Delaware Refuses to Release Criminal Records Related to Joe Biden

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...

Summary only...

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

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...

Summary only...

A Tale Of Two Indictment Dismissals: Trump’s DOJ’s Flynn Case vs. Obama’s DOJ’s Duke Case

I could not help but gag on my breakfast on May 9th when reading the Business Insider article entitled “There is no precedent that anybody can find': Obama reportedly excoriated the DOJ's decision to drop the Michael Flynn case in a private call.”  Apparently, Mr. Obama has forgotten his DOJ’s dismissal without explanation of the U.S. Capitol-Bombing, Domestic Terrorist, Elizabeth Anna Duke.  Let’s compare cases and see if you don’t gag too on the hypocrisy.

In United States Of America v. Michael T. Flynn, the U.S. Government filed a twenty (20) page Motion To Dismiss the Criminal Information against Michael T. Flynn.  That motion detailed: (i) the factual predicate for such a motion and (ii) the legal status of the government and court in addressing that motion.  While the entire Motion deserves reading by any fair-minded Citizen before they form any opinion regarding that Motion, the sum and substance was that:

“[T]he Government has concluded that the interview of Mr. Flynn was untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn ‒ a no longer justifiably predicated investigation that the FBI had, in the Bureau’s own words, prepared to close because it had yielded an “absence of any derogatory information.” . . The Government is not persuaded that the January 24, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn’s statements were material even if untrue. 

That Motion now pends before the Honorable Judge Sullivan.  Stop eating before continuing reading:

Lost to the memory of most, Elizabeth Anna Duke was indicted on May 11, 1988, along with six other individuals, for acts of violence against the United States, including the bombing of the United States Capitol on November 7, 1983.  After her arrest in 1985, Elizabeth Duke was released on $300,000 bail over the strenuous objections of the United States Attorney.  She subsequently failed to re-appear as ordered and a fugitive bench warrant was issued for her arrest. To date, Elizabeth Duke has not been captured pursuant to that warrant of arrest and she is still listed on the F.B.I. 's Most Wanted list.

Fast forward twenty-five years to June 17, 2009. Shortly after Mr. Obama was sworn in as President, a putative Assistant United States Attorney made an oral motion to dismiss the Indictment and quash the arrest warrant for the fugitive, domestic terrorist, United-States-Capitol-bombing Elizabeth Anna Duke which was granted by Magistrate-Judge Deborah A. Robinson.

Neither the Oral Motion nor the Order dismissing the Indictment gave any reason for this extraordinary action of dismissing an indictment against a dangerous felony fugitive. When I finally forced Magistrate-Judge Robinson to release the transcript, I discovered that neither the law nor the facts granted to Magistrate-Judge Robinson the authority to dismiss the indictment against Elizabeth Anna Duke.  The tale from that point forward gets very sordid and calls into question Mr. Obama’s involvement with the radical, Weather Underground movement of the 70s and 80s.  A full recitation of my investigations and the appalling indictment of Mr. Obama’s abuse of the legal system can be found at my web-page on Elizabeth Anna Duke.

So Mr. Obama, No: a legally-justified (if not compelled) Motion to Dismiss in the Flynn case is not as you claim “the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic ‒ not just institutional norms ‒ but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk.”  Simply stated, the record in the Flynn case is available for all to see and judge. That is what the rule of law requires: transparency of government action.

Rather, when you send an attorney who appears not to be a DOJ employee to dismiss an indictment against a fugitive without explanation before an Article I magistrate-judge who: (i) does not have jurisdiction to dismiss an indictment, (ii) misrepresented herself on the dismissal order as an Article III judge, (iii)  patently lies on her dismissal order and (iv) coincidentally sees her son get preferential federal treatment for his felony arrest for drugs and weapon charges, then, Mr. Obama, I have a real concern that on your watch the “rule of law [was] at risk.” Serious risk.

Care to respond?

Read More...

Summary only...

EVIDENCE OF CIA ROLE IN FORGING OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE

Government computers illegally hacked Hawaii Dept. of Health

Regardless of what you think of Alex Jones, he recently posted an article that the main stream media will not touch regarding the CIA's involvement in the creation of Barack Obama's birth certificate.  

Ignore the article and issue if you want, but as a U.S. Citizen I opine you have the obligation to know what the government is doing sure in the belief that we are all NetFlix-addicted morons.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Fat Lady is Still Singing

Maryland Court Revives Suit by 'Birther' Sibley

While I am waiting for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to make their next move in the D.C. Madam matter, I thought it appropriate to note that the Maryland Special Court of Appeals has reversed the dismissal of my lawsuit seeking acess to the Montgomery County Grand Jury to present evidence regarding the questionable nature of the identity documents of Mr. Obama.

The full article can be read here and the actual opinion here.

So I guess this litigation arc seeking access to court and grand jury to address legitmate concerns is not quite done, yet.

Read More...

Summary only...

BuzzFeed, Birthers & Me.

BuzzFeed recently wrote an article in which I was quoted entitled: "Ted Cruz Inherits Obama’s Birthers". 

The term “birther” now has a common understanding in the general lexicon: “Birther: A conspiracy theorist who believes that Barack Obama is ineligible for the Presidency of the United States, based on any number of claims related to his place of birth, birth certificate, favorite birthday, or whether or not he has heard the song Africa by Toto."

Obviously, as the BuzzFeed article details fairly, there is much more to the claims of "birthers" then challenging Mr. Obama's eligibility; the very foundation of the rule of law is at issue.

Read More...

Summary only...

Rafael “Ted” Cruz, Jr. is Not Eligible to be President

I have two points to make about Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz.  First, he may not even be a U.S. citizen and thus owes it to the People to prove that he is a U.S. Citizen. Second, in all events he is not an Article II, “natural born Citizen” and the legal indeterminacy about that question must be resolved, pronto.

I. Is Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz a Citizen?

There are two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. Ramos-Hernandez v. I.N.S., 566 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1977).

Since 1977, Congress has provided at Title 8 U.S.C. §1401(g) that a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents – one of whom is an alien, and the other – a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of 14 years -- is a national and citizen of the United States at birth.

However, Congress has, through enactment of statute and federal regulation, required that such an individual born of one US citizen parent outside the United States take additional steps to confirm the choice of U.S. Citizenship to which they are entitled. Hence, at 8 Code of Federal Regulations §341.1 “Application” it is stated: “An application for a certificate of citizenship by or in behalf of a person who claims to have . . acquired or derived United States citizenship as specified in [8 U.S.C. §1401(g)] shall be submitted on Form N-600 in accordance with the instructions thereon, accompanied by the fee specified in Sec. 103.7(b)(1) of this chapter. The application shall be supported by documentary and other evidence essential to establish the claimed citizenship, such as birth, adoption, marriage, death, and divorce certificates."

That CFR section is followed by §341.5(a) “Issuance of certificate” which states: “If the application is granted, a Certificate of Citizenship shall be issued and, unless the claimant is unable by reason of mental incapacity or young age to understand the meaning thereof, he or she shall take and subscribe to the oath of renunciation and allegiance, prescribed by part 337 of this chapter, before a member of the Service within the United States. Thereafter, delivery of the certificate shall be made in the United States to the claimant or the acting parent or guardian, either personally or by certified mail.” Finally, §337 states: “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

What is known of Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz's relevant time-line is this:

November 23, 1934: Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz's  mother, Eleanor Elizabeth (Darragh) Wilson, is born. (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-mother-birth-certificate/)

1966: Rafael Cruz, Sr. says. “And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen.” (From and interview with National Public Radio).

December 22, 1970: Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz is born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, to his parents Eleanor Elizabeth (Darragh) Wilson and Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, Sr. (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/08/ted-cruz-releases-birth-certificate-was-born-to-american-mother-in-canada/). His Father, Rafael Cruz, Sr., who had lived in Canada for at least four years at that time, had applied for and received Canadian citizenship under Canadian Immigration and Naturalization Laws, as stated by Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, Sr.

1974: The Cruz family moves to the United States when Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz is approximately four years old.

2005: Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz claims that he applies for U.S. citizenship and renounces his Canadian citizenship. No record of Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz renouncing his Canadian citizenship or applying for U.S. citizenship exists as of 2005.

May 2014: Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz's legal counsel files to renounce his Canadian citizenship in an effort to make him eligible to run for high office under the natural born Citizen clause of Article II in the U.S. Constitution.

My three points on this issue of Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz's U.S. citizenship are these:

1.  Where is the proof that Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz's mother never renounced her U.S. Citizenship prior to Rafael Benvindo “Ted” Cruz, Jr.'s birth? If she had, all bets are off as Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz would not be eligible for U.S. Citizenship. The Cruz camp must permit the release of any relevant documents in this regard held by the Canadian government.

2. As required by Congressional statute and enabling Federal Regulation, when and where did Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz apply for his certificate of citizenship and take the obligatory citizenship oath? If he has done this, then it is of record and again the Cruz camp must authorize the release of that information.

3. Last, if in fact as publicly reported, Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz in 2005 applied and received citizenship, he must have taken the requisite citizenship oath which required that he: “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign . . .state . . . of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.” Born in Canada, he was a subject or citizen of Canada. Why then, in May 2014, is the attorney for Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz renouncing his Canadian citizenship when that should have been done in 2005 pursuant to his citizenship oath?

II.  Is Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz a “natural born Citizen”?

The simple fact is that no competent court of law has ruled on the definition of “natural born Citizen”. I argue in my legal brief -- A Response to "On the Meaning of Natural Born Citizen" --  that when that phrase was employed by the Framers of our civil society, they meant a child born of two U.S. Citizens who were U.S. Citizens at the time of the child's birth. Under that definition, it matters not where the child is born, only that at that blessed moment, both parents are U.S. Citizens. If I am right, then Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz is not eligible to be President.

The extensive litigation regarding “natural born Citizen” which challenged the similarly-situated Mr. Obama's eligibility under Article II did not result in a single competent court ruling on that issue as each case was dismissed upon a threshold finding that the complaining citizen didn't have “standing” to challenge a candidate's eligibility. Hence, it would be up to one of the present, national candidates for President to raise the issue so that the Supreme Court can finally make the determination of the precise meaning of the phrase.  

Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz are you going to deign to respond?

Read More...

Summary only...

Trump, Cruz, Rubio & Me

Last May I wrote a short response to a Note in the Harvard Law Review which Note sought to legitimatize Messrs. Rubio/Cruz/Jindal as eligible to be President under Article II's "natural born Citizen" requirement.  Predictably, the Harvard Law Review refused to print my retort.  

The main stream media has been mocking anyone who seeks to raise the presently-unanswered-by-the-judiciary question: "What does the phrase 'natural born Citizen' mean in Article II."   Apparently, people are starting to take notice of my legal argument in this regard:  I received this today from the Social Sciences Research Network where my Response is filed and publicy available.

Your paper, "A RESPONSE TO THE HARVARD LAW REVIEW NOTE OF PAUL CLEMENT AND NEAL KATYAL: 'ON THE MEANING OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'", was recently listed on SSRN's Top Ten download list.  You may view the abstract at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2700641

Read More...

Summary only...

I know I can! I know I can!

Because I am the little litigation engine that could (and, unlike most, would), I must: An update on my litigation efforts:

First, in my Article V litigation against Speaker Ryan (Boehner resigned recently) and Senator McConnell, the case was remanded back to D.C. Superior Court by the U.S. District Court. Not surprisingly, Speaker Ryan has now appealed that remand to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.  I have promptly moved for Summary Affirmance of the Remand Order.  In the scheme of things, this appeal will probably delay the progression of this Article V case to a decision on the merits by six (6) months or more.

Second, in my litigation against the Foreperson of the Grand Jury for Montgomery County Maryland, the State Attorney has filed their Answer Brief and I have now filed my Reply Brief.   In sum, the State Attorney argues that they should be the unaccountable gatekeeper to the Grand Jury.  I argue the opposite.  We will see if the common law prevails or the march of executive/judicial tyranny continues unabated.

Additionally, I have put in three Hawaiian Certificates of Live Birth and juxtaposed them against the COLB of Mr. Obama. If the Court wants to act like ostriches and ignore the glaring anomalies in Mr. Obama's COLB, there is nothing more I can do.

Oral argument is set for the first week in February 2016, so nothing much will happen until then.

Read More...

Summary only...