Gordon Warren Epperly P.O.

Box 34358 Juneau, Alaska 99803 Tel: (907) 789-5659

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. United States Supreme Court 1 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20543

June 15, 2011

The Honorable Chief Justice, John G. Roberts Jr. This letter is not presented as a Case or Controversy to a Court nor does this letter address the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. This letter is personal and it is addressed to you as an Officer of the United States that has taken an Oath of Office to protect the United States Constitution. I realize that at the time you administered the Oath of Office to President elect, Barack Obama Jr., you were handicapped in that you performed that honor with little or no time to get acquainted with your duties as a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I also realize that you had little or no time to get acquainted with Barack Obama Jr. and his qualifications that he must have had to hold the Office of President of the United States. Enclosed is a Declaration of Sovereignty of the People of the Alaska Republic addressing their concerns with the Sovereign Powers of the People and their governing body, the State of Alaska. Within this Declaration of Sovereignty the People stated their concerns of seeing an Oath of Office being administered to a Presidential elect Page 1 of 8

that had no Constitutional qualifications to hold the Office of President of the United States. The People of the Alaska Republic expressed their concerns that Barack Obama Jr. is not a natural born citizen of the United States, a qualification for the Office of President of the United States. The People of the Alaska Republic are disturbed that all efforts of We the People of these United States to question the qualifications of Barack Obama Jr. to hold the Public Office of the President of the United States have fallen upon deaf ears of their Public Officers, Officers that took an Oath of Office to protect the Constitution of the United States of America. The Congress of the United States will not convene Public Hearings or institute investigations that may lead to the removal of Barack Obama Jr. from the Office of President of the United States nor will the Federal Courts entertain any Case or Controversy that questions the qualifications of Barack Obama Jr. to hold the Office of President of the United States under the alleged reason that the Plaintiffs are in want of Standing to litigate or the question of qualifications of Office of a President of the United States is a Political Question to the Courts. The qualifications of Office of the President of the United States is not to be found within the question of legitimacy of a Birth Certificate of Barack Obama Jr. which many have claimed to be fraudulent. In fact, the Birth Certificate of Barack Obama Jr. is a non-issue for the long form Birth Certificate of Barack Obama Jr. (found on the White House website) proclaims Barack Obama Jr. as being ineligibility to hold the Office of President of the United States. but a subject citizen of Great Britain. One of the qualifications of being a natural born citizen is that both the Mother and the Father must be citizens of the United States at the time of the childs birth. This was true at the time the U.S. Constitution was written and it is true today. Barack Obama Jrs Mother was born in Wichita, Kansas and thus she was a citizen of the The Birth Certificate shows Barack Obama Jrs father, Barack Obama Sr., was never a citizen of the United States,

Page 2 of 8

United States by birth.

Barack Obama Jrs Father was born a Luo from

Nyang'oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya which made him a subject citizen of Great Britain. At no time was Barack Obama Sr. a citizen of the United States. Another qualification of being a natural born citizen is that the father, at the time of the birth of his child, shall owe no allegiance to a foreign government. The allegiance of Barack Obama Sr. was to Great Britain. For one to be a natural born citizen, the citizen must have unalienable Rights. Those who were born under the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution have no unalienable Rights for the Fourteenth Amendment proclaims that the citizens thereof have only Privileges or Immunities that may be granted or rescinded by the Congress of the United States. Barack Obama Jr. is of Negro descent and thus he is a Mulatto and as such, Barack Obama Jrs citizenship is founded upon the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, not We the People of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Barack Obama Jr. is not a There are no provisions within the natural born citizen of the United States.

U.S. Constitution or any of its Amendments that grants Barack Obama Jr. the Political Right to hold any Public Office of the United States. Barack Obama Jr. is not, nor has he ever been, the President of the United States. He is a usurper of Office. This letter is submitted to you as a Complaint and a demand is made upon you to do your duty of Oath of Office to protect the U.S. Constitution. As you had the implied authority of Tradition to administered an Oath of Office to Barack Obama Jr. as President elect, then you must also have the authority to rescind that Oath of Office. This becomes a duty when you, as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, has taken an Oath of Office to protect the U.S. Constitution and have now been familiarized with the qualifications of Barack Obama Jr. to hold the Office of President of the United States. You now have full knowledge that Barack Obama Jr. is not a natural born citizen of the United States which leaves Barack Obama Jr. in want of qualifications to be an Office Holder of the President of the United States. If there are

Page 3 of 8

any doubts, you have the authority to investigate the allegations as an Officer of the Court under the original Jurisdiction Clause of Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution: In all cases effecting other public ministers the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. the President of the United States: The term ambassadors and other public ministers, comprehends all officers having diplomatic functions, whatever their title or designation. 7 Ops. Atty. Gen. 168 (1855). We, the People, expect you to publicly announce the removal of the unlawful Oath of Office that you administered to Barack Obama Jr. and announce that all Papers which were signed under the Seal of Barack Obama Jrs signature as President of the United States are declared null and void. This letter is not lightly submitted for the day you administered an unlawful Oath of Office to a President elect that was not qualified for Office of President of the United States was the day that the U.S. Constitution was damaged. Because of the unlawful Oath of Office which you administered to Barack Obama Jr., many Presidential Candidates have been deceived into believing that they also have qualifications to hold the Office of President of the United States even though they are not natural born citizens of the United States. These Candidates are entitled to an explanation from the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what constitutes a natural born citizen qualification of Office for the President of the United States and what are the Candidate qualifications for other Public Offices of the United States. This letter should not be taken lightly as at no time in the history of the United States have the People been faced with an individual who has usurped the Office of President of the United States. If Barack Obama Jr. is removed from his pretended Office, who will fill the Presidential Office of the United States? Page 4 of 8 The term: Other Public Ministers includes

Under normal situations with a legitimate President of the United States in Office, the Vice President would succeed the Office of President in the event of Death or Impeachment of the President. But this is not normal times as Barack Obama Jr. has usurped the Office of the President of the United States. It appears Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment of the United States Constitution may address the question of succession of a President elect that is not qualified for office: or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice Presidentelect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified As the Vice President elect is Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., [Joe Biden] and as Joe Biden appears to have the qualifications of being a white Caucasian male that is a natural born citizen of the United States, it appears that Joe Biden would sit as acting President of the United States until he is replaced with a President that has Constitutional qualifications of Office. the U.S. Constitution. Would the Office of the President of the United States pass on to the opponent Candidate of the Political Party that sponsored Barack Obama Jr.? If that would be true, then the Office of President would pass on to Presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton. But as Hillary Clinton is a woman, her status of citizenship is founded upon the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Citizens of the Fourteenth Amendment are not natural born citizens of the United States nor has the U.S. Congress ever granted any woman citizen the Political Right by Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to hold any Public Office of the United States. Hillary Clinton is not qualified for the Office of President of the United States for being in want of Presidential qualifications of the U.S. Constitution. She is a usurper of Office of the Secretary of State of the United States. How a President with Constitutional qualifications is to be located and seated does not appear to be addressed by

Page 5 of 8

How about the Presidential Candidate of the opposing Political Party? The opposing Political Party to Barack Obama Jr. was the Republican Party and their Presidential Candidate was U.S. Senator John McCain. Both the mother /1 and the father /2 of Senator John McCain were citizens of the United States at the time of John McCains birth and John McCains father owed his allegiance to the United States by virtue of his citizenship. As John McCain was a white Caucasian male at the time of his birth on August 29, 1936 and as his birth was on a Military Base that was located in the Canal Zone of Panama, /3 John McCains birth was in the United States. It appears that U.S. Senator John McCain has the status of being a natural born citizen of the United States as a matter of law /4 and thus he is qualified to hold the Office of President of the United States. /5 U.S. Senator John McCains running mate for the Office of Vice President was Sarah Palin. As Sarah Palin would succeed into the Office of President of the United States in the event of Death of the President or the Impeachment of the President, Sarah Palin would have to have the same Constitutional qualifications of Office as that of the President of the United States, being that she would have to be a natural born citizen of the United States. But as Sarah Palin is a woman, her status of citizenship is founded upon the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which only grants the status of being a native citizen of the United States, not the status of being a natural born citizen of the United States.
1

/ John McCains mother was Roberta McCain who was born in Muskogee, Oklahoma on February 7, 1912. / John McCains father was Admiral John S. McCain, Jr. who was born in the air over North Atlantic on January 17, 1911. As both the mother and father of Admiral John S. McCain, Jr. were citizens of the United States at the time of Admiral John S. McCain, Jrs birth, the Admiral acquired United States citizenship, but not the status of being a natural born citizen. / 8 USC 1403 Persons born in the Canal Zone or the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904 are citizens of the United States. / See 8 USC 1403(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States. / The United States Senate declares U.S. Senator John McCain a natural born citizen of the United States (S.Res. 511 of April 10, 2008).

Page 6 of 8

Furthermore, the Fourteenth Amendment is not a grant of Political Rights and at no time has the U.S. Congress ever adopted a Constitutional Amendment that grants women the Political Right to hold Public Offices of the United States. Sarah Palin is not a lawful Candidate for the Office of Vice President of the United States. Who will replace Barack Obama Jr. when he is removed from Office of President of the United States does not appear to be the affair of a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. This is most likely a Political Question that will have to be resolved by a dejure Congress of the United States.

Disclaimer
I, Gordon Warren Epperly, hereby states that I have no interest in any Candidate or Political Party of the United States. I am a white Caucasian male citizen of California Republic by my birth in Whittier, California on July 7, 1940. I now inhabit within the Alaska Republic at Juneau, Alaska. I have refused to Register to Vote as the Alaska Superior Court Judge, Larry Weeks, issued a Court Order wherein he declared that I, Gordon Warren Epperly, would not be allowed to Register or Vote in any Election in my Christian Name, but declared that if I wanted to participate in the Suffrage Privilege of Voting, I would have to register myself as a Strawperson for a government created GORDON W. EPPERLY. The only interest that I have in the Office of President of the United States is the preservation of the Constitution of the united States of America which my Unalienable, Political, and Civil Rights relies upon for preservation.

Sincerely Yours

Page 7 of 8

P.S. There are rumors that the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court intercepts personal mail that is addressed to individual Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Hopefully this rumor is not true for any Public Employee obstructing the Mails of the United States commits a Criminal Act. This letter is not the business of the United States Supreme Court and as such, it is not the concern of the U.S. Supreme Court Clerk. As this rumor widely exist, please acknowledge the receipt of this letter.

Last updated and corrected - Sunday, June 19, 2011

Page 8 of 8

Gordon Warren Epperly P.O. Box 34358 Juneau, Alaska 99803 Tel: (907) 789-5659

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. United States Supreme Court 1 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20543

Certificate of Mailing
COMES NOW Gordon Warren Epperly hereby states under Penalties of Perjury that true and correct copies of the letter of June 15, 2011 and accompanying Declaration of Sovereignty were mailed to:

Barack Obama Jr. President of the United States The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500

Hillary Clinton U.S. Secretary of State U.S. Department of State 2201 C Street NW Washington, DC 20520

Sarah Palin P.O. Box 871235 Wasilla, AK 99687

John McCain U.S. Senate 241 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510

Nancy Pelosi U.S. House of Representatives 235 Cannon HOB Washington, D.C. 20515

Alice Travis Germond Democratic National Committee 430 S. Capitol St. SE Washington, DC 20003

By depositing said documents with the United States Postal Service at Juneau, Alaska.

Certificate of Mailing

Page 1 of 2

Dated this Fifteenth Day of the Month of June in the Two Thousand and Eleventh Year of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Certificate of Mailing

Page 2 of 2

Declaration of Sovereignty
The People and the State of Alaska

COMES NOW the People of the Alaska Republic, does hereby declare the Sovereignty of the People and their governing political body, the State of Alaska. The People of Alaska, as a Republic, hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security To prove this, let the facts be submitted to a candid world.

I
Mark I The people of the Alaska Republic hereby proclaims that they do not recognize the existence of any Corporation that was created by the Congress of the United States after March 2, 1867, the date in which the Congress dissolved the dejure government of

Page 1 of 18

the United States by unlawfully removing the Statehood status of several States of the Union and denying the People and the governments of those State Republics from having representation in the U.S. Congress. /1 the Reconstruction Acts of This unlawful Act was known as which violated the perpetual March 2, 1867

Compact Agreement of the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1778. /2 Mark II With the U.S. Congress of 1867 claiming that it not only has the authority to propose Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, but it also had the authority to compel States with unlawful governments to ratify Amendments by force of arms of the United States military, /3 the States are no longer in a position to cast votes of ratification or rejection of choice without approval of the U.S. Congress. With the U.S. Congress using its military armed forces to compel a State Legislature to ratify Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and with the present day U.S. Congress refusing to declare such an Amendment to be a fraud, the U.S. Congress declares itself to be a defacto body of a defacto government. Mark III The people of the Alaska Republic declares that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not exist as it was rejected by more than one-forth () of the lawful legislatures of the States of the Union with the vote of rejection cast by the State of Maryland on March 23, 1867. The people of the Alaska Republic declares that they do not recognize any votes of ratification that were cast by unlawful governments as identified within the Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867 /4 by the Congress of the United States. As the Fourteenth Amendment is a product of fraud, the People of the Alaska Republic does not recognize any Legislation of the U.S. Congress
1 2 3

that

was

enacted

under

the

purported

authority

of

/ See Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867 (THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 153) / See Articles of Confederation, Article XIII, Paragraph 2 / See Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867 (THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 153)

Page 2 of 18

the Fourteenth Amendment nor does the People of the Alaska Republic recognize any Decree or Rulings of the Federal Judiciary that were also founded upon the Fourteenth Amendment.

Mark IV As the U.S. Constitution declares at Article V that it is the Legislatures of the States that have the authority to alter or change the Constitution of the United States by ratifying Amendments, it is the Legislatures of the States that have the authority to determine if an Amendment was properly adopted. The Judges and Justices of the Federal Judiciary and the U.S. Court of Claims have gone on record to declare that they have no authority to rule upon the legitimacy of adoption of Constitutional Amendments /5 The Congress of the United States has also gone on record that it has no authority to determine the legitimacy of ratification of Constitutional Amendments by refusing to give hearings or making investigations into the purported ratification of

4 5

/ THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 153 / Judge James A. Von Der Heydt (U.S. District Court No. J90-010CV) The question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment was properly ratified is a political question (Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 450). Political Questions are those federal constitutional issues which courts do not address but leave to the legislative and executive branch of the federal government to resolve (Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217). Judges Hug and Pool (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, No. 91-35862) The Epperlys seek declaratory relief to the effect that the Fourteenth Amendment was never ratified. Such relief involves the evaluation of a political question which cannot be addressed by the courts (United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1440-41; United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457, 462-63). Justice William K. Sutter (U.S. Supreme Court No. 93-170) The petition for writ of certiorari is denied. Judge Reginald W. Gibson (U.S. Court of Claims No. 95-281C) petitioner challenged the validity to the Fourteenth Amendment and in the process sought to have the court submit a report to the U.S. Congress detailing our findings in this matter, It is well settled that the jurisdiction of this court extends to money damages founded upon either a contract with the United States or a source of law that can fairly interpreted as mandating [monetary] compensation by the Federal Government for damages sustained. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 217. Absent specific authorization, the court cannot grant the relief requested.

Page 3 of 18

the Fourteenth Amendment upon Petition of several Legislatures of the States (or of the People /6) by tabling said Petitions without comment. The Executive Branch, in and through the U.S. Attorney General and the Archivist of the United States, stated its position that the Executive Branch of the United States government has no authority to determine what constitutes an Official Vote of ratification that was cast upon an Amendment to the United States Constitution The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska declared that the U.S. Archivist has a ministerial duty to record all votes that were cast irregardless the qualifications of a State to have lawful governments. (Judge H. Russel Holland Case No. J97-0025-CV) Neither the Archivist nor his predecessors have had the expanded authority to determine the validity of the States' ratification. Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137 (1922); Widenmann v. Colby, 265 F. 998 at 999.

II
The people of Alaska Republic does further proclaim that they do not recognize the authority of Congress to incorporate the District of Columbia /7 for the purpose of doing business as the United States or to create child Corporations known as several states. The people of the Territory of Alaska applied for Statehood status as a Republic with Sovereign Powers under the rule of International Law with their Republic to be brought into the Union on equal footing with the original thirteen States of the Union, [not on equal footing with corporate bodies known as several states]. The Constitutional Convention of September 17, 1787 declared the creation and boundaries of the District of Columbia within the Constitution of
6

/ Letter from U.S. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch to U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens (August 6, 1985) Thank you for consulting me with regard to Mr. Epperlys letter and publication. His work is very thorough and thought provoking . Also I can understand and appreciate his concern at the apparent abuses involved in the ratification process of the Fourteenth Amendment. Regarding his request for Senate investigation of these historical issues, however, I doubt it would serve any meaningful purpose. Assuming a Senate investigation would substantiate Mr. Epperlys contentions, where would we be then? .

/ FORTY-FIRST CONGRESS, Sess. III, Ch. 62

Page 4 of 18

the United States and that designation did not authorize the U.S. Congress to change the District of Columbia into a new foreign corporate political body of government.

III
Mark I The people of the Alaska Republic declares that the U.S. Congress exceeded its Constitutional authority when it granted a selected few individuals a Title of Nobility /8 to create and operate a private Central Bank (Federal Reserve Bank) for the purpose of regulating the value of the coins of the United States /9 and for profiteering from the issuance of Bills of Credit (Federal Reserve Bank Notes) on the credit of the United States. Said practices of the Federal Reserve Bank System is to hold the people and the States of the Union in perpetual involuntary servitude to the payment of [purported] debts owing to the Federal Reserve Bank by the United States that may not be questioned. /10

Mark II The U.S. Congress further exceeded its constitutional authority when it declared that from June 5, 1933 /11 forward that it shall be against Public Policy for any debt to be paid and all debts shall thereafter be discharged /12 dollar for dollar and applied that
8

See U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8. -- Nobility Clauses were not limited to the prohibition of certain distinctive titles, such as "duke" or "earl," but had a substantive content that included a prohibition on all hereditary privileges with respect to state institutions. See U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 Congress shall have power to coin money and regulate the value thereof -- The Federal Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve Bank System sets the value of Federal Reserve Bank Notes and it is the value of the Bank Notes of the Federal Reserve Bank that sets the value of the coins of the United States and the foreign coins that circulates throughout the United States. / See Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. / / See HJR 192 of June 5, 1933 In the case of Stanek v. White, 172 Minn. 390, 215 H.W. 784, the court explained the legal distinction between the words "payment" and "discharge": "There is a distinction between a `debt discharged' and a `debt paid.' When discharged the debt still exists though divested of its character as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge. Something of the original vitality of the debt continues to exist, which may be transferred, even though the transferee takes it subject to its disability incident to the discharge. The fact that it carries something

10 11 12

Page 5 of 18

decree upon the States of the Union. The U.S. Congress is without authority to instruct any State of the Union to discharge their debts with Bills of Credit (Federal Reserve Bank Notes) of a Central Bank as the U.S. Constitution at Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 mandates that the States shall make payments on their debts and declared the medium of exchange to be used in payment of those debts (Gold and Silver coin). Notwithstanding Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the People of the Alaska Republic does hereby declare that they do not recognize the validity of any debt of the United States that is claimed to be owing to the Federal Reserve Bank. Under the purported authority of the Fourteenth Amendment to

the U.S. Constitution; the U.S. Congress may emit Bills of Credit on the credit of the United States known as United States Notes, /13 but does the U.S. Congress have constitutional authority to compel any State Republic of the Union to accept its Bills of Credit for payment of their debts? of Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884): Congress has the constitutional power to make the Treasury notes of the United States a legal tender in payment of private debts, in time of peace as well as in time of war. [Empasis added] At no time in the history of the United States has the U.S. Congress ever been given the authority to make Bills of Credit of the United States a Legal Tender in payment of public debts of a State, especially if the Bills of Credit are without redemption qualities. The present day Federal Reserve Bank Note is not legal tender for payment of debts and that term no longer appears on the Notes. /14
which may be a consideration for a new promise to pay, so as to make an otherwise worthless promise a legal obligation, makes it the subject of transfer by assignment."
13

The question was answered by

the United States Supreme Court of March 3, 1884 in the Legal Tender Case

/ See U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 2. The last United States Notes to be issued was in the year of 1963 by Executive Order of the President of the United States, John F. Kennedy. It is believed that it was this act of shutting down the Federal Reserve Banks that got John F. Kennedy assassinated. See also Legal Tender Cases, 110 U.S. 421 (1884). / The Federal Reserve Bank Notes were never classified as Legal Tender until the Congress declared on March 5, 1933 that it shall be against Public Policy for anyone to pay their debts. At that time,

14

Page 6 of 18

IV
A defacto government is a government wherein all the attributes of sovereignty have, by usurpation, been transferred from those who had been legally invested with them to others, who, sustained by a power above the forms of law, claim to act and do really act in their stead. /15 Notwithstanding the Tenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, the sovereign powers of the Republic States of the united States of America and the People have been unlawfully transferred to the District of Columbia (dba United States). the U.S. Constitution. The proposal of these amendments (14th and 15th) is the assumption of powers in the Federal government not conferred by any line or word in the Constitution or by any fair construction or implication. It is the assumption of all power in the Federal Government; it is the creation of citizens of the government of the United States, and it is a total overthrow of State supremacy. If triumphant, it works a consolidation of government, and it will result in a consolidation of an empire. Now we create citizens of the Government of the United States of those who are residents in, but not citizens of the States. Congressional Globe H.p. 1066 40 Congress 2d. Sess. [Feb. 8-9, 1868]
th

This transfer of sovereign powers comes with the purported

ratification of the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Amendments to

Mark I The complete transfer of sovereign Powers of the Republic States of the united States of America to the District of Columbia was the day when the States were denied their political rights to be represented in the Senate of the U.S. Congress under the purported ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

the Federal Reserve Bank Notes acquired the status of being Legal Tender along side the government issued United States Notes. At no time have the Bank Notes of the Federal Reserve Bank been declared to be Lawful Money of the United States.
15

/ 30 Am Jur 181. Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Second Edition, 1948, p. 345.

Page 7 of 18

Looking at Article V of the U.S. Constitution we see that no State may be denied its suffrage to vote in the U.S. Senate without its consent. There were no unanimous votes taken by the U.S. Senators in adopting the Resolution to surrender their States Congressional political suffrage receive rights an of voting nor vote did of the proposed of Seventeenth Amendment unanimous ratification

the Republic States in the Union as required by Article V of the U.S. Constitution. For the Republic States of the united States of America to consent in the surrender of their political rights of suffrage to vote in the U.S. Senate, every Legislature of the Republic States would have had to be in agreement and would have had to cast an unanimous vote of ratification. Today, the governments of the Republic States of the united States of America are no longer represented in the Congress of the United States. As both the House and the Senate of the United States are now controlled by political Corporations (Democrat and/or Republican Parties), the U.S. Congress operates as a defacto governmental body.

Mark II Further evidence that the Republic States of the united States of America have lost their sovereign powers to the incorporated United States is found in the seating of unqualified Members of the U.S. Congress and in the Office of the President of the United States. From the day the U.S. Constitution was amended with the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments to grant all male races of people and women citizens the Political Right of Voting, the domestic enemies of the United States have taken upon themselves the liberty to enlarge the two Amendments by implication to include the Political Rights of being Candidates and of holding Political Offices of the United States. There are no provisions in the Constitution of the United States that authorizes any non-white male citizen or any women citizen to hold Public Offices of the United States and no such intent may be found in the U.S. Constitution or any of its Amendments. Nowhere within the Constitution of the United States or any of its Amendments will the word Suffrage be found that would give the implication of

Page 8 of 18

authority for non-white male citizens or women to hold Public Offices of the United States.

Mark III In regard to the Office of the President of the United States, no women nor any non-white male citizens are natural born citizens of the United States [a qualification requirement for the Office of the President] for want of having constitutional granted Political Rights to hold Public Offices of the United States. It may be true that the purported Fourteenth Amendment is a grant of citizenship, but it is not a citizenship of unlimited Rights that are Political, Natural, or Civil. As the Congress of the United States has been empowered by Section Five of the Amendment to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment by legislation, the Congress has been empowered with the authority to grant or deny Privileges or Immunities to those who are Fourteenth Amendment citizens of the United States. Rights, but are Privileges or Immunities Civil Rights are not as stated within

the Fourteenth Amendment. Rights are God created and as such, they may not be altered or destroyed by any governmental body whereas Privileges and Immunities are creations of the government and anything the government may create, the government may alter or destroy. The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted for the expressed purpose of legitimizing the Civil Rights Act of 1866: Why sir, the proposed amendment of the Constitution (14th Amendment) which has just been discussed in this House and postponed till April next, was offered by the learned gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bingham] for the very purpose of avoiding the difficulty which we are now meeting in the attempt to pass this bill [Civil Rights Act of 1866] now under consideration. Because the amendment which he reported from the committee of fifteen was intended to confer upon Congress the power to make laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure to the citizens of each State all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, and to all persons in the several States the equal protection in the right to life, liberty, and property. There is no protection or law provided for in that constitutional amendment which Congress is authorized to pass by virtue of that constitutional amendment that is not contained in this proposed act of Congress that is now before us. Therefore we have the

Page 9 of 18

opinion of the majority of the committee of fifteen, and the opinion of the learned gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Bingham,] that in order to do what this bill proposes, Congress must be empowered by an amendment to the organic law. [Emphasis added] Representative Rogers Congressional Debates on the Fourteenth Amendment The Congressional Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess. H.p. 1120 March 1, 1866 With the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Congress of the United States made a statement that the citizens of the Fourteenth Amendment are not natural born citizens, but are statutorily created native born citizens. To emphasize this point of law, the term: born or naturalized in the United States as found in Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment is understood to include not only the Fifty (50) States of the Union, but all Territories and Possessions that fall under U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2. For example: The following Sections that declare those who are citizens of the United States are found in Title 8 of the United States Code:

1402. Persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899 1403. Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after
February 26, 1904 1404. Persons born in Alaska on or after March 30, 1867 A person born in Alaska on or after March 30, 1867, except a noncitizen Indian, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A noncitizen Indian born in Alaska on or after March 30, 1867, and prior to June 2, 1924, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of June 2, 1924. An Indian born in Alaska on or after June 2, 1924, is a citizen of the United States at birth. 1405. Persons born in Hawaii A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. Page 10 of 18

A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

1406. Persons living in and born in the Virgin Islands 1407. Persons living in and born in Guam
Do you not now understand the statement made by Barack Obama Jr. during his Presidential Campaign that the United States has more than fifty (50) States? It was not a slip of the tongue. Barack Obama Jr. was informing everyone that he was not a natural born citizen, but a statutory native born citizen of the United States. The U.S. Congress first defined who is a natural born citizen

at FIRST CONGRESS, Sess II. Ch 4: CHAP. 4.An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization. SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, Their children residing here, deemed citizens, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, &c. or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Exceptions. Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed. [Emphasis added] APPROVED, March 26, 1790. Page 11 of 18

Under this Act of Congress, both parents must be citizens of the United States at the time of their childs birth for the child to be classified as a natural born citizen. This understanding of natural born citizenship by the U.S. Congress has never changed over the years. The Obama Campaign admitted that Barack Obama Jr. was subject to British Law at the time of his birth. Barack Obama Jrs father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a Luo from Nyangoma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya. Obamas parents met in 1960 in a Russian language class at the University of Hawaii at Mnoa, where his father was a foreign student on scholarship. The couple married on February 2, 1961, separated when Obama Sr. went to Harvard University on scholarship, and divorced in 1964. Obama Sr. remarried and returned to Kenya, visiting Barack in Hawaii only once, in 1971. He died in an automobile accident in 1982. When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii; Kenya was a British Colony, still part of the United Kingdoms dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same Act governed the status of Obama Srs children. Since Barack Obama Jr. has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an Oath of Allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982. The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5) states: Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth. [Emphasis added] We have an occurrence of children born of two nationalities within, or outside the jurisdiction of the United States. These are not natural born children, but children naturalized at birth. For one to be a natural born citizen, a child must be born to a father and a mother of which both were citizens of the United States at the time of

Page 12 of 18

the childs birth. Barack Obama Jrs father was never a citizen of the United States, naturalized or otherwise. Although the term natural born citizen is not defined in the U.S. Constitution, it was defined throughout history of the United States as found within Congressional debates and the laws of the United States. U.S. Representative, John Bingham of Ohio, (considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment) confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866: [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. [Emphasis added] Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)

As the allegiance of Barack Obama Jrs father was owing to the United Kingdom by virtue of his foreign birth citizenship, his allegiance was not to the United States and thus Barack Obama Jr. is not a natural born citizen of the United States. Thomas Jefferson had this to say about who is or who is not a natural born citizen. Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to fathers who are themselves citizens of the United States. [Emphasis added] At no time did the United States have jurisdiction over Barack Obama Sr. and at no time was Barack Obama Sr. a citizen of the United States. Barack Obama Jr. has no relationship to a father that would grant him the status of being a natural born citizen of the United States at the time of his birth.

Page 13 of 18

Mark III The Congress of 1866 further declared that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (14 Stat. 27) did not include Political Rights of Suffrage: Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I move to add the following as a new section: And it be further amended, That nothing in this act shall be so construed as to effect the laws of any State concerning the right of suffrage. Mr. Speaker, I wish to say one word. That section will not change any construction of the bill. I do not believe the term civil rights includes the right of suffrage. Some gentlemen seem to have some fear on that point. The Amendment was agreed to. [Emphasis added] Congressional Debates on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 The Congressional Globe H.p. 1162 th 39 Cong., 1st Sess. March 2, 1866 As the Fourteenth Amendment did not expand the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to include the Political Rights of Suffrage, the Congress of 1867 found the need to adopt another Constitutional Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment. The Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was adopted to grant the male citizens of the Fourteenth Amendment the right to vote irregardless of their race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Fifteenth Amendment did not include women citizens of the United States. It was later that the U.S. Congress adopted the Nineteenth Amendment that granted women citizens the right to vote. Neither of these two (2) Constitutional Amendments expanded the Fourteenth Amendment to include the Political Rights of Candidacy or the Right to hold Public Offices of the United States. The U.S. Congress is without authority to grant such Political Rights by legislation or by implication without an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Barack Obama Jr. is of Negro descent as his father was a full blooded Negro while his mother was a Caucasian. The mixing of blood by marriage of parents who

Page 14 of 18

one is Black to one who is White makes Barack Obama Jr. a Mulatto. As Barack Obama Jr. is a Mulatto, his citizenship is founded upon the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. /16 As the Fourteenth Amendment is not a grant of Political Rights, Barack Obama Jr. must look to another Constitutional Amendment for any authority for him to be a Candidate for or an Office holder of the President of the United States. The only Amendment that he could have turned to is the Fifteenth Amendment and the Fifteenth Amendment grants only the Political Right of Suffrage to cast Votes. The Fifteenth Amendment was never expanded by the U.S. Congress to include the Political Right of being a Federal Office Candidate or the holding of a Political Office of the United States. of President of the United States of America. As we now have women and non-white male citizens holding Public Offices of the United States (Congressmen, President of the United States, Cabinet Offices of the Executive Branch, and Judges and Justices of the Federal Courts), the government of the United States is no longer a dejure government to which the people or the Republic States of the united States of America owe any allegiance, but a defacto government to which the people are under a mandate of the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 to remove themselves from. For want of a Constitutional Amendment, Barack Obama Jr. is without authority to hold the Office

V
The people of the Alaska Republic does not recognize any purported authority of the U.S. Congress to create a Corporation known as the United Nations and declaring that the Charter of the United Nations has supremacy over the Constitution of the United States. As the U.S. Congress exceeded its Constitutional authority in creating the United Nations, we, the people of the Alaska Republic and its political corporation, the State of Alaska hereby declares that all Agreements the United States entered into with the United Nations are declared null and void.
16

/ See the U.S. Supreme Court case: Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393.

Page 15 of 18

Mark I The people of Alaska Republic does not recognize any purported authority that the U.S. Congress exercised in creating Regions by the combining of boundaries of two or more Republic States of the Union. There are no provisions in the U.S Constitution that grants the Congress of the United States the authority to divide the united States of America into Regions by changing the boundaries of existing State Republics after those States were admitted into the Union. United States that is found in Section One of the The newly formed Regions are States of the United States by virtue of the term: in the U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment. /17 As the term: in the United States includes all properties and territories of the United States, /18 the U.S. Congress has now placed the People of the Alaska Republic and their body politic, the State of Alaska, into their newly formed Region X which is governed and regulated by their created Federal Regional Councils. /19 As these Federal Regional Councils do not answer to the People of the Alaska Republic or to their governmental body, the State of Alaska, the People do not recognize the existence of Federal Regions or the pretended authority that may be exercise by the Federal Regional Councils within the boundaries of the Alaska Republic.

VI
Conclusion There appears to be no peaceful means or procedures available by which the People or the governments of the Republic States of the united States of America may use to protect their Constitution. The People are not allowed to take questions of
17

/ See U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1: nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as Congress. / See U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 3, Clause 2. / See Presidential Order No. 12314 of July 22, 1981.

18 19

Page 16 of 18

usurpation of Office to the Federal Courts without the Federal Judges dismissing the cases for want of Standing or for being Political Questions to the Court. The governments of the Republic States of the Union are unable to protect the U.S. Constitution for they have no dejure Congress to Petition. The U.S. Attorney General (Eric Holder) will not commence quo warranto proceedings before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for he himself is an usurper of Office. No Member of the U.S. Congress will begin an investigation that will lead to the removal of those who are usurping the Offices of the United States for several Members of Congress are themselves usurpers of Office. There appears to be no peaceful means or procedures available by which the People or the governments of the Republic States may use to compel the Public Officers of the United States to do their duty of Oath of Office to protect the U.S. Constitution. The Congress, the President, and the U.S. Supreme Court seems to take pleasure in telling the People and the governments of the Republic States to go to hell and keeping them all in a status of involuntary servitude to the demands of a defacto government. The people of the Alaska Republic holds John G. Roberts, Jr., as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court responsible for several usurpations of governmental Offices of the United States of America. This deed of usurpations began when he administered the Presidential Oath of Office to Barack Obama Jr. when he had knowledge that Barack Obama Jr. was not qualified under the U.S. Constitution for the Office of President of the United States. If the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court has the implied authority to administer an Oath of Office to Presidents elect then the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court has also the authority to rescind an unlawful Oath of Office. The administration of Presidential Oaths of Office by Chief Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court is a matter of Tradition, not an Act of Law. The removal of an usurper from Office of the President of the United States is not a matter for Congressional Impeachment as an usurper is not an Office Holder.

Page 17 of 18

The President of the United States may be Impeached for, and convicted of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice has a duty to protect the U.S. Constitution by rescinding the Oath of Office of Barack Obama Jr. and declare that all Papers that are under the Seal of Barack Obamas Signature, as President of the United States, are null and void. This procedure of removal of an Oath of Office from a Presidential usurper does not fall under the jurisdiction of Article III of the U.S. Constitution as the removal of an Oath of Office is not an issue of a Case or Controversy of a Court. It is not a Case that can be ruled upon and dismissed as a Plaintiff that is in want of Standing or the subject matter presents a Political Question. Barack Obama Jr. is not the President of the United States and he never was. Those who conspired to deceive the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court into administering an Oath of Office to a Presidential Candidate that was not qualified for Office by falsely swearing out an Official Certification of Nomination were: [1] Barack Obama Jr. as Candidate for President of the United States, [2] Nancy Pelosi as Chair of the Democratic National Convention, and [3] Alice Travis Germond as Secretary of the Democratic National Convention. As they vetted Barack Obama Jr. for the Office of President of the United States, they all had knowledge that Barack Obama Jrs father was never a citizen of the United States. As Barack Obama Jrs father was an Alien to the government of the United States, those who conspired knew Barack Obama Jr. was in want of qualifications to be a natural born citizen of the United States. The above named individuals having vetted Barack Obama Jr. for the Office of the President of the United States had the knowledge that Barack Obama Jr. was a Mulatto which placed his status of citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and that the citizens of the Fourteenth Amendment have no standing to hold the Office of the President of the United States for want of being natural born citizens of the United States. The above named individuals have willfully committed numerous crimes against the United States and the crime of sedition.
Last Updated: Friday, June 17, 2011

Page 18 of 18