Category Archives: Presidential candidate

AL Supreme Court McInnish V Chapman, Justice Bolin concurrence opinion flawed, Status quo tradition and pass the buck, States control presidential election to electoral certification, Qualified candidates on ballot

Posted on March 25, 2014 | 122 comments

AL Supreme Court McInnish V Chapman, Justice Bolin concurrence opinion flawed, Status quo tradition and pass the buck, States control presidential election to electoral certification, Qualified candidates on ballot

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

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

 

 

I still do not know how to take the concurrence opinion from Justice Bolin in the AL Supreme Court McInnish V Chapman decision.

It is still a bit surreal.

On the one hand, Justice Bolin agrees that the disired result is qualified candidates with any difficiencies discovered by the state. I.E. an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure. He also states that the Alabama legislature should pass laws to facilitate this.

On the other hand, he (in sync with most of the nation) passes the buck, abrogating the responsibility of the state of AL to place a qualified candidate on
the ballot. This is in direct contradiction to the US Constitution as well as federal and state election laws. This is well clarified by Chief Justice Moore.

Most law school graduates are intelligent and take a rigorous course of study.

Perhaps all do not take logic 101.
I will address the “High spots” of what Justice Bolin wrote and why I believe that he erred.

Justice Bolin:

“I respectfully disagree with Chief Justice Moore’s dissent to the extent that it concludes that the Secretary of State presently has an affirmative duty to
investigate the qualifications of a candidate for President of the United States of America before printing that candidate’s name on the general-election
ballot in this State. I fully agree with the desired result; however, I do not agree that Alabama presently has a defined means to obtain it.”

The following AL election statute seems clear to me.

“Section 17-13-6

Only qualified candidates to be listed on ballots.

The name of no candidate shall be printed upon any official ballot used at any primary election unless such person is legally qualified to hold the office
for which he or she is a candidate and unless he or she is eligible to vote in the primary election in which he or she seeks to be a candidate and possesses
the political qualifications prescribed by the governing body of his or her political party.”

Justice Bolin:

“The evidence suggests that the Secretary of State had expressed to the plaintiffs and their representatives well prior to the primary and as early as February 2, 2012, that she had no duty to investigate the eligibility qualifications 3 of a presidential candidate. Barack Obama was nominated as
his party’s presidential candidate at the Democratic National Convention on September 5, 2012. For this election, ballots were required to be printed and delivered to the absentee election manager of each county by at least September 27, 2012. See § 17-11-12, Ala. Code 1975. The plaintiffs did not
file their petition challenging Barack Obama’s ballot access until October 11, 2012, approximately eight months after being apprised of the Secretary of State’s position that she had no affirmative duty to investigate and two weeks after the ballots were to be printed and delivered to the various
counties. The failure by the plaintiffs to at least file their petition challenging ballot access during the intervening time between Barack Obama’s nomination as his party’s presidential candidate and the time in which the ballots were due to be printed and delivered to the various counties constitutes, I believe, “inexcusable delay” on the part of the plaintiffs. The prejudice that would have ensued from such a late challenge, if successful, would have been
twofold: first, assuming it could have been accomplished from a practical standpoint, the reprinting and distribution of general-election ballots would have come, at that late date, at great financial cost to the State; and second, and just as important, the reprinted ballots would differ from absentee
ballots already sent to the members of our military and other citizens overseas. This would not be a proper way to conduct such an important election.”

Justice Bolin seems more concerned about a CYA for the Secretary of State than in upholding the constitution.

From the McInnish V Chapman Writ of Mandamus.

“13. On February 2,2072 Plaintiff MCINNISH, together with his attorney and others, visited the Office of the Secretaryo f State,a t which the Hon. Emily
Thompson,Deputy Secretaryo f State,speaking in the absence of and for the Secretary of State, s tated that her office would not investigate the legitimacy of
any candidate ,thus violating her duties under the U.S. and Alabama Constitutions.”

The AL Secretary of State’s office was forewarned.

If the AL Secretary of State had reacted in a responsible, constitutional way, minimally the Attorney General could have been consulted and simple steps
taken to remedy the situation. The plaintiffs were forced to file the Writ of Mandamus. The state of urgency was created by the state of AL. Justice Bolin
attempts to lay the blame on the plaintiffs.

None of the concerns Justice Bolin stated related to upholding the constitution.

“This would not be a proper way to conduct such an important election.”

What about the thousands of disenfranchised voters casting votes for a disqualified candidate?

Justice Bolin:

“Moving beyond the merits of the matter before us, and
with due regard to the vital importance to the citizenry of
the State of Alabama that the names of only properly qualified
candidates appear on a presidential-election ballot for
election to the highest office in our country, I write
specially to note the absence of a statutory framework that
imposes an affirmative duty upon the Secretary of State to
investigate claims such as the one asserted here, as well as
a procedure to adjudicate those claims. The right of a lawful
and proper potential candidate for President to have ballot
access must be tempered and balanced against a clear process
for removal of an unqualified candidate. Nothing in this
process should be left to guesswork, or, with all proper
respect, to unwritten policies of the Secretary of State, and
certainly not without a disqualified candidate having a clear
avenue for judicial review consistent with the time
constraints involved and due-process considerations.”

Nothing in this process should be left to guesswork ???

That is exactly the situation we had in 2008 and 2012. The states abrogating their responsibilities with the last check of checks and balances being the
certification of electoral votes by congress. Congress failed in their duty despite being notified.

Talk about guesswork!

Justice Bolin:

“The general duties and scope of the Secretary of State’s
office are codified in § 36-14-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975.
Section 17-1-3, Ala. Code 1975, provides that the Secretary of
State is the chief elections official in the State and, as
such, shall provide uniform “guidance” for election
activities. It is, however, a nonjudicial office without
subpoena power or investigative authority or the personnel
necessary to undertake a duty to investigate a nonresident
candidate’s qualifications, even if such a duty could properly
be implied.”

What is his point? There were multiple avenues open to the Secretary of State. The AL Attorney General could have been queried and if necessary a
clarification from the courts. The Secretary of state “shall provide uniform ‘guidance'” and “Only qualified candidates to be listed on ballots.” Do your job
and let others do theirs. The common sense analogy is from the business world. Managers are responsible but delegate or refer tasks to the appropriate
personnel.

Justice Bolin:

“These sections, when read together, require only that the
Secretary of State certify and include on the general-election
ballot those presidential candidates who have been nominated
by their respective parties following that party’s national
convention and who are otherwise qualified to hold the office
of President. However, nothing in the express wording of
these statutory provisions imposes upon the Secretary of State
the duty to affirmatively investigate the qualifications of a
1120465
11
presidential candidate. Consistent with this conclusion is
Op. Att’y Gen. No. 1998-00200 (August 12, 1998), which states:
“The Secretary of State does not have an
obligation to evaluate all of the qualifications of
the nominees of the political parties and
independent candidates for state offices prior to
certifying such nominees and candidates to the
probate judges pursuant to [§ 17-9-3, Ala. Code
1975]. If the Secretary of State has knowledge
gained from an official source arising from the
performance of duties prescribed by law, that a
candidate has not met a certifying qualification,
the Secretary of State should not certify the
candidate.””

Bingo!

“If the Secretary of State has knowledge gained from an official source arising from the performance of duties prescribed by law, that a candidate has not
met a certifying qualification, the Secretary of State should not certify the candidate.”

He just made my point!

Justice Bolin:

“Rather, the Secretary of State contends that the task of ensuring a candidate’s qualifications is left to the leadership of that candidate’s respective political party, a less than ideal procedure for all challengers because of its partisan nature. See generally Knight v. Gray, 420 So. 2d 247
(Ala. 1982) (holding that the Democratic Party had the authority to hear pre-primary challenges to the political or legal qualifications of its candidates).”

Here is the common thread with most states. Tradition within and without state laws wields more power than it should. State officials are used to getting
their cues from political parties. This is written into state laws. However, political parties have no particular consititutional power or responsibility.

Justice Bolin:

“Courts in other states have tended to agree that the investigation of eligibility requirements of a particular candidate is best left to the candidate’s political party. In Keyes v. Bowen, 189 Cal. App. 4th 647, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 207 (2010), the plaintiffs brought an action against California’s
Secretary of State and others, alleging that there was reasonable doubt that President Obama was a natural-born citizen, as is required to become President of the United States (U.S. Const., Art. II, § 1) and that the Secretary of State had a ministerial duty to verify that President Obama met the constitutional qualifications for office before certifying him for inclusion on the ballot. The trial court entered a judgment against the plaintiffs, concluding that the
Secretary of State was required to see that state election laws were enforced, but that the plaintiffs had failed to identify a state election law imposing a duty upon the Secretary of State to demand documentary proof of birthplace from presidential candidates. Id. The plaintiffs appealed.”

He quotes a CA ruling (speaks for itself).
2 wrongs don’t make a right.

Finally lucidity and responsibility.

Justice Bolin:

“Looking forward, I would respectfully call upon the legislature to provide legislation that imposes this duty upon the Secretary of State and to give that office the authority and tools necessary to compel the compliance by a candidate, and that candidate’s party, upon penalty of disqualification.”

“However, it should not be necessary to rely on a post-election Congressional remedy if it can be proven before the election that the candidate is not qualified. The Secretary of State should have the written mandate to determine requisite qualifications, and a disqualified candidate should have a defined path of expedited judicial review.”

“There are obvious reasons why such post-election challenges would be undesirable. As Rick Hasen has argued in Beyond the Margin of Litigation, pre-election litigation is generally preferable to post-election litigation. It is generally better to resolve disputes before an election, allowing problems to be avoided in advance rather than putting courts in the difficult position of cleaning up the mess afterwards. This is particularly true in the context of a challenge to a presidential candidate’s qualifications. In the event that a candidate is deemed ineligible, the party could still put up a substitute.
“Of course, it is up to states–and, in particular, to state legislatures–to define the rights and remedies available in cases where a presidential candidate is alleged to be ineligible. There is certainly no constitutional requirement that the state provide either a pre-election remedy
(such as denial of ballot access) or a post-election remedy (like an order invalidating election results) for such disputes. But there remains no
constitutional bar to such state-law remedies. In fact, such remedies would seem to fall squarely within what Article II contemplates in leaving it to
state legislatures to define the manner by which presidential electors are appointed.”

Alabama Supreme Court ruling.

https://acis.alabama.gov/displaydocs.cfm?no=565288&event=40Y0LG67K

122 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, democratic convention, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Eligibility, Judges, Natural born citizen, Obama, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Presidential candidate, Secretary of State, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution

Tagged , , , ,

AL Supreme Court decision McInnish V Chapman likely taken to US Supreme Court, Attorney Larry Klayman, Chief Justice Roy Moore, A few good judges, Presidential candidate eligibility state function

Posted on March 24, 2014 | 96 comments

AL Supreme Court decision McInnish V Chapman likely taken to US Supreme Court, Attorney Larry Klayman, Chief Justice Roy Moore, A few good judges, Presidential candidate eligibility state function

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

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

 

 

From WND March 23, 2014.
“That we have sadly become a nation of men and not of laws is best seen in the context of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to be president of the United States. Clearly, even if Obama were born in Hawaii and not Kenya to an anti-American, Muslim, anti-Semitic father – and his being born in the United States is doubtful given all that we know (see “Where’s the Real Birth Certificate?”) – he is not a natural born citizen – that is born to two citizen parents – as required by the U.S. Constitution.

Over the last five years, many court challenges have been filed concerning Obama’s eligibility. Indeed, I have filed three in Florida and one in Alabama. In every instance, and I am not just referencing the cases that I filed, these court challenges have been dismissed. (They are currently on appeal.) But what is more troubling than the dismissals is that the judges presiding over these cases have generally refused to even explain the reasons for their dismissals. Apparently, they are so afraid of taking on this issue that they don’t want to go on record for their actions. That is because these dismissals are not legally justified.

To challenge a black president’s qualifications is to be branded a racist. Obama and his minions know this well and have milked his race at every turn to guilt white America, including its judges, into acquiescing to his continued destructive leadership bent on turning the country into not only a socialist pro-Muslim state, but one which is second rate in the world.”

“Last Friday, one of the few great judges in this land, Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court – the jurist who was first impeached for displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom and then overwhelmingly elected by the people of the state to be their chief justice – had the courage to write a compelling dissenting opinion validating our challenge to Obama’s eligibility to be president. While seven of his nine fellow justices took the easy way out perhaps to show that Alabama is no longer the state once governed by George Wallace and rejected my ballot challenge, Chief Justice Moore without political correctness and without the disingenuous and cowardly sensitivity to Obama’s race, told it like it is. He ruled that Alabama did have a legal duty to verify that candidates for the presidency are eligible to serve as natural born citizens if elected (see decision at FreedomWatch), Moore concluded:

“Furthermore, I believe the circuit court should have granted the petition for a writ of mandamus to order the Secretary of State to investigate the qualifications of those candidates who appeared on the 2012 general-election ballot for President of the United States, a duty that existed at the time this petition was filed and the object of the relief requested. Although the removal of a President-elect or a President who has taken the oath of office is within the breast of Congress, the determination of the eligibility of the 2012 presidential candidates before casting of its electoral votes is a state function.””

Read more:

 http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/a-few-good-judges/#iHtOzMRR31fDBoKM.99

Significance of AL Supreme Court decision.

“Regardless of how this plays out, we have ensconced in writing, on the internet and available for other legal reference and quotation, a document with well
researched dissenting opinions by the AL Chief Justice Moore and Justice Parker regarding the duties and responsibilities of state election officials.
Perhaps just as important is the mention of documentation provided by the Arpaio Zullo investigation raising serious questions about Obama birth
certificates.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/significance-of-mcinnish-v-chapman-al-supreme-court-decision-us-supreme-court-ruling-justices-moore-and-parker-clarify-state-duties-serious-questions-about-obama-birth-certificates/

 

 

96 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Eligibility, Judges, Natural born citizen, Obama, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, US Constitution

Tagged , , , ,

AL Supreme Court ruling March 21, 2014, McInnish V Chapman, Ruling and dissent

Posted on March 21, 2014 | 129 comments

AL Supreme Court ruling March 21, 2014, McInnish V Chapman, Ruling and dissent

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

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

The Alabama Supreme Court has made a ruling on the Obama Eligibility case in McInnish V Chapman.

From initial reading there is a non affirmative ruling with significant dissent.

From Chief Justice Roy Moore’s dissenting conclusion.

“Although the plaintiffs’ request for relief is moot as to
the legality, conduct, and results of the 2012 election, under
the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to
mootness, the circuit court, in my view, should have granted
the petition for a writ of mandamus to the extent of ordering
the Secretary of State to implement the natural-born-citizen
requirement of the presidential-qualifications clause in
future elections.

Furthermore, I believe the circuit court should have
granted the petition for a writ of mandamus to order the
Secretary of State to investigate the qualifications of those
candidates who appeared on the 2012 general-election ballot
for President of the United States, a duty that existed at the
time this petition was filed and the object of the relief
requested. Although the removal of a President-elect or a
President who has taken the oath of office is within the
breast of Congress, the determination of the eligibility of
the 2012 presidential candidates before the casting of the
electoral votes is a state function.

This matter is of great constitutional significance in
regard to the highest office in our land. Should he who was
elected to the presidency be determined to be ineligible, the
remedy of impeachment is available through the United States
Congress, and the plaintiffs in this case, McInnish and Goode,
can pursue this remedy through their representatives in
Congress.

For the above-stated reasons, I dissent from this Court’s
decision to affirm the judgment of the circuit court
dismissing this action on the motion of the Secretary of
State.”

https://acis.alabama.gov/displaydocs.cfm?no=565288&event=40Y0LG67K

129 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Chief Justice, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election update, Eligibility, Judges, Natural born citizen, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution

Tagged , , ,

Vermont Supreme Court Obama eligibility, October 18, 2013, H. Brooke Paige appeal, VT justices rule case is moot, Obama already president???

Posted on October 19, 2013 | 50 comments

Vermont Supreme Court Obama eligibility, October 18, 2013, H. Brooke Paige appeal, VT justices rule case is moot, Obama already president???

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

“Barack Obama, show me the college loans.”…Citizen Wells

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to
particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that
rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must
decide on the operation of each.”

“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the
constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature;
the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the
case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all
cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention
of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the
constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising
under the constitution should be decided without examining the
instrument under which it arises?  This is too extravagant to
be maintained.”

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

I received the email from H. Brooke Paige last night.

“VT Sup Court ruled today. Interesting decision that will allow us to
proceed to SCOTUS.”

Instead of expediting this case the lower court and VT Supreme Court dragged their feet thus making their decisions after the election.

In essence, the case is moot because Obama is already president and cannot run again.

“BURGESS, J. Plaintiff H. Brooke Paige appeals a decision by the Washington Superior Court, Civil Division, granting a motion to dismiss by the State and its Secretary of State James Condos.[1]
Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in dismissing the suit on jurisdictional grounds because injury to his life, liberty, and property confers standing, as do Vermont election statutes, 17 V.S.A. §§ 2603 and 2617. Plaintiff
also asserts that the past presidential election does not render his case moot because this Court can still provide declaratory relief. We disagree, and dismiss the appeal as moot.”

“¶ 6. The central question now before this Court on appeal is whether the mootness doctrine bars review of plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff argues this case is not moot because the Court can provide relief by declaring that Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen, and asserts that a controversy continues through plaintiff’s efforts to safeguard his life, liberty and property. Plaintiff also contends that this case satisfies two exceptions to the mootness doctrine. First, plaintiff anticipates that a situation involving an ineligible presidential candidate is capable of repetition yet evades review because President Obama may run for a third term if Congress repeals the Twenty-Second Amendment, or other presidential candidates not born of two U.S. citizens are likely to run
for president in the future. Second, plaintiff asserts that he suffers negative collateral consequences as a result of Barack Obama’s presidency that impact his life, liberty, and property.

¶ 7. The case is moot. Neither exception advocated by plaintiff applies here. Accordingly, this Court need not address plaintiff’s other arguments on standing or the merits.”

“¶ 9. Recognized principles of mootness apply to the present case because it no longer involves a live controversy. Plaintiff has no legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Barack Obama’s name was on the ballot, and he is now the President of the United States. President Obama is also unable to seek re-election.
U.S. Const. amend. XXII. The issuance of an advisory opinion assessing the merits of plaintiff’s argument about the meaning of “natural born Citizen” is beyond this Court’s constitutional prerogative. See In re Keystone
Dev. Corp., 2009 VT 13, ¶ 7, 186 Vt. 523, 973 A.2d 1179 (mem.) (explaining that this Court lacks authority to render an advisory opinion).”

Vermont Supreme Court Ruling.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/177342305/Vermont-Supreme-Court-ruling-on-H-Brooke-Paige-appeal-on-Obama-eligibility

 

50 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election 2012, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, Judges, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, US Constitution, Vermont

Tagged , , , , ,

Marco Rubio on Obama birth certificate Arpaio investigation, Natural born citizen status, Rubio downplays Obama’s constitutional eligibility, Philip J. Berg constitutional crisis

Posted on June 6, 2013 | 75 comments

Marco Rubio on Obama birth certificate Arpaio investigation, Natural born citizen status, Rubio downplays Obama’s constitutional eligibility, Philip J. Berg constitutional crisis

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

“Soetoro/Obama is not ‘Constitutionally Eligible’ to be President and therefore, everything he has done, all appointments and all signings are voidable.”…Philip J. Berg

 
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

Marco Rubio, when asked about Obama’s birth certificate and the Arpaio investigation, down played the significance of the issue and changed subject, in typical politician style, to other pressing issues.

However, Philip J. Berg, in 2008 nailed it:

“if Obama is voted into the Office of the President and allowed to assume said position, in violation of Article II, Section of our Constitution as he is not a “natural born” citizen, it would be Unconstitutional.”

“any act or action that Obama executes is Unconstitutional.
This would create massive litigation and a complete disarray of our government and a Constitutional crisis.”

We have that crisis now. It will worsen.

From commenter GORDO at Citizen Wells yesterday:

“BREAKING! MARCO RUBIO STEPS INTO IT BIG TIME!…Says that if Sheriff Arpaio has evidence of Obama fraud…he needs to present it to the public!…He personally is not aware of a problem (ROTFLMAO!!!)…

UPDATE: Mike Zullo has been personally informed as to this development as of 3:30 p.m. PST”

http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2013/06/breaking-marco-rubio-steps-into-it-big.html
===============
GaryW’s comments at ORYR:

“It’s time for Zullo to march into Rubio’s office. Furthermore…this video clip needs to be disseminated far and wide and all patriot’s need to bombard Rubio with the evidence. Hold his feet to the fire! This is an opening that needs to be exploited! He said it…hold him to it!”

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/06/shock-video-senator-marco-rubio.html#IDComment656172599
—
“BTW…Zullo was informed personally 15 mins ago about this. I know this to be a fact.”

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/06/shock-video-senator-marco-rubio.html#IDComment656172816

CDR Charles Kerchner:

“Chief Investigator Mike Zullo Needs to Call and Send a Followup Confirmation Letter to Senator Marco Rubio and Offer to Publicly Brief and Present Senator Rubio with the Evidence of Obama’s ID Document Fraud”

“Watch this shocking and shameful video demonstrating the either total naivety and deviousness by Senator Rubio, or one non-natural born Citizen of the USA with presidential aspirations who is protecting Obama the non-natural born Citizen of the USA and fraud, as John McCain did in 2008, or is engaging in a bald-faced disinformation attempt, and change the subject attempt, to bamboozle the questioner and the listeners, and pretend he does not know about the extent of the absolute forged and fabricated Obama’s PDF Birth Certificate on WhiteHouse.gov, which fact has now been verified as such by a court certified document examiner:”

http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/chief-investigator-mike-zullo-needs-to-call-senator-marco-rubio-and-offer-to-brief-and-present-rubio-with-the-evidence-of-obamas-id-document-fraud/

75 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election Law, Eligibility, Florida, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, US Senate, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , ,

Florida election corruption bias incompetence, Secretary of State, Judges, Voeltz v Obama treatment obstruction of justice, Obama eligibility case ignored obfuscated and delayed

Posted on June 2, 2013 | 123 comments

Florida election corruption bias incompetence, Secretary of State, Judges, Voeltz v Obama treatment obstruction of justice, Obama eligibility case ignored obfuscated and delayed

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

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to
particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that
rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must
decide on the operation of each.”

“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the
constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature;
the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the
case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all
cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention
of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the
constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising
under the constitution should be decided without examining the
instrument under which it arises?  This is too extravagant to
be maintained.”

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

“As a general rule the law contemplates the Secretary of State is to accept qualifying instruments from anyone who swears he is eligible and pays the qualifying fees. This rule should not be construed to require the Secretary of State to place the name of a person on the ballot who is obviously not eligible and when such lack of eligibility is known to him as the state’s chief elections officer.”…Justice Boyd, STATE EX REL. SHEVIN v. STONE, FL, August 10, 1972

I was asked recently why I had not included Florida with Alabama and Vermont supreme court challenges to Obama’s eligibility.

The reasons are simple.

First, no eligibility hearing has yet been scheduled for the FL Supreme Court. Why has the Voeltz v Obama eligibility challenge not reached the FL Supreme Court, unlike AL and VT?

Some combination of corruption, bias and incompetence within the executive, judicial and perhaps even legislative bodies of the State of Florida.

Secretary of State duty.

From the Florida statutes.

“97.012 Secretary of State as chief election officer.–The Secretary of State is the chief election officer of the state, and it is his or her responsibility to:

(1) Obtain and maintain uniformity in the interpretation and implementation of the election laws.”

OATH OF OFFICE
(Art. II. § 5(b), Fla. Const.)

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of”

THE STATES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRIMARIES, GENERAL ELECTION AND EVENTS THROUGH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE.

US Constitution
Article II
Section 1

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

From page 2 of the Florida “2012 Federal Qualifying Handbook”

“PART II: PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT

Qualifications

1. Must be a natural born citizen of the United States.
2. Must be at least 35 years of age.
3. Must be a resident of the United States for 14 years.”

“Must be” is not a suggestion.

Florida Election statutes

“Title IX

102.168 Contest of election.–
“(1) Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively.

(2) Such contestant shall file a complaint, together with the fees prescribed in chapter 28, with the clerk of the circuit court within 10 days after midnight of the date the last board responsible for certifying the results officially certifies the results of the election being contested.

(3) The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the election on a submitted referendum. The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:”

“(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.”

The FL Secretary of State has a ministerial duty in the elections.

Ministerial defined.

Merriam Webster.

a : being or having the characteristics of an act or duty prescribed by law as part of the duties of an administrative office
b : relating to or being an act done after ascertaining the existence of a specified state of facts in obedience to a legal order without exercise of personal judgment or discretion.

Legal dictionary.

“Ministerial describes an act or a function that conforms to an instruction or a prescribed procedure. It connotes obedience. A ministerial act or duty is a function performed without the use of judgment by the person performing the act or duty.”

Obedience is the common denominator. To a legal order or conforming “to an instruction or a prescribed procedure.”

This includes the US Constitution and US Code.

Furthermore.

Justice Boyd in STATE EX REL. SHEVIN v. STONE from August 10, 1972 states:

“As a general rule the law contemplates the Secretary of State is to accept qualifying instruments from anyone who swears he is eligible and pays the qualifying fees. This rule should not be construed to require the Secretary of State to place the name of a person on the ballot who is obviously not eligible and when such lack of eligibility is known to him as the state’s chief elections officer. The burden of litigating the matter should be upon the one seeking to qualify.”

Response from FL elected officials and judges.

From Citizen Wells February 1, 2012.

A  challenger discovered this recently.

“Below and attached is a scanned copy of the letter I just received from the Secretary of State, AKA Florida Supervisor of Elections, in response to the Obama Ballot Challenge I filed 9 January 2012 with him and Attorney General Pam Bundi. The Constitution of the State of Florida (1838) and as amended through 2008 and by adoption of the 2012 Federal Qualifying Handbook (October 2011) the State of Florida has accepted the qualifications for President and Vice President listed therein, based solely on the Certifications of Qualifications from the Political Parties.Read carefully, looks like we have no protection from fraud by either Party. Still waiting for response from the Attorney General.

Vern H. Goding, Ret. OathKeeper.
Melbourne Village, Fl 32904″

Response from Gary Holland, Assistant General Counsel.

“After an election, section 102.168, Florida Statutes, provides that any unsuccessful candidate for the office being sought, any voter qualified to vote in the election, or any taxpayer may file an election contest in the circuit court based upon the successful candidates’s ineligibility for the office sought. Such contest must be brought within 10 days of the date the last board responsibe for certifiying the results officially ceetified the results of the election being contested.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/fl-primary-opens-door-to-obama-eligibilty-challenge-florida-statutes-allow-contest-10-day-window-circuit-court-obama-natural-born-citizen-deficiency/

Read the entire response from Assistant General Counsel Holland here:

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/sunshine-state-shenanigans

Voeltz v Obama was presented before 2 courts in FL. I will leave it to the reader to decide what combination of corruption, bias and incompetence applies to the judges.

Michael Voeltz filed a contest of election in Leon County Circuit Court on February 15, 2012.

A motion to dismiss from Obama and Secretary of State Ken Detzner was granted by Judge Terry Lewis on June 29, 2012.

The entire response from Judge Lewis will not be evaluated at this time. However, enough of the judge’s suspect reasoning will be presented to raise eyebrows.

Judge Lewis presents a flawed description of Natural Born Citizen and quotes a flawed decision in Akeny v Governor of Indiana. That is scary enough.

The next example is clearly more black and white.

Judge Lewis quotes a small portion of Cherry v Stone from August 4, 1972. This is not the better ruling to quote and not the latest.

From STATE EX REL. SHEVIN v. STONE from August 10, 1972.
“The resign law is not Secretary Stone’s to administer by such a determination, any more than the campaign spending law. His charge under the constitution and statute does not extend to the substance or correctness or enforcement of a sworn compliance with the law — with “matters in pais”, as it were. Once the candidate states his compliance, under oath, the Secretary’s ministerial determination of eligibility for the office is at an end. Any challenge to the correctness of the candidate’s statement of compliance is for appropriate judicial determination upon any challenge properly made, as here.”

Justice Boyd adds

“I agree with the majority opinion disposing of Miller and Wright.

As a general rule the law contemplates the Secretary of State is to accept qualifying instruments from anyone who swears he is eligible and pays the qualifying fees. This rule should not be construed to require the Secretary of State to place the name of a person on the ballot who is obviously not eligible and when such lack of eligibility is known to him as the state’s chief elections officer. The burden of litigating the matter should be upon the one seeking to qualify.

The Attorney General is properly bringing this action as the Attorney for the State. Few matters in a democracy can be of greater importance to the people than those relating to qualifications of candidates for public office.”

From above:

“Once the candidate states his compliance, under oath, the Secretary’s ministerial determination of eligibility for the office is at an end.”

No oath, no written compliance with the law was provided by Obama.

Plaintiff Voeltz took the case to the Second Judicial Circuit Court of Leon County.

On December 20, 2012 Judge Kevin Carroll dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Judge Carroll states that “the Electoral College met and voted on December 17, 2012.”

“this court cannot now alter the Electoral College process.”

How convenient, the state of FL dragged out this process instead of acting and expediting it.

Judge Carroll also states:

“the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County, Florida does not have jurisdiction to determine the issue of qualification for the Office of President of the United States, particularly at this date in the process.”

Judge Carroll paraphrases “Miracle on 34th Street”, that the US government recognizes Obama as president and again with the element of elapsed time as if that was prohibitive.

Judge Carroll is wrong and should be impeached!

Let’s go through some of the references to the president and candidates in general not being qualified. There are mechanisms in place for removing them from office.

At the state level, the federal government gives the states the power to control elections through the submission of the electoral count to congress.

The State election officials are not prohibited from questioning eligibility.

Even in FL, as noted above:

“Once the candidate states his compliance, under oath, the Secretary’s ministerial determination of eligibility for the office is at an end.”

From 2 southeastern states:

NORTH CAROLINA

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

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

President 

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

GEORGIA

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

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

Electoral college vote.

UNITED STATES CODE

TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT

Manner of voting

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

Congress certifies electoral count.

“If any objections to the Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and one Senator. If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law.”

After the certification, the Constitution reveals the protocol for dealing with a president or candidate who is not qualified.

AMENDMENT XX

“Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall
end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators
and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January,
of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article
had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall
then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every
year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of
January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of
the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice
President elect shall become President. If a President shall not
have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his
term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then
the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President
shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the
case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect
shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President,
or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and
such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice
President shall have qualified.”

AMENDMENT XXV

“Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or
of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become
President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice
President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall
take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of
Congress.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he
transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such
powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as
Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either
the principal officers of the executive departments or of such
other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the
President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House
of Representatives their written declaration that the President is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice
President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the
office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists,
he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the
Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of
the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by
law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their
written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide
the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if
not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after
receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not
in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to
assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the
President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his
office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as
Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers
and duties of his office.”

As you see, there are laws and procedures in place from early in the nomination process and past inauguration to remedy a president or candidate who is not eligible.

It is a damn shame that we have judges and election officials in Florida and other states who shirk their constitutional duties and make such idiotic statements.

For more information and commentary visit.

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/

123 Comments

Posted in Attorney General, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, corruption, Courts, Election 2008, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Eligibility, Florida, Lawsuits, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

Obama fraud shocks law men at Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Convention, Mike Zullo presentations June 1, 2013, Biggest fraud in US history, Moving to congressional investigation

Posted on June 1, 2013 | 150 comments

Obama fraud shocks law men at Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Convention, Mike Zullo presentations June 1, 2013, Biggest fraud in US history, Moving to congressional investigation

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

“Why does Glenn Beck continue to make uninformed attacks and insults upon Sheriff Joe Arpaio and millions of concerned Americans?”…Citizen Wells

 
“On August 22, 2008, one day after the filing of Philip Berg’s Obama eligibility lawsuit, FEC attorney David Kolker sent an email to Rebekah Harvey, assistant to Ellen Weintraub, formerly of Perkins Coie, with the message “thanks!.” The subject line stated: RE: Victory in Berg v. Obama.”…Citizen Wells 2008 FOIA request

From PP Simmons June 1, 2013.

“Law men and elected officials “SHOCKED” by new evidence Obama Birth credentials fraudulently and criminally fabricated! Biggest FRAUD in US History!”

“Carl Gallups is reporting that he just got off the telephone with Mike Zullo immediately after Mike made his public presentation at the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Convention in St. Charles, Missouri, this morning.

According to Carl, Mike Zullo reports that the overwhelming response of the lawmen and elected officials is that ofabsolute SHOCK.  He said that one official came up to him and said, “I have been purposely ignoring this matter – until NOW! I will ignore it no longer.”  Zullo reports that several constitutional officers, public officials, attorneys, elected officials, and others are now pledging full and personal support in moving this matter to a congressional investigation. Zullo says that the media blackout has kept many of these officials in the dark. He says most of them are now outraged – now that they have seen the evidence that they should have seen from the beginning. Now, Zullo is reporting, the media is being ‘side-stepped.’ “We are making inroads and contacts that we have never made before. This conference is really going to ‘pay off’ in moving things forward. Very important people are now beginning to see the amassed criminal evidence of perhaps the biggest fraud in American history.”

EVEN MORE TO COME TODAY
Remember – this movement Zullo is speaking of –  is the result of the PUBLIC presentation only.The full PRIVATE presentation for lawmen and elected-officials-only (credentials checked at the door) will be made later on this morning. In that two hour meeting, Zullo, with full authority of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, pledges to reveal all the criminal investigation material they possess in this matter. We can only imagine the reaction and outrage that will ensue once these constitution loving, patriotic officials see the pile of criminal evidence.  Mike Zullo and Carl Gallups have been promising for months that we would soon see some forward movement in this case. It is now happening.
Carl emphasized, “This Sheriffs and Peace Officers meeting was just icing on the cake. This was dropped in our laps just 5 weeks ago. We still have other VIPs and other plans being made now that are even bigger than what is happening at the Sheriffs Convention. This matter is finally going to be heard as it should have from the beginning.”
Carl continued, “Very soon, certain members of the media, the courts, and congress are going to look very silly. They have been ignoring this, sitting on it, marginalizing it, and flat-out trashing the matter for years. They will soon be seen for what they are. This matter should have been investigated by Congress years ago. It is their constitutional mandate and they ignored it – purposely. This whole thing could have been resolved one way or the other years back. The media blacked it out. But we don’t need the pundit media anymore. We are going around the MSM. We have other venues now. More and more, very important people of constitutional standing are being enlightened and coming on board. Soon, the world will know that we have been correct in this matter all along.””
Read  more:
Thanks to commenter GORDO.

150 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, College records, Election 2008, Election 2012, Election Law, Election update, Law enforcement, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

Florida courts corrupt biased incompetent?, Voeltz v Obama eligibility case, Obama not natural born citizen, AL VT Supreme Courts eligibility hearings, Election officials ignore laws duties

Posted on May 30, 2013 | 35 comments

Florida courts corrupt biased incompetent?, Voeltz v Obama eligibility case, Obama not natural born citizen, AL VT Supreme Courts eligibility hearings, Election officials ignore laws duties

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

“Why do state election officials continue to ignore the US Constitution, federal election code and their own state election statutes?”…Citizen Wells

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

I have reported on the Obama eligibility hearings in the Alabama and Vermont Supreme Courts. The reason that I have not written about an eligibility hearing in the Florida Supreme Court is because one has not been scheduled there yet.

Why?

Good question.

The answer appears to be some combination of corruption bias and incompetence.

Here are some crucial points of law and fact. More details will be forthcoming.

Let’s start at the beginning.

The states are responsible for the primaries, general election and events through the Electoral College vote.

US Constitution
Article II
Section 1

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

All state officials take an oath to uphold or defend the US Constitution.

In Florida they take the following oath.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of”

From page 2 of the Florida “2012 Federal Qualifying Handbook”

“PART II: PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT

Qualifications

1. Must be a natural born citizen of the United States.
2. Must be at least 35 years of age.
3. Must be a resident of the United States for 14 years.”

“Must be” is not a suggestion.

Florida Election statutes

“Title IX

102.168 Contest of election.–
“(1) Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively.

(2) Such contestant shall file a complaint, together with the fees prescribed in chapter 28, with the clerk of the circuit court within 10 days after midnight of the date the last board responsible for certifying the results officially certifies the results of the election being contested.

(3) The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the election on a submitted referendum. The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:”

“(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.”

AMENDMENT X

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Many of the Secretaries of State or other election officials claim to have only a “ministerial” duty in the elections.

In the recent Vermont Supreme Court hearing with appellant H. Brooke Paige, state attorney Todd Doloz stated that the VT Secretary of State has only a ministerial duty in the elections.

Ministerial defined.

Merriam Webster.

a : being or having the characteristics of an act or duty prescribed by law as part of the duties of an administrative office
b : relating to or being an act done after ascertaining the existence of a specified state of facts in obedience to a legal order without exercise of personal judgment or discretion.

Legal dictionary.

“Ministerial describes an act or a function that conforms to an instruction or a prescribed procedure. It connotes obedience. A ministerial act or duty is a function performed without the use of judgment by the person performing the act or duty.”

Obedience is the common denominator. To a legal order or conforming “to an instruction or a prescribed procedure.”

The US Constitution makes this clear.

The Secretary of State swears an oath to the Constitution.

Florida law explicitly states the requirements for the eligibility of the president.

The attorney for Vermont, in his obfuscation efforts, raised the spectre of each Secretary of State or chief election official proactively verifying the eligibility of each candidate.

No reasonable person is requesting that.

However, there is a clear distinction between that and knowingly, after being alerted of a candidate’s eligibility deficiency, taking no action, ignoring a clear mandate from the US Constitution and allowing a candidate to remain on the ballot potentially disenfranchising thousands if not millions of voters.

This is what should have taken place in FL and all of the states:

Once alerted or challenged on a potential deficiency in eligibility of a candidate, the Secretary of State or other election official should investigate.

In the case of Obama and his natural born citizen status, if there is confusion about the definition, the state attorney general should be queried and if there is still confusion, a court ruling requested.

Passing the buck is dereliction of duty.

In Florida, the situation is much worse.

Not only did the FL Secretary of State fail in their constitutional duty, subsequent court hearings have been delayed and failed in their judicial duties.

Why has the judicial system failed the citizens in Florida?

More details to come.

35 Comments

Posted in Attorney General, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election 2012, Election Law, Election update, Electors, Eligibility, Florida, Judges, Judicial misconduct, Lawyers, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Secretary of State, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, Voter fraud, white house

Tagged , , , ,

Obama eligibility challenged in 2 supreme courts, May 28, 2013, VT or AL, Most liberal or most conservative state, Obama birth certificate natural born citizen status

Posted on May 27, 2013 | 78 comments

Obama eligibility challenged in 2 supreme courts, May 28, 2013, VT or AL, Most liberal or most conservative state, Obama birth certificate natural born citizen status

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

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

 

Obama’s eligibility to be president as a natural born citizen of the US is being challenged in 2 state supreme courts.

In Vermont, perhaps the most liberal state in the US, H. Brooke Paige has challenged Obama’s natural born citizen status due to his father being Kenyan/British.

In Alabama, perhaps the most conservative state in the US, Virgil Goode and Hugh McInnish have challenged Obama’s natural born citizen status since no evidence of US birth has been presented. Mike Zullo of the Arpaio investigation has submitted a lengthy affidavit regarding the image placed on WhiteHouse.gov and other records.

We expect a fair proceeding in the AL Supreme Court. The Chief Justice, Roy Moore, is a strong proponent of adhering to the US Constitution and has spoken of the lack of evidence for Obama being eligible.

From Citizen Wells April 1, 2013.

From Attorney Larry Klayman April 2013.

“Obama eligibility appeal in Roy Moore’s court”

“Many cases challenging Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility have come and gone, but now an appeal has been filed with a state Supreme Court led by a newly elected chief justice who has expressed doubt about Obama’s qualification for office.”
 

“Now, 2012 Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode and Alabama Republican Party leader Hugh McInnish are asking the state’s highest court to force Secretary of State Beth Chapman to verify that all candidates on the state’s 2012 ballot were eligible to serve.”

“Moore is on the record questioning Obama’s eligibility.

 
In an interview with WND in 2010, he defended Lt. Col Terrence Lakin’s demand that President Obama prove his eligibility as commander in chief as a condition of obeying deployment orders.
 
Moore said he had seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a natural-born citizen and much evidence that suggests he is not.
 
Moore said Lakin “not only has a right to follow his personal convictions under the Constitution, he has a duty.”
 
“And if the authority running the efforts of the war is not a citizen in violation of the Constitution, the order is unlawful,” he said.”
 

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/obama-eligibility-appeal-filed-in-judge-roy-moores-alabama-supreme-court-attorney-larry-klayman-secretary-of-state-beth-chapman-failed-to-verify-moore-expressed-doubts-about-obama/

What may surprise you is the hearing that H. Brooke Paige received before the VT Supreme Court on April 23, 2013.

Despite the best efforts of Vermont state attorney Todd Daloz to obfuscate by distorting VT statutes and election responsibilites and Mr. Paige’s standing, some of the justices presented intelligent questions and statements.

I have had several email exchanges and a lengthy phone conversation with H. Brooke Paige. This quote says much:

“Right Now – “its wait and see” here in the Green Mountains. I have great
confidence (for reasons I cannot reveal) that this question will be
adjudicated to a favorable finality.”

Read more:

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/vermont-obama-eligibility-challenge-update-may-19-2013-h-brooke-paige-appeal-in-vt-supreme-court-awaiting-decisions-on-multiple-issues-obama-not-natural-born-citizen/

Here is a segment of exchanges between Vermont state attorney Todd Daloz and the supreme court justices.

78 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, Hawaii, Justice, Kenya, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Secretary of State, Standing, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama

Tagged , , , , ,

Vermont Obama eligibility challenge update, May 19, 2013, H. Brooke Paige appeal in VT Supreme Court, Awaiting decisions on multiple issues, Obama not natural born citizen

Posted on May 19, 2013 | 77 comments

Vermont Obama eligibility challenge update, May 19, 2013, H. Brooke Paige appeal in VT Supreme Court, Awaiting decisions on multiple issues, Obama not natural born citizen

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

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

“Vattel was quoted by US Supreme Court Justice Livingston in THE VENUS, 12 U.S. 8 CRANCH 253 253 (1814)”…Citizen Wells

On May 5, 2013 Citizen Wells reported on the Obama eligibility challenge appealed in the Vermont Supreme Court by H. Brooke Paige.

From the Burlington Free Press April 23, 2013.

“President Barack Obama may be the “de facto” president of the United States, but that doesn’t mean he was elected legally, a former Republican U.S. Senate hopeful told the Vermont Supreme Court on Tuesday.

H. Brooke Paige, appearing without a lawyer before the state’s highest court, said Obama does not meet what the framers of the U.S. Constitution meant when they decreed that a person holding the presidency must be a “natural born citizen.””

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/vermont-supreme-court-obama-eligibility-case-obama-not-natural-born-citizen-due-to-foreign-father-h-brooke-paige-vattel-law-of-nations-cited/

On May 7, 2013 Citizen Wells provided analysis of and audio from the VT Supreme Court hearing.

“Standing is a non issue in this case and they damn well know it!

In fact, at least one justice questioned this.

There are at least 3 reasons why H. Brooke Paige has standing.

1. Vermont election statutes clearly give him standing as a voter. Mr. Paige complied with the protocol.

2. Ruling from a lower court, the Superior Court.

3. The Tenth Amendment. If their argument is that the state does not have the power to challenge, then any citizen does.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/vermont-supreme-court-appeal-on-obama-natural-born-citizen-status-h-brooke-paige-standing-attorney-todd-daloz-flawed-arguments-standing-non-issue-constitution-and-duties-ignored/

On May 7, 2013 Mr. Paige placed the following comment at Citizen Wells.

Dear “Citizen WEIIs”

Thank You for your interest and support! I am well aware of the apparent shortcomings of my “oral argument”. Trust me it is difficult to be on- your “game” with the clock ticking. Oral Argument is really a misnomer as this is actually a “Q and A” affording the Justices the opportunity to seek further information after their through review of the briefs, appendixes( of documents and legal authorities) and the docket of the lower court “the printed case”. It is/was impossible to summarize the 225 years of history and source documents that support my litigation in the 15 minutes afforded each party.

I believe, based upon the Justices’ enquiry, that they had a solid grasp of the six underlying issues that arose as this case proceeded. In addition to the original issue of the candidate(s) constitutional qualification (natural born Citizen[ship]), the following procedural issues arose as the case evolved: 1 – Standing (of the plaintiff), 2 – Jurisdiction (of the Superior Court), 3 – Venue (of the Washington County Court), 4- Political Question, 5 – Mootness. All six issues were thoroughly explored and answered in the Appellants’ Principle and Reply Briefs (over 30,000 words in length – combined) prepared with the expert assistance of Mario Apuzzo, Esq..

As I expressed in my opening statement before the Court, I have proceeded “pro se” out of necessity after an exhaustive search for a qualified Vermont attorney – it was only after every competent member of the Vermont Bar had declined to accept my “engagement” because they did not believe they had the “expertise or resources” to properly prosecute
the case. Regardless of what is ( or has been) said elsewhere, Mario is the patron saint of this “pro se” litigant. Since I first contacted him last June, he has selflessly done everything I required to assist me in properly constructing and presenting my case and I truly believe we have presented evidence, history and law sufficient to allow the Vermont Justices to find favorably as to all six issues.

The Justices treated me and my action with both respect and the attention this important issue deserved . I salute them for having the insight and wisdom to accept the appeal from the lower Court and for allowing it to be presented before the full Court (as opposed to declining to hear the appeal or relegating it to the “rocket docket” !)

Sincerely,
H. Brooke Paige
Appellant/Plaintiff, pro se.”

I responded.

“Mr. Paige.
I am in no way criticizing you.
In fact I admire you for your attempts.
It is my job to ask questions and seek the truth.
If I can be of help, let me know.
Wells”

On May 16 2013, after several email exchanges, I had a lengthy phone conversation with Mr. Paige. It was clear from the onset that he has a solid command of facts regarding the history and laws defining Natural Born Citizen.

Mr. Paige, for example was aware of the Venus Cranch case of 1814 in which Justice Livingstone quoted the  entire 212nd paragraph of Vattel and stated:

“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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…”

This contradicts the Vermont state attorney who attempted to marginalize Vattel’s description of natural born citizen and portray it as antiquated.

From the emails and the phone conversation, Mr Paige stated that he was awaiting decisions from the VT Supreme Court.

“The Vermont Supreme Court is still contemplating their decision on the
issues = there are six: 1. Standing (of the Plaintiff/Appellant) 2.
Jurisdiction (of the VT Superior Court) 3. Venue (of the Washington County
Superior Court in Statewide and national elections) 4. Political Question,
5. Mootness AND 6. the definition of the Constitutional Presidential
Qualification idiom “natural born Citizen”.”
“If I am successful, in all probability the results (especially “nbC” will
be appealed by the Vermont Attorney General or, more probably, another
state seeking to have the issues resolved by SCOTUS = as the incongruity
of the qualification among the states would be considered untenable.

Right Now – “its wait and see” here in the Green Mountains. I have great
confidence (for reasons I cannot reveal) that this question will be
adjudicated to a favorable finality.

If the Court finds against me on the “nbC” issue alone I will appeal to
SCOTUS. If I fail in the other issues, it will be necessity to proceed to
Federal Court first to resolve “due process” violation issues. (I am sure
that you are aware that the “nbC” issue can only be advanced from the
Vermont Court directly to SCOTUS – as Federal Courts are prohibited from
hearing the qualification issue as their involvement would violate the
Constitutional precept of separation of powers).”

“it is important to understand that issues 1-5 have never been
litigated since they were inserted in Vermont Title 17 (the Election Code)
as to a statewide or national election, therefore aside from the “nbC”
issue that is your primary concern – all elements are important to those
following my action within the political, legislative and judicial spheres
here in Vermont.”

Here is link to an excellent article from George Miller presented at Obama Ballot Challenge on May 15, 2013. It contains much of the same dialogue that I had with Mr.Paige as well as many legal documents.

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/newsboy-challenges-illegal-white-house-usurper-obama-via-vermont-supreme-court

77 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Secretary of State, Standing, The Case Against Barack Obama

Tagged , , , , ,