Tag Archives: Obama ineligible

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

Posted on February 11, 2009 | 57 comments

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

We

Are Watching

Congress

 

Citizen Wells Intro to WHY initiative

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

Why did they believe that Obama is eligible?

Why did no member of Congress challenge the Electoral votes?

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

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

So we are asking WHY.

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

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

Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981 on an Indonesian passport.

Obama’s father was Kenyan, under British rule.

Obama became an Indonesian citizen.

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

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

Consider this letter from a Brigadier General:

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

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

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

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

Beginning of dialogue:

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

End of dialogue

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

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

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/

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

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

God bless.

57 Comments

Posted in 2009 Stimulus Bill, American Revolution, Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Chief Justice, Circuit Court, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Congress, Constitution Hall of Shame, Democrats, DNC, Dr. Orly Taitz, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Founding Fathers, Government, Hawaii, Inauguration, indictment, Indonesia, Judges, Justice, Kenya, Keyes lawsuit, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, News, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, US House of Representatives, US Senate, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Philip J Berg questions and answers, Jeff Schreiber interview, Berg answers, January 5, 2009, Interpleader explained, Air Force colonel Hollister, Obama ineligible, Obama not natural born citizen, Constitutional crisis, US Supreme Court

Posted on January 5, 2009 | 18 comments

Whether you agree or not with everything that Philip J Berg believes,
the man deserves a lot of credit for his efforts to hold Barack
Obama accountable in regard to presidential eligibility. Likewise,
Jeff Schreiber, a law student,legal writer and blog owner has done
a great job of covering the Philip J Berg lawsuits. Here are some
exerpts from questions Jeff Schreiber asked of Mr. Berg:
Jeff Schreiber reports:
Questions and answers with Philip J Berg.
“As an aside, despite the way he is painted by supporters and detractors alike,
and despite his views on the attacks of September 11, 2001–which I absolutely
abhor and he knows it–I’ve always found Berg to be rational and to be gracious.
I spoke with him this weekend, and this is the result.”

“You filed a new lawsuit last week. Tell me about it.

This lawsuit is an interpleader action, and the reason we went this way is
because an interpleader action will shift the burden of proof to Barack Obama.
Notice that we didn’t sue Obama, though. We sued Barry Soetoro, mainly because
we believe that is his real name. We’ve seen no documentation showing that he
has changed his name from Soetoro to Obama. So, when he was registering himself
in all of the states—and there are 50 states, Barack—he was registering with
the wrong name. That’s fraud. His name was Barry Soetoro when he was adopted in
Indonesia, and nothing shows that it has been changed since.

Take for example if I adopt someone from Kenya, if I adopt a girl from Kenya,
she would take my last name, Berg. And, if anything changed in the future, if
she wanted to use another name for any reason, she would have to legally change
that name.”
“Tell me about Col. Hollister.

Col. Hollister, the plaintiff, is a retired Air Force colonel, he’s about 52
years old or so, and served this country from 1978 to 1998 before being honorably
discharged. During that time, when he served this country, he swore to protect
America against all enemies foreign and domestic – which is interesting because,
right now, we may have a domestic crisis going on.

Hollister contacted us. He’s not the only military man we’ve had contact us in
hopes to help. We’ve had quite a few who, over the past few months, called to offer
their support. He called us because he is perplexed. Here he is, on the Individual
Ready Reserve—meaning that he is able, that he is subject to Presidential recall
now and for the rest of his life—and he sees what’s going on across the world and
he’s perplexed as to whether he could, if called up to serve again, follow orders
from a Commander in Chief who may or may not be constitutionally eligible for that
position. If Obama is sworn in on January 20th, if he takes that Oath of Office,
he is usurping the powers of the president of the United States. And, when the
truth comes out, and it will, it will mean that all of Obama’s laws and orders will
be deemed invalid and will come back.

So Col. Hollister is perplexed. If he is called up, he has a duty to obey lawful
orders from the Commander in Chief and on down the chain of command. And he would
also have a duty to disobey unlawful orders. He took an Oath of Enlistment to fight
for and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, but he’s
confused because he doesn’t know who these duties will be owed to if Obama is sworn
in. Is he qualified to be Commander in Chief? What if he was born in Kenya? What if
he is an illegal alien?”

“Speaking of timing, what do you think is the significance of January 9th? Is it
significant? Why do you think you were the first case into the Supreme Court, but
the last case out?

I don’t want to say anything to blow it, you know, but I think we’ve got a great shot.
They could have thrown us out weeks ago. January 9th could very well be a significant
day in all of this, because Obama will actually be president elect instead of
designate.

On November 4th, he just got the popular votes. We tried to show that he shouldn’t
have been on the ballot so we could avoid a constitutional crisis, but that obviously
didn’t work. On December 15th, he just got the electoral votes. We pushed to stop
that vote but were obviously unsuccessful. Those votes will be counted on Thursday,
and barring anything drastic like a congressman standing up to protect, he will
finally be President-Elect Barack Obama.”
“Let’s say for a moment that it works. Obama is deemed ineligible. What next for the
country? What next for you?

I don’t know. It depends upon when Barack Obama is declared ineligible. If it happens
before Thursday, it means one thing. If it happens after Thursday but before January
20th, it means another thing. If it happens after January 20th, it appears that Biden
would be president, but who knows? After all, he was selected by someone who shouldn’t
have been running for president and selecting vice presidents in the first place.

I just hope and pray, every night, for calm and peace in this country, and if Obama is
found to be unqualified, I would urge political and cultural leaders to come forth with
something like a national broadcast and appeal for peace. This was Barack Obama’s doing,
this was caused by one man, and nobody else. In fact, Barack Obama himself come out and
say “I’m proud to have made history on November 4th, in getting more votes than anybody
else, but because of some issues with my past, I have no choice but to step down.” And
he should appeal for peace and calm.”

Read the rest of this great article here:

http://www.americasright.com/

18 Comments

Posted in amended complaint, Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Colonel Hollister, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Founding Fathers, Government, Hawaii, Hollister lawsuit, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Jeff Schreiber, Judges, Justice, Kenya, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

2008 Electoral College votes, Certification of Voters, State laws, US Constitution, Electors signed Certification, Certifications invalid, Obama ineligible, Violators should be prosecuted, Constitution violated

Posted on December 17, 2008 | 52 comments

The ultimate objective of a presidential election to inaugurate a
constitutionally qualified president that as closely as possible
reflects the will of the people.
The states have been given the power and the duty to control presidential
elections by the US Constitution.

The pervasive attitudes of the state officers and election officials is
that they, incorrectly, have no power to qualify presidential candidates
and/or they depend on political parties to vet the candidates.

The political parties have evolved and changed since the creation of the
US Consitution and are given no powers. However, members of the parties,
as US Citizens have an implied duty to uphold the Constitution and party
officers typically have taken oaths as elected officials to uphold the
US Constitution.

Clearly, the intent of the US Constitution and Federal Election Law is
for an eligible candidate to move through this election process to allow
for a constitutionally valid vote by Electors.

All officers and election officials, most judges and most Electoral
College Electors were informed prior to the general election and
particularly prior to the Electors meeting and voting, of compelling
evidence that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president. Despite
these warnings, Electors met and voted on the basis of party loyalty or
perceived directives from the states. State or party policies dictating
how an Elector votes violate the spirit and letter of constitutional
and federal law.

Even though the manner of Electoral College voting in clearly defined by
the US Constitution and Federal Election Law, some states have included
explicit references to law in their Certificates of Voters that are
signed by Electors and state officers. Below are certificates from 2004.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004_certificates/

Alabama

“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and this state, certify”

Alaska

“by authority of law vested in us”

Arizona

“by authority of law in us vested”

Arkansas

“as provided by law”

California

“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and the state of california, do hereby certify”

Connecticut

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States
and in the manner provided by the laws of the state of Connecticut”

Hawaii

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States”

Idaho

“having met agreeably to the provisions of law”

Illinois

“as provided by law”

Indiana

“as required by the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States”

Iowa

“in accordance with law”

Kansas

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

Kentucky

“In accordance with the Twelfth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and with sections 7-11 of Title III of the
United States Code”

UNITED STATES CODE

TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT

Manner of voting

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

US Constitution

Article. II.

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

“In testimony whereof, and as required by the Twelth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States we have hereunto set
our hands”

Montana

“agreeable to the provisions of law”

Nevada

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

New Jersey

“proceeded to perform the duties required of us by the Constitution
and laws of the United States.”

North Carolina

“by authority of law in us vested”

Pennsylvania

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

Rhode Island

“in pursuance of law”

South Carolina

“pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
this state”

Tennessee

“pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
this state”

Utah

“in pursuance of the statutes of the United States and of the statutes
of the State of Utah”

Virginia

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States”

Washington

“pursuant to the provisions of federal and state law”

Conclusion

  • The US Constitution is clear on presidential eligibility and how
    Electoral Colleges Electors are to vote.
  • Ignorance is no excuse. Everyone involved was forewarned. Voting
    party line over law will not be tolerated.
  • Electors and state officers have signed or will sign Certificates of Voters
    for the 2008 Election. As you can see from the above, they will
    certify that they are aware of the law and are abiding by the law.
  • Kentucky gets the award for the most constitutionally clear wording
    and should be applauded for doing so.
  • There are consequences for false attesting.
  • One of the consequences is that the votes of many Electors are now
    null and void.
  • Impeachment, recall, firing, criminal charges forthcoming?

Constitution 101 classes will begin soon.

State officers, election officials, judges and, of course,
US Supreme Court Justices will be invited. Stay tuned for a
class near you. I suppose Washington DC should be first.

52 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Attorney General, Barack Obama, Board of Elections, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Congress, Connecticut, Crime, Criminal Complaint, Delaware, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FBI, FEC, Federal Court, Founding Fathers, Government, Hawaii, Illinois, impeachment, indictment, John McCain, Judges, Justice, McCain Obama, Minnesota, NC, New Jersey, New York, News, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, Pennsylvania voters, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, Tennessee, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Philip J Berg, Press Release, December 8, 2008, Injunction to stay Electoral Votes, US Supreme Court, Obama ineligible, Prohibit House and Senate count, Obama not natural born citizen

Posted on December 8, 2008 | 13 comments

Here is the latest press release from Philip J Berg:

“For Immediate Release: – 12/08/08
For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005 U.S. Supreme Court No. 08 – 570
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
philjberg@obamacrimes.com
U. S. SUPREME COURT ASKED TO ISSUE
AN INJUNCTION TO STAY ELECTORIAL VOTES
ON DECEMBER 15, 2008
UNTIL OBAMA PROVES HE IS “QUALIFIED”
TO BE PRESIDENT
AS THIS IS THE LARGEST “HOAX”
IN 200 YEARS
(Washington, DC – 12/08/08) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed
suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to
serve as President of the United States today filed with the U.S. Supreme Court an
Application for an Injunction to Stay the Electoral Votes on December 15, 2008 and
prohibit V.P. Richard B. Cheney, the House of Representatives and the Senate counting
any votes for Obama until Obama Proves he is “Qualified” to be President.
Berg filed this while waiting to hear if the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the Writ
of Certiorari that he filed on October 30, 2008, requesting review of the United States
District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Surrick’s Dismissal of Philip J.
I:\Obama\Obama Press Release 12 08 2008.doc
Berg’s lawsuit against Barack H. Obama, Jr., the DNC and the other co-Defendants
regarding “standing.”
Mr. Berg remarked today, “I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionallyqualified
natural-born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of President of the
United States.”
Berg continued, “Obama knows he is not ‘natural born’ as he knows
where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an
attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows
his candidacy is the largest ‘hoax’ attempted on the citizens of the United
States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a ‘crisis’ situation;
and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around
the world who know Obama is not qualified.”
# # #
* * For copies of all Court Pleadings, go to
obamacrimes.com”

13 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, John McCain, Judges, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Obama not natural born citizen, Obama ineligible, Chief Justice Roberts, US Supreme Court must review, December 8, 2008, Obama’s father British, Act of Congress, British Nationality Act of 1948, US Constitution, When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside

Posted on December 7, 2008 | 31 comments

From time to time I publish a comment placed on this blog. This comment is substantive and well presented
by commenter Bob.

“Comments on FactCheck.org: “Clarifies Barack Obama’s Citizenship”

They should have said: “Barack Obama: Born a ‘Brit.’”

———————————–

Barack Obama’s Citizenship? This is the syllogism:

A. If your citizenship is governed by an Act of Congress to establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization, then you are disqualified for the office of president and vice president of the United States.

B. Barack Obama’s citizenship is governed by the Secretary of State’s codified regulation: 7 FAM 1111.4 “Dual or Multiple Nationality.”

Why?

Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate posted by The Obama Campaign on the InterNet discloses it, and FactCheck.org confirms that on the DAY Barack Obama WAS BORN, his father, Barack Obama, Senior, was a British subject (his Kenyan citizenship is irrelevant).

They wrote: ‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children …’

Please read that last line again: “That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children …”

C. Therefore, Barack Obama is disqualified from the office of president.

Barack Obama graduated from Harvard Law School magnum cum laude, and was also a lecturer at the prestigious University of Chicago Law School: So, he knows this.

———————————–

This issue is no more complicated than this simple line of reasoning: Everything else is no more than “smoke and mirrors.”

———————————–

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.”

———————————–

Since the First Wednesday of March 1789 (March 4), the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and all Treaties made under the Authority of the United States, have been the supreme Law of the Land.

This is what President George Washington said on that day:

“Fellow Citizens:

“I am again called upon by the voice of my country to execute the functions of its Chief Magistrate. When the occasion proper for it shall arrive, I shall endeavor to express the high sense I entertain of this distinguished honor, and of the confidence which has been reposed in me by the people of united America.

“Previous to the execution of any official act of the President the Constitution requires an oath of office. This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (besides incurring constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony.”

———————————–

Justice Rehnquist (later Chief Justice) noted that in the Constitution, “a political document noted for its brevity,” that there are 11 instances addressing the “citizen-alien” distinction: Art. 1, S 2, C 2; S 3, C , S 8, C 4; Art. 2, S 1, C 5, Art. 3, S 2, C 1; Art. 4, S 2, C 1, and in the 11th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments.

———————————–

So why would the law of any foreign State such as the British Nationality Act of 1948 have any effect in any State under the jurisdiction of the United States?

Did the President made a Treaty with Great Britain surrendering sovereignty to a foreign State to secure some right? The answer is, “No!”

Did Congress act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization? The answer is, “Yes!”

———————————–

Congress passed the McCarran-Walter Act called “The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.” The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (before Obama was born), as amended through 1994 (before Obama ran for office), is our current law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952

President Truman actually vetoed the bill, and argued for more liberalized provisions that would effectively end the restrictive quota system: “In no other realm of our national life are we so hampered and stultified by the dead hand of the past, as we are in this field of immigration.” But Congress overrode his veto, and the 1952 Act was implemented.

Why the McCarran-Walter Act? It was the product of the most extensive Congressional study in the nation’s history of the subject of Immigration and Nationality. The Act codified and brought together for the first time all the nation’s laws and all the court’s decisions on immigration and naturalization. Although it has since been extensively amended through 1994, it remains the basis of all immigration and nationality law today.

The McCarran-Walter Act, and all subsequent legislation, address the issues raised by the laws of other nations and their effect upon the laws of the United States.

Congress decided that the Secretary of State and the Attorney General were authorized, in their discretion and on a basis of reciprocity, to severally prescribe regulations implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The Secretary of State codified regulations in the 7 Foreign Affairs Manual (Consular Affairs) to advise U.S. nationals about citizenship: 7 FAM 1100 deals with the Acquisition and Retension of U.S. Citizenship and Nationality; 7 FAM 1110 deals with Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth in the United States, including specifically “Dual or Multiple Nationality” (7 FAM 1111.4).

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

The Attorney General codified regulations for children through the Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, under Section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, the INS is now part of the Department of Homeland Security, U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [and so these regulations are now found at (8 CFR), Immigration and Naturalization].

http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=7b2ad4e82f00315ac8e70cab6366e0da

Both sets of codified regulations govern all decisions made by all departments of the Federal government, including the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Health and Human Services, as well as the Department of Education.

———————————–

As noted above, the Constitution gives Congress authority to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

The Code of Federal Regulations is huge, but it can all be summarized with this sentence: Naturalized citizens legally are equal in almost all respects to persons who have been Americans from birth.

The only constitutional disqualification of naturalized citizens is for the offices of president and vice president of the United States.

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

The words “no person except” also means “no exceptions.”

———————————–

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President can take the following Oath or Affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Why? Because, since 1974 the Committee on the Judiciary has considered a violation of the constitutional oath to be a high crime and misdemeanor, warranting impeachment, trial and removal from office.

Why? Because the Constitution states that the President of the United States shall take care are that the laws be faithfully executed.

———————————–

Why must the Supreme Court review this matter?

Because, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.”

And specifically cases that involve: “foreign States, Citizens, and Subjects:” Barack Obama, Senior, was a British Subject.

Why must the Chief Justice have a special role in this matter?

Because, “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.”

Comments on FactCheck.org: “Clarifies Barack Obama’s Citizenship”

They should have said: “Barack Obama: Born a ‘Brit.'”

———————————–

Barack Obama’s Citizenship? This is the syllogism:

A. If your citizenship is governed by an Act of Congress to establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization, then you are disqualified for the office of president and vice president of the United States.

B. Barack Obama’s citizenship is governed by the Secretary of State’s codified regulation: 7 FAM 1111.4 “Dual or Multiple Nationality.”

Why?

Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate posted by The Obama Campaign on the InterNet discloses it, and FactCheck.org confirms that on the DAY Barack Obama WAS BORN, his father, Barack Obama, Senior, was a British subject (his Kenyan citizenship is irrelevant).

They wrote: ‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children …’

Please read that last line again: “That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children …”

C. Therefore, Barack Obama is disqualified from the office of president.

Barack Obama graduated from Harvard Law School magnum cum laude, and was also a lecturer at the prestigious University of Chicago Law School: So, he knows this.

———————————–

This issue is no more complicated than this simple line of reasoning: Everything else is no more than “smoke and mirrors.”

———————————–

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.”

———————————–

Since the First Wednesday of March 1789 (March 4), the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and all Treaties made under the Authority of the United States, have been the supreme Law of the Land.

This is what President George Washington said on that day:

“Fellow Citizens:

“I am again called upon by the voice of my country to execute the functions of its Chief Magistrate. When the occasion proper for it shall arrive, I shall endeavor to express the high sense I entertain of this distinguished honor, and of the confidence which has been reposed in me by the people of united America.

“Previous to the execution of any official act of the President the Constitution requires an oath of office. This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (besides incurring constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony.”

———————————–

Justice Rehnquist (later Chief Justice) noted that in the Constitution, “a political document noted for its brevity,” that there are 11 instances addressing the “citizen-alien” distinction: Art. 1, S 2, C 2; S 3, C , S 8, C 4; Art. 2, S 1, C 5, Art. 3, S 2, C 1; Art. 4, S 2, C 1, and in the 11th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments.

———————————–

So why would the law of any foreign State such as the British Nationality Act of 1948 have any effect in any State under the jurisdiction of the United States?

Did the President made a Treaty with Great Britain surrendering sovereignty to a foreign State to secure some right? The answer is, “No!”

Did Congress act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization? The answer is, “Yes!”

———————————–

Congress passed the McCarran-Walter Act called “The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.” The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (before Obama was born), as amended through 1994 (before Obama ran for office), is our current law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952

President Truman actually vetoed the bill, and argued for more liberalized provisions that would effectively end the restrictive quota system: “In no other realm of our national life are we so hampered and stultified by the dead hand of the past, as we are in this field of immigration.” But Congress overrode his veto, and the 1952 Act was implemented.

Why the McCarran-Walter Act? It was the product of the most extensive Congressional study in the nation’s history of the subject of Immigration and Nationality. The Act codified and brought together for the first time all the nation’s laws and all the court’s decisions on immigration and naturalization. Although it has since been extensively amended through 1994, it remains the basis of all immigration and nationality law today.

The McCarran-Walter Act, and all subsequent legislation, address the issues raised by the laws of other nations and their effect upon the laws of the United States.

Congress decided that the Secretary of State and the Attorney General were authorized, in their discretion and on a basis of reciprocity, to severally prescribe regulations implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The Secretary of State codified regulations in the 7 Foreign Affairs Manual (Consular Affairs) to advise U.S. nationals about citizenship: 7 FAM 1100 deals with the Acquisition and Retension of U.S. Citizenship and Nationality; 7 FAM 1110 deals with Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth in the United States, including specifically “Dual or Multiple Nationality” (7 FAM 1111.4).

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

The Attorney General codified regulations for children through the Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, under Section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, the INS is now part of the Department of Homeland Security, U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [and so these regulations are now found at (8 CFR), Immigration and Naturalization].

http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=7b2ad4e82f00315ac8e70cab6366e0da

Both sets of codified regulations govern all decisions made by all departments of the Federal government, including the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Health and Human Services, as well as the Department of Education.

———————————–

As noted above, the Constitution gives Congress authority to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

The Code of Federal Regulations is huge, but it can all be summarized with this sentence: Naturalized citizens legally are equal in almost all respects to persons who have been Americans from birth.

The only constitutional disqualification of naturalized citizens is for the offices of president and vice president of the United States.

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

The words “no person except” also means “no exceptions.”

———————————–

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President can  take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Why? Because, since 1974 the Committee on the Judiciary has considered a violation of the constitutional oath to be a high crime and misdemeanor, warranting impeachment, trial and removal from office.

Why? Because the Constitution states that the President of the United States shall take care are that the laws be faithfully executed.

———————————–

Why must the Supreme Court review this matter?

Because, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.”

And specifically cases that involve: “foreign States, Citizens, and Subjects:” Barack Obama, Senior, was a British Subject.

Why must the Chief Justice have a special role in this matter?

Because, “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.””

31 Comments

Posted in American Revolution, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Cort Wrotnowski, Democrats, District Court, DNC, Dr. Orly Taitz, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, John McCain, Judges, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, National Press Club, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama ineligible, Obama born in Kenya, Obama Indonesian, US Constitution, States, Secretary of State, Board of Elections, Electors, States must uphold US Constitution, 2008 Election

Posted on October 27, 2008 | 47 comments

“In late December 1783, when General Washington resigned as commander in chief, he visited the Continental Congress for the last time…. General Washington read a brief statement praising the officers and soldiers of the Continental Army for their eight years of service. He also commended “our dear country to the protection of Almighty God.” As he said these words, his voice broke and tears streamed down the general’s cheeks and he was unable to speak for a full minute.”

From “Washington’s Secret War” by Thomas Fleming

“The collective wisdom of the founding fathers astounds me.”

Citizen Wells 

2008 Presidential Election

  States must uphold US Constitution

  

 

The DNC, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, et al ramroded Obama through the
DNC Convention and nomination.

Obama stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton. Documented evidence
reveals widespread voter fraud involving Acorn and the Obama camp in
the primaries and general election.

Barack Obama is not eligible to be president. He was born in Kenya and
became an Indonesian citizen. Obama is still Indonesian and is an illegal alien. There is ample proof of this and more is being revealed. Obama has failed to repudiate these facts.

Election officials and Electors in all 50 states and DC will be held
accountable to uphold the US Constitution.

The Philip J Berg lawsuit will be taken to the Supreme court if necessary. Lawsuits are constrained by the level of proof placed on the plaintiff.
However, there is no such standard for those bound to uphold the
Constitution. Those swearing an oath of allegiance to the Constitution are being forewarned that with the oath comes a responsibility  and a higher level of recourse for violation of that oath. Consider the following:

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

Citizen Wells will be contacting the secretary of state or commonwealth
in all states and will email the following article that reveals the duties to uphold the Constitution:

US Constitution, Federal Election Laws, State Election Laws 

Each state will be notified of the article and the fact that they will be
held accountable. Taking their cue from the Democratic party or other
excuses will not be accepted. Each person sworn to uphold the Constitution will be personally held accountable. Citizen Wells also urges the citizens of each state to make known their desire to uphold the Constitution.

Below is a list of the 50 states and DC. As each state is contacted, this
article will be updated. Please comment with your information and concerns
about your state election officials and electors.

Alabama Emailed 10/27/08

Alaska Email 10/27/08

Arizona Email 10/28/08

Arkansas Email 10/27/08

California Email 10/27/08

Colorado Email 10/27/08

Connecticut Email 10/27/08

Delaware Email 10/28/08

Florida Telephone/email 10/27/08, Florida response – see comment below

Georgia Email 10/28/08

Hawaii Email 10/27/08

Idaho Email 10/27/08

Illinois

Indiana Email 10/28/08

Iowa Email 10/28/08

Kansas Email 10/28/08

Kentucky Email 10/28/08

Louisiana Email 10/28/08

Maine Email 10/28/08

Maryland Email 10/28/08

Massachusetts Email 10/28/08

Michigan Email 10/28/08

Minnesota Email 10/27/08

Mississippi Email 10/28/08

Missouri Email 10/27/08

Montana Email 10/28/08

Nebraska Email 10/28/08

Nevada Email 10/28/08

New Hampshire Email 10/28/08

New Jersey Email 10/28/08

New Mexico Email 10/27/08

New York Email 10/28/08

North Carolina Telephone/email 10/27/08

North Dakota Email 10/28/08

Ohio Email 10/28/08

Oklahoma Email 10/28/08

Oregon Email 10/28/08

Pennsylvania Telephone/email 10/27/08

Rhode Island Email 10/28/08

South Carolina Email 10/28/08

South Dakota Email 10/28/08

Tennessee Email 10/28/08

Texas Email 10/28/08

Utah Email 10/28/08

Vermont Email 10/28/08

Virginia    

Washington Email 10/28/08

West Virginia Email 10/28/08

Wisconsin Email 10/27/08

Wyoming Email 10/28/08

Dictrict of Columbia

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

47 Comments

Posted in Acorn voter fraud, Announcements, Attorney General, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizen, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Congress, corruption, Criminal Complaint, democratic convention, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election update, FEC, Federal Court, Founding Fathers, Government, Hawaii, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Justice, Kenya, Natural born citizen, NC voters, News, Obama 2006 Kenya, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator Obama, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Philip J Berg, Thank you Mr. Berg, Zach Jones blog, Constitutional crisis, Obama ineligible

Posted on October 27, 2008 | 6 comments

From the Zach Jones Blog: 

“Philip Berg, Esq. is Standing Tall For All of Us

(Even Without The Blessings of the Lower Court)

I for one would like to say thank you Mr. Berg!

Dear Sir:

I want to publicly extend my deepest appreciation to you, Mr. Berg, for taking on the enormous Constitutional crisis that is facing America; the possibility that a person who might not be eligible, under the requirements set forth in our Constitution, to hold the office for which he is being allowed to run. If your allegations are found to have merit it will mean that Sen. Obama, knowingly solicited hundreds of million of dollars in campaign contributions under fault pretenses from unsuspecting American citizens and voters. It will mean that he and others conspired to keep this information secret and intentionally thwarted Sen. Clinton’s chances of becoming the first female President of the United States. Thank you for bringing this action, Sir.

Fortunately for us all, every now and again, a cause will come along that will stir the soul and passions. What cause could be more important that standing tall against those who could be seeking to undermine our legal system for electing the President of The United States of America? Who among us would challenge those of such power and wealth who could be trying to win an office for which they are not eligible? Who among us would take on a Senator, one with a historic candidacy, who is wildly popular by any standard? A lawyer who would take on such a case would certainly be led down roads that seem to go on forever, that are full of obstacles, and that usually demand going on with little support or understanding from neighbors, friends or even family. Thank you for your courage and determination.

As you well know, the case that goes against the fleeting public emotional attachment carries the most risk to the lawyer. If the person challenged by an attorney is highly revered, the lawyer becomes a lightening rod for attack; just as the exceedingly despised defendant, who is defended in court against the desires of the mob. For those who don’t fully appreciate what I’m trying to say, watch the movie – To Kill a Mockingbird. Thank you Mr. Berg for standing up for us, knowing that to win or lose such a case would exact a high price from you.

Thank you for having the courage to take Berg v. Obama all the way to the Supreme Court in your efforts to advert such a possible travesty of Justice.

To those of you who may not be aware, Sen. Obama could have easily defended his eligibility to hold the U. S. Presidency by merely presenting exclusive proof of where and when he was born; and that he has never held a citizenship from another country that would nullify or call his U. S. citizenship into question. Sen. Obama chose not to answer the complaint; but instead, he chose to take the route of a legal technocrat seeking to challenge Mr. Berg’s “Standing to Sue”. When Sen. McCain was questioned about his birth certificate, he immediately presented a vault copy of his birth certificate showing the date and location of his birth, without legal hocus pocus.

“Standing to Sue” means that party has sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy. Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 92 S. Ct. 1361, 1364, 31 L.Ed.2d 636

The Hon. R. Barclay Surrick decided Sen. Obama’s Motion to Dismiss in part on the following reasoning:

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

Everyone must fully understand the meaning of Judge Surrick’s decision in dismissing Mr. Berg’s lawsuit. First, it does not mean that Sen. Obama is in any way eligible to hold the Office of the Presidency. Second, it does mean that even if everyone knew that Sen. Obama was born on the moon, it would not matter regarding the decision about Sen. Obama’s Motion to Dismiss. Judge Surrick found that a voter would not suffer enough injury by the possible election of an ineligible candidate as President to grant him or her standing to be authorized under law to bring this type of lawsuit. Third, this challenge to Sen. Obama’s eligibility is not over.

If Citizens exercising the most precious right that we have under the Constitution, in what is expected to a free and fair election process, do not have standing – who does?

I would suspect, and also pray, that you do in fact have standing and that the higher courts will reinstate your action against Sen. Obama, et alli. However, it wouldn’t hurt if some people who clearly have an even bigger stake in the outcome of Berg. v Obama would join with you as plaintiffs in the action.

Those I’m thinking about are Sen. John McCain, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Ralph Nader, Congressman Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, and the other candidates of the Democratic Primary. I want to publicly challenge each one of the people to stand with Phillip Berg, Esq., to prevent the possible election of a person who may not meet the requirements under the Constitution of The United States to hold the Office of the Presidency.

I also want to challenge each of you reading this thank you letter to contact the above named individuals and encourage them to take their “Standing” and stand up for America and its system of laws.

Even though this decision was to be expected, it must have weighed heavily on you, Mr. Berg. Thank you for bearing this disappointment for America with grace and continuing on.

I don’t know that there are any short cuts to doing a good job.
Sandra Day O’Connor

Sincerely,

Zach Jones, a/k/a ZachJonesIsHome.wordpress.com“

6 Comments

Posted in amended complaint, Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Congress, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election update, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Justice, Kenya, Natural born citizen, NC voters, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Senator Obama, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters, Zach Jones blog

Tagged , , , ,

Philip J Berg lawsuit, Obama Indonesian, Obama ineligible, Public awareness, Washington State lawsuit, Secretary of State Sam Reed, verification of Barack Obama’s citizenship status

Posted on October 15, 2008 | 10 comments

A lawsuit has been initiated against Washington State Secretary of State Sam Reed demanding verification of Barack Obama’s citizenship status. I am reporting this not to detract attention away from Philip J Berg’s lawsuit but out of a sense of obligation to report the news and because this reveals a heightened sense of awareness of the constitutional crisis.

Support Philip J Berg’s lawsuit and demand coverage by the media:

http://obamacrimes.com

Here is a news release for the Washington State lawsuit:

“FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Contact: Steve Marquis
Telephone Number: 425-698-7084
Email Address: peoplesvoice@peoplespassions.org
Web site address: http://peoplespassions.org/peoplesvoice/peoplesvoice.html

Averting a Crisis in Confidence; Citizen files Lawsuit Against Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed demanding verification of Barack Obama’s citizenship status.

Seattle WA. 10/9/2008 — Steven Marquis, a resident of Fall City WA today filed suit in Washington State Superior Court against Secretary of State Sam Reed demanding verification of Barack Obama’s citizenship status.

The complaint seeks specifically that the office of the Washington Secretary of State verify and certify that Mr. Obama is or is not a “natural born” citizen by producing original or certified verifiable official documents. The lawsuit argues that this certification should take place before the election to preclude a constitutional crisis and likely civil unrest should such certification, after the election, prove that Mr. Obama was not qualified for office.

The Complaint argues that the Secretary of State has the authority and duty to not only certify the voters but also and most importantly the candidates and in so doing prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters who would had had an opportunity to choose from qualified candidates had the certification preceded the election process.

At this point, Mr. Obama has not allowed independent or official access to his birth records nor supporting hospital records. The Hawaii Health Department has violated Federal law by ignoring formal Freedom of Information requests for the same. Due to the facts and numerous other allegations that would challenge Mr. Obama’s fundamental qualifications for office, a Federal lawsuit was filed and is currently being heard in District Court, Pennsylvania.

Mr. Obama failed to respond to the District Court’s request to produce or allow access to the official documents (should they exist) and instead filed a motion to dismiss arguing the Plaintiff had no “standing” or right to know. This non-response as of 9/24/2008 in Federal court casts doubt on the veracity of the electoral system and is the principal reason for this lawsuit. The late entry of this suit is due in principal part to Mr. Obama’s delay and subsequent non response to reasonable request for valid certificates. Multiple requests for early certification to the Office of the Secretary of State has been rejected. 

[clarification: The district court process itself demands a response from Mr. Obama. When a complaint is filed, the defendant has an opportunity to respond to the judge regarding the plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction. Obama did respond, but not with the requested documentation, not even minimally so. He responded with a motion for dismissal based on “standing” rather than the merits of the case]

The Washington Secretary of State Office is specifically charged with certifying and guaranteeing the veracity of official documents and overseeing the elections to wit the people’s confidence in the fundamental aspect of democracy is maintained. To date, in this regard, Secretary of State Sam Reed has not carried out that fundamental duty.

This lawsuit demands injunctive relief directing Sam Reed, Secretary of State, carry out the duty of his office in this regard answering the formal complaints for verification of Mr. Obama and any other candidate appearing on the ballots issues through his office for which formal complaints have been received.

Interested Parties may contact Plaintive as follows:
Contact: Steve Marquis
Telephone Number: 425-698-7084
Email Address: peoplesvoice@peoplespassions.org
Web site address: http://peoplespassions.org/peoplesvoice/peoplesvoice.html”

View the lawsuit here:

http://peoplespassions.org/peoplesvoice/Lawsuit_Sam_Reed/Complaint_Final.htm

What can you do as a citizen?

Contact your local media and boycott their advertisers if they do not cover the Berg Lawsuit and Obama’s citizenship issue.

Contact your state board of elections and gives them your concerns about Obama’s eligibility to be president and also what they are doing to prevent voter fraud. Let them know they will be held accountable.

Visit the Petition to Impeach, expel Senator Obama:

http://obamaimpeachment.org

10 Comments

Posted in amended complaint, Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Chicago machine, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Crime, Criminal Complaint, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election update, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, Illinois bar, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Justice, Kenya, Logan Act, media, MSM, Natural born citizen, NC voters, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator Obama, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , ,