Is Andy Martin a Natural Born Citizen?


by William Reynolds

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that the President must be a "natural born Citizen," which some scholars say means born in the country to two parents who are citizens at the time of the birth

(Feb. 28, 2011) — Conservative activist Andy Martin recently announced that he is running for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012, and just released his first campaign advertisement about Obama’s eligibility.  But there are some things Mr. Martin has been silent about when it comes to his own eligibility.

Research shows that Martin’s full name is Anthony Robert Martin-Trigona, and his website claims that he was born in 1945 in Middletown, Connecticut.

None of Martin’s campaign websites identify either of his parents.  But where he avoids disclosure, other websites provide answers.  This genealogical website includes “Anthony Robert Martin-Trigona born 1945,” and identifies his parents as “Ralph Beneducci Martin-Trigona born 1913 died 1994 (m 1). 1945 to Helen Vasiliou.”

Mr. Ralph Martin-Trigona married Helen Anthony Vasiliou in Cairo, Egypt on January 23, 1945.  The Certificate of Witness to Marriage that was filed states that Ralph Martin-Trigona was a citizen of Great Britain at the time.

So Ms. Vasiliou was a native born American, but Ralph Martin-Trigona was not. He was still a foreign citizen the same year his son, Andy Martin, was born. And immigration records show that although Ralph Martin-Trigona did naturalize as a U.S. citizen, he did not do so until September 5, 1950, when young Andy was already five years old.

I contacted Mr. Martin for comment on his father’s citizenship.  Mr. Martin responded promptly, but refused to confirm or deny any of the facts I shared with him, and declined any further comment on the subject.  Other people who have asked for confirmation or denial have received similar replies.  Another reader wrote Mr. Martin to ask for answers, and posted Mr. Martin’s reply online:  “We have identified your email address as the source of abusive and harassing email. Kindly cease and desist from all contact with my office. If you are on our email lists, please unsubscribe promptly.”

Naturalization card for Mr. Ralph Bernard Martin

Andy Martin was born to a British father, just like Barack Obama. And he appears to be taking great effort to hide this information from his own supporters, even as he makes his own run for the Presidency. We must ask: Is it because Martin is afraid that his non-citizen paternity affects his eligibility? Or is it because his own father’s British citizenship contradicts the eligibility arguments he has helped promote?

He cannot have it both ways. If Obama is ineligible because of his British father, then so is Martin.  And if Ralph Martin-Trigona’s British citizenship is irrelevant to his son’s natural born citizenship, then so is Barack Obama Senior’s. Which is it, Mr. Martin?

Source Citation for Marriage Certificate: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA); Washington, D.C.; Marriage Reports in State Department Decimal Files, 1910-1949; Record Group Name: Records of the Department of State Record Group Number: 59; Microfilm Serial: A1, Entry 3001; Microfilm Roll: 532

Marriage certificate located by researcher on parents of Andy Martin

Source Citation for Citizenship Card: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA); Washington, D.C.; Index to Naturalization Petitions of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 1865-1957; Microfilm Serial: M1164; Microfilm Roll: 132.


Editor’s Note: Both of the above citations were gleaned by accessing

54 Responses to "Is Andy Martin a Natural Born Citizen?"

  1. Yaakov   Wednesday, March 2, 2011 at 11:27 AM

    Sharon, this is huge news. Why has the story been taken off the front page?

    Mrs. Rondeau replies: As more articles are published, current articles are pushed down but are still available to readers. Just do a search in the upper-right search box with some key words.

    1. Texoma   Wednesday, March 2, 2011 at 7:56 PM

      This is a good thread with alot of good comments — perhaps the story should go back to the front page?

  2. Ed '74   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 8:43 PM

    what happened to my comment from yesterday
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Not sure; will check.

  3. ch   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 6:32 PM

    It would be interesting to ask the Hawaii Department of Human Resources for a copy of their employee regulations and in particular, what are their laws regarding state employees being publicly involved in elections, and in particular what laws would regulate a director like Fukino making statements about unseen documents to help a candidate win a race. States have laws against this kind of bizarre behavior. What are Hawaii laws. It does not matter how Fukino left her position….she did what she did while she was in that position illegally.

  4. William1   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 5:51 PM

    I Stated well over 1 year ago in many countless discussion, that Andy Martin was a fraud and indeed misleading people for his own personal gains.

    Many instead – unwisely believe – that Andy Martin is somehow running for the office of President for the purpose of flushing out Obama in order to prove Obama is not a NBC. This is simply misguiding, sensational and not wise.

    If Andy Martin “truly” believed that a person running for the office of President required the individual to be a NBC, then Andy Martin would not have ran for office of President back in 2000, far prior to Obama and the NBC issue even arose.

    Andy Martin does believe he meets the qualifications, it has nothing to do with some sort of outrageous strategy. If he didn’t, then he would not have placed his name on the ballot in 2000 now would have he?

    Andy Martin believes that Obama is not a NBC for other reasons as he has discussed in the past, such as losing his U.S. Citizenship through adoption and yielding his [Obama] U.S. citizenship, then re-entering the U.S. and now being a “naturalized” citizen. Andy Martin also maintains that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii, although Andy has no proof to support his opinion.

    Much more, but I need to sign off.

  5. ch   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 5:23 PM

    Sharon, from Apuzzo/Kerchner, yes, the foreign father alone disqualifies. Perhaps you could work with them regarding Andy Martin’s eligibility, to have the courts define it.

  6. elspeth   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 4:30 PM

    This comment was posted on another blog that I follow, and I just wanted to share it with others. Perhaps it can give others the same glimmer of hope it gave me:

    “Yes, let it be known there are plenty of people out there with advanced degrees who are questioning Barack Obama’s eligibility. I have a Ph.D. in a scientific field, among people who have spent much of their lives learning the scientific method, analyzing evidence, developing theories, testing those theories against the evidence. I cannot, in fact, imagine that anyone who has such training could look at the question of Barack Obama’s eligibility, the lack of evidence provided for it, and honestly say the question has been satisfactorily answered. When empirical evidence is sought, a vacuum is created. The pieces of this puzzle, from a scientific point of view, are few and the verifiable pieces fewer still. The picture therefore remains unclear. The elephant in the room is screaming… and Lucas knows how to feed elephants… even nonverifiable peanuts are welcome in such a vacuum. In any case we are here, some just observing. But we are here, our trunks outstretched. “

  7. Sallyven   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 8:45 AM

    A question for Mr. Reynolds: Was Andy listed on his father’s naturalization papers? It has been my understanding, from my research and others who have researched their own family trees, that the minor children of a non-citizen father were naturalized along with the father, and if the father did not naturalize before the child reached majority, the child would go through the naturalization process as an adult. This “practice” changed sometime in the last 50 years or so, according to Dr. John Eastman, without any ruling, law, amendment, etc., just somehow happened. I am curious as to how Andy’s citizenship was handled. Thanks.

  8. Tim   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 3:13 AM

    It will be interesting to see how the media will start attacking Andy’s eligibility (they must!) while continuing to keep a blind eye on Obama’s. His move will expose this as well.

    1. Daniel Cutulla   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 9:39 AM

      Maybe they will ignore it as well – after all, the powers-that-be are probably confident he’s not going beat Obama/Soetoro at the ballot box.

      Aren’t you feeling déjà-vu with regard to McCain?

    2. Bob1943   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 10:24 AM

      Why would they attack someone who might get 1% of the vote if it might cause a problem for Barry?

    3. AuntieMadder   Wednesday, March 2, 2011 at 3:51 AM

      Should Barky run for re-election, Martin won’t pose any threat to him. In fact, Barky will welcome Martin’s run for POTUS because the Republican candidate, not Barky, will lose some voters/votes to Martin. Those who’d vote for Barky again won’t even consider voting for a “birther” instead.

      It’s been suggested by others elsewhere that Andy Martin is an obot operative or controlled opposition. That he’s willing to help Barky’s prospects for re-election by runing for POTUS himself, knowing that he doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell, only adds credence to those rumors.

  9. A pen   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 12:29 AM

    Please read S. HRG. 108–694

    It is full of ideas that would make anyone natural born by legislation. Rep Issa was of the opinion it should be an amendment .

    Rep. Issa

    “In California, we are often faced with the interesting anomaly
    that people who come to our State illegally and have a child, perhaps even come legally and have a child during a short visa stay,
    that child is eligible to be President. And yet somebody who waits
    in line and perhaps does not arrive in America until their child is
    2 or 3 years old, that child is ineligible. So we penalize those who
    wait, who wait in line.”

    The document is chock full of reasoning other than to secure the nation from an unknown ideologue who could assert powers unchecked, as Obama is. They take that case as a problem way back when England would have been a threat as if no threat exists today. These same legislators would invite a mole into their own den as ignorant as they appear. It is truly a pathetic display of statesmanship.

    1. tom   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 5:22 PM

      Issa et al are just so, maddeningly, ignorant
      Children born on U.S. soil to neither one of these 2 groups are eligible
      Whether born to aliens of legal or illegal status –the children are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof ; they owe obedience/are tied- to their parents who, in turn, owe allegiance to foreign states. The United States Gov’t hasn’t any right to abduct these children from their parents

      1. Bob1943   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 8:57 PM

        I don’t believe it’s ignorance on the part of Issa and the others, I think they are purposely covering for Barry while knowing full well he is not eligible.

  10. A pen   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 11:26 PM

    The below link is self explanatory.

    A thorough explanation of citizenship

    Note that no state or congress can legislate a NBC. The only process capable of that is amendment. No state can legislate any form of citizenship as the constitution delegates that power to congress. The only thing a state can do is decide who shall enter its territory without citizenship.

  11. Obama Researcher   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 6:33 PM

    Harry H says:


    I have been on this case for 3 years. I say do Everything. But so far our elected and unelected officials have all ignored everything. Yes they should do a lot of things but they do not do it.

    Sue Martin. I know the case will go fast as possible. Martin will not slow the case down. Get it started. Martin will lose real easy. That is what we want.

    Look I would allow you to sue me running for President to crack the Obama problem. The problem with using me is that I am a NBC. What we really want is someone who has a foreign DADDY. well go find someone who is running for President who has a foreign DADDY like Obama and you will come up with no one. Wait Wait there is one person. He is Andy Martin. Nail him to the cross. make an example out of him. How dare he act like Obama and refuse to answer questions. Take him to court. Force discovery. He will lose. The courts will declare a NBC is born on the soil to two citizen parents.

    We tried it 100 time directly against Obama. So lets use a soft candidate without the millions of dollars the connections in the courts to defend him. For all we know Obama will talk to the judge and help Martin without Martin or anyone knowing it is happening.

    Look. This will cost very little money. Lets get this going. This is a perfect path to the answer we seek.

    Everyone knows Obama’s daddy is not a citizen. So if Andy Martin is declared by the court as not a NBC then Obama falls.

    What more can you ask for.

    As far as our representatives doing something. YES by all means keep up the pressure but dont hold my breath. All they have ever done is prove they are all corrupted beyond hope.
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Is it possible that just the foreign-citizen father alone will be enough to disqualify anyone from being eligible for the presidency?

    1. Texoma   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 7:45 PM

      How about this idea: Find someone amongst our ranks with a foreign father (and born in the US to a US citizen mother) to run for President as the candidate for some agreeable small 3rd party (or we create one . . . how about the Natural Born Party?). Then have this candidate file a legal request (the name of which escapes me) to the US Supreme Court asking if he/she is eligible. I don’t see how they could refuse.

    2. Harry H   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 1:54 AM

      As I said earlier, I think it’s fine to sue Martin. Maybe that will restore constitutional governance to this nation. As for how much time and money the lawsuit would take, I don’t know how to predict those variables, and maybe it would be best to wait for Martin to actually get on a ballot, which could extend the time involved. Meanwhile, the very convening of a congressional hearing on Obama’s eligibility would in itself be a tremendous victory in the search for truth.

      I would give a resounding YES to Mrs. Rondeau’s question on the sufficiency of foreign fatherhood in disqualifying someone from the presidency. That alone should do it. And the birthplace issue alone would also be sufficient to disqualify Obama. And proof of a felony, as in using fraudulent Social Security numbers, should do it, or proof of traveling under a foreign passport, etc. But Congress should fully investigate all the relevant facts ASAP and definitively determine whether we have a legitimate prez or not.

    3. jtx   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 12:08 PM

      Andy Martin’s case based upon his BC info presented seems just like that of Chester Arthur except that Arthur was 14 rater than 5 when daddy became an American citizen.

      He’s clearly not eligible under the Constitution but, hey, who cares – right??? Certainly not the Supreme Court!!

    4. William1   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 5:18 PM

      Good evening Mrs. Rondeau,

      If I understand your question correctly, whereby “any” foreign-citizen father would be enough to disqualify for presidency, would depend on ”when” the foreign-citizen father became naturalized. If the foreign-citizen father became a naturalized citizen of the U.S. ”prior” to the birth of the child, then the child is indeed a NBC and qualified for the office of President, (Assuming the mother is also a U.S. citizen).

      Mario Apuzzo wrote a well constitutional essay(s) on this subject matter.

  12. Harry H   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 3:44 PM

    Obama Researcher says the way out of this mess is to sue Andy Martin as a proxy for Obama. That’s fine, but it may take a long time to produce the desired resolution. There is a better, easier, faster, more direct way: congressional hearings.

    Just published yesterday is a low-key but persuasive argument to which any reasonable person of good will can assent. Here is Professor Charles Rice’s plain, simple truth that our representatives must act on: “The House of Representatives is an appropriate body to inquire into the facts and legal implications of a President’s disputed eligibility for the office.” Locate the full article through obamareleaseyourrecords, or read it at

  13. ch   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 3:26 PM

    He has also positioned himself as a candidate, who will have automatic standing to challenge any other candidate in court. If he is challenged by anybody as illegal, he will prove his point and have legal status set, and also be able to challenge Obama. This is quite a chess game.

    Has Post E Mail reported on Fukino being removed? A state official using their office for political gain to help a presidential during an election would be quite an article. That is very illegal in most states and a Republican senator in Hawaii seems concerned.
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: We contacted the Hawaii Dept. of Health and were told that the new governor would be bringing in his own choices for cabinet members. The staffer indicated that it was “business as usual” following an election.

    1. William1   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 5:36 PM

      Hello again Sharon,

      I too found the response from Hawaii quite undermining. At no time in the 40 year history of Hawaii being a State, has an entire 14 member of Directors ever been replaced, this is a first.

      In addition, Governor Lingle won her office, she replaced only 2 Department Directors, 1 by her choice – Rod Haraga, the Dept. of Transportation, and Department of Labor and Industrial Relations Director Nelson Befitel of whom was offered by Lingle to stay, but he personally choose to return back to the private sector.

      Therefore, the office of Governor under Lingle, replace only 1 Director out of the 14 Directors reporting to the Governor. Under Abercrombie, he replaced all 14 Directors without review, and called it “Normal” practice.

      The historical facts state otherwise, anything but normal.

  14. ch   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 3:21 PM

    Andy Martin knows what he is doing, I have a feeling. If any secretary of state keeps him off the ballot, then guess what…..

    1. RO   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 4:56 PM

      If they allow Andy on the ballots they have to allow O on the ballots. This could backfire.

    2. Birdy   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 9:52 PM

      I agree with you ch. Andy Martin’s run for President in 2012 is the solution to the eligibility problem. If Andy is prevented from being on any ballot due to his father not being a citizen, he can sue. If Andy is placed on the ballot, a suit can be brought to keep him off the ballot, and Andy will not make the typical Obama motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction or lack of standing. Andy will welcome the lawsuit to keep him off the ballot based on his lack of NBC status. Then if the court decides he is not eligible, he has standing to bring a suit to claim that other candidates also lack NBC status i.e. Obama. This should be very interesting. I wonder how the Obama machine will try to head this off before it gets started. I’m sure they are alerted to it by now.

  15. Tom Arnold   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 2:59 PM


  16. Obama Researcher   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 2:42 PM

    Here is what to do. Take Andy Martin to court. He will not raise objections. You will get discovery. The court will be forced to make a decision on Martin. The decision will put Obama into a corner.

    Martin will never answer your question until Obama answers the same questions. So get smart. Take Martin to court.

    We have tried to take Obama to court but without any luck. We will have perfect luck against Andy Martin.

    I love this. It is so simple. OMG. This is the Answer to our problem.

    Everyone knows Obama’s father is not a citizen. Now Martin’s Father was not a citizen. This is the perfect case to get the courts to finally make the judgment.

    This will be an easy case. It will go fast. This is the ONLY or at least a great way to solve our problem.

    There will be no objections to standing, etc. It is great. What a genius I am. haha.

    Case closed.

    1. Texoma   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 7:33 PM

      I think you may be onto something here. Any lawyers in the audience?

  17. live oak   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 1:48 PM

    I never trusted Andy Martin. He has already been exposed right here at P&E. There is no way he can even run for office and he knows it. He had to know he would be exposed. Excellent work David LaRocque! He was threatening you; that’s what guilty people do when they know they’ve been found out, when they know they’re wrong.

  18. Redd   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 1:38 PM

    All that hussein martin has to do is release a forged COLB.

  19. Neil Turner   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 1:06 PM

    Andy Martin, like Phillip Berg, is in this game only for the money (although I believe that Berg is in it also for power: he wants to be Attorney General under a Hillary presidency).

    They refuse to address the real issue of allegience of the father at the time of Obama’s birth.

    I will do everything in my power to discredit these two, as they are both undermining the efforts of true Article II Constitutionalists to remove Obama for the real reason of non-US citizen parentage, election fraud, contrivance, and deceit.

    The Obots will use people like Martin and Berg to discredit and destroy our efforts. Let us destroy them and their false campaigns first.

  20. One Pissed-off Vietnam Vet   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 12:19 PM

    I have followed Andy for a while and found it interesting that he always said that he believes Soetoro was born in Hawaii. He refused to believe Soetoro could have been born in another country. Andy’s big thing was that he believed Soetoro’s father was really the Communist Davis.

    1. Neil Turner   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 2:24 PM

      The trouble with that argument (born in HI of two American parents) flies in the face of the preponderance of evidence, and also would make Obama a natural born Citizen.

      The father, if not Obama Sr., would more likely be Malcolm X, and if actually born in HI, would also make him a natural born Citizen.

      The main argument against Obama then, in both cases, would be election fraud, and most Americans are so dumbed down by now that they don’t even think that is a crime; more like par for the course.

      In any case, Andy must be debunked and disowned by the Article II Constitutionalists among us. Chicago is his turf, and he should continue to stay and play in that sandbox.

      1. Texoma   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 11:00 PM

        It does not make any difference as to the real parentage of Obama, because Obama Senior claimed him as a product of the marriage. In the time of our Founding Fathers, all that was necessary was for the father of record to claim he was the father in actuality, which Obama Senior did in the divorce papers. In the time of our Founding Fathers there was no way to test (such as with DNA) for paternity. If a man claimed to be the father of a son, then that was good enough for all legal purposes of identity, passing on of inheritance, land grants, and especially citizenship.

        The intent of the Founding Fathers was to have Presidents who had exclusive allegiance to the US from the time of their birth. Obama grew up believing that Obama Senior was his biological father, and he knew that Obama Senior was a British/Kenyan citizen. Natural born citizen status is the “strong check” against foreign influence. This foreign influence was present from the time of Obama’s birth and in the years that followed, which included 3 trips to Kenya, the most recent one in 2006. These are all facts which will not go away should Obama’s father turn out to have been an American.

      2. Daniel Cutulla   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 4:43 AM

        > These are all facts which will not go away should Obama’s father turn out to have been an American.

        But that argument is not consequential. Because then I could ask why the founders did not disqualify candidates who were adopted by a foreigner as a child and/or spent their entire childhood outside the US. They didn’t. They clearly stated that the status at birth (natural *born* citizen) and 14 years of residency in the US suffice.

        So even if these facts don’t “go away”, having an actual American father and being born in Hawaii (not that either of this has been proven, of course) would make him an NBC. Anything else is just personal opinion but not in the Constitution.

      3. Texoma   Wednesday, March 2, 2011 at 7:52 PM

        Daniel, just being born a natural born citizen was not enough for our Founding Fathers. If it was, then there would be no need for a 14-year residency requirement. Our Founding Fathers understood that foreign influence came not only from birthplace and parents, but also from having lived in a foreign country. The 14-year residency requirement is like a cleansing period – a time for cleansing a natural born citizen of foreign ideas, values, customs, etc. picked up while living the last 14 years in a foreign country.

        The additional qualifier of a 14-residency requirement is further evidence of the intent of the Founding Fathers, which was to provide a “strong check” against foreign influence.

        The child in your example is eligible if he is told, at an early age, of his adoption and birth in the US to US citizen parents. If the child grows up without this knowledge, then he grows up just as ineligible as a foreign-born adult who becomes a naturalized US citizen.

        Dual citizens at birth are ineligible to be President because they were born with a foreign allegiance. Obama grew up believing himself to be a dual citizen at birth, and that belief makes him just as ineligible as a dual citizen at birth.

  21. David F LaRocque   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 11:58 AM

    Following is a recent series of email exchanges I had with Andy Martin – does this sound like a presidential candidate who is providing the transparency that the current occupant of the White House promised but never provided?

    n a message dated 2/24/2011 2:40:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, dlarocq@XXXX writes:


    I have been actively involved in the Obama eligibility issue since early 2008, having written a number of articles for Post&Email and having made several personal visits to my congressman, Rep. Brian Bilbray (CA-50) urging him to address this issue, among other efforts in this matter.

    I am also a military plaintiff in Orly’s first case, now known as Barnett et al v. Obama et al, and I attended all three hearings in that case at the Federal District Court in Santa Ana, CA.

    I purchased your book about Obama and I have been following your efforts to resolve the issue of Obama’s eligibility with interest.

    Today I learned that you may not be a “natural born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution to be qualified to serve in the office of president. This hinges on the citizenship status of your parents at the time of your birth. If your father was not a U.S. citizen at your birth, then you are not qualified and should not be putting yourself forward as a candidate. The answer you gave to this question, as published on the ObmaReleaseYourRecords web site this morning, was not responsive or definitive. In fact, it smacks of the same kind of dissembling and obfuscation of which you have accused Obama.

    Please answer the question with the full truth – was your father or was he not a U.S. citizen at your birth? If not, you must withdraw your announced candidacy immediately.

    David F. LaRocque

    From: []
    Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 11:47 AM
    To: dlarocq@XXXX
    Subject: Re: Your NBC status

    I consider your email extremely inappropriate and will not dignify it with a response. I am running a national campaign and can’t respond to every attack on your terms.

    Andy Martin

    I am disappointed that you have described my simple question as an “attack”. It is no such thing. Until now, I thought you and I were on the same team.

    I can only take your response as a refusal to answer a straightforward and critical question regarding your eligibility to serve in the office of president. If you will not provide an answer to the question, then an adverse presumption must be made that you are not qualified in accordance with the United States Constitution, and that your “national campaign” is fraudulent and a waste of time.

    Unfortunately, Obama’s trashing of the Constitution opened the door for pretenders like you to pull the same stunt he pulled on the American people.

    Frankly, after all your high-minded talk, I expected better from you.

    David F. LaRocque

    From: []
    Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 1:23 PM
    To: dlarocq@XXXX
    Subject: Re: Your NBC status

    Frankly, I was not impressed by any of Orly Taitz’s lawsuits. In my opinion they were all incompetently prepared and presented. I avoid repetitive public criticism of her, but I not going to be a target of a new round of nonsense ginned up by her “clients.” I strongly defend your right to free speech. Say what you will. But don’t threaten a presidential candidate with by demands that he do this or that. That could land you on an FBI watch list. You are disrupting my campaign, which has enough to do already. Good day, sir.

    Andy Martin


    I am not threatening you. You are the one who is threatening me. I am simply asking you to verify a critical element of your eligibility to serve in the office of president in accordance with the requirements of the United States Constitution, just as you have so vociferously demanded of Obama as the self-styled “King of the Birthers”.

    Your threat to have me placed on the FBI watch list won’t do you any good because I am sure I am already on the FBI watch list as a result of my publicly-expressed concerns about the Constitutional crisis which has engulfed our nation, precipitated by the fraudulent election of an ineligible candidate who is almost certainly not even an American citizen.

    I am not about to stand by and watch this happen all over again.

    As to Dr. Orly Taitz – this is not about her, this is about you. However, I will say that I signed on to Orly’s eligibility lawsuit simply because I became convinced that Obama was a fraud in early 2008, and her lawsuit was the only vehicle available time to me at the time to take concrete action pursuant to my oath of office as a U.S. military officer to support and defend the Constitution.

    That said, whether you approve of her legal skills or not, the fact is that Orly was able to get her case in front of a Federal District Judge, the Hon. David O. Carter, who is not only a highly respected jurist, he is also a former U.S. Marine officer and a decorated combat veteran of Vietnam. The fact that Judge Carter promised a decision on the merits of the case, and then reneged on that promise, told the whole world just how extensive and far-reaching is the corruption in the current administration. This is truly frightening.

    In fact, this is a shocking abrogation of the rule of law, and your behavior, in which you refuse to honor the requirements of the Constitution, is just another example of the way politicians like you feel free to play fast and loose with the Constitutional protections provide to us by our founders.

    Your so-called “national campaign” is invalid; and you, sir, are a fraud.

    I suggest that you fold your tent and return to Chicago where you might find more like-minded people.

    David F. LaRocque

    From: []
    Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 4:08 PM
    To: dlarocq@XXXX
    Subject: Re: Your NBC status

    Dear Correspondent:

    We have identified your email address as the source of abusive and harassing email. Kindly cease and desist from all contact with my office. If you are on our email lists, please unsubscribe promptly.

    In stage two of our security process, we physically deliver a copy of your email to the FBI as a protective step to avoid against political extremism.

    Harassing or seeking to disrupt a candidate for federal office though either individual or concerted action is a federal criminal offense. Please govern yourself accordingly.

    Sincerely yours,

    The Right Republican for President

    1. ObamaRelease YourRecords   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 1:28 PM

      Where there is smoke there is fire…

    2. Harry H   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 2:33 PM

      Until I saw this email exchange between David F. LaRocque and Andy Martin, I was willing to suspend disbelief in Martin’s campaign. I was open to the possibility that Martin’s motive was good and that his plan was to bring such pressure to bear on Obama that the issue could no longer be shelved by Congress, the courts, and media.

      Now I must agree with LaRocque that Martin is a quack. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.

      1. Stefan Cook   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 4:09 PM

        I had a very similar e-mail exchange with the good Mr. Martin. (Dave LaRocque put me on to Martin’s fraudulent actions) He is nothing but a fraud.

        see below:
        Dear Correspondent:

        We have identified your email address as the source of abusive and harassing email. Kindly cease and desist from all contact with my office. If you are on our email lists, please unsubscribe promptly.

        In stage two of our security process, we physically deliver a copy of your email to the FBI as a protective step to avoid against political extremism.

        Harassing or seeking to disrupt a candidate for federal office though either individual or concerted action is a federal criminal offense. Please govern yourself accordingly.

        Sincerely yours,


        The Right Republican for President

        In a message dated 2/25/2011 7:55:42 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, writes:


        The question which we are asking, and one which you should be happy to answer, is a very simple one of 2 parts:

        Part a. Were you born on US soil (or within the Jusrdiction of the US Government – i.e. embassy grounds, etc.) Yes/No

        Part b. Were BOTH of your parents US citizens at the time of your birth? Yes/No

        If the answer is yes to both, then you have satisfied the Article II, Section One Citizenship requirement of the Constitution.

        If the answer is no to either part a. or part b., you have NOT then satisfied the Article II, Section One Citizenship requirement of the Constitution. And as such, you should pack up your things and go home.

        Very simple.

        Now, what’s the answer to the question? And do you have proof of same if the answer is in the affirmative to both parts?

        Kind thanks.


        Stefan F. Cook

  22. Harry H   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 11:05 AM

    Perhaps Martin’s candidacy is just an elaborate ruse intended to expose Obama by reverse analogy: if Martin is ineligible, so is Obama. But if the ruse entails false swearing, as in “I am a natural born citizen of the United States,” Martin could be risking the same penalties Obama may eventually suffer.

    The key here is motive. Does Martin really seek the presidency or is he aiming to bring so much clarity to the eligibility issue that Congress must act? What is your intent, Andy?

    1. sky   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 12:23 PM

      patriotactionnetwork federal highway administration demands all street signs to be relaced

  23. RO   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 10:54 AM

    What great investigating. I’d like to know what gave this reporter the “heads up” enough to look into it.

  24. RO   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 10:54 AM

    OMG! and he is trying to prove Obama’s eligibility!

  25. Sally Hill   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 10:19 AM

    I don’t know much about this Martin guy. I’ve followed him somewhat but he has always seemed a bit on or over the edge to me.

    However, that said – the first thing that came to mind was this: Is Martin mocking Obama?

    His circumstances seem to mirror Obama’s, yet Martin feels that Obama is not qualified. Perhaps that is precisely the point. Additionally, Martin is handling inquiries much the same way Obama is. One can hardly criticize him for that, especially if this type of maneuver works for Obama.

    Is there a larger plan here? You can hardly believe that he thinks he will be successful in his run for POTUS – so perhaps he has other motives to his madness? Is he positioning himself to get put on the ballot, then afterwards he exposes the truth and says he is not eligible and that the press / states didn’t do due diligence to make sure he was eligible – just like someone else we know wasn’t/isn’t eligible?

    I mean, I don’t know, but that was the first thought that came to my mind when I read the story. I was literally laughing at the irony.

    I could see where this might just blow the lid off of Obama’s own silence on the issue. Sort of like creating/setting precedence after the fact.

    1. Daniel Cutulla   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 11:21 AM

      > then afterwards he exposes the truth and says he is not eligible and that the press / states didn’t do due diligence to make sure he was eligible

      I can’t really see how and why the public should care. You don’t need to expose yourself to expose Obama/Soetoro.
      After all, when McCain’s NBC status was in question, this didn’t move the public to inquire about Obama/Soetoro’s NBC status. What more success would such a hypothetical plan have for Mr Martin?

      I could imagine that the issue might give him undeniable standing to challenge the proper definition of NBC in court. He’d be a candidate who is potentially ineligible, so he could ask the courts for declaratory judgment on his own (!) eligibility, stating he has tangible interest (his campaign investments) and inevitable injury (should someone challenge his eligibility after the elections and have a court rule against him).
      That would probably be simpler than trying to challenge Obama/Soetoro where the courts have always found ways to deny standing (either because the challenger had already dropped out or because the elections were already over or whatnot).

      As a personal note, I just don’t have the trust in Mr Martin that this really is his plan. Because if it were, I don’t understand why he won’t show his birth certificate. Not even to us where his “Obama has to show first” doesn’t have any meaning since we already know what’s fishy with Obama/Soetoro, we want to know what’s possibly fishy with Mr Martin

      1. RO   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 5:11 PM

        Surely, Andy must know that he could also be thrown in jail. i.e., Terry Lakin!
        Mrs. Rondeau replies: Obama was not thrown in jail. He was allowed to run and take office, even with a British father.

    2. Texoma   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 7:24 PM

      Andy Martin should file a request (there is a legal name for this, but I cannot remember what it is called) to the US Supreme Court asking them if he is qualified to run for President, given that he was born in the US to a US citizen mother and a foreign citizen father. I don’t see how the US Supreme Court could refuse to answer, and this could be the biggest favor that Andy Martin could do for us.

      1. Daniel Cutulla   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 4:49 AM

        > this could be the biggest favor that Andy Martin could do for us

        And why do you think SCOTUS would rule in a way that disqualifies Obama/Soetoro? If they wanted to do that, they could have done that already by granting certiorari to Kerchner’s case or others.
        (I personally do not believe in the purported “insider information” some blogs spread that SCOTUS allegedly already ruled against Obama “in camera” and is just waiting for the right time to publish this decision. This is just wishful thinking with no substance.)

        I think placing faith in SCOTUS making any ruling that would result in Obama/Soetoro being declared ineligible is in vain. They are evading the issue and there is no way to force them to do otherwise since there is no institution above them.

  26. Stock   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 8:46 AM

    If thats true-bye bye Andy-


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.