Chicago Tribune Ad For Obama Records Extended Entries

Request a Special Assistant for the United States to relate Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama

2009-03-02T09:36:00.001-08:00

Attorney General, Eric H. Holder Jr.
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001 USA

March 1, 2009

Honorable Attorney General Holder

Re: Request a Special Assistant for the United States to relate Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama, II to Test His Title to President before the Supreme Court

Relators, Major General Carroll Childers, Ret.; Lt. Col Dr. David Earl-Graef; Navy and Police officer Mr. Clinton Grimes; Lt. Scott Easterling, currently serving in Iraq; Major James Cannon, US Marine Corps, Ret; New Hampshire State Representative Mr. Timothy Comerford; Tennessee State Representative Mr. Frank Niceley State of Alabama 2008 electoral college elector Mr. Robert Cusanelli bring information for Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama, II, testing his title to President per attached relation. Relators include:

Robert Cusanelli, Elector for 7th District, State of Alabama, in the 2008 Electoral College;

Frank Niceley, State Representative of Tennessee in his official capacity;

Timothy Comerford, State Representative of New Hampshire in his official capacity;

Major General Carrol D. Childers, 29th Infantry Div VA retired, lifetime subject to recall; Numerous Decorations

1st Lt. Scott R. Easterling OD LG US Army on active duty in Iraq;

Clint Grimes, Sergeant Long Beach Police Officer & CDR/0-5 US Navy (Active Reserve). Numerous Decorations, including two National defense medals, two Navy commendation medals

Dr. David Earl-Graef, Lieutenant Colonel Air Force MC , Military Surgeon- Active Reserve. Numerous decorations including Air Force outstanding unit with valor

James Cannon Major US Marine Corps, Ret, lifetime subject to recall. Numerous awards, including Bronze Star with combat “V” and two Purple Hearts

Relator's oath of office grants standing. Relators are affected by actions of Respondent Obama and the outcome of this Quo Warranto, and thus have interest above citizens.

Information on Quo Warranto against a Federal Officer is normally related to the Attorney General to raise on behalf of the United States in U.S. District court of the District of Columbia per DC Code § 16-3502. However, the Attorney General defends the office of President and is appointed by the President. For the Attorney General to bring Quo Warranto on the President raises an intrinsic conflict of interest. USAM 3-2.170 Historically, a Special Prosecutor or Independent Counsel was appointed to eliminate such conflicts of interest. E.g., Attorney General Elliot Richardson appointed Archibald Cox as the Watergate Special Prosecutor over issues touching on President Nixon.

This information on Quo Warranto includes action between the United States ex rel. and the State of Hawaii over original birth records of Barack H. Obama II being withheld per Hawaii's privacy laws. Hawaii's action obstructs the constitutional duties of election officers to validate or evaluate President Elect Obama qualifications to become President under U.S. Const. art. II § 1, and amend. XX § 3.

As President Elect, Respondent Obama failed to submit prima facie evidence of his qualifications before January 20, 2009. Election officers failed to challenge, validate or evaluate his qualifications. Relators submit that as President Elect, Respondent Obama failed qualify per U.S. Const. amend. XX § 3.

Such negligence and misprision threaten to nullify these essential safeguards. Thus Relators request this Quo Warranto be related to the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction.

Enclosed is a summary motion for leave to file Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama II a/k/a Barry Soetoro, with the Supreme Court. The list of Questions Presented is attached. A full brief supporting this motion is in preparation.

1) Relators respectfully pray that the Attorney General recuse himself over bringing this Quo Warranto for the United States on Barack H. Obama II, by reason of intrinsic conflict of interest.

2) Relators pray the Attorney General appoint a Special Assistant (prosecutor) of Archibald Cox's reputation and expertise, to relate this Quo Warranto to the Supreme Court per 28 USC 543.

3) Relators request that their attorney, Orly Taitz, Esq. DDS, assist in relating this Quo Warranto, being recognized at bar before the Supreme Court.

4) Relators further request the assistance of Patrick Fitzgerald, United States Attorney General for the Northern District of Illinois, as having familiarity with issues involving Barack H. Obama, II while Senator from Illinois and as President Elect.

5) Relators request guidance from the Attorney General, within one week of receipt of this information, regarding his decision on whether to appoint such a Special Assistant.

With respect, in absence of such guidance, Relators will proceed to request leave from the Supreme Court to relate information for this Quo Warranto on Mr. Obama to test his title.

Yours sincerely

Orly Taitz, ESQ
Attorney for Relators
26302 La Paz
Mission Viejo CA 92691
949-683-5411

Encl. Motion to Supreme Court for leave to relate Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama II, testing his title to the Federal office of President.

Open Letter to Senator Warren from Lt.Col. Dr. Earl-Graeff

2009-02-02T05:21:00.000-08:00

From: Dr. David A. Earl- Graef LtCol. USAFR

Date: 1 Feb 2009,

Dear Senator Warner,

I am in receipt of your letter of 26 Jan 2009. While I thank you for taking the time to respond I can't express in words my disappointment in your response. I have given much thought to this issue and take offense in so much as you would apparently
dismiss my concerns without a thorough investigation into the validity of my questions. So it is that I am again compelled to write to you and ask your re-consideration. Please do not dismiss prima fasciae, as if this has already been addressed, but read what I have to say.

The requirement to be a "Natural Born" citizen is very specific as you point out in Article II, Section 1, and Clause 5 as it applies to the office of the POTUS. The Framers in their construct recognize there IS a difference between a Citizen and a
Natural Born Citizen. The requirement was instituted to provide a safeguard that the POTUS would have undivided loyalty to the United States. I share the opinion of Attorneys Orly Taitz and Phil Berg who are among the Constitutional Attorneys bringing these cases to the State, Federal and Supreme Court that Natural
Born status also requires that BOTH parents be citizens; a condition we know is NOT the instance in the case. This is not a trivial question left for Legal Academics to debate, it is about our Constitution and a matter for Congress and our Supreme Court.

To date, no case challenging the qualifications of President Obama to hold that Office has been heard on its merits. I have pleaded with Chief Justice Roberts to answer on the merits of the case and will continue barring action by the Congress to address my concerns. Most of the lawsuits are brought by concerned Citizens rightfully questioning if our Constitution is being followed and have been dismissed on lack of standing allowing questions to remain. The same lawsuits President Obama or those speaking for President Obama have referred to as Garbage!

I ask you now; is this the response you would also give the citizens addressing their concerns? Would you tell us our concerns are Garbage? I will trust in your integrity and believe it is not how you yourself would respond, if informed, as
evidenced by your response to me to date. I believe you would simply give us what we need to reassure us. Given this could be put to rest by easily producing the supporting documents President Obama has sealed, do you think this is an appropriate
response for a person in a position of public trust ?

There is much misinformation in the media. Even during the Inauguration, I heard it stated by Rick Warren that President Obama's father was an "immigrant" from Kenya, yet it is known he was NOT an "immigrant " and never had U.S. Citizenship at any
time of his life. There are many other legitimate questions regarding the Constitutional qualifications of the POTUS. This is being aggravated by the President spending hundreds of thousands of dollars by reasonable estimates and using teams of attorneys to block the release of documents to support his qualifications.

This includes the vault copy of the Official Birth Certificate held by the State of Hawaii you mentioned in your letter.

While I believe you answered my inquiry in good faith, I believe you misstate the facts in your letter. To my knowledge, at no point has the Hawaii Department of Health stated that he was actually BORN there. They stated they have his official Hawaii Birth Certificate on file and nothing more. Are you aware that Hawaii Statute allows one to obtain a Certificate of Live Birth ( i.e. the one Mr. Obama submitted as his ONLY "proof" to us on HIS web site ) on the unsubstantiated information provided by a single parent ? Are you aware that one may obtain this for a specified period of time even if born outside the US? Are you aware that if President Obama was born in Kenya, as some assert, his mother did not meet the legal requirements to even confer US citizenship on her son? Who was it that provided the information
for the Hawaii certificate? Is there a Physicians signature on the original or not ? What was the Hospital where he was born? Not what his SISTER says but what is on the official document.

Does it not stand to reason President Obama should make it public so that competent authority can verify its authenticity? Does it not stand to reason that if everything is in order and there is nothing to hide this would have been done long before the election when this became a question rather than fight in the courts? Do you yourself not want to know the answers to these questions? Does the Constitution still matter ?

This situation by analogy would be like me giving a Hospital my Medical School Diploma and when they ask for my transcripts as a source document, I hire teams of attorneys to block the Hospital from getting it and start taking care of patients anyway. Then to make matters worse I tell them their efforts to require me to
produce my transcripts are Garbage. How much more important is it that the person who has control of our military to produce supporting documents when asked ? This is absolutely absurd and an outrage to those of us who are informed, place our very lives at the feet of Liberty and are simply asking to have this issue
settled. There are many other questions that remain unanswered which my attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz, would be happy to discuss with you.

I can't imagine the demands currently placed upon your time and I am sympathetic to you. Nevertheless, you must also realize the potential catastrophic consequences to our Country if indeed we are already into a Constitutional crisis. This is a National
disgrace if we allow our Constitution to be ignored simply because someone, perhaps in the DNC , did not do their job in properly vetting the candidates in this last election.

Please understand, I do not intend to convey any disrespect to you in any way, but I can't contain my sense of betrayal that to date elected officials seem willing to let this pass without reasonable due process. It is also disappointing to me that you
do not seem to appreciate the tremendous difficulty that this issue places upon each and every American soldier. Although I have over 15 years of credible military service I am at this moment struggling to decide if I must resign my commission as I
can't reconcile my Oath to defend the Constitution while being in doubt that those above me have respected it in word and deed. I know that I am only one Officer but there must be more, as they learn of this and they will, they will be faced with the same impossible decision. This is a classic Hobson's choice for whichthe only hope of redemption is to know the truth.

Our History is replete with the memoirs of American soldiers and Statesman who have, due to the failure of their leaders or at the hand of destiny itself faced similar difficult decisions. One such soldier was Robert E. Lee who found himself divided between family loyalties to the South and loyalty to his Oath of Office.
He then under extreme duress resigned his commission so that he would not be conflicted. As you know he chose his FAMILY heritage for which to take a stand.

Make no mistake, while the particular situation facing Gen. Lee was different in circumstance, in essence it is the same as we now face in the military and the same as is at the heart of the Natural Born Citizen requirement . I do not believe abandoning our Constitution is our destiny to forward the interests of a
partisan Government but instead the failed actions of our leaders to address a legitimate issue regarding our Constitution.

My loyalty to the Constitution of the United States as per my Oath is and has been un-wavering. I have to this point and will continue to act in good faith as a United States Air Force Officer. I am only asking that this Constitutional issue be
resolved, so that I may be able to continue in my service to my country and my President freely, without doubt or reservation.

If there is no problem with the qualifications of the POTUS this can be discovered very quickly by a full investigation by the Congress and we can all go about the business of daily life. Furthermore, the decisions you must make regarding the problems we face will actually have meaning and will not have to be redressed. They are difficult enough, I should think you would not what to have do make them again.

I continue to trust and it is my hope, as is the case with most Americans, you have a trusting heart and nature and that you have simply been misled. I implore you to bring this before the Congress. You have the right and I believe the responsibility to do this as I watched the proceedings on 8 Jan 2009 and as a Point of Order the Constitution was not followed for the opportunity to voice objections to the Electoral College was not given. This is too important to ignore and hope it will go away because it will NOT. If for any reason our concerns have merit with each stroke
of the pen we get deeper and deeper as none of the actions of POTUS will have the force of law. Have you read some of the foreign press who are aware of this and may question the validity of treaties that may be signed? I have seen it myself. The
potential harmful implications are staggering.

I do not believe you want in any way to have not acted and to make absolutely certain beyond any doubt we are not in the very midst of a Constitutional crisis. I do not believe you would want this, if the worst is true, to be the legacy of YOUR service to our Country. As difficult as this may be for you to bring to the
attention of the Congress, it also is nothing less than the opportunity for you to take a stand and be counted among the Great Leaders of our Nation who have come before and risked their fortunes and their lives for the sake of Liberty and our sacred Constitution.

I heard it said many times during the long Campaign to the Presidency that if ever in our History we needed leadership it is now ! I am convinced that this is true. We need our Leaders to possess not only the wisdom of our Founding Fathers but the
strength of conviction to see the challenges through in the face of daunting opposition if we are to survive as a sovereign Nation. Please investigate this more. I am confident that when you do you will appreciate the gravity of the situation and be compelled to act in defense of our Constitution.

Very Respectfully,

Dr. David A. Earl-Graef USAFR MC

ORLY'S RETRACTION REQUEST AGAINST MICHAEL MEDVED

2009-01-23T15:42:00.000-08:00

JK shared the following:

Orly is kicking ass again. Publish both letters on your blogs.

I have the audio tape of the show, but I have to cut it down to the clip. I'll forward it to you all when I am done. Pass this around. Let's make it go viral. If Orly filed a CIVIL suit against Medved for slander, maybe the BC documents could finally be obtained. Maybe Obama could be deposed. We have to start thinking out of the box.

805-987-0400
Salem Communications
4880 Santa Rosa Road
Camarillo, Ca 93012
Joe Davis, President of Radio Division joeD@salem.cc
Chris Henderson, Vice President and General Counsel chrisH@salem.cc

Dear Mr. Davis and Mr. Henderson,

On Monday, January 19th, during Michael Medved's Radio Show, Mr. Medved made some very disparaging and slanderous remarks concerning my character, mental state and my motives for pursuing legal actions that question Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the United States. Mr. Medved also made "false" statements concerning the merits of the legal actions that I have filed and insinuated that my primary motive for pursuing these matters is to receive monetary donations from an unsuspecting and misinformed public.

I find that Mr. Medved's willful ignorance on the issues surrounding Mr. Obama's "Natural Born Citizenship" status, and his unwillingness to familiarize himself with the merits of the numerous lawsuits that have been filed by concerned citizens, not conspiracy theorists, across this great County, is a great disservice to your listeners and the American public as a whole.

Under California law, statements, like the ones that Mr. Medved spewed on your radio broadcasts are considered defamatory. In a court of law, I would not need to show special damages (e.g., damages to property, business, trade, profession or occupation, including expenditures that resulted from your defamation statements) because the statements are defamation per se. See Cal. Civ. Code § 45a; Yow v. National Enquirer, Inc. 550 F.Supp.2d 1179, 1183 (E.D. Cal. 2008).

To remedy these slanderous and defamatory statements, California has a retraction statute, Cal. Civ. Code § 48a, that applies to the "publication of libel in a newspaper" or "slander by radio broadcast."

Under the California retraction statute, I have a right to serve you with a written request for retraction against the slanderous and defamatory statements that Mr. Medved has made about me, my character, statements he has made about my mental health and my motives for pursuing legal actions on behalf of my clients concerning Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as POTUS. Additionally, I have the right to request that Mr. Medved and your company and your affiliate stations that broadcast Mr. Medved's Show issue a retraction based on the misleading and misinformed derogatory comments that Mr. Medved made concerning the merits of the legal cases that I have filed involving matters relating to the Nov 4, 2008 Presidential election.

Therefore, I am demanding that you instruct Mr. Medved to invite me onto his radio show and allow me to defend myself against the slanderous and defamatory statements that he has made about me to your listeners. I am hopeful that this request will allow me to discuss these false statements and correct the misinformation that Mr. Medved has made public to your radio station listeners. I am requesting ample opportunity to discuss the legal merits of the cases I am litigating on the airwaves so your listeners can be fully informed on the issues concerning Mr. Obama's lack of eligibility to serve as POTUS.

If you do not allow me ample opportunity on Mr. Medved's show or equal time on your radio stations to personally present facts that directly contradict Mr. Medved's slanderous and defamatory statements, I demand that you issue an immediate oral retraction on your radio stations, and that this retraction include a fair and accurate historical outline of my background, my character, my mental health status and my motives for filing legal actions on behalf of my clients. I also request that this oral retraction present a fair and unbiased presentation of the legal merits of my case, and the merits of similar lawsuits that Mr. Medved lumped together with mine.

In addition, I demand that Mr. Medved and your affiliate stations issue a written retraction to be placed on Mr. Medved's personal/business web site, on the TownHall.com web site, on ALL your affiliate stations web sites in which you broadcast Mr. Medved's show, and to make certain that these written retractions specifically address the issues that I outlined above.

I ask that each retraction be placed in a prominent position on your corporate web site and all of your affiliate station web sites and that "RETRACTION-Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq." be placed in the heading of the section where the retraction appears. I also request that you publish this letter along with Mr. Medved's and your company's written retraction.

Please respond to this written retraction request by email, no later than February 3, 2009 and send a hard copy of your response and written retraction to me at my Mission Viejo address via Certified Mail/Signature Required no later than February 10, 2009.

Sincerely,

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.

26302 La Paz, Suite 211
Mission Viejo Ca 92691
29839 S. Margarita Pkwy
Rancho Santa Margarita Ca 92688
Office: 949-586-8110
Cell: 949-683-5411
Fax: 949-586-2082
Email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com

Copy of Letter sent to TownHall.com and Michael Medved

TownHall.Com
1901 N. Moore Street, Suite 701
Arlington, VA 22209

To: Michael Medved
RE: Michael Medved Show
Email: michael@michaelmedved.com
Online Email Form: http://www.michaelmedved.com/askmike

Date: January 23, 2009

Dear Mr. Medved,

On Monday, January 19th, during your Radio Show, you had made some very disparaging and slanderous remarks concerning my character, mental state and my motives for pursuing legal actions that question Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the United States. You had also made "false" statements concerning the merits of the legal actions that I have filed and insinuated that my primary motive for pursuing these matters is to receive monetary donations from an unsuspecting and misinformed public.

I find that your willful ignorance on the issues surrounding Mr. Obama's "Natural Born Citizenship" status, and your unwillingness to familiarize yourself with the merits of the numerous lawsuits that have been filed by concerned citizens, not conspiracy theorists, across this great County, is a great disservice to your listeners and the American public as a whole.

Under California law, statements, like the one's you spewed on your radio broadcast are considered defamatory. In a court of law, I would not need to show special damages (e.g., damages to property, business, trade, profession or occupation, including expenditures that resulted from your defamation statements) because the statements are defamation per se. See Cal. Civ. Code § 45a; Yow v. National Enquirer, Inc. 550 F.Supp.2d 1179, 1183 (E.D. Cal. 2008).

To remedy these slanderous and defamatory statements, California has a retraction statute, Cal. Civ. Code § 48a, that applies to the "publication of libel in a newspaper" or "slander by radio broadcast."

Under the California retraction statute, I have a right to serve you with a written request for retraction against the slanderous and defamatory statements that you made about me, my character, statements you made about my mental health and my motives for pursuing legal actions on behalf of my clients concerning Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as POTUS. Additionally, I have the right to request that you issue a retraction based on the misleading and misinformed derogatory comments that you made concerning the merits of the legal cases that I have filed involving matters relating to the Nov 4, 2008 Presidential election.

Therefore, I am demanding that you invite me on your radio show and allow me to defend myself against the slanderous and defamatory statements that you made about me so we can further discuss these false statements and the misinformation you made public regarding the legal merits of the cases I am litigating. If you do not allow me ample opportunity on your show to personally present facts that directly contradict your slanderous and defamatory statements, I demand that you issue an immediate oral retraction on your radio show, which includes a fair and accurate historical outline of my background, my character, my mental health status and my motives for filing legal actions on behalf of my clients. I also request that this oral retraction present a fair and unbiased presentation of the legal merits of my case, and the merits of similar lawsuits that you lumped together with mine.

In addition, I demand that you issue a written retraction on your personal/business web site and on the TownHall.com web site, that specifically addresses the issues outlined above. I ask that this retraction is placed in a prominent position on the site and that "RETRACTION-Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq." be placed in the heading of the section where the retraction appears. I also request that you publish this letter along with your written retraction.

Please respond to this written retraction request by email, no later than February 3, 2009 and send a hard copy of your response and written retraction to me at my Mission Viejo address via Certified Mail/Signature Required no later than February 10, 2009.

Sincerely,

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.

26302 La Paz, Suite 211
Mission Viejo Ca 92691
29839 S. Margarita Pkwy
Rancho Santa Margarita Ca 92688

Office: 949-586-8110
Cell: 949-683-5411
Fax: 949-586-2082
Email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com

New Issue of GLOBE Magazine Highlights Berg vs. Obama U.S. Supreme Court Case

2009-01-03T16:26:00.000-08:00

For Immediate Release: - 01/03/2009

New Issue of GLOBE Magazine Highlights Berg vs. Obama U.S. Supreme Court Case
and you can Vote if “natural born” or not.

(Lafayette Hill, PA – 01/03/09) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States and his case, Berg vs. Obama, [is in the U.S. Supreme Court with two (2) Conferences scheduled on 1/09/09 & 1/16/09] announced today that the new issue of GLOBE Magazine [1/12/09 issue] highlights Berg vs. Obama U.S. Supreme Court case and is major story on the front of the magazine and is the centerfold story. There is a place for everyone to vote as to status of Obama, “natural born” or not.

Berg stated, “This is the 2nd time GLOBE Magazine has highlighted the question of Obama’s lack of ‘qualifications’ to be President. More and more people are aware of the fact that Obama does not meet the ‘qualifications’ and that this is the biggest ‘Hoax’ perpetrated on the citizens of the United States in 230 years. When the truth finally comes out, individuals including Barack Hussein Obama, Michelle Obama, Howard Dean [Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC)], other top officials of the DNC and senior campaign staff of Obama’s campaign should be brought into the criminal justice system and indicted and tried with incarceration for those convicted.”

The story is the center spread. There's also a poll where you can Cast Your Vote: Truth or Vicious Smear? Was Barack Obama actually born in Kenya and therefore not legally eligible to serve as President? Or are the mounting claims against him just part of a vicious smear campaign to discredit him? Here's a chance for you to have your say!

If you're convinced Obama is a natural born citizen, e-mail us at CitizenObama@globefl.com. If you're convinced he is NOT, e-mail us at NoCitizenObama@globefl.com. They'll publish the results in a future issue.
http://www.globemagazine.com

For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to
obamacrimes.com

Click here for the GlobeMagazine article.

For Further Information Contact:

Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659

U.S. Supreme Court No. 08 - 570

philjberg@obamacrimes.com

BERG files a lawsuit on behalf of a RETIRED COLONEL The lawsuit is an “Interpleader” that shifts the burden of proof to OBAMA Further

2009-01-02T08:17:00.000-08:00

www.obamacrimes.com: "For Immediate Release: - 12/30/08

(Lafayette Hill, PA – 12/30/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States which is pending in the U.S. Supreme Court [Docket No. 08 – 570] with two [2] Conferences scheduled on January 9th and 16th 2009, filed suit against Barry Soetoro a/k/a Obama on behalf of a Retired Military Colonel."

Berg today, with co-counsel Lawrence J. Joyce, Esquire, filed another lawsuit in Federal Court in the United States District for the District of Columbia on behalf of Retired Colonel Hollister against Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama demanding to know Obama’s real name and if he is constitutionally qualified to be President. Plaintiff, Gregory S. Hollister, is a resident of Colorado Springs, Colorado and Hollister has “standing” and needs a decision so he knows whether or not to follow any Order of Soetoro a/k/a Obama.

The suit is in the nature of an Interpleader that shifts the burden of proof to the Defendants, Soetoro a/k/a Obama and Biden to show that they are “qualified” for office.

Berg stated, “I am determined, on behalf of the 320 million citizens in the United States, to see that “our U.S. Constitution” is followed. Specifically, in the case of Soetoro a/k/a Obama, does he meet the constitutional qualifications for President ? I do not believe so based upon: 1) Obama was born in Kenya and because his mother was not nineteen [19], he was only “naturalized” and therefore, not qualified to be President; 2) Obama was legally adopted/acknowledged in Indonesia at the approximate age of six [6] and attended school as “Barry Soetoro,” [his step-father is Lolo Soetoro] for four [4] years – Indonesia did not have dual citizenship and to attend school, he had to be adopted or acknowledged and he became a “natural” citizen of Indonesia; 3) when he returned to Hawaii at age ten [10], there is a question if he returned through U.S. Immigration – (a) if he did, Barry Soetoro would have been given a “Certification of Citizenship” that would have indicated he was a “naturalized” U.S. citizen since he was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia; or (b) if he did not go through immigration, which I believe, then Soetoro a/k/a Obama is an illegal alien and therefore, not constitutionally qualified to be President and his three [3] years as an U.S. Senator were a fraud.”

Berg continued, “I am appalled that the main stream media continues to ignore this issue as we are headed to a ‘Constitutional Crisis.’ There is nothing more important than our U.S. Constitution and it must be enforced. I am encouraged that the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled two [2] Conferences to look into the merits of our allegations. I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified ‘natural-born’ citizen and therefore, is ineligible to assume the Office of the President of the United States.

Obama, knows he is not ‘natural born’ as he knows where he was born and he knows he was legally adopted/acknowledged in Indonesia; is an attorney, Harvard Law head of the Law Review and graduate who taught Constitutional law; knows the Obama candidacy is the biggest ‘hoax’ attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; places our Constitution in a ‘crisis’ situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world.”

Berg concluded, “I will continue my efforts until Obama either proves he is qualified or does the right thing and states that he is proud that he, an African American, received more votes than anyone else in the Presidential election on November 4, 2008, but because of things in his past, he must withdraw his name.”

For copies of all Court Pleadings, go to obamacrimes.com

For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
Cell (610) 662-3005

philjberg@obamacrimes.com

Broe v. Reed: Reply to SOS, WND Reports

2009-01-02T07:15:00.000-08:00

As reported by DecaLogosIntl.org:

Stephen Pidgeon, attorney for Plaintiffs James Broe and 12 others in Broe v. Reed, has filed a response to Washington State’s Secretary of State’s original response. In part (the full presser (PDF) follows):

Washington’s Secretary of State claims he has no duty to determine if a presidential candidate is even an American citizen running under his legal name. Yet, there is not a single document in the public record available for inspection that could establishes as a matter of law that Obama is 1) a natural born citizen of the United States; 2) an American citizen; or 3) that his legal name is Barack Obama. …

Because the court could order the Secretary of State to set aside the votes cast for Senator Obama in the State of Washington because the Senator never established his eligibility, the case is not moot.

We did not fail to join an indispensable party. Complete relief can be accorded among those already parties. Obama has never claimed an interest in this action. Obama has no interest in this action, because even if the Secretary of State were to set aside the votes cast for him, Obama would still prevail in the Presidential election. The outcome of Washington’s vote is irrelevant to Senator Obama.

We stated a claim in mandamus. The Secretary claims that we have the burden of establishing that Obama is not qualified to assume the office! We have proved that Obama did not establish that he was a “natural born citizen” of the United States at the time of the election. He has not produced a single piece of credible evidence that he is an American citizen, let alone a natural born citizen, and he has not produced any document showing a change of his legal name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama.

WorldNetDaily has also picked up on this story (in part, below):

In Washington state’s Broe v. Reed case, however, plaintiff’s attorney Stephen Pidgeon says a unique state statute grants everyday citizens the required standing.

“These lawsuits have pointed their fingers at the various secretaries of state and said, ‘You handle the elections, it’s your job [to verify Obama's eligibility],’” Stephen Pidgeon told WND, “and the secretaries of state have said, ‘No, it’s not our job. You the voter have to prove he was ineligible.’ But when the voters try to do it, the courts tell them they have no standing. So it presents a catch-22.

“Here, we have standing by means of statute,” Pidgeon continued. “This particular statute provides for any registered voter to challenge the election of a candidate if the candidate at the time of the election was ineligible to hold office.”

Further, Pidgeon explained, “In Washington we also have a constitutional clause in Article 1 that says the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of land, so it’s very much a state issue that the secretary of state has a duty to enforce the U.S. Constitution.

“He doesn’t think he does; we think he does. That’s really the issue before the court,” Pidgeon said.

REPLY - “The Secretary Of State Is Confused”

December 30, 2008

Washington’s Secretary of State claims he has no duty to determine if a presidential candidate is even an American citizen running under his legal name. Yet, there is not a single document in the public record available for inspection that could establishes as a matter of law that Obama is 1) a natural born citizen of the United States; 2) an American citizen; or 3) that his legal name is Barack Obama.

The Secretary of State’s claim that “Barack Obama has publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing he was born on August 4, 1961” is patently false. Nothing in its original form has been produced publicly. The document provided by Obama says on the bottom border that “any alteration invalidates this certificate.” The copy is altered, its CERTIFICATE NUMBER having been blotted out with a dark, black line. The only document Sen. Obama has yet to produce to demonstrate his native birth in the United States is wholly deficient to do so.

The Secretary has a duty to determine eligibility. Article VI of the United States Constitution requires all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, to be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support the Constitution. Article I, Section 2 the Washington State Constitution makes the Constitution of the United States the supreme law of the land. The Secretary of State is “the chief election officer for all federal, state, county, city, town and district elections.” RCW 29A.04.230, and he is “required by law” to . . . coordinate those state election activities with federal law. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution states that “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.”

Our position is not moot. Amendment 20, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution, states that “if a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify [bold added], then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

Because the court could order the Secretary of State to set aside the votes cast for Senator Obama in the State of Washington because the Senator never established his eligibility, the case is not moot.

We did not fail to join an indispensable party. Complete relief can be accorded among those already parties. Obama has never claimed an interest in this action. Obama has no interest in this action, because even if the Secretary of State were to set aside the votes cast for him, Obama would still prevail in the Presidential election. The outcome of Washington’s vote is irrelevant to Senator Obama.

We stated a claim in mandamus. The Secretary claims that we have the burden of establishing that Obama is not qualified to assume the office! We have proved that Obama did not establish that he was a “natural born citizen” of the United States at the time of the election. He has not produced a single piece of credible evidence that he is an American citizen, let alone a natural born citizen, and he has not produced any document showing a change of his legal name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama.

The Secretary is without any evidence upon which he can reasonably rely to shirk his constitutional duty. The Secretary of State has relied upon four pieces of “evidence” he believes to be sufficient to vitiate his constitutional duty to establish the eligibility of Senator Obama: 1) the Official Certification of Nomination from the Democratic National Committee; 2) the digital copy of the Certification of Live Birth posted by FactCheck.org; 3) FacCheck.org’s certification that that the Certification was genuine; and 4) the statement by State of Hawaii, Department of Health Director Dr. Fukino.

The Official Certification of Nomination from the Democratic National Committee says nothing more than that Senator Obama was “duly nominated.” There is no certification by the DNC that the candidate was eligible or constitutionally qualified to hold office.

FactCheck.org’s certification is meaningless, because the document they “certify” as genuine is deficient on its face as a matter of law. The digital copy of the Certification of Live Birth does not establish that Senator Obama was born in the United States, because of Hawaiian law HRS 338-17.8 which allows for people born in foreign countries to register their birth in Hawaii.

Finally, the statement by Dr. Fukino is that she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with policies and procedures.” She does not tell us that the document they have is a Hawaiian birth certificate; only that there is a birth certificate on file in Hawaii.

PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY
Cause No, 8-2-473-8

Read more.

SHOW US YOUR PAPERS OBAMA

2008-12-27T10:33:00.000-08:00

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 idzrus@earthlink.net
WGEN Board for discussion and comments : http://www.voy.com/19385/

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

2008-12-15T13:35:00.001-08:00

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.

Comments From Lindsey Springer

2008-12-14T11:50:00.001-08:00

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..."

2008-12-14T11:34:00.000-08:00

Patriots,

From Matt Bruce http://www.thecaptainsamerica.com 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 dr_taitz@yahoo.com If you are a family member, modify the consent form and send......family 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

==================================================

CONSENT FORM

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

EMAIL: hmriley@cox.net

POSITION IN THE MILITARY/RANK/DATES SERVED/STATUS: COL, 1956-1992, Retired Army

OCCUPATION: Military Officer, Retired

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

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

2008-12-12T19:05:00.000-08:00

PRESS RELEASE

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

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

Email: attorney@stephenpidgeon.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

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
Email: attorney@stephenpidgeon.com

Berg v. Obama: Justice Souter Denies Injunction

2008-12-10T20:40:00.000-08:00

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.

2008-12-10T20:16:00.000-08:00

2008-12-10T19:58:00.001-08:00

Time to write To CNN

2008-12-05T18:05:00.000-08:00

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 case...so 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

2008-12-05T09:16:00.000-08:00

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

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000004----000-.html

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 http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/1 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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule36.htm

V. DEPOSITIONS AND DISCOVERY > Rule 36.
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.

TITLE 18 > 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...

2008-12-05T09:07:00.000-08:00

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.

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.

MAXIMS OF LAW

· 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.

DE FACTO.

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.

DE JURE.

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.

COLOR OF LAW.

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.

COLOR OF OFFICE.

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
http://bobhurt.com
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
+1 (727) 669-5511, FAX +1 (206) 600-5958

Ohio Secretary of State Brunner Responds

2008-11-24T18:41:00.000-08:00

From: Dbpc2000@aol.com [mailto:Dbpc2000@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 12:08 PM
To: Secretary Brunner
Subject: We the People DEMAND that you uphold our Costitution and protect our rights!

Dear Secretary of State :

It is unthinkable that someone can be elected to the Presidency of the US when so many questions have remained unanswered.

Why has Barack Obama not been required to prove that he is a natural born citizen ? All the information out there presents that he is not a natural born citizen. We want his long form BC, his College records, his Oath of Allegiance, and all other information that proves he is a natural born citizen as he claims to be.

Certainly, his failure to provide this documentation to the courts, but instead to hire attorneys to avoid doing so should present a big red flag to everyone. He can very easily provide this information, put a stop to these accusations, and in the process bring the American people together to unite under his leadership. It would make political and practical sense for him to comply and put millions of American's fears of a Constitutional Crises at rest. YET, he refuses to do this.

We put you on notice, to protect us from this disaster. You should not certify the electoral votes until and unless these documentation's are presented and proved to be authentic.

It is a shame that we the people cannot have this matter resolved. It should have been resolved months ago. It wasn't because no one has demanded that he complies. Why would he not comply ? The only possible answer is that he has something to hide.

I would like a response to this letter as to why no one has standing to demand these documents from a court of law and why any Secretary of State in this Country would certify the votes of a candidate that has not proven his eligibility.

Sincerely,
D C

===================

Good morning,

Thank you for emailing our office. However, please be advised that two separate lawsuits were filed in Ohio asserting identical issues to the issues raised in your email regarding the qualifications of Barack Obama to run for president. Neal v. Brunner, Wayne Common Pleas case# 08CV72726; Greenberg v. Brunner, Wood Common Pleas case# 08CV 1024.

Both lawsuits were dismissed because under Ohio law there is no mechanism for a person to challenge the qualifications of a presidential nominee certified to the Ohio ballot by a political party pursuant to R.C. 3505.10(B). Moreover, the courts indicated that the Secretary of State has no duty to investigate unsubstantiated information from the internet. Similar lawsuits have been summarily rejected in other states as well.

Sincerely,

Sally E. Warren

Administrative Liaison
Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner
180 E. Broad Street - 16th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
614-995-1697
Fax: 614-485-7062

swarren@sos.state.oh.us

Texas education official says her Obama comments were misconstrued | Top Stories | Star-Telegram.com

2008-11-14T18:15:00.000-08:00

Texas education official says her Obama comments were misconstrued | Top Stories | Star-Telegram.com

By SHIRLEY JINKINS
syjinkins@star-telegram.com

Cynthia Dunbar’s phone hasn’t stopped ringing since the presidential election, but the questions being asked of the State Board of Education representative have nothing to do with textbooks or curriculum.

Dunbar, of Richmond in Fort Bend County, posted a column titled "Freedoms Will Be At Risk Under President Obama," on the Christian Worldview Network Web site two days before the election.

The column questioned whether Obama is a U.S. citizen as well as whether his presidency might bring on a terrorist attack "by those with whom Obama truly sympathizes" and suspension of rights under martial law. It has since been pulled from the site.

Read more.

Transcript of comments by Texas Board of Education member Cynthia Dunbar posted Nov. 2 at www.christianworldviewnetwork.com. Dunbar represents District 10. Her comments have since been pulled from the site.

“Can we truly even imagine an America under an Obama Administration? I sincerely believe that an Obama Administration would ultimately mean one thing... the end of America as we know her. First, I cannot understand how we can potentially elect a man who most likely has violated the Constitution in his very attempt to serve as Commander in Chief. ‘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,’ U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1.

If Obama were a natural born citizen who never lost his citizenship through his adoption while living in Indonesia, Then why does he obstinately refuse to present valid documentation? The fact that a Federal Court judge did nothing should not surprise any of us. After all, we know all too well the attack this great Country undergoes on a daily basis from our own militant leftist Judicial Branch. Can you imagine how much worse this will get with Obama Appointees?

There is one glimmer of hope in all of this. There is a difference between a voidable contract and one that is simply void. A voidable contract is able to be ratified whereas a void contract is void at it s inception and cannot be cured at any point. If in fact Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be president, this is not something he can ever cure. His election, his swearing in and oath of office, his service of three days, three months, three years does not ever truly convey to him the authority of President of the United States. It is void at its inception and, as such, is open to a valid legal attack at any time.

So we can imagine the blatant disregard for our Constitution, but what other threats does an Obama administration pose? We have been clearly warned by his running mate, Joe Biden, that America will suffer some form of attack within the first 6 months of Obama’s administration. However, unlike Joe, I do not believe this ‘attack’ will be a test of Obama’s mettle. Rather, I perceive it will be a planned effort by those with whom Obama truly sympathizes to take down the America that is threat to tyranny. What nobody seems to be discussing is the fact that if such an attack takes place, what about Martial Law? What happens to expand executive power when a state of civil disorder is declared?

Supreme Court Justice Holmes in the unanimous decision of Moyer v. Peabody, stated the following:
‘...[I]t is familiar that what is due process of law depends on circumstances. It varies with the subject matter and the necessities of the situation... In such a situation we must assume that he had the right under ... constitution and laws to call our troops ... That means that he shall make the ordinary use of the soldiers to that end; that he may kill persons who resist and; of course, that he may use the milder measure of seizing the bodies of those whom he considers to stand in the way of restoring peace. Such arrests are not necessarily for punishment, but are by way of precaution to prevent the exercise of hostile power. So long as such arrests are made in good faith and in the honest belief that they are needed in order to head the insurrection off, the [Executive] is the final judge and cannot be subjected to an action after he is out of office on the ground for his belief... when it comes to a decision by the head of the State upon a matter involving its life, the ordinary rights of individuals must yield to what he deems the necessities of the moment. Public danger warrants the substitution of executive process for judicial process.’

Granted, this is not the same position that was taken by the Court in ex parte Milligan (71 US 2[1866]). That court resoundingly said, ‘Martial law... destroys every guarantee of the Constitution.’ Reminding Americans of similar actions that had been taken by the King of Great Britain, which in turn were part of the basis of the Revolution, the courts stated, ‘Civil liberty and this kind of martial law cannot endure together; the antagonism is irreconcilable; and, in the conflict, one or the other must perish.’
Factually, such militaristic rule is to be established by the Legislative Branch. ‘The Congress shall have Power to . . . provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions;’ U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8. However, the Constitution further states that the President ‘... shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.’ Article II, Section 3. Should the Senate and the House be under Democratic control and Obama comes to them advising of a threat to our Nation, is there any doubt that Obama will have his way? Additionally, since we’ve clearly seen that Obama appears to have no respect for the Constitution itself, why should we expect that if elected, all of a sudden he will try to comply with its restraints?

I fear for our great nation and her potential demise should we as Americans elect Sen. Obama. I shall take no joy in saying ‘I told you so’ if Obama gets elected. But just for the record, remember, ‘I told you so.’”

Update From Orly: Re: letter to the Governors, electors et all 11/12/08 11;32 pm

2008-11-13T04:51:00.000-08:00

Update From Orly: Re: letter to the Governors, electors et all 11/12/08 11;32 pm

The whole point of the current constitutional crisis is in the fact that nobody checked the eligibility of the candidates. Please see Donofrio v Wells. This case is the second case in front of the Supreme court. Just like with any other state in the union, Nina Wells, Secretary of State of NJ completely abandoned her duties and posted on the ballot in NJ names of the candidates simply based on their statement, that they are eligible. Aside from Mr. Obama, who absolutely arrogantly refuses to release his Vault (long version) birth certificate, most probably created upon the statement made by his grandparents; NJ ballot also featured another candidate, that admitted to being born in Nicaragua. The secretaries of States that took the oath of office to uphold the constitution, are outrageously trampling on it, aiding and abeting fraud, that is a felony and is punishable by jail term, this behavior is bordering on treason. I have written a draft of the letter(draft #3) to be sent from We the People foundation to each and every law enforcement agency in each and every state, to each Governor, each secretary of State, each elector, each Congressman, Each Senator, each judge. it is in the attachment,I need an o'k from Bob Schultz to send it to the officials, since Bob is the chair of the Foundation. We have seen, how the government completely abandoned it's duties of oversight in financial and mortgage sector and it costs us 700 billion dollars and probably more. The government agencies, entrusted to uphold the law and constitution have failed us in this arena too and it is time for us to stand up and demand action, demand stay of certification of election results until the eligibility is verified and all the proper documents are authenticated. We have to demand investigation by the Attorney generals, FBI, congress and senate. I cannot do this alone, but hopefully there are enough people that are willing to send these letters to all the proper agencies

Orly Taitz DDS Esq

26302 La Paz ste 211
Mission Viejo Ca 92691

29839 S. Margarita Pkwy
Rancho Santa Margarita Ca 92688

ph. w 949-586-8110 c-949-683-5411
fax 949-586-2082

Note: Here is the letter - written by Orly - which you can send to:

Attention: Governors of States, Secretaries of States, Attorney Generals, FBI, Homeland Security, State Department, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Federal Elections Committee

This letter is to put you on notice in regards to the following troubling facts:

1) From August 21 until now some 17 legal actions were filed all over this nation: those were individual or class actions, in different State and Federal courts. The plaintiffs: US citizens, voters, electors, different Party officials and candidates for office are alleging that Mr. Obama's eligibility for Presidency was never verified by any governmental agency and mounting evidence suggests that he does not qualify as a Natural Born citizen and therefore cannot be swarn as the President of the United States. These actions were not heard on merits yet. The first action, filed by the former Deputy Attorney general of the State of Pennsylvania, Phillip J Berg against Mr. Obama and DNC, titled Berg v Obama el all is currently in the Supreme Court, awaiting resolution of question, whether a voter has standing to bring an issue of eligibility to court. Regards of the Court decision on this matter, other parties with superior standing have filed similar actions.

2) Numerous voters, concerned citizens have turned to the offices of the Secretaries of States and found out that none of the Secretaries of States verified Mr. Obama's eligibility. Routinely the Secretaries of States simply allowed Mr. Obama to sign a form, stating that he able to perform the function of the President.

3) Numerous voters, concerned citizens have contacted the Federal Elections Committee (FEC) and found out that FEC did not do any verification of Mr. Obama's eligibility either. FEC representatives have stated that they are dealing with financial aspects of the campaign, and even that was not done by the FEC, since for roughly half of the 650 million raised, there was no documentation, no names of the donors and there were numerous reports that there is a high probability that at least 65 million came from non US citizens.

4) There was no investigative reporting in the Press, since predominantly liberal media was pushing for Obama for president and was unwilling to investigate or report anything negative in regards to Mr. Obama.

5) Most of the States in the Union contains statues in the election codes, that characterize election fraud or aiding and abetting election fraud, as a felony, punishable by lengthy jail terms. For example, California election statue 18500 states: " Any person, who commits fraud and any person who aids and abets fraud or attempts to abet fraud, in connection with any vote cast, to be cast, I guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for 16 months or two years or three years"

6) We, the people, the citizens of this country demand that all of you do not aid or abet commission of fraud and investigate the following facts:

a. according to affidavits presented in the Berg v Obama (in the attachment to this letter) Sara Obama, Mr. Obama's paternal grandmother has repeatedly stated that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and she was present at the hospital, when he was born, which means that Mr. Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen and qualified for Presidency.

b. Mr. Obama has responded by posting on his web site "Fight the Smears" a "short version" form of Certification of Live Birth', but categorically refused to provide a copy of a vault or (long version birth certificate), that would provide for a name of a hospital and a name and signature of the doctor. This is crucial, since the State of Hawaii allows children of residence of Hawaii to register in the state of Hawaii the birth of their children, born in another state or another country, such as Kenya. Please see in attachment a sample Certificate of Live Birth, Box 7C, Asks for the County or State or other country of birth. This document also has provisions for the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor. Additionally, Hawaii became a State in 1959, only two years before Mr. Obama's birth. At a time numerous residents of Hawaii did not have birth certificates, therefore the state of Hawaii allowed residents born from 1902 until 1971 to obtain a different document called Certification of Hawaiian birth, that could be obtained simply by the statement made by a relative without any corroborating evidence. Therefore the short version birth certificate, posted by Mr. Obama on his web site, could've been based on an affidavit made by his mother or one of his grandparents, that he was born in Hawaii, even if he actually was born in Kenya. This could've been done not because Mr. Obama's relatives thought that he would run for president, but simply to avoid the hustle and expense of going through some eight years of immigration procedures.

c. As of now no one was able to locate any hospital in Hawaii, any nurse, any doctor that would provide any evidence that he indeed was born on Hawaii.

d. Mr. Obam refused to provide any documents in berg v Obama case

e. Mr. Obama refused to consent to release of his vault or long version birth certificate.

f. Mr. Obama refused to consent to release of any records by any hospitals

g. Maternal grandmother remained silent and never refuted the statements that Mr. Obama was not born on /Hawaii and no access was ever allowed to any reporters to ask Mrs. Madelyne Dunham one single question: "in what hospital on Hawaii was Mr. Obama born?'

h. Even if Mr. Obama would've been born in Hawaii (all the evidence states otherwise), he would've lost his citizenship by virtue of moving to Indonesia and obtaining Indonesian citizenship. Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship and Ms. Ann Dunham- Obama-Soetoro had to relinquish her son's US citizenship in order to gain Indonesian citizenship.

i . In 1981, during the ban on travel to Pakistan for US citizens, Mr. Obama had travelled to Pakistan. The only reasonable explanation, is the did it using his Indonesian passport and using his prior name Barry Soetoro.

Based on all of the above Mr. Obama was never a Natural born citizen, that he would've lost it even if he had it by virtue of getting an Indonesian Citizenship and that he has divided allegiants and cannot become the President of the US. We demand that you investigate these acts and refrain from certifying the vote or signing the Certificate of Ascertainment (to be signed by the Governors and Secretaries of States before the December 15 vote by the electors.) We demand that proper investigation would be done and, if the above facts and allegations are found to be true and correct, Mr. Obama be de-certified of the ballot.

Click here for more updates on this program.

DRAFT LETTER: Call for Pro Bono Lawyers to Assist Electors

2008-11-11T04:49:00.000-08:00

DRAFT LETTER EXAMPLE (PLEASE USE!!)

Call for Pro Bono Lawyers to Assist Electors

Date

Dear _____,

We are writing you to seek your help in what we regard as an important Constitutional issue: the legality of Senator Obama’s right to occupy the Presidency.

You are undoubtedly aware of the several Court skirmishes making their way through a dozen of our state Courts with one (from PA) currently being pursued up to the Supreme Court and for which a decision to hear it is to be made in several weeks. You may or may not have already formed an opinion on this matter. We represent an ad hoc group of Americans who have studied the issue in some detail and are convinced it is appropriate to pursue this matter further in order to support our Constitution, which appears to us as being seriously undercut on this issue and highly worthy of citizen support.

Here are a few brief factors relating to why we have come to this conclusion:

· In at least 3 Court Rulings to date, no substantive resolution concerning Senator Obama’s Presidential eligibility has been forthcoming. Despite misleading media/public statements to the contrary, adverse Court decisions ( including Judge Erlick’s, here in Washington State) have been based on non-substantive technicalities.

· In several Court suits, the Petition to the Court simply requested the Court to help make public Senator Obama’s legitimate birth papers. Nothing more. There was no need for a finding of guilt, merely a presentation of persuasive evidence.

· In PA, Judge Surrick ruled that the Plaintiff, an attorney and past Deputy Atty. General of that State had “no standing”, as merely a public citizen, to challenge this apparent violation of the Constitution. This strikes many laymen/citizens as an affront to our understanding of the roles and relationship between the People and their Government.

· Many researchers have pointed out the fallacy of the documentation proffered by Senator Obama, concerning “proof” of birth in Honolulu. However, there are several fundamental flaws with this so-called evidence, which we’d be happy to review in further detail, at your convenience.

· Moreover, we feel a very broad Constitutional issue is at stake and merits the effort of a strong defense of our foundational governance document.

In a post-election effort to strengthen our case, based on prior Court rulings, we are undertaking an effort to assemble a team of successful Electors who will stand behind this case to enhance its legal standing in Court. We are similarly undertaking to beef up our legal support. Our ad hoc Group is largely composed of non-attorneys and we suffer a disadvantage in our unskilled legal maneuverings in the judicial System. Accordingly we’re seeking your help and guidance. We have folks who will gladly help in compiling some of the facts, legal histories and administrative matters. So the effort you can supply could range from simple “guidance & consulting” all the way up to “total legal responsibility” for one of the several cases that we hope to launch across a spectrum of States. Of course, in the specific circumstances of Senator Obama, time is of the essence.

If you feel that Justice is receiving short shrift here and you would be willing to invest some time in behalf of this cause, please take a moment to contact any of those below, so we might further discuss a mutually beneficial alliance of some sort.

Very Sincerely,

---------------------------------

SIGNER

AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL: A POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS !

2008-11-10T15:42:00.000-08:00

by Robert Quinn
posted November 9, 2009

Approximately 230 years ago the Revolutionary War began. When it ended, the United States of America was born. Liberty was proclaimed and laws were enacted under The Constitution of the United States. Today, that Constitutional liberty is sorely threatened because one aspirant for the office of President of the United States, Senator Barack Obama, remains silent while being challlenged, through an increasing number of lawsuits in various states, to confirm that he is, in fact, a natural-born citizen of the United States of America and eligible to seek the office of President. He has stone-walled all efforts to authenticate his proof of citizenship. If any readers of this letter are unaware of this legal crisis it is because the major media outlets make no mention of possible legal restrictions which could bar the Senator from seeking this office. In fact, on Oct.25, I wrote to Bill O'Reilly of Fox News in New York about the media silence ( incl.Fox) and, with tongue in cheek, asked if we would only be made aware of the lawsuits after judges had ruled on them.

Ironically, a few days before, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by the former Ass't Attorney General of Philadelphia, Pa., Mr.Philip Berg, by declaring that Mr.Berg did not prove that he would suffer harm to himself if Senator Obama was declared eligible to run for President. The next day, Newsday,Long Island,New York's major newspaper, mentioned this case for the first time by simply mentioning the Dismissal of the lawsuit. Mr. Berg is now taking this issue directly and immediately to the U.S.Supreme Court. I wonder if a class-action suit is in the works.

The most compelling issue in this case was the request for a valid copy of Senator Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate (not the differing "Cert.of Live Birth"), since claims were made that he was actually born in Mombasa,Kenya. Ominously, the Government of Kenya recently said that they will not release any documents pertaining to the Senator until the U.S. elections are over. Mr.Berg, in his lawsuit, also requested that a "certificate of USA citizenship" be produced, since Senator Obama was believed to have been a citizen of Indonesia for some time, under the name of Barry Soetoro.

Consider-a simple request to produce two valid documents, which Mr.Berg stated in his lawsuit would be sufficient for withdrawing the lawsuit. Now, three months later, the Senator still refuses to provide these documents for examination by Federal or State authorities....or anyone else ! Would an average citizen act in such a manner ? For that matter, should anyone seeking the highest office in the Land act this way ? On the contrary, and, in fact, I know of eight instances where average citizens have now instituted lawsuits to force their respective States to insist that Senator Obama either provide a valid birth certificate or see his name removed from the election ballots of those States.

I would also like to mention an "above average" citizen, Senator John McCain, who has served his Country bravely and faithfully since he was seventeen years of age. His valid citizenship, since he was born in the Canal Zone, has been confirmed by the U.S.Senate. He could, and would immediately produce a certified copy of his birth certificate, if requested. The only time that he couldn't comply with such a request was the five and one-half years he was "tied up" in Vietnam on Government business. In contrast, Senator Obama could easily obtain any existing valid birth certificate within forty-eight hours from Hawaiian authorities. Fast forward-eight lawsuits and one petition to the Supreme Court later and he still won't answer the three-am phonecall !

WHO IS THIS MAN?

The more we seek to learn about Senator Obama, the more concerned about him we become. Asking for transparency, we are repaid with more secrecy. Here are some of the records which, it has been reported, he refuses to release:

Occidental College records
Columbia College records
Harvard College records
Selective Service Registration
Medical records
Illinois State Senate records
Cert.copy of Original Birth Certificate
Embossed signed paper Cert.of Live Birth

With all this secrecy, he expects us to accept his birth record as legitimate, solely on his word ! I've gone that route before but it was for Someone born in a manger over 2,000 years ago, in a little town called Bethlehem.

ARE MY WRITTEN INTENTIONS WORTHY?

As I've said in previous letters, I am morally driven, not racially, to engage in this issue. All humanity is entitled to a "redress of grievances." Sadly, however, on the issue of life those in the womb are being excluded from this "right" by many, and a President Obama would swell the casualty list enormously ! He said that, as President, he would allow abortions to be performed throughtout the entire nine months of a pregnancy and would even take this position to the ultimate end: if any child survived an abortion attempt and lived to exit it's mother's womb the Obama Party would allow the child to die, if the mother so wished !

We keep hearing the "antiseptic" phrase "fewer and safer abortions", while closing in on 50,000,000 (that's millions). I have two questions: First, how can permitting more abortions result in fewer abortions. Am I doing the math wrong. Secondly, a "safe" abortion, to be honest, means only one person will exit the hospital alive. Why not re-term it a "half-safe" abortion ? For that matter, drawing from the world of credit cards I would offer an added definition of abortion-IDENTITY THEFT !

To my fellow Catholics, and all others who honestly believe their genuine concerns about financial conditions, war, the environment, etc. equate with abortion I offer a simple reflection for them. Imagine Senator Obama,(who has promised to make abortion the "Law of the Land", from shore to shore), at a rally and being asked by one of his many cheering fans to describe what actually happens to a child during an abortion "procedure". I guarantee that if he dared to answer the request truthfully, the cheers he had been hearing would become tears and sobs would soon echo throughout an empty stadium.

In conclusion, may I point out that, as with my recent letters, I did not speak of issues such as taxes, health insurance,etc., because I was not stepping into the political arena. Senator Obama, however, plunged into the arena of morality and his defenseless targets, the unborn, need our voices before their's are silenced forever.
I am not voting for a political party but for someone who will insure that the unborn's date of birth doesn't immediately become their date of death ! I pray that all those receiving this letter join with me on Nov.4 "pulling" for life-literally.

"Before I formed thee in the womb of thy mother, I knew thee." (Jeremias 1:5)
With prayerful hope and trust,

Robert Quinn
69-11 67th Place,Glendale,New York 11385
tel:718-497-6464

PS;Mr.Philip Berg has steadfastly, at his own expense, pursued this lawsuit right up to the U.S.Supreme Court. If anyone would like to help him financially he would be most appreciative. His address is:

Philip J.Berg,Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill,Pa. 19444-2531
Tel:610-825-3134
E-Mail:philjberg@gmail.com

Time to stop "electors" from picking a person who is not qualified to be chosen.

2008-11-09T13:53:00.000-08:00

Lindsey Springer here and I thought I would show an example of how power slowly boils all to accepting dinner is being served and they are the main course. Here is the front page of a news paper in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

WASHINGTON — With only two terms in the U.S. House behind him, Oklahoma Democrat Dan Boren is making preparations to help the new Obama administration fill key federal positions across the state.

The 10th Amendment says "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."

Do you see what is wrong with this sentence in the News Paper? There are no "federal positions across the state." There are no federal positions "in the State" either. The 10th Amendment forbids such and those seeking these "positions" are bound by the 10th Amendment. If you do not know the difference between the United States and the States, as written in the 10th Amendment, then you have not a single reserved constitutional right. You have removed the word "people" and "State" from the 10th Amendment. If you remove the "people" and the "States" then who in the 10th Amendment, with a name, is left remaining? Yep, the United States. You only have what the United States is allowing you to have. Read the sentence in the News Paper and the 10th Amendment over and over again until you get it.

If any of you would be interested in bringing a civil action in your State regarding the selection and election of a President of the United States of America, please let me know. I believe no less than 50 complaints will do the 10th Amendment justice. Only "electors" actually vote for President and they do that by with slate of persons. In most States, the "electors" are chosen by a popular vote by placing the name of a hopeful from one party or the other on the State election ballot. This ballot should not be confused with the elector ballot. Each hopeful has a list of names he selects to be his "electors" in the event he wins a State popular vote election. Those electors are the true voters in the election and they can be stopped if you decide to stop them in your State. You do not need to overturn the general election but rather only the electors vote and its certification. Let me know. It is time the "people" take control from the licenced attorneys and I cannot think of a better way than to force those attorneys, in each of the 50 States, to come into Court and argue Article II of the Constitution of the United States means nothing. That argument alone will cause ethics complaints against them in effor to revoke their license. Electors will meet in the respective States and vote by ballot. True the Constitution was amended on this subject but hot as to how the President is actually elected. What happened on November 4, 2008, means nothing in the election of a President. It is what happens after that polling that really matters.

I personally have not bias against Obama or McCain, but my bias is whether the person being chosen by "electors" fits the job qualifications all States entered into an agreement to accept in the office of President. These qualifications are not assumed present unless proven not present. It is the other way around. It is assumed you are not qualified unless you prove your existence meets the list in Article II.

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

The "Citizen of the United States" part only applied to those who, at the time of the Constitution, were not born here, but were domiciled in one of the States. Since no person lives past 120 years, 1789's Citizen of the United States no longer has any meaning. The only current option is "Natural Born."

Per the 12th Amendment:

Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President. Ratified 6/15/1804. Note History The Electoral College

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

If you wish to stop the attorneys Unconstitutional Attack on your 50 States agreement called the Constitution of the United States, something they had to sware to uphold to even get their license, then join me in letting all political parties, and those attorneys who lied when they took their oath, by taking back each State, and the White House, and Congress.

We will have to work quickly and that can happen. If there is enough people in each State who are willing to stand up for their rights under Article II, as reserved by the 10th Amendment, you will be living back in your State again and showing the rest of the world the truest duty the word "people" have. If you think you are going to do this in your State by yourself you are wrong. If enough interest I will form a meeting to discuss how to implement this strategy.

Thank you for your interest.

11.9.08

Note: Lindsey can be reached at lindsey@mindspring.com

Electors: Is an Electoral College or Court Challenge against Mr. Obama Justified?

2008-11-09T12:29:00.000-08:00

This issue has only intensified because Mr. Obama will not allow anyone access to certified copies of his records. He has perpetuated this crisis and you as an Elector can demand that he clear it up before your independent vote is cast.

1) 20th Amendment identifies the Electoral College as the place & time to challenge a candidates credentials (age and citizenship).

2) Despite much public demand, Mr. Obama has not provided access to a classic birth Certificate that proves the actual place of birth (Web site “short form” version simply does not address this question – He must deliver the certified long form – (See the critical difference for yourself below)

3) Electors have a right to request credentials of a candidate in Court and also before the Electoral College with Congress as adjudicators.

4) Electors have a duty to the country over any pledge to the party to vote their conscience. Voter intimidation by the party is illegal. If you could not act independent then your “vote” would be just a sham rubber stamp. You must be certain without a doubt that the candidate meets the Natural born and age requirements.

The founding Fathers placed in the constitution restrictions on who could be the President and Commander in Chief. It was deemed wise to restrict that post to individuals natural born and without dual citizenships. The 20th amendment identified the time prior to inauguration for challenges to be made to the qualifications of Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates.

In this missive, a clear unimpeachable argument is made that Barak Obama has yet to provide support for the proposition that he meets that constitutional bar and that as gatekeepers of the constitution, the Electors from each state have a moral and constitutional obligation to review this matter, obtain the evidence that would remove all doubt one way or the another and then and only then cast their Electoral Ballot for president.

Despite any pressure from your party officials to bundle your vote and cast en-mass, you have the right to know, and the right to cast that ballot as your conscience and the constitution demands. Country loyalty demands that this constitutional obligation take precedence over party loyally and party rules.

As it stands, no one, not even non-citizens are bared from the ballot. The Socialist Workers Party VP candidate Roger Calaro, for example, is a Nicaraguan having but a green card yet his name appears on many states ballots. This fact astounds most people. It turns out that no government agency is currently tasked with preventing such fraud or even identifying that fact to the unsuspecting voters; no, not the Secretaries of State nor the Federal Elections Commission FEC. The gatekeepers of the constitution are the voters and then the Electors as they weigh in at the Electoral College. Only Electors and candidates themselves can bring forward challenges and those challenges can be judged by the Courts or if brought up in the Electoral College, then Congress is the final judge, similar to an impeachment trial.

If you agree that you want to know – really know for sure before you cast your Electoral Vote, then join your name to a growing list of Electoral College Electors who will be represented in a suit filed with the Supreme Court and also with the Electoral College itself. You deserve to personally see the cards that Obama has to date held very close to his vest.

No reasonable man or woman can understand this challenge without acknowledging that reasonable even significant doubt exits. Here is the evidence to this qualification problem in a nutshell. Additional reading is contained in links.

The document on the left is what Mr. Obama displayed on a web site. It is a computer database printout which has none of the detail required to answer the question of actual place of birth. He displayed the kind of document Hawaiian residents can get for their foreign born children.

Click image to enlarge

Really, it’s that simple. Demand to see the good stuff, the real birth certificate or at least the documentation behind that nearly worthless Certification document. While some have argued about the web document’s authenticity, that question really is mute. Real or not it does not answer the question. That’s it! This is not rocket science and you do not need to be the forensic expert to see the problem.
Obama has not yet properly disclosed the one document that would remove all doubt, and properly vet him for the position he has pursued. He simply, has not yet done this.

You, however, are some of the few people on the planet that actually has the right, the power and the leverage to demand the answer. Join the growing list of Electors who will demand this question be answered before the college meets in December.

Is his birth location important though? Wasn’t at least his mother a US Citizen?

In 1961, as opposed to TODAY, Section 301(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (INA) required the following: A child being born to one alien parent (i.e.. Non Citizen) and one citizen parent in a marital relationship, required that the sole US citizen parent to have resided in the United States for a period of ten years, five of which must have been over the age of 14. Today's version of the law has somewhat different residency requirements for the US citizen parent. But the law, as it applied on August 4, 1961, required ten years presence, five after the age of 14.

At the time of Barack Hussein Obama II's birth on August 4, 1961, Ms. Dunham was 18 years old, having been born in November of 1942. As such, if Barack Hussein Obama II was born outside the US or its Outlying Possessions, on August 4, 1961, then Ms. Dunham could not transmit her citizenship to her son because she failed to have accumulated the necessary physical presence requirements that the LAW (that pesky and inconvenient thing that oftentimes gets in the way of "change") demanded.

It's that simple. If he was born in Kenya, then he is not, nor can never be, eligible to hold the office of President of the United States of America inasmuch as he does not, nor never can, fulfill the requirements of Article II, Clause V of the Constitution of the United States. It's not an optional thing, regardless of whether or not someone thinks it's fair or not. It's the law, that pesky, recurring inconvenience that seems to get in the way, time and time again.

Now, the question remains to be answered if he was born in Kenya or not. The State of Hawaii has weighed in and states that there is a record of Mr. Obama's birth on file in the Department of Vital Statistics. However, THAT is not enough. Since there are two distinct birth documents issued by the State of Hawaii – which one do they have? They gave less detail than what the published document details.

Look. The facts and the law, are just that, the facts and the law. Wishing it wasn't so, being upset that the law is the way it was in 1961, wishing that people wouldn't bring that pesky inconvenient issue of the law, won't change a thing. Mr. Obama, like it or not, whether you think it's fair or not, if born outside the US, is NOT, nor never can be, eligible to hold the office of President of the United States.

What is troubling and frustrating is that Obama can, and has had the ability to do so for quite some time, resolve this matter by simply providing a certified copy of his authentic birth document. The only reason that is reasonable for his failure to do so is that he simply doesn't have a document that shows he was born in the US.

You as electors have the right and the obligation to the country to join hands and ask that this matter be put to rest that you can, in good conscience, vote uninhibited for the qualified candidate of your choice. Without your effort, this cloud of illegitimacy will hang unabated over the presidency. Join with us in demanding the answers. It is after all a simple question. We all deserve a simple answer.