Category Archives: Secretary of State

GA Secretary of State warns Obama, Brian P. Kemp cautions Obama attorney Michael Jablonski, Georgia ballot challenges, Natural born citizen deficiency

Posted on January 26, 2012 | 190 comments

GA Secretary of State warns Obama, Brian P. Kemp cautions Obama attorney Michael Jablonski, Georgia ballot challenges, Natural born citizen deficiency

“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 did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

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

The following letter was sent from Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp to Obama’s attorney Michael Jablonski:

The Office of Secretary of State

January 25, 2012

VIA REGULAR MAIL & EMAIL

Michael Jablonski
260 Brighton Road, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
michael.jablonski@comcast.com

RE: Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Hearings

Dear Mr. Jablonski:

I received your letter expressing your concerns with the manner in which the Office of State Administrative Hearings (“OSAH”) has handled the candidate challenges involving your client and advising me that you and your client will “suspend” participation in the administrative proceeding. While I regret that you do not feel that the proceedings are appropriate, my referral of this matter to an administrative law judge at OSAH was in keeping with Georgia law, and specifically O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5.

As you are aware, OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.17 cited in your letter only applies to parties to a hearing. As the referring agency, the Secretary of State’s Office is not a party to the candidate challenge hearings scheduled for tomorrow. To the extent a request to withdraw the case referral is procedurally available, I
do not believe such a request would be judicious given the hearing is set for tomorrow morning.

In following the procedures set forth in the Georgia Election Code, I expect the administrative law judge to report his findings to me after his full consideration of the evidence and law. Upon receipt of the report, I will fully and fairly review the entire record and initial decision of the administrative law judge.
Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.

I certainly appreciate you contacting me about your concerns, and thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Brian P. Kemp

cc: Hon. Michael Malihi (c/o Kim Beal – kbeal@osah.ga.gov)
Van Irion, Esq. (van@libertylegalfoundation.org)
Orly Taitz, Esq. (orly.taitz@gmail.com)
Mark Hatfield, Esq. (mhatfield@wayxcable.com)
Stefan Ritter, Esq. (sritter@law.ga.gov)
Ann Brumbaugh, Esq. (abrumbaugh@law.ga.gov)

190 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Courts, Election, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Secretary of State, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , ,

Obama motion to dismiss Georgia ballot challenge denied, David Farrar et al vs Barack Obama, Judge Michael M. Malihi

Posted on January 3, 2012 | 71 comments

Obama motion to dismiss Georgia ballot challenge denied, David Farrar et al vs Barack Obama, Judge Michael M. Malihi

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

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


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

The Obama motion to dismiss the Georgia ballot challenge has been denied.

First some background.

From Citizen Wells December 20, 2011.

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

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

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

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

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/david-farrar-v-barack-obama-georgia-ballot-obama-not-natural-born-citizen-obama-attorney-michael-jablonski-motion-ga-election-laws/

From Orly Taitz January 3, 2012.

Order to deny Obama motion:

“ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

On December 15, 2011, Defendant, President Barack Obama, moved for dismissal of Plaintiffs’ challenge to his qualifications for office. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this contested case pursuant to Chapter 13 of Title 50, the “Georgia Administrative Procedure Act.”

For the reasons indicated below, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

I. Discussion
1.

The Georgia Election Code (the “Code”) mandates that “[e]very 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.” O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(a).

2.

Both the Secretary of State and the electors of Georgia are granted the authority under the Code to challenge the qualifications of a candidate. The challenge procedures are defined in Code Section 21-2-5(b), which authorizes any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate to challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).

3.

The Georgia law governing presidential preference primaries mandates that “[o]n a date set by the Secretary of State . . . the state executive committee of each party which is to conduct a presidential preference primary shall submit to the Secretary of State a list of the names of the candidates of such party to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot.” O.C.G.A. § 21-
2-193. On October 6, 2011, Secretary Kemp issued a notice to the chairman of each political party to notify them that the deadline for submitting the list of candidate names for the 2012 presidential preference primary was November 15, 2011. On November 1, 2011, the Executive Committee of the Democratic Party submitted President Barack Obama’s name as the sole candidate for the Democratic Party. To be timely, complaints challenging a presidential
candidate’s qualifications in the presidential preference primary had to be filed no later than November 29, 2011. Plaintiffs, as electors eligible to vote for Defendant, timely filed challenges with the Secretary of State before the deadline of November 29, 2011.

4.

In the instant motion, Defendant contends that Georgia law does not give Plaintiffs authority to challenge a political party’s nominee for president in a presidential preference primary because Code Section 21-2-5 does not apply to the presidential preference primary.

5.

Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this Court finds that the cases cited by Defendant are not controlling. When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the “first step . . . is to examine the plain statutory language.” Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008). “Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden. In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.” Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other “natural and reasonable construction” of the statutory language, this Court is “not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.”
Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) (quotation marks omitted).

6.

Code Section 21-2-5(a) states that “every candidate for federal and state office” must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this Court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary. O.C.G.A. 21-2-5(a) (emphasis added). Although the word “candidate” is not explicitly defined in the Code, Section 21-2-193 states that the political party for the presidential preference primary “shall submit to the Secretary of State a list of the names of the candidates of such party to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot.” O.C.G.A. 21-2-193 (emphasis added). Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office.

7.

Code Sections 21-2-190 to 21-2-200 set out the procedures of the presidential preference primary and also provide no exception to the Section 21-2-5 qualification requirement. This Court finds no basis under Georgia law why the qualification requirements in Section 21-2-5 would not apply to a candidate for the office of the president in the presidential preference primary.

8.

Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.

II. Decision

Based on the foregoing, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 3 rd day of January, 2012.
MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge”

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Farrar-Motion-to-dismiss-by-Obama-is-denied.pdf

Thanks to commenter Pat 1789.

71 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Dr. Orly Taitz, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electors, Eligibility, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Secretary of State, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, voters, Washington DC

Tagged , ,

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

Posted on December 20, 2011 | 67 comments

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

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

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


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

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

Some information on Attorney Michael Jablonski.

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

Read more:

http://taarradhin.net/

Looks like Obama has picked the right attorney.

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

Two segments from Mr. Jablonski’s motion.

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

My response.

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

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

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

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

From the Georgia Election Statutes.

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193  (2011)

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

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-200  (2011)

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

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

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5  (2011)

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

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

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

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

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-191  (2011)

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

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-521  (2011)

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

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-522  (2011)

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Farrar filing:

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

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

67 Comments

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

Tagged , , , ,

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

Posted on June 22, 2011 | 60 comments

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

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

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

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

 From Citizen Wells Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

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

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

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

Read more

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

From Citizen Wells November 17, 2008.

NC State Officers and Election

Officials are in Violation of the Law
             2008 Presidential Election

Eligibility for presidency

US Constitution
Article II
Section 1

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

How President is elected

UNITED STATES ELECTION LAW

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

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

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

US Constitution
Article II
Section 1

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

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

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

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

Secretary Elaine Marshall is responsible for the NC Election process.

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

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

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

Laws that apply to NC State Officials

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

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

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

Article VI of the US Constitution states:

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

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

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

President 

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

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

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

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

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

The following facts and conclusions are self evident:

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

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

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

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

What is the alternative?

The answer is in the Declaration of Independence.

Read more

60 Comments

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

Tagged , , , ,

Said Musa Christian convert to be executed, Former Afghan Muslim, Apostasy punishment not of God

Posted on February 22, 2011 | 67 comments

Said Musa Christian convert to be executed, Former Afghan Muslim, Apostasy punishment not of God

No philosophy or religion that fosters and perpetuates debate about executing people for accepting another religion, is of God.

The following has been much under reported and thus I was compelled to present it.

From the National Review February 18, 2011.

 “America Quiet on the Execution of Afghan Christian Said Musa”

“A terrible drama is unfolding in Afghanistan: There are reports that Said Musa, whose situation I described at Christmas, will soon be executed for the ‘crime’ of choosing to become a Christian.

Musa was one of about 25 Christians arrested on May 31, 2010, after a May 27 Noorin TV program showed video of a worship service held by indigenous Afghan Christians; he was arrested as he attempted to seek asylum at the German embassy. He converted to Christianity eight years ago, is the father of six young children, had a leg amputated after he stepped on a landmine while serving in the Afghan Army, and now has a prosthetic leg. His oldest child is eight and one is disabled (she cannot speak). He worked for the Red Cross/Red Crescent as an adviser to other amputees.

He was forced to appear before a judge without any legal counsel and without knowledge of the charges against him. “Nobody [wanted to be my] defender before the court. When I said ‘I am a Christian man,’ he [a potential lawyer] immediately spat on me and abused me and mocked me. . . . I am alone between 400 [people with] terrible values in the jail, like a sheep.” He has been beaten, mocked, and subjected to sleep deprivation and sexual abuse while in prison. No Afghan lawyer will defend him and authorities denied him access to a foreign lawyer.”
“Newspapers in the U.K. and elsewhere in Europe have reported the story, but with, the exception of the Wall Street Journal and, of course, NRO, American outlets have not found it worthy of attention. The Journal reports that “Afghan officials have been unapologetic: ‘The sentence for a convert is death and there is no exception,’ said Jamal Khan, chief of staff at the Ministry of Justice. ‘They must be sentenced to death to serve as a lesson for others.’”

The U.S. government — reportedly including Secretary of State Clinton — and other governments have pushed for his release, but to no avail.

But the president has been silent, even as we fight a war that has among its goals the creation of a government that conforms to international human-rights standards.”

Read more:

 
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/260050/america-quiet-execution-afghan-christian-said-musa-paul-marshall

“The question you have raised about the punishment of apostasy in Islam, like any other question related to Islam, needs to be answered in the light of the Qur`an and the authentic ahadith. I repeat this well-known principle here because many Muslims, even scholars are often influenced by some extraneous considerations in arriving at their Islamic opinions. Thus some reject the death penalty for apostasy out of a desire to “improve” the image of Islam among non-Muslims. Others, on the other hand, insist on that penalty out of a concern that rejection of the penalty will encourage apostasy. There are also some who are influenced by a tendency to stick to traditional views no matter what. At some point the death penalty for apostasy was widely accepted among Muslims and many of us feel that what our earlier generations accepted must be correct and must be accepted by us also. Since such extraneous influences can mislead us, let us first try to free our minds from them.”

http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Apostasy1.htm

I rest my case.

67 Comments

Posted in Afghanistan, Arabs, Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Islam, Lies, Muslims, News, Secretary of State, Sharia law, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , ,

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

Posted on January 30, 2011 | 194 comments

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

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

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

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

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

From Citizen Wells December 17, 2008.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alabama

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

Alaska

“by authority of law vested in us”

Arizona

“by authority of law in us vested”

Arkansas

“as provided by law”

California

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

Connecticut

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

Hawaii

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

Idaho

“having met agreeably to the provisions of law”

Illinois

“as provided by law”

Indiana

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

Iowa

“in accordance with law”

Kansas

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

Kentucky

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

UNITED STATES CODE

TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT

Manner of voting

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

US Constitution

Article. II.

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

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

Montana

“agreeable to the provisions of law”

Nevada

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

New Jersey

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

North Carolina

“by authority of law in us vested”

Pennsylvania

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

Rhode Island

“in pursuance of law”

South Carolina

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

Tennessee

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

Utah

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

Virginia

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

Washington

“pursuant to the provisions of federal and state law”

Conclusion

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

Constitution 101 classes will begin soon.

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

194 Comments

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

Tagged , , ,

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

Posted on January 27, 2011 | 150 comments

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

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

From the Twelfth Amendment to the US Constitution.

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

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

From Citizen Wells October 30, 2008.

Legal Notice

To:

The State of North Carolina

The Governor of North Carolina

The Attorney General of North Carolina

The Secretary of State of North Carolina

The NC Board of Elections

The Electoral College Electors of North Carolina

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elections and Election Laws.

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

Position

President 

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

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

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

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

Attachments:
Email sent to NC Board of Elections:

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

I am a NC voter.

Citizen Wells
Email sent to NC Secretary of State:

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

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

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

Benjamin Franklin

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

Thomas Jefferson

“The ballot is stronger than the bullet.”

Abraham Lincoln

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

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

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

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

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

UNITED STATES ELECTION LAW

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

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

Pennsylvania Law

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

NC Law

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

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

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

President

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

150 Comments

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

Tagged , , , ,

Arizona, Hillary Clinton, Blagojevich trial, Usurper in White House, National Park closed, Citizen Wells open thread, June 18, 2010

Posted on June 18, 2010 | 39 comments

Well, they certainly have the diversions and chaos that they desired.

A snippet from the Blagojevich trial yesterday.

“In 2008, Ata’s testimony helped prosecutors secure the conviction of Blagojevich insider Antoin “Tony” Rezko. On Thursday, Ata covered much of the same ground.

He again told of a plot to get U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald fired, and of how Blagojevich discussed a state post with him while an envelope containing a $25,000 check Ata had written sat before the governor.

But his testimony was overshadowed by clashes between Adam and Zagel.

At one point, Adam was almost shouting at Ata over the connection he had drawn between his donations to Blagojevich and his position with the Illinois Finance Authority.

“It was not a job for money,” Adam exclaimed.

Zagel cut Adam off. “It’s a nice argument and feel free to make it in closing arguments,” Zagel said. “But it’s not a question.”

Lawyers often try to send messages to jurors with questions they know the witness will never be allowed to answer, and Adam plowed forward. He argued with Ata over details of a different state post that he thought he had landed, but did not. Ata insisted he had technically been given the job in exchange for campaign checks, and that the governor knew it.

“Did you have an office?” Adam asked after multiple objections. When the judge sustained yet another government objection, Adam had a look of astonishment.

“I know you look shocked, but the truth is I don’t think you are shocked,” Zagel said, making clear to everyone in the courtroom that he was aware of the gamesmanship unfolding in front of him.

One line of questioning by Adam led Zagel to send the jury out of the room. Ata, an emigrant from Jordan who worked at a chemical firm for 25 years, said he believed he was forced into early retirement after the FBI visited him at his workplace while investigating one of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers, Mohamed Atta.

Adam said he wasn’t trying to get too close to a sensitive topic. “Yes, you are; don’t do it,” Zagel said sternly before clearing the jury box and delivering another lecture.”

Read more:

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/judge-defense-attorney-clash-at-blagojevich-trial.html

Speaking of Arizona, I side with the state of AZ and would be willing to travel there and stand side by side with them in whatever means is necessary to repel the intrusion of the Federal Government.

Once again the government is protecting criminals and going after decent citizens. Enough is enough.

39 Comments

Posted in America, Americans, Announcements, Arizona, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Blagojevich, Blagojevich Impeachment, Blagojevich trial, Chicago machine, Citizen, Citizen Journalism, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, corruption, Courts, Crime, DC, Economy, Election 2010, FBI, Founding Fathers, Government, Illinois, impeachment, indictment, Judges, Law firms, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama administration, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Obama thugs, Patrick Fitzgerald, Pay to play politics, politicians, Politics, Secretary of State, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, US Department of Justice, US District Court, Usurper, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Citizen Wells discussions, May 26, 2010, Open Thread, Yes Virginia there is a sanity clause

Posted on May 26, 2010 | 37 comments

Citizen Wells discussions, May 26, 2010, Open Thread.

Yes Virginia there is a sanity clause

US Constitution

Article II

Section 1

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Tenth Amendment
“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.”
Constitution of Virginia
Section 7. Oath or affirmation.

“All officers elected or appointed under or pursuant to this Constitution shall, before they enter on the performance of their public duties, severally take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent upon me as ……………….., according to the best of my ability (so help me God).””
Commonwealth of Virginia website
“”A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the good people of Virginia in the exercise of their sovereign powers, which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.”
The Constitution of Virginia opens Article I, Bill of Rights, with this important statement. It goes on to define the basis of the state’s government: equality and the rights of the citizens, people as the source of power, government instituted for the common benefit, separation of the three branches of government, freedom of speech, due process of law, and more.

State governments have specific powers reserved to them, apart from those of the Federal government. Virginia can establish its own local governments, issue licenses, regulate commerce within its borders, conduct elections and ratify U.S. Constitution amendments.

Virginia is bound by its Constitution to provide for the health and safety of its citizens and uphold every citizen’s right to the enjoyment of life and liberty.

The people of Virginia uphold the state constitution through the work of state and local agencies and courts of law, by providing services to citizens. Citizens in turn contribute to their communities, open and maintain businesses, take part in their government through their participation and through their votes.”

We have a Sanity Clause and here is a Sanity Check:

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”

https://citizenwells.com/2010/05/25/yes-virginia-there-is-a-sanity-clause-presidential-eligibility-oath-of-office-powers-reserved-for-states-and-people-bill-mims-attorney-general-commonwealth-of-virginia-nancy-pelosi-election-fra/

Citizen Wells interview at The Post & Email

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/25/congratulations-to-citizen-wells-for-the-highest-engaged-wordpress-blog/

Mainstream media lies, Far left lies, Congressmen lies, Truth must be spread

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/mainstream-media-lies-far-left-lies-congressmen-lies-truth-must-be-spread-throughout-the-land-iraq-obama-eligibility-blagojevich-trial/

37 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen Journalism, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Government, indictment, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama administration, Obama indictment, Secretary of State, Sullivan v. NC Secretary of State, US Constitution, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

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

Posted on February 11, 2010 | 315 comments

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

315 Comments

Posted in amended complaint, America, Americans, Announcements, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Bill of Rights, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizen, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Civil rights, COLB, Commander in Chief, Congress, constitution, Constitution Hall of Shame, Court of Appeals, Courts, DC, District Court, Donald Sullivan, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, First Amendment, fraud, Government, indictment, Iraq War, Judges, Kenya, Lawyers, Lt Col Donald Sullivan, Military officers, Motion, Natural born citizen, NC, NC voters, News, North Carolina, Obama, Obama administration, Obama indictment, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, politicians, Politics, Presidential candidate, Secretary of State, Senator Obama, Standing, Sullivan v. NC Secretary of State, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, US Military, US Soldier, Usurper, Veterans, voters, War, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , , , ,