by Sharon Rondeau

(Mar. 4, 2016) — On Tuesday, The Post & Email reported exclusively that a presidential eligibility challenge had been filed earlier that day with the Supreme Court of Texas by a registered voter of that state.

The case, a summary of which is here, asks for a Writ of Mandamus and claims that a “constitutional crisis” has occurred in Texas and the greater U.S. as a result of “the presence of illegal and illegitimate candidates for the office of the President.”

The Relators, or plaintiffs, are challenging the legitimacy of all of the presidential candidates on the 2016 ballot and ask that the Supreme Court of Texas clarify the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” appearing in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution as one of three requirements for the presidency.

In their 190-page filing, Laura Lynne Wilkinson and co-relator Edward Sunderland, wrote that “The state and federal constitutional crisis was initiated when Mr. Obama was installed as a usurper to the Office of the President, in 2008 and 2012, and allowed to hold this office illegally and under active challenge by the Plaintiffs, as a matter of a catastrophic failure of the state/national hybrid electoral system.”

The case names the Texas Republican Party Certifying Authority, the Texas Director of Elections, the state attorney general, the secretary of state and the Democratic Party Certifying Authority as “Respondents.”

The heavily-footnoted petition chronicles Wilkinson’s and Sunderland’s efforts to discover whether or not presidential candidates in 2008 and 2012 were eligible to the office, which include a number of ballot challenges and letters sent to the Texas Secretary of State, the Attorney General and their congressional delegations.

In response to Wilkinson’s having contacted the Texas Republican Party, an attorney representing the organization stated that a candidate’s declaration of eligibility at the time of filing is accepted unless “ineligibility” is demonstrated on the “ballot application” “or if facts indicating the candidate is eligible ‘are conclusively established by another public record,'” citing state election law.

The plaintiffs are self-represented at present.  A GoFundMe page has been established to assist in covering anticipated legal costs of $10,000.  On that page, Wilkinson wrote, in part:

Mr. Sunderland and I have challenged the Texas Republican Party and the Texas Democrat Party over the eligibility of all their relevant 2016 Presidential candidates. We asked the State Dem and Rep Party Certifying Authorities to send our challenge directly to the Presidential Candidates under a presumed process of vetting by state election oversight officials.

We sent the same challenges to the TXSOS and demanded that the Texas Chief Elections Officer engage the Major Political Parties and request that they offer documentary proof of candidate identification and eligibility to run for and to hold the Office of the President per the Presidential Federal Employment Criteria or Article II, Sec. 1, Clause 5.

Both the Texas Secretary of State and the Texas Attorney General have refused our demand for performance and thus have knowingly put the entire 2016 State/National hybrid Election cycle at risk for nullification due to the corruptive presence of ineligible candidates for President.

To date neither the Texas State Democrat or Republican private political branding corporations (PPBC) have contacted any of the Presidential Candidates to make them aware that they are under active eligibility challenge in the State of Texas. We have asked them to and they have refused.

We know this because they told us as much and refused to cooperate. As such, the State Party Chairpersons have put all the Presidential Candidates at risk in this election, legal and illegal. If the US Constitutional Term of Art Natural-born Citizen is not addressed and resolved, we, as a nation, will end up with a third nullified Presidential Election cycle. The system failed catastrophically in 2008 and 2012. This time however the nation will be made aware of the State and Federal corporate negligence involved in suppressing discovery of the true conditions of eligibility for the candidates as determined by a recognized definition for the US Constitutional terms of art natural-born Citizen and X years a resident.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

  1. You’re arguing the case wrong. Rather you should be arguing that naturalized citizens cannot be president of the united states as that IS settle law with multiple Supreme Court cases regarding the citizenship of foreign born citizens as naturalized citizens

    “person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress…”

    ~ Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray (1898)

    ” Petitioner Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky was born in Jerusalem on October 17, 2002, shortly after §214(d) was enacted. Zivotofsky’s parents were American citizens and he accordingly was as well, by virtue of congressional enactment. 8 U. S. C. §1401(c); see Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U. S. 815, 835 (1971) (foreign-born children of American citizens acquire citizenship at birth through “congressional generosity”). ”
    – Zivotofsky v Clinton 2012

    “6. A contrary holding would convert what is congressional generosity into something unanticipated and obviously undesired by the Congress. Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship, subject to subsequent satisfaction of a reasonable residence requirement, rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do, and relegate the child, if he desired American citizenship, to the more arduous requirements of the USUAL (emphasis mine) naturalization process”
    – Rogers v Bellei (btw you should read that case file)

    Or is that your intent to lose an eligibility suit against Cruz?

  2. If you do not know this back in 1975 both the RNC and DNC took from all 50 states Sec of State the vetting processes for US President and US Senate that in no way follow in our state of Texas the rules that put all under the Sec of State of Texas the ruling vetting process with birth certificate and W-2’s for 3 yrs.
    This was dismissed by the RNC and DNC chairman or chairwoman and they are the ones to do what vetting to be done for those candidate of US President and US Senator is running for that political seat of office. The candidate pays the fees to have their names on the state ballot. That letter/note to the Sec of State and they are told to put the name of the candidate onto the exact political seat on the state ballot without the voting public knowledge of their birth place or anything else about those two political seats. I found this out in late August, early Sept 2015 and could not get a filing application for Ted Cruz for running for the TX US Senator as I was told by the TX RNC Chairman they changed the rules and no longer keep filing applications more than 2 yrs.