Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Joined: Aug 17, 2007 Posts: 4443 Location: Indiana, formerly of Northern Cal
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:53 pm Post subject:
FreedomFirst wrote:
From another blog, there were reports of some kind of a "flap" on radio last night about whether there might be a visa re-entry record showing Stanley Ann Dunham (?Obama?) re-entering the U.S. on August 10, 1961. Supposedly the "false reports" may have broken into Gretawire then have been erased.
Was anyone listening to one of the Internet radio programs? The attorney in Broe v. Reed, in order to clarify the flap, supposedly posted that he has no such document in hand at this time.
I hope "in hand" is the operative phrase and that this doc is in a safe somewhere. However, even if someone had photos taken and developed in august of 1961 showing Ann and newborn Obama at the airport in Kenya standing under the welcome to Kenya sign, directly next to the newspaper stand with August 9, 1961 clearly showing on the papers, with the baby wearing an "i was born in blank blank hospital, Kenya" inscribed on his shirt, no court will look at it, no paper will print it, no action will be taken. _________________ Proud American and wife of a wonderful <strong>LEGAL</strong> immigrant from Ireland.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." -Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Joined: Apr 11, 2008 Posts: 2869 Location: You want some of this?
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 7:04 pm Post subject:
cayla99 wrote:
FreedomFirst wrote:
From another blog, there were reports of some kind of a "flap" on radio last night about whether there might be a visa re-entry record showing Stanley Ann Dunham (?Obama?) re-entering the U.S. on August 10, 1961. Supposedly the "false reports" may have broken into Gretawire then have been erased.
Was anyone listening to one of the Internet radio programs? The attorney in Broe v. Reed, in order to clarify the flap, supposedly posted that he has no such document in hand at this time.
I hope "in hand" is the operative phrase and that this doc is in a safe somewhere. However, even if someone had photos taken and developed in august of 1961 showing Ann and newborn Obama at the airport in Kenya standing under the welcome to Kenya sign, directly next to the newspaper stand with August 9, 1961 clearly showing on the papers, with the baby wearing an "i was born in blank blank hospital, Kenya" inscribed on his shirt, no court will look at it, no paper will print it, no action will be taken.
Got that right!! _________________ Work Harder Millions on Welfare Depend on You!
Joined: Nov 29, 2008 Posts: 624 Location: Portland, ME
Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:17 am Post subject:
Chief Justice John Roberts meets Obama in private
To say I was floored when I read the news item is an understatement. A 'ceremonial' meeting between a president elect and justices of the Supreme Court is somewhat traditional. HOWEVER, in this instance, it's flat out wrong. Chief Justice Roberts has cases on the docket where Obama is the defendant or is the subject of the litigation. Roberts and the other eight justices have already held two 'Distribution for Conferences' on the Donofrio and Wrotnoski cases on Obama's citizenship ineligibility. They just turned away one of Phil Berg's cases a few days ago; that one is still in the Third Circuit.
Joined: Nov 29, 2008 Posts: 624 Location: Portland, ME
Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:51 am Post subject:
Interesting web site, worth a review:
"Today, common Americans - your relatives, friends, neighbors, and co-workers, are forming Committees of Safety in the several States in order to tackle the gravest threats, to their liberties, prosperity, and even survival as a self-governing people that have confronted this country in generations. We need your help, NOW, while there is still time. "
Joined: Aug 17, 2007 Posts: 4443 Location: Indiana, formerly of Northern Cal
Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:02 am Post subject:
HighlanderJuan wrote:
Chief Justice John Roberts meets Obama in private
To say I was floored when I read the news item is an understatement. A 'ceremonial' meeting between a president elect and justices of the Supreme Court is somewhat traditional. HOWEVER, in this instance, it's flat out wrong. Chief Justice Roberts has cases on the docket where Obama is the defendant or is the subject of the litigation. Roberts and the other eight justices have already held two 'Distribution for Conferences' on the Donofrio and Wrotnoski cases on Obama's citizenship ineligibility. They just turned away one of Phil Berg's cases a few days ago; that one is still in the Third Circuit.
It is over boys and girls, we will NEVER IN OUR LIFETIMES know the truth. Unless the invitation included ps bring your original vault cert, school records, adoption records ect....... which we all know it did not. _________________ Proud American and wife of a wonderful <strong>LEGAL</strong> immigrant from Ireland.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." -Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Joined: Nov 29, 2008 Posts: 624 Location: Portland, ME
Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:41 am Post subject: Dr. Edwin Vieira
We have referred to Dr. Edwin Vieira for Constitutional support of the NBC issue. This is a three segment interview concerned with 2nd Amendment, money issues, police state issues. I think there is much we can learn from this man.
A formalized objection to the Chief Justice conducting the swearing in was sent by Orly Taitz as lawyer for the Lightfoot and Keyes lawsuits, based on conflict of interest. It also took advantage of some historical research which found that judges other than Supreme Court judges have administered the oath of office.
Meanwhile, because of that Newsmax article recently which claimed that the break-in to Obama's passport file might have attempted to "cauterize" what was electronically digitally imaged into it, I went searching for other news reports which might explore whether that was even possible. (I was hoping that the data is set up as "Read Only" and completely secure from online tampering.) I found this article which was the one that first broke the news, from the Washington Times. In fact, it was a reporter at that paper who seems to have gotten a tip that there was a break-in (from who???) and turned right around to inquire with the State Department about it, and his questioning is what launched the whole probe.
Passports probe focuses on worker Saturday, March 22, 2008
The State Department investigation of improper computer access to passport records of three presidential candidates is focusing on one remaining employee — a contract worker with a company headed by an adviser to the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama
Getty Images State Department Undersecretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy (left) walked to a meeting with Senate staff members on Capitol Hill yesterday to talk about breaches of confidential passport files belonging to presidential hopefuls Sen. John McCain, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.
The probe by State's inspector general will include polygraph tests for supervisors in the passport section to find out whether the three contract employees who accessed the records had a political motive or were part of a political operation to obtain personal data on Mr. Obama, Sen. John McCain or Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Two of the three contract employees had been fired before The Washington Times first reported Thursday on security breaches involving Mr. Obama's passport records. The furor expanded yesterday to incidents involving the passport records of Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton.
The third employee, who has not been fired, worked for The Analysis Corporation (TAC), which is headed by John O. Brennan, a former CIA agent who is an adviser to Mr. Obama's presidential campaign on intelligence and foreign policy.
The TAC employee is the only individual to have accessed both Mr. Obama's and Mr. McCain's passport information without proper authorization, a State Department spokesman said. That employee, who was not named, triggered an electronic alarm system, officials familiar with the probe said.
The accessed records have the data provided in passport applications and used by the department to issue or renew travel documents.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said he was unaware of the specific activities of the IG investigation but said all three contract employees will be questioned.
Video: Candidates' passport files pried into
Fishwrap: Was passport breach dirty tricks, or overblown fluke?
State Department officials said Thursday and yesterday that the intrusions appeared to be the result of "imprudent curiosity" on the part of contract employees who were hired last summer to help process passport applications.
In Portland, Ore., Mr. Obama said the series of attempts to "tap into people's personal records" were "a problem not just for me but for how our government functions."
"I expect a full and thorough investigation. It should be done in conjunction with those congressional committees that have oversight so it's not simply an internal matter," Mr. Obama told reporters.
Mr. McCain, who is traveling in France, called for an apology and a full investigation of the breach. "The United States of America values everyone's privacy and corrective action should be taken," he said.
Mrs. Clinton had not publicly commented by yesterday evening.
Mr. McCormack said the investigation also will determine whether the records of other high-profile political candidates were accessed improperly and whether there are "systemic" problems.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice promised that the department will carry out a "full investigation" and expressed anger about the breaches, as well as the failure to notify senior officials.
"It should have been known to senior management. It was not, to my knowledge. And we also want to take every step that we can to make sure that this kind of thing doesn't happen again," she said, adding apologies to all three candidates, starting with Mr. Obama.
"I was sorry and I told him that I myself would be very disturbed if I learned that somebody had looked into my passport file," Miss Rice said of her telephone apology yesterday to the Illinois senator. She also called Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain.
Officials do not know whether information was improperly copied, altered or removed from the database during the intrusions.
"We are looking at [whether] there is anything more to why these people did this other than inappropriate curiosity," said Patrick F. Kennedy, undersecretary of state for management, who is in charge of the passport offices.
State Department officials met for about 90 minutes with the Senate staffs of each candidate, along with the staff of Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Delaware Democrat and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who has jurisdiction over the Foreign Service.
Rep. Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat, sent a letter to Miss Rice demanding to know the names of the contract employees.
Besides the TAC employee, the State Department said the other two employees worked for Stanley Inc., a 3,500-person technology firm based in Arlington that this week won a $570 million contract to continue providing passport services to the State Department, work the company has done since 1992.
TAC, a McLean-based information firm that has helped the State Department automate the Terrorist Watchlist over the last several years, issued a statement last night that it had been notified earlier in the day that one of its contractors had acted improperly. The firm said it had honored a State Department request not to fire its consultant to help the investigation.
"This individual's actions were taken without the knowledge or direction of anyone at TAC and are wholly inconsistent with our professional and ethical standards," the company wrote.
Calls to the Obama campaign about Mr. Brennan were not returned.
Mr. McCormack said yesterday there was a fourth person who breached the passport records, although he described it as a case of inadvertance. He said a passport office trainee last year was learning how to work with passport electronic records and searched for Mrs. Clinton's file as a test, but was "immediately admonished, and it didn't happen again."
Working-level supervisors confronted the three employees after a computer alarm system was triggered by the effort to access Mr. Obama's records.
"What didn't happen is that that information didn't rise up to senior management levels, so that we could be made aware of it. That should have happened," Mr. McCormack said.
If senior officials were alerted to the intrusions, additional safeguards would have been used to protect the data, Mr. McCormack said.
Officials said the computer alarm that was set off includes a notification mechanism that should have alerted State's inspector general. However, it is not clear whether the IG reviewed the improper computer activities, the officials said.
Acting Inspector General William E. Todd and the chief IG branch investigator, James B. Burch, a former U.S. Secret Service agent, are leading the passport probe, which began Thursday. Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said his department was no reason yet to investigate.
Miss Rice and Mr. Kennedy did not learn of the breaches of Mr. Obama's personal data until The Times e-mailed questions about the security breaches on Thursday.
"As soon as we realized that there were these unauthorized accesses for Senator Obama's passport files, we collected the information, we briefed the secretary, we briefed Senator Obama's staff, all before we ever replied to the reporter," Mr. McCormack said.
"Then we replied to the reporter, and then we all talked to the rest of you as the questions came in," he said.
The video link in that original article is dead now, but the link to the Forums has a lot of interesting material from around that time.
There had been an official report filed the prior week. I don't know if the Congress people got to see the version without any blacked out pages, but the version released to the press had a lot of black ink applied.
In addition to the 104 page report, there was a six page reply from Acting Assistant secretary for administration William H. Moser that agreed with the recommendations of the report. Only one paragraph was readable in the version given to reporters. All the rest had been blacked out.
Less than a month ago, the identity of one of the people who broke into the files was revealed with this article about a sentencing (probation and community service).
size=24]Former Contractor Gets Probation in Passport Files Case[/size]
By Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 19, 2008; 10:53 AM
A former State Department contractor was sentenced today to a year's probation for improperly accessing the passport files of nearly 200 celebrities, politicians, actors and athletes.
Lawrence C. Yontz, 48, apologized for his conduct and said he only viewed the files for his "own personal curiosity."
The Arlington resident pleaded guilty in September to one count of unauthorized computer access, admitting that he logged onto a computer system to illegally access the files between February 2005 and March. He is the only person to have been charged since authorities learned in March that contract workers had snooped in the private passport files of Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), among others.
Prosecutors have not said whose files Yontz accessed, and that information was not part of the plea agreement.
Prosecutors and Yontz's attorney, David H. Laufman, told a federal judge in the District during a brief hearing that Yontz did not sell or provide the information he gleaned from the files to others. Yontz cooperated extensively with authorities, passed a polygraph examination and agreed to plead guilty to a crime before the Justice Department got involved in the case, said prosecutor Armando O. Bonilla.
Yontz is also assisting investigators in an unrelated criminal investigation, Bonilla said.
In sentencing Yontz to probation and 50 hours of community service, U.S. Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola told the former contractor that "the damage you did to yourself is greater than the damage you did to others." Yontz, who is unemployed, worked for the State Department from 1987 through 1996. From 2004 through March, he worked for an unidentified contracting firm at the State Department. An audit launched after the passport-snooping was discovered found "weaknesses, including a general lack of policies, procedures, guidance and training" in the office that stores data on 127 million Americans who hold passports.
One celebrity's records were breached 356 times by more than six dozen people, the audit found.
If he was one of the three unidentified people mentioned in the original report, and if he was fired as the dates bold-faced above suggest, then he logically would have been working for Stanley, Inc. which was claimed to have two of the three contractor employees and to have fired both.
It's interesting that there is this "unrelated" other investigation going on.
Joined: Aug 17, 2007 Posts: 4443 Location: Indiana, formerly of Northern Cal
Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:01 pm Post subject:
I find this to be very interesting:
Quote:
State Department officials met for about 90 minutes with the Senate staffs of each candidate, along with the staff of Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Delaware Democrat and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who has jurisdiction over the Foreign Service.
I wonder if this had any influence on the VP nomination. Handy, the man in charge of the senate portion of the investigation gets nominated. Biden has a long record of cheating and plagiarism, which Obama pointed out how untrustworthy he was in the early primaries. What made Obama change his mind? Could it simply be he had to power and lack of morals to make Obama's biggest problem go away if Obama chose him? _________________ Proud American and wife of a wonderful <strong>LEGAL</strong> immigrant from Ireland.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." -Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Joined: Apr 11, 2008 Posts: 2869 Location: You want some of this?
Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:52 pm Post subject:
cayla99 wrote:
HighlanderJuan wrote:
Chief Justice John Roberts meets Obama in private
To say I was floored when I read the news item is an understatement. A 'ceremonial' meeting between a president elect and justices of the Supreme Court is somewhat traditional. HOWEVER, in this instance, it's flat out wrong. Chief Justice Roberts has cases on the docket where Obama is the defendant or is the subject of the litigation. Roberts and the other eight justices have already held two 'Distribution for Conferences' on the Donofrio and Wrotnoski cases on Obama's citizenship ineligibility. They just turned away one of Phil Berg's cases a few days ago; that one is still in the Third Circuit.
It is over boys and girls, we will NEVER IN OUR LIFETIMES know the truth. Unless the invitation included ps bring your original vault cert, school records, adoption records ect....... which we all know it did not.
If people decided to break into where his crap is locked up then we could expose him for good!! _________________ Work Harder Millions on Welfare Depend on You!
Joined: Aug 17, 2007 Posts: 4443 Location: Indiana, formerly of Northern Cal
Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:14 am Post subject:
HighlanderJuan wrote:
CCUSA wrote:
My sister watched Jepardy a week or 2 after the election.
She said one of the questions was,
"WHAT STATE WAS BARAK OBAMA BORN IN?"
They state the correct answer is Hawaii.
Oh really.
I would have said Kenya. That's one of the 57 states, isn't it?
I would laugh but this is not funny. _________________ Proud American and wife of a wonderful <strong>LEGAL</strong> immigrant from Ireland.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." -Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Thousands of urgent appeals for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the question of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president of the United States are being delivered to the justices as part of WND's campaign to seek the truth.
Thousands of urgent appeals for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the question of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president of the United States are being delivered to the justices as part of WND's campaign to seek the truth.
I wonder if all of these suits were a topic of conversation during the little meeting with the defendant that the chief justice had. _________________ Proud American and wife of a wonderful <strong>LEGAL</strong> immigrant from Ireland.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." -Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Why is there a spokesman from the Dept. of Justice making a comment about one of the cases? Did he represent any governmental defendant? This is from a newspaper The Morning Call in Allentown, PA:
Supreme Court won't hear Berg's appeal Montco lawyer claims Obama isn't natural-born citizen.
By Kevin Amerman | Of The Morning Call
January 16, 2009
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from a Montgomery County attorney who claimed Barack Obama was ineligible to become president.
The justices decided Monday they won't hear Philip Berg's appeal that Obama, who will be inaugurated Tuesday, was born in Kenya and isn't a natural-born U.S. citizen.
Berg's lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge in October, and Berg immediately petitioned the Supreme Court to hear his appeal.
''It's dead in the water,'' said Charles Miller, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice.
Berg of Lafayette Hill promised to keep fighting to remove Obama.
''We're not going to give up on this,'' he said Thursday.
Berg sued Obama last August, saying the Democrat ''cheated his way into a fraudulent candidacy and cheated legitimately eligible natural-born citizens from competing in a fair process.''
Last month, the Supreme Court turned down a similar appeal by Leo C. Donofrio, a retired lawyer from East Brunswick, N.J. Donofrio contended that Obama was ineligible to be president because his father was from Kenya.
Immigrant advocates decry new rules on courts, DNA
By AMY TAXIN – 6 days ago
SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) — Immigrant rights advocates expressed outrage over two new rules going into effect in the waning days of the Bush administration, one affecting how immigrants are represented in deportation cases and another mandating DNA tests for detained immigrants.
In a decision dated Wednesday, Attorney General Michael Mukasey said immigrants facing deportation do not have the right to get their cases reopened just because of shoddy work by their attorney.
Another Justice Department rule, which took effect Friday, directs federal agencies to collect DNA samples from foreigners who are detained by U.S. authorities.
Charles Miller, a spokesman for the Department of Justice, could not say why Mukasey issued the 33-page ruling at this time. The other rule, on DNA, had been proposed last year but went into effect this week.
Mukasey's ruling followed a series of instances in which immigrants ordered by a judge to leave the country sought to reopen their cases by citing poor legal representation.
Immigration attorneys said the rule threatens immigrants' right to a fair hearing in a community already vulnerable to fraud.
"People pretend to be lawyers and hang up a shingle and tell the client, 'I am a lawyer and am going to represent you,' and then they don't," said Nadine Wettstein, director of the American Immigration Law Foundation's Legal Action Center. "If that were to happen, this decision says, `Tough luck.'"
Nikhil Shah, an immigration attorney in Los Angeles, said he almost lost his chance at a green card because he was misled by a paralegal who pretended to be an attorney and failed to properly submit his paperwork.
Shah, who is originally from India, said he could see how easily an immigrant who didn't speak English or know the law could get into trouble in court.
But Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, said immigrants need to take responsibility in choosing an attorney.
"The broad concept is completely valid. Deportation cases are not criminal proceedings, therefore nobody has a right to any kind of attorney — let alone a good one," said Krikorian, whose group favors limitations on immigration.
Justice officials have estimated the DNA rule would put 1.2 million DNA samples into the federal DNA database each year.
Joined: Nov 29, 2008 Posts: 624 Location: Portland, ME
Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:30 am Post subject:
FreedomFirst wrote:
Why is there a spokesman from the Dept. of Justice making a comment about one of the cases? Did he represent any governmental defendant? This is from a newspaper The Morning Call in Allentown, PA:
I'm beginning to think everyone in government is involved in this scam of the American people. If that is the case, and our elected officials can't abide by the law, then it is time for another revolution.
What the hell is going on with these people? Why this huge cover-up?
Joined: Aug 17, 2007 Posts: 4443 Location: Indiana, formerly of Northern Cal
Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:37 am Post subject:
HighlanderJuan wrote:
FreedomFirst wrote:
Why is there a spokesman from the Dept. of Justice making a comment about one of the cases? Did he represent any governmental defendant? This is from a newspaper The Morning Call in Allentown, PA:
I'm beginning to think everyone in government is involved in this scam of the American people. If that is the case, and our elected officials can't abide by the law, then it is time for another revolution.
What the hell is going on with these people? Why this huge cover-up?
Ditto _________________ Proud American and wife of a wonderful <strong>LEGAL</strong> immigrant from Ireland.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." -Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Joined: Aug 17, 2007 Posts: 4443 Location: Indiana, formerly of Northern Cal
Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:59 am Post subject:
They would not let me edit this to add link....see below _________________ Proud American and wife of a wonderful <strong>LEGAL</strong> immigrant from Ireland.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." -Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Last edited by cayla99 on Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:02 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Aug 17, 2007 Posts: 4443 Location: Indiana, formerly of Northern Cal
Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:00 am Post subject:
CHANGE OF TACTICS!!!! This is really really long, but important. Please take the time to read it!
Lightfoot v. Bowen: Motion Filed to Declare Obama Unqualified, Certiorari Before Judgment
Submitted by Phil on Thu, Jan 15, 20094 Comments
Lightfoot v. Bowen: Motion Filed to Declare Obama Unqualified, Certiorari Before Judgment
Dr. Orly Taitz, lead counsel in Lightfoot v. Bowen, today filed the following motion to declare that the President-Elect fails to qualify under Article 2, Section 1 and Amendment 20 (including Rule 21 (2)(B) and (4), as shown below) of the Constitution.
The relevant part of the 20th Amendment:
Section. 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
The motion in its entirety follows…
No. 08A524
In The Supreme Court of the United States
GAIL LIGHTFOOT, NEIL B. TURNER, KATHLEEN FLANAGAN,
JAMES M. OBERSCHAIN, CAMDEN W. MCCONNELL,
PAMELA BARNETT, & EVELYN BRADLEY
Petitioners;
v.
DEBRA BOWEN, Secretary of State of California
Respondent.
On Petition For A Write Of Certiorari
Before Judgement To The
Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.:(S168690)
MOTION TO DECLARE THAT BY DEFAULT,
THE PRESIDENT ELECT RESPONDENT
BARACK OBAMA HAS FAILED TO QUALIFY
UNDER US CONSTITUTION ARTICLE II §1, &
AMENDMENT 20, PER RULE 21 (2)(B) & (4)
Attorney of Record
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
26302 La Paz
Mission Viejo CA 92691
949-683-5411
January 15, 2009
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Question I: Does the burden of proof lie with the Petitioner to prove standing and evidence lack of qualification by a candidate/President elect, where election officers rely on a candidate’s declaration? OR Does the CONSTITUTION amend. 20 place the burden of proof on the President elect to provide objective government certified witnessed proofs, with election officers under oath to challenge, examine and declare that the President elect has or has not qualified, enforceable by petition for redress of grievances?
Question II: Should the “natural born citizen” presidential qualification be interpreted expansively to expand civil rights under the 14th Amendment? OR Should it be interpreted restrictively as an essential guard against tyranny by ensuring the Commander in Chief has only had undivided allegiance to the U.S.A., to safeguard the Constitution and the Republic?
MOTION TO DECLARE THAT BY DEFAULT, THE PRESIDENT ELECT RESPONDENT BARACK OBAMA HAS FAILED TO QUALIFY UNDER US CONSTITUTION ARTICLE II §1, & AMENDMENT 20, PER RULE 21 (2)(B) & (4)
I. Motion to file Under Rule 21 (2) (b), and 21(4).
The Petitioner requests leave of this Court to file this Motion under Rule 21, (2) (b) which empowers Petitioner submit “any motion the granting of which would dispose of the entire case or would affect the final judgment to be entered”. By Rule 21 (4), “the Court may act on a motion without waiting for a response.”
To the Petitioner’s knowledge, the following two questions have not been brought to the attention of this Court by the parties or have not been adequately discussed:
Question I: Does the burden of proof lie with the Petitioner to prove standing and evidence lack of qualification by a candidate/President elect, where election officers rely on a candidate’s declaration? OR Does the CONSTITUTION amend. 20 place the burden of proof on the President elect to provide objective government certified witnessed proofs, with election officers under oath to challenge, examine and declare that the President elect has or has not qualified, enforceable by petition for redress of grievances?
Recent events strongly changed the circumstances relating to the Respondent relative to the Petition.
A. Respondent declared President elect
Congress in joint session recorded the Electoral College votes on January 8, 2009. It declared Respondent Barack Hussein Obama II to be the President elect. This event now brings to bear U.S. CONST. Amendment 20.
B. Burden of Proof on Responden
The clause “have failed to qualify” in U.S. CONST. Amend. 20, place the burden of proof directly on the President elect, the Respondent in this case.
C. Respondent has failed to submit proofs
Per the Petitioner’s petition and to his belief and knowledge, the Respondent has to date failed to present to any constitutional election officer, any government certified proofs attested to by reliable witnesses, for any of the qualifications required under U.S. Const. Art II §1.
D. Respondent has hindered discovery
Respondent has actively hindered election officers and We the People from obtaining and examining proofs of his qualifications for President comprising government certified proofs attested to by reliable witnesses, and certified copies of military, public and educational records.
Per the Petitioner’s petition and to her belief and knowledge, the Respondent has, at great cost, systematically opposed in court every effort to require him to provide such proofs, including those presented before this Court by the Petitioner.
E. President elect has failed to qualify, by default and by opposition.
The Petitioner submits that, both by default and by active hindrance to officers and to petitioners seeking that evidence, Respondent, Barack Hussein Obama II, the President Elect, has “failed to qualify” as per U.S. Constitution Amendment 20.
F. Immediate Constitutional Remedy
In light of the importance of upholding the CONSTITUTION as supreme law, these changed circumstances bring Amendment 20 to bear, and because of the very high pubic importance of this matter, Petitioner prays that this Court provide the following immediate constitutional remedy to better satisfy the prayer of the Petitioner:
Find that the President elect has failed to qualify by default, under U.S. CONST. Article II §1 & Amendment 20.
This remedy would rely on observation of the Respondents actions of not supplying proofs that he qualifies, both by omission and commission, rather than on the merits of the Petitioner’s case.
The Petitioner’s previous and present prayers may then be molded to communicate that finding to Congress, which then would have constitutional business of the highest privilege to elect a President who does qualify.
G. Presidential candidates can then qualify.
This constitutional remedy would then return to the Electoral College and to Congress the constitutional duty to elect a President who did qualify from all the available candidates.
Question II: Should the “natural born citizen” presidential qualification be interpreted expansively to expand civil rights under the 14th Amendment? OR Should it be interpreted restrictively as an essential guard against tyranny by ensuring the Commander in Chief has only had undivided allegiance to the U.S.A., to safeguard the Constitution and the Republic?
Petitioner submits an underlying constitutional principle of undivided loyalty to distinguish the stringent qualifications of “natural born citizen” essential for the Commander in Chief for the common defense in time of war, and preserving domestic tranquility, versus upholding civil rights of “citizens”.
Petitioner appeals to the primacy of upholding the Constitution as invoilable supreme law, and preserving the essential protection of presidential qualifications to preserve the Republic.
Petitioner prays that the Court provide clear guidance on this question of interpreting this critical qualification of the President elect before the Inauguration on January 20th. This would enable election officers to examine proofs submitted by the President elect, or on lack thereof, to properly conduct their constitutional duty to declare that the President elect has qualified, or has failed to qualify, before the date of the Inauguration.
The Petitioner’s prayer could then be molded to communicate that finding to Congress, which then would have constitutional business of the highest privilege to elect a President who does qualify. The Petitioner comes bearing the burden of upholding our Constitution and protecting our Republic against tyranny, on behalf of We the People in this and future generations. Standing before the Judge of all the world for the rectitude of her ways:
“I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject
to punishment.” ___________________________, January 15, 2009
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ, 949-683-5411
26302 La Paz, Mission Viejo CA 92691
MOTION FOR WAIVER OF RULE 37(2)(A) OF THIS COURT
The Petitioner humbly requests waiver of Rule 37(2)(a) of this Court, requiring timely filing of a motion with specified notice to all parties. Petitioner appeals to the unique over riding change in circumstances created by the formal election by the Electoral College of the Respondent, Barack Hussein Obama II, and his delayed declaration on Thursday, Jan. 8th, 2009, by Congress in joint session, to be the President elect. This uniquely brings to bear the constitutional actions prescribed by U.S. CONST. Amend. 20.
Per the Petitioner’s case, the motion, and to her belief and knowledge, to date the Respondent has failed to submit to constitutional election officers the necessary government certified witnessed proofs verifying that he qualifies to be President. He has further opposed all efforts by election officers and by We the People to obtain such certified proofs.
Furthermore, to date, all State and Federal election officers appear to have committed misprision of their duties under U.S. CONST. amend. 20, by failing to examine the qualifications of the President elect, and thence by failing to declare that the President elect has qualified, or has failed to qualify.
The delayed declaration of the President elect left but five (5) working days to observe this misprision, prepare this Motion, and to submit it, before this Court meets in conference on Friday January 16th to consider the Petitioner case After that conference this Court has no (0) working days before the inauguration of the Respondent as President on Tuesday January 20th. That event without word from this Court would give the impression of fait accompli creating such enormous political barriers as to possibly prevent effective redress by the Petitioner.
Inauguration of the President elect having a popular majority while preventing his qualifications from being examined would nullify U.S. art. II §1. Conversely, declaration that the President elect had qualified or failed to have qualified would be of very high public import.
Were this Court to provide the recommended remedy, of declaring that the President elect had failed to qualify, that would provide obvious immediate constitutional relief for the Petitioner. This would cause far less political trauma by clearly upholding constitutionally defined procedures than any redress by granting existing prayers after the inauguration.
Petitioner presents analysis regarding critical safeguards to the Constitution that could be of existential importance to preserving the Republic. The constitutional principle of sole allegiance underlying the restrictive qualification of “natural born citizen” for Commander in Chief to protect the Constitution rather than civil rights of citizens, does not appear to have been so identified in the Petitioner’s case nor in other petitions to the Court.
The Motion would further support the cause of numerous subsequent Petitioners including Berg v. Obama No. 08-570 distributed for the Court’s conference on January 16th, who are committed to submitting petitions for similar issues.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on January 15, 2009. ______________________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTIONS PRESENTED I
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 1
ARGUMENT 3
I.The CONSTITUTION Places The Burden Of Proof On the President Elect, Who Has Failed To Qualify 3
A. The 20th Amendment qualification process 3
1. Burden of proof on the President elect 3
2. Qualification candidate 3
3. Constitutional qualifications exist 3
4. Officers competent to judge qualifications 3
5. Challenging Respondent’s qualifications 3
6. Venues for qualification 4
7. Period for qualification 4
8. Opportunity for qualifying 4
9. Time and Actors for remedy 4
10. Verification of proofs of qualifications 4
11. Electoral College 5
12. State Election Officers 5
13. Declaration of qualification/failure 5
14. Proofs for explicit qualification criteria 5
15. Inauguration would not remedy defects 6
B. Respondent’s refusal to supply proofs 6
1. No certified documents provided 6
2. Birth records sealed 6
3. Educational records sealed 6
II. Undivided allegiance to the U.S. underlies the restrictive “natural born citizen” qualification for Commander in Chief to preserve the Republic. 7
A. Stringency of qualifications 8
1. Increasing Responsibility 8
2. Increasing Maturity 8
3. Increasing Citizenship/Residency Duration 8
4. More Stringent Citizenship 8
Table 1: Stringency of Leadership Qualifications 8
5. Founders all U.S. citizens 9
6. Founders exception as not “natural born citizens” 9
B. Contemporary definitions: “native born citizen” 10
1. Emmerich de Vattel, Law of Nations (1758) 10
2. William Blackstone, Commentaries (1765) 10
C. Primary allegiance passes through fathers 10
D. Birth to Colonials not U.S., “natural born” 10
E. RPE Obama born of a British Colonial 10
F. Birth to two citizens overseas 11
G. Commander in Chief in time of war 11
1. Foreigners excluded for Commander in Chief 11
2. Undivided Allegiance for Commander in Chief 12
3. International conflict over divided loyalties 12
4. Danger of Traitors with Foreign Allegiance 12
5. Avoid dual nationality through a parent 13
6. Avoid dual nationality through birth place 13
7. Power to Exclude Aliens 13
H. Natural Born under Amendment 14 14
1. Citizenship rights 14
2. Bingham affirms narrow “natural born 14
3. Reviews of “natural born citizen” 14
III. CONCLUSION 14
IV. APPENDIX A-1
A. Petition for redress of President elect’s failure to qualify A-1
C. Civilians killed by 20th Century Tyrants A-2
D. The Rule of Law, collective ‘unalienable rights’ and ‘ancient liberties’
A-3
E. Oaths Secure the CONSTITUTION & and Rule of Law A-4
F. CONSTITUTION of the United States of America A-5
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
231 U.S. 9, 22 (1913) 10
322 U.S. 665, 673 (1944) 10
377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964) 10
Chae Chan Ping v. United States 130 U.S. 581, 603, 604 (1889) 13
Perkins v. Elg 307 U.S. 325 13, 14
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - (U.S. 1787)
U.S. CONST. pmbl 7, A-5
U.S. CONST., amend. XX passim
U.S. CONST., amend I. 7
U.S. CONST., amend. IX A-6
U.S. CONST., amend. X A-6
U.S. CONST., amend. XIV § 1 A-6
STATUTES: Organic Laws of U.S.A. & States
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (U.S. 1776) passim
DECLARATION (U.S. 1776) 9
DECLARATION para. 2. A-3
DECLARATION para. 32 A-5
Massachussetts Constitution §XXX (1780) A-3
STATUTES: Organic Laws - Common Law
1 Blackstone Commentaries(1765) Ch. 1 § 3 (1765) 10, A-3
BILL OF RIGHTS secs. 16, 17, 18. 1, W. & M., 2d sess., c. 2 , 16 Dec. 1689 (U.K.) 7,A-4
Blackstone, Commentaries, 152-154 (1765) 10
DOOMS (Code) of Alfred “the Great” (880). A-4
MAGNA CARTA, 17 John (1215); 1 Henry 3 (1225). 6, 7, A-4
Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, 476 (1856) 10
U.S. CONST., art. VI ¶2 6, 7
Washington, Writings (1932), Vol. XI, pp. 342-343, General Orders of May 2, 1778 12
STATUTES: Other, Bills, Proclamations, & Resolves
5 U.S.C. 3331 Oath of Office. A-5
10 U.S.C. 312. Militia duty: exemptions. A-4
28 U.S.C. 453. Oaths of justices and judges. A-4
29 U.S.C. 169 Employees with religious convictions[]fees A-4
Naturalization act of 1795, 1 Sess. II Ch. 21 414, 415 (1795) 11
BIBLE
Bible. A-3
Matthew 5:33-37. Affirmation. A-4
Ruth 4:6 10
TREATISES
Courtois, Stéphane et al. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, 912 pp, ISBN 0-674-07608-7 (1999). 7
de Vattel, Law of Nations (1758), Bk. 1, Ch. 19, p 101 10, 14
John Locke 2nd Treatise of Civil Govt. ch. 4 § 22 (1690) A-4
Rushdoony (1973), Inst. Biblical Law, Craig Press 10
Story, Joseph Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 2 Vols. xxxiii, 735, 702pp. (Reprint ed. Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. 2001 ISBN 1-58477-193-3) (1858). A-5
OTHER AUTHORITIES
4 Elliott’s Debates p. 196 (30 July 1788). A-4
British Nationality Act (1948) §5(1) 10, 11, A-1
Continental Congress, Declaration and Resolves 14 Oct. 1774 Tansill 1–5 #2 A-3
Rec. Fed. Conv. 1787 CCLXXXVIII p 385, 387 (March 28, 1800) 12, 13
Rec. Fed. Conv. 1787 LXVIII. John Jay to George Washington.3 (NY Jul. 25)
1, 12, 13
Trial of the Seven Bishops for Publishing a Libel. 12 How. St. Tr. 183, 415, (1688).
A-4
Washington, George Farewell Address (Sept. 17, 1796). A-5
MISCELLANEOUS
Samuel Rutherford Lex Rex (1644). A-26
III. Undivided allegiance to the U.S. underlies the restrictive “natural born citizen” qualification for Commander in Chief to preserve the Republic. When King and Parliament breached their rights with arbitrary laws, the Founders fought to restore the Rule of Law claiming ‘unalienable rights’ and ‘entitle[ment]’ by the ‘laws of God.’ DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (U.S. 1776) (herein “DECLARATION”). The inviolability of the Magna Carta (1215) was preserved in the U.S. Constitution (1787) as “supreme law.” Magna Carta (1215) §61. This security was restored by theU.S. CONST., amend I.U.S. CONST. pmblU.S. CONST., art. I §3 para. 5. The “natural born citizen” allegiance qualification was strictest of these, to protect against treason and tyranny.
Democracies Descending into Tyranny: Thirty three democracies descended into tyranny during the 20th century by failing to uphold constitutional protections. These included Germany, Russia, and China.
Secularist States Murdered Millions: States establishing Secularism caused the most extrajudicial deaths in the 20th Century. Courtois et al. (1999) detail the consequent horrors of atheistic communist governments killing more than 125 million - more than three times the 38 million killed in all 20th Century wars. See Appendix C, Hagen & Irish (2000).
The greatest threat to Domestic tranquility is not war but descent into mob rule and dictatorship. Preserving protections of the Constitution and Republic are critically important. The restrictive “natural born citizen” qualification for President, is a critical constitutional guard against tyranny. Petitioner applies the unalienable right of redress petition and security of Oaths to preserve the US. CONST. in face of misprision of failing to enforce presidential qualifications by election officers.
Petitioner humbly prays this Court evaluate the Petitioner’s case in context of how best to enforce restrictive qualifications for President to preserve the Constitution and Republic from tyranny, rather than its prior cases on protecting individual civil rights.
A. Stringency of qualifications The U.S. CONSTITUTION explicitly requires a progressively increasing stringency in qualifications for higher levels of officers of government. See Table 1.
1. Increasing Responsibility Representatives represent a portion of a State (< 30,000 citizens per U.S. CONST. art. I, §2 para 3). Senators have greater responsibility to represent a State and the Nation’s interests. The President is responsible for the entire Nation. In light of their increasing responsibilities, the CONSTITUTION imposes increasingly stringent qualifications for Congressional offices, with the greatest stringency for the President.
2. Increasing Maturity The minimum age increases from 25 to 30 to 35 years for Representatives, Senators and the President. After coming of age at 21, this requires from 4 years to 9 years to 14 years of maturity. The President must have 350% the adult maturity of Representatives.
3. Increasing Citizenship/Residency Duration The qualification of citizenship increases from 7 years to 9 years for Representatives, and Senators (no residency). ( U.S. CONST. art. I, §3 para. 3U.S. CONST. art. II, §1 para. 5 Each Member of Congress must be a “citizen” U.S. CONST. art. I, §2 para. 2; U.S. CONST. art. II, §1 para. 5. The features distinguishing “natural born citizen” from “citizen” are critical to this and other cases contesting respondent Obama’s qualifications.
Table 1: Stringency of Leadership Qualifications
Member of Congress President
Repre-sentative Senator Commander in Chief
Responsi-bility Part State State All States
Minimum Age years 25* 30** 35***
Citizen/
Resident 7 years citizen* 9 years citizen** 14 years a resident ***
Citizen Type Any * Any ** Natural born ***
US allegiance Sole or divided Sole or divided Undivided
Father a citizen Option Option Yes
Mother a citizen Option Option Yes
Naturalized Option+ Option+ No+
Born in US jurisdiction Option+ Option+ Yes (or Residency)+
*U.S. CONST. art. I, §1; **U.S. CONST. art. I, §3; ***U.S. CONST. art. II, §1; +U.S. CONST. amend. XIV §1 with statutory citizenship requirements
Petitioner submits that the qualification of “natural born citizen” for the President must be more stringent than “citizen”, both by logic, and by inference from the gradation of constitutional qualifications for Representatives, Senators and the President.
However, “citizen” is a binary qualification. As “natural born citizen” is not defined within the Constitution, what are the constitutional criteria for establishing for this greater stringency? The “jurisdiction” of birth, allegiance or citizenship of each parent at an individual’s birth, and the individual’s own actions regarding allegiance on coming of age create multiple subcategories of “citizen”. Following are distinctions between “naturalized”, “native”, and “natural born” citizens as shown in the CONSTITUTION, by the Founders, and by contemporary authorities.
6. Founders all U.S. citizens By U.S. CONST., art. VII para. 3, the U.S.A. is dated by “the independence of the United States of America the twelfth” codifying that it was established by the Declaration of Independence, (U.S. 1776). On adoption of the U.S. CONST. numerous candidates for Representatives and Senators satisfied the requirements of “citizen”, having 7 or 9 years of citizenship, and age per & §3. If Respondent Obama had been a U.S. “citizen” for 9 years and was at least 30 years age he would have qualified on his election to the Senate.
7. Founders exception as not “natural born citizens” However, DECLARATION (U.S. 1776)377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964)322 U.S. 665, 673 (1944)231 U.S. 9, 22 (1913) ” Emmerich de Vattel, Law of Nations (1758)
de Vattel’s Law of Nations widely quoted by the Founders. de Vattel stated:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. ..” Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758), Bk. 1, Ch. 19, Citizens and Nations, p 101 para 212; cited in Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, 476 (1856).
2. ” William Blackstone, Commentaries (1765)
Blackstone in reviewing the Common Law stated:
“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, . . . aliens, such as are born out of it. . . .
. . .every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, . . .” Commentaries 154-57 (Dean Gait ed., 1941)
Both de Vattel and Blackstone thus state that children born of two citizens in that nation are natural-born citizens. RPE Obama has not shown evidence that both his biological parents were U.S. citizens.
D. Primary allegiance passes through fathers In the Judeo-Christian legal tradition, allegiance flows through the father. Bible Ruth 4:6; de Vattel and Blackstone affirm this principle:
“ . .the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children.” de Vattel, Law of Nations (1758), Bk. 1, Ch. 19, Citizens & Nations, p 101 para 212.
“ . . .so that all children, born out of the king’s licence, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes,. . .” William Blackstone, Commentaries 154-57 (Dean Gait ed., 1941)
RPE Obama has not shown evidence his father was a natural-born US citizen.
E. Birth to Colonials not US, “natural born” George Washington was born to colonials of Virginia, and John Adams to colonials of Massachussetts. Both were born “native” to those Colonies, and “overseas” to Britain. Yet by the exception clause, the Founders implied that the restriction to U.S. “natural born citizen” disqualified both from becoming U.S. President. The CONSTITUTION’S exclusion clause by application disqualifies all U.S. citizens born to colonial fathers subject to the British sovereign.
F. RPE Obama born of a British Colonial RPE Obama has posted:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.” http://www.Fightthesmears.org
(Technically the British East African Protectorate of Zanzibar until Kenya gained independence in 1963.)
The divorce decree for RPE Obama’s parents has recently been posted. (http://www.plainsradio.com).
“That one child has been born to said Libelant and Libeled as issue of said marriage, to wit: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, a son, born August 4, 1961.” HI, 1st Cir. Domestic Relations, divorce decree D. No. 57972 Stanley Ann D. Obama v. Barack H. Obama p 2 §IV.
The Hawaii court thus confirms RPE Obama’s statements.
RPE Obama acknowledged that he had foreign allegiance, being a British citizen at birth through his Kenyan father (per British law provided exceptions for children born overseas to ambassadors, merchants, and citizens:
“Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: . . .all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England:” Blackstone Commentaries 154-57.
After adoption of the Constitution, Congress adapted this common law distinguishing between children born overseas vs those within the jurisdiction of the US, describing them as “citizen” rather than natural born citizen. Naturalization act of 1795, 1 Sess. II Ch. 21 414, 415 (1795), (with variations in 1790 and 1798.)
If born overseas, RPE Obama has not submitted proofs that he was born to two US citizens.
I. Commander in Chief in time of war The U.S. CONST. art II §2 provides:
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States;”
Petitioner submits that this unique constitutional duty of Commander in Chief provides a critical constitutional principle differentiating the qualifications of “national born citizen” for president vs “citizen” for Members of Congress.
1. Foreigners excluded for Commander in Chief John Jay, the first Chief Justice, wrote George Washington:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check on the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”Records Federal Conv. 1787 LXVIII. John Jay to George Washington.3 (New York, July 25, 1787)
Jay expressly defined the qualification of “natural born citizen” for the “commander in chief of the American army” as excluding all “Foreigners” with allegiance to foreign sovereigns. Washington acknowledged his “hint” and this qualification of “natural born citizen” was included in the Constitution without further discussion.
2. Undivided Allegiance for Commander in Chief Senator Charles Pickney affirmed Jay’s restrictive qualification, stating:
“It was intended to give your President the command of your forces, . . . to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible….” Rec. Fed. Conv. 1787 CCLXXXVIII p 385, 387 (March 28, 1800)
Petitioner respectfully submits that the underlying constitutional principle on the restrictive qualification of “natural born citizen” to become President is that of requiring undivided allegiance to the U.S.A. for the Commander in Chief to “insure attachment to the country” and exclude “Foreigners”.
On adopting the CONSTITUTION, the United States was just recovering from an existential war with the superpower Britain. The US endured ongoing conflict with Britain impressing US citizens for its ships, over this issue of the allegiance of native or naturalized citizens “natural born citizens”. Britain demanded the allegiance of all US citizens born in the colonies, or whose father was a British citizen, and who thus were not “natural born” with both parents being US citizens. In 1812 the US was forced to go to war with Britain to resolve this festering issue of allegiance to Britain.
5. Danger of Traitors with Foreign Allegiance “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” US Const. Art. III, §3. As Commander in Chief, the President must guard against Treason.
During the War for Independence, General Greene reported: “Treason of the blackest dye was yesterday discovered. General Arnold who commanded at West Point . . . was about to deliver up that important post into the hands of the enemy. Such an event must have given the American cause a deadly wound if not a fatal stab.” Washington, Writings (1932), Vol. XI, pp. 342-343, General Orders of May 2, 1778.
Though a U.S. citizen and war hero, Benedict Arnold had been born under allegiance to Britain and his wife has strong allegiance to Britain. In light of the Founders’ painful experience during their recent War of Independence, the Treason section reinforces the principle that “natural born citizen”as qualification for Commander in Chief is to exclude citizens having any foreign allegiance. I.e., to select Presidents having only ever had sole allegiance with both biological parents and adoptive parents being US citizens.
Since the attack on New York’s World Trade Center on “9/11″, the US has been at “war on terrorism”. This enemy is not a nation state but radical Islamic religious faction bent on imposing its religious views through force. Indonesia is the largest Islamic country.
Similarly, Petitioner submitted affidavits detailing how relatives of RPE Obama in Kenya have used violence to subjugate Christians, coerce elections, coerce the government into granting political power (establishing a Prime Minister without constitutional amendment.) Petitioner documented RPE Obama as having aided and abetted this coercive effort.
RPE Obama has failed to show that he is free of foreign influence as necessary for a Commander in Chief in time of war.
6. Avoid dual nationality through a parent Tories retaining allegiance to the British sovereign were a major part of the “enemy” during the US War of Independence. The Founders’ experience directs an explicit avoidance of citizens having near relatives with foreign allegiance as a threat of direct opposition or of becoming traitors. This infers that “natural born citizen” should be interpreted to mean that both parents of the Commander in Chief should be U.S. citizens. Adoptive parents should also be U.S. citizens.
Petitioner documents that RPE Obama had Indonesian citizenship evidenced by school records and parents divorce decree. Petitioner submits that the core purpose of “natural born citizen” is that of allegiance to safeguard against tyranny. The issue is thus whether RPE Obama retained sole allegiance to the USA per requirements for a Commander in chief in time of war, rather than his personal civil rights of citizenship or if he lost his citizenship (cf Perkins v. Elg 307 U.S. 325).
7. Avoid dual nationality through birth place Foreign birth establishes foreign allegiance (dual citizenship). During World War II, Hitler recalled US citizens with dual nationality or German parentage. Pierce O’Donnell, In Time of War: Hitler’s Terrorist Attack on America, 2005. Some were trained sent back to sabotage the US war effort. By the sovereignty of the U.S., Congress has the absolute power
“to exclude aliens from the United States and to prescribe the terms and conditions on which they come in. . . .The United States, . . . are one nation, invested with powers which belong to independent nations, the exercise of which can be invoked for the maintenance of its absolute independence and security throughout its entire territory.” Chae Chan Ping v. United States 130 U.S. 581, 603, 604 (1889)
Making an Alien the Commander in Chief would incur the danger of the US losing “its absolute independence and security”by descent into tyranny. Pickney restricting the President from foreigners applies this power to exclude aliens and applies it to excluding any citizen with foreign allegiance, by birth or adoption, from becoming Commander in Chief, lest they endanger the U.S.’s “absolute independence and security.”
J. Natural Born under Amendment 14 Citizenship rights In ” John A. Bingham, appointed Union Army Judge Advocate by Lincoln, crafted the 14th Amendment (final April 28, 1866.) Bingham himself affirmed the narrow interpretation of “natural born citizen” clause stating:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. .” Rep. John A. Bingham, re S 61 Bill, March 9, 1866.
He confirmed de G. J. Chin, reviews U.S. SC cases finding that in Insular Cases, “persons born in unincorporated territories are not Fourteenth Amendment citizens.” Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President Mich. Law. Rev. 1st Impressions, Vol. 107, No. 1, 2008,
S.H. Duggin & M. B. Collins (Feb. 2005) provide a detailed review, arguing that “natural born citizen” is unfair. ‘Natural Born’ in the USA’ Boston Univ. Law Rev. However, they omitted the key contemporary definition of Petitioner submits that the Constitution places the burden of proof to qualify on the President elect. All officers sworn to uphold the Constitution including election officers in Congress, the Electoral College and all States have the duty to challenge and test those qualifications, and to declare that the President elect (or candidate) has qualified or failed to qualify.
The Petitioner and public record indicate explicit active refusal by the RPE Obama to submit any government certified witnessed proofs that he qualifies for President.
The restrictive qualification “natural born citizen” is essential to preserve the Constitution and the Republic from descending into tyranny. It should be guided by the underlying constitutional principle of enforcing sole allegiance to the United States and to exclude all candidates with any foreign allegiance through the allegiance of either birth parent or by any adoptive parent, or by the President elect’s own actions.
Petitioner humbly submits that this Court should therefore affirm the Petitioner’s Motion and find that the Respondent, President Elect Barack Hussein Obama II has failed in his constitutional burden of proof to qualify for President.
“I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.”
___________________________, January 15, 2009
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
No. 08A524
In The
Supreme Court of the United States
GAIL LIGHTFOOT, NEIL B. TURNER, KATHLEEN FLANAGAN,
JAMES M. OBERSCHAIN, CAMDEN W. MCCONNELL,
PAMELA BARNETT, & EVELYN BRADLEY
Petitioners;
v.
DEBRA BOWEN, Secretary of State of California
Respondent.
APPENDIX
On Petition For A Write Of Certiorari
Before Judgement To The
Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.:(S168690)
MOTION TO DECLARE THE PRESIDENT ELECT RESPONDENT
BARACK OBAMA HAS FAILED TO QUALIFY BY DEFAULT
UNDER US CONSTITUTION ARTICLE II §1, &
AMENDMENT 20, PER RULE 21 (2)(B) & (4)
Attorney of Record
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
26302 La Paz
Mission Viejo CA 92691
949-683-5411
January 15, 2009
VI. APPENDIX
A. Petition for redress of President elect’s failure to qualify David L. Hagen submitted to Congress the following Petition for redress of grievances that Barack Obama II failed to qualify to become President.
The greatest danger to the People and the USA is not external but INTERNAL. Dictators have killed about three times the 38 million killed in all 20th Century wars.
Republics and Democracies succumbing to Tyrants
At least thirty three Democracies succumbed to tyrants in the 20th Century when they failed to uphold Oaths and constitutions. Taken from Hagen & Irish (2000):
Argentina: Juan Peron; Cambodia: Pol Pot & Khmer Rouge; USSR - Ukraine: Stalin; USSR - Russia: Stalin; China: Mao Tse-Tung & China’s “Great Leap Forward”; Central African Republic: Jena-Bédal Bokassa; Cote D’Ivoire: Felix Houphouet-Boigny; Dominican Republic: Diederich B ernard Trujillo; Germany: Adolf Hitler, GDR; Ghana: Kwame Nkrumah; Haiti: Dr. François Duvalier; Indonesia: Sukarno, Suharto; Iran: Shah Pahlavi, Khomeini; Iraq: Sadam Hussein; Italy: Benito Mussolini; Malawi: Dr. Hastings Kamuzu Banda; Malaysia: Dr. Mahathir Mohammad; North Korea: Kim Il-Song; Panama: General Noriega; Philippines: President Ferdinand Marcos; Romania: Ion Antonescu, Gheorghiu-Dej, Nicolea Ceausescu; Rome: Julius Caesar, Nero, Domitian; Senegal: Leopold Sedar Senghor; Spain: Prima De Rivera, General Francisco Franco; Sudan: Arab-Islamist military; Tanzania: Mwalimu Julius Nyerere; Turkey: Prime Minister Talaat Pasha (Ottomon Empire); Turkmenistan: Saparmurat Nyazov; Uganda: Idi Amin; Uruguay: Gregorio Alvarez; Zaire: Mobutu Sese Seko; Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe.
F. The Rule of Law, collective ‘unalienable rights’ and ‘ancient liberties’
The Declaration and Resolves, Continental Congress, Tansill 1–5 #2 (14 Oct. 1774) preserved ‘immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution and the several Charters.’ These included ‘rights, liberties, and immunities’ and ‘common law’ via their ancestors. Those Codes, Charters, Acts and ‘unalienable rights’ acknowledged God and were secured by swearing before God.
When King and Parliament breached their unalienable rights, the Colonies interposed, establishing the U.S.A. by the DECLARATION to restore the Rule of Law:
The Rule of “[Law] depends not upon the arbitrary will of any judge; but is permanent, fixed, and unchangeable, unless by authority of parliament.” 1 Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765) Ch. 1 § 3 (p 138, 1765).
‘to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’ Declaration para. 2.
People codified and ratified Constitutions to secure these principles.
“In the government . . . the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, . . . the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.” MASSACHUSETTS CONSTITUTION § XXX (1780).
Quotations on the Rule of Law and Ancient liberties:
“[T]he charter; . . . the divine law, the Word of God; . . . in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.”
Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
‘Freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society.’ John Locke 2nd Treatise of Civil Govt. ch. 4 § 22 (1690)
Whether the supreme law . . . be above the king. . . . People may resume their power. Samuel Rutherford Lex Rex Ques. IX, XXV (1644).
‘Leave all causes to be measured by the golden and straight mete-wand of the law, and not to the incertain and crooked cord of discretion.’ Sir Edward Coke 4 Inst. 41 (1628).
The Rule of Law was embodied in the Bible’s MOSAIC CODE with public consent. Exodus 20:2-17, Deut. 4:13. The COMMON LAW ‘Dooms’ (Code) of Alfred (880) began with the Decalogue and Golden Rule verbatim. Lee (1997). ‘[H]aving regard to God,’ Archbishop Stephen Langton and the barons interposed, bringing King John, the Chief Justice and all civil powers back under the Rule of Law by the MAGNA CARTA, 17 John (1215) (restoring the CHARTER OF LIBERTIES, 1 Henry, 1100), securing it by redress petition. Parliament interposed, binding the King by the Bill of Rights, 1 W. & M., 2d sess., c. 2 (1689), codifying Trial of the Seven Bishops (1688), to preserve redress petition, interposition, and alternatives for conscience sake.
G. Oaths Secure the CONSTITUTION & and Rule of LawThe People secured the CONSTITUTION and Justice on Theism, mandating swearing before God of everyone exercising governmental authority or testifying in court. U.S. CONST., art. VI ¶ 3, amendments I, IX, X and XIV.
To obey Jesus’ commands some people refuse to swear: “But I tell you, Do not swear at all: . . . but let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and your ‘No’, ‘No’; . . .” Matt. 5:33-37 NIV. For conscience’ sake, the CONST. Art. VI, ¶ 3 provides the alternative of ‘Affirmation’ to ‘Oath.’ This embodies the First Principle:
Provide alternatives for the sake of conscience, whenever government touches religion, especially involving deeply held sectarian religious practices, like swearing before God. SC Justice James Iredell defined the Oath as:
“a solemn appeal to the Supreme Being for the truth of what is said by a person who believes in the existence of a Supreme Being and in the state of rewards and punishments according to that form which would bind his conscience most,”
4 Elliott’s Debates p. 196 (30 July 1788).
He described other forms of oaths for other religions. 28 U.S.C. § 453, requires each Judge or Justice to “solemnly swear (or affirm) [to] administer justice.” Alternatives to militia duty and union fees are provided for conscientious objectors and those with religious convictions. 10 U.S.C. 312b; 29 U.S.C. 169.
The DECLARATION para. 32U.S. CONST., art. VI, ¶ 3.U.S. CONST., art. I, § 3, ¶ 6.; 5 U.S.C. 3331 Oath of Office. Story, Joseph Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 2 Vols. xxxiii, 735, 702pp. (Reprint ed. Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. 2001 ISBN 1-58477-193-3) (1858).Washington, George Farewell Address (Sept. 17, 1796). (1787)
U.S. CONST., art. I, § 3, para. 6.U.S. CONST., art. II, § 1, para. 8.U.S. CONST., art. VI, ¶2, 3
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
U.S. CONST., amend. I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (Emphasis added.)
U.S. CONST., amend. IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others _________________ Proud American and wife of a wonderful <strong>LEGAL</strong> immigrant from Ireland.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." -Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Last edited by cayla99 on Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:17 am; edited 1 time in total
I'm not accusing DOJ of cover-up, I was just curious if any of the 'nbc' cases have had defendants who were represented by the Solicitor General. Did Berg or any of them sue the Federal Elections Commission or any federal governmental body?
His original case was against Obama and the DNC, I think. But Berg's cases -- more than any other -- get so complicated that I wondered if the interpleader by the military guy (Hollister?) or the so-called "sealed case" (no known particulars) or the additional issues raised in the Amicus Brief filed by the McCain elector from Arizona (Bill Anderson, represented by an AZ lawyer named Lawrence Joyce) had had the effect of bringing in a party that the Justice Dept. would need to defend.
Berg seems to take the approach of throwing mud against the side of a barn, hoping something will stick. I gave up on trying to read any of his pleadings a long, long, loooooooooooong time ago. At least Donofrio and Pidgeon appear to have clean records as lawyers, but Berg brings some past history and baggage.
Regardless of whether Berg is "fringe" fodder, it would be unusual for a Justice Dept. spokesman to comment on litigation not involving the DOJ (as far as is known) and if the DOJ is involved, then I thought any spokesmen who are Public Relations staff would defer to what the lawyer handling the case inside the Dept. might have to say. Or issue the standard disclaimer of "no comment" on pending litigation.
From the looks of the "Morning Call" it doesn't seem to be a high circulation newspaper
Joined: Nov 29, 2008 Posts: 624 Location: Portland, ME
Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:51 pm Post subject:
Side point
Al Jazeera Signs Deal to Air Throughout U.S.
Friday, January 16, 2009 7:17 AM
Article Font Size
NEW YORK - The Al Jazeera Network plans to announce on Thursday that it has signed a deal to run its news on Worldfocus, a syndicated nightly news program produced in New York and distributed throughout the United States.
Joined: Nov 29, 2008 Posts: 624 Location: Portland, ME
Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:19 pm Post subject:
FreedomFirst wrote:
His original case was against Obama and the DNC, I think. But Berg's cases -- more than any other -- get so complicated that I wondered if the interpleader by the military guy (Hollister?) or the so-called "sealed case" (no known particulars) or the additional issues raised in the Amicus Brief filed by the McCain elector from Arizona (Bill Anderson, represented by an AZ lawyer named Lawrence Joyce) had had the effect of bringing in a party that the Justice Dept. would need to defend.
From Edwin Vieira's comments on the Plains Radio broadcast last night, the sealed case could be one that contains someone's personal information.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Contribute/Join
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
