We stand where Hindenburg stood…

AN INTERVIEW WITH ATTORNEY STEPHEN PIDGEON

By John Charlton

For listeners of Plains Radio, and those who have followed the news in the patriotic, pro-Constitutionalist movement, no introduction is necessary for Attorney Stephen Pidgeon, of Washington state:  his name is easily recognized among those of Philip Berg, Leo Donofrio, and Dr. Orly Taitz.  Having seen Mr. Pidgeon’s name in the news recently regarding the DC case, Swenson vs. USA, I thought to “track him down” and request an interview, mindful that 100’s of thousands of patriots, nation wide, would also be interested in hearing from him again.  What follows is an exact transcript of my interview with him by email, with only my own addition of boldface and italics, here and there, and subordinated links for illustration and reference.

—————————-

MR. CHARLTON: The readers of The Post & Email are mostly American patriots concerned with the constitutional crisis in our country, but not all of our readers may have heard of Stephen Pidgeon.  So, for their sake, can I ask you something about yourself, your background, and how you got involved in this grass roots movement?

MR. STEPHEN PIDGEON:  I am a practicing attorney in the state of Washington and the founder of DecaLogos International.  DecaLogos is an organization involved in the promotion of God-given human rights around the world, with an emphasis on rights derived from the Ten Commandments.

My involvement with the promotion of God-given rights began with the scripture “I heard, so I speak.”  Earlier in this decade, I began to promote the free right of worship in the Newly Independent States (the NIS) of the Soviet Union, and in particular, the vindication of persecuted Protestant pastors and churches. 

DecaLogos has emerged as possibly the only organization in the world critical of the so-called “rights” documents produced by the United Nations – including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its progeny. We have recently criticized the UN Covenant on the Rights of the Child (criticizing the “right” of the state to take the child from the family on any grounds, including the teaching of Christianity) and the Covenant on the Rights of the Disabled (criticizing the “right” to be sterilized by an edict from a moral committee, the “right” to mandatory abortions and of course, the “right” to physician assisted suicide). 

MR. CHARLTON:What was the case you filed in Washington State Court?  Did you have standing? What was the basis of the claims you advanced?  And what was the result?

MR. STEPHEN PIDGEON: The case in Washington to which you are referring is Broe v. Reed.  This case was brought in the Washington Supreme Court, and it sought to require the Secretary of State to invalidate the election and to stop the state electors from voting for Barack Obama on the basis of his ineligibility.

The plaintiff group had standing to challenge an election if the person who was elected was ineligible to hold the office at the time of his election.  This was provided for by state statute.  Our standing was never challenged.

Our argument was that the Secretary of State, Sam Reed, has an obligation under the US Constitution and the Washington State Constitution to determine whether Barack Obama was an American citizen and whether he was a natural born citizen.  The SOS disagreed, arguing that it simply was not his job.  Our discovery request yielded a one-page document from the Democrat National Committed, signed by Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, that Barack Obama had been “duly nominated.”  There was no other due diligence by any election personnel as to his eligibility.

The Supreme Court ruled without oral argument that the case was moot, because by the time the court heard the motion, the electors had already voted.

The plaintiff group instructed me not to continue further, and given that I was representing them as their lawyer and not directing them, I followed their instructions.

MR. CHARLTON: What do you attribute the decision of the State Supreme Court in Washington, disinterest or chichancery?

MR. STEPHEN PIDGEON: The Washington Supreme Court took a position as quickly as they could to facilitate an immediate appeal to the US Supreme Court.  Did they pass the buck?  Yes.  Was it appropriate in the procedural scheme of things?  Yes. 

MR. CHARLTON: Have you been active in the patriot movement since then, and if so how?

MR. STEPHEN PIDGEON: Yes I have.  I have spoken at three tea parties (www.tubervision.com), on the issue of eligibility, on the stimulus bill, and on the unconstitutional aspects of the federal government.

http://tubervision.com/video/185/Everett-WA-Teapary-part-1

http://tubervision.com/video/186/Everett-WA-Teapary-part-2-

http://tubervision.com/video/192

http://tubervision.com/video/191/Lake-Tye-Teaparty–Stephen-Pidgeon 

I also have taken an active role in challenging the imposition of same-sex marriage on Washington residents without the approval of the voters.  Again, you can find my speech on the subject on www.tubervision.com, which was captured at a rally in Olympia, Washington in the spring of this year. http://tubervision.com/video/173/Stand-Up-for-Marriage-Rally–WA-State

Since then, I have appeared on behalf of Protect Marriage Washington in state, federal and administrative actions (I am intervening on a case this weekend), and we have pushed the political envelope as much as possible to reinstate democratic process and to rollback moral fascism in Washington.

Additionally, I have assisted Citizen Grand Jury members in the pursuit of the federal case Patriot Heart’s Media Network v USA in the US District Court, District of Columbia, seeking the appointment of a federal grand jury to determine whether high crimes have been committed against the US.

MR. CHARLTON: What can you tell us about this case, Patriot Heart’s Media Network v USA (aka Swenson vs. USA) and its merits, and objectives?

MR. STEPHEN PIDGEON: Whether or not Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, or Zanzibar is not particularly relevant.  Mr. Obama caused a fraudulent and false birth certificate to appear on line beginning in 2006, in order to establish that he was an American born citizen of the US eligible to hold the office of President. 

The document was altered on its face (the certificate number was blacked out) and was therefore invalid on its face (Any Alteration Invalidates this Certificate).  It has since been demonstrated to be a forgery. 

Nonetheless, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the media relied on this forgery to claim that Barack Hussein Obama was eligible to hold the office. 

The petition sets forth a series of federal laws that were broken with the publication of this document, and those crimes, if proven, are high crimes.

The Petition is therefore a criminal referral to federal judge (required if a person is to avoid the federal crime of misprision of treason), seeking to have the federal judge find probable cause to warrant the appointment of a federal grand jury.

If such a jury was created, it would act like a special prosecutor to make a determination whether there were sufficient facts to bring an indictment against the perpetrators of these crimes.  In the event such an indictment was brought, it would be presented (as a Presentment) to the House of Representatives to consider Articles of Impeachment.  The House could then consider such articles, and if they found facts that make the case that crimes have been committed, could refer Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, where a trial would be had to establish the elements of crimes such as mispersonation against the United States and fraudulent identification documents beyond a reasonable doubt. 

In the event that the Senate found that State seals had been used, that the document was presented to operate as a birth certificate, that the document was forged, and that Barack Obama knew that the document was false when he caused it to be published nationally with the intent that the United States government, the DNC, the media, state governments, and the electorate would rely upon the forged document, then such facts would warrant a conviction for the crimes alleged in the Petition, and upon conviction, the President would be removed from office.

MR. CHARLTON: Do you think we are any closer today, at the beginning of September, 2009, to resolving the doubts regarding Obama’s eligibility to be president? And why?

MR. STEPHEN PIDGEON: Yes, we are closer.  We can say now, after a year of chasing this wild rabbit called a birth certificate, that a bona fide birth certificate for Mr. Obama does not exist as a matter of political fact.  We can say, therefore, categorically, that Mr. Obama has failed to establish his eligibility – that he cannot and that he will not. 

Everyone in the country knows the issue, but few in the Senate know the law.  They are under the misapprehension that if one parent was an American citizen, than the child is a natural born citizen sufficient to hold the Presidency.  Such a view is malfeasance of office, and any Senator or Representative who holds such a view in ignorance should be chased from office on the basis of incompetence. 

MR. CHARLTON: Do you see an advantage of further legal action, and if so, what kind, and in what jurisdictions?

MR. STEPHEN PIDGEON: Chasing the birth certificate is a waste of time.  BHO is ineligible to hold office because of his father’s nationality.  Furthermore, why bother trying to prove where he was born, when he is committing one offense after another against the constitution.

There is plenty of room for legal action, however.  Every single bill BHO signs needs to be litigated on constitutional grounds.  For instance, GM shareholders should sue.  States should sue against the stimulus bill.  Any citizen who is approached by an ACORN member for census should sue for the deprivation of civil rights. 

Each patriot should consider bringing a lawsuit against any provision that has been passed since
BHO’s alleged inauguration whenever it becomes applicable to you. 

MR. CHARLTON: Are we at the point where public manifestations and political rallies will play a greater part?

MR. STEPHEN PIDGEON: Absolutely.  Speak up and be heard.  Every American has a right to peaceably assemble and to demand a redress of grievances.  Exercise these rights to the fullest degree possible while you still have them.  If anyone touches you at all at any town hall meeting, be certain to sue the person and the sponsor of the event for assault and for the deprivation of civil rights.  If you are a person who is forced out of a town hall meeting by your Congressman, be certain to sue the Congressman for deprivation of civil rights. 

MR. CHARLTON: Is there anyone at all in the US Congress, or among the State Governors, whom you believe is going to take some substantive action, at least to investigate the question of eligibility?

MR. STEPHEN PIDGEON: Let me put it to you this way:  Cowardice now will result in millions of deaths later.  Obviously, the Obama administration is intent on establishing a national socialist dictatorship.  Internment camps are being built, youth armies are being funded, logos are being distributed, and death panels are being formed.  What do you think this guy is going to do with these things? 

Chancellor Hindenburg had a chance to stand up against Adolf (Hitler), but Schicklegruber’s advisors worked their way around the rule of law in Germany in 1932, smartly and shrewdly, deploying youth, logos, snappy uniforms and Keynesian deficit spending.  As you can see, their failure to stand for the rule of law resulted in the single largest disaster against ethnic Jewry in history as well as 17 million others.  Europe will never recover from that movement, just as the US will not recover from an unleashed Obama administration. 

I remember studying the rise of the Third Reich, and thinking to myself “if I had been there, I would have done something to stop its rise.”  Well, here we are, and for the same reasons no one said or did anything then, we will say and do nothing now.  Who will stand against this tide?

MR. CHARLTON: What are your personal plans for the future and your participation in this grass roots pro-Constitution movement?

MR. STEPHEN PIDGEON: My plans are to continue to speak as I am called and to do the work that is in front of me as I can.  Unlike ACORN and SEIU, I have to work for a living, so I burn the candles at both ends to try and provide for my family and fight the good fight at the same time.

But let me say this:  There are enemies of the US conspiring to bring us a Nazi totalitarianism and a massive genocide.  These people, many of whom are well-placed in Europe, Asia and in the United Nations, would like to see the US population reduced by at least 150 million people, and they are prepared to take all necessary steps to achieve this goal. 

In addition, the world will not tolerate a race-based fascism, where the US deploys its military muscle and its resources for the purposes of killing 2 billion or more human beings worldwide on the basis of its eco-fascist agenda. 

Let me be clear.  If we become a Nazi political regime, the world will turn against us, and our fate will be the same as Nazi Germany.  After we have exacted a massive genocide against our own population, the world will turn on us with moral indignation, and we will be destroyed entirely. 

It boggles my mind that people can contemplate the murder of . . . not millions, not tens of millions, not even hundreds of millions of human beings – but billions, and still sleep at night.  The inherent evil in these people cannot be overstated.

How will I fight for the constitution and the rule of law?  I don’t know; but I do know I will not stop fighting for it, no matter what.  We wake up tomorrow with the same burden we have today – to push back on tyranny and promote freedom as protected under the US Constitution. 

MR. CHARLTON: Have you ever thought of running for political office, esp. in the upcoming 2010 Congressional races?

MR. STEPHEN PIDGEON: I am a dogmatic proponent of specific policies without compromise, not one who could represent a compromise of policies.  I am not interested in soft-soaping my convictions for purposes of obtaining votes.  I am considering spending my time within a party to develop platform planks, marketing methods, and a framework to support the candidacy of others.  To this end, I am considering pushing a unified third party that merges Conservatives of every stripe into a cohesive unit to grab office by means of a plurality. 

MR. CHARLTON: Thank you Attorney Pidgeon. I am indebted to you for your patriotism and service to the country, and it has been an honor to interview you.

————–

Attorney Stephen Pidgeon, Esq., can be contacted through his website:  http://stephenpidgeon.com