Tag Archives: Obama not eligible

2008 Election Certificate of Vote, Electoral College Electors, Minnesota Certificate, Secretary of State, US Constitution, Twelfth Amendment, Governor, Obama not eligible, Citizen Wells, Democratic Disaster, December 16, 2008, Al Franken, Norm Coleman controversy

Posted on December 16, 2008 | 17 comments

“Ignorance is not bliss.”

“Knowledge is Power.”

Minnesota could soon be famous for another 2008 Election
controversy aside from the Al Franken, Norm Coleman
senate race controversy. The Certificate of Voters must
be signed and mailed to the US Senate. If Minnesota uses
the same Certificate that was used in 2004, they had better
rethink sending it in without complying with the reference
to the Twelfth Amendment to the US Constitution. There are
2 places in the Twelfth Amendment that refer to presidential
eligibility:

“as in the case of the death or other
constitutional disability of the President.”

“But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of
President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the
United States.”

Everyone involved in the presidential election has an obligation
to uphold the US Constitution. MN has taken it one step further
and explicitly included it in their certificate.

One might ask how MN Electoral College Electors would know this.
The Citizen Wells blog along with organizations like Democratic
Disaster and many other people have been notifying election
officials in all 50 states regarding the serious eligibility
issues surrounding Barack Obama and the duties of all responsible.
In addition there are many court cases in state courts as well
as before the US Supreme Court. So, ignorance of the facts or
duties will be no excuse. Check the Certificate for signatures.
Those signing the 2008 Certificate without ensuring they are
complying with the Twelfth Amendment, are most certainly
guilty of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” and certainly removal
from office.

California Certificate of Voters is questionable

Do we have any takers?

Anyone want to call the Governor or Secretary of State’s office in Minnesota?

Recall initiatives, impeachment, removal from office?

2004 MN Certificate of Vote

mncertofvote

17 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Attorney General, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, California, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Congress, Democratic Disaster, 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, McCain Obama, Minnesota, 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 , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2008 Election Certificate of Vote, Electoral College Electors, California example, Secretary of State, US Constitution, Governor, Alan Keyes, Lawsuit, Obama not eligible, Citizen Wells, Democratic Disaster, December 16, 2008

Posted on December 16, 2008 | 43 comments

“Ignorance is not bliss.”

“Knowledge is Power.”

The Citizen Wells blog and many other citizens have been busy for months
informing state officers, election officials, Electoral College Electors
and judges of eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama and reminding
those people of their duty under the US Constitution, federal and state
laws. Despite these warnings and reminders, the states have plodded along
based on tradition, ignorance and party politics. Numerous lawsuits in
state and federal courts as well as the US Supreme court should have served
as a huge warning that something was wrong. We need someone like Harry
Truman to remind everyone that “The buck stops here.”

The Electoral College met yesterday and the next step in the process is for
state officials to prepare a certificate of vote and send it to the US Senate
and other locations described below. This is a very important document and in
highest sense of the word a legal document. The format of the document is
left up to the states. Remember, all of those people involved in the election
process are sworn to uphold the US Constitution. However, some of the states
have wording in their documents as a reminder of the obligation to uphold
the various laws.

We will focus on California for multiple reasons.

The following is taken from the 2004 certificate of vote:

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

From the dictionary:

pursuant to

in conformance to or agreement with; “pursuant to our agreement”; “pursuant to the dictates of one’s conscience”  

Now consider the following:

Electoral College Questions and Answers

Citizen Wells letter to Electoral College Electors

The Alan Keyes lawsuit is still alive questioning the eligibility
of Barack Obama.

The CA Secretary of State was contacted by the Citizen Wells blog,
the Democratic Disaster organization and numerous other entities.

It is clear to even a casual observer that Barack Obama is not
eligible to be president and that Electors in CA and throughout
the nation, despite compelling evidence that Obama is not eligible,
plodded along and engaged in the worst kind of party politics, and
violated the US Constitution.

2004 CA Certificate of Vote

cacertofvote2004

Electoral College Vote and subsequent procedures:

4.   Hold the Meeting of Electors
On the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (December 15, 2008), the electors meet in their respective States. Federal law does not permit the States to choose an alternate date for the meeting of electors – it must be held on December 15, 2008. The State legislature may designate where in the State the meeting will take place, usually in the State capital. At this meeting, the electors cast their votes for President and Vice President.

If any electors are unable to carry out their duties on the day of the Electoral College meeting, the laws of each State would govern the method for filling vacancies. Any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of electors must be decided under State law at least six days prior to the meeting of the electors.

See Title 3, Section 6 of the U.S. Code
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law requiring electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their States. Some States have such requirements.

5.   Prepare the Certificate of Vote
Federal law does not govern the general appearance of the Certificate of Vote. The format is determined under the law or custom of the submitting State. The electors must execute six Certificates of Vote. Federal law requires that the Certificates be prepared and authenticated in the following manner:
The Certificates of Vote must contain two distinct lists, one for President and one for Vice President.
The Certificates must list all persons who received electoral votes for President and the number of electors who voted for each person.
The Certificates must list all persons who received votes for Vice President and the number of electors who voted for each person.
The Certificates do not contain the names of persons who did not receive electoral votes.
Each of the six Certificates of Vote must be signed by all of the electors.

One of the six Certificates of Ascertainment provided to the electors by the Governor must be attached to each of the six Certificates of Vote.

Finally, each of the six pairs of Certificates must be sealed and certified by the electors as containing the list of electoral votes of that State for President and Vice President.
6.   Distribute the Paired Certificates of Vote and Certificates of Ascertainment
The six pairs of Certificates must be sent to the designated Federal and State officials as follows:
One is sent by registered mail to:
The Honorable Richard B. Cheney
President of the United States Senate
The Capitol
Washington, DC 20510

Two are sent by registered mail to:
Allen Weinstein
Archivist of the United States
National Archives and Records Administration
c/o Office of the Federal Register (NF)
8601 Adelphi Road
College Park, MD 20740-6001

Two are sent to:

The Secretary of State of each State.

One of these is held subject to the order of the President of the United States Senate or the Archivist of the United States in case the electoral votes fail to reach the Senate or the Archivist.
The other one is to be preserved by the Secretary of State for public inspection for one year.
One is sent to:

The Chief Judge of the Federal District Court located where the electors meet.

It is held subject to the order of the President of the United States Senate or the Archivist of the United States in case the electoral votes fail to reach the Senate or the Archivist.
The statutory deadline for the designated Federal and State officials to receive the electoral votes is December 24, 2008. Because of the very short time between the meetings of the electors in the States on December 15 and the December 24 statutory deadline, followed closely by the counting of electoral votes in Congress on January 6, 2009, it is imperative that the Certificates be mailed as soon as possible.

We strongly recommend that the sealed pairs of Certificates be taken to the Post Office on December 15, or no later than the morning of December 16, to minimize delays that could occur during the holiday mail season. Some States may find it useful to alert their local Postmaster to the extraordinarily important nature of the mailing. When the paired Certificates of Vote and Certificates of Ascertainment have been delivered to the designated Federal and State officials, the States’ Electoral College duties are complete.

Prior to the election this year, the Legal Staff of the Office of the Federal Register will telephone Secretaries of State and other election officials to establish contact with the States and assure the smooth operation of the Electoral College process.

Read more here:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/state_responsibilities.html#vote

 

43 Comments

Posted in Alan Keyes, Announcements, Attorney General, Barack Obama, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, California, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, COLB, Congress, 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, Lightfoot v. Bowen, 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, Superior Court, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

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

Wrotnowski V Bysiewicz, US Supreme Court, December 15, 2008, Justices decide Cort Wrotnowski versus Connecticut Secretary of State Bysiewicz, Writ of Mandamus, Obama not eligible, Stay denied

Posted on December 15, 2008 | 59 comments

The US Supreme Court today, Monday, December 15, 2008, the same day
that the Electoral College is meeting to vote for president and vice
president, has decided:

 

08A469

 

 

WROTNOWSKI, CORT V. BYSIEWICZ, CT SEC. OF STATE

 

 

The application for stay and/or injunction addressed

 

 

to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court is denied.

 

 

 

Most of the Electors believe, falsely, that they have an overriding
obligation to vote base on political party dictates and/or state laws
dictating they must vote based on the popular vote. The Electors owe
allegiance only to the US Constitution and the American public.

Electoral College Questions and Answers

Citizen Wells letter to Electoral College Electors

This is the opinion of Citizen Wells and I will stand by the following:

The US Supreme Court, on multiple occasions, in regard to several
lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to be president, have not
addressed three distinct constitutional issues that need to either
be ruled on or clarified:

  • Obama’s eligibility to be president and the relevance of natural
    born citizen.
  • Clarification of state powers and duties to ensure that Electoral
    College Electors have a qualified candidate on the ballot to vote for.
  • Applicability of oaths taken to uphold and defend the Constitution
    to the election process. Marbury V Madison is clear on oaths. Why are
    the states ignoring this?

I respect the institution of the US Supreme Court. That respect does
not automatically flow to the individual Justices. Respect must be
earned. Every citizen of this country has a duty to uphold the US
Constitution. Supreme Court Justices have the highest duty to
uphold the US Constitution. They are not above the law. We will hold
them accountable.

Unless I read something soon that encourages me to believe that the
US Supreme Court is functioning as it should, I am compelled to
believe that some or all of the Supreme Court Justices are guilty of
dereliction of duty, if not “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Here is the heart of the complaint

“HOLDING BY THE PLAINTIFF

 

Holding Regarding the Role of the State Supreme Court
 

The plaintiff asserts that Connecticut law is not explicit with respect to taking action against potential election fraud at the national level.  It neither authorizes nor prohibits.  In fact, it is silent on this important issue.  The only statutes providing direction are 9-323, and for Federal Election Disputes, sec. 10-13, 10-14, 10-15, and 10-17(a) (as found in  Connecticut Appellate Practice and Procedure, 3rd Edition, chapter titled:  Original Proceedings in the Supreme Court, pages 385-387.)

We do not have a federal ballot controlled by the federal government, we have Connecticut state election for electors who are pledged for a particular candidate which allows each state to determine how and in what manner they choose to project their power at the National Electoral College.

 
In the special case of individuals seeking the office of President of the United States, the US constitution prescribes a system of electors where citizens of the respective state have a state controlled election wherein electors representing the interest of the named individual on the state ballot are so elected as to represent the interests of the respective state at the Electoral College.
 

State law determines how the electors are determined and act. Since this is in actual fact a state election, our Secretary of State has prevue over certification of not just the counts of the ballots so cast for the named candidate for President, but also the veracity of the system which including publishing and promoting the ballot and for certifying or decertifying challenged candidates; in this case the electors who act as proxies for the candidate.
 

The plaintiff argues that the Connecticut constitution and statutes and enforcement should be consistent with the principles of the U.S. constitution.  When Connecticut law provides no guidance, then an electoral duty ascribed at the national level applies at the state level as well.  If there are national standards for preventing fraud in an election, then there need to be similar standards at the state level.  The state Supreme Court is responsible for ensuring that that Connecticut laws follows the U.S. Constitution.  In particular, Sec. 10-17(a) sets forth how the State Supreme Court can provide remedy.

 

Holding regarding Responsibility of the Secretary of State in National Elections
 

It is argued that the lack of language in the state law does not preclude the Secretary of State, as the Chief of Elections, from verifying national candidates for whom her constituents will vote especially so when allegations of blatant profound fraud is widely asserted.

 

She has threaded a path to inaction by her selective choice of words.  Hers is a “sin of omission” argument.  Estopple argument would say otherwise. Furthermore, without explicate legislative direction, there are still very clear “implied duties” that follow from Connecticut Statutes, Connecticut Constitution and  the U.S. Constitution that demand consideration and action from this independent branch of Government charged with action.

 

There are at least four statutes that set forth the duties of the Secretary of  State.  Plaintiff bolded passages in Sec. 9-3 for emphasis.

 

From:  Connecticut General Statutes

 

Sec. 3-77. General duties; salary. Office of Secretary full time.

…  provisions of section 11-4c. The Secretary may give certified copies of any entries in such records, files, books or other papers and of the files and records of said Superior Court and of the Supreme Court, remaining in the office, which copies shall be legal evidence. … The Secretary shall receive an annual salary of one hundred ten thousand dollars and shall devote full time to the duties of the office.

 

 Sec. 9-3. Secretary to be Commissioner of Elections. Presumption concerning rulings and opinions.

The Secretary of the State, by virtue of the office, shall be the Commissioner of Elections of the state, with such powers and duties relating to the conduct of elections as are prescribed by law and, unless otherwise provided by state statute, the secretary’s regulations, declaratory rulings, instructions and opinions, if in written form, shall be presumed as correctly interpreting and effectuating the administration of elections and primaries under this title, except for chapter 155, provided nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the right of appeal provided under the provisions of chapter 54.

 

 

The bolded language in Sec. 9-3  demonstrates that the legislature fully expected the Secretary of State to act independently and proactively to address situations germane to the task of executing elections consistent with all requirements of the constitutions and statutes.

 

The implied duty argument is vital for circumstances where questions about candidates remain, even up to Election Day.  She claims no such responsibility, yet the “national system” to which Secretary Bysiewicz refers to does not exist and/or has provided no remedy.  Despite popular misunderstanding, the FEC provides no verification whatsoever.  As the Chief of Elections, the Secretary of State is responsible for protecting Connecticut voters from fraud and unfair elections. Buck stops there.

 

Eligibility is a fundamental issue that strikes at the heart of fair elections.  Where the question of eligibility has become so obvious and clear, as in the case of Sen. Obama’s missing birth certificate, the Secretary of State must move to protect the voters, investigating the allegations of fraud or directing such agency as deemed proper such as the SEEC which would investigate and inform the Secretary of State of their findings.”

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Citizen Wells comment

“There is apparently more chicanery going on at the US Supreme Court. First, Leo Donofrio had an unjust encounter
with clerk Danny Bickell. Now, Cort Wrotnowski has filed an emergency stay application with the US Supreme
Court and he is receiving the same unjust treatment from clerk Danny Bickell.”
Leo Donofrio

 

“US Supreme Court stay clerk Danny Bickell is guilty of obstruction of justice for the second time. Yesterday, Cort Wrotnowski filed an emergency stay application in the case WROTNOWSKI V. BYSIEWICZ, CONNECTICUT SECRETARY OF STATE, which is coming directly from a Connecticut Supreme Court order of Chief Justic Chase Rogers.

Mr. Wrotnowski was informed by Danny Bickell that Mr. Bickell denied Cort’s motion based on Rule 23.3, the same grounds Mr. Bickell had illegally improperly relied on to obstruct Donofrio v. Wells, the same case which is now going before the entire Supreme Court for Conference of Dec. 5th and to which Donofrio has pointed out Mr. Bickell was guilty of attemping to overturn Justice Powell’s holding in McCarthy v. Briscoe 429 U.S. 1317 n.1 (1976) and Justice O’Conner in Western Airlines, Inc. v. Teamsters, 480 U.S. 1301 (1987).”

“Donofrio (me) believes Mr. Wrotnowski’s case is at least as strong as his own, if not stronger. And Donofrio warned Wrotnowski that Bickell was going to try the same tactic again.”

“Courageously, Mr. Wrotnowski refused to back down and eventually Bickell said he would, reluctantly, docket the case.”

December 2, 2008

Leo Donofrio

“Cort Wrotnowski, (SCOTUS Docket No. 08A469), a day after facing the shock of his life when told by a SCOTUS clerk that his renewed application to Justice Scalia would be held back for 7 days due to anthrax screening, hand delivered 10 copies of his renewed application to the Security booth at SCOTUS this morning at 10:30 AM.  Cort was told by the Clerk’s office that the papers would “probably” be in the Clerk’s office by 2:00 PM.   Cort’s application, according to Supreme Court Rule 22.1, should be “transmitted promptly” to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.  Keep your eyes on that Docket to see if they will follow the Rules of Court.

59 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Congress, Connecticut, Cort Wrotnowski, 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, Superior Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Obama not eligible, Obama fraud, Obama lies, Obama signature on Arizona Candidate Nomination Paper, Moniquemonicat.wordpress.com blog, Obama not natural born citizen, Obama bar application, Selective Service application, Obama pattern of deception, December 9, 2008

Posted on December 9, 2008 | 5 comments

MoniQue of the moniquemonicat blog obtained an Arizona document that
Barack Obama or someone representing him signed on November 30, 2007
swearing that Obama is a natural born citizen and eligible to be
president. Obama, unlike John McCain, has provided no legal evidence
that he is eligible.

Obama signature on AZ Candidate Nomination Paper

MoniQue has responded with more information on the document and signature:

“Here are 4 of Obama’s other signed filing papers to compare signatures from.  I don’t believe them to be forgeries and they appear to me to all have been made by the same person:

1.  OBAMA’S SIGNATURE, FILING PAPER [NEW HAMPSHIRE] http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/new-hampshire-obama-signed-declaration-of-candidacy.pdf

2.  OBAMA’S SIGNATURE, FILING PAPER [ILLINOIS]
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/illinois-state-board-of-elections-statement-of-candidacy-and-no-objection-made-letter.pdf

3.  OBAMA’S SIGNATURE, FILING PAPER [RHODE ISLAND]
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/rhode-island-obamas-signed-statement-of-intent-to-seek-the-nomination-of-president.pdf

4.  OBAMA’S SIGNATURE, FILING PAPER [KENTUCKY]
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/kentucky-obamas-signed-notice-of-candidacy.pdf

I’ve examined the hardcopies here at my desk and the signature appears to be made by the same person on all the documents.  I’m not a forensic specialist, but I am an artist, expertise in lettering as a matter of fact, which is basically a type of “forgery,” without the crime 🙂

Most notaries take their jobs pretty seriously and although I can understand why Obama would forge a birth certification, but not sure what he’d gain by forging his filing papers.

But as a secretary for many years I know I have signed my bosses paperwork–even sensitive and official documents, so it wouldn’t shock me if someone else signed it for him.  Yes, we are “supposed” to initial it when we do that, but many times we do not.

Either way, he is responsible for the documents filed in each state whether his secretary, wife, or he signed them, he knew it was filed with his signature. 

HOPE THAT HELPS.

P.S. I ADDED MORE DOCUMENTS FROM THE SOS ON THE SITE NOW, NOT SURE IF ANY OF THEM WILL BE USEFUL BUT HERE’S THE LINK: i added the ones above and ALSO 4 OF THE DEMOCRATIC CHAIR’S CERTIFICATIONS THAT “OBAMA WAS QUALIFIED” TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT:”

http://moniquemonicat.wordpress.com/2008/12/02/secretary-of-state-requests-for-documents-sample-letter-responses-say-obamas-qualifications-never-verified/

If Obama is eligible to be president.
 
If Obama is not lying about his eligibility and his past.

Why is Barack Obama spending hundreds of thousands of
someone’s money and employing multiple legal firms to
avoid proving he is eligible?

The answer is obvious.

Obama is not eligible.

5 Comments

Posted in Alan Keyes, Announcements, Arizona, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Birth Certificate, 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 , , , , , , , , , ,

We The People Foundation, WeThePeopleFoundation.org, Press conference, Monday, December 8, 2008, National Press Club, US Supreme Court, Donofrio vs Wells, Obama not eligible, Chicago Tribune, News

Posted on December 8, 2008 | 11 comments

Today,  Monday, December 8, 2008, we should know if the US Supreme Court will consider for review the Donofrio versus Wells lawsuit. Also, the We The People Foundation will hold a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington regarding Obama’s eligibility to be president.

Note this from Leo Donofrio:

“ALL REPORTS STATING I WILL BE AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB ON MON DECEMBER 8, 2008 ARE FALSE.

I will not be there and am not in any way associated with this event.

Please pass this information out to the blogosphere far and wide.   The event has nothing to do with me.”

Here is the We The People Foundation press conference notice on the National Press Club site followed by the press release:

Event Name: Obama’s Citizenship 
Event Date: Dec. 8, 2008
Event Type: News Conference 
Time: 1:30 PM 
Sponsored by: We the People Foundation 
Event Location: Murrow Room 
Details: Is Obama a Natural Born Citizen? 
Contact/Reservations: Bob Shultz
518-656-3578
bob@givemeliberty.org 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We The People Foundation

For Constitutional Education, Inc.

http://www.WeThePeopleFoundation.org

2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, NY 12804

December 4, 2008 Contact:

 

 

 

Bob Schulz,

518-656-3578

info@GiveMeLiberty.org

Mr. OBAMA’s ELIGIBILITY TO BE AIRED MONDAY

AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB

Queensbury, NY

– On Monday, December 8, 2008, at 1:30 pm,

 

– On Monday, December 8, 2008, at 1:30 pm,

 

the We The People

Foundation will conduct a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington D.C.

The licensed attorneys who initiated lawsuits in PA (Philip Berg), NJ (Leo Donofrio) and CA

(Orly Taitz), challenging Mr. Obama’s legal eligibility to hold the Office of President of the United

States, will briefly summarize the facts, legal arguments and status of their cases. They will

answer questions from the press.

Prior to the start of the conference, at 10 am, the Supreme Court of the United States is

expected to announce whether it will consider applications from these attorneys who have

asked the Court to delay the proceedings of the Electoral College pending a determination of

the underlying constitutional question – the meaning of the “natural born citizen” clause of

Article II of the Constitution and its application to Mr. Obama.

Robert Schulz will briefly discuss Mr. Obama’s response to the publication of his Open Letter in

the

 

 

 

Chicago Tribune

on Monday and Wednesday of this week. For the reasons given in the

Open Letter, Schulz asked Mr. Obama to: (1) immediately authorize Hawaiian officials to

provide a team of forensic scientists access to his original (“vault”) birth certificate and (2)

arrange for the delivery of other documents needed to conclusively establish Obama’s

citizenship status. Mr. Schulz will answer questions from the press.

“Under our Constitution, no one is eligible to assume the Office of the President unless he or

she is a ‘natural born citizen,’” said Bob Schulz, Chairman of the Foundation. “To date, Mr.

Obama has refused all requests to release his original birth certificate or other documents that

would definitively establish his citizenship status and thus his constitutional eligibility.”

The Open Letter to Mr. Obama summarizes the evidence against Mr. Obama and the adverse

consequences that would befall the Nation should he assume the Office of the President as a

 

usurper

 

 

 

.

– On Monday, December 8, 2008, at 1:30 pm,

11 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Chicago Tribune, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Congress, Cort Wrotnowski, Democrats, 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, 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 eligible, Obama not natural born citizen, Obama signature on Arizona Candidate Nomination Paper, Moniquemonicat blog, Did Obama commit fraud?, Did Obama lie?

Posted on December 7, 2008 | 29 comments

I just received this from MoniQue of the moniquemonicat blog:

“This is MoniQue from moniquemonicat blog.  I sent requests to 50+ Secretary of State offices through the Public Records Act (PRA) requesting Obama’s original filing papers for each state and some other docs too.

Attached is one I just got back from THE SOS IN ARIZONA.

A NOTARIZED AND SIGNED BY OBAMA SWEARING AND CERTIFYING HE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.  HIS SIGNATURE IS ON THIS DOCUMENT TESTIFYING HE IS “A NATURAL BORN U.S. CITIZEN.”

I think this document is important because it is HIS word [which I believe to be a lie] that he is a natural born us citizen.  He says “i do solemnly swear he is a natural u.s. born citizen”

So this would be one document to urge others to request from the SOS Public Records Act (not the Freedome of Information Act (FOIA) because the FOIA is FEDERAL so that is why a lot of the SOS would not provide this stuff when I first submitted my requests to them. 

EITHER WAY, CAN YOU PLEASE POST THIS ON YOUR SITE?”

 

“I got other documents back but thought this one says it all AND IN HIS OWN HAND is pretty significant. Really shows the audacity of lying.”

MoniQue
http://moniquemonicat.wordpress.com/

azbosignature1

azbosignature2

29 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Criminal Complaint, Democrats, 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, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, press conference, 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 , , , , ,

Donofrio vs Wells, US Supreme Court, Natural Born Citizen, Obama not eligible, Father Kenyan,British rule, Supreme Court Justices answer, US Constitution, New Jersey, Connecticut lawsuit, Secretary of State, Oath of office, Marbury Vs Madison, Monday, December 8, 2008

Posted on December 7, 2008 | 16 comments

“Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”

“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”

Chief Justice Marshall opinion, Marbury Vs Madison

Donofrio versus Wells is before all nine Justices of the US Supreme Court
and it is expected that they will decide by Monday morning, December 8,
2008 whether or not they will accept the case for a possible opinion or ruling.
The Leo Donofrio case is based on the natural born citizen provision of the
US Constitution and the failure of New Jersey Secretary of State, Nina Wells to ensure
that Barack Obama is qualified under that provision. Having the US Supreme
Court give serious consideration to this case and uphold the US Constitution
is of utmost importance. However, this case demands attention to other
aspects of upholding the Constitution and clarifying duties that may in the
long term have more far reaching consequences. Here are three distinct
aspects of the Donofrio case that must be addressed and clarified by the
US Supreme Court Justices:

  • The Natural Born Citizen provision of the US Constitution as applicable to the 2008 election.
  • The powers given to state officials in the election process and inherent duties to uphold the
    US Constitution and Federal Election Laws.
  • The oath of office taken by federal and state officers, election officials and judges and the
    duty to uphold the US Constitution.

Not addressed specifically in the Donofrio lawsuit and therefore
not before the US Supreme Court, but a matter of much confusion,
is the statutes in some of the states and pledges by some
political parties to dictate how Electoral College Electors must
vote. This violates the letter and spirit of constitutional law
and the intent of the founding fathers to give carefully chosen
Electors the leeway to make wise choices.

Here is the basis in fact of Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit:

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the three distinct aspects of Donofrio’s lawsuit that should be reviewed and clarified
by the US Supreme Court Justices:

The Natural Born Citizen provision of the US Constitution as applicable to the 2008 election.

Leo Donofrio states:

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

Read more from Leo Donofrio

The powers given to state officials in the election process and inherent duties to uphold the
US Constitution and Federal Election Laws.

There is much confusion and misunderstanding about the duties and powers of state officers and election
officials involved in presidential elections.

Read more here

The oath of office taken by federal and state officers, election officials and judges and the
duty to uphold the US Constitution.

From the opinion by Chief Justice Marshall on Marbury Vs Madison:


“The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on the subject. It is in these words, “I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States.”

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

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

For the Justices of the US Supreme Court to disregard this important
lawsuit by Leo Donofrio, I am certain that all nine Justices would
violate their oath to uphold the US Constitution and duty to review,
consider and clarify the important principles outlined above. We are
accountable not only to uphold  the US Constitution and rule of law
in regard to the 2008 election, but the future integrity of the
Constitution, our system of checks and balances and stability of our
government. I strongly urge the Supreme Court Justices to help keep
our Constitution and government intact.

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

Chief Justice Marshall opinion, Marbury Vs Madison

16 Comments

Posted in American Revolution, Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Congress, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Founding Fathers, Government, 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, Superior Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

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

Donofrio versus Wells, US Supreme Court Response, Leo Donofrio lawsuit appeal, December 5, 2008, Supreme Court Justices decision, Connecticut, NJ Secretary of State, Obama not eligible, Obama not natural born citizen

Posted on December 5, 2008 | 16 comments

** Update  Below **

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

Leo Donofrio has an appeal in the US Supreme Court of his lawsuit against Connecticut Secretary of State
Nina Wells.

Today, Friday, December 5, 2008, there is no official word whether the nine justices of the US Supreme Court have decided on the case. Here is an update from Jeff Schreiber:

“UPDATE, 5:45pm:Several people are saying that, because Donofrio’s case was not among the release showing two cases for which certiorari were granted, his stay-as-petition-for-cert was denied. Even the law blog at The Wall Street Journal is reporting as such. While I cannot say whether or not it was denied, as much as I think it probably was, nothing I have seen so far–including the order list distributed today–suggests 100 percent that it was either granted or denied.

 

Perhaps I’m missing something, but I cannot find anything that conclusively points toward denial. I’m guessing that, absent evidence to the contrary, people are simply taking sides according to the odds.

Absent another miscellaneous order showing that the Justices granted Donofrio’s petition, not likely to come at this hour, we’ll just have to wait until Monday or Tuesday for the full list of orders.

Monday, remember, is the press conference at the National Press Club. I may try to go, should I be able to shuffle some work around and decide to petition the Court for a stay with regard to studying for exams. We’ll see.

Furthermore, I just saw Wolf Blitzer on CNN do a three- or four-minute segment on Donofrio’s case. Of course, it was painted as you would expect it to be but, at this point, any focus on the constitutional aspects of this issue is good. The only thing, however, is that I wish that the underlying motivation behind these legal actions would not necessarily be depicted as so much anti-Obama as pro-Constitution.”

Read more from Jeff Schreiber here:

http://www.americasright.com/

 

US Supreme Court Docket record this morning:

No. 08A407  
Title:
Leo C. Donofrio, Applicant
v.
Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State
Docketed:  
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of New Jersey
  Case Nos.: (AM-0153-08T2 at the New Jersey Appellate Division without a docket number)
~~~Date~~~  ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A407) for stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 6 2008 Application (08A407) denied by Justice Souter.
Nov 14 2008 Application (08A407) refiled and submitted to Justice Thomas.
Nov 19 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.
Nov 19 2008 Application (08A407) referred to the Court by Justice Thomas.
Nov 26 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Leo C. Donofrio filed. (Distributed)
Dec 1 2008 Letter from applicant dated November 22, 2008, received.
 

 

 

 

 

 

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~    ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:    
Leo C. Donofrio P.O. Box 93  
  East Brunswick, NJ  08816  
Party name: Leo C. Donofrio

 

** Update **

I have just been notified that Dr. Taitz confirmed that the Supremes weren’t making a decision until 10am Monday.

16 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Congress, Cort Wrotnowski, Democrats, DNC, Dr. Orly Taitz, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Jeff Schreiber, John McCain, Judges, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, New Jersey, 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 , , , , , , , ,

Natural Born Citizen, Obama not eligible, Leo Donofrio, US Presidents, Precedents, Chester Arthur, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Chester Arthur’s lies, US Constitution, Grandfather clause, December 5, 2008

Posted on December 5, 2008 | 1 comment

Leo Donofrio has provided an excellent article on the Natural Born Citizen rule from the US Constitution,
the grandfather clause and precedents involving US Presidents. Donofrio examines James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover and Chester Arthur.

“This essay will discuss the eligibility of every President who had parents born abroad.   As long as the parents had the future President on US soil after they became citizens, then that person is a natural born citizen.
Every President born before the adoption of the Constitution was eligible because of the grandfather clause of Article 2, 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;

JAMES BUCHANAN

The first President we must examine then was James Buchanan, 14th President of the United States.   He was born on April 23, 1791 in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania.  He just missed  out on the grandfather clause as the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.   Buchanan was also the only President from Pennsylvania and the only President never to marry.

Both his parents, James Buchanan and Elizabeth Speer, emigrated to the United States from Ireland in 1783.  It was an interesting year for the United States as the Treaty of 1783 was signed between the US and Great Britain.  Colonists chose to be United States citizens and by virtue of the Treaty, Great Britain recognized those former subjects as United States citizens.

Before the Constitution, United States citizenship was conferred on citizens by the States.   When the Constitution was ratified, each citizen of a state became a citizen of the United States.  No formal naturalization was needed.

On June 21, 1788 the Constitution was ratified.  The Buchanans were citizens of Pennsylvania and therefore citizens of the United States.   When their son James was born in Pennsylvania he was therefore a natural born citizen, born on United States soil to two US citizen parents.”

Read more here:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

1 Comment

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Congress, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Founding Fathers, Government, Judges, Justice, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, News, 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

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

MSNBC, Count Down, December 4, 2008, Jonathan Turley, Constitutional law Professor, Leo Donofrio versus Connecticut Secretary of State, Turley is wrong, Donofrio contacted Turley, Obama not natural born citizen, Obama not eligible

Posted on December 4, 2008 | 10 comments

** Update below **

Jonathan Turley, a Constitutional law Professor, is scheduled to appear on MSNBC tonight, Thursday,
December 4, 2008 on Count Down. According to Leo Donofrio, Jonathan Turley is wrong about his lawsuit,
Donofrio versus Connecticut Secretary of State, that is currently before the US Supreme Court
“JONATHAN TURLEY, CON LAW EXPERT GETS IT WRONG
Posted in Uncategorized on December 4, 2008 by naturalborncitizen
Constitutional law Professor Jonathan Turley will appear on MSNBC’s count down tonight and according to his blog he’ll be discussing this case.  Unfortunately he got it all wrong.  Here is the comment I left at his blog. It is awaiting moderation, but other comments have been cleared since I left mine:

naturalborncitizen 1, December 4, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Mr. Turley,

My name is Leo Donofrio and my application before the Supreme Court says, within the body of the pleading, that I believe Mr. Obama is a Citizen of the United States – born in Hawaii. Your report above is not accurate.

My law suit challenges his status as a “natural born citizen” based upon the fact that his Father was a British citizen/subject.  Mr. Obama admits, at his own web site, that he was a British citizen/subject at birth.  He was also a US citizen “at birth”. He does not have dual nationality now, but the Constitution is concerned with the candidate’s status “at birth”, hence the word “born” in the requirement.

You have completely mis-stated my lawsuit. I have repeatedly said, over and again, that I believe Obama was born in Hawaii. I have criticized everyone who has said Mr. Obama is not a citizen. I believe he is a “native born citizen”, but not a “natural born citizen”.

The law suit is based upon what distinction the framers drew between the requirement for a Senator and Representative, which only requires “Citizen” status as opposed to the requirements for President, which requires “natural born Citizen” status. As you are aware, this is an issue of first impression for SCOTUS.

Please do not go on national TV and mis-lead the viewers. For a more in depth discussion, please see my response to today’s ABC News faulty report at:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.”

Read more here:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

** Update 8:12 PM **

I just watched the segment. Apparently Jonathan Turley got the message about Donofrio’s argument.

Here are some quotes from Olbermann and Turley:

Olbermann

  • “Crackpot lawsuit”
  • “Dumbest lawsuit ever”
  • “Yes, this crap again”
  • “Bogus claim of citizenship”

Turley

  • “Odds heavily against”
  • “Argument not going to appeal to justices”

I never watch MSNBC for obvious reasons. They were in bed with Obama during the election campaign.

Keith Olbermann please respond and clarify some things for us:

  • Are you on the payroll of the Obama camp?
  • Do you care about the truth?
  • Would you recognize the truth if it bit you on the ass.
  • Do you care about this country?
  • Do you ever do any real research?

I really would like an answer. Provide one and I will publish it.

10 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Congress, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, Journalism, Judges, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, media, MSNBC, National Press Club, Natural born citizen, New Jersey, 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 , , , , , , , , , ,