the Silver Star, Legion
of Merit, Bronze Star and other awards and badges – including the
Combat Infantry Badge, Parachute Badge, and Army Staff Badge. He served
over 34 years in the US Army. He was commissioned as a 2LT in 1966 and
promoted to Colonel in 1989. He served in command positions from
Detachment through Battalion level and staff assignments from Brigade
to Chief of Staff Army level. He served two tours in Viet Nam and did
several tours in Germany.”

 Colonel Harry Riley Joins Orly Taitz lawsuit

“OCCUPATION: Retired (Disabled)….Combat Veteran

ACHIEVEMENTS: Awarded  Silver Star for Conspicuous Gallentry, Awarded
the Bronze Star with Combat “V”,Two (2) Purple Hearts, Gold Medal for
best Squad Leader in the World, 14 other awards and decorations”

Major James R. Cannon Joins Orly Taitz lawsuit

“As an active-duty Officer in the United States Army, I have grave
concerns about the constitutional eligibilty of Barack Hussein Obama
to hold the Office of President of The United States. He has
absolutely refused to provide to the American public his original
birth certificate, as well as other documents which may prove or
disprove his eligibility. In fact, he has fought every attempt made
by concerned citizens in their effort to force him to do so.
Until Mr. Obama releases a “vault copy” of his original birth
certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my
Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the
Office – an impostor.
My conviction is such that I am compelled to join Dr. Orly Taitz’s
lawsuit, as a plaintiff, against Mr. Obama. As a citizen, it pains me
to do this, but as an Offficer, my sworn oath to support and defend
our Constitution requires this action.”

First Lt Scott R. Easterling Joins Orly Taitz lawsuit

Orly Taitz lawsuit and Military feedback

Lt Col Donald Sullivan, TRO, NC Electors, Temporary Restraining Order, Stop NC Electoral College vote, Judge Baddour, Wake County Superior Court, Raleigh NC, December 10, 2008

Lt Col Donald Sullivan will appear in Wake County Superior Court, Raleigh NC, on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 with his TRO, Temporary Restraining Order, to attempt to stop the Electoral College vote in NC until Barack Obama’s eligibility can be confirmed. Lt Col Sullivan is scheduled to appear before Superior Court Judge Baddour at 2:15.