Tag Archives: Obama lawsuit

Steven Lee Craig, Obama lawsuit, June 22, 2009, Motion Declaratory Judgement, Natural born citizen

From Steven Lee Craig:

“These are the operative filings to the merits, there are othe Docs of process.

These Docs are pending at the 10th Circ 09-6082 and are part of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari at Scotus 08-10817”


Steven Lee Craig

1309 Hisel Rd.

Del City, Oklahoma   73115



The United States of America

C/o U.S. Attorney

Washington, D.C.  





)   Case No. Civ-09-0343-F



Declaratory Judgment



MOVANT HEREIN ASSERTS that the grievance of the Complaint is given rise by virtue of ‘exclusion and omission’ of definition and meaning of a term of consequence found within a Constitutional phrase by Act’s, Bill’s, Resolution’s, Proclamation’s or Judgement’s of the United States of America.


The fact’s being indisputable.




MOVANT HEREIN ASSERTS that any ‘controversy’ as to the meaning of the subject phrase “Natural Born Citizen” is contrived, incomprehensible and frivolous.


MOVANT HEREIN ASSERTS that with and by the process of ‘distilling’ all forms of ‘Naturalization’, arising from any and all Act’s promulgated regarding Naturalization or from any and all Litigated Cases of same, the ‘natural born’ form of Citizenship is all that remains, naturally so; a person born within the jurisdiction of the United States of America of two (2) American Citizen parents who are without further Citizenship alienation and/or allegiance.


    THEREFORE MOVANT seeks Declaratory Judgment under the Rules.


By leave of the Court I do pray it be so Ordered.





Pro Se, In Forma Pauperis



Steven Lee Craig

1309 Hisel Rd.

Del City, Oklahoma  73115

(405) 670-1784


Steven Lee Craig, Obama lawsuit, June 22, 2009, Second amended complaint, Natural born citizen

 From Steven Lee Craig:

“These are the operative filings to the merits, there are othe Docs of process.

These Docs are pending at the 10th Circ 09-6082 and are part of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari at Scotus 08-10817”

Steven Lee Craig

1309 Hisel Rd.

Del City, Oklahoma 73115



The United States of America

C/o U.S. Attorney

Washington, D.C.  








)    Case No. Civ-09-0343-F
)    10th Circuit 09-6082








NOW COMES, Steven Lee Craig, Claiming to be of Constitutionally recognized form of Citizenship known as Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America under the definition as found expressed in a published work of general use by the Framers of the Constitution of the United States of America in formulating many of the principles and specific Articles, Sections and Clauses found therein. That



publication being Emmerich de Vattel’s,  “The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns”, and specifically;


“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. 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. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. 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. 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.”


Claimant submits further evidence of the Framers considerations and intent regarding the differing forms of Citizenship found within the Constitution;


Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (3 vols., 1833),  of Joseph Story, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, February 3, 1812 – September 10, 1845


Volume 3: § 1473.

“It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced




(for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. A residence of fourteen years in the United States is also made an indispensable requisite for every candidate; so, that the people may have a full opportunity to know his character and merits, and that he may have mingled in the duties, and felt the interests, and understood the principles, and nourished the attachments, belonging to every citizen in a republican government. By “residence,” in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy




within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States. No one has supposed, that a temporary absence abroad on public business, and especially on an embassy to a foreign nation, would interrupt the residence of a citizen, so as to disqualify him for office. If the word were to be construed with such strictness, then a mere journey through any foreign adjacent territory for health, or for pleasure, or a commorancy there for a single day, would amount to a disqualification. Under such a construction a military or civil officer, who should have been in Canada during the late war on public business, would have lost his eligibility. The true sense of residence in the constitution is fixed domicil, or being out of the United States, and settled abroad for the purpose of general inhabitancy, animo manendi, and not for a mere temporary and fugitive purpose, in transitu.”


The entire text of the Chapter is included herein to show that Associate Justice Joseph Story touched upon many of the circumstances of Citizenship as they occur in the political and natural world and how they ought be regarded when making Uniform Laws



of Naturalization of which many are to be found in the full volumes of Vattel.

Specifically Claimant points to the parenthetical passage,

 “…for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct…”


in support of Claimants assertion of the intended definition of “natural born citizen”.

Whereas ALL first Citizens of the United States of America were necessarily Naturalized by the Ratification of the Constitution and therefore the exception allowing for those of that generation to be eligible for the Executive Office as Naturalized Citizens noting that, in the authors words, “will soon become wholly extinct”, thereby meaning that as that generation of First Citizens passed it would devolve to the Second Generation of those



Citizens to be the eligible Natural Born Citizens, this conforming with Vattel’s definition noted above and as also considered in the House of Representatives as found in;

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

[Elliot’s debates,Volume4]Seamen’s Bill.–For the Regulation of Seamen on Board the Public Vessels, and in the Merchant Service of the United States.

House of Representatives, February, 1813.


Mr. ARCHER. “The framers of our Constitution did not intend to confine Congress to the technical meaning of the word naturalization, in the exercise of that power–the more especially when the comprehensive word rule was made use of. The principle upon which the power was to be exercised was left to the judicious exercise of Congress; all that was required was, that the rule should be uniform throughout the states. In the grant there is no other specification, as to the exercise of it, than that of its uniformity. The term naturalization was borrowed from England. It must be understood here in the sense and meaning




which was, there attached to it. Whether it was absolute or qualified, it was still a naturalization. But the grant of a power in general terms necessarily implied the right to exercise that power in all its gradations. It Was in the political as it was in the natural world: the genus included the species. Besides, the power to naturalize was an attribute to sovereignty. It was either absolute or qualified; and if the grant to Congress only implied a power of unlimited naturalization, the power to qualify existed in the states or in the people, for what was not specifically granted was reserved.


In treating of the executive power, the Constitution defines the qualifications of the President. It declares that he should be a naturalborn citizen, or a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution. This article is unquestionably no limitation of the power of Congress upon the subject of naturalization. It was impossible to abridge a specific grant of power without a specific limitation, and the article alluded to could not be tortured, by the most ingenious mind, to diminish, even by implication, the authority of Congress upon a subject to which it was totally irrelevant.”







Claimant asserts that the “genus” mentioned in the first paragraph is referring to the First Naturalized Citizens as being the natural born citizens and that the “species” are the thereafter naturalized citizens who, with time and circumstance, beget their own natural born citizens, increasing the ‘genus’, in keeping with the political and natural world. In the second paragraph Mr. Archer acknowledges that the Congress has no mandate to ‘abridge’ the authority of Article II Section I Clause V and thereby the inability of the Congress to politically ‘limit’ nature in the performance of the mandate to promulgate laws of naturalization. Neither the Fourteenth Amendment or the Nineteenth Amendment abridged, nullified or amended Article II Section I Clause V, neither do their words say so nor do their words require it. In the former case the



source of future natural born citizens was increased and in the latter the source of conferring citizenship, which had been wholly of the father, was then split equally amongst the two parents.

The chief author of the 14th Amendment, Sen. John A. Bingham, wrote,


“…[E]very human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen,'”


Therein is read, “Parents”, being plural and after the Nineteenth Amendment, with each “not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”, which implies domestic domicile and being naturalized or otherwise, for how else could the conditions and circumstances be examined.



That the source of the subject of ‘natural born citizen’ is found in the Constitutional Articles concerning the executive offices of the Government does not exclude it or diminish it in the concerns of the general population but rather elevates it to the most fundamental concerns of our Citizenry’s national allegiance, pride and protection of the nations sovereignty. The first duty of the Government and the Citizens thereof is to ‘Preserve, Protect and Defend’ the Constitution of the United States of America. That the Government is ‘of the People, by the People and for the People’ it can not be denied and must be hoped that those People with the greatest understanding, the greatest regard, the greatest interest, and the greatest allegiance to the Nation are those who




have longest been bound and blessed by the liberties shared as contemplated by Vattel;

“…The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it…”




1.  This case involves diversity of citizenship and this Court has jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §1343  (a)(4), and/or, § 1346 (a)(2), and/or § 1357

2. This case further arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and presents a federal question within this Court’s jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.



3. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(3).

The issue of who is a “natural born citizen” under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 is an issue of legal interpretation outside the Constitutional authority of Congress.


Only the judicial branch can interpret the laws of this nation.




4. Plaintiff,    Steven Lee Craig

                 1309 Hisel Rd.

                 Del City, OK 73115


10. Defendant,   The United States of America













Claimant incorporates by reference all of the foregoing allegations as if set forth herein at length.

Claimant alleges that the United States of America and, specifically, the Representatives elected, appointed or otherwise engaged in the publics trust, have failed to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the Amendments thereto in overt acts of lack of defense of the definition of Natural Born Citizen as a specific form of Citizenship acknowledged within the Constitution and the preservation of the original intent of its usage in the Constitution



and its protection in its relation to the term of Citizen(s), found within the same Article of the Constitution and elsewhere, thereby violating Claimants Ninth and Tenth Amendment Rights of equal protection.


Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 pg 174;


“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, ……”


Elk Grove Unified School District et al v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004).

Justice O’Connor, concurring in the opinion;


“There are no de minimis violations of the Constitution — no constitutional harms so slight that the courts are obliged to ignore them”.



Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479


“The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are



additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . .


Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment.


Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.”


United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941).


“While the Tenth Amendment has been characterized as a ‘truism,” stating merely that ‘all is retained which has not been surrendered,’ [citing Darby], it is not without significance.





Although the Tenth Amendment has seldom been used to assert and/or exert a personal reserved power the Claimant, nevertheless, asserts the ‘reserved power’, individually as one of the People, granted by the Tenth Amendment for retaining that which has not been surrendered; that being the Constitutionally recognized circumstance, of the political and of nature, that confers the naturalness of a natural born citizen.

Claimant alleges said lack of definition of Natural Born Citizen violates Claimants Fifth Amendment Rights of Due Process of the Law in that the Claimants intrinsic personal property guaranteed by the Ratification of the Constitution and enunciated as a form of American Citizenship, natural born citizen, having not been duly codified as have the numerous Laws promulgated that provide for the



Naturalizing of new Citizens, thereby deprives and denies the Claimant of his rights and privileges of claiming the natural inheritance as a Citizen born of multiple generations of Citizens as contemplated by the distinctions of Citizenship within the Constitution.

Claimant alleges that the United States of America and, specifically, the Representatives elected, appointed or otherwise engaged in the publics trust and in the performance of their mandate to make uniform the Laws of Naturalization have been discriminatory in that the form of Citizenship, natural born citizen, has been ‘excluded and omitted’ while every circumstance, situation, happenstance, possibility and probability of Naturalization of new Citizens has been and continues to be Codified and / or adjudicated.



Claimant alleges that unequal treatment has occurred against the Claimants intrinsic personal property guaranteed by the Ratification of the Constitution by the United States of America and, specifically, the Representatives elected, appointed or otherwise engaged in the publics trust in performance of its mandate to make uniform the Laws of Naturalization, by the “exclusion and omission” of the definition and acknowledgement of that citizenship known as natural born citizen within any and all the Acts, Bills, Laws, Rules and / or Regulations hereto promulgated regarding Citizenship and Naturalization.

Currin v. Wallace, 306 U.S. 1 (1939)

“The Constitution has never been regarded as denying to the Congress the necessary resources of flexibility and practicality which will enable it to perform its function in laying down policies and establishing standards while leaving to




selected instrumentalities the making of subordinate rules within prescribed limits and the determination of facts to which the policy as declared by the Legislature is to apply. Without capacity to give authorizations of that sort, we should have the anomaly of a legislative power which in many circumstances calling for its exertion would be but a futility.”


United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting. (re: 14th Amendment)


“Nobody can deny that the question of citizenship in a nation is of the most vital importance. It is a precious heritage, as well as an inestimable acquisition, and I cannot think that any safeguard surrounding it was intended to be thrown down by the amendment.”


Claimant alleges that, upon recounting the 222 years of Legislation regarding Citizenship and Naturalization it amounts to a gross negligence of the United States of America and, specifically, the Representatives elected, appointed or otherwise



engaged in the publics trust, in the performance of the mandates to Legislate and then delegate administrations the Legislated Laws making Naturalization uniform without looking to the Constitutional forms of Citizenship found within the Constitution its self, Article II Section I Clause V, and the intent of the distinctions thereof, thereby denying Claimant of his rights and privileges of the American form of Citizenship, natural born Citizen, without due process and with discriminatory Un-Uniform promulgation of Naturalization Laws.

Perez v. Brownell 356 U.S. 44

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

“…By the early 1930’s, the American law on nationality, including naturalization and denationalization, was expressed in a large number of provisions scattered throughout the statute books. Some of the specific laws enacted at different times




seemed inconsistent with others, some problems of growing importance had emerged

that Congress had left unheeded. At the request of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, see 86 Cong.Rec. 11943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established a Committee composed of the Secretary of State, [p53] the Attorney General and the Secretary of Labor to review the nationality laws of the United States, to recommend revisions and to codify the nationality laws into one comprehensive statute for submission to Congress; he expressed particular concern about “existing discriminations” in the law. Exec.Order No. 6115, Apr. 25, 1933…”


Claimant alleges that the United States of America and, specifically, the Representatives elected, appointed or otherwise engaged in the publics trust, in having violated Claimants Fourth Amendment Rights by extension have violated Claimants Eighth Amendment Rights against cruel and unusual punishment in that denying Claimant of that natural portion of Claimants American Constitutionally Guaranteed Citizenship Rights and


Privileges have imposed upon Claimant a penalty of separation from the Constitution and the internalized allegiance derived from the Claimants asserted definition of ‘natural born citizen”.

Trop v. Dulles 356 U.S. 86

We believe, as did Chief Judge Clark in the court below, [n33] that use of denationalization as a punishment is barred by the Eighth Amendment. There may be involved no physical mistreatment, no primitive torture. There is, instead, the total destruction of the individual’s status in organized society. It is a form of punishment more primitive than torture, for it destroys for the individual the political existence that was centuries in the development. The punishment strips the citizen of his status in the national and international political community. His very existence is at the sufferance of the country in which he happens to find himself. While any one country may accord him some rights and, presumably, as long as he remained in this country, he would enjoy the limited rights of an alien, no country need do so, because he is stateless. Furthermore, his enjoyment of even the limited rights of an alien might be subject to termination [p102] at any time by reason of deportation. [n34] In

short, the expatriate has lost the right to have rights.



This punishment is offensive to cardinal principles for which the Constitution stands. It subjects the individual to a fate of ever-increasing fear and distress. He knows not what discriminations may be established against him, what proscriptions may be directed against him, and when and for what cause his existence in his native land may be terminated. He may be subject to banishment, a fate universally decried by civilized people. He is stateless, a condition deplored in the international community of democracies. [n35] It is no answer to suggest that all the disastrous consequences of this fate may not be brought to bear on a stateless person. The threat makes the punishment obnoxious. [n36]


… When it appears that an Act of Congress conflicts with one of these provisions, we have no choice but to enforce the paramount commands of the Constitution. We are sworn to do no less. We cannot push back the limits of the Constitution merely to accommodate challenged legislation. We must apply those limits as the Constitution prescribes them, bearing in mind both the broad scope of legislative discretion and the ultimate responsibility of constitutional adjudication. We do well to approach this task cautiously, as all our predecessors have counseled. But the ordeal of judgment cannot be shirked. “





Denationalization, being a “punishment more primitive than torture,”, then is not denying that natural portion of citizenship, that portion which is required to make one eligible to the highest office of the land, no less than  a severing of generational ties and an involuntary amputation upon that Citizenship?


WHEREFORE Plaintiff request, on any one or all alligations, the same:

1.  An immediate Order of Declaratory Judgement expressing Courts Opinion of the Constitutional and Legal Definition of “Natural born Citizen”.

2.  Entry of Judgment


By leave of the Court I pray it be so ordered






Pro Se, In Forma Pauperis



Steven Lee Craig

1309 Hisel Rd.

Del City, Oklahoma 73115

(405) 670-1784

James D Schneller, Obama lawsuit, Update, June 16, 2009, Obama Suit Scheduled For Supreme Court Conference, Acorn fraud

This was received from James D. Schneller regarding his lawsuit:

“Obama Suit Scheduled For Supreme Court Conference

Obama Fires U.S. Whistleblower Who Uncovered $$ 75 Million ACORN-type fraud !


Dear citizen who is horrified by events in Washington,
This is a news item that concerns our Supreme Court’s fourth chance to address the Obama birth certificate issue.  I wrote most of you in January, at a prior turning point.  Because you are a concerned citizen, you have to know about this, and I hope you’ll share it with your friends and family and pastor.  This is not a request for donation.
I have filed a supplementary brief in the Supreme Court of the United States in Case No. 08-9797 objecting to the failure of Barack Obama to file an answer, and requesting that the Supreme Court enable  newer evidence in the Obama birth issue.   The Supreme Court has set this case for a conference on June 18th.
I filed the appeal on April 6, 2009, asking reversal of denial of my petition for injunction filed in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in December of 2008.  That petition requested a delay of the tally by the Pennsylvania electoral college, because the ballots of the Pennsylvania electors had been unlawfully finalized despite the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s erroneous and fraudulent certifying of the ballot to all County officials, without any examination, nor investigation, of the eligibility and qualification of Barack Obama for the office of President of the United States. 
Why are all the cases in this issue filed by concerned citizens , rather than organizations ?  To my belief, many firms believe it to be futile, and most of the others have been warned against it. (see the article following this letter)  The fact that only citizens have sued does not mean that a Court, at some time or other, could decide to address this issue.
In my suit I am demanding that the Secretary of the Commonwealth perform his duty, as was required, by requiring Obama to prove that he is a natural born citizen.  I claim that the Secretary had ample time to demand proofs from Obama in December, before the vote was certified and delivered to the Electoral College.
I also am objecting that the Pennsylvania election law makes the Office of the President of the United States exempt from the requirement that candidates file an affidavit swearing that they are eligible for office.  I’ve asked the Justices to declare that this 2006 amendment is arbitrary and unconstitutional.  (Anyone so inclined – please check your state’s election law for this type of amendment and email me any findings !)
I raise new material in the brief in order to encourage the Supreme Court to address the gaping absence of eligibility of our head of state:  
  – Obama’s recent, biased, dropping of the suit against certain Philadelphia Black Panther members for voter intimidation,
  – recent ill-conceived “stimulus” awards to ACORN and efforts to make ACORN a census participant,
  – recent White House efforts to create unprecedented levels of security around common documents that are normally available to the public.
  – national celebrations and official proclamations in the Nation of Kenya, on the basis of Obama’s  birthplace being there !  
  – the fact that the United States Attorney General avoided several opportunities to investigate substantial complaints presented against ACORN during the 2008 campaign, despite ample time and manpower available,
  – the White House’s unpredicted and unconstitutional policy of doubling the national debt, nationalizing  decrepit industries, and pardoning violent terrorists, despite the public’s not being made aware of this intent during the campaign.
  – the Homeland Security boondoggle alleging that veterans and pro-life citizens are extremists.
  – I also claim that Obama was required to answer my petition because he claims to hold the highest office in the land, and must therefore be open with the people rather than clandestine.  Since he didnt answer, he has in essence admitted to all of the allegations made against him.
There is much more, which is why I ask the Court to allow new evidence !  Just last week outrageous news happened :

Obama Fired the U.S. Whistleblower Who Uncovered $$ 75 Million ACORN-type fraud !
The patriots who are continuing to file suits and to blog, newsletter, and report the case against Obama for his clear cut illegal acts are greater in number now, and you may want to check some of the websites at intervals.  This story about huge government fraud is a news item carried by Judicial Watch, which is a respected watchdog organization, who recently began to actively cover Obama in respect to his constant illegal behavior.

Help Make Prosecution Happen

Since the Supreme Court case is up for Court Conference on Thursday, I hope you’ll be able to offer prayers or a moment of silence, and to make serious talk at work and leisure, to impress all with the hard truth of our new government.  I firmly believe in an ability granted by the Creator, for America to rise, despite great odds, above this unnatural situation, and to redirect our Republic onto a positive and moral path, rather than a descent to oblivion.”

“James D. Schneller”

Christopher Strunk, Obama lawsuit, QUO WARRANTO DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION, May 25, 2009, 5/27/09 final memorandum of law, Memorial Day

Here is an update from Christopher Strunk on his Quo Warranto:

“On this weekend of Memorial Day in remembrance of my ancestors who fought in the Revolution for Independence from Britain, and from whom I inherit from my Great Grandfather John Quigley Strunk, Freemason Grandfather Moses Strunk and Father Earl Henry Strunk the obligation to remember my great uncles John and Charles Strunk who as soldiers served the USA and Pennsylvania died in the war to end all wars; and therefore as a courtesy WE attach the DRAFT of the NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION OF QUO WARRANTO DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND DECISION ON QUESTION OF FIRST IMPRESSION  IN RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AS TO ALLEGED POTUS:  BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IN ESSE
Such is ready for filing without the addition of various dates in the context with the Exhibits, that will only be attached when the final Memorandum of Law which I am working on when ready is withheld until Wednesday 5/27/09 when the email of the PDF is sent to you all.
I would not entertain  an intervention from anyone; and even if  attorney John D. Hemenway’s injury were remanded to district, because the cowboy DJ Robertson acted with questionable impetuousness when he even failed to admit the pro hac vice motion counsel, even the Hollister case is still a matter to find the wet signatures on file there.
I appear as the only “interested party” with standing in the Quo Warranto matter and as such oppose any other intervention.
Best regards to you all for you have provided me with instruction by your actions to date and we are all grateful accordingly.
Chris Strunk”

View the draft:


Philip J Berg, Obama lawsuit, Obama response by Wednesday, Philip J Berg interview, September 23, 2008, Momma-E blog radio

Philip J Berg, who has filed and served a lawsuit against Obama, the DNC and the FEC, stating that Obama is not qualified to be president, will be interviewed on the Momma-E radio show tonight, September 23, 2008. Here is the email that I got from Momma-E:

“The Guest  on my show tonight will be Phil Berg the Attorney that filed the law suit against Obama and his eligibility to be President.

Show times are;
5 PM Pacific
6 PM Mountain
7 PM Central
8 PM Eastern
When they get to the Home page they should be able to hear the show immediately when it starts, if not then click on the Red Listen Live button on the top left of the page.  If they would like to Chat and listen then click on the Live Chat Button in the Center of the page, put in their Nickname and click Chat!  The show is only an hour.”
Will Philip J Berg have any news about a response from Obama or the DNC? Tune in and find out. 

Philip J Berg interview, Jeff Schreiber, America’s Right blog, Berg answers questions, Complaint, Obama Lawsuit, Obama not US citizen, Truth about Philip J Berg, Great interview

Philip J Berg filed a lawsuit in Philadephia Federal Court, and it
has been served on Barack Obama, DNC and FEC. The basis of the suit
is Obama:
Is not a natural-born citizen; and/or
Lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia; and/or
Has dual loyalties because of his citizenship with Kenya and Indonesia

The MSM has failed the American public. Philip J Berg is a Democrat who tried to provide information to the Democratic Delegates before the convention, and because of a lack of coverage by the MSM and pressure from the DNC and the likes of Nancy Pelosi to push the nomination of Obama, was unable to affect the nomination. However, Mr. Berg is still trying to prevent a constitutional crisis and is moving ahead with the lawsuit. Obama has been served and must respond by September 24, 2008. Many commenters on this blog have questioned the motives of the lawsuit. Jeff Schreiber, who studies law and writes articles on his excellent blog site, interviewed Philip J Berg on August 23, 2008. Here are some exerpts from this must read interview:

“Saturday, August 23, 2008
A Conversation with Philip J. Berg, Esq.
Fairly late yesterday evening, I had the opportunity to speak with Philip Berg, the Philadelphia attorney who filed suit against Illinois senator Barack Obama in Federal Court in Philadelphia, questioning the constitutional eligibility of his candidacy for president.”

“I have had no direct or indirect contact with anyone on the Hillary Clinton campaign. Did I help her in the primaries? Yes. Was I in favor of her over Obama? Yes. What did I do? I contributed some money and made some phone calls to various states for her. Other than that, I attended one Montgomery County [PA] Democratic Committee dinner at which her daughter spoke, though for the record, Obama’s representative was also at the same function. So, am I closely involved with them? No.

And as I told you this afternoon, even among those who helped me prepare for this case, while I know they may be against Obama’s violation of the Constitution, I do not even know nor have I asked where they stand politically.”

“That, and he had an excuse for everything. His phony responses to the Rev. [Jeremiah] Wright issue turned me off. He said “I never knew what he was like.” He was a member of that church for twenty years. Twenty years! When the story first broke, he went on all of the television and cable stations and claimed he was never in the pew when Rev. Wright made any of these remarks. By the time he made his speech in Philadelphia days later—a speech that the mainstream media agreed might have been the best in the history of the world—he did a complete turnabout and admitted that he was in the pew at the time of the remarks. At what point is enough, enough?”

“I chalk much of his success up to the influence and agenda setting of the mainstream media. Speaking of which, are you happy with the coverage which the mainstream press has given your civil action?

Well, no. First of all, the mainstream media hasn’t covered it yet. I’m doing an interview with a journalist tomorrow morning at 10:00 who says he’ll be able to get it out into the mainstream media.”

“Of course some people might look at me and assume I’m doing this because he’s black. I’m not. I’m Jewish, and I’m a life-long member of the NAACP, so people will be hard-pressed to confront me on any of those issues.”

“Look, the truth comes down to this — at this point in time, it’s time to fish or cut bait, time to stop pussy-footing around. At this point in time, Obama owes it to people to produce the documents. If I’m wrong, even if he doesn’t want to handle it himself and has the person in charge of his campaign communications come out and say, “here is the vault copy of the birth certificate, here is the certified copy of his oath of allegiance from when he came back from Indonesia, this issue should be put to bed and Mr. Berg should withdraw his suit immediately or we’ll sue him to high heaven,” then I’m wrong. If they do not do that within the next day or so, then I know we’re right. If they let the case linger, then I believe we’re right. The challenge I’ve made to them is that, if they don’t produce these documents, then we know they’re wrong.”
“In terms of credibility, my very successful record in big cases shows some of that. I’m the only attorney in the country to defeat “cell phone” legislation in Hilltown Township, Bucks County, PA, meant to ban the use of hand-held cell phones while behind the wheel of a car, and did that pro bono. I have also represented PAWS—Performing Animal Welfare Society—in California, pro bono, protecting the rights of abused circus elephants, and was extremely successful in that case. My record, over the years, is such that I can stand on my own two feet in front of anyone.”

There is much more to this great interview by Jeff Schreiber:


Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Philip J Berg, Obama lawsuit, Biden comments, Larry Sinclair, Hillary replace Obama, Hillary replace Biden, Did Biden open the door to bow out?, Biden dropping out?

Today the Citizen Wells blog doubled it’s viewership record for
one day. One article, an update on the Philip J Berg lawsuit
that has been served on Obama, the DNC and the FEC, got the lion’s
share of views. Why did this happen? Am I a great writer? Probably
not. The real answer is that the American people are starved for
the truth about Obama and the MSM is failing them. Of course I am
getting help from other bloggers and readers for which I am
truly grateful. The lack of coverage of Obama by the MSM is a huge
story that will continue to unwind through the election cycle.

However, there is another story that is connected to the Philip J
Berg lawsuit and other stories.

For several days, commenters on this blog, other bloggers and people
around me have been discussing Joe Biden and especially the comments
he recently made about Hillary Clinton. Is Joe Biden opening the
door to bow out? Was this part of a prearranged plan? Rush Limbaugh
claims to have predicted Biden’s actions for some time.

A few hours ago, I posted the following on twitter.com/citizenwells
and I did so without discussing it with Larry Sinclair. Here is what
I posted:


1. Obama disqualified/indicted before election.

2. Obama disqualified/indicted after election, before oath of office.

3. Obama impeached/indicted after oath of office.

4. Obama loses (preferred). Hillary waits 4 years.

Hillary’s odds are good.

For months I have read hundreds of comments regarding the election
and I have come to the conclusion that there is something resembling
a collective consciousness occuring.

Larry Sinclair called me a few minutes ago about some information
he received and about conversations we had when he was in Washington
DC for the Democrats Meeting. (Clarification for MSM, ongoing
conversations occur when you follow a story). All I can say about
what he told me then is that it involved people connected to
Hillary. Larry told me he justed posted a new article and here it is:

“Thursday, September 11, 2008
Is Joe Biden going to withdraw from the Obama/Biden ticket to make room for Hillary Clinton?

Could some of my meetings and phone conversation while in DC in May and June of 2008 now being used to have Joe Biden withdraw for personal or medical reasons from the Democratic ticket, making way for Hillary Clinton? This is the feeling coming from some people and it would explain some high level contacts and communications in May and June while I was in DC.

Nothing would surprise me in the Obama camp and I can only say I hope that there is no truth to the emails I am receiving.”

Read more here:


To voice your opinion about Obama: