Category Archives: Secretary of State

Federal Grand Jury petition filed, Breaking news, August 20, 2009, Chalice radio, Attorney Stephen Pidgeon, US District Court in Washington DC

Just in from Chalice:

“August 20, 2009

Written by Chalice

Patriot’s Heart Network (PHNMedia.com), in the name of our members and represented by Attorney Stephen Pidgeon, along with Carl Swensson (RiseUpForAmerica.com) Robert Debeaux, Robert Pinkstaff, and Dr. Penny Kelso have successfully filed a petition in the US District Court in Washington, D.C. requesting a Federal Grand Jury be assembled to look into high crimes against the United States of America and against our 1st amendment rights. Defendants on the Petition are Barry Soetoro, (aka Barack Obama) Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and the Media. These crimes include Conspiracy, False Personation, Intimidation of Voters, Fraud and False Statements, Fraud and related activity, Treason and Misprision of Treason. The motion for relief seeks the appointment of a Federal Grand Jury by the Chief Judge of the DC Court, Royce Lamberth.

This issue about Natural Born Citizenship status and the eligibility to be President is NOT a fringe issue. It is not mere fodder of the misdirected gullible tin hatter clubbers. The mocks of those who attempt to minimize and/or toss away sincere American voices as those who just have ‘no clue.’ Qualification to serve as President is a SERIOUS Constitutional issue and it is time that “We The People” get the answers in which We are entitled. We have been ignored, mocked, and laughed at by many. We remain undeterred in our determination to move forward.

For the past several months, we have alerted the various branches of government to our grave concern about the eligibility of this President to hold this position of power. Two weeks ago, we served Congress with testimony of the grave concerns of 1.2 million voices. In return, we received signed receipts and/ or photographic evidence that We the People have served Congress notice of these Constitutional issues! (Information about the trip is available HERE) Through joint efforts with Rise Up For America, we provide information on how citizens across the country can follow-up with their elected Congressional officials.  Attorney Generals have been duly informed as well. One action, PHNMedia encourages all to take is to ask their Senators and Representatives to Define Natural Born Citizen. We did so in DC and found neither Senator interviewed knew the meaning, but they voted to confirm the Electoral College!  The video or audio evidence of these interviews will be valuable as part of this case.

Yesterday, another step in our journey for the truth has been taken.

The Petition filed yesterday will go before Chief Judge Royce Lamberth (Bio Here ) This Petition calls for the convening of a Federal Grand Jury. Read the full Petition HERE. The allegations of Treason, Fraud, and Misprision are not to be taken lightly! Our complaint calls out Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Obama, Pelosi, Dean AND IMPORTANTLY the media! However, make no mistake, once a Grand Jury is convened, others may be identified for their complicity in this cover-up. High crimes against our Republic are taking place while those responsible to act and report on such matters remain deafening in their silence. It is crime punishable by terms from 3 to 20 years in jail for falsifying birth documents. This is more serious when it is in pursuit of a Federal job. We the People have not seen the proof Obama is eligible to be President. This Petition before the District Court lays out with solid evidence and reasoning, the fact that our First Amendment Rights were abridged by the crimes of the defendants on the petition.

We, the plaintiffs in this case encourage all of you to read the 181 page Petition. There are other action points we offer for your consideration. Please visit www.phnmedia.com to be kept abreast of these. Join www.phnmedia.net to become part of the Plaintiff voices from Patriots Heart Network.

It’s simple, really. We the People, DEMAND from the Media to accurately “Define Natural Born Citizen.” We DEMAND from all branches of our government PROOF that the person in the White House is NOT a Usurper. We demand proof of his eligibility. If eligibility is not established, then our nation and all of the laws return to January 19, 2009. Every action that a Usurper takes are nullified when lack of eligibly to serve is established. It is the US District Court where such matters are heard. It is in this court where We the People demand Redress through the appointment of a Federal Grand Jury.

We cannot do this alone. We DEFINITELY need your help! Join us today!”

Read more:

 http://www.phnmedia.com/petition-fed-gj/

Orly Taitz, KY officials, Esquire article, August 11, 2009, Obama not eligible, Oath of office, US Constitution, YouTube video, KY Attorney General, Kentucky Secretary of State

Whether it’s Orly Taitz, Phil Berg, Leo Donofrio, Mario Apuzzo or any American citizen, we deserve the protection of the US Constitution and Government officials that recognize their duty under the law. I am fed up with government officials and the MSM disregarding the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land and belittling law abiding US Citizens.
From an Esquire article dated August 11, 2009:

“What Really Happens When You Demand the President Produce His Birth Certificate?
Buzz up!You get a bunch of outrageous people — very nice people, mind you, but frustrated enough to believe anything about Obama — storming the offices of the attorney general, the secretary of state, and the FBI. At the center of it all was Esquire.com’s political columnist, bearing witness to the “birthers” for the conclusion of a two-part series.”

“Then there’s Orly Taitz, queen of the “birthers,” who brings outrageous thinking to a whole new level. This was her at the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot in Kentucky, which I touched on here last week, well before the town-hall tirades took over the airwaves. This was her four months ago, shouting over the gunfire in a thin, shrill voice:

“I am extremely concerned about Obama specifically because I was born in Soviet Union, so I can tell that he is extremely dangerous. I believe he is the most dangerous thing one can imagine, in that he represents radical communism and radical Islam: He was born and raised in radical Islam, all of his associations are with radical Islam, and he was groomed in the environment of the dirty Chicago mafia. Can there be anything scarier than that?”

At the “birther” booth, Taitz greeted her fans.”

“I made a date to accompany Taitz and a group of “birthers” on a trip the next day to the state capital, where they were going to meet the attorney general and demand an investigation into Obama’s birth certificate. A few minutes later, the man standing in the booth and passing out flyers — Carl Swennson, a computer store owner from Georgia — addressed the gathering crowd. “All right, everybody! If you are from Kentucky and you would like to be a part of a common-law jury to try and indict the usurper, Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama, all you need to do is step forward and we will hold court here today, right now!””

“We set off in a flotilla of cars. When we got to the state office complex an hour later, it took less than ten minutes for us to get badges and pass through security. A man named George Wilding, the manager of Kentucky’s Public Corruption Unit, led us to a conference room. A few minutes later, we were joined by Bob Foster, Kentucky’s Commissioner of Criminal Investigations.

Then Taitz began to talk, and she did not stop for 15 solid minutes: Obama forged this and his campaign forged that and these are his false addresses and here’s something very strange that Justice Scalia told her at a book signing and here are the 500,000 signatures collected by WorldNetDaily magazine demanding an investigation…

Finally Wilding held up a hand. “Let me just stop you right there. What applies to Kentucky?”

One of the citizens starts showing him documents. “This is clearly his school record that shows that he was a citizen of Indonesia…”

“I don’t understand what that has to do with the Kentucky attorney general’s office,” Wilding repeated.

“He was on the ballot here in Kentucky,” Taitz said.

“That was a federal election. There are federal-election laws. The FBI investigates those. So I believe that your best venue and jurisdiction lies with the U.S. district court and the FBI.”

That’s when Taitz lost it. “I can see that you are hell-bent on doing absolutely nothing,” she said, eyes flaring. “You want to pass the buck.”

“No ma’am. I’m trying to follow the law.”

“I’m going to the FBI and not only reporting Obama, I’m going to report you for refusing to investigate crimes. You have a duty to investigate those crimes! Why are people paying salary for this whole office of attorney general of Kentucky?

To do nothing?”

“I think we’re finished,” Foster said.”

“But Taitz wasn’t finished. She marched her troops straight over to the secretary of state’s office and did the exact same presentation all over again. Then she headed to the FBI to do it a third time. And the whole time, she never stopped talking:”
“But like I said — and this is important to emphasize — all of Taitz’s followers seemed like very nice people. Even Taitz had her good side on the rare occasions when she stopped talking for long enough that it could come out. I saw it when she talked about her three sons, or joked about how glad her husband was to get her out of the house. But there was fear and sadness in all of the “birthers,” and a sense that things were surely coming to an end. And they were willing to believe anything bad that anybody said about Obama, no matter how or implausible or unfair.

It was pus exploding from a wound.”

Esquire article:

http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/obama-birth-certificate-update-081109 

After I read the article and discerned the attitude of the KY officials, I had had it from the jackasses. So I decided to review KY law and I quickly put up a YouTube video. The attitudes of elected officials and judges in this country  increasingly sickens me.

The US Constitution rules.

Kentucky oath of office administered to Secretary of State:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of Secretary of State according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.”

Quote from jackass above:

“No ma’am. I’m trying to follow the law.”

From the Kentucky Statutes:

“118.176 Challenging good faith of candidate.
(1) A “bona fide” candidate means one who is seeking nomination in a primary or election in a general election according to law.”

“(2) The bona fides of any candidate seeking nomination or election in a primary or general election may be questioned by any qualified voter entitled to vote for such candidate or by an opposing candidate by summary proceedings consisting of a motion before the Circuit Court of the judicial circuit in which the candidate whose bona fides is questioned resides.”

“118.195 Inspection of nomination papers.
All nomination papers filed under KRS 118.165 and 118.365 shall at all times be subject to inspection by any person.”

“118.305 Persons entitled to have name on ballot — Certification of names of candidates — Eligibility of candidates defeated in primary — Notification of vacancy in elective office.

(6) The names of candidates for President and Vice President shall be certified in lieu of certifying the names of the candidates for presidential electors.”

118.325 Nomination by parties by convention or primary election.

(2) The certificate of nomination by such a convention or primary election shall be in writing, shall contain the name of each person nominated, his residence and the office to which he is nominated, and shall designate a title for the party or principle that such convention or primary election represents, together with any simple figure or device by which its list of candidates may be designated on the voting machines. The certificate shall be signed by the presiding officer and secretary of the convention, or by the chairman and secretary of the county, city, or district committee, who shall add to their signatures their respective places of residence, and acknowledge the same before an officer duly authorized to administer oaths. A certificate of the acknowledgment shall be appended to the certificate of nomination. In the case of electors of President and Vice President of the United States the certificate of nomination shall state the names of the candidates of the party for President and Vice President.”

Here is a really interesting paragraph:
“118.581 Nomination of candidates by State Board of Elections.
The State Board of Elections shall convene in Frankfort on the second Tuesday in January preceding a presidential preference primary. At the meeting required by this section, the board shall nominate as presidential preference primary candidates all those candidates of the political parties for the office of President of the United States who have qualified for matching federal campaign funds. Immediately upon completion of this requirement, the board shall transmit a list of all the nominees selected to the Secretary of State and shall also release the list to the news media.
Effective: July 14, 1992″

118.591 Nomination of candidate by petition — Qualification of candidate through filing of notice of candidacy.

(5) In lieu of the petition requirements of subsections (1) to (4) of this section, a candidate may qualify to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot of his political party by filing with the Secretary of State, no later than the last Tuesday in January preceding a presidential preference primary, a notice of candidacy signed by the candidate and either of the following:

(b) Evidence that, by the filing deadline, the candidate’s name is qualified to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot of his political party in at least twenty (20) other states.”

“118.995 Penalties.
(1) Any person who violates any of the provisions of KRS 118.136 shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(2) If the Secretary of State violates any of the provisions of subsection (4) of KRS 118.215, he shall be guilty of a Class D felony.
(3) Any person who violates subsection (5) of KRS 118.176 shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(4) If any county clerk violates any of the provisions of subsection (5) of KRS 118.305, he shall be guilty of a Class D felony.
Effective: July 13, 1990”

“119.285 Irregularity or defect in conduct of election no defense.
Irregularities or defects in the mode of convening or conducting an election shall constitute no defense to a prosecution for a violation of the election laws.”

Correct me if I am wrong, but there may be some grey area in KY law regarding presidential elections.

However, the US Constitution rules

Orly Taitz, Update, April 13, 2009, Dr. Taitz new website, Defend our Freedoms, San Antonio TX tea party, FBI, Citizens Grand Jury

I just got off the phone with Dr. Orly Taitz. We spoke for a while about her website and the recent controversy. Dr. Taitz has a new website for Defend Our Freedoms.

http://repubx.com/

Orly stated that Defend our Freedoms is her foundation and that she has been blocked from accessing her data on the previous website. She is still committed to the cause of exposing the truth about Barack Obama.

We also spoke about the US Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Roberts and law clerk Danny Bickell. She and I are both concerned that Bickell is still employed at the Supreme Court after all of the shady dealings that she and other attorneys experienced from Danny Bickell.

Dr. Orly Taitz will attend the San Antonio, TX tea party and stated she will be willing to stay an extra day if enough citizens are willing to meet with the local FBI office and initiate a Citizens Grand Jury. She also stated that her expenses are very high. Every time that she travels she spends at least a thousand dollars. She is providing her services pro bono, so it is not asking too much for people to donate to the cause to help with expenses.

Dr. Orly Taitz new site:

http://repubx.com/

God bless Orly Taitz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DS
3-29-09″

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

Lyle J. Rapacki, PHD, FBI InfraGard, March 16, 2009, White Paper Discussion, Dr. Orly Taitz, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, Barack Obama not eligible, US Attorney General, US Army Officer, constitutional crisis, civil unrest

From Dr. Orly Taitz:

“NOTE from Defend Our Freedoms Foundation Staff.

The below report states: “if Mr Obama fights unsealing his documentation…there will be civil unrest unleashed on the streets”

InfraGrad has a Public Private Partnership with the FBI.  The PPP programs has been leveraged heavily from local to

international levels to render entities back into Panopolies. The term panopoly was coined by Joseph Borkin, chief

economic advisor of the Anti-trust Division of the Department of Justice circa 1943, during his investigations of

I.G. Farben because the aggregation of businesses were much larger than a monopoly or cartel.

 

 

LYLE J. RAPACKI, Ph.D.

Consultant at Behavioral Analysis and Threat Assessment

Vice President of Protective Services

_______

 

Diplomate:                                                                                                                        Reply:

American Academy of Forensic Counselors                                                                              Southwest Risk Advisors, Inc.

American Psychotherapy Association                                                                                        Post Office Box 1595

                                                                                                                                                          Chandler, Arizona  85244

Licensed Investigator                                                                                                                    Telecommunications:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

Protective Intelligence Specialist and Agent                                                                              1-866-481-7712 – office

Information Warfare Analyst                                                                                                       480-440-5930 – cell

ASIS – Phoenix Chapter Membership Chair                                                                             LRapacki1@Hotmail.com                                                                       

FBI InfraGard  Arizona                                                                                                               

 

 

Memorandum:  WHITE PAPER DISCUSSION — NOT CLASSIFIED

 

PROTECTIVE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNICATION              PI: 126:09

NOT CLASSIFIEDPUBLIC DISSEMINATION

 

March the 16th, 2009

 

Statement of Purpose:

The content of this White Paper is deliberately intended to stimulate thought and discussion.  Informational analysis comprising global security, national security of the United States of America, socio-political-economic forces as a dimension to national security, culture, freedom in human rights, defense and the rule of law are considered within the framework of this treatise.

 

Overview:

Beginning as campaign rhetoric, the question of Barak Obama’s legal status as a citizen of the United States of America qualified to serve as President, is moving toward a crescendo that might be heard formally by the United States Supreme Court.  Downplayed by many, including U.S. Senators on the Republican side and even Senators serving on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee as late as Friday of last week, a significant meeting occurred last Thursday, March 12th in Idaho.  The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court was speaking before a large audience (800 in attendance, including the President of the Idaho State Bar Association) on the character of Abraham Lincoln, when attorney Orly Taitz of Mission Viejo, California came to the microphone and asked the Chief Justice if he would personally review a legal brief and a complaint signed by over 325,000 American citizens as to the Constitutionality of Barak Obama’s swearing-in as President.  Chief Justice Roberts personally agreed to review the legal brief and the complaint saying such in front of the audience. 

_______

 

Motions to be heard on this critical Constitutional matter have been dismissed already, or not even accepted by courts in many states – New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Washington, Texas, North Carolina to name a few. But the issue will not go away; it is morphing now to include active members of the Armed Forces serving in “Hot Zones” or theatres of combat.  The legal motion handed

WHITE PAPER DISCUSSION — NOT CLASSIFIED

PROTECTIVE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNICATION              PI: 126:09

March the 16th, 2009

Continued – page two

_______

 

to the Chief Justice warns: “If MR. OBAMA is not constitutionally eligible to serve as President of the United States, then no act that he takes is, arguably, valid, the laws that he signs would not be valid, the protective orders that he signs would be null and void, and every act that he takes would be subject to legal challenge, both in the Courts of the United States of America, and in International Courts, and that, therefore, it is important for the voters to know whether he, or any candidate for President in the future, is eligible to serve in that office.”      

 

Just prior to this meeting, attorney Taitz sent Certified Correspondence on February 27th to the U.S. Attorney General, the Director of the FBI, Congressional and Senatorial Judiciary Committee, et.al. with the stated purpose “demand for investigation and immediate action in regards suspected crimes” identified as, but not limited to: impersonation of a military officer, libel, defamation of character, harassment, interference with judicial proceedings, breaking into the computer system of the Supreme Court of the United States, forgery, using cyberspace for voter fraud.  Military officers from all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces have joined in this action as Plaintiffs.  Among the petitioners are:  Maj. Gen. Carroll Childers; Lt. Col. Dr. David Earl-Graef; police officer and Selected Reservist Navy Commander Clinton Grimes; Lt. Scott Easterling, U.S. Army now serving on active duty in Iraq; New Hampshire state Rep. Timothy Comerford; Tenn. State Rep. Frank Nicely and others.

 

One of the “and others” is Harry Riley, a veteran who spent a significant time serving in the Pentagon.  This former officer said the issue is basically over whether Americans will allow “the trashing” of their Constitution.  Myself, along with hundreds of thousands of other warriors, have fought for the U.S. Constitution.  The whole issue is one of constitutional crisis.  How can an individual become the Commander-in-Chief, or the president of the U.S., with questions regarding his constitutional qualifications?”

 

The complaint filed with the U.S. Attorney General (now in the hands of the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court) requests relate Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama II to test his title to president before the Supreme Court.”  This legal phrase essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president.  This is the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents.  This legal right established in British common law 800 years ago and was recognized by the U.S. Founding Fathers to demand documentation that may prove – or disprove – Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president. 

 

The complaint further states: “As president-elect, Respondent Obama failed to submit prima facie evidence of his qualifications before January 20, 2009.  Election officers failed to challenge, validate or evaluate his qualifications.  Relators submit that as president elect, Respondent Obama failed to qualify per U.S. Constitution; articles II and I; amendment XX paragraph 3.”    

_______

 

What follows is the Summary of the complaint filed by Orly Taitz, attorney in Mission Viejo, California.  As you can imagine, the complaint is thorough and long.  I have replicated sufficient

WHITE PAPER DISCUSSION — NOT CLASSIFIED

PROTECTIVE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNICATION              PI: 126:09

March the 16th, 2009

Continued – page three

_______

 

passages so not to diminish the nature, spirit, scope or details of the complaint but conscious of time to read and length, I compiled the salient points in this complaint to save you from reading the 78 page document.  I will further attest that Exhibits and articles of proof were also attached to the documents I reviewed.  I will further attest the investigator working this case for attorney Taitz is a licensed Private Investigator in the State of California for the past twenty-five years, and prior to this, served twenty years as a Detective at New Scotland Yard.  I will further attest that I have reviewed documents containing additional names not previously mentioned. Some of the names are active military and others are retired at Lt. Col. and above rank.

 

Should it be discovered Mr. Obama is ineligible, a constitutional crisis would ensue attempting to determine which of his executive branch orders should be valid.  If, however, this case continues and Mr. Obama fights revealing his documentation, there are growing concerns of civil unrest, or worse, being unleashed in the streets of our nation.  The economic crisis coupled with this type of a constitutional crisis could prove to be a “flashpoint” that would test conventional law enforcement and elements of homeland security.

_______

 

Summary of the Complaint submitted to U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.:

“Recently an active U.S. Army Officer, who is risking his life in defending our country in Iraq, joined my (attorney Taitz) legal action aimed at unsealing Barack Hussein Obama’s, aka Barry Soetoro’s, (Obama/Soetoro) legal status and eligibility/legitimacy for presidency of the U.S.  The president needs to be a ‘natural born citizen – one who is born in the country to parents (plural, both) who are citizens of this country.

 

This definition was recently unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate in Senate resolution 511, presented by Senator Leahy in April 2008, as Senator McCain sought his legitimacy for the presidency to be verified, and Mr. McCain therefore presented his long version original birth certificate.

 

Mr. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen; he was a citizen of Kenya here in the U.S. on a student visa, which by itself made Obama/Soetoro ineligible for presidency, regardless of whether he was born in this country or Kenya, or whether he later lost his U.S. citizenship while immigrating to Indonesia and obtaining Indonesian citizenship (by being adopted and naturalized), and later reaffirming his Indonesian citizenship while traveling on a Indonesian passport as an adult, and also most likely obtaining taxpayer funded financial aid as a Foreign Exchange student from Indonesia (Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship and any U.S. citizenship would therefore have to be relinquished).  Additionally, Obama/Soetoro’s paternal grandmother, Sarah Obama, and the Ambassador from Kenya,

WHITE PAPER DISCUSSION — NOT CLASSIFIED

PROTECTIVE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNICATION               PI: 126:09

March the 16th, 2009

Continued – page three

_______

 

Peter Ogego, made statements that he was born in Kenya, and there is no record of him being born in any hospital in Hawaii.  HI Statute #338 allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian Certificates of Live Birth (COLB), and those can be obtained based on a statement of one relative only.

 

Additionally, Forensic Document expert Sandra Line has issued an affidavit that Obama’s place of birth cannot be ascertained without reviewing the original birth certificate.  Dr. Chiymoi Fukimo, director of Health Department for the State of Hawaii, issued a statement that Obama has a birth certificate on file, but intentionally refused to provide clarification, whether it is a birth certificate for a foreign born child of a Hawaiian resident, whether it was prepared based on hospital records or statement of one relative only, or whether it is an amended birth certificate, created upon Obama/Soetoro’s adoption by Lolo Soetoro, his Indonesian stepfather, and showing him a citizen of Indonesia. 

 

There are forensic questions raised about the short version Certification of Life Birth posted by Obama/Soetoro on his web site; lacking corroborating evidence such as name of the hospital, name of the doctor, three signatures and a seal on the front of the document.

 

Similarly, Obama/Soetoro supporters used Cyber space previously, in order to misinform and defraud American citizens and commit voter fraud.  On November 3rd, a day before the National elections, when numerous voters questioned Obama/Soetoro’s Natural Born status and his refusal to provide his long version birth certificate, an article appeared on the Internet stating that a Virginia Judge reviewed Obama/Soetoro’s original birth certificate and found it to be valid, Obama/Soetoro to be a Natural Born citizen, and all legal actions to be frivolous (Exhibit).  This whole case was manufactured, and Cyber space was used, to defraud American citizens….

 

I am also requesting an investigation into the financial dealings of Barack and Michele Obama.  Please see attached list of over 100 addresses for Barack Obama and a 100 business addresses for Michele Obama.  These are addresses obtained from a private investigator and an intelligence service.  Obama/Soetoro’s addresses are connected to numerous different social security numbers.  None of the 130 positions listed for Michelle and Barry or Barack H. Obama were listed on their disclosed tax returns.  There has to be a corresponding search for each and every employer that is listed.  If those are salaried positions then, there is massive tax fraud.  And if those were campaign contributions over the allowed limits then, there is massive campaign contributions fraud, especially in light of over $300 million in

 

WHITE PAPER DISCUSSION — NOT CLASSIFIED

PROTECTIVE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNICATION               PI: 126:09

March the 16th, 2009

Continued – page four

_______

 

contributions that are unaccounted for.  Which is it?  What social security numbers were used? 

 

As you stated in your speech on Martin Luther King Day, Americans should not be ‘cowards’, particularly when matters of race are concerned.  I was not a coward and prepared this large dossier, so I hope you will not be a coward and instead order an expeditious completion of this investigation and its subsequent prosecution.”

 

Conclusion:

Accompanying this complaint is a petition calling for an appointment of a special prosecutor similar to the one appointed during Watergate.  The fact that Obama has not ordered Hawaiian officials to release the document leaves doubt as to whether an authentic Hawaii birth certificate exists.  Similar concerns exist in Mr. Obama’s refusal to release student records from Occidental College in the early 80’s where he may have been a student under the name of Barry Soetero, attending the college on aid for foreign students.

 

The action handed to the Chief Justice is on behalf 120 military officers, many of high rank, and 9 state representatives.  Purportedly the room was stunned and silent as attorney Taitz and Chief Justice Roberts engaged in an extremely brief exchange regarding these charges which led to the oral promise made by the Chief Justice to review them.    

 

 

 

( END OF REPORT )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D.

Protective Intelligence Specialist and Agent

Information Warfare Analyst

FBI InfraGardArizona

 

0100 Hrs. m.s.t.”

Read more:

http://defendourfreedoms.org

 

            

Chief Justice John Roberts, Orly Taitz, Dr Taitz confronts Justice Roberts, March 21, 2009, YouTube video, University of Idaho, Bellwood lecture, Obama not eligible, Barack Obama not natural born citizen

Dr. Orly Taitz, the courageous immigrant from Russia,
the true American, can be seen and heard confronting
Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Roberts,
at the conclusion of the Bellwood lecture at the
University of Idaho. Dr. Taitz is involved in multiple
lawsuits at the state and Supreme Court level that
state that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen
and is ineligible to be president. Orly Taitz has
enlisted numerous military officers and soldiers as
plaintiffs in her lawsuits.

Read more from Dr. Orly Taitz:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/

Orly Taitz interview, March 17, 2009, Rollye James interview, Obama’s Identity, Obama’s Money, Scotus Tampering, US Supreme Court, YouTube videos

Rollye James interview of Dr. Orly Taitz
March 17, 2009

Orly Taitz intro

Obama’s Identity

Obama’s Money

Scotus Tampering I

Scotus Tampering II

Dr. Orly Taitz website:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/

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

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

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

SUBJECT: Obama Eligibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Natural Born Citizen, Leo Donofrio, Vattel, Obama not natural born citizen, Ron Paul, Citizen Wells, US Constitution, Founding fathers, Marbury vs Madison, Citizens, Natives, Natural born citizen video

I received the following email request on December 26, 2008:

“XXXXX XXXXXX of TX has today gotten off the phone with Ron Paul.
Her parents live in the same city as RP.
 
Bad news.  He does NOT intend at this time to stand up on Jan
8th.  Part of the reason XXXXX mentioned was that RP said no
one knew the definition by either the law cases and Constitution
itself as to the real menaing of natural born.

Citizen Wells, I immediately thought of all your great research
on natural born that you’ve posted on our website.  Its too much
to expect RP or any Congress critter to read it all BUT…
Here’s you assignment.  Condense into no more than 3 pages with
full legal references on as many pages as needed.  The more the
RELEVANT references the better.   Can we have this done by Dec 28th?
 
I also ask that XXXXX, XXX and you coordinate the naturing of Ron
Paul.  Your goal is to get him to agree to file the written
objection NLT Jan 3rd.
 
Are you’ll up to that challenge?  If Ron Paul does sign on, he
will bring other Constitutionalists along in both the Senate and
House.”

Obviously Ron Paul is not paying attention.

I spent most of my time trying to debunk what I believed
about natural born citizen and after much reading posted
the following on the Citizen Wells blog on December 28,
2008:

Natural born citizen explained

Dean Haskins used this information to
produce this excellent video:

Exactly What IS a Natural Born Citizen?

Leo Donofrio has posted his most recent opinion about natural
born citizen and the influence of Vattel on the founding
fathers. Thanks to Phil at the Right Side of Life website
for the heads up.

“ONE FINAL POINT ABOUT THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE.

The more I read Vattel (pictured above), specifically the passage which defines “natural-born citizen”, the more convinced I become that the framers understood Vattel much better than we have on this issue.  I now am firmly convinced that the framers relied on Vattel’s definition when they included the natural born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.

Yesterday, I had a revelation as to what Vattel meant and what the framers intended “natural born citizen” to mean in the Constitution.  It’s obvious that the framers drew a distinction between the meaning of “citizen” and the meaning of “natural born citizen”.  A “citizen” can be Senator or Representative, but in order to be President one must be a natural born citizen.

It’s the difference between a fact and a legal status.

Whether you are a natural born citizen is a fact of nature which can’t be waived or renounced, but your actual legal citizenship can be renounced.  The difference is subtle, but so very important.  “Natural born citizen” is not a different form of “citizenship”.  It is a manner of acquiring citizenship.  And while natural born citizens may end their legal tie to the country by renouncing citizenship, they will always have been naturally born into that nation as a citizen.

Let’s take a look at Vattel’s famous text:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

Two different sentences.  Two different civil groups are being discussed.

Examine the subject heading given by Vattel, “Natives and Citizens”.  Two separate groups of the civil society are addressed in the heading. And here is the start of the greatest proof that the framers relied on Vattel as to the natural born citizen clause.

In the passage above, the first sentence defines who the “citizens” of a civil society are.  Vattel states; “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.”

In the very next sentence he describes a different set of people wherein he states,  “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

There are natives and citizens, just as the header says.   All citizens are members of the civil society, but not all citizens are natives or natural-born citizens.  A native can’t renounce his “nativeness”.  He’s a native forever.  He might renounce the citizenship he gained through being a native, but he can’t renounce the FACT of his birth as a native.

Vattel equates natives with natural-born citizens.  They are the same.  According to Vattel, in order to be a native, one must be born of the soil and the blood of two citizen parents.

He goes on as follows:

“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights…I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Some have argued that this passage indicates only one parent – the father – is necessary for one to be a natural born citizen.  That is false. The above passage only mentions the word “citizen”.  It says the children of the father are “citizens”, but it does not say they are “natives or natural-born citizens”.  Vattel is discussing the legality of citizenship, not the fact of one’s birth as being native.

When Vattel wrote this in 1758, he wasn’t arguing for its inclusion in a future US Constitution as a qualification for being President.  But the framers did read his work.  And when it came to choosing the President, they wanted a “natural-born citizen”, not just a citizen.  That is clear in the Constitution.  Vattel doesn’t say that “natives or natural-born citizens” have any special legal rights over “citizens”.  He simply described a phenomenon of nature, that the citizenship of those who are born on the soil to citizen parents (plural) is a “natural-born citizen”.

Citizen = legal status

Native or natural-born citizen = fact of birth which bestows citizenship.

Vattel also wrote:

“The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.

Once again, he does not mention natives or natural-born citizens in this passage, just citizens.  Furthermore, he states that the citizens may renounce their citizenship when they come of legal age.  But nobody can renounce a fact of birth.  The fact is true or it is not true. You’re either “born” a natural-born citizen or you are not.  The legal citizenship which attaches to this fact of birth may be renounced, but the fact will be with you forever.

And it is that fact of birth the framers sought to guarantee for each President of the United States.  The framers ruled that the commander in chief be a natural born citizen.  Like Vattel, the framers purposely distinguished between “citizens” and “natural born citizens”.  And to that distinction there can only be one effect:

ONLY A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CAN BE PRESIDENT.

According to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, the 14th amendment cannot make the natural born citizen clause from Article 2 Section 1 superfluous.  If being born as a 14th Amendment citizen was enough to be President, then the natural born citizen clause would have no effect.  According to Marshall, that argument is inadimissible.

President Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States whethe he was born in Hawaii or not.

FAREWELL.

I am not going to protest any longer.  As a Christian, I’m somewhat convinced this nation has been judged by the almighty and his fury may be descending as we speak.  Such fury appears to be in the form of Constitutional cancer.  I have prayed over my continuing role in this battle and the answer to those prayers said I am done here.  As a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, I place my faith not in any organized religion but in the words of the lamb and the voice of God.  Peace be with you.

Leo C. Donofrio

03.18.2009″

 

Read more:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/two-minute-warning-vattel-decoded/

 

I respectfully disagree with Leo Donofrio on one important aspect.
Barack Obama is not president under the US Constitution. No amount
of swearing in makes one president. Only a combination of the
election process and being qualified under the US Constitution makes
one president.

Orly Taitz interview, Sunday, March 22, 2009, Radio interview, Quo Warranto, Obama ineligible, usapatriots-shout radio, Mieke and Therese show, Keyes lawsuit, US Supreme Court, Defending Our Freedoms Foundation

Just in:

“Mieke and Therese hosts of USAPatriots-shout, a blog talk radio program, share information that is rarely broadcast on main stream media (MSM). We believe the truth supersedes labeling, party affiliations, and “political correctness”.  Join them Sunday night as the great “Opinionators” give you their take on what’s happening with our country! 
 
Mark your calender
 you don’t want to miss this broadcast
 
Blogtalkradio.com/usapatriots-shout
 
Sunday night (03-22-09)  8 p.m. to 10 p.m. Pacific Standard Time
 
 
We are proud and honored to welcome DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ
Topic is:
QUO WARRANTO
 
What ON EARTH is QUO WARRANTO?
WILL QUO WARRANTO BE THE METHOD TO MAKE OBAMA PRODUCE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO PROVE HE IS ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT OR FORCE HIM TO STEP DOWN? 
 
Discover the answers to these and more questions this Sunday evening on blogtalkradio.com/usapatriots-shout with Dr. Taitz
 
If you haven’t discovered Dr. Taitz, yet, you are in for a treat.  Those of you who have been following her heroic efforts will also have the opportunity to call and ask her questions.
 
 
“Dr. Orly Taitz, the principal attorney behind the Keyes lawsuit, was born in the Former Soviet Union. Dr. Taitz escaped from the FSU over 20 years ago to begin a life of freedom in the United States. Dr. Taitz has a successful dentistry practice in Orange County, California, and is a licensed attorney and real estate agent. Dr. Taitz speaks five languages. Dr. Taitz’ experiences under the totalitarian Communist regime convinced her that this is a path that she would rather not see the United States take. Therefore, Orly is committed to doing everything in her power to prevent such a disastrous mistake, and to defend the rights and freedoms that exist for all citizens in the United States under the Constitution. Dr. Taitz has filed a second lawsuit associated with the Obama Eligibility Crisis that is currently before the Supreme Court and is working on a third lawsuit featuring active duty and retired military as plaintiffs. With Dr. Taitz’ help, Orly’s Keyes lawsuit has been successfully cloned in Florida and in Washington State, where other complaints are active. Dr. Taitz has just filed application for a foundation to carry on this work entitled the “Defending Our Freedoms Foundation”. “
 
New site launch: http://defendourfreedoms.us/

Country: United States
 
www.blogtalkradio.com/usapatriots-shout this Sunday evening, March 22,  2009 between 8 and 10 pm Pacific Standard Time.  You may call 646-727-3865 to ask questions.
 
 What a great opportunity to call in or write and share and discuss these issues!
 
You can write to the chat room at www.blogtalkradio.com/usapatriots-shout
 
 call 646-727-3865
You can also post comments at
 
www.blogtalkradio.usapatriots-shout
or usapatriots-shout.blogspot.com”