-->

Wednesday, September 9, 2020

Delaware Refuses to Release Criminal Records Related to Joe Biden


Delaware State Flag

I have been trying since late last year to get the Delaware Office of the Prothonotary to release public records related to a criminal case which may well bear upon the fitness of Joe Biden to be President. However, if you are looking for a 280-characters explanation of the importance of the Prothonotary’s refusal to produce the requested documents, you won’t find it here as this is a complicated story.  Let’s go to the timeline:

In the Fall of 2007, my client Larry Sinclair accused then-Presidential candidate Barack Obama of engaging with him in drug use and homosexual acts. Shortly after that accusation, Larry began to exchange Text Messages regarding Obama with Donald Young, who was the Choir Director at The Rev. Jeremiah Wright Junior's Trinity United Church of Christ. This is the Church where then-Presidential hopeful Barack Obama was baptized, married and was a long-time member. On December 23, 2007, Donald Young was found executed in his Chicago apartment

In Mid-January 2008, Larry posted a video on YouTube regarding his specific allegations of sex and drug use with Obama.

On February 8, 2008, the Attorney General of Delaware (and the late son of Joe Biden), Beau Biden, filed an Indictment against Larry charging theft of less than $1,000 and, anomalously, for an extradition warrant.

In Early-March 2008, Larry contacted me as he was afraid for his life as a result of the Donald Young “assassination” and for advice on what to do as he was receiving death threats. To protect Larry, we: (i) filed a federal lawsuit against the anonymous blogger "Oswaldo" threatening Larry and (ii) organized a rather bizarre press conference on June 18, 2008, at the National Press Club which is still on YouTube. The goals were to push back against those threatening Larry and also make a buffoon out of him so he would be relegated to a dustbin of history and no longer a threat to the Obama/Biden ticket. The strategy worked. The FBI identified the person making threats against Larry and me but refused to identify either him or the U.S. Attorney who told the the FBI not to tell us his identity.

Immediately after the June 18, 2008 Press Conference and while still at the National Press Club, Larry was arrested on the Delaware warrant and subsequently extradited to Delaware on June 23, 2008. According to the Docket, on August 28, 2008, Beau Biden filed a “nolle prosequi” or dismissal of the criminal case against Larry citing to the Court: “Insufficient Evidence”.

In December 2019, I ordered the actual file of Larry's Delaware Criminal case and paid to have it retrieved from the Delaware Clerk's storage.  The Prothonotary of Delaware has refused to produce the file for my review despite my repeated requests. I believe that file will demonstrate that there was no evidence in support of the Delaware Warrant but rather it was a way for the Bidens to shut Larry up until after the election. It worked.

The circumstances surrounding Larry’s indictment, arrest and the subsequent dismissal of the criminal charges against him for lack of evidence six months later by Beau Biden's office speak clearly to me of the heavy hand of Joe Biden utilizing the criminal justice system to silence an existential threat to Obama and by extension, to Joe Biden himself.

I don't know if Larry was telling the truth or not, nor do I particularly care if Barack Obama is gay and/or an addict; that is not the issue here. I do know and care that Joe Biden apparently had my client falsely arrested for making those accusations. Like so many in Washington D.C., Joe Biden has come to believe that if his has the "power" then whatever he does with it is "right". This is antithetical to our Nation's Founder's beliefs and significant sacrifices to achieve dominance for the rule-of-law that “what is right” flows from objective and agreed-upon sources of right and wrong, not from the possession of power alone.

For this reason, I do not believe Joe Biden is fit to be President of the United States of America because apparently to him the ends justify whatever means are used to obtain them. While I will admit to certain reservations about Donald Trump, in weighing the risks each man poses to the well-being of the United States of America, there is no question in my mind that Joe Biden is simply too morally untenanted to be a four-year tenant in the most powerful Chair in the World.

Read More...

Saturday, August 15, 2020

A Response to Reginald Oh’s Newsweek Article: Born in the U.S.A.: Kamala Harris Is Eligible to Become Vice President

Eight Attempts to Eliminate 'Natural Born Citizen' Requirement Ahead of  Obama 2008 Presidential Run |

The political-driven and intellectually-vacant Newsweek Article by Reginald Oh demands a retort. Given my extensive litigation experience in this area, I am compelled by my civic duty to give that reply.  In sum, Mr. Oh conclude that: 

Is Kamala Harris ineligible to become vice president because she is not a natural born United States citizen? Can that possibly be true? The answer is no. An examination of the relevant constitutional provision and Supreme Court precedent tells us that Harris is indeed a natural born U.S. citizen and fully eligible to become vice president.

This of course begs the more important question: Can Senator Harris become President if , assuming he is elected, Mr. Biden cannot fulfill his term? As I will demonstrate below, the substantial legal precedent holds the opposite. What Mr. Oh sought to achieve in his Newsweek article, legitimizing an illegitimate candidate for Vice President who could potentially become President, has no basis in the Law of the United States.


First,  the facts: Mr. Oh states, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, that: "[Kamala Harris’] immigrant parents were not permanent resident aliens when she was born [in California]. Her parents were students, presumably in the U.S. on student visas at the time.”


Second, the law: The Constitutional provision at issue: Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 states:


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.


Plainly, Ms. Harris is a “citizen” of the United States and entitled to all the privileges and immunities that status entitles her.  However, the Constitution adds an additional requirement for those who would seek to be President.  They must be a “natural born Citizen.”  Tellingly, Mr. Oh fails to mention this requirement in his attempt to ignore the law of this land.


This brings into focus the seminal question: Who is a “natural born Citizen”?  As detailed below, any cogent analysis of this legal-term-of-art can only arrive at one conclusion: Senator Harris, while certainly qualified to be Vice-President, could not succeed to the Office of President as she is not qualified to be President of the United States as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.


In the 18th Century when the Constitution was ratified by the States, the term “natural born Citizen” had a definite meaning well known to those schooled in the law.  “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” (Emphasis added).  Senator Harris’ parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of her birth.


Importantly John Jay's July 25, 1787 letter to George Washington concluded that the Constitution should: “declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american [sic] army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”  Subsequent to John Jay's July 25, 1787, letter, on August 22, 1787, it was proposed  at the Constitutional Convention that the presidential qualifications were to be a “citizen of the United States.”  Upon objection to such a broad definition, the language was referred back to a Committee, and the Article II, Section 1 qualification clause was changed to read “natural born Citizen,” and was so reported out of Committee on September 4, 1787, and thereafter adopted in the Constitution.  Plainly, the drafters of the Constitution wanted the more limited scope of citizens who were “natural born Citizens” to be eligible to be President. 


Moreover, turning to the enactments of the First Congress for guidance, it is plain that “citizen” cannot be conflated to equate with “natural born Citizen”.  The Naturalization Act of 1790 which held: “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .” (Emphasis added). Of dispositive significance is the 1790 Act's employing of the plural noun “citizens” in defining who shall be “natural born citizens.” and the singular noun as to whom are only to gain “citizenship”.  


Therefore, either Mr. Oh is a sloppy legally researcher or more likely his vapid Newsweek article was presented as purposeful political dissimulation.


All this brings me to the most glaring omission in Mr. Oh’s Newsweek polemic: His failure to cite the relevant Supreme Court case on the term “natural born Citizen”.  The only Supreme Court decision which has directly construed the “natural-born citizen” clause from Article 2, §1, is Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874).  In that case, the Supreme Court held: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Minor v. Happersett at 168 (Emphasis added).   Again, the plural noun “parents” is dispositive of the issue of who is a “natural born Citizen”.


Chief Justice John Marshall said, in delivering the opinion of the Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803): “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”  Notably, the phrase “natural born Citizen” appears just once in the Constitution and the phrase “citizen” appears twenty-one (21) times.  Plainly, something more than just “citizenship” is required in order to be President.


Thus, I must maintain that the shoddy citations by Mr. OH to imply that Senator Harris is eligible to be President cannot stand.  The reference to de Vattel, The Naturalization Act of 1790 and the holding in Minor v. Happersett are all consistent: “natural born Citizen” is a privilege bestowed upon a special class of U.S. Citizen, to wit, a child born of two U.S. Citizen parents. Stated another way, Senator Harris is not a “natural born Citizen” and thus is ineligible to be President as her respective parents were not U.S. Citizens at the time of her birth.  Hence her presumed nomination by the Democratic Party to be Vice President is either ill-informed or a clever ruse to make the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, the next in line if Mr. Biden is elected and fails to fulfill his term in office.  Take your choice.


What is really at issue is the very fundamental question of whether We the People are to be governed by the rule of law as embodied in our organic document or instead, the whim and caprice of the ruling class which seeks to pervert the law to their desired ends.   I hold the former is the most important question of this election cycle and I will continue to raise the hue and cry as best I can.

Read More...

Monday, August 3, 2020

Institutional Racism & Me


I thought I ought to add my voice to the cacophony being raised about systemic racism by providing documentation of it from my days as a criminal prosecutor in Rochester, New York. 




In the summer of 1987, a chance comment after church by the mother of my first girlfriend Sarah Zartman changed my life. Mrs. Zartman at the time was the chairwoman of the Republican Party for Rochester and had a problem. There was no one who wanted to run in the fall 1987 election against the Democratic incumbent District Attorney Howard Relin – my soon-to-be ex-boss as I was leaving the office after five years working there as an Assistant District Attorney. 

Though, I knew there was little chance of success, Ms. Zartman thought the election would be an excellent opportunity to introduce me to the electorate as a nice guy, homegrown candidate and would pave the way for the following year’s election to the State Senate, where a seat was to be vacated and up for grabs. The last thing anyone wanted was for me to leave a bad taste in the voters' mouths as first impressions are everlasting. 

However, that was not to be. My former boss and opponent in the race for District Attorney was Howard Relin. Mr. Relin had authored a “Selection of the Jury” memorandum for his 40 Assistant District Attorneys directing them to remove “women and minorities” from the jury whenever the defendant was of African descent. This appalling 1981-1986 policy of Mr. Relin’s office was not only morally repugnant, it had been unconstitutional since 1965 when the Supreme Court held in Swain v. Alabama, that: a “State's purposeful or deliberate denial to Negroes on account of race of participation as jurors in the administration of justice violates the Equal Protection Clause.” 

After I publicly raised this issue in the campaign and released the Jury Selection Memo as proof, no present or former Assistant District Attorneys would collaborate the existence of Relin’s Jury Selection Memo. I was socially and professionally blackballed (not for the last time) for using unfair campaign tactics. I lost the election by the largest margin in the history of Rochester, New York, elections. 

However, three days after the election, the highest court in New York, in the case of People v. Knight, reversed a murder conviction obtained by Howard Relin’s office stating: “We find that defendant articulated facts sufficient to support the conclusion that the [Assistant District Attorney] exercised his peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner, thereby shifting the burden to the prosecutor to provide neutral explanations for his peremptory challenges.” Subsequently, Relin’s Jury selection memo was introduced and its authenticity confirmed resulting in a new trial for Mr. Knight. 

I was, as usual, vindicated ex post facto which is fine with me. 1 Corinthians 4:3.

Read More...