The Real Revolution

HOW “WE THE PEOPLE” CAN PUT AN END TO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION

by Jedi Pauly, ©2011

Editor's Note: Reprinted with permission of The Post & Email.

Are the 50 states in the same situation as the Colonies were in 1776?

(Aug. 11, 2011) — The foregoing is an analysis of the political, legal, and historic situation regarding the current illegitimate United States Government, and the illegitimate unlawful President known as Barack Hussein Obama, which are the results of a fraudulent federal election in 2008. In this analysis, I will endeavor to describe the specific tangible injury to a specific and limited subset or political “class” of U.S. citizens, an injury that grants this particular class standing in the courts, and what I perceive as the only viable legal strategy or avenue available to successfully obtain a legal remedy that will cause the government to become lawful again and which could theoretically remove Obama from Office and restore the rights of the People.
There are Three Political Classes in the United States

The first thing we need to do is to establish an understanding of the different political classes of citizens that exist in the United States. Contrary to popular opinion, not all citizens of the United States have the same rights, nor are even entitled to the same rights. Your membership in a particular political class determines what political rights you have as a citizen of the United States.

There are essentially three political classes in the United States, which can be separated into two groups. Starting with the third class, it consists of those who have the right to be U.S. citizens but have no political rights of representation in the federal Congress nor the political right to be President. They are the citizens of federal territories and possessions who are “naturalized” U.S. citizens according to U.S. laws governing federally-held territories and possessions. The second class consists of those who are U.S. citizens who have the political right of representation in Congress but no political right to be President. They would include recent immigrants to the United States or anyone who is born or naturalized within a State of the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the 14th Amendment; in other words, those who are born to a foreign father or foreign parents within a State of the United States. They are also called “naturalized” citizens. The first class consists of those citizens who have both the political right to representation in Congress and the political right to be President. They are the ones born to a U.S citizen father or to U.S. citizen parents who are already State citizens, and therefore are U.S. citizens, at the time of the child’s birth. They are called “natural born Citizens” in the Constitution. They are the naturally-created indigenous citizens of the U.S. who do not belong to the group of “naturalized” citizens to which the first two classes mentioned belong. They are the opposite political class group to those who are in the group of “naturalized” citizens.

The three political classes are described in the Constitution and U.S. law and are given the labels “natural born Citizen,” “Citizen of the United States” with an upper case “C,” and “citizen of the United States” with a lower case “c.” The legal and historic differences which arise out of these three terms, combined with the legal subject of “equal protection,” give rise to a great deal of confusion among those who believe that all citizens have the same rights, or that a “citizen of the United States” always means the same thing as a “Citizen of the United States.” On the contrary, they do not always mean the same thing. Equal protection of the laws applies only to each citizen equally for the members of the same political class. In other words, within your political class, each member is entitled to be treated “equally,” but equal protection does not apply across the different political classes because the members of each of the different political classes have different recognized rights from the other classes. I will now try to clarify this confusion which arises from these three different specific terms referring to citizens.

The basic historic and political legal difference between a “citizen of the United States” and a “Citizen of the United States” has to do with the subject of jurisdiction, Federal or State. Generally speaking, a “citizen of the United States” (lower case “c”), as was used in U.S. Codes and Case Law prior to the 14th Amendment (where this term first appears in the U.S. Constitution), describes a federal citizen “subject” of federal jurisdiction, and a “Citizen of the United States” (upper case “C”) does not. A “Citizen of the United States” is NOT a federal citizen “subject” of federal jurisdiction.
The Political Rights Protected in the Constitution Apply Only to Those Who are Mentioned in the Constitution

The U.S. Constitution is an agreement between the original thirteen sovereign states of the union of states and their creation, the federal government. The use of the capitalization of the word “citizen,” as in “natural born Citizen” or “Citizen of the United States,” is meant to convey in the Constitution the exclusion of federal citizen “subjects” such as citizens from the federal territories or possessions. The capitalization is meant to inform the reader that the citizens being referred to in the Constitution are a specific subset of the citizens at large; in other words, only the state citizens who are U.S. citizens by virtue of their state citizenship.

For example, a “citizen of the United States” would be a federal citizen-subject of a federal territory or possession, or a resident alien, or an immigrant while he is going through the immigration process, or a person who has not yet been declared to be a “Citizen of the United States.” Once the immigrant either completes the naturalization process of immigration or is declared, he or she would automatically graduate to the political status of “Citizen of the United States” and would no longer be a subject of federal jurisdiction; but he could never attain the status of “natural born Citizen.” This explains the Article II wording stating that only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption…”, can be President. The “Citizen of the United States” at the time of the adoption of the Constitution is a one-time limited exception that has now expired, intended originally for those who were neither citizens of the federal territories or possessions at the time of the Adoption, nor were natural born citizens of the states at the time of the Adoption. Rather, they were those who were essentially declared to be naturalized immigrants, declared to have completed immigration, or were declared due to their residency within the States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution or due to their military service in the American Revolution.

Likewise, a 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States” is a declared U.S. citizen at birth who is a federal citizen “subject,” who must subject himself over time to the jurisdiction of the federal government according to the language in the 14th Amendment and statutes, and also reside within a State over time; by this they then become naturalized over time and graduate to the status of “Citizen of the United States” who are no longer subject to, or must subject themselves to, federal jurisdiction. Therefore, a “natural born Citizen” is always automatically also a “Citizen of the United States,” but the opposite is not necessarily true. A “Citizen of the United States” may not necessarily be a “natural born Citizen.” Generally speaking, it is usually the case that there is no legal difference between a “citizen of the United States” and a “Citizen of the United States” as long as we are just talking about limited equal protection and legal rights that do not include jurisdictional issues, or natural, or legal, political rights differences. If one includes federal subject status jurisdictional issues and political rights issues (both natural political rights and legal political rights), then there is a huge legal difference between these three descriptions of citizens.
Previous Failures of Standing and Injury

This raises an important legal issue that one must be aware of. If you go into a court of law as a “Citizen of the United States” who by definition is not a citizen “subject” of federal jurisdiction, and you then plead for your rights to be recognized under the 14th Amendment, by that you essentially waive your equal protection rights under the Constitution as a “Citizen of the United States.” This is because you are informing the court that you are a “citizen of the United States,” a federal citizen “subject” of federal jurisdiction who is seeking equal protection under the 14th Amendment like a former slave, and you are not a sovereign state citizen who is not a federal citizen “subject” seeking equal protection of your natural sovereign political status and rights under the Constitution prior to the 14th Amendment. Federal citizen-subjects, or a “citizen of the United States,” have no inherited natural sovereign political rights recognized as protected in the Constitution. Their sovereign political rights are strictly artificially-proscribed, not inherited, and are a grant of an artificial legal privilege of U.S. law that is not even part of the Constitution at Article II.

This has grave implications regarding court standing and injury regarding Obama’s illegitimacy, because a 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States” is identical to a federal citizen-subject of a federal territory or possession in that neither one is entitled to a “natural born Citizen” President, as neither one of these classes of citizens can be President themselves and they have no substantive natural sovereign political rights recognized in the Constitution to be protected by the natural born Citizen clause of Article II. The natural born Citizen clause of Article II is only meant to protect the political rights of those Citizens of the United States who are also natural born Citizens. Only natural born Citizens have any injury to their political rights if the President is not a natural born Citizen. Therefore, unless you plead your court case by informing the court right up front that you are a natural born Citizen and therefore a Citizen of the United States, and not a “citizen of the United States,” you will have no injury due to Obama’s not being a natural born Citizen, and therefore you will have no standing.

Likewise, one cannot bring a Title 42 Section 1983 case for conspiracy to deprive one of civil rights due to Obama’s not being a natural born Citizen, since the language in Title 42 Section 1983 is meant to protect the civil rights of 14th Amendment federal citizen-subjects or “citizens of the United States.” Federal citizen-subjects such as 14th Amendment “citizens of the United States,” or citizens of the federal territories or possessions, or even those “Citizens of the United States” who are not also “natural born Citizens” have no natural political sovereign rights protected by Article II requirements since they are not entitled to a natural born Citizen President.

“Civil” rights are statutorily proscribed LEGAL rights. Natural sovereign political rights are the rights that are meant to be protected by natural born status, and they are not “civil rights” or legal rights; they are natural rights that are just declared in the Constitution (Positive Law) to be secured and protected by the Constitution (Positive Law). By asserting your rights to be defined by the 14th Amendment, which is what is implied by the use of Title 42 Section 1983, you are essentially informing the court that your status is not that of a “natural born Citizen,” and therefore you have no injury due to Obama’s not being a natural born Citizen, and you automatically lack standing. One must use Title 28, Title 18, and the appropriate sections therein in order to gain standing for the political right injuries that are occurring due to Obama’s illegitimacy. Title 42 does not apply and its use automatically waives any claim of an injury due to your claim of status before the court under Title 42, and therefore you will have no standing. You might be able to use Title 42 in some limited fashion, but you will not be able to raise the fact that Obama is illegitimate as your cause of action under Title 42.

It is not enough to just realize and allege that Obama is not a lawful President; you must show the court how this fact creates a particular concrete injury that is specific to you, or to a minority of the population who are of the same class of citizens to which you belong. This is the reason why no court cases against Obama have gained any traction and over 70 cases have been dismissed for lack of standing regarding Obama’s illegitimacy. Just examine these cases, and it can be seen that none of the pleadings in any of these 70+ cases declare that the petitioners are natural born Citizens with substantive natural political rights, rights recognized and protected by Article II which are being violated, and they fail to show a particular injury to themselves as a result of Obama’s illegitimacy that is not a general injury to the population at large. For example, read the Kerchner case and you will see that nowhere is it stated that CDR Kerchner is a natural born Citizen. In fact, it is stated that Kerchner is a “citizen of the United States,” or in other words, a federal citizen-subject of federal jurisdiction — and therefore not entitled to be guaranteed a natural born Citizen President! Then people wonder why the courts dismiss these cases for lack of standing.

In the Kerchner case, the court seemingly strategically avoided dismissing for the reasons that I have just shown here, since that would have let the cat out of the bag and shown everyone how to bring a proper suit (however, it is entirely possible that the judge is not aware of the above legal reality). Instead, the court fabricated the excuse that the probability of CDR Kerchner being recalled to active duty was so remote that it could not be considered a real injury. A similar tactic was used by the court in the Purpura v. Sebelius case, also due in part to the fact that the Plaintiffs failed to declare themselves to be natural born Citizens and identify how they are a subset minority class, and what the particular injury is that exists to that minority class, regardless of whether or not the health care bill/law applies to them. By failing to properly raise the substantive political right issues in a timely fashion and specify the specific injury caused due to Obama’s not being a natural born Citizen President, those rights are considered waived and the court does not have to recognize them. If the court is not bound to recognize rights that are not properly raised and pleaded, then you have no injury and no standing. This is essentially what is happening in all of the cases against Obama so far. Further on in this dissertation, I will endeavor to show the correct way to raise these issues and the correct injuries to be claimed.
Why Filing a Criminal Complaint, or Millions of Complaints, is Unlikely to Accomplish Anything

What about just filing a criminal complaint with the Justice Department, FBI, or presenting evidence to a Grand Jury? Wouldn’t the sheer number of criminal complaints filed make a difference as to whether or not Obama is prosecuted and held accountable for his treasonous overthrow of our Constitutional Republic? Probably not. But why?

On the face of it, one would think that since it is such an apparent obvious fact that Obama is not a “natural born” Citizen since he was not born to a citizen father, one should just go to the FBI and Federal Justice Department (Federal Prosecutor) with a criminal complaint against the usurper or present such criminal complaint and evidence to a Grand Jury. Then the government should simply obtain an indictment from a Grand Jury and a federal prosecutor should arrest the usurper Obama and try him for the crimes of High Treason and other criminal fraud and racketeering charges. It sounds good in theory, but there are very real practical issues that prevent this from being an effective approach.

First, let’s say you could get a Federal Grand Jury to even take you seriously and look at your evidence. The first thing you would probably encounter might be obstruction of justice by the prosecutor’s office or sheriff’s office as they try to prevent you from contacting the Grand Jury or from presenting your evidence to them, since they falsely believe that the Grand Jury belongs to them and not to you. Then, supposing you could overcome these obstacles, once you have presented your evidence to the Grand Jury, its members must be smart enough to comprehend and believe that your evidence is true and correct before they will even issue any criminal indictments for the prosecutor to prosecute. This is no small task, since the jury members are brainwashed already into believing that being born in Hawaii qualifies as “natural born.” They may just think your allegations are outrageous because everyone knows that a naturalized citizen has all of the same rights as a natural born citizen, right? The Supreme Court has stated this and so has the news media, etc. But let’s say you were able to overcome the practical impossibility of getting the jury to understand the legal realities of “natural born” status, and by some miracle a Federal Grand Jury hands down criminal indictments against Obama for his treason. Then, those indictments would be handed over to a federal prosecutor to prosecute, and guess what? He would probably refuse to prosecute the case, which he legitimately can say is his right because he believes it is a case he cannot win. He can then just hide behind his sovereign immunity from prosecution for his declining to prosecute because he would have realized that it would be next to impossible to ever get a conviction against Obama. Why?

In order for a prosecutor to successfully arrest, try, and convict Obama for High Treason, which is a CRIMINAL OFFENSE, there are two very important elements that must be overcome. First, in criminal matters, the prosecutor must prove that Obama knowingly intended to commit the crime of Treason, or criminal fraud, etc. Second, the prosecutor must convince a jury by the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” These two bars would most likely be impossible for a prosecutor to overcome because Obama and his supporters in the 50 States’ Secretary of State’s Offices who put Obama on the ballot, the Federal Election Commission, the news media, and Congress itself have all helped to create the perfect crime due to lying for Obama to create perfect plausible deniability. By all of these parties covering for each other, they will have put so much doubt into the minds of any potential jury pool that it is very unlikely that an average prosecutor would be intelligent and knowledgeable enough to overcome all of the doubt of the jury and the plausible deniability. I believe this is why none of the criminal complaints so far have been pursued by any federal prosecutors and are unlikely to be pursued no matter how many complaints are filed. This is why they don’t even want to deal with those who try to file these complaints. They just dismiss those who file as crackpots or crazy “birthers” and, given this situation as I’ve just described, it is somewhat understandable why they might feel this way.

Let us take, for example, the element of intent. First, Obama is going to have the best lawyers in the world that money can buy. This case would be of monumental historic significance, and such unprecedented worldwide attention would be on the case that would make the coverage of the OJ Simpson trial look trivial. His attorneys would plead that Obama is not guilty because Obama totally believes that anyone who is born in the United States can be President; and since he was born in Hawaii he must qualify, and therefore he couldn’t have possibly intended to commit High Treason by overthrowing the Constitution.

So what would be his defense on this element of intent? First, he can point to the Federal Elections Commission and Congress who both gave him a pass leading up to the election. Certainly if he was not qualified, those 50 Secretaries of State, State Attorneys General, the Federal Election Commission, the Justice Department and FBI under President Bush, Congress, and the news media would have said something before the election, especially since they declared McCain to be qualified and said nothing about Obama.

Their silence regarding Obama was meant to imply that there was no issue for Obama since he was born in Hawaii. McCain was born in a foreign country, which seems to be why Congress got involved with McCain and ignored Obama, implying that the place of birth is all that matters. Then Obama can point to the CRS memo put out by the so-called legal experts for Congress which determined that the term “natural born Citizen” is not defined in the Constitution and means one born within the soil jurisdiction (both statements are inaccurate).

If it is not defined in the Constitution (a lie), then how can Obama even know how it is defined, let alone knowingly intend to commit treason according to an undefined term? One must first know how it is defined in order to determine if one is intentionally overthrowing a defined term. Then he will just point to a Supreme Court case for a definition and produce quotes that state that a naturalized citizen has all the same rights as a natural born citizen. The exception is the right to be President or Vice President, but the courts leave that part out because the court is talking about all of the same legal rights, not natural rights, and the right to be President is an inherited right which is a natural right, not a legal right. For proof that this is the case, examine this discovery made in a Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, 1856. Just look under “N,” look up “NATURALIZED CITIZEN” and read the entry there, paying particular attention to the first sentence of point number 2. But the fact that the courts have said that naturalized citizens have all the same rights as natural born Citizens will substantiate that he believed that it does not make any difference, hence no element of intent.

John Hancock was the first to sign the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain

How will any jury believe that Obama intended to commit treason when the courts say it does not matter if you are naturalized or natural born? It would take a federal prosecutor who has all of the understanding of a natural law philosophy scholar, history professor, political science professor, and a constitutional analyst to overcome the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and, frankly, I don’t think there is a prosecutor in the entire country who understands enough about Natural Law, Positive Law, the theory of our Constitutional Republic form of government, the philosophy and history behind the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the subject of sovereignty, in order to be up to the immense task of teaching and convincing a jury. Heck, Jedi Pauly can’t even get Unity Theorists to understand and accept that the place of birth has no bearing whatsoever on “natural born” in the context of Article II, and those are already convinced that Obama is not legitimate. Imagine how difficult it would be to convince those who believe Obama is legitimate that the place of birth has no relevancy to Article II “natural born” status and therefore Obama is not constitutionally qualified. That is why I don’t think you will ever get a federal prosecutor or Grand Jury to indict Obama and prosecute him, no matter how many criminal complaints are filed.

I am not discouraging anyone from filing a criminal complaint, however, because who knows? It might have a political effect. I am only arguing that if you want to engage the enemy in a battle, then the enemy must be forced to engage with you. If the enemy can simply evade any engagement, which is the case with a criminal complaint filed with a federal prosecutor or FBI, then you can never win a battle that does not happen. In order to have any chance at all of winning the war against tyranny and corruption, one must engage in battles where the enemy is forced to do combat with you and lose and cannot simply evade. This is why I refuse to file a criminal complaint myself, and I prefer a legal suit strategy that forces the defendants into a court of law where they are compelled to engage in a battle with the plaintiff. To that end, I will now outline a strategy that theoretically should force the government into a combat arena to engage in a losing battle with those who file the suit which potentially can remove Obama from Office and prevent him from being on the ballot in the next election.
The Proper Suit Which No One Has Yet Brought

TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE (SLAVERY)

Remember in 1776 the complaint of “taxation without representation?” This was the major injury being suffered by a minority of the King’s subjects which led to the Colonies rebelling and waging war with England and the King in order to free themselves from involuntary servitude, which is slavery. How is our current predicament any different? It is not. A minority of the population of the U.S. citizenry is suffering the same injury under Obama today; yet not one case in the courts so far in over two years, in almost 100 cases, has even bothered to raise this issue or had the awareness to sue the correct injuring parties for this assault and injury to one’s freedom and liberty.

PLAINTIFFS AND CLASS ACTION

Here is the reality. If you meet these three criteria below, then you are a subset political class of U.S. citizens that are in the minority, who have a particular concrete injury affecting only a minority of the population and not everyone who is a citizen. A suit can be brought by an individual who meets the criteria below, or it can be a class action, since the criteria below identifies a particular “class” of citizens who are all similarly injured.

1) You did not vote for Obama, or you voted believing he was constitutionally-qualified, only to discover later that he was not a natural born Citizen and so you were defrauded in an unlawful election.

2) You are a natural born Citizen yourself, meaning you were either born to a U.S. citizen father or citizen parents, plural; either will do.

3) You are a taxpayer. This is essential to show how you are particularly injured by Obama not being a natural born Citizen (taxation without representation, which is involuntary servitude, outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment and by most State constitutions, and illegal by the Fifth Amendment).

If you can meet the above three criteria then you have automatic standing in the courts. Here are the particulars of the injuries you are suffering.

Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution states that "No person except a natural born Citizen,...shall be eligible to the Office of President..."

PARTICULAR INJURY

The natural born Citizen clause of Article II is supposed to ensure that the President is born as a natural sovereign representative of the People so that he is a member of the same political class at birth as the number one political class, which is those who have both the right to representation in Congress and the right to be President; in other words, only other natural born Citizens. This is to secure the natural sovereignty of the Nation by guaranteeing that the only person authorized to give his consent on your behalf to the laws (bills from Congress that he signs) is a person from your political class, which is a natural non-privileged inherited class, so that we will not be ruled over by an artificially-inherited privileged class of nobility as we were before 1776.

If naturalized citizens can be President, then the situation is that they are born into a privileged class that is an artificial privilege of sovereignty bestowed by Congress with statutory authority. If Congress can bestow artificial sovereignty with a statute, and those individuals can be President and give their consent on behalf of the superior non-privileged class at birth (all men are created equal), then we are not a country but a world government, because any foreign father can just bring his pregnant wife to America and give birth on the soil and take over the government. A foreign Muslim King from Arabia can just bring his wife to America, or even have an entire harem of American citizen mothers, to give birth on our soil, and his son will be a foreign royal prince or king with a title of nobility who can also be President!

Since Obama is not lawfully qualified by the Constitution, he cannot represent your political class of those of you born to citizen fathers. The entire point of Article II is that your consent to the laws will be obtained by the government by your electing a representative from your political class who is then authorized by the Constitution (Article II natural born Citizen) to make laws on your behalf. Since no consent to any laws has lawfully been obtained for this subset political class, any demand put upon your labor (taxes) to pay for invalid laws to provide benefits for others, where no consent has been obtained from you, is, by definition, involuntary servitude (slavery) or TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. This is a loss of your natural political LIBERTY or political rights and rights to the fruits of your labor.

Furthermore, since both the State and Federal government have abandoned their responsibility under the Constitution and laws of the land to protect your sovereign political rights and the fruits of your labor from being taken from you without due process of law, the Tenth Amendment kicks in and you now have the duty and right to take matters into your own hands in order to protect your rights from being unlawfully taken from you. This means that you cannot and must not pay your taxes. Why not?

BECAUSE VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE IS LAWFUL IN THE U.S., IF YOU VOLUNTARILY PAY YOUR TAXES, THEN YOU HAVE NO INJURY TO YOUR POLITICAL RIGHTS DUE TO OBAMA’S NOT BEING NATURAL BORN AS LONG AS HE OCCUPIES THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT.

If you voluntarily cooperate with the usurper Congress and President by cooperating with the IRS, then you are voluntarily waiving your claims of the injury of being subject to taxation without representation, and, in effect, you are saying that Obama can represent you. Thus you yourself ultimately become responsible for failing to enforce the Constitution and Article II to secure your own rights, which is now your duty and responsibility under the Tenth Amendment when the government abandons its duty and responsibility to enforce the Constitution and laws to secure your rights. If you now voluntarily pay your taxes, you voluntarily throw away your own political freedom and rights and become a voluntary slave to a dictator government and are guilty of supporting tyranny against your fellow Americans, making you a traitor to them. You cannot claim an injury due to Obama’s illegitimacy, and you have no one to blame but yourself. You rightfully earn the wrath and hatred of your fellow American citizens, to say nothing of those who have fought and died for these freedoms that you are so willing to just throw away. You will be viewed by others as a contemptible loyalist.

But by withholding your taxes in order to secure your sovereign political rights in order to prevent yourself from being placed into involuntary servitude, you now are going to be penalized by the IRS and potentially put in jail and lose your physical liberty just for asserting your lawful sovereign political authority that you have the right to assert now under the Tenth Amendment and which you have no choice but to assert in order to prevent your enslavement. This condition has been foisted unlawfully upon you by Obama, the Congress, the Justice Department, the Federal Elections Commission, and the 50 States’ Secretaries of State who put Obama on the ballot in the federal election, and it is not your fault or due to your actions. You have been injured and placed in this jeopardy by their self-serving fraudulent actions.

Then, your sovereign political rights, consent to the laws, right to representation, right to the fruits of your labor, and right to your physical liberty are all taken from you unlawfully by the IRS’s demand that you pay taxes (provide labor) to a non-representative government which cannot lawfully obtain your consent as long as the President is not a natural born Citizen capable of lawfully representing your political class, as is guaranteed by Article II and the Tenth Amendment.

These are the particular specific concrete injuries that are being suffered by the minority political class of U.S. citizens which we have identified above. This grants standing, and the courts cannot argue against it with any valid reasoning or laws.

The writing of the U.S. Constitution was completed on September 17, 1787
Summation of Injuries (Minimum)

1) Loss of your constitutionally-recognized and protected sovereign political status under the law.

2) Loss of your right of consent to the laws.

3) Loss of the guaranteed Republic form of government.

4) Loss of the right of due process of law.

5) Loss of the right to the fruits of your labor.

6) Loss of your voting rights to a lawful election with valid representatives.

7) Potential loss to your physical liberty if you assert your sovereign rights under the Tenth Amendment to prevent your enslavement by withholding your taxes, so that you will not be subject to taxation without representation, which is slavery.

8) Violation of your rights to be free of slavery under Thirteenth Amendment and State laws.

9) Violation of your equal protection rights due to an election where some classes of citizens have a representative President to vote for and other classes who are entitled to a representative President are denied a valid representative. This scheme permits those who are born with artificial sovereign political rights bestowed as a privileged class at birth to enslave, via an election, the superior and prior non-privileged inherited class at birth, contrary to the Thirteenth Amendment.
Defendants

At a minimum:

1) The IRS

2) The Justice Department

3) The Federal Elections Commission

Subjects 2 and 3 above have worked in concert along with the News Media (might be a defendant), Congress (immune from suit), the 50 State Secretaries of State and State Attorneys General (both immune from suit), and the Democrat Parties (might be defendants). These parties and defendants have all worked together to empower the IRS to cause all of the injuries listed above. The IRS is the agency which provides the avenue for all of the injuries that are occurring. It is the IRS and its collection of taxes upon the subset political class which attaches the injury, amounting to the rubber-hitting-the-road with respect to the actual mechanism that actualizes the tyranny and loss of your rights due to the criminally-negligent abandonment of the Constitution and Rule of Law.
Remedy

The above injuries allow one to seek these remedies:

1) Temporary Restraining Order against the IRS to prevent them from enforcing the collection of taxes from the above minority political class of which you are a member until such time as the matter before the court is adjudicated based on the likelihood that you will prevail in court, which is a guaranteed foregone conclusion as a matter of law, and Obama is removed from Office.

2) Declaratory Judgment striking down all laws, executive orders, and appointments passed by Obama and the Congress since his taking office after the 2008 election so that no demand for taxes or borrowing by the government will result from the illegitimate Congress and President.

3) Court Order to remove all judges and executive branch officers appointed by Obama.

4) Declaratory Judgment finding the past and future elections to be invalid regarding Obama, and a Court Order prohibiting Obama from being on any ballot in the upcoming federal election in 2012, or any future elections for President.

5) Judgment for court costs and expenses and any money damages resulting from the injuries listed above.

6) Compensatory damages for emotional stress, aggravation, loss of sleep, etc., caused due to the insults and humiliation suffered for personal attacks against your person and damage to your name and reputation by those who label you a “birther,” crazy, etc. Or, loss of relationships with friends, relatives, and with those in society in general who disagree and support Obama against you which would not have happened if it were not for his fraud and the fraud being committed by many to keep the dictator in power. Many people have suffered quite a lot in their reputation and relationships and become pariahs to common society due to the fraudulent acts of Obama and the listed defendants. I can testify that my ability to concentrate and do my artwork and earn a living has been severely affected, because every day I live in fear and worry as I watch my country being transformed into a slave gulag like Hitler’s Germany. I have suffered financial loss in my work income as a result of Obama’s treason. I haven’t slept restfully for over two years and I have nightmares that someone will pound on my door and put me in jail because I refuse to obey invalid laws passed by an invalid Congress and unlawful criminal President, Judiciary, and Justice Department, etc.

Before the census-takers came around, I experienced great emotional stress waiting for that knock on the door when I knew I was going to have a confrontation with government by refusing to cooperate and answer any questions so I would not be guilty of treason against my fellow American citizens nor waive my political rights and cooperate with a treasonous government. I had to live in fear that I would be prosecuted for failing to comply with the census because I know there is no lawful representative government, and the census is all about representation, and under this so-called government it is now a fraud. I refuse to cooperate with fraud. Next, it will be forced compliance with health care or face fines and jail, and it is not even a valid law to be obeyed. I am already suffering emotionally with worry and fear knowing that the government is going to try to force me against my will to obey an invalid statute signed by a non-representative President and Congress who have not lawfully obtained my consent to any laws. What other invalid laws are going to put me in jeopardy? When will this nightmare end?

7) Punitive damages for the egregious gross negligence and incompetence amounting to criminal negligence by people who are so educationally-deficient and self-serving that they cannot read “natural born” Citizen in the Constitution and understand that this means naturally inherited, thus created by biological birth to citizen parents plural, or at the very least a citizen father, according to worldwide common customs at the time of the Adoption, according to Natural Law. And that the place of birth is a function of Positive Law which produces only “naturalized” citizens and has nothing at all to do with Article II qualifications for President, which is why the place of birth is irrelevant and not sufficient.

King George III was the monarch against whom the Coloinsts fought the Revolution
Summation/Proposal

All of the same offenses that were suffered by our Colonial forefathers in 1776 are occurring once again to U.S. citizens. History is repeating itself, and the political and legal condition of U.S. citizens is now identical in every way to what our Colonial forefathers suffered. The government is behaving like an elite privileged class of nobility lording over the people, ignoring the sovereign political rights and freedoms of the People that Nature guarantees to all mankind, and are meant to be secured to the People by the Constitutional provisions such as the Article II natural born Citizen clause and the Tenth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Thirteenth Amendment, the gold and silver money requirements of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5, and Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1, which were meant to provide us with money that is a natural right to use as a medium of exchange so that we do not invite government jurisdiction onto us for using private corporate fiat currency as a “legal tender” or a legal right, for the extinguishing of debts, which cannot actually pay a debt but just pushes us further into debt and involuntary servitude, enslaving us and future generations forever.

By ignoring Article II nbC provisions, the government has become identical to King George, refusing to recognize the natural equal sovereign authority of mankind. The government has become the master over the people, ruling over us as if we are slaves or citizen “subjects” of their authority and jurisdiction, rather than acting as our servant, subject to our authority and subordinate to our authority.

The courts refuse to recognize the sovereign political status of petitioners and decree that U.S. citizens have no standing in the King’s courts. The Congress is non-representative and incapable of making any valid laws, abandoning its legitimacy by empowering Obama to remain in Office, thereby creating invalid laws that make unlawful demands upon our labor to provide privileges and benefits for foreign powers and themselves, without our consent, all the while refusing to concede to the laws that we the People want and desire for our own benefit and well-being. They fundamentally rob us of our Republican form of governance, subjecting us to the tyranny of a dictatorship that looks more like a royal form of communism than a Republic of sovereign citizens ruled by laws and not men.

They wage war upon the American People by involving us in illegal foreign wars and false flag attacks like 9/11, killing thousands of innocent American citizens to engage us in phony occupations of other people’s countries in order to covet their natural resources (oil) to perpetuate a criminal military industrial complex that already has alternative technology that they keep secret from the American People that would render oil and the need for war to be obsolete. It just goes on and on.

All of these offenses occurred once before back in Colonial times, and all of the offenses came about through the crux of taxation without representation. That is how these offenses against the sovereign rights of the people occur. This is the avenue and vehicle of how the government’s arrogance and unlawful lordship are applied as an injury. It was the same in 1776 as it is today. This is where the rubber hits the road: through taxation without representation. Therefore, withholding your taxes and suing the IRS is the only way to fight back and secure your liberty and your political rights and reverse the relationship regarding who is the master and who is the slave. This is the only way to gain any standing in any U.S. court to address the real and tangible injuries that affect only a subset of the population at large. This is the only lawful power that any sovereign citizen has to peaceably hold government accountable and force Obama’s removal from Office, since the only other authority that is empowered to peaceably remove Obama is Congress and they do not seem interested in exercising their responsibility. This is the only suit that will hit the government where it hurts and force them to engage in combat in a fight that they cannot win. Therefore, that duty falls upon the natural born Citizen taxpayer. Any other lawsuit will fail for lack of standing and for failing to declare any tangible injury that is not general to the entire population. If you do not declare your status before the court as a natural born Citizen so that you will have an injury due to Obama’s not being a natural born Citizen and declare your injury to be taxation without representation, then there is no way you will ever advance a case in court. Virtually every case so far against Obama has been thrown out for lack of standing for no proper injury, because not one of them has attempted what I have described here in this dissertation. This is the only legal strategy that has any chance of gaining standing and removing Obama via the courts that ordinary citizens can accomplish. Other than this, only Congress can remove Obama peaceably. If you are serious about getting rid of Obama and restoring the rule of law, then you must either file your own case or a class-action lawsuit as outlined above.

Jedi Pauly

Natural Law Scholar and Constitutional Analyst
Contact

If you are serious about preventing a future Obama dictatorship and removing him and the damage he has done already to your freedoms and finances, then join with me to implement the above plan. Join the real revolution!

Paul Guthrie

317-485-4229

jedipauly@gmail.com

Grand Jury Criminal Presentments

Below in webpage format [.html] are the October 7th Super Grand Jury II Presentments. This page is for viewing only and should not be used for printing or serving formal documents.

If you would like to request the Presentments in the form of a .PDF download please use the buttom below.

Copyright © 2009 American Grand Jury - All rights reserved.


http://americangrandjury.org/public/


The State of ___________________

Jurisdiction: ____________________
Barack Obama, aka: Barack Obama,
Jr., aka: Barack Hussein Obama,
aka: Barry Soetoro; aka: Barry
Obama; aka: Barack Obama, presumed
President of theUnited States;
Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the DNC;
Democratic National Convention, et al.
____________________________
Defendants �
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Received by:

(Court stamp or person's name and signature)
Grand Jury Presentments
Re: Fraud (eligibility), Treason and Election Fraud

WARNING: These are Grand Jury Criminal Presentments. These documents are NOT a lawsuit or a Court filing. The Court named in the Jurisdiction above is being SERVED said Criminal Presentments according to the Constitutional rights as guaranteed to the Citizens of the United States of America.

Any Court clerk, employee, representative, Judge, Prosecutor or Officer of the Court that refuses to accept these Presentments can be held accountable for violating Constitutional law. Such violation may include "Obstruction of Justice" or "Misprision of Treason or Felony." Judicial Article III Courts are required to review and respond to these Presentments.

Jurisdiction: Article III Courts cannot abdicate their own Jurisdiction.

Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority

The "shall extend to all Cases" is a mandatory statement, as much as it is a universal one. If the Court refuses to extend its jurisdiction to all Cases, then it is acting unconstitutionally. The "arising under this Constitution", clearly explains that it is the duty of the Court to uphold the Constitution.

For the Court to refuse to uphold the Constitution, or the constitutional exercise of authority by the other 2 branches of government, for any reason whatsoever, is innately unconstitutional, because it is directly contrary to the duty of the Article III Judiciary.

Standing: When a crime is committed where such action expressly violates the Constitution, then first, there must be a determination if such action was unconstitutional; if it was, then all citizens should have standing by virtue of the 9th Amendment, which expressly reserves to "We the People" any right not specified in the Constitution. And since there is no right granted in the constitution, for any branch [or person] to violate the constitution, the people retain the right to see that it is enforced.

The Grand Jury Presentments presented herein have been handed down by virtue of the rights vested under Amendment 1 and 5:

Amendment I of the United States Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment V of the United States Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..

Constitutional "standing" regarding these presentments is therefore vested with the People.

Such standing by the People shall then require that the Judicial Court determine if the criminal activity being charged in said Presentments are indeed in violation of Constitutional law and if so, the Court must act to prosecute such charges.


PRESENTMENTS Served by Name: ______________________

Address (state and zip only): ______________________

Serving Person's Signature: _____________________


Attachments hereto are made a part hereof:

1) Grand Jury Presentments

2) Evidence as noted by Exhibits
State of ______________________

County of ______________________

On this, the __________ day of _______________, 2009, before me a notary public, the undersigned, personally appeared ________________________________ , known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to this document, and acknowledged that he/she is the person that served said Presentments to the Court as stated herein.

In witness hereof, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.

__________________________
Notary Public

Contact Information - Please contact the following person for responses, motions, or questions regarding these Presentments:

Robert Campbell
American Grand Jury
Nogales, AZ 85628


Presentments: American Grand Jury
October 7, 2009

On October 7, 2009 the American Grand Jury concluded its final day of deliberations and handed down presentments with regard to CRIMINAL activity, complaints and allegations presented before the Super Grand Jury II [hereinafter known as "Grand Jury"].

Such charges and presentments of criminal activity were handed down against the person(s) known as Barack Obama, aka: Barack Obama, Jr., aka: Barack Hussein Obama, aka: Barry Soetoro; aka: Barry Obama; aka: Barack Obama, presumed President of the United States [hereinafter known as "Obama"]; Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the DNC; Democratic National Convention; et al.

Said Grand Jury was duly organized and empowered under the laws of the Constitution of United States of America as follows:

Scope and Authority of the Grand Jury

The Constitution of the United States, Amendment 1 and Amendment 5, known as portions of the Bill of Rights state as follows:

Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,

Said Grand Jury was convened under the power and authority vested with the people as guaranteed under the Constitution, Amendments 1 and 5, Bill of Rights.

The convened Grand Jury was "national" in nature, represented by people of the United States, said people being citizens as were sworn under Oath as to Eligibility for and Service in behalf of the Grand Jury:

Each Jury member was eligible as follows:

1) A citizen of the United States;
2) A citizen of eighteen (18) years or older;
3) A resident of a State chartered within the United States of America;
4) Was in possession of his/her natural faculties, of ordinary intelligence, of sound judgment and of fair character;
5) Possessed a sufficient knowledge of the English language;
6) Were not serving as a trial juror in any court;
7) Had not been convicted of a malfeasance in office, a felony, or other high crime;
8) Were not serving as an elected public officer.

Each Jury member did SWEAR or AFFIRM as follows:

"That I (jury member) shall diligently inquire, and true presentment make, of all such matters as may be given me before the jury, or shall come to my knowledge, touching such service. I shall present no person through prejudice or ill will, nor leave any un-presented through fear or favor, but in all my presentments shall endeavor to present the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (affirmed) or so help me God (sworn)."

Said affirmation or sworn oath was duly subscribed by appearance of each jury member before a notary public whereby each jury member affirmed or swore the Oath of Office for service to the Grand Jury.

Each original jury member's "Oath of Office and Eligibility" document was sealed and recorded in a central location for purposes of empowering the Grand Jury.

A jury foreman (moderator) and alternate jury foreman were appointed to conduct the Grand Jury hearing.

Said Grand Jury hearing was conducted in secrecy. All evidence was sealed and protected. All presentments (charges) were voted upon. Said Grand Jury was comprised of 274 regular Grand Jury members, including 1 Jury Foremen and 1 Alternate Jury Foreman.
Criminal complaints placed before the Grand Jury:
COUNT ONE:

That Obama is NOT eligible under the laws of the Constitution of the United States as provided for in Article II, Section 1.

Said Article II, Section 1 states:

"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."

Wherefore, Obama is not a "natural born" Citizen for the following reasons:

1) Obama was NOT born of mother and father who were BOTH US Citizens.
2) Obama was a British Citizen "at birth."
3) Obama was born in Kenya.
4) Obama's mother did not meet US Immigration laws necessary to pass US Citizenship to Obama.

See Count One "EVIDENCE" Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
COUNT TWO:

The charge of "Treason" against Obama is before the people of the United States of America. That such complaint is CRIMINAL, of high crimes, and extremely damaging against the people.
Said complaint was formally brought by a Military Officer (retired) of the United States of America. All United States Military Officers are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States and such complaint is valid, explicit and proper; when an Officer is aware of such malfeasance of Treason by an offender it is that Officer's SWORN duty to come forward and present such accusation and complaint;

The Military Officer who filed the complaint is Lt. Commander Walter Fitzpatrick, III, retired, United States Navy and a graduate of the United States Naval Academy;

See Count Two "EVIDENCE" Exhibit 5 attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
COUNT THREE:

The Democratic National Convention in conjunction with Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the DNC, has committed fraud against the electorate, the States and people of the United States. Pelosi, in conjunction with Barack Obama and others, conspired to withhold the truth about Obama's eligibility when vetting and subsequently nominating Obama on the DNC ticket.

See Count Three "EVIDENCE" Exhibits 6 and 7
attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Deliberations of the Grand Jury hearing

Wherefore, the Grand Jury conducted its session over a period of 7 days from Wednesday, September 30, 2009 through Tuesday, October 6, 2009. The final voting days were conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday, October 6th through October 7th, 2009.

The American Grand Jury met in closed session comprising an attendance of 274 jury members, including 1 regular Jury Foremen (moderator) and 1 Alternate Jury Foreman. The Jury Foreman who was the moderator did not vote. The final vote included 273 jury members. The final voting count was tabulated and attested to on Wednesday, October 7, 2009.

Such hearing was conducted online in a private website for the express purpose of conducting said Grand Jury assembly and hearing. Such hearing was secure and unencumbered by outside intervention or public intrusion.

Each Jury member had full access to the evidence, written and visible (in the form of scanned and photographed documents embedded in said private website). Each Jury member was given 7 days (in advance) in private session (using the facilities of the private website) to study the evidence, present questions and form an opinion as to the validity and truthfulness of said evidence.

All counts (as listed above) were voted upon by the 273 jury members.

All communications (email, chat messages, jury foreman messages, surveys, forum reviews, reports, testimony) were conducted in written English. All said communications were securely saved in a database server as permanent records.

The final votes were as follows: 273 members voted "YES" to hand down the Presentments against Obama. The voting was unanimous.

The Grand Jury concluded the hearing after handing down the final vote and affirming said counts and presentments.

The Presentments and such Remedies as prayed for by the Grand Jury

Now therefore:

The Grand Jury hereby prays the Court take said Presentments and formally charge and prosecute Obama under Count One: fraud against the people of the United States of America by reason of:

That Obama is NOT eligible under the laws of the Constitution of the United States as provided for in Article II, Section 1.

Furthermore, the Grand Jury hereby prays the Court will formally charge and prosecute Obama under Count Two: Treason against the Constitution and People of the United States as follows:

That the charge of "Treason" against Obama is before the people of the United States of America. That such complaint is CRIMINAL, of high crimes, and extremely damaging against the people.

Furthermore, the Grand Jury hereby prays the Court will formally charge and prosecute Obama, Pelosi and the Democratic National Convention under Count Three: election fraud and conspiracy against the people of the United States of America as follows:

The Democratic National Convention in conjunction with Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the DNC, has committed fraud against the electorate, the States and people of the United States. Pelosi, in conjunction with Barack Obama and others, conspired to withhold the truth about Obama's eligibility when vetting and subsequently nominating Obama on the DNC ticket.

Given on this day and year of October 7, 2009 by final vote of the Jury Members of said the Grand Jury.

Said presentments are hereby attested to and verified by the Jury Foremen and Alternate Jury Foreman on this day and year as first above mentioned:



image002.jpg

________________________________________________

Robert J. Campbell, Jury Foreman and Moderator



image003.jpg

________________________________________________

Mack Ellis, Alternate Jury Foreman



votes.jpg
votes2.jpg



EXHIBIT 1 - Evidence

Obama "forged" Birth Certificate.

The Obama campaign and election representatives before and after the election posted the document [seen below] on the Internet for millions to see. This document has no information on it that could possibly prove Obama is a "natural born" citizen. On top of that, this document has been proven over and over by experts to be "photo shopped" and a forgery.
image013.jpg



EXHIBIT 2 - Evidence

Obama Birth Certificate showing him born in Kenya.

On September 4, 2009, an Affidavit and Copy of a Obama's Certificate of Birth was filed with the United States District Court in Southern California, represented by Orly Taitz. This document clearly shows Obama was born in Kenya.
image014.jpg



EXHIBIT 3 - Evidence

A. Obama NOT born of two US citizen parents

B. Obama was a British citizen "at birth."

� - Under the British Nationality Act 1948[BNA 1948], Obama's father was a British citizen/subject when he was born in the English colony of Kenya.

� - Obama's father continued to be such and not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born in 1961.

� - Under the same BNA 1948, at birth, regardless of where he was born, Obama also became a British citizen/subject by descent from his British father.

Attorney Mario Apuzzo:

It is public knowledge that Obama has admitted in his writings and otherwise that when he was born, his father was a British citizen/subject and not a United States citizen.. In fact, his father was not even a permanent resident of the United States, but rather only a student who would probably have been here only on a temporary student visa. Hence, not only was Obama's father not a United States citizen but Obama himself was born a British subject/citizen. Clearly, Obama is not and cannot be an Article II "natural born" citizen.



EXHIBIT 4 - Evidence

Obama's mother did not meet US Immigration laws necessary to pass US Citizenship to Obama at time of birth.

� - Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress, et al.

79. There exists a possibility that Obama could be an illegal alien.

80. Obama has yet to adequately prove that he was born in the United States.

81. Obama has publicly conceded that his father was born in Kenya and a British subject/citizen at the time of Obama's birth which precluded Obama from gaining any U.S. citizenship from his father at the time of his birth.

82. At the time of his birth in 1961, under the applicable statute Obama also could not gain U.S. citizenship from his U.S. citizen mother due to her being only 18 years old at the time of his birth. ENDNOTE 15.

83. There also exists the possibility that if Obama had U.S. citizenship at birth, he lost that citizenship when his mother's second husband, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen, adopted/acknowledged him as his son and along with his mother took him to live in Indonesia and when he later traveled as a foreign citizen with a foreign passport to Pakistan after the age of majority [18] when he was approximately 20.

ENDNOTE 15: A child born in wedlock and abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA, provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child).

Attorney Mario Apuzzo:

Obama's mother, born on November 29, 1942, was 18 years old when she gave birth to Obama on August 4, 1961. She was 117 days short from being 19 years old. But she had to be at least 19 years old (14 years old plus 5 years of U.S. physical presence) to satisfy the legal requirement of Section 301(g). Hence, if Obama was born in Kenya, under the Fourteenth Amendment, he is neither a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil nor one by naturalization. (There is no existing evidence that Obama was ever naturalized.) Nor would he qualify to be a U.S. citizen by any act of Congress by being born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent.

If this scenario were proven to be true, it can be reasonably argued that Obama is an illegal alien.



EXHIBIT 5 - Evidence

Fitzpatrick Treason Complaint filed with US Attorney Russell Dedrick and Assistant US Attorney Edward Schmutzer, Eastern District Tennessee.
image015.jpg
image016.jpg



EXHIBIT 6 - Evidence - DNC1

Fraudulent Nomination Document # 1 filed by the Democratic National Convention with 49 States' Election commissions.
image018.jpg



EXHIBIT 6 - Evidence - DNC2

Fraudulent Nomination Document # 2 filed by the Democratic National Convention with State of Hawaii Election Commission.
image020.jpg



EXHIBIT 6 - Evidence - DNC Details

Barack Obama refused throughout the vetting process to produce proof that he was a "natural born" citizen as required by the Constitution. On Obama's word alone, Nancy Pelosi caused documents to be signed and distributed to forty nine of the fifty States hiding the fact Obama was not eligible for nomination or election. Many others, including State DNC organizations, allowed the truth about Obama's eligibility to be hidden from the electorate and the public. The charge of fraud is now clearly a conspiracy of fraud against the electorate, public and the United States of America.

TWO nomination documents were prepared. The second document [DNC2] included the "Constitutional" certification within the declaration:

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution..

Nancy Pelosi, the DNC and local State DNC Chapters filed the "non-Constitutional" certification document with the Election Commissions in forty-nine of the fifty States.

The two separate Nomination Certifications are complete with date stamps, matching signatures, even the same Notary of Public authentication.

As a result of the "Constitutional" Nomination Certification not being filed with forty-nine States the Election Commissions within these States were defrauded as the truth about Obama's vetting and eligibility was purposely withheld, therefore misrepresented.

The 50th State, Hawaii, is a mystery as to why the DNC submitted the Constitutional Certification. It is assumed the State of Hawaii demanded the wording be included in the Certification. However, by filing this Constitutional "version" with Hawaii and not the other 49 States it ADDS to the fraud, conspiracy and guilt. Why would the DNC even prepare (2) documents? The issue still remains, Obama is not a "natural born" citizen and the vetting of him by the DNC was misrepresented and fraudulent.

Not only is this fraud, it is a conspiracy because multiple parties were involved.



EXHIBIT 7 - Evidence

Adding to the guilt and the intentional fraud conspired by the DNC, it should be recognized that the Republican National Convention (RNC) filed nomination documents with ALL 50 States declaring their national candidates as " meeting the Constitutional requirements for the Office.."
image021.jpg