Category Archives: Senator McCain

Leo Donofrio lawsuit, US Supreme Court, Donofrio v. Wells, Update, December 2, 2008, Justice Clarence Thomas, all 9 Supreme Court Justices, Conference, Friday, December 5, Rule of Four

Here is an update on the Leo Donofrio lawsuit, Donofrio v. Wells, that is before the US Supreme Court:
“Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, has been able to confirm that his case was referred to the full Court by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. This means that, per the docket, all 9 Justices have agreed to hold a Conference this Friday, December 5 to consider granting Certiorari. If this is granted, then the “Rule of Four” concept will then be in play.

If 4 of the 9 Justices respond in the affirmative to Leo’s case, there will be an oral argument and further briefing. If 5 of the 9 Justices respond in the affirmative, they could grant a stay of the Electoral College vote.

Leo also updated everyone on Cort Wrotnowski’s case (where Cort is Plaintiff), Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz. Apparently, after Cort called the Supreme Court requesting an update of his emergency stay renewal, he spoke with a certain individual who allegedly stated that his particular case (docket) had been referred to an anthrax containment facility! This news has led Leo Donofrio to call all concerned citizens to write the Supreme Court in diplomatic fashion to address this outrageous behavior.

There is also a rumor that the full Court may be seriously considering staying the Electoral College vote until after Barack Obama’s eligibility can be confirmed (the following excerpt from Bob Vernon of Honest American News (Plains Radio Network)):”

Read more here:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1317

Florida 2008 election, Obama not eligible, US Constitution, Florida Election Statutes, FL Secretary of State, Kurt Browning, Contest of Election, Unsuccessful candidate, Qualified Elector, Taxpayer, Patriot call, Uphold Constitution

“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

Call to Patriots

Defend the US Constitution

Barack Obama, who believes that the US Constitution is outdated, has thumbed his nose at the Constitution,
and instead of providing legal proof that he is elibible to be president, engaged in legal wrangling and
diversionary tactics to avoid the issue. Obama has made it past the first hurdle, the general election. We are
now left with checks and balances provided for in the US Constitution, Federal Election law and some state
statutes.

The state of Florida has a statute provision for challenging the “certification of election or nomination of any person to office…”.

Florida Election statutes

Title IX

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

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

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

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

Citizen Wells verified this statute with the office of the Secretary of State of Florida.

So, does anyone out there have the intestinal fortitude, concern over upholding and defending the US Constitution or love for this country?

Any takers for this challenge?

Perhaps Bob Barr, who ran on the Libertarian Ticket in Florida will take this challenge. Consider this video of Mr. Barr speaking about constitutional concerns:

Obama Natural Born Citizen?, Leo Donofrio explains, Donofrio lawsuit, US Supreme Court Appeal, Obama not eligible, Obama’s father Kenyan, Donofrio interprets Constitution

There has been much confusion regarding Barack Obama’s eligibility and the aspect of Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit that sets it apart is his claim that Obama does not meet the constitutional definition of Natural Born Citizen. Here is an explanation from Leo Donofrio:

“Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.

The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that’s why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born Citizens”.

Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution: 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; That’s it right there. (Emphasis added.)

The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn’t want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.

The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as “natural born Citizens”, so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.

But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.

The Framers distinguished between “natural born Citizens” and all other “Citizens”. And that’s why it’s important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of “Citizen”, not “natural born Citizen”. The Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document. Since the the Framers didn’t consider themselves to have been “natural born Citizens” due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.
Brack Obama’s official web site, Fight The Smears, admits he was a British Citizen at birth. At the very bottom of the section of his web site that shows an alleged official Certification Of Live Birth, the web site lists the following information and link thereto: FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. 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.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

That is a direct admission Barack Obama was a British citizen “at birth”.

My law suit argues that since Obama had dual citizenship “at birth” and therefore split loyalties “at birth”, he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States. A “natural born citizen” would have no other jurisdiction over him “at birth” other than that of the United States. The Framers chose the words “natural born” and those words cannot be ignored. The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, “natural born citizen”, pertains to the status of the person’s citizenship “at birth”.

The other numerous law suits circling Obama to question his eligibility fail to hit the mark on this issue. Since Obama was, “at birth”, a British citizen, it is completely irrelevant, as to the issue of Constitutional “natural born citizen” status, whether Obama was born in Hawaii or abroad. Either way, he is not eligible to be President.

Should Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, it will not change the fact that Obama was a British citizen “at birth”. Obama has admitted to being a British subject “at birth”. And as will be made perfectly clear below, his being subject to British jurisdiction “at birth” bars him from being eligible to be President of the United States.

As I have argued before the United States Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment does not confer “natural born citizen” status anywhere in its text. It simply states that a person born in the United States is a “Citizen”, and only if he is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States:

“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 most overlooked words in that section are: “…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…” You must recall that most, if not all, of the framers of the Constitution were, at birth, born as British subjects.

Stop and think about that.

The chosen wording of the Framers here makes it clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves – persons born subject to British jurisdiction – and “natural born citizens” who would not be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. And so the Framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President. But the grandfather clause only pertains to any person who was a Citizen… at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution. Obama was definitely not a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and so he is not grandfathered in.

And so, for Obama or anybody else to be eligible to be President, they must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States “at birth”. It should be obvious that the Framers intended to deny the Presidency to anybody who was a British subject “at birth”. If this had not been their intention, then they would not have needed to include a grandfather clause which allowed the Framers themselves to be President.”

Follow Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit here:

http://thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com/

Leo Donofrio NJ lawsuit, Update November 23, 2008, US Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts, Clerk Danny Bickell misconduct

Leo Donofrio has provided an update today, Sunday, November 23, 2008 regarding his NJ lawsuit that is before the US Supreme Court.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

“This past week, Leo C. Donofrio forwarded to the Honorable Chief Justice John G. Roberts an official allegation of misconduct against SCOTUS stay clerk, Danny Bickell.

United States Supreme Court docket no. 08A407, Donofrio v. Wells, is now “Distributed for Conference of Dec. 5th, 2008″ to the full Court meeting in private on that date. The case was the subject of previous sabotage by SCOTUS stay clerk, Danny Bickell (as well as judicial misconduct by NJ Appellate Division Judge Jack M. Sabatino). Bickell, after receiving the emergency stay application which requested extraordinary relief to stay the national election, took it upon himself to deny the application on the very time sensitive date it was filed, Nov. 3, a day before the election day popular vote.

As it stands, this case, and the Presidency, now rest in the hands of the nine Supreme Justices, a situation that could have come to pass prior to the votes being counted on election day had Mr. Bickell actually done the job he’s paid to do – be a clerk – as opposed to his specious illegal attempt to play Supreme Court Justice and overrule the long standing precedent of McCarthy v. Briscoe, 429 U.S. 1317 (1976). Please note that the link provided goes to the 5th Circuit follow up action as all links to the actual Supreme Court decision appear to have been mysteriously cut off.

Incredibly, the McCarthy v. Briscoe case provides multiple controlling precedent to the justiciability of the action now before the Supreme Court. No wonder this Supreme Court decision can’t be found online...anywhere. Hopefully, broken links to the case will be resolved as this blog makes the rounds.

The American people need to familiarize themselves with McCarthy v. Briscoe 429 U.S. 1317 (1976) (check note 1 when you find the case) in order to understand the precedent which supports the relief requested by Donofrio.

That case is relevant as to the procedural grounds Mr. Bickell incorrectly (and illegally) applied in denying to pass on Donofrio’s stay application. But more important is that the case also provides supporting precedent for Donofrio in that US Supreme Court Justice Powell, late in the 1976 Presidential cycle, intervened on behalf of 3rd party candidate Eugene McCarthy, and forced the Texas Secretary of State to include McCarthy on the ballots after McCarthy made an emergency application to the Supreme Court.

In the first count of Donofrio’s stay application, he had requested the SCOTUS remove the names of Obama and McCain from New Jersey ballots. (His second count also requested that the SCOTUS stay the national election.) McCarthy v. Briscoe stands for the precedent that the SCOTUS has the power to order a Secretary of State to include or remove names from ballots when a Constitutional issue has been invoked.

The case is also procedurally relevant because Bickell told Donofrio he didn’t submit the stay application to Justice Souter because it failed to meet the criteria of Supreme Court Rule 23.3 in that Donofrio’s NJ Supreme Court request for emergency relief used the words “injunctive relief” instead of the word “stay” and therefore Donofrio had failed to request a stay in the lower court and was not thereafter allowed to come to the US Supreme Court with such a request.

This was a disgusting attempt at one of the worst bluffs I’ve ever seen. Bickell was called with a lightning fast “all in” only to be found holding the infamous 7-2 off suit and the flop, turn and river all failed to connect with his crap holding because:

1. Donofrio did request a “stay” in his initial Appellate Division complaint. Also, the NJ Attorney General’s office argued, in their reply brief, against the court issuing a “stay”.

2. Donofrio’s NJ Supreme Court motion relied on his full lower court record when he requested a “Motion for injunctive relief” from the NJ Supreme Court by way of a signed certification and the submission of a 75 page appendix which Bickell did not have in his possession to review.

3. A stay isinjunctive relief”. Any first year law student would know that. But Mr. Bickell is a staff attorney at the United States Supreme Court. He knew damn well that the interference he ran was willfull misconduct.

4. The case has actually been distributed for conference of all nine Justices, a situation Bickell tried to prevent.

5. The case McCarthy v. Briscoe stated,

“Indeed, an application styled as one of for a stay, if it in fact seeks some form of affirmative relief, may be treated as a request for an injunction and disposed of accordingly.”

Isn’t that just amazing. Stay clerk Bickell tried to overturn historic United States Supreme Court precedent when he refused to pass on my stay application based on a false semantic attack not even grounded in law, but rather directly opposed to it. Had Bickell treated the emergency application with the dignity it deserved, the issue of whether Obama and McCain were Constitutionally eligible to be President could have been settled prior to the popular vote.

Had Bickell passed the stay application to Justice Souter on Nov. 3, Souter would have denied it straight away, as he did when it was passed on to him on Nov. 6. Then if Bickell had followed US Supreme Court Rule 22.6, which required that Donofrio be notified of the disposition of the stay application “by appropriately speedy means”, Donofrio could have renewed the application to Justice Clarence Thomas on the evening of Nov. 3, or the next morning at the latest, and the SCOTUS could have stayed the popular vote until they made a decision on the merits.

But Bickell not only failed to pass on the application, he never gave Donofrio any notice whatsoever until Donofrio finally got through to Bickell‘s phone on Nov. 6 when Bickell told Donofrio that since he – not a Supreme Court Justice – had disposed of the case, no disposition notice was necessary at all. To hell with Rule 22.6.

Now that the popular vote has been recorded, Bickell has made a difficult situation ever more dangerous as millions of citizens who voted for Obama (and McCain) stand to have their votes voided post election, a situation my law suit sought desperately to preempt.

Now that the case – and the issues discussed therein – have been deemed legitimate by the Court having utilized the extraordinary step (see textbook image below) of distributing for conference a previously denied stay application, Mr. Bickell’s motivations should be thoroughly investigated by the Supreme Court and also by a U.S. Attorney.

Furthermore, Mr. Bickell should be fired and “we the people” need to see that it happens fast before he has the chance to pull the same cheap bluffs on other pending emergency stay applications headed swiftly to the Supreme Court this week. You can expect a very important update on this issue within the next 24 hours.

Below is a clipped page from the ultimate SCOTUS resource text, SUPREME COURT PRACTICE, 8th Edition, page 794:

Read more here:

http://thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com/

Larry Sinclair book, Obama drug encounter November 1999, Obama camp thugs, Sinclair YouTube video, Larry Sinclair story, Personal attacks, Delaware arrest, National Press Club, Donald Young murder, 2008 election book

Barack Obama became a curiousity in the news when he sought and gained a US Senate seat and spoke at the Democrat Convention in 2004. When Obama began his run for the presidency he, of course, became more news worthy. However, the one event and breaking story that probably gained the attention of more people and subsequently caused Obama to be scrutinized more by more people, was the YouTube video and allegation from Larry Sinclair of a drug and sex encounter with Obama in November 1999. This was the catalyst for me and many others to examine the life, character and associations of Obama more closely. Not only did many more people get involved reasearching Obama, but Larry Sinclair’s websites became a gathering place for sharing information and and experiences with the Obama camp that varied from personal attacks and death threats to tampering of information on the internet and shutting down of sites questioning Obama.

We witnessed a new paradyme of news gathering and presentation. The MSM failed to report the truth about
Obama and Sean Hannity referred to this as the death of journalism. The internet began to take over as
the only place to find out about the real Obama. Of course the Obama camp tried it’s best to thwart the efforts by citizen journalists. This is where Larry Sinclair and many other bloggers and internet reporters stepped in. Despite the MSM not only ignoring the Larry Sinclair allegations and other important stories about Obama and along with the Obama camp trying to discredit Sinclair and anyone questioning Obama, Larry Sinclair and the internet news prevailed.

Larry Sinclair is publishing a book about his encounter with Obama in 1999 and the bigger story of his
experience trying to get Obama to be held accountable and making the public aware. This is an incredible
story that I have watched play out from a front row seat to my astonishment and disbelief. Up to this point
in my life, I have only read about experiences like this happening in other countries. However, despite
this all appearing surreal, it did indeed happen. As soon as Larry Sinclair produced his YouTube video,
he received personal attacks and death threats on his person and family, website attacks and eventual
incarceration in Delaware. This did not happen in the Soviet Union, Kenya or South America. This happened
in America.

I have followed, researched and written about the Larry Sinclair story probably more than any other source.
I can state with authority that Larry Sinclair could not have made up this story. I hope to write a book in the
near future and will elaborate on that and cover the other stories I have been associated with. However,
only Larry Sinclair can tell his story. Here is a quick statement that I sent to Larry recently for possible
inclusion in his book:
“The Larry Sinclair story was the catalyst for me and many others to begin questioning
the character and background of Barack Obama, a candidate that most of us knew little about.
Mr. Sinclair’s allegations appeared preposterous at first but captured my curiousity.
I began by examining the Official Illinois State Senate records for the period of November 3 – 8,
1999. I discovered that Obama was missing on November 4, 1999. I thought, “interesting.”
I then read the transcripts from the Tim Russert, Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times.
All three interviews asked Obama about his records during his tenure in the Illinois
Senate. Obama was consistently vague and evasive in his answers. This piqued my curiousity more.
One thing led to another and within a few days I knew that we had a problem with Obama. I had reached
the point of no return and could not in good conscience abandon my efforts. I continued to follow
the Larry Sinclair story and watched it play out in detail. I got to know Larry and we achieved
a level of mutual trust that soon became a precious commodity.
 
The Larry Sinclair story evolved into at least four large separate stories:
1. The initial encounter with Obama in 1999.
2. The Donald Young controversy.
3. The attacks made on Larry Sinclair, those following his story and anyone questioning
the “messiah” Obama.
4. The changing and withholding of internet information and attempts to prevent Larry Sinclair
and others from reporting the truth.
 
I have come to know Larry Sinclair as a person and not just a story. I admire Larry for his
persistence in the face of incredible odds, his integrity and his patriotism.”

If you want to know more about the real Barack Obama and what really happened during the 2008 election.
If you want to read a book about real events that are so surreal they appear as fiction, order a
copy of Larry Sinclair’s book here:

http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/

Leo C. Donofrio NJ lawsuit, US Supreme Court Appeal, Justice Clarence Thomas, NJ Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Judge Jack M. Sabatino, Donofrio filed Judicial Misconduct

** See Update below **

I have tried to access the Leo C. Donofrio website since late last night. Lurker, a great commenter on
the Citizen Wells blog, has provided the text from Mr. donofrio’s latest post.

“Posted: Nov.21.2008 @ 6:53 pm | Lasted edited: Nov.21.2008 @ 8:25 pm
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGED BY LEO DONOFRIO IN NJ SUPERIOR COURT APPELLATE DIVISION – OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ALLEGED AGAINST JUDGE JACK M. SABATINO IN ACTION CHALLENGING ELIGIBILITY OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES FOR 2008 ELECTION.

[MEDIA UPDATE:]  Today, Leo Donofrio learned that New Jersey Appellate Division Judge Jack M. Sabatino has failed to correct the public record of the initial lower court case.  Leo Donofrio feels it is imperative that he bring this battle public.  Therefore, he will appear on the Plains Radio Network with Ed Hale tonight at 9:00 PM EST.  Leo Donofrio will also appear on Overnight AM with Lan Lamphere at 11:00 PM EST as well.
Today, Leo C. Donofrio filed, with the NJ Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, an official allegation of Judicial Misconduct against Appellate Division Judge Jack M. Sabatino with regard to the initial stage of this litigation which was originally filed in the NJ Superior Court, Appellate Division.  The case, having come directly from an appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court is now before the the United States Supreme Court, “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008″ before all nine Supreme Court Justices. 

I am very concerned that if the United States Supreme Court requests the official records of the case from the NJ Appellate Division, a fraudulent case file – not including all relevant documents – will be forwarded to the SCOTUS and thereby the case now pending might be jeopardized.

A copy of the official complaint – by way of a New Jersey Supreme Court generated form – will be uploaded to this blog shortly. ”

** UPDATE **

From Leo Donofrio:

“Yesterday, Nov. 21 2008, my previous blog – blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen – was taken down as was the entire blogtext.org network.

I have relocated here to Blogger.com. Mirror sites containing the exact content have been (or will be shortly) set up. Everybody is hereby authorized to mirror the contents of this blog. The following sites are trusted by me to have exact content”

http://thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.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

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

Obama not eligible, US Constitution, Tenth Amendment, Bill of Rights, US Supreme Court, Federal Judges, State Judges, State Election Officials, Electoral College Electors, Philip J Berg lawsuit, Leo C Donofrio lawsuit, Citizen Wells facts and arguments

To:

Justice Souter
Justice Thomas
US Supreme Court
Federal Judges
State judges
State election officials
Electoral College Electors      
US Citizens

The US Constitution must be upheld

US citizens have the right, the power and the duty to require proof of
eligibilty of presidential candidates

What I am about to write is so inherently simple and self evident,
that it may appear on the surface to be implausible. However, the
following facts and arguments flow from the founding fathers’ wisdom
and desire to protect the American citizens from tyrrany. I have read
the US Constitution, Federal election law and numerous state election
laws. I have had dialogue with offices of a number of Secretaries of State
and Election Boards. The US Constitution gives the states power over
the general election. The states control which candidates are placed
on ballots and regardless of the methodology used for doing so, I
believe the states have the power and obligation to verify eligibility
of presidential candidates. I find no federal or state law prohibiting
states from doing so and instead a constitutional duty to ensure that
a qualified candidate becomes a ballot choice for the Electoral College
Electors. Failure to do so effectively may lead to voter disenfranchisement.
I have believed and stated for weeks that the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution gives US citizens the power to demand that a presidential
candidate prove eligbility and certainly standing in a lawsuit. A lawsuit
should not be necessary. We already have the power, directly from the
US Constitution Bill of Rights.
Argument:

  • The US Constitution clearly defines the eligibiity requirement for president.
  • The US Constitution rules.
  • The US Constitution gives states the power to choose electors. With this power comes the obligation to uphold the Constitution and protect voter rights.
  • State laws vary but are consistent in their approach to placing
    presidential candidates on the ballot.
  • Presidential Balloting evolved from tradition.
  • The two party system evolved from tradition.
  • States place presidential candidates on ballots from instructions of
    the major political parties.
  • States should have enacted laws to require proof of eligibility.
  • States are not exercising their duty to the Constitution.
  • States have the power and obligation to ensure that only eligible candidates remain on ballots. Despite compelling evidence that Barack Obama is not eligible, and notification, the states left him on the ballot.
  • States claim no power to remove a candidate when in fact they do have power over the general election process.
  • The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution gives the people power, including Phil J Berg, Leo C. Donofrio and others that have had their lawsuits dismissed in state courts.

By virtue of the powers given to the people in the Tenth Amendment in The BIll of Rights of the US Constitution, we do not have to file lawsuits to demand proof of eligibility or require state election officials to do so.

A US citizen filing a lawsuit demanding that a presidential candidate provide proof of eligibility has standing.

Facts and References

US Constitution

Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution;

viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Amendment X

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

The US Constitution defines presidential eligibility

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.”

State Electoral College example: Pennsylvania Law

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

Philip J Berg lawsuit
Judge Surrick ruling exerpts:

“If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.”

“…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.”

Philip J Berg response to ruling:

“an American citizen is asking questions of a presidential candidate’s eligibility to even hold that office in the first place, and the candidate is ducking and dodging questions through legal procedure.”
“This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution,”  “If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States–the most powerful man in the entire world–is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?”

Mark J. Fitzgibbons is President of Corporate and Legal Affairs at American Target Advertising:

“October 29, 2008
Who Enforces the Constitution’s Natural Born Citizen Clause?”

“So if the Framers established that courts “shall” hear cases arising under the Constitution, and failed to authorize Congress to otherwise establish who may sue to enforce the document, then where might we find conclusively that Berg has standing to sue?

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, remain with the states or the people.  Therefore it seems that any state or any person has standing to sue to enforce not just the Natural Born Citizen Clause, but other constitutional requirements and rights, absent some expressly written bar within the Constitution itself.”

“Chief Justice John Marshall, writing in Marbury v. Madison, said that judges have a duty to decide cases under our paramount law, the Constitution. I have lamented previously about how some judges tend to evade their duty to decide constitutional matters by resorting to court-made doctrines.  Judge Surrick’s reliance on case law to dismiss Berg’s suit for lack of standing is reasoned from a lawyer’s perspective, but not heroic and perhaps evasive of his larger duty. 
His decision to “punt” the matter to Congress creates, I suggest, a dangerous, longer and perhaps more painful constitutional quagmire than had he heard the evidence in the case.  Even had the case lacked merit, the Constitution would not have been harmed.”

Read more here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_enforces_the_constitutions.html

Ellis Washington, currently a professor of law and political science at Savannah State University, former editor at the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute, is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history, political philosophy and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including “The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law” (2002). See his law review article “Reply to Judge Richard Posner.” Washington’s latest book is “The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust.”

Mr. Washington wrote the following response to the Philip J Berg lawsuit and Judge Surrick ruling in a World Net Daily article dated November 8, 2008 :

“Unfortunately, just 10 days before the election, a court of appeals judge threw out Berg’s lawsuit challenging the veracity of Obama’s U.S. citizenship status on technical grounds. Judge R. Barclay Surrick, a Jimmy Carter-appointed judge, amazingly (and with a tinge of irony), stated his opinion in part:

In a 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order, the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick concludes that ordinary citizens can’t sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.
Surrick defers to Congress, saying that the legislature could determine “that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency,” but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.

“Until that time,” Surrick says, “voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring.”

Judge Surrick, quoting from Hollander, concludes, “The alleged harm to voters stemming from a presidential candidate’s failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury.”

Surrick also quotes Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, which stated, in part, “The Supreme Court has consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government – claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large – does not state an Article III case or controversy.”

Constitutionally speaking, Judge Surrick’s reasoning is completely illogical and a total dereliction of his duty as a judge to substantively address this most vital constitutional controversy. Instead, in a gutless manner, Surrick dismissed Berg’s complaint 10 days before the elections on a technicality of standing, which to any rational person begs the question: If Philip J. Berg as an American citizen, a respected Democratic operative and former attorney general of Pennsylvania doesn’t have the “standing” to bring this type of lawsuit against Obama, then who in America does have standing? The good judge in all 34 pages of legal mumbo jumbo didn’t bother to answer this pivotal question.

That Berg’s complaint is not “concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury” is an amazing admission by any person that went to law school and even more so given the fact that Surrick is a respected appellate judge!

I am somewhat hopeful that Berg will successfully appeal Surrick’s outrageous decision to 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court if necessary, even if technically he doesn’t have standing to hold Obama accountable to the Constitution. Why? Because this is America, and out of 300 million people, someone should give a damn enough about this republic to make sure the person who holds the highest elected office in the land holds it legitimately based on the black letter text of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.”

Read the complete article here:

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80435

Leo C. Donofrio has a New Jersey lawsuit before the US Supreme Court

“On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being “natural born citizens” as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution.”

“The cause of action first accrued on September 22, 2008, when Secretary Wells certified to county clerks, for ballot preparation, a written “statement”, prepared under her seal of office, that was required by statute to contain names of only those candidates who were “by law entitled” to be listed on ballots in New Jersey.  The statement is demanded by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22.

The law suit raises a novel contention that the statutory code undergoes legal fusion with the Secretary’s oath of office to uphold the US Constitution thereby creating a minimum standard of review based upon the “natural born citizen” requirement of Article 2, Section 1, and that the Supremacy clause of the Constitution would demand those requirements be resolved prior to the election.

The key fact, not challenged below, surrounds two conversations between the plaintiff-appellant and a key Secretary of State Election Division official wherein the official admitted, twice, that the defendant-Secretary just assumed the candidates were eligible taking no further action to actually verify that they were, in fact, eligible to the office of President.  These conversations took place on October 22nd and 23rd.” 

“Now, post-election, plaintiff is seeking review by the United States Supreme Court to finally determine the “natural born citizen” issue. Plaintiff alleged the Secretary has a legal duty to make certain the candidates pass the “natural born citizen” test.  The pre-election suit requested that New Jersey ballots be stayed as they were defective requiring replacements to feature only the names of candidates who were truly eligible to the office of President.”

Read more here:

http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

Summary

The states have power and control over the general elections. With this
power comes a duty to uphold the Constitution. The states, rather than
enact laws to uphold the constitution and protect the voting rights
of their citizens, have acted more on tradition. This traditional
approach has worked up until the 2008 election. We now have a candidate,
Barack Obama, who has refused to provide legal proof of eligibility in
the face of compelling evidence he is not qualified. When presented
with this evidence, the states had an obligation to require proof from
Obama.

The states had an obligation to enact legislation and did not. The states
have not exercised their inherent power and duty to require proof of
and eligibility. Therefore, by virtue of the powers reserved for the
people of the US in the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, US citizens have the power and obligation to demand proof of eligibility from Obama.

Citizen Wells is asking that US citizens contact state election officials
and Electoral College Electors and demand that they request proof of
eligibility from Obama. If they do not do so, initiate lawsuits and
make sure that your rights are protected and that the Constitution is
upheld. 

Citizen Wells is also issuing a caution to the US Supreme Court, Supreme
Court Justices, Federal Judges, State Judges, State Election Officials
and Electoral College Officials. You all have an overriding obligation
to uphold and defend the US Constitution. You are all accountable and
the American public is watching.

Leo C. Donofrio, Obama not eligible, US Supreme Court, New Jersey lawsuit, Secretary of State, Nina Mitchell Wells, Constitutional duty, Justice Souter, Justice Thomas

Leo C. Donofrio, a retired attorney in New Jersey, has an appeal before the US Supreme Court. The appeal is the result of a lawsuit filed against the New Jersey Secretary of State, Nina Mitchell Wells. The lawsuit states that Ms. Wells did not adequately perform her statutory duty to ensure the integrity of ballots and the electoral process for the November 4th, 2008 election. Mr. Donofrio presented the facts regarding the case on Tuesday, November 12, 2008. Below is an exerpt that reveals the experience Mr. Donofrio had with the US Supreme Court:

“On Sunday evening, I left New Jersey in order to be in DC to file the application before the court closed at 4:30 PM. This would assure that the Supreme Court had a chance to stay the popular vote in the National Election before election day polls opened.

26. The Application For Emergency Stay was filed by me on Monday November 3rd, 2008, at 3:33 PM. A few minutes later, while still in the Supreme Court, I phoned the Stay Clerk, Mr. Danny Bickell, and we spoke for 7:00 minutes (according to my phone log). I told Mr. Bickell the whole story insisting that the Court Rule required the Application to be delivered promptly to Justice Souter. Mr. Bickell assured me that Justice Souter would have the case on his desk that evening if my papers were in order, which they were.

It was very important that the Court Rules be followed since I didn’t expect Justice Souter to grant the application, but I was ready to resubmit it to Justice Clarence Thomas with along with a letter to His Honor and ten copies of the original application shoulld he pass it on to the entire Court.

27. I arrived at the SCOTUS on Monday Nov 3rd, got the case filed and stamped at 3:30PM, then went back inside and pleaded with the stay clerk for 7 minutes (as shown by my phone log) to please follow the rules and get this on Justice Souter’s desk as was required by Rule 22(1):

“1. An application addressed to an individual Justice shall be filed with the Clerk, who will transmit it promptly to the Justice concerned if an individual Justice has authority to grant the sought relief.” (Emphasis added.)

Mr. Bickell agreed that if my papers were in order, Justice Souter would receive the case that night, sometime after 4:30 pm.

“Rule 22(6). The Clerk will advise all parties concerned, by appropriately speedy means, of the disposition made of an application.”

It’s important that the disposition be delivered by “speedy means” because the denial of a stay sets the trigger for resubmission to a Justice of your choice under Rule 22(4).

28. The next day, election day, I received no message from the Court. I went back to the SCOTUS on Election Day with my sister who is also retired from the practice of law (she was an Assistant DA in Detroit for many years), and was told Mr. Bickell wasn’t available to speak with me. And he was not picking up his phone.

29. On Thursday, I finally got through to Mr. Bickell and was informed by him that the case was never passed on to Justice Souter because Mr. Bickell didn’t think it was an appropriate Application. I was absolutely astounded. He made a substantive law judgment thereby effectively impersonating a Supreme Court Justice.  Mr. Bickell told me that I should have made a full Petition for Writ of Certiorari and since I didn’t then my stay application was defective.  And that’s not only illegal for him to make such a decision, but this decision itself is not grounded in law or precedent, but rather the exact opposite.  And I told him he was flat out wrong, because :

– I followed the Court Rules perfectly

– he and I spoke all about this on Monday in a seven minute phone conversation wherein he agreed to forward the Application

– the case was properly before the court from the Supreme Court of NJ

– the precedent was Bush v. Gore where no Petition was necessary since the court decided to treat the Stay application as a full Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

It’s not the Clerk’s job job to play Supreme Court Justice. The stay clerk’s job is to collect the papers and pass them onto the Justices, but as to this action Mr. Bickell basically made a substantive judgment of law and denied my application on his own. That must be criminal in some way, perhaps impersonating a US Supreme Court Justice, or subordination of Judicial intent? It’s just wrong and Mr. Bickell needs to be called on it.Either he did this on his own volition or somebody pressured him to do it. After explaining the precedent in Bush v. Gore, where the Supreme Court treated the Stay application as a Petition for Cert. and then granted that virtual Petition, he blinked and agreed to Docket the case.[See Bush v. Gore, page 1, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html ]

Mr. Bickell also stated that, “Justice Souter will deny it and so will Justice Thomas”, but I wouldn’t let it go and finally he agreed to Docket the case.

30. The next day, I checked the Supreme Court Docket and the case had finally been docketed but in a completely incorrect manner. Mr. Bickell docketed the case incorrectly as follows (this is from my recording of the original Docket):

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 6 2008 Application (08A407) for injunction pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.

Three glaring errors:

– The case was actually filed and stamped received on November 3rd, not November 6th as Mr. Bickell had listed above.

– My application was for a “Stay” not an “injunction”. Filing for an injunction does not bring expedited review, while a Stay is entitled to the most expedited review the SCOTUS has to offer. The distinction is very important.

– I never submitted a full Petition nor did I submit a letter stating any such intention to do so. The Stay Clerk just took this out of thin air. He made it up out of the blue. Nothing in my Application indicates I intended to file a full Petition for Write of Certiorari. There was no time for that. The proper procedural tool was a Stay application as per the precedent set in Bush v. Gore.

31. I then called Mr. Bickell and left three loud and direct messages to the effect of, “Fix my docket or I’m going to suggest criminal charges against you as well as a civil suit against the Clerk’s office.” I also told Mr. Bickell that I suspected he was being pressured from within, and that he should inform whoever was pressuring him that I’d kept solid phone records and that my pleadings were stamped, “Nov. 3rd.”

32. Later than morning, I checked the US Supreme Court docket search engine again, and saw that Mr. Bickell had corrected the Docket to reflect that the case had been filed on November 3rd and he also now had it listed as a “Stay” application.

However, this second Docket listing was equally bizarre. Whereas the first Docket listing discussed a pending application for injunction, the new Docket reflected that Justice Souter had already denied the Stay application a day earlier on Nov. 6th, which is very confusing since this was now Friday November 7th and the first Docket listed no such disposition. 

Here is the Docket as it appeared one hour after the first Docket listing. And this is also how it appears today, Nov. 11th:

~~~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.
————————————————————————————————————

None of this makes any sense. Calling this activity “unorthodox” is to be very kind.  It’s Judicial misconduct and perhaps it’s even worse. 
The reference to a “pending” Petition is incorrect and should be removed because it effects the favor-ability of review available to the case as resubmissions for Stay applications are not looked on favorably if the Stay denial is “without prejudice”.  If I were actually in the process of submitting a full Petition for Cert., which I’m not, then the denial might be considered “without prejudice”, and in that case, Mr. Bickell might , once again, decide not to pass on the Stay Application to Justice Clarence Thomas.

Seeing as how the Electoral College is just one month away, this is still an emergency, and Bush v. Gore is still precedent. I have made no submission of a full Petition, so the Docket is still incorrect as I intend to resubmit the “Stay Application” this week and the case will live or die on the resubmission.

These Court Rules are no joke. They have a purpose. On Monday November 3rd, Mr. Bickell disposed of my Application acting as if he were a United States Supreme Court Justice. That’s certainly bad enough, if not criminal, but then he did nothing between then and Thursday November 6th to notify me, certainly not by “speedy means”, of the disposition of my Stay Application. This is Judicial misconduct.

Mr. Bickell took my cell number on Monday Nov. 3rd, and had I been notified properly, by a phone call, that my Stay Application was not going to be forwarded to Justice Souter, then I could have corrected Mr. Bickell as I did on Thursday Nov. 6th.

This case was stopped in its tracks starting in the Appellate Division and leading right to the US Supreme Court.  The shame of the delay lies in the fact that the case was bi-partisan and should have been decided before the election when nobody knew what the outcome would be.  Now, once Obama is disqualified, which I believe will be the final disposition of this case, it’s going to cause so much more pain to the country.  

The law and the facts of this case have the ability to strip Obama of the Presidency just as the law and the facts of this case would have had the power to also strip McCain of the Presidency if he had won. I argued the same law as to McCain and Roger Colera as well as Obama.

This is NOT the way the US Supreme Court usually does business. And the citizens of this country should be angry that this institution has slipped to this level.

“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.”

______________________________________
Leo C. Donofrio, Pro Se”

Read more here:

http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

Bishop Ron McRae, Sarah Obama, Affidavit, Obama born in Kenya, Obama grandmother present at birth, Bishop McRae statement on Obama, November 11, 2008

“Hier Stehe Ich” (Here I stand)
Martin Luther
Bishop Ron McRae, who signed an affidavit stating that he witnessed
Sarah Obama, Barack Obama’s paternal grandmother, say that she was
present at Obama’s birth in Kenya, has issued a statement. Bishop McRae
speaks of the law of God and the law of man as it relates to our current
situation in this country and the 2008 election. Bishop McRae echoes
my position in the following statement:

“Take my lands, my liberty and my life for my refusal to neither serve nor obey this god-man Obama. But you will never have for your lies the surrender of my conscience before God, my family and this Republic. God Almighty helping this old man for Christ sake!”

Here is Bishop McRae’s statement:

Declaro Di1 

“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

                                                                                -Psalm 11:3 

      The very foundation of this country was laid upon this precept, “that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”. 2 Howbeit, with that foundational declaration came two other “self evident” truths, the first of which was our fore fathers’ declaration of the very existence and dependence upon our Creator who endowed such rights as we suppose them to be upon us; and also this exhortation of cautious patience, that “prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed”.

      Yet in these dark days where Governmental ends have in Tyrants’ minds, justified their means, to an irreversible hour that the inexplicable corruptions and abuse of Governmental powers “derived from the consent of the governed” have created even in the minds of a peaceful, obedient people these very same revolutionary thoughts that fearfully started this great country, and yet now contemplate the abolishment of that very state which for over two centuries has been the noblest means for securing a peoples’ undeserved endowment from their Creator. This author dares say “undeserved” in that, if such “unalienable rights” be endowed from our Creator, then such endowment lands upon we Creatures3 here below, the mere acknowledgment of such doth bind us to serve Him for the indebtedness of such endowment; and by such noble servitude we soundly proclaim that in this one universal state of being “all men equal”, we are not before God a Free People in deed of this single most indebtedness to God.  

“Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves

Servants to obey, his servants ye are

To whom ye obey?”

-Romans 6:16 

      Our freedoms and liberties are pluralistic only in those things that are beyond that endowment that binds us to God our Creator in acknowledgement of “the Truth” that stands so self evident to all. In word and thereby in deed we are a Free People in things related to man, but not free from God who created “all men equal” in things relating to man.  

“If God therefore shall make you free,

ye shall be free indeed.”

                                                 -John 8:36

“Mighty in deed and word

before God and all the people.”

                                                  -Luke 24:19 

      Vox Vero4: The deed by which we are endowed by our Creator is signed by our fore fathers in word of that very Declaration of our Independence from the Tyranny of Man, by which we declare our freedom and liberty from the bondage of Tyrants and Despots that would usurp God’s authority as the Author and Mover of our Happiness and the Endower of our rights; by wresting that form of government so “derived from the consent of the governed”, and replace it with the tyranny of an antichrist rule5, where mere men exalt their seats of government so “derived from the consent of the governed” into the throne of God as the absolute Despot to decide what rights we have and to whom they apply and do not apply.  

Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God,

or that is worshipped; so that he AS GOD

sitteth in the temple of God,

shewing himself that he is God.”

                                        –2 Thessalonians 2:4 

      Howbeit, it is God alone and not man that endowed these unalienable rights to we His subjects. And Governments are created when in the wisdom of God and man, a Free People consent to give certain powers to men like ourselves, chosen from among us as being like us, to “organiz[e] its powers in such form” as to secure to themselves and their fellows that chose them, these unalienable rights of the people they serve in such capacity as we call Government of the People, for the People and by the People. Without Government, men rule as gods, dictators and monarchs. By the Declaration of Independence we threw off the latter, and by love of liberty we repudiate the second! But shall we as men serve men as gods?

“I have said, Ye are gods;

And all of you are children of the most High.

But ye shall die like men.”

                                      -Psalm 82:6, 7 

      God Almighty lives; and governments will live on, but only so long as men are free to serve God and not man. Free to enjoy as equals those unalienable rights endowed upon them from God alone and not man. Free to consent to be governed by their fellows who never forget they are fellow men and not gods; and the consent of their fellows to allow them to govern rests only in their duty before God of being true men, qualified and Constitutionally elected for the securing of the rights of their fellows and the protection of the same. Howbeit, none of these shall prevail or long endure unless there remains an absolute final authority that constitutes the laws by which men consent to be governed by themselves, and an absolute final authority by which both man and his governments are subject unto God. America’s Constitution stands as the former. The word of God stands alone as the latter. The throwing off of the latter gave birth to secularistic humanism with a devilish craving to eat up the former on its way to becoming a god and not man. The destruction of the former is the end of the Republic, the fall of equal rights, and the damnation of America as she has always been known before God.

       The hour has come when the unalienable rights of a Free People are threatened with a tyrannical destruction from Government that wrests such powers derived by the consent of the governed, into a satanical belief that they can use such powers to force the governed into likewise consenting to the surrender of those unalienable rights. In these last days of a most vicious war loving administration, that same Government has grown into such a Tyrant that it would kill its own people in mass to establish a warlord political agenda for destroying all that remains of our Constitution by which we consent to be governed, and under which we have these unalienable rights as a Free People. It has long been established before the Highest Court of this Government, that our unalienable rights cannot be taken from us, or transferred to another. They can only be surrendered, and once surrendered there is no discovered way to get them back. Our rights so constituted are not pluralistic in the various concepts for which they stand. They are not a deck of cards to played over and again. They are singular in each regard, whether it be freedom to speak, freedom to assemble, freedom to bear arms, or freedom to worship. There exist no “freedoms to speak”, that allow the speaker to play his hand over and over as he wishes for convenience sake, so long as he does not use up the last of his deck of cards. Non Secus, Haud Secus! Not so! Even as the courts have long held that the accused right to self incrimination is singular and not plural, so that once given up for one statement, it cannot be gathered back to protect against further statements. That surrendered right is gone forever. So too belongs this doctrine of factual reality to all our rights as a Free People.

      “We the people” have suffered long since America’s first civil unrest to throw off tyranny, in repeated suppressions and violations of our Constitutional rights. Howbeit, as our fathers ably stated, “we are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed”; and so we have since the last Great War suffered repeated violations of individual rights, as long as we could appeal to the Highest Court for redress, in order to right those grievances so tyrannically loaded upon us by mere men under color of law. And thus would a peaceful people continue therein, as long as the Courts granted standing to the people to redress these wrongs under the authority of our Constitution’s clear language. But alas, now Tyrants think to deny even our standing to suit for redress and relief from unconstitutional oppressions and violations.

      And to add to these unbearable torments, in these last days, Government now forces upon us an unbearable injustice, and trampling of the Constitution of the United States, in thinking to force the people to accept a foreigner as the President of this Republic, ignoring the single most important qualification for the highest office in our land, that such a one, not just gain such “power by the consent of the governed”, but that he be naturally born amongst us as one of us. There has never been an alternative option to replace “a natural born citizen” as the President of these United States. The Constitution knows no such option. Howbeit, the Federal Courts have repeatedly refused the people’s right to challenge such unprecedented trampling and violation of what the Constitution clearly says, and to date refuses to require such an Imposter to prove his “natural born” citizenship. Those who challenge such facts are libeled as racists, when nothing further could be true. With repeated Constitutional challenges to this Dreamer’s fraud upon the Constitutional requirements that he be “naturally born” among us, lying dormant before the Highest Court, where Justice Souter has no ears to hear it Constitutionally, nor courage to act to enforce such, What are Peaceable Men to Do? What is it that God requires of Peaceable Men and lovers of liberty to do? For fifty years the Tyrants in Washington have taken God from the minds of the people foremost, so that the Law is King, and tyranny will decide what is law! Now men cower under an overwhelming despotism that rattles its sword and murders its own people, to suppress the voice of God and the people, so that silence is the sound of good men dying as Tyrants march them over the precipice of an antichrist rule of death over the Republic for which we all once stood! Men are want to know what saith the Lord God and Creator of all men equal!

      Juris Prudence has held in every state of our Union, and before the Highest Court of our Republic this principle of a Constitutional Government of Laws and not men, “An unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but wholly null and ineffective for any purpose. It imposes no duty, confers no rights, CREATES NO OFFICE, BESTOWS NO POWER OR AUTHORITY ON ANYONE, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional statute, and no courts are bound to enforce it.”6

      With the Unconstitutional ascension to the highest office of our Land, a man that by means of his very birth, is by the Constitution unqualified to hold the Office of President, we are now faced with an unprecedented constitutional challenge to the free people of this Republic, to either surrender that blessed document that our fathers laid as the very “foundation” of law from which we define and derive all unalienable rights from God Almighty, or map for ourselves as our fathers mapped for us, another course of history, guided by prudence, supported by the Constitution, and blessed and directed of God. To fail in any of these three, will ultimately and tragically destroy the very foundation we seek to preserve, and abolish all that history has known as the United States of America.

      Because our system of fairness and hope to all peoples that they may be, like we, free and independent from the tyranny of men and devils, we establish means to migrate others to this land of liberty and promise, that they like our fathers may live to give unto their children that rightful inheritance of being “natural born citizens” and not mere immigrants naturalized to a citizenship not theirs from birth.  

“And the chief captain came, and said unto him,

Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.

And the chief captain answered, With a great sum

obtained I this freedom. And Paul said,

But I was Free Born.”

                                -Acts 22:27, 28 

      But never should this Free People, naturally born to such a precious inheritance of freedom by birth as natural born citizens ever allow such an endowment, purchased with the blood of countless fathers and sons throughout our rich heritage, to so cheaply pass to foreigners born abroad, or citizens of other countries. None should so presume to falsify and deceive and repudiate the very foundational right of we natural born citizens, to be governed by none but those like unto us. God deliver us.  But what are men to do? When all that lands upon their ears is from Tyrants’ mouths, and liberal puppets tied by strings to an agenda so vile before God and man, that to voice any difference is to be set upon with such vile hatred as to make strong men shutter and weak men lament like widows for the husbands of their youth7.  

“The vile person shall be no more called Liberal

…for the vile person will speak

villany, and his heart will

work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy,

and to utter error against the Lord.

But the liberal deviseth liberal things;

and by liberal things shall he stand.”

                                                  -Isaiah 32:5-8

      Yet in the beginning of this Republic, voices were heard before shots were fired to re-enforce the thoughts of those voices so daring as to utter righteousness before man in God’s stead. And the words so written from our forefathers were convincing even unto this day, that the Founding Fathers knew the mind of God, and thus were not intimidated by threats of imprisonment or death. Yet in these last days, where Tyrants’ minds have “devised liberal things”, and uttered so much error before the Creator of all men, that the liberal, vile cacophony resounds throughout the land to drown out doubtful voices, whose only authority rests in the Document now being trampled under foot of Tyrants with the innocent blood of their citizens dripping from their hands. Voices so accustomed to being stifled by the drumming of the majority’s whims and fancies to be free from God and laws of righteousness unalienable to all men, those weakened utterances have little or no effect, for lack of any authority that runs deep to the conscience of man’s soul! The halls of Congress are silent in sounds and words of the Creator of all men, where endless laws are passed to rid even the memory of the God of America’s fore fathers. Pulpits are filled with errant diatribes about a god no one knows, and none have heard in fifty years or more! Much is said and scribbled across reams of paper of all these injustices, and that which is heard is of little effect having no authority to stand to in support thereof.

“And they were astonished at his doctrine:

for he taught them as one that had authority,

and not as the scribes.”

                                              -Mark 1:22

      O, what are men to do in this hour? Without God, they can do nothing8, and so it cometh to pass that they do nothing! And what they do by voice without God is ignored for lack of authority or impact, and lack of conscience to stand at all costs behind their given voice. Men will not stand for a piece of paper unless God is in it. Their conscience forbids it, and without such strength of conscience, their voice gives way to fear for lack of authority behind what they say they believe. But the time has come when this lack of conscience and authority and courage to stand at all costs goes no further; but rather gives place to the foundational truths that established this great nation, even at the costs of our lives and fortunes. As our fathers Declared their Independence from the tyranny of monarchial men, it now behooves all free men of courage and conscience to declare of God Almighty what course they now take when the consent of the governed has now diabolically transformed such writ into the enslavement of the governed to foreign influence, foreign political agendas and now a foreign head of state.  

“ Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace–but there is no peace…

What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have?

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased

at the price of chains and slavery?

Forbid it, Almighty God!

I know not what course others may take;

but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

                                                                  -Patrick Henry 

      The hour has come and passed already, wherein this preacher weighs opinions any further in this matter. It matters not what others say or wish to do, or what they would have for another day of peace, “when there is no peace”9. Having walked these many years with God as a child of the King, whose supremacy is above all others, this old man knows the Declaration of God for this hour, and cannot go back, come what may. DECLARO DI!

“We ought to obey God rather than men!”

                                                        -Acts 5:29 

      Let weaker men and women enslave themselves at will in surrendering what cannot be taken from them, to gain what they cannot keep or long enjoy, while liberals and devils laugh them to scorn. But as for this old man, my conscience forbids that I go that way to save another day at large without God or conscience! It has long been established in the Declaration of God that “if thou seest the oppression of the poor, and violent perverting of judgment and justice in a province, marvel not at the matter: for he that is higher than the highest regardeth; and there be higher than they” (Ecclesiastes 5:8). So too cometh this Declaration of God, that “if the spirit of the ruler rise up against thee, leave not thy place; for yielding pacifieth great offences” (10:5).

      Let Justice Souter and his fellows ignore their consciences along with the Constitution, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord with a clear conscience; and will never surrender the liberty of our conscience to the lies and frauds of a foreigner who seeketh to govern not by consent of the governed in accordance to the Constitution or the Word of God, but by lies and deceit without conscience towards God or the people of this United States. Forbid it Almighty God! It matters not what course the majority may take, this child of God will not serve, obey or recognize an unlawful governor or head of state that is not natural born to these United States. Take my liberty, my house and lands and by force of strength my life, but you will not get the liberty of my conscience before God Almighty to refuse an unlawful command or office before God and the Constitution of these United States. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Corinthians 3:17), and that is all that the Constitution of these United States and the Declaration of Independence is about. That is all that the history of America is about. That is the Declaration of God and the gift of God, and such liberty of conscience before God is so right, that neither men nor devils will ever take it by force from a Free People in service of the God that created them so. Only by deceit can such an unalienable right of liberty be surrendered to the tyranny of men.

      It is the darkest of hours for this country, but one of the greatest to be one of the brave and one of the free! It matters not what a corrupt and murderous government may say of itself, or threaten to others. Now is the time to stand to one’s conscience before God and his family. There is no scripture from God compelling men and women to obey lies, frauds and the murderous declarations of unrighteous governments bent for hell to over throw the consciences and wills of a Free People. Whether civilian or military, the laws of this land forbid it. I can do no less! Before God Almighty, with whom we have to do, we cannot render tribute nor honor unto those to whom no tribute nor honor is due (Romans 13:7). The hour is come that to ignore what is true and clearly factual, because others wish for comforts to do the same, is the destruction of conscience and standing before God Almighty. We need no ruling of Court howsoever high, to clearly see and know that the present government of these United States murdered its own people in mass at New York and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001. Terrorists, howsoever radical in their religious extremism killed no one on that fateful day, and God Almighty is witness against the souls of the President and Vice President of this country, for their hands are dripping red with blood, that no vain religious lies will ever cleanse. The souls of every policeman and fireman and citizen of this country that died needlessly that day, cry out against the executive Tyrants of the Bush Administration that killed them! And the Declaration of God stands firm that “Be sure your sin will find you out!”10

      Take my lands, my liberty and my life for my refusal to neither serve nor obey this god-man Obama. But you will never have for your lies the surrender of my conscience before God, my family and this Republic. God Almighty helping this old man for Christ sake! 

By the grace of God alone,

Ron McRae

Presiding Bishop

Anabaptists Churches of North America

P.O. Box 5607

Johnstown, PA 15904

VULTUS IMAGO DI