Category Archives: Secretary of State

Orly Taitz interview, March 17, 2009, Steve Malzberg, Lawsuits, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Scalia, Obama not eligible, Birth Certificate, Obama not natural born citizen, US Supreme Court, US Military plaintiffs, Malzberg radio show

From an email we received:

“We received word from Steve Malzberg that Attorney Orly Taitz will be on his show today.    
     As much of our country knows (and increasingly other parts of the world), she is the relentless California attorney who is seeking to have Mr. Obama release his Original Birth Certificate (and other documents) now to prove his eligibility for president, especially as our young troops are about to be sent to Mexico, as new “economic” measures are signed, etc.
     So, it’s a must catch, especially with all that’s happening.
    She will be on Super Steve’s show today, 3-17-09,
    at 4pm (Eastern), on 710-am radio…
    and online at  www.worradio.com. , http://www.wor710.com/
    http://www.wor710.com/pages/418904.php  3-6pm. (Eastern)
    Among other items, she will likely be discussing her recent public interactions with Supreme Court Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts.
    Again, this is a must catch, regardless of party, as any transparency issues  involving eligibility affect our nation right to local law enforcement, our military, etc. (many bcc’d herein).  Further, she will likely discuss  the apparently unbelievable actions of certain court employees.
    By the way, we have not seen the original birth certificate…nor have any of you.  So we don’t know whether there is eligibility or not. We think we all should know, especially those of us that voted for him.   Don’t you?
    Many of you will logically ask, as we did, “Well, he must have shown his birth certificate  when he was vetted.  I had to show mine for my job” (especially law enforcement).
   OK, we couldn’t find it; not at Party (both) sites, the State Departments, the Electors, etc.  If any of you can, please show us…or just save time and listen to Dr. Taitz and Super Steve.
   Please circulate; it is a most important show………..
, as we did, “Well, he must have shown his birth certificate when he was vetted.  I had to show it for my job” (especially law enforcement).
   OK, we couldn’t find it; not at Party (both) sites, the State Departments, the Electors, etc.  If any of you can, please show us…or just save time and listen to Dr. Taitz and Super Steve.
   Please circulate; it is a most important show………..”

Orly Taitz website:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/

Lightfoot v Bowen, Dr Orly Taitz, Chief Justice John Roberts, US Supreme Court, March 12, 2009, Application For Emergency Stay AND/OR Injunction, Gail Lightfoot, Debra Bowen, Secretary of The State Of California

From Dr. Orly Taitz, March 12, 2009:

“No. 08A524
In The
 
Supreme Court of the United States
 
 
Gail Lightfoot, Neil B. Turner, Kathleen Flanagan, James M. Oberschain, Camden W. McConnell, Pamela Barnett, Evelyn Bradley
 
 
v.
 
 
Debra Bowen, Secretary of The State Of California
 
 
APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THE 2008 ELECTORAL COLLEGE MEETING AND ALTERNATIVELY AS TO CALIFORNIA ELECTORS
 
 
Orly Taitz, DDS.
Attorney for the Petitioners
26302 La Paz
Mission Viejo CA 92691
949-683-5411
 
TO: THE HONORABLE  JOHN J. ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE                                 
Motion to Reconsider
Petitioners, by and through their undersigned counsel of record, submit this motion for reconsideration due to the following reasons:
The Clerk of this Court, Danny Bickel, of his own volition and on his own authority refused to file of record, docket, and forward to the Chief Justice and Associate Justices Petitioners’ Supplemental Brief presented on January 15, 2009.
The Rules of this Court provide that supplemental briefs are allowed, when there is a new law or changed circumstance in the case.
On January 8, 2009, Barack Obama was confirmed as President by the Congress, at which time it was timely to file a supplemental brief, requesting this Court to determine that Mr. Obama is not eligible to serve, according to the terms of the Constitution.
 According to the 20th amendment Mr. Biden must be appointed president pro tempore, until the president qualifies or new president is chosen.
This supplemental motion has made the underlining petition proper and timely according to the changed circumstances of the electoral vote and subsequent confirmation of Congress.
The Clerk of this Court, Mr. Bickel categorically refused to file this brief in the docket, stating that he would send it back to the undersigned counsel with an explanation. Nothing was sent back and no explanation provided.
Due to the fact that all mention of this case was erased from the docket of the Supreme Court on January 21,  2009, one day after the inauguration and two days before this Court was to meet regarding this matter, this sua sponte by someone  prejudiced the cause of the petitioners.
Only after numerous phone calls from outraged citizens, members of the media and state representatives, was the case reentered on the docket in the evening of January the 22nd, shortly before the meeting of the Justices held on the morning of January 23rd.
No explanation was provided by the Supreme Court for this occurrence.
When an attorney, licensed with the Supreme Court, Ms. Teresa Ward, called the court to inquire about the location online of the docket, a deputy clerk put her on hold for several minutes, then claimed that all dockets were unavailable due to a computer error that affected all cases.  However Ms. Ward could clearly see other case dockets, going back years, including closed cases which had not been erased,  This was done by performing a name search using ‘Lightfoot,’ as the search term.
 Similarly, after the case was reentered on the docket, Mr. Bickel claimed, that the case never disappeared.  However, a number of citizens have written affidavits and screenshots were made of the case disappearing from the docket and reappearing at a later date. 
Further, a few days before hearing this petition in the conference of the full Supreme Court, eight out of nine Supreme Court Justices had a private closed door meeting with Mr. Obama, who was a party of interest and subject of this petition, wherein there may have been ex parte communication that prejudiced the petitioners.
Further, on March 9,  2009 at a book signing ceremony in Los Angeles, California the undersigned counsel had an opportunity to talk to Associate Justice Scalia and had an opportunity to ask about this case and inquired , as to why the case was not forwarded from the conference to the oral argument. Justice Scalia had no knowledge about my case. Similarly he had no knowledge about any cases brought in front of the Supreme Court, that challenged Obama’s eligibility for presidency. The only reasonable explanation is that the clerks of the court did not provide the case to the Justices at all or summarized them in a light, that is unfavorable to the petitioners, which is prejudicial to the plaintiffs.
At a reception held in Los Angeles, California , on March 9th, Justice Scalia has told the audience of some 300 attorneys, members of the media, business and entertainment industries, that the cases are heard in the Supreme Court based on importance. He reiterated that it is not the beauty of the argument and legal reasoning, but importance of the case.
The instant case, dealing with a fundamental Constitutional question, affecting each and every citizen of these United States, in alleging a complete lack of legitimacy in the presidency of Barack Obama is a question of great public importance.
  It was supposedly heard by the full conference of nine justices on January 23rd and yet, the Justices did not think this issue to be important enough to forward to the next step, to the open court for argument on the merits of the case.
At the same time it was announced on the radio that the Supreme Court has heard a case dealing with the rights of smokers of light cigarettes to sue tobacco industry; and two Justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, have written lengthy opinions on this issue.
 The undersigned reiterates that at issue is the probable illegal usurpation of our highest elected office by a foreign national, a citizen of Indonesia and possibly still a citizen of Kenya and Great Britain, Barry Soetoro, a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama.
Were these allegations the case, and taken true as pled for the purposes of this Motion, any party illegally usurping the position of the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of all the US Armed forces and assuming control of our nuclear arsenal would be in a position to devastate not only the United States but the world.
The  only explanation that would provide any sanity to this fact, is that the clerks that are sorting some 80,000 cases that are submitted to the Supreme Court each year and helping pick 0.1%, roughly 80 most deserving cases; the clerks that are preparing the summaries for the justices, have never shown this case Lightfoot v Bowen to the Justices or have summarized it in false light.
21.             Attached hereto and incorporated by reference  is a letter from the magazine World Net Daily, showing that 326,841 American Citizens have signed the petition to hear this matter. Aside from the petition, World Net Daily has delivered to the Supreme Court 540,000 individual form petitions: 60,000 for each Justice, times nine. Additionally, it is estimated that some 100,000 Americans have faxed or mailed petitions drafted by themselves, not form petitions. This means that each Justice should have heard from roughly  half a million American citizens, urging them to hear this case on the merits. While undersigned counsel questioned Justice Scalia during above mentioned book signing in Los Angeles, as to what happened, why the case was not forwarded to the open court hearing on the merits, he had absolutely no clue about the case, not this, nor similar cases by Wrotnowski and Donofrio. It is astounding that the Justice would get letters from half a million American citizens, urging him to hear the case on the merits, and wouldn’t remember one thing about the case. Again, the only reasonable explanation is that the clerks have never shown the Justices either this case Lightfoot v Bowen or letters from half a million American citizens supporting this issue. Due to the fact, that above mentioned became known to the under signed counsel only on March 9th 2009, a motion for reconsideration is filed at this late date due to special circumstances. 
22.             Due to the fact that there is evidence of sabotage within the Supreme Court, and there is no guarantee this petition will be forwarded to the Justices through regular channels; this petition will be hand delivered to Chief Justice Roberts at his appearance with students at the University of Moscow, Idaho, on Friday, March 13th, 4 PM. In case something happens to the under signed counsel and the counsel is prevented from hand delivering this motion, it is being posted on the blog DefendOurFreedoms.US; it is being mailed to each and every Justice by certified mail with restricted signature delivery, to be personally signed by the Justices; and it is being forwarded as a press release to Congress, Senate, State Houses of Representatives, State Senates, Governors of all 50 States,  FBI, Secret Service, Department of Justice, Department of Defense, Homeland security, Attorney Generals of all 50 states and 26,000 outlets of US and World media in order to bring awareness of the above to the World Community.
23.             At the same meeting at the Unversity of Idaho the under signed counsel will be forwarding to Chief Justice Roberts a Petition for Quo Warranto and a Petition for Leave of Court to File as Original Jurisdiction her second case Easterling et al v Obama and State of Hawaii, whereby due to the fact that the Attorney General of the United states, Eric Holder, did not agree to institute Quo Warranto Proceedings against Mr. Obama, the petitioners led by active duty officer, currently serving in Iraq, Scott Easterling, Major General Carroll D. Childers, officers from all branches of the military, State Representatives and an elector are seeking the leave of court to file quo warranto as ex relators on behalf of the US government.
 
Attachments
APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THE  2008 ELECTORAL COLLEGE MEETING AND ALTERNATIVELY AS TO CALIFORNIA ELECTORS WITH REQUEST THAT APPLICATION BE TREATED AS PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND/OR MANDAMUS AND/OR PROHIBITION. Filed December 11th, 2008.
SUGGESTION FOR RECUSAL OF HONORABL E CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES FROM SWEARING OF BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATESON JANUARY 20TH DUE TO DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THE FULL COURT CONFERENCE HEARING ON THE 23RD OF JANUARY OF LIGHTFOOT V BOWEN, SEEKING TO FIND BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PRESIDENCY. Filed January 12th 2009.
SUPPLEMENT, MOTION TO DECLARE THE PRESIDENT ELECT RESPONDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA HAS FAILED TO QUALIFY BY DEFAULT UNDER US CONSTITUITON ARTICLE 2, §1, AND AMENDMENT20, PER RULE 21 (2)(B) AND (4). Duly filed January 15, 2009, not docket and not distributed to the Justices due to the refusal by clerk Bickel.
SUPPLEMENT TO APPLICATION FOR EMEGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THE 2008 ELECTORAL COLLEGE MEETING AND ALTERNATIVELY AS TO CALIFORNIA ELECTORS. Supplement is based on the Executive Order by President Bush, issued January16, 2009. EXECUTIVE ORDER; GRANTING RECIPROCITY ON EXCEPTED SERVICES AND FEDERAL CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEES FITNESS AND REINVESTIGATING INDIVIDUALS IN POSITIONS OF PUBLIC TRUST.  Filed January 21, 2009. 
Petition letter from World Net Daily to the Supreme Court signed by 326,841 American citizens.
“I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true.  I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.”
 
___________________________, March 12, 2009
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ”

Read more:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/03/12/motion-to-reconsider-lightfoot-v-bowen.aspx

Major General Carroll D. Childers, Orly Taitz lawsuit, Obama not qualified, Barack Obama ineligible, Major General Childers, US Army, 29TH Infantry Division, Obama crime associates

I just posted the following on Congress Watch. Once again my
hat goes off to Dr. Orly Taitz and the military.

God bless you.
Once again our military steps up to the plate to uphold the
US Constitution and protect the citizens of the US. Major
General Carroll D. Childers has joined Dr. Orly Taitz’
lawsuit to challenge the eligibility of Barack Obama. Not
only does Major General Childers question Obama’s eligibility,
but he is aware of the many crime and corruption connections
to Obama:

“Major General Commanding General Carroll D. Childers Joins Military Suit


CONSENT FORM
DATE:  24 Feb 2009
 
Attn. Orly Taitz, Esq.
26302 La Paz, Ste. 211
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
 
I agree to be a plaintiff in the legal action to be filed by Orly Taitz, Esq. in a PETITION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT THAT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT of the U.S., nor TO BE  COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the U.S. ARMED FORCES, in that I am or was a sworn member of the U.S. military (subject to recall), and therefore when serving as an active member of the military, I would be unable to follow any orders given by a Constitutionally unqualified Commander In Chief, since by doing so I would be subject to charges of aiding and abetting fraud and committing acts of treason. 

TYPED NAME or Signature: Carroll D. Childers
FULL NAME: Carroll Dean Childers

POSITION IN THE MILITARY/RANK/DATES SERVED/STATUS: Retired as Major General Commanding General 29TH Infantry Division VA ARNG 1999, 44 years service

OCCUPATION: Consultant  Registered Professional Engineer

ACHIEVEMENTS: Retired 38 Yrs DON Civil Service, RDT&E, several patents, 14 months in combat zones as science advisor (Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Operation Desert Storm), Oldest DHG of a Ranger Course (42), retired MG, married 50+ years, still ticking and kicking

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

But more than 50% of America voted for this charlatan and he now has the helm of the ship of state. Even so, he is not MY President. I will not refer to him as such. I will call him Resident Obama, and an illegal resident of the white house at that. I resent him for what he is not. He has not given proof that he is a natural born citizen of these United States. He has spent millions of dollars protecting the truth of his birth from public knowledge; therefore, it is obvious he has something to hide. He is an interloper, a usurper, a fake, a scam artist, a Chicago crook, a recipient of bribes and gratuitous income for which he paid no tax, a socialist (perhaps only a communist or Marxist), and a grave danger to the future of the America that I love and have protected since I was 17 years old.

I have told my two senators and my member of the House of Representatives. I have written 9 justices of the Supreme Court as well as President Bush before he left office. NONE have responded, therefore, they are all complicit and should all be severely punished for having failed in their sworn oath to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The instant Obamb was sworn in, he violated the oath he took because he took the office knowing he is ineligible and there stood Judge Roberts who should have immediately had Obama arrested and deported.

Other than this, my key short-term complaint is that he has not had a heart attack in office. But most important, what I really want is the truth; is Obama a natural born citizen of the United States. If not a natural born citizen, America has been defrauded and then we would be stuck with Joe Biden whose only redeeming attribute is that he is probably not a communist.

Carroll D. Childers P.E.
Major General (Retired)”

Read more here:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/24/major-general-commanding-general-carroll-d-childers-joins-military-suit.aspx

 We are still looking for volunteers to help update Congress Watch with
letters and information from the military and congressmen.

http://congresswatch.wordpress.com/

National Grand Jury, Stephen Pidgeon, Declaration, US Constitution, Judicial system, First Amendment, Ninth Amendment, Tenth Amendment, Review Federal Government Agencies, Comply with Declaration of Independence, Constitution for USA

From the Right Side of Life:

“Attorney Issues a National Grand Jury Declaration”

“As reported late last night via DecaLogosIntl.org, Stephen Pidgeon, attorney for Broe v. Reed, has officially announced that he has issued a declaration (audio at link) for a national grand jury:

Pursuant to First Amendment (The right of the people peaceably to assemble), the Ninth Amendment (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people), and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America (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), this National Grand Jury is convened by natural born citizens of the fifty several states and of the United States of America, seating 50 jurors pursuant to the duties, powers, responsibilities, qualifications as established hereunder for the following purposes:

  • To examine all aspects of the federal government by initiating its own investigations.
  • To serve as ombudsmen for the citizens of the country in respect to constitutional rights. and privileges established under the organic documents of the United States of America, as properly amended from time to time.
  • To conduct criminal investigations of members of the federal government, and, if the evidence is sufficient, issue criminal indictments.

The National Grand Jury Process

The National Grand Jury, although a part of the judicial system, is an entirely independent body. Judges of the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeal, and the District Courts of the United States, United States Attorneys, and Congress of the United States may act only as advisors. They cannot prevent National Grand Jury action unless that action violates the duly enacted laws as originally created in the United States.

The National Grand Jury shall review and evaluate procedures, methods and systems used by federal governmental agencies to determine whether they comply with the stated objectives of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the United States of America as properly amended.

The National Grand Jury shall review the officers of the federal government to determine whether they are constitutionally qualified to hold office, and to determine if their actions and behavior are consistent with stated objectives of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution for the United States of America as properly amended, and the criminal law as recognized in any of the several states.

No individual grand juror, acting alone, has any power or authority. Meetings of the National Grand Jury are not open to the public. All matters discussed before the National Grand Jury and votes taken are to be kept private and confidential. The end result of inquiries into civil matters are released to the public in the form of a final report which is approved, prior to release, by the Foreperson of the National Grand Jury.

The National Grand Jury is empowered to:

  • Inquire into the condition and management of branches of the federal government and its agencies.
  • Investigate and report on the operations, accounts and records of federal officers, departments, and functions.
  • Inquire into the willful or corrupt misconduct in office of public officers.
  • Submit a final report of its findings and recommendations, no later than the end of its term, to the Presiding Juror of the National Grand Jury. “

Read more here:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3758

West Virginia Election Complaint, WV Secretary of State, Obama not eligible, Federal Elections Commission lawsuit, WV residents participating

I was asked to post the following:
“Subject: I am the Lady in WV filing Election Complaint

 

re: Searching for Lady in West Virginia filing Federal
Elections Comm. suit

(Ed, Please forward this to anyone contacting you from WV
to get involved.  Thanks.)

My name is XXXXX XXXXXX.
I called into to Ed’s show on Feb 13 asking for residents of
WV who are interesting in doing something in their state to
question Barack Obama’s eligibility for the office of president.
I am preparing to file an Election Complaint with the WV Secretary
of State concerning Barack Obama.  WV has some unique laws in this
regard and there may be an opening to get this issue out in the
open.
I am looking for WV residents who would consider participating
in this.  I will email you information to educate you on the issue,
possibly speak with you on the phone, and we will go from there. 
At this point, this is not a suit.  WV allows ‘ANY PERSON’ to file
an election complaint with the secretary of state.
Please contact me at ubrevera1@gmail.com .
Let’s get this citizenship issue settled once and for all!”

Senator Jim DeMint, United States Senator, SC senator, Ian Headley, Aide Headley, Obama ineligible, US Constitution, Congress, Electoral votes, South Carolina constituents, The WHY initiative, Restore the Constitutional Republic

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and
the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service
of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and
thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered;
yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict,
the more glorious the triumph.” —Thomas Paine 1778

We

Are Watching

Congress

 

Citizen Wells Intro to WHY initiative

We are moving ahead with the “WHY” initiative to hold Congress
accountable now and moving forward. Dean Haskins has set up
Restore the Constitutional Republic under a .com for organizational
purposes and we are finalizing plans to challenge congressmen across
the nation now and henceforth. Dean Haskins, the Citizen Wells blog,
other internet websites, attorneys, businessmen, the military and
millions of Americans are united to uphold and defend the US
Constitution. We are determined to get answers from congressmen.

Why did they believe that Obama is eligible?

Why did no member of Congress challenge the Electoral votes?

Despite our many concerns about policies and actions such as the
so called stimulus bill, we are determined to uphold the US
Constitution and make Congress accountable. This effort will move
forward through the 2010 elections.

Millions of Americans were stunned as every institution in this
nation connected with the 2008 election, ignored the US
Constitution and pleas from masses of the public to vet Senator
Obama. Congressmen ignored their constituents, as if part of
some conspiracy to ensure that Obama got elected.

So we are asking WHY.

The obvious red flag that most people get, the one I am certain a
5th grader could understand is, if Obama was eligible, why did
Obama employ an army of attorneys and spend great sums of money
beginning with Philip Berg’s lawsuit in August 21, 2008, to avoid
proving his eligibility. All Obama had to do is what John McCain
did, provide Congress with a vault copy of his birth certificate,
i.e., a real birth certificate, not a record of a birth certificate
like Obama has tried to do.

If you’re not as smart as a fifth grader then consider the following:

Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981 on an Indonesian passport.

Obama’s father was Kenyan, under British rule.

Obama became an Indonesian citizen.

There is no legal proof that Obama was born in Hawaii.

If Obama was born in Kenya, his mother did not meet the eligibility
requirements for Obama to be a natural born citizen.

Consider this letter from a Brigadier General:

 
Charles E. Jones
Brigadier General US Air Force, Retired
Lifetime subject to recall for active duty
Recipient of the Distinguished Service Medal (AF)
02.04.09

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

We were notified today that 4 TN state representatives
have agreed to cooperate with Orly Taitz in her lawsuit.
Eric Swafford, Stacy Camfield, Glen Casada and
Frank Niceley  have signed a document demanding Obama
produce his documents:

Dean Haskins and I have begun the process of contacting
congressmen and we started with Representative Sue Myrick
and Senator Jim DeMint. We have been discussing possible
reasons why so many senators were misinformed or apathetic.
Perhaps much of the information sent to them was filtered
or blocked by their aides. Regardless, we want answers. Here
is a dialogue that Dean Haskins had with Ian Headley, an
aide to Senator DeMint. Please remember that we have not
yet spoken to Senator DeMint.

Beginning of dialogue:

 
I recently had an interesting exchange with one of SC Senator Jim DeMint’s staffers.  Now, understand, as far as legislators go, I think Senator DeMint is one of the better ones we have; however, on this particular issue, he appears to be either as uniformed, or as willfully negligent, as the rest of them.  At this point, I’m not sure which.  And I say that, understanding that it is possible he is not even aware this exchange even occurred (although I’d be surprised if, by my last two posts to him, Mr. Headley didn’t alert Senator DeMint of the “situation” he had just created). 
 
Some of us are now wondering just how many of our communications actually make it to the elected officials to whom we write.  It looks like the staffers provide quite a firewall between their bosses and We the People.
 
If this weren’t such a tragically dire situation for our country, it would be quite humorous.  It seems Mr. Headley wasn’t in the mood for a logical argument, but he obviously got a nice workout dancing around my questions.
 
So, see if you can tell where a bit of rudimentary logic pulled the wheels off his wagon.
 
Note: I start my letter by referencing my late brother who, until his death in 2000, was the Speaker Pro Tem of the SC State House.  He died of cancer at age 45.
 
********
Dear Senator DeMint:
 
By way of introduction, I am Terry Haskins’ brother.  I live in Virginia, and work in music production, ad and website design, and writing.  I am also the chairman of Restore the Constitutional Republic.  I pray that I may gain your consideration in this matter, simply because I understand you respected my brother, as he did you.  Before this last election cycle, I have never been a political “activist,” however, this issue has grabbed my attention, and I believe that, if he were alive today, Terry would have heartily joined me in the profound concern I have in this.
 
By now, I’m sure you are aware of the growing mass of concerned citizens throughout the U.S. who have legitimate questions about Mr. Obama’s natural born citizen status.  Many volunteers in several organizations worked tirelessly to provide the members of Congress with the pertinent information, and since you’ve recently been included as a defendant in one of the many lawsuits that have been filed across the country (Kerchner v. Obama), I’m sure you are aware of the constitutional issues that are being raised.
 
Senator DeMint, we are not conspiracy theorists, and we do not don tinfoil hats, as the liberal mainstream media would have everyone believe.  We are just everyday citizens who know something is not right, and who highly regard our Constitution.  I believe that you are a very intelligent person, but I don’t believe it even takes that much common sense to understand that someone doesn’t hire high-priced law firms to battle dozens of lawsuits if he does not desire to keep the very thing being asked for hidden.  There is obviously something on that document he does not want us to know—as well as all the other documentation he has sealed from public scrutiny.
 
That being said, this letter is really not intended as a vehicle by which to defend or expound the numerous claims that are being proffered.  This letter is more of a personal request.
 
I am in fairly frequent contact with many of the leaders of this grassroots movement, and, frankly, we have been dumbstruck at the obvious lack of inquest by any of our elected officials.  We know many of those leaders to have been quite vocal about unpopular matters in the past, and we are now trying to understand why not one member of Congress uttered even a whimper about this.
 
We know there must be a reason, and that is the purpose of this letter.  We would like an opportunity to sit down with you, face to face, and have you explain to us why this bizarre series of events unfolded as it did.  There simply must have been something that prevented an honest, open discussion about this, and we’d certainly appreciate knowing what that was.
 
I look forward to your response.
 
For our Constitution,
 
Dean C. Haskins
www.restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com
www.deanhaskins.com
 
P.S.  I don’t know if you are aware that I designed a website in Terry’s memory.  If you haven’t seen it, it is located at www.terryhaskins.com
 
********
Mr. Haskins,
 
Thank you for your note.  Your brother meant so much to so many of us in South Carolina.  One of the highest points of Senator DeMint’s career was receiving the Terry Haskins award from the SC Republican Party.
 
I heard from Senator Thomas’ office and appreciate you contacting me.
 
I cannot speak for other Members of Congress and neither can Senator DeMint.  However, Senator DeMint has looked into the claims with regard to Barack Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of President.  Multiple court cases have reached the Supreme Court, through the legal framework of our nation.  Each case has since been dismissed.  It appears from all evidence available, the President was qualified under the Constitution for Congress to certify the electoral college vote.
 
You would need to contact other Members of Congress, if you have questions about their thoughts and actions on this issue.  Neither I, nor Senator DeMint, are in a position to explain their actions.
 
I wish you all the best, and encourage you to keep fighting to have the right policies implemented in our nation.
 
Sincerely,
 
Ian Headley
 
********
Mr. Headley,
 
Thank you so much for your speedy reply.  I genuinely appreciate it.  I would also like to express my gratitude for your kind sentiments about my brother.  I still miss him very much.
 
Please know that I mean absolutely no disrespect here, but your response is precisely the type of misinformation about which I spoke.  Since none of the cases dealing with the natural born issue have even had their merits heard, what standard of truth did Senator DeMint use to determine that Mr. Obama is, indeed, a natural born citizen?  Each of those cases was dismissed over issues of “standing.”  One can determine nothing of the merits of a case when it is dismissed on a procedural technicality.  Has Senator DeMint physically verified something to which nobody else has had access?
 
And, since the only proof Mr. Obama has proffered to date has been verified by two separate forensic document examiners to be a forgery, again, I ask, what is Senator DeMint’s standard of truth?  Please see this.
 
Your statement also seems to imply that there are presently no active lawsuits, which is simply not true.  Please look here.  In addition to the fact that Senator DeMint is one of the defendants in a procedurally active case (Kerchner v. Obama), please know that there continue to be new actions filed.
 
Please watch my video dealing with this issue here.
 
Mr. Headley, what has happened to common sense?  It appears no longer to exist.
 
Kindest regards,
 
Dean Haskins
 
********
Mr. Headley,
 
I just wanted to follow up and ask if I can expect an answer from either you or Senator DeMint regarding what specific evidence Senator DeMint used to determine, conclusively, that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen, since none of the dismissed cases had any of their merits heard.  I’m sure you can understand my concern, because a plaintiff not having standing to bring a case is certainly not the same thing as evidence being weighed by a court.  Your previous response seemed to indicate that Senator DeMint determined that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen simply because the Supreme Court believed the plaintiff’s were not legally able to have their cases heard. 
 
Please provide the evidence that Senator DeMint used to come to the conclusion he did.
 
Thank you,
 
Dean Haskins
 
********
Mr. Haskins,
 
I understand you are not satisfied with the results of the various unsuccessful court cases with regard to this issue.
 
However, you initiated this communication stating, “this letter is really not intended as a vehicle by which to defend or expound the numerous claims that are being proffered.”
 
Relying on your statement, I did not intend my response to engage in a discussion about the finer points of said ‘numerous claims’, nor will I do so now.
 
I believe my original response was clear as to the questions Senator DeMint is capable of answering.
 
I wish you all the best.
 
Sincerely,
 
Ian Headley
 
********
Mr. Headley,
 
I apologize that I apparently have not communicated well, and there seems to be a bit of a “disconnect” between us.  My statements have nothing to do with my level of “satisfaction” about the outcomes of cases that have been dismissed; merely that those “outcomes” had nothing to do with the natural born citizenship issue—only whether or not the court believed the person(s) bringing the cases had standing to do so.
 
And, I am not “defending or expounding the numerous claims that are being proffered;” I am simply asking for you to explain your original answer.  You said,
 
“However, Senator DeMint has looked into the claims with regard to Barack Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of President.  Multiple court cases have reached the Supreme Court, through the legal framework of our nation.  Each case has since been dismissed.  It appears from all evidence available, the President was qualified under the Constitution for Congress to certify the electoral college vote.”
 
To which I questioned what the evidence was that Senator DeMint used to determine that Obama is a natural born citizen, other than the various plaintiffs’ ineligibility to have their cases heard (which, again, is not evidence of natural born citizenship).  Having provided no additional information about evidence, your statement could easily be understood to be that Senator DeMint actually relied on no evidence whatsoever by which to come to his conclusion.
 
If that is what you are saying, then I will accept it at face value.  And, I actually already suspected that to be the case.  That is what prompted my original request for a conversation with Senator DeMint, to determine why he chose not to demand that evidence be provided, knowing that there were so many unanswered questions surrounding the issue.  I believe that the truthshould be within the scope of answers Senator DeMint is capable of providing, and it appears you have now provided that.
 
Thank you,
 
Dean Haskins
 
********
Mr. Headley,
 
I certainly did not desire to end our discussion on such a disagreeable tone; although, with just a bit of elementary logic, you should be able to see the fundamental flaws in your answers to me.  Actually, yours is not all that different from the numerous other replies we’ve received from the offices of Congress members. 
 
It truly is a sad commentary that none of our elected officials actually bothered to ask for the most basic proof that Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to be our president.  We firmly believe he is not, and he continues to obfuscate anything that might possibly prove us wrong.  And my reason for contacting Senator DeMint was to find out exactly what his reasoning was not even to ask for such basic proof.  It’s not as if the members of Congress weren’t alerted about the problem, for we have people across this country who sent them certified letters, and then retained the documentation proving their letters were sent.
 
The 20th Amendment states, “If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified . . .” Obviously, our forefathers envisioned a scenario in which someone would have attained the status of “President elect,” and then failed to qualify.  That would mean that, after he won the Electoral College vote, the founding fathers expected the members of Congress to verify that he was constitutionally qualified.  That simply did not happen with Barack Obama.
 
And we now believe we are in the midst of a constitutional crisis; hence the continued legal challenges, and the growing swell of military personnel (active and veteran) who are demanding this calamity be addressed.
 
Please don’t get me wrong, I admire and respect Senator DeMint.  I believe he is a fine statesman, and that is why I continue to labor over these communications.  In light of the fact that he is one of the many named defendants in Kerchner v. Obama, I believe Senator DeMint is in a singular position to get in front of this matter and lead our country out of this disaster. 
 
Senator DeMint could start a process to right this wrong by immediately calling for a congressional investigation into this matter.  He could declare to the joint houses of Congress that “We have erred by not exercising our constitutionally prescribed due diligence in this.”  Certainly, you can see the personal legal benefits he could derive from such actions; but, more importantly, he would go down in the annals of history as the one true patriot who actually fought for our Constitution.
 
I still desire to have a conversation with him.
 
For our Constitution,
 
Dean Haskins
Chairman, Restore the Constitutional Republic

End of dialogue

If you have been frustrated by congressmen that have ignored
your pleas to examine Obama’s eligibility problems, take
comfort in the fact that Dean Haskin’s brother was heavily
involved in SC politics. However, as will become obvious soon,
we do not give up easily. We, on behalf of the American public,
demand straight answers and we intend to get them. All of this
correspondence will be recorded and all congressmen will be
accountable sooner or later. There will be a day of reckoning
at least by the 2010 elections.

This is going to be a nationwide effort. We will be asking for
volunteers and hope to have an organization for each state. If
you have the desire and the resolve, go to the Restore the
Constitutional Republic site (new .com) and check often. In the
forum, there is a place by state where you can interact and sign
up. We have another site set up to collect and gather information
about each congressmen. We will use this going forward as a
clearing house for all efforts to hold congressmen accountable.
Details will follow soon.

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/

Continue to contact your congressmen as you want. One thing that
we are trying to do with the WHY intiative, is to notify
congressmen that we will meet with them or otherwise establish
a dialogue and we will speak on authority. Citizen Wells and
Dean Haskins are initially available. We will be contacting
Orly Taitz and others to form an expert panel to answer any
questions or challenges provided. Orly has been doing some
of this already.

I know that many are impatient and frustrated. As I have stated
on numerous occasions, these problems did not come about overnight
and will not go away overnight. However, each step that we take
brings us one step closer to a safer, more just country.

God bless.

Defend our Freedoms Foundation, TN State Representative, Eric Swafford, Tennessee, Dr Orly Taitz, Eric Swafford plaintiff, Lawsuit, Obama not eligible

From Dr. Orly Taitz website, Defend our Freedoms Foundation:

 

“DEFENDOURFREEDOMS.US

First State Representative Joins Action!

Representative Eric Swafford of Tennessee has agreed to be a Plaintiff in a legal action of Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ to demand that Barack Obama proves his eligibility.

Download a copy of Representative Swafford’s consent form and bring it to your representatives today and insist they join in this action.

Representative Swafford proposed bill for Tennessee’s soveignty yesterday.

More States are expected to follow soon.”

Read more here:

http://defendourfreedoms.us

Philip Berg update, February 9, 2009, Radio interview, MommaE blog radio, Sentinel Radio, US Constitution, Obama not eligible, Berg Vs Obama, US Supreme Court

From MommaE blog radio:

Hi,

I wanted to let you know that Phil Berg will be on Sentinel
Radio tonight at 9 PM Eastern, the last hour with Hanen and
her Co-Hosts. He will be talking about the cases he has, any
updates and the fact that he will continue the fight to
defend our Constitution and to get the truth.

Please post this on your blogs, any blogs you are connected
with and allowed to post on and send to everyone in your
address book. Link to the show, call in number and times are
listed below.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Sentinel_Radio

Call In No:                646-727-2652        

6:00 PM Pacific Time

7:00 PM Mountain Time

8:00 PM Central Time

9:00 PM Eastern Time

I hope that you will join us for our first show. You can just
listen or you can come into the Chat as a Guest, listen and read
the Chat, or you can register/sign in and join in the Chat while
listening. The choice is yours.

MommaE for
Hanen and Sentinel Radio

Blagojevich impeachment trial, January 29, 2009, IL governor Blagojevich impeached, Blagojevich closing argument, Prosecutor closing statement, Chicago corruption, Pay to play, Illinois Senate, Blagojevich tapes

The Impeachment Trial of Governor Rod Blagojevich of IL
is expected to conclude on Thursday, January 29, 2009.
The senate prosecutor will provide his closing statement
and Rod Blagojevich has announced that he will provide
a closing argument. It is believed that Blagojevich will
be allowed to attend.

Listen to Blagojevich Impeachment Trial

Rod Blagojevich impeachment trial, January 27, 2009, IL Governor impeachment, Obama ties, IL Health Planning Facilities Board, Bid rigging, Obama senate seat, Rezko, Levine, Weinstein, Criminal complaint, Blagojevich indictment, Patrick Fitzgerald

The impeachment trial of Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois
began on Monday, January 26, 2009. Governor Blagojevich was
not present at the trial Monday, instead he continued his
road show antics of pleading innocence and being the victim
of a witch hunt. Anyone that followed the Tony Rezko trial,
read the indictments of Rezko, Stuart Levine, Dr. Robert
Weinstein and a host of others and compared those revelations
to the details of the Blagojevich criminal complaint knows
of Rod Blagojevich’s deep involvement in Chicago pay to play
politics. It is also clear that the case against Blagojevich
is not simply about selling Obama’s senate seat, but about
many years of corruption that ties Blagojevich to many Chicago
corruption figures as well as Obama.

One of the more flagrant cases of corruption involving
Blagojevich and Obama was their part in rigging the IL Health
Planning Facilities Board. Obama was in the IL Senate at that
time and was instrumental in reducing the number of members
from 15 to 9. Why is that important? Because the governor, Rod
Blagojevich, had the power to appoint up to 5 members.
Blagojevich, in cahoots with Rezko and Levine, appointed
members that would follow their wishes and consequently Obama and
Blagojevich received campaign contributions from the new
members. The board was involved in bid rigging.

Obama and Blagojevich and Health Planning Board rigging

Obama, Blagojevich and IL Teachers Retirement System
reveal more Chicago and Illinois corruption ties.

Obama corruption ties in IL TRS should lead to indictment

Blagojevich investigation should lead to Obama Indictment

Listen to Blagojevich Impeachment Trial