QUO WARRANTO LEGAL BRIEF – Part 2: The Federal Quo Warranto Statute Is The Only Constitutional Means of Removing a Sitting President Other Than Impeachment

[TYPO UPDATE: The first federal Quo Warranto statute was enacted in 1878 not 1787.]

[UPDATE 9:16 AM: 03.06.09:  EXHIIBITS 7-9 were added below.  And they are heavyweights.]

[UPDATE: 12:30 AM: 03.06.09  EXHIBIT 6 was added below . ]

The issue of whether the President can be removed from office other than by impeachment is the single most important question presented with regard to challenging the eligibility of a sitting President. This section of the brief contains important new information supporting the conclusions discussed in Part 1 of this legal brief .

Please understand that if the Constitution limits Congressional power to remove the President to only cases of impeachment then there is no Constitutional mechanism available to remove a President who is proved to be a usurper.  And if that’s true, then the federal quo warranto statute doesn’t have the power to remove a sitting President… even if it was proved beyond any doubt he was ineligible. 

The best dream team of lawyers you can draft may bring all the law suits they like for the best possible reasons in favor of the most perfectly possible plaintiffs with undeniable standing as to injury in fact and causality, but the courts do not have the authority – under the Constitution – to remove a sitting President.  Those law suits will fail and they should fail.

In order to protect the Constitution, we must not subvert the separation of powers.

If it can’t be done by quo warranto, then it can’t be done at all. Why?

Because Congress is the only branch authorized by the Constitution to remove the President should he be found ineligible.  And the only court Congress has delegated that power to is the District Court of the District of Columbia, and such delegation of power is strictly limited to actions governed by the federal quo warranto statute.

If we are going to challenge eligibility to protect the Constitution, then we certainly cannot do an end around the separation of powers.  I have recognized this from the outset and that’s why I tried to have the eligibility issue litigated prior to election day and then again prior to the electoral college meeting.  After the electoral college met and cast its votes for Obama, he went from being an ordinary candidate to being the President-elect.

That metamorphosis has important Constitutional consequences which cannot be ignored.  The Constitution provides that once we have a President-elect, the eligibility of that person can be challenged by Congress.  The political question doctrine kicks in at that point and the ability of any other branch to challenge for POTUS eligibility is probably nullified.  And once the President-elect is sworn in and assumes office, the Constitutional separation of powers certainly controls the issue.

Recall, Congress didn’t challenge Obama’s eligibility before he was sworn in, so those provisions are now moot.   And once a person is sworn in as President, the Constitution then provides specific means for removing the President from office, none of which grant such power to the Judicial Branch.  Now please consider the following two points:

1.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Judicial Branch the power to remove a sitting President.

Those who are currently petitioning the Judicial branch to challenge Presidential eligibility are seeking to subvert the Constitution.

They will argue Obama isn’t legally President and so therefore the Constitutional separation of powers can be ignored.  Should a court ever accept that theory, you will have the recipe for civil war, and you will be doing more damage to the nation than you can even imagine.  Protest all you like, but the US Government recognizes his authority.

Furthermore, United States Courts all the way up to SCOTUS have refused to get involved, and this was the case before Obama was sworn in when the Judicial Branch actually did have the power to adjudicate the eligibility issue.  They punted.  Fact.

Now that Obama has taken the office of President and is officially recognized as President, no court is going to suddenly take a leap around the separation of powers by agreeing the Constitution doesn’t apply to Obama as President.  That will never happen.

Let that sink in because it’s true.

2.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that impeachment is the sole means of removing the President.

Some who support Obama’s eligibility will seek to subvert the Constitution by arguing that the Constitution states that the sole remedy for removing the President is impeachment.  Nowhere in the Document does it say that. Those who believe it must “imply” or “assume” that is the case.  But the Constitution does not state that impeachment is the sole means of removing the President.

The Constitution does say that Congress has the sole authority to impeach and the Senate to convict, and that the President “shall” be removed upon conviction, but it does not say that impeachment is the sole means of removal.  You will hear people say that it does say that in the days ahead.  It is a lie.

I have uncovered a plethora of evidence – within and without the Constitution – which I strongly believe proves that the framers provided Congress with the power to remove a President who is found to be ineligible.  This makes sense because not every person who is found to be ineligible is guilty of a crime.

HYPOTHETICAL:

Two double agents born in the evil nation of  “KILLAMERICASTAN” sneak a child into America over the Canadian border and later obtain false documents indicating they are US citizens and that their child was born in the United States.  The child is raised like a Manchurian Candidate and believes his parents are US citizens and that he was born in the US.  The child grows up a gifted politician and eventually becomes President.  After being sworn in, the truth is discovered by US Intelligence and proved beyond any doubt.  The President then refuses to leave office since he didn’t do anything wrong and had no knowledge of the plot.

What happens?

Well, the President has done nothing to be impeached.  He’s not guilty of any high crimes or misdemeanors, bribery or treason.  Did the framers leave us naked in such a situation?  I don’t believe so.  We will return to this shortly.

SEPARATION OF POWERS

My respect for the separation of powers in our Constitution is the core reason I was so willing to drop the eligibility fight once the Electoral College met.  I understand and respect the Constitution. And I would never further damage it by aiding a new Constitutional crisis which might help to bring our Republic down.

We must respect the separation of powers or we will lose the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands.

The separation of powers argument will be the proper undoing of every single POTUS eligibility law suit running through the courts at this moment in time.  They will all fail.  And they should, because for any of them to prevail, the separation of powers would be violated.

Even in law suits where federal courts have been petitioned to request Congress investigate -  by way of mandamus – Obama’s eligibility (as opposed to seeking removal), the courts will dismiss on the basis of separation of powers limitations and/or subject matter jurisdiction, even if the plaintiffs were found to have passed the difficult standing tests (and that’s not going to happen either).

While I respect the litigants and the efforts they have made, I take issue with some of the tactics employed and I’m also not that impressed with many of the pleadings.  I hope that, by publishing this brief, I will correct some of the previous errors and provide the public at large with the best possible education so that proper pressure can be applied to authorized Government officials.  Knowledge is power.  I seek to empower you.

Should those officials not respond, I also hope the following will act as a template for any attorneys who may wish to pursue a quo warranto petition.  This should save time and resources.

I have reached out to some of the attorneys who impressed me, but none have brought a law suit which can succeed in light of the separation of powers enumerated in the Constitution.

IS THERE A CONSTITUTIONAL SOLUTION?

It appears there is a Constitutionally viable method available for the eligibility issue to be litigated which does not violate the separation of powers enumerated in the Constitution.  I strongly believe the federal quo warranto statute provides the only Constitutionally viable means by which a sitting President can be removed from office if found to be a usurper, whether such usurpation is intentional or unintentional.  Full details and analysis below, but first let’s discuss the following:

REVIEW OF CURRENT QUO WARRANTO ACTIVITY

As far as I can tell, only one attorney has filed for an actual quo warranto claim at this point in time.  Unfortunately, that attempt will fail as it was brought on behalf of private plaintiffs.  As you will see below, any action in quo warranto must be brought on behalf of the United States.  The attorney needed to first petition the Attorney General or US Attorney in DC to institute an action in quo warranto.  Additionally, that same action was brought in the wrong venue.  According to the statute, a quo warranto action to challenge the eligibility of a United States officer – whether elected or appointed – can only be brought in the District Court of the District of Columbia.

Another attorney has sent a “pre-litigation” letter to Attorney General Holder.  But the statute requires a “verified petition” be forwarded to the Attorney General and/or the US Attorney requesting consent plaintiffs be allowed to institute a quo warranto action in the name of the United States.  No such petition has been filed.

This “letter” sent to AG Holder insists he recuse himself due to an alleged conflict of interest since the Attorney General’s office is the designated defender of the President.  But that is only true as to the President’s official actions.  A Quo warranto dispute is not related to official activity of the President’s office.   It relates to whether the President is eligible to hold the office and that is not an “official action” undertaken by the President.  The statute defines quo warranto as a civil action.  I believe the President would have to hire private counsel to defend him.

So, there’s probably no legal conflict of interest requiring Eric Holder to recuse himself.   Any conflict of interest which exists is probably limited to the personal gratitude AG Holder may have for Obama since he appointed him.  But that’s not the type of conflict which requires recusal.  For example, a Supreme Court Justice does not have to recuse himself in a dispute involving the President who appointed him.

It’s not fair to suggest AG holder won’t do his job because he owes personal allegiance to Obama.  I believe in fighting a fair fight even if others fight unfairly against me.  It’s only fair that the man be given the chance to do the right thing.  Furthermore, no verified petition has even been forwarded to the Attorney General’s office.

The federal quo warranto statute provides that the “United States attorney” may institute an action in quo warranto on his own motion.  The US Attorney for the District of Columbia is Jeffrey Taylor.  He was appointed to that position in 2006 by the Bush administration and certainly has no conflict of interest.  I am not aware of anybody who has contacted US Attorney Taylor in this regard.  It will only take one of those officials to bring the action, not both.

WHY EVERY EFFORT SHOULD BE MADE BY THE PUBLIC TO PRESSURE AG HOLDER AND US ATTORNEY TAYLOR TO INSTITUTE – ON THEIR OWN MOTION – AN ACTION IN QUO WARRANTO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT EX RELATOR PLAINTIFFS

While arguments about whether the military make the best plaintiffs have been raging, the simple truth is that a quo warranto case with the best chance of success ought to be initiated with no private plaintiffs at all.  The federal quo warranto statute shows a preference for cases brought on behalf of the United States by the Attorney General or the US Attorney.  And until respectful pressure is applied to those officials, the nation is deprived of the most perfect avenue to justice.  Until this course of action is exhausted, I pray that all private attorneys briefly delay requesting consent from these officials while an effort is made to persuade them that it’s in the best interests of the nation for them to proceed on their own motion.

This is not a private issue.  The controversy is raging.  Nobody can deny that.  AG Holder and US Attorney Taylor need to consider that the citizens, the military, the Government – as well as Obama himself – will all be better off once clear title to the office is established.

§ 16-3502. Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.

The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person. The writ may not be issued on the relation of a third person except by leave of the court, to be applied for by the relator, by a petition duly verified setting forth the grounds of the application…

In Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 at 546 (1915), the Supreme Court interpreted the role of the AG and US attorney as follows:

The District Code still treats usurpation of office as a public wrong which can be corrected only by proceeding in the name of the government itself. It permits those proceedings to be instituted by the Attorney General of the United States and by the attorney for the District of Columbia.  By virtue of their position, they, at their discretion and acting under the sense of official responsibility, can institute such proceedings in any case they deem proper. But there are so many reasons of public policy against permitting a public officer to be harassed with litigation over his right to hold office that the Code not only does not authorize a private citizen, on his own motion, to attack the incumbent’s title, but it throws obstacles in the way of all such private attacks. It recognizes, however, that there might be instances in which it would be proper to allow such proceedings to be instituted by a third person, but it provides that such “third person” must not only secure the consent of the law officers of the government, but the consent of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia before he can use the name of the government in quo warranto proceedings.

The modern federal statute is virtually identical except the US attorney has been included with the Attorney General as the two officials who may “at their discretion and acting under the sense of official responsibility… institute such proceedings in any case they deem proper.”

Such an action is so proper that despite which side of this argument you fall on, it should be obvious the nation would be better served by having this issue settled once and for all in open court… but not in the name of private plaintiffs who can be so easily painted as partisan.

If either official bring an action in quo warranto upon their own motion, such an action is brought on behalf of the United States and no leave of the court is necessary.

Comparatively, if a private attorney petitions these officials to allow them to bring suit in the name of the US “ex relator” then even if one of the two officials gives their consent, leave of the court must be requested and if denied, that’s it.  The matter is done.  One could then appeal to SCOTUS, but SCOTUS is the last resort, not the first.  There’s no need to disrespect the statute and the resources of the court by going straight to SCOTUS.  That’s just sensational, not wise.

Another interesting point to consider is that while the predecessor statute only named the District Attorney for the District of Columbia – the modern statute which controls quo warranto as to national officers mentions both the Attorney General and the “United States attorney”.  As written, it’s possible any US attorney might be eligible to institute such a quo warranto action.  Notice that in the statute – “attorney” isn’t capitalized in either 16-3502 or 16-3503 when the “United States attorney” is mentioned. Of course, US Attorney Taylor is certainly authorized, but this needs further research.

Assuming AG Holder or US Attorney Taylor were to institute an action in quo warranto, the District Court might attempt to avoid a hearing on the merits (which every court of the nation seems hell bent upon avoiding) by claiming that the federal quo warranto statute – if applied to the President – would violate the Constitutional separation of powers and that they are of the opinion that the Constitution only allows removal of the President for impeachment.

If that argument can be overcome then, due to the obvious public policy benefits inherent in establishing that the President has a clear title to the office of President, there should be no obstacle preventing at least one of the two officials charged with the authority to act in the name of the United States to bring this issue to the court for the benefit of the nation.

THE CONSTITUTION HAS PROVIDED CONGRESS WITH THE AUTHORITY TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE IN CASES OTHER THAN IMPEACHMENT.

Evidence of this power is directly written into the Constitution.  The most obvious section is Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6 which states in full:

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Unlike in Wikipedia, the actual text of the Constitution does not apply the heading “Vacancy and Disability”.  The heading is misleading.  A comprehensive investigation appears to reveal that the framers intended Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6 – as it applied to the POTUS – for two distinct purposes.

- the first purpose is the commonly accepted purpose: to provide for a vacancy in the office of President

- the second purpose was to provide Congress a means to remove the President should it become clear that he is not entitled to hold the office, for example – a classic quo warranto situation or if the President becomes disabled.

I realize this is an entirely new theory of Constitutional law and that the common accepted interpretation is that the President can only be removed by impeachment.  As stated above, the Constitution does not state anywhere in its text that impeachment is the only means by which the President can be removed.  And since the concept of demanding public officials prove their legal warrant to hold office via the extraordinary writ of quo warranto goes back to feudal times, nobody can deny the framers were aware that usurpation was a sad fact of life.

How likely is it that the Framers failed to provide for usurpation of public office in the Constitution?  Knowing their collective wisdom, not very likely.  So please suspend judgment until the full weight of the evidence is revealed.

EVIDENCE THE FRAMERS INTENDED TO PROVIDE FOR REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT BY QUO WARRANTO – SUCH POWER VESTED IN CONGRESS

If my theory is correct, then we should be looking for evidence that the Framers considered – in their deliberations upon Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6 – that impeachment was not the sole means of ousting a sitting President.  The following are my list of exhibits.

EXHIBIT 1: A perfect on point reference from James Madison’s personal notes are included in the Records Of the Federal Convention:

In Case of his Impeachment, (Dismission) Removal, Death, Resignation or Disability to discharge the Powers and Duties of his (Department) Office; the President of the Senate shall exercise those Powers and Duties, until another President of the United States be chosen, or until the President impeached or disabled be acquitted, or his Disability be removed.

[2:186; Madison, 6 Aug.]

James Madison’s notes here pertain directly to Clause 6 and they list - separated by commas – all the various possibilities whereby the President’s office might be vacated.  Clearly, they considered that the Presidency might be vacated by a “Case of Impeachment” as well as “(Dismission) Removal, Death, Resignation, or Disability“.

Impeachment and Dismission are listed as mutually exclusive devices to remove the President.

EXHIBIT 2: Clause 6 directly follows the infamous Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 wherein the exact qualifications for the office of President are listed.

Qualifications for office are directly followed by a clause empowering removal from office.

EXHIBIT 3: The text of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6 would be redundant unless the dual purposes listed above were intended.

Examine the first part of Clause 6 alone:

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President,…

If the sole intention of the framers was that Clause 6 only applied – as to the POTUS – with regard to replacing a vacancy then there was no need to say anymore about it – as to the President.  The first line indicates that the powers devolve upon the Vice President when a vacancy occurs. So what’s the need for the next line?

…and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President,…

In this line we see that the Framers, who in the first line already provided directly for succession as to the President, have given Congress – in the 2nd line – the authority to “by Law provide for the Case of Removal… ” of the President and Vice President.

Now, let’s examine the third line:

…declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Without the bias of pre-conceived notions, a balanced reading of Clause 6 indicates that the Framers intended to give Congress the authority to remove the President as long as the manner in which they do that is provided for “by law” in line 2.   Then in line 3, the Framers charged Congress to provide for a line of succession should the Presidency be vacated… as well as the Vice Presidency, and so on.

If there was only one purpose, why mention the vacancy of the Presidency twice?

EXHIBIT 4The 25th Amendment.

One of the arguments against my theory is the misconception that the 25th Amendment superseded every purpose of Clause 6.  I don’t believe that’s correct.  The 25th amendment was born directly due to the clunky ambiguities contained in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6.  And the 25th Amendment response to that wording directly attests that the Congressional power vested by Clause 6 was not just concerned with providing for a vacancy since the 25th Amendment also provides specific means by which Congress can force the President to leave office, temporarily and/or permanently:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

If Clause 6 only grants Congress the power of providing for a vacancy, then why does the 25th Amendment provide Congress the ability to “by law provide” (the same language as used in Clause 6 as to “removal”)  some “other body” the right to declare the President unable to discharge his duties?

Clearly, if the 25th Amendment was simply a clarification of Clause 6, then Clause 6 must have vested Congress with more power than just the power to provide for succession since the 25th Amendment allows Congress to replace the President with the Vice President.

Whether the President was found undeniably ineligible to be President – due to his not being a natural born citizen – would make him unable to discharge his duties is certainly debatable, but I don’t think the 25th Amendment pertains to that fact pattern since Clause 6 and Madison’s notes both list “Removal” and “inability to discharge the Power and Duties” as mutually exclusive.  It would be disingenuous to argue that the 25th Amendment directly pertains to a quo warranto situation.

However, it’s obvious that if the 25th Amendment is a response to the ambiguity of Clause 6, then Clause 6 wasn’t just intended to fulfill vacancies.  If Congress was given power in Clause 6 (as codified by the 25th Amendment) to actually replace the President upon his inability to discharge duties – then Congress also had the power to remove the President for being found ineligible.

The 25th Amendment is quite an amazing grant of power when you consider the President can be forced to step down if Congress believes he’s lost his mind.  That’s certainly a much greater power than just being authorized to decide how to fill the vacancy if he loses his mind.

More evidence to support my theory is found in what the the 25th Amendment doesn’t discuss.

The 25th Amendment doesn’t discuss death or resignation.

Why?

Because there is nothing to discuss.  When the President dies or resigns has nothing to do with Congress.  But when it came to deciding whether the President is able to discharge his duties, Congress is authorized to exercise removal power by the 25th Amendment – and such power must be derived directly from Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6.

QUESTION: If Congress has the power to remove a President should it become known he was a usurper, then why doesn’t the 25th Amendment address that?

ANSWER: Because by 1967 – when the 25th Amendment was ratified – Congress had already exercised their authority on this issue by enacting the federal quo warranto statute which allows for the removal of any United States officer found to be a usurper.

EXHIBIT 5: Article 2 Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and misdemeanors.

If one argues that the federal quo warranto statute does not apply to the President because the only way to remove a President is by impeachment, then it stands to reason that the statute also can not apply to “civil officers of the United States”.   If you’re going to argue that Article 2 section 4 is the sole means of removing the President, then you must also argue that it’s the sole means of removing “civil officers of the United States”.

If that’s your argument, then 16-3501 of the federal quo warranto statute makes absolutely no sense. Take a look:

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

If Congress didn’t believe they had the authority to remove a usurper from any public office of the United States, they why did they enact the statute to to read as if it covers every public office of the United States?  Why didn’t they write relevant exceptions in the statute for the office of President, Vice President and civil officers?

The 25th Amendment clarified “Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6″ only in so far as the clause needed clarification.  It didn’t need clarification as to death or resignation of the President as those are obvious, and it didn’t need clarification as to issues of quo warranto and usurpers because they had enacted a thorough federal statute.

EXHIBIT 6: Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 – aka “The Hook Clause”

Article 1 Section 8 Clause17 states:

The Congress shall have power…To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States,…

Compare the wording of Clause 17 with §16-3501 of the federal quo warranto statute:

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

When you read the two back to back, it appears Constitutional that the office of President – being in the District of Columbia – should be governed by the federal quo warranto statute.

EXHIBIT 7: Analogous Congressional precedent – the voiding of “Mr. Shields” and “Mr. Galatin’s” US Senate elections after they were found to be usurpers who did not meet the qualifications for office enumerated in the Constitution.

While the Constitution doesn’t provide for impeachment of Senators or Representatives, it does provide for their “expulsion” by a vote of two thirds of all members of each body respectively.  Article 1 Section 5 states:

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Like impeachment for a President, expulsion is sometimes erroneously assumed to be the only Constitutional process by which a Senator can be removed from office.  But that’s not accurate.  The Senate can remove a sitting Senator should he be found to be a usurper, just as they can remove a President found to be a usurper… and they have done so at least twice that I am aware of.

At Senate.gov, all fifteen of the Senators who have been removed by the Constitutionally enumerated process of expulsion are listed.  Please notice that the list doesn’t include Senator Shields who was removed by Congress in 1849.

Senator Shields was removed by the Senate after it was discovered that he was an alien by birth, and that when he was elected in January 1849 – from the State of Illinois, to serve as a US Senator – he had not been a US citizen for the requisite nine years.  However, he was not removed pursuant to the Article 1 section 5 expulsion power.

Instead, the Senate held that his election was entirely “void”.  Senator Shields even offered his resignation to the Senate, but his resignation was not accepted by the Senate who held that since Shields was never qualified, he was never a Senator even though he had been sworn in and had been serving as a Senator until March 1849 when his election was completely made void and the seat declared vacant.

Since Shields it was discovered – after Shields had occupied the Senate seat – that he didn’t meet the Constitutional qualifications for the office of Senate, the Senate held that he was never an actual Senator and so his removal is not recorded as an expulsion.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it explicitly state that the Senate may remove a Senator by making a determination that his election was void and that he was a usurper.  But that’s exactly what happened.  If the power to remove a usurper wasn’t Constitutionally allowed, the Senate couldn’t have voided Mr. Shields election and vacated his Senate seat.  But they did.

The Congressional Globe account of the Shields removal is preceded by an account of a similar precedent regarding a Mr. Albert Galatin.  Mr. Galatin was elected to the US Senate from Pennsylvania in 1793 and it was later found that he had never become naturalized.  The Senate again voided his election stating that the election wasn’t just “voidable”, but that since there was no way to cure the qualification defect… the election was completely “void”… it didn’t happen.

It’s important to note that the first quo warranto statue enacted by Congress didn’t take effect until 1787 [typo - that should read "1878"] so in 1793 and 1849 the Senate chose to void the elections of the two usurpers.

So here we have precedent for Congressional authority to remove Senators other than by expulsion.  Usurpation of office resulted in elections being voided and the Senate record do not even record usurpers as having been members of the Senate.  If Congress can remove a usurper to the Senate without expelling him, this provides evidence that Congress can remove a usurper to the Presidency without impeaching him.

It appears there is no possible separation of powers issue to confront.  If a person occupying the Presidency is found to be a usurper, then his Presidency is a fiction to be voided in history and his name removed from the record books.  A usurper isn’t allowed to have been said to be President.  His occupation is a fiction.

In the Galatin case the Senate made clear that since there was no possible way the failure to qualify could be cured, then the election was a total fiction and is void, not voidable, but void, as if it never happened.

[Special thanks to reader Kamira, who discovered the Galatin information in the Congressional Globe. ]

EXHIBIT 8: USC CODE: TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT Chapter 1. Presidential Elections and Vacancies

Please review §19:

Vacancy in offices of both president and vice president; officers eligible to act

§ 19.   (a) (1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.

Please take notice that “failure to qualify” is listed as one of the means by which a vacancy in the office of President may occur.  And recall, as to Mr. Shields whose election to the Senate was voided, the Senate declared his seat vacant.

EXHIBIT 9: COMMON SENSE

Out of all the exhibits listed above, I think it’s most important to keep in mind the most simple evidence – common sense.  Does anybody really believe our Constitution prevents the removal of a person who is found to be a usurper to the office of President?

The answer must be no.

CONCLUSION: The federal quo warranto statute provides the only Constitutional means by which a sitting President may be removed by the Judicial branch.


(I must thank a special reader for making me aware of the Clause 17 hook.)

[To be continued in part 3.]

About these ads

128 Responses to “QUO WARRANTO LEGAL BRIEF – Part 2: The Federal Quo Warranto Statute Is The Only Constitutional Means of Removing a Sitting President Other Than Impeachment”

  1. I hate to tell you but this was already done before in history and I know the people researching it.

    One Senator thrown out after being voted in was Senator Gallatin in 1793.

    Correct this load of crap this Senator is selling the American people and USE Gallatin as the proof! –

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90767

    This Senator claims that the constitutional requirement may be bypassed because the people voted for Obama. Not true according to the case of Albert Gallatin. The congress voted Gallatin out and Justice John Marshall set the standard that the constitution cannot be overthrown, even by Congress. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter. This matter was settled as a matter of LAW, not votes!

    It’s been DONE before.

  2. Mr. Donofrio,

    The WND petition is up over 310, 000. Unfortunately, it revolves SOLELY around the misgivings of Mr. Obama’s BC. Perhaps the sheer number of Americans would be suffient as supporting the letter to the counselors. It would suck to have to start over due to the lack of foresight, but so be it if necessary.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550

    -Noz

    Oh, I meant to start by saying that your article was absolutely clear (“clear as an unmuddied lake of deepest summer’) in its analysis and intent. Well done (from the kids who ride the short bus).

  3. I disagree with you Leo. When a retired General decides to pursue the issue, who are you or me, for that matter to argue with him?
    I am sure many members of the military understand the consequences.

    I am also sure that those in Military have been fully apprised. Do you think a General doesn’t talk to Generals?

    Generals are a different breed, Leo.

    Very high IQ’s.

    [Ed Im not concerned with retired military, just active. More power to the retired General. I applaud his efforts.]

    He knows what he is doing.

    I recommend that you respect what the General has chosen to do, and quit meddling in what goes on in the Military.

    geez.

  4. Once again you have provided an important civics lesson.
    The fact that Obama himself has created the public mistrust seems very important, as does the fact that the interest of the public to know if their seated president is eligible to hold the position is not only alive but growing.
    Public interest is high!
    We are all here wondering about eligibility because instead of utilizing “trust but verify” we let those charged employ “trust or verify” when it came to vetting!
    http://thenma.org/blogs//index.php/libertyforusa/2009/03/05/verily-vetted-trust-or-verify

  5. [...] This evening, Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, has released the second part of his three-part legal briefing stating his opinion of challenging the President’s authority via a prerogative writ known as quo warranto. [...]

  6. Moved from previous thread
    ********************************************
    A Quo Warranto prediction / possibility:

    It seems that Quo Warranto is providing the PERFECT avenue for Obama to weasle out of the mess he got himself into over the citizenship issue.

    If I were Eric Holder or Obama and someone requseted that the Quo Warranto action be pursued, then I would jump for joy….Let the charade begin!!!!

    Holder: Excuse me President Obama, sir, but I’m afraid that I’m going to need to see your birth certificate.

    Obama: Oh, no problem Eric, here it is. (forged or authentic)

    Holder: Ok, it looks good to me….Thank you Mr. President.

    Obama: Dont’ mention it Eric Baby, I’m glad I could help.

    Court: Ok, we’re satisfied too and don’t worry about that whole natural born citizen / dual citizen thingy, it’s all just a big misunderstanding….Carry on fellas.

    DOES THIS SOUND ABOUT RIGHT?

    [Ed. The District Court would be asking to see it, not Holder.]

  7. DOES THIS SOUND ABOUT RIGHT?

    [Ed. The District Court would be asking to see it, not Holder.]
    ******************************************
    Same results

    [Ed. In the Courts there would be a public record... Quo warranto is brought in the name of the United States.... to say "by what warrant do you hold office?" the public would be invited. Of course the chances of justice are small, but since the there is a constitutional way, it should be tried and govt ignores us, that's more info necessary to evaluate the situation. Better than not using the law made available.]

  8. Sorry Leo, I don’t mean to be so pessimistic, but Cort’s case should have been heard on it’s merits and now I can only see more white washing from the courts in the future.

    You’re doing a hell of a good service to our country and we all appreciate it….I wish I had a magic wand!!!

  9. so where’s the specifics on how congress will decide if they want to remove the president ? How many Congressionalmembers does it take to do so? Will it take 75% as when amending the Constitution, 2/3′s super majority or majority. I hesitate to believe that it would be a majority and not really certain about 2/3 but would exclide 75% …so what’s left ?

    [Ed. Read my blog carefully. The answer is in their. Hint, Congress has already delegated that authority to the DC District Court.]

  10. Historical again Leo!! Damn…I am envious of your mind!
    I have a question…Given the facts I have quoted below from your post above, couldn’t the Supreme Court demand proof of eligibility (not with intention to unseat) but because the Constitution is “the Supreme Law of the Land” written and accepted by the people (citizens) for the people (citizens), to protect their rights and freedoms and therefore each and every citizen of the United States of America has standing based simply on this fact and are merely asking for proof! My point /question …Would this scenario be feasible and in doing so, the information recieved by court order would then be given to Congress (with the Nation watching) for Congress to act on???

    [Ed. SCOTUS always prefer that the proper way to do things should be done. The statute gives the DC Court first crack... and then it could come to SCOTUS on writ of error. They won't accept this as you have suggested.]

    “Please understand that if the Constitution limits Congressional power to remove the President to only cases of impeachment then there is no Constitutional mechanism available to remove a President who is proved to be a usurper. And if that’s true, then the federal quo warranto statute doesn’t have the power to remove a sitting President… even if it was proved beyond any doubt he was ineligible.

    The best dream team of lawyers you can draft may bring all the law suits they like for the best possible reasons in favor of the most perfectly possible plaintiffs with undeniable standing as to injury in fact and causality, but the courts do not have the authority – under the Constitution – to remove a sitting President. Those law suits will fail and they should fail.

    In order to protect the Constitution, we must not subvert the separation of powers.

    If it can’t be done by quo warranto, then it can’t be done at all. Why?

    Because Congress is the only branch authorized by the Constitution to remove the President should he be found ineligible. And the only court Congress has delegated that power to is the District Court of the District of Columbia, and such delegation of power is strictly limited to actions governed by the federal quo warranto statute.” …Leo’s words above…

  11. Thank you Leo…Could you help me to understand this one point that has been affecting my life for months now!

    Like I said above, the Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land! We as citizens feel it has been violated horribly! Why do we not have standing? I have heard because there is no proof of damage yet! But take a neighborhood with a speed limit law of 25, put in effect to protect those living there from potential harm of speeders! A car goes through the neighborhood at 40 miles per hour and is pulled over, issued a ticket, with no harm done to anyone (no one ran over, etc.) because the law has been broken, not because of done harm! Why is it not excepted by the Courts to realize a grave concern by the citizens, of a breakage of law (eligibility under the Constitution) and simply demand proof on their (citizens) behalf? I just don’t understand this spinning of law (by the Courts) in a situtation as dire as this unless there is a much darker scenario at hand!

    Thank you Leo for your time!

    [Ed. we did have standing in state courts to challenge State officials failure to uphold oath of office... we got screwed on that one. In federal court you must have an "injury in fact which is greater than just being the same kind of injury suffered by the public at large. That's what they say...]

  12. Proof reading

    “However, it’s obvious that if the 25th Amendment is a response to the ambiguity of Clause 6, then Clause 6 wasn’t just intended to fulfill vacancies. If Congress was given power in Clause 6 (as codified by the 25th Amendment) to replace the President inability to discharge duties, then Congress also had the power to remove the President for being found ineligible.”

    This doesn’t read right. Should it be “the President’s inability to discharge duties”? or something else?

    Interesting reading. Thank you.

    Are we to write to Mr. Holder and Mr. Taylor in support your effort at quo warranto?

  13. Deminimis Says:

    Congress has already delegated that authority to the DC District Court

    What about the nondelegation doctrine?

    [Ed Have at it, I don't understand.]

  14. “I strongly believe the federal quo warranto statute provides the only Constitutionally viable means by which a sitting President can be removed from office if found to be a usurper, whether such usurpation is intentional or unintentional.”

    Not according to precedent. A sitting, voted in, sworn in, Senator, Albert Gallatin was thrown out of office in 1793 for being constitutionally ineligible to be a Senator, not having the 9 year requirement as a U.S. citizen. You never made any comment about that. Here’s the full congressional link and the procedure they used:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=qkMFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA223-IA8&lpg=PA223-IA8&dq=Albert+Gallatin+ineligible+Senator&source=bl&ots=GO4Ii8iPv7&sig=NVpzF2CVNYUnIWYpNdjESd9gvYA&hl=en&ei=YIiwSaOeOteitgfYiIHEBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA221,M1

    You can also look him up on wikki and google. I don’t see anything in the law that sets any one person in any of the 3 branches above the Constitution. They all must abide by it, equally. I also don’t see any formal rule that contends that you must use a certain format to accomplish that end if required. Seems to me that history has shown they have done it before, due to ineligibility and none of this Quo Warranto stuff was even mentioned.

    [Ed. BRAVO! Very Interesting research, Kamira... Your analysis needs a little tweaking, but let me tell you that I can really use this information. It's fabulous. Watch my blog for an update to the latest post. You will be credited for the research as "reader Kamira".

    However, The Article 2 Section 4 "impeachment" clause does not cover Senators, they cannot be impeached. There is a similar clause for "expulsion" by a 2/3rds vote in Article 1, Section 5. Additionally, the first quo warranto statute in the District of Columbia was enacted in 1787, the Galatin case was in 1793 and the Shields case (comes right after the Galatin case in the link you provided) was in 1849. So, there was no controlling statute at that time... Excellent job.]

    What happened was a “portion of the Pennsylvania legislature, came as a committee to the US Senate and presented a petition, asking that the case of Albert Gallatin be considered, to see whether or not he was eligible to a seat in the Senate”.

    Mr. Carpenter states that, “and the whole report shows that he [Gallatin] and everybody else proceeded upon the belief that he had been over nine years a citizen”.

    So, according to history, since the Senate heard the testimony of everyone after a committee by the Pennsylvania Legislature came forward, there was no Quo Warranto required.

    [Ed. There was also no quo warranto statute. Once the statute was enacted, it became controlling law in the District of Columbia and for all public offices of the United States.]

    And this was a person sitting currently in one of the three major branches of government. He still got the boot. What puts Obama above that? Because it’s the executive office? Sorry, nothing we can find even remotely suggests such a thing.

    Can you tell me how you arrived at the conclusion that Quo Warranto is the only method when we see here that it has been done before?

    [Ed. The law changed with the QW statute, but your research helps makes a very serious point. It will be updated as "exhibit 7". ]

    Maybe you weren’t aware of this case, but the research being done now is about this case and should be studied! Any state legislature can form according to this reading, walk into the Senate and ask that they consider it.

    [Ed The federal QW statute would now take precedence and SCOTUS case law has developed.]

    I highly doubt that constitutional experts such as Senator Byrd, even though a democrat, is going to not understand the history of Gallatin. And if those democrats had to vote, and did it against the Constitution, then you know we’re screwed.

    I would also like to note that this case was the reason why the Senate doors were opened to the public. Prior to this case, the Senate always did business behind closed doors. But they didn’t want any air of impropriety with Gallatin, so they let the public hear it all, the way it should be, and in doing so, they did the right thing by the Constitution. And nothing less should be done with Obama.

    I’m saying, Quo Warranto is not the only avenue based on history and I would like to know why you feel it is and/or would now consider taking Gallatin into your research. Thanks.

    [Ed explained above.]

  15. Would the legislation regarding giving DC congressional voting representation affect A1 S8 C17 or any part of this case?

    [ed. no.]

  16. messenger Says:

    Your welcome.Leo,the thing that impresses me about you is not only your tenacity and mind,but that you are down to earth,and accept input from your fellow citizens.We can learn together.This is about saving the greatest nation God blessed mankind with,regardless of the masonic influences and eroding of civil rights and liberites by the traitors and “cult”.You admonish people when they try to elevate you to hero or celebrity status.I’m glad to call you my friend.I’ll do my best to dig a little deeper to hone this with you.And thank you reader Kamira.Wonderful work!!!For the most part,I prefer to remain behind the scenes,but had to tell you we are all proud of you.

  17. robotech master Says:

    New here but been reading up on some stuff. 2 kind of interlinked points.

    Does it really matter if the courts can’t remove obama. Since a given that their is massive corruption/unwillingness to touch this topic why even care if the courts can remove him at all?

    And in that vain instead of trying to remove him, solely base your case on proving/disproving if he is eligible. If a court could be forced to rule on solely on him being eligible would this bypass the separation of power in the fact the court isn’t ruling that he be removed but only his past/current legal status. If in the complaint/ruling the plaintiffs and courts make no attempt to remove obama thus meaning that their is no conflict in the realm of separation of power. Could this ruling amount to what congress calls a “non-binding resolution”. Thus since it has no effective power their is no conflict?

    [Ed. Once we have a President-elect, Congress is provided with the authority to object to his qualifications, not the Judicial Branch. Also, the Judicial Branch deals with actual controversies... declaratory judgments which carry no weight or law are not within their authority, they don't do non - binding resolutions. Besides, quo warranto is the exact process given by law to review the qualifications of any public officer... see updates and new exhibits...]

  18. Deminimis Says:

    Leo, the nondelegation doctrine is the principal that Congress may not delegate its powers to other agencies. It has been applied by courts historically to mean that Congress cannot delegate its really important powers, but it can delegate the detail work that it doesn’t have time for.

    Since you said that your argument rests on the assertion that “Congress has delegated” its authority to remove an ineligible President to the DC Courts, it seems to me you are going to have to come up with an explanation as to who that avoids running afoul of the Constitiutional rule which prohibits Congress from delegating its broad, important duties to another branch of government.

    Some articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine
    http://www.constitution.org/ad_state/ad_state.htm
    http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/03-delegation-of-legislative-power.html

    Some cases: Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)
    INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)

    [Ed.

    Excellent question. I needed to be asked this. It's important. Thank you.

    Whereas an impeachment situation deals with crimes and conduct... Congress sits in judgment and is given the discretion to decide the President's fate. As to ineligibility, one is either eligible or is not. For example, should it turn out the President was not old enough to serve not being 35 or not being a citizen for 14 years...or a natural born citizen... then the issue is cut and dry, his election is voided. (See Update where I added Exhibit 7 to the argument.) The authority to remove hasn't actually been delegated, just the procedural process of removal. Congress has determined the "why" a President should be removed, ie for being a usurper. The Constitution delegates the qualifications. The District Court was simply given the power to make the factual determination. The Constitution gives no discretion to Congress as to the Presidential qualifications... they are set in stone. The only delegation of authority is process of reviewing the facts.... the Court simply asks the President, "By what authority do you serve?" Then the President must prove he meets the Constitutional requirements.

    So what has Congress actually delegated? Nothing but the ministerial duty of doing the paperwork. ]

  19. Thanks again for your research. I think I’ll go take the State Bar now.

  20. Well done. Two points:

    1 At the Presidents confirmation before Congress, Chainey was supposed to ask if their were any objections, but he didn’t. That proviso was put in to prevent userping, for example.

    2 At the State level, exploration should be made as to why proper evidence of qualification to run in the election etc, was not required.

    3 Do the Democratic Party rules require proof of qualification?

    [Ed The Democratic party is a private organization not a Government body and is therefore not subject to the restrictions of the Constitution. They can nominate anybody they like.]

  21. Outstanding stuff, Leo. I’ve read everything you’ve done since November, and I’m so glad you decided to “make a come-back”! May the truth FINALLY prevail! THANK YOU!!

  22. Deminimis Says:

    As to ineligibility, one is either eligible or is not … The District Court was simply given the power to make the factual determination.

    What facts would you be raising that weren’t known to Congress on January 8, 2009?

  23. The voiding of the election and the stepping down from the office discussed here reminds me of statements in the open letter to Obama by Dr. Vieira and Berg.

    According to Obamacrimes.com, Berg is now pursuing Quo Warranto also. No details on the specific course of action or the status.

  24. Glad you are back, Leo. I will be following this with much interest and praying for your success.

    Please lock your doors and watch your back. Two years ago a group of us took on our corrupt Board of County Commisioners. One Commissioner (on our side) was arrested on trumped up charges. The other was bullied and threatened by the Sherrifs office so badly she resigned and fled with her family in fear to the next county. My husband’s career was jeperdized and we were forced to leave the state. People left behind still call me and report being threatened and harrassed. The local newspaper would report none of it.

    This all happpened in a small rural community. Imagine if these kinds of thugs had the power of the Federal Government. Please be careful.

    [Ed: While living, live a bountiful life as if you are a dead man thoroughly dead. Bad things happen. Same as it ever was. I'm only afraid of myself and Im sure people can related. It's that "Duh" moment we all have, polar opposite of the "Aha" moment...]

  25. Leo, I would like to clarify a statement you made in reference to copying this blog word for word. One, do I/we have your permission? and Two, what protections do I/we have under copyright laws. I see there is no warning of copy rights here. I ask because I have already done what I believe you’ve said by posting this at Newsvine, very large audience. I could of linked it to here but you’d be getting the idiots trying to comment here. I’ve been writing my own articles there and have only found one logical person and he commented here after an invite from me.(Robo Tech Master) Anyways they shut me down on Quo Warranto becuase of plagerism and copy rights. I want to get the word out so what to do.

    [Ed. You may repost anything written here. Just credit me if you use direct quotes.]

  26. Might it not be helpful in your writeup(s) to include the point elucidated by Kamira which was:

    “The congress voted Gallatin out and Justice John Marshall set the standard that the constitution cannot be overthrown, even by Congress. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter. This matter was settled as a matter of LAW, not votes!”

    This may (or may not) be helpful legally but it certainly might be educational for those reflecting upon the matter.

    I would certainly hope Dr. Orly reviews your reasoning also. All efforts should be (hopefully) pointed in a consistent direction.

    [Ed.I didn't see a reference to Marhsall in the Galatin case. Are you citing two different things? Or did I miss something?]

  27. No COLB Nobama Says:

    Yes, yes, yes! Thanks, Leo and reader Kamira. I’ve been insisting for months that if Obama is found to be ineligible, then his entire election was void ab initio. Analogous with the evidentiary concept of “The Fruit of the Poison Tree”, I believe that means he and everything associated with his administration must be void, as though it never happened.

    I believe that not only he, but also Biden (who was on a “non-existent” ticket with him), all Obama-selected Cabinet members and appointees, and any and all formal acts by Obama under color of law should be instantly voided as though none of it ever happened. That means the offensive and Republic-destroying Porkulus Package, along with the Constitutionally unlawful executive orders and other damaging bills he’s signed just disappear. I had no basis for this opinion; it just seemed like common sense to me that if Obama was never president, none of the rest was valid either.

    Now I hear there’s some precedent for this. I’m excited! You’re doing an amazing job!

  28. Thanks, Leo…I heard you on Plains Radio last night…Good Program. If Obama fired Mr. Taylor (a Bush appointee) & replaced him with one of his lackeys…what then?

    [Ed. Excellent question. I'll be discussing that exact hypo in my next blog. And it's eactly that hyp which may be the reason Obama hasn't fired any US attorneys yet. They would have excellent standing to bring a quo warranto or "stay of execution". This is where things get really interesting. In that case, Mr. Taylor would have excellent standing to challenge his being fired as an "interested person" under 16-3502 of the Quo warranto statute. Since he was appointed by the Bush administration, if Obama isn't eligible to fire him, then he can make a strong case.]

  29. Leo! It’s great to see you back “Home” again with your gifted, brilliant, legal mind and that awesome history-breaking research! I believe you are being God-inspired anew to attack this case from a novel angle. There is a bone sticking in my craw that says, “The Democrats control House, Senate and Executive and, from the comments of a couple of “traitorous” Repub senators who give obama support in his ineligibility to be POTUS, quo warranto or any other legal avenue you may take, will be of no avail. The Demos will shoot down anyone (PLEASE WATCH YOUR BACK) or anything that will jeopardize their usurper. The US AG is Democrat and guess what he will do. The AG of DC is Repub, guess what obama will do! However, God is in control and if it is His will, you will triumph! God bless you Leo, we will support you in prayer.

    [Ed. Since the power of quo warranto has be delegated to the DC District Court, unless the Congress repeals the statute, there's nothing they can do to stop it. Many US Attorneys are independent, ie Patrick Fitzgerald. They belong to no party.]

  30. Leo,

    I’m a political science prof, not a lawyer. So I asked a couple of lawyer friends about your Quo Warranto idea (with a link to this blog). This is what the first lawyer, a retired public defender, wrote back:

    “It is the obvious writ, but…. Obama’s support is eroding. CAUTION — From a political POV, the timing is still premature. You don’t start this sort of thing as an exploratory operation. You do the investigation, locate witnesses, pretry them, line up all your ducks in a row, get secret backers who will come out in a staged and timed way and so on. You don’t start the process unless you know you can win. This is the big leagues. Sand lot ball ain’t enough.”

    [Ed. Excellent post. Your friend is SPOT ON! Correct. I agree. My God, I agree. And this is why orly's suit is premature. In my opinion the wrong suit in quo warranto destroys the whole enchilada. We need to proceed with extreme caution right now. Your friend is so freakin right, I can't stress it enough.]

    This is what the second lawyer, a retired prosecutor who has taught Constitutional Law, wrote back:

    “Quo warranto is a bit of a strange duck. It is a common law writ which was incorporated into U.S. law when this country gained independence. However, it is not regularly used in federal court. That is not to suggest it can’t be used but the federal courts will look upon the writ with disfavor.

    Let me look at this tomorrow–it’s past my bedtime here in the East and I may need to do some research. The latest case of quo warranto I found so far was around the time of the American Civil War (or as we say here in the South, “The War Between the States”).

    My preliminary opinion is, this does not have a good chance of success. But one can always hope the federal judge may have an attack of sanity the day this is argued. :)

    [Ed. I agree. It's the only Constitutional avenue we have. So, regardless of what we think might happen, we MUST use it properly and try to see that Justice be done. The courts may take the issue and find he is a nbc, but at least the issue will be settled and that's all we can hope for. Let's get this on the record.]

  31. So what thresholds needs to be crossed before AG Holder or US Attorney Taylor determine that there exists sufficient reasons for review, causing them to initiate proceedings?

    What are your thoughts about how the “harassment” language comes into play?

    [Ed. Working on this...]

  32. Leo, Not sure if you got this. My Puter went down mysteriuosly after I sent it. I had to contact my IP provider to get me going again and i do not see where my comment is waiting on moderation.

    I am trying to confirm whether or not you have given us permission to copy your Blog. I believe you commented that you didn’t care we could copy it word for word.

    I’ve done it over at Newsvine, they have a large viewership and they pulled my post saying that it was plagerism and copyright violation.
    Just was wondering if this is ok and do I need your expressed written consent.

    [Ed. You have my express written consent. Just give me he byline when you quote me and print my link here. Title of the Blog is "Natural Born Citizen" by Leo C. Donofrio.]

  33. THE HAMMER WILL DROP Says:

    GLAD TO SEE YOUR STILL FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT.

  34. phil stone Says:

    have an old fuzzy brain – does this mean that if the us atty takes this to the dc court the court can decide on obama eligibility without 2/3 of congress approval ?? then who would escort him out the door ?? appreciate the amount work you have done. phil stone

    [Ed. Congress already gave their approval by enacting the statute. They have already said, "if you are not eligible, you cannot serve and your election is void." The only thing they delegated was the ministerial duty of asking the President to prove he's eligible, "by what warrant do you serve". Then he shows the BC and if not born in Hawaii, he's out. If born in Hawaii the court must make a legal decision as to defining the words "natural born citizen". Notice the distinction between defining a term in the Constitution --- "this means this" and a decision to remove the President. The decision to remove the President is only reserved to Congress... the decision on what words mean in the Constitution is left for the Judiciary. If the definition of the words means that he is not eligible, then it's not the Judiciary who removes him, it's the Congress... Congress has spoken. Which means the people have spoken. If you aren't eligible your election is a fiction and is void. Congress left the fact finding to the District Court... but Congress has clearly determined when an officer will be removed. It's a fine distinction. But you need to grasp it.]

  35. Roy Bleckert Says:

    can scotus pick this case up in this dc court at anytime? ,it is my understanding that scotus can pick up ant case at anytime with a constitutional issue………..these our my thoughts ,opinions. and understanding of this situation, Leo you are one great legal researcher and you are able to break down the law and constitution to come to a conclusion to support your position, my take where your going wrong is your not putting the strategies and building your case to ultimately prevail in your case , if you wish to contact me about these strategies please feel free,you dont tip the other side on what your doing until you have to……we as a nation need to know if or potus is qualified to hold the office without a shadow of a doubt, if he is i say i give you my full respect as potus , if not we need to uphold the constitution 100% , if we ignore any provision in the constitution , then that lays the ground work for ignoring any other part or the whole constitution

    [Ed. I disagree. The case is a public case. Govt officials need to bring this action, not me. In order to get them to act the public needs to be heard. I am doing the right thing. If you think for one second that the other side doesn't know everything Im writing about, then you are kidding yourself. They already know they have issues.]

  36. appleseed Says:

    Leo, thanks for all you have done. I’m a Vet. and hate to see all my brothers and sisters put in unnecessary risk. Thanks from all of us for all your efforts.

    You may appreciate this. Living Colour, recorded in 1988 – Cult of Personality, which after reading the lyrics and watching the video seems to define our dear leader Obama and his enablers to a T:

    Look into my eyes, what do you see? Cult of personality I know your anger, i know your dreams I’ve been everything you want to be I’m the cult of personality Like Mussolini and Kennedy I’m the cult of personality Cult of personality Cult of personality

    Neon lights, a Nobel prize The mirror speaks, the reflection lies You don’t have to follow me Only you can set me free I sell the things you need to be I’m the smiling face on your t.v. I’m the cult of personality I exploit you still you love me

    I tell you one and one makes three I’m the cult of personality Like Joseph Stalin and Gandhi I’m the cult of personality Cult of personality Cult of personality

    Neon lights a Nobel prize A leader speaks, that leader dies You don’t have to follow me Only you can set you free

    You gave me fortune You gave me fame You gave me power in your god’s name I’m every person you need to be I’m the cult of personality Look into my eyes, what do you see? Cult of personality I know your anger, I know your dreams I’ve been everything you want to be I’m the cult of personality Like Mussolini and Kennedy I’m the cult of personality Cult of personality Cult of personality

    Neon lights, a Nobel prize The mirror speaks, the reflection lies You don’t have to follow me Only you can set me free I sell the things you need to be I’m the smiling face on your T.V. I’m the cult of personality I exploit you still you love me

    I tell you one and one makes three I’m the cult of personality Like Joseph Stalin and Gandhi I’m the cult of personality Cult of personality Cult of personality

    Neon lights a Nobel prize A leader speaks, that leader dies You don’t have to follow me Only you can set you free

    You gave me fortune You gave me fame You gave me power in your god’s name I’m every person you need to be I’m the cult of personality

    Thank you sir for all that you have done!

  37. Thank you, Mr. Donofrio. I honestly believe you may be in our history books one day as the man who honestly saved the USA. Seriously.
    Thank you!

  38. Leo,
    Joyce Kaufman’s email is joyceradio@gmail.com. She would love to have you on 2-5pm on 850 AM. South Florida. When you can. Very exciting!

    [Ed. Thanks, and the more people who do this sort of thing the more shows I can be on. I appreciate the help. I sent her an email. ]

  39. Hoping in NH Says:

    Leo, nice job with Part 2. The cases of Galatin and Shields are very interesting. Since the Senate ruled to “Void” the election, it’s not that different than the “house-of-cards” situation that I brought up within a comment to Part 1 of your brief, except you objected to that since I stated that anyone should be able to remove a usurping POTUS under those terms and you responded regarding the Separation of Powers. Now I understand. So Congress does have to take the action. That means that any prove presented regarding B.O.’s lack of eligibility must be strong enough that the majority of Democrats can not simply ignore or disagree with the evidence and decide NOT to act.

    By the way, how was the evidence presented in the Shields case?

    [ed. No, they have already acted... by enacting the statute, now it's out of their hands entirely. I think I need to do a separate blog just on this issue.]

  40. Leo,

    Please help me to understand a detail; you wrote:

    “It’s important to note that the first quo warranto statue enacted by Congress didn’t take effect until 1787, so in 1793 and 1849 the Senate chose to void the elections of the two usurpers.”

    Is the correct date 1787 for the quo warranto statute, cause thats before all of these Senators were voided from office, or is this an error in the year date ?

    Me thinks that the devil is always in the details, and I want not to nit pick but to learn as well, and I can’t find “the first federal quo warranto statute.

    Thanks,

    [ed. It was a typo... qw statute was enacted in 1787... it's been corrected.]

  41. pylgram Says:

    Leo
    I see from reading your brief that you at some point ask a question rather than state the fact. Would this not be giving the impression and excuse to interpret how the reader would choose?
    You might consider along with your question to state your specific interpretation in the same sentence or paragraph so as to not allow any room for mis interpretation. JMHO.
    I am saddened to realize that we will need to put up with Zero as long as it takes to get rid of him and even more concerned about the damage he will do until then.
    You, along with your efforts to dislodge this skunk are in my prayers.

    Pylgram

  42. I missed the Liberty Pole show. Anyone know where I can hear it on the internet? Plains Radio hasn’t posted it yet. The Thursday link still brings up the show from 2-26-09. I checked YouTube, but no luck.

  43. Leo, you are miseducating your readers as to the scope of relief offered under the federal Declaratory Judgment Act. Basing a petition to the court on this Act does not ask the court to issue an advisory opinion which, while allowed in state court, is prohibited in the federal court. Rather, using this Act allows those who could face liability as Defendants in a future action to ‘reach the court, first’ as Plaintiffs in a Declaratory Judgment action. (See the Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys, http://ejustice.org/federal_practice_manual_2006/chapter_9/chap9sec3.htm.) And while ordering the removal from office of a ‘POTUS’ who is not a NBC, is outside of the scope of a Declaratory Judgment proceeding; once a federal court issues such a Declaratory ruling, I cannot conceive that usurper would remain in place, can you?

    [Ed. Excellent post (except for the erroneous statement that I'm "miseducating" my readers). You are not analyzing the problem correctly. Analyze this question on a pure separation of powers basis. Once Obama became the President-elect, the power to object to his qualifications is given to Congress, not just the power to remove him. Congress did not object, not one single Congressman objected, not even Ron Paul. Not one single senator objected. The court will not suddenly assume they have the power to issue a declaration on his eligibility. Such a declaration would appear to violate the separation of powers. Certainly people can go ahead and give it a shot, I'm just saying I don't believe it will get anywhere since the Courts weren't interested in the issue while Obama was a simple candidate. Now that he's President they can cite political question doctrine and claim lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the separation of powers.

    A big problem with all the different law suits now circulating is that the people bringing them are all very clever. They see these alleged loopholes as some new legal threshhold to be tried, and I'm not saying people shouldn't try...I'm just saying they will fail in the real world - the separation of powers argument is going to control the issue.

    Furthermore, there has to be a means by which the Judicial Branch can ENFORCE its declaration of judgment. Assume they could make a declaration that Obama isn't eligible and that they do. They still can't remove him. So they have no way of enforcing the declaration, and without the power to enforce the declaration in future law suits, the declaration IS just an advisory opinion... it's just an opinion and they have no jurisdictions for issuing such a statement.

    From the article you linked to:

    The basis for any injunctive relief in the federal courts has always been irreparable injury and the inadequacy of legal remedies./142/ Issuance of an injunction is an inherently equitable, and, therefore, discretionary exercise of power by the district court./143/ Historically a federal court injunction, particularly when directed at state or local officials, was considered to be a harsh and abrasive remedy./144/ However, as already noted, Congress specifically authorized courts to grant affirmative relief under the Act, including equitable and injunctive remedies, for purposes of enforcing or effectuating a declaratory judgment./145/

    Generally, the potential reach of an injunctive remedy implicates the jurisdictional power of the court to bind parties and enforce judgments./

    The last line says it all... ]

    As for your statement that, “In order to protect the Constitution, we must not subvert the separation of powers,” this is precisely why your NJ suit failed. The court – judicial branch – will not order a state official – the executive branch – to carry out a ministerial function where no such function appears in the law – legislative branch. Absent a ministerial duty to vet the candidate for POTUS for Constitutional eligibility in NJ law, you asked the court to infer such a duty from an oath taken by the S of S to uphold the Constitution.

    [Ed. Wrong. There is a ministerial duty involved with the NJ statute to do just that. NJSA 19:13-22 required that the NJ SOS make a verified "statement" listing all the candidates who were "by law entitled" to appear on the the ballots. the words "by law entitled" mean exactly what they say... only those candidates who are "by law entitled" to hold the office can appear on the ballots. The SOS is required by the US Constitution and by the NJ Constitution to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. The line of cases that deal with oaths of office say that a person who doesn't obey their oath of office is at war with it. And if the Govt official is the Commissioner of elections, and that is the exact legal definition of the SOS in NJ, then that person is in charge of the ballots and so the ministerial duty inherent in the nexus of the oath to uphold the Constitution crossed with the NJ statute means that the SOS MUST be subject to the supremacy clause of the US Constitution when the office of President is involved and therefore the ministerial duty of making a "statement" listing ONLY those candidates who are "by law entitled" means that the Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 qualifications must be verified... the statutory "statement" requires the names be verified... the SOS office ADMITTED they did no verifications whatsoever and so the ministerial duty was not completed. My case and Cort's case were extremely proper. But thanks for letting me explain this for the hundred millionth time. People just get lost on all the details.

    Furthermore, don't you think it's just a wee bit preumptuous of you to go ahead and tell my readers what SCOTUS was thinking, as if you know... as if you were at the conference. SCOTUS did not say why they didn't accept cert... you should temper your argument with the words, "I think" or "It's my opinion". Word.]

    The court, crediting counsel for the Defendant, rejected your argument. You say, you got “screwed.” I say, the court ruled to uphold the principle of governmental separation of powers.

    http://jbjd.wordpress.com/

  44. Great work, Leo! What can a non-legal person do to help out? Please let us know. There are probably a number of us who are more than willing to help share this burden.

    Couple questions: Does Orly’s Demand Letter to Holder (came out to today) constitute a petition to issue a QW, or is there a specific form such a petition needs to take? Can more than one attorney bring a petition for QW to the AG or US Atty? Perhaps the more the better?

    Please advise what we may be able to do to help you out. It’s really such an urgent issue because Obama has been moving with calculated speed and needs to be checkmated ASAP. Thanks again, Leo!!

    [Ed. More to come on this soon.]

  45. Brian H Says:

    In order to establish the universality of the DC Quo Warrento writ, you specify intentional or unintentional ursurpation. But if the usurpation was planned and deliberate, that elevates the issue to criminal status, does it not?

    [Ed. Only if it involves a fraudulent BC. Otherwise, no fraud. The British issue is not a fraud as it's never been decided by a court... they can make a serious claim they believe the law supports their view and that's not a crime. Also, crimes which took place before the President took office are not subject to impeachment. It's for crimes while in the office of President. The Constitutional qualifications do no include never having been involved with a crime, ie Obama admitted drug use... this doesn't disqualify him from being President. ]

    That would give the courts jurisdiction. One might suppose that Congress might then be pretty much obliged to impeach if the POTUS was going to spend the rest of his term in stir. And further, the election itself would be voided.

    I am somewhat curious, also, about whether the historical distinction between the elections of the VP and President still holds. Originally, the losing candidate became VP, but these days they are Siamese electoral twins, and a voided Presidential election can hardly leave the VP standing.

  46. Stand up and fight Says:

    Leo!

    Here is what i don’t get.By informing the people you are also informing the enemy of your arguments.

    [Ed The Obama people and lawyers are so out in front of you and the public.... they are like light years ahead of you. Seriously. If you think they didn't consider all of this, you are NUTS. They hid the nbc British birth status right in your line of site KNOWING the COLB would be a salacious sexy distraction. The BC is like sex to people who hate Obama. It's juicy sex. The nbc British issue was the real stumbling block and they put it right out there and everybody just looked above it at the BIG GREEN COLB... that was by design as sure as the sun came up yesterday. These people are genius. If you don't credit them with legal genius, you are a moron.]

    It is like showing all your strategies before the trial even begins.What is the purpose of doing that?Who ever heard of any attorney giving out the details about their his case in public before trial?If your going to do something do it.I don’t think telling the whole world what you intend to do is the best way to go about this.Every time someone tries suing Obama they go into every detail.That is probably why they are getting no where.Here is an example.Why does Dr.Orly find it necessary to name every person who is getting involved in her cases?Poor Lt. Easterling is now under a gag order.Sometime peoples egos get in the way of their common sense.Why is it necessary to inform the public before rather then after the fact?Explaining how you done something to achieve success after you achieved it is better than telling them before you actually achieve it.Does this make sense or not?I want you to succeed but loose lips seeks ships.

  47. Leo,

    You have a brilliant mind and I’m glad you’re back. I was sick that your cases weren’t heard by SCOTUS. Please take us all the way with this new case. We’re behind you with whatever you need.

    I have a question:

    MarkR wrote:

    At the Presidents confirmation before Congress, Chainey was supposed to ask if their were any objections, but he didn’t. That proviso was put in to prevent userping, for example.

    There were many of us who sent notarized PETITIONS FOR POINT OF ORDER to our Senators and Congressmen to be presented on January 8, 2009. Why weren’t they obligated, as our elected officials, to present them on our behalf?

    [Ed. They have discretion and are not forced to do what you tell them.]

  48. nice write up Leo, playing devil’s advocate as usual here. I suggested
    alternate routes last fall, if you recall. I didn’t not like the court’s aversion to separation of power, but they were put in a bind. They were damned if they did, and damned if they didn’t as the case may be.

    [Ed. Not exactly correct. Before Obama became President-elect, after the electoral college votes, he was just an ordinary candidate... and the courts had the power to act. Now we have a Constitutional separation of powers issue.]

    This route hinges , it seems on either the DC AG, the Federal AG, or USA attorney. I believe the “other” submittal on this listed two US attorneys in her submittal.

    [Ed. there is no submission. Nobody has done it correctly yet. Hopefully they won't and the US attorney will. No plaintiffs from the private sector is the optimal choice.]

    If you can’t find a DC AG or DC US attorney that pushed this forward, what is your path forward? CAn you do like they do in California, and repeatedly bring it until you find one that will go forward? Or are you done after the first strike? At first you indicated no appeal to the SC , then later on indicated that appeal to SC is next step.

    TY for post and replies

    [Ed. The we have to find people who fit into the "interested persons" category as defined by 16-3503... watch my next blog for that.]

  49. i especially like the hypothetical…two double agents..

    But I have a more realistic one. Consider the possibility of a Putin, or Chavez, or Quadaffi, or Saddam Insane type, or Kim of North Korea, or Castra deliberately impregnating an American. Then that person becomes president – regardless of whether they are innocent or not. Isn’t this something that the Constitution framers wanted to prevent in the first place?

    Now go back to Colonial times and afterward. The Framers were well aware that Europe was rules by a cesspool of blueblood. They did not want that for AMERICA.

    Also, consider they fact that the anti-Constitutionalists always say , when you tell them OBAMA isn’t a NBC, “Well NBC isn’t defined in the Consitution”. THat IMHO is BS argument. Note that in place of NBC it doesn’t say “native” born, it doesn’t say “naturalized” citizen, heck it doesnt’ even say “US citizen” there. So by process of elimination you get the real definition. IT is the same for tthose left wing toons who are trying to change the traditional definition of marriage.

    I for one, have had enuf of this extreme left wing BS, it’s time to put at end to this insanity propagated by the left wing mafia.

    Who’s is with me?

    btw good job leo and thanks for putting up with my crap and devil advocates.

    LEt’s go and get the Constitution back for all us real Americans, ok?

  50. Thank you for your thoughful explanations and your pursuit of this path.

    That’s all I can think of: Thank you, thank you, thank you and God bless you.

  51. I wonder, Leo, what your conclusions would be if you abandon the assumption that the plaintiff seeks to remove the president. That is, what if the motive of bringing an action were merely to somehow expose the “president” as a usurper, and not necessarily have him removed? If Obama can be forced to publicly reveal his certainly-embarrassing records, by whatever legal means, I believe a great many people would be willing to let the chips fall where they may, as regards what to do about it. Once the American people gets wind of the enormous fraud that has been perpetrated upon it by this person, believe me, they would bring about some sort of remedy. It may not be a legal remedy–by your definition–but it will be a remedy.

    [Ed. see this comment

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/quo-warranto-legal-brief-part-2-the-federal-quo-warranto-statute-is-the-only-constitutional-means-of-removing-a-sitting-president-other-than-impeachment/#comment-5481

    stay tuned for my next blog....]

  52. Leo,

    If there hasn’t been a constitutionally adjudicated definition of “natural born citizen” will the AG even bother with the quo warranto? If he does – will this end up in the Supreme Court for them to define it?

    Keep up the great work. I’ve learned so much about the constitution from your efforts – this is stuff that should be taught in school.

    [Ed. There's a public policy reason to do it. There will be thousands of stays of execution coming to the courts and military people will also be subjected to jeopardy. Govt officials/military/law enforcement may be confused as to their oath of office. They should settle this once and for all or it will never go away and will serve as the legal basis for so many actions. See my further research. Coming soon.]

  53. Leo, you have done a wonderful job, really you have. But now I have a huge headache. From unusual associations to fraudulent selective service registration to NBC. This guy has more problems then 50 people put together.

    I have come to the conclusion that you can’t believe anything, no matter what the source, during a campaign. Could Obama have lied, Federal agencies lied, and all these bloggers? Sure they could have. How sad.

    I would like to add something which I know is true. I needed EU citizenship for my husband. My father was born before my grandfather naturalized. Because my father was born while my Grandfather was still an Italian citizen, I was able to claim a right to Italian citizenship in 2001.

    My father, born in the US, was not an Italian citizen. He had the right to claim it if he wanted to. But he would have had to do the paperwork that I did. And then Italy would have had the right to ask him to serve in the Italian Army(required). Yeah right, come get me. By the way I could only claim the right through the males. My mother’s ancestors did not count in Italy. Real ginzos as we would say.

    Going by all of this, my father would not be a NBC. He never stepped foot off this country except to serve in WWII. This just hit me after reading all this stuff. So I think someone should check British law on this. It may be that Obama did not have dual citizenship at birth. He had a right to claim it.

    [Ed. The law has already been checked. He was a British citizen at birth. he admits this at his web site. Case closed.]

    My husbands ancestors were English but because they went way way back, he was not able to claim his right. They only went back to grandfathers. No great greats allowed. All of them would have been NBC anyway. As it turned out, he didn’t need his EU citizenship after all.

    Anyway, I digress. The thing that got me today is the Mike New case. The kid who refused to wear the UN blue beanie and patch or salute a foreign commander. After 13 years of courts, he lost. The SCOTUS would not hear his case. The court that found him guilty would not allow the reason he refused to wear the UN uniform, just that he wouldn’t. He swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and at 20 years old he was naive enough to take the oath seriously. No Court backed him up. That was 1995. It just seems that the only people who take their oaths seriously are us, the little people. Interestingly the oath the enlisted men take and the commissioned officers take are different.

    So now here we are again argueing that pesky Constitution. There are a handful of states trying to pass something about showing a birth certificate to get on the ballot. You know what is going to happen in four years? 15 years of going to court to argue what the definition of NBC is.

  54. Leo,

    What is the path forward? Should we individually begin writing letters to AG Holder and US Attorney Taylor asking them to initiate an action on their own?

    [Ed I'm asking people to wait it out until I've finished by brief and we have a gameplan.]

  55. Starbeau Says:

    Mr. Donofrio,

    Some time back you thought that the Federal Grand Jury was an appropriate path. Those of us who believe that Obama is ineligible per Article II, Section I, Clause 5 believe the following is prima facie evidence of fraud and conspiracy to corrupt a Federal Election.

    In 2006 Sarah Herlihy published a paper attacking Article II’s eligibility provision as the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution.

    In 2008, Senator Claire McCaskill introduced a bill known as S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. Bill S. 2678 attempted to change article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States with reference to the requirements of being a “natural born citizen” and hence; the entitlement to run for President of the United States. The bill failed. Other attempts such as The Natural Born Citizen Act also have failed.

    Senate Resolution 511 (sponsored by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) did the following:
    Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

    The bill passed the Senate unanimously and Senator Patrick Leahy had the following entered into the record for Senate Resolution 511:

    EXCERPT OF SECRETARY CHERTOFF TESTIMONY FROM APRIL 2, 2008:

    Chairman Leahy:
    “We will come back to that. I would mention one other thing, if I might, Senator Specter. Let me just ask this:
    I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President. I fully believe he does. I have never had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement. You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?”
    Secretary Chertoff:
    “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.”
    Chairman Leahy:
    “That is mine, too. Thank you.”

    The Democrats knew that Barack Obama was ineligible and had been jockeying for some time to get around the provision. Nothing had worked and they simply decided to proceed with the ineligible candidate.

    Barack Obama knew he was ineligible!
    All Senators (they voted unanimously on SR 511) knew Obama was ineligible.
    The Democrat National Committee knew Obama was ineligible.
    Nancy Pelosi, Chair, Democrat National Convention knew Obama was ineligible.
    Alice Travis Germand, Secretary, Democrat National Convention knew Obama was ineligible.

    Obama committed fraud when he signed a statement requesting to be placed on the ballot in Arizona that he was a natural born citizen.

    Nancy Pelosi and the Secretary of the DNC submitted a document to most states certifying that Obama “was legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution”. That also constitutes fraud, but now we have a conspiracy since there is more than one person involved in the fraud.

    The conspiracy was to CORRUPT a Federal Election, which they did!

    [Ed. I strongly disagree with you on these points. The reason is that no court has ever clearly defined the issue of what a nbc citizen is... so all of these people are entitled to their opinion and that's exactly what the Senate resolution is, an opinion. It has no force of law. Please try to be unemotional. I understand that you and me don't agree with their opinions, and that the law appears more convincing supporting our side of this.... but that doesn't make their opinion a fraud or crime. I believe they are completely full of crap on this issue. But the legal case can be made based upon reading SCOTUS cases that their interpretation is correct. The country is obviously divided and the issue needs to be addressed in Court. But there is nothing illegal in what they have done.

    As to the BC, if he has a real good one from Hawaii and Hawaii is certifying the COLB as not being a fraud, then you've got nothing illegal on that front either. So be very careful about saying "I believe crimes have been committed." We are (hopefully to remain) a nation of laws. No laws have been broken that we know of. ]

    Somewhere, within the United States judicial system, there should be:
    FBI agents willing to submit the evidence of fraud and corruption to a US Attorney who will convene his Grand Jury to consider that evidence.
    A US Attorney, being apprised of the prima facie evidence should be able to pursue the matter on his own. (Per the DOJ Manual)
    A “run away Federal Grand Jury”, willing to avail themselves of their power, will provide a “Presentment” to their Federal Court which will consider the merits of the case.

    Please comment.

    Thanks

  56. I, too, am glad you ae back Leo.

    Am I missing something in your astute analysis of the method by which Obama can be ejectedf rom the White House?

    When you started your analysis you stated you didn’t want to be personaly involed as an attorney in this matter or represent any clients in this matter. Am I missing something in your comments now?

    With your brief on the subject of Quo Warranto are you only acting as a teacher in an exercise; or are you now personally willing and or determined to be intimately involved and follow through on this course of action to a conclusion ?

    If not you, who?

    [Ed. I said "we'll see". I do not want to bring this action. I am educating the public and if the media campaign I envision goes as planned... then hopefully the action is brought by the proper officials, the AG or US Attorney... and in that case no plaintiffs or lawyers are necessary. The Govt would police itself without the need for even one private plaintiff or attorney. 16-3502 establishes how that happens as explained by the SCOTUS in the Newman case.]

  57. Leo,

    Listen to J.J. advice, and watch your back.

    Your idea seems to have, and I believe that Quo Warranto is a good idea.

    Obama, if he is not a US Citizen, has committed federal crimes. Note Berg’s sealed, and still sealed case. While some believe that Congress only can remove a sitting POTUS, that is not the case if he has committed Federal Crimes BEFORE the election. The Judicial branch would have the last word on that.

    [Ed. You are not correct if you think that prior crimes will give any power to the judicial branch to remove the POTUS. The Judiciary only has the power to remove POTUS under the fed quo warranto statute, any other attempt at removal by the Judicial Branch will violate the separation of powers. ]

  58. Leo,

    One more interesting object for review, is this standing issue, because it may become important IF the AG chooses not to act

    Please see the Stanforn Law Review Article (188) by Steven Winter at: http://www.constitution.org/duepr/standing/winter_standing.htm

    I believe that this informative article can help to at least cross “T” and dot “i” ‘s so that we can get it done…

    Hope this helps

  59. Leo,
    Thank you for the brief. I think your conclusion is incorrect though. It seems that based on Kamira’s research, you do not need the quo warranto statute to remove a president in the case of eligibility. If the president is found to be ineligibile, then based on prior precedent with the two senators, the election becomes void. The president was never actually a president since he failed to qualify.

    [Ed. It's only void if the appropriate body of Government makes it so. The separation of powers in the Constitution gives that authority to Congress. The Senate is in charge of dealing with their own under Article 1 Section 5. The House of Reps is also enumerated with dealing with their own under Article 1 Section 5. But both Houses deal with the President together, for example - Impeachment and conviction and removal for inability to discharge duties... and I've explained as to a usurper they've drafted the quo warranto statute. So, now that they've drafted that statute, unless it is repealed... the ministerial duty of carrying out a hearing is in the power of the District Court for the District of Columbia.

    The Quo Warranto statute wasn't passed until 1878, Shields and Galatin were void in 1849 and 1793 respectively. (I had a typo in my blog on this issue which may be confusing you. I have corrected that typo now.) So now that the QW statute is on the books, that's the proper way to go about it.]

  60. 08hayabusa Says:

    Just want to take the time to say thank you Leo for taking the time to do this for our country. I have the will but not the expertize in law such as yourself. So I just wish to say once again your efforts are greatly appreciated

  61. Leo, THANK YOU so much for everything you are looking for and searching out of the crevices of history. You must be totally fascinated by all of it, as I most certainly am, and I don’t have all the books and resources you obviously do, at hand. The law is a very precise thing, especially when it comes to the brilliant men that penned the Consitiution for us, and the positives are totally overwhelming in this case, IF only someone can get that US DC attorney to take a good close, hard, long look and see the truth for what it really is.

    If there is anything I can do, as I have asked before, and will put my hand in to help again, please let me know. I live in Nevada and am very far away from the seat of action on this, but I am willing to do whatever is possible from here.

    [Ed Everybody can help. Bit Im not into wasted effort. We need a game plan. Stay tuned for more ...sit on your hands for now.]

  62. after quo warranto in my little legal dictionary
    is
    quod ab initio valet, in tractu temporis non convalescet, THAT WHICH IS INVALID IN ITS COMMENCEMENT
    GAINS TO STRENGTH BY LAPSE OF TIME.

    the next page of my little legal dictionary says
    quod contra legem fit, pro infecto habetur,
    WHAT IS DONE CONTRARY TO LAW
    IS CONSIDERED AS NOT DONE, i.e.,
    NO ONE CAN DERIVE LAWFUL ADVANTAGE FROM IT.
    then there’s the bad news
    quod semel placit in electione, amplius displicere non potest,
    WHEN ELECTION IS ONCE MADE IT CANNOT BE REVOKED.
    but wait, there’s more!
    qui vult decipi decipiatur, LET HIM BE DECEIVED WHO WISHED TO BE
    DECEIVED, i.e., THE COURT WILL NOT RELIEVE A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE SO GROSS
    AS TO INVITE DECEPTION.
    and, also
    qui per fraudem agit, frustra agit,
    WHAT A MAN DOES FRAUDULENTLY, HE DOES IN VAIN
    [because the courts will give relief against him.]
    etc.
    all latin phrases should be un-constitutional
    because the absolute majority of people sitting
    on the Jury do not know what the hell the judge
    and attorneys are talking about!

  63. 28 USC Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

    RULE 81 includes “quo warranto”

    http://uscode.house.gov

    click on search the U.S. Code

    then in the word search box write
    “quo warranto”

    and it only appears ONCE
    IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES CODE

    28 USC Rule 81 includes
    quo warranto

    These rules are applicable to proceedings
    for quo warranto, to the extent that the
    practice of such proceedings is NOT set forth
    in the statutes of the United States, or
    the Rules governing Sections 2254 or 2255 proceedings
    in civil actions.

    [Ed. The federal Quo Warranto statute is found in Title 16 Chapter 35 of the District of Columbia Code...

    http://www.michie.com/dc/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=dccode

    it's not in the US Code. I've seen the most ridiculous comments that claim since the Quo Warranto statute is in the DC Code it's not Federal law... that's insane. The US Constitution is also directly inserted in the DC Code...

    http://www.michie.com/dc/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=dccode

    All DC Code is enacted by Congress and is federal law. Subchapter I is for actions against Officers of the United States.

    Subchapter II is for actions against local Officers of the District of Columbia.

    The process as described in 16-3502 is by verified petition setting forth the grounds which the action is based....

    http://www.michie.com/dc/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=dccode ]

  64. Joe The Blogger Says:

    Leo,
    Surely, anyone who is facing imminent adverse consequences, due to any action or inaction of Mr Obama, could lodge a writ in the appropriate Court of local jurisdiction, asking for a ‘STAY of EXECUTION’, pending the outcome of the numerous legal actions, challenging Mr Obama’s eligibility to ACT as POTUS. The application for ‘STAY of EXECUTION’ could cite specific actions, such as your own ‘QUO WARRANTO’ action. This is something that Americans in jeopardy can start doing immediately. The beauty is that Judges have the power NOW, to grant a ‘STAY of EXECUTION’, if a legal action is taking place elsewhere that could eventually affect the outcome of the case before the Judge. The more severe and irreversible and imminent the adverse consequences, facing the applicant, the more likely a Judge will grant an ‘EMERGENCY STAY OF EXECUTION’.

    [Ed. You are exactly correct. Bit those are not Quo Warranto cases. The distinction is of the utmost importance and I will be addressing it in my next blog. This goes to the public policy interest of settling the eligibility issue ONE TIME in a quo warranto proceeding rather than thousands of stay of execution proceedings where eleigibilty can be challenged on a case by cases basis... but those law suits can't remove the president... they are "collateral attacks". quo warranto is a "direct attack" on eligibility.

    This is why the issue needs to be brought forward by the AG pr US Attorney, to settle it once and for all before the floodgate of litigation is open. stay tuned, im going to be discussing this in full...]

    Could you post a draft ‘EMERGENCY STAY of EXECUTION’ for this purpose, so that people can try to safeguard their interests, while all of this is being thrashed out in the Courts? Imagine the publicity if just one Judge, anywhere in the United States, has the courage to stand up for the law and to offer a lifeline to an oppressed American, threatened with redundancy from Federal employment, or eviction from Federal premises or loss of liberty etc.. The word would spread like wildfire and Attorneys all over the Country would start lodging ‘APPLICATIONS for STAYS’. These ‘STAYS OF EXECUTION’ could be the ‘grassfires’ that our Country needs, in order to force a proper consideration by the Supreme Court of Mr Obama’s Constitutional ineligibiity to be POTUS, due to the fact that he is not a ‘natural born citizen’. If a Judge refuses to grant a ‘STAY of EXECUTION’, then that refusal could be appealed to the Higher Courts.
    If there were a sufficient number of these applications for ‘STAYS of EXECUTION’, especially if large numbers were actually granted by the Judges, then it would cause the increasing paralysis of Mr Obama’s administration, and then eventually a tipping point would be reached, in which even Mr Obama’s chosen Attorney General would have no option but to face reality and set in motion a process that would lead to a full and final legal determination of the ‘NBC’ ineligibility issue.
    The American people just need the tools to do the job. You, Leo, could provide the legal tools to save our Country. I have every confidence that sufficient numbers of American patriots will stand up and be counted and utilise the greatest legal system in the world to rescue our Nation.

  65. Leo,l
    I do not understand your response to Kamira. The first quo warranto statue was enacted in 1787. The Gallatin case was in 1793 and the Shields case was in 1849. Both of these cases came after quo warranto was established, but you said that there was no quo warranto in effect at the time. Not understanding your math here.

    [Ed. Stupid typo - that date is supposed to read 1878 NOT 1787. Thanks forpointing that out, I just fixed it on the blog.]

  66. Leo,
    You say in your blog that a quo warranto brought on by plaintiffs would be considered partisan. I think if the US Attorney for DC were to pursue this, it would be portrayed as a partisan act in the press since he was appointed by Bush. This guy would have his life destroyed. I understand that you need to try all avenues available to you, but I think the only way this thing would stand a chance is by having lots and lots of plaintiffs with standing and with impeccable credentials bring this on. Even then, these people would be villified.

    [Ed. This is why it's so important for both officials to be contacted with exactly the same message. Furthermore, you don't understand standing under the statute. I will explain in my next blog. As for Mr. Taylor being politically vilified... it's not a consideration a true patriot would be concerned with. A patriot is concerned with the law and justice. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Holder work for the Dept of Justice. They work for us. Or at least that's the way it's supposed to be. If the man does his job in a good faith belief the country's best interests are at heart, then he should not even consider the effect on him personally.

    Furthermore, bot prosecutors have standing which is not questionable, unlike private parites who must prove standing and the hurdle is high. stay tuned for more...]

  67. Leo, Wikipedia has gone for Obama: they are scrubbing any post which mentions Obama’s elegibility. http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 All those who have referred to Wiki have lost their links to it. Ominous! Obama, through his henchmen are heading toward Hitler’s totalitarian state with a small step at a time! That is why they are attempting to introduce a bill which would undermine–destroy— Second Amendment rights to own a gun….and there are nine concentration camps being built in the US…and an Army division is being deployed in the US to put down civil unrest. It looks like Obama is getting ready for a police state by stealth. It might be too late for you to file a quo waranto…eligibility is moot with a dictator in the Oval Office. Let us pray for what is to come.

    [Ed. Thank you for pointing that out. I think it's VERY encouraging that WIKI is scrubbing this. It shows that we are striking a nerve deep in tyranny central. Be encouraged. When they censor truth because the truth is dangerous... then you know you are fighting a just cause. Go forth now and spread the message that WIKI is censoring free speech... blast it out. People will be interested to know about that. It's a rallying cry.

    I find this especially encouraging coming a day or two after my blog on Quo Warranto. The power that be know we've identified the means by which they could be removed. So now they are trying to control the dissemination of truth. Go out there and tell people. Spread the word. This is good stuff.]

  68. Leo, on my screen I see my comments are awaiting moderation and others are posted after my time date. Are you still debating my question. No need to post my comment just was trying to peer into your mind. Newsvine is an offshoot of MSNBC which is a strong supporter of Obama. Wiki is now scrubbing Obama’s entry as fast as they are put in. my post on Quo Warranto was shutdown within an hour of posting it and I can tell they are monitoring my stuff. the proof is another commenter named Truth B Told has been completley scrubbed from my other column on the Military. He posted things that backed up his I’d. Robotech can verify Truth B Told has been scrubbed.

  69. joseph Says March 9, 2009 at 10:01 am: “The Democrats knew that Barack Obama was ineligible….” Doesn’t that mean they, (the Democrats) had committed Wire Fraud, in accepting financial donations accross State Boundaries, on a Fraudulent Prospectus, ie that their Candidate was unqualified? And does one have to be aware of the Fraud, or is it enough being merely Negligent in not requiring evidence?

    [Ed. This is a big misconception. It's only fraud of they "know" he's not eligible. Nobody can "know" the interpretation of an issue of first impression which has never been decided in a court of law. That's their cover and that is what emboldened them. If you forget about the BC and just focus on the nbc legal issue, no fraud can be involved.]

  70. natural born citizen is still covered

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

    in wikipedia, and the obama lawsuits are still mentioned.

  71. da verg: just checked Wiki and found no posts which specifically mentions obama’s name. Wiki covers natural born citizen but does not have posts which challenge obama’s elegibility to be POTUS. Also, at this time, 39 posts on http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2202136/posts contradict your statement to the effect that obama’s name is referred to in the articles. A post on Wiki refers to the cases as from a small group of fringe wackos–but nothing personal on obama. It seems Wiki has gone over to the usurper in the White House. Leo, thank you for that up-beat reply to my post–you made my day with that positive translation of Wiki’s voluntary leap into the abyss of obama’s creeping socialist-totalitarian state. God bless you with His Wisdom and Fortitude.

  72. Starbeau Says:

    Mr. Donofrio,
    In my comment above, I only mentioned SR 511 to show evidence that all Senators voting for SR 511 which included the statement relative to the requiremts to be natural born shared the opinion.

    Does a direct question of the meaning of NBC have to be addressed by the SC?

    [Ed. It doesn't have to be if theydon't want to do it, but it's going to lead to a floodgate of litigation like stays of execution etc... military issues. Not good. They should just do this once and get it over with. Houston, we have a problem, right...]

    I know that there are words defining the meaning in SC cases that support the requirement of born on US soil of parents, both of whom are citizens at the time of birth.

    When Senator Shummer was questioning Samuel Alito about what to do about statements in the Constitution that were so clear that they did not need defining, Justice Alito replied that an Amendment to the Constitution was required.

    I am encouraged by Justice Scalia’s statement in a talk to the Federalist Society on Nov. 20, 2008 that “good judges” rule on the law, and not what they would like the law to be. I hope that is what happens when Quo Warranto gets there.

    Thanks for all you have done.

  73. phil stone Says:

    if us atty brought qw to dc court is there any way to prevent judge roberts from getting the case and dismissing it as he is prone to do ??phil stone

    [Ed. If it goes to the DC court first, then they that he isn't eligible, well that would be a PR campaign in itself. Then it goes to SCOTUS and whatever happens happens. But this is why it's so important NOT to bring it first to SCOTUS. You get two crack at having the case heard by going to the DC court first. If you go to SCOTUS first, and do an end around the statute, you're depriving yourself of the first chance. You can always petition SCOTUS on appeal.]

  74. Starbeau
    Wait a minute, I thought McCain was born OFF a military base. What the heck is going on here. Please for goodness sake will somebody tell me the real truth, geezzzz??

    [Ed. They are trying to tell you that the McCain BC from Colon Hospital and the COLB are forgeries. I have seen no proof of that. McCain has never made his BC public nor has he said the Colon Hospital BC is fake. Both McCain and Obama have not come forward and put these issues to rest. McCain is guilty of the same dodging as Obama.]

    Leo,
    Could you paste a link to either the British law or your previous explanation of it. I gotta figure this out. I know for sure my Dad was not an Italian citizen at birth. He would have had to turn in a huge amount of paperwork to get it.
    British law is obviously different. Thank Leo

    [Ed. Do the research on this blog.]

    PS By the way, I listened to your Mar. 5, show on Plains Radio, its up on their site now. Great job.

  75. You’ve probably already read this, but I found this link on Dr. Conspiracies site. It’s a long read.

    The Origins and Interpretation of the Presidential Eligibility Clause in the U.S. Constitution: Why Did the Founding Fathers Want the President To Be a “Natural Born Citizen” and What Does this Clause Mean for Foreign-Born Adoptees?

    http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/history.htm

  76. da verg Says:

    Joseph, here is what wiki says under NBC, it doesn’t say anythint about whack jobs, (how they determined he was born in Hawaii is beyond me, based on quagmire of laws in Hawaii allowing anyone in the world to practically register births there (including Obama’s sister who was borne in Indonesia):

    “Barack Obama (born 1961), 44th president of the United States, was born in Honolulu, Hawaii to a U.S. citizen mother and a British subject father from the Kenya Colony of the United Kingdom. Before and after the 2008 presidential election, the argument was made that he was not a natural born citizen. On June 12, 2008, the Obama presidential campaign launched a website to counter what it described as smears by his opponents,[42] including these challenges to his eligibility. The most prominent issue raised against Obama was the assertion that he was not actually born in Hawaii. In two other lawsuits, the plaintiffs argued that it was irrelevant whether he was born in Hawaii,[43] but argued instead that he was nevertheless not a natural born citizen because his citizenship at birth was, in part, determined by the British Nationality Act.[44] The relevant courts have either denied all applications or declined to render a judgment due to lack of jurisdiction. Some of the cases have been dismissed because of the plaintiff’s lack of standing.[citation “

  77. da verg Says:

    The author in the above cites “two other lawsuits” implying heavily that there were (and are) more than two. The author stumbles badly in this selection of wording, leaving those with open mind, to question “what about the other lawsuits”? Also, the last sentence leaves the issue still open with “some of the cases….”, which begs question “what about some of the other cases not covered under this “some of other….”. Well you get the point.

  78. Ok tried to do my homework.

    McCain doesn’t admit or deny being born off base. Got it. So nobody really knows.

    Sorry about this Leo, but I am going to need your help on this unless you have explained it on your blog but I can’t find it and I am on dial-uo. This has regripped my interest because of my situation.

    Obama Senior was born in 1936
    Kenya became a Colony in 1920 (I think) and independent in 1963.

    When the British Nationality Act of 1948, they declared Obama Senior a British Subject or Commonweath Citizen, to have the same meaning. Part I 1. (2)

    That means Obama Jr. was a citizen by descent if his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies at the time of birth. Part II 5. (1). I don’t know if a British Subject is the same as a United Kingdom or Colony citizen. This is what I need you to explain.

    [Ed. short version - His Father was a Citizen of UK. Obama was a citizen of UK... as well as a subject. Two years later Kenay became indie... Obama Zr. and Jr. both lost UK citizenship and became citizens of Kenya. Obama allegedly didnt renew citizenship of Kenya when he turned 21.]

  79. Jim Black Says:

    prediction:

    The financial crisis will lead to civil unrest; civil unrest will lead to civil riots; civil riots will lead to martial law; martial law will suspend all law suits and quo warranto against Obama.

    Can marital law do this Leo?

    [Ed. I'm not buying the martial law scenario. I realize they can declare it, but whether the police and national guard/military will actually turn this nation into a military state, turn weapons on us... I'm not believing that will happen. It would take foreign military and while such have been stationed here for various reasons, there's not enough for that to happen. If you see hundreds of thousands of foreign military entering the US for "training" etc... then I would start to worry. But GI Joe isn't gonna fire on Main Street. No way. Have some faith in our men and women.]

  80. Thank you, Leo, for your response to my email of March 8, 2009 @ 11:10 AM. I quote partially from your response below:

    ” . . . hopefully the action is brought by the proper officials, the AG or US Attorney… and in that case no plaintiffs or lawyers are necessary. The Govt would police itself without the need for even one private plaintiff or attorney.”

    What makes you think that this current government would be moral and ethical enough to ‘police’ itself? Do you really have any confidence that Holder or the US Attorney would bring any action against Obama? And if neither Holder nor the US Attorney will bring an action . . .?

    You are more optimistic than I. I pray you are correct and I am wrong.

    [Ed. I don't have any reason to doubt Mr. Taylor's duty and Mr. Holder as well deserves the chance to be heard . I believe there are more good people than bad in our Government. Regardless, this is the best chance at getting a hearing on the merits. I'm not optimistic at all. However, there's a right way and a wrong way to go forward. This is the right way and it's the ONLY way available. So there's no point worrying about it. It's not like the Constitution gives any other options.]

  81. Unbamboozleus Says:

    It appears that Wikipedia is doing quite a lot of scrubbing up of information on Obama. Here’s a story from Fox news today http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,507244,00.html.

    [Ed. I guess they scrubbed the link at Fox news as well... :)]

  82. John McCain’s Birth Certificate can be found here:

    http://johnmccain.dominates.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=145

    [Ed. thank you for this link. Seems very substantial the proof here... looks like McCain was born in Colon Hospital, Panama. various evidence is found at this link which was submitted in a previous court case. Thanks reader. ]

  83. do not pos tleo,just a note for you.The RJ comment is valid Leo.Here’s few refernces on it. http://www.infowars.com/resources/martial-law.html http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/FEMA-Concentration-Camps3sep04.htm Un troops have no allegience for any one nation.Foreign troops have been in the USA for over 15 years.Chinese and Russian troops were planned for this by the elites years ago. The UN Biospheres were set up to store equipment,not to protect wildlife or land. http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/msg118940.html

  84. Roy Bleckert Says:

    Leo read phil stones comment then my previous ? even if its filed in the dc court , it is my understanding that scotus can pick up the case before the dc heres it ?

    [Ed. It's questionable. The statute requires the DC coutt first. Furthermore, it would be a big mistake for SCOTUS to be handed this case before the DC District Court. More on this later.]

  85. Roy Bleckert Says:

    that last sentence should read ( it is my understanding that scotus can pick up the case before the dc court hears it ? ) i cant spell for beans

    [Ed. They shouldn't because there's an issue of fact that needs to be tried. More on this later.]

  86. Leo,

    I have now gotten the duct tape out because my head is about to explode.

    Either I didn’t understand your answer, you made a mistake, you didn’t explain it right or I am crazy.

    Are you saying that our President, Obama Jr., lost his British Citizenship when he was two years old??

    [Ed. Yes.]

    When Kenya became independent in 1963??

    [Ed. Yes.]

    And then he lost his Kenya citizenship at age 21??

    [Ed. Perhaps. He claims he didn't renew his Kenyan citizenship. If that's true, according to the Kenyan Constitution he would have lost his Kenyan citizenship.]

    Question 1. Was his father made a British Citizen (not subject) by the 1948 Act?

    [Ed. Citizen (and therefore also Subject).]

    I tried to ascertain this today but British Nationality Law is very complex. Reference?

    Question 2. How did he loose his British Citizenship? Reference?
    (Did Britain take back their citizenship when Kenya went Independent?)

    [Ed. Yes.]

    Question 3. How did he become a Kenyan citizen? Reference?

    [Ed. Automatically. Kenyan Constitution.]

    Question 4. When he put his name on the ballots in 2008, are you saying that the only other citizenship (other than the US) he may have held was Indonesian?

    [Ed. depends on whether he really did not renew Kenyan citizenship at 21. Statements from Kenyan officials are kind of weird]

    You lost me bro…

    Now I know this seems very basic to some people but it is very important. I am willing to read all that I can on it. If you have this all explained somewhere please point me to it. If you can answer the above ques., I would very much appreciate it. Heck email me privately if you don’t want to bore everyone else with it.
    Thank you for all you have done!

    [ed. It took me forever to hunt all this down and right now I do not have the time to do the same research all over again. It's on my blog and elsewhere. If any other readers want to hunt this all down please find it on my blog comments and link to it. Thanks]

  87. Starbeau is right. It is fraud.

    First, John McCain wasn’t born on a military base. The longform BC was found before that hearing, they just didn’t introduce it into the record. I have the proof of that when Hollader v. McCain was studied. The evidence of that suit proves McCain was born in hospital off the base. The resolution states otherwise and is moot based on that alone.

    The longform BC was certified to have been obtained by the authorities responsible for handling it at the time. The affidavit is in the Hollander v. McCain lawsuit, by the Panama Canal Railroad Co, IIRC.

    The people behind that resolution were aware of the facts, that’s why they attempted the resolution. No BC records were introduced into the record of that hearing. I read the whole thing myself. No inquiries were made into Obama at all as they were at least trying to make it look like they were investigating McCain. Double-standards now?

    Senators are charged all the time with fraud because of manipulations of just this sort and a lot less. It’s against the law. Claire McCaskill was promised that her CLOSE friend Obama was going to be interested in having her as his VP. That’s motive. She claimed it was her daughter who got her to look at Obama over Hillary during the campaign. As it came out later on, she was always a close friend of Obama’s, not Hillary’s. She also is in attendance for every lavish party they’ve been throwing at the White House where she brags about their “long-time relationship”. She’s on YouTube admitting that relationship now, too.

    Now check out the wording in the hearing. They’re admitting what their understanding of NBC is. Tthey clearly stated it was of “two parents” (that was their understanding) and then let Obama slip through without notice? I don’t THINK so. Stupid people get away with that nonsense, not Senators of the United States. They know better and everyone knows they know better.

    Secretary Chertoff:
    “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.”
    Chairman Leahy:
    “That is mine, too. Thank you.”

    Also, another little known fact is that the attorneys for McCain, Tribe & Olson, were confronted with Professor Chin’s article, “Why John McCain Cannot Be President”, which shows the longform BC and affidavit. When the media questioned them, they agreed that Chin had a point as to the law with that evidence, but brushed it off saying that it was a stupid law that certainly couldn’t have wanted to include McCain’s situation in it. Thank you, Tribe & Olson. You just admitted, when backed into the corner of an Arizona Professor, that given the law and the evidence, you were both wrong. How much did they pay you and was it out of campaign funds? I’m sure the contributors would like to know.

    The Senate is guilty of fraud because they had all those facts and did make those statements as to NBC and had motive to lie about it.

    Claire McCaskill along with Patrick Leahy should be brought up on charges and let the congressional records that are now missing from the internet be brought forth in discovery. No one has the right to say they are certain there was no fraud when the record reflects that the resolution itself has deliberate lies and manipulations in it. The evidence was already available by sworn affidavit prior to the resolution taking place on the Senate floor. The motive was there and tricks were used to fit in people into that resolution that it wasn’t meant to cover.

    Not only that, but trying to legislate people into being a natural born citizen by way of a bill, which McCaskill tried FIRST, is completely unconstitutional and she knows it. That’s WHY it failed as a bill and was attempted again with a resolution.

    I don’t know what further proof you want to bring charges, but I think it’s ridiculous that you’re saying there is no fraud here. I’ve seen people be charged for a lot less circumstantial evidence. There are enough grounds for an investigation, definitely.

    I hardly think Starbeau is being emotional. That article has been up on the web from ZAPEM for a long time now and contains nothing but facts, not emotion. I’m a little surprised because I know that it was brought to your attention and you agreed with them at the time it was written. Now you’re saying it’s “emotional”? You also seem to be making excuses for the Senate now. What’s up with that? That’s not what you said before. Before you said that Patrick Leahy was deceiving the public with his interviews to the media about that validity of that resolution.

    [Ed. The Senate resolution is nonsense but it contains no fraud. You're getting too emotional over this because you know what they did was wrong. But since there is nothing in the law which defines a natural born citizen, the Senate can offer an official opinion and that does not break any law. What does it break? This is such a tough point for everybody to understand. You can't have fraud, the "crime" of fraud that is, unless you break the law of fraud. There is no established legal definition of "natural born citizen". So they are free to interpret it as this:

    1. A nbc is somebody born in the US or, in the alternative
    2. A nbc is somebody born of two citizen parents

    I believe you need both 1 and 2, but there is no case law which directly says "You need both 1 and 2". We're trying to get a court to decide that issue.

    There might be intellectual fraud if some Senators truly believed otherwise, but there's no crime. ]

  88. I’m still researching if Quo Warranto can only be brought against the president in this manner. It’s too vague for me at this point. I have attorneys researching that.

    On the other hand, if per chance it were the only method, there is a recourse if Holder or Taylor fail to act:

    § 16-3503. Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act; procedure.

    If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as to security for costs.

    Key words here, “refusal to act”, “by ANY attorney upon certified petition”.

    [Ed. This has been discussed in my previous blogs but gets the full treatment in the next installment later today. I will discuss "interested persons" in detail and explain this provision and the SCOTUS interpretation. Those who wish to get a head start on this issue should read the SCOTUS Frizzel/Newman case I have already discussed in the "Part 2".]

  89. Leo:
    1 The Obama people and lawyers are so out in front…
    2 If you think they didn’t consider all of this, you are NUTS…
    3 The BC is like sex to people…
    4 If you don’t credit them with legal genius, you are a moron.

    221b:
    1 The COLB is a computer-generated reduced abstract of identifying data from Obama’s pre-2001 registration record. The original 1961 record supplied the information that went onto a list of weekly registrations compiled by Hawaii Vital Records and issued to local newspapers. These lists were published as received. It cannot be proved these announcements were paid for privately. Consequently the address in Obama’s announcement – 6085 Kalanianaole Highway – came directly from the registration as given by the birth informant – and this address was false.

    Public records show that in 1961 the Dunhams lived on Kamehameha Avenue and Obama Sr lived on 11th Avenue; these same public records also have a family called Lefforge (with three children under the age of seven) resident at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway (a large property) in 1961. The Lefforges’ neighbor from the time states that the Obamas never lived in 6085 Kalanianaole. Given that Kalanianaole Highway was in the most expensive area to buy or rent in Hawaii; that the newly married Obamas were unlikely to be running two households; and that the Obamas were college students with no jobs, we must deduce that the Obamas never lived at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway.

    Entering false information – 6085 Kalanianaole Highway – on a birth registration is a crime. This crime (or mistake) puts in doubt all other information in Obamas 1961 birth record. Printed on a COLB is the statement that it constitutes prima facie evidence of birth, meaning it is sufficient until challenged. Since a COLB’s probity is only as good as the probity of the registration from which it derives, and the probity of Obama’s 1961 record is suspect, it can only be concluded that any COLB Obama might submit is neither probative nor prima facie. It is to be expected that a court would bypass the COLB as irrelevant and require Hawaii to release Obama’s vault records for investigation and cross checking.

    If Obama’s COLB will not stand up in court and therefore proves nothing; if reference to it is irrelevant and reliance on it futile: then without the COLB what qualifies Obama for the Presidency ?

    2 Allowing that pre-2001 (November) Hawaii Birth Certificates show birthplace, address, hospital, informant etc, and that post-2001 (November) COLBs do not; and allowing that Hawaii confirm that Obama’s birth record is on file, then these questions naturally arise:

    * Obama claims to have owned (or examined) pre-2001 Birth Certificates but has placed online post-2001 COLB images – why ?

    * Obama’s attorneys in Hollister v Soetoro referenced his online COLBs as evidence of birth, but not his pre-2001 Certificates – why ?

    * Books, interviews etc by and about Obama before mid-2008 are completely oblivious of the 6085 Kalanianaole Highway address given in the 1961 newspaper birth announcements, (only discovered in July 2008, cited by Factcheck,org, drawn from the original registration, and officially stated there to be the Obama home), although all other Obama addresses are mentioned – why ?

    It can only be inferred:

    a that Obama has never seen his pre-2001 Hawaii Birth Certificate, much less ever owned one; or

    b the newspaper announcements are fakes or mistaken.

    The supreme difficulties of faking rolls of photo-archives of 1961 newspapers eliminate fakery (if they were faked, they forgot to tell Obama, family, and friends) and it is vanishingly improbable a mistake was made by BOTH newspapers; so that only leaves inference “a”:

    Obama has never seen and never possessed a Hawaii 1961 long form Birth Certificate.

    The corollaries being: what documentation did Obama provide to which authorities to procure a passport for international travel in 1981, 1992 etc: Indonesia ? How did Obama survive in America without ever possessing his Hawaii long form Birth Certificate ? The only escapes are:

    a) to opine that Obama and friends may be hiding his pre-2001 Birth Certificate and problematic 1961 “address” for reasons best known to themselves. (PROBLEM: merely concedes the point that Obama’s pre-2001 Birth Certificate neither sustains his case nor is probative);

    b) to assert without proof and against known facts that the Dunhams or Obamas paid for their own untruthful newspaper birth announcements. (PROBLEM: undermines the case for a contemporaneous registration and local birth, because why should they pay if Hawaii registrations automatically generated announcements ?); or

    c) to assume Lolo Soetoro adopted Obama in Hawaii, Obama’s 1961 birth record was sealed, and a new Birth Certificate was created: any later Certificates Obama saw or owned dated from the adoption and Obama might never have seen 6085 Kalanianaole Highway on the form as his first address. (PROBLEMS: the COLB images that Obama posted online identify one “Barack Hussein Obama II”, implying they are criminal forgeries, Obama has been party to fraudulent deception, and no paper COLB can ever be produced in court; Obama might claim some “re-adoption” or formal name change from “Barry Soetoro” when Obama Sr visited Hawaii for a month in 1971: unfortunately the Soetoros’ 1980 divorce record includes Barry as a child of the marriage for whose education Lolo is responsible and no evidence – eg the requisite newspaper announcement – for an Obama formal name change exists.).

    Any other escapes – lost them, everybody forgot, didn’t think it important, dog ate it etc – are laughably implausible given Obama’s profound concern with personal history and identity; his status as an attorney, professor, and public official; and his family’s contributions to his writings and publicity. We can be sure that if Obama, family, friends, and advisors had known of or wanted known the Kalanianaole Highway address they would have worked it into the legend.

    All of the four plausible inferences from the three questions asked entangle Obama in concealment, lies, deceit and worse: none support the case of an honest natural born citizen. Whatever birth record is stored in the vaults of Hawaii DoH does not qualify Obama for US citizenship or the Presidency.

    [Ed. It's all speculation. None of it is proved, none of it has any certainty. Furthermore, what if Obama was born outside of Hawaii but his family never told him and raised him to believe he was born in Hawaii and supported forged documents to him
    or real documents they paid somebody in Hawaii Govt to obtain? Where's your fraud then. There can't be fraud without knowledge. Regardless, everything you've written looks interesting but you fail to realize that Obama couldn't waive his US citizenship as a child in Indonesia. The law says only an adult can do that. The US allows US citizens to have dual citizenship. If He did renew his passport before he was 18, then even if he signed something in Indonesia it wouldnt qualify as a waiver of US citizenship. All of this is just conjecture. Every BC legal case that solely relies on the BC issue is weak. A good lawyer never asks a question he doesn't already know the answer to. The million dollar question is why hasn't Hawaii spoken up if a fraud is being perpetrated against official Hawaii documents and agencies? As long as Hawaii will back him up, these cases are very weak. I believe it's an intentional smokescreen to cover up the real issue of his British Nationality. But you have to plead the BC issue as well as the British issue just to be sure. Why do so many of these BC cases ignore the British nationality issue? More on this later...]

    The BC approach does not narrow point of attack, does not concede legitimacy, does not return to SCOTUS, skirts public indifference to natural born “technicalities”, avoids official reluctance to confront someone apparently honest and otherwise “qualified”, and can be investigated and prosecuted by authorities around the country. Your local dogcatcher could not evade the legal consequences.

    [Ed. It also ASSUMES facts not in evidence. Regardless of whether the BC issue can be proved, it involves a massive conspiracy. It's a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are easily ridiculed. The British nationality issue is not a conspiracy theory. No, that is a FACT and from that fact we ask a "legal question" of first impression. There's no conspiracy theory involved. ]

  90. I think the reason most people (esp Republicans) refuse to address the British nationality of BO’s father is that this argument would then extend to Bobby Jindal, perhaps other key repubs.

    [Ed. I think you've got it backwards. They've chosen Jindal - for now - because he cant challenge Obama on the issue. Jindal protects Obama.]

    I looked up the two US attorneys in Missouri. Should we be contacting our US attorneys to obtain their feedback on QW and to see if they would file, or do you have some action planned through DC? I do not have time to read this long post/blog to dig for this advice.

    [Ed. If you don't have the time to read it, I don't have the time to answer your question. It tells me you really don't want to learn anything.]

  91. Dallas,

    Interesting site about McCain. Through other websites, I’ve examined the Panama BC at 400% and see there is a difference in the 6′s and the typestyle/font. The time of birth looks original, but the date of birth uses a different typestyle and therefore the 6′s don’t match. There are also no halo’s around the characters of the information that ‘appears’ to be changed for McCain specifically.

    I looked at all the documentation available on that site and it seems to me (my very non-professional naked eye) that all the documents with regards to dates seem to have some irregularities.

    I’m not saying he wasn’t born in the hospital in Colon, but I just wished there were no inconsistencies within these documents. Do you have access to one where this is not the case? Not that it really matters, but I’m just very curious about it.

    It seems the more both men are researched, the more and more questions there appears to be. Thanks.

  92. Leo, a few weeks ago I was watching C-Span on the Gitmo prisoners. They were explainning the difficulty that Obama faces as to what exactly to do with them. They are a group of lawyers whom I believe represents them. One of the issues was charges filed in the U.S. Courts and the fact that in order to prosecute and the belief innocent until proven guilty that it would be extremely difficult because of issues of evidence, for example an eyewitness or testimony from a source that is no longer available. Do they bring a witness say from Pakistan to the U.S. to testify.

    If this sounds ignorant please excuse me, but does a Gitmo Prisoner being tried in a U.S. Court have standing?

  93. stand up and fight Says:

    Leo

    Thank you for your reply to my post of march 7th.I am not a moron because i know the obama lawyers are smart. They did not put up a blog-spot to inform people what they were up to.Leo who are you trying to educate? How will this help achieve your goal?If i came across something that could possibly help me bring down Obama i sure as hell would not find it helpful to tell the world about it before hand.You,Berg, Orly, and numerous others are all over the internet and blog radio .United we stand divided we fall.Join forces with each other and put your egos aside.Together you would be a far greater force to deal with rather than each one going it alone.We the less educated would only have to go to one site instead of jumping like a bunch of frogs to different sites to keep informed.O.J. formed a dream team and achieved the unachievable.Look where O.J. ended up today without his dream team.

    [Ed. I strongly disagree. If the US Attorney or Attorney General do it, that's really the only way it's going to happen. The best chance for that to happen is by the public being educated. That's where Im at. If you think me or Orly or Berg are ever going to have the chance to litigate this issue, I think that's a pipe dream which will never come true. I'm certainly not going to court on this. No, get your US Attorney or SG to do it or it's not going to happen.]

  94. Leo, you stated in reply to 221b:

    “The US allows US citizens to have dual citizenship. If He did renew his passport before he was 18, then even if he signed something in Indonesia it wouldnt qualify as a waiver of US citizenship…”

    From everything I’ve read on the subject, the U.S. only allows a citizen to have dual citizenship if the other country also allows it. Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship, right? Does that change part of your response to 221b? (By the way, I LOVE exchange that goes on between you legal beagles. It’s like being a fly on the all in a closed door strategy meeting……)

    [Ed. Perhaps he perpetrated a fraud in Indonedia, doesn't effect his status here. If he renewed his passport at the age of lets say 17, and the Indo law requires him to make the decision at 18... I suppose he could keep his Indo passport until the next time he needed to renew it, say when he was 27... then perhaps he might have used the passport to travel even though he didn't drop his US citizenship. There's just too many facts not in evidence and all of the accusations on the BC issue are based on allegations which haven't been proved. There could be a logical answer for all of this.

    My own take is that he has his ducks in order but he used this controversy to sway people away from the British nationality issue... it provided a sexy BIG green COLB smokescreen to hide the big problem below. The issue of his British nationality is NOT a conspiracy theory, it's a genuine legal question of first impression, but a Government wide attempt to hide a fake BC for the sake of Obama's eligibilityand defraud the nation... that's a conspiracy theory and that they could spin easily, which they did. proof being nobody did anything about it.

    Regardless, I believe in facts and law and nobody has proved Obama wasn't born in Hawaii.]

  95. Here’s a question on an issue that has bothering me for some time and that is Obama’s Selective Service Registration. If the investigator, Mr. Coffman, has uncovered fraud in that document, that is a crime. I was just wondered why no one is discussing that?

    http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/exclusive_did_n.html

  96. I’m seeing today on Orly’s blog (defendourfreedoms.us) that it appears she is filing Quo Warranto to the Supreme Court, not the DC Court. I’m not sure if she can go directly there procedurally before pleading her case before the DC court, but if she can, does that pose a risk to any other Quo Warranto cases in production of being heard on appeal to SC when their cases may be denied at the DC level? Based upon previous legal commentary and my limited understanding, just curious. I hope there is some dialogue between these attorneys filing on various cases so that the ultiimate good of the people will be served and not personal ego….

    [Ed. It's absolutely no the right thing to do and it jeopardizes the chance of a jury trial.]

  97. Leo,
    I agree completely with your opinion that the BC is the smokescreen to cover for the British nationality at birth (admitted by Obama on his own website). I think he will push it as far as possible and he has help in this. Certain news outlets (like AOL) only discuss the BC as it relates to Obama’s eligibility. This helps to misinform the public at large and when he is pushed to release the BC and if it confirms a Hawaiian birth, the public will give him credibility and make all opponents definitely look like conspiracy theorists.
    That is why it is imperative to focus on the dual citizen at birth issue and educate the public. Certainly, the BC should be a part of the evidence but not the main focus.
    On a personal note, my father brought up the issue to my brother (who is Air Force reserve) in November, and my brother just quickly brought up the statement from Hawaii saying they have the BC. (Supposedly) born in Hawaii, and that was good enough for him. And he’s not stupid, just misinformed.
    As you have said, sticking with the facts and the proper legal avenue, unemotionally, is the way to go.
    I applaud your approach. I am willing to help with anything you need as this goes forward.

  98. 1 The issues surrounding Obama’s COLB (first posted June 2008) are more bluff than genius or design on the part of Obama’s legal team. When the newspaper announcements (admissible as evidence) were discovered in July 2008 it was obvious they’d goofed badly and had trapped themselves. Obama and attorneys would not have entered that trap had there been ANY alternative (such as posting a pre-2001 Certificate).

    [Ed. I strongly disagree. I believe they had good reason to use this smokescreen.]

    2 It is not speculation or conspiracy-theorizing to observe that Obama’s COLB (for the reasons given) is not prima facie evidence of the facts of his birth and thus inadmissible in court,

    [Ed. And nowhere in the Constitution does it require he produce a birth certificate. If you want to cite the law, you must be able to handle all of it. A BC was not required.]

    The electronic database which generates Hawaii COLBs has fewer fields than pre-2001 paper Certificates, even Factcheck acknowledge this. Many fields from pre-2001 Certificates, and any false data they might contain, were not transferred when that database was created. Is Obama’s COLB probative and persuasive in law, when judged against what the preponderant evidence suggests ? There is only one answer: No.
    3 Assuming that Obama was supplied with false birth documents by his family concedes there are no genuine documents that support his claims: examination of the actual documents, following the COLB’s inadmissibility, settles the matter.
    4 Obama’s international travels in the 80s and 90s are on record: the lack of a US birth certificate, indicated by Obama’s unawareness of his registration address and especially the lack of evidence of a pre-2001 version, leads reasonable folks to question whether he ever had access to valid US travel documents. This doubt is reinforceded by Obama’s Selective Service registration (as per FOIA): the “No ID” box is checked.
    5 Only ONE of the three escapes from the inference drawn from the facts (Obama not placing pre-2001 Certificates in the public domain and total obliviousness as to the Obama registration address) involves a COLB that Hawaii might consider suspect: the inference itself is unaffected. That Obama was publicly and officially known as Barry Soetoro is recorded; that this diverges from the COLB posted online is clear; that the inadmissibility of Obama’s COLB requires Hawaii to ascertain the true facts of Obama’s birth registration is certain.
    6 Everyone must admire Leo Donofrio’s intelligence and perseverance in bringing the NBC issue into the nation’s consciousness and explaining it so articulately: we are all in his debt. However the QW approach to resolving Obama’s eligibility, while quite possibly being the sole constitutional avenue, risks conceding too much to those who have already refused much: hence Leo’s honest reservations.

    [Ed. But there's no other way. None. Nada. Zilch. It's quoway or the highway.]

    On the other hand, had there been the remotest chance that Obama and advisors were able to place online, never mind in court, a pre-2001 birth document that sustained his case it would have been done and this discussion would not be taking place: consequently there is no chance that such a document will be ever be produced. Perhaps Leo believes in “unassailable forgeries”, perhaps he believes Hawaii will back up Obama “no matter what”. Are these not impossible conspiracies ? I certainly don’t believe in them. With all respect, in what way does allowing the unknown to dictate what we know or do differ from superstition and fear ? Anyhow, on balance it seems there are more unknowns attaching to the official view of what constitutes a NBC than whether Obama ever possessed or can supply a pre-2001 Birth Certificate which supports his case.
    6 There are astonishing developments in the controversy of Obama’s citizenship and eligibility occurring right now, in various states, which will ultimately brush aside as legally irrelevant any Obama COLB and put under official scrutiny Obama’s 1961 record. No Incumbent could conceivably survive the plethora of lawsuits that must arise, whatever might happen in regard to the abstruse and unpredictable QW process of being deemed ineligible to continue in office.

    [Ed. Regardless of what I believe, a jury trial will be allowed by statute if the Quo warranto is successfully brought.]

  99. Leo and everyone,
    I accept that Obama’s father was a British Citizen (1948 Act only addresses Subjects though)
    and I also accept that he lost his British citizenship ( would really like to find the reference on this, I never heard of a country stripping previous citizens of citizenship)

    About this fraud issue. One of the things I always disliked about the law is that it can be illogical ESPECIALLY when you are showing something that is true and all of a sudden the judge blows off solid documentary evidence right in front of him. Then all of a sudden the law doesn’t matter anymore. The fact of the matter is Judges do whatever they please and there is no way to stop them.
    Some people in our Senate obviously LIED. That’s called perjury. Now if you can catch a lawyer lying that would be a miracle. The problem is everybody knows what a lie is except lawyers and this makes people upset.

    I would appreciate it, if anyone saved the Congress transcript before they took if off the website, to provide a link. I guess screenshots and the print button are real important around here.

    I just read Orly’s page and she got a little time with Justice Scallia. She could tell by his demeanor that he truly didn’t remember any of these cases.

    [Ed I find that to be a ridiculous assertion. I don't believe it. The case was covered on every major network. All were stationed outside the SCOTUS building. This is getting ridiculous now. I feel something is amiss. I'm not buying this from Scalia at all. Anybody who does is just being ridiculous.]

    Not Leo’s, not Cort’s, not hers, not Berg’s. How could that be? She left him a thing she gave to Holder and a SS guy snatched it away. She wondered if the Justices ever reviewed anything. They are guarded by the clerks. She wondered why the clerk never docketed one of her filings.

    Leo:
    Don’t outrule bringing this case. You are aware what little chance of anyone in gov. taking care of it. And you know nobody else will. You are the man, admit it and stop being in denial.

  100. 1 By virtue of INA 1952 S349(a) Obama was allowed to resume in America US citizenship before age 25. Forget Berg’s 1930 Hague Convention: the US neither recognizes nor applies it.
    2 Even if Obama swore on a stack of Bibles and Korans in Indonesia that he forever renounced US citizenship merely re-entering the US without applying for a visa established for US authorities that he didn’t mean it. Who cares what Indonesia thinks, right ? Not to be advised though.
    3 The problem for Obama is that without a pre-2001 Certificate, which he claims to have possessed but has not produced, what documents did he travel on ?
    4 If “nobody has proved Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii” someone please point to admissible evidence that proves he “was born in Hawaii”. Any COLB he might produce ? Worthless, meaningless, irrelevant. Now what ? Forget about it ?

    [Ed. The Constitution does not require proof of a BC. Keep that in mind.]

  101. Kenya was a British Protectorate

    FROM WIKIPEDIA

    Statutory British Protected Person under the 1949 Order
    BPP status was normally held by:

    persons born in a protectorate or protected state (with no nationality law), or with a father born there; and
    where a protected state had a nationality law, citizens or nationals of that state
    There was no bar on a person with another Commonwealth or foreign nationality also holding statutory BPP status.

    The 1949 Order was replaced by new legislation in 1965 which provided for some additional persons (stateless individuals and women married to BPPs) to acquire BPP by registration.

    Consequences of Independence
    BPP status was normally lost automatically upon acquisition of the nationality of the country with which the person was connected.

    In some cases any person with BPP status connected to that territory lost BPP status, even if they did not acquire the citizenship of the country at independence. However the majority of BPPs connected with a former protectorate or protected state retained BPP provided they did not acquire the citizenship of the independent country.

    MY COMMENT FOLLOWS

    I don’t think Obama was ever a British Citizen.

    [Ed. Obama Sr. was a UKC citizen.]

    He may have been a British Subject

    His father was certainly a British Subject, and that makes Obama not Natural Born US.

    Lastly, Obama has a “Private” visit to the UK to meet the Queen scheduled. To be held in private. If he’s still a British Subject (not impossible), he has to bow. Difficult to spin out of that one.

    [Ed. You got it wrong. There was a ten mile stretch of Kenya that was simply a protectorate but the entire rest of the country was a colony and the residents were "Citizens". This is old hash. Sr and Jr were UKC citizens.]

  102. Would there be any significance to the impending Quo Warranto cases being filed that Mr. O is on his way to visit the queen? Same question as to why he’s had to visit HI twice since his nomination? Just curious.

    [ed. No. No significance.]

  103. [...] by impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate.  We put that rumour to rest in part 2 of this brief – the Constitution does not say that anywhere in the Document’s [...]

  104. From Mario Apuzzo blog.

    Zapem said…
    Here’s another case that contested an elected, sitting Governor due to ineligibility to hold that office. The thing about this case was, the guy held offices before this contest ever took place, and he was STILL thrown out after someone complained!

    That’s all it takes. Someone has to complain and some court has to hear it, and then all your evidence comes out.

    What also struck me about this case is how we see similarities in the defendant trying to dismiss it right off the bat – much the same way that Obama’s lawyers have been doing. However, back then, plaintiffs didn’t get squashed so easily. Here was the court’s response to the motion to dismiss:

    “The respondent, on the 16th of February, 1891, filed his motion to dismiss the cause for that the relator had no right, title, or authority in law to institute or maintain the action; that the petition did not state grounds sufficient to constitute a cause of action; that the petition showed on its face that respondent was the duly elected, qualified, and acting de jure governor of the state, and entitled in law to hold that office, and bound to discharge the duties thereof, for and during the term of two years from and after January 8, 1891. This motion was overruled, and the respondent was ruled to answer, which he did as follows:”

    To sum that up, the sitting Governor tried to squash the complaint for standing, complained there was no cause or merit to the claims and pointed to his election as proof that he deserved it. Court said, not so fast, and refused his motion to dismiss AND his claims to the office just because he was voted in.

    The quo warranto in this case makes it doubly interesting:

    ” In State v. Stein, 13 Neb. 529, it was held that where the state at large was interested in a proceeding in quo warranto, the Attorney General was, as at common law, the proper person to institute it, but when the information was filed by an individual to oust the incumbent from an office and install the relator therein, it was a personal remedy on behalf of the individual claiming to be aggrieved, and the state was but a nominal party.

    In the case at bar, the Attorney General refused to file the information, and the relator obtained leave to prosecute it in the name of the state, but on his own behalf, as, under the statute, he was authorized to do.”

    What we see here is law that says when the state has the interest in bringing the suit, the AG is the proper vehicle to use. But when the interest is by an individual, the state is only a nominal party.

    Therefore, as we see here, the AG refused to file, so the relator sought leave to prosecute it in the name of the state, but on his own behalf, and he was allowed to do it.

    We see the same recourse given today in the federal statute if they fail to act. Just as in this case, if they refuse, any attorney can file for quo warranto.

    Case: Boyd v. Nebraska ex Rel. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135 (1892)

    Source: http://supreme.justia.com/us/143/135/case.html

    March 11, 2009 7:19 AM

    [Ed. I've commented on this in another comment. It's irrelevant to the federal quo warranto issue. Totally irrelevant.]

  105. ConcernedCitizen Says:

    I appreciate and respect everything that you are doing and truly hope you succeed where many others have not (yet).

    My concern is that by being so open with the Quo Warranto Legal Brief, you are basically giving the weaponry to the “other side” and allowing them to prepare for what’s about to hit them.

    I’m not an attorney and I don’t play one on the internet, so maybe you have more ammo up your sleeve? I hope so….

  106. 1 “By virtue of INA 1952…” ASSUMING that Obama was a US citizen already.

    2 Obama and advisors AFTER 2001 could easily have obtained a long form Certificate from Hawaii and posted that online: on the Vital Records application Obama needed only to enter something into the “Reasons for Requesting a Certified Copy” box eg “Genealogical Purposes- Request Long Form” or “For DHHL Purposes”. Simple as that: it doesn’t matter if his dog ate the previous two. A conscious decision was made n 200? not to request a long form Certificate… ASSUMING that an actual request was made by Obama and advisors, for which there is no evidence (eg postmarked envelopes), and ASSUMING that something real was posted.

  107. Sally,

    Here is the short form from the Dallas News: (double click to enlarge)

    http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/mccain%20birth.html

    Here is the Long form:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/9934044/John-McCain-Birth-Certificate
    http://johnmccain.dominates.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=145

    Now if only that other guy would do the same.

  108. To Smokey:

    Were you looking for the Congressional Record on SJR110-511… Here it is:
    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S3645&dbname=2008_record

    And any other records can be found here…just browse around:
    http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/09crpgs.html

  109. “Regardless, I believe in facts and law and nobody has proved Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii”

    and nobody proved he was born Hawaii either, it’s not “nobody’s” or “anybody’s” duty to prove anything about another persons job qualifications in this nation, it is standard procedure for the person applying for the job to present the correct credentials.

    [Ed. I agree. But keep in mind that the Constitution doesn't require a BC.]

    Please give us your take on Dr. Viera’s (spelling?) suggestion or possible course implying direct violation of OBama’s orders in a civilian manner (I know your take on military) in effort to become a defendant and , per Dr. v, using the alleged recourse to get all documents to extradict yourself (which would assume to be Obama’s bona fides). Did you give an opinion on this before?
    ty

    [Ed What orders are we talking about violating? Please elaborate. ]

  110. sorry i just saw you partially answered part of the second paragraph above in part 3, “the constitution doesn’t say president has to supple a BC” but it does say, correct me if I am wrong- and i think you brought this up before = that he has to qualify?

    The third paragraph still would like response or link if previously supplied.

    ty

  111. Leo,
    I hope you aren’t too burnt out on the British Citizenship issue, here’s another for the “gipper”.

    First let me to say to those who may be perplexed by this issue, Citizen of the UKC (CUKC) is an umbrella term it incorporates 2 types of citizenships, Citizens of the UK(British Citizens) and British Subjects.

    [Ed. My research indicates you are incorrect on this point. Barack Obama's father was a British "citizen".]

    Obama’s Father was a British Subject (CUKC) according to Factcheck.org
    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
    “As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948″.
    So in 1948 Obama Sr. was a CUKC (British Subject)

    [Citizen of the UKC means "Citizen" of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Subject is a lesser form of status. Obama Sr was "citizen" of the UKC.]

    When Kenya gained it’s independence in 1963 Kenya separated the Citizens into CUKCs and BPPs (Britsh Protected Persons including Subjects). Depending on the type of CUKC and the place of birth, the people were given a Citizenship type and date.

    According to factcheck.org Obama Sr.: “As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). ”
    Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

    1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies ———–or ——–a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…

    So Obama Sr. was a BPP(subject) and was given December 12, 1963, Citzenship date. Had Obama Sr. been a CUKC (British Citzen) he would have maintained and would not have lost the CUKC.

    Finally, question for Leo: Has it been considered that Obama Sr. and Obama Jr. may have different British Citizenships? I ask because:

    1. Obama Jr. instists British Citizenship, never claimed British subject like his father
    2. Factcheck does not give a Citizenship date for Obama Jr.
    3. If Obama is a British Citizen of the CUKC he would not have lost that UKC on the indepedence of Kenya..but may have gained additional Kenya Citizenship.

    Sources
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7771937.stm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_citizen

    http://books.google.com/books?id=UZNwYrFOI4sC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=citizens+of+CUKC&source=bl&ots=M17jJCH7IJ&sig=f0qlb39_8WlVQsh6RCPs-D_fscI&hl=en&ei=MTu5Sc3CO-H8tgfktvmqBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPA44,M2

  112. i was talking about the executive orders that OBAMA signs in my above posts regarding such things as : stem cell , reversing off shore and continental oil drilling, funds to overseas abortions, and many many others that impact every day citizens in that they get funded via our federal income tax

    good write up btw

    on another matter, that i hinted on in earlier post. Orly follows through on SUPREME COURT sabotage, and you may take advantage or note, as the case may be for your cases if you feel there was some problem, as i know you did, with the SC Clerk.

    You have to read this, we all thought Orly was going quo warrento with her military clients. NO!

    Now I don’t know Orly, but I read between the lines of her post yesterday and gleaned that she was saying that there was a big issue with her case not being presented when Scalia kept saying I dont’ remember, I don’t know.

    Check this out!! This is outrageous, if true, sabotage by the SC Clerk, OBOTS and tryanny at every level of the government. This is completely unacceptable !!

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=4552

  113. Leo,
    Thank you for the correction, however, I don’t think Factcheck/Obama
    will accept that correction. It was factcheck that stated Obama’s father was a British Subject. This is ‘their truth’. (not mine)This is the one public site Obama’s Attorneys refer to in lawsuits, to be relied on as the truth.

    (Here’s a theoretical history)
    Obama’s father was a British Subject originally, but in 1948 with passage of the British Nationality Act, Sr. became a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (citizen of UKC) owing allegiance to the Monarch.

    That citizenship was short lived. On Jan 28, 1949 the British Protectate, States and Protected Persons Order came into effect.

    [Ed. Load of BS. Obama Sr. was a UK citizen, not a BPP.]

    By Order of Council, the Home Secretary had to define persons who were ‘British protected persons’. It would be those born from foreign soil.

    In only 27 days Obama Sr. was no longer a citizen of the UKC but was now a ‘statutory’ British Protected Person (BPP) from foreign soil, Kenya.


    [Ed. As they say in Britain, "bollocks mate." The BNA of 1948 was not superseded 28 days later. The BPP act was a statutory enactment of the Government's policy towards BPP's, not UK Citizens. Snip- ]

  114. cpabooks Says:

    Orly has take her complaint to a second Justice:

    http://helpmejoseph.typepad.com/puma_for_life/2009/03/orly-taitz-confronts-chief-justice-roberts-on-eligibility-lawsuits.html

    Puma reports her version and AP’s.

    [Ed. To believe that people can just hand deliver their documents to a SCOTUS justice at a public lecture and also get a vote to hear their case from another SCOTUS justice a few days earlier is truly exhibiting a new dawn for SCOTUS. Hey kids, the SCOTUS is here, let' s all go down, while we're at it bring your case files and some donuts and we'll have them commit to hearing our cases. Everybody say "right on!" Maybe we'll catch a Metallica gig with Samuel Alito too. This is a storm of BS brewing right here kids. Go get the popcorn, fantasy theater at the halls of justice. Oh boy. "Dentist saves the free world with emotional plea for justice at SCOTUS family picnic." What a script this is? Who wrote this script. What's the third act? This is a test of gullibility, this is. You believe this is all kosher and I've got some Real estate to sell you on Mars.]

  115. decentAmerican Says:

    Hi Leo — first of all, God bless you in your journey and fight for our Constitution. I know you know what you’re doing, but I just wish you would have publicly released this letter AFTER you made extra sure that it was in the hands of the US attorney. Once it’s out there, there are a bunch of Usurper wackos who will do anything to prevent it from getting to its destination. Why get them on your scent, when the mission has not yet been accomplished? Again, you know well better than I do on what to do here, so I hope you are staying safe and accomplish your goals. God speed my friend.

    In regards to Orly…… I know that her methods are nontraditional, non classical, possibly even unacceptable….BUT, you have to admire her determination. I know that you believe in process and protocol, and I agree, but these are desperate times Leo…..our Constitution has been challenged to its core, and justice and truth is not being heard. You have tried the “right” way, with the cases before the SC, but that did not work. There are people like Bickell who are unscrupulously fighting against justice, who are fighting against process. So if Bickell is doing things non-traditionally, then why shouldn’t American citizens go about it the same way?

    I LOVE Orly. What this woman has gone through. YOu know first hand the offal that is launched by the Usurper minions, the threats that she and her family endures, and she pushes bravely onward. It may not be the “right” way, but she is doing something. And the “right” way hasn’t worked.

    Again, desperate times. You are a hero Leo. But so is Orly. There can be more than one person seeking the truth. You may not agree no how to do it, but justice must be fought for.

    “There are 100 ways to build a tent, and all of them are correct.”

    – Kipling

    God speed you Leo in your quest for justice. I pray for you and Orly.

    [Ed. I don't trust any of this. It looks real to you. But it feels like a script to me. My gut tells me this isn't what you think it is and it's not going to end the way you hope it will. I make my living looking people in the eye (chest, hands, feet even...but it's all a window to their soul) and there's this feeling comes over me when I know a person is bluffing. This little voice quietly says, "Take his chips. Take all of his chips, He doesn't have the hand." Then they give me ALL of their chips. I don't have to work because they give me ALL of their chips. That voice is whispering a serenade on this Orly goes to SCOTUS thing. Something is wrong with this picture. Can anybody just deliver boxloads of case files to SCOTUS Justices at lectures? Every other document they receive must go through anthrax testing machines, but Orly's document go right to Secret Service hands? And The Globe just pipes in at the same time? You're being played like a violin. There's no doubt about that. It's just a question of who is plucking the strings.]

  116. [...] of this issue, please see my prior series of posts entitled, Quo Warranto Legal Brief: part 1, part 2, and part [...]

  117. Leo,

    The Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) nationality did not take effect unitil 1948. At that time Obama Sr. was 12 years old..already born a British Subject. His birth was in the British Colony and Protectorate also known as Kenya Colony. Durring the time of 1948 there were 4 ways to acquire CUKC status.

    [ed. Irrelevant. This issue isn't the same as deciding if one is a nbc of the US which only confers at the time of birth. All we are concerned with is whether Obama Sr. was a UKC "citizen" at the time of Obama Jr.'s birth in 1961. OBama Sr. citizenship, regardless of what it might have been when he was born 12 years earlier, became - in 1948 - a "UKC Citizen".]

    1. Birth at the time of the enactment of the BNA
    2. Registration
    3. Naturalization
    4. Declaration order
    Obama Sr. at age 14 was too young to naturalize in 1948 and too old to register. When Colony and Protectorate Kenya gained it’s independence in 1963, those persons that acquired CUKC status did not lose that status:
    Secretary of State for the Home Department
    4. “It is usual, when Independence is granted to a colony or
    protectorate, for Parliament to take away citizenship of the United
    Kingdom and Colonies from all who automatically become citizens of the
    new country at Independence unless the person, or his father or father’s
    father, was born, naturalised or registered in the United Kingdom or a remaining colony.
    In no case has citizenship been taken away from anyone not acquiring
    the new citizenship, for that would have made the person stateless.”

    So if Obama Sr. was a CUKC he would not have lost that citizenship by the independence of Kenya as stated in factcheck.org (automaically recieved Kenyan citizenship via subsection..) He would have remained a CUKC.

  118. UKC Citizenship was an ‘acquired’ status. The Parliment could not take UK citizenship away after one was born or actively pursued citizenship by, registration or naturalization into that status.

    The ‘automatic’ citizenship into the new country of Kenya is proof
    that UKC citizenship was not acquired. (Because Parliment does not take away acquired UKC it must be actively denounced)

    Pehaps..UKC was acquired after Obama was born, but not before.

    [Ed. UKC citizenship came to Obama "at birth".]

  119. I agree. Obama Jr. became a UKC at birth (not by descent) BNA 1498

    Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
    Citizenship by birth or descent

    4. Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth:

    [Ed. You’ve quoted the wrong section. Here is the correct one from Part 2 of the BNA 1948:

    “5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth…”

  120. Directly contradicts factcheck.org “citizen of the UKC by virtue of being born to a father who was a citzen of the UKC”. Even gives the statute BNA 1948

    5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth:

  121. [...] the President removed or to even have him face an inquiry as to his eligibility.  (See parts 1, 2 and 3 of my legal brief on quo [...]

  122. No matter where Obama was born even if it were on the Capital Steps or the Lincoln Bedroom in the Whitehouse, he would not be a Natural Born Citizen as required by Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5. His Kenyan Father precludes him form that title, though if born there or in Hawaii he would be a Citizen. However, if he were born in Hawaii, he relinquished it by his Indonesian Citizenship which he maintained through adult hood.

  123. [...] legal brief which can be found at the following links: QUO WARRANTO LEGAL BRIEF: part 1 QUO WARRANTO LEGAL BRIEF – Part 2: The Federal Quo Warranto Statute Is The Only Constitutional Mea…   QUO WARRANTO LEGAL BRIEF: Part 3 STANDING-TRIAL BY JURY- HISTORY OF STATUTE – SEPARATION OF [...]

  124. It should be understood how a writ of quo warranto is supposed to work.

    The writ is not the order granting relief. It is the summons. The burden of proof is not on the petitioner, but on the respondent, which is the opposite of other civil actions.

    The relief sought issues by default if the official fails to prove his authority or if the court does not hold a hearing. Enforcement then passes to the people as militia.

    [ed. incorrect. it passes to law enforcement.]

    The relief sought is limited to the jurisdiction of the court in which it is filed, and will normally consist of a second writ granting that relief. Thus, if relief sought is removal (vacation of the office), it would be necessary to file it in a court with that jurisdiction. If no such court exists, then the relief sought would be something else, such as a writ of mandamus or prohibito (injunction) forbidding the exercise of the powers of the office challenged. That is, the quo warranto can challenge the exercise of powers without seeking removal.

    The court may also not have jurisdiction to mandate or prohibit the exercise of powers. That was the position taken by the U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison.

    However, any court can grant at least declaratory relief, and refuse to cooperate in the enforcement of any actions taken by the usurping official. So if we find that only Congress may impeach and remove a President, or otherwise remove him without impeachment, the courts may at least refuse to give effect to any of his decisions or directives.

    Now, the president can do a great deal without ever going to court, but if the federal courts stopped cooperating with his decisions and directives, such as by refusing to enforce any enactments of Congress requiring his signature, then eventually Congress would either have to remove all the judges or remove the president.

    Never let it be said all the remedies afforded by the Constitution are easy.

  125. LamuzNick Says:

    Shine

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: