And the spark struck out by that steed, in his flight . . .

The first wave of my litigation regarding Mr. Obama’s eligibility to be President of the United States will wash-up upon the steps of the United States Supreme Court on Wednesday.  My first quo warranto suit against Mr. Obama – filed last January – was dismissed by the District Court in June.  Last week the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit – refusing me full briefing and oral argument – summarily affirmed the lower court’s dismissal.

That allows me to file a Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme Court asking them to review three significant questions: First, have we as a People lost the right to challenge the qualifications of an elected official to hold a public office? This is what the lower courts have now held.  I don't believe the Framers intended that the fox be trusted to guard the chickens.

Second, to prevent my asserting my fundamental right to alert the Grand Jury that there is reason to believe that Mr. Obama has committed wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1343, "Fraud by wire, radio, or television", can the judiciary – using Orwellian “doublespeak” – swap the employment by Congress in 18 U.S.C. §3332(a) of the imperative auxiliary verb “shall” with discretionary auxiliary verb “may”?  That statute obligates the U.S. Attorney to present evidence to the Grand Jury when requested.  The lower courts have changed the language of §3332(a) from “Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury” to “Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person [may], if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury.”  How does that work?

Third, and most pressing, I argue that the natural law prohibition against legal indeterminacy prevents the lower courts from employing the tactics of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei of using ambiguous legal terms-of-art to achieve the same goals: a revolutionary transformation of the legal order from that envisioned by the Framers to an alternative order which permits the unregulated exercise of brute power employed to assault the fundamentals of the rule of law to the end of creating a modern federal Volksgebundenheit and Artgleichheit through the creation of de facto and de jure Volksgerichts.

Obviously, more to come . . .