• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

a Letter from WILLIAM F. READE, Jr. LTC USAR (Ret)

Help Support Ranchers.net:


Well-known member
Apr 12, 2008
Reaction score
real world
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 Obama’s 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;



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 person on a Ballot.

First I will give you a brief of myself: I was born and raised in Roxbury by a First generation Italian Mother and a Canadian Father, so I am fully aware of what 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 defending 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; however I was informed at one time, by Christopher A. Ianella, who was a State Rep. from 1948 on, and at another by Albert L. “Dapper” O’Neil, 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 Citizen, I never could be according to the US Constitution.

Consequently, I have been very concerned about the election of Mr. Obama and I have been following all of the attempts to ascertain the truth of Mr. Obama’s status, 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 Season 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 question 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 would be different.

As stated above I have Valid concerns as to who lied to me, was it Misters Ianella and O’Neil 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 William 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 Commander and Chief or NOT?? “

I have included below the supporting documents that I feel Misters. Ianella and O’Neill might have had in mind.

1. The US Constitution: ARTICLE II, Sec. 1: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, 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 opinion 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 originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.

——————– Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides6—————————– that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible 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 created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, 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 citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, 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 States, 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, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, —————————————————————-

3. —– “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar,”

Emmerich de Vattel’s 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 Constitution, and is included here for Reference:

de Vattel: Of Our Native Country, and Several Things That Relate to It ((Very telling, especially the Natural Born Citizens bit.))

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed 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 the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there 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 status of citizen and not natural born citizen. The Act specified that naturalized citizenship was reserved only for “free white person.”

6. The actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, “…children of citizens of the United States…shall 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, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415. Document margin note: “How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents” Document margin note: “Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3.”)

5. MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) 88 U.S. 162 (Wall.) Has been excerpted (above) and is included in its entirety, it addresses the 14th Amendment and suffrage, however the Chief Justice includes a full and concise definition of “Natural Born Citizen”, to include those born outside of the Continental U. S. (John McCain).

British Nationality Act, 1948


Latest posts