Broe v. Reed: Response from SOS
DecaLogoIntl.org is reporting this evening that Stephen Pideon, attorney for James Broe and 12 other Plaintiffs in Broe v. Reed, has received word from Washington State Secretary of State Sam Reed:
Here is a brief summary from the response documents from the Secretary of State, Mr. Sam Reed:
The Secretary of State has taken a position opposite to plaintiffs’ demands for a writ of mandamus. Plaintiffs sought the writ to require the Secretary of State to set aside the votes cast for Senator Obama on the grounds that Senator Obama 1) failed to establish that he was a “natural born citizen” of the United States; 2) failed to establish that he was an American citizen; and 3) failed to establish that his legal name was Barack Obama prior to the election as required by federal and state law.
The SOS argues that plaintiffs’ case should be dismissed because 1) it is moot; 2) plaintiffs have failed to join an indispensable party; 3) plaintiffs have failed to state a claim in mandamus because a candidate’s eligibility for office is presumed, and the SOS has no duty and is prohibited by law from investigating a candidate’s qualifications; and 4) the qualifications of the President is a federal question.
On the generous side, the Secretary of State has made a voluntary disclosure of the documents related to the Socialist Workers Party candidate for 2008, which, according to their records, never included Roger Calero. The SOS has also forwarded a copy of the Official Certification of Nomination from the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States declaring that Barack Obama and Joe Biden were “duly nominated”.
Our position remains that pursuant to the disqualification language of the 20th Amendment to the US Constitution, the issue is not moot, and will never be moot; 2) Sen. Obama, or the State of Hawaii are not indispensable parties because 1) complete relief can be granted in their absence; 2) these parties have no interest in this action because Plaintiffs are only asserting that at the time of the election, Senator Obama failed to establish his qualification. There is no position that will be impaired or impeded – there is only a position that factually existed at the time of the election and the duty of the Secretary of State to so recognize.
Plaintiffs have stated a claim for mandamus, as the Secretary of State is the chief of elections in Washington and has numerous duties to certify the election results. The SOS was not required to make any investigation into the candidate’s qualifications – he only needed to apply the law to the facts as presented by the Candidate prior to the general election; namely, that the candidate was born in 1961, that the candidates mother was an 18 year old American and this his father was a Kenyan national and British subject. On those facts alone, the candidate was disqualified, and the SOS could have reached this conclusion as a matter of law.
Although the qualifications for President are a federal question, eligibility in Washington is a provision of statutory construction. If the candidate was not qualified at the time of the election, plaintiffs are authorized by statute to ask the SOS to set aside the votes cast. Just because the candidate was disqualified by federal law does not make this a federal question; it is just one of many disqualifiers possible under the statute.
Stephen Pidgeon
Attorney at Law, P.S.
PDF Documents:
- Response to Discovery Motion
- Response to Amended Petition For Writ Of Mandamus
- Declaration of [Director of Elections] Nick Handy
- Affidavit of Service
-Phil
I received almost the same reply from a Virginia Congressman… although I responded with information that would reveal he was misinformed (at a minimum)… I doubt he will entertain my suggestions to look further into the matter.
Patriot,
Thanks for the kind words.
Regarding Google, the only thing that they have on my site are links that go back to AdSense; there is no “client software” of any kind residing on my site.
Further, the only cookies that come from my site to any given client would be from WordPress, not Google. Also, Google tracks what to display in ads by way of my site’s “channel” on their site: this means they match keywords with their ads and attempt to display those most relevant. I don’t think they serve out cookies for their ads.
Leo’s biggest issue was that he actually hosted with Google, whereas I host with a third-party, dreamhost.com. Therefore, Google could have cookie’d clients and what not.
I know this stuff because my StatPress plugin tells me exactly what’s going on with my site; it’s a WordPress plugin, not a Google statistical plugin.
Also, my hosting provider has no hand in anything on my site except for giving me the resources to do what I wish to do with it.
The above notwithstanding, certainly provide me with information that contradicts my perspective on this, and I’ll be happy to consider it.
Thanks again for your comments.
-Phil
Phil,
your site looks beautiful, so different, that I initially thought I was at the wrong url!
As for taking the Google sponsered ads: you should know that by doing so, google ad agency, and thus the Obama camp, cookies every visitor to your site, and can monitor and uncover who we are: thus using the information to persecute those who visit your site.
I’d respectfully suggest you remove all google ads, and ask your hosting company not to allow and gooogle client software to be used to maintain or monitor your site. Also block the google.bots programs that visit anything other than the title page of your site.
Kris,
Thanks. Hopefully it will work out well for everyone.
Also, hopefully the comment apparatus will be much more user-friendly as well.
-Phil
the SOS is forbidden by law to qualify a pres. candidate!
So one SOS is stating that those other SOSs who removed candidate Calero from ballot broke the law?
BTW, Phil, great new digs here!
Sam Reed’s response has no basis in law. Typical of the State od Washington to simply ignore inconvenient facts and laws.
THIS AMAZING (YET TYPICAL) RESPONSE FROM A REPUBLICAN HOUSE MEMBER (IDAHO CONG SIMPSON) — THE 3 BRANCHES OF GOVT ARE NOW PERFECTLY WILLING TO CONTINUE WITHOUT A CONSTITUTION:–
“You mentioned your opinion on the citizenship of President-elect Obama. The Supreme Court has turned down the appeal that questioned the eligibility of President-elect Obama to hold the office of President. The Court did not comment on its order. Barack Obama will be inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States on January 20, 2009. I look forward to working with the new administration to continue serving Idahoans throughout the 111th Congress.”
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMPLAINT AGAINST BARACK OBAMA:
1. FILL OUT THE FORMAL COMPLAINT WITH YOUR INFORMATION
2. FILL OUT A COPY OF THE COVER SHEET
3. FAX A COPY TO CLERKS OFFICE BELOW AND SEND BY CERTIFIED MAIL
4. HE HAS 14 DAYS TO ANSWER-HE WILL GIVE UP HIS LICENSE AND NOT ANSWER
5. YOU HAVE STANDING BECAUSE HE CAME INTO YOUR STATE AND SWORE TO YOUR SOS THAT HE WAS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
6. I’LL BET YOU EVEN DONATED $20 TO HIS ELECTION FUND WITH A DEBIT CARD YOU COULD ADD THAT IN AT THE END OF #12 …and that I was defrauded and encouraged to donate even more substantial sums of money to his campaign.
https://www.iardc.org/htr_reqforinvestig_form.html
https://www.iardc.org/co_clerksofcsvc.html#1
Illinois attorney board for complaints
https://www.iardc.org/ardcroll.asp
Obama law license
http://www.clr.org/cjg.html
Example of Illinois complaint
http://www.iardc.org/rulesSCT.html
Rules governing legal profession in Illinois
http://www.state.il.us/court/supremecourt/rules/art_viii/
RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
The Clerk’s Office is located in the Commission’s Chicago office at 130 East Randolph Drive, Suite 1100. The Clerk’s office open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., on all days except Saturday, Sunday and Commission holidays. You may contact the Clerk’s Office by telephone at the Commission’s general phone number (312) 565-2600, or within Illinois, at 800-826-8625. The Clerk’s Office facsimile number is (312) 565-1806.
_____________________________________________________________________________BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD
OF THE
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
AND
DISIPLINARY COMMISSION
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Petitioner Case No. To Be Assigned
vs (See Note 1 and 2)
Barack Hussein Obama
Attorney Respondent.
,
FORMAL COMPLAINT
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Petitioner, upon information and belief, states the following:
COUNT ONE
1. Respondent, Barack Hussein Obama, claims to be licensed to practice law in Illinois in 2008, and by virtue of alleged license is a member of the State Bar of Illinois who is subject to the jurisdiction of the Illinois Supreme Court and the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission in matters of discipline for professional misconduct.
2. Respondent last maintained an office for the practice of law in the County of Cook, Illinois State.
3. As an attorney subject to the rules and regulations of the Illinois Supreme Court, respondent is subject to the standards for discipline set forth in Article Vlll of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.
4. As attorney subject to the rules and regulations of the Illinois Supreme Court, respondent is charged, with the following duties and responsibilities:
a. To refrain from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice;
b. To refrain from engaging in conduct contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals;
c. To refrain from engaging in conduct that subjects the legal profession to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach.
COUNT ONE
5. On or about December 17, 1991, Barack Hussein Obama was admitted to practice law in the State of Illinois. On his Bar Admission Application he stated that he was born in Hawaii when in fact he was born in Kenya, Africa. At no time has Barack Hussein Obama attempt to correct his mistakes or to inform the Commission or Courts of his dishonesty.
6. By reason of the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:
a. conduct that violated Rule 8.1 (a) (1 and (2) Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters of the Rules of Professional Conduct; and
b. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and
c. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice, or to bring the courts or legal profession into disrepute, in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771: and
d. Including, but not limited to, these laws including Obstruction of Justice, RICO, racketeering laws, laws against filing false information in the public records, laws against fraud upon the Court, negligence, and The Penal Code making it a felony for a public official (officer of the Court)to violate offenses at common law i.e. Obstruction of Justice (Blackstones , Commentaries(1890),pp(161-177):
1. Perjury
2. Barratry
COUNT TWO
8. Petitioner re-alleges, as if recited verbatim, the factual statements set forth in Count One of this Complaint.
9. On or about December 17, 1991, Barack Hussein Obama was admitted to practice law in the State of Illinois. On his Bar Admission Application he did not declare that he was also known as A/K/A: Barry Soetoro; Barry Obama; Barack Dunham; and Barry Dunham. At no time has Barack Hussein Obama attempt to correct his mistakes or to inform the Commission or Courts of his dishonesty. Furthermore, these A/K/A names were used on passports and college applications to receive foreign student aid.
10. By reason of the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:
a. conduct that violated Rule 8.1 (a)(1 and (2) Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters of the Rules of Professional Conduct; and
b. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and
c. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice, or to bring the courts or legal profession into disrepute, in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771: and
d. Including, but not limited to, these laws including Obstruction of Justice, RICO, racketeering laws, laws against filing false information in the public records, laws against fraud upon the Court, negligence, and The Penal Code making it a felony for a public official (officer of the Court)to violate offenses at common law i.e. Obstruction of Justice (Blackstones , Commentaries(1890),pp(161-177):
1. Perjury
2. Barratry
COUNT THREE
11. Petitioner re-alleges, as if recited verbatim, the factual statements set forth in Count One and Two of this complaint.
12. During 2008, Barack Hussein Obama declared to 50 Secretary of States , including Illinois that he was eligible to run for the office of the Presidency of the United States and was a “natural born citizen” even though it was common knowledge that his father was a Kenyan citizen.
Barack Osama’s 2008 Presidential website clearly states that he had dual citizenship and his father was a Kenyan/British citizen. This is a violation of the US Constitution Article ll, Section l, Clause 5.
13. By reason of the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:
a. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and
b. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice, or to bring the courts or legal profession into disrepute, in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771: and
c. Including, but not limited to, these laws including Obstruction of Justice, RICO, racketeering laws, laws against filing false information in the public records, laws against fraud upon the Court, negligence, and The Penal Code making it a felony for a public official (officer of the Court)to violate offenses at common law i.e. Obstruction of Justice (Blackstones , Commentaries(1890),pp(161-177):
1. Perjury
2. Barratry
COUNT FOUR
15. Petitioner re-alleges, as if recited verbatim, the factual statements set forth in Count One through Three of this complaint.
16. That these representations made by Respondent were false, and were known to Respondent to be false at the time they were made. “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional Right from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.” Owen v Independence 100 S.C.T. 1398
17. That Respondent acting in concert with other state actors, by slander, impersonating a state official, bias, intimidation, fraud, mail fraud, unauthorized practice of law, have violated Petitioner’s Constitutional Rights, as well Unfair Trade Practice Laws and the Consumer Protection Act Laws and barratry.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
18. A Temporary Restraining Order restraining Respondent from exercising any duties of any state or federal office held, or the practice of law, pending disposition of this Petition.
19. That Respondent is denied any and all emoluments he may have been entitled to.
20. That the Respondent be declared in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. {{} {} 2382, and 2384 and the 14th Amendment, {}3 of the Constitution of the United States of America.
21. All other relief that Petitioner is entitled to pursuant to F.R.C.P. 54(c)
22. Any and all other relief that the Court deems equitable and just in the interest of justice.
23. Whoever, having taken an Oath before a competent tribunal officer or person in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an Oath to be administered, willfully and contrary to such Oath, states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true, is guilty of perjury and shall be fined no more than $2,000.00 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
Wherefore, Respondent should be subjected to such discipline as may be warranted by the facts and circumstance of such misconduct.
Dated December 19, 2008
Anywhere, USA xxxxx
_________________________________
XXXXXXXXXXXX
c/o 123 Oak St
Anywhere, USA
XXXXX
COMPLAINT
Note 1
Lawyers and judges are required to file a request for investigation if they have knowledge of “A significant violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to (a) Lawyer’s honesty, trust, worthiness, or fitness as a lawyer …”
COMPLAINT
Note 2
There is no statute of limitation or any concept of latches as a bar to prosecution. ABA Standards for Lawyer Discipline and Disability Proceedings Standard 4.6(1979) states that “Lawyer discipline and disability proceedings should not be subject to any statute of limitations.” In Re Smith, 73 Kan 743; Anne Arundel Cty Bar Ass’n v Collins 272 MD 578; State Ex Rel Nebraska State Bar Ass’n v Bates 162 Neb 652 and in Re O’Hara, 63 AD 2nd 500 (1978).
COVER SHEET FOR FORMAL COMPLAINT
1. IN THE DETAILS AREA SAY “SEE ATTACHED” OR N/A
2. STREET ADDRESS, COOK COUNTY, IL
Filing a Request for an Investigation of an Attorney | Effect on Your Legal Rights | Other Information Provided by the ARDC
REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF A LAWYER FORM
Request an investigation of an Illinois lawyer by printing, completing and returning this form to the Chicago or Springfield ARDC offices. The Chicago office is located at 130 East Randolph Drive, Suite 1500, 60601-6219. The Springfield office is located at the One North Old Capitol Plaza, Suite 333, 62701-1625.
1. Your name: ____________________________________________
Street Address: ____________________________________________
City: _____________________ State: _____ Zip: ________________
Home Phone Number: ________________________________
Cell Phone Number: __________________________________
Business Phone Number: _______________________________
2. Name of Lawyer you are complaining about: __________________________________
Name of Law Firm: _____________________________________________________
Street Address: ________________________________________________________
City: ____________________ State: _____ Zip: ___________________
Phone Number: _______________________________
3. Did you employ the lawyer?
Yes _____
If yes, when was the lawyer hired? ______________________
How much did you pay for the lawyer? ___________________
No _____
If no, what is your connection to the lawyer? _________________________
4. If your complaint relates to a lawsuit, please give the following:
Name of court (for example: Circuit Court of Cook County): ________________________________________________________________
Name of case: _____________________________________________________
Case number: ______________________________________________________
5. Please describe what the lawyer did or failed to do that you believe may have been improper. If you employed the lawyer, explain what you employed the lawyer to do. Include important dates and names, addresses and telephone numbers of witnesses and other people involved. Do not include opinions or arguments. Attach copies of any documents that support your complaint, such as fee agreements, receipts, checks, letters and court papers.
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Date: ____________________ Signature: __________________________________________
On that’s rich: the SOS is forbidden by law to qualify a pres. candidate! — BY WHAT LAW?
The qualifications of all candidates for congress is also a federal question, but you don’t see the SOS arguing that obvious point.
The SOS has admitted not doing their official duty, and their lame excuse admits that Barry Soetero does not qualify for the office he ran for.