USPS Tracking No Amended Letter of Complaint Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp

Transcription

1 USPS Tracking No Amended Letter of Complaint Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp USPS Tracking N Office of President of the United States [President] Barack Obama Jr.

2 Gordon Warren Epperly P.O. Box Juneau, Alaska February 9, 2012 Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp 2 Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. Suite 802 Floyd West Tower Atlanta, Georgia In Reg: Evidential Hearing Case No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE MALIHI The Honorable Brian P. Kemp Word has come to me that final decisions to place Candidates on the Election Ballot for the State of Georgia is your responsibility as Secretary of State. As you are aware, an Evidential Hearing was conducting on or about January 27, 2012 and the Administrative Law Judge, Michael Malihi, gave his ruling on or about February 3, I have not been able to view the ruling, but the ruling has been reported in the Internet Newspaper WND ( ). WND reports that Judge Michael Malihi relied upon an Indiana Appellate Court ruling to declare that Barack Obama Jr. was qualified to appear on the State of Georgia Election Ballots. To this ruling, exception must be taken, for as the old saying goes: The Shoe Simply Does Not Fit! I am at a disadvantage for I don t have the names and addresses of the Parties to this Administrative Law Hearing nor do I have the name and address of the Court which the Hearing took place. As a matter of due process, I have enclosed several copies of this Amended Document and Envelopes for distribution to all Parties concerned. Please forward this Amended Document to Judge Michael Malihi and all who were Parties to the Administrative Hearing. Page 1 of 16

3 Certified Mail No IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT OF JUDGE MICHAEL MALHI Evidential Hearing Case No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE MALIHI Introduction My name is Gordon Warren Epperly and I am a natural born Citizen of the United States. I was born in Whittier, California on July7, 1940 and I have resided at Glacier Highway in Juneau, Alaska since the year of My mailing address is: P.O. Box 34358, Juneau, Alaska I am qualified to register to vote in the Ballot Elections of the State of Alaska (even though I have chosen not to do so). Court Appearance I, Gordon Warren Epperly, hereby makes an appearance before this Administrative Law Court for the State of Georgia as a friend of the Court. As I am not a resident of the State of Georgia nor am I licensed to practice law, I find my self at a disadvantage in that I do not know the rules of this Court. I ask the Court to take my Pro Se status into consideration. Standing As this Administrative Law Court has made it known that it has relied upon the rulings of Appellate Courts of other States (Indiana) for its Court ruling, said practice declares that the States of the Union may use the ruling of this Court as a Stare Decisis case in the writing of their own cases. As the ruling of this Court may have a direct effect upon my Complaint that I may be filing with the Director of Elections for the State of Alaska, the ruling gives me, Gordon Warren Epperly, standing to make an appearance before this Administrative Court. Page 2 of 16

4 Internet The Acrobat PDF Version of this Document (with working Internet Links) may be found on the Internet at: Questions for the Court According to an Article that appeared in the Internet Newspaper WND ( ), this Court relied upon a case entitled: Steve Ankey et.al. v. Governor of the State of Indiana. Case No. 49A CV-353 / 1 that was before the Appellate Court for the State of Indiana for the writing of its ruling. As stated by the WND Internet Newspaper, the Indiana Court did a detailed review of the natural born Citizen status that appears in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution for the United States of America. The Indiana Court made a through study of the citizenship laws of Great Britain under the rules of the Common Law and came to the conclusion that anyone who was born on the soil of a Country is a natural born Citizen of that Country. The Indiana Court goes on to state that: The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established. To this position of the Indiana Court, I take exception. Error One With this ruling of the Indiana Appellate Court, the Court ripped out the pages of the famous case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) / 2 from every law book of this Nation and ripped out the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 1 / see State of Indiana Appellate Court Opinion at website: 2 / The case of Dred Scott v. Sanford (supra.) is as valid today as the day it was written. The case has never been distinguished (overturned). The case was made moot by the [purported] ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Page 3 of 16

5 As the natural born Citizen statement appears in an Constitutional Article that was written into the U.S. Constitution at the time the Constitution was ratified by the original thirteen States of the Union, we must conclude that the Indiana Court has just declared that every individual (regardless of color, sex, or race) that was born on the soil of the United States at the time the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were written and afterwards are natural born Citizens of the United States. This position of the Indiana Court raises the question: How can this be? At the time the founding fathers wrote the U.S. Constitution, the founding fathers declared at U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 that slavery was to be a lawful activity within the United States until the year of The prominent race that was held to the involuntary servitude of slavery was the Negro/Mulatto race. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the year of 1856, declared within the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford (supra.) that Negroes and Mulattos were property of the Slave Holder and as such, they had no standing to become Citizens of the United States. As we can see from the history of our Nation, Negroes and Mulattos that were born on the soil of the United States never had the status of being natural born Citizens of the United States and so it is today. The same was true with the Women that were born on the soil of the United States for the founding fathers never granted them Civil Rights to own property, or exercise any other Civil Rights or Political Rights that were exercised by white male Caucasian Citizens of the United States. If we are to take the ruling of the Indiana Court as being true in that everyone who was born on the soil of the United States were natural born Citizens of the United States, why then did the U.S. Congress find the need to amend the U.S. Constitution with the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments? These Amendments makes the statement that Negroes and Women have no Civil or Political Rights under the original Document of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Congress made the attempt to grant the Negro race Civil Rights under what was is known as the Civil Rights Act of But after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Page 4 of 16

6 that Negroes and Mulattos have no standing to be Citizens of the United States under the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Congress feared that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (14 Stat. 27) would be struck down as unconstitutional for want of a Constitutional Amendment ( the Fourteenth Amendment). The purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to legitimize the Presidential Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 as a grant of limited Rights as defined by the Civil Rights Act to the newly created status of citizenship of the Amendment and nothing more. The Fourteenth Amendment declares within itself that it is only a grant of government created privileges and immunities which can be taken away at any time by the U.S. Congress (see Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment): [Mr. ROGERS] Why, sir, the proposed amendment of the Constitution [14 th Amendment] which has just been discussed in this House and postponed till April next, was offered by the learned gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bingham] for the very purpose of avoiding the difficulty which we are now meeting in the attempt to pass this bill [ Civil Rights Act of 1866] now under consideration. Because the amendment which he reported from the committee of fifteen was intended to confer upon Congress the power to make laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure to the citizens of each State all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, and to all persons in the several States equal protection in the right of life, liberty, and property. There is no protection or law provided for in that constitutional amendment which Congress is authorized to pass by virtue of that constitutional amendment that is not contained in this proposed act of Congress which is now before us. Therefore we have the opinion of the majority of' the committee of fifteen, and the opinion of the learned gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Bingham,] THAT IN ORDER TO DO WHAT THIS BILL PROPOSES, CONGRESS MUST BE EMPOWERED BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORGANIC LAW. I affirm, without the fear of successful contradiction, that by the decision of the highest court of the United States, that august tribunal to whose decisions every honest and patriotic man is bound to bow, it has been expressly and solemnly decided, after the most mature deliberation, by a bench of the most enlightened and learned lawyers that ever sat upon it, that negroes in this country, whether free or slave, are not citizens or people of the United States within the meaning of the words of the constitution, and that therefore no law of Congress or of any State can extend to the negro race, in the full sense of the term, the STATUS of citizenship. And the organic law, by its letter and spirit, and in view of the contemporaneous circumstances under which it was passed, fully vindicate the authority of this decision of the Supreme Court, declaring that no power within any State, much less in the Congress of the United States, can change the Page 5 of 16

7 STATUS of the negro. That cannot be done until the requisite amendment is made to the Constitution, until some such article has been carried into effect by two thirds of both Houses of Congress and three fourths of the States. Now, sir, no bill has been offered in this House or in the other, the freedman's bill not exclude, which proposes to give to Congress such dangerous powers over the liberties of the people as this bill under consideration, and if it can be constitutionally passed by the Congress of the United States, and is no infringement upon the reserved or undelegated powers of the States, then Congress has the right, not only to extend all the rights and privileges to colored men that are enjoyed by white men, but has the right to take away. If Congress has the right to extend the great privileges of citizenship, which heretofore have been controlled by the States, to any class of beings, they have the right, by the same authority to take away from any class of people in any State the same rights that they have the right to extend to another class of persons in the same State. In other words, if the Congress has power under our present organic law to decide what rights and privileges shall be extended to negroes, it has the same power and authority under that organic law to extend its legislation so as to take away the most inestimable and valuable rights of the white men and the white women of this country, and not only take away, but destroy every blessing of life, liberty, and property, upon the principle that Congress has unlimited sovereign power over the rights of the States; and whenever, in its judgment, it may see fit, it may carry this power on to an unlimited extent. Now sir, is there any member on the either side of the House who, on the honor of a man of conscience and integrity, can make himself believe that this Congress has the right to control the privileges and immunities of every citizen of these States, as contemplated in the bill, without a change in the organic law of the land? [Emphasis added] U.S. House debate on Senate Bill No th Congress, 1st Session - March 1, 1866 Note: Senate Bill No. 61 is the Civil Right Act of 1866 But even with the [purported] / 3 ratification of the U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, not everyone who were born on the soil of the United States were ever granted the status of natural born United States Citizenship. The citizenship laws of the United States at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified did not apply to the American Indians for the American Indians are recognized as Nations with Treaty making powers and they reside on Reservations that are outside the 3 / The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution exist as a fraud in law. The Amendment was expressly rejected by more than one-forth (1/4 th ) of the States that were in the Union in the year of [ see website: ]. Page 6 of 16

8 jurisdiction of any State of the Union. [see Indians not taxed in Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment]. Error Two Why did the U.S. Congress find the need to amend the U.S. Constitution with the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments? If the Fourteenth Amendment was a grant of Political Rights as well as Civil Rights, don t you believe these two Amendments would be an unnecessary alteration to the U.S. Constitution? The Fourteenth Amendment creates a new status of citizenship that is found nowhere else in the U.S. Constitution and this new status of citizenship under the Amendment was never understood to be a grant of Political Rights (Suffrage) to Negroes or Women by the U.S. Congress: Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I move to add the following as a new section: AND IT BE FURTHER ENACTED, That nothing in this act shall be so construed as to affect the laws of any State concerning the right of suffrage. Mr. Speaker, I wish to say one word. That section will not change my [Mr. Bingham] construction of the bill. I do not believe the term 'civil rights' includes the right of suffrage. Some gentlemen seem to have some fear on that point. The amendment was agreed to. [Emphasis added] U.S. House debate on Senate Bill No th Congress, 1st Session - March 2, 1866 About half way through the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Southern States who were under the mandate of the Reconstruction Act of 1867 (THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 153), the U.S. Congress realized that it exceeded its authority when it mandated that Negroes were to be allowed to cast ratification votes on the Amendment so Congress found the need for altering the Page 7 of 16

9 U.S. Constitution with the Fifteenth Amendment. The purpose of the Fifteenth Amendment was to grant the Negroes limited Political Powers of Suffrage to cast votes at elections. It was later discovered by the U.S. Congress that the Fifteenth Amendment was not grant of Political Rights of Suffrage for Women to cast votes at elections - so comes the Nineteenth Amendment. Neither of these three Amendments (Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth) were a grant of Political Rights of Suffrage to hold Public Offices of Trust of the government of the United States. The only Political Right that was granted was the authority to cast votes at elections. In fact, the word Suffrage is not found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution and no Judge of a State or of the United States nor any Member of the U.S. Congress have any authority to insert words that don t exist into the U.S. Constitution. Absent of Political Rights to hold Public Offices of Trust, the Negro and Women have no lawful standing to be classified as natural born Citizens of the United States. To further emphasis this point in law, the U.S. Supreme Court declared in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company [118 U.S. 394 (1886)] that Corporations had the status of citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ( better known as Corporate Personhood ). With this ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the citizens of the Fourteenth Amendment are not natural born Citizens of the United States. Corporations are not Human Beings with flowing blood nor do Corporations exercise Political Rights of Suffrage to cast votes at Presidential or Congressional Elections nor do Corporations hold Public Offices of the United States government. Corporations are creatures of government that exist at the pleasure of the government [see Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819)]. Looking at Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution we see that the words natural born Citizen and Citizen of the United States co-exist in the same paragraph. The founding fathers found the need to include both phrases as those who where citizens of a State before the U.S. Constitution was ratified were not born in the United States and Page 8 of 16

10 for obvious reasons, they were made Citizens of the United States at the moment the U.S. Constitution was ratified. As these folks were not born of the soil of the newly created United States, they could not have the status of being natural born Citizens. A good example is found in the Presidency of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson who both were born and raised in one of the thirteen States before the Constitution for the United States existed. Their Presidential qualifications were Grand Fathered into the U.S. Constitution with the phrase:... or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,... [see U.S. Construction, Article II, Section 1 Clause 5]. For further evidence that the citizenship of the Fourteenth Amendment is not the same as the citizenship that is found in the main body of the U.S. Constitution, we need to look to the original writing of the U.S. Constitution to find that the founding fathers and the U.S. Congress separated the two citizenships by identifying the Citizen of the original main body of the U.S. Constitution with an upper case letter C while the citizen as found in the Amendments are identified with a lower case letter c. The two citizenships are not the same. To have the status of being a natural born Citizen of the United States, you not only need to have been born on the soil of the United States, but you must also possess unlimited Civil Rights, unlimited Political Rights, and unlimited God given Unalienable Rights. Error Three Did you know that Barack Obama Jr. ( Barack Hussein Obama II) / 4 is not a citizen of the United States? It is an undisputed fact that the father Barack Obama Sr. (Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.) / 5 of Barack Obama Jr. was never a citizen of the United States, but a subject citizen of Great Britain by virtue of his birth in Nyang oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya. As the citizenship of a child follows 4 / Barack Obama Jr. see website: 5 / Barack Obama Sr. - see website: Page 9 of 16

11 the residency and allegiance of the father, the United States government had no authority to assume jurisdiction over Barack Obama Jr. at the time of his birth. Being subject to the United States Jurisiction is a citizenship requirment / 6 (as stated in Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution), a requirment that everyone in Washington, D.C. and Judge of this Administrative Law Court would like to avoid. The United States does not automatically acquire jurisdiction over a child just because that child was born on the soil of the United States. The United States must have jurisdiction over the father of the child at the time of that child s birth. There are two elements that the government of the United States needs to determine before jurisdictional authority is acquired over a child. The two elements are Residency and Allegiance and they are requirements of United States citizenship. / 7 As Jurisdiction cannot be assumed, but must be prooven, who will come forward and produce the jurisdictional authority that grants the government of the United States to declare Barack Obama Jr. to be a citizen of the United States or for Barack Obama Jr. to declare himself to be a citizen of the United States? For Barack Obama Jr. to lay claim to United States citizenship, he must establish that his parents were permanent residents of the State of Hawaii at the time of his birth and that his father owed allegiance to the United States. The laws of the State of Hawaii mandate that residency must be established by an independent adult, an emancipated minor, or a minors parents/guardians who have been 6 / see TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER III, Part I, 1401 SUBSECTION (a) [ ] 7 / see the case: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 [ ] (Note: In discussing the role that the parents of Wong Kim Ark played in determining the citizenship status of their child, the Court used the words: his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicile and residence therein at said city and county of San Francisco found in the first paragraph of the syllabus of the case and the words: either by himself or his parents acting for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States found in the last paragraph of the syllabus of the case. These two phrases are the keys to the ruling of the case and they are understood to be the integral part of jurisdiction of citizenship. ) Page 10 of 16

12 physically present in the State for at least twelve (12) months and has demonstrate d the intent to make Hawaii a permanent residence/domincial. Barack Obama Jr. s father never had any intentions (nor could he lawfully) make the State of Hawaii his permanent residence/domincial. He was a resident of the Nation of Kenya who was attending College in the State of Hawaii on an educational VISA. Barack Obama Jr. s citizenship of the United States fails on the grounds that his parent(s) were not classified as permanent residents/domicials of the State of Hawaii at the time of his birth. In regard to the question of Allegiance, Barack Obama Jr. s father never owed any allegiance to the United States. He never was a citizen or a subject that was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and no Oath of Allegiance was required of Barack Obama Sr. to attend an Hawaiian College on an educational VISA. Barack Obama Jr. s status of citizenship is founded upon Part II, Subsection 5(1) of the The British Nationality Act of 1948 (48 Chapter 56): / 8 Subject to this provision of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of United Kingdom and Colonies by descent of his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of his birth. By the descindent birth of his father s citizenship of the United Kingdon and Kenya, Barack Obama Jr. s allegiance is found to be with the United Kingdom and Kenya until such time he renounces the allegiance. A person cannot serve two Nations at the same time, and this is especially true if the two Nations find themselves at war with each other. As Barack Obama Jr. has never renounced his allegiance to Great Britian and/or Kenya, he owes no allegiance to the United States. Barack Obama Jr. s status of United States citizenship fails on the ground that Barack Obama Jr. has never established that he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States either by renouncing his citizenship and allegiance with Great Britian and/or Kenya or by being naturalized as a citizen of the United States. Barack Obama Jr. s status of United States citizenship also fails on the ground that his 8 / see website: Page 11 of 16

13 Parents had never established permanent residence in the United States at the time of his birth. According to the many Articles that appeared on the Internet and the speeches of Attorney Philip J. Burg, The stepfather ( Lolo Soetoro) of Barack Obama Jr. took Barack Obama Jr. to Indonesia to attend SD Fransiscus Asisi ( St. Francis of Asisi), a Catholic primary school under the auspices of the St. Francis of Asisi Church in Jakarta. For a child to attend the Schools within Indonesia, the child s citizenship must be declared to be that of Indonesia. If this is true, any citizenship status that Barack Obama Jr. may have acquired at birth was surrendered upon attending St. Francis of Asisi in Jakarta. For Barack Obama Jr. to have (re) -acquired Uniteed States citizenship, he must have applied for and obtained United States naturalization. Hmmm! Error Four Looking to the proceedings of the Court, we need to ask as to what Documents the Administrative Court Law Judge relied upon to rule that Barack Obama Jr. was qualified to appear on the Election Ballots of the State of Georgia? The Administrative Law Judge of the Court has no authority to insert his personal views into the Record of the Court and the Documents that were submitted into the Record of the Court were Third Party hearsay Documents that were located on the Internet. Who posted those Documents on the Internet we may never know, but the Burden of Proof of eligibility of a Candidate to hold a Public Office of Trust is with the Candidate. The Documents and Testimony that were submitted into the Record of the Court shows that there is Reasonable Doubt that Candidate, Barack Obama Jr., has submitted any Document to the Georgia Department of Elections that qualifies him to appear on the Georgia Election Ballots - in other words the Administrative Law Court Ruling is beginning to take on an offensive odor. Perhaps the Administrative Law Judge is relying upon the Democratic National Committee s (DNC) Official Certification of Nomination that is on file with the Page 12 of 16

14 Page 13 of 16

15 Secretary of State for the State of Georgia (supra). If we examine this letter of DNC, we will find that it is missing a very import statement, a statement that is required by the laws of every State in the Union. Where is the statement that Barack Obama Jr. is qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution. Without this statement, the Secretary of State for the State of Georgia is without any authority to place Barack Obama Jr. s name on any Election Ballot. What we find interesting is that this missing qualification statement appears on the State of Hawaii s copy of the DNC s Certificate of Nomination and yet it does not appear on any other copies that were sent to the other Forty-Nine (49) States of the Union. We must ask the question as to why did the DNC find the need to remove the qualification statement from their Certificate of Nomination letters that were sent to the other Forty-Nine (49) States of the Union? Conclusion Barack Obama Jr., as Candidate for President of the United States, is not qualified under the provisions of the United States Constitution to appear on any Election Ballot of the State of Georgia or any other State of the Union for want of having the natural born Citizen status of citizenship. Barack Obama Jr. has no Original or a certified copy of any Document on file with this Administrative Law Court or with the Secretary of State for the State of Georgia that shows that he has the qualifications to appear on the Election Ballots of the State of Georgia or the Election Ballots of any other State of the Union as a Candidate for the Office of President of the United States of America. As Barack Obama Jr. has the race status of being a Mulatto, Barack Obama Jr. s race does not qualified him under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution to appear on any Election Ballot of any State of the Union for the Office of President of the United States. Page 14 of 16

16 Barack Obama Jr. has no authority to exercise any Political Rights to hold any Public Office of the government of the United States under the provisions of the United States Constitution. As Barack Obama Jr. s parents did not meet the residence requirements of the State of Hawaii at the time of his birth and as Barack Obama Jr. nor his father ever owed any allegiance to the United States, Barack Obama Jr. fails to qualify for United States citizenship. Under the provisions of The British Nationality Act of 1948, Barack Obama Jr. s citizenship is with Great Britain and/or Kenya, not with the United States of America. For the Record, the Legislature for the State of Georgia does not recognize the existence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. / 9 The position of the Legislature for the State of Georgia must be taken into consideration by the Georgia Administrative Law Court when making its ruling on the qualifications of Barack Obama Jr. to appear on the Election Ballot for the State of Georgia. If the Fourteenth Amendment does not exist within the State of Georgia as proclaimed by the Georgia State Legislature, then Barack Obama Jr. is not a Citizen of the United States ( natural born or otherwise) and he may not appear on any Election Ballots of the State of Georgia. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 9 / see Georgia Memorial at website: [an Acrobat PDF File]. Page 15 of 16

17 Certification I, Gordon Warren Epperly, is the Author of the above Statements and I do believe that the Statements made are to be true to the best of my knowledge, so I declare under the Penalties of Perjury. Dated this 9 th day of the Month of February in the year of our Lord, Jesus Christ, Seal [Thumb Print] Note: This is an Amended version of the Document that was mailed to the Secretary of State for the State of Georgia. This version is a correction of typos and other errors. I also expanded the explanation of citizenship jurisdiction for the purpose of clarification. Gordon Warren Epperly Page 16 of 16