Taxachussets Ballot Challenge by Retired Army Officer Posted by By GeorgeM at 11 January, at 19 : 57 PM Print Taxachussets Ballot Challenge by Retired Army

Officer I have done this anyone who wants to use any or all of it welcome to. WILLIAM F. READE, Jr. LTC USAR (Ret) Secretary of the Commonwealth 05 January 2012 The Honorable William Francis Galvin State House, Room 340 Boston, MA 02133 I wish to file an objection to the inclusion of Mr. Barack Hussein Obamas name on the Primary Ballot in The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Ballots of the subordinate Counties: Based on all of the attached information. In accordance with the General Laws of Massachusetts; TITLE VII. ELECTIONS CHAPTER 55B. THE STATE BALLOT LAW COMMISSION Chapter 55 B: Section 5. Objections; federal state and county offices Section 5. Objections to certificates of nomination and nomination papers. As a resident of Massachusetts, I am exercising, my Right under the Constitution and general Laws of Massachusetts, to deny the Inclusion of an unqualified pers on on a Ballot. First I will give you a brief of myself: I was born and raised in Roxbury by a F irst generation Italian Mother and a Canadian Father, so I am fully aware of wha t it takes for honest, descent, people to become citizens of this Great Republic . I am a retired Military Officer, serving from 1955 to 1990, thirty-five years de fending our Country and Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. As a young boy, like most young boys I wanted to be President of the USA; howeve r I was informed at one time, by Christopher A. Ianella, who was a State Rep. fr om 1948 on, and at another by Albert L. Dapper ONeil, who served on the Boston City Council, and was a friend of the Family, that I never could be, because my Dad was not a US Citizen, and as the son of a Father who was a Canadian/British Citi zen, I never could be according to the US Constitution. Consequently, I have been very concerned about the election of Mr. Obama and I h ave been following all of the attempts to ascertain the truth of Mr. Obamas statu s, or his eligibility, to be President, and researching everything I could find, in order to determine what makes him any different from me? His dad was also a British Subject. I believe this must/should be addressed at this time, as we are in the Primary S eason with all of the obfuscation, denial, and mudslinging that accompanies it. In order to have an honest and fair (as far as possible) election each and every accusation must be investigated and addressed in order that the Candidate in qu estion be properly vetted. I believe that a lot of information is being hidden by this administration that, if it were available to the public, a lot of things wo uld be different.

As stated above I have Valid concerns as to who lied to me, was it Misters Ianel la and ONeil or Nancy Pelosi ??? The following are all of the Legal decisions, quotes and Findings I believe that are available, there may be more, however these are the ones that apply to Will iam F. Reade, Jr. and Barack Obama II. If you can prove me wrong, I will accept it. If you cannot tell me what you are going to do to rectify the situation. I need a definitive answer from the Elected Officials of the American People, as to why none of you have seen fit to address THE QUESTION: Do we have a Constitutionally eligible person in the Office of President and Comm ander and Chief or NOT?? I have included below the supporting documents that I feel Misters. Ianella and ONeill might have had in mind. 1. The US Constitution: ARTICLE II, Sec. 1: No person except a natural born Citiz en, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Const itution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States 2. MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874): The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opin ion of the court. To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendmentit is necessary to ascertain what persons originall y associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards ad mitted to membership.

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: rst, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitu tion itself, for it provides6 that no person except a natural-born citizen, or a the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eli gible to the office of President,7 and that Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. Thus new citizens may be born or they may be c reated by naturalization. The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Res ort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclatur e of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted t hat all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became thems elves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citi zens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided that any alien, being a free white person, might be admitted as a c itizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalize d, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United S tates, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. 8 These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, b een retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, 3. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution w ere familiar,

Emmerich de Vattels The Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19, includes the accepted definition of Natural Born in place at the time of the adoption of our Constituti on, and is included here for Reference: de Vattel: Of Our Native Country, and Several Things That Relate to It ((Very te lling, especially the Natural Born Citizens bit.)) 212. Citizens and natives. The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by cert ain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advant ages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of p arents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself other wise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the c ondition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is suppo sed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society , reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of t he fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens mer ely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the ye ars of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the socie ty in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is ne cessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born t here of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country . Naturalization Act of 1795 The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414) repealed and replaced theNaturalization Act of 1790. The 1795 Act differed from the 1790 Act by increasing the period of required residence from two to five years in the United States, by introducing the Declaration of Intention requirement, or first papers, which created a two-step naturalization process, and by conferring the s tatus of citizen and not natural born citizen. The Act specified that naturalize d citizenship was reserved only for free white person[s]. 6. The actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, children of citizens of t he United Statesshall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States... (THIRD CONGRESS Session II. Ch.21. 1795, Ap proved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415. Document margin note: How children shall ob tain citizenship through their parents Document margin note: Former Act repealed 1 790 ch.3.) 5. MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) 88 U.S. 162 (Wall.) Has been excerpte d (above) and is included in its entirety, it addresses the 14th Amendment and s uffrage, however the Chief Justice includes a full and concise definition of Natu ral Born Citizen, to include those born outside of the Continental U. S. (John Mc Cain). British Nationality Act, 1948 1948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6.) CHAPTER 56. PREAMBLE Part I British Nationality. Part II

Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Citizenship by birth or descent. 5. Citizenship by descent. Part II Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Citizenship by birth or descent. Citizenship by birth. 4. Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born within the Unite d Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth: Citizenship by descent. 5.(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commence ment of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descen t if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of t he birth: With all of the above supplied as evidence to be considered by you and the Ballo t Commission I await your decision, and remain.