chief justice john g. roberts jr. combined]

8/6/2019 Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Combined]

1/28

Page 1 of 8

Gordon Warren Epperly

P.O. Box 34358Juneau, 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


2/28

Page 2 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. The Birth Certificate shows

Barack Obama Jrs father, Barack Obama Sr., was never a citizen 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


3/28

Page 3 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

natural born citizen of the United States. There are no provisions within the

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 ofTradition 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


4/28

Page 4 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 term: Other Public Ministers includes

the President of the United States:

The term ambassadors and other public ministers, comprehends all officershaving 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?


5/28

Page 5 of 8

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 President-

elect 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. How a President with Constitutional

qualifications is to be located and seated does not appear to be addressed by

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.


6/28

Page 6 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.

2/ 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.

3/ 8 USC 1403 Persons born in the Canal Zone or the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904are citizens of the United States.

4/ 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 .

5/ 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).


7/28

Page 7 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


8/28

Page 8 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


9/28

Certificate of Mailing Page 1 of 2

Gordon Warren Epperly

P.O. Box 34358Juneau, Alaska 99803

Tel: (907) 789-5659

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.United States Supreme Court

1 First Street, NE


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 StatesThe White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NWWashington, DC 20500

Hillary Clinton

U.S. Secretary of StateU.S. Department of State

2201 C Street NWWashington, DC 20520

Sarah Palin

P.O. Box 871235Wasilla, AK 99687

John McCain

U.S. Senate241 Russell Senate

Office BuildingWashington, DC 20510

Nancy Pelosi

U.S. House of Representatives235 Cannon HOB

Washington, D.C. 20515

Alice Travis Germond

Democratic National Committee430 S. Capitol St. SE


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


10/28

Certificate of Mailing Page 2 of 2

Dated this Fifteenth Day of the Month of June in the Two Thousand and Eleventh Year

of our Lord Jesus Christ.


11/28

Page 1 of 18

Declaration of SovereigntyThe 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 theconsent 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


12/28

Page 2 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 This unlawful Act was known as

the Reconstruction Acts of March 2, 1867 which violated the perpetual

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 that was enacted under the purported authority of

1/ See Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867 (THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 153)

2/ See Articles of Confederation, Article XIII, Paragraph 2

3/ See Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867 (THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS, Sess. II, Ch. 153)


13/28


14/28

Page 4 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 withregard to Mr. Epperlys letter and publication. His work is very thorough and thought provoking . Also I canunderstand and appreciate his concern at the apparent abuses involved in the ratification process ofthe Fourteenth Amendment.

Regarding his request for Senate investigation of these historical issues, however, I doubt it would serve anymeaningful purpose. Assuming a Senate investigation would substantiate Mr. Epperlys contentions, where wouldwe be then? .

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


15/28

Page 5 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 declaredthat 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 ofcertain 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.

9/ See U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 Congress shall have power to coin money and regulate thevalue 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.

10/ See Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

11/ See HJR 192 of June 5, 1933

12/ In the case of Stanek v. White, 172 Minn. 390, 215 H.W. 784, the court explained the legal distinction between thewords "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, eventhough the transferee takes it subject to its disability incident to the discharge. The fact that it carries something


16/28

Page 6 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? The question was answered by

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

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 ofprivate debts, in time of peace as wellas 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 ofpublic 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 legalobligation, makes it the subject of transfer by assignment."

13/ 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 wasthis act of shutting down the Federal Reserve Banks that got John F. Kennedy assassinated. See also Legal TenderCases, 110 U.S. 421 (1884).

14/ The Federal Reserve Bank Notes were never classified as Legal Tender until the Congress declaredon March 5, 1933 that it shall be against Public Policy for anyone to pay their debts. At that time,


17/28

Page 7 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). This transfer of sovereign powers comes with the purported

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

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 inthe 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 ofthose who are residents in, but not citizens of the States.

Congressional Globe H.p. 106640th Congress 2d. Sess. [Feb. 8-9, 1868]

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 tobeLawful Money of the United States.

15/ 30 Am Jur 181. Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Second Edition, 1948, p. 345.


18/28

Page 8 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 rights of voting nor did the proposed

Seventeenth Amendment receive an unanimous vote of ratification of

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


19/28

Page 9 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. Civil Rights are not

Rights, but are Privileges or Immunities 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 bythe 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 amendmentwhich 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 secureto 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


20/28

Page 10 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 RogersCongressional 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 afterFebruary 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 ofthe 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.


21/28

Page 11 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 forthe 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 oathor 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 asnatural 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 byan act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.

[Emphasis added]

APPROVED, March 26, 1790.


22/28

Page 12 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 changedover 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


23/28


24/28

Page 14 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 construedas 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 anyconstruction 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 GlobeH.p. 1162

39th 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


25/28

Page 15 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. For want of

a Constitutional Amendment, Barack Obama Jr. is without authority to hold the Office

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.

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.


26/28

Page 16 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 oftwo 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. The newly

formed Regions are States of the United States by virtue of the term: in the

United States that is found in Section One of 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 morestates, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as Congress .

18/ See U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 3, Clause 2.

19/ See Presidential Order No. 12314 of July 22, 1981.


27/28

Page 17 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.


28/28

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

chief justice john g. roberts jr. combined]

Documents