Saturday, June 30, 2012


Unexpected turn in eligibility case: 'Put it on record!'
'This judge can't get out; if he screws around, he's violating law'

The attorney in a publicized challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president told WND the Florida case took an unexpected turn in court yesterday, one he says “pulled the rug out” from Obama’s lawyers and should force a quick answer from the judge.
Attorney Larry Klayman told WND he had expected an “uneventful” hearing in the ongoing case, which returned before Judge Terry Lewis yesterday, but instead found a legal tangle that he believes means Lewis will “have to make a decision, have to put it on record.”
Klayman originally filed the challenge to Obama’s eligibility for the ballot on behalf of Michael Voeltz, who identifies himself as “a registered member of the Democratic Party, voter and taxpayer in Broward County.”
As WND reported, however, attorneys representing Obama at the case’s main hearing, which was livestreamed by WND, argued that the Florida presidential preference primary, which listed Obama as the only Democrat nominee, didn’t make him the party’s nominee for president. They urged Lewis to decide that Obama is not yet the Democratic nominee for president and therefore ignore evidence challenging his eligibility.

But Klayman told WND yesterday that Florida law is unique in that it gives the average voter “much greater freedom to challenge eligibility and fraud than most other states.”
Florida law permits filing for “declaratory relief” at any time, Klayman said, a move that would force a judge to rule on the facts of the case even before a decision on whether to compel some legal action. In other words, in the Voeltz case, instead of waiting until the nominating convention – which Klayman called a “shell game” Obama attorneys are playing to put off the issue –Lewis would be pushed to make a declaration on Obama’s eligibility “whether nominated or not.”
“Lewis would have to reach a decision; he would have to put it on record,” Klayman said. “By amending for declaratory relief, we’re pulling the rug right out from Obama and the Florida secretary of state.”
Klayman told WND Obama’s lawyers immediately went into a tailspin and filed to have the amendment for declaratory relief stricken, which the judge granted, arguing he wanted to wait to issue a formal decision in the case.
But Klayman said his team is willing to file a stand-alone complaint for declaratory relief with Lewis as soon as next week and “pull the rug out from under him, too.”
“This judge can’t get out from under his legal requirement,” Klayman said. “If he screws around, he’s violating law.”
In hundreds of cases filed challenging Obama’s eligibility, the full range of questions – from Obama’s birth records, charged by some as fraudulent, to the Constitution’s meaning of “natural born citizen” – have never been ruled upon, dismissed typically on questions of who has “standing” to bring the challenge.
Klayman, however, told WND, “It doesn’t matter how Lewis rules, the losing side will appeal, and this case is going up, maybe all the way to the Supreme Court.”
Still, he said, “I want Lewis to address the issue of eligibility and create a record, so we can take it up before the election. I’m still confident, hopeful that will happen.”
Following the case’s first hearing, the judge said he would review the law, but he had pointed questions for both sides.
For example, When Klayman noted the Founding Fathers established the natural-born citizen requirement because they wanted to avoid foreign influence on a president from a non-citizen parent, Lewis countered by posing a hypothetical situation in which a candidate’s two U.S.-citizen parents later emigrate to Israel.
Klayman said the Founding Fathers’ attempt to avoid a conflict of interest in the Oval Office did not include every possible scenario.
The judge asked whether the Democratic Party, as a private group, had a right to choose a nominee, even if that person was ineligible.
Lewis questioned a citation by Obama’s attorneys of a Florida law that suggests when only one person is on the ballot, that person automatically becomes the nominee. He told the attorneys he would review the details of the law.
The arguments by Obama’s attorneys reflected their request that the judge simply dismiss the case because they claim a sitting president chosen by his party at multiple levels is not yet officially the nominee.
Klayman accused the Obama attorneys trying to delay the issue, as numerous courts did in 2008 until the election was over and Obama was inaugurated.
The judge could remove Obama’s name from the November ballot in Florida, a crucial swing state, should he determine that the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen” can be applied at the primary level.
Klayman told WND that during a hearing last month on discovery issues in the case, Lewis noted that the plaintiff’s brief cited U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett from 1875 defining “natural born citizen” as the offspring of two citizens of the nation, while the Obama campaign’s arguments provided no citations.
Defining the term is critical. Such a step has not been reached in any of the more than 100 legal cases that have been brought over Obama’s eligibility.
The U.S. Constitution’s “natural born citizen” requirement is not imposed on other federal officials. The writings of the Founders indicate the requirement was meant to ensure that no person who had divided loyalties would serve as commander in chief.
Klayman has argued that since Obama, by his own admission, was not born to two citizen parents, he is not a “natural born citizen” and, therefore, is ineligible to be a candidate on the state’s election ballot.
Florida’s election statutes provide broad protections for voters to ensure that the integrity of the election system is beyond reproach. One of the laws allows voters to challenge the nomination of a candidate who is not eligible for the office he is seeking.
WND earlier reported on the case, which raises some of the same issues that have been raised in other state ballot challenges. Specifically it alleges:
On or about April 2011, only after years into his presidency, and under media and political pressure, Barack Hussein Obama published on the Internet an electronic version of a purported birth certificate alleging his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961, to American citizen mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Kenyan British subject father, Barack Obama Senior.
There is credible evidence indicating that this electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered. No physical, paper copy of the actual long form birth certificate has been produced in order to definitively establish Barack Hussein Obama’s birth within the United States.
The action follows by weeks the release of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation into Obama’s eligibility. The investigation by professional law enforcement officers working on a volunteer basis for Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse found probable cause that Obama’s birth certificate was forged and fraudulently presented as a genuine document.
The plaintiff has submitted affidavits from Arpaio and others to support the claim.
The complaint explains that even if Obama was born within the United States, he is still not a “natural-born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution. That’s because his father was born in the British Colony of Kenya on June 18, 1936, making him a British subject, according to the British Nationality Act of 1948.
A case filing explains: “No physical, paper copy of defendant Obama’s birth certificate has been presented to establish his eligibility. … Defendant Obama has electronically produced a copy of what he purports to be his ‘birth certificate.’ Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that the electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered.”
When asked by Judge Lewis, Klayman confirmed he could add to the complaint details of the evidence Obama was not born in the U.S.
Obama’s attorneys told the judge that other courts have decided that courts should not make such decisions and the process is better handled by Congress. They said state courts especially are not suited to making a decision on the eligibility of Obama.
“They are precluded from judging the qualifications of candidates for president of the United States,” the Obama attorneys said.
But Klayman pleaded with the judge to decide the issue, because a determination made after the election could negate Florida’s vote.
“Florida has a special duty not just on behalf of the citizens of Florida but on behalf of the United States,” he said.
Klayman referred to a recent Obama order to underscore the significance of the Founders’ desire that the president not have divided loyalties or “not even a hint of foreign influence.”
“Just a few days ago, he issued an executive order … which in effect allows illegal alien students who came into this country … to remain in this country. … The president’s own father was in fact here on a student visa and ultimately was deported because that visa expired.”
Klayman reiterated the Supreme Court’s Minor v. Happersett definition of “natural born citizen” as a person born in the country of two citizen parents.
“The point is this, your honor,” said Klayman. “The president is not like everybody else. If that was the case the framers would have said ‘citizens’ [can be president.]”
He accused Obama’s attorneys of trying to “push the issue down the road” until the legal process would fail due to lack of time.

Obama caught in another one.

Friday, June 29, 2012

A Point in Time - Understanding “Natural Born Citizen": - By Mike Voeltz

 A Point in Time  - Understanding “Natural Born Citizen":
By Mike Voeltz

To understand Article 2 Section 1 Clause 4, one must simply look at it through the prism of the time it was written. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, 1789, the time referred to in the clause, there were only 2 sets of “citizens” in America, and all were eligible to be President. Those two sets were the citizens of the new states in 1789, and the natural born Citizens, or those born of the citizens of those new states since the Declaration of Independence.

From the American perspective the ante nati, the time when those born in the colonies were British, and adhered to perpetual allegiance to the Crown, ended on July 4, 1776. The British perspective is that the Treaty of Peace, ending the Revolutionary War, in 1783, ended the ante nati. (28 US 99, 121). The Treaty of Peace released all British subjects from perpetual allegiance who were resident in the colonies and adhered to the Revolution (they were given until 1789 to leave if they desired), and the Americans adopted law of nations or “the Law of Nature and Nature’s God” on July 4, 1776.

The case of Inglis v. Trustees of the Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 US 99 (1830), only 41 years after ratification, illustrates that point in time of 1789. The reason that case is annotated to Article 2 section 1, clause 4, by the 43rd Congress, in the Revised Statutes 1873, is because of that illustration. It proves that Congress, in 1873, thought that natural born Citizens were born in the US of 2 US Citizen parents. The clause has never been amended, and must mean exactly what it did then. Any blurring, clouding, or obfuscation of the meaning of natural born Citizen is thwarted by the simple logic of examining the point in time the clause was ratified.

According to the holding of the majority in Sailors v. Trustees (1830), John Inglis, even if born within the United States after the Declaration of Independence, would have been considered a British subject, because he followed the election of his father, Charles, as a British subject, and was too young to make that election.  “The facts disclosed in this case, then, lead irresistibly to the conclusion that it was the fixed determination of Charles Inglis the father, at the declaration of independence, to adhere to his native allegiance. And John Inglis the son must be deemed to have followed the condition of his father, and the character of a British subject attached to and fastened on him also, which he has never attempted to throw off by any act disaffirming the choice made for him by his father.” 28 US 99, 124

“2. If born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September of the same year, when the British took possession of New York, his infancy incapacitated him from making any election for himself, and his election and character followed that of his father, subject to the right of disaffirmance in a reasonable time after the termination of his minority, which never having been done, he remains a British subject and disabled from inheriting the land in question.” Id., 126

John Inglis stood on the same ground as Barack H. Obama stands today, born in America (supposedly) as a British subject, of a British subject father. John Inglis certainly was not a natural born Citizen at that point in time; he could not even inherit land in America, much less be President. Likewise, Barack H. Obama, born British in 1961 is certainly not natural born by the holding of Inglis.

In 1789 only two sets of US Citizens existed, and there was no Congressional naturalization law yet. Those that were resident in the colonies in 1789, who were either born in the ante nati, in the colonies, as British subjects, or who had immigrated and resided prior to 1789, were naturalized by the ratification of the Constitution as US Citizens. Those born of those new US Citizens since 7/4/1776 were the natural born Citizens, needing no naturalization. The first natural born Citizens were only 13 years old at the time of ratification, so the “citizens at the time of the ratification” were grandfathered in to eligibility. ALL US citizens, resident in the colonies in 1789, were eligible to be President, and NONE of them were British. Of course some of them were born British, but were released from that perpetual allegiance by adherence to the Revolution, and by the Treaty of Peace, 1783, and were grandfathered in to eligibility by Article 2. Barack H. Obama was born 172 years too late to take advantage of that clause.  The Inglis case illustrates perfectly that point in time when law of nations, and the right of election, replaced British Common Law and perpetual allegiance to the Crown. The fact that Congress annotates Article 2, section 1, clause 4 with Inglis tells us that the thought that “no one knows” what natural born meant, or that it was “not defined” is utter nonsense.

“British doctrine therefore is that the American ante nati, by remaining in America after the treaty of peace, lost their character of British subjects. And our doctrine is that by withdrawing from this country and adhering to the British government, they lost, or, perhaps more properly speaking, never acquired the character of American citizens.

This right of election must necessarily exist in all revolutions like ours, and is so well established by adjudged cases that it is entirely unnecessary to enter into an examination of the authorities. The only difficulty that can arise is to determine the time when the election should have been made. Vattel, B. 1, ch. 3.” Id., 122  

“The law of nations is a law founded on the great and immutable principles of equity and natural justice.” The Venus, 12 US (8 Cranch) 253, 297 (1814)

Justice Gray, in Wong Kim Ark, cites Dicey’s “Conflict of Laws” that, "'British subject' means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown… 'Natural-born British subject' means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.'” 169 US 649, 658

“Citizens” are not “subjects” (isn’t that what the Revolutionary War was about?), and have the “right of election” according to the Inglis case. The new US Citizens threw off perpetual allegiance, which in the eyes of the laws of nations is the bane of all freedom loving people.

Natural Allegiance, or the obligation of perpetual obedience finds no countenance in the law of nations, and is in direct conflict with the incontestable rule of that rule of law. Twiss, Law of Nations in Peace, pg. 231

“The doctrine of perpetual allegiance is inadmissible in the US, that matter settled by the Revolution”. Cushing, Foreign Relations of the United States, Part 2, pg. 1280 (William Cushing served on the first Supreme Court).

There is no British Common Law in America. It ended in 1776. If the right of election supplanted perpetual allegiance at that point, then to say that “natural born Citizen” is the same as “natural born subject” is a nonsensical lie.

The Liberals "THEY"

'They'By Robert Burke
They took prayer out of the schools.  We grumbled, but did nothing.  They took George Washington's portrait out of the classrooms.  We grumbled, but did nothing.  They started teaching collective socialist doctrine to our children.  We grumbled, but did nothing.
They started awarding trophies to every player in school team sports, winners and losers.  They replaced health classes with sex education, and taught it to grade school children.  They promoted failing students in the name of self esteem.  We grumbled, but did nothing.
They raided the Social Security fund.  They turned once great universities into socialist indoctrination centers.  They fed us a steady diet of sex, perversion, and violence in our music, movies, and television.  They told us that sexual predators and murderers can be "rehabilitated."  They told us that morality itself is "relative."  They created a huge underclass totally dependent on government largesse.
They created a federal bureaucracy answerable to no one, with pay and retirement benefits triple those of the general populace.  They created an imperial presidency and made the Congress inconsequential.  They fostered the destruction of our manufacturing and agriculture bases.  They permitted the invasion of our country by illegal aliens, and chastised anyone who objected.  They legalized and promoted the systematic murder of millions of the innocent unborn.  We grumbled, but did nothing.
"They" have achieved this transformation of American society in a relatively short period of time.  When I was a boy, no one would have even believed it possible.  We said the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer to Almighty God in school every morning.  We were left back if we failed.  We learned to congratulate the winners of the game when we lost.  We respected our parents, our teachers, our elders, and the police.
We revered Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and all of those who gave us this great nation.  We knew that actions had consequences, and that hard work would be rewarded.  We could go to any movie playing in town, with our entire family, and not be assaulted with pornography and gratuitous violence.  We were well acquainted with the concept of shame, and we knew the difference between right and wrong.
Were we perfect?  Certainly not.  But we weren't the morally, sexually, politically ambiguous creatures that now inhabit much of America.
Like with the proverbial frog in a pot of cool water, they turned the heat up slowly, changing the culture incrementally, until we arrived at our current condition -- a crumbling, corrupt society.
Who are "they"?
One might say "they" are the Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive world movement, but then, that would be politically incorrect, and dismissed by the educated, enlightened New-Age American.  In true Alinsky fashion, they batter us with labels.  Oppose illegal immigration?  Xenophobe!  Oppose the LGBT agenda?  Homophobe!  Oppose affirmative action?  Racist!  Oppose abortion?  Misogynist!
Can we blame "them"?
No.  They are just doing what comes naturally to someone who follows Marxist philosophy, just  as they have done in Russia, China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, England, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and all the other countries where this pernicious philosophical cancer has taken root.
Can "they" be stopped?  Certainly.
By answering the difficult question: who are we?
We are the apathetic, complacent ones who were too busy playing on Facebook, watching football, texting our friends, or following the decadent antics of some vacuous celebrity to stand in opposition to "them."  In fact, we are as guilty as "they" are, but by omission, not commission.
We must gird ourselves, get involved, and resolve to halt, and reverse this onslaught.  We owe it to our children.  We owe it to those who fought and died to bequeath us this great nation.
Fight them.  Fight them in the polling booth, the school board meeting, the city council meeting, the media, and everywhere else the opportunity presents itself.  Inure yourself to criticism.  Harden yourself against being ostracized.  Wear the derogatory labels placed on you as badges of honor.  Teach your children what being an "American" actually means.  Take them to church or synagogue.  Teach them to think critically.  Give them a strong moral foundation.  Be firm in your resolve.
The tail has wagged the dog for too long.  It's time for the dog to have his day.

Page Printed from:

Thursday, June 28, 2012

First Nationwide Counseling Available in the Privacy of Your Own Home

First Nationwide Counseling Available

in the Privacy of Your Own Home

Best Self USA is a full spectrum counseling and life skills training facility in Naples, FL offering distance counseling services in the privacy of your own home by use of voice, video, online and other media.


For Immediate Release

Phone: 239-591-4565

(Naples, FL) Best Self USA is an innovative Counseling and Life Skills Clinic.  They have been helping people for more than 40 years, and are applying the latest research and technology.

Responding to the needs of their clients is what motivates Best Self USA to develop new services and techniques.  Best Self USA is unique in offering long distance services as well as helping their local clients in Naples, Florida.  The long distance counseling services grew out of the need to remain in contact with clients who live in Naples seasonally and elsewhere off-season. 

Recently Best Self USA has launched a new web site, added new staff members, and expanded their services to include full spectrum counseling and life skills training to a nationwide clientele. They are now serving clients across the country.

Other groundbreaking services provided by Best Self USA include:

The staff at the Best Self Clinic can help you to

become the best you can be!

Obamacare Ruling by SCOTUS - Comment from a Friend

Howdy Guys,

I can't tell you how disappointed I was and how angry I suddenly became.  I railed off a note to John Cornyn (my senator -- the other one is RINO Kay Bailey Hutchison who's quitting to run for guv) and I called Sam Johnson (my House Rep).  We're morphing to radical communism much faster than I dreamed possible.  The problem as always is Junior plays to the majority that wants free stuff.  It's a formidable number.  He enjoys wide support by illegal aliens & citizens who stand with them, 92% of the Blacks, women, labor, media morons and the education crowd.

I listened to a panel of doctors on Fox.  Again, I was shocked to hear how ignorant they were.  They kept talking about FREE access to medical care for everyone.  They completely missed the FACT that we're already being taxed to death and soon will be insufficiently solvent to provide that FREE care.  And when the money runs out, the entire population will have no alternatives.  Rebuilding after Junior's destruction will take decades, perhaps a century.  If the House doesn't DEFUND this terrible law and repeal it soon thereafter, we're screwed.  thx.  Tom

Happy 4th of July From the Sewell Household

It is also mango harvesting season.

OBAMA - Matt Patterson on O.B.A.M.A.

Hat tip to Sue Ellen

Sue Ellen has left a new comment on your post "OBAMA - Even the Washinton Post is Seeing the Trut...":

This opinion piece by Matt Patterson appeared on The American Thinker web site 18 August 2011. This article has never appeared in either the print or online version of The Washington Post. Mr. Patterson is not a columnist for The Washington Post. He has contributed opinion pieces to The Washington Post; this is not one of them.


Matt Patterson (columnist for the Washington Post, New York 
Post, San Francisco Examiner)

Government and Society 

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an 
inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass 
hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. 

How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment 
beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, 
direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most 
consequential job? Imagine a future historian examining Obama's 
pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite 
unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a 
"community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of 
legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often 
did he vote "present") ; and finally an unaccomplished single term in 
the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential 

He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a 
legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the 
white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's 
"spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as 
Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future 
historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected 

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed 
the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white 
candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like 
Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted 
a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the 
eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American 
injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink 
in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of 
his skin. 

Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when 
he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) 
"non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become 
the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest? 
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama 
phenomenon -affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But 
certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and 
regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially 
white liberals, feel good about themselves. 

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the 
back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not 
qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and 
high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority 
students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and 
deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative 
action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of 
the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that 
isn't racism, then nothing is. 

And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled 
by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was 
told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at 
Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre 
record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no 
record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was 
told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the 

What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time 
Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications 
nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. 
Those people - conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed. 

The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of cliches, and that's when he has 
his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely 
think or speak at all. 

Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth – it's all 
warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and 
everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited 
this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his 
own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. 

But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for 
anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly? 

In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the 
temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. 

When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the 
current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have 
gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.

Here's Matt's website.

Part of it is a rehash of a Post article by Norman Podhoretz. But... This is what my research has turned up'
Matt Patterson is editor of Labor Watch and Green Watch at CRC, and the 2011-2012 Warren T. Brookes Journalism Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Matt's columns and commentary have appeared in some of the nation's top newspapers and political sites, including the Washington Post, New York Post, Washington Examiner, American Thinker, and From 2009 to 2010, he was a Washington Fellow at the National Review Institute. Previously he served as research assistant to Charles Krauthammer and political coordinator for the Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign. 

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Florida Paralegal Checkmates Obama’s Lawyers

Florida Paralegal Checkmates Obama’s Lawyers
Obama Spurns Offer to Limit Discovery to His Birth Records

Jerry Collette, plaintiff in the Pasco County Florida Ballot Challenge case against Barack Obama, stated that attorneys for Obama have declined an offer from Collette to limit discovery to Obama’s birth records. Collette said, “My offer was very simple. If I survive the motions to dismiss, Obama would permit me access to the original and microfiche birth records in Hawaii and the copies he claims to have gotten from Hawaii last year, then I would waive all other discovery. They declined my offer.”

Sam Sewell, Director of the Florida Ballot Challenge said, “This is amazing. Collette was willing to give up access to Obama’s social security, draft, and college records, any of which could contain information very damaging to Obama, yet Obama is still unwilling to release his original birth records.

George Miller, Assistant Director of the Obama State Ballot Challenge added, “Collette was also willing to give up his right to depose Obama. That was huge. Remember, the lie that led to Bill Clinton’s impeachment occurred during a deposition.”

Pamela Barnett, Director of the Obama State Ballot Challenge said, “Obama certainly must believe that there is something worth hiding in those original birth records.

Collette is a paralegal and the creator of the “Do It Yourself Ballot Challenge Kit.” He is handling his case “pro se” (without an attorney.)

Sam Sewell said “The reasons I teamed up with Jerry Collette are because he is a fellow Christian, he is a fellow clergyman, he is a fellow pastoral counselor, he is a fellow MENSA member, and he has a reputation for developing very creative outside the box legal theories and strategies. His offer to Obama’s lawyer was a brilliant move. The moment Collette made the offer, Obama was stuck in a no-win situation. If Obama had accepted, Collette would get access to the original birth records.  By declining, Obama again admits to the world, by implication, that he still has something to hide.”  Checkmate!

The case is Collette v. Obama, case number: 512012CA 2041WS. The next hearing is scheduled for July 10, 2012, at 3:30 pm at the West Pasco Judicial Center in New Port Richey FL.


Are you interested in being a plaintiff? We have developed a "Do It Yourself Ballot Challenge Kit" that is useable in many states and is available at:

WE NEED YOUR HELP! If you are interested in lending support to a Do It Yourself citizen activist filing in one of the local jurisdictions, please mark your donation: DIY Challenge. By filing cases in multiple jurisdictions, we greatly reduce our financial output, and multiply our chances of finding ONE courageous judge who will move on this case in a timely manner.

or send a check to:

Constitution Action Fund

10202 Vanderbilt Drive

Naples, FL 34108

Donations to this PayPal account go directly to Sam Sewell's LLC which is acting as trustee for one of the nonprofit ballot challenge orgs,

Sam takes no trustee fees for this and has already personally contributed over $5,000 to support the Florida Ballot Challenge.

Top of Form