Category Archives: Superior Court

Philip J Berg, Update, September 18, 2009, Interview, MommaE blog radio, Status of 3 cases, Berg lawsuits, Obama not eligible, Obama not natural born citizen

Philip J Berg, who filed the first lawsuit in August 2008, claiming that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president, will be interviewed on MommaE blog radio tonight, September 18, 2009 at 8:30 PM ET. Philip Berg will provide updates on his 3 cases. Attorney Berg also warned in 2008 that if we did not resolve this eligibilty issue before the general election, that we would have a constitutional crisis. That is exactly what has happened.

“Hi,
 
I just want to let you know that tonight’s guest will be Attorney Phil Berg.  Phil will be giving us updates on the status of his 3 cases that are alive and well, plus telling us the true information about a Subpoena that surfaced a few days ago with his name on it.. It should be a hot, rocking and interesting show!
 
PLEASE POST THIS ON YOUR BLOGS OR WEB SITES AND ANY OTHER BLOGS OR WEB SITES THAT YOU ARE CONNECTED WITH AND SEND TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK. 
 
I look forward to seeing you all there!  Link, time and call in number for the show is below.
 
http://blogtalkradio.com/mommaeradiorebels
 
Call In # 347-237-4870
 
5:30 PM Pacific Time
 
6:30 PM Mountain Time
 
7:30 PM Central Time
 
8:30 PM Eastern Time
 
I hope to see you all.  Please join us in the Chat room!
  
MommaE”

Orly Taitz, Lawyer needed to assist Taitz, Pro Bono, Filing and presenting her cases, Defend the US Constitution, Expose the real Obama

I have been asked by a concerned American, not by Dr. Orly Taitz, to request assistance from one or more lawyers, pro bono, to help Orly Taitz in filing and presenting her cases.

I have attempted to remain as neutral as possible in regard to the personalities, methodologies and other aspects of each attorney  and attorney interactions that did not relate to the constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama. My motivation is simple. I care about this country and upholding the US Constitution and the rule of law.

The truth about the eligibility of  Obama, who I believe is a usurper, must be found out. The sooner the better.

We have had one courageous congressman, Joe Wilson, who spoke the truth before the entire nation. If there is an attorney out there who believes in the US Constitution and the rule of law, contact Orly Taitz.

 dr_taitz@yahoo.com

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

Just in from Chalice:

“August 20, 2009

Written by Chalice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more:

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

A question of eligibility, World Net Daily, documentary, WND, Obama not eligible, Obama not natural born citizen, Youtube video

Here is a trailer from a new WND, World Net Daily, documentary about Obama and his eligibility issues under the US Constitution. From the Youtube video:

“WHAT if the president of the United States is not constitutionally eligible to serve? Is it possible that a straightforward criterion was overlooked during a long, grueling, expensive campaign? Why are so many questions about something so simple still going unanswered? “A Question Of Eligibility” goes where no other documentary has dared to go in seeking the answers to those questions, including one that millions of Americans are asking: “Why won’t Barack Obama release publicly the long-form birth certificate he claims to have from the state of Hawaii?”

In this video, you will hear from four experts on the subject: Dr. Jerome Corsi, author of the New York Times No. 1 bestseller “The Obama Nation”; Orly Taitz, the Southern California lawyer who has led the legal fight to secure the evidence of Barack Obama’s eligibility; Alan Keyes, a third-party presidential candidate in 2008 and the man who challenged Obama for the Illinois U.S. Senate seat that served as a springboard to his presidential ambitions; and Janet Porter, radio talk-show host and political activist who has championed the constitutional issue.”

 

Thanks to Patriot Dreamer.

Washington Times, July 20, 2009, Charles Kerchner, Weekly edition ad, Obama when born in 1961 was a British Subject, Kerchner v Obama

From Charles Kerchner of the Kerchner V Obama lawsuit, a new ad placed in the weekly edition of the Washington Times for July 20, 2009:

“The below linked advertorial is running tomorrow in the Washington Times National Weekly edition on page 9.  Introduced to the readers of that national newspaper with this issue is an additional key point about Obama and one more of his many flaws in his exact citizenship status, i.e., that:

“Obama when born in 1961 was a British Subject”.

And of course, as a British Subject at birth, Obama is not eligible to be President and the Commander-in-Chief of our military forces since he is not, and never can be, a “natural born citizen” of the USA as is required under Article II of our Constitution, per the intent of the founders of our nation and framers and legal scholars of our Constitution such as Franklin, Jay, and Washington, and per legal constitutional standards.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17478578/Kerchner-et-al-v-Obama-Congress-et-al-Advertorial-in-20090720-Issue-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-pg-9

If you can, please give some coverage of this new key point in this newer version of the advertorials I have been running, i.e., that Obama was born a British Subject when born in 1961 no matter where he was born. His father was a British Subject and thus under the British Nationality Act of 1948 Obama was a British Subject at birth too.

While we who have been fighting this battle may clearly know and understand that point, most in America do not, nor do they understand the importance of that point as to natural born citizenship status under Article II of our Constitution, to constitutional standards.

Also if you can, please point out that if your readers wish to see more of this type of advertising in a national newspaper on the issue of Obama’s citizenship flaws, that they can now help the cause and contribute to funding the advertorials at:  http://www.protectourliberty.org/  I thank all the patriots who have contributed to-date to make this latest advertorial insertion possible. With help, more will be done.  Thank you.”

Sincerely,

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR Retired
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

The Statesman, India, Obama’s tenure, US Constitution, Natural born citizen, Is Obama’s presidency threatened?, Major Cook

From The Statesman, a respected  publication in India that has been in print for 133 years:

“Is Obama’s presidency threatened?

; Rajinder Puri

Even while US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pursues her five-day visit to India, an event has occurred in the USA that could conceivably snowball into a major controversy to cut short President Obama’s tenure.
Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution states: “No person except a US born citizen… shall be eligible to the office of President.”
During the last US campaign a controversy arose about Obama’s birthplace. Critics were unsure if he was born in the USA or Kenya. Obama’s campaign committee released a Hawaiian birth certificate on 13 June, 2008. Sceptics alleged that it had signs of forgery.
Obama maintained he was born in Hawaii. One hospital, Honolulu ‘s Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children, claims it received a letter from the President declaring his birth there. But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refused to authenticate the letter. For nearly six months the hospital proudly declared Obama was born at its facility to create poll hype. Later it covered up and refused to confirm if the letter actually existed. The letter was purportedly signed by Barak Obama. If the signature was forged it was a most serious offence. Was any action taken against the Hospital?
This week the controversy about Obama’s birthplace resurfaced dramatically. A US Army Reserve, Major Stefan Frederick Cook, scheduled for deployment to Afghanistan, refused to serve claiming that the order was illegal because the American President was not legitimate. He argued that he should not be required to serve under a President who has not proven his eligibility for office.”

Read more:

http://www.thestatesman.net/page.arcview.php?clid=4&id=293827&usrsess=1

Kerchner v Obama, attorney Mario Apuzzo, July 4, 2009, US Constitution, standing, immunity, Obama not eligible, Obama is a dictator, Youtube video

Barack Obama is not president of the US

Why?

Obama is not a natural born citizen

Obama is a usurper and a dictator

Obama took the office of the presidency of the United States by lies, deception and tactics resembling those of a dictator. Obama was not vetted by the DNC, any state elections office or the United States Congress. No judge that has been presented with the alarming evidence against Obama and no evidence to support his eligibility has done the job they swore to do. Uphold the US Constitution.

Mario Apuzzo filed a lawsuit on February 2, 2009, representing Charles Kerchner and others against Barack Obama, et al. Here are some excerpts from the lawsuit:

“Plaintiff, Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania. He served 33 years in the U.S. Naval Reserves as both a Commissioned Officer and an Enlisted person.”

“It is plaintiff’s duty to support and defend the United States Constitution pursuant to that oath. Additionally, while currently not statutorily subject to recall, by Executive Order of the President or an act of Congress in an extreme national emergency, the President and/or Congress could order people in plaintiff’s status of service to be recalled. Should plaintiff be recalled to active duty, he would need to know whether the President and Commander in Chief who may be giving him orders is in
fact the legitimate President and Commander in Chief and therefore obligate him to follow those orders or risk being prosecuted for disobeying such legitimate orders.”

“To date, no state or federal election official, nor any government authority, has investigated or held hearings and verified that Obama ever established and proved conclusively that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

The defendants have requested more time and received it. Their latest ploy alleges that the plaintiffs have no standing and that the defendants have immunity. On June 28, 2009, Charles Kurchner and Mario Apuzzo were interviewed on the Chalice radio show. This video includes some clips from the audio and some documents from the legal wrangling.

Listen to the entire Apuzzo and Kerchener audio beginning approx at 82:00 minutes:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/PatriotsHeartNetwork/2009/06/29/The-Chalice-Show.mp3?guid=1ca3a577-5720-4bd9-96f1-9b68f7b2027d

View the court documents at Mario Apuzzo’s website:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Listen to the Chalice show here:

http://www.patriotsheartnetwork.com/

Clarification of original filing timeline (provided by commenter ramjet767)

“To the Editor:

Just noticed another important point both in your article and in the accompanying YouTube video description paragraph and in the video itself on a slide.  The Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress et al lawsuit was filed very early in the morning of 20 Jan 2009, 9+ hours before he was sworn in, not in February.  It was later amended twice with the latest amendment, the 2nd Amended Complaint being filed on 9 Feb 2009.  See the copy of the 2nd Amended Case filing document headline which clarifies that the original suit was filed on 20 Jan 2009. You can see that in the headline at this link:”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DS
3-29-09″

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

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

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

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

SUBJECT: Obama Eligibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Right Side of Life:

“Attorney Issues a National Grand Jury Declaration”

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

Pursuant to First Amendment (The right of the people peaceably to assemble), the Ninth Amendment (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people), and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people), this National Grand Jury is convened by natural born citizens of the fifty several states and of the United States of America, seating 50 jurors pursuant to the duties, powers, responsibilities, qualifications as established hereunder for the following purposes:

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

The National Grand Jury Process

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

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

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

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

The National Grand Jury is empowered to:

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

Read more here:

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