Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Obama has now been in office 73 days. Many lawsuits against Obama during the last year indicate the plaintiffs in these cases have no standing and have thus been summarily dismissed by the courts. Conventional wisdom suggests that anyone negatively affected by any of Obama's actions while being the usurper POTUS will have standing in the courts.

Obama has now violated so many of the Constitution's sections I have lost count. His rapid blitzkrieg style of ignoring and/or simply breaking the law and implementing as many socialist or fascist changes as he can, has by now created millions of citizens (IMHO) who have been injured by his actions and who must have standing in the courts. Certainly anyone who has had a tax increase imposed on them, or who have been fired by Obama, has a cause of action.

Having said all of that, at least one attorney (Leo Donofrio) does not think the current approach and the standing issue is germane, and that the legal answer to the usurper lies in quo warranto (QW) actions. He may be right.

===========

In California (which used to be the world's fifth largest economy), the subject of quo warranto is addressed as follows (see http://www.ag.ca.gov/opinions/quo_warranto.php):

"A quo warranto action is filed typically to remove a person from public office. The Attorney General must approve all quo warranto actions filed by private individuals. This protects public officers from frivolous lawsuits. (Nature of Remedy found here: http://www.ag.ca.gov/opinions/nature_of_remedy.php)

A quo warranto action may be brought against any person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises any public office or franchise.

A quo warranto action may also be brought against any corporation, either de jure or de facto, which usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises any franchise within California.

The (AG’s) Opinion Unit reviews the written pleadings filed by the parties and issues an opinion either granting or denying the application to sue. If approval is given, the lawsuit is maintained under the direction of the Attorney General."

Note: The referenced Remedy section also includes the comments:

"Although the Attorney General occasionally brings a quo warranto action on the initiative of that office, or at the direction of the Governor, usually the action is filed and prosecuted by a private party who has obtained the consent of the Attorney General, for "leave to sue in quo warranto." The private party who obtains leave to sue is termed the "relator." The action is brought in the name of the People of the State of California "on the relation of" the private party who has been granted permission to bring the action. The addition of a relator does not convert a quo warranto into a private action. The matter is always brought and prosecuted on behalf of the public. (People v. City of Huntington Beach (1954) 128 Cal.App.2d 452, 455.)

Even though permission has been granted to a private party to sue, the action does not lose its public character. The Attorney General remains in control of the action and may, for instance, dismiss it over the objection of the private party bringing it or refuse to permit appeal of an adverse ruling. (People v. Petroleum Rectifying Co. (1937) 21 Cal.App.2d 289, 291-292.)

Quo warranto is intended to prevent a continuing exercise of an authority unlawfully asserted, and is not appropriate for moot or abstract questions. Where the alleged usurpation has terminated, quo warranto will be denied. (People v. City of Whittier (1933) 133 Cal.App. 316, 324; 25 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 223 (1955).) By the same token, because quo warranto serves to end a continuous usurpation, no statute of limitations applies to the action. (People v. Bailey (1916) 30 Cal.App. 581, 584-585.)"

The sole exception to the Attorney General's exclusive control of quo warranto actions is found in section 811 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The section authorizes the legislative bodies of local governmental entities to maintain an action against those holding franchises within their jurisdiction, and Attorney General consent is not required. The section requires that the franchise be of a type authorized by the local jurisdiction. (San Ysidro Irrigation District v. Superior Court (San Diego) (1961) 56 Cal.2d 708, 716.) This section was added by the Legislature in 1937 because local government was viewed as able to respond more effectively to this type of local problem. (See Note, (1963) 15 Hastings L.J. 199, 224; (1937) 11 So.Cal.L.R. 1, 50-51.)

OK, so here we have a state whose quo warranto guidelines tell us:

1. QW litigants must seek the AG’s approval before any QW action can occur.
2. Actions against both persons and corporations is possible.
3. The AG can initiate his own QW actions or be directed to do so by the Governor.
4. No statute of limitations on QW actions exist, although the usurper must still be usurping.
5. Quo warranto actions are public actions – not private or relator actions.
6. If found guilty of usurping, the usurper is excluded from office and has to pay the legal fees associated with his QW action. Additional fines may be imposed.

Further California specific rules (CCP Sections 803-811) are found here: http://www.ag.ca.gov/opinions/section_803.php

As the chief law officer of the state, the California Attorney General provides legal opinions upon request to designated state and local public officials and government agencies on issues arising in the course of their duties. The formal legal opinions of the Attorney General have been accorded "great respect" and "great weight" by the courts. See: http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/faqs.php

===========
The California law leads me to believe that every state has similar quo warranto guidelines, and that every state can file its own quo warranto actions. That’s a good thing.

So, for example, if a voter in a state believed that an elected official got into his position illegally (I am thinking of a certain senatorial contest in Minnesota), he can file a QW application with his state’s AG to remove the offending official.

Or, perhaps, if a corporation (maybe an entity like ACORN) received a special project, or contract, or funding in a particular state, and in violation of some state requirements (e.g. an open and public bidding requirement) a private individual may apply for QW action against the offending corporation.

What I am not certain about, and this may have to do with a state’s sovereignty rights, is whether of not a federal mandate by the Secretary of the Treasury, in violation of certain state laws, can lead to a QW action against the offending Secretary of the Treasury, appointed by a usurper POTUS.

Does the federal offense against the states allow for the states to initiate QW actions against the offending federal officials if the states believe the federal officials and/or their superiors are usurpers?

Is there a chain of law that links all of the usurper’s actions together?

I think yes, but I’m not an attorney, and so this is merely my personal opinion. And I admit to being a conspiracy theorist.

On a personal note, I would like to think that our country is still based on the adherence to our laws, but I see blatant violations of our laws every day by the current administration. The states and the public are either asleep or the just don’t care anymore, and so no one raises their hand and demands an answer in the courts.

I’m not certain the Attorneys General in the various states will support voter requests for actions. I would like to think the AGs will do the right thing, but experience leads me to believe they will do the politically expedient thing instead the lawful thing.

And I’m not too sure about the courts anymore either. Lately, none of the courts have gone out of their way to demonstrate their conformance to our constitutions and our laws in matters that touch politics. What the hell is that all about?

And of course, we probably all believe the legislative branch is lawless as hell, and not representative of the people anymore.

What do we do when the roots of our culture and of our nation break down and only the informed part of the public sees the problem, and our elected officials continue to ignore the informed citizens demands for justice and lawful government?

How do we get our voices heard by a government that simply chooses not to listen to us?

I know what happened 224 years ago. And the reasons for the 'happening' were exactly the same. Is this some kind of human joke being played on us?

Juan, I think this is a needed wake up call. I think that since WWII very few have actually had to sacrifice for freedom, therefore they do not understand how easily it can be taken from us. I firmly believe as the people of our nation wake one by one, we will have a struggle that will affect two generations. Until/unless that happens, we will be lost.

Originally Posted by cayla99

Juan, I think this is a needed wake up call. I think that since WWII very few have actually had to sacrifice for freedom, therefore they do not understand how easily it can be taken from us. I firmly believe as the people of our nation wake one by one, we will have a struggle that will affect two generations. Until/unless that happens, we will be lost.

Interesting comments. One of the popular shows on TV today is a series called 'Lost.' 'Lost' is the most confusing show I have ever watched ('Heroes' runs a close second) and I keep asking my kids which channel the show 'Found' is on because I'd rather watch 'Found' than 'Lost.'

Maybe being confused and lost is being bred into us by our government so that they can control us easier.

Ooops. There goes my conspiracy theory mentality kicking into my frontal lobes again.

Nuts!

The following is tied into an offer to sell their magazine, but contents of this issue may be interesting reading.

Whistleblower Magazine

April 2009 – YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE? Why dozens of lawsuits and millions of Americans want Barack Obama to prove he's constitutionally qualified to be president.

With Barack Obama in the White House, millions of Americans are watching the news night after night in sheer shock, wondering out loud what the next unprecedented expansion of government power will be. Nationalizing entire industries with gigantic taxpayer bailouts; forcing taxpayers to fund abortion; releasing Gitmo prisoners onto U.S. streets; rapidly converting free-market, capitalist America into a government-run socialist state – every day seems to bring a new unconstitutional power-grab, critics say.

But arguably Obama’s most egregious, unconstitutional “power-grabâ€

[quote="HighlanderJuan"]The following is tied into an offer to sell their magazine, but contents of this issue may be interesting reading.

Whistleblower Magazine

April 2009 – YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE? Why dozens of lawsuits and millions of Americans want Barack Obama to prove he's constitutionally qualified to be president.

With Barack Obama in the White House, millions of Americans are watching the news night after night in sheer shock, wondering out loud what the next unprecedented expansion of government power will be. Nationalizing entire industries with gigantic taxpayer bailouts; forcing taxpayers to fund abortion; releasing Gitmo prisoners onto U.S. streets; rapidly converting free-market, capitalist America into a government-run socialist state – every day seems to bring a new unconstitutional power-grab, critics say.

But arguably Obama’s most egregious, unconstitutional “power-grabâ€

World population exploding toward its maximum limit. Usurper president destroying the United States. Courts granting haywire decisions. Congress out of control. Vampires in the streets (disguised as dems).

You know, all of this political and historically significant stuff can become heavy on one's shoulders and on one's mind. One might even suggest depressing.

Whewww! Ouch!

Watch this and become happy again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8ZuKF3dxCY

A message from Bob Bray - OK State Director to all members of Oklahoma Resistance on The Patriotic Resistance!

Thanks Debi Bohannan for this ... bob

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the Presidential election:

Number of States won by:
Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29

Square miles of land won by:
Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by:
Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler 's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.

Supremes asked to cooperate with FBI
Attorney investigating Obama's eligibility reports cyber attacks
Posted: April 04, 2009
12:10 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Orly Taitz
Orly Taitz

A lawyer investigating the eligibility of Barack Obama to be president under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that the office be occupied only by a "natural born" citizen is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to cooperate with an FBI investigation into alleged cyber crimes connected to her work.

In a letter addressed yesterday to Chief Justice John Roberts, the associate justices, the Secret Service and others, California lawyer Orly Taitz, who is working on a number of eligibility cases through the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, wrote, "I hope that the Supreme Court will show proper cooperation in investigation of such crimes by the FBI and other agencies and I request a letter of cooperation to that extent."

Taitz is just one of many attorneys across the country whose clients are raising questions about Obama's eligibility.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "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."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.


President Obama

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 345,000 others and sign up now!

Taitz is one of several lawyers who have brought emergency motions to the U.S. Supreme Court over the cases, only to have them dropped without a hearing.

While her effort was pending at the court, its references suddenly were scrubbed from the public website just two days before a conference among justices on the case was to be heard.

She filed a complaint with the FBI, which promised a review, but the investigative agency noted that in that situation, technically the Supreme Court was the "victim" of having its website hacked, and officials there would need to cooperate for the effort to move forward.

(Story continues below)



That circumstance generated Taitz' letter requesting cooperation.

"This is particularly important in light of the fact that there is a common denominator in a number of cyber crimes committed," Taitz wrote. She cited a hacking into her PayPal account where donations to her foundation allegedly could have been diverted, sabotage on her website and the creation of an "imposter site" for one of the plaintiffs in one of her cases.

"All of these cyber crimes, together with all the other crimes that are handled separately, have one common denominator – a concerted effort to put Obama in the White House and keep him there by virtue of fraud and concealment of all of his records," she wrote.

The president also has been named in an indictment turned in by a peoples' grand jury in Georgia, and one other man has sought a criminal complaint against the president.

Taitz also told WND she has forwarded to U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor in Washington, D.C., a request for the U.S. to relate Quo Warranto "on Barack Hussein Obama, II to test his title to president."

Named as plaintiffs in the action are nine military or legislative leaders, including Allen C. James, currently on active duty in the U.S. Army in Iraq. Others include several retired military leaders as well as elected state representatives.

"Relators request that as U.S. Attorney, you institute a Quo Warranto proceeding against Obama under DC Code § 16-3502, and demand that Obama show clear title, proving, with clear and convincing evidence, that he had qualified as president elect," Taitz told Taylor.

"By each relator's constitutional oath of office, and interest above other citizens and taxpayers, relators submit that they have standing," Taitz wrote.

"In arguendo of Respondent Obama's burden of proof, motions are submitted requesting mandamus on Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle for evidence, and on Sec. State Hillary Rodham Clinton for evidence and to request evidence from Britain and the Republics of Kenya, Indonesia and Pakistan," Taitz said.

"Quo Warranto" essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, said the demand is a legitimate course of action.

"She basically is asking, 'By what authority' is Obama president," he told WND. "In other words, 'I want you to tell me by what authority. I don't really think you should hold the office.'

Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents, "he does not want the public to know."

What else could be the reason for his hiring law firms across the nation to fight any request for information as basic as his Occidental College records from the early 1980s, he asked.

As Jerome Corsi, WND senior staff writer, explained, "The main reason doubts persist regarding Obama's birth certificate is this question: If an original Hawaii-doctor-generated and Hawaii-hospital-released Obama birth certificate exists, why wouldn't the senator and his campaign simply order the document released and end the controversy?

"That Obama has not ordered Hawaii officials to release the document," Corsi writes, "leaves doubts as to whether an authentic Hawaii birth certificate exists for Obama."

Obama officials repeatedly have declined comment, relenting only one time to call such allegations "garbage."

WND reported earlier on a proposal by U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., and the criticism he's taking for suggesting that the issue be avoided in the future by having presidential candidates supply their birth certificate.

Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:

* New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.

* Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.

* Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

* Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

* Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.

* Chicago lawyer Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

* Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.

* In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

* Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.

* In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.

* In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

* California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:

* In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.

* In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.

* In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.

* In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.

* In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93832

Canada Free Press
By JB Williams Tuesday, March 24, 2009
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9607

They watch Obamanation grow in unbridled power

Americans Largely Silent as Their Nation is Systematically Destroyed

After trillions in taxpayer debt has been foolishly poured into the bottomless black hole of leftist wealth redistribution programs, under the guise of economic “stimulusâ€

Anyone who might be in communication with her (which I am not) should alert Orly Taitz that she was "pranked" with a faked Press Release. I've never heard of this outfit called PR-USA, so I don't know if it's a legitimate point of distribution for "real" press releases put on wire services. The other headlines on it appear legitimate.

http://pr-usa.net/index.php?option=com_ ... &Itemid=96

A Google-News search for Taitz, seeking to find out what new developments there are in the 'nbc' area, caused that one to pop up first, and what does it say?

Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq. to Brief Members of G-20 - CODE ORLY



Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq., has announced her intention to pursue President Barack Obama during his first official overseas trip.

After her phenomenal success in meetings with Justice Antonin Scalia, where he personally autographed a copy of his new book for her, and Chief Justice John Roberts, who offered her a Secret Service security escort to assist her with her suitcases filled with petitions, research and legal briefs, Dr. Taitz is now looking to argue her case, in person, before each of the members of the G-20.

Dr. Taitz, affectionately nicknamed OuR lady LibertY for her unflagging committment in pursuing the case against Barack Obama, has reached out to her network of loyal fellow bloggers, followers and friends, and used the unprecedented power of the Internet to develop her latest strategy, now revealed as CODE ORLY.

CODE ORLY members have been fully briefed on the several cases working their way through the American justice system, and are fluent in each of the native languages spoken by each of the members of the G-20. Standing in for Dr. Taitz, these members of CODE ORLY will be able to explain to their designated 'targets' exactly how they should demand proof from the man in their midst as to his eligibility to hold office.

In order to facilitate anticipated future meetings to further bolster the case, CODE ORLY volunteers will adopt OuR lady LibertY's distinct style: platinum coif, kohl-rimmed eyes, pearlescent veneers and a smart business suit.

All members of the G-20 and their associates will be given full dossiers of the cases currently being argued, including the names of the many, many people who have signed the petitions calling for the release of all irrevelant documentation.

Please direct all inquiries concerning CODE ORLY to communications liaison April Maloof in the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation at +1 949-586-8110

About the G-20 Membership
The G-20 is made up of the finance ministers and central bank governors of 19 countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and also the European Union who is represented by the rotating Council presidency and the European Central Bank. To ensure global economic fora and institutions work together, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the President of the World Bank, plus the chairs of the International Monetary and Financial Committee and Development Committee of the IMF and World Bank, also participate in G-20 meetings on an ex-officio basis. The G-20 thus brings together important industrial and emerging-market countries from all regions of the world. Together, member countries represent around 90 per cent of global gross national product, 80 per cent of world trade (including EU intra-trade) as well as two-thirds of the world's population. The G-20's economic weight and broad membership gives it a high degree of legitimacy and influence over the management of the global economy and financial system.

About the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
We are an organization of volunteers that are working to preserve our unalienable rights and our freedom guaranteed to us in our constitution.

"Every major political movement starts not in Washington but it starts with the grassroots." Duncan Lee Hunter, 2007

We are currently developing a network of leaders that would organize personal meetings of groups of citizens with governmental officials. We realized that numerous letters written by volunteers didn't reach those officials, but probably were tossed by low level employees. It is urgent for groups to form in every state and visit the US Attorney's office as well as the FBI. Coordinators have been assigned to assist in organizing these efforts. Contact US Attorney Coordinator. Please put US Attorney in the email subject line. Contact FBI Coordinator. Please put FBI in the email subject line.

Materials and Documtation Can be Downloaded here. to assist with your efforts.

Any letters from Congressmen, Senators, electors, etc. received during letter writing campaigns should be copied to our coordinator. These letters need to be on letter head. We will accept emails also as long as they have the address of where they came from. Please black out your own personal information. These letters will be submitted to SCOTUS.

Stay plugged in by visiting their blog and signing up for their mailing list.

Since April Fool's Day was this week, it's probably somebody's idea of a clever prank.