Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Judge Carter Does Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction For Quo Warranto In Barnett v. Obama.

Posted in Uncategorized on October 7, 2009 by naturalborncitizen
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

Judge Carter must dismiss the quo warranto aspect of the case (essentially the entire case) because his court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear a quo warranto complaint pertaining to a US national officer located in the District of Columbia.

If Judge Carter takes the case, it will be in direct contradiction to a clear federal statute as well as existing US Court of Appeals precedent.

The federal quo warranto statute at 16-3501:

A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

As you can see, the statute is very specific. The office of President is in the District of Columbia. The District Court for the District of Columbia is the only court which has the authority to hear a quo warranto complaint to remove a US national office holder from the District of Columbia .

The following Court of Appeals decision is directly on point. I am baffled that the DOJ failed to cite the case (originally discussed as follows in Part 3 of my Quo Warranto legal brief):

In UNITED STATES of America ex rel. STATE OF WISCONSIN v. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, 248 F.2d 804 (1957), the US court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, provided an on point discussion of quo warranto in the district courts:

There have been submitted to this court only two instances in which original quo warranto jurisdiction has been specifically conferred upon federal district courts. The revised statutes of 1878 vested jurisdiction in these courts of proceedings brought by the United States Attorney for the removal of persons holding office contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. Rev.Stat., Sections 563(14), 626(14), (1786). This Act was repealed in the Judicial Code of 1911, 36 Stat. 1168. In 1901, Congress specifically authorized the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to issue quo warranto in the name of the United States. Act of March 3, 1901, 31 Stat. 1419, Title 16, Section 1601 of the D.C. Code (1940). However, this grant is strictly limited and is confined solely to situations involving franchises and public offices held within the District of Columbia. There is no other specific statutory provision vesting original jurisdiction in the district courts in quo warranto actions. (Emphasis added.)

The first statute mentioned above dealt specifically with quo warranto actions which arose out of 14th amendment issues where citizens were refused the right to vote. Under this statute, all US district courts could hear quo warranto cases. But this statute was repealed in 1911 and so the only remaining statute which controls quo warranto is the District of Columbia Code. And all actions brought thereunder must be brought in the District Court for the District of Columbia.

It comes as quite a shock to me that the DOJ did not cite this case in its motion to dismiss. That’s just shabby lawyering right there. Why argue against quo warranto and fail to cite the very case which is directly on point? It seems a bit too strange.

Judge Carter should note that the District Court’s decision to entertain the quo warranto in that case was reversed:

“No instance is known of the use of writ of quo warranto in a district court of the United States other than the District Court of the District of Columbia.â€

Time to ROLL against Amnesty Patriots!!!
http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-962599.html#962599

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Judge Carter Does Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction For Quo Warranto In Barnett v. Obama.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

Judge Carter must dismiss the quo warranto aspect of the case (essentially the entire case) because his court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear a quo warranto complaint pertaining to a US national officer located in the District of Columbia.

If Judge Carter takes the case, it will be in direct contradiction to a clear federal statute as well as existing US Court of Appeals precedent.

The federal quo warranto statute at 16-3501:

A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

The statute specifically does not say, "A quo warranto may only be issued..."

Dr. Taitz has referred to precedents from the 9th Circuit in which a quo warranto was issued there, because the distance from the west coast to the District of Columbia was prohibitive. Apparently Judge Carter agrees.

An obvious "unintended consequence" is that the defenders in the QW will not be the District of Columbia DoJ attorneys, who have QW experience, but the Los Angeles DoJ attorneys, who have no more QW experience than does Dr. Taitz. Plus Dr. Taitz has Leo Donofrio's QW expertise backing her up (we hope).

[quote="HighlanderJuan"]Judge Carter Does Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction For Quo Warranto In Barnett v. Obama.

Posted in Uncategorized on October 7, 2009 by naturalborncitizen
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

Judge Carter must dismiss the quo warranto aspect of the case (essentially the entire case) because his court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear a quo warranto complaint pertaining to a US national officer located in the District of Columbia.

If Judge Carter takes the case, it will be in direct contradiction to a clear federal statute as well as existing US Court of Appeals precedent.

The federal quo warranto statute at 16-3501:

A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

As you can see, the statute is very specific. The office of President is in the District of Columbia. The District Court for the District of Columbia is the only court which has the authority to hear a quo warranto complaint to remove a US national office holder from the District of Columbia .

The following Court of Appeals decision is directly on point. I am baffled that the DOJ failed to cite the case (originally discussed as follows in Part 3 of my Quo Warranto legal brief):

In UNITED STATES of America ex rel. STATE OF WISCONSIN v. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, 248 F.2d 804 (1957), the US court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, provided an on point discussion of quo warranto in the district courts:

There have been submitted to this court only two instances in which original quo warranto jurisdiction has been specifically conferred upon federal district courts. The revised statutes of 1878 vested jurisdiction in these courts of proceedings brought by the United States Attorney for the removal of persons holding office contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. Rev.Stat., Sections 563(14), 626(14), (1786). This Act was repealed in the Judicial Code of 1911, 36 Stat. 1168. In 1901, Congress specifically authorized the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to issue quo warranto in the name of the United States. Act of March 3, 1901, 31 Stat. 1419, Title 16, Section 1601 of the D.C. Code (1940). However, this grant is strictly limited and is confined solely to situations involving franchises and public offices held within the District of Columbia. There is no other specific statutory provision vesting original jurisdiction in the district courts in quo warranto actions. (Emphasis added.)

The first statute mentioned above dealt specifically with quo warranto actions which arose out of 14th amendment issues where citizens were refused the right to vote. Under this statute, all US district courts could hear quo warranto cases. But this statute was repealed in 1911 and so the only remaining statute which controls quo warranto is the District of Columbia Code. And all actions brought thereunder must be brought in the District Court for the District of Columbia.

It comes as quite a shock to me that the DOJ did not cite this case in its motion to dismiss. That’s just shabby lawyering right there. Why argue against quo warranto and fail to cite the very case which is directly on point? It seems a bit too strange.

Judge Carter should note that the District Court’s decision to entertain the quo warranto in that case was reversed:

“No instance is known of the use of writ of quo warranto in a district court of the United States other than the District Court of the District of Columbia.â€

On September 19, 2009 at 7:58 PM, "Xavier Cugat" wrote concerning Barnett v. Obama, previously known as Keyes et al v. Obama et al.

Judge Carter has granted a STAY in the discovery proceedings so that the Motion for Dismissal can be heard.

On Wednesday, Oct. 7, Judge Carter finalized the date for the trial to proceed, with opening statements on Jan. 11 and the trial to begin on Jan. 26.

The motion for dismissal will be DENIED because of the rulings in 487 F2d 700 Nixon v. J. Sirica 1973 and,

Judge Carter has now denied the MTD...

No, I spoke too soon. After the hearing, Judge Carter is still considering the MTD.

The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of United States vs. Nixon 418 U.S. 683 (1974) in an 8-0 decision ruled that the President’s claim of Executive privilege DOES NOT extend to criminal cases.

Fraud, usurpation, and treason are all possible criminal charges at a later phase of this prosecution.

Judge Carter will subpoena Obama’s records which Obama placed under seal via Executive Order #13489, his FIRST Executive Order upon taking office.

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., is eagerly awaiting Judge Carter's go-ahead to proceed to discovery with the authority of the court.

And just like Judge Sirica, with strong sympathies for checks and balances amongst the three branches of the Federal government, Judge Carter will subpoena ALL of Obama's records for the purposes of conducting an in camera inspection of these documents.

We shall see if discovery bears fruit before the DoJ attorneys can get an injunction from the far-left 9th Circuit Court.

Obama will appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will uphold Judge Carter’s subpoena citing the aforementioned Nixon cases.

This case won't even have to go to an appeal. Discovery at the District Court level will reveal that fraud and deceit have wrought a bloodless coup d'état. Widespread public loss of confidence will force the usurper out of office. He will be unable to govern or to exercise authority.

Then, like Nixon, Obama will be forced to resign and fight to keep his records sealed, just like Nixon spent the REST OF HIS LIFE doing the same with his precious Oval Office tapes.

N.B.: "forced to resign." Neither a conviction nor even a full trial will be necessary. Simple discovery will so impair his ability to command that he will have to abandon the Oval Office. If he refuses to budge, the military or the FBI may end his publicly exposed usurpation.

This story was already played out 35 years ago; no need to reinvent the wheel on removing a crooked President of the United States.

Or a fraudulent usurper of the office of President. Judge Carter needs only to nullify the Nov. 4th Presidential election on account of the ineligibility of the candidate(s). The court of public opinion will take care of the rest.

All of these rulings are available on-line and are as insightful to all of the issues that are being discussed today concerning Obama as they were when Nixon was President.

The Democrats set the precedent with the removal of Nixon. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but few of those who pushed Nixon out of office will be able to cry "foul" when Mr. Obama gets the same treatment.

Death is no longer an available penalty for treason, but tar and feathers is hardly a sufficient or an appropriate punishment.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Judge Carter Does Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction For Quo Warranto In Barnett v. Obama.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

Judge Carter must dismiss the quo warranto aspect of the case (essentially the entire case) because his court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear a quo warranto complaint pertaining to a US national officer located in the District of Columbia.

If Judge Carter takes the case, it will be in direct contradiction to a clear federal statute as well as existing US Court of Appeals precedent.

The federal quo warranto statute at 16-3501:

A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

The statute specifically does not say, "A quo warranto may only be issued..."

Dr. Taitz has referred to precedents from the 9th Circuit in which a quo warranto was issued there, because the distance from the west coast to the District of Columbia was prohibitive. Apparently Judge Carter agrees.

An obvious "unintended consequence" is that the defenders in the QW will not be the District of Columbia DoJ attorneys, who have QW experience, but the Los Angeles DoJ attorneys, who have no more QW experience than does Dr. Taitz. Plus Dr. Taitz has Leo Donofrio's QW expertise backing her up (we hope).

To me, the operative term is 'may' and not the mandatory 'shall' be issued.

That would tell me that the quo warranto 'may' be heard in Washington, or it 'may' be heard elsewhere.

But, like others, it is hard for me to find fault with Leo, and there may be more to this discussion than meets the eye.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

On September 19, 2009 at 7:58 PM, "Xavier Cugat" wrote concerning Barnett v. Obama, previously known as Keyes et al v. Obama et al.

Judge Carter has granted a STAY in the discovery proceedings so that the Motion for Dismissal can be heard.

On Wednesday, Oct. 7, Judge Carter finalized the date for the trial to proceed, with opening statements on Jan. 11 and the trial to begin on Jan. 26.

[quote:ipsvkjmb]The motion for dismissal will be DENIED because of the rulings in 487 F2d 700 Nixon v. J. Sirica 1973 and,

Judge Carter has now denied the MTD...

No, I spoke too soon. After the hearing, Judge Carter is still considering the MTD.

The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of United States vs. Nixon 418 U.S. 683 (1974) in an 8-0 decision ruled that the President’s claim of Executive privilege DOES NOT extend to criminal cases.

Fraud, usurpation, and treason are all possible criminal charges at a later phase of this prosecution.

Judge Carter will subpoena Obama’s records which Obama placed under seal via Executive Order #13489, his FIRST Executive Order upon taking office.

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., is eagerly awaiting Judge Carter's go-ahead to proceed to discovery with the authority of the court.

And just like Judge Sirica, with strong sympathies for checks and balances amongst the three branches of the Federal government, Judge Carter will subpoena ALL of Obama's records for the purposes of conducting an in camera inspection of these documents.

We shall see if discovery bears fruit before the DoJ attorneys can get an injunction from the far-left 9th Circuit Court.

Obama will appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will uphold Judge Carter’s subpoena citing the aforementioned Nixon cases.

This case won't even have to go to an appeal. Discovery at the District Court level will reveal that fraud and deceit have wrought a bloodless coup d'état. Widespread public loss of confidence will force the usurper out of office. He will be unable to govern or to exercise authority.

Then, like Nixon, Obama will be forced to resign and fight to keep his records sealed, just like Nixon spent the REST OF HIS LIFE doing the same with his precious Oval Office tapes.

N.B.: "forced to resign." Neither a conviction nor even a full trial will be necessary. Simple discovery will so impair his ability to command that he will have to abandon the Oval Office. If he refuses to budge, the military or the FBI may end his publicly exposed usurpation.

This story was already played out 35 years ago; no need to reinvent the wheel on removing a crooked President of the United States.

Or a fraudulent usurper of the office of President. Judge Carter needs only to nullify the Nov. 4th Presidential election on account of the ineligibility of the candidate(s). The court of public opinion will take care of the rest.

All of these rulings are available on-line and are as insightful to all of the issues that are being discussed today concerning Obama as they were when Nixon was President.

The Democrats set the precedent with the removal of Nixon. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but few of those who pushed Nixon out of office will be able to cry "foul" when Mr. Obama gets the same treatment.

Death is no longer an available penalty for treason, but tar and feathers is hardly a sufficient or an appropriate punishment.[/quote:ipsvkjmb]

Minuteman, thank you for your wonderful opinions/translations on this piece for us laymen. IMO, your conclusion is spot on and Obama will be forced to resign. I would, however, like your thoughts on the greater crimes of fraud, etc. perpetrated on the office of POTUS and those who would be found complicit in aiding and abetting such crime. Simply forcing a resignation would seem to avoid addressing the underlying actions which allowed the crime to occur in the first place. This, in and of itself would be a greater crime against the constitution and leave the American people asking more answers. Your thoughts??

When oh when will Dr. Taitz victory, however small it may seem, become national news???? Is this not the story of the decade? What is going on with Fox News??

Originally Posted by Xavier Cugat

The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of United States vs. Nixon 418 U.S. 683 (1974) in an 8-0 decision ruled that the President’s claim of Executive privilege DOES NOT extend to criminal cases.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Fraud, usurpation, and treason are all possible criminal charges at a later phase of this prosecution...

Death is no longer an available penalty for treason, but tar and feathers is hardly a sufficient or an appropriate punishment.

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Simply forcing a resignation would seem to avoid addressing the underlying actions which allowed the crime to occur in the first place. This, in and of itself would be a greater crime against the constitution and leave the American people asking [for] more answers.

Sorry, TexasBorn, I'm just another layman who reads.

"Executive privilege does not extend to criminal cases" indicates that being forced from office
would not be the end of the troubles which Mr. Obama has brought upon himself.

But I get your point. Mr. Obama being forced from office would not force the Supreme Court
to interpret "natural born Citizen" for future Presidential elections.

Maybe if Judge Carter rejects the motion to dismiss Barnett v. Obama, then the downstream media will mention the trial. Maybe the DSM will take note when the trial convenes on Jan. 26. Maybe the DSM will hide their heads in the Arabian sands even if Mr. Obama is convicted of fraud, usurpation, and treason. Maybe not... but who believes the DSM any more anyway?

I understand your frustration at anti-America propaganda, but for now, the immediate problem is the Constitutionally ineligible usurper, more so than the news blackout imposed by AP/ABC/CBS/CNN/MSNBC/LAT/NYT/WaPo, and even FOX as influenced by the Saudi royal family, who are 19% shareholders. A few months from now, after the trial gets underway and discovery uncovers the deceptions, we may be remembering nostalgically the cone of silence that preceded the flood of disinformation to come from the DSM.

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

When oh when will Dr. Taitz victory, however small it may seem, become national news???? Is this not the story of the decade? What is going on with Fox News??

Shhhhhhhhhh it is a secret


Has anybody seen FreedomFirst since this news came out?