TX 2016 Ballot Challenge - Case 16-0148

Copy provided courtesy of: http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.
org
FILED
IN SUPREME COURT
OF TEXAS
o1 zc3
IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT FOR

TEXAS
BLAKE HAWTHORNE. Cieri(
AUSTIN LOCATION
sv
oeputy
v ~1
0
0
0
0
LAURA LYNNE WILKINSON,

REGISTERED DEMOCRAT VOTER
AND EDWARD SUNDERLAND,
REGISTERED REPUBLICAN
VOTER FOR mE STATE
OF TEXAS
Pbdnti~eddonen
v.
TEXAS SECRETARY OF STATE

AND CHIEF ELECTIONS OFFICER,
CARLOS H CASCOS,
TX DIRECfOR OF ELECTIONS,
KEITH INGRAM,
TEXASATTORNEYGENERA4
KEN PAXTON,
DEMOCRAT PARTY
CERTIFYING AUTHORITY,
GILBERT HINOJOSA,
REPUBLICAN PARTY
TOM MECHLER
Defendants/Respoodeots
Original Pleadlns before the SCOTX
CMLACTION
NO JURY
16 -0 1 .8
February 26,2016
Copy provided courtesy of: http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

PETITION FOR EMERGENCY WRIT OF MANDAMUS. DECLABATORY
JUDGMENT. INJUNCTIVE BELIEF AND JUDICIAL BEYIEW
0
TO TilE HONORABLE JUOOE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, Laura Lynne Wilkinson and Edward Sunderland, individually
and as two active/participatory holders of legitimate Texas Voter Franchises with
special in~ and Nationally United States Registered eligible, as qualified public
eleaors for voting in the March 1, 2016 Primary General Election for US President,
the Texas hybrid State/National election system, and hereby we file this Emergency
Petition for a Judicial Review, Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief and Writ of
Mandamus under extraordinary circumstances against the above-named Defendants/
Respondents, and show as follows:
JNTRODUcrJON
The Plaintiffs-Petitioners respectfully ask the Supreme Court of Texas

(SCOTX) to issue an emergency action compelling the Texas Secretary of State and
the Texas Attorney General to begin an immediate political system
review/examination to address and resolve the constitutional crisis in the State of
Texas concerning the presence of illegal and illegitimate candidates for the office of
the President and to not issue any state certificates of process, or award any delegates
to any winners of the March I, 2016 Primary general Election until the issue of the
2 ~ Original Pleading before the SCOTX
February 26. 2016
Presidential Federal Employment Criteria are investigated and resolved1 Emergency

relief &Om this Court is required due to the importance of the issue and its devastating
impact on the election cycle, the vote as a government docwnent and the democratic
process. Thece is a real imminent threat of election nullification and yet anothcc
installation of a aiminal perjurer to the Office of the President under active challenge
by legitimate and active holders of voter franchises. Without this emergency relief, the
state and nation will experience, for a third time, massive electoral fraud and
nonconsensual aiminalization of votes, specifically the Plaintiffs' which makes them

real parties of intel'est in this catastrophic failure of process. We do not ask that the
March
t, 2016 vote be canceled, as the system m~ be allowed to fail2 in order for the
courts to engage in judicial review of the entire scheme and its discovered operational
disintegration. We do demand that no certification take place until the Chief Elections
Officer can prove to the State that all the Presidential candidates listed on this
government document are legitimate by document review and that no vote was made
a criminal act in a nullified election, specifically the votes of Ms. Wilkinson and Mr.
Sunderland.
The Plaintiffs, Ms. Wilkinson and Mr. Sunderlan~ file this Civil Action pro se
based upon the Supreme Court of Texas's (SCOTX) ( l) original subject matter
1
Even if the wtnnina candidates are presumed to be legitimate by the traditJonal interpretation of
natural-born Citizen. The system has failed because the active voting population in Texas has had their
effective consent destroyed by electoral fraud for a thJrd time.
2
And to show a suspected conspiracy between the Governor, the Texas Secretary of State, the Texas
Attorney General and Sen. Ted Cruz to corrupt the system. With the endorsement of Sen. Ted Cruz by
Gov. Abbott the causal loop is closed and the corruption of the Office of the TXSOS ls revealed.
3j Original Pleading before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
jwisdiction under Sec. 273.06tl; (2) the standing of the parties as active voters
lawfully registered with the State of Texas with special interest in the effective
strength and legality of their individual votes and thus a recognized protected class
distinguishable from the general public and (3) stating a claim to relief from the
damages incurred by public and private political corporate negligence, hereinafter in
this case and controversy at the state and national level now ripe for judicial analysis
and decision. Plaintiffs-Petitioners bring this action pursuant to the Texas Tort Claims
Act4 as it applies to the political enforcement officers of the State of Texas Executive
Department, the Texas Secretary of State, the Director of Elections and the Texas
0
0
Attorney General who have all failed in their duties to protect the State of Texas from
ineligible candidates and in tum the inevitable nullification of the entire Presidential
Election cycles of2008, 2012, and as expected in 2016.
Jurisdiction: The supreme court or a court of appeals may issue a wrtt of mandamus to compel the
performance of any duty Imposed by law In connection with the holdina of an election or a poUtkal
party convention, resarclless of whether the person responsible for performing the duty is a public
officer.
4
1lde 5. Government UabiUty, Ch. 101. Tort Oalms, Sec 101.001 (3) (A) and (6) (A & B), Sec. 101.003,
Sec. 101.021 (1) (B) and (2) ("'personal injwy..so caused by a condition or use of tangible personal or
real property of the governmental unit [Electoral system} would, were It a private person, be liable to
the claimant according to Texas law"' as in misprision of felony and treason and theft of document under
false pretext.) Sec. 101.023, the SCOTX wiU need to resolve the nullification of a vote as a matter of
destruction of property with respect to liability. Sec. 101.025 (a) as this extends to a public corporation
the Offices of the Texas Secretary of State and the Texas Attorney General as neither of these indlvldual
officers may daim lndMdwllmmunlty in the event of corporate negligence. So too, with the Directors of
Elections, Mr. Keith ingram as an enforcement officer of the etectoral system as a unit of state
government.
Original Pfeading before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
Mr. Obama is the US Constitutional Enforcement Officer of the United States

(as a US Code recognized federal corporation~) who is tasked by oath with oversight
of the US Constitution and its implementation under matters of controversy,
0
0
unintentionally and/or inadvertaldy, with negative impact of a state electoral system

and thereby ~ng a loophole/ambiguity/fatal flaw/blindness in the process by
which the entire state, and tha'eby the national hybrid~ is nullified by the
presence of ineligible and thus illegal Presidential candidates who are actively stealing
votes, funds, delegates, caucuses, and other election specific franchises and ballots as
documents for the purpose of obtaining national power and wealth. These events
0
0
become matters of misprision of felony and treason, and criminalization of the

voklballot as an act of theft under false pretext, which results in vote bloc dilution of
legitimately cast votes by millions of illegitimate votes as acts of willing and
unwillin& and knowing and unknowing, voter fraud.

The state and federal constitutional crisis was initiated when Mr. Obama was
installed6 as a usurper to the Office of the President, in 2008 and 20 12, and allowed to
hold this office illegally and under active challenge by the Plaintiffs, as a matter of a
catastrophic failure of the state/national hybrid electoral system. As a result, the
s 28 usc Sec. 3002 (15)
'Untfl Mr. Obama was formally sworn into office by the Chief Justice, the crime of usurpation had not
been fully realized and the votes which eCected him to office not yet stoten in the Electoral College and
joint vote count of the Senate and Congress. The state systems had failed With f!VefY false certificate of
etectfon issued by a Chief Elections Offecer, but the National system did not completefy fail untU Mr.
Obama took the office. That was in 2008. The confirmation that the failure of the system was not an
anomaly but a systemic failure were exposed in 2012, and the crimes committed rose to treason instead
of stmpty fraud.
sf
OriBfnal Pleading before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
Plaintiffs are overtly dalied political representation u compensation for use of

legitimate votes cast in an election in a Constitutional Republic, by the presmce of an
identified perj'lllU and violator of office and oath. A usurper to office, any office, is
incapable of representing anyone, but him/herself.

As the US Chief Constitutional Officer by oath, Mr. Obama is incapable of
legally executing the duties and obligations of his Executive Office and of this
Constitutional Office, and with malice and unclean hands distorts the law to protect
and cover up his status as a usurper aided and abetted by the Private Political
Branding Corporations of both major Parties and with the active consent of the Texas
Secretary of State and now the Texas Attorney General and widespread distortion of
the relevant material facts by the Mainstream media under control of a domestic and
foreign oligarchy hostile to the nation and its people and therefore overt domestic
enemies as recognized by the US Constitution. As a usurper he has committed treason
against the nation with Iran, Cuba and all other treaties and agreements made in the
name of the nation by fraud at the highest levels of Government which put this nation
at risk for insolvency, which are high crimes and which, because of his status as an
illegal PresideD~ cannot be addressed by impeachment as provided for by the US
Constitution.
As long as the US Constitutional terms of art natural-born Citizen and X years
a resident, as consecutive and immediate to an active election, remain ignored as
&I Original Pleadins before the scone
February 26, 2016
political and judicial policy, the nation is politically and economiailly raped7 by
those who installed the usurper for the purpose of subverting the nation and the
danoaatic process. Registered active voters and US Citizens are disenftanchised u a
recognized protected class, distinguishable from the general public and illegal alieos1,
of their right to vote, their right to free speech u economic opportunity and their
rights u a matter of their citizen sovereignty recognized by law and by the nation's
founding charter'.
Plaintiff-Petitionen also bring a separate action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1983 and Sec. 1985 (2) 10 & (3)11 and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1343(a)(b), Sec. 2201 12, and Sec.
2284 for injunctive and declaratory relief and summary judgment regarding claims of
7
This tenn is used with spedflc intent In its basest context of absolute destruction of civil ri&hts without
due recourse, which indudes a failure by the COurts to adequately rec:ocnlze and address the root cause
issue and paay the electorate for utter fools
1
Who are not a protected dass under the Constitution because they are not Citizens of the United
States and are not under the complete jurisdiction of the Gov
1
Declaration of Independence 1776
10
...If two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impedlna, hinderins, obstructJng, or defeating,
in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the
equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfutly enforcing, or attempting to
enforce, the right of any person, or dass of persons, to the equal protection of the laws; ...
11
...or If two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who Is
lawfully entitled to vote, from glvfng his support or advocacy in a le&al manner, toward or In favor of the
election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of
Congress of the US; or to Injure (mentally or economically) any citizen in person or property [the vote
and ballot] on account of such support or advocacy; In any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, If
one or more persons enpged therein do, or cause to be done, any act In furtherance of the object of
such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property , or deprived of having and
exerdsin& any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so Injured or deprived may
have an action for the recovery of damases occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or
more of the conspirators.
u Sec 2201 (a) "in a case of actual controversy within Its jurfsdiction,...any court of the United States,
upon the flllns of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any
interested party seekl"l such dedaratJon, whether or not further relief Is or could be sought. Any such
dedaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as
such."
11
Original Pleadin& before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
qualified/sovereign/individual immunity13 in light of blatant public/federal corporate

negligence.
Since 2008 this nation has been in a politically concealed1 US and State
Constitutional crisis because a political actor/product was installed to office under a

catastrophic failure of the entire State/National hybrid Presidaltial Electoral System
and who now illegally holds the additional national position of Chief Constitutional
The catastrophic failure of the Texas Electoral system 16 is rooted in the US
Constitution and two constitutional terms of art: natural-hom Citizen and X years a
0
0
resident, as consecutive and immediate to the active election cycle. These terms
generate heated controversy and are subject to overt distortion as a matter of political
agenda with intent to destroy intelligent choice and effective consent, with the
As a claim to relief from the illegal acts of Public Oversight agents who refuse to address threats to
active and participatory holders of voter franchises, who are struaflng to force the Chief Elections
Officer of Texas and as a temporary Federal Election Oversl&ht Officer to recoanlze an Imminent and real
threat to their votes, in particular, and the election, In general, posed by Illegitimate votes and vote
dUutJon resulting In the nullification of their votes and the entire electoral system . This has already
happened and will continue to result In the greatest event of etectoral fraud ever committed In the State
of Texas and subsequently In the Nation if not recognized and stopped.
14
VIewed by the Plaintiffs as a nationaS conspiracy, between the Usurper, the PP8Cs and the media to
keep the publk from exploding once they realize that they were and are victims of a coup d'~t as a
component of the political and corporate agendas of Starve the Beast and Globalization.
" And as such, Is In a posttion to cover up the Illegality of his status as Usurper as a matter of abuse of
office and executive order. That Mr. Obama occupies this posttion Is additional evidence of the
catastrophic failure of the Texas and US electoral systems and their OYef'Siaht agents.
u A sub-process of the Presidential National Election, which Is both federal and state in nature and
coordinated execution. Whictllmplies that an state election Oversight Officers are made Federal when
performing ministerial duties for the nation, and in like manner the PPBC Certifyins Authority for the
Presidential politkal products.
u
sl
Original pteading before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
0
endgame being the installation of a Presidential usurper to Office shielded ftom
impeadunent by vice of perjury and fraud.
Mr. Obama is not the US President. Therefore~ Congress cannot remove him
under the regular remedies provided by the US Constituti~ in particular,
impeachment. Other means must be employed to ranove a criminal perjurer from an
office he illeplly holds. That other process is action by quo warranto initiated on
behalf of the nation by either the US Attorney General or the Texas Attorney General
according to process.
The Plaintiffs hold that a natural-born Citizen is jus soli and jus sanguinis
0
0
based on the following statute: XIV amendment, Sec. l All persons hm:n ...in the
United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. are citizens of the United States
and of the state wherein they reside.''
The constitutional term jurisdiction has no qualifier on it. This term is not held
to be partial, general, transitory, conditional, sublimated, foreign, interpreted,
arbitrary, jurisprudent, tourist or in abstract jurisdicti~ but complete, sole, absolute
and comprehensive US Government Jurisdiction which implicitly infers that a person,

in order to claim status as bom a US Citizen and thus a natural-born Citizen, shall be
born within the sovereign territory of the United States 11!51 under its complete
authority as a nation with Wlambiguous allegiance to the nation and its people as
sovereign entities, which also infers that both parents are US Citizens (born or
naturalized) prior to the time of the candidate's birth.
9 J Original Pleading before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
A person cannot claim natural-born Citizeruhip status in order to nm for the

office of the US President under the Presidential Fedcnl Employment Criteria fotmd
in Article II, Sec. 1, Clause S of the US Constitution and be a dual citizen or simply
born on the soil of the United States or in its claimed territories, without more17 Nor
can a person claim derivative US Citizenship without more, having been born on
foreign soil and under the jurisprudence of a foreign nation and seek to assume that
they are qualified to run for and hold the Office of the US President if a Consular
Record/Report of Birth Abroad has not been filed at the time of the child's birth by
the child's parents (bo~ in joint action, not one or the other). Claims of citizenship
per derivation of the status passed down by a single parent to a child, is insufficient to
claim born US Citizenship due to the condition Qjcomplete jurisdiction. In fact, it is
only fully recognized via the process of naturalization, if the law is to be enforced ~
written, rather than being twisted~ maliciously and politically expedient for a vested
agenda hostile to the nation and its lawful people.
PARTIES, JtTRISDICfi()N AND VENUE
17
Nor can a child under the age of statutory majority (18-21), per US federal naturalization law, be able
to choose an alleaiance different from that of his or her parents. A child of Ulegal alien parents cannot
daim alleaiance to the United States independently, nor can that child be granted dtizen sovereignty as
a lawful resident member of the United States by abuse of executive order or trade treaty, as this is a
violation of the Constitution and the 14th amendment.
10 J Original Pleading before the scone
February 26, 2016
0
l. The Plaintiffs, Ms. Wilkinson 18 and Mr. Sunderland19 are active/participatory
lawfully registered voters of Travis and Denton Counties, respectively.

2. Both Petitioners claim standing as Citizens with sovereignty recogniud as ~
unda' the Texas and US Constitutions and the founding charter of this nation, the
Declaration of Independence and thus members of a protected class apart ftom. the
general public.
3. Ms. Wilkinson has been a constituent of the Demoaat Plll'li0 since 1980 (DNC
Manbership # 339000849606, TX registration # 1132794800) and cast her vote

for Mr. Obama21 in 2008 and for Fonner-Gov. Gary Johnson in 201222
4. Ms. Wilkinson intends to vote for Sen. Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Presidential
Election, but holds reservations as to his claim to eligibility as a natural-hom
Citizerr3 The naturalization papers for Mr. Eli Sanders (father) have not been
18
Who has four university degrees, 8S In 81olosv, BS In Physics, MS In Physics wid\ minor In Statistics and
an MBA In Finance. She also was employed for seven years In ttte 1990s as a Project Manaser and lean
Systems Analyst and Is currently, an unwilling member of the long term unemployed by corporate and
government joint policy.
19
~lf-.mployed In the contrfCttns nd bulldlns industry placed at an economic dl$advantase by befna
US Otizen In Texas and subject to the exclusive and complete jurisdiction of the United States with
respect to being an Independent contractor In a state that prefers illegal labor as a business practice.
zo Otherwise known, In this petition, as a Private PoUtlcal Brandlna Corporation (PP9C), to more property
reflt(t the aarrent tnae Ofture of \t\e ~aJor Ptrtle$. 8ottl of whlth t\ve t\cmed ffQO\ ttle people and ~
are predatory political entities, hostile to the nation, and their oaths of office, and by their actions
deceitful when they enter Into appointive or elective service. Both Major Political Parties have become
the domestic enemies our founding fathers warned us about.
21
Unaware of the material facts surroundina his lnelfcjbllity for tho Offico of President
12
The onty legitimate Presidential Candidate to enter Into the General Elec:tton of 2012 and place
natlonaf1y. Gov. Johnson Is currentty running as the Ubertarian candidate In the 2016 election and has
been shut out of all national debates. httos L/www.aaryjobnson2016 com/
n Mr. sandars has publically stated that ho has not been asked to provo his daims to eJialbllity for tho
Office of the President, he is betna asked to now and not because of his skin color.
httR.//www,cnn.com/2016101/llloolltics/bernte:san<k;rs-b!rtb-setttfqte-<?bama-stdn=eotor/index.trtml
11 1Original Pleading before the scone
February 27' 2016
made public. Biographical information indicates that the Elder Mr. Sanders
immigrated to the US in 1921 at the age of 17 and is presumed a naturalized US
Citizen. Mr. Sanders' mother was born in the US to immigrant parents whose legal
0
0
0
status at the time is unknown. Her status as a US Citizen remains conditional to the
clarification of the 14dl amendmalt and complete jurisdiction. However, should it

prove that the Mr. Eli Sanders was a US Citizen prior to his marriage with Mrs.
Sanders (mother) under the relevant natw'alization statutes of this era, her status as
a US Citizen would have been resolved per the constructive interactions of
marriage and immigration laws at that time and Mr. Bernie Sanders would be able
to claim natural-born CitizenshiJl'.
5. Mr. Sunderland has been a constituent of the Republican Party (PPBC) (RNC TX
registration # 1091260448) since at least 1996 and cast his vote in 2008 for Sen.
McCain and in 2012 for Mr. Mitt Romn~5 , who was under active eligibility
cballenge at the time, by Ms. Wilkinson26,
This statement hipi'Shts Mr. Sander's profound isnorance of the matter at hand and very nearly
dlsquallfles him for the Office of the Chief US Constitutional Officer. He owes the nation an apolocv and
as a supporter of his, he certainly owes Ms. WUkinson one.
lot Provided we know what the definition of this US Constitutional Term of Art Is, as held by the SCOTUS
25
Ms. WUkinson hi$ recentty received documentation from the Government 'onflrmtna tl\at Mr.
Mitt Romney is able to claim natural-born Otlzenshlp status because his father Mr. Georae Romney was
recosnized as a US Ottzen In 1926 and Issued a US Passport The statutory mechanism of this
recosnttion is yet to be determined as both Mr. George Romney's parents were US Otizens and ttws
vs
Georae Romney would have been born subJect to tt\e lurisdt~on of ~e Untted States even tnouah that
event took place in a foreign nation. However, until confirmed by the Texas Secretary of State, this has
no meaning with respect to the active challenses against Mr. Romney.
16
And refused action by both the Republican PP8C and the Texas Secretary of State under Sec. 31.006
and 145.001
121
Original Pleadina before the SCOTX
february 27, 2016
6. Mr. S1Dldc:rland is leaning towards Mr. Trump27 in 2016, as the other top
0
0
Republican candidates all have significant questions against their eligibility to run
for President: Mr. Cruz and Mr. Rubio.
1. Both Petitioners have standing to bring and rue this demand for performance by
the SCOTX because we are lawfully registered with the state as the legitimate
holders of voter franchises and scdc representation for our constitutionally

protected interests, hberties, rights, opportunities, privileges and personal security
in a presumably functional state and national Constitutional Republic with
constitutionally guaranteed rcpresentation.

8. We are most concerned that the assumed mechanism offtee speech and
representation has broken down or has been shattered for political agendas hostile
to the nation and its lawful people by the political caste and the domestic and
foreign oligarchies ooder the Starve the Beast political and corporate strategies of
economic warfare.
9. We are also concerned that the rule oflaw has been destroyed with the installation
of a usurper to the Office of the President and his overt refusal to adhere to the US
21
Mr. Trump's mother was born a Scottish foreign national who Immigrated to the UnJted States. Ms.
Mary Macleod married Mr. frederick Trump (born a US Otizen In 1905) in 1936. Mrs. Mary (nee
Macleod) Trump became a naturalized US Citizen on March 10, 1942. Mr. Donald Trump was born m
1946 and thus may leplly daim natural-born Cltlz~shlp and 1~ a~ndment born a US Citizen subjt
to tM complete jurisdiction of the United States.
http:fJwww.csmonttor.com/lJSNPolih(s/Oe<od/2015/0824/t:?ofy!Jd-Trump-the-son:<>f-an-ammtgrant~- This Information Is pertinent but Is not condustve until Mr. Trump submits the required
documents to the Chief Elections Officer of Texas as needed to resolve the 2016 Presidential Ellgibfllty
Q,allenge submitted against hlm by Mr. Sunderland and Ms. Wilkinson.
13 OrtalnaJ Pleadtna before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
0
system in place without investigation and resolution of an induced failure of
system due to a fedcnl
0
0
statute.
14. Article 4 Sec. 24 of the Texas Constitution expressly prohibits
perjurr and thus

3
misprision of fraud by false certification of a contaminated election or for any vote

cast for an illegitimate candidate for offioe.
1S.Thus it is necessary for the SCOTX to perform a diagnostic review of statutes and
legislative intent to determine the responsibility and accountability of the State of
Texas with respect to a failure in the system generated by the US Constitutional
terms of art natural-born Citizen and X years a resident. as consecutive and
immediate.
16.1be Administrative Procedures Act (APA) of Texas, Title 10, Ch. 2001 states that
its purpose is
" ... the public policy of the state through this chapter to: (1)
provide minimum standards of uniform practice and procedure for

state agencies; (2)
provide for public participation in the
rulemaking process; and (3) restate the law of judicial review of

state agency action.''
"...Any officer or manager, who, at any time, shall willfully make a false report or gtve false
Information, shall be guilty of perjury, and so adjudged, and punished accordinsfy, and remOYed from
office."
27
Original Pleadins before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
0
0
19. The Texas Elections Code clearly states that with respect to contlicts with other
laws and "to the extent of any contlict... " Sec. 1.00255, Sec. 3.002, Sec. 42.06556,
and Sec 271.014 whm combined with Article VI, the Supn:maey Clause and
Preemption indicate that Article II Sec. 1, ClauseS is integral to the Texas State
Election Primary, General and Electoral College elections and cannot be ignored if
there is any question or controvasy as to the application and interpretation of the
benchmark for Presidential and Vice Presidential eligibility.
20. The Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28
USC Scc.s 2201 and 2202, by Rules 57 and 6S of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and by the general legal and equitable powers of the Supreme Court of
Texas.
BACJ{GBOUND
l. The eligibility challenges against candidates determined to be ineligible under

statute for the office of the US President began in Texas in 2008 with Brockhausen
v Andrade, which was dismissed as lacking jurisdiction in district co~7
2. At this point the Texas Secretary of State and the Texas Attorney General ~
the Texas Elections System had a fatal flaw and chose to do nothing to disclose it
ss TEC Sec. 1.002 (a) This code applies to all general, special, and primary elections held ln this state. (b)
This code supersedes a conflicting statute outside this code unless this code or the outside statute
expressly provides otherwise.
56
A law outside this subchapter supersedes this subchapter to the extent of any conflict.
7
$ If this is so In Williamson County, then it would be so In Travis County and all other courts at this level,
thus the Supreme Court of Texas is the logical source to seek judicial remedy for this controversy.
29
Ori&fnal Pleading before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
0
0
to the public or to resolve it by petition to the SCOTUS for clarification as a
certified question of law pertaining to Natural-Born Citizen in ordec to perform a
clear and legal duty, which is ministerial in nature, to address flaws in the system
in orda' to protect the state from liability, and the voters ftom fraud and
destruction of their effective consent.
3. Ms. Wilkinson began her investigations into the matter in 2010 and discoveml that
she bad inadvertently voted for an inelipble candidate, which is theft of

goyernment dngppeot UDder false pretext a felony under the Texas Penal Code,
perpetrated by Mr. Barack Obama and the state and political certifying authorities
in 2008. This means that my vote and ballot, as JOVmuneot docmnents were
stolen and my effective consent destroyed for the 2008 election for use in the
fraudulent installation of a non-allegiant usurper to the Office of the President
because material facts were kept from the voting public by the PPBC and the State
oversight authorities as a loose confederacy of like minded members of the
political caste.
4. As a Project Manager, Ms. Wilkinson has fU'Sthand knowledge and experience
with "group-thinK' and malicious narcissistic hubris and its destructive
intransigence in a corporate system, often times reaching near ~'religious"
corporate canon. This is called parallel conduct under Bell Atlantic Corp. v
Twombly, 550 US 544 (2007). No one in State or Federal Government is stupid
enough to agree in writing, thus providing physical evidence of an agreement that
30
Ortclnal Pleading before the SCOTX
FebruatV 26, 2016
0
0
a oouspiracy evolved to place an ineligible candidate into the Office of the US

President. If such an agreematt exists, it will be found in discovery which places
this evidence well beyond the Plaintiff's authority to demand of the respondents
but is covered by the probable existence of evidence which seems to fit lDlder a
Sec. 31.006 eligibility c.ballenge and its particular wording for "reasonable
suspicion". What is plausible is that bMc:d on the failure of the system to filter and
purge ineligible candi~ and upon the emergence of a political caste, who will
'~" their own even if those members
are criminal infiltrators of the
demoaatic process, to achieve political and economic goals that benefit the
political caste at the expense of the nation and its lawful people. That an
lDlcoostitutional "agreement'' bas been formed among those tasked with oversight
of the elections to purposefully "fail" in their oath bound duties and obligations, or
to "interpret" the law so that the voters are left undefended and unprotected from
election fraud at the very highest levels of Government. including the Supreme
Court of the United States51 Nothing in writing, nor pictures nor digital video of
the wink-winlc-nudge-nudge-know-whalahmean tactic of political sedition.
S. The overt and unambiguous evidence of the nationwide conspiracy to place a
usurper in the Office of the United States Presidency is found in the actual failure
of the Primary oversight system and all sub-systems and the overt failure of every
se Justice Oarence Thomas gave a statement In April of 2010 in which he admits that the High Court is
"'evadtns"' the Issue of Presidential qualifications for office.
/Jwww
youtu~.c.om/wftth?y=Ey6Q!TtuaQ8
htto.//www.obima rc!et~vovrr~onfs . com/2Q10/04/supr~-court-tusttee darence:thomas.html
htW
31
Orfainal Pleadlns before the SCOTX
February 26,2016
ovasigbt agent in the hybrid State of Texas and National Election Systans59 to
ignore the pleas of the active holders of voter franchises to address the Presidential
eligtbility controversy in a timely manna- according to the statutory dcad1ines set
down in the Texas Election Code and to resolve the ambiguity introduced by the
Constitutional Term of Art Natural-Born Citizen as it is recognized in context with
the 14th Amendment and ldect tp t!Jc compklc hul.tdlctlg11 oftllt US
mt7IIMIII qt
,611_
6. Further evidence that a nationwide conspiracy among the political caste exists~ is
found in the numerous events of usurpation of unique judicial authority given the
SCOTIJS to define a US Constitutional term of art by lower courts at both the
federal and state levels. These holdings rendered ultra vires demonstrate a level of
coordination well above parallel conduct that resulted in a perversion of law
Had the system worlced as expected, we would not be In the current u~r fubar that Is the 2016
Presidential Election which will be nullified as an act of overt sedition by the refusal of both the State of
Texas and The United States to follow and enforce the rule of law as It is written and as It ls Intended to
wort for ttae benefit of the people, not the political caste. The Illegal agreement Is found In the
protection of a usurper Installed to office by those tasked wtth protectins the system from such
S9
corruption, and may wetllndude cooperation of the Supreme Court of the United States durlns a
meetfns held on Jan. 15, 2009. two.lhrttcte> llt.mn.WJ /2009fi,m/15/o lttoo/o~maL9berul5 At
this time the Court Justices knew Mr. Obama was under challense and that the Constitutional term of
art natural-born Cltlz~n was not defined. They are the ones tasked with definlns tt. As a system analyst I
rec:osnize that a system's failure Is Inevitable, when all participants asree to have it fall for a
contravenlns qenda. The overt transformation of a Constitutional Republic Into a PMarchy Is one such
set of drcumstances.
60
No child of ttae union of one US Otizen parent wtth a forei~Jl national, nor that of foreign national
parents, nor that of lllesal allen parents, nor that of refusee parents, nor that of a diplomat parent or
parents, nor any other sort of parentase which causes the dalms of other nations to apply to that chlld
via birthrtsht or derivative dtJzenship or subject, resutts In the child. uncler the au of maiorlty. befns
abte to claim blrthrlsht"' US Otizenshlp. Only those children with two parents who are US Citizens (by
birth or naturalization) are able to claim natural-born dt#~nshlp or born a US Cltlzt!rl. All others must be
naturalized under statute. lncludii!R qll born dugl cltl~ns. which lndudes Mr. Obama, Mr. Cruz and Mr.
Rubio, who are currently unrecosnlzed by the United States as naturalized us Ot:izens by law.
32
Original pteadins before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
executc:d for the singular purpose of protecting a usurper nmning for and attaining
the Office of the President The reliance on the election opinion Ankeny v
Governor ofIndiana, 916 NE 2d 678 (2008) to '1intr that Mr. Obama WM a

natural-hom Cittzen is evidence enough, along with the Congressional Research
Service (2009 and 201 1)61 to satisfy the conditions needed for the False Claims
Act. One presumes that a lawyer and the members of the Judicial brand1 are
familiar enough with the law to understand that they have no authority to define a
US Constitutional term of art and then concoct "Jazz bandsn rulings for the sole
purpose of distortion of the real elements of the controversy such that the voters
won't explode as they attempt to understand the full extent of the system failure
and the betrayal necessary to achieve the political goal of the installation of a
criminal perjum to the Office of the President.
7. Religions and like assemblages are not normally considered conspiracies but as the
political system becomes more and more corporatized, the depth of the group-think
or parallel conduct between private and public political/corporate entities is such
that they begin to form a familiar alliance62 against the nation and its people with
distinct religious foundations which call for the destruction of the democratic
process as an impediment to progress and the accumulation of wealth at the

61
Published by Jack Maskefl Lesislative Attorney Nov. 14, 2011 "'QuallflcatJons for President and the
Natural Born Otizenshlp EligibUity RequJrement,(7-S700) (R42097)
https /Jfa~.orgbgp/crWrois~/R42027.odf and April3, 2009.
62
Much like the wage-fixing pact in Silicon Valley as detailed in R. And~ Klein " Timothy D. Cook et ol
(No. 5:14-cv.03634) https:/ /pando.com/2014/01/23/tM-techtopus-how-sillcon-volleys-most-ce/ebrotet/.

ceos-consplred-to-drlve-down-100000-tech-englneers-woges/
33
Original pteading before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
0
expense of a functioning nation. It is much the same as the opportunistic
formation of a group of otherwise peaceful '~" at a demonstration, which
transforms into a conftagration of thuggery. No paperwork or sign up needed for a
riot. It is an alliance of shared interests and malicious opportunity to savage the
unsuspecting63 A pack of hyenas is much more sttuctured in their intent, and as
sue~ more calculating in their objective.
Measures involving avoidance may be
undertaken in order to secure the preservation of ones self interest with a pack of
hyenas as there is no underlying agenda to their formation and strategy. The
opportunistic nature of the public/private political/corporatefamiliar alliance is
less obvious for purposes of deniability and thus much more desttuctive.
8. The PlaintiWPetitioners maintain that their US Constitutional right to
challenge/protest, as components of free speec~ vote and citizen sovereignty have
been disenfranchised for the hostile political agendas of both PPBCs in their
efforts to overtly undermine the rule of law and to subvert the Take Care Clause as
a means of specific political corporate agenda to transform the natme of this nation
63
As Goosle's Eric Schmidt instructed his Sr. VP for Business Opef"attons Shona Brown to keep the pact a
secret and only share information "verbally, since I don't want to create a paper trail over which we can
be sued later?" After aU these are me same people who put Mr. Obama In offece via dartc money and
Super PACs. Wage fbdng is a ramer puny Infraction of the law next to treason. However, nothing
Investigated, nothJng discovered. hnps .ILDansto.comJ2014/01123/the-tedltQJM how sllicop=v~las
most-ukbrjte<f-s:e<n-sonsptredto-dnve-<lown- lQQQQQ-t~ttfnJioeenwnr:s/
34
Original Pleading before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
from a sovereign Constitutional Republic to a Global Plutarchy for the benefit of
the Gilded Ti~.
9. This is a matter of oorporate negligen~ political hubris and a stealth ooup detat
by the cooperative action of both the PPBCs to front, fundraise, aunpaign and
instalJ multiple usurpers to the Office of the President in order to undercut the US
Government. The intent to re-e:ngineer the United States into a sub-component of a

global union of countries, also known as the North American Union, in the same
fashion as the European Union for the profit of a domestic and foreign controlling
oligarchy, who by this act have made of themselves enemies of the nation and its
people. Neither PPBC works for the people, who elect their political products, and
this has been so for the last thirty years.
10. The deliberate gutting of the Middle Class65 and the destruction of nearly 20
million US Jobs over the last thirty years as a component of the Starve the Beast
policy of corporate economic warfare is direct evidence of the concerted attack on
the nation and the people. The Federal Debt did not ~'appeaf but was deliberately
driven to its current state in order to drive a national crisis which would then drive
"'A Plutarchy has a dear and obvious structure which is separated In to S distinct classes, the very top ol
which Is the Gilded Tier which become parasitic In nature upon the nation as evidenced by the
Corporate Starve the Beast policy and 2 -8 Trillion In sequestered Individual and corporate tax revenue
held outside the United States by distorted statute written by those who benefit from the tactic. The
Gilded Tier rapidly develops Into a national security and economic threat which must be addressed by
the rest of the nation for the preservation of the Constitutional Republic.
6S As distinct from the "'general public"' of 330 million lndMduals, legally and IIJesally present In the
seographlc boundaries of the United States.
35
Original Pleadlng before the SCOlX
FebNary 26, 2016
0
0
the gutting of all public programs such as Social Security66, Medicare and
Medicaid, Pensions, and any other Government manased program for the benefit
of the people in order to shift this wealth via the mechanism of''privatimtion~' to
the Gilded Tier. None of the current economic issues ha been an accident but part
of a political agenda to suit the private goals of those who now write the laws in
violation of the US Constitution, believing they cannot be touched by the public,
for the reckoning to come by their pwdlase ofjudicial support.

ll.In 2010, Ms. Wilkinson began a study of the eligibility lawsuits filed against Mr.
Obama beginning in 2008 and drew the conclusion that no federal court was
willing to address the root cause issue with any professionalism or objectivity,
which is an overt sign of group-think contamination of the judicial branch. The
defmition of a natural-hom Citizen, as it is related to born a US Citiun subject to

tire absolute jurisdiction oftire US Government is the heart of the controversy.
12.In other words, as a New York Judge in 184467 stated, ''within the dominions and
allegiance of the United States." The dcfmition of natural-born Citizen is not
settled law because the only court with the jurisdiction to resolve the ambiguity,
the SCOTUS, has not clarified this term of art.
The slsnlng of HR 1314 Sec 831 and Its changes to Social Security Is but one more attack on the
People of the United States by the Oligarchy and their usurper Installed to office. Apparently we cannot
resulate US Business, but we can economically rape the Amerk:an People without debate. Uke
sequestration, the attacks upon sodal security are meant to destroy earned benefits and thus free
speech for US Otizens as understood by Otlzens Un~ and McCutcMorl.
67
Lynch v tarter and lynch (1844)
36
February 26, 2016
, 13. The SCOTUS will not allow a cit:izen to directly seek the clarification of a US
Constitutional Tenn of art and it is in the vested interests of the PPBCs to shut
down any and all challenges to their political products and delay discovery of their
betrayal of the nation for as long as possible. In order to protect my self-interests,
and the legality of my vote, I must seek assistance from the State of Texas and the
SCOTX.
14.Ms. Wilkinson then began to inquire of the Texas Secmaty of State as the Chief
Elections Officer of the State of Texas, as to the proper procedure undertaken to
address ineligible candidates in 2011. She submitted two candidate ballot
eligibility challenges, per advice of the Office of the TXSOS, against the Democrat
and Republican PPBC political products, Mr. Obama, Mr. Romney and Mr.
Santorum on Dec. 21,2011 and Jan. 19, 2012 and both were dismissed by the
PPBC Certifying Authorities and the matter went without response or support by
the TXSOS. No doubt this would be considered "parallel condu~" during three
election cycles.
IS.Ms. Wilkinson followed up these challenges with numerous phone calls and emails and was told I) her challenge of ineligible candidates as a threat to the
legality of her vote is not the problem of the TXSOS, 2) take the issue up with the
Texas Ethics Commission and 3) deal with it yourself and stop bothering this
office.
3 7 Orfainal Pleading before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
0
0
16.Ms. Willdnson did take the issue up with the Texas Ethics Commission and was
told they do not have jurisdiction over this matter. (Sec Attachment 2)
0
17. Ms. Wilkinson then issued a formal challenge to the nominees for both the
Democrat and Republican PPBCs and their political products, Mr. Obama and Mr.
Romney, with the TXSOS61 and this dectoral criminal complaint letter was
dismissed without response by the TXSOS. All attempts to get the TXSOS to
acknowledge tbat the election was corrupted by the presence of ineligible
candidates were rebuffed. Ms Wilkinson was forced to watch the Texas Electoral
system nullified by the installation of a usurpc:r to the Office of the President by
the corruption of the Electoral College and the nuntel'ous false certifications
generated and signed by the Texas Secretary of State and the Governor of Texas at
the time, Mr. Rick Perry.

18.As a result of the nullification of the Texas Election of2008 and 2012, the federal
process by which the Electoral College votes were counted and tallied were
nullified by the presence of twQ ineligible nominees under active challenge ~
determined by the 14th amendment born a US Citizen subject to the complete
jurisdiction ofthe United States Government.
19. As a failure of process, there were no mentions to the Joint Session of Congress (a
federal process) that both the Presidential nominees were under active eligibility
challenge by two active holders of voter franchises in the State of Texas.
61
having been told not to use the electoral complaint fonn posted on the TXSOS website
38
Ortainal pteadins before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
20. These challenges arc still in force because the TXSOS bas no authority or
0
0
jurisdiction to <tismiAA either the ballot cballcngcs or the election criminal

complaint in the pn:sence of a fatal flaw with respect to any US constitutional term
0
0
0
0
of art. which was specifically addressed in the challenge and which the 9flice of
the TXSOS has repeatedly refused to address, as it is considered a ''federal"
matter.
2l.On Jan. 19,2008 and Jan 20,2012 Mr. Obama was illegally sworn into office by
Chief Justice Roberts, who knew Mr. Obama was under eligibility challenge in
multiple states and that the constitutional term of art, natural-bom Citizen was
unresolved, thereby overtly participating in the installation of a usurper to the
Office of the US President as a federal event of misprision of fraud and perjury.

22.Despite multiple requests by the Plaintiffs and others, there bas been no public
information posted as to the formal challenge process as an electoral and/or law
opinion by either the TXSOS or the TXAG. Even though many efforts have been
made to persuade these election oversight authorities to provide guidance in this
matter, their response to our inquiries and demand for perfonnance and
clarification, as to proper process and method of challenge, was to tell us to hire
our own lawyer and figure it out for ourselves. I call it the "Shut up and vote"
response and thus this petition for declaratory judgment from SCOTX as a matter
of judicial review of the state electoral process and its hybrid nature during a
Presidential election.
39
Original Pleading before the SCOlX
February 26,2016
23. In 2012, Ms. Wilkinson began to seek out legal represa1tation and quickly found
that no lawyer would touch this case. Not even lawyers involved in similar
lawsuits against the United States as a matter of cballenge of abuse of Presidential
executive orders and thus office. There are plenty of lawyers willing to subvert the
law in favor of criminal trespassers in this nation. The Justice Department is
willing to provide counsel to illegal aliens pro bono, but when it oomes to
protecting the rights and privileges of a US Citizen, particularly when those rights
contravene the political agendu of both PPBCs, the world is a cold and friendless
place. Thus, this petition is presented pro se under duress. Neither Mr. Swderland
nor Ms. Wilkinson willingly submit this petition on our own, we simply have no
other recourse.
24. Ms. Wilkinson applied her skills and experience as a project manager/systems
analyst to the issues at hand and began a study of Constitutional law as it
specifically applies to her civil rights and protections as a matter of election

process failure.
25.From 2012 to 2015 Ms. Wilkinson began her in depth study of the hybrid
Stak/Federal Presidential election system with intent to understand and expose the
fatal flaws which allowed a criminal perjurer to be installed into the Office of the
US President under active challenge by active holders of voter franchises with

special interest ... twice.
40 J Original Pleading before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
26. In May of201S, Mr. Sunderland contacted Ms. Wilkinson and they both began to
work on this issue as the legitimate and active holdtzs of voter ftandlises of
opposing private political branding corporations, Danocrat and Republican, as the
failure in the system is not yet politicized
ADMJNISJBAIIVE AND STBUCfUBAL FAILURES OF A HYBRID

ELEC[QBAL SYSTEM
1. During the initiation of a Presidential election cycle, the State Chairpei'Son in a

PPBC, as a private citizen, is given abridged and temporary authority to assist the
State of Texas in the conduct and pcrformanoe of ministerial duties in a smtc

election (such as the Party Certifying Authority for the US political products for
national offioe, US Senator, and US Congressman which are state/national hybrid
elective offices), and thus becomes a conditional and temporary public officer of
the state for as long as the election is active.
2. In order for the hybrid system to work. state public and private actors must be
granted the power to perform temporary federal ministerial duties during a
Presidential election, otherwise the Electoral College does not function.

3. Very few actions taken with respect to federal law during a Presidential election
are discretionary per the hybrid nature of the election. Under the framework of a
national election, bow then is abridged and temporary federal level
authority/jurisdiction allocated to the state PPBC Chairpersons and the state Chief
41
Orfalnal Pleading before the SCOTX
February 26. 2016
Elections Officea1 The statutes in the State and US Codes are not clear tbat this is
what happens and this is but one fatal flaw in the system which lead to the
catastrophic failure and the nullification of the 2008 and 2012 Presidential
elections.
4. Begjnning on Nov. 14, 201 S with the start of the submission of the Candidate
Ballot Application for President (CBAP) to the Democrat and Republican PPBCs
in the State ofT~ Mr. Sunderland and Ms. Wilkinson began their next round of
eligibility challenges by using the SCOTX holdings of In Re Cullar (20 I0) as a

guide for their actions.
S. Aooording to In Re Cullar, the SCOTX holds that the "process of candidate
challenge" must be engaged and allowed to fail before any demand for action can
be brought before the SCOTX.
6. As the Petitioners unda'stand the process for challenge of ineligible candidates the
relevant Texas Election Codes are Sec. 31.006, 145.003 and 273.001.
7. The Petitioners must show direct injmy or the real threat of direct and
particularized injury (City ofSan Antonio v Stumburg. (1888)) by the parties
involv~
which include the PPBC certifying authorities, the TXSOS, the TXAG
and the ineligible candidate seeking to secure an office that he/she is unqualified
for, by an established benchmark or standard. recognized by the State of Texas as
integral to the proper functioning of the electoral system as a hybrid state/federal
political endeavor.
42J
Ortainal Pleading before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
0
8. The filing deadline for the CBAP for all Presidential candidates was Dec. 14,
20 IS. After that the PPBC Certifying authorities have nine business days (Dec. 29,
201 S with respect to the holiday) to submit the certificate ofentitlement69 to the
Texas Secretary of State as notification of the names of the candidates certified as
legaUy qualified to appear on the Primary Ballot. The c.ertificate of entidement is a
list of names over 100 pages long and the federal candidates for national office are
listed with the state and fcda'al candidates for state office. This is a flaw in
process, as there should be a list of state candidates for national office and a
0
0
separate list for federal candidates for office elected with state votes.
9. To date the Primary General Ballot (2008, 2012, and 2016) remains w1<ter active
challenge because this state government document contains the names of ineligible
candidates with no warning to the electorate of Texas that the Presidential line up
is contaminated with unqualified and challenged candidates and more importantly,
for effective consent and intelligent choice, which candidates are identified as
indigible and which candidates are suspected of ineligibility. and which
candidates are simply challenged due to the corrupted nature of the 2016 election.
The loophole is that if the Presidential federal employment criteria remain
ambiguous no one can challenge any member of the political caste, because no one
" The naming of these documents, certificates and certiflcatton processes are Imprecise and vague. It is
the opinion of the Plaintiffs that this is a perverse "same played by the Political caste with the voters In
order to obfuscate the real issue, which Is who bears responsibility for addressing any dysfunction of the
state electoral system with intent to resolve. Why expend effort to fix the system If you can bully the
chaUenger? Voters are merely suckers, after aU--all of them, as they are lndlstingulshabte from the mob.
43
February 26, 2016
knows what the pertinent qualifications are beyond age. US Citimnsbip J. only
superficial relevance when it is not allowed to be cballenged by policy or practice,
by either the TXSOS or the TXAG, as a matter of checks and balances.
10.Dec.21, 2015 is the statutory deadline for keeping a candidate's name off the
March 1, 2016 Primary Gc:neral Ballot. This is the 78th day before the election
1l.On Dec. 25, 2015 joint candidate ballot eligibility challenges were filed with both
1he Democrat and Republican PPBC Certifying Authorities for the President,
which are also the PPBC ~ by Ms. Wilkinson and Mr. Sunderland.
This date is within the nine day response period by the PPBCs allowed under
Texas Elections statute, when the candidates are still claimed as exclusive products
12. The deadlines and their response times are a clear failure of process as the
ineligible candidates fronted by a PPBC are afforded built in protection by lax
process. No outside challenger can initiate an eligibility challenge with any
expectation that it will be taken seriously or addressed in a timely manner as a

mattC"l' of system oversigh and no matter how the challenger manages to get the
issue before the court, there will be laches claimed70 because of the structure of the
time line. One more political game to subvert the system and yet another indication
that the state of Texas is no longer a Constitutional Republic.
70
See the efforts of Ms. Tracy Fair In Maryland and the refusal of the State and Maryland Courts to
address the Issue of lneUglble candidates because of LDc~s.
44
February 26, 2016
0
0
13.Copies of these challenges were sent directly to the Texas Secretary ofS~ Mr.
Caoos in his capacity as the Chief Electoral Officer ofTexas, with the expectation
that he would address these concerns as a matter of oversight with the PPBCs.
14. The 10 business day response period allowed to the PPBCs, ensures that nothing
more can be done by the challengers until this grace period is up, as the candidates
are still under the exclusive control of the PPBCs until the certificate of
entitlement is sent to the TXSOS. With respect to the Christmas Holiday, this
response period ends Jan. 8, 2016 which prevents any action on the part of the
TXSOS to keep challenged candidates off the ballot All deadlines in the Texas
Election Code are with respect to actions taken by the TXSOS. If the TXSOS
chooses not to take any action in order to 'nut the clock out" there are no appeals
or escalation processes to prevent the illegal inclusion of an ineligible candidate on
the Primary General Election ballot and thus render that ballot, and this election,
void.
15.Had we began our challenge on Dec. 15,2015, one day after the application
deadline of Dec. 14,2015, we would have had to wait to wait until Dec. 29,2015
for the response time to expire and in doing so would have to wait until the 30th
before we could escalate our challenge. Since the PPBC has 10 days to respond,
this means we miss the next deadline of Dec. 30, 20 I 5 which is 62 days before the
election and is a deadline under statute for the TXSOS to perfonn a legal
45
February 26, 2016
obligation to address ineligible and lawfully cballenged candidates as a matter of
prooess.
0
0
16.1bis is another exposed flaw in the electoral system such that wbal the 10 business
day response time is factored in, there is no way to keep an ineligible candidate's
name off the Primary General Ballot and thus the election is automatically
nullified by lax process.
17.No response WM received by the Plaintiffs from the Democrat or Republican

PPBC or the TXSOS ooncaning our eligibility challenges flied on Dec. 25, 2015.
18.0n Dec. 27, 2015 the hard copies of the complaints were mailed with proof of
delivety signature required (again within the 9 day grace period for the PPBC).
The return cards were received by the respondents on Jan. 4-5, 2016 and delivered
back to Ms. Wilkinson on Jan. 8, 2016. No other response was received.
19.0n Dec. 28,2015 the electronic version of the Formal Election challenges using
the form provided by the Texas Secretary of State on his website were sent to the
Democrat and Republican PPBCs and the TXSOS as public records. On Dec. 31,
2015, the hard copies of the Election Complaint were sent via mail proof of
delivery, signature required The return cards were received by the respondents on
Jan. 4, 2016 from the TXSOS and Jan. 5, 2016 from the TXAG and the return
receipt was delivered on Jan. 8-9, 2016to Ms. Wilkinson (See Attachment 3).
46
Original Pleading before the SCOlX
February 26, 2016
20.Evay effort was made to comply with the challenge process as we understood it to
be pel' the holding of In Re Cullar and keep the deadlines to avoid any charge of
0
O
lache11s.
21 .After a few follow up calls to the PPBC official offi~ the Republican PPBC
finally responded to the challenges on Jan. 20, 2016 and refused the cballenges
against their candidates in writing. (See Attachment 4).
22. To the point, Ms. Davidson, as the legal n:presentative for the Republican Party,
states quite plainly that since I cannot provide the Party Certifying Authorities
conclusive evidence to prove their cballenged candidate's ineligibility, they are
under no obligation to check to verify that their candidates are eligible72 This is a
Catcb-22 and basically the law is set up to protect ineligible candidates as
members of the political caste. I cannot uprove" ineligibility because I have no
access to the documents necessary to that verification. Those documents are
controlled exclusively by the challenged candidate who will not let them go unless
requested to by the TXSOS as part of a Sec. 31.006 challenge or under subpoena
by the TXAG. And since both of these state Government Oversight authorities
n The doctrine of l.Dches Is abused to shut down any sort of discovery with respect to Illegal candidates
to office. This, alons with the way the deadlines for action are constructed guarantee that the political
caste Is protected even If they are criminal.
n Thfs exposes another fatal flaw In the Texas Election system with resards to telllns challen&ers to take
questions of eligibility up wtth the candidates and their parties, Instead of lodging a demand for
performance of the State ofTexas to protect the voter franchise and election from fraud, and to make
sure the candidates they accept on the state government ballot for any office are qualified and legal,
even If It Is simply a matter of verification rather than an expected matter of aimlnaJ activity, as In the
case of Mr. Bernie Sanders and Mr. Donald Trump. It Is not the burden of the active voter to prove any
candidate Ineligible. It Is the burden of the PPBC Certifying Authority to prove to the TXSOS that the
challenged candidate Is eligible as claimed by document review.
4 7 Original Pleading before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
refuse to do their jobs, nothing is done and the Texas Election cycle is nullified by
illegal Presidaltial candidates.
23.1be Democrat PPBC never responded in writing and refused to do so when

directly requested to ovec the phone, stating that Ms. WiJicinson and Mr.
Sunderland would get nothing in writing in response to the eligibility challenges

against Ms. Clinton, Mr. Sanden and Mr. O'Malley. (See Attachment 5)
24. As an alternative process by which to challenge those candidates suspected of
criminal activity and pezjury with respect to their false claims of eligibility, the
Plaintiffs approached the TXAG directly and asked that this office begin an
investigation into the false claims of eligibility by the candidates of both PPBCs as
allowed under Sec. 273.001 of the Texas Election Code.
25. We complied with statute and submitted notarized affidavits as to our complaints
e
e
concerning election fraud We used the election complaint form provided by the
Office of the Texas Secretary of State to make SW'e these challenges were made
public records.
26. We also asked that the Office of the Attorney General, as the lawyer of Texas,
submit a petition to the SCOTUS directly asking for clarification with respect to
the controversy generated by the US Constitutional terms of art natural-hom
Citizen and X years a resident~ as immediate and consecutive. The response by this
office and the Texas Solicitor General was to deny our request and tell us that it
was the policy of this Office not to pay attention to the affidavits submitted in
48 r Original Pleading before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
ac:cordance with the lawful activation of Sec. 273.001 under the legal obligation
stipulated in Sec. 145.003 pc:r the holding of In Re Cullar. The Office of the
TXAG would only consider an official action against the suspected ineligibility of
any Presidential Candidate ifthe TXSOS submitted a referral via Sec. 31.006,
which the TXSOS refused to do.
27. When the Office of the TXAG was informed of this refusal of performance by the
TXSOS, the Plaintiffs were told to sedc a legal opinion ftom the TXAG
concerning the issue and its proper execution.
28. The relators then attempted to get a public Opinion of Law from the Texas
Attorney General as a duty of this office in an effort to clarify the law and the
responsibility of the PPBC chairpersons with respect to the election. Also, the
responsibility of the TXSOS with respect to protecting the electoral system under a
Sec. 31.006 and 145.003 challenge. We were told that as voting citizals and
qualified electors with citizen sovereignty, we were not allowed to submit any
questions pertaining to the election and its proper management as a state system
directly to the TXAG. We had to have an authorized requestor submit the question
for us per a list found on the TXAG website73 Among the list of requestors is the
local disttict or county attorney, all other members of this list were closed to us.
29.Mr. Sunderland contacted his District Attorney in Denton County and Ms.
Wilkinson contacted her DA in Travis County. Both of these law enforcement
n https://www.texasattomeyseneral.sov/opinlon/about-attomey-general-opjnions/#whocan
49 Original Pleadlns before the SCOTX
February 26,2016
authorities refused the request for performance a a listed authorized requestor and
thus under In Re Cullar, this portion of the challenge process has been allowed to
fail.
0
0
0
30. By way ofexplanation for their refusal to publically acknowledge and address the
disoovered blindness in the system, both these State Government Oversight
agencies chum that since the systemic failure in the Texas Election process is
generated by a federal component, they have no authority or interest in seeing that
ambiguity addressed or evca publically acknowledged a a threat of nullification
and false certification of an election managed and protected by the state ofTexas.
31.Even if the TXSOS and TXAG were to do their jobs as expected and resolve the
ambiguities with respect to petitioning the Supreme Court of the United States,
under their authorities as oversight entities for the state election syst~ to resolve
the ambiguity of the Presidential Federal Employment Criteria, the way the law is
applied by these state executive officers results in no action taken if the
cba11engers cannot o~ by legal means, the public documents necessary for

activating the relevant Election Code in order to have the state investigate the
suspected occurrence of criminal activity during an election, which is an
obstructive burden on the challengers and serves to shut all challenges down thus
allowing false legitimization of illegal candidates by lax process. A near perfect
Catch-22 enacted and preserved by the political caste as a political weapon against
any threat to their political products by active voters or rival candidates, with
50
February 26, 2016
reoognized standing to bring a cballenge. The illegal actions by the TXSOS and
the TXAG result in the overt and purposeful nullification ofstanding for active
voters as it is understood per Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife, 504 US 555 (1992).

32. Under Sec. 2001.086 74 original documents aR not required if copies are available.
How that is the court to interpret the law whc:o the original documents are
exclusively controlled by the cballenged party under regulations governing
privacy? It bas been held against the Plaintiffs/Petitioners if they are unable to
produce "conclusive evidence" in the form of public documents/records to engage
the mechanism of purging for ineligible candidates, because the candidates control
the original documents required to show their eligibility with respect to a known
standard. If the standard is not known the system is shut down by a technicality
under the law and a fatal flaw induced into the state and national electoral systems.
(See In Re Cullar (2010))
33.Not only are the original documents unavailable~ but they are made so by
protective intent as a shielding mechanism initiated by the political caste in this
state and this nation for ineligible candidates as political products of a branding
corporation as an abuse of the protective right of assemblage. What recourse are

the voters left with when their right to vote is being criminalized with intent by a
74
A copy or excerpt of documentary evidence may be received in a contested case If an original

document Is not readily available. On request, a party shall be stven an opportunity to compare ~e copy
or excerpt wtth the original document. No request to review ~ orisfnal documents can be made If
there Is no wwy to active Sec. 31.006 for the purpose of discovery, as expected under ~e Morton Act, of
the material facts pertainlns to perjury and inellglbUity.
51J
Orisinal Pleadins before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
PPBC which has gone rouge on the nation and its constituents? CriminaJization of
a vote upon its casting by the holder of the franchise would seem to indicate
relevant special interest for the voter and make of them a real party of interest in an
ovatly corrupted and damaged electoral system over which the State maintains
total and exclusive control as a lawful system under the 1Cfh amendmalt
34.1n order to access the relevant documents to show a challenged candidate's
eligibility or ineligibility the oomts are going to have to demand disclosure from
!I
the candidates and their fronting PPBCs beca11se the Offices of the TXSOS and
TXAG either will ~ or believe they cannot do it as part of their authority.
Clarification of the Election Code Sec. 31.006 and 273.00 I is aucial to the
Plaintiff's claims to relief in this petition.
3S. As the SCOTX has authority to compel both the PPBC Chairperson and the
TXSOS to perform necessary and obligatory duties with respect to state elections,
does the SCOTX have the authority to compel the PPBC Chairperson and the
TXSOS to recognized their federal duties as well, particularly in the <3e of

resolving a fatal flaw in the system with respect to a definition for digibility
particular to a federal office which must be applied by state electoral officials to
resolve active challenges against the candidates being elected with state votes?
36. As an active voter and participant in the electoral syst~ I find the response by the
Democrat PPBC highly insulting and yet more evidence of how far this branding
52
Orlslnal Pleadins before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
corporation bas distanced itself ftom the US Constitution and its political
membership. This is clear evidence of non-responsiveness.
37. In order to exhaust all obvious cbannels of challenge and sources of information,
the Plaintiffs contacted their US Senators and US Congrasman elected
representatives for assistance in obtaining a ruling by the SCOTIJS concerning
natural-born Citizen and X years a resident, as consecutive and immediate. Filed

on Jan. 29,2016 in writing and by e-mail (See Attachment 6)
38.A return card signature acceptance was received from the Austin Offices of Sen.
Cruz and Congressman Roger Williams showing that the demand for performance
had been delivered signafiJre required and the cards mailed out, but not Sen.
Comyn. On Feb 18, 2016 a response was been received from the Washington OC
Offices of Mr. Cruz and Mr. Williams, but not Sen. Cornyn.
39. Sen. Comyn has shown a particular passive aggressive hostility towards Ms.
Wilkinson in refusing to address her concerns over long term unemployment and
destruction of e<X>nomic opportunity. In addition, it was through his direct action
that Ms. Wilkinson had a job destroyed in 20 I 5 with the IRS as a consequence of
the Omnibus legislation signed by Mr. Obama targeting operation ftmding for the
IRS. When Ms. Wilkinson called the Office of Mr. Comyn to inform him of the
impact of his support of the Omnibus legislatio~ she was informed to seek out a
food pantry. That he is ignoring a demand for performance from Ms. Wilkinson to
assist in the determination of a federal term of art which is detrimentally impacting
531
Original Pleading before the scone
February 26, 2016
the Texas Electoral System and the Presidential election cycle, comes as absolutely
no surprise to Ms. Wilkinson or Mr. Sunderland.

40. The website for USPS Tracking shows that the demand for paformance of Sen.
John Comyn was delivered to his Washington, DC Office on Feb. 16, 2016 and the
letter to his A~ Office has disappeared.
41. So far no plan of action has been communicated to the Plaintiffs by their elected
representatives and frankly none are expected as a matter of non-responsiveness
and political systemic "shut out75n for the voters by the political caste. This is yet
more evidence that the nature of Government is being transformed from a
responsive Constitutional Republic to a dysfunctional Plutarchy. If one does not
have money enough to catch the attention of a Senator or Congressman one cannot
force any of these elected officials to honor the Constitution, free speech or
representation. Unconstitutional gerrymandering has rendered these men petty

dictators and thus non-competitive and non-responsive to the needs of the people.
As a Texas Dem~ I am well aware I am completely disenfranchised from any
sort of representation by either PPBC because of the ''game." Again, the wide
spread anger with the Republican "establishment" is expected considering the
Republican Party and its Starve the Beast political and corporate policies have
caused so much damage to the nation and its people.
7S
Overt disenfranchtsement
54 f Origtnat Pleading before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
42. The last time an issue of this magnitude was addressed by the SCOTX and
SCOTIJS, and the investigation and purging of identified ineligible candidates for
Presidential Offioe, was in McCarty v Briscoe (1976) whal an independent
candidate for Presidalt was excluded from the Presidential General Ballot by the
then Texas Secretary of State as a matter of Administratively Declared Ineligibility
under statute (ruled unconstitutional). At the time, Independents were not regarded
as part of 1he Big TWO Private Political Branding Corporations, the Democrats
and the Republicans. This sets the JROCCience for malafides on the part of the
Chief Elections Offioer of Texas.
43. Finally, the Plaintiffs reached out to the only US Presidential Candidate who
seems concerned with the eligibility of the other Candidates, Mr. Donald Trump.
The challenge was sent directly to the Campaign Headquarta'S on Feb. 17,2016
and efforts were made to contact lawyers for Mr. Trump listed on websites as
counsels to Mr. Trump (See Attachment 7).
44.1be Austin Headquarta'S for the Trump Campaign was contacted directly and the
phone number listed on the national website of Mr. Trump's Campaign for
Presidency was called repeatedly. This number was never answered and everyone
we spoke with indicated that even though they were listed as connected with the
campaign, they really weren't and we needed to stop calling them because they
cou1d not assist us. Per In Re Cullar, this aspect of the system has been engaged
and allowed to fail.
55 f Oriainal Pleading before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
45.It is now clear that any concern for a candidate's status as ineligible is only
activated as a matter of political concem for destroying competition and not as a
matter of protecting the integrity of the electoral system. The Plaintiffs have gone
to great lengths to get this matter addressed so that the eotin: election process is
not disrupted, but engaged in fair manner. This is more evidence of non-response
and that the State of Texas is no longer a Constitutional Republic.
46. As justified by the SCOTUS in McCarthy v Bri3coe "Balancing the equities and
deploring the time limitations which compel us to choose between standing by and
permitting this incomprehensible policy to achieve its apparent objective, or
0
0
substantially burdening the entin: general election at the behest of one (potential
candidate) who has at least dawdled over his rights, we conclude that injunctive
interference by us at this late state would not be warranted.,. The Plaintiffs have
not "dawdled,,. but have done their best to adhere to a failed process in order to
expose its designed impotence and the ultimate effect of false legitimimion of
ineligible candidates by lax process will be achieved as the Plaintiffs have warned
it would be.
47.It is up to the SCOTX to determine what responsibility state authorities (including
PPBC Certifying authorities) have with respect to disclosure of a fundamental flaw
in the Texas Elections System under the Morton Act as it applies to discovery in
this situation, the investigation of the impact of this flaw on past elections and the
resolution of this matter before the SCOTUS. Are the TXSOS and/or the TXAG
S6J Original Pleading before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
under Sec. 31.006 and 273.001 given authority to address the state oonstitutionality
of a state systan which is rendered blind to ineligible candidates by an ambiguity
in a definition generated by the US Constitution?

48. The SCOTX has the jurisdiction to determine the potential fall out of a refusal to
resolve a demand for performance of a legal obligation when this fall out
encompasses state and federal violations of statute, civil and crimina) violations
with respect to disenftancbisement and nullification of a vote, and the abrogation

of qualified immunity76 for state officials as a matter of corporate negligence, and
nullification of the Presidential elections as a ~c failure of the entire
hybrid system.
49. It is up to the SCOTX to clarify the expectations of professional liability when

state oversight officials willingly and with knowledge, disenftanchise Texas voters
because they don't want to be bothered with doing their job as expected by the
Texas State Legislature and the lawful people of Texas. The Tort Claims Act
expressly provides that the remedies it authorizes "are in addition to any other
legal remedies," and thus TCHRA provides a statutory remedy for ~-unlawful
discrimination." Mission Consollndep. Sch Dist v Garcia, 253 SW 3d at659
"Sec. 101.106 of the Texas Ton Oaims Act gives a measure of protection to government employees
wt\o are sued in tort for conduct within the scope of their employment. The Plaintiffs maintain that
neatl&ence of this magnitude and duration Is not covered in any form by governmental immunity,
particularty when the Plaintiffs repeatedly warned tne government employees of the risks they were
takJng by refusing to do their jobs as expected by ttle holders of voter franchises and as written Into law
by the Texas State Leslslature. ...Subsec:tton 101.106 (e) of the Tort Oaims Act does not contemplate
dismissal of daims asserted independently of that Acr'. (Texas Dept of A8fng and DisabUity Services, et al
v Mary Cannon, et al (Case no. 12-o830, a1Jued Sept. 16, 2014).
57 Original Pleading before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
0
0
(quoting Tex. Civ. Prac. And Ran. Code sec. 10 1.003). It is currcndy unclear if
the Texas Seaetary of State is acting indepc:odently of the State government or is
&ding with direction ftom the Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who appoints this
officer77, in this matter. This is an issue for discovery after the controversy is
resolved with respect to the fatally Oawed Texas Electoral System and Presidential
Federal Employment criteria.(See Attacbmmt 8)
EMERGENCY DECLARATORY JUDGMINT WITH BESPECf TO

FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF mE TEXAS
ELEctORAL SYSJEM
This request for an Emergcucy Declaratory Judgment prays for the SCOTX to
resolve the apparent confusion by the PPBCs and the State Election oversight
authorities as to the proper execution of their statutory duties and obligations under
the Texas and US Constitutions with respect to the maintenance and protection of the
hybrid electoral system. It is useless to ask for a declaratory judgment of a candidate's

status, qualifications and eligibility for the offices sought ifthe benchmark for
" There Is an inherent conflict of Interest in the Governor appointing the TXSOS position as the Chief
Elections Officer and it is now on full display as Gov. Abbott endorses an Hlegal candidate for President,
Sen. Ted Cruz. http://www.tpastrlbune.org/2016102/24/aru-abf>ott-tndroes-ted-sruz-oresident/
Furthermore, Sen. Cruz Is also endorsed by lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Former Gov. Rick Perry. No wonder
the TXSOS refuses to do the job as expected and this only reinforces the perception that It is a fatal flaw
in the Texas Electoral System to have the Governor appoint the TXSOS as an Executive Department
position. This office, like the TXAG should be elected to remove all conflicts of Interest.
58 Orfstnal Pleading before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
judgment of these objects of interest is a US constitutional tam of art and thus
undefined.
0
0
The following certified questions of law need to be answered by SCOTX with

respect to the past and potaltial failUR'S of the electoral system:
1) is a state elections process ooostrained by the terms of eligibility gcnented by
the US Constitution as Presidential Federal Employment Criteria, within the
boundaries of this controversy

2) are State oversight Officials bound by law and obligation to disclose18 a
fundamcatal flaw in process to the public and commit to resolving the flaw
0
0
0
with intent to hold all parties accountable for distortion of the election process
in order to gain wealth and power at the expense of the people and their state
and federal constitutional rights, privileges, liberties and opportunities,
3) are State Oversight Officials allowed to issue false certificates and thus engage
in misprision of fraud as state policy,
4) how are active voters to protect themselves if the political caste has determined
that the vote no longer provides a reasonable expectation of representation of
the people or protection of the nation, and is not a true and factual
determination of free speech as political participation, that elections may be

nullified without accountability because it is perceived that the holders of voter
franchises have no standing, and thus no recourse, to protect themselves, and
78
Under the Morton Act as It is applicable to state political law enforcement authorities such as the
Texas Attorney General
February 26, 2016
held as discretionary acts if they are driven by a federal constitutional term of

art natural-born Citizen and X years a resident as immediate and consecutive
to the active election

30)Aiso, to clarify if the investigation of ineligibility initiated by formal cballenge
tmder Sec. 31.006 against any candidate claimed by the PPBC to be qualified,
but who is suspected of being illegitimately certified tmdc:r lax process by the
relevant PPBC, is discretionary on the part of the PPBC Certifying Authority,

and/or the Chief Elections Officer.
31 )If the discovery and resolution of a fatal flaw in the electoral system resulting
in the nullification of the entire election and the Plaintiffs' individual votes is
also discretionary on the part of the Executive Department of Texas,
32) Recognition by the Court that the Plaintiffs are legitimately aggrieved and
threatened by the fatal flaws exposed in the Texas Electoral System and have
exhausted their existing administrative remedies as of this filing of this petition

and as they understand the system to be held by SCOTX within the context of
In Re Cullar (2010).
33) The term naJural-born Citizen is not settled law, and until it is, no one can
assess the damage done, or assumed NOT done, to the state and the nation by
the unlawful installation of a political actor who knew he was lying to get the
job because Mr. Obama had sponsored and signed Senate Resolution 5 II
(2008) finding Sen. John McCain a ''natural-born citizen" under the military
75
February 26, 2016
0
condition by recognizing a base definition of natural-born Citizen that called
for being 1) born subject to tbe absolute authority of the US Government as a

member of the military, and 2) born on taritoty claimed by the US
Government, 3) to US Citizen Parents, one of which was an active member of
the US military on non-voluntary assignment in a foreign oountty and lawfully
manied to the other relevant US citizen parent. If Sen. McCain is officially
reoogniml by public record- and thereby conclusive evideoco- by the US

Senate, in general, and Sen. Obama92, in particular, as a natural-born Citizen
per this definition, then neither Mr. Obama, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Cruz, Mr.
Rubio, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Jindal, nor any other Presidential Candidate past93
nor present, who does not meet the specific constitutional conditions ofjus soli
and jus sanguinis, is eligible for the Office of the President
34) The Texas Government Administrative Procedures Act permits entities or
individuals aggrieved by a decision of a government agency, and who have
exhausted their administrative remedies, to appeal that decision. The specific
decision being appealed is the refusal to perform a clear and legal obligation to
resolve the fatal flaws injected into the Texas Electoral System by the US
Constitution and to defend the holders of voter franchises from candidate ftaud
and electoral fraud on the part of the PPBCs and their Presidential political
!n
93
Per Sponsorship and stanature

Including 0\ester AArthur, George Romney and Spiro T Af,new.
February 26, 2016
products who are NON-state94 suppliants to a state controlled and managed

system.
JS)Thc Plaintiffs darumd a a request for performance that the scarx shall
reverse, modify, and/or ranand the decision by the TXSOS and TXAG to
refuse to address the controversy at hand if the substantial rights of the

Plaintiffs bave been prejudiced because the Electoral Oversight Authorities'
findinp, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:
a) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
b) In excess of the statutory authority of the TXSOS and/or the TXAG to
refuse to perform a clear and legal obligation with respect to the protection
of the right to vote, the right of ftee speech and the right of infonned
consent;
c) Made upon unlawful procedure;
d) Clearly enoneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial

evidence on the whole record; or
e) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly
unwarranted exercise of"claimedn discretion a abuse of office.
Thoush Sen. Ted Cruz has been a state participant in politics, the Texas State Private Political Branding
Corporation, the Republican Party state Certification authority is not allowed to bypass the TXSOS and
inject this candidate under chaiJence Into the electoral system without vetttna his claims to Presidential
eUgtbUtty and natural-born Cltlunshlp. Under the political manipulation of the 14tll amendment. it is not
at all dear if Sen. Cruz can daim basic US Citizenship without formal naturalization, much more Naturol-
bom Cltiz~nshlp.
77 ( Original Pleading before the SCOTX
February 26,2016
36) That by these failures in authority and process, the hybrid PresideotiaJ electoral
0
0
system as a whole is nullified, that the individual votes cast in good faith are
nullified, that every state certificate gcncnted as a part of the state electoral
0
0
process is dishon~ that ineligible candidates are knowingly granted
certification to progress in a corrupted system over the objections of the active
voters in that system, that the Governor of Texas does falsely certify the
ascertaimnalt of the results of the Electoral College and thereby seeks to

corrupt the federal process of vote confirmation in the Joint Session of the
Congress and Senate.

37) These conditions are not trivial considerations and/or of concern only to
crackpots and "birthers." This is a matter of importance as an issue of national

security and stability as a sovereign nation. The question of Article II, Sec. 1,
Clause S has never been pled, presented or resolved by the SCOTUS who
remains the only court in the nation with the jwisdiction to resolve this
particular ambiguity and prevent yet another overt nullification of a
national/state hybrid Presidential election, resulting in the installation ofjust

another usurper to office. Once the law is politicized with respect to an agenda
of absolute control, it means nothing to anyone and the SCOTUS becomes a
bullf s court.
38) Unfortunately, it is expect~ as a matter of continued process failure, that the
courts and elections boards across the nation will approach this controversy in
781
FebNary 26, 2016
one of two mauners: I) ignore the situation and knowingly allow the election to
be nullified under the belief that as long as it is perceived by the Judiciary that
active voters have no standing to challenge the cum:ot system, the officials
tasked with oversight are protected from liability under abuse of qualified and
sovereign immunity, and 2) to usurp the unique authority of the scorus to
define the constitutional terms of art in any manner which suits their vested self
interests and tell the voters to "shut the 'eff up and vote." The electorate should
not and never again assume that the political products placed in office have any
honor or ethics. They are all liars and they are all working against the Union
and its people. The proof of it is currently illegally holding the Office of the
President by the consent of the entire political caste.
39) This behavior and opinion is not unique to Texas, but is found in Flori~
California and Marylan~ and now Illinois (See Attachment 9). One can
assume that the failure to protect the electoral system is national and systemic
in nature and exposes the intent of the political caste to disenfranchise all voters
of vote efficacy and strength as a matter of a measured coup d' 6tat undertaken
for the preservation of national assets, to be sold off to other oligarchies such as
"The efforts by MtchaeJ Voeltz In Aortda, Pamela Barnett In California and Tracy Fair In Maryland have
all exposed the national flaws ln the electoral system. A review of these electoral chaUenaes will reveal a
bias aaaimt voters by the Judicial caste as part of a political aaenda to destroy the efficacy of the vote
on Its face and to hide this effort from the People of the United States until the nature of the
Government has been permanentty altered from a Constitutional Republic to a Plutarchy. Thls Is the
corporate coup d'~t, that as political products are bought and sold like trick ponies, so too are the
Judps and Election Boards as members of the poUtlcal caste. This Is a national dysfunction and as such
Indicates by Its nature and results, a conspiracy of the political caste to undermine the Democratic
process.
79
Original Pleadlnc before the SCOlX
February 26, 2016
R~ India and China96 under eminent domain97 You cannot sell at top dollar
what bas been burnt to the ground, even if you are granted eminent domain to
do so for your own profits (Kelo).
40) As in the previous eligibility cballenges, filed in many states across the Dation,
the Illinois State Board of Elections has usurped the authority of the SCOTIJS
and bas illegally found Mr. Cruz to be a ~~natural-born Citizen' without
knowing what this oonstitutional term of art means. This is public state
corporate negligence. This was done for Mr. Obama in Anhny, and now for
Mr. Cruz. It remains a perversion of the system and indicates conspiracy or
abject stupidity and both are impeachable.
41) It is expected that the Texas Chief Elections Officer and the Director of
Elections will follow this trend and actively nullify the Texas Primary General
election by placing the names of Mr. Cruz, Mr. Rubio and Mr. Santorum on the
March 1, 2016 Ballot rendering any votes cast, as either subject to the criminal
act of misprision of felony/fraud or theft of government document under false
Business Insider, 2/21/2016, httQ:I/www.busjnesslnslde.r.com/chjnese-oytboynd-acaulsjtlons

concerns-1.21::l This is treason and 1 failure on the part of CFiUS and it Is beina lanored under the
administration of a usurper. Alt businesses operattna in China are Government Controlled, lncludina
American Businesses. This is a Communist country with hostile Intent to the United States and is on
par with the US doina business with the Nazis to manufacture Mercedes during 1942...45. Nothlna has
changed except that the stakes are even higher because this nation Is being softened up for a global
hostile take-over by a usurper installed to office by 1 domestic and lfobal oliprchy.
91
In much the same way the Keystone Pipeline was able to secure US Soverei&n soU for a foreign project
under the terms of NAFTA. The US is being sold out to foretsn oliprchles using the Free Trade
Agreements as tools of economic warfare against the Nation and its lawful people.
80
February 26, 201.6
pretext, also a felony under the Texas Pcml C~ all the while telling the
Plaintiffs to ''shut the 'eff up and vote."
42) The votes eEl by Ms. Wilkinson in 2008 in the Primary and General Elections
were stolen under false pretext which is a violation of my 5th Amendment rights
not to have my property taken and used without my effective consent, and in
2012 my vote was made an active commission of misprision of
fdony/fraudltreason bad I not tried to alert the proper authorities to the
catastrophic fail~R in the system. My effective consent and intelligent choice
was destroyed in 2008 by the withholding of material facts concerning Mr.

Obama and Mr. Bill Richardson and their non-compliance with the 14th
amendment and born a US Citizen subject to the [complete) jurisdiction of the

United States which the Plaintiffs hold to be equivalent to a natural-born
7
Citizen a jus soli and jus sanguinis7 or born under the exclusive dominion of
and with complete allegiance to, the United States.

43) The US Senate recognizes the definition of natural-born Citizen to be within
the absolute jurisdiction of the US Government as it applies to claimed territory
in a foreign country and birth to US Citizen Parents. Under Sen. Resolution
511 natural-born Citizen is jus assero (ofthe authority) andjus sanguinis (of
7
the blood) u it pertains to the military condition on official assignment to a

foreign country. Mr. Cruz cannot claim this form of natural-born Citizen for
two reasons: I) his family was not under military command at the time of his
811
February 26, 2016
birth and 2) only Mr. Cruz's motb.a- claims to be a US Citizen91, and that has
not been established by conclusive evidence submitted to the TXSOS.
44) Salate Resolution S11 is a federal resolution and thus public record and takes
precedence over the holding of a State Board of Elections with regard to a
federal enmJo.yment criterion such ~ natural-hom Citizen.

45) A state election Hearing Officer has no jwisdiction to defme natural-bom
Citizen any more than any state judge in a district court, nor federal judge, nor
member of US or State Congress or Senate. Furthermore, this is not an issue for

the Electoral College or the United States Legislative Body ~ neither of these
political entities has the subject matter jurisdiction to determine the definition
of a US Constitutional term of art. Only the SCOTUS has this
authority/jurisdiction.
46) Once defin~ the application of the definition may be claimed under the
jurisdiction and authority of a state oversight entity, such as a State Board of

Elections or a Secretary of State Chief Elections Officer, for the purposes of
determining the challenged validity of any candidate's claims to eligibility for
office, including Mr. Obama's. If Senate Resolution 511 (2008) defmition is
applied to US Civilians, then stripping that definition of its military restriction
will reveal the general conditions of natural-hom Citizen, and Mr. Obama, Mr.
This may be affected by canadian lmmflratlon laws as well as us Immigration laws because a US
Citizen, at thJs time, manylna a foreign national, may have surrendered her claims to US Otizenship by
statute.
82
February 26, 2016
Cruz and Mr. Rubio have all pajured themselves and have bcal actively
supported in this aiminaJ activity by the State of Texas.
47) Only the SCOTUS has the unique authority to decide what a fair
undastanding of the term natural~bom Citizen as a Presidentialfederal

employment criterion is, in the context of the Dedarati.on of Independence and
the US Constitution, and with the intent of the Founders of this Nation to have
this Chief Constitutional Officer of the United States be a protective officer in
service to a soveign lawful people.
SEC. 1983 CLAIM AGAINST TEXAS STATE PPIC CEBTD")''NG
AUTHORITIES <DEMOCRAT AND BEPUBLICAN), mE TEXAS

SECRETARY OF STATE, mE DIBEcroR OF ELECTIONS AND THE
IEXASATTQRNEXGENEBALASPQLDgCALENfORCIMENI
OFFICE8S99
48) Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-47 of this Petition as if fully
set forth herein.
49)By refusing to activate a Sec. 31 .006 Eligibility Challenge and/or a 273.001

Electoral Fraud Challenge against the Presidential Candidates from both the
Democrat and Republican PPBCs the Texas State Electoral Oversight
Authorities, who are members of the Executive Department of the State, have
" From 2007 forward
83
February 26, 2016
in the process, subject to theft under' false pretext or to self
disenftanchise by not voting in a corrupted election and thereby

unwillingly discarding standing and any chance for judicial
review,
(iv)
Recognizing that the election is subject to massive vote dilution

by illegitimate and nullified votes cast for candidates undcc active
eligibility cballeoge who refuse to provide relevant documentation

to the TXSOS for the purpose of verification of claims which is an
injury in fact to the Plaintiffs,

(v)
ordering the Defendants to recognize the legitimacy of this
demand for performance by the Plaintiffs as a clear and legal

obligation and to do their public duty as mandated by the Texas
and US Constitutions with respect to protecting the vote, the
active voters and the election from fraud and theft, both knowing
and unknowin& intentional and unintentional, on the part of
votm107, the results of which will be the issuance of false
certificates by the state which are also acts of misprision of
candidates are suspected of being illegal and illegitimate. It does not matter who they vote for, the vote
itself is destroyed because the failure in the system Is not addressed.
107
So that they not be forced to commJt voter fraud in order to secure "political representation'" from a
PPBC willing to subvert the US Constitution and destroy the democratic process because they are the
only game In town. That is extortion, not an election.
93
February 26,2016
fraud 101 by the state and immediate nullification of the election,

both state and federal processes,
(vi)
ordering the Defendants to immediately and permanently cease

and desist from dismissing legitimate eligibility cballenges under
Sec 31.006 and 273.001 ultra vires, because they have no
authority to declare or ignore a US Constitutional defmition for
natural-born Citizen or 14 years a resident, as immediate and

consecutive to the active election,
(vii) that all state offices are party neu1ral and cannot be abused as
weapons against members of a rival party, and

(viii) that there exists a constitutional obligation to the people of the
State of Texas to be mindful of their concerns with respect to their

votes and the efficacy of those votes in a fair and legal election,
abuse of office to engage in election rigging for the political caste
is illegal (and thus an injury in fact) and not covered by immunity
of any sort,
101
Misprision of treason is found in the US Code 18 USC Sec. 2382, Treason Is found In 18 USC Sec. 2381.
The term war Is not defined and It is the understandlng of the Plaintiffs that economic warfare is
suffldent to trtuer this statute because of the Corporate and Political Starve the Beast policy which Is
economic warfare against the nation and Its people and Is evidenced concretely by the Federal Defidt of
18 Trillion due to the Impact of wide spread and Intentional US job destruction by corporate and
sovemment means under trade treaties and abuse of executive order by a usurper Installed Into office,
regardless of political hierarchy
94
Original Pleadlns before the scone
February 26, 2016
(ix)
otherwise requiring such Defendants to diligently perform their

public duties under the Constitution of the State of Texas; and that
on the hearing the mandamus may be made absolute;
b) 1bat this Comt declare within its scope of authority, that the state of Texas
has been in an unrecognized state and national constitutional crisis since
Dec. 20, 2007.whicb is an injury in f~

c) That this Court declare within its scope of authority, that the state of Texas
has been suppressing discovery with respect to the public disclosure of the
state and national constitutional crisis since Dec. 20,2007 and events of
voter fraud and vote dilution, which is an injury in fact both specific to the
Plaintiffs and to the electorate in Texas, in general as a protected class
distinguishable from the general public.
d) That this Comt declare that the actions of multiple Texas Secretaries of
State, are misprision of treason and fraud and thus injury in fact against the
Plaintiffs involving multiple votes in multiple elections,

e) 1bat this Court declare that the Plaintiff's specific votes of2008 and 2012
were nullified by the participation of a uswper in the election of the
President with substantial support by the State of Texas, which is an injury
in fact against the Plaintiffs,
f) That this Court declare that the elections of2008 and 2012 were nullified by
the instalJation of a usurper to the Office of the President with substantial
95
February 26, 2016
Plaintiffs,
g) That the Court declare Ms. Wilkinson's vote for Mr Obama was
aiminaJimt as theft of government document under false pretext and thus
an injmy in fact for her specifically,
b) That the Court declare all votes for illegitimate and illegal candidates as
illegitimate and nullified and thus comprises a massive event of vote fraud
as acts of misprision of felony fraud and treason, willingly and unwillingly,

by the voters ofTexti who knew Mr. Obama was suspected of being
illegitimate but voted in a corrupted election because they felt they bad no
other choice and did not seek to alert the Chief Elections Officer ofTexas
because they either believed the effort to be useless or did not know they
needed to do so under state and federal law as acts of potential voter fraud
as candidates are first voters,
i) That the Court declare that the Presidential Election Cycle of2016 is in
danger of being nullified because no one will do their job and demand that
the Supreme Court of the United States do its JOB and render a fair
understanding100 of the term natural-born Citizen in context with the 14tb

amendment and complete jurisdiction, Minor v Happersett and Ms. Virginia
Minor's factual status as a naJural-born Citizen under the classic
lOt As
held by the late Supreme Court JustJce A. Scalia.
96
OrigtnaJ Pleading before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
understanding of the tam and the history of all Presidential Office holders
since 1789 and their compliance with the classic interpretation of natllralborn Citizen as jus soli and jus sanguinis.
j) That this Court acknowledge that until the controveny of natllral-born

Citizen is addressed no criminal perjura' can be held accountable for their
acts of treason and fraud, and until this resolution takes p~ this nation is
fundionally NOT a Constitutional Republic at the state or federal level,

which is a federal and state violation of the Plaintiffs' specific civil rights to
be governed by a Republic,
k) That this Cowt declare that the Plaintiffs have exhausted all adequate
lega1 110 remedy available to them, including contacting their "fairly" elected
representatives to the federal offices of US Senate and US Congressman to
seek assistance with the determination of the federal eligibility criteria as it
is asswned that this is within the scope of their duties when the state refuses
performance because of the federal nature of the controversy,

I) That this Court recognize the naked usurpation of unique authority of the
SCOTUS in the results of other eligibility lawsuits which have defmed US

Constitutional terms of art111 ultra vires in order to provide protection for a
usurper and cover for a national conspiracy to install serial usurpers to
110
If there is an additiOnal legal remedy open to the Plaintiffs, we request It be detailed in the hofdlna In
a manner like that of In R~ Cu/lar so that we may avail ourselves of this corrective action process
111
Including In R~ Cullar and X years a resident as accumulative over time and not consecutive and
Immediate
97
February 26, 2016
offioe illegally and unconstitutionally by the political caste and components

of a domestic and fomgn oligarchy which is treason against the United
States and her lawful people (See Attachment 10, c~ list of Eligibility
Challenges against Mr. Obama from 2008 to present112) .

m) That the Court order the website
http://tesibria.tnq>ad.oom/whats your_eyidence/ preserved in its entirety
as material to this case and to the eventual adjudication of the constitutional

crisis.
n) That this court nx:ognize the culpability of the Republican PPBC in this
controversy, as their refusal to act upon the knowledge that candidates

seeking access to the Texas State Primary Ballot of BOTH parties in 2008
and 2012 were challenged under a US Constitutional Term of art and thus
accepted as tainted113, directly oontributing to the installation of a usurper to

the Office of the President114 by the state and national Democrat PPBC.
tu A great deal of effort went Into this IJst, 1am arateful for an the wort and dlllaence Involved, and
present It here as an unoffldal record of ttte efforts made to address the Constitutional flaw In the
State/National Presidential ElectoraJ System. htto:Jjtesbnt.typepad.com/'fr'hats xour evlcfencu
w It Is the duty of a rival candidate to challenge any and all mesal candidates running In the same
efection, regardless of belnsln the same PPBC or in a rival PPBC. By toleratJna the presence of an mecal
rival candidate, the lesal candidate falls the first real test of leadership and forfeits any rlaht to run In
any election In the state of Texas and In the nation. No rival party should toterate the overt corruption of
the dectlons they are partldpating in as a private polttlcal branding corporation because to do so Is an
overt act of nullification even If the lepl candidates win the election.
114
The only way such a catadysmlc failure of process, and back up processes, could have occurred is If
both MaJor PoUtical Parties and their ruling elites had an aareement or understandlnf", format or
informal, to instaU unqualified candidates for office ln order to shletd them from the corrective
mechanism of Impeachment. None of this happened In a vacuum
98
Original Pleadtna before the scone
February 26, 2016
o) That the SCOTX recognize that the Morton Act has applications to state
election enforcement officers in like manner ~ local enforcement officers in
its inteo~
p) That the SCOTX recognize that both Plaintiffs have minority status in the
State of Texas which requires the Courts to give all protections under state
and federal law to our civil rights~ held in the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
q) That the SCOTX recognize that as a member of the long term

underemployed and unemployed, Mr. Sunderland and Ms. Wilkinson have
been forced into a condition of modem day servitude 115 and thus the 15Cb
amendment also applies to this petition independent of race or minority

status
116
which is an injury in fact,
r) That the SCOTX recognize that the term ''war" has expanded modem day
applications which include economic warfare, cyber warfare, disinformation

warfare and other, and is covered by 18 USC Sec. 2383, 2384,2385, and
us Servitude In the modem context is a condition by which a person Is subjected to another person, or
of a person to a thins, or of a thing to a person, or of a thing to a thing. It is a state of being under the
control of someone else and of having no freedom. The term Involuntary servitude Is used In reference
to any type of compulsory labor for the satisfaction of debtshnp.ll1eJald~iooarx. thefrmlistjSmarv.com/lnyoluntary+$ervityg~ . Being dented economic opportunity by
corporate and political policy Is as much a condition of servitude as being compelled to work against
one's will. It is being compelled to be unemployed against one's will. AIJ choice and freedom Is dented
because one has no revenue stream, and one Is prevented from securing an adequate revenue stream
by law as pan of a trade treaty or destruction of cfvll rights and protections by an oUgarchy's dictate to
shape government to undermine the democratic process and destroy free speech.
ut When coupled ~ Clt#z~ United v FEC and McCutcht!on v FEC
99
February 26, 2016
2390117 as they are viewed in context with economic distorti~ erosion of

national sovereignty, the fedc:ral deficit and the Starve the Bea.Jt corporate
and political policy of functional revenue strangulation by US job
destruction, sequestration and wage theft enacted ypon the signature of a
tJsumq to the Office of the President which is an injury in fact towards

federal workers and further distinguishes Ms. Willdnson from the general
public and renders her a party of real interest in this controversy since the
installation of a usurper to office has largely destroyed any economic

opportunity for this Petitioner by Government policy,
s) That the Plaintiff Ms. Wilkinson is further distinguished from the general
public by the destruction of her employment opportunity with the IRS in

2015 by the joint actions of Sen. John Cornyn and the Usurper Mr.
t) That the SCOTX recognize that the Texas Secretary of State is made a
temporary and conditional Federal Elections Officer by the nature of the
hybrid Presidential Election cycle in the same manner as the PPBC

Chairperson and Presidential certifying authority is made a temporary and
conditional State Elections Officer for the purposes of ministerial duties

117
The term "anned hostility" may Include economic hostility towards the nation and its people as a
matter of economic warfare. Bullets aren't free. As money Is held to be free speech, It may also be
considered a weapon of war f!!Very bft as lethal as bombs.
1
u The CR.omnlbus us Government budget fundlns legislation of 2015 destroying operational funding
for the IRS as a target by the Republican Party under the Starve th~ Beast government and corporate
policy of revenue stranauaatton and us job destruction to destroy taxes on us jobs, HR 83
100
February 26, 2016
(State and Federal) under the Texas Election Code and the US Code and
thus subject to the US Code and federal prohibitions and statute119
u) That this Court enjo~ both pcrmancmly and pende lite, the Defendants
from issuing any more false PPBC/state generated certificates120 as
misprision of fraud which falsely legitimm ineligible candidates under lax
v) That this Court enjoin, both permanently and pende lite, the Defendants to
stop dismissing any more challenges (Sec. 31.006 or 273.001) against the
legitimacy claims of Presidential candidates until the fatal tlaw in the Texas
Electoral System is resolved with a SCOTUS recognized definition for the
Constitutional Terms of Art found in Article II, Sec. 1, ClauseS and the
relevant dqcuments needed to corroborate or challenge any candidate's
claim to eligibility to the Office being sought with the intent to hold that
Office for the duration if its term,
w) Under City ofSan Antonio v Stumburg (1888) a Plaintiff may address future
threatened harm to argue for standing to challenge. The Plaintiffs argue that
with the untimely passing of Supreme Court Justice A. Scalia the High
119
This means that the TXSOS has the authority and the jurisdiction to resolve the controveny of the US
Constitutional Terms of Art by submitting a certified question of law to the SCOTUS via the TX Attorney
General as the lawyer of Texas.
120
Certificate of Entitlement. Certificate of Primary Elections Canvass, Certificate of General Electton
Nomination, Certificate of General Election Canvass, Certtficate of Vote, Certifteate of Ascertainment,
and any other relevant election certificate generated by the state and signed as a part of the election
process not mentioned here. The names may not be exact but they are as the Code has labeled them.
101
Orfsinal Pleading before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
Court is pJaced at risk for a ~bird illegal installation of a SCOTUS Justice by
a Usu:rpa- to the Office of the President Until the eligibility controversy is

resolved, the SCOTX must request the SCOTUS enjoin, both permanently
and pende lite, Mr. Obama from nominating anyone for the vacant slot on
the SCOTUS until the controversy of his status as a potential usurper under
statute is resolved, and
x) that the previous two installations Mr. Obama made with respect to Ms.
Kagan and Ms. Sotomayor be evaluated for legality 121 by the State ofTCXM
as a prohibited act by an identified illegal occupant of the Office of the

President122 who was fraudulently installed to office under active challenge
with state votes and by the fatally flawed Texas Electoral System to
understand the damage done to the State of Texas by the conuption of the
SCOTUS by a usurper,
y) That as a matter of real future harm, the SCOTX place an appropriate hold
on all Texas voter registrations using the federal form, and issue a stay on
their use in the Primary Election for absentee voting, early voting and
u 1 In light of ttUs mess, f!!Yery sittlns SCOTUS judge should be immediately evaluated for any mental
illness such as dementia or earty Alzheimer's, as well as physical fitness to hold these seats as It Is dear
that moral and ethical fitness has been abqated as critical to these posJtions of power, without the
consent of the DeOQfe. What happens when the very objectMty and authority of the SCOTUS is placed at
risk?
m Both Ms. Kagan and Ms. Sotomayor must recuse themselves from any partidpatlon In this demand
for performance of the SCOTUS and so too Chief Justice Roberts since he swore In Mr. Obama knowtns
he was under challense as a matter of hts eftsibility under a us Constitutional Tenn of Art and never
raised an objection to this travesty of process. The defense of "I didn't know what I was dotns" failed at
Nuremburg. It ts expected to faU just as spectacularly here.
102
Ortsinal Pleadins before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
election day voting. until the US Citizenship status of the applicants in

context with the 14tt. amendment and complete jurisdiction may be
0
determined for anyone using this non-state method of state registration for a
voter ftancbise 123 in a uniform manna- with the ~ process. With the
potential issuance of legitimate Social Security numbers under DACA and
DAPA to foreign nationals as an abuse of office by a usurpec and the
tbreatened harm by issuing Texas state Drivers Licenses to illegal aliens 124
and the roll out by the Mexican Govet'DD1C2lt to issue Mexican voter
registration cards for its citizens in order for those citizens to claim US Birth
Certificates for their US bom children tl$ using foreign docum~ the risk
for voter fraud 126 inaeases without any means to filter out illegal holders of
voter registrations wbo in tum, are likely to vote for a usurper promising
9
w The Supremacy Clause does not give the Federal Government or its Executive Memben the authority
to force a state to disenfranchise Its own voters as a matter of statutory hierarchy or abuse of federal
authority for a political asenda hostile to the nation and Its people. Just as the President has no
authority In a Constitutional Republic to order Texas State law enforcement to round up and shoot
lawful Texas Otizens In the streets as a method of potlticar' persuasion, he has no power to force the
state to corrupt its own etectlon for the benefit of either party's political agenda. Assumptions that any
part of the federal law architecture Is worklns as presumed to be lepl and fair are danserously
misplaced by the state and federal judiciary.
134
83"' Texas Legislature, HB 3206 to alter the Transportation Code Sec. 521.231
httJ).llWW'I(.INis.stfte.tx.yslbflllootup{8111Stues.awx?le&Sess=83R&BUI=HB3206
us htto;Uwww.mvstatesrnan.com/neyo/nrws/loc!l/mexttan-orOI.rtm-offert-immlsrants-anothef-validid/ngt1q81
u If you are abJe to vote In the election process of any foreign country, you are not born under the
complete jurisdiction of the United States and therefore cannot daim natural-born Otlzenshlp, or even
bask US OtizenshJp wtthout naturalization.
103
Qrisinal Pleading before tiM! SCOTX
February 26, 2016
employment with preference ovtl" US Citizens as a matter of racial pay

backl27.
z) That the Court, beca11se of the unrelenting inflexibility of the Primary
Election, shall make it mandatory that the Office of the Texas Sea'etary of
State and the Texas Attorney General submit a certified question of law to
ask of the Supreme Court of the United States to clarify the Constitutional
tams of art and their corroborating documents in this oontroversy with all
appropriate haste and as a condition upon the issuance of any oertificate by

the state concerning the lawful execution of process, from this point
forward Resolve the definition of Natural-born Citizen.

aa) That as a matter of urgency because of the unrelenting inflexibility of the
Primary Election, the Court, if it deems it sufficiently important enough,
shall directly ask the Sypreme Court of the United States to clarify the
Constitutional terms of art natural-born Citizen and X years a resident. as
immediate and consecutive, as certified questions of law.
bb)That the Court shall specifically clarify to the PPBCs and their relevant
political products in office and stdring office, that public corporate

negligence on the part of the State is not covered by any sort of immunity.
cc)Tbat the Court shall issue a mandatory injunction to prohibit the Texas
Sea'etary of State from accepting the PPBC certified list of candidates for
u 1 This is a vtolatton of 18 USC Sec. 600: Promise of employment or ottler benefit for poiJtical activtty
104 Orfalnal Pleadina before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
2016 until the National candidates121 on that list bave satisfied the demand
for performance to provide those documents deaned relevant to
corroborating their claims of eligibility to seck and hold the Office of the
President as a matter of legitimate checks and balances129, and
dd)a recognition by the Court tbat it is not the challeugers who have forced the
current election crisis in Texas, but those tasked with the proper oversight
and protection of the system in their capacity of Chief Elections Officer and
the Lawyer for Texas, including past holders of these aitical political law
enforcement offices 130,

ee) That the SCOTX recognize that the act of accepting the PPBCs Certificate
of entidement by the TXSOS while all the candidates are under cballenge to
provide proof of their compliance with the Presidential Federal Employment
aiteria is an overt act of state and federal 131 corporate negligence and is
subject to all appropriate regulations against negligence and false claims

under the False Claims Act or the Lincoln Law.
ua National Candidates are the President and Vice President, Federal Candidates are the US Senate and
US Consress, State candidates are any office c:ampalaned for and served wtthin the State as a State
office. Federal candidates are hybrid pofftic:al products as thetr offices are both State and Federal in
nature. Any offldal election certlftc:ate senerated by the State should reflect these distinctions.
m It Is irrelevant that the election has taken place, the corruption of ineligibility and system breakdown
are independent of the election cyde. This Issue ls not rendered moot.
uo Since 2000 and the controversy concemln& Presidential Candidate John Kerry's lllepl c:ampatsn as it
Is unclear that his Mother was ever fonnalty recosnlzed as a US Otlzen via naturalization due to her
forelp birth
ut Ourlns the hybrid Presidential Election the TXSOS is made a temporary and conditional Federal Chtef
Elections Officer tasked with upholdins the US Constitution, and federal law durlna the election cyde.
105 Ori&inal Pleadins before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
G
ft) That the Cow1 issue a mandatory injunction compelling the Texas Seaetary
of State Carlos~ not to issue any dection certificatc:s132 nor accept

any PPBC ccrtificate133, until the controversy 11M been settled with respect
to discovery, investigation and, if necessary, purge of illegal and ineligible
candidates for Presidalt, no malta' what the outQome of the Primary

Election on March 1, 2016
gg)Prohibit the Texas US Congressmen for Travis County, all S of them, CD

10 Rep. Michael T. McCaul, CD 17 Rep Bill Fl~ CD 21 Rep. Lamar
Smith, CD 2S Rep. Roger Williams and CD 2S Rep. Lloyd Doggett from

participating in the joint session of the Senate and Congress for the Electoral
College vote count until the controversy is resolved
hh) Prohibit both Texas US Senators, John Comyn and Ted Cruz (as a usurper)
from participating in the Joint Session of the Senate and Congress for the
Electoral College Vote Count until the controversy is resolved
ii) And Prohibit the transfer of the Texas Electoral College votes to the federal
system until the issue with the US Constitutional terms of art naturalborn
Citizen and X years a reskknt are resolved by SCOTUS,

jj) That the process issue in terms of requiring Defendants to answer the
declaratory judgments aspects of this Petition as provided by law,
t
t
m Primary, General or Electoral CoIIese

w Certificate of Entitlement, Certificate of nomination or other as Indicated relevant to the election
106
Ortainal Pleadlns before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
0
0
kk)For just compensation for the Plaintiffs134 as a matta' of1he costs they have
heal forced to bear incwred in this action and as a deliberate consequence
of the non-responsiveness of the State in this controversy,

ll) For such other and further relief as this Court deems meet and equitable as
the Plaintiffs will never be made whole with respect to lost economic
opportunity under cumnt economic policy and globalism135
CRITICAL ELECIJON CYCLE DEADLINES
By the time this petition for action reaches the SCOTX Judges, the Iowa caucus
will have been taken and in short order the New Hampshire and South Carolina
(212012016 and 212712016) primaries and the dection process for the Texas Primary
General Election of March 1, 2016 will progress. The result of the Iowa and New
Hampshire caucuses was to award Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio delegates
t:M In order to protect her vested self Interests, free speech as economic opportunity and cMI rights, Ms.
Wllldnson has undertaken what amounts to the study and research Involved In obtalnina a law ctearee
with specialization In US and Texas Constttutionallaw. She has diUaentty worked towards this end since
2010 while she was denied economic opportunities under the administration of a usurper to office who
was allowed to be Installed Into office as a catastrophic event of electoral fraud which could have been
prevented In 2007 at the earfiest, or 2012 when Ms. Wilkinson Issued three electoral chaltenaes acalnst
Mr. Obama, Mr. Romney and Mr. Santorum. Instead we now flnd ourselves In this sorry mess by overt
and calculated public corporate nesttsence. Ms. Wilkinson and Mr. Sundertand have been repeatedly
told that they must bear the full costs of flxlng the Texas Electoral System with respect to this
controversy. We pray that the Court keep that in mind when deciding just compensation as a matter of
breach of contract, neglisence and compensatory damases as a result of breach of duty by the State of
Texas and its political enforcement officers.
us Under which Ms. Wllldnson has been made unemployable with four (4) university dearees in STEM
and Business disdpUnes, against her will and without her consent, and that Mr. Sunderland Is forced to
compete wtth lllesallabor in a riged bustness construction industry in Texas. 8oth have been denied
their American Dream due to politicalasendas which deem them dlsposabte and irrelevant to the nation
and Its enterprise by corporate and poUtical polity.
107
February 26, 2016
illegally. The Nevada Democratic caucuses will be held on 212012016 and the
Republican caucuses on 2/23/2016. On March the 1, the states of Alabama, Alaska,
American Samoa, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vamont, Virginia, and Wyoming will hold primaries and
caucuses with the intent to apportion delegates for the purpose of choosing a political
nominee for the General Election. Every one of these electoral processes will be
nullified because ineligible candidates for President have purposefully not been
filtered out of the National Elections System, which destroys effective consent and
intelligent choice as a bipartisan political agenda.

The legitimate holders of voter franchises in evesy one of these states will be
forced to commit a aime (knowingly and unknowingly, willingly and unwillingly) of

misprision of felony, fraud, and treason in order to secure unreliable political
representation by the PPBCs fronting illegal and illegitimate candidates for President
or to have their votes stolen under false pretext in violation of their Sth amendment
rights. For those voting for legitimate candi~ they will have their legitimate votes
diluted136 by millions of illegitimate votes cast for illegal Presidential candidates

under active challenge in Texas and elsewhere 137
1l5 This
condition caMot be ascertained until the Prestdential Federal Employment Criterion naturalborn Otizen is resolved which is a violation of due process and equal protection
7
u By recent media reports Mr. Cruz and Mr. Rubio control between 40% to~ of the primary votes,
meaally and thus serve to dilute the votes of Mr. Trump, Ms. Clnton and Mr. Sanders as potenttallepl
candidates for Office.
108
OriSinal Pleadins before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
In the early election or on March the t~ 2016~ Mr. Sunderland will vote for Mr.
Donald Trump131 and Ms. Wi1kinson will vote for Mr. Bernie Sanders139 (See
Attaduncnt 11) without knowing for oertain if either of these Presidaltial candidaaes
are legitimate by the Presidential Federal Employmcot Criterion naturalbom Citizen
evm though we have repeatedly tried to get answers from the oversight authorities of
e
e
the State of Texas and ftom the PPBCs. Even if Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump are found
to be compliant with naturalbom Citizen~ they will have their legitimate votes
impacted by millions of illegitimate votes in a massive event of vote dilution/vote

fraud in the state of Texas and all other states who continue to go forward without
verification of the claims of eligibility of the candidates for both parties.

Shut up and vote, moron.
This must not happen in Texas because there is "reasonable cause to suspect"
these Presidential candidates are non--compliant with the Presidential Federal

Employment Criteria, specifically Naturalbom Citizen as understood to be Born a
US Citizen subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States. If the Primary
Election in Texas is allowed to progress with the names of any challenged ineligible
candidates placed on the ballot due to the failure of the Office of the TXSOS to
address the issue in a timely manner and with the significance it has always deserved,
then the election is actively nullified at this time as an overt act of corporate
negligence and all certificates issued thereafter by the TXSOS and Governor are
1
,
Completed on Feb. 25, 2016

Completed on Feb. 24, 2016
1091 Original Pleadina before the SCOTX
FebruaJY 26, 2016
fraudulent by intent To nullify a Primary Election is to nullify the General Election

and in tum to nullify the Electoral College. The very rule of law in this state and
nation is jeopardized in the extreme by this negligence. The Plaintiffs have done due
diligence.
There is one set of circumstances where yelling "FIRE!n in a crowded tbeatc:r is a
legitimate and protected action... when the theater is actually on fire.
It remains up to the Court to follow through and restore the Republic.
110
Orfajnal Pfeadlng before the SCOTX
February 26, 2016
This the 25th day of Feb., 2016,
LAURA LYNNE WILKINSON
~ ........ L~ lJ.:Ji_....,._:_-
EDWARD SUNDERLAND
FORCED PROSE
Laura L WUidosoo
Edward Suoderlaod
111
February 26, 2016
This the 2211t day ofFeb. 2016
FORCED PROSE
Laura L Wilkinson
Edward SunderlaDd
. .... _
,. ...
Ortcinal Pfeadinc ~ the SCOTX
.....
February 22.2016
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing W$ served via appropriate
means, by band delivay email or regular mail, on all the following Respondents $ of
and shortly thereafter the 2cJh day of February, 2016 in keeping with lawful procedure
and expectation per the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Mr. Carlos Caseos, Texas Secretary of State,

Mr. Keith I.Dgram, Director of Elections
Office of the Texas Secretary of State$ Chief Elections Officer
1100 Congress Ave.
Capitol Bid& Rm 1 E.8
Austin, Texas 78701
Ms. Uadsey Wolf, Gmcral Counsel to TXSOS
II 00 Congress Ave.
Capitol Bid& Rm 1 E.8
Austin, Texas 78701
Mr. Kea Puton, Texas Attorney General,

Office of the Attorney General
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
Mr. G. Hinojosa, Texas Presidential Certifying Authority and Chairperson
Texas Democratic Party (OPT)
1106 Lavaca St
#100
Austin, TX 7870 I
Mr. Tom Mechler, Texas Presidential Certifying Authority and Chairperson
Texas Republican Party (RPT)
1108 Lavaca St
#500
Austin, TX 7870 I
112
February 26, 2016
Ms. Doaaa Gaftia Davidsoa

Attorney for the Republican Party of Texas (RPT)-Primary 2016
POBox 12131
Austin, TX 78711
Ms. Laura L WUidasoa

Petitioner-Plaintiff
113
February 26, 2016
16-0148
IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT FOR

TEXAS
AUSTIN LOCATION
LAURA LYNNE WILKINSON,
REGmTEREDDEMOCRATV~R
AND EDWARD SUNDERLAND,

REGmTERED REPUBUCAN
VOTER FOR THE STATE
OF TEXAS
Plaindfl's/Petitionen
v.
AND CHIEF ELECfiONS OFFICER,
CARLOS H CASCOS,
TX DIRECfOR OF ELECI10NS,
KEITH INGRAM,
TEXASA~RNEYGENERA~
KEN PAXTON,
DEMOCRAT PARTY
GILBERT HINOJOSA,
REPUBUCAN PARTY
TOM MECHLER
Defendants/Respondents
1 Attachments 1-11 for OrtsJnal Pfeadln&
CIVILACfiON
NO JURY
February 26, 2016
AITACHMENT INDEX
1. Attachment 1: List of Documents determined relevant to the verification by
document review of the Presidential Federal Employment Criteria: Article
ll, Sec. 1, Clause 5
1.
ii.
iii.
Democrat Eligibility Documents

Republican Eligibility Documents
Texas Secretary of State questions of election process
2. Attadlment 2: Response from Texas Ethics Commission

3. Attaclnnent 3: Letter of Eligibility Challenge to Texas Presidential
Certifying Authorities Mr. G. Hinojosa, Mr. Tom Mechler and the Texas
7
Secretary of State with proof of delivery
4. Attachment 4: Letter of Refusal from Republican Attorney at Law7 Ms.

Donna Davidson with demands for perfonnance
5. Attachment 5: Plaintiffs response to refusal by both Private Political

Branding Corporations
6. Attachment 6. Demand for Performance by Texas US Senator John Cornyn,
Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Texas US Congressman Roger Williams and
the proofs of delivery
7. Attachment 7. Demand for Performance by Lawyers for Mr. Donald Trwnp
as listed on the Internet. Mr. Gahn ignored the letter and Mr. Cohen told the
Ortstnat Pleading before the SCOTX
February 25, 2016
Plaintiffs that he was not connected with the Presidential Campaign for Mr.
Trump and would not tell us who to contact
8. Attachment 8: The political endorsement of Sen. Ted Cruz by Texas
Governor Greg Abbott, Attorney General for Texas during the 2008 and
2012 election cycles
9. Attachment 9: State Board ofElections State offfiinois finding that Sen. Ted
Cruz is a natural-born Citizen without supporting documents

10. Attachment 10: String Cite "Brither" case list for Eligibility challenges
against Mr. Obama (partial, 227 cases to date) Challenges against Sen. Cruz
and Sen. Rubio are not listed yet
11. Attachment II: Proof of Vote by both Plaintiffs, Republican and Democrat
nullified Primary General Elections. Both votes made criminal acts of averse
misprision of felony, fraud and treason
Ortsfnal Pleadtns before the scone
February 25, 2016
LOD Attachment 1:
DEMOCRAT PPBC
Ust of Documents
Mr. Barack Obama 2012 & 2015 eligibility Challenge:
Relevant Documents
The demand for performance of a clear and legal obligation by the Chief F.ledion
Officer of Texas and the Texas Attorney General is to require Mr. Obama and the
Democrat PPBC certifying authority, to produce the following documents for
verification of eligibility claims and thus document review under the wording of Sec.
31.oo6 and Sec. 273-001 for the Presidential Federal Employment criterion of bom a US
Citizen defined by the 14th amendment under the absolute jurisdiction of the US
Govemment:
1) Mr. Obama's US Birth Certificate, comprehensive long fonn from the Hawaiian
Department of Records showing the foreign nationatity of his father with a letter
of authenticity of the information contained in the document relevant to Mr.
Obama, not that the document contains information.
2) Mr. Obama's proof of US residency for the purpose of nsnning for US Senate and
US Presidency in the fonn of his voter registration records showing
continuous/contiguous and most recent/immediate 14 years a resident per
Article II, See.1, Clause 5

3) Mr. Obama'sJr. 's rejection of Commonwealth Citizenship from the British
Government under the 1948 Immigration Jaws, or equivalent documentation, and
that Government's response and date of revocation, and/or a letter from the
British Government stating that Mr. Obama does not have natural-born subject
status through his father Mr. Barack Obama Sr.
4) Mr. Barack Obama Jr. 's Indonesian passport/US Passport
1 J Ust of Documents Democrat PPBC and Candidates
Saturday, February 20, 2016
5) Mr. Barack Obama Jr. 's adoption papers by Lolo Soetoro, if applicable, from
Indonesia or letter from that Government stating that Mr. Obema Jr. is not a
citizen of Indonesia via Mr. Soetoro hls stepfather by IIWTiage to Mrs. Stanley
Soetoro (nee Dunham)
6) Mr. Band Obama Jr!s recogoition (passport or other) as an Indonesian subject
from the Indonesian Immigration Agency or equivalent government entity with a
letter of authenticity or certification, or a letter from that nation stating that no
such document exists, or that such recogoition was revoked by Mr. Obama, the
date of the request, the agency's re8p()nse and the date of the revocation
7) Mr. Obama's photo ID with current residency on certificate, DL or Official State
ID card (Student ID and/or library Card insufficient as photo ID)
Parent's Rec;ords for Mr. Barac;k Obama Jr.
8) Mr. Barack Obama Sr.'s student visa documentation and deportation
documentation from the Immigration Service (USCIS or equivalent)
9) Mr. Barack Obama Sr.'s recogoition as a British subject from the British
Immigration Agency at the time of his son's birth or equivalent government
entity with a letter of authenticity or certification
10)Mr. Barack Obama's Naturalization papers as a dual citizen of the US and GB
11) Mr. Barack Obama Sr.'s passport and US green card documentation, if it exists, if
it does not, a letter from USCIS stating this
12) Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama Sr.'s IIWTiage certificate
13) Mrs. Barack Obama (nee Dunham) birth Certificate with letter of authenticity
14) Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama Sr.'s divorce certificate
15) Mrs. Lolo (nee Dunham) Soetoro's, Indonesian passport/US Passport, if it exists
or a letter stating that it does not and why it does not exist
16) The Thmbam-Soetero Divorce Decree of 1981
17) Indon~an/US passport for Mr. Baraek Obama Jr. under the name ofBarack
Soetoro, or a letter from the Indonesian Government that it does not exist
Ust of Documents Democrat PP8C and Candidates
Fmm the PmaOQ'Itic PPBC. the foDnwin& dna!Jlf!DfS shaD be recmrsted 0' the
TXSOS as the Chief Elections Officer:
18) Sen. Barack Obama's Declaration for Intent to Run, or equivalent document, for
US Senate for the state of IDinois, to check for perjUJY with respect to his claim to
us atimJsbip, and the documentation he submitted to demonstrate eligibility
for that office, including residency. If no record exists, a statement
acknowledging that fact wiD be required.

19) Ally document presented, in order to prove his claim to US QtizeDship as
defined by the 14th amendment, to the certifying authority in the Texas Democrat
Party in 2012, if none exist, an explanation as to why this verification action was
not undertaken by the certifying authority considering that the candidate was
under active eligability chaDenge at the time. If no record exists, a statement
acknowledging that fact wiD be required.
20)
The Certification of F.Jiglbility/Entitlement by the Texas Democrat
Chairperson to check for fa1se certification {only the page of the list where Mr.
Obama's name appears, not the 100 or so pages of the entire document), along
with the documentation required to show compliance with the full federal
employment eliglbility regulations found in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the
US Constitution. If no record exists, a statement acknowledging that fact wiD be
required.
The demand for performance of a clear and legal obligation by the Chief Election Officer
of Texas and the Texas Attorney General is to request a review of process such that the
following documents shall be made public or that an explanation for why the demand
for performance was not conducted as requested by the holders of active voter
franehisPS to protect the electoral system from nullification during a live election in
accordance with the time restrictions set forth by the Texas Election Code:
These public documents and the required document reviews are conclusive
evidence and while the principle actors are still alive, they are denied to me by privacy
regulations, which represent a disenfranchisement of my right to challenge as free
speech and my right to an effective vote unless they can be obtained in another manner
Ust of Documents Democrat PPBC and candidates
for the same purpose of presentation to interested public oflicers for daallenge as a
component of free speech under the interpretations found in Citizens United and
McCutcheon and their interaction with the dodrine of checks and balances.
Again, the process is not dear and I wish to abide by the Jaw in this matter to
make the c.balleDges legitimate and actionable in order to protect my economic
opportunities, my gender, my civil rights, my vote, and my person from the political and
ec:onomic malfeasance of a corrupted political party and its political products.
4 Ust of Documents Democrat PPBC and Candidates
saturday, February 20, 2016
LOD Attachment 1:
REPUBLICAN PPBC
List of Documents
From the RQmbUrap PPBC. the followjn& dmnnents shaD be 1'eCIJ1E'Sed bY the
TXSOS as the aaie( Flec;tiops Oftirer:
1) The Republican Declaration for Intent to Run, or equivalent document, for US
SeDate for the state of F1orida, Pennsylvania and Texas, to eheck for peijury with
respect to any claim to US Citizenship, and the documentation submitted by the
candidates to demoustrate eligibility for that office, including residency. If no

record exists, a statement acknowledging that fact will be required and an
explanation of why no sueh documentation was requested in tight of the active
eligtbility clJaDeoges against the candidates.

2) Any document presented, in order to prove the candidate's claim to US
Citizenship as defined by the 14th amendment, to the certifying authority in the

Texas Republican Party in 2012 and 2016, if none exist, an explanation as to why
this verification action was not undertaken by the certifying authority considering
that the candidates were under active eligibility challenge at the time. If no record
exists, a statement acknowledging that fact will be required.

3) The Ca1ification of Eligibility/Entitlement by the Texas Republican Chairperson
to eheck for false certification (only the page of the list where the
National/Federal Candidates' name appears, not the 100 or so pages of the entire
list/document), along with the documentation required to show compliance with
the full federal employment eligability regulations found in Article II, Section 1,
Clause 5 of the US Constitution. If no record exists, a statement acknowledging
that fact wiD be required and an explanation as to why no additional proof of
Citizenship was requested by the PPBC in light of the active eligibility challenges.
1 J Ust of Documents Republican PPBC and candidates
Mr. Rick Santorum 2012 & 2015 eligibility Challenge:
Relevant Documents
t) Mr. Santonun' US Birth Certificate, comprehensive long fonn from the
Peousylvania Department of Records for Somerset and Miftin counties, showing

the foreign uationatity of his father with a letter of authenticity of the information
contained in the doeoment relevant to Mr. Santonun, not that the document
contains infonnation.
2) Mr. Santonun's proof of US residency for the purpose of running for US Senate
and US Presidency in the fonn of his voter registration records showing
continuous/contiguous and most recent/immediate 14 years a resident per
Artide II, See.1, Clause 5
3) The Department of Defense recognition of Mr. Alto Santonun's military record
for 1942 through 1946 showing participation in the US Military.
4) Mr. Alto Santonun's birth certific:ate and immigration number as weD as Mr. A
Santorum's naturalization record, including date of naturalization finalization
and official recognition of US Citizen status.
5) Mrs. Catherine Santonun's birth certificate (mother).
6) The Maniage certificate for the elder Mr. and Mrs. Santorum (parents).
7) Mr. R. Santonun's photo ID with current residency on certificate, DL or Ofticial
State ID cant (Student ID and/or Library Card insufficient as photo ID
8) AD other documentation determined by the SCOTIJS to be relevant in
detennining the eligibiHty of a Presidential candidate for the federal employment
criteria of natural-hom citizen and 14 years a resident of the United States.
Mr. Ted Cruz 2015 eligibility Challenge: Relevant
Documents
9) Mr. Ted Cruz's Canadian Birth Certificate, comprehensive long fonn from the
Alberta, Canada Department of Records or equivalent Government records

department, showing the foreign nationality of his father with a letter of
Ust of Documents RepubUcan PP8C and Candidates Saturday, February 20, 2016
authenticity of the information contained in the document relevant to Mr. Cruz,

not that the dnc11meot contains information.
10) Mr. Cruz's Consular Record/Report of Birth Abroad file by Mr. Cruz's Parents at
the time of his birth
u) Mr. Cruz's proof of US residency for the purpose of mnning for US Senate and
US Presidency in the form of his voter registration reoords showing
continuous/contiguous and most recent/immediate 14 years a resident prior to
the curreot active election, per Article II, Sec.t, Clause 5
12) Mr. Ted Cruz's photo ID with current residency on certificate, DL or Official State
ID card (Student ID and/or Library Card insufficient as photo ID as they are not
public records)
13) The Department of Immigration student visa of Mr. Rafael Cruz to University of
Texas
14)1be refugee visa issued by the US Department of Immigration to Mr. R. Cmz

15)The Canadian VJSa issued to Mr. R. Cruz as a record of his Canadian Citizenship
16) Mr. R. Cruz's birth certificate and immigration record, including date of US
naturalization finalization and oflidal recognition of US Citizen status..
17) Mrs. Catherine Santonun's birth oertfficate and visa records as well as any
application for Canadian Citizenship regardless of whether or not it was granted
by the Canadian Government and last action
18)The Marriage certificate for Mr. and Mrs. R. Cruz
19)AD other documentation determined by the SCOTUS to be relevant in
determining the eligibility of a Presidential candidate for the federal employment
criteria of naturalbom citizen and 14 years a resident of the United States.
Mr. Marco Rubio 2015 eligibility Challenge: Relevant

Documents
Mr. Marco Rubio's US Birth Certificate, comprehensive long fonn from the
Florida Department of Records, showing the foreign nationality of his father and
20)
Ust of Documents Republican PPBC and Candidates Saturday, February 20, 2016
mother, with a letter of authenticity of the information contained in the

document relevant to Mr. Rubio, not that the document contains information.
21) Mr. Rubio's proof of US residency for the purpose of nJDning for US Senate and
US Presidency in the form of his voter registration records showing
oontinuous/oontiguous and most recent/immediate 14 years a resident per
Article II, Sec.t, Clauses
22) Mr. Marco Rubio's photo ID with current residency on certificate, DL or Official
State ID card (Student ID and/or Ll"brary Card insufficient as photo ID as they
are not public records)
23) Mr. Rubio Sr!s Cuban birth certificate and US immigration/refugee ftlCOrd,
including date of naturalization finaHzation and official recognition of US Citizen
status.
24) Mrs. Rubio Sr.'s birth certificate and immigration/refugee record, including date
of naturalization finaHmtion and oftidal recognition of US Citizen status.
25) The Maniage certificate for Mr. and Mrs. Rubio Sr.
26) AD other documentation determined by the S<XYIUS to be relevant in
detennining the eligibility of a Presidential candidate for the federal employment
criteria of natural-bam citizen and 14 years a resident of the United States.
Mr. Donald Trump 2015 eligibility Challenge: Relevant

Documents
27)Mr. Donald Trump's US Birth Certificate, comprehensive long fonn from the New
'
York Department of Records, showing the nationality of his father and mother,
with a letter of authenticity of the infonnation contained in the document
relevant to Mr. Rubio, not that the document contains infonnation.
28)
Mr. Trump's proof of US residency for the purpose of running for US
Presidency in the fonn of his voter registration records showing
continuous/contiguous and most recent/immediate 14 years a resident prior to
the current election cycle, per Article II, Sec.t, Clause 5
4J Ust of Documents Republican PPBC and Candidates
e
e
29) Mr. Donald Trump's photo ID with current residency on certificate, DL or

Official State ID cani (Student ID and/or Library Card insufficient as photo ID as
they are not public records)
30)
Mr. Fredrick Trump's US birth certificate and any Vasa records as official
recognition of Mr. F. Trump's US Qtizen Status
31) Mrs. F. Tnunp's US birth rertificate and any immigration/refugee record of her
parents, including date of naturalization finalization and official recognition of
US Qtizen status or automatic naturalization upon her marriage to the Elder Mr.
Trump.
32) The Marriage certificate for Mr. and Mrs. Fred Trump with date of record.
33) AD other documentation determined by the SCOTIJS to be relevant in
determining the eligtbllity of a Presidential candidate for the federal employment
criteria of natural-bom citizen and 14 years a resident of the United States.
These public documents and the required document reviews are oonclusive
evidence and while the principle actors are still alive, they are denied to me by privacy
regulations, which represent a disenfranchisement of my right to challenge as free
speech and my right to an effective vote unless they can be obtained in another manner
for the same purpose of presentation to interested public officers for ehallenge as a
component of free speech under the interpretations found in Citizens United and
McCutcheon and their interaction with the doctrine of checks and baJan~.
Again, the process is not clear and I wish to abide by the law in this matter to
make the challenges legitimate and actionable in order to protect my economic
opportunities, my gender, my civil rights, my vote, and my person from the political and
economic malfeasance of a corrupted political party and its political products
Ust of Documents Republican PPBC and candidates Saturday, February 20, 2016
LOD Attachment 1:

Chief Elections Officer of Texas
Ust of Documents
From. the Texas Secretaty o{State. tbe foDnwjna dp;uments are l'eClUMed
releyant to the clutiJen&e per the Texas Public Infonnation Act CTP1Al with remec;t state
SJW&ifie motten and the freedom oflpfgnnation Act CFOW with respect to fedml
SJW&ifle matters ;
1) Any formal document review seeking verification, apart from the automated list of
candidates, from the Democrat PPBC rertification of Mr. Obama Jr. as a 2012
Presidential Candidate, and aD other 2oo8, 2012 and 2016 challenged Presidential
Candidates (of both Major parties) as a response to the eligim1ity chaDenges filed
with the Office of the Texas Secretary of State seeking state assurances that all the
candidates were properly vetted for eligibility for the office sought. If no record
exists, a statement acknowledging that fact will be required and an explanation why
no actions were taken.
candidates, from the State Democrat PPBC certification of Mr. Obama as a
2012
Presidential Candidate and all other 2oo8, 2012 and 2016 ehallenged Presidential
Candidates (of both M~Uor parties) as a response to the eligibility challenges filed
with the Office of the Texas Secretary of State seeking state assurances that the
candidate was properly vetted for eligibility for the office sought. If no record exists,
a statement acknowledging that fact will be required and an explanation why no
actions were taken.
candidates, from the National Democrat PPBC certification of Mr. Obama, as a 2012
Presidential Nominee and all other 2008, 2012 and 2016 challenged Presidential
11
Ust of Documents TXSOS
Nominees (ofboth Major parties) as a response to the eligloiHty ehallenges filed with
the Office of the Texas Secret.uy of State seHing state assurances that the candidate
was properly vetted for eligibility for the office sought If no record exists, a
statement acknowledging that fact wiD be required and an explanation why no
actions were taken.
4) What due diligence was done on the part of the OliefEleetious Officer to address the
fatal flaws in the Texas FJections System with intent to prohibit the participation of
ineligible Presidential Candidates and to prevent the complete nullification of the
Presidential Hybrid Election for 2016?
21
U s t o f - TXSOS
G
0
0
0
p
0
0
D
I>
TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION

P.O. Box 12070. Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-2070
HaP C. Am
limCIIIocy
WilbdmiDI Ddoo
TomH.n..
Bobl..aaa
Tom a - ,
February 11, 2016

Ms. Laura Wilkinson
2202 Matthews Drive, Apt. A
Austin. Texas 78703-2019
RE:
Letter Rec:eivecl RepnliDg Cudidate Eligibility
Dear Ms. Wilkinson:
This letter is in response to your letter we received on Janwuy 25, 2016. in which you ask:
1.
Does the TXECom have a statutory interest in the eligibility ofthe candidates with respect to
nmning for and holding their offices as a matter of their qualifications and ethics at the state
level?
2.
How did the eligibility of a candidate factor into that candidate's ability to campaign and
fundraise from the public and corporate donation sources as a matter of the destruction of
effective consent and other criminal violations of the Texas Penal Code with respect to false
advertising?
3.
Does the TXECom take any interest, under statute, with respect to the condition ofa political
actor's eligibility to run for and hold office under the relevant statutes addressing eligibility
for the office sought? Local level? State level? Federal Level? US Presidency?
4.
Is it correct to seek out or be referred to the TXECom for matters of ethics during an election
cycle on the part of candidates and their PPBCs?
The Texas Ethics Commission ("commission") bas authority to enforce and administer certain laws,
ncluding Chapters 302,303,305, 572,and 2004oftheGovemment Code; Sections2152.064and 2155.003 of the
:Jovemment Code; Subchapter C, Chapter 159, Local Government Code, in connection with a county judicial
fficer, as defined by Section 159.051, Local Government Code, who elects to file a financial statement with the
ommission; and Title 15 of the Election Code. Section 571 .061, Government Code. The commission cannot
1terpret or enforce a law outside its jurisdiction.
COIM vilil Ofll' Jwww ~at lltlp:llwww etlucutoU.a .au Oft tlw llftenwt.
(511) ..U.SIOO
FAX (51l) 40-5777
TDD t.aoo-73S.l989
DtT-EIIIice<:--..__......._ ____ fl-.oolor, ...._. ..... - . ......... ....., ......,_ ._,...... .........

Fetnsry 11, 2016
Paae2 of3
Title 15 of the Election Code requires a candidate for public office to file certain reports regarding political
expen<t.itlfts, and nonpolitical expenditw'eS made from political contributions. Regarding
your first three questions. Title 15 ofthe Election Code also defines a candidate, in part, as a person who koowing)y
aDd willingly takes affirmative action for the purpose of gaining nomination or election to public office or for the
purpose of satisfying financial obligations incurred by the person in CODneetion with the campaign for nomination or
election, including the tiling of an application for a place on the ballot or certain other filings. Section 251.001 ( 1),
Election Code. A candidate for public office, as defined by Title 15 of the Election Code, may accept political
contributions and make political expenditures, but may not accept a political contribution from a corporation.
Sections 253.003, .094, Election Code. Additional restrictions regarding the acceptance and use of political
contributions also apply to a candidate. See generally, Chapter 253, Election Code. 1Ho~er, the commission does
not have authority to interpret or enforce laws that determine the eligibility ofa candidate for public offi~ including
Chapter 141 of the Election Code. The commission also does not have authority to interpret or enforce statutory
prohibitions of fraud or election fraud. If you have a question reganiing the eligibility of a candidate for public
office, you may wish to contact the Texas SecretaJy ofState or other legal counsel. Ifyou have a question regarding
the offense offtaud or election fraud, you may wish to contact a local prosecuting attorney's office (e.g., district or
county attorney).
contri~ political
Regarding your fourth question, the commission regularly educates the regulated community and members of
the public regarding the laws under the commission's authority and provides assistance to aid in compliance with
those laws. That education and assistance is provided through information on the commission's website,
correspondence, and other communications with the public, with or without a referral. The commission encourages
the public to review the educational materials on the commission' s website and to contact the commission with
additional questions, if needed. However, the commission cannot provide an intelpi'Ctation of a law outside the
commission' s statutory authority.
YO\D' letter also appears to request an advisory opinion from the commission. Tite commission has the
authority to prepare a written opinion answering the request of a person subject to a law within the commission's
jurisdiction, which are cited above and also include Chapters 36 and 39 of the Penal Code, for an opinion about the
application of that law to the person in regard to a specified existing or hypothetical factual situation. Section
571.091, Government Code. In order for a person to request an advisory opinion from the commissio~ the question
asked must concern bow one of the above laws applies to the person requesting the opinion. In other words, the
commission cannot issue an advisory opinion at a persons request if the question only concerns how a law applies
to another person. Furthermore, the commission may only issue an advisory opinion concerning the laws under the
commission's authority. Your request does not concern the application of a law within the commission's jurisdiction
to any particular person. Therefore, we cannot issue the advisory opinion you have requested.
We hope that this letter addresses your questions. If you have any other questions or wish to discuss this
matter further, please feel free to contact us .
1 For additional information regarding the restrictions on politic:al contributions, please also see the campaign finance guides for candidates
IDd officebolds on our website at bUps:/lwww.ethics.state.tx.uslmainlguides.htm.
QFcblumy 11,Copy
2016
Plp3 of3
provided courtesy of: http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

Sincerely,
Ian M. Steusloff
General Counsel
IMS:pes
Ref.: MID# 33575
TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION

P.O. Rox 12070
Austin. Texas 78711-2070
Address Service Requested
{ 1
'FI<.
~ T .~
; 1~
:. . Y . : .S
: l t: ' ':
F [',: .T ~C)
F,..,.!V .... I'. t'>(
C>..,
u~
....
It
f'V"'.,,
'..
.... ~
'
( ....
...r
. --.
..... -
~--
z ;;:~
.
,,_.
("~
...:.
.~
11
...
-;
. .,
co: "' 1
......o:.t:i.ft
/(.P~
Ms. Laura WUidnsoa

no1 Matthews Drive, Apt. A
Aastia, Teus 78703-1819
47 LQW-N3B 79703
1111n'JIU 1a11 1.1111 t111u ,ft hh IIll
I .,r, ... ,,, .. ul
Q .
0
0
0
Q
2J
Q
c
0
"
0
0
0
I>
"
D
0
Mr. G. Hinojosa
Texas ~moc.ratie Party
1106 Lavaca St
t100
Austin, TX 78701
Send to
)(
..J
I write to you today as an active holder of a Texas State voter franchise to

inform you that I will be challenging the following Democratic Presidential
Candidates for 2016: Mrs. Hillary Clinton, Mr. Martin O'Malley and Mr. Bernie
Sanders on their claims of eligibility under Article II, Sec. 1, Clause 5 . These
Democrat candidates for the Office of the President of the United States are
either unfit to hold the Office or are potentially ineligible. I will alao be
challenging the Republican Candidates for President: Mr. Ted Cruz, Mr. Marco
Rubio and Mr. Rick Santorum as ineligible candidates who do not meet the US
Constitutional Criterion of natural-bom Citizen, Mr. Donald Trump as a
potential ineligible candidate for President and all the other Republican
Candidates because their word on this matter is worth nothing. 'Mtey have all
failed the first test of being a Chief Constitutional Officer of the United States in
that NONE of them have challenged the illegal candidates in this race and none
of them ever challenged Mr. Obama during the Presidential races of 2008 and
2012, as a usurper. 'Mtey all are well aware that natural-born Citizen is a
mandatory criterion of the federal employment qualifications for the Office of
the President.
I have been a long time constituent of the Democrat Party, which I will call by
its true designation the Democrat private political branding corporation (PPBC)
December 20. 2011
Page 1
which is an independent contractor of the US Government and subject to all

rules and laws prohibiting fraud in the same manner as all other Private Sector
multinational companies. Aa such, the Democrat PPBC may not violate the
Falee Claims Act, otherwise known as the LincoJn Jaw. You are a private
corporation doing business with the federal government aa a sourcing agent for
pubHc servants elected and appointed to state and federal office .
I have challenpd previous ineligible Presidential Candidates in 2012 and have
received no assurance that the candidates the Democrat PPBC supports are
etigible for the offices being sought. The previous Democrat candidates who
were inetigible, and therefore illepl, were Mr. Barack Obama and Mr. Bill
Richardson in 2008 and Mr. Barack Obama in 2012. Neither of these
individuals were natun:ll-bom Citi:rens as required by the US Constitution and
as defined by the 14th Amendment which is bom a US Citizen subject to the
juriadiction of the United States. The words critical to this challenge are
subject to the juriadiction". There are no qualifiers on this phrase which
supports the definition of natun:al-bom US Citizen as jus soli and jus sanguinis
as matters of sovereignty and allegiance of the Nation.
Anyone running for the office of the US Presidency must be, by the US
Constitution, bom on the aoil of the United States under the complete
jurisdiction of the United States which infers that both parents of the candidate
be US Citizens at the time of the candidate's birth and thus there is a
document trail which may be examined to prove the claim of eligibility that
each and every candidate awea.ra to on the documents used in Texas to apply
for a position on the Texas State Primary ballot which is the Candidate Ballot
Application for President (CBAP). The wording of the Democrat versions of this
state owned and controlled document is relevant to the complaint as every
Democrat candidate who signs it automatically disqualifies him or herself from
the Texas Electoral process. This fonn is in extreme error aa it does not
stipulate that the Presidential Candidate signing it is eligible by Article II,
Sec.1, Clause 5 and all the terms present therein including age, residency,
natural-born Citizenship and US Citizenship obtained by natural means and
not naturalization under law.
The CBAP may be used by the DPPBC for their political products in order
to bridge the transition of the candidate from exclusive claim by the
corporation to the authority of the State election system, but it is not owned by
the DPPBC, and its current form is not in compliance with the requirement of
uniformity under the Texas Election Code for state owned documents. The
December 23, 2015
Page2
DPPBC CBAP does not contain wording that the candidate swears to be eligible
to run for and HOLD the office they are seeking under the Presidential
Qualifications Clause and the Presidential Federal Employment Criteria
otherwise lmown as Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution, in its
entirety.
In the Primary elections of 2008 and 2012, the certifying authority in the
Democrat party, Mr. Boyd Richie, generated a list certifying the names of those
candidates the corporation had confidence were legal to run for the Office of
the President. The CBAP form used for these elections rendered this list a false
cert:ification and a component of misprision of fraud as it falaely legitimizes
ineligible candidates for President by lax process and caused all other
legitimate candidates to disqualify themselves upon signing it because they did
not swear that they were eligible for the office they sought. It wa.a used as a
party loyalty document, not a transitional document bridging the authorities of
the PPBC and the State of Texas. It is clear to me that the certifying authorities
responsible for making sure those candidates in the campaigns for US
President were qualified to run for, and hold, that office per Article II, Section 1,
Clause 5 and the 14th Amendment defining born a US Citizen subiect to the
Jurisdiction of the United States Goyemment have not sione their job or
protected the state electoral svstem from deliberate fraud.
When last I contacted the Democrat PPBC in 2001 and 2012, I demanded that
the Democrat Chair Person who generates the certification of entitlement list
sent to the Texas Secretary of State, demonstrate that he had properly vetted
all candidates for President against the natural-born Citizen qualification for US
President.
That did not happen. The representatives of the DPPBC in Texas and in the
Nation went on record ridiculing those who dared ask any questions of a
candidate who did not seem to meet the Presidential Federal Employment
Criteria. In fact, 2012 demonstrated the second cycle of complete and
catastrophic failure of the national and state electoral systems and allowed for
the second installation of a usurper to the Office of the President... Mr. Barack
Obama, Jr., former Senator of the State of Illinois.
This letter is to inform you that I will be challenging Mr. Obama for a fourth
time as he baa demonstrated extreme in-competence and hostility for the US
Constitution and the nation. Nor is he eligible to hold the OffiCe of the US
President under the 14th amendment and complete jurisdiction of the US
December 23. 2015
Page3
0
0
0
0
0
Government due to his status 88 a dual citizen/subject with Britain via his
father Mr. Barack Obama Sr., a recognized Kenyan national. In addition, I will
be challenging the 2016 Democrat candidates for the Office of the President,
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. O'Malley on grounds that they are not fit to be the Chief
Constitutional Ofticers of the United States. Mrs. Clinton based on her
complete failure to prevent the installation of a usurper to the Office of the
President 88 a rival candidate in 2008. And Mr. O'Malley as the Governor of
Maryland who had been alerted to the presence of a usurper in 2012 in his
state Dl8Jl8led electoral system which is fatally Oawed and thus blind to the
presence, and challenge, of illegal candidates to the Office of the President.
A complete review of the electoral challenges of Ms. Tracy Fair, against
the electoral system of Maryland, the Maryland Secretary of State and the State
Board of Elections, are in order to understand the fubar in Maryland under the
control of Mr. O'Malley as Governor. He failed his state and he failed his
country. He does not deaerve to be allowed anywhere near the Office of the
President as a potential conspirator to install a usurper to the Office of the
President. An investigation will be needed in order to understand the complicity
of Mr. O'Malley as the Democrat Governor of Ma!yland and his involvement
with the installation of a criminal fraud to Office with the assistance of the
Supreme Court of Maryland concerning the efforts by Mrs. Fair to alert the
State Board of Elections of the presence of an illegal candidate, Mr. Obama, in
the state Dl8Jl8led and controlled electoral system. This happened under the
control of Mr. O'Malley and the buck ultimately stops with him in a matter of
this much significance.
I do not seek the removal from the race of any candidate for President as
that is the job of Congress under the articles of quo warranto and criminal
proceedings concerning treason, fraud, misprision of fraud, vote theft, election
nullification and perjury, among many other infractions of the law prohibiting
the installation of a usurper to the Office of the President. I do not seek the
removal of the names of Mrs. Clinton, Mr. O'Malley or Mr. Sanders, or Mr.
Cruz, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Rubio or any of the other candidates, but I do insist
that they be formally vetted under the law by document review against the US
Presidential qualification of natural-bom Citizen as it is in context with the 14th
amendment and complete jurisdiction, and as a matter of the proper execution
of the state and national electoral systems. As a result of this vetting, the
Democrat version of the Candidate Ballot Application for President for every
Democrat Candidate shall be sent to the TXSOS directly as a part of the Chief
December23,2015
Page4

Elections Officer's document review to compare what was sworn to with the
realities of the candidate's eligibility status. Submitting a Presidential
candidate's name on a Hat 100 (+)pages long is no longer sufficient. The
DPPBC is not allowed to shoehorn a non-state candidate for President into the
Texas State Ballot system with only a name and a check mark. What has been
practiced in the past is a fatal flaw in the system and directly contributed to
the installation of a usurper to the Office of the President in 2008 and 2012.
This will not happen without a fight in 2016.
Under the TPlA and FOIA1, the following questions need to be answered
by the certifying authority in the Democrat Private Political Branding
Corporation (DPPBC) for the offices of President concerning the office Mr.
Obama currently hold~ and that Mrs. CHnton, Mr. O'Malley and Mr. Sanders
are actively seeking:
1) Is there any evidence suggesting that Mr. Barack Obama Jr. ever
properly disclosed to the Texas Chief Elections Officer and/or the
Democrat Party Certifying Authority and, in tum, to the active holders of
voter franchises in Texas, that he was running for US President as a legal
citizen of the United States during the election of 2012 despite being
bom a dual citizen with Britain? What fonn did the disclosure take and
what documents were used?
2) And as 1) applies to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. O'Malley and Mr. Sanders in the
2016 Presidential election and their relevant circumstances and their
claims to natura1-bom Citizen?
3) What proof of US Citizenship did the State ofTexas require from Mr.
Barack Obama in order to properly vet him and affirm that he was a legal
and qualified candidate for the Office of US President in compliance with
all Texas State and Federal Election Codes and Regulations particularly,
Texas Public Information Act and the Freedom of Information Act. The FOIA is relevant here
because the Texas PPBC Chairperson Is not only made a temporary state public offldal for the
purposes of a Presidential election, but also a temporary Federal public official under the law
and shall be compelled to act accordingly, with respect to protecting the state and national
electoral systems from fraud and subject to all the penalties and prohibitions against
misconduct In the same fashion as a pollee officer Is held accountable to the state for acts of
misconduct and violations of dvil rights under statute
2
These same questions will be sent to alllnellslble and thus tnepl candidates In both parties
December 23,2015
Page 5

but not exclusively, US 4 7 CFR 73.1940 in light of his father's foreign
birth and nationality as a Kenyan and British subject while under active
challenge by the relator via the office of the TXSOS? If no proof was
offered, why not? If no proof was asked for by the party certifying
authority in light of the active challenge, why not?
4) And aa 3) applies to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. O'Malley and Mr. Sanders in the
claims to the full terms of the Presidentjel Oyeljficationa CJause?
5) With respect to Mr. Barack Obama's US Citizenship as he claims it

relates to natural-bam Citizenship, have any documents been filed with
the DPPBC or the State of Texas for the purpose of verification of claims
to eligibility for the Office of the US Presidency (2008 and 20 12) which
disclosed that Mr. Obama was a legal citizen of the United States and of
Britain at his birth and thus per the 14th amendment needed to be
naturalized by the US Government in order to claim US Citizenship as a
dual citizen with another country? If proof was offered, what was it? If no
proof was asked for by the DPPBC certifying authority, why not knowing
that he was not compliant with the Presidential Qualifications Clause?
claims to the full terms of the Presidential Qualifications Clause?
7) With respect to the criterion of residency, were any documents, such as

state voter registration, filed with the Texas DPPBC or the State of Texas
for the purpose of verification of claims to eligibility for the Office of the
US President (2012) which disclosed that Mr. Obama had spent the
required time in the United States for this Office which is 14 years? What
were the documents presented? Again, if no proof was asked for by the
Texas DPPBC, why not? What grounds did the DPPBC have to certify Mr.
Obama as a legitimate candidate for President to the TXSOS while under
active challenge?
claims to the full tenns of the Presidential Qualifications CJauae?
9) Why was Mr. Obama not challenged by the Texas DPPBC when it was
discovered that he was not a natural-born Citizen per the findings of Sen.
December 23, 2015
Page6
Res. 511 for Sen. John McCain with special circumstances under the
militaly condition? The definition of natuml-bom Citizen as recognized by
this Senate Resolution is born under the absollae jurisdiction ofthe
United States AND thus to two (2) US Citizen Parents. Mr. Obama does not
have two US Citizen parents and was not born under the absolute
jurisdiction of the United States as evidenced by his publically posted
birth certificate, which has not yet been aent to the Texas Secretmy of
State. The constitutional term of art, natuml-bom Citi2;en, cannot have
two conflicting definitions and still be valid and in fact under the 14th
amendment has only one operational definition, jus soli and jus
sanguinis under the sovereign jurisdiction of the United States. Not
partial, not shared, not dual, not conditional, not transitional, not
situational, but complete, total, absolute and unquestionable jurisdiction
of the United States as a sovereign and independent nation.
10) Why did Mrs. Clinton not challenge Mr. Obama in 2008 as she should
have done bad he been a legitimate candidate and as she was required to
do per her oath of office and as her first test as the Chief Constitutional
Officer of the United States? Furthermore, why has Mrs. Clinton not
raised objections and requested verification of the natural-born Citizen
claims of Mr. Bernie Sanders with Israel or that of Mr. Rick Santorum
with Italy, Sen. Ted Cruz with Cuba, or Mr. Marco Rubio with Cuba. Sen.
Ted Cruz is in violation of the natural-bom Citizen criterion because he
was not born on the soil of the United States and thus was not born
under the complete jurisdiction of the United States. While Mr. Rubio
was born on US soil, he was born under the jurisdiction of Cuba
regardless of the refugee status of his parents and thus not under the
complete jurisdiction of the United States. Even if jurisdiction was
ambiguous in light of refugee status, it is still not comolete and thus Mr.
Rubio needed to be naturalized as a child born on US soil. It is Mrs.
Clinton's failure as a two time Presidential candidate that she has not
challenged ineligible and therefore illegal candidates for the Office of the
President and protected and preserved the US Constitution. Mrs. Clinton
is unfit to run for office due to these fundamental failures in her
campaign for office. Twice.
& a US and natural-born Citizen, and an active participant of the Texas

Flectoral System since 198<>, I have the authority to demand that the credentials of Sen.
December 23,2015
Page 7
Ohama be evaluated for his current political office upon discoYery of information
indicating that Sen. Obama is working against the best interests of the nation and the
American People as a result of his abuse of the Jaw and execotive order, and as part of
the doetrine of checks and balances under the electoral system. Under my right to
challenge, which is a component of both my riabt to free IJIMX)Ch and my riabt to yote
and thus is a product of oon.stroctive interaction of the First, Ninth, Tenth, 'Ibirteenth,
Fourteenth, Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments held in oontext with my rights and
protections as a woman, a voter and a US Citizen and as an unwilling member of the
long term unemployed actively discrimiuated against by the Private Sedor because of
oonditions not of my making or CODSent. I have standing to question the credentials,
allegiance and suitability, inc:ludiug mental stability as a medic:al issue ofcrisis, of any
candidate presented to me for election to office or while that pubtic officer is in office
under suspicion of fraud as a part of a fataDy flawed electoral system.
The Texas FJeetoral system as it curreotly is maintained and operated does not
tilter out ineHgible and iDegal eandidates, but in realityfalsely grants them legitimacy
by lax~ and thus nullifies the election and renders an votes cast in the election as
either fraudulent and/or criminal, as vote theft or acts of misprision of fraud on the part
of the voters. This is electoral fraud as a product of a dysfunctional and manipulated
system.
It is aJso a massive event of voter fraud to allow those bom on US soil without
mo~, to vote in any election without the process of naturalization as eaDed for under
the 14th amendment. Cummtly, there is a constitutional crisis and miDions of people
across the nation are committing voter fraud unaware that they are not eligible to vote
because they are not bom under the complete jurisdiction of the United States to one US
Qtizen parent or to parents who are foreign nationals, present in the US legally or
illegally. This includes Mr. Obama as an un-naturalized US citizen of dual citizenship,
who commits voter fraud with evety election he votes in beeause he is not bom a US
Qtizen under the complete jurisdiction of the United States
The only people allowed to vote in this nation are those who are US Citizens,
naturaDy or naturalized. No other persons may vote in a US election. Nor may either
PPBC or their political products grant such a right to iDegal aliens or to unrecognized
potential citizens who need to be naturalized per functional and enforced immigration
law.
My authority to demand that Mr. Obama be fully vetted for his current office
stems from my citizen sovereignty as a component of a Constitutional Republic and the
J
Misusing the doctrine of laches to protect Illegitimate candidates as another fatal flaw In the
system
December 23, 2015
Page8
unique nature of US Citizeaship. By the US Code, it is unlawful to impersoD8te a

political officer, if one is not eligible for that oflicet, at any time duriDg the electioo gr
wbDe in offjee. Furthermore, it violates my Fifth Amendment rights to prevent having
my vote criminaU~ without my CODSeDt, as aD votes in an election involving
nullification of process are, with respect to the praence or suspected presence of an
ineligible candidate regardless of political affiHation.
Thus my vote was stolen in 2008 under false pretext by Mr. Obama, and made an
act of misprision of fraud and felony in 2012 bealuse no one resolved my cha11euges
against Mr. Obama, or for that matter, Mr. Romney and Mr. Santorum. The Texas
SecreWy of State has dismiaecl my challeoges in 2012 ultra vires and thus these
cbaDeoges are stiD active because the TXSOS cannot define natural-born Citizen and
has no authority to do so, or to dismiss chaDenges which are based on diseovely of the
definition of a US Constitutional Term of art. To do so is to usurp the authorities of both
the Texas Attorney General AND the SCOTUS.
Mr. Obama occupies the Office of the President while under active chaDenge
against his daim of being a D8tural-bom dt:izen per the 14th amendment and complete
US jurisdiction. He is not a natural-born Citizen and never has been and thus as a
private brandiDg corporation, the Democrat Party has committed fraud by falsely
certifying Mr. Obama and other U1egal candidates for President, as entitled to have their
names placed on a Texas State Ballot without having conducted a vetting process to
determine their status per the Presidential Federal Employment Criteria, also known as
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
Per City ofSan Antonio v Straumberg (1888), as an active holder of a voter
franchise with special interest in the legitimacy of the electoral process and in
presenring the legitimacy and strength of my vote as it pertains to the presence of
ineligtole candidates/nominees and the definition by which to detemrlne the condition
of ineligt'bility and the relevant documentation needed, which sets me apart from the
general public have standing to address flaws in the political process which have caused
me damage and THREATEN to cause me damage if another Usurper is elected to office.
I also have a special interest in detennining the legitimacy of any politician elected to
State or Federal Office with jurisdiction over Texas and elected with the votes of Texas
franchise holders. If an election is nullified, my vote is nullified and I have been
disenfranchised of my right to vote and my right to free speech
I thus lodge an electoral complaint charging that if Mr. Obama cannot prove that
he is a US Citizen bom under the absolute jurisdiction of the United States per the 14th
amendment, he will have committed electoral fraud in violation of his oath of office, his
4
18 USC Sec 911 and 18 USC Sec 912
December 23, 2015
Page9
0
0
oath as the ChiefConstitutional Ofticer of the United States and the US Code 42 USC
See tmi which prolnl>its voters from lying to election authorities. Candidates are first
voters, and this IJU'JIDS all prohibitions against lying, overtly or covertly, apply to aD
candidates for oftlce eYerY bit as strongly as they do to voters.
I state and charge that if Mr. Obama cannot prove that he is a US Qtizen bom
under the absolute jurisdiction of the US he has fraudulently filed for access to the Texas
Primary and General BaDots in 2008 and 2012, campaigned for election under the color
of fraud and was elected to Office by electoral fraud and is CUITeDtly occupying that
0
0
0
0
office under the color of fraud.

This eligibility eballenge cannot be dismissed without resulting in a state and
federal constitutional crisis which wiD be resolved by the courts as this is not merely
about an iDegal candidate to office but an entire failed electoral system wbieh is blind to
ineligibility due to a perceived ambiguity in the Presidential Qualifications aause and
natural-born Citizen. AD eligl"bility ehallenges submitted by this chaDenger, and others,
from 2:008 forward remain active untD the ambiguity surrounding natural-bom Citizen,
and X years a resident, as immediate and consecutive, are resolved by the SCOTUS.
If Mr. Obama indeed cannot prove his US Citizenship as bom under the complete
jurisdiction of the United States via the appropriate documentation, per the base
definition of US Citizenship found in the 14th Amendment and Sen. Res. 511, apart from
the military condition, then he was falsely certified by the certifying authority in the
Texas Democrat Party and that is a felony under the Texas Penal Code, partieuJarly in
light that this temponuy public official was warned about Mr. Obama's ineligalHty for
the office he sought I charge the Democrat Chairperson who certified Mr. Obama as
eligible for the office of US President with false certification of an ineliga"ble ea.ndidate as
entitled to have his name on the Texas Primary Ballot and as a false nominee to the
Texas General Ballot during Mr. Obama's 2012 campaign.
Every certification made for an ineligible ea.ndidate by a public official for the
State of Texas during a Presidential Flection for the United States is done under color of
fraud if Mr. Obama turns out to not be a documented US Citizen by birth and recognized
as such by the Government of the US per the 14th amendment.
It is irrelevant if Mr. Obama has released his Hawaiian birth certificate to the
media. He has not submitted this document directly to the Texas Chief Flection Officer
for review under ehallenge. Nor, do I believe, has the certifying authority in the Texas
Democrat Private Political Branding Corporation (DPPBC), submitted any document

which is backed up by evidence to demonstrate due diligence in this matter.
December 23, 2015
Page 10
This wiD be required to respond to the active 2015 eligibility challenge lodged
with the Office of the Texas Secretary of State under Sec. 31.oo6 and Sec. 145.003 for
investigation by the Texas Attomey General as a matter for investigation into the
fundamental flaws and bHndness of the Texas Electoral system. 1be Texas electoral
system has faDed catastrophicaDy and I wiD see this to its end and the resolution of these
fatal flaws. My life and eoonomie well bein& are threatened, and, under the
Constitution, I have the standing to protect myself as a US and Texas Qtizen by raising a
ehalleDge to the faulty process. A US Senator may be a naturalized citizen who has
ehosen to pledge aDegianee to the US alone, but under this condition cannot be a US
President. These conditions have not been vetted and thus this ehallenge is formally
lodged to resolve the ambiguities..
As the DPPBC and Mr. Obama choose to adhere to the interpretation of naturalborn CitimJ as Cfljlivalent (p US Citjm& and fhua a ngturgHzed US Citjzen, this
eliglbility chaDenge demands that if the DPPBC and its certifying authority do not know
the exact definition of natural-born Citizen as it is under the law of the 14th amendment,
that it would be an extremely good idea to petition the US Supreme Court for a
certification of a qu~on of law regard.iug natural-born Citizen, and X number ofyears
a resident (and its definition as immediate and consecutive), and the documents
required to conoborate claims to eligibility as a Presidential Candidate with aDdue haste
and in the interests of CYA
It does not matter if the 2012 election is concluded as that election is potentially
tainted under the color of fraud and remains so until the challenge is resolved. A list of
documents is attached which should be sent to the Texas Secretary of State in order to
resolve this challenge. Each doeument should be sent from the originating authority
directly with a letter of authenticity of both the document and of the information
contained in the document specific to Mr. Obama.
These documents exist as public records and can only be released by Mr. Obama
as I am prohibited by privacy regulations from obtaining these documents myself, in
order to present them as public record to the TXSOS and the TXAG in order to initiate
an investigation by the TXAG into this crisis. These documents are not prohibited from
being obtained under subpoena by the Texas Attomey General or the Texas Solicitor
General as part of the investigation into election fraud committed by ineligtble
candidates for office and the PPBCs supporting them. I do not require these doeuments
to be sent to me, but to the Oftiee of the Chief Elections Officer of Texas, the Texas
Sectary of State for document review and eventual referral for investigation to the Texas
Attomey General in order to resolve the questions of eligibility and the fundamentals
flaws in the Texas Electoral System.
December 23,2015
Page
11
Relying on the TXSOS to d.Uuniss this chaDenge is taken in error. The TXSOS has
no authority to dismiss these challenges, but I suspect it wiD take a ruliDg from the
SCX>TX to clarify what the TXSOS may and may not do with authority concerning Sec.
31.oo6 ehaDeDges to a candidate's claims to elqpbiHty in any campaign for office. It
needs to be kept in mind that the State of Texas bas invested a large amount of money
into the legitimate conduct ofelectioos, if it is shown that the elections for 2oo8 and
2012 were fraudulent because none of the parties involved did their jobs as expected
under statute, well let's just say that is a lot of money and it is aD covered by the False
Claims Ad. along with aD the money fronted by Super PACs and non-profit 501 (e) 4 s
and used for the purpose of iDstal1ing a usurper to Office, Republican and Democrat.
If these documents are not released, then the clJallenge is lllll'eBOIYed and Mr.
Obama is adi\'ely prohibited from fundraising in the State ofTexas as a potential
illegitimate office holder otherwise known as a usurper to office. If it is found that Mr.
Obama is a usurper to office any campaign fundraising he does in Texas is a matter of
fraud and therefore of interest to the Texas Attomey General and the Texas Solicitor
General as potential c:rimioal matters and as active disenfranchisement of free speech
for active voters who have had their economic opportunities destroyed by these political
actors reoognized under Citizens United and McCutcheon as a dehDel'ate distortion of
the democratic process with intent to install usurpers to office.
Neither the Texas Secretary of State, nor the Texas Attomey General, nor even
the General Counsel for the TX.SOS may claim any definition of US Citizens which allows
them to ignore this demand for performance of a non-discretionary duty with respect to
identifying and resolving statutoty infirmities of the Texas Election System as it relates
to ineligible candidates or suspected ineligible candidates under active ehallenge lodged
with the Office of the Chief Elections Officer. It is the responsibility of the TXSOS to
address any suspected infinnity/fatal flaw of the state election system that may have
allowed an ineligable candidate to access the state managed and protected ballot, so that
no more damage may be done to the election system and the vote.
The definition for US Citizen is weD established and thus is not a constitutional
tenn of art or under controversy even if it is considered on par with the tenns naturalborn Citizen and naturalized Citizen. Therefore, under the language of Sec. 31.oo6 there
is an established standard by which to judge the presence of fraud upon review of
relevant documents.
s Per the 14th amendment a US Citizen is bom or naturalized in the United States and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof...., and of the state wherein they reside.
r
December 23,2015
....
Page 12

I have the authority (clear and legal right) to demand that the full and established
definition of atizeq be appHed to Mr. Obama and aD other candidates who are in
violation of natural-born Citizen, regardless of political affinity, for the purpose of
challenge and determination of the probable commission of the crime of fraud against
the state of Texas and its lawful registered active holders of voter franchises, which is a
protected class under the US CoDStitution. The actions of a usurper have wide ranging
impact and have done me direct harm in the past and I fuDy anticipate his actions will
do me direct harm in the future as the presence of a usurper to the Oflice of the US
President, is such that the illegal candidate represents no one but himself while in office
thus disenfranchising an voters of representation, reganfless of potitical affiliation.
us
Mr. Obama has poisoned the well, and I now have no confidence that either
private political branding corporation has enough interest, integrity or honesty to
properly vet their candidates for eligibility. As a result I require an candidates to the
Office of the President prove by document review that they are as eligtole for that office
under the terms of Article II, Sec. 1, Clause 5 as they claim they are. Their word, the
word of the PPBC and the Texas Secretary of State is garbage and I consider aD of it
worthless. If it is not documented, it does not exist and take my word for it is no longer
acceptable in the extreme. Faith and trust have been broken and nothing is fixing that
for the formeeable future.
Mr. Oba.ma, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. O'Malley and Mr. Sanders and/or the fronting
PPBC, the Democrat Party, must turn over the requested documents which prove that
they are US Qtizens and by what conditions of the US immigration law they claim US
citizenship to the Chief EJection Officer of Texas for document miew apjnst a known
and unoontrsted staoclanf for the detennjpation of criminal activity such as fraud. yote
dilution. yote theft and election nuDification whicll have beep mmmitted and wiD be
mmmitted by future ineli&fble qndicJatrs for President.
This is a legislative infirmity introduced by fraud concerning natural-bom atizen

and the other constitutional tenns of art contained in Art. 2, Sec. 1, Clause 5 are
repugnant to the Texas and US Constitutions when used to deh"berately disenfranchise

aD active voters for the purpose of gutting the Middle Class of their power to protect
their vested interests and eoonomie opportunities. This controversy must be resolved by
the Texas Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court, which has unique authority over
constitutional tenns of art. No one below the level of the High Court has jurisdiction to
define what interpretation of natural-born citizen in context with the statute and intent
of the 14th amendment is correct to close the loophole and prevent future occurrences of
electoral fraud and vote theft. No -visiting" Judges need be consulted as to the definition
of natural-born Citizen or US Citizen in order to circumvent the doctrine of checks and
balances as was done in In Re Cullar (2010) as this becomes an occurrence ofultra
December 23, 2015
Page
13

vires and thus without qutJlilied immunity for thejudge iHegaHy ruling on a matter
concerning the US Constitution when he, or she, has absolutely no authority to do so.
The Texas Electoral system has been corrupted by the presence and continued
election of identified ineligible and thus iDegal canctidates6 for the Office of President in
2oo8, 2012 and now 2016. There must be an end to this sort of corruption. This is a
demand for perfonnaoce from the Ctifying authority of the Democrat PPBC who is
temporarily made a public official under state and federal law to protect the electoral
system from fraud whether intentioual or in ignorance.lporing it is inelevant, as this
letter is a formaHty to satisfy the process outlined in the holding of In Re Cul1ar (2010)
to challenge i1legal and iQegitimate oondidatesfor ojfice.
Answer the questions and provide the requested documentation directly to the
Texas Seeretaly of State for processing UDder Sec. 3Loo6 and the determination of the
potential presence of electoral fraud by the TXSOS. If the TXSOS chooses to dismiss this
action and refuse to perform their dear and legal duties and obligations with respect to
referring the issue to the Texas Attorney General under Sec. 145.003 and the initiation
of an inwstigation to resolve the eligability challenge with respect to US Qtizenship and
natural-hom Citizenship and the documents required as public record to corroborate
the claims of eligibility the issue wiD then be escalated directly to the Texas Attomey
General and the Texas Solicitor General. If the State of Texas oversight officer refuse to
perform their duties and obliptions the issue wiD be escalated to the Texas Supreme
<urt for clarification of the duties and obligations owed the State of Texas by FJection
Officers in the process under Sec. 31.oo6, Sec. 145.001 and Sec. 273.oo6 among other
relevant sections of the Texas FJectoral Code and the Texas Penal Code
I require a response to this challenge by Mr. Hinojosa as the DPPBC Texas State
Chairperson, indicating an answer to the questions contained and an assurance that the
proper documentation has been sent to the Chief Election Officer of Texas in order to
resolve the controversy and ambiguity in this matter. Otherwise, I require a direct
refusal of compliance with my demand for perfonnance and wiD then take up this
matter with the Texas Seeretaly of State, the Texas Attomey General and Texas
Supreme Court directly.
I have been a Democrat voter for many years, but I am increasingly made aware
that as a person of limited color I am no longer welcome in the Democrat PPBC. I am
increasingly, and with escalation of hostility, rejected by the party and its hierarchy and
proxies on the basis of my skin color and I resent it.
6
Mr. Obama, Mr. Richardson, Mr. John Kerry, Mr. Romney, Mr. Jindal, Mr. Sanders and Mr.
Santorum to name a few bi.partisan illegal candidates, as well as potential illegal candidates,
past and current.
December 23. 2015
Page 14
As for the Republican PPBC and its selected representatives, it has been made
more than clear to me that as a US Citizen and long term unemployed single mother,
with four University Degrees iD STEM discipHnes, that I am of little matter to the
Repubtican.s and cleserYe my current situation because I must have a character flaw and
actively desire free stuff" as well as stable wages as entitlements, not that the entire
electoral and economic systems have been rigged against the oation and its people
under the PoHtical and Orporate doctrines ofStarw the Beast for the stnmgu)ation of
tax revenue generated by Middle Class jobs. This is poHtical rape by the PPBCs under
their conjoined political agendas to subvert oational sovereignty and thus the citizen
sovereignty of every US Citizen and it wiD be exposed, because these are acts of treason
against the nation.
The inst.aDation of a usurper to office is also an act of treason and wiD be
addressed. I support the US Onstitution. I am not stupid or rabidly partisan to
encourage the Democrat PPBC to actively abuse the power of the US Government in an
action of economic and political rape against me and the nation. I certainly would never
support the RepubHcan PPBC to follow the same path to potitical damnation that the
Democrats are on.
I wiD be sending you a copy of the formal elections complaint filed with the Texas
Secretaty of State, the Texas Attomey General, the Texas Solicitor General and the
Governor of Texas concerning the massive failure of the Texas State electoral system
and those components of the National Electoral System affected iD like manner
including the falsification of the certificate of ascertainment for the vote taken iD the
Texas Electoral College.
Both PPBCs are a disgrace to the nation and to the people.

Sincerely,
Laura Wilkinson
Austin, Texas
Travis County Precinct number 210

Democrat voter sin~80
~ ~ -=~-- ----
Dec.23,2015
December 23. 2015
Page 15
List of Documents to be submitted to the Texas Secretary of State for activation

of Sec. 31.006 and referral to the Texas Attorney General:
1) DPPBC Presidential Candidate's Candidate Ballot Application for

President, signed by the candidate swearing that they are eligible for the
Office of the US President
2) Candidate's full disclosure Birth Certificate showing parental information
and ot1iclal recognition of status as candidate's parents of record
3) A second form of Identification showing current residence with a photo
incorporated into the certificate. (Library cards and student IDs are
insufficient as public records)
4) The Birth Certificates of both the Candidate's Parents showing place and
nationality of birth, if applicable, with letters of authenticity from the
ori&inating agency
5) The Naturalization documents of the Candidate's Parents showing the
date of Naturalization and that it took place before the candidate's birth,
with a letter of authenticity from the ori&inating agency
6) State voter registration record showing that 14 yeara a US resident as
immediate and consecutive baa been satisfied as a US Citizen on US soil
7) Marriage Record, or Civil Union certificate, of Candidate's Parents
showing a date of coalition preceding the birth of the Candidate
8) Adoption papel'8 of the candidate, if applicable
9) Consular Record of Birth Abroad, if candidate was born on foreign soil
seeking US recognition at the time of the candidate's birth and
requesting that complete jurisdiction over the child be transferred to the
US and severed from the country of birth
10)
Any other documentation determined by the Supreme Court of the
United States to be relevant in the determination of a candidate's
compliance with Article II, Sec. 1, Clause 5, not listed here
December 23.2015
Page 16

C)
C)
..
.-
ID
-. . .
rll
AUStt 1l 11711-1017
..a
C)
'
: ' ,. l: -
Cl
c
0
Ccir;lll .... 1,1.111Cll.

Atnt,._,....,....._an
..,...
.......... ..,,._
AltachtNIGMt tDtMMdttlthe
or an .. ten f
~~~twa.
., ; :.lt ,...,
/~14.-
TX~{,..
~. '"). r..)e..~ l ~() \ ""\.

fw. .,, h-. t Tx 1'ttl
11111111
fllllltltlfDIIII m
. . , 1403 04831173 ao1e
lf
2120 DODO IJ81:al.
au~s
,Apri2015PIN~
9UJl 9 0 N,,
i.....,.....:=-
..._......._, ai:i[:w: ............

a=:=-..,
.....eu:.....,
..
.......
....._.c...r ~
.....,
7r
Domllllo Allam Rlollpt .
~--------------------------------------------------~
1.
f xs,)s
(,/o k~ Ap
pv. e, ..'X tlo f.,o

the.~~ "'-,fk.
1 ~~)I
so111111111111111111111
5173 eo1e u
1401 0483
- - -- - ---.... --..
114 2120 ooori' ..i:ia"bi-8-ciri2
~
'81'Cimr...-r, ,.-.zuro~~
Tx:,~o~
L1~ ~
?:v (] '-~ c~o l.:.o

,4-..c. s;. :~ IX -=1- t) ~ II
j
11111111111111111111
8880 I a 04eS 517S 1018 M
1,2. ...
9G.-...
,_)IU' _____
_..,the
1. Oft . . . . . . .
aMI to ,au.
10 lhlla.
~-OIId.toha.kdh~
oran .. tantr
A-u sf ; V\ )/X:
~~ ~ 0 t
1111111111111111111111
1880 140$ 04eS 11'73 8011 ,,
. PS
t
Deal IIIli
Allum .....
1J1 .,.- (;,. JJ : n' j ,.)A

1101.. J...c-\/.:...t..c- :;,.. a.,vo
~sr. " ~ T x '1-t t '- I
~~=!!~~:~:"i:IIIE,\t~~;!!~~~~)~~~~;~
?Ola'l i!li!D DODD ~&~~ 6&~2--..---.---=,
. P8Fam
o::::.::t.,:

DOIIna <dlda Davideon
ATrODIBY AND COVNIBLO&AT LAW
P.O. BOX IZUl
AI1ITIN. TBXAS '78711
\
T~: JI2.771.1GS
.
TF.eFa: m.ao.n
J8DU81)' 20, 2016
Ms. Laura Wi1timon

2202 Maltbews Dr.. Apt A
Auslin. Texas 78703

Re:
FJtalhObJ "nJ!rlf CD U.S. rr.ldeetlal Cuctidafet Cet1Hied for tt.e

Ballot RepebDca Party oiTeaa
Dear Ms. WilkjMon:
Oil bebalf of my clicat, 1bc Rcpublican Party of Texas (RPT), this leUcr is in rcspoasc to 1bc
documaD submittccl u a cballeagcs to tbe eJ.iaibility of the following candidates for President
of tbc UDit&d States: Jcb Bush, Baa Canon, Cbria Christie, Ted Ctuz, Carty rtOrina, Mite
Hackabee, Jobn JC.sidl, RaDd Paul, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, ad Doaald Trump.
As you ate ~u aware, tbc elisJDility ~ are e:aumerated in the Uni1Ccl S1ates
CoDstitutioo. The aae requiftment of 3S, 14 years as a raiclcat within 1bc Uni1ecl S1atcs, and tbe
requiftment tbat tbe amctictate be .a namm~ bom CitizD ...,
known. A challcmge to
eJisibility must be addressed to oae of ..._, dlree requiremems. AU of the ~
caudiclales bave submitted a ballot applicaticm swcmiDg that tbcy meet tbcse elisibility
~and.. tbetefore, meet the~ oa the face of the ballot application.
wen
The Texas Elec1ion Code provides that a CIDdidate may only be dcdarcd iDdigible if the
ifaformation on the ballot application iDdicates that iDeligibility, or if fads indiAting the
radidate is iDeligible ~ ccmclusivdy cstablisbal by auotbcr public record." Tex. Elec. Code
14S.003(f).
In light of tbcsc requirements aud because you have not submitted public R:COrds that
"coaclusively establish.. any of 1be candidates challenged are iDeligible to nm for the office of
; Preaidem of1bc UDitcd States, RPT must rejeet your challqes.
Respectfully'
t~~~.v-u.~
Attorney for tbe Republican Party of Texas-Primary 2016

Subj:
Date:
From:
To:
Re: c.nddatll Eligibility a..-.,. 201~-Repub~ICM

1120r20164:G:37 P.M. Central Standard Tme
donnaOdadlawfirm.com
llwj)snJo@aol.com
Ms. Wflknon..
I am ~as legal CCUl88l to the Repubfican Paty cf Texas as,..._ to Primary last Yru c:haUenge to
the eligtiUty of the United States Presidential Candidates that wtU appear on the March 1, 2016, primary baUol
I have prepared a response to 'J041 challenge which is attached.
Thank you for oontading the Repubfica'l Party of Texas with your COIICemS.
Donna Davidson
Doana Garda Davidloo

AttmDGy and Couasdor It Law
Capitol StlliOD
P.O. Box 12131
Austin, Tcus 78711
CMBL ID Number: 1800244746600

Phone 512.ns.7625
Toll Free Fax: 8n.200.6001
E-mail: donna@dgdlawfian.com
'/Mpege: www.dgdlawfinn.cqn
E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This transmission may be: (I) subject to the Attorney-Client Privilege, or (2) an
attorney work product, (3) Jtrictly coafiderdial, or (4) any combination of the above. If you are not tbe inteoded piem
oftbia message, you may not diadoee, print, copy or disseminate this information. If you have received tbia in error, pleue
reply and notify the ac:nder (only) and delete the message. Unaudloriad ioten:eption oftbis e-mail violates federal criminal
law.
Fiola: Uydlsnsn@aOI.mm Uw1knsn@aol.oom

]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 9:44AM
To: Tom Mechler; Ann-Harte Craig
ec: ltwlknsnOaol.com
Subject: Re: Clndldate Blglblllty OlaUenge

2015--Replblk:an
Resending by request The hard

copies were delivered on 1-42016.
Laura Wilkinson
512708-8784

In a message dal8d 12/2.41201510:54:54
P.M. Cernl Standard
Time, LJwnsnsnOaoJ.com wrttea:
Dear Mr. Mechler,
Please find below theemail version of the

Republican Candidate
Ballot Eligibility Challenge
I am submitting to you for
the Presidential Election of
2016, as it is managed in
the State of Texas. A copy
of this challenge will be
sent to the Texas Secretary
of State along with an
Election Challenge under
the Texas Election Code
Sec. 31.006.
This is a constitutional
crisis and if the
Republican Party has not
prepared for this, well you
are part of the problem. It
is with great reluctance
that I initiate this process
which is found in the
scarx holding In Re
Cullar (2010). I suggest you
have your lawyers pull
this record and go over it
I will be sending the

signed hard copy of this
challenge by mail with a
proof of delivery signed
return receipt After that, I
will be submitting an
Elections Complaint to the
Texas Secretary of State. I
will send you a copy for
1'aae3 of4
your records. The steps I

will be taking next are
contained in the challenge.
It will not matter if you
choose to ignore this. I
encourage you not to, and
to consider very carefully
your next steps and
reaction to this challenge.
You have a chance to put
the nati~ the
Constitution and the
people first I encourage
you to take that path,
though with great sadness
I anticipate you won't
Please look for a similar
challenge &om Mr. Ed
Sunderland of Flower
Mound, Texas. We are
filing simultaneous
eligibility challenges as a
Democrat and a
Republican against all2016
Presidential candidates,
legal and illegal.
Please contact the
candidates you have
certified as entitled to be
on the Texas State Primary
Ballot and let them know
that Hell is about to break
loose.
Sincerely,
Laura Wilkinson
Austin, Texas
Prednct210

<RPT Wlkerlon Challenge Re8ponae 01.20.16.docx>
<Texa Demoaatic Petty v. Benkiser, 459 F.3d 582 (5th. Cir., 2006).docx>
.t
CltS'"
&
Vl l.)

Re: CMcldldl Eligibility CblllenQe 201. . . . . .1GM
112212018 6:27:11 P.M. Central Standard Ttme
Subj:
Date:
From:
doTilaQdadlawfrrm.com
ljWjkn!nOaotcom
To:
rmaaigQlexBsgop.org. tmech!erOt!Msgop.org. 884420Yesjzon.net, e!ections@SQS.texas.aov.

gnpgory,lucas@texaattomeygelwal.gov. jesse.gamboaatrayitoount.goy
CC:
Dear Ma. VWkinlon-
W. are in receipt d yow: request submitted puraun to tt. Texas Public Information Ad. which apptiee in a
linited fashion, to certain d the Repubtic:an Party d Texas' (RPT) etec:tion recolda. See, Texas Election Code
Sec. 161.004.
The RPT is eerving in a ministerial C8l*itY for purpGIII of the primary election. M auc:h, the RPT is a filing
nat ., inYeltiOatMt authority. M I rna ltioned, the rule of law in Texas is that the ballot application,
as sworn, iS vaUd un1ea1 challenged by public document& that conc:luaively establish ineligibility. The RPT doe&
not challenge candidates nor does it endcne c:aldidatas on Ita own primary ballot Citizens 8'ld other candidates
may challenge a candidate's eligibility as hae , . . dly been done in a court action in Houston. aJieging that Ted
Ctuz is not a nal\nl born citizen.
authority n
Pursu8rt to the Texas Public infcrmaticn Ad. and in response to your request for information, the ISWel'l are aa
foOows:
Thus, I respectfully submit a follow up set of questions to you, as the legal

representative of the RPT,
1) Has Mr. Mechler, as the certifying authority of the Republican Party for
Presidential candidates, accepted the CBAPs (aka ballot applications) from the
candidates while they were under challenge from me and Mr. Sunderland, without
requiring the candidates to submit the documents required to conclysiyely
e&tabliab their claims to eligibility, which are under active challenge, for the
Presidency and its election?
Recorda of Chairma'l Mec:hfe(s certification d the candidates . . available if you woutd like copies of the
aoceptect ballot applications which are pc1)lic records. We can provide you a cost estimate for oopiea, which wiU
lbly be approximately 25 oents per page. In lieu of copies, al certified candidates that are on the ballot may be
viewed on the Secretaty of State's website at l}ttps:/fwebservices.JOS.Jtate.tx.uS(C8Ddjdate-fi!ingld1lPQOrt.aspx.
2), VVas the CBAP, and supporting documents, for each of the Challenged
Candidates, sent directly to the TXSOS, as requested, as part of the Sec.
31 .006 challenge?
We have no public records showing that RPT forwarded the challenge to the Texas Sec:retaly of State's office, so
we have nothing responsive to this portiOn of your request.
3) Has the Texas Secretary of State contacted the RPT concerning open and
active eligibility challenges lodged with this office against the Republican
Candidates for President?

We have no public records reflecting contact initiated by the Texas Seaetary of State with the RPT regarding
your challenges.
. . . - -- --

4) Has the RPT certifying authority sent a certified question of law, by appropriate
means, to the SCOTUS asking that body to resolve the controversies of the
oonstitutionat terms of art natutal-bom Citizen, with l8spect to the context of the
14th amendment and complete jurisdiction, and X years a resident. as consecutive
and immediate?
'Ne have no public records to r.nect any request by RPT to the United State Supreme Ccut Ngafding ycu
challenge.
These questions are submitted to you under the TP1A, FOIA and the Morton Ad,
as they are applicable to this challenge and the temporary status of Mr. Mechler as
a conditional public official, state and nationally, for the duration of an active
election cycle, for direct response.
Unleu you want copies of the ballot applications, we have no pubSic recorda responsiYe to ycu: request. You
have.......- that an advisory opition of eome 10ft is available from the United SfAUs Supreme Ccut to RPT in
cu minieterial ~- This assumption is incorrec:l RPT has no subpoena power and is to review Blrf
~to candidate~
and either accept~ Atject the challenge. I reilecate that~ challenges have been
rejected.
Donna Garda David8on

DmDa Garda Davidson
Aaomey llld Couaselor at Law
Capitol SCatioo
P.O. Box 12131
Austin, Teus 78711
CMBL D> Number: 18002447e500

Phone 512.n5. 7625
Toll Free Fax: 8n.200.6001
E.-mail: clonna@dsdlawfion.com
Webpage: www.d&dlawfirm.com
E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This tnnsmiuion may be: (1) subject to the Attorney-Client Privilege, or (2) an
attomey work product. or (3) stric:dy ooofideotial, or (4) any combination of the above. If you are not abe intended reapiCilt
oftbis message, you may not dildose, print, copy or disseminate this information. Ifyou have received this in error, pleue
reply and notifY the seada (only) and ddete the message. Unaudtorized inten:eption of this e-mail violates federal aiminal
law.
On Jal 22, 2016, at 5:41 AM, llwtknsnQaot c:om wrote:
Dear Ms. Davidso~
lhan you so much for your response. It was professional and I appreciate
this kind of response since in the very recent pas~ and by my experience
with both private political branding corporations and their public
... . .
..
-- -
oversight entities, I would not have expected il
As you well know the public records that would be needed to prove
federal office ineligibility for a living candidate are not available to me or
to any other private citizen as a matter of privacy regulations. This is
perhaps the only regulation set that Republicans approve of, since it
protects candidates who are illegal for office, from accountability and
scrutiny. Candidates such as Mr. Ted Cruz, Mr. Marco Rubio, Mr. Rick
Santorum an<L of course, Mr. B. Obama. This is a party neutral
constitutional crisis.
I find irony in this situati~ in light of all the chaos Mr. Obama has
caused in this state and in the nation with his illegal executive
order actions, that all that stands between proper function of the United
States, and the return to the rule of law, is a constitutional term of art that
no one, other than the active holders of voter franchises, seems to be
concerned with resolving for the sake of the Republic.
I will state ag~ that these candidates, and more, have been and remain
ineligible for the Office of the President because they are NOT n~~tural
bom Citizens in context with the 14th amendment and complete jurisdiction
and that by signing the CBAP-without providing the required
documentation-they have all disqualified themselves with overt intent
to perjury under the color of fraud.
The PPBCs should not wonder, in the time to come, why it all blew up in
their faces when the extent of the bad faith becomes known to the nation
As a voter, I find it reprehensible for a lawyer to use a weakness in the
law to shield criminal intent. That is for you to wrestle with in the future.
I do not doubt that you and these candidates sleep perfectly well at night
knowing you are subverting the US Constitution. You at least are doing
your job. The Candidates have failed in their first test as potential
Chief Constitutional Officers.
My challenge to these candidates was well and firmly stated, they are not
natural-born Citizens and never have been. Unfortunately, until the
scarus addresses the issue of natural-born Citizen directly and resolves
it with permanent intent, you and your candidates feel free to twist the
system to your specific agendas which in tum seek to subvert the US
Constitution and the US Government
This is yet more evidence that we no longer live in a Constitutional

Republic, because if we were, you would be telling me that a letter had
been dispatched to the SCOTUS asking for clarification of the
Presidential Federal Employment aiterion under the challenge of law, in
order to serve the Republic and its people.
That is not the path you took. Though I am not a Republican, you should
never wonder why I will never be a member of your party. I get the
game as it is currently played by both PPBCs. The Republic is worse off
for it and that greatly distresses me as it puts my civil rights and
h"berties, in jeopardy.
You quote Texas law knowing that there is a loophole in the system and
it is the very federal eligibility requirements you cite in your response. "A
challenge to eligibility must be addressed to one of these requirement",
or all. I have addressed a challenge to all of them, as a set# under the
Presidential Federal Employment aiteria, Article II, Sec. 1, Clause 5.
Unless the "ballot application swearing that the candidates meet these
requirements" is accompanied with the set of documents as listed in the
complaint to back up these claims, the Candidate Ballot Application for
President is not complete and the candidates, all of the candidates,
remain potentially falsely certified and that is a violation of the Texas
Penal Code.
I have not only challenged the validity of the claims of the candidates to
eligibility, but I have challenged the very legitimacy of the CBAP itself, as
a legally binding and relevant government document and regulating tool
of the political process. This document is specifically under challenge as
being submitted by the candidates under the color of fraud in the
presence of a constitutional term of art driving a fatal flaw in the Texas
Election System and accepted by the Texas State Party Certifying
authority, without corroborating evidence to support this controlling
government document under active challenge, by this active voter.
You are correct I have not submitted the required public records
that "conclusively establish" that any of the candidates are ineligible to
run for and hold office of the President of the United States. That is the
relevant point and that is not my obligation as a challenger if I am overtly
prohibited from ever accessing these documents. I cannot present
something I am overtly barred from obtaining for the purpose of
presenting it to you under the strict wording of applicable law. I can
however, cite the existence of these documents which are public records
va aJ

and petition assistance from the public oversight authorities to obtain
them lor me as a matter of the doctrine of checks and balances. By your
response you are well aware of this perversion of the law.
It is your job to obtain these documents and check them as a part of your
internal process for vetting the candidates, and I have specifically
requested that you do this as a demand for perlormance within your
political vetting process. This is a fundamental flaw in your process, not
a failure or lack of attention to detail nor lapse in specificity on my part.
You should also know, as a lawyer, that these documents are prohibited
to me under statute, such that even though I would provide them to you
as a matter of statue, I cannot They are not prohibited to you, or the RPf
or the Texas Secretary of State or the Texas Attorney General with
subpoena authority, as a matter of challenge. Therein lies the issue with
respect to challenge. Is this set of circumstances unconstitutional and
thus an unacceptable burden with respect to the challenger, not the
challenged?
Thus, I respectfully submit a follow up set of questions to you, as the
legal representative of the RPr,
1) Has Mr. Mechler, as the certifying authority of the Republican Party

for Presidential candidates, accepted the CBAPs (aka ballot applications)
from the candidates while they were under challenge from me and Mr.
Sunderland, without requiring the candidates to submit the documents
required to conclusively establish their claims to eligibility, which are
under active challenge, for the Presidency and its election?
2), Was the CBAP, and supporting documents, for each of the Challenged
31.006 challenge?
3) Has the Texas Secretary of State contacted the RPI' concerning open
and active eligibility challenges lodged with this office against the
Republican Candidates for President?
4) Has the RPI' certifying authority sent a certified question of Jaw, by
appropriate means, to the SCOTUS asking that body to resolve the
controversies of the constitutional terms of art natural.-born Citizen, with
resped to the context of the 14th amendment and complete jurisdiction, and X
years a resident, as consecutive and immediate?
These questions are submitted to you under the TI'IA, FOIA and the
Morton Act, as they are applicable to this challenge and the temporary
status of Mr. Mechler as a conditional public officiaL. state and
nationally, for the duration of an active election cycle, for direct response.
As a professional complement and a note of profound appreaciation for

you and Mr. Mechler and Ms. Birdwell, thank you for being brave
enough to respond directly. In this one aspect you demonstrate
leadership and &om it I take away a sense that you begin to see the
seriousness of this situation even if you continue to refuse to take the
only path out of this mire open toy~ which is submitting a question of
law to the SCO'IUS resolving the loQpholes in the election system with
remect to eligibility challenges.
I also maintain a modicum of hope that the national system may be

righted in time to prevent another catastrophic failure that nullifies the
entire electoral process, state and federal. Unfortunately, as it stands the
Primary election is well on its way to being nullified, which will nullify
the rest of the election cycle. Depressingly, this is what I expect to
happen. I have watched this train wreck in 2012, and I see it being
repeated with out concern by those placed in positions where such
concerns are a matter of law.
I respectfully request an answer to the questions posed above. My
concerns remain substantially unadressed.
Sincerely,
Laura Wilkinson
A~ Texas
Note: As a matter of equal disclosure, a copy of this email is sent to the

above interested parties and to the Texas Democrat PPBC for their
records and as part of the active challenge.
In a message dated 112012016 4:49:37 P.M. Central StAntarct Tme, doon8@dQdlawfirm.com writes:
Mt. Wilkinson-
1am serving as legal counsef to the Republican Party~ Texas as relates to Primary
Issues. Y04Jr chaiJenge to the eligibility of the United States Presidential Candidates that
will appear on the Man::tl1, 2016, primary ballot.
=-
:e
0
D
D
D
D
fil6""
I \11

Subj:
Date:
2011 Blglblllty Chllengea for PN8Idlntlal c.ndldiiiM

111212016 10:07:33 AM. c.ttral at.ldard Tme
Front
IJwfknsnQaof.com
To:
CC:
amaxevOtxdtmocrats.oro. electjoosOSQS.taxas.QOY
Uw!Xnsnflaols:om. SS4420yerizon.net
Dear Mr. Maxey,
I spoke with you on the phone on 1/12/2016 at 9:30am concerning the

Presidential Eligibility Challenges I placed against the Democrat Candidates for
US President Ms. Ointon, Mr. Sanders and Mr. O'Malley.
I have challenged these candidates, as an active voter protecting my vote, to prove
that they are eligible to run for and hold the Office of the President per the federal
employment criteria found in the US Co~titution and as supported by Sen. Res..
511 and the 14th Amendment
I identified myself over the phone and I asked when I would be sent a response to
the challenges.
You told me I would not be sent a response.

I asked you to put that in writing as a refusal of demand for performance.
You told me that you would not

This e-mail is to document that you have refused a demand for performance from
a registered and politically active constituent concerning the eligibility and fitness
of the candidates of your Party to run for the Office of the President under Article
II, Sec. 1, clause 5. The documents needed to vet the candidates have been made
known to you and a copy of the challenge was sent to the Texas Secretary of State.
1) These candidates have been challenged on the grounds that they have not
proven they are natural-born Citizens, nor have they proven that they have been
14 years a resident per Article II, Sec. 1, Cause 5. The documents needed should
be sent to the Texas Secretary of State for review against a known standard.
2) I have advised you that if you do not know what the standard is for natural
born Citizen that you should immediately halt your certification activities and
submit a certified question of law to the SCOIUS asking for clarification on two
constitutional terms of art natural-born Citizen and X years a resident, as
immediate and consecutive.
3) You are using a Candidate Ballot Application for President which is flawed and
is a party loyalty document not an application for access to the Presidential
Primary Ballot on March 1, 2016. This too has been challenged as a fatal flaw in

the Texas Electoral System.
Keep in mind that if you submit the certification of entitlement list of candidate
names for 2016 to the TXSOS, you are doing so without having vetted the
challenged candidates and thus may be potentially submitting a false certification
which is a felony under the Texas Penal Code.
Furthermore, by not seeking a holding from SCOTUS you are failing the system
and the people by allowing illegal candidates for Office from the Republican
Party to participate in an election and thus actively compromising that election as
an act of nullification. This is political fraud.
The challenges lodged in 2016 against the Democrat Party Presidential

Candidates will remain unresolved and therefore are open and active.
Furthermore, the eligibility challenges lodged in 2012 remain open and active as
the main issue is undressed which is candidate eligibility at the Presidential and
Vice Presidential level.
The Democrat Party has already submitted several false certifications for the
current illegal President in Office: Mr. Obama All challenges against him remain
open and more will follow as he is, and has always been, ineligible for the Office
of the President under Article II, Sec 1 Oause 5.
The conditions of In Re Cullllr have been satisfied.
As a life long Democrat I am very disappointed in the behavior of my political
party. I expected better. You have a chance to stop this travesty. It is up to you to
do the right thing and place the people before the party.
Sincerely,
Laura Wilkinson
Precinct 210
- -o ._ .. -

Subj:
Date:
Fram:
To:
CC:
Fwd: c.nclldata &gla.IJity Cbllengl20t~

112212016 7:33:09 A.M. Central Standard Tme
LlwikoJnOaot.com
gmaxev@txdemoc:ra.org. ohlooiosaOtXdamoqats.om. fpbiJ'jps@txdemocral!.ora.
Q!lUSITlCitXdemocrats.cm COferQixdemoqats.org. thfrtproyes@txdemocrata.ora.
VmceotQTraviscountvstemos:rets.ora
st442Qyerizon.neJ. I!wlknsn@aot.corn. e!ection!Qtos.tws.aov.
greaory.~Lgoy. jesse.Qmlbo&trayisoountytx.goy.
amqajaOtexasgoo.org. tmec:bler@texasgop.org
dooo&-@dadlawfrrm.coro.
Dear Mr. Maxey and Mr. Hinojosa,

Please find below a respome to the eligibility challenge submitted by the lawyer
for the RPf. In order to fulfil the holdings of In Re Cul14r, I submit the following
relevant portions of this direct request for information under the lPI~ FOIA and
Morton Act to you and the lawyer for the Democrat Party of Texas as a demand for
performance in an ongoing eligibility challenge against Mrs. Ointo~ Mr. B.
Sanders, and Mr. O'Malley as US Presidential Candidates for Office and to all the
Republican Presidential Candidates in particular Mr. Cruz, Mr. Santorum and Mr.
Rubio as identified illegal candidates for office. It does not matter if any candidate
is eligible for Office they remain potentially suspect until they have answered the
challenge by proving via relevant documents that they are in full compliance with
Article ll, Sec. 1, Clause 5. All of i~ relevant to modem times. A birth certificate as a
stand alone document is insufficient to address this challenge. A birth certificate
submitted to a media source and not directly to the Texas Secretary of State is
insufficient to answer this challenge. All relevant documents vetting the eligibility
criteria for President must be sent directly to the TXSOS and be subjected to
document review against confirmed eligibility criteria.
Specifically, tudural-bom Citizen and X years a resident, as consecutive and
immediate which are currently comidered constitutional term of art and thus are
now federal sources of ambiguity in a state elections system and thus a failure of
tlult system with respect to filtering ineligible candidates at the level of the
President and Vice President Only the Supreme Court of the United States has the
unique jurisdiction, to address this loophole in state elections systems driven by
federal statute. All Presidential elections are hybrid events with federal and state
components and are subjected to the Supremacy Clause in controversies such as
this.
Per our last phone conversation, you indicated that you would not be responding
to me in any form. I ask you to strongly reconsider that position as ignoring this
will not make it go away or protect you from escalation per the holdings of In Re
Cullar. Please consider your response very carefully and seek legal counsel. This is
just beginning.
~--
...,
....
._.,
Thus,
I will state again, that these candidates, and more, have been and remain ineligible
for the Office of the President because they are either NOT natural--born Citizens in
context with the 14th amendment and complete jurisdiction , or they have not
proven they are naturtd-bom Citizens as a response to the active challenge and that
by signing the CBAP-without providing the required relevant documentationthey have all disqualified themselves with overt intent to perjury under the color
of fraud or misprision of &aud knowing that other candidates, for the offices they
~ were ineligible to run for, campaign fundraise for and hold the Office of the
President thereby defrauding a na~ rival candidates and its active voters, which
are a distinct population apart from the general public, and a protected class under
the US and Texas Constitutions.
1he PPBCs should not wonder, in the time to come, why it an blew up in their
faces when the extent of the bad faith becomes known to the nation. As a voter, I
find it reprehensible for anyone to use a weakness in the law to shield criminal
intent for political agendas. That is for you to wrestle with in the future. I do not
doubt that you and these candidates, sleep perfectly well at night knowing you are
subverting the US Constitution. The Candidates have failed in their first test as
potential OUef Constitutional Officers and you and Mr. Hinojosa have overtly
aided and abetted criminal activity on a state and national scale.
My challenge to the candidates of both parties was well and firmly stated, they are
not natural-hom Citizens and never have been. UnfortunatelyI until the scarus
addresses the issue of natural-born Citizen directly and resolves it with permanent
intent, you and your candidates feel free to twist the system to your specific
agendas which in tum seek to subvert the US Constitution and the US Government
by actively disenfranchising every active voter of representation as a constitutional
obligation. A usurper to any office represents no one but him/herself.
This is yet more evidence that we no longer live in a Constitutional Republic in

violation of Article 4, because if we were, you would be telling me that a letter had
been dispatched to the SC01US asking for clarification of the Presidential Federal
Employment criterion under the challenge of law, in order to serve the Republic
and its people. All kinds of people make mistakes, including artificial people who
are corporate state constructs.
That is not the path you took. Though I am a long time Democrat (1980) who has
real concerns for her future as a constituent of this party, I will continue to urge the
OPT to tum from this corruption of process and begin to address the political
cancer you have unleashed on this nation and on the American People. By your

actions with regard to overtly protecting a usurper installed to the Office of the
President and refusing to address the root cause of the Constitutional Crisis, you
have forfeited any claim to represent the United States politically, and as a private
corporation you have openly defrauded the nation and its people in violation of
the False Claims act.
0
0
0
0
I get the game as it is currently played by both PPBCs. The Republic is worse off
for it and that greatly distresses me as it puts my civil rights and liberties, in
jeopardy. The current political practice of twisting the law to suit political agendas
is destroying intelligent choice and effective consent as components of legitimate
voting process.
I have not only challenged the validity of the claims of the candidates to eligibility,
but I have challenged the very legitimacy of the CBAP (candidate ballot
application for President) itself, as a legally binding and relevant government
document and regulating tool/ filter of the political process. This document is
specifically under challenge as being submitted by the candidates under the color
of fraud in the presence of a constitutional term of art driving a fatal flaw in the
Texas mection System and accepted by the Texas State Party Certifying authority,
without corroborating evidence to support this controlling government document
under active challenge, by this active voter. You actions may effect a nati~ but
right now it is destroying my ability to cast a legitimate vote free of the color of
fraud as an act of unwilling misprision of election fraud on my part. It doesn't
matter whom I vote for, as long as I suspect that the election is compromised by
illegal candidates to office and do nothing to escalate those concerns to the TXSOS
and TXAG, I am forced into participating in a national event of voter fraud or
refrain from voting and becoming an unwilling member of the general public who
has been forced to forfeit my right to participate because the election has been
nullified.
Damned if I do, and damned if I don't.
I have not submitted the required public records that "conclusively establish" that
any of the candidates are ineligible to run for and hold office of the President of the
United States, nor am I able to produce the same documents that would confirm
the candidate's eligibility for office. That is the relevant point and it is not my
obligation as a challenger to do so, if I am overtly prohibited from ever accessing
these documents in the same manner the Virginia voter registration of Mr.
Birdwell was placed off limits to his rival competitor in the 2010 election in the
challenge In Re Cullllr.
I cannot present something I am overtly barred from obtaining for the purpose of
presenting it to you under the strict wording of applicable law. Catch-22. I can
however, dte the existence of these documents which are public records and
petition assistance from the public oversight authorities (fXSOS and TXAG) to
obtain them for me as a matter of the doctrine of checks and balances, Due Process
and Equal protection under the law. I cannot be forced to cast a vote as a matter of
election fraud in order to secure a false promise of representation &om a political
party that has turned on the nation and its lawful people.
By your lack of response you are well aware of this perversion of the law.
Understand my consternation that you refuse to understand the relevance of In Re
Cullar to this set of circumstances and your part driving it
It is your job to obtain these documents and check them as a part of your internal
process for vetting the candidates because prior to the Election Code deadline for
the submission of the certificate of entitlement to the Texas Secretary of State the
control over your political products is exclusive as a matter of assemblage. For you
to tell me to go take a hike when I call you out on the failure of your internal
process with respect to eligibility of your Presidential candidates is, in a
phrase...bovine biomass. I have been a loyal constituent for 36 years. This isn't
merely a betrayal, this is sedition
I have specifically requested that you either vet the candidates with respect to the
intent of the law or to seek clarification of the law from SCOTUS directly, as a
demand for performance within your political vetting process. This is a
fundamental flaw in your process, not a failure or lack of attention to detail nor
lapse in specificity, on my part.
You should also know, and as your lawyer will know, that these documents are
prohibited to me under statute, such that even though I would provide them to
you as a matter of statue, I cannot. They are not prohibited to you, or the RPr or
the Texas Secretary of State or the Texas Attorney General with subpoena
authority, as a matter of challenge. Therein lies the issue with respect to challenge.
Is this set of circumstances unconstitutional and thus represents an unacceptable
burden with respect to the challenger, not the challenged?
representative of the DPf and urge you to respond to them via email or hard copy
letter,
1) Has Mr. Hinojosa, as the certifying authority of the Texas Democrat Party for
Presidential candidates, accepted the CBAPs (aka ballot applications) from the
candidates while they were under challenge from me and Mr. Sunderland, without
requiring the candidates to submit the documents required to conclusively

establish their claims to eligibility, which are under active challenge, for the
Presidency and its election?
31.006 challenge?
3) Has the Texas Secretary of State contacted the OPT concerning open and active
eligibility challenges lodged with this office agaimt the Democrat Candidates for
President?
4) Has the DPr certifying authority sent a certified question of law, by appropriate
means, to the scorus asking that body to resolve the controversies of the
constitutional terms of art natural-born Citizen, with ~d to the context of the 14th
11mendment ~md gmt]!lele jurisdiction, and X yetm a mident, as consecutive and
immediate?
These questions are submitted to you under the TPIA, FOIA and the Morton Act
as they are applicable to this challenge and the temporary status of Mr. Hinojosa as
a conditional public official, state and nationally, for the duration of an active
Presidential election cycle, for direct respoNe.
I urge that you begin to see the seriousness of this situation even if you continue to
refuse to take the only path out of this mire open to you, which is submitting a
question of law to the scoros resolving the loopholes in the election system with
respect to Presidential eligibility challenges.
Perhaps you do not understand: every Presidential eligibility challenge ever filed
against any candidate suspected of being illegal and thus unqualified to run for
and hold the office of the President of the United States, remains open because
they were all dismissed ultra vires, and likely tniWJ fides, with respect to a
constitutional term of art, natural-born Citizen which has been abused, as a loophole
in process, to install unqualified candidates to this office in violation of the US
Constitution and Supremacy Cause.
No judge, or judicial holding which declares a definition for natural-born Citizen,
below the level of the High Court, as a Presidential Federal Employment criterion
is legitimate or legaL as any judge, who dismisses a Presidential eligibility
challenge while the relevant benchmark for determining eligibilib' is undefined, is
overtly usurping unique authority from the SCOTIJS to rule on a US
Constitutional Term of Art.
I maintain a modicum of hope that the state and national election systems may be
righted in time to prevent another catastrophic failure that nullifies the entire
electoral process, state and federal. Unfortunately, as it stands the Primary election
is well on its way to being nullified with knowledge, which will in tum nullify the
rest of the election cycle. Depressingly, this is what I expect to happen. I watched
this train wreck in 2012, and I see it being repeated without concern by those
placed in positions where such cone~ are a matter of law.
The Democrat Party claims that the occurrence of voter fraud is rare. Well how
does the occurrence of three elections nuJJified by overt election fraud by both
political parties on a national scale strike you as a significant occurrence of voter
fraud? Not just millions of active holders of voter franchises, but a hundred million
events of active voter fraud, willing and forced.
Right now we are only concerned with the forced vote fraud of myself and Mr. Ed
Sunderland as a product of this magnus fubar. The rest is coming.
We aren't talking registered voters as members of the general public, but active
voters participating in the electoral process as a constitutionally protected right
being disenfranchised of representation on a national scale by a usurper installed
~ not elected to, office. Any office, as long as eligibility requirements are allowed
to be overtly ignored by the Chief Elections Officers of any state and both State
Party Cbairperson certifying authorities.
I respectfully request an answer to the questions posed above. My concerns remain
substantially un-addressed and I consider that an overt act of non-response.
Sincerely,
Laura Wilkinson
Aus~ Texas
Note: As a matter of equal disclosure, a copy of this email is sent to the above
interested parties and to the Texas Republican PPBC for their records and as part
of the active challenge under Sec. 31.006
From: UwlknsnQaol.c:om
To: donnaQdgdJawfum.c:om, amcraigQtaxasgop.org, tmechlerQtexasgop.org
CC: as442@Yerizon.net, electionsOsos. texas.goy, gregory.lucatGtEOOISlattorn8YI~nll.gov,
jesse.gantx>aOtravisocuntytx.gov, llwtknlnOaot.com
Sent: 112212016 5:41:38A.M. CentralS~ Time
Subj: Re: Candidate Eligibility Challenge 201 ~epubfican
...,
..
-.
~- .
- -
Dear Ms. Davidson,

Than you so much for your response. It was professional and I appreciate
this kind of response since in the very recent past, and by my experience
with both private political branding corporations and their public oversight
entities, I would not have expected it
As you well know the public records that would be needed to prove federal
office ineligibility for a living candidate are not available to me or to any
other private citizen as a matter of privacy regulations. This is perhaps the
only regulation set that Republicans approve of, since it protects candidates
who are illegal for office, from accountability and scrutiny. Candidates such
as Mr. Ted Cruz, Mr. Marco Rubio, Mr. Rick Santorum and, of course, Mr. B.
Obama. This is a party neutral constitutional crisis.
I find irony in this situati~ in light of all the chaos Mr. Obama has caused
in this state and in the nation with his illegal executive order actions, that all
that stands between proper function of the United States, and the return to
the rule of law, is a constitutional term of art that no one, other than the
active holders of voter franchises, seems to be concerned with resolving for
the sake of the Republic.
I will state again, that these candidates, and more, have been and remain
ineligible for the Office of the President because they are NOT natural-born
Citizens in context with the 14th amendment and complete jurisdiction and
that by signing the CBAP-without providing the required documentationthey have all disqualified themselves with overt intent to perjury under the
color of fraud.
The PPBCs should not wonder, in the time to come, why it all blew up in
their faces when the extent of the bad faith becomes known to the nation. As
a voter, I find it reprehensible for a lawyer to use a weakness in the law to
shield criminal intent That is for you to wrestle with in the future. I do not
doubt that you and these candidates sleep perfectly well at night knowing
you are subverting the US Constitution. You at least are doing your job. The
Candidates have failed in their first test as potential Chief Constitutional
Officers.
My challenge to these candidates was well and firmly stated, they are not
natural-born Citizens and never have been. Unfortunately, until the SCOTUS
addresses the issue of natural-born Citizen directly and resolves it with
permanent intent, you and your candidates feel free to twist the system to
c~
out ao
your specific agendas which in tum seek to subvert the US Constitution and
the US Government
This is yet more evidence that we no longer live in a Constitutional Republic,
0
0
0
because if we were, you would be telling me that a Jetter had been

dispatched to the SCOTUS asking for clarification of the Presidential Federal
Employment aiterion under the challenge of law, in order to serve the
Republic and its people.
That is not the path you took. Though I am not a Republi~ you should
never wonder why I will never be a member of your party. I get the game as
it is currently played by both PPBCs. The Republic is worse off for it and
that greatly distresses me as it puts my civil rights and liberties, in jeopardy.
You quote Texas law knowing that there is a loophole in the system and it is
the very federal eligibility requirements you cite in your respome. "A
challenge to eligibility must be addressed to one of these requirement", or
all. I have addressed a challenge to all of them, as a set, under the
Presidential Federal Employment aiteria, Article II, Sec. 1, Oause 5.
Unless the "ballot application swearing that the candidates meet these
requirements" is accompanied with the set of documents as listed in the
complaint to back up these claims, the Candidate Ballot Application for
President is not complete and the candidates, all of the candidates, remain
potentially falsely certified and that is a violation of the Texas Penal Code.
I have not only challenged the validity of the claims of the candidates to
eligibility, but I have challenged the very legitimacy of the CBAP itself, as a
legally binding and relevant government document and regulating tool of
the political process. This document is specifically under challenge as being
submitted by the candidates under the color of fraud in the presence of a
constitutional term of art driving a fatal flaw in the Texas Election System
and accepted by the Texas State Party Certifying authority, without
corroborating evidence to support this controlling government document
under active challenge, by this active voter.
You are correct, I have not submitted the required public records that
"conclusively establish" that any of the candidates are ineligible to run for
and hold office of the President of the United States. That is the relevant
point and that is not my obligation as a challenger if I am overtly prohibited
from ever accessing these documents. I cannot present something I am
overtly barred from obtaining for the purpose of presenting it to you under
0
0
0
0
0
the sbict wording of applicable law. I can however, dte the existence of
these documents which are public records and petition assistance from the
public oversight authorities to obtain them for me as a matter of the doctrine
of checks and balances. By your response you are well aware of this
perversion of the law.
It is your job to obtain these documents and check them as a part of your
internal process for vetting the candidates, and I have specifically requested
that you do this as a demand for performance within your political vetting
process. This is a fundamental flaw in your process, not a failure or lack of
attention to detail nor lapse in specificity on my part.
You should also know, as a lawyer, that these documents are prohibited to
me under statute, such that even though I would provide them to you as a
matter of statue, I cannot They are not prohibited to you, or the RPr or the
Texas Secretary of State or the Texas Attorney General with subpoena
authority, as a matter of challenge. Therein lies the issue with respect to
challenge. Is this set of circumstances unconstitutional and thus an
unacceptable burden with respect to the challenger, not the challenged?
representative of the RPf,
1) Has Mr. Mechler, as the certifying authority of the Republican Party for
Presidential candidates, accepted the CBAPs (aka ballot applications) from
the candidates while they were under challenge from me and Mr.
Sunderland, without requiring the candidates to submit the documents
required to conclusively establish their claims to eligibility, which are under
active challenge, for the Presidency and its election?
31.006 challenge?
3) Has the Texas Secretary of State contacted the RPT concerning open and
active eligibility challenges lodged with this office against the Republican
Candidates for President?
4) Has the RPT certifying authority sent a certified question of law, by

appropriate means, to the SCOTUS asking that body to resolve the
controversies of the constitutional terms of art tultural-born Citizen, with
respect to the context of the 14th amendment and compltte jurisdiction, and X
'"6"" &v va av

years a resident, as consecutive and immediate?
These questions are submitted to you under the TPIA, FOIA and the Morton
Act, as they are applicable to this challenge and the temporary status of Mr.
Mechler as a conditional public official, state and nationally, for the duration
of an active election cycle, for direct~
As a professional complement and a note of profound appreadation for you

and Mr. Mechler and Ms. BirdwelL thank you for being brave enough to
respond directly. In this one aspect you demonstrate leadership and from it I
take away a sense that you begin to see the seriousness of this situation even
if you continue to refuse to take the only path out of this mire open to you,
which is submitting a question of law to the SCOTUS resolving the
loopholes in the election system with res.pect to eligibility challenges.
I also maintain a modicum of hope that the national system may be righted
in time to prevent another catastrophic failure that nullifies the entire
electoral process, state and federal. Unfortunately, as it stands the Primary
election is well on its way to being nullified, which will nullify the rest of the
election cycle. Depressingly, this is what I expect to happen. I have watched
this train wreck in 2012, and I see it being repeated with out concern by
those placed in positions where such concerns are a matter of law.
I respectfully request an answer to the questions posed above. My concerns
remain substantially unadressed.
Sincerely,
Laura Wilkinson
Austin, Texas
Note: As a matter of equal disclosure, a copy of this email is sent to the

above interested parties and to the Texas Democrat PPBC for their records
and as part of the active challenge.
In a message dated 112012016 4:49:37 P.M. Central Standard Time, doflnaOdgdlawfirm.oom writes:
Ms. WilkinsonI am serving as legal oounsel to the Republican Party d Texas as relates to Primary Issues.
Ycu chaUenge to the etigibitity d the United States Presidential Ca'ldidates that wW appear on
the March 1, 2016, primary ballot.
- -o ... _ .... ..,

I have prepa1 ed a response to your challenge which is altached.
Tlwlk you for contacting the R~ Pa'ty of Texas with your concerns.
Donna Davidson
DoaDa Garda DavidiOil

Aatomey aDd Colmselor It Law
Capitol S&llioD
P.O. BcJl( 12131
Austin. Teus 78711
CMBL ID Number. 18002447418600
Phone 512. ns. 7625
Toll Free Fax: en.200.8001
E-fnail: clon!!!@dgdlawfirm.com
Wlbpage:
www.dsdJawfinn.com
B.MAn.. CONFIDEN11ALITY NOTICE: This tnnsmiuion may be: ( 1) subject to tbe AUomey.Clieot
Privilege. or (2) an attorney waft. product. or (3) strictly coafidadill. or (4) any ClOIDbiDISioo eX the
above. Ifyou aft Dot tbe inteoded n'Jcipient oftbia messap. you may Dot dildose, print, copy or
dineminlle this inf'OI'IDilion. Ifyou bave received tbia in error. please reply and notify tbe seftder (only)
and delete tbe messap. UIWdboriZJed interceptioo of' this e-mail violates fcderll criminal law.
Floln:LJwlkosn@aol.cpm [
UwDcnso@aol.cpmJ
Sent: Tuesday, January
19, 2016 9:44AM
To: Tom Mechler; AmMarteQalg
ca IJwOsnsn@aol.com
Slldljecb Re: Candidate
Eligibility O'lllenge 2015Republican
Resending by
request The hard
copies were
delivered on 1-42016.
Laura Wilkinson
512-708-8784
In a message dated
121241201510:54:54 P.M.
Central Standard
Time, llwf!sn!n@aol.c:om w
rites:
Dear Mr.
Mechler,
Please find
ow theemail version
of the
Republican
Candidate
Ballot
Eligibility
engel
am
submitting to
ouforthe
Presidential
Election of
2016, as it is
managed in
the State of
Texas. A
copy of this
challenge
will be sent
to the Texas
Secretary of
State along
with. an
Election
Challenge
under the
Texas
Election
Code Sec.
31.006.
isa
onstitutional
crisis and if
the

Republican
Party has not
prepared for
this, well you
are part of
the problem.
It is with
great
reluctance
that I initiate
this process
which is
found in the
SCOTX
holding In Re
Culllu (3)10).
I suggest you
have your
lawyers pull
this record
and go over
it
I will be
sending the
signed hard
copy of this
challenge by
mail with a
proof of
delivery
signed
return receipt
After that, I
will be
submitting
an Elections
Complaint to
the Texas
Secretary of
.. C116'- '"" Ul
State. I will
send you a
copy lor your
records. The
steps I will be
taking next,
are contained
in the
challenge. It
will not
matter if you
choose to
ignore this. I
encourage
you not to,
and to
consider very
carefully
your next
steps and
reaction to
this
challenge.
You have a
chance to put
thenatiOI\
the
Constitution
and the
people first I
encourage
you to take
that path,
though with
great sadness
I
anticipate you
won't
Please look
IU

for a similar
challenge
from Mr. Ed
Sunderland
of Flower
Mound,
Texas. We
are filing
simultaneous
eligibility chal
lenges as a
Democrat
and a
Republican
against all
2016
Presidential
candidates,
legal and
illegal.
Please
contact the
candidates
you have
certified as
entitled to be
on the Texas
State Primary
Ballot and let
them know
that Hell is
about to
break loose.
Sincerely,
Laura
Wilkinson
Austin, Texas
Precinct 210

<RPT \Mik.-.on Chatlenge Response 01.20.16.docx>
<Texas Democratic Party v. Benkiser, 459 F.3d 582 (51\.
2006).docx>
cr..
0
0
$
0
0
0
'
Q
LLWPidnaou
Sen. John Comyn

US Senator for Texas
Chase Tower
221 w. 6" St.
Austin, TX 78701
I write to you today to urgently request of you as an elected

representative of the State of Texas in the us Senate, that you send a petition
to the Supreme Court of the United States to ask for clarification of the US
Constitutional Tenns of Art: natwal-bom Citizen and X years a resident as
consecutive and immediate, as Presidential Federal Employment criteria.
The last two Presidential elections were nullified by the presence of
identified and actively challenged ineligible candidates, Mr. Obama, Mr.
Richardson and Mr. Romney in 2008 and Mr. Obama, Mr. Romney and Mr.
Santorum in 2012. All of these eligibility challenges and criminal complaints
remain open since without a definition for natural-born Citizen the Texas
SecretaJy of State haa no authority to diamiaa them, as it ia a federal matter
driving the malfunction and the TXSOS is a state appointed executive officer.
The 2016 election will be nullified, again, by the presence of Mr. Cruz,
Mr. Santorum, Mr. Rubio and all other Presidential candidates who are
suspected of violating the Presidential Federal Employment criteria found in
Article II. Sec. 1. c}ause 5 of the US Constitution. This represents both a
constitutional criaia at the &tate and national levels, and a catastrophic failure
of the stateI national hybrid elections system resulting in the largest event of
voter fraud in the history of the state and the nation. Just because people are
ignoring this catastrophic failure does not mean it is goin& away. Much like the
water situation in Flint Michigan, this situation is going to get worse the longer
February 22,2016
US Presidential Election Primary General
Page 1

it is left to fester.
Mr. Ed Sunderland and I have both repeatedly urged the Texas SecretaJy
of State under Sec. 31.006, and the Texas Attorney General under Sec.
273.001 of the Texas Electoral Code to seek clarification of an acknowledged
Constitutional term of art n.aturalbom Citizen and in light of a 2010
controversy detailed in In Re CUllar, the term X years a resident as consecutive
and immediate as a proactive measure.
Mr. Sunderland and I have been informed by the Texas Secretary of

State, Mr. Caacos and the Texas Attorney General, Mr. Ken Paxton as well as
the Texas Solicitor General, Mr. Scott Keller, that no action or effort will be
taken to address the systemic blindness in the Texas Electoral System with
respect to ineligible candidates. We are told that since the controversy is
generated by the US Constitution it must be dealt with by federal authorities.
As you are a us Senator, It would seem logical to tum to you as a federal
employee for the State of Texas in order to have this critical failure of the
elections system resolved by seeking clarification of the terms of art from the
Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to aettle the ieaue under law.
Only the SCO'IUS has the authority to determine the constitutional and
relevant meaning of n.aturalbom Citizen in context with the 14th Amendment
and bom a us Citizen and subject to the lurlsdict#9tt of the United States which
Mr. Sunderland and I hold as complete, absolute and sole. There are no
qualifiers on the constitutional tenn of jurisdiction and thus, as written, it is
taken to mean whole and without claima, direct or derivative, by any other
nation or foreign government on the person claiming Presidential eligibility.
All other conditions of citizenship are claimed under the established

proceu of oatumugtton including a person's birth on the eon of the United
States to illegal alien parents, with only one US Citizen parent, or to any
temporary resident who holds allegiance to a foreign nation such as students,
refugees and tourist&, to name but a few of the alternate conditions under
which a woman gives birth to a child on US soil without the ability to claim
more. Children born on US soil under these circumstances are to be
naturalized under statute to be recognized as US Citizens either when they
come of age to claim it themselves or as a result of the naturalization of their
parents. No child born to parents or a parent claimed by foreign jurisdiction
can claim birthright citizenship as the derivative condition is set by the parent
not the location of the child's birth.
February 22,2016
Page2

As well, the citizenship status of a child born to US Citizen parents or a
parent, on foreign eoil not elafmed aa a territory by the US under the military
condition is governed by the process of naturalization and is addressed under
the Consular Record of Birth Abroad. No child born on foreign aoil without this
document having been immediately filed with the US Government can claim
natural-born Citizenship aa it must be claimed at the time of the person's birth
in order to mitigate the event and sever the claims of jurisdiction of the foreign
nation to the child born on ita aoil and thus born within its temponuy
authority.
Therefore as a demand for performance of a clear and legal obligation to

bridge the federal/ state interfaoe and asaiat the Texas Secretary of State in this
predicament, I respectfully request that you and your staff send a certified
question of law directly to the SConJS, with all appropriate haste, resolving
the induced loopholes in the Texas Election8 System by two US Constitutional
terms of art by declaratmy judgment. Time ia of the essence as the Texas
Primary General Election takes place on March 1, 20 16 and this election will
be nuJiified by the catastrophic failure of the system, once apin, to filter out
ineligible, and thua illegal, candidates for US President, thereby nullifying the
election at the atate and national levels in toto and rendering every vote cast aa
subject to theft under false pretext or an act of misprision of felony /fraud,
willing or unwilling in retum for politieal representation which is a violation of
the 5th amendment.
It is time that the political games being played with the election system
and the nation are stopped and resolved. The term nqtwql-bom C#U;en ia jus
soli and jus sanguinis, and now is the time to honor your oath and office and to
see that the scorus resolves this failure in system for the good of the nation
and of the people.
s=-~~
Laura Wilkinson
Auatin, Texas
Travis County Precinct number 210
Democrat voter since 1980
February 22.2016
Page3
JJ. . ~-1--(Vi .. -
...,.,
~
OPYIPIII
,. MArt:
II"
,.,
~
WASKIIKilONi':DC
.... ..
!'elL''
c.o.df....
'
eu
~10
~
.,..z
.
...,., .AUSntt.
n
,.,
~
~
787or,
~"i---Wdllh'f"-i.l
'i y L\.-~ II t 4
,.,...
l ')2) .. ~- ;~, L: ..-y,.._ ,t~.,_.

t- ~ "- .; ,, ')
l"'l~s~-. .~'ln~
Oc
~,~;-;c
11111111111111111111111
ta:
U'-()
~~.) ' r
l-._.
ICL.:.'.. ( t") ..-~ rt ~ ~

~~.t(,
J~
IJ,,, ';
h, . . .
1).~
-sJ-:,.., ;-;t.
'1 ~. 1 t- 1
11111111 I~DIIUIIRI
: PSFonn3811, Aprii2015P8N ~
...
rv
~
~ :...~-~~~~...:Z:~cl...., ....~oo.~w~
,....
II' PC /be No.
-~ $iii~
....................... ....................... ......
~ " i<~ (_ ' .4. l

~t..'\'t .!J-':-- ~-) ('..( {
\,._..-s~ J .....\ ; l ... :~ l'X ..., ...

.
.J
llllllllllllllllllll
8510 8401 0494 1171 1120 72
-a. ........... ~ ...........

70lr' .
: P8Form3811.Aptt2015PIN~
I
: P8 Fonn 3811. Apl2018 P8N ~
''\X E)
I' OllrneiiiDAIUn . . .
----------------
- - - - - -- --------- CU.to~Nr
a.rvec.
..._., r.,.,.....
.........._
USPS Tracking
Updated Delv.ty Dey: 1'unda1o Februry fl. 2011
Product & Traddng Information
.......
..
.~
,. .,
~:~~_
~s. 2011 .
s:a1 am
F-.u.y2, 2018 , 7;05 pm
~1 . 2011 , 7:52pm
...~..,,...._,..._
Nostt .. &tlM&JOtl
. . ,.,.~. .. . . ., .... k,.,..,.
Feu.y 14, 2018 . 8:03am
R.unRemlpt
~~ !~.,
F*'-Y 14, 2011 . 10.
Cerllled Min-
IT A T\1!1 01- ITBf
o...E f. TQII('
~
Available Actions
...... PNduct:
Fftt-CIMa . . ,
.# ....., .
Bualfteaa
ced
.......
'.
."'
.:.
~TCH. DC 20610
MlwdHub
WMHINGTCN. DC 20011
Mlwd et USPS Flldllty
NJSTif, TX78703
~USPSO!tgln
F~
MNid at USPS Oligln
NJS..,..., TX71710
F~
.fll.ISTif. TX 711710
uerra
. 2ote . sn""'
Depattld Poet OIICI
.fiUSl1'il. TX 71703
.MnU~ty a
. 2011 , 11 :25.,...
AcclpiiiiC8
NST1N, TX 71703
Track Another Package
Manage Incoming Packages
TNctllll(orNCelpOIIIIUMW
rr.:x .. ycu p.cbgel ftG~na -~
l~t~-
Plge t d2
ND nelilngN.RMiw ~
Tract I
tugn up for lly USPS
- -o - - -

Subj:
Trump cNIIenge ollen. Ted Cruz
Date:
From:
211812018 4:54:51 P.M. Central Starldard Tme
To:
dmogatmOjooasdav.coro
CC:
L!wQsrlsnOaO!.com
lrflsnsnnao!.oom. IS4420yerjzpn.net
Dear Mr. McGahn,
Your name is posted as the legal counsel for Mr. D. Trump. My name is Laura
Wilkinson and I am working with Mr. Ed Sunderland of Flower Mount TX. Mr.
Sunderland is a registered Republican and I am a registered Democrat We are
both challenging the eligibility of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio to run for the Office
of the President We would like to make Mr. Trump aware of this effort as his
cooperation would virtually guarantee a response from the Texas Supreme Court
and cause a correction in current law with respect to the natural-born Citizenship
controversy.
We are not asking for support or advice, in fact we need to advise you if Mr.
Trump is serious about suing Ted Cruz over his eligibility status. To date all
eligibility lawsuits have been dismissed based on standing. Mr. Trump cannot
challenge Ted Cruz directly. However, we can offer him an avenue by which he
can challenge him indirectly and force the State of Texas to resolve the
controversy via the Texas Supreme Court and then by the Supreme Court of the
United States.
We only want a chance to explain and to inquire if Mr. Trump would want to
work with us to purge the system of ineligible candidates and if everything goes
as planned to hold Mr. Obama accountable for his usurpation of the Presidency.
This is not frivolous and we expect this to go to the High Court
If you like please review McCarthy v Briscoe (1974). The matter of eligibility was
Jast addressed by the High Court under this holding. The participants in this
challenge included the candidate AND supporters who were active voters.
Time is of the essence. H we do not hear from you, we will proceed with our
efforts. All we ask is that Mr. Trump not sue if his approach is to challenge Ted
Cruz in the courts. His lawsuit stands a high probability of being denied in the
same manner as those filed by rival candidates against Mr. Obama. If you don't
get the court right or the argument, they will dismiss. We believe we have
determined the proper method of challenge and the right argument to get this
controversy addressed and resolved.
By the way, per my research Mr. Trump is a natural-born Citizen by the
conditions of jus soli and jus sanguinis and he conforms with the base definition
"""'w 4o V&

contained in Senate Res. 511 (2008). Mr. Trump is in the right place and at the
right time to do a grand service for his nation. He is right in this matter, and can
resolve this issue but only if he understands what is needed.
Ed and I will be happy to explain the details. But we must huny to impact the
March 1, 2016 Texas Primary Flection.
Sincerely,
Laura Wilkinson
Austin, Texas
5127088784
Ed Sunderland
Flower Moun~ Texas

Subj:
Date:
From:
To:
Trump eHglbllltr Clulenge

21181201612:06:45 A.M. Central Standard Tme
L.lwCisnsn@aol.oom
mcobeQOtrumporg.c:om
llwijsnsnoaot.oom. SS4420yerizpn.net. cfkerdlntrOkerdmer.com
cc:
Dear Mr. Co~
I have spent the last three days trying to get the attention of the Trump
Organization in order to alert Mr. Trump for an opportunity to address the
n~~tural-born Citizen controversy in this election. U Mr. Trump is serious about
challenging Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio on their eligibility claims for the Office of
the President then you and your assodates need to pull him aside and tell him he
has a shot at it before the March 1, 2016 Super Tuesday Primary Election.
My name is Laura Wilkinson and I am working with Ed Sunderland to force the

state of Texas to do its job and purge the system of ineligible candidates. All Mr.
Trump has to do is answer our challenge and provide the documents listed in that
challenge directly to the Texas Secretary of State.
No lawsuits, not yet. Just follow the law. You have already issued a cease and
desist letter to Cruz. This will really get his attention. U I am not addressing the
right person, let me know and tell me who I need to contact to get the cooperation
of Mr. Trump.
Mr. Sunderland and I have challenged the Texas Republican Party and the Texas
Democrat Party over the eligibility of all the candidates. We asked the State Party
Certifying Authorities to send our challenge directly to the Presidential
Candidates under a presumed process of vetting by state election oversight
officials. We sent the same challenges to the TXSOS.
I know they have not contacted Mr. Trump.
They told us as much and refused to cooperate. As such, the State Party
Chairpersons have put Mr. Trump at risk in this election. U the US Constitutional
Term of Art Natural-born Citizen is not addressed we will end up with a third
nullified Presidential Election. The system has failed catastrophically. This time
however the nation will be made aware of the federal corporate negligence
involved.
Mr. Sunderland and I respectfully urge Mr. Trump to aMwer our eligibility
challenge and send the required documents to the Texas Secretary of State
directly. The reason we are reaching out to you, is that Mr. Trump of all the
Presidential Candidates is addressing the first task of the US Chief Constitutional
Officer and openly questioning the eligibility of rival candidates who are

currently committing pe!jury while campaigning.
If you have any questions, please give me a call at 512 708 8784.
We are trying to correct the Electoral System in Texas and will go to the Supreme
Court to do so. We will do it with you or without you. It is your decisi~ I cannot
compel you to do anything. I am hoping that Mr. Trump is running for President
for the good of the Nation and to effect positive change to "Make American Great
Again." You will forgive me if my political cynicism is showing, but I am willing
to work with Mr. Trump if he is willing to work with me towards the common
goal of cleaning the system up and returning ethics and honesty to our elections.
I have included the challenges we have submitted to the Texas Republican Party
and the Texas Secretary of State in our efforts to have the state investigate the
eligibility claims of all the Presidential candidates.
All Mr. Trump has to do at this point is comply with the challenge and start the
judicial review of the Presidential Federal Employment Criteria under Article IT,
Sec. 1, Clause 5.
It is in both our interests if we work together on this as the scarus will continue
to refuse to do their job if they are not challenged by both a current Presidential
Candidate and active holders of State voter franchises. Suing Cruz directly will
not get him evaluated for eligibility.
We are running out of time. I will be calling you tomorrow. I urge you to take that
call.
Sincerely,
Laura Wilkinson
A~ Texas

He's a conservative constitutionalist whose judgment I trust to appoint the
right judges to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Will you sign the petition to commit to keeping Texas red and WINNING the
White House?
To my fellow Texas conservatives, I say WE NEED TO DELIVER! Please ioin

me by adding your name. Let's bring Texas home for Ted Cruz.
For Texas,
~~
Greg Abbott
______
a.~ONINPO
This eneills ~ sent unsolldllld. It Is rrit sent 1D

people on the Townhall.alm nebllort OR a trtend miQtt
hive forwarded It 1D you. We n!lll*t end Yllue your
time and prtwlty.
OR Send paslll maii1D:

Townhlll ~ unsutllc:ltbe
1735 N. lynn St- Sule 510, ~VA 22209
WERE VOU FORWARDED THIS EDITION Of THE

10WNIW..l SFOlUGHT?
You go cx:t YOUr own fRe subsgtQtiQO bv d!dWa 1m.
* c.op,ltght Townhall and Its Conb!nt PnMders.

AI ftghts
rae~ Wid.
STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

STATE OF IWNOIS
D2t &118cArthur 8ML
lpr"dlgftlkl, IIDnole ~
Z171712...1.tt
Fax: 2171712-1111
...... R. Thompeon
BOARD IIEIIBEM
w.
Chlltea
8ctlotz. Chllnnan
Emeat L ao.n_ Vloe Chatnnln
William J. C>cllgan
Andrew K. c:anutt.s
....., J. CGftltn
c..
tOO W. Randalph 81.. 811. 14-'100

CllaOo. lllnol81010t-UU
31JJI1.....0
Fu:I12M1......,
JohnR.~
VMilm ... Mc:GW'tl.

ee..ncn 8. WlnloA
AGENDA
STATE BOARD OF ELEC110N8
. . . - .... Duly Aulhorbld
.... Ofllcera fJedonl ao.rd
Monday. FebniUy 1, 2018
10:30a.m.
........ R. Tbompeon ce.ar- SUite 14-100
Ch~Qgo,llnole
endvla~tee
2328 a. IIKAitiU Blvd.

Sprlngfteld,
nancn
Roll calL
2.
Conllclerdon of ollfectiOna to .............. candidate nomtndng petlllone for the March 11, 2011
General Prtmary EJec:aon;
L
Joyce V. Cfta. 1880EBGPI28;
b.
Gnlhem v. Cna. 1180E8GP127;
c.
Glahanl v. Rubio, 1880EBGP121;
d.
DeW. v. Cllnfon, 1880EBGPI33.
()bJec:tloM wlhdlawn -tnformdonaf;
Hendon & Shaw V. Cohen, 1180ESQP121;
b.
,_.., & Shew v. O'lllllfy, 1ISOEBGPI30;
c.
Hendon & Shaw v. Sandin, 1180EBGPU1;
d.
llendon & SIMw v. De fA FIIMie, 18SOEBGH32.
I.
AKIII the State~ ElectoraiBoanlundl February 17, 201111t10:30 a.m. In Chtcego or

until call or the Chllnnan, whichever occun ftl'8t.
I.
Recorwene .. the State 8011nl of Electlont.
7.
caw bu8lnea.
a.
AcQoum untO February 17, 2011 at 10:30 a.m. In Chicago or until can ot the Chairman,
whlc:hever occun tint.
www.~a.ll.gov
Joyeeven.
16 SOEB GP 526
Caadlclate: Ted Cruz
Oflfee: President
Party: Republican
Objector: Lawrence J. Joyce
Attoney For Objeetor: Pro Se
Attonaey For Caadldate: Sharee Langenstein

NWDber of Sipatura Reqalred: 3,000- S,OOO
Namber of Sipatans Submitted: Not in Issue
N11111ber of Sipatarea Objected to: Not in Issue
Balls of ObjectioD: The Candidate's nomination papers do not comply with the requirements of
Section 7-11 of the Election Code because Ted Cruz, having been born in Caada, does not meet
the natural born citizen requirement of Article U, Section I, Clause S of the United States
Constitution and, therefore, is not legally qualified to bold the oftioe of United States President
Dispoadve Modou: Candidate's Motion to Dismiss Objection, Candidate's Repon.41e to the

Motion of Lawrence Joyce, Memorandum of Law in Support of the Eligibility of Ted Cruz to
Serve as President of tbe United States, Objector's Reply to the Candidate's Response and the
Candidate's Memorandum of Law
Blader Clleek Neecuary: No
Heariaa Officer: Jim Tenuto
Hearfaa Ofneer FindiDp aad Reeommenclatfoas: The Candidate's Motion to Dismiss raised
three grounds for dismissal of the Objection: (1) an electoral board's scope of inquiry is limited to
ascertaining whether the nomination papers comply with the provisions of the Election Code; (2)
the Objector docs not fully state the DBture of the objections; and (3) the question of whether a
candidate for President of the United States is eligible to bold office is not within the scope of the
Electoral Board.
The Hearing Officer considered each gro\Dld for dismissal individually. With regard to the first,
the Hearing Officer noted that the Statement of Candidacy's validity is challenged, because it is
alleged that Candidate is not legally qualified for office as be is not .a "natural born citizen."
Therefore, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Motion to Dismiss on the ground that an

electoral boatd 's scope of inquiry is limited to ascertaiDiDg whether the nomination papers comply
with the provisions of the Election Code be denied.
With regard to tbc second basis for argued for dismissal, the Hearing Officer DOted that the central
theme of the Objection is clearly stated, and tberef(R the Hearing Officer recommends that the
Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the nature of the objection is not fully stated be denied.
With "'l8l'd to the third basis ofthe Motion to Dismiss, the Hearing Officer considered and rejected
the Cmdidate s argument that the question of eligibility for the offi' of President is only within
the purview of the Electoral College and the United State Conpess, in recommending tbat the
Board find it does have subject matt jurisdiction to determiDc the validity of the Statement of
CaDdidacy aDd that the Motion to Dismiss be denied on this ground.
Finally, the Hearing Officer considered the question of whether a candidate born outside of the
United States to a mother wbo was a United States citizen at the time of the candidate's birth is
qualified to bold the office of the President of the United States. Having reviewed the Memoranda
of both Candidate 8Dd Objector on the matter, the Hearing Officer found that tbe Candidate is a
"natural bom citizen" by virtue of having been bom in Canada to a United States citizen, thereby
not caming the Candidate to have to take any steps or undergo a naturalization process to become
a United States citizen. Accordingly, the Hearins Officer rccornmends that the Board deny the
objection.
In summary, the Hearins Officer recommends that the Board deny the Candidate's Motion to
Dismiss, deny the Objector' s Objection, and order that the name of Ted Cruz be certified to the
primary ballot as a Candidate of the Republican Party to the Office of the President of the United
States.
Recommeadatloa of the Geaenl CoaDJel: The General Counsel concurs in the Hearing
Officer's recommendation.
BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OP ELECTIONS

SI'TnNO AS THE DULY COH8TmJTED STATE OPPICER8 ELECTORAL BOARD
FOR THE HEARING AND PAISING UPON OBJEC110N8 TO
ESTABLISHED PARTY CANDICATE8 SEEKING TO APPEAR
ON THE BALLOT FOR THE MARCH 11, 2018
GENERAL PRIMARY ELECTION
In the Matter of:

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
v.
Ted Cruz,
Respondent(&) - Candidate(&).
16 SOE8 GP 526
BICOMMEM'JAJION Of IH1 HEARING OFFICER

Thts matter coming befoAt the Illinois State Board of Elec:tiona sitting as the duty
oonstituted State Oflicera Electora1 Board and the undersigned Heartng Officer, pursuant to
Appointment and Notice, makes the fo11owtng Findings and Recommendationa.
Obltctloo
An Objection was timely flied by Lawrence Joyce alleging Ted Cruz's Statement of
Candidacy is invalid because he is not legally quatified to hold oflice aa he is not a natural born
citizen. Ted Cruz was bom in Canada and does not qualify to hold the Office of President of the
United States.
The i8&Ue pntSented is whether a Candidate born outside the United States to a mother
who was a United States oitlzen at the time of his birth is qualified to hold the Office of President
of the United States.
A case Management Conference was held folkMing the ca11ng of the catl88. Objector
filed a Pro Se Appearance and was present In Chk:ago. Sharee S. l.angenatein filed an
Appearance on behatf of the Candidate and was present In the Spttngtleld offtce of the State
Board of Elections.
BlcQrgund
The Candidate timely filed hia nomination petitions teeldng the Oftlce of President of the
United States aa a Candidate In the March 15,2016, Republican Prtmary. All Objection was
timely filed challenging the Candidate's quaiJficationa. The Objector contends being born outside
the United States (Canada) to a mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth dtsquaUfiea
Ted Cruz from holding the Office of President of the United States aa he Is not a natural born
citizen.
On January 22, 2016, Candidate's Motion to Dflmla Obiection was filed. The grounds for
seeking the dismissal of the Objection are as follows:
1. An Electoral Board's ecope of Inquiry Ia llmit8d to ascertaining whether the nomination

papers comply wtth the provisions of the Election Code;
2. The Objector does not fully state the nature of the Objections; and
3. The question of whether a C8ndidate for President of the United States is eligjble to
hokt otra Is not within the scope of the Electoral Board.
On January 25, 2016, Candidate's Bnpona to the Motion of Lawrence Joygo was filed .
Therein, the Candidate inCOfP()ratea the argument made in the Motion to Ptsmtss. Additionally,
attached to the Response was a Memorandum of law In SUpport of tbe Eliaibility of Ted Cruz to
Serye u
President of the Unitld Statta
Therein, the Candidate submits support for the
proposition that Ted Cruz is eligible to hokt the Office of President of the United States. In
essence, the Candidate states that a natural born citizen is anyone who was a citizen at the
3
moment of birth as oppoeed to becOming a cftizen through the naturaUzation procesa at some
point after birth. Since Ted Cruz'a mother was a U.S. citizen at the ttme of his birth In Canada, he
became a U.S. citizen wlth no need to go through a naturaDzallon proceeding.
ObJedor't Rip!)( to Jbe C8ndldata'a BMponat and lbt CtncH*'t MemorMdum qf LIW
waa filed on January 26, 2018.
0
lnltlaJiy, the 3 issues raised on Canslidate'a Mgtion to Dllmtp h Obtedlqn will be
discussed. Thereafter, discuseion wiD follow on the crttJcallalue, to wtt. whether a candidate born
outside the United States to a mother who waa a u.s. dlizen at the time of his birth il qualified to
hold the Otrice of President of the United States.
A. SQope of Inquiry of an Electoral Board.
The Candidate suggests the Electoral Board's acope of Inquiry Ia Umled to
aacertaJnJng whether the nomination petition complies wt1h the provtaton of ttMt Election
Code. In this caae, the Objector doea not question the form. fling date or vatidJty of
the Statement of Candidacy.
I agree wHh the Objector that the validity of the Statement of C8ndidacy Is challenged.
It Ia aleged Ted Cruz Ia not lagasty qualtfted because he is not a natural bom citizen.
Thus. the Statement of Candidacy Ia property before the Electonll Board to determine
If the Candidate i8 a natural bom ddzen.
B. The Objector does not fully state the nature of the Objections.
A cursory rvvtew of the Objection indJcates that the central theme of the Objection is
whether or not Ted Cruz ia a natural born dtizen. If he Ia not a natural bom citizen, he
Ia ineligible to hold the Offtoe of the President of the United States.
The Objector cleartV atates the nature of the Objection.
C. Question of whether a candidate for President of the United States is eligible to hold
off'a is not within the scope of the electoral Board.
The Candidate suggests whether or not a Candidate for Pretident of the United States
is eligible to take
1s within the puNiew of the Electoral College and United States
Congress. The question is beyond the scope of inquiry for the Electoral Board.
omce
1disagrw with the candidate's asaertion. The Statement of candidacy is being

questioned by the Objedor. In order to determine the validity of the Statement of
candidacy, the threshokt question at whether or not Ted Cruz is a natural bom citizen
must be addreesed.
Thus, the Elec:toral Board does have subject matter jurisdiction to determine the
validity of the Statement of CandJdacy.
0
0
0
D. Whether a Candidate bom outside the United states to a rno1her who was a U.S.
citizen at the time of his birth Is qualified to hold the Offtce of Presktent of the United
States.
Article II of the Untied states Constitution states:
No peraon except a natural bom citizen, or a cttizen of the United States, at the
time of the Adoption of this Conatitutlon, shall be eligible to the Ofllce of the President
u~s. Constitution, Art. u, Section 1.
M set forth above, Ted Cruz was bom in Canada to a mother who, at the time of his
birth, was a U.S. ctttzen. Ted Cruz became a natural bom citizen at the moment of his
birth because It was not necessary to become a citizen through the naturalization
process at some point after birth.
Further discussion on this issue is unnecessary.
Flncllnat
1. Ted Cruz was bom In Canada to a mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his
birth .
2. The Candidate timely filed his nomination papers.
3. The Objedor timely filed an Objection to Cruz's nominating petitions.

4. Candidate's Motion to P!amiH Is denied for the following reasons:
A. The scope of inquiry of the Electoral Board is not limited to whether the
nominations petitions comply with the Election Code.
B. The Objection does fuUy state the intenm of the Objection.
C. The question of whether a Candidate for President of the United States is eligible
to ho5d the Office of President of the United States Is within the scope of InQuiry of
the Eledoral Board.
5. The Electoral 8oa'd has subject matter jurisdiction to decide If 1 person born in
Canada to a mother WhO was a U.S. dtizen at the time of hta btrth is eligible to hold the
Office of Preaktent of the United States.

6. The Candidate, Ted Cruz. Ia a natural born dttr8n by virtue of being born in Canada to
his mother who waa a U.S. dtlz8n at the time of his birth as the Candidate did not have
to take any steps or go through a naturalization Pf'OQel8 at some point after hie birth. .
7. The Objection should be DENIED for the reaaona set fol1h in Pars. (5) and (6).
;,. _._,
. . . . .. ..
..-
~.
It is the Recommendation of the Heattna Ofticer that the State Offlcen Electoral Board
DENY the Candidate's Mot1oo to [)lsm!sa. DENY the Objec:tion and order that the name of Ted
Cruz be printed on the ballot as a candidate of the Republican Patty to the Ofllce of President of
the United States to be voted upon at the March 15, 2016, General Primary Election.
Respectfully submitted,
OATEO: January 28, 2016
~;;;;.~
James Tenuto
Hearing Officer
Copy provided courtesy

of: CASES
http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
"BIRlBER"
STRING CITE
I.
Birthcr Caes with Decisions Rccosnizina that Obama is a "Natural Born Citizen"....................'......... 1
U. Bittber C&1c:s Rejected by Federal Courts.............................................................................................. 3
m. Birtber Cases Rejected by State Courts & Administrative Asencies ..........................................~ .......... 7
L
Blrdaer Cua with Dedllou RttopbJq that 0.._ II a "Natant Bon Cldzea"
Every court and administrative body to coosidcr the .issue bas held that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen
who is elisible to save as Presidcot. &e. e.g. A&lt.,. ONIM et al, No. 00121317 (Ariz. Pima County
Super. a. Mar. 7, 2012) (dismissing case ehalleosinl Obamas elisibility to be on the 2012 ballot;
finding that Obama is a "natural born citizn.. under Wong Kim A'*; and expressly rejecting argument that
Mmor " Happenett holds otherwise), appealjikd (Ariz. App. Ct. 2d Div. Mar. 8, 2012~ A.-.., P.
~. 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. a. App. 2009) ("based upon the language of Article U, Section 1, Clause
4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Alt. M condude that persons born within the borden of the
United States 1ft "natural born eitizcns" for Article Section 1 purposes, reprdlcss of the citizenship of
their parentsj ~dtJ~Ud929N.E.2d 789(Tnd. 2010); FllirP.
No. 06CI2060692 (Md.
Carroll Cty. Cir. a.. Aug. 27,2012 (relying on Ankrny and Wong Ktm Ark to hoJd that Obama is a
''natural bom citizen" eligible to serve as President); ,.,., " 06aM, No. OSAH..SECSTA'fE.CE..
121S1J6..60.MAUIH (Ga. Office ofSt Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting cbal.lenae to Obama"s
digi.bility to appear on2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a 'batural born citiznj,
dceision adopted by 0a. Sec "y of State (Feb. 7, 20 12), appeal dumlued, Fan"ttl' d oJ Y. Obama rt al., No.
2012CV211398 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct Mar. 2, 2012), nCOM. denkd (Mar. 14, 2012). appeal
dmied, No. S12D1180 (Ga. Apr. 11, 2012); FrmttiJ " OINima, 12 SOEB GP 103 (Dl. Bd. ofFJections
Hearing Officer Recommendation Jan. 27, 2012) (overruling objcdion to Obama's placement on 2012
primary ballot; findins that Obama's long form birth ecrtific:ate ..elearly establishes" hia eligibility for
office as a "Natural Born Citizen"), objection overruled (Ul. Bd. ofFJections, Feb. 3, 2012); ,,.,.., "
No. 12 SOEB GE 112 (Dl. Bd. Flections, Sept 17, 2012) (recommending rejection of objection
filed seeking to keep Obama off general election ballot in 2012 on grounds that be is not a "'natural born
citizen"; relyiDg on prior decision (12 SOEB GP 103) whieh held that Obama's long form birth certificate
sufficiently established birth in the United States); Gtllauo., 06tJJM, No. STE 04S88-12 (N.J. Adm. Apr.
10, 2012) (initial decision rejecting chaUenge to Obama's 2012 nominating position and finding that.
assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a "natural born citizen" eligible for the presidency per A'*ny
and Wong Kim Ark), decision adoptedMjinal(N.J. Sec'y ofState Apr. 12, 2012); Jlldso11 ._ 0,_,, 12
SOFB GP 104 (Dl. Bd. of Elections Hearina Officer Recommendation Jan. 27, 2012) (recommending
~ection of objection to Obama's placement on 2012 primary ball~ finding that Obama's long form
birth cenificate "clearly establishes" his eligibility for oftiee as a "'Natural Born Citizen"), objection
lne~TUJ< (Dl. Bd. of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012); lbo11 " OMM. No. 12 SOEB GE 113 (Dl. Bd.
Electi~ Sept 17, 2012) (overruling objection filed seeklna to keep Obama offscncral election ballot in
2012 on grounds that he is not a "natural born citizen"; relying on prior decision ( 12 SOEB GP 104)
which held that Obama's long form birth ecrtificate suffieiently established birth in the United States);
X.kr.,. OIHimtl, No. 2012162 (Ind. Election Comm'n Feb. 24, 2012) (denying objection seeking to
keep Obama off 2012 ballot on grounds that he is not a "natural born citizenj; lordM v. S<'ddlly Df
SIIRS..Rftd, No. 12-2..01763-S, 2012 WL 4739216 (Wash. Super. Ct. Aug. 27, 2012)(dismissing as
frivolous plaintiff's complaint sedcing to prevent state from including Obama on 2012 ballot, noting that
many similar birther claims had been filed and, in some cases, such as Ankeny" Goumor ofState of
lndiano. 916 N.E.2d 678 (2009). oourts addressed the merits of the birther claims; concluding: ~ust as all
the SO<alled evidence offered by plaintiff lua been in the blogosphere for years, in one form or another,
so too has all the law rejecting plaintiffs allegations. I can conceive of no reason why this lawsuit was
n.
o-...
0,__
.Last tjpclatC'd: December 21, 20 t2
Page I

of: CASES
"Bun HER"
STRING CITE
brought. except to join the monas of noise in tbat bloppbcrc. Tbe cue is dismisscd."); 111411 dIll"
OlaMd~ No. 8:12-cv-01507-DOC-AN (C.D. Cal. Oct 17. 2012)(dismissing lawsuit purportedly
removed by plaintiffs ftom state court cue to fedaal oourt); ./11M t!t 1111'.. 0....,. t!t Ill. No. 8: 12-cv
01888.JX>C-AN (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2012) (dismininglaw.suit statina dection fiaud, RICO, and various
other claims seeking to prevmt Obama ftom being on 2012 pneni election ballot (among other things)~
Mtltlbt .,_ 0..,_ No. 12 SOEB GE Ill (DI. Bd. FJectioas, Sept 17, 2012) (overrulina objection filed
seelcina to keep Obama off general electicn ballot in lOll oa fVOUDds tbat he is not a "natural born
citi7Jcn"; relying on prior dceision in F1Wiftln and JaclaoJI primaJy duallengcs ( ll SOEB GP 103 and 12
SOEB GP 104). which held that Obama's tons form birth certificate suffiaently establi.shcd birth in the
United States);
No. 6118-ll WNCV (Vt Superior Ct., Sept. 21,1011) (denying motion
for temporary restraining order to prevent placement ofObama on the 2011 general dection ballot and
holding that "(t)he common law ofEngland, the American c:olonies, and later the United States, all
support one .intcrprdation only: that persons bom within the borders of the United States arc 'natural
born CitizaL1' for Article~ Section 1 purposes. regardless of the eitizemhip of their parents"), citing
.A11Mny Gtrm7tor oflNiialta. 916 N.E.ld 678, 688 (Ind. Ct. App. 1010); PtiWil"" 06aM. No. OSAHSECSTATE-CE-1116823-60-MALIHJ (Ga Oft"u:e ofSt Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejectins challenge
to Obama's eligibility to appear on lOll ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a "natura]
born eitiml), decision adopted by Ga. See 'y of State (Feb. 7, 20 ll),~~PJ~eol dismissed, No.
lOllCV211Sl8 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct Mar. 2,l0ll), motion/til" injunction t:ln~Ud. No.
Sl2Dl077 (Ga. Mar. 13, 2012). appeol denied(Ga. Apr. 4,2012~ l'luplutt.,
No. STE 04588ll, lOll WL 1369003 (N.J. Adm. Apr. 10, lOll) (initial decision rcjca&ng challcnae to Obama's lOll
nominating position and finding that, assuming Obama was bam in Hawaii, he is a "natural born eitian
eligible for the presidency per AIIUII)' and Wong Ktm Ark), decision adcpted a.Jjinol (N.J. Sec'y of State
Apr. 12,1012) qtfd, No. A.Q04.478-IIT03,l01l WL 1949041 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 31, 2012)
(per curiam), em. denied, No. 071051 (N.J. Sept. 7, 2012)~ StnrU " N.Y. 114. ofDtlolll dill. 35
Misc. 3d 1208(A), lOll WL 1205117,1012 N.Y. Slip Op. 50614 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 11,1012) (N.Y.
Kina County Supr. Ct Apr. II, lOll) (dismissins complaint challenaing. among other thinp, President
Obama"s eligibility to bis office~ expressly rejectina the birther claim that Obama is ineligible on the basis
of his father's citizenship as frivolous, and issuina a show cause order as to why sanctions should not be
imposed upon plaintiff); S'tMarsM " 06alll. No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1ll6lla.6()..MALJHI (Ga.
Office ofSt Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama's eligibility to appear on lOll
ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a "natural born citizen"), ded.Jion adopted by Ga.
See'y of State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeol dismi.ued, No. 2012CVlllSl7 (Ga. Fulton County Super Ct. Mar.
2, lOll), motion for injunction denied. No. S 1201076 (Ga. Mar. 13, 2012). appea/tknied (Ga. Apr. 4,
lOll)~ Tfstlilk "- OkiM. No. 3: ll~-00036 (E.D. Va. Jan. 23,1011) (order dismissina complaint)
(dismissing injom111 ptlllperil complaint pursuant to 18 USC 1915(e)(l)(B)(ii) and holding that '1i)t is
well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens" and that plaintiff's
eontentions otherwise are "without merit"), affd, No. 12-1114 (4th Cir. Jun 5, 2011) (per curiam); Vtldtz
v.
No. 37 2012 CA 000467,2012 WL 1524874 (Fla. 2nd Cir., Jun.l9, 2012) (dismissing
complaint challenging Obama's eligibility to be on lOll ball~ fmdina that persons born in US are NBCs
per Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny, regardless ofparentqc and RJCCting barther argument to the contrary);
VMt: v. ONM., No. 37 2012 CA 002063 (Fla. 2nd Cir. Sept. 6, 2012) (dismissing complaint seeking
declaration that Obama is not eligible for presidency bccau.se he was not born in US and was not born to
two US citizen parents; finding that penom born in US are "natural bom citizens" per Wong Kim Ark
and Ankeny, regardless of parentage and rejecting binher argument to the contrary; reserving for later
ruling motion for sanctions); Welilm l'. OINIIrM, No. OSAH-SECSTA'fE.CE.l21Sl37-60-MALIHI (Ga.
Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, lOll) (rejecting challenge to Obama's eligibility to appear on lOll
ballot; findmg that Obama was born in U.S. and is a "natural born citizen), tkcision adopted by Ga. Sec'y
of State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeol dismissed, No. l012CV211527 (Ga. Fulton County Super. a . Mar. 2,
2012), motion for injunction tknied, No. Sl2Dl059 (Ga. Mar. 13, lOll), appeal denied(Ga. Apr. 4,
2012).
P. " 0..._
o-....
0,_,
I.ut Upd.ard: December 21, 20 12

of: CASES
"BIRTBER"
SnuNG CITE
D.
Blrtlaer Cua Rejected by Federal Courts
Emoy fedenl court to rule on a biJ1her case bas ~ected it See, e.g., Allea .. StttrtJ, 4:09-cv..00373 (D.
Ariz. Jm 29. 2010) (dismissing FOIA action seeking documents related to Obama's eligibility), qffdNo,
ll-lS094(9thCir. Jul. 23,2012);.Aa GrwMhty, NoNumber Assigned (W.D.N.Y. Sept 29,2009)
(ldtc:r fiom court staff attorney explaining that court could not accept 1Jreseutmeot" prepared by public.
seeking to .inc1ict Obama for ineligibility to hold office and related matters); I ~All& GNall J1117. No.
3:09-mc-00215 (M.D. Tmn. Nov. 6, 2009) (summarily rejcctingsrancfjury ""pracotment" cballaJging
President Obama's digibility to save as President as having no force unda' U.S. Constitution or Jaw);
~ .. OlaM,No. 10-612,2012 WI.. 1969419(U.S. JlDl4,2012)(dalyingmotionforleavetofile
petitim for rebcariDg in case cbaJ..Icusiu8 the Patient Protection aDd Affordable Health Care A~ where
petitim sought an order oompeUiDg (a) Cbe U.S. Marshalls to travel to Hawaii; (b) the Hawaii Department
of Health to release the "<Jriainal" birth catific:ate ofObama to the U.S. Marshalls; (c) die U.S. Marshalls
to brina the certificate to the Supreme Court; and (d) lbc U.S. Secret Service to examine 8Dd veruy
whether the document is a forpry)~ ..,_, Oltala, 8:09-cv-00082. 2009 WI.. 3861788 (C.D. Cal.
Oct. 29. 2009) (dismissing case chaiiCftling Obama's eligibility; critic;izing conduct ofplaintitrs counsel
in case filed on behalf of active and former military personnel, state representatives, taxpayerS, relatives,
IDd political amdidates), arder clarlfied. 2009 WL 8S57250 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2009), qjfd sub nom.
DrvbY. Obtmrtl, 664 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2011). nh'gandnh'genbancderried, Nos. 09-56827, 1055084 (Feb. 2. 2012). em denied. No. 11-1225 (U.S. Jun. 7. 2012)~ S.,.
514 F. Supp. 2d 509
(E.D. Pa 2008) (dismissing case cballcnains Obama's eligibility; characterizing various plainti.frs claims
as ftivolous), ttl'~ 586 F.3d 234 (3d Cir. 2009), em. derried, S55 U.S. 1126 (2009); &r, " 0MM. No.
l :08-ev.OI933 (D.D.C. June 9, 2009) (dismissing qui uzm case claiming Obama is not a U.S. citizal).
ncoru. dmied. 656 F. Supp. 2d 107 (D.D.C. 2009), qffd, 383 F. App'x 7 (D.C. Cir. 2010); Bnmy "Fal. Eltttt C..'a. l:OS<V-01538-AWI-GSA, 2009 WL 196361 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2009)
(dismissingca1e tbat included claims rcprding Obamas elisibility), qff~ No. 09-15562 (9th Cir. July 1,
2009), em. dn~Ud, 130 S. Ct. 1732 (2010)~ IIDwiMllv. 0,__, No. 2: 10-ev-0609, 2010 WL 4932747.
(M.D. Ala. Nov. 30, 201 0) (dismissing oomplaint alleging. among other 1hinp. that Obama is not a
..natural born citizen," M fiivolous), ajfd, No. 10-15938-C (11th Cir. Apr. 4, 2011)(affirmingorderthat
complaint was mvolous); CiJrd ofJG~U CluiJt Oriltla!Aiy& NIIIIMu ofMI.DMII dIll"- OINDntl.
No. 6:0kv03-405, 2011 WL 4916569 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 17, 2011) (disni.uing case brought on, among
other bues. that. as non-white, Obama is not eligible to hold office). qffd, No. 09-5012 (8th Cir. Jan. 31,
2012)~ CoNI"- m-, No. 1:Ok..()2150, 2008 WL 5191864 (D.D.C. Dec. 11. 2008) (dismiuing case
cllallcnaina Obama's eligibility), ajfd, 332F. App'x 640 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (per curiam), nlt'gllllll ,-.Jtg
m bane denied. No. 09-5012 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 25,1009)~ CDIUI6tll v. OlaM, No 8: ll-ev-01359-SDMTGW (M.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2011) (dismissing case challengingObama's eligibility); C.iv. GtltJd, No.
4:09-ev.OOOSl, 2009 WL 2163535 (M.D. Ga. July 16, 2009) (denying lRO seeking stay of military
orders pending confirmation of Obama's eligibility; dismissing case). appeal dismiued, No. 09-14698CC (11th Cir. Nov. 24, 2009); CHi Sbtfld, No. 8:2009cv01382 (M.D. Fla. July 27, 2009~ ncons.
denied, (Aus. 6, 2009) (ti.nding motion to reconsider "frivolous and wholly without merit); CNi6 v.
UllltalSttiu&, No. 5: ~-00343-F (W.D. Okla. Apr. 3, 2009) (dismissing case seeking declaration
reprding definition of natural born citizen as "incomprehensible and mvolousj, qffd, No. 09-6082, 340
F. App'x 471 (lOth Cir. 2009), em. denied, l30 S. Ct. 141 (2009)~ Crtli6 U.S.IHpt. ofRoiW/a4S.
dIll, No.5: 10-cv-00659~ (W.D. Okla. July 3, 2010) (dismissing case challenging various government
publiQtions defming term "natural born citizlcn" as unconstitutional); CNI.f HtJii/6, No. 11-9501 (1Oth
Cir. Mar. 17, 2011) (affll'llling Board of Immigration denial of request to certify that Craig is "natural
born citizen.. eligible for presidency), ~~~ 'g denied (Apr 29, 2011 ); ~ "- UIIIUtl Stlltla, No. 5:10-cv01345~ (W.D. Okla. Jan. 4, 2011) (Dismissing VOlA action brought to obtain documents related to
federal defmition of"natural born citizen"), appeiJl voluntDrily dismissed, No. ll-6017 (lOth Cir. Feb. 10,
2011 ); Dtlwlt111 " O~NmrtJ. No. 2:0kv02754, 2009 WL 532617 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2009) (dismissing case
challengingObama's eligibility); ~" O.,_dtll, No. L12-cv.OOOII-TMB (D. Alaska, Aug. 24,
o-...,
Lat Updated December 2 J. 2012
Page 3

of: CASU
"BIR"IHDt"
SnuNG CITE
--------
o--.
20 12) (dismissina oomplaint seekin& amana other tbinp. declaration that Obama is not elipblc to serve
as President)~ " "
08-379-GFVT (E.D. Ky. Jan. 15, 2009) (dismissina case dudlenging
Obema'selisibilityt Fltlrl4tletlll. tt. U.S. D9- ofB_.. B .... s... No. 3:1kv-9lRVIEMT
(N.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2010) (denying motion to intervene based on interest in pressina cbqc that President
Obama is not a DBtural born ti.tizen in lawsuit duillenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act), nCOM. IMni<(Apr. 23, 2010)~ B . . . " 0._,., 2:09cv004l0, 2009 WL 2513986 (D. Ariz.
Aug. 14, 2009) (dismissing case chaUeaaina Obama's aod Mc:Cain's elqpbility), llpfMQI ~ 0917014 (9th Cir. Nov. 6, 2009)~ H-Id" Fdbto, No. 1:Okv..OOS44 ACK-KSC, 2009 WL 1404535
(D. Haw. May 20, 2009) (dismissina case wckina copy ofObama's certified birth certificate to dctcnninc
wbetber he is natural born citiml)~ Hm.t tt. US, No. 3:08-cv-0063-4-TJC-MCR (MD. Fla July 1,
2008) (dismissing case alleging. amons other 1hinp, that u.s. Suanzne Court auer Justi<:e John Roberts
et Ill, No. 3:0kv
violated the Constitution in refusing to accept plaintifrs case); g.-,
01164 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 30, 2008) (dismissin&complaint allcgin& among otbc:t things. that Obama is not
natural born citizen); B""" "- Ullilal Stllla. et aJ, No. 3:08cv01201 (MD. Fla. Jan. 20, 2009)
(dismissing c:omplaint allqin& among other thinp, that Obama is not natural born citizen1 appeal
dismissed. No. 09-10661 (lith Cir. Ava. 3, 2009) (dismis.ana appeal as frivolous and wbol1y without
merit), em. tJerried. 130 S. Ct. 562(2009), nhgcimtt 130 S.Ct. 1169(2010)~H....... v. Mt:CIM,
S66 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.N.H. 2008) (dismissing cue challenaina McCain's eligibility); Htlllbl61'.
Stttrtt, 60 l F. Supp. 2d 179 (D.D.C. 2009) (dismissins interpleader' case c:hallengina Obama's
elipbility),.Jub#qwnt order, 258 F.R.D. 1 (Mar. 27, 2009) (imposing sanctions for fili.na claim that was
not "warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for cxtcnclin& modifying. or reversing
existins law or for establishing new law," under Rule t 1). ajfd, Nos. 09-5080 &: 09-5161, 368 F. App'x
I S4 (D.C. Cir. 2010), em. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1017 (2011), nh g denied 131 S. Ct. 1627 (2011 )~
Rtll'flbl!dOJ/Mt~~WSnWt:a, LLC Stl/ctvetlll, No. 2:Hkv.OI663MLCF-JCW (E.D. La. Mar. 5,
20 ll) (denying motion to intervene based on interest in pressing charge that Preaident Obama is not a
natural born citizen in lawsuit challenging Obama Administration's Moratorium on deepwater drilling in
Gulf of Mexico)~ 8111116., U.S. S.,~WW Ctnnt, No. 2:08C'/00232, 2009 WL 111683 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 16,
2009), (dismiscins cue allcgin& amons other thinp. that Obama is not elqpble), appeal dismiue~ No.
09-10246 (5th Cir. July 23, 2009), No. 10-10009 (Feb. 4, 2010), No. 10-100064 (Apr. 9, 2010); l11 Re
Pal .A.IIdNw MltcUII, 304 F. App'x 113 (lrd Cir. Dec. 22, 2008) (denying petition for writ of
mandamus regarding challenge to Obama's eligibility)~ /MG " OHIIM, No. 2: Hkv.Ol075 (C.D. Cal.
July 20, 2010) (dismissing case challenging Obama's eligibility)~ 111114 " S'y ofSIJ8 ofKDIIIIeky, No.
3:ll-c.w.00027-0CR(E.D. Ky. Aug. 3, 2012 order) (same; stating that ..(a] cursory review of this
document indicates that it is yet another ftivolom filing from the plaintift); 1-.M v. Sttlte BlNII'flof
Ddtuu of~ dIll, No. l : 11-tV-00618 (E.D. Va. 2011 Aug. 8, 2012 order) (same~ findina that
"Plaintiff's Motion to remove President Barack Obama from the 2012 ballot and to award all delegates to
plaintitT, which is predicted on allegations that Obama was not born in the United States and is not a
United States citizen, will be denied as frivolous..)~ llllltl. CIIL S:y ofS.. et til, No. 2:2011~-05440
(C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2012 order) (denying motion for reliefftom judgment seeking. among other thinp,
removal of Obama from 2012 general election ballot on "natural born citi2a:t'" grounds; referring to
arguments as "insubstantud or frivolous'')~ lru/4 dIll" ONIMI'l ~No.8: 12~.01S07IX>C-AN
(C.D. Cal. Oct 17 2012) (dismissing birther lawsuit purportedly removed by plaintiffs from state court to
federal court); 114 et til v. 06tufw Ill, No. 8: 12~.01888-DOC-AN (C. D. Cal. Docketed Oct. 30,
2012) (dismissing birther lawsuit stating election fra~ RICO, and various other claims seeking to
prevent Obama from being on 2012 general election ballot (among other thinp)); ltly " McCtilll, No.
2:08cv01162 (D. Nev. Sept 8, 2008) (dismissing case challenging McCain's eligibility); X~"
OIHuM, 669 F. Supp. 2d 417 (D.NJ. 2009) ajfd, 612 F.ld 204 (3d Cir. 2010), em. dmied, 131 S. Ct.
663 (2010); Ubmy Le,lll FoaiUI., " Nlll'l DmiNtk Plll'tyoftlte USA, dill, No. 2:12<v-2143, 2012
WL 2368448 (W.O. Tenn. Jun 21, 2012) (dismissing complaint seeking to prevent Obama from being on
2012 ballot)~ see al.Jo -F. Supp. 2d -, 2012 WL 1252484 (W.O. Tenn. Apr. 13, 2012) (denying
motion to remand because issue of "natural born citizen.. interpretation is a federal issue); 2012 WL
ot.--.
Last Upcbtfll:
~ember 2
. 2012
Page 4

of: CASES
"BiklBER"
STRING CITE
3683492 (Aug. 24. 2012) (8nmting sanctions pumuant to 28 U.S.C. 1927: findina that 1C]ounsel for
Plaintiff reasonably should have kDown that all Plaintiffs lacbd standing to bring this suit. the Court
holds that Plaintiffs' claims were ftivolous and without any arguable basis in law. As ~ counsel for
Plaimift' has multiplied the procecdinp in this case unreasonably and vexatiously and should therdcn be
required to satisfy personally tbe attorneys' fees reasonably incurred by Defendana because of such
conduct"). 2012 WL 6026856 (Dec. 4. 2012) (granting in part petition for attorneys fees)~ 2012 WL
6026'96 (Doc. 4, 2012) (denying motion to reconsider order grantina 1927 sanctions); Lamy Lqlll
FMIIIL l'. Nlll'l Dewrwtk Ptt11Y oflk U4, dIll. No. 2: II -c:v-2089 (D Ariz. lui. 11, 2011)
(dismissina complaint seeking to prevent Obama from beins on 2012 ball~ wamins plaintifrs attorney
that knowingly Mfttinuing to bring claims that have previously been dismissM may warrant sanctions in
the future}~ M_,. l'. OlaM, No. 3: 12-c:v-()0910 (M.D. Term., Sept 4, 2012) (dismissing purported
wbistleblowa- case seelcing ouster of President Obama on grounds that he does not qualifY as ''natma.l
bom citizal" due to alleged Kenyan birth and filet that he did not have two US citi2en parents at birth);
Mtdlly " 06aM. No. 2: ll.CV..()5458-JP (E.D. Pa. Oet 6, 2011) (dismissina case dmlmging
Obama's eligibility), appeal WJiunlmily tlimti&mJ, No. 11- 3862 (3rd Cir. Nov. 2, 2011), t1J1Peal
dismiud, No 11-3967 (Dec. 8, 2011)~ McLiJiullla tt 0'--. No. 2:11-cY-00374-EFS (E.D. Wash.
Oct. 13, 2011) (dismissing complaint challengiDg, among other thinp, Obama's eligibility); MtnffiW tt
0~ No. 1:Okv-22345 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 9, 2009) (dismissina complaint challenging Obama's
eligibility); NMly tt Oa-., 2:08-c:v-15243 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 4, 2009) (dismissing case challenging.
among other thinp, Obama's eligibility); l'tlti'IIJI' H.n Me6 NGwtlrl, IIIG " S<wo, No. 1:09-mc00442-RCL (D.D.C. Sept 1o. 2009) (rejedina request to coovcnc grand jwy to inv~pte Obama's
eligibility, dismissing petition for lack ofjurisdiction); PlnfRuw 1'. S~. No. 3: I 0-CV-04814, 20 II
WL 1547768, (D.N.l. Apr. 21, 2011) (dismissing case challenging Patient Protection and Affordable Care
on variom grounds. including that was not signed into law by a person eligible to be President of the
United States). qffd, 446 F. App'x 496 (3d Cir. 2011) em. denied, 132 S. 0. 1037 (U.S. 2012) nit 'g
derried,l32S.Q. 1631 (U.S. 2012);..-,.. G. . . No. 1:12-c:v-11492,2012WL S38S683(D. Mass.
<kt. 30, 2012) (dismissins complaint filed apinst Massachusetts Secretary of State for allegedly refusing
to oonsider plaiDtiff"s challenae to Obama's eligibility to be included on 2012 primaJy ballot; finding that
Reade does not have standing to challqc eligibility in court); llluHla GIIIG, 5:09-cv.oo703-XR
(W.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2009) (denying TR.O seeking to stay military orders due to challenge to Obama's
eligibility); RluNia 1'. MIII:DDIIIIld, No. 4:09-cv-106, 2009 WL 2997605 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 16, 2009)
(denying TRO seeking to saay military orders due to challenge to Obama's eligibility~ criticizing
complaint as fiivolous), reCOIU. t.kmed, 2009 WL 3111834 (Sept 18, 2009), mbsequent Ol'dQ, 670 F.
Supp. 2d 1363 (M.D. Ga. 2009) (imposing $20,000 sanction for violating Rule 11 ). affd, 368 F. App'x
949, (11th Cir. 2010), nltgdellied, No. 09-15418-88 (11th Cir. May 14, 2010), '' for stay denitd, 131
S.O. 44 (2010), em. t.kmed. 131 S. Q. 918 (2011)~ Ri<uulllln. El<DwforSttiUofAldt~JM, No.
2:12-c:v-823, 2012 WL 5042026 (M.D. Ala. Oct 2, 2012) rqKJrtandncommmdation odopUd, 2012 WL
5045219 (M.D. Ala. Oct 18, 2012) (dismissing oomplaint seeking. among other things, injunction
preventing defendants ftom placing candidate Obama on the ballot for the November 20 12 election and
declaration that Obama is ineliaible to hold office of President as he is not a "natural born" citizen);
IUt!tlulelllerl'. EI:UwforSta ofAri:JnuJ, No. 2:12-cv-2034 (D. Ariz., Sept. 29, 2012) (same);
[R/!ldulrllln/ A ......... Left Nt~~~W UIUWtllbt " El:ttJrs for tlu SIIIM oflHitlwttn, No. 1: Ilev 1197UNA (D. Del., Oct. 9, 2012) (same); /Reitlulli&r/ AIJIIIIIfiiiiV L4fl N~~~~~e Ulfft!t'lldn (Rftllulrlll6)
Eltttrsfor~ofll1buH.r, No. 1:12-c:v..Ol373 (C.D. nt. Oct. 1, 2012)(same; finding that birtherrelated complaint ..is fiivolous, fails to state a legal claim over which this Court would have proper
jurisdiction, and fails to even minimally comply with [FRCP 8)"); RJ<urrrller Ei<llw for Sle of
llllllmla. No.I : 12~v-33S (N.D. Ind. Sept. 24, 2012)(same; fmding complaint to be frivolous; imposing
filing restrictions on plaintiff for
frivolous actions)~ /Reitlulllll6J ~ 't lASt Nt~~M
Ulf<'ttlbb " El:tonfor KDIIIIdy, No. 3:12-cv-602, 2012 WL 5398565 (W.D. La. Nov. 5, 2012)
(same; relying on Btrg v. Obama, 586 F.3d 234, 239 (3d Cir. 2009).to dismiss similar birther complaint);
~ AIUUI1IIIII'iel'. EleaDna rd. uulsilur11, No. 1 : 12~v-601 , 2012 WL 5878153 (M.D. La.
films
Last Upclattd Dc:cembcr 21, 20 12
Page 5

of: CASES
"BIRTHER"
STRING CITE
Oct. 15. 2012) (recommcndUJa dismissal of complaint which included birtbcr daims. as "both fanciful
and delusional... which "fail as a matter oflawj Order Adopting Rceommcndatioas and Dismisaina Case
(Nov. 21, 201l); f~W~trdhrl ~ Lat NtiiiM Ulftttlbb i!J::D17ftw 1M Stl*ofMIIIM, No.
1: ll<v-l93 (D. Me. Scp 27 ,l012) (magistrate ruommc:ndation to dismiss case .rua sponU as fiivolous)
Sept. 27. 201l (order adopting recommendation and dismis.ing case with prcjudiu); fllddNIIler/
A_
_.LNU._ i!.J::llt7ftlrStlaof~ No. 3:12<V-671 (S.D. Miss. Oct 10,l012)(same),
Order (Oct. 30. lOll) adopting recommendation and dismissing case as frivolous); RIIJIJelller ._
EledtmforSttaofM...,_ No. 4:ll<V-1739(E.D. Mo. Sept.l7,l01l)(samc);/lldli~
A.......W Lllfl NtiiW Ull<tllbb. IIl:tttn aM. MIIIIIMII. No. 9:12<V-164,l01l WL S879607 (D.
Moat. Oct. 17,l0ll) (same); . /~ ...._.... Lll6l N.,_ Ullrttll& IJJ<tttsfor tile Stt8 tJj
No. 8:1l<Vl-f8, 201l WL 5874371 (D. Neb., docketed Sept. 27, 201l) (dianissina
complaint "J'be Sl-page Complaint submitted by Plaintiff consists o( at best, nonsensical and rambling
statancntl reprdins Presideat Barack Qbamas ciililenship and his eligibility to be President of the
United States oo 8JOUDds he is not a "natural born citizen"); /lllldlrllllkr/ ~ LaJt Nt~~~te
Ullaltllbl) El:tlwrforlkStlaofN.w Fo.rt, No. 1:1l<V-906 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 3,l01l)(ordcr .rua
SfJ011U and summarily dismissing. as ftivolous, complaint alleging. among other thinp. that Obama is
ineligible for presidency on grounds be is not a "natural born citizen"; finding that appeal cannot be taken
in good faith) ; /Rdllwlll*'l L4rt N.,. UIWitllbltt El:tlJnfor Oltl., No. 5: 12-mc-122, lO 12 WL
530473-f (N.D. Ohio Oct.lS,l012) (same); /RIItlult//Jer/ A.......,. 1.-t NIIIIW Urwrttzbt tt Blton
ftwtluSU.tlj'hllllqiNaiiJ. No. 2:1l-cv-OS767(E.D. Pa. Oct. 17,201l)(1'bccomplaint, which
assa1s that President Obama is not a suitable presidential candidate and sceb his mnovaJ from the baUot
in the 2012 presidential election, is dismissed as fiivolous."); /R.....,I A,.,..,..,.,W Ll&rt N,_
U~ EltttnfortluSIIJUfVirpllll, No. 1:1l-cv-S8 201l WL4742363 (W.D. Va. Oct4,
20 12) (.rua sptJftle order dismissing birther complaint as frivolous); Rltwilhr Eltlm for tiN SliD tJj
W.6bwtM. No. 2:1l-cv-548 (E.D. Wash. Sept. 26, 2012) (same); /Rtlt''lfllhr/ A.......W LNU
Dbn7for 1M SbiU ofWlmHubl. No. 1: 12-cv-9n (E.D. Wis. Sept 27, 2012) (same); Rll6b&ul11 "
llowa, S67 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (dismissing case cballcnging McCain's eligibility)~ Rt~y
Fetl. EI<IM C...'a, 2:08cv01S19,l008 WL 4921263 (W.D. w. Nov. 14, 2008) (dismissing case
c:hallcnsin&digibility ofObama and McCain)~ Sibley"
866 F.Supp.ld 17 (D.D.C. J\Dl. 6,l012)
(dismissing complaint containing. among other thinp, a "petition for writs "quo warranto" to remove
President Obama ftom his current offiu and. abo or alternatively. to bar him from running for the office
of president apin in the upcoming November election"). ajfinMd per curiQm No. 12-S198 (D.C. Cir.
Dec. 6,l01l) (granting summary aftirmance and stating that Sibley's claims are without merit)~ SIMq "
0 ...... No. 1:12-cv-01831 (D.D.C. Dec. 19, 2012) (dismissing purported quo warranto suit asking court
to oompel Obama to demonstrate that he is a "'natural born citizen"); StaMper UIIIUtl Slllla, No. 1:08cv-2593, 2008 WL 4838073 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 4, 2008) (dismissing case challenging McCain's and
Obama's eligibility, finding that appeal could not be taken in good faith); Stnld " N.Y. B4. ofEltJJHu,
No. 1:08-cv-4289 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2008) (dismissing case challenging. among other thinp. Obama's
eligibility), ~al t/Umissed, No. 08-5422 (ld Cir. Nov. 14, 2008); Stnutk.,. U.S.IHpt ofStldl, 693 F.
Supp. 2d 112 (D.D.C. Car. 2010) (FOIA case seeking records from various agencies relating to Obama
and his mother) (granting motion to dismiss to extent Strunk sought infonnation relating to Obama;
denying Stnmlc's request for mandamus relief and for quo wammto action; granting stay of discovery)
mandamu.r denied, No. 08-5503 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 8,l009), mandamu.r denied, No. 09-5322 (D.C. Cir. Nov
2S, 2009), appeal dUmissed, No. 1()5092, (D.C. Cir. Aug. 26, 2010); su abo Strunk v. U.S. Dept. of
SIDle, 170 F.Supp.ld 10 (D.O.C. 2011) (granting summary judgment as to Department of State; finding
that agency had "demonstrated full compliance with the FOIA"; determining that CBP had not yet
demonstrated that its search for responsive records was adequate); 84S F. Supp. 2d 38.47 (D.D.C. 2012)
(finding that CBP demonstrated its search for responsive records was adequate and reasonable and that it
property withheld information lUlder FOIA Exemption 6~ however, CBP had not demonstrated that it
properly withheld information under Exemption 7(E)); 2012 WL 5n763 (D.D.C. Feb. 1S, 2012)
(ordering CPB to file renewed motion for summary judgment with respect to the information withheld
N...._
0..,_
Lut (;pelat~ . December 2 1. 20 t2
Page6

of: CAsES
"BIRTBER"
SnuNG CITE
under Exemption 7(E))~- F. Supp. - . 2012 WL S87S6S3 (D.D.C. Nov. 21, 2012) (fmdina that CBP
property ha witbhdd information from the ooc-peac documcat containing travel informatioo about
Stanley Arm Dunham and granting SU111DU11Y judsment on that issue~ further finding tbat sU.:e all
apncies had demonstrated compliance with the FOIA and entitlanent to judgment as a matter of law,
final judplalt in filvor ofdefendants was proper); .....,.. "No. 1:10-ev-00486-RCL (Jan. 1,
201l)(dismissingcase alleginsObamanoteliaible to be President), 2012 WL 3113947 (D.D.C. Aug. 1,
2012) (denyina as frivolous mation for leave to amend to reassert claims aDd supplement claims); 1 n
SlqMr A-. Gra4 J~~~Y, No. 1:09-mc-00346-RCL (O.D.C. July l, 2009) (denying leave to file pand jury
presentment challensinl Obama's eligibility); T.rt: "- ~ 707 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010)
(dismissing complaint challengina Obama's eligibility1 ncon.r. dlnied, No. 1: 1().cv.()() IS 1 (D.D.C. Jtme
18, 2010),1d WIOI. ./Dr NCOIU. dmil, 7S4 F.Supp.2d 57 (D.D.C. 2010); Taltz " Amu, 806 F. Supp. 2d
214 (D.D.C. 2011) (dismissing FOIA complaint seeking documents allepdly related to Obama's
digibility1 NCOII.f. tknied(Oct. 17, 2011), qffdNo. 11-5304,2012 WL 1930959 (D.C. Cir. May 25,
2012); Td: .llac :s Mr, No. 1:11~.01421 , 2011 WL 4916936 (D.D.C. Oct 17, 2011) (dismissing
FOIA complaint seeking documents al1epdly rdatcd to Obama's digibility),llltJittllllrru dinniu~d. No.
11-5329 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 23, 2012), lflrd, No. 11-5306,2012 WL 1922284 (D.C. Cir. May 25, 2012); Td:
"- Allrw, No. 1: 11<v.OOS 19-SOM -RLP (D. Haw. Oct 26, 2011) (rejecting u pt111e application to
compel discovery regarcfuts Obama's eligibility in related case pending in the District of Columbia); T411t:
S#NIIat. No. ll<v-01092-DMG-JC (C.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2012) (dismissing. on lack of venue grounds,
complaint stating RICO claims and scekin& among other thinp. to invalidate the Affordable Health Care
Act's validity, on grounds that Obama was not eligible to save as President when he signed it); T.rllz "
Sddlvr, No. 3:12<v-032SI-P (N.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2012) (dismissing complaint stating RICO claims
and seeking. amoog other thinp, to invalidate the Affordable Health Care Aas validity, on grounds that
Obama was not eligible to serve as President when he signed it), Judsmcnt (Nov. 26, 2012) (dismissing
case with prejudice and BSSCS$i"& costs against Plaintift)~ n.... " 8,.,..,.,, No. 2:0kv-00241-KSMTP (S.D. Miss. Dec:. 18, 2008) (voluntarily dismissing complaint cbaJJenging Obama's eligibility; case
dismissed with prejudice); n...
No. 1:08-mc-00280 (D. Haw. Dec. 18, 2008)
(dismissing action seeking to compel Hawaii Dept. of Health to provide ac:cess to documents allegedly
rdated toObama'seligibility); Tl.r4l*. 0....._ No. 3 : 12~-00036-JAG(E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012)
(dismissing complaint challenging Obamas eligibility; finding that Obama is "natural born citizen"
because he was born in Hawaii), aff'd, No. 12-1124 (4th Cir. Jun S, 2012) (per curiam). &~ abo Ulbl
Art/de JJI Onrtpltlbtt, No Nmnber Assigned (US Army Admin. Law Div. Dec 11, 2009) (rejecting
Article 138 Complaint as deficient); lAtba ClJIUt Mllltlill- Ullllltl Stllla Ulbl, No. 20100995 (Mil.
Dist. of Wash. DC Dec:. 16, 2010) (court martial finding Lakin guilty of, among other thi~ failure to
report to deploy; rejecting daim that his failure was based on legitimate questions as to Obama's
eligibility), appeal witltdl'awn, (A. Ct. Crim. App. July 28, 2011); LMia " Lilt4, No. ARMY MISC
201 OOn8 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 12, 201 0) (order) (denying petition for writ of mandamus to compel
discovery factual matters allegedly relating to Obama's eligibility in court martial proceedinp).
0....._
g.,,....?
UL
Bllfter Cua Rejected by State C011rt1 A Admlailtradve Apada
Every state court and administrative agency to rule on a birtber complaint has rejected it &~. e.g., A&.
ONitttldlll, No. C20121046 (Ariz. Pima County Super. Ct. Feb. 24, 2012) (dismissing complaint
challenging Qbamas eligibility to be on 2012 ballot); Allnl "-OHM. 11/, No. C20121 317 (Ariz. Pima
County Super. Ct. Mar. 7, 2012) (dismissing case challenging Obama's eligibility to be on the 2012
ballot; finding that Obama is a "natural born citizen" under Wong Kim .Att, and expressly rejecting
argument thatMinorv. Happer.utt holds otherwise), appealflkd(Aiaz. App. Ct. 2d Div. Mar. 8, 2012);
A..., Glll1lmUW oftile Sll* ofIIUIJtuuJ, No. 4901 0-0812-PU)SSS 11 , 2009 WL 1632611 (Ind.
Marion County Super. Ct. Mar. 16, 2009) (dismissing challenge to McCain's and Obama's eligibility),
affd. 916 N.E. 2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)(holding thatObama. who was born in Hawaii, is a ..natural
born citi2Jen.. eligible to be president), transfer dmi~d. 929 N.E. 2d 789 (Ind. 2010); B~ l'. OIHDntl, No.
l..ut Upd.11t'd. December 2 I, W 12

of: CAsES
"BIRTBER"
SnuNG CITE
186 MD 2012 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Mar. 16, 2012) (dismissina complaint filed to chal.lenae Obama's
eligibility to be on 2012 ballot)~ Bndl-. ......,., No. 08-100l-C368 (Tc:x. Williamson County
Dist. Ct. (368tb) Jan. 22, 2009) (dismissing case challcnaina Obama's eligibility)~ Brw 1t ~No.
824 73-8 (Wash. Jan. 8, 2009) ( diwissiq writ of mandamus challqina Obama 's eliaibility~ ColhiU
0....
No. S12012CA2041 WS (Fla. 6th Cir. Ct., Sept 9, 2012 (dismissing complaint w:king to
prevent Obama ftom appearins on 2012 ballot); ~ " . , . , . . , 999 So. 2d 64-4 (Table) 2008 WL
S378138 (Fla. 2008) (dismissiDg petition for extraordinary~ writ of mandamus challenging
Obama's disibility); Olamrt. 0'-. No. 09003103SC (Fla. Pinellas County Small Claims Ct. May
5, 2009) (dismissina elaim brouabt apimt Obama on grounds that be is not "natural born eitizen");
~ .. ot.., No. 09005522SC (Fla. Pinellu County Small Claims Ct. Jul28, 2009) (dismissing
claim brouabt .,.inst Obama on grounds that be is not "nalural born citizen); CM.t-.fiM Plllty "
U.,ll, No. 29473,2008 WL 5125984 (Haw. Dec. S, 2008) (dismissingoomplaint contestins 2008
Presidaltial election resulta and rejectina contention that defendant im.prnperty failed to require proof that
amdidate Baradc Obama was qualified to be a eandidate for President of the United States), ncon.J.
dellil (Dec. 12, 2008); CorN~~ .lltnMI, No. 30-2008-00114112-CU-FR CJC, (Cal. Oranp County
Super. Ct. June 8, 2009) (dismissma ease dlallenging Obama's eligibility); Cnr1J v. Oklll8-. No. MA109808 (Okla. Oct. 17, 2011) (dismissing applieation seeking determination of definition of "natural born
eitizen" for purposes of presidential eligibility); Dallb Hrutftl, No. 12M000653 (Oh. Commn Pleas
Ct, Sept. 7. 20 12) (dismissing complaint filed seeking to prevent Obama from being on ballot in Ohio
2012 general elcetion); INa "0._,. (1, n Objection o/ThomtJ.J Dean). No Number Assigned, (N. Y
Bd. ofEJediom Dctcnnination Feb. 28, 2011) (rejecting petition challenging Obama's eligibility to be on
2012 ballot and finding that petition designating Obama as candidate is valid); Do.frN v. W6, No.
AM.OlSl.Om (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Oct 30, 2008) (denying applieation for eme1gent relief
challenging eligibility of McCain and Obama), qTd, No Number Assigned (N.J. Oct. 31, 2008),
appliaJtionjOT&taydmitd, 129 S. Ct. 152 (2008); Daza -' Btlwa, No. 34-2012-80001091(Cal.
Sacramento Cty. Sup. Ct., Oc:t. 26, 2012) (dismissing birther case seeking to prevent placement ofObama
on 2012 general election ballot)~,.,_," OtaM(Aiaska Div. of Elections (Direetor Gail Fenumiai
Feb. 28, 2012) (rejcetina petition challenging Obama's eligibility to be on the 2012 ballot)~ Ffllr "
~No. 06C12060692 (Md. CarroU Cty. Cir. Ct., Aua. 27,2012 (rdyingonAn.Wnyand Wong Kim
Ark to hold tbat Obama is a "natural born citizen" eligible to serve as President); F.,., v. 06attl, No.
OSAH.SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALIHI (Ga. Office ofSt. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting
challenge to Obama's digibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a
"natural born citizen"), dectnon adopled 116 jhviJ (Ga. Seey of State Feb. 7, 20 12); ~aJ t:IUmissed,
Farrar eta/. Obamaetal, No. 2012CV211398 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012),ncoM.
tktUed (Mar. 14, 2012), oppeal derried, No. S12D1180 (Ga. Apr. 11, 2012); FlqNitrld " OIHDrttl, No.
091UU (N.C. Catawba Cty Super. Ct. May 2009) (rejecting pmported "indictment" issued apinst
Obama on grounds that he was not a natural born eitizen eligible to serve as President)~ Ftftllfllll v.
~ 12 SOEB GP 103 (DI. Bd. ofFJections Hearing Officer Reoommendation Jan. 27, 2012)
(overruling objection to Obama's placement on 2012 primary ballot; finding that Obama's long form birth
certificate ..dearly establishes" his digibility for office as a "Natural Born Citizen"), objection overruled
(Dl. Bd. ofEleetions, Feb. 3, 2012); F1WIIIIIII "- OlumwJ, No. 12 SOEB GE 112 (Dl. Bd. Eleeti~ Sept.
17, 2012) (recommending rejection of objeetion filed seeking to keep Obama off general election ballot in
2012 on grounds that he is not a "natural born citizen"~ relying on prior decision (12 SOEB GP 103)
which held that Obama's long form birth certificate sufficiently established birth in the United States);
Gllllmo 0~ No. STE 04534-12 (N.J. Adm. Apr 10, 2012) (initial decision rejecting ehallenge to
Obama's 2012 nominating position and finding that, assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a natura]
born citi2Jcn eligible for the presidency per Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark) ), decision adopted as final (N.J.
Sec:'y of State Apr. 12, 2012)~ G~~nq OHIIM (I" re Objection ofChristopher Garvey), No Number
Assigned, (N.Y Bd. of Elections, Feb. 28, 2011) (rejecting petition challenging Obama's eligibility to be
on 2012 ballot and finding that petition designating Obama as candidate is valid)~ GtJney "N.Y. Btl. 11/
EltlliiU, No. 12-002764 (N.Y. Supreme Ct. Nassau County Mar. 6, 2012) (rejecting petition for writ of
#11.,
l.ut Updakd December 21, 2012
Page 8

of: CASES
"BIRTHER"
SnuNG Crn
0
mandamus and seekina show eause order, c:ha1tcngi.aa New York Bd. of Elections rejection ofplaintift'"s
ballot cballcnge)~
IJituuNr, No. 2008CV1024 (Ohio Wood County a. Com. Pl. Jan. 14,
2009) (dismissina ease d1811enaiJJ8 Obama's diaibility; assessi.na costs aaaimt plaintiff); Bec4nq "
ot.., No Nmnber Assiped (Alaska Div. of EJections (Gail Fcnumiai, Director) May 29, 2012)
(dVanissing petition challenging Obama's eliaibility to be on the 2012 ballot); Htwt ..ttll " x...~.
No. Ol..CV-2011~2321.00 (AI. Jeft'enon County-Birmingham Cir. Ct. Jan. 9, 2012) (dismissing cue
challcagina Obama's eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot)~ H.- .. OMIM. et al, No. 12-CI-01048 (Ky.
Cnmmonw. Ct. Oct . - J 2012) (dismissina case seckina to JRVC111 Obama &om placement on lOll
pneral dcction ballot); 111 ~ JtJIIa Mt:OU'l......,,_
1W11Jt Ill h.
No. 184 MD 2008 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Mar. 13, 2008) (dismissina cue cballeoains McCain's eligibility).
4/fd, 944 A.ld 75 (Pa. 2008); Jtdu11 "ll SOEB GP 104 (DI. Bd. of Elections Hearing Officer
hcommaldation Jan. 27, 20 12) (recommeDdina rejection of objection to Obama's placement oo 2012
primary ballot; findina that Obama's long form birth certificate "clearly essablisbcs" his efjgibiJity for
office u a "Natural 8om Citizal"), objtion tJN""''kd (Dl. Bel of EJections, Feb. 3, 20 12);
D--. No. 12 SOEB GE 113 (Dl. Bd. Elections. Sept. 17, 201l) (ovcnuling objection filed seeti"8 to
keep Obama off pncral dection ballot in 2012 on pounds tbat he is DOt a "natural born ~itiml"'; relying
on prior deciaion (12 SOFB GP 104) which held that Obama's lana form birth certificate sufticiently
established birth in the United States); J,., 1\ SNNiily fi{SII*S.,RJJI, No. 12-2..01763-5,2012
WL 4739216 (Wash. Super. a. Aus. 27, 20 12) (dismissing as frivolous plaintiff's CGmp1aint seeking to
prevent state fiom includina Obama on 2012 ballot, notina that many similar birther ~!aims bad been filed
and. in some cases. suchasAn8nyl'. GnmorofSlateoflndkta. 916 N.E.ld 678 (20091 courta
addressed the merits of the birther claims; concludins: "just as aJI the SO<alled evidence offered by
plaintiff has been in the blogosphere for y~ in one form or another, so too has aJI the law rejeaing
plaintiffs aJleptions. Tcan eonuive of no reason why this lawsuit was broupt. except to join the chorus
of noise in that blogosphere. The case is dismiued ''); Jutb "- ~. No. 1CC09-l-ooo783 (Haw. Cir.
Ct. Oct. 9, 2009) (dismissiDg case seckins access to records allegedly relevant to Obama's eligibility),
qff"d253 P.3d 665 (Haw. Ct App. 2011), as corrected (Apr. 26. 2011)~ Kercluwr v.
No. 85 MD
2012 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Mar. 1, 2012) (dismissina complaint challqina Obama's eligibility to be on
2012 ballot)~ Ierkr. 06aM, No. 2012-162 (Ind. Flection Comm'n Feb. 24, 2012) (denying objection
seeking to keep Obama off 2012 ballot on grounds that he is not a 'batural born citizen") (written
decision unavailable but video of healing is available at www.in.gov/sos/022412_Vidco_3.html (last
visited April II, 2012)); Kqa " ..._,No. 34-200U0000096-CUWMGDS (Ca. SacramcntD Cty
Super. Ct. Mar. 13, 2009)(dismissing petition for writ of mandate in case challenging. among other
things, Obama's eligibility to be on the California ball~ a.uessing costs apinst plaintift), 4/rd, 189 Cal.
App. 4th 647, 117 Cai.Rptr.3d 207 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)(aftirmingdismissal),pet./orrn. denied, No.
S188724(Cal. Feb. 2, 201 1), cmtlerrUd, 132 S. Ct. 99(2011); L4dfyv. StiaofNew Yont, No. 2012039-319, aaim No. 120982-81370 (N.Y. Ct. of Claims July 12, 2012) (dismissing ~Jaim brougbt apinst
Board of Elections for rejeding plaintift"s ~ons to placement of Obama on 2012 ballot); L1611tfoot et
Ill" S.W. et Ill, No. S168690 (Cal. Dec. 5, 2008) (denying petition for writ of mandate and stay), app.
for 1tay derried, 129 S. Cl 1053 (Jan. 26, 2009);
~No. 08-2-34955-1 SEA (Wash. King
County Super. Ct. Oct. 27, 2008) (dismissing cue challqing Obama's eligibility); M"'* J.bwk,
No. 29414,2008 WL 4684786 (Haw. Oct. 22, 2008) (rejecting petition seeking disclosure ofObama's
birth records allegedly related to his eligibility); Mllltbt " Lbwk. No. 1CC08-l..002147 (Haw. Cir. Ct.
1st Cir. Jan. 12, 2009) (dismissing case seeking to compel disclosure ofObama's birth records based on
challenge to his eligibility), reco'/18. derritd, (Jan. 27, 2009), appeal dismi&wl, No. 29643, l009 WL
t 669050 (Haw. Ct. App. June 9, 2009), cert. denied, No. 29643, 2009 WI.. 2372096 (Haw. Aug. 3, 2009);
Mtlltbl " &luldt, No. lCCt0-1.()()()969 (Haw. Cir. Cl Sept. 7, 2010) (dismissins case seeking to
compel disclosure ofObama's birth r~ords based on c:hallenge to his eligibility); Mllltbll'- ~ No.
12 SOEB GE 11 t (DI. Bd. Flcc:tions, Sept. t 7, 2012) (overruling objection filed seeking to keep Obama
off general election ballot in 2012 on grounds that he is not a '<natural born citizen"; relying on prior
decision in Freeman and Jacluon primary challenges ( 12 SOEB GP 103 and 12 SOEB GP 104), which
G,_.,.
_.a,..,.,,_,
o-...,
J.,_, ..
o--.
M.,. "
Last t:pda~ : December 21, 2012
Page9

"BJR'I'BER" CASES SnuNG CITE
M.,.,
held that Obama's Ions form birtb catificatc sufficiently established birth in the United States);
" 04 52&4 No. l11066S (AI. Sup. Ct. Mar. 27, 2012) (denyin& petition for writ of mandamus to require
secretary of state to order Obama to produc:e orisioaJ birth certificate); Mcbull.r" "No. 03CV-2012-0010S3(Al. Cir. Ct. Dec. 7, 2012) (granting motion to dismiss complaint challengina Obama's
eligibility to be on the ballot); MmJIII ~ MdleJ111 c..q Gra4 J"'1 F~. No. 09mr339 (Dl. Cir.
Ct. Jan. 20, lOIO)(dismissing case seeking to compel grand jury investiption into Obama's eligibility);
MmHIIet Ill" OMI., 12 SOEB GP 104 (DI. Bel. ofEiectioas Hearing Ofticer Recommendation Jan. 27,
2012) (Obama's birth certificate "clearly establishes" his eligibility for office as a "Natural Born
Citizen"), objection ONrrvled (W. State Bel. of Elections, Feb. 3. 2012); N.J Bnl,_,
No. 2008CV72726 (Ohio Ct Com. Pl. Wood County Nov. 17, 2008) (dismissing ease challenging
Obama's eliJibility) (as reported by Ohio Secretary ofStaae); NtHIIUIIt k . , . , _ .J, No. 201280001048 (Cal. Saaamento Cty. Super. Ct, JulyS, 2012) (dismiMing petition for writ of mandate.
seeking to challCft&C Obama's dipbility to be on 2012 ballot); N_,_ et til v. ..,_, No. S207078
(Cal. ~. 6. 20 12)(dcoyin& petition for writ of mandate/prohibition cballenging 20 12 dcction of Obama
as Praidalt) :,hlrUtlt' B.n Mdlll Neltftlri . Ill. Btl. ofEl::ltR&r, No. 10CH00060S (Dl. McHemy
County Cbanccty. Ct. Mar. 8. 2010) (dismissina case c:hallcnging Obama's cliaJbility to be on ballot);
PIIWI1 K OMM, No. OSAH..SECSTAT&CFA21682UO-MALIHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb.
3, 20 12) (rejecting challenge to Obama's eligibility to appear on2012 ball~ fiDding that Obama was
born in U.S. and is a "naturaa born citi2Jenj, decilion adopted asjintll (Ga. Sec'y of State Feb. 7, 2012),
appeal ~d. No. 2012CV211S28 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012). motionftN
injiiiiCiiond. No. S 1201077 (Ga. Mar. 13, 2012). appeal t:knied (Ga. Apr. 4, 2012); l'lupiiN,
OJaM. No. STE04S88-tl, 2012 WL 1369003 (NJ. Acbn. Apr. 10, 2012)(1nitial decision rejectins
challenge to Obama's lOt 2 nominating position and finding that. assuming Obarna was born in Hawaii,
he is a na~ura~ born citizen eligible for the presidency per A'*IIJ' and W011g Kim Ark), Mcisiml DtJoptH
asfinai(N.J. Sec'y ofState Apr. 12, 2012)q6"d,No. A-004478-111'03, 2012 WL 1949041 (N.J. Super.
Ct. App. Div. May 31, 2012) (per curiam). cnt. dmied, No. 0710Sl (N.J. Sept. 7, 2012)~ ll/plq "
ONIM. No. 2012-163 (Ind. Election Comm'n Feb. 24, 2012) (denyins objection seekins to keep Obama
off 2012 ballot on grounds that he is not a "natural born citizen") (written decision unavailable but video
ofhcarina is available at www.in.gov/sos/022412_Video_3.html (last visited Apri111, 2012))~ Schneck.
" Obanta, No Number Assigned (S.D. Bel. ofFJcctions May It, 2011)(dismissingHAVA complaint
challenging Obama's eligibility to appear on ballot); Sdute&r " OJI'tG, No. 199 MM 2008 (Pa. Jan. 8,
2009) (denying emergency applic:ation challengina Obama's elipbility).pet.for em. elimrUsed, 129
S. Ct. 2830(2009);Sdwlhr. OiaM,No. 7SMD2012(Pa. Commw. Ct. Mar. 2. 2012)(dismissing
complaint challenging Obama's eligibility to be on 2012 ballot), appeal di.rmiued, No. 24 MAP 2012
(Pa. Mar. 23, 2012),ncon.r. denied (Pa. Apr. 26, 2012); Sdtw&r " CArNtt dIll, No. 212 MD 201 (Pa.
Commw. Ct, May 2S, 2012 (dismissing multiple claims relatina to ,.natural born citizen" issue, including
purported "quo warranto" action on grounds that Obama is ineligible to be President and action to compel
state clec:tioo board to hold hearing on Obama's eligibility)~ Silllq " D.C BDtml ofEI<IMu 111111
Etltks, No. 2012 CA 004892 8 (D.C. Super. Ct., Sept. 7, 2012) (dismissing complaint seeking to prevent
Obama from appearing on 2012 ballot); Slblq " D.C BINII'fl ofEiet::litHu & Etltla. No. 12 AA 1498
(D.C. Ct. App., Sept. 18, 2012) (dismissing complaint challenging Obama's eligibility to be on 2012
general election ballot); nh'gderried(Oct. 2, 2012)..StWJUo Rllq, No. CV-2008-001906.00 (Ala.
Montgomery County Cir. Ct. Jan. I, 2009) (dismissing complaint challengins Obama's and McCain's
eligibility)~~",, I,..,.,, No. 01-CV-2011-0023.00 (Ala. Montgomery County Cir. Ct. Jan. 19,
2012) (dismissing complaint challengina Obama's eligibility to be on 2012 ballot); Spllek " S:NJiily of
Stta, No. 2008CV1 t 16 (Ohio Erie County Ct. Com. Pl. Dec 2008) (dismissing case challenging
Obama's eligibility) (as reported by Ohio Secretary of State)~ Stnulkv. P1111eno11, No. 029641/2008
(N.Y. King County Supr. Ct. Nov. 3, 2008) (dismissing case seeking to stay 2008 election on vari<U
grounds)~ Slruu " PIIIUntm, No. 02964212008 (N.Y. King County Supr. Ct. Nov. 24. 2009) (denying
motion for subpoenas to multiple government agencies for documents allegedly relating to Obama's
eligibility and denying motion for protective order); Slrud " N.Y. Bd. ofEI<UJ dIll. 35 Misc. 3d
a.--.
l.ast L'pdafed: Dember 21, 20 12
Page 10

of: CASES
"BJR'l'IIER"
STRING CITE
1208(A), 2012 WL 1205117,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 50614 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 11, 2012) (N.Y. King
County Supr. Ct Apr. 11, 2012) (dismissing complaint challenging. among other things. President
Obama"s eligibility to bis office~ expressly rejectins the birtber claim that Obama is ineligible on the basis
of his father's citizenship as fiivolous, and issuing a show cause order as to why sanctions should not be
imposed upon plaintiff); Stluk .. ~(Inn Objecti/Jn ofCIIri#upher-Earl: Strwlk). No Number
Assigned. (N.Y Bd. ofFJec:tions Feb. 28, 2012) (rejecting petition challenging Obama's eligibility to be
on 2012 ballot and findins that petition designating Obama as candidate is valid); S..,., Gn. of
MW.Wa. No. 08-140-MM (Mich. Dist. Ct (30th) Mar. 31. 2009) (Sranting Sl'"'IIUV)' disposition in case
flied dlallensina Obama's eligibility), appeal dismissed. No. 291681 (Mich. Ct. App. June 3, 2009),
recon.r. der*d(Od. 1, 2009); SaliDa M.m..Il, No. 08-c:vs-021393 (N.C. Super. Ct Mar. 16, 2009)
(dismissing case cballengins ObaJDas eligibility); Sll/llwJa N.C S'y ofSrt!a, No. Okv-1076 (N.C.
Super. Ct. ext. 29, 2008) (dismissing c:ae c:hallenging Obama's eligibility);......,_ .. HttW. Dqt. of
HMIA, No. lcc121-000006 (Haw. 1st Dist. Ct. Mar. 8, 2012) (complaint seeking access to bittb/dcadt
records of Sunahara based on alleged connection to Obama 's eligibility); SwJaroa " 0~ No.
OSAH..SECSTAT&CE-1216218-60-MAUHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. lfrs. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting
challenge to Obamas eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; findins that Obama was born in U.S. and is a
''natural born citizenj, decilion adop/J a&ji11111 (Ga. Sec'y of State Feb. 7, 2012). No. 2012CV211527
(Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012). motion/or injunction denied, No. S1201076 (Ga. Mar. 13,
2012), appeal derried (Ga. Apr. 4, 2012); Swllulrt .. OHal, No. 2012176 (Ind. Election Comm'n Feb.
24, 2012) (daly.ins objection seeking to keep Obama off2012 ballot on grounds that be is not a "natural
born ctizcnj (written decision unavailable but video ofhearina is available at
www.in.gov/sos/022412_Video_3.htm1 (last visited April 11, 20 12)); Td: v. l'luldy, No. ICC 11-1
001731 (Haw. 1st Cir. Ct Nov. 10,201 l)(dismissing appeal of agency refusal to grant access to
documents allegedly related to Obama's eligibility), ncoru. dmied(Jan. 6, 2012), ncoru. dlnied(Feb. 7,
2012); Td:. ~No. BLC 2011-4(N.H. BallotLawComm'nNov. 18, 20ll)(dismissingpetition
challengingObama'seligibility to be on 2012 ballot), recon.~. denied (Nov. 28, 2011)~ Td:
No Number Assigned (Haw. Office of Elections Dec. 2, 2011) (rejecting petition seckina to challenge
Obamas eligibility to be on 2012 ballot and demand for emergency hearing re: same)~ Td: P. GtmbNr,
No. 2011-0880 (N.H. Dec 27, 2011) (dc:nymg petition for original jurisdiction arKJJor appall c:hallensing
order entered by N.H. Ballot Law Comm'n in Taie v. Obama, No. BLC 2011-4 (N.H. Ballot Law
Comm'n Nov. 18, 2011 ))~ Td: " Nl.r,._ra, No. SPCW-12-000014, 2012 WL 120367 (Haw. Jan. 12,
20 12) ( denyina petition for writ of mandamus to force circuit court judge to issue order forcing Dept of
Health to grant access to docwncnts allegedly related to Obama's eligibility)~ Tlfltz " 0,_, No
Number Assigned (Ind. Election Div. Feb. 16, 2012) (notice to Taitz that her election challenge c:ould not
be aa:epted due to failure to follow appropriate procedures)~ T.at: l!t lll .. Irut. El.. C.... l!t Ill, No.
49D0103MI012046 (Ind. Marion County Super. a. June 12, 2012) (dismissing election contest bought
by multiple plaintiffs c:hallenging election board's rejection of c:hallenges seeking to exclude Obama from
2012 ballot and seeking to prohibit Indiana Secretary of State from including Obama on ballot; permitting
Taitz to amend complaint to allege other causes of action); Order dismissing amended complaint in its
entirety (Nov. 5, 2012) (dismissing amended complaint stating chums for declaratory and injunctive relief
reprdms Obama's eligibility to be on the ballot); TtJitz ~No. 30-2012 00582135 (Cal. Super.
Ct. July 13, 2012) (denying "emergency" motion to stay certification of primary election results on
grounds that Obama not eligible to serve as President (among others)); Order (Nov. 7, 2012) (dismissms
case with prejudice); T~ " HIIIIMI, No. 2008cv1S8774 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Oct. 24, 2008)
(dismissina case challenging Obama's eligibility), appeal dumissed, No. S0900284 (Ga. Dec. 3, 2008),
rw:on.r. denied, (Ga. Jan. 12, 2009), appeal dismu&ed, No. S09A1373 (Ga. May 18, 2009); TlunrtpNit v
.lftutdy, No. 75-CV-2012.000003.00 (Ala. St. Clau--Pell County Cir. Ct. Jan. 13, 2012) (dismissing
complaint challenging Obama's eligibility to be on 2012 ballot); Tlto,.ro" 06.,. (Inn Objection of
JulitliiM 'I'homp.fon), No Nwnber Assigned, (NY Bd. of Elections Determination Feb. 28, 2011)
(rejecting petition challenging Obama's eligibility to be on 2012 ballot and finding that petition
designating Obama as candidate is valid)~ VaAllDI. OIHmul (In re Objection ofR William Yan Allm),
o-..
Last L'pdaccf December 2 1, 2012
Pase II
No Number Assigned. (N.Y. Bd. ofElcctioos Determination Feb.la, 2011) (rejectina petition
challqina Obuna's eligibility co be on 2012 ballot and fiDdina tbat petition designating Obama as
candidate is validt J'aAllnl. N.Y. Slla B4. of~. 36M*. 3d 1212(A) (N.Y. Sup. a . Jul. 9.
2012) (dismissins pdition for writ ofmaodannL1, cmergmcy injlDICtive relief aDd declaratory relief
reprding definition of "natural born citizen)~ Yallll tt 06aM. No Number Assiped (N.C. Bd. of
Fledions Dec. 13, 2011) (Rjeding purparted "Comppaint Under 19-3 Elections Fraud; Emerpncy
Hearing Requested" filed in apparent attempt to challenge Obama's eliaibility to remain on the ballot);
VHftl " ota., No. 37 2012 CA 000467, 2012 WL 252.4874 (Fla. Cir. Ct. June 29, 2012) (dismissin&
oomplaint eballengina Obama's elisibility to be on2012 ballot findina that pcrsms born in US are NBCs
per Wong Xbll..4rk and ...4.,, reprdless of paraltaje and rejec:tins birth argument to the contrary)~
YHitl " ON.t, No. 37 2012 CA 002063,2012 WL 4117478 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Sept. 6, 2012) (dismissing
complaint seeking declaration that Obama is not elisible for presidency because he was not born in US
and was not born to two US citizen~ findina that persons born in US are "natural born c:itixns"
per WDfrB Killl...4rk and Awny. regardless of pal'CI1tltSic and rejcding birthcr argument to the contrary;
resavins for later ruling motion for SIDCtions); v-....ay 0,__ {hire Objtitm ofuOIIIII"d
Volodanky), No Number Assiped, (N.Y Bel. of Elections Feb. 28. 2011) (rejcctina petition dlallcngina
Obama'a eliaibility to be on2012 ballot and finding that petition desipating Obama as candidate is
valid);
06altJ, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215137-60-MALIHI (Ga. Office ofSt Admin.
Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama's diglbility to appear on2012 ballot; finding that
Obama was born in U.S. and is a "natural born citizen"), decUion adopted M final (Ga. Scc'y of State
Feb. 7, 2012). appeal dismiu~. No. 2012CV211 527 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012).
motitmjor injUitCiiOft dnried. No. SI2DIOS9 (Ga. Mar. 13, 2012), appeal t.lnUd(Ga. Apr. 4, 2012); Weyl
"~No. 2012-161(Tnd. ElectionComm'n Feb. l4, 2012)(denyingobjection seeking to keep
Obama off2012 ballot on grounds that he is not a ~1 born citi2en") (Wiitkn decision unavailable but
video ofhearins is available at www.in.gov/sos/022412_Video_3.html (last visited Aprilll, 2012));
Wolf Fruf4', No. lCCII-1-002276 (Haw. 1st Cir. 0. Sept 30, 2011) (dismissing case seeking to
compel disclosure of documents allegedly related to Obama's eligibility)~ WI'OIJJo'N\fli 1'. ~ 958
A. 2d 709 (Conn. 2008) (dismissing case cballc:nging Obama's diaibility). app. for nay dmitd, 129 S .
Ct. 715 (2008).
W--"-
wt Updafed: December 21 . 2012
Page 12
e
0
0
0
0
0
D
D
D
210A
DEMOCRAT
I
....
..
H
;o
".."
..,,
II
II
II
I'
"V "0 u-! CJ

- Ill
l:l
.....
... . . . . ..
'
.~
'"0
1;...1
..
<
W"'~
I
...
''W N
...
~-"
~.,~N
..
AO
..
:n
u
II
(f 1 Itt
:.t:orn--o
lt
,,,.
1132794800
...,,..()\~,..,.
"< N
....
...
01
llt
~~
WILKINSON, LAURA L
1\)
Ula.
acabo d 19 de marzo dd 2016.
1\) n.,
~~
NO hahn una Convcncion del Distrito FJcaoral mas d

cicrre del cmuo ck votacion d 1 ck mano del 2016.
-....J (I) ~
(I)
(/1
(l
s. Ctmwru:iJn til PrinnD, 111 Ctmwru:iJn

JJ ~ llnMmln 11 t:ttbo m em /apr:
Sabado, 19 de man.o del 2016
Hyatt Repcy Hotel
208 Barton Sprinp Road, Austin, TX 78704
Laa rcgistradoDes ae abrinn alu 8 a.m.
La Convmci6a 1e illicia.ra a lu 10 a.m.
Usted pucde pre-rcgistrarse en linea en:
http://Regi.stcr.ademocrata.org
C&~
lld P . pd. br boll Coolly
Dooonocr*...,.,
.........,..
........... ......
...........
.. ...
.-.
Copy provided
, .,.. courtesy of: http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
. . . .. iitllil11
0.11111110
. . .3:1110
-- ,.0.
-,.,.,...
I'
..
.,.,
,..
--
01.1)112018
1~1t.Z017
14
11...n....II.....IJIJrt1Udb'tWIIIr..111-Pt'An'l1
--~~~
Clave de Acceso
0824
t.e : 0226-2016
me ()8 45:58
. rv -s: I Oifet" Mound Po I
ace. ...
t :3030
rty:REP
tiiP&J40' LGG- JU'Ho~~

I/IJ1Pd 77;1'/$ PA-y /~
~M:?/:ro"Io z~s-?tJ./o

TX 2016 Ballot Challenge - Case 16-0148

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TX 2016 Ballot Challenge - Case 16-0148

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copy provided courtesy of: http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.

IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT FOR

LAURA LYNNE WILKINSON,

TEXAS SECRETARY OF STATE

Original Pleadlns before the SCOTX

Copy provided courtesy of: http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

The Plaintiffs-Petitioners respectfully ask the Supreme Court of Texas

2 ~ Original Pleading before the SCOTX

February 26. 2016

Copy provided courtesy of: http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

Presidential Federal Employment Criteria are investigated and resolved1 Emergency

nonconsensual aiminalization of votes, specifically the Plaintiffs' which makes them

3j Original Pleading before the SCOTX

February 26, 2016

Copy provided courtesy of: http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

Original Pfeading before the SCOTX

February 26, 2016

Copy provided courtesy of: http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

Mr. Obama is the US Constitutional Enforcement Officer of the United States

of the US Constitution and its implementation under matters of controversy,

unintentionally and/or inadvertaldy, with negative impact of a state electoral system

become matters of misprision of felony and treason, and criminalization of the

unwillin& and knowing and unknowing, voter fraud.

OriBfnal Pleading before the SCOTX

February 26, 2016

Copy provided courtesy of: http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

Plaintiffs are overtly dalied political representation u compensation for use of

incapable of representing anyone, but him/herself.

a resident, as consecutive and immediate to an active election, remain ignored as

&I Original Pleadins before the scone

February 26, 2016

Copy provided courtesy of: http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

danoaatic process. Registered active voters and US Citizens are disenftanchised u a

Original Pleadin& before the SCOTX

February 26, 2016

Copy provided courtesy of: http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

qualified/sovereign/individual immunity13 in light of blatant public/federal corporate

Constitutional crisis because a political actor/product was installed to office under a

The catastrophic failure of the Texas Electoral system 16 is rooted in the US

Original pteading before the SCOTX

February 26, 2016

Copy provided courtesy of: http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

arbitrary, jurisprudent, tourist or in abstract jurisdicti~ but complete, sole, absolute

and comprehensive US Government Jurisdiction which implicitly infers that a person,

9 J Original Pleading before the SCOTX

February 26, 2016

Copy provided courtesy of: http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

A person cannot claim natural-born Citizeruhip status in order to nm for the

agenda hostile to the nation and its lawful people.

PARTIES, JtTRISDICfi()N AND VENUE

10 J Original Pleading before the scone

February 26, 2016

Copy provided courtesy of: http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

lawfully registered voters of Travis and Denton Counties, respectively.

Manbership # 339000849606, TX registration # 1132794800) and cast her vote

11 1Original Pleading before the scone

February 27' 2016

Copy provided courtesy of: http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

clarification of the 14dl amendmalt and complete jurisdiction. However, should it

Original Pleadina before the SCOTX

february 27, 2016

Copy provided courtesy of: http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

holders of voter franchises and scdc representation for our constitutionally

in a presumably functional state and national Constitutional Republic with