Saturday, December 27, 2008


If there wasn't any FIRE behind all this smoke - why all the DENIAL - REFUSAL TO HEAR?

I've said it before, there is powerful force (demonic) that is controlling all this activity and that so many, worldwide, can be silenced as they have been. Those who do speak do so in a very carefully crafted way, each word being carefully chosen - to appear as if they are saying one thing when in fact they are not. Then the MSM picks up the denials and adds their little twists to the words to make the blind and gullible believe that this is a false accusation against their false messiah. Those who willingly became mesmerized by this charlatan will not believe anything against him. They have swallowed the koolaid and are now totally under the influence of that poisoned brew. They can't wait to bow before him in Obamatown.

The complete ignoring of this issue by the BO camp should be more than telling but his blinded followers (worshippers) do nothing to demand he prove the accusation to be wrong - instead they defend him. Their *pride* will not let them see that they have been deceived.

All that needs to be done by BO is to bring forth his actual Birth Certificate, his school papers, his passports, his draft registration. This simple act of a man who claims to be of the people would resolve this in a few short minutes. He either IS what he claims or he ISN'T. No big deal - no great scientific equations - just SHOW US YOUR PAPERS OBAMA. Prove you are not an ILLEGAL alien - a usurper - a FALSE BEING. Your refusal indicates GUILT and the point of the many courts refusing to even HEAR this case to clear the air tells me again that this is a demonic operation.

Jackie Juntti
WGEN Board for discussion and comments :

Monday, December 15, 2008

"Tabloid Truth": Obama - Born in the USA? - Globe Magazine

PRESIDENT-elect Barack Obama is being rocked by a series of shocking new lawsuits charging his election was illegal! GLOBE's special report reveals why some national leaders believe his Hawaiian birth certificate was forged - and that America's next commander-in-chief was born in Kenya, which could doom his presidency. It's must reading.

Read more.

Note: Don't forget the "Tabloid Truth" about John Edwards.

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Comments From Lindsey Springer

Lindsey Springer here and I rise herein to point out the following for you continued consideration and education:

The definition of U.S. Citizen in this chart must preclude any "State" other than one of the 50 States from being within its intended meaning. Many places in Federal Law Congress defines "State" to include places other than the 50 States (sometimes with or without them). It is a must that people of the several States make this correction in their constitutional understanding to then allow the information about where one must be born, to achieve employment in the highest government job on Earth, being in its proper context. I also wish to say thank you today to the Federal Reserve System because without that failure most of America would not have awakened in the recent past to the Constitution. Just to stretch this exchange. Please each of you take a look at the difference between a "District" and a "State." Congress was only enumerated with limited judicial powers (inferior courts). One of the main reasons why the Federal Reserve and "Congress" achieved their tyranical usurpations institutionally is because stopping them was usually attempted before a appointed for life Judge on the payrol of the United States Congress who was not about to tell Congress no! However, if you grab onto a United States Judge only has "District" authority to which he was placed then you will see that you are the answer to one question away from beginning to build the Country of 50 States United back to its proper place. Ask yourself is the United States District of Illinois in the State of Illinois? Is the State of Illinois in the United States District of Illinois? If you will read the words very carefully you will clearly see how to pull the speck from your neighbors eye. Read these words:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

These are the words of the Tenth Amendment. This single line sentence above is the reason Electors are to be appointed according to the laws of each of the 50 States. The power to appoint Electors falls under the "are reserved to the States respectively" part of this Amendment. This power does not fall under the "to the people" clause.

How people get involved with the election of Obama, McCain, Biden and Palin, as Electors in Chief, is when States legislate the appointment of Electors by holding an Election on November 4, 2008.

"We deal here not with an ordinary election, but with an election for the President of the United States. In Burroughs v. United States, 290 U.S. 534, 545 (1934), we said:

'While presidential electors are not officers or agents of the federal government (In re Green, 134 U.S. 377, 379 [(1890)]), they exercise federal functions under, and discharge duties in virtue of authority conferred by, the Constitution of the United States. The President is vested with the executive power of the nation. The importance of his election and the vital character of its relationship to and effect upon the welfare and safety of the whole people cannot be too strongly stated.'"
quoting BUSH v. GORE 531 U.S. 98, at 112 (2000)

"In most cases, comity and respect for federalism compel us to defer to the decisions of state courts on issues of state law. That practice reflects our understanding that the decisions of state courts are definitive pronouncements of the will of the States as sovereigns. Cf. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)."
BUSH v. GORE 531 U.S. 98, 112 (2000)

"Of course, in ordinary cases, the distribution of powers among the branches of a State's government raises no questions of federal constitutional law, subject to the requirement that the government be republican in character." BUSH v. GORE 531 U.S. 98, 112 (2000)

"Acting pursuant to its constitutional grant of authority, the Florida Legislature has created a detailed, if not perfectly crafted, statutory scheme that provides for appointment of Presidential electors by direct election. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 103.011 (1992). Under the statute, "[v]otes cast for the actual candidates for President and Vice President shall be counted as votes cast for the presidential electors supporting such candidates." Bush at 116

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, § 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the state legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28-33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors." Bush at 104

If people are unable or unwilling to keep the United States and its "Districts" separate from each others powers reserved by and for each State (remember Art. I, Section 8, Cl. 17 "over such District not exceeding 10 miles square"), they will never be able to understand how a person is hired as President of the United States of America.

"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country..."


From Matt Bruce and Neil Turner, Military Veterans.

It's time for action..........below you will see my completed consent form which was send to Dr. Taitz.........I urge all military member veterans to copy and fill out the blank form below and send to Orly Taitz If you are a family member, modify the consent form and members are as much a part of military duty as the service member themselves. Others are urged to further modify to fit your patricular status and send also...more is better....remember folks this is about "support and defense of the United States Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic"...will we stand for "right" or kneel to a "compromise"?........Only God stands above the United States Constitution.

Harry Riley, COL, USA, Ret



DATE: 12-13-2008
Attn. Orly Taitz, Esq.
26302 La Paz, Ste. 211
Mission Viejo, CA 92691

I agree to be a plaintiff in the legal action to be filed by Orly Taitz, Esq. in a PETITION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT of the U.S.., nor TO BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the ARMED FORCES, in that I am/was a sworn member of the U.S. military (subject to recall), and therefore when serving as an active member of the military, I would be unable to follow any orders given by a Constitutionally unqualified Commander In Chief, since by doing so I would be subject to charges of aiding and abetting fraud and committing acts of treason.

TYPED NAME or Signature: Harry G. Riley

FULL NAME: Harry G. Riley

ADDRESS: 111 Overview Drive, Crestview, FL 32539

TEL. #: 850-689-1818 FAX. #: 314-271-3656



OCCUPATION: Military Officer, Retired

ACHIEVEMENTS: 34 years active Military Service, Awarded Silver Star, Combat Infantry Badge among others.

Friday, December 12, 2008

Press Release: 12 WA voters sue to setaside election of Barack Obama in Washington


Contact: Stephen Pidgeon, Attorney at Law, P.S.

Tel: (425) 605-4774 Fax: (425) 818-5371



12 Washington voters sue to set aside the election of Barack Obama in Washington

Bellevue, WA, December 10, 2008 — On December 4, 2008, James (Jim) Broe and 11 other Washington voters sued Secretary of State Sam Reed in the Washington Supreme Court, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to require the Secretary to set aside the votes cast for Senator Barack Obama. The Petition charges that at the time of the election, Senator Obama had failed to establish that he was a "natural born citizen" of the United States as required by the U.S. Constitution, failed to establish that he was an American citizen, and that he was not running under his legal name of Barry Soetoro.

The Petition as amended claims that because Senator Obama's father was not an American, but a British citizen at the time of the Senator's birth, the Senator was disqualified him from being a "natural born citizen" as that term is understood under U.S. laws of nationality.

The plaintiffs argue that his British citizenship at birth also disqualifies him from being considered an American citizen automatically under the Fourteenth Amendment, because of competing jurisdictional interests between the Crown and the United States.

Plaintiffs have also argued that Senator Obama failed to establish by any evidence that he was actually born in Hawaii, or that he was naturalized as an American citizen.

Because Senator Obama was adopted by his mother's second husband Lolo Soetoro, plaintiffs allege that his legal name is Barry Soetoro, and the suit alleges that Senator Obama has failed to establish by any evidence that his name was legally changed back to his birth name.

Stephen Pidgeon, counsel for Plaintiffs, has called out the Secretary of State, saying "the Secretary of State is the chief election officer for all federal and state elections under 29A.04.230, and he has an obligation to run state elections in respect of federal law. This means if the candidate for President is unqualified, he has no business being placed on Washington ballots by the Secretary of State."

Pidgeon goes on to say that "each candidate that stands in a primary election must make a declaration of candidacy, stating that 'at the time of filing this declaration, I am legally qualified to assume office if elected.' The Secretary of State has a constitutionally imposed duty to enforce this qualification."


— For more information please contact:
Stephen Pidgeon, Attorney at Law, P.S.
10900 NE 8th Street, Suite 900
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Phone: (425) 605-4774 Fax: (425) 818-5371

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Berg v. Obama: Justice Souter Denies Injunction

The Right Side of Life » Blog Archive » Berg v. Obama: Justice Souter Denies Injunction: "Philip Berg, Plaintiff in Berg v. Obama, filed for an injunction to stop the Electoral College from having their votes cast by Monday, December 15.

Today, according to the case’s docket (see also “Supreme Court Info” on the top right sidebar), there is the following line:

Dec 9 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter.

The Bulletin posted an article today regarding Berg’s case and had the following to say:

Mr. Berg’s lawsuit has not yet been scheduled for conference with the Supreme Court, although the Supreme Court justices will vote on another lawsuit originating in Connecticut on Dec. 12. In such a conference, hearings will be scheduled to a case should four of the nine justices vote to hear the case."

Read more.

Friday, December 5, 2008

Time to write To CNN

Sarah wrote:

Time to write To CNN (I always appreciate your opinion, folks, but I am not someone's secretary, so when you do write, don't write to me on what you should write to CNN....

he he he, as I already know they are wrong; sorry I am not a vent machine, nor do I know why they make the errors, I can guess, but directyour main comments to CNN and tell them how they don't have it correct; one email it will take you less than 5 minutes)

.... also tell them to show the vault copy CNN must have to make these comments, since they must have seen it and had it examined by forensic specialist!....did you see it CNN??

Here are my thoughts, and below Doug's, so glean from what you wish and blast them some nice emails, and a lot of them!

Use the word ALLEGED CNN, as you think you know something, but you are simply following the "piped piper mentality"...MSM still is holding the truth hostage! Despicable journalism, but it at least is pointing the people to the SCOTUS, and they (the judges) will have to tell the MSM the truth on their decision!

[Did all note that OJ Simpson's sentencing was on the same day as the Denofrio's the press goes where? What a news tactic!]

After you listen to this...see Doug's email to see also some information you can glean from to form your email....Go GET 'EM...make those journalism's accountable, or sorry!

This is a requirement of all Citizens of this Countr

This is a requirement of all Citizens of this Country. The below legal quote can be found at...

Have you been notified that Mr. Obama failed to answer the "Request for Admissions" that Phil Berg filed in his case against Mr. Obama regarding his eligibility to be President because he is not a "Natural Born Citizen" as required by the Constitution? Obama refused to respond for which he's required to do by Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and therefore according to Law, he has admitted the entire Request for Admissions. If you have evidenced this information, which you now have, you are REQUIRED TO REPORT the crime.

Have you done it yet? Go to and look at the Pleadings. Then see Rule 36(a)(3) and then Title 18 USC Section 4 speaking of your obligation as an American.

Prev | Next
Rule 36. Requests for Admission
(a) Scope and Procedure.

(1) Scope.

A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to:

(A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and

(B) the genuineness of any described documents.

(2) Form; Copy of a Document.

Each matter must be separately stated. A request to admit the genuineness of a document must be accompanied by a copy of the document unless it is, or has been, otherwise furnished or made available for inspection and copying.

(3) Time to Respond; Effect of Not Responding.

A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney. A shorter or longer time for responding may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or be ordered by the court.

> PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 4
Prev | Next
§ 4. Misprision of felony
How Current is This?
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

We will see who are the true Americans.

The "de facto officer" doctrine...

Darren sent me these comments. Read and remember them. Bottom line, you implicitly accept the authority of an unqualified, de facto officer over you if you don't timely and properly object to the lack of qualification.

Bob Hurt

"de facto officer" doctrine is that it negates a constitutional provision.

A de facto officer is one who actually assumes and exercises the duties of a public office under color of a known and authorized appointment, but who has failed to comply with all of the requirements and conditions by law prescribed as a precedent to the performance of the duties of the office. (People v. Cradlebaugh (1914) 24 Cal.App.489, 491 [a deputy sheriff who had been appointed by the sheriff and had taken the oath of office, but who had not filed his appointment with the county clerk, was a de facto officer].) Actions of a de facto officer exercising the functions of the office lawfully and with the acquiescence of the public ... within the scope and by the apparent authority of office ... [are] valid and binding as if he were the officer legally ... qualified for the office and in full possession of it.[Citations.] (Marine Forests Society v. California Coastal Com. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1, 54, quoting In re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill (1964) 61 Cal.2d 21, 42, original

NOTICE the court below said "AND with the ACQUIESCENCE of the public"?


Acquiescence is where a person who knows that he is entitled to impeach a transaction or enforce a right neglects to do so for such a length of time that, under the circumstances of the case, the other party may fairly infer that he has waived or abandoned his right. Scott v. Jackson, 89 Cal. 258, 26 Pac. 898; Lowncles v. Wicks, 69 Conn. 15, 36 Atl. 1072 ; Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Perdue, 40 W. Va. 442, 21 S. B. 755 ; Pence v. Langdon, 99 U. S. 578, 25 L. Ed. 420.

Acquiescence and laches are cognate but not equivalent terms. The former is a submission to, or resting satisfied with, an existing state of things, while laches implies a neglect to do that which the party ought to do for his own benefit or protection. Hence laches may be evidence of acquiescence. Laches imports a merely passive assent, while acquiescence implies active assent. Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 10 Pac. 678; Kenyon v. National Life Ass'n, 39 App. Div. 276. 57 N. Y. Supp. GO; Johnson-Brinkman Commission Co. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 126 Mo. 345, 28 S. W. 870, 26 L. R. A. 840, 47 Am. St. Rep. 675. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 2ND EDITION, page 20.

It appears to me that people are FAILING to REALIZE that it is OUR FAILURE to challenge these ACTORS ACTS that ALLOW them to stand.


· To him consenting no injury is done.

· He who consents cannot receive an injury.

· Consent removes or obviates a mistake.

· Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist.

· It is immaterial whether a man gives his assent by words or by acts and deeds.

· He is not deceived who knows himself to be deceived.

· He who does not prevent what he can, seems to commit the thing.

· He who does not prevent what he can prevent, is viewed as assenting.

· He who does not forbid what he can forbid, seems to assent.

· He who does not forbid, when he might forbid, commands.

· He who does not repel a wrong when he can, induces it.

· The power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived One cannot transfer to another a right which he has not.

· The multitude of those who err is no excuse for error.

· An error not resisted is approved.

· He who is silent appears to consent.

· A presumption will stand good until the contrary is proved.

· All things are presumed to be lawfully done and duly performed until the contrary is proved.

Such as when we FAIL to DISPUTE the presumption that the ALLEGED "officer" was LAWFULLY APPOINTED, has taken & FILED their OATHS and/or BONDS as REQUIRED by law and was proceeding in a LAWFUL manner.
The simple FACT is that those ACTS of those ACTORS are UNLAWFUL and are under COLOR OF OFFICE and COLOR OF LAW.


This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which exists actually and must be accepted for all practical purposes, but which is illegal or illegitimate. In this sense it is the contrary of de jure, which means rightful, legitimate, just, or constitutional. Thus, an officer, king, or government de facto is one who is in actual possession of the office or supreme power, but by usurpation, or without respect to lawful title; while an officer, king, or governor de jure is one who has just claim and rightful title to the office or power, but who has never had plenary possession of the same, or is not now in actual possession. 4 Bl. Comm. 77, 78. So a wife de facto is one whose marriage is voidable by decree. as distinguished from a wife de jure, or lawful wife. 4 Kent, Comm. 36.

But the term is also frequently used independently of any distinction from de jure; thus a blockade de facto is a blockade which is actually maintained, as distinguished from a mere paper blockade. As to de facto "Corporation, " "Court," "Domicile," "Government, " and "Officer," see those titles.

In old English law. De facto means respecting or concerning the principal act of a murder, which was technically denominated factum. See Fleta, lib. 1, c. 27, § 18. —De facto contract. One which has purported to pass the property from the owner to another. Bank v. Logan, 74 N. Y. 575; Edmunds v. Transp. Co., 135 Mass. 283. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 2ND EDITION, page 324.


Of right; legitimate; lawful; by right and just title. In this sense It is the contrary of de facto, (which see.) It may also lie contrasted with de gratia, which case it means "as a matter of right," as de gratia means "by grace or favor." Again it may be contrasted with de quitate; here meaning "by law," as the latter means "by equity." See GOVERNMENT. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 2ND EDITION, page 326.


The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. McCain v. Des Moines, 174 U. S. 168, 19 Sup. et.644, 43 L. Ed. 936. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 2ND EDITION, page 217.


An act unjustly done by the countenance of an office, being grounded upon corruption, to which the office is as a shadow and color. Plow. 64. A claim or assumption of right to do an act by virtue of an office, made by a person who is legally destitute of any such right. Feller v. Gates, 40 Or. 5-13, 67 Pac. 416, 56 L. R. A. 630, 91 Am. St. Rep. 492; State v. Fowler, 88 Md. 601, 42 Atl. 201, 42 L. R. A. 849, 71 Am. St. Rep. 452 ; Bishop v. Mc-Gillis, 80 Wis. 575, 50 N. W. 779, 27 Am. St. Rep. 63 ; Decker v. Judson, 16 N. Y. 439; Mason v. Crabtree, 71 Ala. 481 ; Morton v. Campbell, 37 Barb. (N. Y.) 181; Luther v. Banks, 111 Ga. 374, 36 S. E. 826; People v. Schuyler, 4 N. Y. 187.

The phrase implies, we think, power vested in the actor,— he must be at least officer de facto. We do not understand that an act of a mere pretender to an office, or false personator of an officer, is said to be done by color of office. And it implies an illegal claim of authority, by virtue of the office, to do the act or thing in question. Burrall v. Acker, 23 Wend: (N. Y.) 606, 35 Am. Dec. 582. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 2ND EDITION,
page 217.

Bob Hurt
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
+1 (727) 669-5511, FAX +1 (206) 600-5958