Category Archives: Citizen

Obama ineligible for presidency, Hollywood producer Bettina Viviano recalls Bill Clinton statement, Bill Gwatney murder, Jerome Corsi interview of Viviano

Obama ineligible for presidency, Hollywood producer Bettina Viviano recalls Bill Clinton statement, Bill Gwatney murder, Jerome Corsi interview of Viviano

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

“Why were Donald Young and Bill Gwatney murdered?”…Citizen Wells

I spoke to Bettina Viviano a few minutes before the Jerome Corsi interview. She stated then as always that despite some friends being intimidated by the Obama thugs, she was not going to back down. Bettina is a friend and a patriot.

God bless Bettina Viviano.

From WND, World Net Daily, April 2, 2012.

“HOLLYWOOD PRODUCER HEARD BILL CLINTON SAY OBAMA INELIGIBLE”

“A successful Hollywood producer who had an insider’s view of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign claims she heard Bill Clinton say that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president.

Bettina Viviano – who started her own film production company in 1990 after serving as vice president of production for Steven Spielberg’s Amblin Entertainment – told WND that it was common knowledge among delegates committed to Hillary that the Clintons believed Obama was constitutionally ineligible and that Bill Clinton would eventually disclose his belief to the public.

The Clintons were the original “birthers,” Viviano told WND in an interview in Los Angeles.

“Everybody who has called this a conspiracy from the Republicans or the tea party, they need to know who started it – the Democrats,” she said.

“It was Hillary and Bill, and it percolated up from there,” said Viviano, who had access to the campaign through a documentary she produced on the claims of delegates that Obama and the Democratic National Committee were stealing the nomination from Hillary.

As WND reported, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his team investigating Obama’s eligibility believe there is probable cause that the documents released by the White House as Obama’s long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration form are forgeries.

Help Sheriff Joe blow the lid off Obama’s fraud. Join the Cold Case Posse right now!

Viviano said that she was on a conference phone call during the primary season in the spring of 2008 in which she heard Bill Clinton refer to Obama as ineligible for the presidency.

In the course of the phone conversation with Hillary delegates, she recalled, Bill Clinton spoke of Obama as “the non-citizen.”

“In the world we were in, with [Hillary's] super-delegates and delegates, it just was, ‘He’s not legit – that’s the end of it, period, end of story.’ It wasn’t up for discussion,” Viviano said.

Michele Thomas, a Hillary campaigner from Los Angeles, confirmed to WND that she learned from “many people who were close to Hillary” that Obama “was not eligible to be president.”

Thomas led a nationwide petition drive among delegates to force a vote on Hillary’s nomination at the convention after then-DNC Chairman Howard Dean announced her name would not be put into nomination and Obama would be declared the winner by unanimous acclamation.

Viviano said that it was understood that Bill Clinton would eventually go public with his contention that Obama was ineligible for the presidency.

“He, I believe, was frothing at the mouth to tell the truth about Obama,” she said.

In the meantime, she recalled, the former president would make ironic references in public in which he “teetered” on revealing he position.

“He would go on camera,” Viviano said, “and jokingly make comments about, you know, ‘Is Obama qualified to be president? Well, if he’s 35 and a wink, wink, United States citizen, I guess he’s qualified.’”

She claimed, however, that Bill Clinton’s intention to unequivocally state to the public that Obama was ineligible was stopped in its tracks by the murder of a close friend of the Clintons, Arkansas Democratic Party Chairman Bill Gwatney, just two weeks before the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Gwatney was killed Aug. 13, 2008, when a 50-year-old man entered Democratic Party headquarters in Little Rock and shot him three times. Police killed the murderer after a chase, and investigators found no motive.

The Clintons said in a statement that they were “stunned and shaken” by the killing of their “cherished friend and confidante.”

Viviano said a campaign staffer who was close to Hillary, whose name she requested be withheld for security reasons, told her Gwatney’s murder was a message to Bill Clinton.

“I was told by this person that that was ‘Shut up, Bill, or you’re next,’” she said.

The campaign adviser, according to Viviano, said that despite the intimidation and threats, Bill Clinton was prepared to speak out about Obama’s eligibility

“And then,” Viviano said, paraphrasing the staffer, “they went in and said, ‘OK, it’s your daughter, now, we’ll go after.’

“And then Bill never said anything.”

Others in the campaign who believe Gwatney’s murder was a message to the Clintons think it had to do with the fact that Gwatney was resisting an effort by the Obama campaign and the party to intimidate Hillary delegates into voting for Obama.

But Viviano argues that California delegates also were rebelling, and she says her source told her the same story two years later.

Since the 2008 campaign, Clinton has insisted publicly that Obama is eligible for the White House.

He weighed in on the issue in an April 2011 interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America,” when Donald Trump was urging Obama to release his long-form birth certificate to the public.

“If I were them, I’d be really careful riding that birther horse too much,” Clinton said. “Everyone knows it’s ludicrous.”

‘I had never voted in my life’

When Viviano headed production for Spielberg, her credits included the second and third “Back to the Future” films, “Cape Fear,” “Land Before Time,” “Schindler’s List,” “Always,” “Roger Rabbit” and the third “Indiana Jones” film.

She launched her own production and management company, Viviano Entertainment, in 1990. Her movies include “Three to Tango” and “Jack and Jill,” starring Adam Sandler.

Viviano was plunged into the world of campaign politics in 2008 as an admitted neophyte when Hollywood screenwriter and director Gigi Gaston asked her to produce a documentary called “We Will Not Be Silenced” on allegations of voter fraud against Hillary Clinton by the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

“I had never voted in my life. I wasn’t a Democrat, I wasn’t a Republican. I wasn’t anything,” Viviano said. “I didn’t know anything about any of this.”

Viviano said that when she and her co-workers informed Hillary campaigners that they were making a film about voter fraud, “the floodgates opened.”

“I mean, everybody had a story to tell about death threats, threats, intimidation, document falsifying, vandalism, property theft,” she said. “It was the most horrible thing I’ve ever heard in my life.”

Viviano said that in research for the film, allegations and evidence that Obama was not eligible “came up immediately.”

“We were getting hit with so many things about Obama,” she said. “This is when (Bill) Ayers and (Rashid) Khalidi were in the news, and then, all of a sudden, ‘Oh, and he’s not eligible to be president.’”

Viviano insisted to WND that her reason for speaking out now was not related to the fact that Obama beat Hillary.

“It’s not about Hillary,” she said. “It’s about No. 1, I’m American, I live in a country where there is a Constitution and a set of laws. I also have somebody in the White House who has lied, obfuscated, provided what we all know to be forged documents about who he is.”

She acknowledges that she could jeopardize her Hollywood career.

“What can you do?” she said. “It’s my country. My dad fought for this country in World War II in the 82nd Airborne.”

Her late father, she noted, was shot down twice during the war and was awarded two Purple Hearts.

“I think, would he rather have me sitting in the corner cowering, and afraid of people, or would he rather have me tell the truth and what I saw?””

Listen to the interview here:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/hollywood-producer-heard-bill-clinton-say-obama-ineligible/

Otis Mayberry and Mount Airy town drunk impersonator guilty of blocking sidewalk, Otis handcuffed taken to jail and fined, Andy Griffith show world gone

Otis Mayberry and Mount Airy town drunk impersonator guilty of blocking sidewalk, Otis handcuffed taken to jail and fined, Andy Griffith show world gone

“Now here at the Rock we have two rules. Memorize them until you can say them in your sleep. Rule number one: obey all rules. Rule number two: no writing on the walls.”…Barney Fife

“When a man carries a gun all the time, the respect he thinks he’s getting might really be fear. So I don’t carry a gun because I don’t want the people of Mayberry to fear a gun. I’d rather they respect me.”…Sheriff Andy Taylor

In the old days of the Andy Griffith Show, of growing up in NC and the days long gone by of common sense and smaller government, Otis, or anyone else violating a minor infraction of the law which didn’t really hurt anybody, would have been mildly chastised and left alone. You know, since no harm was done.

It all started with Andy Griffith endorsing Obamacare. Well not really, but symbolically yes. Barn, Barney Fife would have issued a warning ticket or worst case arrested Otis and brought him before Andy. Andy would have applied common sense, small government reasoning and let Otis go.

Not anymore. Welcome to the age of big government and big brother.

From the Greensboro News & Record February 18, 2012.

“‘Otis’ town drunk impersonator guilty of blocking sidewalk”

“A man known for portraying Otis the town drunk in downtown Mount Airy was found guilty Friday of obstructing a city sidewalk.

James E. Slate, 64, was fined $50 for the ordinance violation by Judge Chuck Neaves after a hearing in Surry District Court.

However, Slate filed a notice of appeal through his attorney, Erik R. Ashman, which paves the way for the case to be tried in front of a jury in Superior Court.

Slate’s arrest last April by Mount Airy police has brought widespread attention, given its tie-in to Mayberry and his frequent appearances as Otis. This usually includes wearing a seersucker suit and hat and carrying props such as a moonshine jug and set of jail keys.

The Otis impersonator was handcuffed and taken to the Surry County Jail in Dobson after what police have described as repeat violations of a nearly 50-year-old municipal ordinance that prohibits placing items on walkways in front of downtown stores.

They specifically cited the presence of a checkerboard, table and chairs on the sidewalk in front of Slate’s son’s store, where Slate — himself a former city policeman and a disabled veteran — often plays checkers with tourists. But police have said he wasn’t playing the game or dressed as Otis at the time of his arrest and that Slate ignored multiple warnings to remove the items.

The table was against the building and stuck out less than a foot.

In District Court Friday, Ashman argued vigorously that defined distances of where walkways end in relation to a building are unclear and the city ordinance is too broad. He produced a tax map showing that the property line of the Slate store stretches 10 feet from the building. The attorney said Slate didn’t obstruct anyone, and asked that the case be dismissed.

However, the judge — in finding Slate guilty — indicated the ordinance was clear-cut on the matter of items placed on public sidewalks, according to Slate. And Neaves said he had no choice but to render that verdict although he considered the violation to be minor.

Slate said he pondered whether to appeal the case, since the $50 fine represents a “cheap” way to end the matter that had come to court six times previously and been continued on each occasion for varying reasons. The man who portrays Otis said his reasoning in having a notice of appeal filed was that the case is not about money, but principle.”

http://www.news-record.com/content/2012/02/18/article/otis_town_drunk_impersonator_guilty_of_blocking_sidewalk

Perhaps we need to yell “Citizens arrest citizens arrest” at Obama.

 

Orson Welles Citizen Kane oscar sold, William Randolph Hearst portrayed, Yellow journalism, You can crush a man with journalism, Protect a man with journalism

Orson Welles Citizen Kane oscar sold, William Randolph Hearst portrayed, Yellow journalism, You can crush a man with journalism, Protect a man with
journalism

“The (American) press, which is mostly controlled by vested
interests, has an excessive influence on public opinion.”… Albert Einstein

“Not every item of news should be published: rather must
those who control news policies endeavor to make every item
of news serve a certain purpose.”… Joseph Goebbels

“Why has the American Press protected Barack Obama?”…Citizen Wells

Orson Welles’ oscar for Citizen Kane has just been sold.

From The LA Times December 22, 2011.

“The Academy Award statuette that Orson Welles won for the original screenplay of “Citizen Kane” was auctioned for more than $861,000 in Los Angeles.

The 1942 Oscar was thought to be lost for decades. It surfaced in 1994 when cinematographer Gary Graver tried to sell it. The sale was stopped by Beatrice Welles, Orson’s youngest daughter and sole heir.

Welles, who wrote the screenplay for “Citizen Kane” with Herman Mankiewicz, also directed and starred in the film, considered by most critics to be one of the best of all time.

Nate D. Sanders Auctions declined to release the name of the winning bidder.”

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-quick-20111222,0,7267631.story
But that is not the big story.

Hearst was quoted as saying “you can crush a man with journalism.”

We now know that you can protect a man with journalism.

From PBS.
“It was a clash of the titans. William Randolph Hearst, the lord and ruler of San Simeon. And Orson Welles, the ambitious young man with a golden touch, who
set out to dethrone him. It was a fight from which neither man ever fully recovered.

Long before Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane was released in 1941, there was a buzz about the movie and the “boy genius” who made it. At a preview screening,
nearly everyone present realized that they had seen a work of brilliance–except Hedda Hopper, the leading gossip columnist of the day. She hated the movie,
calling it “a vicious and irresponsible attack on a great man.”

Citizen Kane was a brutal portrait of newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst. When Hearst learned through Hopper of Welles’ film, he set out to protect his reputation by shutting the film down. Hollywood executives, led by Louis B. Mayer, rallied around Hearst, attempting to buy Citizen Kane in order to burn the negative. At the same time, Hearst’s defenders moved to intimidate exhibitors into refusing to show the movie. Threats of blackmail, smears in the
newspapers, and FBI investigations were used in the effort.

Hearst’s campaign was largely successful. It would be nearly a quarter-century before Citizen Kane was revived–before Welles would gain popular recognition
for having created one of cinema’s great masterpieces.

“Hearst and Welles were proud, gifted, and destructive–geniuses each in his way,” says producer Thomas Lennon. “The fight that ruined them both was
thoroughly in character with how they’d lived their lives.”

Orson Welles was just twenty-four when he took aim at William Randolph Hearst. The brash upstart was well on his way to claiming Hollywood as his own. A few years earlier, his infamous radio broadcast, War of the Worlds, had terrified listeners and won him the sweetest contract Hollywood had ever seen. With a reputation as a gifted radio and theater director, Welles’ arrogance was founded on a track record of success and a lifetime of encouragement.

“Everybody told me from the moment I could hear that I was absolutely marvelous,” Welles once told an interviewer.

Hearst was a 76-year-old newspaper magnate whose daring and single-mindedness had made him a publishing legend. The son of a wealthy mine owner, he too had been raised to believe he could have everything. He built his empire selling newspapers filled with entertaining stories that were often scandalous and, occasionally, pure fiction.

“We had a crime story that was going to be featured in a 96-point headline on page one,” remembers Vern Whaley, an editor for Hearst’s Herald-Examiner. “When I found the address that was in the story, that address was a vacant lot. So I hollered over at the rewrite desk, I said, ‘You got the wrong address in this
story. This is a vacant lot.’ The copy chief that night was a guy named Vic Barnes. And he says, ‘Sit down, Vern.’ He says, ‘The whole story’s a fake.'”

Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., remembers his father asking Hearst why he preferred concentrating on newspapers, with their limited, regional appeal, rather than
spending more energy on motion pictures and their worldwide audience. Fairbanks recalls Hearst’s reply: “I thought of it, but I decided against it. Because you can crush a man with journalism, and you can’t with motion pictures.”

Hearst began his empire with one small newspaper in San Francisco, then expanded to New York where, with flair and daring, he created the top selling of the city’s fourteen newspapers. But he always wanted more, and eventually he controlled the first nationwide chain–with papers in Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, and Atlanta. Soon, an estimated one in five Americans was reading a Hearst paper every week.
Hearst’s urge to acquire extended to art objects, mansions, and women. He owned eight homes, each stocked with priceless antiques and works of art, but spent most of his time in his California castle. Called San Simeon, the estate was on a piece of property nearly half the size of Rhode Island. George Bernard Shaw
commented, “San Simeon was the place God would have built–if he had the money.” Hearst’s companion was Marion Davies, a showgirl whom he loved and propelled into Hollywood movies. Together they entertained Hollywood’s biggest, best, and brightest; San Simeon became a social mecca for the stars.

Marion Davies was widely liked in Hollywood: straightforward, full of humor and charm. The battle over Citizen Kane was in large part a fight over her honor:
It was said that Welles’s treatment of Davies riled Hearst more than any other aspect of the film. Even Welles agreed that Susan Alexander, the Davies
character, was unfair:

“We had somebody very different in the place of Marion Davies. And it seemed to me to be something of a dirty trick, and does still strike me as being
something of a dirty trick, what we did to her. And I anticipated the trouble from Hearst for that reason.”

Never one to shy away from trouble, Welles built his career on a streak of controversial productions–the more upset and swirl he could create, the better.
His production of Macbeth was set in Haiti and employed an all-black cast…his Julius Caesar was reimagined as a contemporary drama about facism…and
finally, his radio staging of War of the Worlds, about Martians invading Earth, caused so much terror and uproar it might have ended his career. But his
talent and ferocious energy seemed to lift him above the fray, delivering him unscathed to his next challenge. When he graced the cover of Time magazine, he
was only twenty-three years old.

Welles was the talk of Hollywood when he arrived. His contract demanded two films, but Welles demanded they be revolutionary. He cast about for months for a project, presenting two ideas to the studio, neither of which went into production. With the pressure mounting, Welles was desperate. “He did a lot of
drinking,” says Bill Alland, Welles’ longtime associate. “He did a lot of chasing around. But he also did a lot of work.” When Herman Mankiewicz, a Hollywood
writer and friend of Welles who had been a guest at San Simeon, proposed the story of Hearst, Welles seized on the idea as his last best chance.

Producer John Houseman, who worked with Mankiewicz on the Citizen Kane script, recalls the creation and evolution of Charles Foster Kane, the character
modeled on Hearst, which Welles himself would play. “We were creating a vehicle suited to a man who, at twenty-four, was only slightly less fabulous than the hero he would be portraying. And the deeper we penetrated into the heart of Charles Foster Kane, the closer we seemed to come to the identity of Orson
Welles.”

But in the course of making Citizen Kane, Welles’ huge ego and his youth would blind him to the extent of Hearst’s power and reach; he tragically
underestimated Hearst’s ability to counterattack.

Indeed, Welles proved no match for the old man. Hearst threatened to expose long-buried Hollywood scandals his newspapers had suppressed at the request of the studios. His papers used Welles’ private life against him, making blunt references to communism and questioning Welles’ willingness to fight for his
country. Major theater chains refused to carry Citizen Kane. Hearst’s campaign to discredit Welles was ruthless, skillful, and much aided by Welles himself,
who had never bothered to hide his contempt for Hollywood. When Welles’ name and his film were mentioned at the 1942 Academy Awards, they were booed.
Nominated for nine awards, Citizen Kane lost in every category except one. (Welles shared the award for best screenplay with Herman Mankiewicz.) After the Academy’s repudiation of Citizen Kane, RKO quietly retired the film to its vault.

Citizen Kane was an American saga about a giant who brings ruin to all, including himself. As fate would have it, it is through this film that both men are
remembered today. In telling the tale of these two flawed and fascinating men, The Battle over Citizen Kane also sheds light on the masterpiece over which
they fought, the fiction that fuses them both: the enduring film character of Charles Foster Kane.”

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/kane2/

From a Film Site review.

“The fresh, sophisticated, and classic masterpiece, Citizen Kane (1941), is probably the world’s most famous and highly-rated film, with its many remarkable scenes and performances, cinematic and narrative techniques and experimental innovations (in photography, editing, and sound). Its director, star, and producer were all the same genius individual – Orson Welles (in his film debut at age 25!), who collaborated with Herman J. Mankiewicz on the script (and also with an uncredited John Houseman), and with Gregg Toland as his talented cinematographer. [The amount of each person's contributions to the screenplay has been the subject of great debate over many decades.] Toland’s camera work on Karl Freund’s expressionistic horror film Mad Love (1935) exerted a profound influence on this film.

The film, budgeted at $800,000, received unanimous critical praise even at the time of its release, although it was not a commercial success (partly due to
its limited distribution and delayed release by RKO due to pressure exerted by famous publisher W.R. Hearst) – until it was re-released after World War II,
found well-deserved (but delayed) recognition in Europe, and then played on television.

The film engendered controversy (and efforts at suppression in early 1941 and efforts at suppression in early 1941 through intimidation, blackmail, newspaper
smears, discrediting and FBI investigations) before it premiered in New York City on May 1, 1941, because it appeared to fictionalize and caricaturize
certain events and individuals in the life of William Randolph Hearst – a powerful newspaper magnate and publisher. The film was accused of drawing
remarkable, unflattering, and uncomplimentary parallels (especially in regards to the Susan Alexander Kane character) to real-life. The notorious battle was
detailed in Thomas Lennon’s and Michael Epstein’s Oscar-nominated documentary The Battle Over Citizen Kane (1996), and it was retold in HBO’s cable-TV film RKO 281 (1999) (the film’s title refers to the project numbering for the film by the studio, before the film was formally titled):”

“In a memorable scene, Kane responds in a manner counter to Thatcher’s wishes, interested in taking charge of only one small part of his holdings:

Sorry but I’m not interested in gold mines, oil wells, shipping or real estate…One item on your list intrigues me, the New York Inquirer, a little newspaper I understand we acquired in a foreclosure proceeding. Please don’t sell it. I’m coming back to America to take charge. I think it would be fun to run a newspaper. I think it would be fun to run a newspaper. Grrr.

Soon, Kane uses the paper to attack trusts, Thatcher and others among America’s financial elite. Headlines of the Inquirer blare out the expose in a montage of early Inquirer newspaper headlines: “TRACTION TRUST EXPOSED,” “TRACTION TRUST BLEEDS PUBLIC WHITE,” and “TRACTION TRUST SMASHED BY INQUIRER.” Other social causes are heralded by the paper: “LANDLORDS REFUSE TO CLEAR SLUMS!!,” and “INQUIRER WINS SLUM FIGHT.” The paper also attacks capitalistic Wall Street itself: “WALL STREET BACKS COPPER SWINDLE!!” and “COPPER ROBBERS INDICTED!”

Thatcher is enraged and indignantly confronts the young publisher in the Inquirer office about his newspaper’s criticism of banks, privilege and corruption.
Kane is seated at his desk facing the camera and sipping coffee as Thatcher stands over him with his back to the camera asking: “Is that really your idea of
how to run a newspaper?” Arrogantly but with a soft-spoken voice, Kane replies:

I don’t know how to run a newspaper, Mr. Thatcher. I just try everything I can think of.

Thatcher explodes at him, accusing him of following a radical policy at the paper of concocting stories: “You know perfectly well there’s not the slightest
proof that this Armada is off the Jersey coast.” Kane is informed by his assistant Bernstein (Everett Sloane) that a correspondent named Wheeler in Cuba has
sent a communique: “Girls delightful in Cuba stop. Could send you prose poems about scenery but don’t feel right spending your money stop. There is no war in
Cuba. Signed, Wheeler.” Kane calmly tells his assistant to answer the war correspondent [a dictation that echoes one of William Randolph Heart's most famous quotes in the yellow press to artist Frederic Remington regarding the 1896 Spanish-American War]: “…you provide the prose poems, I’ll provide the war.”

Soon, Thatcher sits down and Kane explains how he is really “two people” – he is both a major stockholder in the Public Transit (he owns “eighty-two thousand, three hundred and sixty-four shares of Public Transit Preferred”), a trust he is attacking, and also the dutiful publisher of a newspaper representing the interests of the public against the trust. Kane stands up by the end of the scene, towering over Thatcher, explaining:

The trouble is, you don’t realize you’re talking to two people. As Charles Foster Kane, who has 82,634 shares of Public Transit Preferred. You see, I do have
a general idea of my holdings. I sympathize with you. Charles Foster Kane is a scoundrel. His paper should be run out of town. A committee should be formed
to boycott him. You may, if you can form such a committee, put me down for a contribution of $1,000 dollars. On the other hand, I am the publisher of the
Inquirer! As such, it’s my duty – and I’ll let you in on a little secret, it’s also my pleasure – to see to it that decent, hard-working people in this community aren’t robbed blind by a pack of money-mad pirates just because – they haven’t anybody to look after their interests.”

http://www.filmsite.org/citi.html

NC lawsuit challenges marriage licenses, North Carolina marriage laws require state license, Jeff Thigpen, Reverends Keeney, Peeples, Koenig

NC lawsuit challenges marriage licenses, North Carolina marriage laws require state license, Jeff Thigpen, Reverends Keeney, Peeples, Koenig

The spirit of freedom is still alive in North Carolina.

From the Greensboro News Record, December 14, 2011.

“Suit challenges marriage licenses”

“Guilford County Register of Deeds Jeff Thigpen and 10 other people filed a lawsuit last week that challenges a requirement that marrying couples in North Carolina obtain a state-issued license.

The complaint, filed in Guilford County Civil Superior Court on Dec. 8, names state Attorney General Roy Cooper as the defendant. The plaintiffs include three Greensboro ministers and seven heterosexual and homosexual residents from Greensboro, Winston-Salem and Mocksville.

They argue in the complaint that state general statutes violate the U.S. Constitution and the principle of separation of church and state by requiring marrying couples to seek marriage licenses, by requiring religious leaders to fill out and sign them, and by prohibiting religious leaders from solemnizing the marriage of same-sex couples.

The complaint comes about five months before North Carolinians vote on a proposed amendment to the state constitution that bans same-sex marriage. The referendum will occur during the May Republican primary.

The complaint reads, “In order (to) adequately and fully protect the personal liberty and religious freedom of citizens of North Carolina and the United States, there must be a de-coupling and disentanglement of the state from the personal and religious institution of marriage. The institution of marriage should be solely in the dominion of citizens and their religious and secular organizations, except that the state should be permitted to carry out prohibitions of marriage for infancy, insanity, bigamy or polygamy, and incest, and marriage as a result of fraud, duress, joke or mistake; and the state should be permitted to adjudicate rights relating to support, child custody, and property in connection with marriages and their dissolution.””

http://www.news-record.com/content/2011/12/13/article/local_elected_official_joins_lawsuit_over_state_marriage_licensing_requir

From the print edition.

“The suit is not challenging the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage, said Guilford County Register of Deeds Jeff Thigpen and others in the lawsuit. Voters will decide that issue in next year’s primary.”

“”It’s not part of anybody else’s agenda,” said Norman Smith, a Greensboro attorney. “It’s part of the agenda of people in this suit who don’t like the state getting into people’s religious and personal affairs.”

“Thigpen said he joined the suit because of his concern about state -imposed obstacles that some people must overcome to get married. He acknowledged his involvement could risk his re-election in November.”

“Why would I want to do this?” asked Thigpen, whose office handles marriage licenses. “These issues have come to me, and I have the obligation to respond to them in a way that is reflective of what’s going on and be a leader in dealing with it.”

“What happens in that sanctuary is between me, the couple, those who are witnessing , and God, “Peeples said. “It has always struck me as very strange, if not contradictory, that I have to sign a legal document and act as an agent of the state. …What we are saying is let’s make a clean separation between those two acts.”

Patrick Fitzgerald protects Obama, Rezko Blagojevich prosecution orchestrated delayed, John Thomas FBI mole, Chicago Tribune

Patrick Fitzgerald protects Obama, Rezko Blagojevich prosecution orchestrated delayed, John Thomas FBI mole, Chicago Tribune

From Illinois Pay To Play September 28, 2011.

“Patrick Fitzgerald: Intrepid Crime Fighter? Or, Politically-Driven Leaker?”

“Was Bernard Barton, Jr. relocated to Chicago on a mission to help
bring down Tony Rezko and, thereby, shield a young, articulate,
African-American politician from his potentially incriminating
associations with Rezko? Too conspiratorial, you say? Maybe. Maybe
not.

Let’s review the highlights of the Silent Mole, starting with an
admission from the Complicit Newspaper.

The Chicago Tribune identified Thomas as a Mole in this May 4, 2007,
article written by David Jackson.

John Thomas bought and sold downtown office buildings and helped other
property developers secure multimillion-dollar mortgage loans.

But the high-living dealmaker had a double life.

Thomas, who was convicted of federal business fraud in New York in
2004, has been serving as an undercover government mole in Chicago for
at least a year as part of an ongoing federal investigation into fraud
in the financing of large-scale commercial real estate deals, the
Tribune has learned.

Records made public so far do not identify the targets of the federal
probe and the FBI and US Attorney’s Office declined to comment for
this article.

That same May, a concerned citizen spoke on the phone with a
well-known Chicago Tribune reporter.  The concerned citizen was trying
to chase down information as to when the Tribune learned that John
Thomas was an FBI mole while working in Rezko’s office.  “Thomas” was
Barton’s new name in Chicago after being relocated from New York,
where he faced prosecution and eventual sentencing for fraud.  (The
complete story of Burton-Thomas is well documented and won’t be
rehashed here.)

The concerned citizen asked the reporter why the Trib had sat on the
Mole’s story since, at least, 2006.  That timeframe was implicitly
provided by the Trib reporter when stating that Patrick Fitzgerald
warned the paper, a year earlier in May 2006, that outing the Mole
would cause problems for the investigation and could prove dangerous
for Burton-Thomas.

Then, in a moment of indiscretion, the reporter added that Fitzgerald
told the Trib in May 2006 that identifying the mole could also
“influence the election.””

“Back when the Mole was entangled with the Eastern District of New
York, Patrick Fitzgerald was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the
adjacent Southern District.  The two would later rendezvous in
Chicago.

So, in February 2002, shortly after Burton-Thomas was relocated to
Chicago from the Big Apple, his nefarious past was outed by a Trib
reporter, but lacked any hint of his cooperation with the feds, nor
reference to his real name.”

“Now, jump ahead to February 2008. Sun-Times staff reporter David
Roeder elaborated on the Mole’s activity:

But sources said that, for more than two years when he was giving
information to agents, Thomas provided a fly-on-the-wall look inside
Rezko’s real estate operations and his desperate attempts to keep his
projects afloat.

Sources said Thomas also logged frequent visits to Rezko from Gov.
Blagojevich and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama​ (D-Ill.).Blagojevich and Obama
were among the many politicians for whom Rezko raised campaign cash.
Neither has been charged with any wrongdoing.

Thomas had good reason to help. He hopes to get probation for his own
felony fraud conviction in a New York case. And he said he wants to
redeem himself in the eyes of business associates and his family.

Sources said Thomas helped investigators build a record of repeat
visits to the old offices of Rezko and former business partner Daniel
Mahru’s Rezmar Corp., at 853 N. Elston, by Blagojevich and Obama
during 2004 and 2005…

Sources said the government had him wear a hidden wire to record
conversations with a Chicago alderman — but that he did not record
Blagojevich or Obama.

Why no recording of Blago and Obama?  Maybe because Blago had
notoriously loose lips and might say something that implicated the
Protected One, Obama.

One month later, in March 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama
was subjected to an underhand, slow-pitch softball interview by the
editorial board of the Sun Times. The transcript of the interview (no
longer available on line) includes this exchange:

Q: In November 2006, you and your campaign exchanged with us written
interrogatories. So a lot of the quotes I will give you just come out
of those. The campaign said that you probably had lunch with Rezko
once or twice a year. You sort of added four or five times, something
like that.

John Thomas is an FBI mole. He recently told us that he saw you coming
and going from Rezko’s office a lot. And three other sources told us
that you and Rezko spoke on the phone daily. Is that true?

A: (Obama) No. That’s not accurate…
John Thomas aka Bernard Barton
Okay, maybe the Mole misremembered.  A bad memory might explain why he
was never called by the USAO as a witness in the Rezko trial. Or,
perhaps, there was another reason.

On June 21, U.S. District Judge Elaine Bucklo sentenced John Thomas to
three years probation. His court records are sealed. His mission
accomplished.  And the extent of his subsequent success in Chicago
commercial real estate is displayed on his face today.”

Read more:

http://illinoispaytoplay.com

As most of you know, the Citizen Wells blog has stated that Patrick Fitzgerald has been protecting Obama for some time and should have prosecuted Blagojevich much sooner.

Patrick Fitzgerald is just as guilty of corruption as those he prosecutes. I could prove this in a court of law.

Thanks to commenter Whistleblower

Obama birth certificate, WhiteHouse.gov image, Howard Coble, Congress, Judiciary committee, Image phony?

Obama birth certificate, WhiteHouse.gov image, Howard Coble, Congress, Judiciary committee, Image phony?

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

Regarding Obama’s birth certificate and the image placed on WhiteHouse.gov.

 My position has been consistent since about mid 2008 when I began receiving disturbing questions about Obama’s birthplace, birth certificate and his eligibility deficiencies per the  Natural Born Citizen provision of the US Constitution. My biggest concerns were always and still are the character of Obama, what forces and Ideologies guide him and his hidden past and associations. I report on the birth certificate controversies and corruption ties in that context.

I have questioned the image placed on WhiteHouse.gov from the onset and continue to do so. However, my strongest argument and position on the topic is the following question. The question that should be shouted from the rooftops and I believe investigated by congress.

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

I received a response from Congressman Howard Coble regarding an email I provided on the Obama eligibility issues, birth certificate and corruption ties. It was respectfully written, but reveals the need to provide more information for Mr. Coble. Here are some exerpts:

“On April 27, 2011, President Obama presented a Certificate of Live Birth, which was issued by the State of Hawaii. Before seeing this document, many were growing deeply concerned about the possibility that President Obama was not a natural born citizen.

Since the release of the long-form birth certificate, we have received no other inquiries about the legitimacy of President Obama’s citizenship. To the best of our knowledge, President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth was legitimate and is demonstrative proof that he was born in Hawaii. I know you disagree with this statement.

All this being said, your hard work and resilient determination to reveal fraudulent dealings among those who hold the public trust is critical to our nation’s future. Even when the facts have not shown brightly on our political party, we have always supported efforts to reveal and address them as quicky as possible because elected officials should be held to a higher standard.”

First I will respond to the letter. Mr. Coble, not directed at you, but pardon my legalistic parsing of words and what may appear to be over analyzing on the surface, for we live in Orwellian times where each choice of word and subsequent words are chosen to misinform and confuse.

Mr. Coble, you stated:

“On April 27, 2011, President Obama presented a Certificate of Live Birth, which was issued by the State of Hawaii.”

1. WhiteHouse.gov presented a letter written by Barack Obama requesting certified copies of his certificate of live birth.

2. Judith L. Corley of Perkins Coie, the law firm which has assisted Obama in keeping his records hidden since 2008,  assisted Obama with this request.

3. Loretta J. Fuddy, Director of Health, stated that she is making an exception to departmental policy to accomodate Obama. Is that due to the third party, Ms. Corley acting as a go between?  We know that average citizens have obtained a certified copy of their original birth certificate from Hawaii.

4. What proof do we have that the image presented on WhiteHouse.gov is that image and that it is a legitimate certified copy?

Before getting into the facts, it is necessary to state the obvious. Barack Obama has continued to lie to the American public. One of the better examples is his denial of repeated contact with Tony Rezko in 2003 to 2005. Obama has also consistently shown a disregard for the US Constitution.

My response to the image placed on WhiteHouse.gov.

1. Aside from the Orwellian language used to convince the public, the image itself looked suspicious. It did not look like other certified copies from Hawaii.

2. Loretta J. Fuddy, Director of Health, stated that the copies are computer generated. I am an expert on computer business systems and have worked with many graphics formats, software applications as well as OCR. This was an immediate red flag. Computer generated can mean many things.

3. Since this involves the presidency of the US, and they were “making an exception,” why did they not copy and certify Obama’s birth certificate as they have done for average citizens?

4. Why did Major General Paul Vallely state that 10 ex CIA agents stated that the image was fraudulent?

5. Why did Jana Winter of Fox News misrepresent or lie about what a OCR expert stated about the image? The expert, Jean Claude Tremblay, has since criticized Winter and Fox for the misrepresentation.

6. World Net Daily, in the past week, has presented 2 high level experts. One has questioned the image. The last one, Mara Zebest, calls it a forgery.

Mr. Coble, thank you for your response and attention. I believe that you care deeply about this country and have honorable intentions. It is with that belief that I will endeavor to provide compelling evidence for your attention. As a starting point, I suggest you speak with retired Major General Paul Vallely.

Respectfully,
Citizen WElls

Supreme Court decision Bond v. United States, June 16, 2011, Tenth Amendment, Standing, Eligibility cases

Supreme Court decision Bond v. United States, June 16, 2011, Tenth Amendment, Standing, Eligibility cases

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

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?”… Chief Justice Marshall opinion, Marbury versus Madison

The SCOTUS, Supreme Court of the United States, provided a decision in Bond v. United States on June 16, 2011. The ruling addressed standing and the Tenth Amendment.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf

10th Amendment

“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.”

Before accessing the impact of the ruling, especially regarding eligibility cases, the Citizen Wells blog will revisit some articles from 2008. It was apparent to us and many legal scholars that any citizen had standing to question the eligibility of Barack Obama, especially when many states indicated they had no authority or responsibility to do so. Per the Tenth Amendment, that gave the power to citizens.

It is also important to remember that the US Supreme Court did not render a decision on any eligibility case. It was lower courts that deemed that the plaintiffs had no standing.

From Citizen Wells  November 12, 2008.

To:

Justice Souter
Justice Thomas
US Supreme Court
Federal Judges
State judges
State election officials
Electoral College Electors      
US Citizens

The US Constitution must be upheld

US citizens have the right, the power and the duty to require proof of
eligibilty of presidential candidates

What I am about to write is so inherently simple and self evident,
that it may appear on the surface to be implausible. However, the
following facts and arguments flow from the founding fathers’ wisdom
and desire to protect the American citizens from tyrrany. I have read
the US Constitution, Federal election law and numerous state election
laws. I have had dialogue with offices of a number of Secretaries of State
and Election Boards. The US Constitution gives the states power over
the general election. The states control which candidates are placed
on ballots and regardless of the methodology used for doing so, I
believe the states have the power and obligation to verify eligibility
of presidential candidates. I find no federal or state law prohibiting
states from doing so and instead a constitutional duty to ensure that
a qualified candidate becomes a ballot choice for the Electoral College
Electors. Failure to do so effectively may lead to voter disenfranchisement.
I have believed and stated for weeks that the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution gives US citizens the power to demand that a presidential
candidate prove eligbility and certainly standing in a lawsuit. A lawsuit
should not be necessary. We already have the power, directly from the
US Constitution Bill of Rights.
Argument:

  • The US Constitution clearly defines the eligibiity requirement for president.
  • The US Constitution rules.
  • The US Constitution gives states the power to choose electors. With this power comes the obligation to uphold the Constitution and protect voter rights.
  • State laws vary but are consistent in their approach to placing
    presidential candidates on the ballot.
  • Presidential Balloting evolved from tradition.
  • The two party system evolved from tradition.
  • States place presidential candidates on ballots from instructions of
    the major political parties.
  • States should have enacted laws to require proof of eligibility.
  • States are not exercising their duty to the Constitution.
  • States have the power and obligation to ensure that only eligible candidates remain on ballots. Despite compelling evidence that Barack Obama is not eligible, and notification, the states left him on the ballot.
  • States claim no power to remove a candidate when in fact they do have power over the general election process.
  • The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution gives the people power, including Phil J Berg, Leo C. Donofrio and others that have had their lawsuits dismissed in state courts.

By virtue of the powers given to the people in the Tenth Amendment in The BIll of Rights of the US Constitution, we do not have to file lawsuits to demand proof of eligibility or require state election officials to do so.

A US citizen filing a lawsuit demanding that a presidential candidate provide proof of eligibility has standing.

Facts and References

US Constitution

Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution;

viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Amendment X

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.

The US Constitution defines presidential eligibility

US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.

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

The US Constitution gives powers to the states for the general election.
US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

Federal Election Law: 

“The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended):

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

State Electoral College example: Pennsylvania Law

Ҥ 3192. Meeting of electors; duties.
The electors chosen, as aforesaid, shall assemble at the seat of government of this Commonwealth, at 12 o’clock noon of the day which is, or may be, directed by the Congress of the United States, and shall then and there perform the duties enjoined upon them by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Philip J Berg lawsuit
Judge Surrick ruling exerpts:

“If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.”

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

Philip J Berg response to ruling:

“an American citizen is asking questions of a presidential candidate’s eligibility to even hold that office in the first place, and the candidate is ducking and dodging questions through legal procedure.”
“This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution,”  “If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States–the most powerful man in the entire world–is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?”

Mark J. Fitzgibbons is President of Corporate and Legal Affairs at American Target Advertising:

“October 29, 2008
Who Enforces the Constitution’s Natural Born Citizen Clause?”

“So if the Framers established that courts “shall” hear cases arising under the Constitution, and failed to authorize Congress to otherwise establish who may sue to enforce the document, then where might we find conclusively that Berg has standing to sue?

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, remain with the states or the people.  Therefore it seems that any state or any person has standing to sue to enforce not just the Natural Born Citizen Clause, but other constitutional requirements and rights, absent some expressly written bar within the Constitution itself.”

“Chief Justice John Marshall, writing in Marbury v. Madison, said that judges have a duty to decide cases under our paramount law, the Constitution. I have lamented previously about how some judges tend to evade their duty to decide constitutional matters by resorting to court-made doctrines.  Judge Surrick’s reliance on case law to dismiss Berg’s suit for lack of standing is reasoned from a lawyer’s perspective, but not heroic and perhaps evasive of his larger duty. 
His decision to “punt” the matter to Congress creates, I suggest, a dangerous, longer and perhaps more painful constitutional quagmire than had he heard the evidence in the case.  Even had the case lacked merit, the Constitution would not have been harmed.”

Read more here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_enforces_the_constitutions.html

Ellis Washington, currently a professor of law and political science at Savannah State University, former editor at the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute, is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history, political philosophy and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including “The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law” (2002). See his law review article “Reply to Judge Richard Posner.” Washington’s latest book is “The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust.”

Mr. Washington wrote the following response to the Philip J Berg lawsuit and Judge Surrick ruling in a World Net Daily article dated November 8, 2008 :

“Unfortunately, just 10 days before the election, a court of appeals judge threw out Berg’s lawsuit challenging the veracity of Obama’s U.S. citizenship status on technical grounds. Judge R. Barclay Surrick, a Jimmy Carter-appointed judge, amazingly (and with a tinge of irony), stated his opinion in part:

In a 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order, the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick concludes that ordinary citizens can’t sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.
Surrick defers to Congress, saying that the legislature could determine “that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency,” but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.

“Until that time,” Surrick says, “voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring.”

Judge Surrick, quoting from Hollander, concludes, “The alleged harm to voters stemming from a presidential candidate’s failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury.”

Surrick also quotes Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, which stated, in part, “The Supreme Court has consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government – claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large – does not state an Article III case or controversy.”

Constitutionally speaking, Judge Surrick’s reasoning is completely illogical and a total dereliction of his duty as a judge to substantively address this most vital constitutional controversy. Instead, in a gutless manner, Surrick dismissed Berg’s complaint 10 days before the elections on a technicality of standing, which to any rational person begs the question: If Philip J. Berg as an American citizen, a respected Democratic operative and former attorney general of Pennsylvania doesn’t have the “standing” to bring this type of lawsuit against Obama, then who in America does have standing? The good judge in all 34 pages of legal mumbo jumbo didn’t bother to answer this pivotal question.

That Berg’s complaint is not “concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury” is an amazing admission by any person that went to law school and even more so given the fact that Surrick is a respected appellate judge!

I am somewhat hopeful that Berg will successfully appeal Surrick’s outrageous decision to 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court if necessary, even if technically he doesn’t have standing to hold Obama accountable to the Constitution. Why? Because this is America, and out of 300 million people, someone should give a damn enough about this republic to make sure the person who holds the highest elected office in the land holds it legitimately based on the black letter text of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.”

Read the complete article here:

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80435

Leo C. Donofrio has a New Jersey lawsuit before the US Supreme Court

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

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

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

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

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

Read more here:

http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

Summary

The states have power and control over the general elections. With this
power comes a duty to uphold the Constitution. The states, rather than
enact laws to uphold the constitution and protect the voting rights
of their citizens, have acted more on tradition. This traditional
approach has worked up until the 2008 election. We now have a candidate,
Barack Obama, who has refused to provide legal proof of eligibility in
the face of compelling evidence he is not qualified. When presented
with this evidence, the states had an obligation to require proof from
Obama.

The states had an obligation to enact legislation and did not. The states
have not exercised their inherent power and duty to require proof of
and eligibility. Therefore, by virtue of the powers reserved for the
people of the US in the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, US citizens have the power and obligation to demand proof of eligibility from Obama.

Citizen Wells is asking that US citizens contact state election officials
and Electoral College Electors and demand that they request proof of
eligibility from Obama. If they do not do so, initiate lawsuits and
make sure that your rights are protected and that the Constitution is
upheld. 

Citizen Wells is also issuing a caution to the US Supreme Court, Supreme
Court Justices, Federal Judges, State Judges, State Election Officials
and Electoral College Officials. You all have an overriding obligation
to uphold and defend the US Constitution. You are all accountable and
the American public is watching.