Links in “Connerat v. Obama”

Spencer Connerate, Plaintiff pro se in Connerat v. Obama, refiled his small claims case on July 1. According to the Pinellas County, FL docketing system, he is slated to go before the same Judge Myra S. McNary on July 28, 2009 at 2:00pm ET:

Uniform Case	Pinellas Case	Section	Case Type	Type
522009SC005522XXSCSC	09005522SC	NPC	NEGLIGENCE	SC
Style:	CONNERAT WILLIAM SPENCER 111
vs.	OBAMA BARACK HUSSEIN II
Jury Trial	STIP	NOTH	Reason	Type Disp.
Filling Date	Appeal Date	Judg. Date	Reop Date	Docket Date
07/01/09
Case/Cat
OTHER NEGLIGENCE

7 Docket Entries, 07/02/09 to 07/01/09

Pages	Date	P/D	Docket Entry	Ver
		07/02/09	CLERK	NOTICE/STMT OF CLAIM-DEFT/VIA PLAINTIFF	N
		07/02/09	CLERK	NOTICE TO PLTF/PLTF ATTY	N
		07/02/09	CLERK	PRE-TRIAL HRG SET: 072809 02:00P HON MYRA S MCNARY	F
		07/01/09	PLAINTIFF	SUMMONS FEE PAID $10.00	N
		07/01/09	PLAINTIFF	SMALL CLAIMS FILING FEE PAID $55.00	N
		07/01/09	PLAINTIFF	STATEMENT OF CLAIM	F
		07/01/09	PLAINTIFF	THIS CASE ASSIGNED BY CLERK TO SECTION NPC BY 3777 – RANDOM SC	N

NOTH	Notice of Hearing
STIP	Stipulation
Ver	Verified: F=Filed, N=Not Filed/Notice. There is no case file document associated with a notice.

The following is Mr. Connerat’s filed paperwork…

Connerat v. Obama Refiled

Per three comments posted on my site, a concerned citizen, Robert Quinn, had been in contact with Florida’s Secretary of State back on June 23, 2009, and promised to file a complaint against the Democratic National Committee and the Florida Democratic Party:

If just one large state requires the political parties to produce their candidates qualifing documents, the Obama Secrecy Loophole will be over. The following letter represents my efforts to get that done here Florida.

4 draft

Crist

Mr. Quinn went on to point out some eligibility discrepancies with Florida’s election statutes, notably that the State does not require any form of substantiation outside of party nomination:

There is no Florida Statute that requires a presidential candidate to be anything other than nominated by his party. Only the nominating party has the authority and responsibility to verify constitutional eligibility.

DNC Rules, 2008 Convention, Presidential Preference, Page 14

K. 1. Based on the right of the Democratic Party to freely assemble and to determine the criteria for its candidates, it is determined that all candidates for the Democratic nomination for President or Vice President shall:
a. be registered to vote, and shall have been registered to vote in the last election for the office of President and Vice President; and
b. have demonstrated a commitment to the goals and objectives of the Democratic Party as determined by the National Chair and will participate in the Convention in good faith.
2. It is further determined that these requirements are in addition to the requirements set forth by the United States Constitution and any law of the United States.

The DNC can and must be held accountable for their participation in this election fraud.

In his final commentary, Mr. Quinn notes that most cases of vetting a candidate’s eligibility must start at the State level and that processes must be put into place in order to hold such vetting to account:

I suppose the degree to which we can hold the various Secretary of States responsible depends upon each states election laws but someone in every state should join this effort and file an election fraud complaint against the DNC and state party with their State Attorney. Many of these players will be running for office next year.

Original letters:

Original Sos Letter

SOS_to_Q_Feb_24

Kaine

Thurman April 20

In my non-attorney opinion, the biggest hurdle that Mr. Quinn would have to overcome with respect to Florida’s lack of process of vetting by the SoS would be one concerning the “doctrine of laches.” Essentially, assuming that he overcomes the hurdle of standing (i.e.: the right to petition the government on such a case as this), he would have to prove that it is not now past time to bring such a case. The concept could also be understood as a type of “statute of limitations,” in that unless he can effectively show that — via his correspondence with the SoS — he had been trying to rectify this situation in a reasonably timely manner, this could become a legitimate legal technicality outside of his favor.

While I do critique this kind of case — and welcome comments for and against, as always — I do wish both Messrs. Connerat and Quinn the best in their respective venues.

In related news, Ballot-Access.org informs us of the current status of election law bills that are currently pending in Congress:

Almost all of the interesting election law bills in the U.S. House have continued to add co-sponsors during June. In order of how many co-sponsors each bill has, here is a list:
1. Popular vote on Puerto Rico status: 151 (HR 2499)
2. Paper Trail for Vote-Counting Machines: 80 (HR 2894)
3. Public Funding for Congressional Candidates: 56 (HR 1826)
4. Express mail to be used for mailing overseas absentee ballots: 38 (HR2393)
5. Anti-Gerrymandering: 12 (HR 3025)
6. Requiring Presidential Candidates to Submit a Birth Certificate: 6 (HR 1503).

The only interesting bill that has no co-sponsors is HR 665, to provide that D.C. voters should be treated as Maryland voters, for purposes of congressional elections. Representative Dana Rohrbacher (R-California) introduced it in February.

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

• Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
• Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
• What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a Birth Certificate?
• Obama Citizenship Facts
• The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
• Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing

-Phil

Spencer Connert, Plaintiff pro se in Connerat v. Obama, had his case dismissed today. The following is from a communication with him:

Dear Phil – I have always reported to you in a timely and truthful manner.  What happened today on the second floor, in the Old Pinellas Courthouse was a miscarriage of Justice.  The U.S. Constitution did not matter to the judge.  She wanted to talk about Florida law.  There was no defense…Obama DID NOT SHOW, nor did his ‘thugs.’  The Judge did not allow me to give my story.  The Judge said that she was dismissing the case for no ’cause of action’ but my cause was clear:  I had a right to press Obama on the eligibility issue, under Amendment X, since the feds. and the States did not do so.  My letter was mailed November 12, 2008, BEFORE the Electors voted.  I also took an Oath under the Florida Constitution to ‘protect and defend’ the Constitution OF THE UNITED STATES, as well as the Constitution of Florida.  She would have none of it, not appreciating U.S. Constitution Article. VI…  Phil, her mind was set before I opened my mouth.  I am becoming very concerned about American jurisprudence…is this Mexico?  Maybe I should grab a Dos Equis for Cinco de Mayo…and quit the game.
 
Connerat vs. Obama may make it to the Florida Supreme Court.  As you know, I was there in December [Connerat v. Browning].  Yet, if I go again in this Pursuit, on appeal, it will be with a lawyer.  The usurper remains, for now, but not for long.  I hope that Mario had a more positive day.

Mario Apuzzo, attorney for Plaintiffs in Kerchner v. Obama, had the following words of support for Spencer:

Regardless of what the judge decided, you did your part in our fight to expose the truth about Obama.  Stay in the fight.  We still have a ways to go.

While we await word on the results of the federal government’s request for an extension in his case, Mario posted a great article entitled, “The President’s Sole Allegiance at Birth Serves the Best Interest of the United States.”

A current listing of citizen grand jury updates and eligibility lawsuits can be found here.

-Phil

Spencer Connerat, the Plaintiff pro se in Connerat v. Browning, has today filed a new case in Pinellas County Court, Small Claims Division. 

The actual case can be found here.

Here is the docket info as well as a document that’s included in the filing…

Uniform Case	Pinellas Case	Section	Case Type	Type
522009SC003103XXSCSC	09003103SC	NPC	ACCOUNT STATE	SC
Style:	CONNERAT WILLIAM SPENCER III
vs.	OBAMA BARACK MR
Jury Trial	STIP	NOTH	Reason	Type Disp.
Filling Date	Appeal Date	Judg. Date	Reop Date	Docket Date
04/14/09
Case/Cat
C&I OPEN ACCT/STATED

 

7 Docket Entries, 04/14/09 to 04/14/09

Pages	Date	P/D	Docket Entry	Ver
	04/14/09	CLERK	NOTICE/STMT OF CLAIM-DEFT/VIA PLAINTIFF	N
	04/14/09	CLERK	NOTICE TO PLTF/PLTF ATTY	N
	04/14/09	CLERK	PRE-TRIAL HRG SET: 050509 01:00P HON MYRA S MCNARY	F
	04/14/09	PLAINTIFF	SUMMONS FEE PAID $10.00	N
	04/14/09	PLAINTIFF	SMALL CLAIMS FILING FEE PAID $55.00	N
	04/14/09	PLAINTIFF	STATEMENT OF CLAIM	F
	04/14/09	PLAINTIFF	THIS CASE ASSIGNED BY CLERK TO SECTION NPC BY 1999 – RANDOM SC	N

NOTH	Notice of Hearing
STIP	Stipulation
Ver	Verified: F=Filed, N=Not Filed/Notice. There is no case file document associated with a notice.

On the evening of November 3, 2008, I engaged in a telephone conversation with my father, Spencer Connerat, Jr., who is a graduate of Yale University, a Navy veteran, and a student of the Law.  It was the night before the 2008 Election, when he put forth the notion that, perhaps, Mr. Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii, as had been commonly reported, but that he was born in a foreign country and was brought to the United States as a small child.  Although this scenario sounded outlandish, I knew of my father’s penchant for logic, accepted the fact that this hypothesis was within the realm of possibility, and became an intrigued Seeker of the Truth.

            The next morning, November 4, 2008, I voted, as usual, at the Feather Sound Community Church.  Later that day, a Tuesday, of course, I contacted a prominent Clearwater attorney, Thomas J. Donnelly, who commented in friendly conversation, while at no time agreeing to represent me as Counsel, that although a matter of such significance as “natural born” status, and thus eligibility to the Office of President of the United States, based on the foundation of American jurisprudence – the Constitution for the United States of America – ought to have been vetted by Election Day, he acquiesced that a U. S. Citizen (hearkening back to the common law principle of posse comitatus) had the right to question the eligibility of a Presidential candidate.

            I put the issue aside, for a few days, but then had the good fortune to enjoy a holiday from work, on November 11, 2008.  This was celebrated as Armistice Day, following the World War.  That morning, I decided to put my thoughts into action, and I wrote and signed the letter, attached as α, which served as a mandamus action to Mr. Obama to prove to me, a Florida elector, and a man of Pinellas county, that he was a natural born citizen, thus eligible to hold the Office of President.  “Humour this Citizen and remove any doubt” was the underscored demand charged of the candidate.  I knew that there would be plenty of time for his compliance before the Electoral College votes were to be read aloud during the Joint Session of Congress, on January 8, 2009, to elect the “duly qualified” nominee of the Democrats, and I expected a prompt response.

            To my chagrin, not only did I receive no response to my civil request, but I also did not receive the Return Receipt, known as the Green Card.  I found this quite odd, as I had used the Return Receipt many times before, in business, and had always received it, in situations prior.  Nevertheless, I was able to obtain an intranet document, from the Highpoint Branch Post Office, showing that someone did sign to receive the letter, on November 17, 2008.  As a result of receiving no response, and with ever-increasing doubt regarding Mr. Obama’s eligibility, I filed a lawsuit, invoking original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida.  On the morning of December 15, 2008, I personally served Florida Secretary of State Kurt S. Browning with the following:  PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY EMERGENCY WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND STAY OF 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TO BE CONDUCTED IN FLORIDA SENATE CHAMBERS AT 2:00P.M. ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2008.  However, the case [SC08-2338] was ultimately dismissed without prejudice.  I had neither the time, nor the resources, as a pro se litigant, to craft a more robust argument, and to file again.

            It is my fervent belief that this treatise is cogent, honest and truthful, and that the Pinellas County Court, Small Claims Division has both the wisdom and the fortitude to adjudicate fairly, based on the merits of this case.  I am not beseeching this Court to rule on Mr. Obama’s eligibility; rather I submit this Prayer for Relief, as stated in my Claim.  However, it is important for the trier of this case to have the full picture and color with regard to the events leading to such Claim.  Therefore, I shall continue, with candor.         

            With my Supreme Court case dismissed, and with dismay over the Electoral College’s having voted for someone who had not demonstrated his eligibility, in any of the myriad lawsuits filed against him, I felt relegated to being a political spectator, rather than a lone Citizen with the ability to Arrest such a reckless and salacious Will to Power.  Of course, I still held real and serious doubts about the background and pedigree of the President elect, including his continued insistence on keeping his original birth certificate hidden from view…apparently locked in a vault, somewhere in the State of Hawaii.  Yet, almost serendipitously, something marvelous happened!  On February 9, 2009, I received the Green Card, attached as β, which was the Return Receipt from my November 11, 2008 letter demanding proof of Mr. Obama’s natural born status.  It had been stamped “THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICE” in red ink.  “Certainly, now,” I surmised, “he has my letter and there will have to be some sort of response…a form letter reply, at least;” but no such response was ever received, by me.  Therefore, after patiently waiting for another sixteen (16) days, in order to grant ample time for a response, and receiving none, I decided to mail a “Second Request” for proof of natural born status.  However, on this occasion, since Mr. Obama had, for all intents and purposes, already assumed the Office of President, I employed my Right to Redress, under the First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America, to wit: 

Amendment I

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

My grievance was that I had still not received a response to the first request for proof of natural born status.  Neither being a quitter, nor one to leave an issue of such magnitude unresolved, I mailed a Second Request, as a Letter of Redress, marked “Personal and Confidential,” attached as γ, and delivered on March 12, 2009, according to a report from www.usps.com, attached as ε.  Defendant has again had ample time, in excess of thirty (30) days, to respond to this Certified Letter, which was mailed from the Highpoint Branch Post Office, here in Pinellas county, as was the prior mandamus.  A combined photocopy of the receipt and postmark pertaining to such Second Request is attached as δ.  Again, there has been no response, and no attempt to rebut such Letter of Redress.  In addition, there has been no response, even at this late date, to the November 11, 2008 mandamus.  Such brazen ignorance of this Citizen’s repeated queries is disgraceful.  Audacious was the expectation that a Florida elector and man of Pinellas county, himself a natural born citizen, eligible to the Office of President of the United States of America, should be obligated to spend hard-earned money to mail a Second Request, again via Certified Mail, when a simple and truthful response should have been rendered, pursuant to the first request.  I was here, in Pinellas county, when the bell tolled twelve, as time marched through midnight, and as April 11, 2009 (the fair and just Deadline set for a proper response to such Letter of Redress) vanished into April 12, 2009 (Easter Sunday).  This signified a long-awaited answer to a simple question which had been annoying me. This question of eligibility, to which we finally know the answer, had been ignored, obfuscated, and resisted by those who cared not for the Rule of Law, preferring the dictatorship of one, who held neither the Constitutional authority to sign any Bill into Law, nor to nominate a Justice, nor to negotiate a Treaty, nor to issue a Pardon.  In fact, he may have no statutory authority to reside in this country, whatsoever; for if he be a foreigner, never Naturalized, without papers, there may be a violation of Immigration Law.  However, that issue can be left to others.  This case concerns only reparations for the Principal Sum of $4.90, which I spent as a result of fulfilling a Patriotic duty to mail a Second Request.  The fact that Defendant is not Commander in Chief is pertinent to this Small Claim, because in order to properly file it, I must sign, under penalty of perjury, attesting to the fact that Defendant is not in the military service of the United States.  As a result of his tacit Admission of ineligibility, Mr. Obama, who certainly portrays himself to be President, has verily Declared, to one and to all, that he is not only ineligible to such esteemed Office, but also that he is a charlatan, and a usurper of the kind most vile, injuring not with the Sword, but with the slogan and smile.  He has instilled false hope in the hearts and minds of men.  Being not President, he has no immunity from this civil lawsuit, and he must respond to any subpoena, summons, or writ issued by this Court.  He has unlawfully seized power, knowing full well that he is ineligible; in fact, under the British Nationality Act of 1948, he remains a British subject, having never renounced his born allegiance, acquired via his father, to the United Kingdom.  The specter of allowing and supporting a British President was an anathema to the Founding Fathers, and in particular to the first Chief Justice of the United States, John Jay, who believed the insertion of the words “natural born” to be of tremendous import, as stated in his July 25, 1787 letter to Gen. George Washington, the presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention, in Philadelphia.  “Permit me to hint,” wrote Jay, “whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the Administration of our national Govt., and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the Am. Army shall not be given to nor devolve on any but a natural born Citizen.”  The phrase was added, without discussion or debate, to the Constitution for the United States of America, to wit., (with a majority of this Section omitted, for brevity): 

Article. II.  Section. 1.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. 

In sum, a true and proper response to my letter of November 11, 2008 WOULD HAVE NEGATED the duty (therefore cost) to mail the Second Request – the February 26, 2009 Letter of Redress.  Mr. Obama could have simply responded that my doubt was, indeed, warranted, that he was not a natural born citizen, and that he was ineligible to the Office of President of the United States.  ON THESE PREMISES DO I BASE MY CLAIM. 
 

_________________________________

William Spencer Connerat 111

A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.

-Phil