Category Archives: Secretary of State

Andy Martin Hawaii lawsuit, Obama birth certificate, Judge ruling. Martin response, November 21, 2008, Update

Andy Martin has just responded to the judge’s ruling on his Lawsuit, PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, requesting access to Obama’s birth certificate and other records on file with the Hawaii Health Department. 

Judges ruling:

“THIS COURT TREATED THE EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS A MOTION SEEKING EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AS

PLAINTIFF WAS SEEKING TO OBTAIN THE BIRTH RECORDS FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA.
 
FIRST, THE COURT POINTS OUT THAT THE ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SEEKS EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF.
 
IN HAWAII, A 3 PRONG TEST IS APPLIED IN DETERMINING WHETHER PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED AS

STATED IN LIFE OF THE LAND V ARIYOSHI, 59 HAW. 156 (1978). THE 3 ELEMENTS ARE:
 
1. IS THE PLAINTIFF LIKELY TO PREVAIL ON THE MERITS?
 
2. DOES THE BALANCE OF IRREPARABLE HARM FAVOR THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,

AND
 
3. DOES THE PUBLIC INTEREST SUPPORT THE GRANTING OF THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT?
 
AFTER REVIEWING THE PLEADINGS, THE MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, THE MEMORANDA OPPOSING THE MOTION, THE EXHIBITS,

AND OTHER WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, AND CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL AND PLAINTIFF, PRO SE, THE COURT FINDS AS

FOLLOWS:
 
BASED ON THE LIMITED AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED, THE COURT FINDS THAT IT IS UNLIKELY THAT PLAINTIFF WILL PREVAIL

ON THE MERITS AS IT APPEARS THAT THE PLAINTIFF DOES NOT HAVE A DIRECT AND TANGIBLE INTEREST IN THE VITAL STATISTIC

RECORDS BEING SOUGHT, NAMELY THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF PRESIDENT OBAMA. PLAINTIFF ALSO DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE

CATEGORY OF PERSONS WHO MAY BE ENTITLED TO THE RECORDS AS ENUMERATED IN HRS 338-18(B). IN ADDITION, HRS 92-13

PROVIDES THAT DISCLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT RECORDS IS NOT REQUIRED WHICH, PURSUANT TO STATE LAW, ARE PROTECTED FROM

DISCLOSURE.
 
REGARDING THE SECOND ELEMENT OF IRREPARABLE HARM, THE COURT FINDS THAT PLAINTIFF HAS NOT PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE TO

THIS COURT THAT IRREPARABLE HARM WILL OCCUR IF THE RECORDS ARE NOT PROVIDED TO THE PLAINTIFF.
 
IN ADDITION, THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST SUPPORTS THE GRANTING OF THE

RELIEF SOUGHT AND THERE IS A REASONABLE BELIEF THAT THE PUBLIC WOULD RATHER PRESERVE THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF VITAL

HEALTH RECORDS.
 
THEREFORE, THE EMERGENCY MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE IS DENIED. DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
 
IN ADDITION, THE COURT GRANTS DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE

PRIOR RULING AS WELL AS FOR THE REASONS RAISED IN THE MOTION AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDA, INCLUDING LACK OF STANDING

AND INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF PROCESS ON THE DEFENDANTS.
 
DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE ORDER.”

Andy Martin’s response:

“FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
 
INTERNET POWERHOUSE ANDY MARTIN PLANS TO APPEAL DISMISSAL OF BARACK OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE LAWSUIT, SAYS HE HAS NOT YET RECEIVED A COPY
 
MARTIN SAYS JUDICIAL SYSTEM REFLECTS “CALLOUS DISREGARD” FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
 
(NEW YORK)(November 21, 2008)  For those of you who are not familiar with the peculiar highways and byways of the judicial process, welcome to the strange ways of the court system in Hawai’i. Apparently my lawsuit in a Honolulu state court has been dismissed.
 
Unfortunately, I have not seen a copy of the decision. Despite the significance of the court order, I was not given a courtesy notice when it was entered in Honolulu, apparently late Wednesday, although I was in Honolulu all day on Wednesday.
 
Thursday all day I was traveling back to New York and was unavailable. I did not get back to New York until 8:00 A.M. Friday.
 
I was alerted by a reader’s e-mail that something had happened, and went to the Honolulu Advertiser’s web site where I found a complete story, http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081121/NEWS20/811210355/1001/localnewsfront.
 
Obviously I was unable to respond to phone calls while in the air, and when I checked my e-mails today the Advertiser reporter had not left a phone number to call him back.
 
The Court did not fax my office a copy and so I have no immediate way of seeing a copy of the decision. I assume the Advertiser’s news report is a fair summary of the decision.
 
Depending on what the response is to a fund appeal, I will certainly appeal this decision to the Hawai’i Intermediate Court of Appeals. The trial court’s interpretation of the relevant statute appears to be a wooden reading of the law. The claim that there is a lack of historical significance to the birth certificate of a president of the United States is a classic example of how utter nonsense can exist in the judicial system.
 
I will solicit input from my audience as to whether they feel that pursuit of the appeal is a worthwhile venture and will proceed accordingly.
 
I understand how 150 million Americans are frustrated by the callous disregard which the court system has shown for access to vital, basic information about Barack Obama, the “mystery man” who has been elected president by the “Mainstream Media of the United States.”
 
However other than this mild criticism, I believe it is more appropriate to proceed through the judicial process, and that is the course I intend to follow on the issue of access to Barack Obama’s original, typewritten 1961 original birth certificate.”

Read more from Andy Martin here:

http://ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com

Electoral College facts, Obama not eligible, Electors must vote per US Constitution, Faithless Electors, Federal Election Laws, State Laws, Elector pledges, States and Electors must uphold US Constitution

“The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men.” — Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.

1860 election: 4 electors in New Jersey, pledged for Stephen Douglas, voted for Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln.

Electoral College must be maintained

We must adhere to spirit and intent of law

The Electoral College was set up by the founding fathers to achieve two primary goals.

  • To prevent smaller states and lower population areas from being dominated by a few larger states with
    higher population densities.
  • To prevent a tyrant or usurper of power from deceiving an uninformed populace.

I have been wading through the quagmire of the election process and in particular, the Electoral College
vote and state laws that control the election process through the Electors voting. Some aspects are
crystal clear. The US Constitution reveals the eligibility requirements for president, the responsibility
of the federal and state governments and how the electors must vote. The individual states have the
power of controlling general election ballots and orchestrating the selection, meeting and votes of the
Electoral College Electors. There is much confusion however, regarding the duties and powers of state
election officials to ensure the qualifications of candidates and in states’ power to control the way
Electors vote.

Here are the laws and facts regarding the pivotal point in the election process, the Vote by the Electoral College Electors:

US Constitution

Article. II.

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

The US Constitution gives powers to the states for the general election.
US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

Federal Election Law: 

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

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

From US National Archives

“There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.”

List of Electors Bound by State Law and Pledges, as of November 2000
Source:  Congressional Research Service

No Legal Requirement
Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

ARIZONA – 10 Electoral Votes
ARKANSAS – 6 Electoral Votes
DELAWARE – 3 Electoral Votes
GEORGIA – 15 Electoral Votes
IDAHO – 4 Electoral Votes
ILLINOIS – 21 Electoral Votes
INDIANA – 11 Electoral Votes
IOWA – 7 Electoral Votes
KANSAS – 6 Electoral Votes
KENTUCKY – 8 Electoral Votes
LOUISIANA – 9 Electoral Votes
MINNESOTA – 10 Electoral Votes
 MISSOURI – 11 Electoral Votes
NEW HAMPSHIRE – 4 Electoral Votes
NEW JERSEY – 15 Electoral Votes
NEW YORK – 31 Electoral Votes
NORTH DAKOTA – 3 Electoral Votes
PENNSYLVANIA – 21 Electoral Votes
RHODE ISLAND – 4 Electoral Votes
SOUTH DAKOTA – 3 Electoral Votes
TENNESSEE – 11 Electoral Votes
TEXAS – 34 Electoral Votes
UTAH – 5 Electoral Votes
WEST VIRGINIA – 5 Electoral Votes
 
Legal Requirements or Pledges
Electors in these States are bound by State Law or by pledges to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

ALABAMA – 9 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law – § 17-19-2
ALASKA – 3 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law – § 15.30.040; 15.30.070
CALIFORNIA – 55 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 6906
COLORADO – 9 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 1-4-304
CONNECTICUT – 7 Electoral Votes
State Law § 9-175
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA – 3 Electoral Votes
DC Pledge / DC Law – § 1-1312(g)
FLORIDA – 27 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law – § 103.021(1)
HAWAII – 4 Electoral Votes
State Law – §§ 14-26 to 14-28
MAINE – 4 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 805
MARYLAND – 10 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 20-4
MASSACHUSETTS – 12 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law – Ch. 53, § 8, Supp.
MICHIGAN – 17 Electoral Votes
State Law – §168.47 (Violation cancels vote and elector is replaced).
MISSISSIPPI – 6 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law – §23-15-785(3)
MONTANA – 3 Electoral Votes
State Law – §13-25-104
NEBRASKA – 5 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 32-714
NEVADA – 5 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 298.050
NEW MEXICO – 5 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 1-15-5 to 1-15-9 (Violation is a fourth degree felony.)
NORTH CAROLINA – 15 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 163-212 (Violation cancels vote; elector is replaced and is subject to $500 fine.)
OHIO – 20 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 3505.40
OKLAHOMA – 7 Electoral Votes
State Pledge / State Law – 26, §§ 10-102; 10-109 (Violation of oath is a misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $1000.)
OREGON – 7 Electoral Votes
State Pledge / State Law – § 248.355
SOUTH CAROLINA – 8 Electoral Votes
State Pledge / State Law – § 7-19-80 (Replacement and criminal sanctions for violation.)
VERMONT – 3 Electoral Votes
State Law – title 17, § 2732
* VIRGINIA – 13 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 24.1-162 (Virginia statute may be advisory – “Shall be expected” to vote for nominees.)
WASHINGTON – 11 Electoral Votes
Party Pledge / State Law – §§ 29.71.020, 29.71.040, Supp. ($1000 fine.)
WISCONSIN – 10 Electoral Votes
State Law – § 7.75
WYOMING – 3 Electoral Votes
State Law – §§ 22-19-106; 22-19-108

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html

So called “Faithless Electors”

“It turns out there is no federal law that requires an elector to vote according to their pledge (to their respective party). And so, more than a few electors have cast their votes without following the popular vote or their party. These electors are called “faithless electors.”

In response to these faithless electors’ actions, several states have created laws to enforce an elector’s pledge to his or her party vote or the popular vote. Some states even go the extra step to assess a misdemeanor charge and a fine to such actions. For example, the state of North Carolina charges a fine of $10,000 to faithless electors.

It’s important to note, that although these states have created these laws, a large number of scholars believe that such state-level laws hold no true bearing and would not survive constitutional challenge.”

Source:

http://votenovember2008.blogspot.com/2008/10/how-electoral-college-works.html

 

So, we have a situation where electors are referred to as “faithless” for not following the party line
or state mandate. However, the state mandates are unconstitutional. There is no such mandate from the
US Constitution or Federal Election Law. On the contrary, Electors are bound to vote in the manner defined
in the US Constitution. Following a political party or state mandate when confronted by serious concerns
regarding a presidential candidate’s eligibility, clearly violates the spirit of the law. The individual
states have the power over candidates being placed on and remaining on ballots. If they are to dictate
the manner in which Electors vote, they must exercise their powers and demand proof of eligibility
to prevent violations of constitutional law and potential voter disenfranchisement.

Let’s consider a comment from an Indiana Elector and Indiana law.

“Good Morning CW, I sent an email to all of the Electorals in Indiana asking them to support the Constitution requirements for President. This is what I received back, “Brenda I don’t represent you. I do however represent the people who voted for President Elect Barack Obama in the state of Indiana. Anthe the State did go from Red to Blue, did it not? Any think you have to further communicate with me is of no interest. Please refrain.” Cordelia Lewis-Burks. Then the next e-mail sent a picture of all the Presidents of the United States with the caption, One thing has changed” because it had Obama’s picture added. How do you get people like this to even question his qualifications? They do not care. All they care about is the fact that he is part black. By the way, this lady is black. I also have a question–why doesn’t she represent me? She is just an electoral, and I am a citizen of Indiana and the United States. Any suggestions ? Thanks. Brenda”

Electors pledge to a political party to vote for parties candidate. This is another example of party over country. The DNC did not vet Obama and now expect Electors to blindly follow.

The Indiana Elector in the above comment has pledged to the Democrat Party to vote for their candidate. I wonder if the Elector is aware of their duty to vote in the manner directed by the US Constitution. The Elector has been made aware of the eligibility issue with Barack Obama. Ignorance is not bliss. If the electors in Indiana are not made aware of their responsibilities and Obama being ineligible, then their Electoral votes must be challenged in Congress. 

Indiana Law from the Secretary of State

“After election day, each county sends its presidential vote totals to the Secretary of State in Indianapolis. It can take several weeks after the election for the final version of all these county returns to arrive. When all the county votes have been received (and any errors or omissions corrected), the Secretary of State certifies to the Governor the final, official returns for the presidential elector candidates.

The Governor then signs a “Certificate of Ascertainment.” This document officially appoints the winning presidential electors to serve as Indiana’s members of the Electoral College. Three copies of this document are immediately sent to the National Archives in Washington.”
“After an invocation and any welcoming remarks by state officials, the Certificate of Ascertainment and the roll call of the electors are read. The electors who are present then take their oath of office.”

“The presidential electors then vote for President on a paper ballot. The ballots are tabulated and the results announced. The electors then cast a separate paper ballot for Vice-President, and the result of this voting is announced. The electors then sign a Certificate that sets forth the votes each Presidential candidate and Vice-Presidential candidate received, and a transmittal cover sheet.”
INDIANA ELECTORAL COLLEGE FACTS

“Indiana has never had a “faithless” elector. Each individual has voted for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates to whom they were pledged.”

Source:

http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/voters/electors_new.html

It is obvious that we must do the following:

  • Inform Electoral College Electors, State Election Officials and congressmen of the Obama ineligibility
    issues and their duty to uphold the law and serve the citizens.
  • Educate Electors on their constitutional duty and priorities.
  • Demand that State election officials require proof of eligibility of Barack Obama and any other presidential candidates.
  • Hold all accountable.
  • However, even though some Electors have been complicit with the DNC in not vetting Obama, not all are guilty of dubious actions and all should be addressed with the proper respect.

Philip J Berg lawsuit appeal, US Supreme Court, Update, November 19, 2008, Mr. Berg provides update, FEC waiver, Justice Souter ruling?

Jeff Schreiber spoke to Philip J Berg after the FEC filed a waiver of right to respond. Here are some exerpts
from Jeff Schreiber’s report:

“According to the Docket No. 08-570 at the United States Supreme Court, the Federal Election Commission yesterday filed a waiver of its right to respond to attorney Philip Berg’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari, filed on October 31 and currently pending before the Court.

Contrary to Internet rumor that Justice Souter had ordered Barack Obama to provide the vault copy of his birth certificate, the Court merely set December 1, 2008 as the date by which the respondents–Obama, the Democratic National Committee and Federal Election Commission–were to respond to Berg’s petition if they chose to do so at all. Yesterday’s filing, which appeared on the docket this afternoon, shows that the respondents have waived their right to respond.”

“This distinction is not lost on Philip Berg.

“If it were just the FEC filing the waiver, I must say that I’m surprised,” Berg said. “I’m surprised because I think they should take the position that the Supreme Court should grant standing to us. I think they have a responsibility not only to Phil Berg, but to all citizens of this country, to put forth a sense of balance which otherwise doesn’t seem to exist.”

“However, if this was filed by the FEC on behalf of the DNC and Barack Obama too, it reeks of collusion,” he said, noting that the attorney from the Solicitor General’s office should be representing federal respondents and not the DNC or Obama.

Indeed, neither the DNC nor the president-elect are, for now, federal respondents, though Obama’s status as Illinois senator–a position from which he resigned this past weekend–could place him under the representational umbrella of the Justice Department.”

“While outright collusion could be a stretch, if indeed the FEC’s attorney is acting on behalf of all respondents and not just the FEC, there certainly is the appearance of coordination. Regardless of the veracity of the allegations put forth against Barack Obama, for the Department of Justice and the Solicitor General of the United States to be facilitating a defense which is calculated to shield from disclosure, rather than compel disclosure, of manifestly relevant and critical information bearing directly upon not just the qualifications but the very constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama — the word “unorthodox” comes to mind. As does “shameful.” And yet, in these post-election times, especially considering the FEC’s decision not to audit Obama’s $600 million take during his campaign (at least $63 million of which was from undisclosed sources), this appears to be the new standard in post-election times.”

Read more of the article here:

http://www.americasright.com/

Help Philip J Berg defend the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

Obama is not eligible, Virginia Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Circuit Court, Richmond Virginia, Judge Walter W. Stout III, Court ruling, Wild Bill, VA Board of Elections, Obama camp fraud?, Breaking News **

Another Obama Camp scam?

When I first read about the Virginia lawsuit claiming Obama is ineligible and the subsequent ruling by
the judge, it did not smell right. I have reread the exerpts placed on the internet and after much thought
and deciding that I had to read the Petition and the judges ruling, I searched for a record of the filing
and hearing on the official Virginia Courts website. I did extensive searching by names and dates and
found nothing. After much searching, I called the clerk of court’s office. I was told that several people
had called inquiring about the case and they could find no record of any case.

Internet accounts of alleged Petition and judge ruling

So, who is Wild Bill?

“Great News
written by Wild Bill, October 22, 2008

The Virginia lawsuit (actually a Petition for Writ of Mandamus) was filed today. Ironically, we almost missed filing and serving due to the thousands of people downtown today to see Obama speak. In even better news, the Honorable Walter W. Stout III, the chief judge, granted our motion for an emergency hearing and set a briefing schedule. We were required to serve the Board of Elections a copy of the schedule today (which we did). We must file our brief and all supporting evidence on Friday. The Board of Elections has until the 28th to file a response.

We may file a reply on the 29th and the hearing will be held on the 30th at 1:30p.m.
We did send copies of the suit and orders to the local media, but unlike some people, we are more interested in pursuing the legal battle, not whoring ourselves out to the media. For that same reason we are not setting up a website or soliciting donations.
We will let you know how things progress.”

Found here:

http://peoplespassions.org/peoplesvoice

So, where did this come from?

“Virginia State Court Dismisses Action Challenging Obama’s Eligibility to be President
The November 03, 2008 regarding the Virginia State Court Dismissal Action Challenging Obama’s Eligibility to be President is not the result of a conspiracy, nor is it the result of a biased or unprincipled judge. I would hope all patriotic Americans would feel the same way and avoid making unfounded scurrilous remarks about the judge or the judicial system. (ObamaCrimes.com)

Review:

There are two parts – first the response on the State’s argument that the Board of Elections is not responsible for vetting candidates for president, second the issues we raised regarding Mr. Obama’s citizenship.

[Part 1: State’s argument that the Board of Elections is not responsible for vetting candidates for president] With respect to the first part, the judge noted that in a presidential election, unlike any other election, the electorate votes for a slate of electors, not directly for the presidential candidates. The judge noted that there is no question that all of the proposed VA electors are qualified to hold that position (a position we never contested). The judge recognized the problem with this is that perhaps there is no entity that is responsible for vetting the presidential candidates. Some on this site have argued that the DNC is responsible for vetting their candidates. There is no legal support for that argument. The judge held that the Constitutional requirements for a presidential candidate are to be determined solely by the congress in session when the electoral votes are cast.

The court cited Federal legislation further details the process for counting electoral votes in Congress. 3 U.S.C. 15. Section 15, which directs that Congress shall be in session on the appropriate day to count the electoral votes, with the President of the Senate presiding. It directs that designated individuals shall open, count and record the electoral votes, and then present the results to the President of the Senate, who shall then “announce the state of the vote.” The statute provides a mechanism for objections then to be registered and resolved:

“[e]very objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made . . . shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision.”

Thus the court denied the motion for a writ of mandamaus and dismissed the petition.

As I mentioned earlier, this was the argument that I think the State had the best chance on and it strikes me as correct. Much as the membership of the Senate is controlled by the senate (see, e.g. the senator Stevens discussion), the constitution places the power to determine presidential eligibility on the congress.

Based on this, our real battle should be to contact our representatives and senators and make certain that an objection is brought at the time of the counting of the electoral votes. Remember, this will be the new congress, so wait until Wednesday when you know who your new representatives and senators are.

The Court could have ended there, but it went beyond this initial holding and addressed our other arguments (this is not uncommon – just as lawyers often make alternate arguments, courts regularly provide alternate holdings in case one is rejected).

[Part 2: issues we raised regarding Mr. Obama’s citizenship]

The Court made the following findings:
1. The Certification of Live Birth presented to the court is unquestionably authentic. The court noted that the certification had a raised seal from the state of Hawaii, had a stamp bearing the signature of the registrar of vital statistics. The court found “wholly unpersuasive” any of the internet claims that the birth certificate was altered in any way. Furthermore, the document itself was accompanied by an affidavit from the State Health Director (of Hawaii) verifying that the document is an authentic certification of live birth.

The court held that there could be no doubt that the document was authentic unless one believed that the state of Hawaii’s health department were in on an elaborate and complex conspiracy – and that there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.

2. The Certification of Live Birth establishes that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen. The affidavit of the State Health Director states that the information on the CLOB is identical to the information on the “vault” copy of the birth certificate, and that both documents establish that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu. The Court noted that the CLOB is valid for all citizenship purposes. The court noted our argument that the COLB is not valid for determining citizenship, but referred us to Hawaiian law that states otherwise. “There is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID.” The court found that Hawaiian law makes the COLB valid for all purposes with the exception of determining native Hawaiian heritage for certain state and federal benefits. The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.

3. For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), which at the relevant time provided as follows: “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ***(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:…..is irrelevant to this matter, as Mr. Obama was conclusively born in Hawaii.

4. Mr. Obama did hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya until he became an adult. When Barack Obama Jr. was born Kenya was a British colony. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children: “British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.” In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK. Obama’s UK citizenship became an Kenyan citizenship on Dec. 12, 1963, when Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. The court noted that Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.

Thus the court held that as a citizen of the UK who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UK status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), thus Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship in 1963.

However, the court further held that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. The court held that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama has ever renounced his U.S. citizenship or sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.

The court held that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Obama renounce his Kenyan citizenship or affirm his U.S. citizenship in order to maintain his status as a natural born citizen.

5. Mr. Obama did not lose his U.S. Citizenship based on the acts of his parents, including adoption by an Indonesian citizen. The Court held that no action taken by the parents of an American child can strip that child of his citizenship. The court cited to the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents or any other actions of his parents, so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. Thus the adoption of Obama did not serve to strip him of his U.S. citizenship. The fact that Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship is irrelevant, as U.S. law controls. Furthermore, the Court held that traveling on a foreign passport does not strip an American of his citizenship. The Court noted first that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport (Mr. Berg and others we reached out to for evidence never provided any evidence of this claim or any other of the claims we could have used some proof of.) Nonetheless, the court held that such travel does not divest an American of his citizenship.

The Court makes other holdings and findings that I won’t bother you with here. Needless to say, the decision is wholly against us. The court finds the claims against Mr. Obama’s citizenship “wholly unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue” and further classifies it as “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort, fueled by nothing than internet rumor and those who truly want to believe egging each other on.””

And what prompted Lan Lamphere to state the following?

“There is no need to file a lawsuit against Barack Obama.  No court will ever hear it and no committee will ever act on it even if it was won.” – Lan Lamphere

Found here:

http://www.lanlamphere.com/public/2008/11/14/virginia-state-court-dismisses-action-challenging-obamas-eligibility-to-be-president/

If this is not another attempt by the Obama camp to shore up credibility and discredit those such as Philip J Berg, please respond with proof to the contrary.

Also, anyone affiliated with Circuit Court Judge Walter W. Stout III in Richmond Virginia, we would love to get a response from you.

** UPDATE **

I Just found this on

http://americamustknow.com/virginiacase.aspx

“Message:
RE: WILD BILL CASE

I too believe that this case is a “fake case” based on the following:

1. I conducted multiple searches for the case at http://wasdmz2.courts.state.va.us/CJISWeb/circuit.html — Using a variety of names, including Board of Elections, Elections, Election, etc. — and no case was reported.

2. I contacted Judge Stout’s Office (the judge in the case, per Wild Bill. (Info at http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/circuit/Richmond/home.html). The clerk there could find no record of the case in the docket.

3. I contacted two local Richmond newspapers, with all the info available. There was no subsequent report on the case. Given that at least local news has reported on all similar cases, I find it very hard to believe that local Richmond news would not report on such a substantial opinion.

============
While you and I may have drawn different conclusions about the “facts,” I believe that we both seek the truth and, therefore, provide this research – which you can verify yourself – for your consideration.”

Leo C. Donofrio NJ lawsuit, US Supreme Court Appeal, Update November 18, 2008, Obama not eligible

Below is an update on the Leo C. Donofrio NJ lawsuit that states that Obama is ineligible to be president. The lawsuit is currently appealed before the US Supreme Court:

“Applicant, Leo C. Donofrio, submitted a renewed application for emergency stay of the ’08 national election to The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas on Nov. 14, 2008 by US Postal Express Mail which was delivered at 7:46 AM, Nov. 17, 2008.

The renewed application hit the US Supreme Court on-line docket search engine sometime between noon and 2:15 PM today, Nov. 18, 2008.  Below is a copy of the docket:

_________________________________________________________________

No. 08A407
Title:
Leo C. Donofrio, Applicant
v.
Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of New Jersey
  Case Nos.: (AM-0153-08T2 at the New Jersey Appellate Division without a docket number)
~~~Date~~~  ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A407) for stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 6 2008 Application (08A407) denied by Justice Souter.
Nov 14 2008 Application (08A407) refiled and submitted to Justice Thomas.

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~    ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Leo C. Donofrio P.O. Box 93
East Brunswick, NJ  08816
Party name: Leo C. Donofrio”

Read more here:

http://blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

Philip J Berg lawsuit, Washington Times Ad, US Supreme Court appeal, Obama not eligible, US Constitution must be upheld, November 17, 2008

The Philip J Berg lawsuit that states that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president is still before the
Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Berg and many citizens insist that we uphold the US Constitution.
Mr. Berg has an ad in the Washington Times for Monday, November 17, 2008.

bergad

Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

Obama not eligible, NC lawsuit, Donald Sullivan, Lt Col, Elaine Marshall, NC Secretary of State, North Carolina Board of Elections, NC Electoral College, November 7, 2008, Class Action Lawsuit, Support and defend Constitution, Citizen Wells update from Lt Col Sullivan, November 16, 2008

I spoke to Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan Friday night, November 14, 2008. Mr. Sullivan confirmed that his lawsuit
challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president was filed on November 7, 2008 and is awaiting being
put on the Superior Court calendar in Pender County NC. We discussed upholding the US Constitution and our reasons for being committed to ensuring that the Constitution be followed and upheld, I explained what
this blog has been involved in and offered my services.

Before the general election, Citizen Wells sent notification to all 50 states of the Philip J Berg lawsuit
and Barack Obama’s failure to provide legal proof of his eligibility to be president. I contacted the
NC Board of Elections and Secretary of State’s office on multiple occasions via telephone and email. The
Board of Elections response was that they had been aware of the Berg lawsuit for several months and they tried to compare it to a lawsuit filed earlier against John McCain. The response I received had an air of political bias.

I will cooperate with Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan as required. Independently, I am going to reestablish contact
with the NC Secretary of State’s office and remind them of their constitutional duty, go over NC election
law and relate lawsuits in California as well as 2 still before the US Supreme Court. I will also be
presenting a new article that I believe will provide some new insights into the responsibilities of
federal and state judges as well as state officials.

Here are some exerpts from the lawsuit filed on November 7, 2008, by Lt Col. Donald Sullivan against Elaine Marshall, the NC Secretary of State, and the NC Board of Elections:
“1.2 Defendant, North Carolina Board of Elections, is an appointed agency of the State of North Carolina General Assembly, with oversight authority in matters pertaining to State elections and election irregularities including, but not limited to, candidate/electee eligibility, with offices at 506 Harrington Street, Raleigh, NC, 27611, and with a mailing address of PO Box 27255, Raleigh, NC, 27611-7255. Upon information and belief, the Process Agent for said entity is Director Gary O. Bartlett of the same address.

1.2. Defendant, Elaine F. Marshall, a/k/a Elaine Marshall is an adult individual with an office address of Old Revenue Building, 2 S. Salisbury Street, PO Box 29622, Raleigh, NC, 27626-062, and the elected North Carolina State Secretary of State. Upon information and belief, the Process Agent for said individual and entity is Ann Wall at PO Box 29622, Raleigh, NC, 27626.”

 

 “MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR AN ORDER FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

4.1.

I, Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan, Plaintiff, hereby offer this memorandum in support of my motion for injunctive relief and to demand performance of constitutional duties related to the offices of the North Carolina Board of Elections and the North Carolina State Secretary of State, Elaine F. Marshall, a/k/a Elaine Marshall, [hereinafter Defendants”]. Upon information and belief, all my allegations and aversions herein are true and verifiable.

4.2.

My complaint challenges Mr. Barack Hussein Obama’s, eligibility to run for, or hold, the Office of President of the United States and demands that the Offices of the Board of Elections and the Secretary of State make such determination by acquisition of original documentation or by receipt of verifiable information from other government entities so charged with overseeing the election process, such as the Federal Elections Commission.

4.3.

I argue that when a challenge is received by the North Carolina State Board of Elections to the qualification for office of an individual appearing on the North Carolina State Ballot, that the entire burden of proof falls on the candidate for Office to present such information and documentation to the North Carolina State Board of Elections as would be normal and customary to establish one’s minimum qualifications for office.

4.4.

I further argue that the Office of the Board of Elections has the Constitutional and Statutory authority to make such determinations as part of certifying and executing fair and open elections.

4.5.

I further argue that it is sufficient to show only reasonable cause for complaint to the Board of Elections for that Board to require documentation of the respective individual relevant to determination of minimum qualification; that, lacking explicit statute defining the requisite documentation, the Board of Elections has the intrinsic authority to set those reasonable standards that would establish certain confidence in the people in the electoral process.

4.6.

Plaintiff seeks focused and expedited review, to protect the veracity of the electoral process, maintain the people’s confidence in the government and to support defend the Constitutions of North Carolina and of the United States of America.”

Obama not eligible, California lawsuit, Dr. Alan Keyes, Ambassador, Dr. Wiley S. Drake, Sr, Markham Robinson, CA Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, Barack Obama, Senator Joe Biden, California Democratic Party Electors, PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, November 12, 2008

A lawsuit was filed against CA Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, Barack Obama, Senator Joe Biden, and the California Democratic Party Electors
on November 12, 2008. Dr. Alan Keyes, Ambassador, Dr. Wiley S. Drake, Sr, and Markham Robinson initiated the Petition for Writ of Mandate in
Superior Court in Sacramento California. All California Electors are
listed as defendants.

The Petitioners are described as:

“INTRODUCTION
Parties
1. Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes, Petitioner herein, is the Presidential candidate of the
American Independent Party, in the 2008 election, on the California State Ballot;
2. Dr. Wiley S. Drake, Sr., Petitioner herein, is a Certified California Elector of the
American Independent Party and is the Vice Presidential candidate of the American Independent Party, in
the 2008 election, on the California State Ballot;
3. Markham Robinson, Petitioner herein, is a Certified California Elector of the American
Independent Party, Vice Chairman of America’s Independent Party, and Chairman of the American
Independent Party;”

One thing is readily apparent in this petition. Alan Keyes unquestionably has standing.

Here is the main argument:

“65. There is a reasonable and common expectation by the voters that to qualify for the ballot, the individuals running for office must meet minimum qualifications as outlined in the federal and state Constitutions and statutes, and that compliance with those minimum qualifications has been confirmed by the officials overseeing the election process. Heretofore, only a signed statement from the candidate attesting to his or her meeting those qualifications was requested and received by SOS, with no verification demanded. This practice represents a much lower standard than that demanded of one when requesting a California driver’s license. Since SOS has, as its core, the mission of certifying and establishing the validity of the election process, this writ seeks a Court Order barring SOS from certifying
the California Electors until documentary proof that Senator Obama is a “natural born” citizen of the United States of America is received by her. This proof could include items such as his original birth certificate, showing the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor, all of his passports with immigration stamps, and verification from the governments where the candidate has resided, verifying that he did not, and does not, hold citizenship of these countries, and any other
documents that certify an individual’s citizenship and/or qualification for office.”

Read the entire petition here:
http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf

Obama Selective Service records, debbieschlussel.com, Federal agent examined, November 13, 2008, Possible Federal Crime, FOIA request, Obama fraud?

Debbie Schlussel, on her website, debbieschlussel.com, has a breaking story about Barack Obama’s Selective Service record and how it may be fraudulent. Here are some exerpts from the article dated November 13, 2008:

“November 13, 2008

EXCLUSIVE: Did Next Commander-in-Chief Falsify Selective Service Registration? Never Actually Register? Obama’s Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions

By Debbie Schlussel

“Did President-elect Barack Hussein Obama commit a federal crime in September of this year? Or did he never actually register and, instead, did friends of his in the Chicago federal records center, which maintains the official copy of his alleged Selective Service registration commit the crime for him?

It’s either one or the other, as indicated by the release of Barack Obama’s official Selective Service registration for the draft. A friend of mine, who is a retired federal agent, spent almost a year trying to obtain this document through a Freedom of Information Act request, and, after much stonewalling, finally received it and released it to me.

But the release of Obama’s draft registration and an accompanying document, posted below, raises more questions than it answers. And it shows many signs of fraud, not to mention putting the lie to Obama’s claim that he registered for the draft in June 1979, before it was required by law.”

“The official campaign for President may be over. But Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration card and accompanying documents show that questions about him are not only NOT over, but if the signature on the document is in fact his, our next Commander-in-Chief may have committed a federal crime in 2008, well within the statute of limitations on the matter. If it is not his, then it’s proof positive that our next Commander-in-Chief never registered with the Selective Service as required by law. By law, he was required to register and was legally able to do so until the age of 26.

But the Selective Service System registration (“SSS Form 1”) and accompanying computer print-out (“SSS Print-out), below, released by the Selective Service show the following oddities and irregularities, all of which indicate the document was created in 2008 and backdated:”

Read more of this great article here:

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/exclusive_did_n.html

obamaselectiveserviceregist.jpg

Obamaselectiveserviceprinto.jpg

Obama not eligible, NC lawsuit, Donald Sullivan, Lt Col, Elaine Marshall, NC Secretary of State, North Carolina Board of Elections, NC Electoral College, November 7, 2008, Class Action Lawsuit, Support and defend Constitution

Here is the lawsuit filed on November 7, 2008, by Lt Col. Donald Sullivan against Elaine Marshall, the NC Secretary of State, and the NC Board of Elections:

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

COUNTY OF PENDER File # 08CV_____________

 

 

Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan, )

Plaintiff ) NOTICE AND DEMAND ) FOR

v. ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

) (CLASS ACTION)

North Carolina Board of Elections, and )

Elaine F. Marshall, Secretary of State )

For North Carolina, )

Defendants )

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Now comes Lt. Colonel Donald Sullivan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, to notice and demand this court provide injunctive relief in the matter of the citizenship of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., his eligibility to have been a candidate on the North Carolina ballot for the office of President of the United States of America and his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States of America. 

1. PARTIES

1.1.

 

I, Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan, Plaintiff, am an adult individual with an address of PO Box 3061, Wilmington, NC, and Citizen of the State of North Carolina and of the United States of America.

1.2 Defendant, North Carolina Board of Elections, is an appointed agency of the State of North Carolina General Assembly, with oversight authority in matters pertaining to State elections and election irregularities including, but not limited to, candidate/electee eligibility, with offices at 506 Harrington Street, Raleigh, NC, 27611, and with a mailing address of PO Box 27255, Raleigh, NC, 27611-7255. Upon information and belief, the Process Agent for said entity is Director Gary O. Bartlett of the same address.

1.2. Defendant, Elaine F. Marshall, a/k/a Elaine Marshall is an adult individual with an office address of Old Revenue Building, 2 S. Salisbury Street, PO Box 29622, Raleigh, NC, 27626-062, and the elected North Carolina State Secretary of State. Upon information and belief, the Process Agent for said individual and entity is Ann Wall at PO Box 29622, Raleigh, NC, 27626.

2.     JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2.1.

 

As we do not have a federal ballot, per se, as there is no federally guaranteed right to vote and there is no popular federal election held, North Carolina State, through the office of the North Carolina Board of Elections, creates its own ballot, supervises the same, and allows its citizens to vote in a popular election to choose electors to represent our choice for the Office of President to the Congress under the 12

th Amendment. This case arises under Article VI, of the North Carolina State Constitution and North Carolina General Statute 163, et. seq., and the laws and Constitution of the United States, and presents a state question within this Court’s jurisdiction.

3. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF CLASS ACTION STATUS

 

 

3. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF CLASS ACTION STATUS

 

I bring this action on my motion for class certification on behalf of my self and all others similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23 of the N.C.R. of Civ. P. and state as follows:
Pursuant to said Rule 23, I request a determination that all voters be certified as a single class based upon the following grounds:

3.1. I bring this action now maintained by the named plaintiff as a class action on behalf of myself and all persons similarly situated, comprising the class.
3.2. I am informed and believe that there are approximately over 4,000,000 members of the class so that joinder of all members is impracticable.

3.3. My claims are typical of the claims of all members of the class above.

3.4. I will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class above, to the best of my ability.

3.5. There are common questions of law and fact affecting the rights of each member of the class, as against the named defendants.

3.6. The common questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting individual members only, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversies between the class described above and the named defendants.

For the reasons stated infra, I respectfully request this court to grant my request for class certification.  As discussed above, all requirements of NC Civil Rule 23 have been satisfied, and the goal of judicial economy will be well served by resolving these claims contained infra in a single action. [English v Holden Beach Realty, 41 NC App 1, 254 SE 2d 217 (1979) and Crow v. Citicorp Acceptance, 319 NC 274, 354 SE 2d 459 (1987)]

4.

 

     MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR AN ORDER FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

4.1.

 

I

, Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan, Plaintiff, hereby offer this memorandum in support of my motion for injunctive relief and to demand performance of constitutional duties related to the offices of the North Carolina Board of Elections and the North Carolina State Secretary of State, Elaine F. Marshall, a/k/a Elaine Marshall, [hereinafter Defendants”]. Upon information and belief, all my allegations and aversions herein are true and verifiable.

4.2.

 

My complaint challenges Mr. Barack Hussein Obama’s, eligibility to run for, or hold, the Office of President of the United States and demands that the Offices of the Board of Elections and the Secretary of State make such determination by acquisition of original documentation or by receipt of verifiable information from other government entities so charged with overseeing the election process, such as the Federal Elections Commission.

4.3.

 

I argue that when a challenge is received by the North Carolina State Board of Elections to the qualification for office of an individual appearing on the North Carolina State Ballot, that the entire burden of proof falls on the candidate for Office to present such information and documentation to the North Carolina State Board of Elections as would be normal and customary to establish one

s minimum qualifications for office.

4.4.

 

I further argue that the Office of the Board of Elections has the Constitutional and Statutory authority to make such determinations as part of certifying and executing fair and open elections.

4.5.

 

I further argue that it is sufficient to show only reasonable cause for complaint to the Board of Elections for that Board to require documentation of the respective individual relevant to determination of minimum qualification; that, lacking explicit statute defining the requisite documentation, the Board of Elections has the intrinsic authority to set those reasonable standards that would establish certain confidence in the people in the electoral process.

4.6.

 

Plaintiff seeks focused and expedited review, to protect the veracity of the electoral process, maintain the people’s confidence in the government and to support defend the Constitutions of North Carolina and of the United States of America. 

5. DEMAND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF – PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

5.1.

 

Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, states in particular part, “No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

5.2.

 

Mr. Barack H. Obama was a candidate for United States Office of President on the 2008 North Carolina ballot. However, to have been a candidate, Mr. Obama must have met those qualifications specified for the United States Office of the President, which include, but are not limited to, being a “natural born” citizen. Upon information and belief, Mr. Obama has failed to demonstrate that he is a “natural born” citizen. There are other legal challenges before the Federal Courts regarding aspects of lost or dual citizenship. Those challenges further demonstrate my argument that reasonable doubt exists as to the veracity of the electoral process that would allow such fundamental questions to exist at this late hour preceding the election.

5.3.

 

The North Carolina State office of the Board of Elections is responsible for the veracity of the North Carolina State election process, for verifying ahead of time the qualification of the voters, the ballots themselves, the candidates and the final counting and certification of results. That office is intended to be non-biased and to provide the critical sense of fairness and correctness necessary for the people to have faith in the fundamental underpinnings of the democratic basis for our republic.

5.4.

 

There is a reasonable and common expectation by the people that to qualify for the ballot the individuals so listed meet the minimum qualifications as outlined in our Constitutions, and that proof of those minimum qualifications has been received by the officials executing the election process. Heretofore, upon information and belief, only a signed statement from Mr. Obama attesting to meeting those qualifications was requested and received by the office of the Board of Elections, with no verification demanded. This practice, it should be noted, represents a much lower standard than that demanded of one when requesting even a driver’s license. Since the office of the Board of Elections has at its core the mission of certifying and establishing the veracity of the election process, this demand seeks a directive to the North Carolina State Office of the Board of Elections to receive appropriate verifiable documentation and certify any individual’s qualification for Office whose basic credentials for that Office have been challenged by this formal demand to the Office of the Board of Elections from a citizen of North Carolina State.

5.5.

 

In the case of individuals seeking the Office of President of the United States, the US constitution prescribes a system of electors where citizens of the respective state have a state controlled election with electors representing the interest of the named individual on the state ballot being elected to represent the interests of the respective state at the electoral college. Thus, we do not have a federal ballot controlled by the federal government. We have a North Carolina State ballot where we choose electors who in turn represent the named individual on the ballot. That is one more reason that the North Carolina Board of Elections has purview over the certification of not just the counts of the ballots so cast, but also the veracity of the contents of the ballot.

5.6.

 

This statement of failure to carry out a key task in our election system could be satisfied should verification of Mr. Obamas qualifications be received from original or certified documents from primary sources or from a verifiable report generated from government agencies such as the Federal Elections Commission. It is the North Carolina Board of Elections duty, through the State Secretary of State

s authority, to demand or request such information from foreign governments and to certify the veracity of documents or reports so received.

5.7.

 

To avert likely civil unrest and a constitutional crisis which would certainly accrue after the inauguration through laborious legal challenges and impeachment processes, this demand seeks to resolve such complaints prior to the inauguration. It was incumbent on the candidates to present such documentation, but to date Mr. Obama has failed to do so.

5.8.

 

This demand seeks specifically to verify through the office of the North Carolina Board of Elections, assisted by the Secretary of State, that Mr. Obama is a “natural born” citizen.

5.9.

 

Up to now, Mr. Obama, or the governments in question, has not allowed independent or official access to his birth records and supporting hospital records. Mr. Obama’s citizenship status has and is being challenged in the federal courts, which challenges will cast doubt on the veracity of the electoral system regardless of outcome if not resolved prior to the inauguration. Upon information and belief, the North Carolina Board of Elections is specifically charged with certifying and guaranteeing the veracity of official documents and overseeing the elections such that the people’s confidence in the fundamental aspect of our representative Republic is maintained. Upon information and belief, to date the Board of Elections has not carried out that fundamental duty regarding the eligibility of Mr. Obama.

5.10.

 

 The Federal Elections Commission FEC is generally tasked with providing oversight and verifications of federal candidates. Upon information and belief, to date the FEC has not produced either certification or verifiable documentation regarding Mr. Obama

s basic qualifications for office. Lacking that certification from the FEC, this demand requires that the Defendants formally request Hawaii State Health Department officials produce forthwith a certified copy of his “Vault” [original long version] Birth Certificate.

5.11. This demand requires that the Defendants formally request primary backup materials if they exist of hospital records that would lend veracity to a Hawaii live birth declaration. A court order of discovery is demanded to assist that investigation directed to the respective hospital, if so identified on a live birth certificate.

5.12.

 

 

Should Mr. Obama be discovered, whether by virtue of malfeasance, negligence or ignorance on his part not to have a valid certified US birth certificate; or, by such examination of original records, be found ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and thereby his election be declared void by the appropriate authorities acting under the law, I as well as other Americans will suffer irreparable harm including but not limited to:

5.12.1. Functional, or actual, disenfranchisement of large numbers of citizens, being members of the Democratic Party, who would have been deprived of the ability to choose a qualified nominee of their liking;

5.12.2.

 

Irreparable

harm to the structure and integrity of the Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee. In turn, this too would lead to disenfranchisement.

5.12.3. As Mr. Obama has now secured the election, should he later be discovered ineligible, the resulting constitutional and national security crisis that would ensue would generate a severe and genuine likelihood of civil disturbance by virtue of reaction to said disenfranchisement and upset with global ramifications.

5.13.

 

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

 

6.     FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS THAT DEMOSTRATE THE NEED TO PROVE MR. OBAMA’S MINIMUM CONSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATION.

6.1.

 

These allegations and statements are not intended to be proof of the status of Mr. Obama’s citizenship or lack thereof. That will be determined in the venue of the US District court on action by the Federal Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The listing of the allegations detailed below are included to demonstrate the reasonable assertion of the need for the Defendants to reestablish public confidence in the veracity of the electoral process and the obvious need for pre-certification as to a candidate’s meeting the minimum constitutional requirements.

6.2.

 

Pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, in order to run for office of the President of the United States, one must be a “natural born citizen” and may not hold dual citizenship or multiple citizenships with foreign countries. (U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1)

6.3.

 

There are questions as to where Mr. Obama was actually born, whether in the United States or abroad, and if his birth was subsequently registered in Hawaii. There are further questions regarding Mr. Obama’s United States citizenship, if he ever held such, being expatriated, and his failure to regain his citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance once he turned eighteen (18) years of age. There are additional questions regarding Mr. Obama’s multi-citizenships with foreign countries, which he may still maintain. To date, Mr. Obama has refused to prove he is qualified under the U.S. Constitution and eligible to run for the office of President of the United States despite requests and recent opportunities to do so in Federal Court.

6.4.

 

The “certificate” that Mr. Obama has posted on his official WEB site is a “Certification of Live Birth,” and not a “Birth Certificate” from Hawaii. There is no indication on even this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place.

6.5.

 

Researchers have claimed to have been unable to locate any birthing records in island hospitals for Mr. Barack Obama’s mother. Mr. Obama has offered none for review.

6.6.

 

Three forensic document experts have published extensive reports claiming that there is evidence of tampering on even the Obama WEB site displayed certificate.

6.7.

 

Numerous Freedom of Information Act Requests have been sent to Officials in Hawaii with no response from the public officials, nor has Mr. Obama granted access for release of the information, lending to the concern over the veracity of the attestation of eligibility on Mr. Obama’s application for candidacy for the office of President of the United States.

6.8.

 

The facts are undisputed by Mr. Obama that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a U.S. citizen; however, his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a citizen of Kenya. Mr. Obama’s parents, according to divorce records, were married on or about February 2, 1961.

6.9.

 

Mr. Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961; however, he has never given the name of the hospital in which he was born; whereas there are reports that Mr. Obama’s grandmother on his father’s side, his half brother and his half sister claim Mr. Barack H. Obama was born in Kenya. Reports further reflect that Mr. Obama’s mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy. Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal as a contributing writer published an article on June 9, 2008, stating that a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr., at a Kenya Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen, and his mother, a U.S. citizen. There are claims of records of a “registry of birth” for Mr. Obama, on or about August 8, 1961, in the public records office in Hawaii; but these have not been released for scrutiny. It is alleged in the Federal trial and is a matter of much general speculation that Mr. Obama’s mother was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. It is likely that Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Mr. Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Mr. Obama’s birth. In apparent confirmation that Mr. Obama was born in Kenya, an ABC newsman, reporting from Nairobi, Kenya, the morning after the elections, stated that the Kenyan people were celebrating the victory of their own native son

in the race for the presidency in the United States. Mobs of Kenyans were shown in the streets of Nairobi proudly waving their American flags and chanting words of support for their brother, Mr. Obama.

6.10.

 

Regarding the alleged birth of Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., in Honolulu, Hawaii, it is variously circulated that Mr. Obama’s birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital. Mr. Obama has provided no proof of birth from either of these or any other US based facility. He has made no effort to address these public concerns.

6.11. Upon information and belief, there are no published or known hospital birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama), Obama’s mother. There are only claims of records of a “registry of birth” for Mr. Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii.

6.12.

 

  

There is even a Canadian Birth Certificate posted on the Internet in the name of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.; however, the date of birth shows to be August 23, 1961.

6.13.

 

  

At the time of Mr. Obama’s birth in 1961, Kenya was a British Colony. Subsequently, under the Independence Constitution of Kenya, Mr. Barack H. Obama, Jr., became a Kenyan citizen on December 12, 1963. There are no indications or reports that Mr. Obama ever renounced that dual citizenship conferred either by nature of birth or by virtue of his father’s Kenyan citizenship. On Mr. Obama’s Senate web site, Mr. Obama acknowledges his father holds Kenyan nationality but avoids addressing that he (Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.) also held/holds Kenyan nationality.

6.14.

 

    

If in fact Mr. Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books in the United States at the time of his birth stated that if a child is born abroad and one parent is a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Mr. Obama’s mother would have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Mr. Obama’s birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) years of age and, therefore, did not meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship much less the status of “natural born”. Thus, the laws in effect at the time of Mr. Obama’s birth prevented U.S. Citizenship at birth of children born abroad to a U.S. Citizen parent and a non-citizen parent, if the citizen parent was under the age of nineteen (19) at the time of the birth of the child. Mr. Obama’s mother did not qualify under the law on the books to register Mr. Obama as a “natural born” citizen. Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27,1952,66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S.C. §1401(b), Matter of S-F-and G-, 2 I & N Dec. 182 (B.I.A.) approved (Att’y Gen. 1944). Thus, Mr. Obama could have only been Naturalized, and a Naturalized citizen is not qualified or eligible to run for Office of the President. (U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5)

6.15.

 

  

Furthermore, if Mr. Obama had been born in Kenya, his birth father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a citizen of Kenya; therefore, Mr. Obama would have automatically become a citizen of Kenya.

5.16.

 

   

The Nationality Act of 1940 provided for the loss of citizenship when the person became naturalized upon the naturalization of his or her parent having custody of such person. Arguably, Mr. Obama’s mother expatriated her U.S. Citizenship when she married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia and relocated herself and her son (Obama) to Indonesia.

6.17.

 

   Mr.

Obama was enrolled by his parents in a public school, Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia. Copies of the school registration are available which clearly state Mr. Obama’s name as Barry Soetoro and list his citizenship as Indonesian. Mr. Obama’s father is listed as Lolo Soetoro; his date of birth and place of birth are listed as August 4, 1961, in Honolulu; and Mr. Obama’s Religion is listed as Islam. This document was verified by the television show Inside Edition, whose reporter, Matt Meagher, took the actual footage of the school record.

6.18. In or about 1971, Mr. Obama’s mother sent him back to Hawaii. He was ten (10) years of age upon his return to Hawaii.

6.19.

 

    

Sometime after the return of Mr. Obama to Hawaii, His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham returned to Hawaii and divorced her husband, Lolo Soetoro. At the time of the divorce, Mr. Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, could have regained her U.S. citizenship. In order to regain her citizenship, she would have had to take the oath of allegiance required for such recognition. Said oath of allegiance may be taken abroad before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or in the United States before the Attorney General, a judge or clerk of a court. Such Oath of Allegiance would have been entered in the records of the appropriate embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General. Upon demand, a certified copy of the proceedings, including a copy of the oath administered, under the seal of the embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General can be delivered. The certified copy would be evidence of the facts stated therein before any court of record or judicial tribunal and in any department or agency of the Government of the United States. (8U.S.C.§1435)

6.20. Upon information and belief, M

 

r.

Obama’s mother failed to take the oath in order to regain her U.S. Citizenship. Therefore, Mr. Obama would not have been able to regain his U.S. Citizenship until he turned eighteen (18) years of age, and then only after he took the Oath of Allegiance before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or in the U.S. before the Attorney General, the judge or clerk of court. Since the Oath of Allegiance would have been entered in the records of the appropriate embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General, then Mr. Obama should be able to produce in court a certified copy of the proceedings, including a copy of the oath administered. Upon information and belief, no such copy has been to date produced for public examination.

6.21.

 

   After many attempts of the public to obtain Mr. Obama’s Certificate of Birth, a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was placed on Mr. Obama’s campaign website. However, as posted all over the internet, three (3) independent Document Forensic Experts performed extensive forensic testing on the Certificate of Live Birth as posted on Mr. Obama’s campaign website. The Forensic Expert findings were that the posted Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was a forgery. It was further discovered that the posted COLB had evidence of having been created from an altered/forged COLB issued to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, born in 1970. Maya Kasandra Soetoro is Mr. Obama’s half sister who was born in Indonesia and her birth later registered in Hawaii. The altered and allegedly forged COLB is still on Mr. Obama’s website located at http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert. Thus, if these allegations prove to be true, Mr. Obama may not only not be born in the United States, he may also very well be an illegal alien.

6.22.    Even if Mr. Obama had and subsequently maintained his United States Citizenship, which citizenship he has failed before District Court to demonstrate, he may still carry citizenships in Kenya and/or Indonesia. These facts call into question what the constitution attempted to address regarding potentially divided loyalties with foreign countries. Thus, Mr. Obama carries multiple citizenships and would be ineligible to run for President of the United States. (United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1)

7.     Failure to grant injunctive relief will realize these detriments:

7.1.

 

Failing to officially and publicly vet the status of the citizenship claims of Mr. Obama will cast a pall of doubt on the election process and taint the election results themselves.

7.2.

 

Failure to grant injunctive relief would allow a potentially corrupted, fraudulent nomination and election process to continue and an ineligible individual to assume

(Assume – To adopt in order to deceive) the office of President of the United States.

7.3.

 

Failure to grant injunctive relief demanding the Defendants certify the minimum qualifications of challenged Mr. Obama not only allows, but promotes an overwhelming degree of disrespect and creates such a lack of confidence in voters of the primary and electoral process itself that it would cement a prevailing belief that no potential candidate has to obey the laws of this country, respect our election process, follow the Constitution, or even suffer any consequence for lying and defrauding voters to get onto the ballot when they have no chance of serving if they fraudulently manage to get elected.

7.4.

 

As stated above, I as well as all American citizens will suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief is not granted. I do not have any other way of redress regarding these very significant and important issues and have made the general counsel for the Board of Elections and the Office of the Attorney General aware of my concerns that Mr. Obama may very well be an illegal alien. In this regard, I filed an affidavit on Friday, October, 31, 2008, with the Wilmington Office of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement which provided Agent-In-Charge Al Fitchett, or his successor, with the information contained herein in hopes he would use his extensive authority and resources to resolve this matter. (Exhibit A)

7.5. Despite many complaints, the FEC may have failed me and the entire class of American and North Carolinian citizens by their failure to date to perform due diligence and inquire into Mr. Obama’s eligibility to run for Office of the President. Lacking such certification, it is incumbent on the Defendants to certify or decertify as to Mr. Obama’s eligibility for the office of President of the United States based on the availability of clear documentation demonstrating that minimum qualifications for the respective office have been met by Mr. Obama.

8.    

 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court:

8.1. Certify this action as a class action under Rule 23 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.

 

 

8.2.

Grant injunctive relief demanding that Defendants immediately acquire primary documents or certified copies from primary sources such as Health Department and hospital records or verifiable reports regarding same from the FEC.

8.3.

 

Direct that Defendants immediately demand such verifiable report from the FEC or demand a certified copy of Mr. Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth and subpoena as needed for the release of hospital records, if so claimed, on said Live Birth Certificate to further prove he was born in Hawaii as Mr. Obama claims.

8.4.

 

Direct that Defendants certify or decertify the challenged Mr. Obama prior to the inauguration based on the availability of clear documentation.

8.5.

 

Order the Defendants to demand immediately a certified copy of Mr. Obama’s Oath of Allegiance proving he regained his United States Citizenship if, in fact, he is found not to have been born in the United States.

8.6.

 

If Defendants are unable to document a certified record of Mr. Obama’s oath of allegiance and birth and hospital records, the Defendant Board of Elections must immediately decertify Mr. Obama as a valid North Carolina electee for the office of President of the United States Office under the United States Constitution, Article II, Section I.

8.7 If Defendants are unable to document a certified record of Mr. Obama’s oath of allegiance and birth and hospital records, the Defendant Secretary of State must immediately demand Mr. Obama be stripped of his

 

electee

status, and decertified as such, nationwide, including, but not limited to, removing his status as the Senator from Illinois.

8.8.

 

Award me such costs and fees applicable by law; and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

 

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted this the 7th day of November, 2008. 

________________________________________ Donald Sullivan, in pro per and sui juris Lt. Col, USAFR(R) Plaintiff PO Box 3061 Wilmington, NC 28406

 

VERIFICATION

 

 

I, Donald Sullivan, hereby state that I am the Plaintiff in this action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Notice and Demand for Injunctive Relief (Class Action) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of law relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

_____________________________________ Donald Sullivan, Plaintiff, in pro per and sui juris PO Box 3061 Wilmington, NC 28406 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

 

 

 

I do certify I have this 7th Day of November, 2008, served a copy of the foregoing “Notice and Demand for Injunctive Relief (Class Action)” by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mails, certified with return receipt requested, or hand-delivered, and addressed as follows:

 

For Attorney General for the State of North Carolina:

Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina

ATTN: Mr. Roy A. Cooper, III, Attorney General

114 E. Edenton Street

PO Box 629

Raleigh, NC 27626-0629

For Defendant Board of Elections:

North Carolina Board of Elections

ATTN: Mr. Gary O. Bartlett, Director and Process Agent

POB 27255

Raleigh, NC 27611

For Defendant Elaine F. Marshall, Secretary of State:

Office of North Carolina Secretary of State

ATTN: Ms. Ann Wall, Process Agent

PO Box 29622

Raleigh, NC 27626

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

 

 

BY: ___________________________

Donald Sullivan, Lt Col, USAFR (Ret)

Plaintiff, In Pro per and Sui JurisPO Box 3061

Wilmington, NC 28406