|
01/15/2009: PRESS RELEASE – Berg is ‘outraged’ at Congress as they failed the citizens of the United States by ‘not’ challenging Obama during the Electoral Vote on January 8, 2009 and Demands that Congressional Hearings be held regarding the ‘qualifications’ of Obama as we are headed for a ‘Constitutional Crisis’ by having an ‘ineligible’ President
(Contact information and PDF at end)
(Lafayette Hill, PA – 01/15/09) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States and his case, Berg vs. Obama, in the U.S. Supreme Court is still pending regarding an Application for an Injunction, announced today that he wrote a letter to ‘each’ Member of Congress requesting they call for Congressional Hearings regarding Obama’s lack of qualifications for President due to their failure to question Obama during the Joint Session of Congress for the counting of the Electoral Votes. [A copy of the letter to Congress is at the end of this Release]
Berg said, “I am disappointed for the 300+ million U.S. citizens, our ‘Forefathers’ and for the tens of thousands that have died defending ‘our’ Constitution regarding the recent denial by the U.S. Supreme Court.
I am committed to keeping our efforts going to continue litigation until the truth of Obama being ‘not qualified’ for President comes out. The Obama candidacy is the biggest ‘HOAX’ ever put forth to the citizens of the United States in 230 years.
In addition to the current case in the U.S. Supreme Court, we have or will have:
1. A case filed two [2] months ago captioned Berg vs. Obama, said case ‘under seal’ so I cannot comment further;
2. The case of Hollister vs. Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama, filed 12/31/08 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 08-02254; said case being an ‘Interpleader’ case with the Plaintiff, a retired Colonel from the U.S. Air Force, who is questioning whether to obey or disobey an order if Obama recalls him, based upon whether or not Obama is a ‘qualified’ President;
3. The case that was denied in the U.S. Supreme Court is still pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Berg vs. Obama, with our Brief due by January 20, 2009; and
4. If Obama is sworn in as President, we will file a Petition for Writ of ‘Quo Warranto,’ a case that will challenge Obama as being ineligible to serve as President because he is ‘not qualified.’
Berg states ‘if Soetoro a/k/a Obama is sworn in’ because Obama knows he is ‘not qualified’ and he should hold a Press Conference and Obama should state that I, as a black American, received more votes than anyone else on November 4, 2008 for President and on January 8, 2009 the Joint Session of Congress counted the Electoral College votes and announced that I am President-elect, but because of things in my background, I cannot be sworn in as President. However, Obama is not man enough to state the above!
More and more people are aware of the fact that Obama does not meet the constitutional ‘qualifications’ for President. When the truth finally comes out, individuals including Barack Hussein Obama, Michelle Obama, Howard Dean [Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC)], other top officials of the DNC, senior campaign staff and some of his new administration should be brought into the criminal justice system, indicted and tried with incarceration for those convicted.
Berg continued, “Obama is setting himself up to be blackmailed and perhaps he is already being blackmailed. He was the candidate for ‘change,’ but look at his cabinet – 70% from President Clinton’s days and how about his Secretary of Defense, Gates. Give me a break!
There is nothing more important than ‘our’ U.S. Constitution and we will fight on!”
Accordingly, I wrote the Members of Congress requesting immediate hearings. The letter I sent follows:
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
January 15, 2009
Dear Member of Congress:
It is your duty, as a duly elected representative of the American people; to regain the respect you have lost by your inaction in not vetting Soetoro a/k/a Obama, by calling for a Congressional Hearing ASAP to determine the truth regarding qualifications of Barry Soetoro, otherwise known as Barack Hussein Obama, to be President of the United States.
My, my, you and the other Members of Congress just showed your true character, that being, no guts, no backbone and only interested in getting re-elected.
I refer to each of you in your lack of action regarding the now President-elect Soetoro/Obama.
As you must be aware, there are many unresolved questions concerning Soetoro/Obama’s status or lack thereof, as a ‘natural born’ American citizen, as required by ‘our’ U.S. Constitution.
On January 8, 2009, you failed your constituencies, your voters, the citizens in your district, as well as all citizens in our nation. Yes, you failed all of us, the ‘We the People,’ yes, the words that begin our U.S. Constitution. Federal Law, 3 U.S.C. 15 provides a method to challenge the counting of the electoral votes in the Joint Session of Congress. If only one [1] Member of the House and one [1] Member of the Senate announced in writing that they were objecting to the Electorial Vote in any/every state, the counting of the votes would stop and the Joint Session would cease until the House and Senate meet, discussed and voted on each States Electorial Votes.
Because of your failure to ‘question’ the eligibility of Soetoro/Obama, we are headed for a ‘Constitutional Crisis.’ Yes, a ‘Constitutional Crisis’ because Soetoro/Obama who appears not to be a ‘natural born’ U.S. citizen is ‘ineligible’ under ‘our’ U.S. Constitution to serve as President.
Soetoro/Obama, being ‘ineligible/unqualified’ due to his lack of being ‘natutal born’ means that Obama will be ‘usurping’ the powers of the Office of President of the United States. It will result in every, yes every law that Soetoro/Obama signs, every appointment to an Ambassador or Judgeship, all will be invalid. Soetoro/Obama is setting himself up to be blackmailed, both internally and externally.
There are millions of Americans who believe that Soetoro/Obama does not meet the 3rd qualification pursuant to ‘our’ U.S Constitution, that being ‘natural born.’ Soetoro/Obama satisfies the 1st two [2], that being at least thirty-five [35] years of age and lived in the United States for fourteen [14] years.
The document that Soetoro/Obama’s people keep pushing on the American public is a fraudulent ‘Certification of Live Birth’ and not a ‘Birth Certificate.’ And significant is the fact that in an attempt to quash the rumors that Soetoro/Obama was not ‘natural born,’ in the Soetoro/Obama campaign web site ‘fightthesmears.com’ in June 2008, they put up this fraudulent ‘Certification of Live Birth’ indicating Soetoro/Obama was born in Hawaii. The fact that Soetoro/Obama has never released his ‘Birth Certificate’ is a very strong indication that he was not born in Hawaii.
There is evidence that:
1. Soetoro/Obama was born in Kenya and because of his mother’s age, he was only ‘naturalized.’
2. Soetoro/Obama was adopted in Indonesia and his legal name became and probably still is ‘Barry Soetoro.’
3. Obama, otherwise known as ‘Barry Soetoro’ became a ‘natural’ citizen of Indonesia.
4. At age ten [10] Obama returned to Hawaii from Indonesia and:
a. If Soetoro/Obama went through U.S. Immigration he would have been given a ’Certification of Citizenship’ indicating he was ‘naturalized.’
b. If, and it is believed that Soetoro/Obama, or rather Barry Soetoro, did not go through U.S. Immigration, then he is an ‘illegal alien’ – not only not qualified/eligible to be Preseident, but also ineligible to have been a U.S. Senator from Illinois.
5. Soetoro/Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981 when he was twenty [20] years old on his Indonesia Passport:
a. If Soetoro/Obama was a U.S. citizen in 1981, he did an ‘overt’ act against the U.S. by travelling to a nation, Pakistan that was restricted as Pakistan was a non-travel nation.
Without truthful information concerning Soetoro/Obama’s eligibility to serve as President, ‘We the People’ have been injured. Our fundamental right to cast an informed vote for an eligible Democratic Presidential candidate has been violated. Further, our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association have been violated because we have been robbed of the opportunity to cast our objections through our Representatives to the counting of the Electoral Votes.
To redeem yourself, I implore you to call with your Congressional colleagues for a Congressional Hearing and ask the questions that you failed to do regarding President-elect Soetoro/Obama, even after he tries to hide behind the Office of the Presidency, to resolve the issue without question of the citizenship status and qualifications as set forth in ‘our’ U.S. Constitution. Such a procedure has and is occurring regarding the proposed members of the Cabinet.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Philip J. Berg
PJB:jb
* * ** * *
For copies of all Court Pleadings, go to obamacrimes.com
For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
Cell (610) 662-3005
philjberg@obamacrimes.com
|
Unknown Feed
Citizen WElls 
Any word on the lower court? I’m afraid if it is not taken care of already, today may be a wash.
READ THIS! Even Arnold Schwarzenegger know Berry O is not an NBC!!!!!!!
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gov-excerpts16-2009jan16,0,5693683.story?track=rss
Quote:I know that we know that any American child now also, no matter what corner of the world his father or mother comes from, can even become president of the United States. What a wonderful national story for us. This nation rightfully feels the hope of change.
What a disgrace. Not even an answer from my rep on my Point of Order.
Time for war.Our government has been overthrown.Now all we have to do is find out who overthrew it so we could fight back. WAKE UP,IT IS A PAID COVER UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mr. Berg should take up golf.
Citizen,
Might it not be the case that Congress is unwilling to question Obama’s background because few could expect to survive a close examination of their own backgrounds?
Recently I attended a meeting of the We The People Foundation and I can describe it in two words. LIFE CHANGING.
I urge all of you to look at the schedule on this link. If you are anywhere within 200 miles of one of them, or know someone who is, YOU should go and listen and learn. Don’t question it…just find a way to get there. And bring people with you.
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/2009-Pre-CC-Schedule.htm
I walked in not knowing anyone else or if I should be in this place. I walked out with a glimmer of light at the end of a very long tunnel that we have the ABILITY and the RIGHT and the birth of a PLAN of ACTION to take back our constitutional republic that has been violated so many times.
I believe I learned more about history in those 3 hours than 4 years of high school. Folks…it’s 1774 all over again. The bad news is things are worse now than they were before the Revolutionary War. The good news is we don’t have to create a Constitution or Declaration of Independence. We already have the perfect documents and laws in place. They’re just not being followed.
The beauty of this mission is IT ISN’T ABOUT POLITICAL PARTIES! It IS about Americans who love their country, are fed up with well- documented corruption in government, and are forming the plan to defend the Constitution, and dare I say it…”get the Government back on the side of the People” (wow! where did we hear that?)
I’m personally tired of sitting at my desk, complaining about things, living in fear or depression, and am grateful to WeThePeopleFoundation.org for helping me find an outlet for being proactive. You can, and should, too.
My parents are elderly, but they were very active politically in the early 60’s. There are a lot of parallels with these times we’re in, but they agree, this is much, much more dire. I just spent two hours on the phone with them, and they heard a different daughter. They are encouraged now. It’s not too late, but there isn’t much time left, and if the Constitution continues to be violated in the direction we’re going, it won’t matter. Our lives as we know them are over.
I see the internet as a huge tool to help us win this. The more we can focus our efforts in one place, with laser-like intensity, the sooner we can clean up this mess.
This group is forming a Continental Congress – three citizen delegates from each state are being sought to go to Philadelphia in March for creating an action plan. (This is exactly what happened in 1774 – worked out pretty good, wouldn’t you say?) Bob Schulz spoke for almost 3 hours, giving a background, history and quotes from our Founding Fathers. YOU COULD HAVE HEARD A PIN DROP. To say we’re in similar circumstances is an understatement.
Lots of people are sacrificing all they can for this organizations’ efforts. They’re not about profiting from this disaster. They’re about fixing it. You can get educated by going to their website at WeThePeopleCongress.org Click on the article posted on 12/20 “Summit Call” and work your way to more recent postings. Mr. Schulz explained that this would be the most logical way to understand what they’re doing.
Yes, they need money. But they also need our time. And effort. Whatever special gifts, talents, or skills we can bring will be needed. Our government officials have become power hungry and it needs to end.
“CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING THE 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.”
1791 – First Amendment
Katie.
Very well said.
CW – Coming from you that is high praise, indeed. Thank you!
Katie – I am going put your post up on my blog. I will take it down if you request. I agree with CitizenWells – Very well said! Zach
zachjoneishome.wordpress.com
Pingback: CitizenWells’ Reader Katie Post - Excellent! « "The BOPAC Report" & Larry Sinclair’s Allegations - ZachJonesIsHome
LAWDAWG says DENIED….BERG denied
CitizenWells – Who’s next on the Constitution Hall of Shame? Zach
Justice Roberts
Sandy – where is he getting that from? Zach
ATTENTION- Friday January 16th 11AM EST Watching the Eric Hoffer hearings on C-Span.
Witness Joseph Connor is testifying AGAINST Hoffer. His father was killed by the FALN.You can watch this again later on.
Where did Lawdawg say this? He has been right 100% of the time thus far. If it is true—crap!
Of course, Berg was denied.
Patriot-how do you know it was denied? If it was, it is a very sad day for America and the Constitution!
Sandy, how could it be denied when SCOTUS didn’t even meet until 10:00 am EST today. You put the statement up by Lawdawg BEFORE they even met!?!?
Lawdawgs post was on …
http://www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org/
The intereting thing is the time idicated on the posting as 10:20am? Now from what I undrstand the SCOTUS starts their conferences at 10:00am and it’s a closed session. no one in and out. So how would he know the desicion 20minutes after they start??? Someone correct me if I’m wrong Please.
It’s only 8:13am here in California so that would be 11:13am in Washington. So how would he know??? Unless he’s just another Obot just declaring everything denied.
Add to that the fact that he never mentioned the berg motion that was granted last week.
I think Lawdawg is an OBOT!!!
Remember, before we get outraged, that the basic argument made by our members of Congress is that there has “not a shred of evidence” been shown to them that Obama was actually born in Kenya.
Obama has told reporters that he was born in the Queens Medical Center, while tour guides point to the Kapi’olani Medical Cente in Honolulu.
THAT is the state of our knowledge at this point — knowing which hospital in Honolulu is the right one?
The affidavits, and videos, and tapes, and phone calls from Kenya mean nothing at all as evidence, until they have been put through the wringer of a trial and come out whole and in one piece on the other side of the trial.
That is only done in a district court, not at the appellate level. Rushing to an appellate court does not advance ANY case, if the underlying record is incomplete.
My opinion is that the way this has been handled has turned the whole country into the National Inquirer, but it has not advanced the “evidence.”
It could take 10 years before we know what’s really what, at the rate is is going now! So, what good is that!
The truth has NO shortcuts! All the rest is wasting of precious time.
The pressure should be 100% now on Patrick Fitzgerald, and his investigation in Chicago.
With respect to “redress of grievances,” — be careful.
With a fully codified law as we have today, the right way to “redress grievances” is not through repeated lawsuits, but through letters, letters, letters. Did I say letters?
Also, stopping and talking to your Representatives when they are at home in the district, or running for office. That is our modern approach to a “redress of grievances!”
And, if you are really, really angry, take a run at their job! That’s what Sarah Palin said to do! You might win!
Citizens really have no standing to tie up the Courts with endless petitions — that’s not what the courts are for.
The very best thing, is to get the best information you can possibly get onto weblogs like this one, “Citizen Wells,” so that the real nonsense is removed from the public discourse.
With respect to Phil Berg — I think he has an EXCELLENT case, but in the wrong place. He has standing as a ‘member’ of the Democrat Party to sue the leaders of that party for fraud and misrepresentation. That is where his evidence gets wrung through the wringer.
He had Obama quaking in his boots when it was thought he would file in State Court! When he filed in Federal Court instead, Obama started to blow him off.
That is the way I see it. But, no one really has all the answers right in the heat of the battle.
Sorry -HOLDER not HOFFER
Not sad at all. Berg’s application had no legal or factual basis and would overturn the vote of the American people. I’d call that a happy day.
It is a sad Berg and others abuse the court system by filing their nonsense. We, the taxpayers, pay for that.
Jerome–the real Lawdawg is not an Obot. However, it may have been someone posing as him. The real Lawdawg has never been wrong.
I agree with you though. There is no way it could have been found out that quickly. I pray it was an incorrect posting.
Yes, Patriot. Just like “we the taxpayers” are paying for the most lavish inauguration in U.S. history. At a time when we are doing bailouts in large numbers, I don’t think it is appropriate to spend $150 million on Obama’s inauguration! ABsolutely irresponsible!!! Even my own Republican Governor had the sense to cut his inauguration festivities down to one party. Get a clue, man!
Katie, Do you need to use a credit card to join? I signed up at the site, and they wanted a credit card, and monthly payments.
Foxtrot… From what I can tell the real Lawdawg has never posted anything other than DENIED messages. Nothing else to prove he even exists. He missed the Granted motion last week, as a OBOT would have. So unless there’s any proof he exists, that he has said anything other that DENIED. Then as far as I’m concerned he’s an Obot!!! After all every Obot would have said that each application was denied and have 100% right so far.
That’s the way I see it.
The real Lawdawg is a learned watcher of the court. He/she has good legal training and can make educated guesses so that we all think him/her privy to what is going on. Remember ‘dawg never mentioned the Amicus brief at the time Berg filed it earlier. That should tell us all something. ‘Dawg, though sharp, does not know everything…but maybe wants us to think so!
Still, we do appreciate ‘Dawg’s insights!
Don’t do it Margie. Please be careful.
Patriot, a shame you use that name. It does not matter if he was born in Hawaii or not. Soetoro / Obama had a Foreign Father. Having stated that, he is NOT a Natural Born American citizen. Ignorance is no excuse to the Law. We were taught in grade school what the requirements are for the Office of United States President.
Margie, Explain Chester A. Arthur? How did he become president?
Margie – I don’t represent We The People, but see from a handout that you can mail a check if you’d like to donate.
Zach, I’m honored that you chose my post to put on your blog, and I hope everyone takes a serious look at their site, makes their own decisions and feels free to share it around the country.
They have a video that has been highly recommended to watch – it’s almost 2 hrs. in length, but has opened many people’s eyes.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173
Patriot – I’m sure Mr. Berg would love to play golf. He’s a little busy trying to save the country from complete failure, and your life from living in a Marxist regime.
gholtron, Thanks I didn’t use a credit card. I never do really. Unlike our government, I don’t live beyond my financial means. I am hoping to find someone to go with me where they will be gathering to discuss the plan of action. It is not as close as I would like, and the weather here is very cold. I do know there is too much corruption going on, and it needs to be stopped.
Bob, please read the military Complaint. And then contact me.
http://jbjd.wordpress.com/
An article written by O in 83 has surfaced (it’s a little hard to read because of the background color–he talks about exposing Columbia talking out of both sides of its mouth):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/10499043/Barack-Obama-Breaking-the-War-Mentality-March-10-1983-Sundial
Yes, Margie, we were taught the requirements. And no one was taught that to be natural born both of your parents must be citizens. That part you have made up.
I thought you were storming the Supreme Court today or organizing a million person march on Washington. What happened to that?
Well Patriot, there will be anywhere between 1.5 million to 2 million people there in the next 4 days. But then again they will be there FOR the swearing in. Oh well.
jbjd —
I have read your case a while back, and it turns the tables on Obama, asking him to show the court his right to issue orders to our officers in the field.
It’s both superb and brilliant, and your summation of what we KNOW is really great (if we are only allowed to list our doubts about Obama), which your case would allow.
I was going down a different road, and referencing Berg’s long list accusations of FRAUD and MISREPRESENTATION by the DNC and its standard-bearer, which is the case that Congress was thumbing its nose at.
I can’t see how you can lose, with an officer asking the court for your ruling!
It looks like Berg with Hollister, and Orly now, are following your lead, because it is the best path to follow before January 20 for sure!
Still no official word from SCOTUS on berg’s case. The interesting thing is they issued one order yesterday Jan 15th denying an appeal on a Alabama death sentence. So that shows that they don’t issue specific orders on specific days. so we could hear today or monday or whenever???
Patriot
No I am not making anything up. I was raised to know right from wrong. I also was taught only a Natural Born citizen can hold the office of U.S. President. The Founding Father’s were aware those with dual citizenship, have alligence to two different countries. Therefore only Natural Born are eligible for the Commander in Chief of Our Country. There is also the Logan Act, campaigning for his Cousin of said Foreign Country is also a crime. Don’t be afraid to face the facts and truth of the crime being commited.
Patriot, thank you for actively participating in our Constitutional Republic.
I was asked this morning by another attorney and asked to comment on an opinion received as to whether “natural born” means, both parents had to be U.S. citizens. Here is my response.
The founding fathers wrote “natural born citizen” to grandfather themselves in. That is, Adams and Jefferson were born here, in America. (The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution mentions ‘we the people of these “United States of America,” meaning, even before the Constitution, there was a United States, at least insofar as the drafters were concerned.) But what they intended was to ensure insofar as possible that, allegiances vested in only one sovereign, that is, the U.S. qua sovereign. Because when these drafters were born in America, their sovereign was the King of England. So, if they wanted to be President – and, after all of their hard work, why wouldn’t they? – they had to create a loophole for themselves. So, they added the alternative “…or citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.”
Read the natural born clause in accordance with the 14-year residency clause. Where did these drafters get that? Well, the first President, George Washington, was inaugurated in 1789. Subtract 14 years from 1789 and what do you get? 1775. What happened in 1775? The ‘shot heard ’round the world’ in the open conflict between colonists and redcoats in Lexington and Concord, resulting one year later in the Declaration of Independence. This was the beginning of the American psyche. And the founding fathers wanted no one not intrinsically bound by this American identity to occupy the Presidency.
As for whether both parents need to be citizens in order for their offspring to be natural born, even BO concedes this is a requirement for office. After all, the non-binding resolution he and his Senate colleagues sponsored for John McCain included the stipulation, whereas both of his parents were U.S. citizens, which statement would have been superfluous if the citizenship of only one was required.
On a practical level, if a parent is not a citizen of this country then, the situation arises whereby a lengthy analysis must be undertaken to determine whether by law – and by which law – the child inherits and retains citizenship of another sovereign. Thus, by definition, there is a conflict of allegiances exposed merely by forcing such analysis! (I hardly think the forefathers were only seeking to avoid having to under such an examination due to concerns about administrative efficiency.)
Keep up the good work, Patriot. Maintaining our Republic is a labor intensive endeavor.
http://jbjd.wordpress.com/
(don’t know if this comment went through or not the first time) Found this on another blog. Very relevant to the Constitutional Convention. Everyone should read these links before they go and sign up. Something doesn’t smell right.
————————————
January 16, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Katie and Troy– I admire both of you so I don’t want you to think I am disrespecting you or your cause. However, in the interest of being informed citizens, I went on the web and found some not-so-flattering things about Schultz and his former partner, Lynn Meredith (who is now in prison). I just want to make sure everyone really does their homework before associating with these folks or giving them money. I encourage everyone reading this blog to make certain you read all of the links. It will only take a second as most are very short. If after reading all of these articles you are okay, then more power to you, and I will wish you the best of luck.
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wolves/shultz.htm
http://www.quatlosers.com/bob_schultz.htm
http://www.taxprophet.com/hot/Trustscam.shtml
(go down to the Lynn Meredeth story–he was Schultz’s right hand person until she was thrown in jail for a very long time)
(another one on Wethepeople and Schultz’s right hand person, Lynn)
http://www.etaxes.com/tax_scams.html
(below is one of many comments on the web about Bob Schultz)
pramahaphil said…
“In that case, here are my last thoughts for you and Bob Schultz.
You say it is unconstitutional for the government to require taxes, however you are a beneficiary of that system. Schools, universities, roads, national parks, protection from foreign and domestic threats, etc is all paid for by taxes.
How do you see the government operating without taxes? (crickets)Yet you people allow the rest of America to pay the tax burden while you and Bob Schultz stand aloof folding your arms like a 2 year-old who just had their favorite toy taken, refusing to pay for the freedoms you take for granted.
I have no respect for people like you and Bob Schultz. The government has problems, yes, however it is our government and our freedoms that tax dollars finance.
I hope that if you refuse to pay your taxes you have the honesty to not vote — you haven’t paid the price for that right.”
Patriot —
Not everyone born in this country is a ‘natural-born Citizen.’ My great uncle was a Full-Blooded Cherokee, and only after 1924 was he even considered a Citizen. he only died recently, an American Citizen.
The 14th Amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are CITIZENS of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
[The ‘comma’ placed before ‘and’ creates a dispute whether the second phrase modifies the first or creates an ellipsis. Since the ellipsis reading (‘all persons subject to …’) allows for an American Empire along the lines of the British Empire, the majority agree the second phrase modifies the first. Once upon a time, an American Empire may have been contemplated: and the authority for one is likely already there. In any case, a ‘comma’ seems like it’s such a tiny thing–but it’s not!]
The 14th Amendment did not immediately create CITIZENS of ‘Indians not taxed,’ or ‘indigenous peoples.’ They were NOT, and NEVER could be, CITIZENS of the United States, that is, before the Civil Rights Act of 1924 almost 60 years later (see: Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), below).
‘Natural-born CITIZENS’ are more foundational than the Constitution: they are the sovereign people that write, define, adopt and amend the Constitution. ‘Naturalized’ Citizens are the guests of the ‘natural-born Citizen’ for the 1st Generation, not their ‘replacements.’
Maribelle – please go find follow up posts and share those as well.
‘ We the People’ are forming a Continental Congress.
Do not confuse with a Constitutional Convention.
A Continental Congress is a public meeting of citizens from all 50 states to form an action plan to restore and defend the laws of the Constitution. Precisely what the Founding Fathers did in 1774 to start this nation.
Will it be enough to save our country? I don’t know. But the blueprint is there and they’re not reinventing the wheel.
Very different things.
Maribelle …
The country does “NOT” run on the money the Government/IRS charges us, the so called income tax.
We pay our taxes everyday, when we buy fuel, cigarettes, tobacco, firearms, etc… The so called income tax we pay every year only pays the interest to the [ privately owned banks ] for printing the money for Congress.
Ron Paul, and many others have been trying to shut down the so called Federal Reserve for years.There is “nothing federal about it”. It’s owned by private bankers like the Rothschild and Rockefellers, etc…
This is what Bob Schultz and the other members of Wethepeoplefoundation are talking about when they are opposing the income tax.It’s a hoax and a scam perpetrated on the American people….watch this video if you “really” want to know the truth.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173
The South
You are wrong — it is NOT a scam, but you are right that little can be done about it.
The joke is on all of us, because the 16th Amendment was simply declared by Secretary of State Philander Knox to be ratified, before it was actually ratified (because he was about to leave office in a week or so), but Congress was so pleased, they never really looked into it– and why should they? It gave them full license to pick out pockets, and they have with a vengeance!
But the story is really so laughable, you cry through your laughter!
I’m not telling anyone they should not pay their taxes, but also don’t trust the government to watch out for you, either.
Dr.Orly just got admitted to the Bar by SCOTUS and is now a officer of the court if i read that right?
Weird timing ?
Bergs case was denied.
6 cases that were granted in todays conference was already released. And Bergs was not one of them.
But, you guys won’t hear anything about it, untill AFTER the inaugration. The Court is closed on Monday AND Tuesday so they won’t be relaesing denials untill ethier Wensday or Thursday.
And after that, it won’t matter becuz Obama WILL BE PRESIDENT! And it is going to be alot harder to get Obama out after he’s sworn in!
You can stay in denial all you want to but, at the end of the day the SCOTUS has NO POWER over the President.
Therefor Obama will remain president for the next 4 to possible 8 years and there is NOTHING you idiots can do about it!!!!!
CW, great post!! Have you thought of linking your site with ObamaHub.net.
Here is the link…
http://www.obamahub.net/links.html
The point you all seem to be missing is the “character” and “associations” of those who are leading this Continental Congress. That is what you should be looking at on these links that Maribelle provided from another blog. Get a clue! They are “shady” at best.
Bob….
I’d say it’s a scam when Congress knows the 16th Amendment was “never legally ratified” and yet they have done nothing about it.Rather, they have allowed it to continue knowing they have full authority to print their own money.
I think a few ex-Presidents have had assassination attempts on their lives for trying to shut down the Federal Reserve. Private bankers don’t like it when someone tries to shut down their empire 🙂
You are correct when you say it give them full license to pick our pockets, and they have with a vengeance!
The Federal Reserve is the “root” of all financial problems in the United States.
That link i provide in the above post is to the movie “America:Freedom to Fascism”. It is a real eye opener and a movie the Government does NOT want you see!
Here it is again… http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173
You do not need a credit card to join We the People Foundation. I went to one of thier Contanental Congress regional meetings and I to was very happy and learend a lot. I then went to thier site http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/default.htm And I had a hard time signing up with a Yahoo account. But I emailed them and they sent me a password. I then went back to site and signed the Petiton and joined.
They are following the footsteps of our Forefathers from 1774 to 1776 and doing it the right way.
Also if you have seen this site I suggest you do http://www.warnthepeople.org/index.html it puts a whole new prospect on what is going on in our GOV. Well it might not be new but it was new to me and it puts everything in perspective, although I am not happy about it.
You are for the CONSTITUTION Of The UNITED STATES Of AMERICA Or Your Not. Its your choice.
What side are you on?
The Court Orders are in and no mention of Berg Case. Zach
I’m fully aware of the Federal Reserve.
I’m fully aware of the history of the Rothchild family.
I’m not impressed by a lot of the stuff, because I once saw Hitler’s film that took much the same line of thinking in a really, really nasty and inflammatory way, called “Der Ewige Jude,” so I tend to stay away from all of it, because it’s really irrelevant! — Really!
Unlike Nazi Germany, our thoughts are free! And, sometimes when the light shines through, we fix something that’s not working.
So, if you did not have the Federal Reserve, you would have to have a computer do its function.
I think Milton Friedman actually proposed that once upon a time. So there is other thinking about the matter, and perhaps one day the Fed will be gone!
I saw the Lawdawg post on Americasright.com at around 10:40 est. Someone has since mentioned that the docket number he posted is not the right one. Go to comments under the Pelosi story to see.
“Time for war.Our government has been overthrown.Now all we have to do is find out who overthrew it so we could fight back. WAKE UP,IT IS A PAID COVER UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
You realize that you’ll have to come out of your mother’s basement to do all this, don’t you?
now you may have standing in that obama has asked for TARP money to be released. Those are your and our tax dollars. Legit loss there? No?
how about all the federal judges he illegally will appoint, and lack of justice? No fair trial, no standing there?
…….standing…can’t you make more motions at the lower court to firm your case in regard to addressing the standing issue and showing tangible losses? Duty?
“Margie, Explain Chester A. Arthur? How did he become president?”
It’s called assassination of President Garfield by a pro-Chester fruitcake.
SCOTUS blog doesn’t have anything on the Berg case. It just lists Berg on docket scheduled for conference of January 16. I presume this will be as before: results announced next week. The question is–when will that be? Monday is the MLK holiday. Tuesday is the unauguration (I see this is a typo but I like it “unauguration” ha!!). We may have to wait until Wednesday to find out–if SCOTUS is not in session on Tuesday. Wednesday is the 21st. Friday is Dr. Orly’s case (Lightfoot v. Bowen) distributed for conference on the 23rd (by the way, see her blog for her admittance to the SCOTUS bar). It’s going to be an interesting week!
Lawdawgee–see, we can all make these predictions! LOL!
Patriot Said:
“Yes, Margie, we were taught the requirements. And no one was taught that to be natural born both of your parents must be citizens. That part you have made up. ”
That’s because you expected the education system to educate you instead of learning history on your own. Everyone in the baby boomer generation knows full well the meaning of the requirement. So does the U.S. State Department.
May I suggest going back to the beginning. Start at 1718 and work your way up.
Sandy,
Lawdawg referred to the correct docket number for today on his post on America’s Right.
Here it is. I first saw this on citizen wells.This document is far too important to wait for you to look up. You need to read it now. This is both a public document and one of major historical significance. It is and will be the greatest indictment against The Supreme Court of the United States, the Senate and Congress for breach of fiduciary duty to the American Public, failure to honor their oath to uphold and protect the US Constitution, conspiracy to install a Usurper into the Whitehouse, and placing America into the great national security threat since 1776.
This document is a matter of public record and should be on the front pages of every newspaper in America. It should be the major news story of every television news station, and should be boradcast as a NATIONAL EMERGENCY AND BROADCAST ON RADIO AND TV AS AN ALERT TO AMERICANS. AMERICA HAS BEEN DEFEATED AND LOST IN AN INVISIBLE BUT VERY REAL WAR. WE HAVE JUST FOUR DAYS LEFT BEFORE A TRAITOR TAKES OFFICE.
TEAM SARAH MEMBERS CAN PASTE AND SEND THIS DOCUMENT TO EVERY NEWS PAPER, RADIO STATION, AND TV STATION IT CAN AND ASK THEM TO PLEASE BROADCAST THIS EVENT. THIS IS THE BIGGEST EVENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY AND MSM ARE IGNORING OR REFUSING TO TELL THE PUBLIC. ARE THEY, TOO PART OF THE DEFEAT OF AMERICA?
RLY FILES THIS TODAY !! OBAMA NOT QUALIFIED BY DEFAULT !! Exellent.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Important, This motion was filed today
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 Respondent
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 (175 8) 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 (194 8) §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
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
1. The Petitioner submits that the U.S. CONST’s 20th Amendment places the burden of proof directly on the President elect to demonstrate that he qualifies to become President, and on government officers to evaluate and report on those proofs. It negates the lower court’s assumption that the burden of proof lies with the Petitioner.
The Respondents, President elect Barack Hussein Obama II (herein RPE Obama) et al., have failed to submit to election officers the requisite objective government certified proofs attested to by multiple reliable witnesses, as evidence that the President elect qualifies per U.S. CONST. Art. 2 §1 and §2. Furthermore, they have systematically acted to withhold from State and Federal election officers, and from We the People, the evidence necessary to evaluate the qualifications of the President elect.
Having thus failed to qualify by default, U.S. CONST. amend. 20 requires election officers to declare that the President elect has “failed to qualify”. Congress then has constitutional business of the highest privilege to elect a President who does qualify.
By misprisions of State and Federal election officers to perform these duties, Petitioner has the constitutional right and duty to challenge the qualifications of the President elect by redress petition preserved under U.S. CONST. amend. 1, by rights reserved by We the People, under U.S. CONST. amend. 1, 10 and 20, and by each government officer’s oath of office to uphold the CONSTITUTION as inviolable supreme law, U.S. CONST. art. VI.
2. The core issue underlying the Petitioner’s motion, this case before this Court, and to all similar cases is the constitutional interpretation of the restrictive “natural born citizen”qualification for President.
Prior cases with other issues have brought issues of individual civil rights of citizenship to the attention of this Court. The Petitioner brings the issue of the restrictive constitutional qualifications for President. This addresses the essential safeguard provided by the Founders to preserve the Republic and upholding the inviolability of Constitution as supreme law.
The intent of the Founders is clearly seen in John
II. The CONSTITUTION Places The Burden Of Proof On the President Elect, Who Has Failed To Qualify The 20th Amendment qualification process The U.S. CONST. amend. 20 prescribes that:
“. . . if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified;. . .”
The Constitution does not guarantee inauguration of a President elect. It requires that he first “qualify”.
The Petitioner has observed that the Constitution nowhere delegates the power and method of qualifying. Thus, the Petitioner appealed to powers reserved under the 14th Amendment. However, common principles may still identify methods by which the President elect may qualify, or fail to have qualified.
1. Burden of proof on the President elect By the past tense verb “have failed to qualify”, the CONSTITUTION places the burden of proof directly on the President elect to lay objective proofs before competent officers necessary to demonstrate that he has met the constitutional qualifications for President.
2. Qualification candidate Respondent Barack Hussein Obama II was declared the constitutional President elect by Congress in joint session on Jan. 8th, 2009. RPE Obama is thus the active subject of U.S. CONST., amend 20.
3. Constitutional qualifications exist The verb “qualify” indicates that the Constitution establishes objective criteria that the President elect must satisfy. See explicit restrictive qualifications in U.S. CONST. Art II, §1 and implicit qualifications listed below.
4. Officers competent to judge qualifications The verb “has failed to qualify” implies that there are election officers to whom those constitutional proofs of qualifications must be submitted. The electoral votes are submitted to the President of the Senate presiding over Congress in joint session with tellers appointed from the Senate and House. At least those constitutional officers are competent to receive evaluate the qualifications. The Chief Justice of this Court, and the President are other constitutionally defined officers before whom the President elect could submit his proofs for qualification.
5. Challenging Respondent’s qualifications All Executive, Legislative and Judicial officers, being on Oath to uphold the CONSTITUTION, have the power and duty to challenge the Respondent President elect Obama to show cause by date certain why he should not have failed to qualify.
a. Objections to reading Electoral votes
When Congress tabulates votes of the Electoral College in joint session, law explicitly requires the President of the Senate to ask for Objections after the reading of each State’s electoral certificates. 3 U.S.C. Ch. 1, §15. Objections to electoral votes may be filed if signed by one Senator and one Representative. Electing a candidate for President who would not qualify would violate the Constitution and justify raising a formal objection on reading each State’s votes. On reading the electoral votes, Senate President Dick Cheney failed to ask for objections on reading of each State’s votes on Jan. 8th, 2009. See also 3 U.S.C. Ch. 1,§17, §19(a) (1), and §19 ©) (1)
b. Point of Order on declaring President elect Obama has failed to qualify
Officers on oath to uphold the Constitution bear the high privilege to raise a Point of Order or Question of Order over any breach thereof, as well as over any breach of the Rules of each House. Senate Rule XX. When an appointed election officer fails to uphold the duties required by U.S. CONST. Art II §1 and amend. 20, any Member of Congress has the power and duty to raise a Point of Order.
Failing that, citizens, including the Petitioner, have the unalienable right of petition for redress of grievances, to petition their State or Congress with a prayer to raise a Point of Order over breach of Constitution. U.S. CONST. amend. I
Reporting the tallied electoral votes provided an opportunity to raise the Point of Order that the President elect has not qualified. However, no Member of Congress raised that Point of Order requested by numerous citizens by redress petition. See Appendix A. Every time any House is in session provides an opportunity for Members of Congress to raise a Point of Order that the President elect has failed to qualify.
6. Venues for qualification The joint session of Congress, held to count electoral votes and announce the President elect, is one venue in which the President elect could have submitted his qualifications. Thereafter, the President elect could submit his qualifications to the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, the Chief Justice of this Court, or the President as constitutionally recognized officers being under oath to uphold the Constitution.
7. Period for qualification By the classification “President elect”, Amend. 20 establishes at least the qualification period between the constitutional “election” of tabulating electoral college votes before Congress on January 6th (January 8th in 2009) and the inauguration on January 20th when the President elect is sworn in as “President”.
8. Opportunity for qualifying By “have failed to qualify”, the President elect will have been given the opportunity to submit proofs showing that he does qualify. By January 16th, RPE Obama will have had five business days during which to submit proofs of his qualification.
9. Time and Actors for remedy Were this Court to determine and find the President elect has failed to qualify by default, there would still be time to notify Congress, for Congress to appoint the Vice President as Acting President, and for the Electoral College and Congress to proceed with electing another President who does qualify, per U.S. CONST. amend. 20. This urgent constitutional business would have privilege over other business.
10. Verification of proofs of qualifications By “have failed to qualify”, the competent election officers must examine the proofs submitted by the President elect against the constitutional qualifications. The CONSTITUTION grants all powers necessary to perform constitutional duties including obtaining government certified documents from any Federal or State repository, and to subpoena other records as needed.
11. Electoral College By U.S. CONST. amend 12, Electors in the Electoral College are election officers with the duty to elect the President. Electors, and the Electoral College have the privileges and duty to evaluate the qualifications of all candidates for President, and the President elect. By their oath to uphold the Constitution, they have a duty to demand and evaluate proofs and to find that the Presidential candidate or President elect has or has failed to qualify.
12. State Election Officers Each State has the equivalent privileges and opportunities to evaluate the qualifications of all candidates for President and for the President elect. As the Petitioner has sought relief, the Secretary of State can communicate RPE Obama’s failure to qualify to the Governor, the State’s Senators and President of the Senate, and to its Representatives, and the Speaker of the House. Each State’s Senators, Representatives and Governor have the Privilege of the Floor in the respective House, and may communicate that failure, or raise a Point of Order. Senate Rule XXIII
13. Declaration of qualification/failure By “have failed to qualify”, the election officers have the constitutional power and duty to declare that the President elect has met or has failed to meet the restrictive constitutional requirements for President. They have the power and duty to communicate that determination to the authorities responsible to elect the President. I.e. to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House.
14. Proofs for explicit qualification criteria Objective evidence of qualifications must be commensurate with the level of proof required. Certified copies of original birth certificates are commonly required by citizens to obtain government photo ID, marriage certificates, driver’s licenses, and to register to vote.
To obtain security clearance, military officers must provide increasingly exhaustive evidence that they qualify. As Commander in Chief, the President commands the Chiefs of the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force bearing Top Secret clearance. Common sense requires that the President elect provide objective proofs commensurate with the higher constitutional office of Commander in Chief, and the Top Secret clearance required of those he must command. To verify constitutional qualifications, election officers should require the President elect to provide the following, and to verify their validity.
a. Age 35 years
Government certified copies of original full (“long form”) birth certificates attested to by two reliable witnesses, and all revisions thereof. U.S. CONST. art. II, §1.
b. 14 years residency in the US
Evidence of residence within the U.S., with certified copies of all passports held to confirm time within versus without the U.S., being more thorough than that required for naturalization, or documenting U.S. births abroad. U.S. CONST. art. II, §1.
c. Natural born citizen with sole allegiance
By the underlying constitutional principle of sole allegiance to the U.S.A. the Commander in Chief should have all biological and adoptive parents holding allegiance to the US, the President elect be born in U.S. jurisdiction, and have had only had sole allegiance to the U.S. CONST. art. II, §1.
(1) President Elect’s Citizenship
Government certified copies of the original (“long form”) birth certificates of the President elect, showing original place and date of birth, and both biological parents.
(2) Citizenship of Biological Father
Government certified copies of the original birth certificates or naturalization certificates, evidencing US Citizenship of the biological father at the birth of the President elect.
(3) Citizenship of Biological Mother
Government certified copies of the original birth certificates or naturalization certificates, evidencing US Citizenship of the biological mother at the President elect’s birth.
(4) Citizenship of Adoptive Parents
Government certified copies evidencing citizenship of every adoptive parent of the President elect.
(5) Change of Name
Government certified copies of every legal change of name since birth.
(6) Declarations of allegiance
Certified copies of each document wherein the President elect has sworn allegiance, or declared his citizenship or allegiance, whether as a youth or adult, including applications for higher education and financial aid.
(7) Military & Public Service
Certified copies of any registration for military service, and of each and every military and/or public service.
15. Inauguration would not remedy defects Official inauguration of a President elect do not remedy failure to constitutionally qualify. The US Constitution is inviolable, founded on the security of the U.S. CONST., art. VI ¶2 No certified documents provided Per the Petitioner’s application and current belief and knowledge, none of these documents having been submitted to election officers in Congress, in the Electoral College, or in any State, by RPE Obama, that are government certified with reliable witnesses. Upcoming petitioners including Gail Lightfoot have similarly found no evidence of such positive action by RPE Obama to qualify.
2. Birth records sealed The RPE Obama has refused to submit certified copies of any of his original long form “vault” birth certificates in Hawaii to any public officer or to any Petitioner. Relevant records in Kenya have also been officially restricted.
3. Educational records sealed The RPE Obama has sealed all educational records which might reveal his stated citizenship. These include Punahou High School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School.
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 (175 8)
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
*
twe // January 15, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Posted by Therese Daniels at 6:18 PM 0 comments
I posted this earlier at TexasDarlin but it is in moderation – thought I’d post it here in the hopes someone can use it…
does anyone here have an account with Ancestry.com? I used to. I still get offers from them to rejoin (can’t afford it right now). Anyway this is what came today by email… take note of the last paragraph – naturalization records through 1992!
Would you like to know more about where your ancestors came from? Immigration is a pivotal part of our personal heritage, but can also be one of the more elusive challenges for the family history detective.
Luckily, naturalization records can not only be a tremendous help in solving mysteries, they are one of the richest sources of personal, family, and immigration information available.
That’s why we’re especially excited to announce we’ve just launched indexes to nearly 3 million naturalization records from 1791 all the way through 1992, and that we will soon be releasing nearly 2 million original naturalization records.
What I’m feeling tonight is this: We now have super-government (like we need it!). Do we have freedom of speech? I doubt it will be so. Are we only going to have free-speech zones from now on? What will it be with religious worship, will they stop this and tell you what you can teach? Just some interesting questions.
If this government is allowed to take over our nation, which was once free, then we’ve lost it, guys and gals. We have lost it!
Because there are people as uninformed as patriot (who should be ashamed using that name as it makes you look silly) is the reason Obama was able to buy the election.
Read the constitution. Its pretty clear
President Bush just issued and “Executive Order”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2009/01/20090116-1.html
CW….. what’s to make of this ????????
This guy Hal Turner is F***ING NUTS !!! I just got this off his blog site.
http://www.halturnershow.blogspot.com/
I have received a ton of e-mails about my dreaming of potential methods for attacking the upcoming presidential inauguration. Most tell me how easily such efforts can be defeated while others scream about “killing innocent people.” Lets set the record straight: With regard to anyone attending the inauguration, none of them are innocent.
What we will have in Washington, DC this coming Tuesday is the biggest collection of lying, thieving, conniving political scum on the face of the earth, attempting to take part in the most blatant usurpation of the US Constitution in the history of our republic.
Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen and thus is ineligible to be president. Yet no member of The House of Representatives, no member of The Senate, no member of the Supreme Court, no member of the outgoing administration and no member of any law enforcement agency is raising even one finger to “support and defend the Constitution” from this blatant usurpation. As such, they are ALL guilty.
That covers the government and law enforcement, now let’s talk about the crowd: The faces you will see in the inaugural crowd will look like a scene from planet of the apes. To the average American viewer, there will not be a single more powerful image that I or anyone else could offer to show just how different and completely inferior, they truly are.
Intermixed in the huddled mass of sub-human simians will be mentally-ill Whites who call themselves Liberals, and who think it ever so grand that the first black president will be sworn in. Wiping out these two segments of the population (sub-humans and mentally-ill liberal whites) would be a public service!
I won’t say what may or may not happen Tuesday but I will say this: After Tuesday, the name Hal Turner may live in infamy.
Let it be known that I saw what was necessary and decided to do what had to be done. I make no apology to those affected.
You chose to go to Washington, DC. You chose to participate in the usurpation of the Constitution. You deserve whatever you get.
Simon, Think of all the shady characters Obama has and is associating with, and he will become the 44th President. Doesn’t seem quite right, does it?bkw
The South – with a mind that thinks like that, and a mouth that speaks it, he’s probably right. Infamy, after the Secret Service puts him where he belongs.
What a low life he is. Makes me want to go take a shower.
CHALLENGE TO ANY LAWYER, INCLUDING ANY JUDGE, IN AMERICA (OR ANYONE IN THE WORLD FOR THAT MATTER):
READ (CAREFULLY) THE ANDERSON AMICUS BRIEF — NOW BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT — AND STATE A BASIS FOR BHO TO BE SWORN IN AS POTUS ON 1/20/09?
Link at:
Click to access joyce_anderson-amicus-final.pdf
or at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2145354/posts
Citizen Wells:
lisa2009 wrote in a post above: “Therefor Obama will remain president for the next 4 to possible 8 years and there is NOTHING you idiots can do about it!!!!!”
CW: I would appreciate it if you would not publish posts that insult other posters. Thanks.
scarolina posted a quote from the ancestry.com site:
“That’s why we’re especially excited to announce we’ve just launched indexes to nearly 3 million naturalization records from 1791 all the way through 1992, and that we will soon be releasing nearly 2 million original naturalization records.”
Would someone please email that to Ed Hale since he knows a lot about this and believes there is an immigration/naturalization record from August 1961 that would prove Ann came into the country with Barry.
OR … if you have an account at http://www.ancestry.com or would like to create one, then please look up August 1961:
Stanley Ann Obama
Stanley Ann D. Obama
Barack Obama
Barry Obama
and do it NOW before it gets scrubbed – Patriot and a couple of other Obots on here are reading what you do. Take action before they can.
Reprinted in part from http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/
This was written about Israel but I am thinking about our country, our constitution, and our freedom.
It is the right of every nation to defend itself against enemies at home and abroad. When Al Queda attacked America, the left chose the Taliban. When Hamas bombed Israel, the left chose Hamas. So be it. We are under no obligation to bow our heads to the moral judgment of the ideological grandchildren of Marx, Lenin and Noam Chomsky. To hell with them and to hell with all their progeny. We choose us.
It is the right of every people to refuse to be slaughtered, to care about their own first, and to defend their own first. You may call this selfish, we call it survival. A nation exists because it chooses not to be conquered, instead choosing the deaths of the enemy over slavery and genocide. A family exists because a man chooses to protect his family from all those who would harm them. All morality must have a base. Yours is in class warfare, ours is in the family. We choose our family, we choose their lives over the intruders who would slaughter us in the name of greed…
The South —
If you had any discernment at all, you wouldn’t even be looking at Hal’s stuff. Once is enough to see that all the pieces don’t fit together there.
So, we don’t really need his stuff by proxy, either.
It tells us more about you, than about Hal. Just a word whispsered in your ear, that’s all!
Bob….
****RELAX**** and stop stop trying to make yourself look good at others expense, Please!
I was referred to that site from a posting on this blog.A link as a matter of fact.
So please do yourself as well as the rest of us a favor and keep your egocentric remarks to yourslelf.
Janet.
I wanted you to see it.
I had a dream last night and it woke me from a dead sleep. Here’s what happened.
Obama was sworn in on January 20. Rapid events emerged, including the repealment of term limitations of the president. Law was passed a week later. Another act empowers Obama to create a new Civilian Army.
An underground movement amasses. Patriots prepare for a possible attack on the U.S. States begin to convene again for an emergency Constitutional Convention. Obama begins to show clear intention on embracing pro-terrorist nations in an attempt to quell Muslim attacks on the nation. More laws are enacted to allow the UN more control over the U.S.
People begin to protest in the streets. Racial slurs ensue between whites and minorities. Riots crop up in all major cities. Obama declares Martial Law under U.N control.
In an attempt to uncover the truth, an underground faction of the resistance movement invades the Social Security office in Baltimore and Department of Health Records Room in Hawaii to unseal his records by force. They uncover his ineligibility and release this information to the world. National Guard troops attack both buildings in an attempt to thwart all involved and the invasions and all faction members are placed under military arrest.
The secret is now out and people are in shock. Obama makes an attempt to control the masses and keep himself in power by creating executive orders to lay force upon the citizens. War ensues between the National Guard under the direct orders of the governors and fighting breaks out between them and military under the control of Obama himself. After about 6 months millions of Americans are dead or injured after immense fighting in large populated areas.
That’s when I woke up…
This excerpt from Dr. Vieira’s article takes the position that without proper qualifications Mr. Obama will transition from president elect , to usurper.
As such he would not be above the authority of any court. This seems very logical.
I am raising this point to say that the resolve of all who seek the truth should be unchanged. To an unqualified person the title of president, has no more meaning than “office of president elect”.
OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
October 29, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm
Seventh, if Obama does become a usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.
The South —
If you believe I’m “ego-centric”, then I apologize.
The Internet is a megaphone, and some of the most vile stuff gets spread like a virus.
That’s all.
Bob…
We are on the same side. It’s very easy for us to turn on each other at a time like this, as we are all very frustrated with the situation at hand.
I probably should have ignored the comment, and i apologize for snapping back.
Bob and The South.
Thank you for responding in a mature manner that reflects unity
in a common cause.
God bless.
Citizen,
We’re definitely unified on this. Imagine all the “discussions” the signers of the Declaration of Independence had in 1776.
The passion by Patriots here is what exudes energy need to expose and combat the kind of malicious undertaking imposed by our government.
Must have been one hell of a nocturnal emission.
The fact that someone brakes the law does not mean it doesn’t exist anymore.
Same with the constitution.
I guess the plan is to change the constitution, but Obama would still be a fraud.
When he ran for office he did not meet the qualifications.
Everything he signs is invalid.
Even a change in the constitution does not make him eligible, at the time of his election he did not meet the requirements.
Basta la Pasta!
Tim Baker,
What exactly are you referring to?