Category Archives: US Soldier

Russell Dunham, World War II, Medal of Honor, Washington Post, April 8, 2009, Sgt. Dunham, 3rd Infantry Division, German fox holes, German machine guns, Greatest Generation passing

First of all, let me say that I have nothing but respect for the
Greatest Generation, the generation that survived the Great Depression
and saved the world from Nazi domination. Today in the obituaries, I
read of the passing of another American hero. The exploits of Russell
Dunham against German forces in World War II are another example of
the self sacrifice common among the Greatest Generation and harder to
find in the current masses of “me” individuals in our midst.

From the Washington Post, April 8, 2009.

“On Jan. 8, 1945, Tech. Sgt. Dunham’s company, part of the 3rd Infantry Division, was facing a formidable German force at the small town of Kayserberg, France, on the Franco-German border. The men were issued white mattress covers as camouflage in the deep snow.

Heavily armed, Sgt. Dunham scrambled 75 yards up a snow-covered hill toward three German machine gun emplacements. He took out the first bunker with a grenade.

Advancing toward the second, he glanced around to call up his squad and a bullet hit him in the back, tearing open a 10-inch gash. As he struggled to his feet, a grenade landed nearby; he kicked it away before it exploded.

He then crawled through the snow to the machine gun and lobbed his own grenade into the bunker, killing two Germans. His carbine empty, he leaped into the foxhole and hauled out a third enemy soldier by the collar.

In excruciating pain, his mattress-cover overcoat now stained a conspicuous red, Sgt. Dunham ran 50 yards to the third machine-gun emplacement and took it out with a grenade. As German infantrymen began scrambling out of their foxholes, Sgt. Dunham chased them down the back side of the hill. He and his elder brother Ralph, who was in the same unit, encountered a fourth machine gun; the older Dunham took it out.

A German rifleman who shot at Russell Dunham at point-blank range but missed became the ninth German he killed that winter morning.

His back wound had yet to fully heal when Sgt. Dunham returned to the front. On Jan. 22, his battalion was surrounded by German tanks at Holtzwihr, France, and most of the men were forced to surrender.

Sgt. Dunham hid in a sauerkraut barrel outside a barn but was discovered the next morning. As the two German soldiers who found him were patting him down, they came across a pack of cigarettes in his pocket and began fighting over it. They never finished their search, so they missed a pistol in a shoulder holster under his arm.

Later in the day, his two captors transported him toward German lines. The driver stopped at a bar, the second soldier’s attention wandered and Sgt. Dunham shot him in the head. He set off toward American lines in sub-zero temperatures.

By the time he encountered U.S. engineers working on a bridge over the Ill River, his feet and ears were frostbitten. A medic working to save his feet from amputation told him that the commanding officer had intended to recommend him for the Distinguished Service Cross but had changed his mind. The young man from Illinois, the officer had decided, deserved the Medal of Honor. ”

Read more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/07/AR2009040703851.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DS
3-29-09″

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

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

From Dr. Orly Taitz:

“NOTE from Defend Our Freedoms Foundation Staff.

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

LYLE J. RAPACKI, Ph.D.

Consultant at Behavioral Analysis and Threat Assessment

Vice President of Protective Services

_______

 

Diplomate:                                                                                                                        Reply:

American Academy of Forensic Counselors                                                                              Southwest Risk Advisors, Inc.

American Psychotherapy Association                                                                                        Post Office Box 1595

                                                                                                                                                          Chandler, Arizona  85244

Licensed Investigator                                                                                                                    Telecommunications:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

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

Information Warfare Analyst                                                                                                       480-440-5930 – cell

ASIS – Phoenix Chapter Membership Chair                                                                             LRapacki1@Hotmail.com                                                                       

FBI InfraGard  Arizona                                                                                                               

 

 

Memorandum:  WHITE PAPER DISCUSSION — NOT CLASSIFIED

 

PROTECTIVE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNICATION              PI: 126:09

NOT CLASSIFIEDPUBLIC DISSEMINATION

 

March the 16th, 2009

 

Statement of Purpose:

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

 

Overview:

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

_______

 

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

WHITE PAPER DISCUSSION — NOT CLASSIFIED

PROTECTIVE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNICATION              PI: 126:09

March the 16th, 2009

Continued – page two

_______

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

_______

 

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

WHITE PAPER DISCUSSION — NOT CLASSIFIED

PROTECTIVE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNICATION              PI: 126:09

March the 16th, 2009

Continued – page three

_______

 

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

 

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

_______

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

WHITE PAPER DISCUSSION — NOT CLASSIFIED

PROTECTIVE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNICATION               PI: 126:09

March the 16th, 2009

Continued – page three

_______

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

WHITE PAPER DISCUSSION — NOT CLASSIFIED

PROTECTIVE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNICATION               PI: 126:09

March the 16th, 2009

Continued – page four

_______

 

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

 

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

 

Conclusion:

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

 

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

 

 

 

( END OF REPORT )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D.

Protective Intelligence Specialist and Agent

Information Warfare Analyst

FBI InfraGardArizona

 

0100 Hrs. m.s.t.”

Read more:

http://defendourfreedoms.org

 

            

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

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

Orly Taitz intro

Obama’s Identity

Obama’s Money

Scotus Tampering I

Scotus Tampering II

Dr. Orly Taitz website:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/

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

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

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

SUBJECT: Obama Eligibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously Ron Paul is not paying attention.

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

Natural born citizen explained

Dean Haskins used this information to
produce this excellent video:

Exactly What IS a Natural Born Citizen?

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

“ONE FINAL POINT ABOUT THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE.

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

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

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

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

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

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

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

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

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

In the passage above, the first sentence defines who the “citizens” of a civil society are.  Vattel states; “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.”

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

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

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

He goes on as follows:

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

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

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

Citizen = legal status

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

Vattel also wrote:

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

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

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

ONLY A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CAN BE PRESIDENT.

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

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

FAREWELL.

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

Leo C. Donofrio

03.18.2009″

 

Read more:

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

 

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

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

From an email we received:

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

Orly Taitz website:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/

Chief Justice John Roberts, Orly Taitz, March 14, 2009, Idaho lecture, Taitz met Roberts, University of Idaho, Roberts agrees, Read documents, US Supreme Court, Clerk, Danny Bickle, Lightfoot v Bowen, Obama not eligible, Barack Obama not natural born citizen, Petition

God Bless Dr. Orly Taitz

From Dr. Orly Taitz March 14, 2009:

“I Did It. Justice Roberts Agreed to read all of my documents

Yesterday I traveled to Idaho. I was able to address Chief Justice Roberts during the question answer session after his lecture. There were numerous cameras recording this event and simultaneous feed broadcast to all the campuses of the University of Idaho. Roughly 5,000 people in all the campuses had an opportunity to hear what I had to say, it is in video archives and now everybody knows the truth and knows that leftist media thugs  such as Seattle Washington Observer shamelessly twist the truth to fit their Pro Obama blind idiot agenda.

 It was a grueling day, I left home at 3 in the morning after sleeping only 3 hours and drove to San Diego, from there flew to Salt Lake City, from there to Tacoma, Washington, from there I drove for a couple of hours to be in Moscow Idaho, to address Chief Justice Roberts. After the lecture the audience was told, that they can ask questions, give their name and present a shot question. I was the first to run to the microphone and told Roberts. ” My name is Orly Taitz, I am an attorney from Southern California. I left home at three o’clock in the morning and flew and drove thousands of miles to talk to you and ask you a question”. Roberts seemed to be impressed by that and I continued. “Are you aware that there is criminal activity going on in the Supreme Court of the United States. I have submitted my case Lightfoot v Bowen to you. You agreed to hear it in the conference of all 9 Justices on January 23. Your clerk, Danny Bickle, on his own accord refused to forward to you an important supplemental brief, he has hidden it from you and refused to post it on the docket. Additionally, my case was erased from the docket, completely erased one day after the inauguration, only two days before it was supposed to be heard in the conference. Outraged citizens had to call and demand for it to be posted. On Monday I saw Justice Scalia and he had absolutely no knowledge of my case, that was supposedly heard in conference on January 23rd. It is inexplicable, particularly knowing that roughly half a million American citizens have written to him and to you Justice Roberts demanding that you hear this issue of eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro to be the President of the United States.” At that point I have shown to Roberts a stack of papers, that I held. Those were my pleadings and printouts that I got from WorldNetDaily. It contained your names, names of about 350,000 that signed the petition. (there were others that have written individual letters,) . Roberts stated  “I will read your documents, I will review them. Give them to my Secret Service Agent and I will review them”. His Secret Service Agent approached me and stated ” Give me all the documents, I promise you Justice Roberts will get them”. I had a full suitcase of documents. The agent went to look for a box, he found a large box to fit all the documents, he showed me his badge, and introduced himself as Gilbert Shaw, secret Service Agent assigned fto the security of Chief Justice Roberts. 
I gave him 
1.Motion fo reconsideration of Lightfoot v Bowen with all the supplemental briefs. 
2. Quo Warranto Easterling et al v Obama et al
3. 3300 pages of your names, people that signed WorldNetDaily petition, demanding that the Supreme Court hear Obama elligibility case.  
4. Copy of a 164 page dossier and all the other documents sent to Eric Holder, Attorney General, describing suspected criminal activity, associated with Obama and his supporters. It described a whole campaign of cyber crimes, intimidation, harassment, defamation and assassination of character, impersonation of US army officer Scott Easterling and impersonation of me, it showed screen shots of information being erased from the docket of the Supreme Court, it contained information of court cases being created, fabricated in order to commit voter fraud and sway public opinion, it contained a list of a 100 addresses for Barack Obama with numerous different social security numbers, issued all over the country and attached to those addresses.  It showed the address Obama used in Somerville Massachusetts, attached to the social security of a man who is 118 years old. It showed evidence of Obama committing perjury, lying under oath. It had his school registration from Indonesia under the name Barry Soetoro, citizen of Indonesia, religion Muslim. Right after this page there was a page of Obama’s registration to become an attorney and officer of the court in Illinois, where he stated under oath that his name is Barack Hussein Obama and he had no other prior names. It contained a report from a federal agent Steven Coffman, stating that there are numerous signs of forgery in his Selective Service Certificate. It contained a letter from a renown expert Sandra Line, stating that there are  signs of forgery in Obama’s short version Certification of Live Birth, and original birth certificate needs to be reviewed in order to ascertain his status. It contained 130 current job positions for  Barry Obama, Barack H. Obama and Michelle Obama, that were obtained from Intellius Jobs.com. None of them were reported on Obamas’ tax returns. All of these documents suggest possible massive tax fraud, corruption of a public official, bribery and massive campaign contributions fraud, whereby large campaign contributions, over allowed limits were reported as fictitious  positions with different companies, not surprisingly involving most mainstream media outlets. These need to be reviewed in light of a pattern, I’ve seen previously.  For example, as a State Senator Obama arranged for his friend Robert Blackwell from killerspin to get a grant of $320,000 of our taxpayers money for his ping-pong tournaments. In exchange Blackwell gave Obama back roughly a third, $100,000 in the form of a salary. Similarly Obama arranged for Chicago university hospital to get 1 million grant of our taxpayer money  and they gave him back roughly a third $357,000 in the form of a board salary for his wife Michelle for working 20 hours a week, even though Michelle was totally worthless as a board member since she had zero medical education and her law licence is on a mandatory inactive status (I wonder why).  

I am writing this in a hurry, ready to leave my hotel room, finishing yesterday’s dinner leftovers and ready to board a plane for a grueling flight back home. I’ll add one more detail. As one of the announcers introduced Roberts, he stated that Roberts has his priorities straight. He described an event  when Roberts missed most of a reception because he wanted to be there for his young son, at the sports tournament where his son was participating. He described Roberts as a caring and loving father. At that point I was just about ready to cry. I have 3 sons, I love them too and I would love to be there, attending their events. I am a proud parent. My oldest son scored in top one percent in the Nation in PSATs and he is in an IVY league school studying to be a doctor. He is also a gifted comedian, who formed a stand up comedy improve group and I would love to see him perform. My wo younger sons are great students. My middle son has a beautiful low bass Elvis Presley voice, he sings opera and I would love to hear him perform. My youngest son is a top student taking 5AP classes in tenth grade, gifted mathematician and basketball player, I would love to see him get academic awards and play basketball. I missed time with my children, time that will never come back because a am criss crossing this country talking to Justices of the Supreme court, Representatives, Senators, FBI agents, Attorney Generals, US attorneys, telling all of them, what is wrong with you? Did some evil magician put a spell on the men in this country and they stopped being men? Why are you afraid to speak up, to stand up for you constitution? Why are you afraid to tell this arrogant jerk from Africa and Indonesia- You need to go home, you cannot be a president and commander in chief because you are not a Natural born Citizen. To be a Natural born Citizen you have to have both parents as citizens. Your father was never a US citizen and you don’t qualify and you also spit us in the face by refusing to unseal your vital records. There is no proof that you are even a citizen. For all we know, you need to go back to Kenya and wait for your green card, and that after we try you for all the crimes perpetrated upon American citizens. I hope Justice Roberts teaches his son that he is a descendant of people that were real men and fought in Alamo and at Valley Forge. Chief Justice Roberts has a right to issue a stay and appoint Joe Biden a president pro-tempore until Obama proves his qualifications or until a new president is chosen. I hope Roberts teaches his son by example and not by empty words.”

Read more:

 http://defendourfreedoms.us/     

Hollister vs Soetoro, US District Judge James Robertson, March 5, 2009, Philip Berg, Hemenway, Obama not eligible, Col Hollister, Barry Soetoro, Judicial, Judge Robertson Memorandum, Air Force colonel, Obama not natural born citizen

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to
particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that
rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must
decide on the operation of each.”

“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the
constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature;
the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the
case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all
cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention
of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the
constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising
under the constitution should be decided without examining the
instrument under which it arises?  This is too extravagant to
be maintained.”

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?” Marbury versus Madison

The following is from a Memorandum issued by
United States District Judge James Robertson
on March 5, 2009. The Memorandum is a response
to the Hollister vs Soetoro lawsuit.

GREGORY S. HOLLISTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARRY SOETORO, et al.,
Defendants.
“This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve
mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is
foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to
do. Even in its relatively short life the case has excited the
blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do
is to bring it to an early end.”

Judge Robertson’s opening statement sets the stage for revealing
his non objectivity and bias.

“The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force
colonel who continues to owe fealty to his Commander-in-Chief
(because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is
tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey
orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven — to the
colonel’s satisfaction — that Mr. Obama is a native-born
American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be
President. The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised,
vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by
America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign
for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a
court.”

Notice the ignorance or apathy of using words like vetted. Judge
Robertson goes on to say “plaintiff wants it resolved by a
court.” as if that is improper. Another example of those that
should be providing checks and balances passing the buck.
“The real plaintiff is probably Philip J. Berg, a lawyer
who lives in Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania, and who has pursued
his crusade elsewhere, see Berg v. Obama”

 

“That case was the subject of a scholarly opinion by a
judge who took Mr. Berg’s claims seriously –- and dismissed them.”
“Mr. Hollister is apparently Mr. Berg’s fallback brainstorm,
essentially a straw plaintiff, one who could tee Mr. Berg’s
native-born issue up for decision on a new theory:”

 

“Because it
appears that the complaint in this case may have been presented
for an improper purpose such as to harass; and that the
interpleader claims and other legal contentions of plaintiff are
not warranted by existing law or by non-frivolous arguments for
extending, modifying or reversing existing law or for
establishing new law, the accompanying order of dismissal
requires Mr. Hemenway to show cause why he has not violated Rules
11(b)(1) and 11(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
and why he should not be required to pay reasonable attorneys
fees and other expenses to counsel for the defendants.”

So now we have trying to uphold the US Constitution being referred
to as harassing. “Not warranted by existing law”?

Judge James Robertson. Which of the following apply to you?

Idiot
Incompetent
Biased
Anti American
Bought by Obama Camp

We would like to know.

The Citizen Wells blog demands for the removal of Judge James
Robertson from office. Please join us in this effort. Corrupt
or incompetent judges must be removed from office.

Complete Memorandum

Help Philip J Berg uphold the US Constitution

http://www.obamacrimes.info/index.html

US Congress, US Military, US Constitution, Obama ineligible, Obama not qualified, Obama not Natural Born Citizen, Orly Taitz lawsuit, Lt Col Donald Sullivan lawsuit, Military officers, Congresmen, Oath of Office

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge
the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
Congressional oath of office

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
So help me God.”
US Military officer’s oath of office

Officers in the service of the United States are
bound by this oath to disobey any order that
violates the Constitution of the United States.

Officers in the US Military and members of Congress take an oath of
office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” To the surprise of no one,
members of the US Military take their oath seriously. Many members of
Congress were contacted before and after the presidential election.
To a person, all members contacted replied with political, evasive
and inaccurate statements about Barack Obama’s eligibility. Lt Col
Donald Sullivan, a retired Air Force officer, file a lawsuit in NC
on November 7, 2008. Now members of the military are coming on board
to support and defend the US Constitution and signing on as plaintiffs
in the Orly Taitz lawsuit.

The WHY initiative and other efforts are attempting to get straight
answers from congressmen as to why they believed Obama was eligible
and why no member of Congress stood up to challenge the Electoral
votes. Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama responded with a typical
absurd response when queried about Obama’s eligibility. Recently,
when interviewed, Senator Shelby gave a different response. Without
focusing on just one member of Congress, Senator Shelby, we still
need to find out what Senator Shelby’s position is on the US
Constitution.

Senator Shelby’s response

Senator Shelby, members of Congress, consider
the following officers in the US military
that have come on board to support and defend
the US Constitution:

 

“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.”

Lt Col Donald Sullivan lawsuit

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

 Major General Carroll D. Childers Joins Orly Taitz lawsuit

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

 Brigadier General Charles E. Jones Joins Orly Taitz lawsuit

“A Retired Colonel, Riley is “the recipient of the Silver Star, Legion
of Merit, Bronze Star and other awards and badges – including the
Combat Infantry Badge, Parachute Badge, and Army Staff Badge. He served
over 34 years in the US Army. He was commissioned as a 2LT in 1966 and
promoted to Colonel in 1989. He served in command positions from
Detachment through Battalion level and staff assignments from Brigade
to Chief of Staff Army level. He served two tours in Viet Nam and did
several tours in Germany.”

 Colonel Harry Riley Joins Orly Taitz lawsuit

“OCCUPATION: Retired (Disabled)….Combat Veteran

ACHIEVEMENTS: Awarded  Silver Star for Conspicuous Gallentry, Awarded
the Bronze Star with Combat “V”,Two (2) Purple Hearts, Gold Medal for
best Squad Leader in the World, 14 other awards and decorations”

Major James R. Cannon Joins Orly Taitz lawsuit

“As an active-duty Officer in the United States Army, I have grave
concerns about the constitutional eligibilty of Barack Hussein Obama
to hold the Office of President of The United States. He has
absolutely refused to provide to the American public his original
birth certificate, as well as other documents which may prove or
disprove his eligibility. In fact, he has fought every attempt made
by concerned citizens in their effort to force him to do so.
Until Mr. Obama releases a “vault copy” of his original birth
certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my
Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the
Office – an impostor.
My conviction is such that I am compelled to join Dr. Orly Taitz’s
lawsuit, as a plaintiff, against Mr. Obama. As a citizen, it pains me
to do this, but as an Offficer, my sworn oath to support and defend
our Constitution requires this action.”

First Lt Scott R. Easterling Joins Orly Taitz lawsuit

Orly Taitz lawsuit and Military feedback