It is obvious that U.S. Attorney, - U.S.A. The Republicusa-the-republic.com/items of interest/Barack_Obama... · 2012-09-25 · Honorable Judge Timothy M. Burgess As the proceeding

Page 1 of 4

Certified Mail No. 7010 2780 0000 7484 1966

Gordon Warren EpperlyP.O. Box 34358

Juneau, Alaska 99803

Tel: (907) 789-5659

September 14, 2012

Honorable Judge Timothy M. BurgessUnited States District JudgeFederal Building, U.S. Court House222 W. 7th Avenue, NEAnchorage, Alaska 99513-7564

Honorable Judge Timothy M. Burgess

As the proceeding before your Court in regard to the matter of Gordon Warren Epperly v.

Barack Hussein Obama, et.al (Case No. 1:12-cv-00011-TMB) has been dismissed with “Prejudice,” I find the

need to address a very serious matter through the mailing of this letter.

The only Documents that I have received from the “Clerk of the Court” in regard to your “Court Order to

Dismiss the ‘matter’ with Prejudice” was the Clerk of Court’s two (2) page entry of your “Court Order.”

I never seen nor have I ever received a copy of your “Court Order” with “Memorandum of Law” until I was

given notice by my Daughter that I made the News within an Internet Article written by a Reporter

for KTOO Radio here in Juneau, Alaska. I downloaded a copy of your “Court Order” from an Internet Link

that was provided within that Article.

The same day that this Internet Article of KTOO Radio was published, I received in the USPS Mail an

“OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REMAND BY RESPONDENT BARACK OBAMA:” by the Office

of U.S. Attorney. Why would the U.S. Attorney be mailing such an “Opposition to Motion” if the Office of

the U.S. Attorney received a copy of your “Court Order?” It is obvious that none of the Parties of your

that “All outstanding Motions are DENIED as Moot.” And if all outstanding “Motions” are declared to

be “MOOT,” then what “Motion” is the U.S. Attorney making “Opposition“ to?

Court Proceedings were ever in receipt of your “Court Order.” Did you not state within your “Court Order”

Page 2 of 4

It is obvious that U.S. Attorney, Karen L. Loeffler and her Assistant U.S. Attorney, E. Bryan Wilson have an

agenda and that is to obstruct the proceedings that is before the Office of the Director, Gail Fenumiai of

the Alaska Division of Elections. It is obvious that the U.S. Attorney would like to use her Office to obstruct

the Alaska Director of Elections, Gail Fenumiai to perform her duties under the Election Laws of

the State of Alaska to determine the eligibility of the names of Presidential Candidates to appear on

the Election Ballots for the State of Alaska. For what other purpose would these two (2) Individuals be using

their “Offices” to obstruct the duties of a Superior Court Judge to oversee the Administrative Proceedings of

an Election Office of a State?

Everyone is waiting for you, Judge Timothy M. Burgess to release this “matter” that is before your Court to

the Alaska Superior Court so that Judge Philip Pallenberg may continue to perform his duties to oversee

the “ministerial duties” of Lieutenant Governor, Mead Treadwell and Director of Elections, Gail Fenumiai.

NASED ROSTER of State Elections Directors and every Member of the Alaska State Legislature to give

answers for your behavior.

I notice in the last Paragraph of Assistant U.S. Attorney, E. Bryan Wilson’s “Opposition to Motion …” that he

would like you to “Sanction” me for presenting my understanding of the U.S. Constitution and the Laws of

our Nation to your Court in my defense. This is the most outlandish and disgusting conduct that can be made

by an Officer of your Court.

I was in receipt of a telephone call during one of my Cases that I had before the U.S. District Court for

the District of Alaska in the late 1990’s wherein I was attempting to exhaust all Remedies showing that

the People have no recourse of Litigation nor access to any other Branch of Government to question the

adoption of Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. I was told that if I made another appearance before

the U.S. District Court or any other Court of the United States, I would be “Sanctioned” in an amount

of $10.000.00. It appears that U.S. Attorney Karen L. Loeffler and her Assistant U.S. Attorney,

E. Bryan Wilson is asking you to make good that threat. I would like to remind you that it was you and

the U.S. Attorney that dragged me into your Court against my will. It was not me, Gordon Warren Epperly,

that initiated what you believe to be an Article III Court “Proceeding” for you to issue forth “Court Orders

of Dismissal.”

If you do not release this matter back to the Alaska Superior Court, you may be facing every Member of

Page 3 of 4

This authority to issue forth “Sanctions” by Federal Court Judges was granted by the U.S. Congress. It was

never the intent of the U.S. Congress that the Judges was to use this newly founded power to “Oppress”

the People and to discourage the People from coming before the Federal Courts, but that is exactly what

our Federal Judges are doing when they use this newly founded power of destruction upon the People that don’t

have the means to employ Members of the BAR Association to represent them. The legal system today has

been reduced to nothing more than an institution of “legalized extortion” for the benefit of the Members of

the BAR Association and the People are getting fed up with it.

I have a grievance with you. Looking at your “Court Order” that I just downloaded off the Internet, I see that

our Federal and State Judges that they have against the People of which they represent. When Litigants, such

as me, Gordon Warren Epperly, that have no means to pay the extortion fees of the Members of

the BAR Association to represent them, everything that “Pro Se” Litigants have to say are approached with the

infamous word: “frivolous” and the Judges use that word as an excuse to dismiss “Cases” and “Proceedings”

without providing “Documentation” in support of their “Court Orders.”

In the “matter” that was before your Court, I made it clear within the Record of the Court that I had

no Article III Federal Court “Standing” to entertain any “Proceeding” before your Court, a position that was in

full agreement with the Legal Counsels of all Respondents to the “Proceeding.” But apparently with

U.S. Attorney Karen L. Loeffler moving a “Proceeding” that was not a “Case” or “Controversy” from

a State Court, her actions is suppose to be an automatic “License” that is a grant of jurisdictional “Standing”

for me, Gordon Warren Epperly to present “Motions,” “Arguments,” “Evidence,” and “Testimony” into

the ”Record” of your Court – How Absurd Can Anyone Be!!

So when we look at your “Court Order,” you say that even if I made an Amendment to my Pleadings,

the Amendment would be futile. No kidding!! Just how am I suppose to make Amendments to Pleadings

within a Court to which I have no “Standing” under Article III of the United States Constitution to make

an appearance? You go on to say that my claims are implausible and (with that infamous word) “frivolous.”

How in the hell would you know? You have never spoken to me, you have never taken any Testimony,

you have never taken into Evidence any “Documents,” nor have you seen any other materials of evidence,

physical or otherwise. Are you one with mystical powers or are you just prejudiced?? In fact, you have

no “Record” before your Court that may be reviewed under Article III of the United States Constitution to form

you show “disrespect” and “contempt” for “Pro Se” litigants and I am fed up with the contemptible attitude of

Page 4 of 4

a “Court Order of Dismissal” for there has never been any “Case” or “Controversy” before your Court to

dismiss and there are no “Cases” or “Controversies” to Appeal.

You owe me, Gordon Warren Epperly, the Judges of the Alaska Superior Court, and all the Respondents to

the Alaska Superior Court proceeding of Epperly, v. Barack Hussein Obama II, et.al. an Apology.

Enclosed are “Documents of Interest” and they have been circulated over the Internet to

every Secretary of State, Director of Elections, and to every Member of the Alaska State Legislature.

Sincerely Yours

Letter Forwarded Without Encloses

Cc: NASED ROSTER of State Elections DirectorsMembers of the Alaska State LegislatureU.S. Attorney Karen L. LoefflerAssistant U.S. Attorney, E. Bryan WilsonLieutenant Governor, Mead TreadwellAttorney Tom DanielAlaska Assistant Attorney General, Elizabeth M. BakerAlaska Superior Court Judge, Philip Pallenberg

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

GORDEN WARREN EPPERLY, Petitioner,

v. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00011-TMB

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On June 25, 2012, Gordon Warren Epperly, representing himself, filed an

action in the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, which was removed by the

defendants to this court on July 27, 2012.1

Removal Jurisdiction

Mr. Epperly has challenged the right of the defendants to remove the case

to this court. He challenges (1) the jurisdiction of the court, contending that he is

complaining of the administrative actions which allowed President Obama’s

name to appear on the ballot in Alaska, rather than posing a federal question;

and (2) that, as a woman, United States Attorney for the District of Alaska, Karen

Loeffler, has no authority to remove this case to federal court.2 Mr. Epperly goes

on to state as follows:

1 Docket 1; Gordon Warren Epperly v. Barack Obama II, Case No. 1JU-12-694CI, available at http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/eservices/home.page 2 Docket 13 at 2 – 3.

Case 1:12-cv-00011-TMB Document 24 Filed 08/24/12 Page 1 of 5

1:12-cv-00011-TMB, Epperly v. Obama, et al. Order of Dismissal Page 2 of 5

The year 2010 national elections for the government of the United States have come and gone with several Woman [sic], and other individuals who are not white Citizens, having been elected or appointed into the Offices of the Congress, President, Judicial Courts, and several Executive Offices of the government for the United States of America. All these individuals are "Usurpers of Office" for they have no "Political Privileges" (Rights) under any provision of the United States Constitution to hold a Pubic Office for the United States government under the qualification Clauses of Article I, Article II, and Article III of the United States Construction. The question presented, since the [purported] adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, does a Woman or any none [sic] white citizen have "Political Privileges" to be elected into or appointed into Pubic Offices of the government for the United States of America?3 In his initial pleading filed with the Superior Court for the State of Alaska,

Mr. Epperly states that he “brings this Petition for an ‘Order in the Nature of

Mandamus’ within the time frame and venue established by Article I, section 7 of

the Alaska Constitution, and by the Privileges and Immunity [sic] Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”4 He alleges that

President Obama was unlawfully inaugurated as President because, as “a child

of a mixed marriage [who] is identified in law as a ‘Mulatto,’” he has “no inherent

‘Rights of Birth’ to be a ‘Citizen’ of the United States.” As such, Mr. Epperly

contends, President Obama “was (unlawfully) inaugurated as President of the

United States.”5

3 Id. at 3 – 4. 4 Id. at 1-1 at 2 (emphasis added). 5 Id. at 2 – 3.



Likewise, Mr. Epperly contends that “Respondent Nancy Pelosi is a

questionable member of the House of Representatives [because, a]s a women,

[sic] she has no inherent Rights of Birth to be a Citizen of the United States ….

There are no provisions in the Constitution of the United States that grants

Women ‘Political Rights’ of Suffrage to hold any Political Office of the United

States Government.”6

Given Mr. Epperly’s statement of his own cause of action,7 the defendants

had the right to remove the case to federal court.8

6 Id. at 3. 7 Although Mr. Epperly also names state officials who have duties concerning federal elections in Alaska, he claims that he was denied his “Constitutional Rights to ‘Due Process of Law’ to allow [Respondent Gail Fenumiai] to place the name of a Presidential Candidate that has no qualifications of Office on the Election Ballots for the State of Alaska. … and that his “Rights of ‘Due Process of Law’ … have been placed in jeopardy by Respondents, Lt. Governor Mead Treadwell and his Director of Elections, Gail Fenumiai, for they have taken no action to ‘verify’ the qualifications of Office of (perspective) Presidential Candidate, Barack Hussein Obama II.” Docket 1-1 at 9 - 10. Mr. Epperly’s cause of action under A.S. 15.25.042(a), likewise arise out of his allegation that President Obama “has not established the eligibility requirements set forth by the U.S. Constitution of being a ‘natural born Citizen,’ or even a citizen of the United States,” and “is therefore ineligible to appear on the Election Ballots for the State of Alaska as a Candidate for President of the United States.” Id. at 16 – 17. And Mr. Epperly’s prayer for relief states that his “Rights of ‘Due Process of Law’ … require that the Alaska Lt. Governor and his Director of Elections adhere to the U.S. Constitution and verify the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II in a timely manner for the Office of President of the United States.” Id. at 17. Mr. Epperly further requests that the court “submit the name of Respondent, Nancy Pelosi, to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a Grand Jury investigation into the crime of ‘advocating the overthrow of the Constitutional form of government of the United States.’ (5 U.S.C. 3331, 5 U.S.C. 3333, 18 U.S.C. 1918, and Executive Order 10450).” Id. at 17. In addition, Mr. Epperly requests that “[i]f Barack Hussein Obama II is found to be in want of the Constitutional qualifications to hold the Office of President of the United States,” that President Obama’s name be submitted “to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a Grand Jury investigation … into the crime of ‘advocating the



Frivolous Claims

“[A] complaint . . . is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law

or in fact.”9 “Factual frivolousness includes allegations that are clearly baseless,

fanciful, fantastic, or delusional.”10 Moreover, “a complaint must contain sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face.’“11

In conducting a review of the pleadings of a self-represented plaintiff, the

court is mindful that it must liberally construe the pleadings and give the plaintiff

the benefit of the doubt.12 Before the court may dismiss Mr. Epperly’s case, the

court must provide him with a statement of the deficiencies in the complaint and

overthrow of the Constitutional form of government of the United States.’ (5 U.S.C. 3331, 5 U.S.C. 3333, 18 U.S.C. 1918, and Executive Order 10450).” Id. at 18. 8 See 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) (allowing for removal for suits against federal officers); 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (allowing for removal when a federal district court has original jurisdiction); Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 59-60 (2009) (“28 U.S.C. § 1331 … vests in federal district courts jurisdiction over ‘all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.’ Under the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule … a suit ‘arises under’ federal law ‘only when the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law].’”); see also Docket 9. 9 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir. 1996); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 10 Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); see also Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325 (“‘[F]rivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.”). 11 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 12 See Hebbe v. Plier, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) ("[O]ur 'obligation' remains [after Iqbal] 'where the petitioner is pro se, particularly in civil rights cases, to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.'") (citation omitted).



an opportunity to amend, unless it is clear that amendment would be futile.13 In

this case, amendment would be futile. Mr. Epperly's claims are implausible and

frivolous.14 This court will, therefore, dismiss this case.15

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice;16

2. All outstanding motions are DENIED as moot; and

3. The Clerk of Court will enter a Judgment in this case.

Dated at Anchorage, Alaska this 24th day of August, 2012.

/s/ TIMOTHY M. BURGESS United States District Judge

13 See Schmier v. U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit, 279 F.3d 817, 824 (9th Cir. 2002) ("Futility of amendment ... frequently means that 'it was not factually possible for [plaintiff] to amend the complaint so as to satisfy the standing requirement.'") (citations excluded); Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987). See also Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 758 (9th Cir. 2003) ("dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is clear that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.” (citing Chang v. Chen, 80 F.3d 1293, 1296 (9th Cir. 1996)).

14 See, e.g., Dockets 1-1, 7, 10-1, 10-2, 11, 13, 17. 15 See Blacks Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009) (“sua sponte” is defined as “of one’s own accord; voluntarily.”). Although the defendants make good arguments for dismissal (Docket 7), the court requires no further briefing by any party on any issue presented in this case. The issue of frivolousness and implausibility are so clear and conclusive that it would be a waste of the parties’ and the court’s resources to allow this case to proceed. 16 See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal, with prejudice, upheld after "weigh[ing] the following factors: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/ respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits").


Page 1 of 15

Gordon Warren EpperlyP.O. Box 34358

Juneau, Alaska 99803

September 10, 2012

Mario Apuzzio, Esq.Leo Donofrio, Esq.Orly Taitz, Esq.Michael Jablonski, Esq.Larry Klayman, Esq.Gary Kreep, Esq.Phil Berg, Esq.Mark Hatfield, Esq.Van Irion, Esq.Stephen Pidgeon, Esq.

Dear Members of the BAR Association

I would like to thank each of you and all those who I am not aware of that have taken the time and expense to

preserve our U.S. Constitution by questioning the Office Qualifications of Barack Hussein Obama II to hold and

be a Candidate for the Office of President of the United States.

As you may be aware, I have taken a different approach from questioning the validity of a Birth Certificate to

making a demand that Barack Hussein Obama II comes before the Alaska Division of Elections to “Document”

his Office qualifications before his name is to be allowed to appear on the Alaska Election Ballots. At the time

of the writing of this letter, there has been no “Administrative Record” created on behalf of Barack Hussein

Obama II, but only the “Administrative Record” that I, Gordon Warren Epperly, has created. Under the

Election Laws of the State of Alaska, the Director of the Alaska Division of Elections has thirty (30) days from

the filing date of a Complaint (which my “Complaint” filing date is the filing date of the Democrat’s

“Official Certification Of Nomination”) to make a determination of Office Qualifications of Barack Hussein

Obama II as founded upon the preponderance of evidence that may be found within the

“Administrative Record.”

Page 2 of 15

I noticed that some of you “Esquires” are still pursuing the “Birth Certificate” of Barack Hussein Obama II as a

fraudulent Document. Take my word, the “Birth Certificate” or any other “Documents” such as

“Social Security Numbers” and “Draft Cards” are a none issues until such time those “Documents” have been

introduced into an Agency “Administrative Record” or into the “Court Record” of a Court by Barack Hussein

Obama II or by his Legal Counsel. THERE ARE NO LAWS OR PROVISIONS FOUND WITHIN THE

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF ANY STATE THAT REQUIRES THE

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (BIRTH CERTICATES, SOCIAL SECURITY CARDS, ETC.) AS A

REQUIREMENT FOR OFFICE QUALIFICATIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES.

Official Certification of Nomination

I would like to redirect your attention to those that have submitted “Documents” under “Oath” that declare

Barack Hussein Obama II to be a qualified “Presidential Candidate” under the provisions of the United States

Constitution. These “Documents” were submitted to the Election Offices of the Fifty (50) States of the Union

as a “Official Certification Of Nomination” in the Election Year of 2008 by Nancy Pelosi as “Chair” of

the Democrat National Convention and by Alice Travis Germond as “Secretary” of the Democrat National

Convention and in the Election Year of 2012, the “Official Certification Of Nomination” was submitted by

Antonio Villaraigosa as “Chair” of the Democrat National Convention and by Alice Travis Germond

as “Secretary” of the Democrat National Convention. (see “Attachments”)

False statements have been made:

1. First: - There are no provisions in the United States Constitution that grants “Political Rights” for any

“Negro,” “Mulatto,” or “Women” to hold Public Offices of the United States government. As it is

common knowledge that Barack Hussein Obama II is a child of a mixed marriage with his father being

a “Negro” from Kenya and his mother being a “Caucasian” from the State of Hawaii. /1 Said mixed

1/ see website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

Page 3 of 15

marriage makes Barack Hussein Obama II a “Mulatto” /2 under the laws of the United States

government.

a. As Barack Hussein Obama II is a “Mulatto,” his citizenship status is founded upon the

Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Before the Fourteenth Amendment was

proposed and ratified, the “Negroes” and “Mulattoes” of the United States had no status

of being United States citizens and having no “Civil Rights” nor “Political Rights” under

the U.S. Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment only addressed “Civil Rights”

as those “Rights” were enacted and defined by the Civil Rights Acts of 1866. /3

The Fourteenth Amendment does not address “Political Rights.”

b. “Political Rights” for “Negroes” and “Mulattoes” did not come into existence until Congress

made another Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Fifteenth Amendment. But as you read

the Fifteenth Amendment, you will see that it does not use the words “Suffrage”

or “Political Rights of Office,” but was limited to the “Political Right” to “Vote.” This was not

an oversight of the U.S. Congress as during the “Debates,” on the Amendment, /4 the members

of the U.S. Congress debated the use of the word “Suffrage” and the granting

of “Political Rights” of “Office” and voted that the Fifteenth Amendment was to be restricted to

the “Political Right” of casting “Votes” at Elections. So it is today as there has been

no Amendments adopted that grants “Negroes,” “Mulattoes,” or “Women” the “Political Rights”

of “Suffrage” to hold Public Offices of the United States government. Such “Political Rights” to

hold Public Offices cannot be assumed nor can they be granted by enactments

of “Statutory Laws” as was tried by the U.S. Congress with the passage of

the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 - 68. /5

2/ see website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto

3/ The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 enacted April 9, 1866.

4/ Congressional Debates on the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution took place in the FORTIETH CONGRESS,Third Session in the year of 1868.

5/ Reconstruction Acts. (March 2, 1867, 14 Stat. 428-430, c.153; March 23, 1867, 15 Stat. 2-5, c.6, July 19, 1867,15 Stat. 14-16, c 30; and March 11, 1868, 15 Stat. 41, c.25).

Page 4 of 15

2. Second: - Barack Hussein Obama II is not a “citizen of the United States”

a. Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, for a “Negro” or a “Mulatto” to have

the status of being a citizen of the United States, the “Negro” or “Mulatto” must not only have

been “born in the United States,” but the Child must also be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the

United States at the time of his/her birth, in other words, the Parents must have established a

permanent “Residence” in the United States and owed “Allegiance” to the United States when

their Child was born.

b. The citizenship status of a Child follows that of the Father. /6 The Father of Barack Hussein

Obama II (Jr.) was Barack Hussein Obama I (Sr.) who was a subject citizen of Great Britain as

he was born and resided in the British Colony of “Kenya.” At no time did Barack Obama Sr.

ever become a “citizen of the United States,” naturalized or otherwise, and at no time

did Barack Obama Sr. owe “Allegiance” to the government of the United States. For one to

owe “Allegiance,” one must be a citizen of the Country in which he resides. /7

As Barack Obama Sr. was in the United States on a “Student VISA” at the time his Son was born,

he never established a permanent “Residency” in the United States. /8 At best, he was classified

by the Internal Revenue Service as a “resident Alien.” /9

c. There is a question of the status of citizenship of Barack Hussein Obama II’s mother at the time

she married Barack Hussein Obama II. Did she surrender her U.S. Citizenship upon marriage?

This question may never be answered, but under the U.S. Supreme Court Rulings and

6/ "All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States whose fathers were or maybe at the time of their birth citizens thereof are declared to be citizens of the United States, but the rights of citizenship shall notdescend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States, citizenship attaches only where the father hasresided in the United States before the birth of the child." (Act of March 2, 1907, c. 2534 § 6, Weedin v. Chin Bow,274 U.S. 666)

7/ see “ALLEGIANCE” - “The tie which binds the citizen to the government, in return for the protection which the governmentaffords him.” (From the 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon – http://www.lectlaw.com/).

8/ see website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama,_Sr

9/ See IRS website at: http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851.html

Page 5 of 15

“Naturalization Laws” of the United States, her status of citizenship has no relevance to the

citizenship status of her Son, Barack Hussein Obama II. /6

d. Barack Hussein Obama II, being of Negro descendent, has no means to be classified as a

“natural born Citizen” of the United States. The government of the United States was created

for “We the People” and their “Posterity,” namely, those who are white male citizens of

the States of the Union. The U.S. Constitution is the property of the People, not the government

of the States and it was ratified by the People sitting in Conventions, not by any Legislature of

any of the original thirteen States. /10 At the time the United States was created under

the Articles of Confederation, /11 “Negroes” and “Mulattoes” were never considered to be

a “Party” to the Articles of Confederation nor to the United States Constitution. The only

individuals that had the status of being “natural born Citizens” were those who were white male

citizens of a State that were born into the “Posterity” of “We the People” of the Preamble to

the U.S. Constitution. So it is today, notwithstanding the poorly written “dicta” Case

of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649.

e. The citizenship status of Barack Hussein Obama II is not founded upon the U.S. Supreme Court

Case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649.

1. The family of Wong Kim Ark came into the United States under provisions of

“Treaties” which the United States entered into with China. /12 One of the provisions

of Congressional enactments made under the “Treaty” was that the Chinese Immigrants

were to “Register” their permanent “Residence” and to sign “Affidavits of Allegiance”

10/ see U.S. Constitution, Article VII

11/ the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was an agreement among the 13 founding States that established theUnited States of America as a confederation of sovereign States and served as its first Constitution. Its drafting bythe Continental Congress began in mid 1776, and an approved version was sent to the States for ratification in late 1777.

12/ see Burlingame Treaty of 1868: Through this treaty, the United States was actively encouraging the influx of Chinese workersas a source of inexpensive labor. However, there was considerable resistance to this trend even at the start, and it grew duringthe 1870's. Congress attempted to simply abrogate provisions of the Burlingame Treaty by legislation, but President Hayesvetoed the bill on the grounds of separation of powers. This was a technical point, not an objection to limitingChinese immigrations.

The Burlingame Treaty of 1868 would be modified in 1880 and reversed in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, setting a patternof discrimination for the next 60 years.

Page 6 of 15

which requirements the family of Wong Kim Ark fulfilled. As the family

of Wing Kim Ark had established permanent “Residence” in the United States and

owed the United States their “Allegiance” at the time of the birth of their Son in

the State of California, Wong Kim Ark was subject to the jurisdiction of the

United States at the time of his birth and thus Wong Kim Ark was born a “citizen of

the United States” under the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the

U.S. Constitution. The Common Law arguments of the Case are nothing more than a

distraction as the Common Law has nothing to do with the establishment

of “citizenship” under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Barack Obama Sr. was never in the United States under any “Treaty” provision.

f. The Common Law arguments of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 do not apply

to the citizenship status of “Negroes” or “Mulattos.”

1. At the time the U.S. Constitution was written, the founding fathers placed within the

U.S. Constitution a provision that involuntary servitude (slavery) was a lawful

occupation within the United States. /13 This was true until the U.S. Congress proposed

the Civil War Constitutional Amendments (Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth)

which “nullified” this provision of the U.S. Constitution. It was the “Statutory Powers”

of the U.S. Congress to propose Constitutional Amendments that granted “Negroes”

and “Mulattos” their status of being “citizens of the United States,” not

the “Common Law” as spoken of by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Case of

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, (supra.). It was the Congress of the United States

that granted “Negroes” and “Mulattos” their “Civil Rights” and their “Political Right”

to cast “Votes” at Elections, not the Common Law. It was the U.S. Congress that

withheld “Political Rights” for any “Negro” or “Mulatto” to hold Public Offices of the

United States government.

13/ see U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 1

Page 7 of 15

What crimes did the Signatories of the “Official CertificationOf Nomination” Document commit?

FIRST: - 18 USC § 911 - Citizen of the United States

1. Whoever falsely and willfully represents himself to be a citizen of the United States shall be finedunder this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (Barack Hussein Obama II)

SECOND - 18 USC § 1001 - STATEMENTS OR ENTRIES GENERALLY

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of theexecutive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly andwillfully— (“Political Parties” are “Corporations” that exist under the jurisdiction of theUnited States government).

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation;(“Official Certification Of Nomination”) or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain anymaterially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry (e.g. “Official CertificationOf Nomination” Forms); shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, ifthe offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisonednot more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110,or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be notmore than 8 years.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, forstatements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge ormagistrate in that proceeding.

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shallapply only to—

(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement ofproperty or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a documentrequired by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress(e.g. “Official Certification Of Nomination”) or any office or officer within thelegislative branch; or

(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee,subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of theHouse or Senate.

Page 8 of 15

THIRD: - 18 USC § 1015 - Naturalization, citizenship or alien registry

(a) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement under oath, in any case, proceeding, or matterrelating to, or under, or by virtue of any law of the United States relating to naturalization, citizenship,or registry of aliens (e.g. “Official Certification Of Nomination” and Barack Obama’s White House“Birth Certificate”) ; or

(b) Whoever knowingly, with intent to avoid any duty or liability imposed or required by law, deniesthat he has been naturalized or admitted to be a citizen, after having been so naturalized or admitted; or

(c) Whoever uses or attempts to use any certificate of arrival, declaration of intention, certificate ofnaturalization, certificate of citizenship or other documentary evidence of naturalization or ofcitizenship, or any duplicate or copy thereof, knowing the same to have been procured by fraud orfalse evidence or without required appearance or hearing of the applicant in court or otherwiseunlawfully obtained; or (e.g. Barack Obama’s White House “Birth Certificate”)

(d) Whoever knowingly makes any false certificate, acknowledgment or statement concerning theappearance before him or the taking of an oath or affirmation or the signature, attestation or executionby any person with respect to any application, declaration, petition, affidavit, deposition, certificate ofnaturalization, certificate of citizenship or other paper or writing required or authorized by the lawsrelating to immigration, naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens; or

(e) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is, or at any time has been, acitizen or national of the United States, with the intent to obtain on behalf of himself, or any otherperson, any Federal or State benefit or service, or to engage unlawfully in employment in theUnited States (e.g. Barack Obama’s usurption of Office of President of the United States); or

(f) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is a citizen of the United States inorder to register to vote or to vote in any Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative, recall,or referendum)—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Subsection (f) doesnot apply to an alien if each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, eachadoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization), the alienpermanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16, and the alien reasonablybelieved at the time of making the false statement or claim that he or she was a citizen of theUnited States.

FOURTH: - 18 USC § 1018 - Official Certificates or Writings

Whoever, being a public officer or other person authorized by any law of the United States to makeor give a certificate or other writing, knowingly makes and delivers as true such a certificate or

Page 9 of 15

writing, containing any statement which he knows to be false, in a case where the punishment thereofis not elsewhere expressly provided by law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not morethan one year, or both. (e.g. “Official Certification Of Nomination” and Barack Obama’sWhite House “Birth Certificate”)

Fifth - 18 USC § 1028 - Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents,authentication features, and information

(a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section—

(1) knowingly and without lawful authority produces an identification document, authenticationfeature, or a false identification document; (e.g. “Official Certification Of Nomination”)

(2) knowingly transfers an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identificationdocument knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without lawfulauthority; (e.g. Barack Obama’s White House “Birth Certificate”)

(3) knowingly possesses with intent to use unlawfully or transfer unlawfully five or more identificationdocuments (other than those issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication features, orfalse identification documents;

(4) knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one issued lawfully for the use of thepossessor), authentication feature, or a false identification document, with the intent such documentor feature be used to defraud the United States; (e.g. “Official Certification Of Nomination”)

(5) knowingly produces, transfers, or possesses a document-making implement or authentication featurewith the intent such document-making implement or authentication feature will be used in theproduction of a false identification document or another document-making implement or authenticationfeature which will be so used;

(6) knowingly possesses an identification document or authentication feature that is or appears to be anidentification document or authentication feature of the United States or a sponsoring entity of an eventdesignated as a special event of national significance which is stolen or produced without lawfulauthority knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without such authority;

(7) knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification ofanother person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawfulactivity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, (e.g. “Official Certification Of Nomination”) orthat constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law; or

(8) knowingly traffics in false or actual authentication features for use in false identification documents,document-making implements, or means of identification;

Page 10 of 15

shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is—

(1) except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not morethan 15 years, or both, if the offense is—

(A) the production or transfer of an identification document, authentication feature, orfalse identification document that is or appears to be—

(i) an identification document or authentication feature issued by or under the authorityof the United States; or

(ii) a birth certificate, or a driver’s license or personal identification card;

(B) the production or transfer of more than five identification documents, authentication features,or false identification documents;

(C) an offense under paragraph (5) of such subsection; or

(D) an offense under paragraph (7) of such subsection that involves the transfer, possession, oruse of 1 or more means of identification if, as a result of the offense, any individual committingthe offense obtains anything of value aggregating $1,000 or more during any 1-year period;

(2) except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not morethan 5 years, or both, if the offense is—

(A) any other production, transfer, or use of a means of identification, an identificationdocument, authentication feature, or a false identification document (e.g. Barack Obama’sWhite House “Birth Certificate”); or

(B) an offense under paragraph (3) or (7) of such subsection;

(3) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, if the offense iscommitted—

(A) to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929(a)(2));

(B) in connection with a crime of violence (as defined in section 924(c)(3)); or

(C) after a prior conviction under this section becomes final;

(4) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 30 years, or both, if the offense is committedto facilitate an act of domestic terrorism (as defined under section 2331(5) of this title) or an act ofinternational terrorism (as defined in section 2331(1) of this title);

Page 11 of 15

(5) in the case of any offense under subsection (a), forfeiture to the United States of any personalproperty used or intended to be used to commit the offense; and

(6) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.

(c) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that—

(1) the identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document is orappears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States or a sponsoring entity ofan event designated as a special event of national significance (e.g. “Official CertificationOf Nomination”) or the document-making implement is designed or suited for making such anidentification document, authentication feature, or false identification document;

(2) the offense is an offense under subsection (a)(4) of this section; or

(3) either—

(A) the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section is in or affects interstateor foreign commerce, including the transfer of a document by electronic means; or

(B) the means of identification, identification document, false identification document, ordocument-making implement is transported in the mail in the course of the production,transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section (e.g. “Official CertificationOf Nomination”).

(d) In this section and section 1028A—

(1) the term “authentication feature” means any hologram, watermark, certification, symbol, code,image, sequence of numbers or letters, or other feature that either individually or in combination withanother feature is used by the issuing authority on an identification document, document-makingimplement, or means of identification to determine if the document is counterfeit, altered, or otherwisefalsified;

(2) the term “document-making implement” means any implement, impression, template,computer file, computer disc, electronic device, or computer hardware or software, that isspecifically configured or primarily used for making an identification document, a falseidentification document, or another document-making implement;

(3) the term “identification document” means a document made or issued by or under theauthority of the United States Government, a State, political subdivision of a State, a sponsoringentity of an event designated as a special event of national significance, a foreigngovernment, political subdivision of a foreign government, an international governmental or aninternational quasi-governmental organization which, when completed with informationconcerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for thepurpose of identification of individuals;

Page 12 of 15

(4) the term “false identification document” means a document of a type intended or commonlyaccepted for the purposes of identification of individuals that—

(A) is not issued by or under the authority of a governmental entity or was issued underthe authority of a governmental entity but was subsequently altered for purposes ofdeceit; and

(B) appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, aState, a political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated by thePresident as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, a politicalsubdivision of a foreign government, or an international governmental or quasi-governmental organization;

(5) the term “false authentication feature” means an authentication feature that—

(A) is genuine in origin, but, without the authorization of the issuing authority, has beentampered with or altered for purposes of deceit;

(B) is genuine, but has been distributed, or is intended for distribution, without theauthorization of the issuing authority and not in connection with a lawfully madeidentification document, document-making implement, or means of identification towhich such authentication feature is intended to be affixed or embedded by the respectiveissuing authority; or

(C) appears to be genuine, but is not;

(6) the term “issuing authority”—

(A) means any governmental entity or agency that is authorized to issue identificationdocuments, means of identification, or authentication features; and

(B) includes the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State,a sponsoring entity of an event designated by the President as a special event of nationalsignificance, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or aninternational government or quasi-governmental organization;

(7) the term “means of identification” means any name or number that may be used, alone or inconjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual, including any—

(A) name, social security number, date of birth, official State or government issueddriver’s license or identification number, alien registration number, government passportnumber, employer or taxpayer identification number;

(B) unique biometric data, such as fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or otherunique physical representation;

Page 13 of 15

(C) unique electronic identification number, address, or routing code; or

(8) the term “personal identification card” means an identification document issued by a State orlocal government solely for the purpose of identification;

(9) the term “produce” includes alter, authenticate, or assemble;

(10) the term “transfer” includes selecting an identification document, false identificationdocument, or document-making implement and placing or directing the placement of suchidentification document, false identification document, or document-making implement on anonline location where it is available to others;

(11) the term “State” includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, theCommonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other commonwealth, possession, or territory of theUnited States; and

(12) the term “traffic” means—

(A) to transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration foranything of value; or

(B) to make or obtain control of with intent to so transport, transfer, or otherwise disposeof.

(e) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of alaw enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligenceagency of the United States, or any activity authorized under chapter 224 of this title.

(f) Attempt and Conspiracy.— Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under thissection shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which wasthe object of the attempt or conspiracy.

(g) Forfeiture Procedures.— The forfeiture of property under this section, including any seizure anddisposition of the property and any related judicial or administrative proceeding, shall be governed by theprovisions of section 413 (other than subsection (d) of that section) of the Comprehensive Drug AbusePrevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853).

(h) Forfeiture; Disposition.— In the circumstance in which any person is convicted of a violation ofsubsection (a), the court shall order, in addition to the penalty prescribed, the forfeiture and destruction or otherdisposition of all illicit authentication features, identification documents, document-making implements, ormeans of identification.

(i) Rule of Construction.— For purpose of subsection (a)(7), a single identification document or falseidentification document that contains 1 or more means of identification shall be construed to be 1 means ofidentification.

Page 14 of 15

Court Standing

To establish Article III standing, a Plaintiff must show: (1) “an injury in fact – an invasion of a legally protected

interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical”;

(2) “a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of – the injury has to be fairly . . .

traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . the result of the independent action of some

third party not before the court”; and (3) “it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will

be redressed by a favorable decision..” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).

Moreover, a litigant’s interest cannot be based on the “generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional

governance.” Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. To Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 217 (1974).

In the matter of Presidential Candidates, everyone who is a white male Citizen of a State has an inherent interest

to preserve the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution was written for “We the People” and

their future “Posterity.” (see Preamble to U.S. Constitution). The United States Constitution was adopted by

the People sitting in Conventions, not by the governments of any State. It is the property of the People and it is

a Contractual Agreement between the People, the Officers of the governments of the States, and the Officers of

the government of the United States. When the Officers of the United States government abandonds the

mandates of the U.S. Constitution and tells the People “Go To Hell,” those Officials destroy the “Birth Rights”

of the People to inherit the declared “Preambled” protections granted to the “Posterity” of “We the People.”

The People have a “Birth Right” to be governed by a lawful (dejure) government that has lawful (dejure)

Officials governing them from within a Republican form of government.

When the People are told that they will have to accept Presidential Candidates that have no “Political Rights”

under any provision of the United States Constitution to hold the Office of the President of the United States

and that they must accept undocumented “Aliens” who are not United States citizens as Presidential Candidates

and to allow them to sit over us as Presidents of the government of the United States, the People (individually

and collectiviely) have suffered actual damages. The damages suffered are numorous from giving up their lives

under unlawful “Orders” of a pretended “Commander In Chief” of the Military to being held hostage to

unlawful signings of Presidential Papers that effects our daily lives.

Page 15 of 15

As “Esquires,” you are supposed to be the “Professionals” in the Law. It should not be difficult for you to

establish “Standing” before a U.S. Constitution Article III Judicial Court to bring justice upon Nancy Pelosi,

Antonio Villaraigosa, Alice Travis Germond, and Barack Hussein Obama II for the perjured statements made

within the Democrat’s “Official Certification Of Nomination.”

Conclusion

As a “Propria Persona” litigant, I have done my best to expose the conspiracy that is under way to overthrow

the lawful (dejure) government of the United States of America. As I am getting along in years and the only

income that I am now receiving is the Social Security Benefits offered by the United States government, I don’t

have the financial funds to continue the litigation game in the Federal or State Courts. The future of the

United States of America is now in the hands of those who have the finances, knowledge of the Law, and the

knowledge of the procedures of the Courts.

I wish all of you the best.