QUO WARRANTO LEGAL BRIEF: Part 3 STANDING-TRIAL BY JURY- HISTORY OF STATUTE – SEPARATION OF POWERS Cont.

[CORRECTIONS struck out below and in purple. 03.11.09]

[UPCOMING RADIO INTERVIEWS]

- Wed. March 11, 3:05 (East coast time) Joyce Kaufman show, WFTL 850AM Ft. Lauderdale/Miami

- Wed. March 11, 9:00 (East coast time) Solutions Not Politics with Devvy Kidd

- Thurs. March 12, 9:05 (East coast time) The Crystal Chalice show

——————————————————————————————–

The following points contain the most important issues as to federal quo warranto actions brought under the District of Columbia Code.

1. SCOTUS IS THE WRONG VENUE TO INITIATE AN ACTION IN QUO WARRANTO BECAUSE DOING SO WOULD DEPRIVE THE PUBLIC OF A JURY TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII.

The District of Columbia Code, Title 16, Chapter 35 (Quo Warranto) Subchapter III states:

§ 16-3544. Pleading; jury trial.

In a quo warranto proceeding, the defendant may demur, plead specially, or plead “not guilty” as the general issue, and the United States or the District of Columbia, as the case may be, may reply as in other actions of a civil character. Issues of fact shall be tried by a jury if either party requests it. Otherwise they shall be determined by the court. (Emphasis added.)


The quo warranto statute allows a jury trial on “issues of fact”.   Whether Obama was born in Hawaii is an issue of fact.  Whoever institutes a proceeding pursuant to the statute may request a jury trial and one must be granted.  The judge could not refuse.

But if the case is brought to SCOTUS before it’s brought to the District Court of the District of Columbia, and if SCOTUS were to accept the case, you’re never going to have a jury trial.

Any quo warranto proceeding should go before the DC District Court as follows:

a.  a determination would have to be made, as a matter of fact, as to whether Obama was born in the US/Hawaii.

b. if the jury’s verdict is that he wasn’t born in Hawaii, then the legal question is easy: he’s not a natural born citizen.  please take note that the issue wouldn’t be whether the online COLB is genuine, the issue is whether Obama was born in Hawaii and any COLB or other document would only be considered as a piece of evidence for the jury to consider.

c.  if the jury’s verdict is that Obama was born in Hawaii, then the next issue is a more complex judicial question.  the District Court would have to make a legal determination as to the meaning of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Congress has absolutely no power to “interpret” clauses of the Constitution.  That would be a violation of the separation of powers.  Only the judicial branch could make such a determination. Congress properly assigned the issue to the District Court.

While Congress has the power to remove the President under the Constitution, they don’t have the power to interpret the Constitution.  The judicial branch must do that.

As to issues of fact, ie:

- how long a person is a citizen of the US

- how old a person is

- where a person is born

…these qualifications for office are matters of fact which Congress properly recognized were best left to a trier of fact and therefore a trial by jury is statutorily allowed.

The issue of who is a “natural born citizen” under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 is an issue of legal interpretation outside the Constitutional authority of Congress.

Only the judicial branch can interpret the laws of this nation.

Congress didn’t delegate the authority to remove the President…they exercised that authority.  (My previous explanation was not correct.  I said they delegated their authority but that was a poor choice of words.  Please forgive me.)  Congress exercised their authority by allowing for the removal of the President.

Under the statute, the DC District Court must follow the law enacted by Congress.  Congress has deemed that if an action is instituted properly, the court then conducts a trial as to all relevant facts.  After the facts are determined, the court is empowered under the Constitution, to interpret the law in light of the facts.

JURY TRIAL.  Think about that.

SCOTUS is not a trier of fact and so quo warranto MUST be brought before the District Court for the District of Columbia EXACTLY as the statute requires.

GOD FORBID SCOTUS WOULD EVER JUMP IN AND TRY TO WRANGLE THIS CASE FROM A DISTRICT COURT JURY.

2.  STANDING UNDER THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE TO INSTITUTE A FEDERAL QUO WARRANTO ACTION

a. STANDING OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

The DC code allows three different levels of standing to “institute” a quo warranto action.  As to private plaintiffs, SCOTUS noted – in Newman at 538 – that Congress “has placed obstacles” in the way.  But as to the “Attorney General” or the “United States attorney”, who act in the name of the United States, the statute makes it very simple for an action to be instituted.  It says:

“The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion…”

SCOTUS in Newman at 546 has interpreted the statute to give wide discretion to these officials:

“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.”

“IN ANY CASE THEY DEEM PROPER.”

- There is no qualification that there be a certain amount of evidence one way or the other.

- There is no qualification that the officials must consider public opinion or political party affiliation.

- There is no “standing” to prove.  If your title is US Attorney General or United States attorney, you have standing.

- There is no need to consult with Congress because, as SCOTUS noted in their opinion, Congress has already acted on the issue by enacting the quo warranto statute.

All that is required is that the official deems a quo warranto statute proper.  His discretion is unassailable judicially.

WHY SHOULD THESE OFFICIALS DEEM QUO WARRANTO PROPER?

The short answer is that the action is proper to settle title to the office of President for the good of the nation.

Even if both officials are convinced Obama is eligible, it’s still proper for them institute a quo warranto proceeding because the evidence emerging now is that, by leaving the controversy as is, a floodgate of litigation will ensue.  And like the waters over New Orleans levees, this floodgate has the ability to wreak havoc on our nation.

- Active military officers have openly stated that the so called Commander In Chief is an “imposter” and a “usurper”.  These men have consented to be plaintiffs in eligibility law suits.  Should this trend spread, it has the power to divide our forces and nation.

- Under the holding in ANDRADE v. LAUER, 729 F.2d 1475, 234 U.S.App.D.C. 384 (1984), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has held that the defacto officer’s doctrine does not prohibit “collateral attacks” of official actions based upon a public officer’s lack of eligibility.  These are not quo warranto suits to remove the official, they are civil suits to challenge a specific action of that official.

In the Andrade case, the plaintiffs were Government employees who lost their jobs to “reduction in force” ordinances which cut whole departments from the Government budget.  The plaintiffs sued alleging those who did the cutting were not Constitutionally qualified to make such decisions in that their appointments violated the appointments clause of the US Constitution.

The DC District Court held that the plaintiffs had no standing other than to bring a “direct attack” in quo warranto to remove the alleged usurper.  But the DC Court of Appeals reversed and said the plaintiffs, who had suffered real injuries, could bring such an action on a case by case basis if they could prove their injury in fact (being fired) was caused by a Government official who was not eligible to serve.

They opened the door to a floodgate of litigation by an incredibly large field of possible plaintiffs who might challenge every single official action of the Obama administration on the basis that he isn’t eligible.

- Furthermore, there is a tenet of Government that requires there be a certainty to the official actions taken in the name of the United States.  No certainty is possible when millions of US citizens, including active military, are concerned that Obama’s credentials were not verified in the same way all citizens must verify their identity for the most simple things in life like getting a drivers license or passport.  It smacks of imperial coronation when a Government of, by and for the people are not entitled to know that the commander in chief must submit to the same levels of identity proof as the citizens.

Regardless of whether one believes Obama’s online COLB is real, no citizen can tell the Government to check a web site for their birth certificate rather than bring it in to the DMV or send it to the federal Government for a passport.  You have to actually mail your BC in to them if you don’t bring it in person.

I recognize that the Constitution does not require a birth certificate as a qualification, but that’s not the issue anymore.

The issue is whether the Attorney General and/or a United States attorney deems it proper for Obama to provide the same proof of identity as ordinary citizens in order to avoid FORESEEABLE complications which are destined to rot public faith.

We need to put aside whatever prejudices we have as to the eligibility and plead for now for the issue to be resolved as opposed to pleading what we believe the outcome of any such action should be.

I have stated over and again on numerous radio programs that I do not believe any private plaintiff has standing to demand to see Obama’s records of birth or any other personal records.  These plaintiffs are appealing to emotions and not rational legal considerations.  Obama should not bend to the will of those who have no legal authority to command him.  I said this over and over and over again.  But I was grouped in with these other attorneys whose theories I take great issue with.

We are governed by laws.  And there is no law which allows a private person to demand to see Obama’s birth certificate or college records.  It may seem like a good idea, but last time I checked the Constitution, neither are required to be President.

However, the United States attorney, the Attorney General and the District Court for the District of Columbia do have authority to command Obama to prove his credentials.  And they ought to exercise that authority for the good of the nation, especially our military.

I fail to see any difficulty in establishing non-partisan compliance with the SCOTUS holding in Newman that these officials may bring a quo warranto if they simply “deem it proper” to do so.

That decision is not subject to review.

There is a public policy behind this which makes alot of sense.  Obama ought to encourage these officials to institute an action in quo warranto for the good of the nation and for the good of his own legacy.

IMPORTANT:

The best possible candidates I can think of who should request the US Attorney and/or the Attorney General to bring an action in quo warranto on their own motion are Retired Military officers who understand the absolute need for the President’s title to office not to be encumbered by doubt.  Retired military can band together to request that these Government attorneys “deem it proper” to protect the active military from all of the swirling dangers their involvement in a political action as to POTUS eligibility would bring.  Such a request shows no disrespect, but rather recognizes the actual risk now being taken by soldiers getting involved with various law suits.  The retired military would not be making a case for or against Obama’s eligibility, but rather they would simply be asking that the issue be resolved one way or the other under the applicable statute.  Again, keep in mind that the statute doesn’t require anything more than that the US attorney or the Attorney General “deem it proper.”

Please don’t confuse this with asking these retired military to be plaintiffs.  That’s not what I’m suggesting.  I’m suggesting that retired military officers are the best possible group who might be able to influence the US attorney or the Attorney General in making the decision to bring an action in quo warranto on their own motion with no private plaintiffs.

Another interesting question is whether any of the 94 United States attorneys may institute the proceeding in quo warranto…[Ed.  I have reconsidered the discussion on this issue and as of 03.011.2009 struck it from the brief.   16-3502 applies exclusively to the US Attorney General and to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia.  I believe that’s the most accurate intention of the statute.]

b. Standing of “third persons” vs “interested persons”.

16-3502 states:

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.

16-3503 states:

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.

The terms “third person” and “interested person” have been interpreted by SCOTUS  in the Newman case as follows:

The Code provides that a “third person” — the equivalent of “any person” — may institute the proceedings only after he had secured the consent of the law officers and the court. It makes a distinction between a “third person” and an “interested person,” and provides that, if the Attorney General refuses to give his consent to the latter, such “interested person” may secure the right to use the name of the government by satisfying the… Court of the District that his reasons for applying therefore are sufficient in law…

Considering the ancient policy of the law and the restrictions imposed by the language of the Code, it is evident that, in passing this statute, Congress used the words “third person” in the sense of “any person,” and the phrase “person interested” in the sense in which it so often occurs in the law…The interest which will justify such a proceeding by a private individual must be more than that of another taxpayer. It must be “an interest in the office itself, and must be peculiar to the applicant”…The language of the Code, supported by the history and policy of the law, sustains the proposition that one who has no interest except that which is common to every other member of the public is not entitled to use the name of the government in quo warranto proceedings.

For if the allegations in such a suit by a private citizen set out any cause of action at all, it shows on its face that it was a cause of action belonging to the whole body of the public, and which therefore should be prosecuted by the public representative.

The rule is the same regardless whether the office is elective or appointive. For in neither case is there any intent to permit the public office to be the subject matter of private litigation at the instance of one who has no interest therein which differs from that of every other member of the public. The claim that this construction makes the statute nugatory cannot be sustained, for the statute, as already pointed out, gives a person who has been unlawfully ousted before his term expired a right, on proof of interest, to the issuance of the writ, and there might be cases under the civil service law in which the relator would have an interest and therefore a right to be heard.

In Newman, there was a jury trial and the jury held that the public officer didn’t meet the requirements of office.  The District Court ousted him based on the jury’s verdict.  The DC Court of Appeals affirmed.  But SCOTUS reversed by stating the jury verdict was nullified because the plaintiff wasn’t an “interested party” and so he didn’t have standing.  Since the official Government attorneys refused consent to bring the action, the plaintiff couldn’t just be a “third person”, the plaintiff had to be an “interested person.”

SCOTUS held that interested persons would include persons ousted from the office they are challenging.  But they left the door open with that last line, “…and there might be cases under the civil service law in which the relator would have an interest and therefore a right to be heard.” (Emphasis added.)

THREE WAYS TO BRING QUO WARRANTO

1. The US attorney and/or the US Attorney General institute the case on their own motion – which is the best way this could happen.  No leave of the court need be requested.  There will be a hearing and a trial of facts.

2. If no authorized Government attorneys will bring the action on their own motion, then any citizen may join a law suit as “third persons” and such law suit, by way of verified petition, shall be brought to the US Attorney and/or the Attorney General to ask their consent to use the name of the United States.  If the Government gives consent, then you must request permission from the court to bring the suit as well.  And if the Court says yes, you will have a hearing on the merits.

3. If the Government will not give consent, then “interested persons” may request leave of the court to institute the action in quo warranto.  But standing will be – according to SCOTUS in Newman – restricted to anybody who was ousted from the office of POTUS (and nobody is going to meet that requirement) or, in the alternative there might by cases under the civil service laws which provide standing.

I don’t know exactly what SCOTUS meant by that vague reference to “civil service laws”, but I would assume they are making reference to Government employees, and perhaps this could also apply to recipients of civil service benefits.  I don’t believe the military are party to the civil service laws, so I don’t see them as being the plaintiffs with the best possible standing.

The holding in Newman is certainly ripe for a challenge, but care ought to be made to find the best possible plaintiffs who might qualify as “interested persons”.

The best private plaintiffs who might have standing to institute an action in quo warranto  as “interested  persons” would be those persons with an injury in fact caused by an official action of POTUS as it relates to the civil service laws.

Active military may appear to have the best standing based on a purely emotional reading of the term “interested persons”, but according to the controlling SCOTUS decision in Newman, the military aren’t the best subset of “third person” plaintiffs.

This is thes best shot, not the military.  They do enough for us to at least deserve civilians with better standing exhaust every possible Constitutional means available before subjecting them to any number of possible court martials.


3. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF TITLE 16 CHAPTER 35 (Quo Warranto) OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE.

Chapter 35 is entitled “QUO WARRANTO”.  Subchapter I is entitled “Actions Against Officers of the United States.” Subchapter II is entitled “Actions Against Officers or Corporations of the District of Columbia“. Please note that the original DC quo warranto statute was first enacted in 1901.  While SCOTUS interpreted that statute as controlling national officers, Congress modified the statute in 1963 to its current form which erases any possible doubt that the statute applies to all Officers of the United States.

Furthermore, the District of Columbia Code is federal law.  It’s enacted by Congress and the actual United States Constitution is included in the District of Columbia code.  I have seen the most erroneous comments online wherein it has been argued that a “local DC code is not federal law”.  Besides the ultimate federal law – the Constitution – being placed directly in the DC code, SCOTUS has stated – in the seminal quo warranto DC code case, Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915) – that the District Code applies to all…

“…actions in quo warranto instituted by authorized parties against national officers of the United States, they are general laws of the United States, and not merely local laws of the District of Columbia…”

I must reiterate that the code’s text does not provide any exceptions for any public office, not even POTUS.

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

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

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

All discussion of quo warranto actions brought in other “district courts” of the US has been rendered moot.  Unfortunately, I have seen irrelevant analysis of that repealed statute applied to the DC Code by various confused commentators online.  In a quote taken from a legal treatise called Treatise on Federal Practice by Roger Foster, written in 1921, he states:

“The better opinion is that the District Courts of the United States have original jurisdiction to grant the writ of quo warranto only when specifically authorized by statute; and that no writ of quo warranto can issue from them to try the title to the office of President of the United States.”

At first glance it appears this “better opinion” might be a problem.  I don’t know where he derives this “better opinion” from, certainly not the federal courts or SCOTUS because no such case law exists.  It’s probably a reflection of a common erroneous assumption that the Constitution only allows removal of a sitting President 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 text.

When you continue with the Foster quote, it states:

The District Courts of the United States have jurisdiction of all suits to recover possession of any office…authorized by law to be brought, wherein it appears that the sole question touching the title to such office arises out of the denial of the right to vote to any citizen…” (Emphasis added.)

This analysis is specifically directed to the repealed statute regarding quo warranto wherein “the sole issue” is deprivation of 14th amendment voting rights.   It has nothing to do with the District of Columbia Code wherein quo warranto may be brought against any “public office of the United States” with regard to anyone found to be a usurper for any legal breach.

The statute Foster refers to has been repealed.  It didn’t deal with Constitutional qualifications for office.  Also notice that the comment says “District Courts”.  This is obsolete.  District Courts – other than the DC district court – have been stripped of authority to hear any quo warranto cases.

CONCLUSION: The District of Columbia Code is the only means by which a federal quo warranto action can be instituted and its application is strictly limited to public offices of the United States or local DC offices within the ten square miles of the District of Columbia.  No public office, ie POTUS, is exempt by the statute.

About these ads

121 Responses to “QUO WARRANTO LEGAL BRIEF: Part 3 STANDING-TRIAL BY JURY- HISTORY OF STATUTE – SEPARATION OF POWERS Cont.”

  1. BerlinBerlin Says:

    Hi Leo,
    Orly Taitz has talked to Scalia and has a story on her blog about it:

    http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/03/10/meeting-with-scalia-and-coordinated-cyber-attack.aspx

    [Ed. I don't believe Scalia was in the dark, not with the coverage this case saw.]

  2. Dr. Taitz is reporting that she had a ‘face to face’ conversation with Justice Scalia recently.

    [snip]
    “He did not say that it is a political question, he did not say that it is for the legislature to decide.”
    [snip]
    “I gave him the books to sign and asked “Tell me what to do, what can I do, those soldiers can be court martialed for asking a legitimate question, who is the president, is he legitimate”. He said, bring the case, I’ll hear it, I don’t know about others. I asked, tell me what happened before, why Lightfoot v Bowen was not heard, what about Berg, Wrotnownski, Donofrio- he had a bewildered look on his face, he kept saying- I don’t know, I don’t remember, I don’t know, I don’t remember. Scalia seems to be one of the most decent judges on this court. I think he was telling the truth. Could it be that the cases, were handled by those nefarious clerks, those “mahers”, that work for who knows who and the judges are clueless?”

    The question is….

    Can anyone say with 100% certainty that Scalia did in fact refer the Wrotnowski case for conference? It’s entirely possible that what was posted on the web page docketing system never actually took place (for Court’s case and/or others related). I don’t think anyone here can say honestly that the justices check on the web docket information for accuracy. Many have probably never even looked at that version.

    From the SCOTUS web site itself:

    “Caution: These electronic orders may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official printed versions. [snip] In case of discrepancies between the print and electronic versions of orders, the print version controls.

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/08ordersofthecourt.html

    Has anyone verified for a fact that the PRINT version has the identical docketing information? That is, does the print record state that Scalia referred Court’s case for conference? It would be interesting to verify the print record against ALL of the eligibility cases to see if it matches with the web page docket info!

    [Ed. If she's threatening to bring the quo warranto action directly to SCOTUS she's ignoring the chance to have a jury trial in the District Court. Also, she's reducing the number of courts who might hear the issue by 50%. It's a very bad maneuver.]

  3. Tony Stark Says:

    Sometimes I wonder based on her actions if Dr. Taitz is doing this just for her personal glory and not for the best interests of her clients nor for the country.

  4. Unbamboozleus Says:

    Leo, I so respect and admire you for what you are doing and how you are doing it. May all that is good be with you and keep you safe.

  5. Orly needs to get an experienced attorney to run her cases. I agree with Tony. I checked the internet and the Joyce Kaufman show on AM radio reaches a big audience from Miami to West Palm Beach. The word is getting out.

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

    Needs a tweak here and there. Know you’re busy, but your expertise contributed in this category would impact millions of readers looking for the facts. They haven’t done a half bad job as it is.

    Thanks for your heroic work on Quo Warranto. You have brought Art to the realm of Law and National Politics. And you will save a few brave soldiers from unnecessary peril.

  7. the District Court would have to make a legal determination as to the meaning of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

    >>>and who says the court has to make that decision, they (they being the defense and judge? or someone else?) may punt it back to the jury? No? How does it get to the court for making a decision. That path is not clear in your discussion. Please elaborate.

    [Ed. Juries NEVER determine issues of law. The defnition of the term "natural born citizen" is rendered by interpretation. Only courts interpret the law. Juries judge facts. It's a basic tenet of out system of jurisprudence. Juries do not make law or interpret law. They judge facts. The only fact at issue is where Obama was born. That's an issue of fact for the jury.]

  8. In order to be on the Presidential Preference Primary Ballot in some states, Barack Obama was required to sign a statement that he is a candidate in good faith for the office and qualified and eligible to hold office. He paid a filing fee and thereby made a contract with the state to be listed on the Primary ballot as a candidate for the Democratic Party, which would not have occurred without him signing the required representation. There is sufficient reason to question that he meets the requirement of being a natural born citizen because he was a dual citizen at birth and it is not clear from any case law that he either qualifies or does not qualify. Because the people of the state and the state government was not informed of this uncertainty and unintentional misrepresentation Mr. Obama must show he is eligible and qualified or the contract may be rescinded. Under these principles of contract law, would he be bound to demonstrate his status as a natural born citizen?

    [Ed Absolutely not. He is entitled to make a determination in good faith that he believes he's eligible as an nbc. Furthermore, no court has the jurisdiction to remove him. It would violate the separation of powers. It's quo or no. End of story.]

  9. Leo – you mention 3 facts in connection with the QW business and, presumably, the jury would determine these after having the law interpreted to them by the judge.

    Would a fourth fact be “… does BHO meet the Presidential eligibility requirements as called out in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the United States Constitution?”. If so, who interprets the law for the jury to use in assessing this fact??? Is it done by a hearing in front of the court? If sot, how is that matter raised for justiciability in QW?

    [Ed. answered in your next comment.]

  10. Leo,
    I am getting everyone I can to listen to you on the Joyce Kaufman show
    on Wednesday 3/11 at 3:05pm on 850 AM Ft Lauderdale (WFTL). I will also be sending messages to local reporters to make sure that they hear it. Ms. Kaufman bravely came forward and discussed the issue of Obama’s status as NBC last week. Everyone should spread the word all over the country to listen to it on the Web. You will have a large, VERY PUBLIC forum at your disposal Mr. Donofrio. Godspeed !!!

  11. Leo -

    Let me clarify what I just asked about the 4th fact …

    I understand that it would be the judge (presumably of the DCDC) who would determine the meaning of NBC but would he not then present it to the jury to determine the 4th fact – whether BHO was (or was not) a NBC under the Constitutional meaning since they would have decided the other 3 facts??

    If that’s the case, how is the judge persuaded? By testimony, solely by legal briefs, both – or some other manner???

    [Ed. Whether he was a nbc is a matter of Constitutional interpretation. There is no fact the jury could rule on other than the one that is disputed - "where was he born?"

    The jury can only try facts. Wheter Obama satisfies the qualification of nbc is a matter on judicial interpretation. Once the jury has ruled on where he was born, the Judge has no issue of fact to pass on to them. He will accept the facts by verdict, ie assume the jury finds that Obama was born in Hawaii - the judge will then interpret the law by making a legal determination whether a person born in the US as British citizen at birth to a father who never became a US citizen is a nbc under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.]

  12. The possibility of 94 other US attorneys being authorized to initiate the quo warranto is interesting, as it seems this can of worms may have many more lids to cap than just the two.

    I hope others in the legal profession come forward with opinions on this, or you find out more about this to share.

    Will writing letters to these US attorneys asking them to exercise their discretion for the “good of the country” be of any use?

    No offense to your profession, but everyone in these positions seems to be afraid of touching this issue at all.

    Also, why only retired military officers, the retired enlisted are also concerned for their brothers in arms being under duress?

    [Ed. a large group of retired military officers would have the best chance of being taken seriously by the Govt attorneys... they would understand and be able to seriously communicate to the govt attorneys the danger that exists in not having the issue settled by a court...they would be viewd as having the best interests of the military at heart...I feel that everybody who wants to contact their officials should do so, but there should be an organized effort to gather as many retired military people together, preferably a group with a mixed bag of people some who believe Obama is eligible but who understand that the issue is troubling to many citizens...as to 94 US attorneys, I would stay away from that until and unless US attorney Taylor refused to do anything. He should be respected.]

  13. Leo,

    What a frightful thought, to have a jury in the District of Columbia , where as I recall, even with VIDEO of their mayor on tape doing coke and talking disrespectfully, yes, even to a hooker it was disgusting, he was found not guilty, because they felt “he” was set up by the FBI. Marion Barry remained in office, and any local resident, and I ws one at the time could see for themselves if you were out in the hot clubs, that Mr. Barry was all over the candy of the day….

    Only at this point , have I been made nervous, that of having a DC jury decide the facts of the case…..

    Even with this duress, I would rather follow the constitutional path of justice, then to not have any action taken at all.

    Judge or Jury, what should be the preference?

    [Ed. Jury. I don't think it's fair to characterize an entire city of citizens in the way you have just because one particular jury didn't convict. That's really unfair.]

  14. I would think you would be looking at Jury Nullification here. Especially after you had people talking about the ramifications of removing the POUS.

    Would the USSC overrule a jury in this case?

    [Ed. It's a rather cut and dry issue on the fact part of the case. Either he can prove he was born in Hawaii or not. Once that's made official one way or the other then the court can decide the legal issue of nbc. SCOTUS couldn't over turn a jury verdict on the fact issue unless it went against Obama and he could show on appeal that his Constitutional rights were violated. SCOTUS could overturn on the District Court's interpretation of the nbc issue.]

  15. No COLB Nobama Says:

    To Tony Stark:
    Orly is approaching this in the best way she can, working her heart out and spending thousands of her own dollars to make Obama face reality. This country will be better off facing the truth of Obama’s ineligible status no matter what Orly’s motives are. Most people don’t have the courage to deal with the intimidation of Obama supporters, paid bloggers (are your ears burning?), IT hackers and slander from ruthless reporters who don’t give a damn about checking facts or sources.

    Leo has his approach; Puzo, Pidgeon, Kreep and Berg have theirs. Since proving a sitting president is a usurper has never been done before, there’s no simple formula for success. And as has been demonstrated in cases that tried and failed, this administration isn’t above getting up to mischief to hasten a case’s failure. But each attorney can say, as Thomas Alva Edison said about trying to create a light bulb: “”I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that don’t work.” One of these days, one of these true patriot attorneys is going to light up Obama’s fraud. It’s not a matter of if; it’s a matter of when. And it’s not going to take 10,000 cases.

  16. Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives
    Home Search Download Classification Codification About

    -CITE-

    8 USC Sec. 1401 01/03/2007

    -EXPCITE-

    TITLE 8 – ALIENS AND NATIONALITY

    CHAPTER 12 – IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY

    SUBCHAPTER III – NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION

    [Ed. snip. sorry just too long of a post with nothing but US Code. Please state your point, and highlight the specific section you would like reviewed and I will address your question. Feel free to resubmit on that basis.]

  17. Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives
    Home Search Download Classification Codification About

    -CITE-

    28 USC APPENDIX Rule 81 01/03/2007

    -EXPCITE-

    TITLE 28 – APPENDIX

    FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

    XI. GENERAL PROVISIONS

    -HEAD-

    Rule 81. Applicability in General

    -STATUTE-

    (a) Proceedings to Which the Rules Apply.

    (1) These rules do not apply to prize proceedings in admiralty

    governed by Title 10, U.S.C., Secs. 7651-7681. They do apply to

    proceedings in bankruptcy to the extent provided by the Federal

    Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

    (2) These rules are applicable to proceedings for admission to

    citizenship, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, to the extent that

    the practice in such proceedings is not set forth in statutes of

    the United States

    [Ed. I can stop right there… SCOTUS in the Newman case says that the DC Quo Warranto statute is United States law. The DC Code Title 16 Chapter 35 (Quo Warranto) Subchapter III is entitled “Procedures and Judgments”. The quote you listed above clearly says that the rules listed therein are only applicable “to the extent” the rules of procedure are not set forth in statutes of the United States. Fortunately Chapter 35 does set forth the procedure, “verified complaint”.

    Furthermore, since the person who should be bringing this action is a Government law officer, I’m not planning of drafting any papers. I’m hoping no private attorneys or plaintiffs are necessary. ]

  18. Tony Stark Says:

    No COLB Nobama

    There is a difference between working your heart out but doing things that ultimately wastes your energy and resources on a course of action that accomplishes nothing and may actually harm your clients versus carefully planning and executing a strategy that is carefully researched like what Leo has done and very likely the best chance of success. Read Sun Tzu’s The Art of War.

  19. Here Here, Lets second the Art of War and Leo for his efforts, and now for the all important 3 step, execution ….

    So when and how do we formulate a Petition to the US Attorney or the USAG ?

    Might I suggeat we design a format whereby everyone can download a signature page to be returned to a central collection point, so that we can distribute it all over every crook and cranny of this country….?

    Leo, any thoughts on this procedural complex, we do need to keep it “legal” and until we can fill our ruck sacks were marching without a tune as it were. ???

    [Ed. I'll be thinking about this... not sure yet.]

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

  21. Dear Leo,
    The top 2% income earners threatened to be tax out of existence might be another group of citizens able to influence a US attorney or the Attorney General to make the decision to bring an action in quo warranto on their own motion with no private plantiffs.

  22. naturalborncitizen Says:

    OT was just on the radio with Devvy Kidd. Devvy asked her about the DC District Court’s exclusive authority to hear the case. Orly told her that “Leo Donofrio’s reading of the statute” may not be correct in that Orly believes she can bring the Quo Warranto in any federal District Court…

    It’s the District of Columbia Code and it specifically refers only to offices and officers within the District of Columbia and it specifically states that the District Court for DC is the exclusive venue:

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

    The District Courts get the picture, don’t know why she thinks she can rewrite the statute. Check it

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

    ” In 1901, Congress specifically authorized the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to issue quo warranto in the name of the United States.”

    There’s no wiggle room. It’s DC District or bust…

    The District Court, 7th Circuit went on to say:

    “…this grant is strictly limited and is confined solely to situations involving franchises and public offices held within the District of Columbia. There is no other specific statutory provision vesting original jurisdiction in the district courts in quo warranto actions.”

    I’m just sayin’.

  23. Mr Donofrio may I suggest you broadcast your own program to inform America of the fraud obama. Blogtalkradio.com offers free internet broadcasting to anyone. I have my own at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/whitehouse

    I read my blog and comment on issues.

    This would be a great way for you to communicate to the public. You could take calls if you wish or just talk about your issues for up to 2 hours.

    I will be talking about your blog again and making comments even though I know only a few people will listen to me. I too think it is very important to expose the fraud obama. Its simple to me. He has provided no documentation to back up his certification of birth that he has posted on his web site. Without proper documentation the “certification of birth” is worthless as evidence he is a US citizen.

    I agree, just any remedy to expose the fraud obama will not bare fruit unless it is done correctly. I again thankyou for your brave efforts and hope you will succeed before it is to late for America.

    [Ed Playing devil's advocate... nothing in the Constitution requires him to produce a BC. Nobody knows where he was born. He may not even know for sure. Who knows what he was told. So much judgment, so little evidence. Not that I believe he's innocent in all this... the public has been manipulated masterfully... but what the truth is behind the scenes is not known to any of us. And until I see the proof I'm not willing to say he wasn't born in Hawaii. I believe in innocent until proven guilty.]

  24. Leo… is the 17th Amendment a key in all this as this article implies?

    Orly Taitz speaks to Justice Scalia at book signing

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=4492

    [Ed. The key is the quo warranto statute. That's it. It's that or nothing. Everything else is a distraction. Every other case that's not quo warranto will fail. And if the US public doesn't convince US Attorney Taylor or AG Holder to bring such an action on their own motion, things look very very bleak for seeing the issue resolved.]

  25. Leo,
    Excuse my ignorance, but who makes up the District Court for the District of Columbia? Are these judges elected by the citizens of DC or are they appointed by an official?

    [Ed. Appointed for life.]

  26. FaithKeeper Says:

    I do not know if your aware of Federal Air Reserve Technicians (F.A.R.T.).. They are Civil Service Employees.. Federal employees for the Department of Defense… One of the conditions/requirements for their employment is that they must also be members of the USAF Reserves.. My late husband worked as a civil service employee most of the time, and for two days every month he put on the uniform and trained Reservist.. I do not know if it is the same now or how it works now.. Are some of the Reservist that are now activated also employed by DOD????.. but maybe someone else with this knowledge can enlighten us..

    May the Force be with You

  27. Leo,

    Are you, Orly, Mario, Gary, Phil, (etc, etc) having any “conference calls” to co-ordinate your efforts??? Since you all have been at it from different angles for the past 6 months or so – would it be beneficial to discuss developing a team approach around a key strategy now? I vote your strategy (after reading everyone’s blog DAILY). Ask for Orly’s retired military list, convince them to help with this route and put some of your readers to the task of helping out in some way.

    Thanks for your diligence on this matter, and I know you will be prudent in your next steps. Let us know how we can help.

    [Ed. No. I'm not working with any other attorneys who are already involved. And that will not change. It's in the hands of the US Attorney and the AG as far as I'm concerned. I don't see the Court touching this for any private plaintiffs. I'm not telling people not to try. I'm just saying that I'm not going any further than to keep explaining the law and trying to help the law officer see that this is in the best interest of the country.]

  28. Leo, from just a plain reading of the DC statute, I believe “The United States Attorney” refers to the DC attorney and not just any State attorney. The use of “the” is a definitive article and presumably the writers of the statute figured it would be a plain reference since the statute only pertains to DC. Just my take on it from a purely grammatical point of view.

    Great job, by the way. I am a retired federal civil servant and would gladly volunteer to be a third party to such a QW action.

    [Ed. I believe you are correct. I just included the possibility due to vagueness in the text, but I do tend believe Mr. Taylor and Mr. Holder are the only guys who can get this done.]

  29. Don’t forget to also petition the US Attorney for the District of Columbia is Jeffrey Taylor. Someone should form a online petition drive, such as WND,

    [Ed I'll have nothing to do with WND.]

    to solicit signatures from the blogosphere. WND already has a significant petition started from all the legal cases. Perhaps it can be used for this effort.

    Because of his allegiance to Obama, I seriously doubt Holder will do anything with this except to throw it in the trash. I think our best chance of getting this thru would be with Mr. Taylor. Also, perhaps US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has standing, or maybe Mr. Fitzgerald could help persuade Mr Taylor to do the right thing?

    Bill

  30. Re: No COLB Nobama Says:

    March 10, 2009 at 6:51 pm
    “To Tony Stark:
    Orly is approaching this in the best way she can, working her heart out and spending thousands of her own dollars to make Obama face reality. This country will be better off facing the truth of Obama’s ineligible status no matter what Orly’s motives are. Most people don’t have the courage to deal with the intimidation of Obama supporters, paid bloggers (are your ears burning?), IT hackers and slander from ruthless reporters who don’t give a damn about checking facts or sources…”

    C’mon guys, I’m with No COLB Nobama on this–give Orly a break! I can’t vouch for her legal expertise, but she has heart and soul for this country. Her passion comes through very clearly. Maybe it’s because she is getting that deja vu feeling from her past in the old USSR. But it is very clear to me anyway that she has a love for this country and does not want to see an unqualified liar thug pulling off a grand hoax on the American people. I just wish to heck that rather than publicly criticize another attorney, that egos could be set aside and we’d see a HUGE united effort by a TEAM of attorneys who can work together for the good of this country!! Arguing the fine merits of this situation is something we are fast losing time over. Action needs to be taken. Someone needs to step up to the plate and say we have been given enough info in Leo’s legal briefs; now is the time to ACT.

    Those of us who are not in the legal profession are undoubtedly getting a great education on the fine points of the law, but folks, we are looking for other attorneys who love this country to get involved. It may not put money in your pocket to put forth the effort, but you’ll have peace of mind knowing you did everything you could to forestall anymore danger to this country. And if the QW gets issued and everything falls into place for resolution of the facts, you all will be a huge part of history. You just can’t put a price on that!

    We need attorneys with passion; we need attorneys to do whatever more research needs to be done; we need attorneys who can perform in-depth analysis of the law, and we need attorneys who can put it all together and strategize this to successful fruition!

    [Ed. Understand the simple clear language of the DC Code. The DC District Court is the only venue. To say otherwise to the public is delusional. The clear statute has already been interpreted as being available ONLY in the DC District.

    Also, in my opinion, it's hurting the cause when people go on Obama hate speech rants. You'll never educate a single Obama supporter to the Constitutional need for the issue to be settled while you are spewing about calling him a criminal. You think Holder can listen to somebody like that while they are out there doing hate filled interviews?

    OBAMA HAS NOT BEEN PROVED GUILTY OF ANY CRIME.

    The issue has not been tried. We're supposed be trying to convince the AG and US Attorney that this isn't a partisan issue, but if the lawyer contacting those attorneys is also going off screaming what a criminal their boss is, then you're making it virtually impossible for them to see you other than as a partisan Obama hater.

    Furthermore, Hawaii supports him, yet people just demand he's a criminal over and over. We need to be fair and balanced at this point in time. Also, officers were put in jeopardy when the WND headline was put on Orly's page saying Easterling defied a Presidential order. I'm sure it generated PR, but it was FALSE. That was a big mistake. I haven't heard an apology or an explanation as to why that happened.

    Listen, passion is only as good as technique. If your passion is high but your technique is scattered and emotional then you're not going to win in court. You don't see big powered lawyers getting emotionally frustrated and spewing hatred for their opponents. This does not help the cause and it needs to stop.

    As an attorney, I feel that the cause is being corrupted and the task made more difficult. You can make as many Obama haters as you like happy as you stroke their need to feel the hatred over the air, but the people you have to convince, the US Att and the AG don't need to hear the issue broken down that way.

    They need to believe it's in the best interest of the nation, not the best interests of those who despise Obama. My God, Obama's grandmother was implicated in a plot to create false social security numbers on Devvy's show tonight. OK, I dig a joke like the next guy but this was no joke. And what that has to do with the two simple issues we need discussed is beyond me. The two issues are

    1. was his British nationality at birth a defect in his nbc status?
    2. was he born in hawaii?

    those are the issues... everything else is just cannon fodder for the haters. if you want the issue taken seriously, then you need to have the ability to win over people who are into Obama and think he's the right man for the job. You can't win those people over by screaming about his grandmother's volunteer work and alleging some possible conspiracy theory thereto while telling the world that Obama is a criminal when he's been convicted of no crime and no crime has been proved.

    Is this not America for all? Even Obama. I want nothing to do with an America that convicts before proof in court. That kind of America deserves whatever tyranny it gets.]

    Like Leo keeps saying over and over again, the law is there. QW is the tactic to use to ascertain the facts. Now we need attorneys to forge this into workable action. I will help in any way possible, and others have stated the whole thing. Can we get a legal action force going?

  31. Joe The Blogger Says:

    Leo,
    The strongest argument for the Quo Warranto proceedings to be instigated, is that failure to do so would fatally undermine the tiny remnants of faith retained by the American public in the political institutions and the rule of law. Once that is totally gone, then the safety of the entire nation would be in jeopardy. Just imagine it – The United States of America, the greatest nation in the history of the world reduced to anarchy and despotism. The ‘Attorney General of The United States’ and the ‘United States Attorney’ need to WAKE UP and they need to do so URGENTLY – before it is too late.

    This is far more important than the merits or de-merits of Barack Obama, or the DNC or the GOP. This is about the bedrock of The United States of America – The United States Constitution. Lose that and we will discover that our American home is built on shifting sand – indeed quicksand.

    We ALL need to make them hear, make them listen and make them ACT.

    [Ed. Somebody really gets it. Thank you. I was getting discouraged. People just want to put the hate out so bad... but it's not about anyone's personal views of Obama, it's about the rule of law... the country is rotting away, it's only just begun.]

  32. Jacqlyn Smith Says:

    Leo—Can a “third party” or “interested party” be someone like Alan Keyes who ran for president and was injured by the fact that Obama is not a “natural born” citizen??

    [Ed. Not according to SCOTUS because Keyes had no legitimate chance of winning. But it's even possible that he wouldn't have standing even if he could have won. Newman says an interested party is somebody ousted from the office by the alleged usurper... so nobody would fit that standing requirement. the only possibility any private party might prove standing is via that "civil service laws" SCOTUS reference in Newman. Keyes wouldn't have standing though. Not according to SCOTUS in Newman.]

    And I thought it didn’t matter where he was born…even if in Hawaii….he is still not a “natural born” citizen as layed out by our founding fathers since his father was not a citizen of the USA when Obama was born??? Why do we need to prove his birth was not in Hawaii to remove him from the office of POTUS??? Don’t we need to get an interpetation of what is deemed a “natural born” citizen by the SCOTUS even if he was born in Hawaii???

  33. I want to join everybody else in thanking you, Mr. Donofrio, for your work on this. If our government officials (and the general public) had your respect for the PRINCIPLE of the Rule of Law, we wouldn’t be IN this mess. Your work is a perfect example of that principle put into practice.

    I have a question. All along many of us have been bothered by this question of standing. It dawns on me to question whether a voting citizen who asks to have a candidate’s (or elected official’s) proof of eligibility for office verified or adjudged is properly regarded as a “private person” in doing so, rather than as a person acting in a public capacity: that is, as a member of the polity with a citizen’s right to see that the law is upheld insofar as he can. Does the law address this issue at all–anywhere, I mean, not just in context of this case? If it doesn’t, then–shouldn’t it?

    [Ed. The teacher is a bit miffed you haven't studied the Newman decision from SCOTUS which is extensively linked to in my last two blogs. Now go sit in the corner, read the case... and come back and explain the answer to your question. :) ]

    –Come to think of it, isn’t it some such idea that justifies the principle of the Citizen’s Arrest? A citizen is empowered to ACT as an agent of the government, for one very narrow and specific purpose, IF in so doing he is helping either to uphold the law of the land OR to protect the citizenry–the body politic–from malefactors.

    Thanks again for your efforts on the case in point, and for your thoughts if you have time to address my question.

    Julie

  34. Leo,
    I found this recent case about Quo Warranto from Ohio. Maybe the “US attorney” requirement means for the state in which the writ is filed? Anyway, in this case the issue of whether the relator was ousted from the office being questioned came up.

    THE STATE EX REL. MYERS v. BROWN, CLERK-TREASURER.
    [Cite as State ex rel. Myers v. Brown (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 545.]
    Public employment — Quo warranto to oust respondent from office of village of
    Agler Clerk-Treasurer and to declare that relator is entitled to the office —
    Limited writ to oust respondent granted but appointment to office denied.
    (No. 99-1420 — Submitted December 15, 1999 — Decided January 19, 2000.)
    IN QUO WARRANTO.

    FROM THE CASE:
    ————————————————————————————

    “Brown nevertheless claims that we should deny the writ because Myers has
    not established the second general requirement for extraordinary relief in quo
    warranto, i.e., that he is entitled to the office. We agree with Brown that Myers
    has not established his entitlement to be appointed clerk-treasurer. Myers was not
    the only resident who applied for the office of clerk-treasurer, and Mayor Hensley
    did not have any duty to appoint Myers to that office.

    But Myers’s failure to establish his entitlement to be appointed clerk-
    treasurer does not preclude a writ of quo warranto. If a relator in a quo warranto
    proceeding fails to establish entitlement to the office, judgment may still be
    rendered on the issue of whether respondent lawfully holds the disputed office.
    Delph, supra, 44 Ohio St.3d at 80, 541 N.E.2d at 62; State ex rel. Ethell v.
    Hendricks (1956), 165 Ohio St. 217, 226-227, 59 O.O. 298, 303-304, 135 N.E.2d
    4 ”

    AND THE DECISION:
    ————————————————————————————-

    “362, 368. Myers proved that Brown is not lawfully holding and exercising the
    office of clerk-treasurer.

    Based on the foregoing, we grant Myers a writ of quo warranto solely to
    remove Brown from the office of Alger Clerk-Treasurer. We deny the writ insofar
    as Myers requests his appointment to that office.
    Writ granted in part
    and denied in part”

    I realize that no one in this writ you contemplate would be saying that they deserve the office rather than Obama, but the question of qualification for office and whether the relator was ousted are held as separate questions. Are the Quo Warranto codes different from state to state? Maybe Keyes could have been a third party, except his inflammatory language toward Obama probably precludes him.

    [Ed. Excellent post. Unfortunately this is irrelevant for two reasons

    1. SCOTUS in the NEWMAN case reversed the ouster of the civil officer who was prove to not be eligible... they did this because the plaintiff wasn't an "interested person". So, SCOTUS was not willing to oust the person even thgouh he was not eligibe because the plaintiff didn't have standing.

    2. The case you cite is a state law case, not a Federal Distict Court case and the office was not one which exists in DC. The case has no weight of authority. Of course the states use quo warranto to deal with state public offices...there's nothing saying they cant, but this is a federal matter and the federal courts and Congress have spoken. If you want to remove a United States officer, you go through the DC Code. That's undeniable and will control the POTUS eligiblity issue with 100% certainty.]

  35. Unbamboozleus Says:

    Joe The Blogger Says:
    March 11, 2009 at 1:01 am

    Leo,
    The strongest argument for the Quo Warranto proceedings to be instigated, is that failure to do so would fatally undermine the tiny remnants of faith retained by the American public in the political institutions and the rule of law. Once that is totally gone then the safety of the entire nation would be in jeopardy. Just imagine it – The United States of America, the greatest nation in the history of the world reduced to anarchy and despotism. The ‘Attorney General of The United States’ and the ‘United States Attorney’ need to WAKE UP and they need to do so URGENTLY – before it is too late.

    This is far more important than the merits or de-merits of Barack Obama, or the DNC or the GOP. This is about the bedrock of The United States of America – The United States Constitution. Lose that and we will discover that our American home is built on shifting sand – indeed quicksand.

    We ALL need to make them hear, make them listen and make them ACT.

    [Ed. Somebody really gets it. Thank you. I was getting discouraged. People just want to put the hate out so bad... but it's not about anyone's personal views of Obama, it's about the rule of law... the country is rotting away, it's only just begun.]

    I believe that this message encapsulates the core, the heart and the essence of why this eligibility issue must be resolved NOW. I believe that the message bears repeating over and over and over in order to keep everyone focused. Restraint of emotions is called for here as emotions will serve only to distract from and contaminate this forum and the issue itself.

    In addition to all of his brilliant legal work, Leo has done a SUPERB job of creating and maintaining a venue here where the matter can be discussed in a respectful, rational and informed way. It’s the only such place I know of and I value it as a place of refuge where truth can still be found.

    [Ed Thank you for noticing. I read every message. I try to answer every question accurately if people are respectful of their enemies. So much debate today is filled with sarcasm and snarky hatred which serves to distract people from the real issues. Talk show vikings play on people's fears and base feelings of hatred. Sheep flock to these loud obnoxious shepherds because their frustration of being a small fry allows them to be filled with petty glee when the false prophets of doom go on the attack with disgusting daggers. This is classic divide and conquer. They only preach to the choir in a very emotional hate filled way. Can anybody think of groups who did this to perfection? It's no way to unite people around the Constitution.]

  36. I am trying to figure out exactly what it is that you want people to do. I assume that it is to contact Eric Holder and the US Attorney for DC. Your readers have asked if it is time to contact these individuals, but you told them to wait as you formulate a plan. Do you have a plan yet? You know that these two men do not have the time to read your blog, so this information needs to get to them in some way.
    We also need to go into this knowing that the judicial system at all levels is riddled with individuals who are very partisan. I know that is not the way it is supposed to be, but it is reality and denying this is not going to help the cause.

    [Ed. Hear me on the radio today... Im fine tuning the answer to this question.]

  37. Somebody really gets it. Thank you. I was getting discouraged. People just want to put the hate out so bad… but it’s not about anyone’s personal views of Obama, it’s about the rule of law… the country is rotting away, it’s only just begun.]

    Leo , please, please don’t get discouraged, we know what happened the last time that happened.

    it’s about the rule of law, yes, it is about the rule of law, but when you navigate away from here and see what the general public comments are, it’s about hate, it’s about destruction, it’s about race, it’s about policy, it’s about left and right and it’s about good and evil.

    It is what it is, as Gahndi said, whether you think it is or think it’s not, it still is.

    Here it is in a nut shell for me. I see and hear everything that is happening in reference to Obama and our country. I don’t like it one bit.

    If there was not the shadow of doubt I would not have a choice but to live with it. Because there is the shadow of doubt, I and so many others need the question answered to remove that shadow. Until the shadow (which is dark) is replaced with the light (which is right) I will continue to be in the dark which is wrong. Leo, believe it or not, you have been given a candle to lead us from the dark and into the light. Do not let the candle burn out before you lead us from darkness. I know this is an overwhelming responsibility. God puts people in other peoples life for a reason. We are all tools in a tool box and if we can’t fix the problems with the tools we have, then what we have will always be broken.

    [Ed. God also will not force his ways into people's hearts. Love your enemies. I'm sick of the hatred all around me. I think of evil doers as sick people who need help. I pray for them especially when they try to scare me. I'm scared for the people who see the evil and who turn to doing evil to fight evil. Obama, his supporters and their beligerent ways don't discourage me. I know they need to be opposed fiercely. It's the people who are supposed to be fighting the good fight who scare me. They don't seem to understand we can only fight for the law within the law.

    No evidence Obama actually broke a law has been brought public. No matter how much people will believe it's true... nobody has proved anything about Obama's place of birth. The Indoneisa thing is a red hering. If Obama was born in Hawaii and the courts agree that is enough for nbc then he's eligible for POTUS. There's nothing in the Constitution that says he couldn't be a dual citizen later in life.

    In Perkins v. Elg, the girl was a nbc because both her parents were citizens of the US when she was born and she was born in the US... later she became a citizen of Sweden and the court held she was still a "natural born citizen". Yet I see people calling Obama a criminal because of the Soetoro thing and Indonesia. A child can't waive his US citizenship and if he's a nbc then he's always an nbc. You can't retroactively reverse the state of your citizenship "at birth".

    The issues are simple

    1: does being a British citizen at birth by a father who was never a US citizen disqualify one from being a nbc?

    2. Was he born in Hawaii?

    Everything else is a damned distraction regardless of how salacious or sexy the facts may be. Nobody has proved Obama committed a crime.

    I'm sick of the BS coming from the so called good guys here. I'm down with the law and if I'm feeling that most people aware of this issue hate Obama more than they love the law. I won't be in that camp. I pray for the man. I don't appreciate his actions. I don't appreciate the way somebody has tried intimidate me to stop my work on this... and I was threatened more than once. I can't prove it was Obama. I told people what happened. Somebody tried to scare me pretty bad. It only inspired me. But I can't say it was Obama. I have no proof of that. I don't know that. It could have been anybody with a motive. Catch my drift.

    You're either for the law or against the law... justice for all. I'm sick of the hatred. really sick of it.]

  38. NJ Citizen Says:

    Leo: you commented editorially to another post, as follows:

    [Ed. Juries NEVER determine issues of law. The defnition of the term "natural born citizen" is rendered by interpretation. Only courts interpret the law. Juries judge facts. It's a basic tenet of out system of jurisprudence. Juries do not make law or interpret law. They judge facts. The only fact at issue is where Obama was born. That's an issue of fact for the jury.]

    I believe that there is an unresolved fact question which people tend to overlook in all of this. Namely, were Obama’s parents in fact legally married at the time he was born?

    The Time reporter who wrote a biographical profile of Obama couldn’t locate a copy of a marriage license on Maui for his parents. Obama’s semi-autobiographical “Dreams” had pointed to a marriage “conveniently” timed at 9 months before his birth; the 1964 divorce decree referenced a marriage on Feb. 4, 1961; and, in all of this, neither reporters nor “natural born citizen” watchdogs have been successful in obtaining a copy of that license. Not because of privacy laws, but because Maui can’t find any such document.

    Believing it might be possible that a divorce was sought by Stanley Ann (or, more likely, propelled by her parents) in order to assure that no finding of a “common law marriage” could impede her ability to marry someone else, or assert custody over the child, I reviewed the British Nationality Act of 1948 to see how it handled illegitimate births and whether an unmarried father enjoying U.K. citizenship could confer that citizenship upon his child.

    Answer: No. On the date of birth, the child would not have U.K. citizenship. If the father married the birth mother, then U.K. citizenship would later attach.

    Thus a jury might need to entertain a FACT QUESTION about what the preponderance of evidence shows about a marriage on Maui on 2/4/61 in a case where a divorce pleading mentions one, a book mentions another month and year (November 1960), and Maui has no license in its files, and the “alleged groom” had a wife and child back in Kenya stemming from an undocumented “tribal marriage ceremony”.

    [Ed. Excellent post. Really great question. But you’re off by just a hair. The child’s “birth status”, as you noted by studying Section 23 of the British Nationality Act of 1948, was governed by the British nationality Act of 1948. This was admitted by Obama. It’s the fact that his “birth status” was “governed” – through his father’s blood – by the British monarchy, which should disqualify him from being a “natural born citizen”.

    How can British law “govern” the “birth status” of a “natural born citizen” of the US?

    Keep asking yourself that question and the question’s oxymoronic nature becomes exposed. “Natural born citizen” means not encumbered by the governing of British (or an other country’s) law.

    I see no proof Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham weren’t married before he was born, so Obama was a British citizen at birth, but even if you could prove they weren’t married when he was born, it wouldn’t make any difference since Obama’s birth status, as he admits willingly, was governed by the British Nationality act of 1948 since his father was a British UKC citizen at the time of Obama’s birth. Obama Sr. never became a US citizen.

    If the case ever comes before the DC Court, the court would have a trial as to where he was born. If the jury finds that he was born in Hawaii, then the only issue that would be left is legal. The legal question would be:

    Does the fact that a person’s birth status was governed by British law due to that person having been born to a father who was a British citizen (and who was never a US citizen) disqualify that person from being considered a “natural born citizen” under article 2 section 1 clause 5 of the US Constitution?

    It’s the fact that Obama’s birth status was “governed” (and that’s the word used by Obama’s own web site — “governed”) by Great Britain which disqualifies him.

    If the jury says Obama was born in Hawaii and the DC court says a child born on US soil to one US parent (or even zero us parents) is still a nbc then Obama is eligible for POTUS.

    If the court decides two US citizen parents are necessary as well as being born in the US, then Obama would not be eligible.

    If the jury finds Obama was not born in Hawaii, then the legal issue is simple, he’s not a nbc.

    Whether his parents were married will have no effect on the determination of this issue. Regardless, I see no evidence his parents weren’t married well before he was born and that means under the British Nationality Act of 1948 Obama was a British citizen at birth. Regardless, since his “birth status” was governed by the law of Great Britain due to his father’s British citizenship… then Obama cannot be a “natural” born citizen of the US according to the weight of authority available.]

  39. Leo: Your former cases didn’t rely on whethe BHO was born in the USA. I’m a little concerned that the “red herring” BC issue will not bring college records & dual citizenship into the light.

    [Ed. Another good question.

    My case plead both issues, not just the nbc legal issue. But the BC was ancillary. I have always said that a good lawyer should plead all relevant issues. I am shocked at the attorneys who didn’t include the nbc legal issue and who simply focused on the BC.

    Regardless, the issue has now changed… the issue for a US Attorney or AG is now whether they deem such an action “proper.” That’s the only qualification laid down by SCOTUS. If they determine that a great enough portion of the public, within and without the military, has become agitated that Obama has not produced a genuine BC to any Government authority as is required by all US citizens at one time or another, and that the legal issue as to nbc is legit… then that law officer may begin a quo warranto to have the two main questions resolved:

    1. where was he born?
    2. does his father’s British nationality effect his nbc status at birth?

    It’s not my case anymore. It’s not even a case of whether Obama is eligible. The issue now must turn to whether or not a law officer in DC will be convinced it’s proper and in the best interests of the nation, that a quo warranto settle the title to office of POTUS. Such a law officer may believe 100% that Obama is eligible and he might institute an action in quo warranto anyway in the best interests of Obama as well as the US. I believe Obama should insist a quo warranto be instituted so that he may clear his title by going through authority of law and not private partisan citizens.]

  40. Am I getting this right? You think anything other than the BHO BC is a distraction. I appreciate the need to change the strategy…really I can relate. Can the BC issue in DC Court bring the other docs to light?

    [Ed. I don't see how the other docs are necessary. Was he born in Hawaii? That's the only relevant fact we need examined by trial. If born in US then jump to the legal question. His time in Indonesia as a child, even if he were a citizen there, could not waive his US citizenship. read Perkins v Elg.]

  41. Has BHO replaced the US Attorneys yet? If he hasn’t, You’re timing is perfect.

    [Ed. Excellent point. Nobody would have better standing to challenge Obama's eligibility under the quo warranto statute as an "interested person" than a US attorney fired by Obama. Kind of makes you wonder doesn't it. I don't believe he's remove any US attorneys yet. Hmmm?]

  42. Leo: I’m thinking a Bush-Appointed US Attorney may be more apt to take this on….not sure if politics should play a role, but it may.

  43. Leo,
    If you go the on-line petition route to generate support for getting Holder or Taylor to act, this one is good (and free) – http://www.ipetitions.com/
    I’ve used it before. You can maintain control over the back end yourself.

    Thanks for your insight on quo warranto.

    A logical questions is — How do we avoid a situation like this in the future?When you get some time, I’d like to see you put forth your best solutions. My thought is that state laws need to be strengthened, requiring the Secretary of State of each state to officially review the qualifications of any presidential candidate appearing on that state’s ballot and make a determination of eligibility (and perhaps certify that eligiblity to the State Board of Elections) based upon supporting documentation required to be provided by each candidate (a vault copy of their birth certificate, an affidavit stating they have met residency requirements, and an affidavit from both parents [if living] or from the candidate stating the parents’ citizenship status at the time of the candidate’s birth). If you think this is the best route, I would appreciate you putting forth model language (perhaps starting with how your home state of New Jersey could amend it’s law) that could quietly find it’s way to one or two of the most likely states to get the ball rolling.
    Steve

  44. You wrote: Ed. I don’t see how the other docs are necessary.

    I’m more concerned about college records which could show foreign government support of expensive education for a poor black child from a broken home?

    [Ed. I just don't see how that's relevant. Either he was born in Hawaii or he wasn't. If he wasn't there is no issue at all, he wouldn't be eligible. If he was born in Hawaii, he still shouldn't be eligible, but it's possisble a court may see it another way. These other issues are clouding the important ones. I'm willing to listen to anybody who thinks these other records matter. But so far I don't see why they would. Feel free to explain. I'm listening.]

  45. JP-research Says:

    NOTICE THE NUMBER OF REFERENCES TO HIS CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS:

    Obama vows to cut use of signing statements
    By Michael D. Shear
    Washington Post
    Posted: 03/10/2009

    WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama promised Monday he would rarely impose his own interpretation of legislation by attaching statements when he signs bills, pulling back significantly from the controversial use of the tactic by his predecessor, George W. Bush.

    In a memorandum, Obama also ordered executive branch officials to consult with the attorney general before assuming that hundreds of Bush’s past official statements on legislation remain in force.

    “There is no doubt that the practice of issuing such statements can be abused,” Obama said in the memo. “I will issue signing statements to address constitutional concerns only when it is appropriate to do so as a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities.”

    Presidents have used signing statements to make technical corrections in legislation or to guide government officials about how to enforce laws.

    But the practice became controversial as Bush dramatically increased its use. Critics accused him of using the previously little-known tactic to subvert the intent of Congress, especially on issues of terrorism, torture and domestic surveillance. In one case, for example, Bush asserted in a signing statement that his administration was not bound by a law he signed prohibiting torture of U.S.-held detainees.

    Longtime Bush critics, however, excoriated Obama for failing to put a complete end to the practice. “There should be a clean break with the past on this,” said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union. “The president shouldn’t be asserting — as President Bush did — wholesale objections to entire sections of statutes and claiming some kind of presidential authority to ignore them.”

    Anders said his group appreciates Obama’s pledge to reduce the number of signing statements. But he said the danger remains that, instead of using the statements to provide guidance to government officials, the new president could use them to ignore the will of the legislature.

    American Bar Association President H. Thomas Wells Jr. said Obama has taken “significant steps” but has not gone far enough. “The proof is going to be in the pudding when we see his first presidential signing statement and how many times he uses it,” Wells said.

    Former Bush administration officials said they could detect little difference between Obama’s promise and Bush’s standards for issuing signing statements.

    “This has been a standard practice going back decades. It’s just when President Bush did it, his critics pounced,” said former Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer. “They’re going to do the same thing, whenever they feel like it.”

    Obama pledged to use signing statements sparingly and to be bound by “interpretations of the Constitution that are well founded.” And he promised to restrict such statements by working with members of Congress to fix possible constitutional problems before bills reach his desk.

  46. Leo, you just have to look at this amazing (if true) line from WND: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91345 SCALIA: “You need 4 votes for Obama eligibility case! Orly Taitz got to ask him a question about bringing a Quo Warranto to SCOTUS and Scalia responded by hinting (she says) he wants to hear it, but a conservative judge is voting vs the cases being heard and therefore, “you need four judges to hear it.” I just can’t believe that Scalia would say that to anyone outside of SCOTUS! He would have to recuse himself from hearing the case, wouldn’t he? However, a very, very curious and interesting fact would make tend to make me believe that he made that admission. It is not widely known, but BEFORE obama’s swearing in by Justice Roberts, the usurper and Biden were invited to SCOTUS for meeting to discuss “protocol” of the inauguration as Justice Roberts said. Orly Taitz had her case before SCOTUS at that time and she objected loudly to SCOTUS because the public and the press were shut out. Most important to Taitz, SCOTUS was jeopardizing the hearing of her case by meeting with the DEFENDANT in secret, without her presence in the meeting, while her case was filed with the Court! I don’t know what the legal term for that meeting between the court and defendant only before the trial is, but it stinks to high heaven. BUT HERE IS THE MOST INTERESTING FACT: SCALIA WAS THE ONLY JUSTICE NOT THERE! It looks like he wanted to maintain his integrity as Justice of SCOTUS and he knew that meeting was against all the rules of jurisprudence. Leo, you were justified to denounce the SCOTUS because those eight jahoos corrupted themselves and raped Lady Justice of her virginity! Leo, I am certain now, that you have been inspired by God to bring QW to the District Court of Columbia Attorney General–and NOT to SCOTUS who have been mezmerized by the usurper. Go, Leo, Go! We are praying for the blessings of God upon you and your brilliant legal mind to bring this most necessary suit to bring the usurper down and out of the presidency. I also pray for his conversion and his minions. God bless you Leo!

    [Ed. We need it brought by a law officer. Not me. As for the Orly Scalia shindig, I don't know what to make of that. It just freaks me out and not in a good way.]

  47. Leo, you have made a very good point about the law needing the focus, not obama’s character (or lack thereof). And it is probably good to keep the rudder straight on this issue and not veer off course.

    With that said, however, I think it is good to air out this issue of emotions that you have brought up. I don’t think it is helpful to be so hard on people who actually believe there is a real and present danger in our country with obama moving us rapidly and undeteredly towards socialism. Of course people feel passion about where our country currently is and where it is headed and they need to vent the frustration, anger and fear (not speaking of the litigating attorneys or any plaintiffs here). It’s not just the politics that are fueling peoples’ emotions now; it’s the economy and for so many, it’s their retirement going down the drain.

    [Ed These issues you mention are political and they have no place in the eligibility argument. Your Congress enacts laws as well. I want to stay focused on the eligibility issue. There are many other blogs which discuss your points.]

    I don’t agree with you that it is all about hate at all. I think it is more of what I just stated–frustration, anger and fear (with Congress, SCOTUS, ACORN, the economy, the pork, the lack of real concern for hurting Americans, etc.). Many people who are experiencing those feelings also read the Bible and are wondering if we are in the last days. You’ve also referred to the “cult”, or as some say, the new world order. Even if that were true and we are there, well, those who have read the whole word of God know that He wins. Actually, He won at Calvary.

    So, if people’s frustration, anger and fear (I’m not speaking particularly of Orly here, but everyone who has articulated those feelings in whatever way) really rankle you, perhaps you need to take a step back and understand why they feel that way.

    [Ed I know why they feel that way. It just doesn’t help the issue. We make a difference by education as to this issue and why its important this issue be resolved for all Americans, even Obama supporters and even Obama himself. The hatred can not help us educate anybody who doesn’t already hate Obama.]

    People’s agitation may bother you more than

    [Ed. You are not qualified to say what bother me more. That's not an issue that's relevant. My personal feelings... your personal feelings etc... none of this has any weight on the issue at hand. That issue is simple. Will the US attorney
    or AG see the public interest in clearing title to POTUS? The polarization of opinion is proof that we have a big problem, but the attorneys who are trying to contact Holder and Taylor ought to be doing so from a more legal perspective with no emotions being declared. They will be asking Government officials to do something drastic and they are going to be forced to walk away from ANYBODY raving that their boss is an insane criminal. It's just common sense that cooler head will prevail. Right?]

    obama’s sleight-of-hand tactics, his “audacious” pushing of this country towards the brink of socialism which destroys the human spirit, his incompetence in dealing with foreign leaders, his massive attempts at keeping information sealed that Americans are entitled to know about his eligibility to serve as our President, his intent to further burden society through more taxation, ad nauseum, and people find it hard to respect obama (I am obviously in that boat) and they express those feelings.

    Chilling or repudiating people’s expressions of fear, anger, etc. may be useful in the pursuit of a lawsuit, but you have to know, Leo, that there’s probably thousands or even millions of people by now who are looking at this situation as a house being on fire. And a lot of those people grew up in a time when Germany saw the rise of Hitler and no one did anything to stop the man. We may or may not have a similar situation here (only time will tell), but history does repeat itself and there are people who really believe, “Fool me once shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”

    Bottom line: It is absolutely necessary to pursue the QW with an unemotional and calculated game plan for a successful litigation of the issue. But in the backdrop of the legal pursuit, millions of people are in real and deep pain over the situation we find ourselves and our country in. And it is not hate. It is called anguish.

  48. Leo: You ARE a Great American! You don’t have to say who…but are you selling this to any US Attorney’s now…or just hoping one sees your posts & hears your radio interviews?

    [Ed. I've not been in touch with any US attorneys.]

  49. Legally, I’m not prepared to bind “foreign aid” for BHO’s College education to his eligibility. But hiding college records baffles me.

    [Ed Maybe it’s supposed to baffle you. Maybe that’s why it’s being done. The more irrelevant things you can latch onto, the less focused on what’s really important you become. It also gives the media another “conspiracy theory angle”.

    Keep this in mind:

    whether a fake BC has been perpetrated as a fraud IS a conspiracy theory.

    Whether a British citizen at birth can also be a natural born citizen of the US under the Constitution is NOT a conspiracy theory. It’s a legal question.

    The media tried desperately to make the nbc legal issue part of the conspiracy theory… but it’s not. It’s a question of law. Conspiracies deal with questions of fact.]

  50. from Joseph II’s comment: BUT HERE IS THE MOST INTERESTING FACT: SCALIA WAS THE ONLY JUSTICE NOT THERE

    I believe Joseph is wrong on that. My understanding is that it is ALITO, who was not there. And if I remember correctly from the photo of the “get together”, Scalia was indeed there.

    [ed Good point. You are correct. Pictures here

    http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/president-elect_and_vice_president-elect_visit_the_supreme_court/ ]

  51. [Ed. I've not been in touch with any US attorneys.]

    What can WE do?

    [Ed. I don't know the best course of action. I really don't. I've tried to come up with a plan. I just don't have one yet other than a belief that a strong contingent of retired military people would probably have the best chance of being heard out.]

  52. Leo, most wednesday’s I go to my daughter’s chapel program and I have just returned. When I do, I pick up the Bible and open it and begin reading the two pages of where it opened. I then meditate on what I read and either apply it to myself or the people in my circle. Today, it applies to you. It comes from Solomons Wisdom and started at 8:12. In reference to her, the song God Bless America began playing in my mind.

    [12] When I am silent they will wait for me, (we did)
    and when I speak they will give heed; ( we Are)
    and when I speak at greater length (you do)
    they will put their hands on their mouths. (we are listening)
    [13] Because of her I shall have immortality,
    and leave an everlasting remembrance to those
    who come after me. (there will be no doubt)
    [14] I shall govern peoples,
    and nations will be subject to me; (Think about That!!!!)
    [15] dread monarchs will be afraid of me when they hear of me;
    among the people I shall show myself capable, (No question Here)
    and courageous in war.

    Leo, I let you apply the rest

    The Bible accredits Solomon as the builder of the First Temple in Jerusalem,[2] and portrays him as great in wisdom, wealth, and power, but ultimately as a king whose sin, including idolatry and turning away from God, LEADS THE KINDOM BEING TORN IN TWO during the reign of his son Rehoboam.[3] Solomon is the subject of many other later references and legends.

    [Ed We certainly need some Solomon like person in Government to step up to the plate now and see this issue be heard in court.]

  53. NJ Citizen Says:

    It seems to me that the British Nationality Act of 1948 on the topic of illegitimate births might be interpreted this way: “We (the U.K.) can’t ‘govern’ the status of a child born to a mother who is citizen of another country, and no legally documented father.”

    No?

    [Ed. No. At the time of his birth the British Nationality Act “governed” his status in two ways:

    1. If his parents were married, he is legitimate under the act and he is therefore a citizen of UK at birth. (And I don’t see any credible proof his parents weren’t married in feb 1961 so this is another conspiracy theory we can spend time being distracted on.)

    2. If they weren’t married, the British Nationality Act of 1948 provides for his legitimacy within the act by adding a second factor, a “subsequent” event which happen after he is born – marriage of parents – but this relates to his actual birth. His birth is governed under the act in that British law requires a two step process for his UK Citizenship to take hold

    1. He is born to a British citizen
    2. his parents marry

    You can’t ignore that the British law governs the two step process which begins at his birth.

    Furthermore, when his parents were married the law is retroactive operating as if the parents were married at the time of his birth… and he is said by Britian to be a UK citizen from the time of his birth

    23.—(1) A person born out of wedlock and legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents shall, as from the date of the marriage or of the commencement of this Act, whichever is later, be treated, for the purpose of determining whether he is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or was a British subject immediately before the commencement of this Act, as if he had been born legitimate.

    But for his being born to a British citizen at birth, British citizenship can’t take hold. It’s not relevant whether his parents were married when he was born. Regardless, his parents were married in Feb 1961.]

    The conclusion reached by FactCheck, supposedly an independent fact-checking website and relying upon the possible “myth” that there was a Dunham-Obama marriage, is not necessarily an “admission against interest” controlled by Obama himself.

    The cross-citation of that published conclusion by FightTheSmears “might” be found to be an “admission against interest” by Obama himself, since it was a campaign-affiliated website and, at least in theory, was under Obama’s control or agents acting at his direction. (If campaigns can be said to operate so well … haha.)

    But then again, can one “admit” facts if one doesn’t have absolute proof of such facts?

    [Ed. What didn't he have proof of? You've lost me now.]

  54. Leo.
    It is my understanding that Title 32 (under control of state Governors, or not Federalized) National Guard are not subject to UCMJ. They definitely would have a conflict, as they can be Federalized into title 10 NG for a number of reasons. I think a contingent of Title 32 NG officers would have an imminent need to know whether Obama is indeed qualified to give them Federal Call Up orders, and subject their men to illegal orders.

  55. Leo, my impetuousity in reporting the WND Taitz/Scalia news was deservedly rewarded with mud on my face. I stand corrected thanks to Kathy for the correction: Alito was not in that meeting with obama/biden at SCOTUS, Scalia was. I let my emotions cloud my eyes-on-the-facts of that amazing (if true) public statement by Scalia. If true, then we have every reason to suspect obama’s elegibility to be POTUS at a SCOTUS hearing is Dead On Arrival, never to be resurrected again. We must pray all the more for the QW to be brought to DC court–by retired military personnel???

  56. I just don’t see how that’s relevant. Either he was born in Hawaii or he wasn’t. If he wasn’t there is no issue at all, he wouldn’t be eligible. If he was born in Hawaii, he still shouldn’t be eligible, but it’s possisble a court may see it another way. These other issues are clouding the important ones. I’m willing to listen to anybody who thinks these other records matter. But so far I don’t see why they would. Feel free to explain. I’m listening

    >>>it would prove, and answer your other post above in regard to Barry knowing whether or not he was a NBC, and whether he deliberately defrauded billions of dollars from campaign contributors fully know that he eligible in the first place. Barry can’t have it both ways, sorry. He can’t apply and receive foreign aid as foreign exchange student, hang around with foriegn exchange students in college as if he were one (his Pakistani buddies and trip to Pakistan) and then years later sign certs saying he’s NBC.

    [Ed. Just because somebody accuses you of taking foreign aid does not mean you have to give them your school records. That’s like saying “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Furthermore, even if he did apply for foreign aid as an exchange student, and even if he wasn’t eligible for it but took it wrongfully, none of that is going to effect whether he was a natural born citizen.

    This is the point people need to grasp. HYPOTHETICAL: PERSON A is born in Hawaii. But he’s also raised Kenyan. He lists Kenyan on college applications to get foereign aid even though he knows he’s a US citizen as well (and he would be a US citizen if born in Hawaii, but not necessarily a nbc)… yet he does the wrong thing and manipulates the system to his advantage. Let’s take this hypo one step further and say that applying for such aid is a crime and receiving it is a crime. NONE of these crimes make him ineligible to be POTUS.

    The Constitution only requires three things…

    35 years of age
    14 years resident of US
    natural born citizen

    If a DC District court jury gives a verdict he was born in Hawaii and the Judicial branch decides you don’t need two citizen parents, he’s eligible as a nbc. And that’s why these are the only two issues that matter to the eligibilty issue.

    People are so caught up in every possible ill conceived thing Obama may or may not have done because it stokes their pre-conceived notion as to these core issues. They feel more justified in their hatred and distrust of him, but in reality these other issue are distracting from the legal issues which really do matter. These don’t. They are emotional and they feel like they should matter. But the law is a cold hard mistress.

    Unless he is disputing the number of cases already heard by the SC on the matter. I think it matters, that his college records are disclosed, it furthers the case on alleged damages, alleged fraud, alleged high crimes and misdemeanors.

    MSNBC just came out with an informal poll on Obama, they have him an F. Many people are saying they are not getting what they voted for. Many people would say this if fraud. And if these people want to put their thoughts now into a lawsuit I think that they have a very good position for doing so and demanding that the courts rule on this for once.

    As far as the purpose stated above for bringing forth the case, for the “safety of the nation” , I think that is a little weak IMHO. That is not a real, demonstrated damage, it is hypothetical.

    And as we have seen with BERG , and others, these hypotheticals have been stone walled.

    [Ed. And here's what you don't understand. The US Attorney and the Attorney General don't need standing the way a Phil Berg does or a Leo Donofrio does. The law officers are GRANTED standing which is automatic. SCOTUS has said that these law officers may challenge the public office holder's eligibility if the law officers "deem it proper" in the best interest of the nation.

    If we were talking about plaintiff in a private law suit who will apply as "interested persons" via 16-3503, then you would be correct and standing as to real injury in fact will matter. But all of that is IRRELEVANT is the Us attorney or Attorney General simply deem it proper that they should institute a quo warranto proceeding under 16-3503 "on their own motion". This is why it's so important to get them to understand why the nation needs this.]

    I think a better , or co existing, point is to say to the courts that in addition to the safety concerns by the military people we have literally dozens of litigants throughout the land from all walks of life including military, state legislators, candidates, filing lawsuits. These cases are not going away, and these people and Barry are wasting money – Tax payer money hearing all these lawsuits. Barry is saying, charge them. I say, let’s put an end to all these lawsuits and people wasting money on lawsuits, and people taking other people’s money on this issue and resolve it once and for all not only as matter of public safety but as a matter of financial deprivation or continued finanicial “rip offs”. I dont’ know how to express this perceive damage to innocent or concerned citizens being wrapped around the “eligibility” axle, I am sure there is a legal term for it. Help!

    [Ed All of the above is part of the reason why it's in the best interest of the nation for the quo warranto to be issued. It's not just the safety. I've never said that. I said "best interest of the nation" and what I said encompasses safety and finance and law. You need to convince the law officers who can bring quo warranto of this issue. THEY DONT NEED STANDING. THE STATUTE GRANTS IT TO THEM AUTOMATICALLY.]

  57. BUT HERE IS THE MOST INTERESTING FACT: SCALIA WAS THE ONLY JUSTICE NOT THERE

    >>i believe it was Alito, not Scalia who wasn’t in the closed door meeting.

    Orly is suggesting that her case was never heard (the mysterious on again, off again posting of her case on the internet by the clerk. She is further suggesting, between the lines, that due to Scalia’s “i don’t know, i don’t remember remarks ” that perhaps her case wasn’t heard and the court clerk “faked” it, by extension it is possible the other related cases were allegedly “covered” up. I think there was a mention of criminal charges. Either way I find this hard to believe, dont’ at least one judge “sign off” on these “rule of four” behind closed door judgement meetings? How does anyone know for sure? There may be a bit too much paranoia there? What do you think?

    [Ed. This meeting is so weird and the exchange so bizarre that I just can't buy into Scalia's alleged comments he didn't ever hear of the cases. Not with 100,000 letters coming in on December 4th and 5th and with David Schuster of NBC camped out all morning at SCOTUS giving live reports from the steps if the building. Yeah... Scalis didn't know about the case... NOT.]

  58. ‘Each United States Attorney is the chief federal law enforcement officer of the United States within his or her particular jurisdiction.’

    http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/

    Wouldn’t this limit the U.S. Attorney to the District of Columbia if the jurisdiction has to be the District of Columbia?

    [Ed. I believe it's probably the case. But you never know. Perhaps other US attorney might get in touch with Taylor as well. But yes, I think Taylor is probably the only US attorney who would be recognized by the Court as having the authority. Yet, on this point, the statue is vague.]

  59. Leo,

    As I understand your current approach, there is to be a mass appeal by concerned citizens, including a large group of retired military officers, to AJ Holder and DC US Attorney Taylor to initiate quo warranto. This appeal could be by fax, phone, internet, or mail. However, our voices will not be heard if the chosen communication path is blocked at any point.

    It is not easy to keep records of phone calls and faxes. Phones can be taken off the hook and fax machines can be turned off. Emails can be deleted en masse and sites hacked into.

    The common legal methods of notification are certified mail return receipt requested or hand service by an officer of the law. That way, both parties are aware that the papers have been received by someone at the appropriate address and a record of the delivery has been generated.

    The current procedures for mail anthrax screening serve as an impediment to prompt delivery of mail to government officials in DC. Any mail campaign must be conducted with complete knowledge of the current mail handling procedures for the official mailed. I propose that hand delivery would be desirable.

    Would it be possible for a person to act as an agent for the concerned citizens, accepting delivery of the letters and hand delivering the letters to Mr. Holder and Mr. Taylor?

    For the greatest impact (and publicity), a group of concerned citizens could gather in Washington, each hand delivering their own letters. This would require very orderly and respectful conduct by a large group of people, a long the lines of Martin Luther King’s gathering in Washington. An alternative would be for a representative from each State (or Congressional district) to hand carry letters from their area to the proper offices.

    You haven’t specifically stated it, but the best approach is similar to peaceful nonviolent resistance. That approach will only be successful if the group is large, behaves itself without demonstrating hate, and the group’s efforts are publicized.

    Hope that this helps.

    PS Wouldn’t it be ironic if such a group marches on Washington and is shut out or dispersed with cries of racism? How do we totally remove any “racial” connection to this request?

    [Ed It's going to take an even more direct approach. People will need to stand forward. High powered attorney with clout who the US attorney and the AG might respect and know are probably needed. It's not something to be done with blank letter and petitions. This is going to take something very powerful and true.]

  60. stand up and fight Says:

    Hi Leo!

    Here i go again.When you replied to my latest post you stated there is no way you are going to court with this Quo Warranto issue.What????

    You are the one who has the greatest knowledge of this .If you don’t believe you have a chance of achieving success regarding this issue why educate us about Quo Warranto?

    Do you really believe Eric Holder the man who called Americans cowards and was appointed by Obama is going to do anything about this?

    Do you really believe powerful people give a crap about anyone or anything other than themselves?I don’t know about you Leo, for a person with so much knowledge you sometimes don’t make any sense.I think highly of you buddy but come on were talking about the real world here.You dealt with Scotus.Do you really think Eric Holder or the other guy you mentioned is any better?

    [Ed. I won't judge Eric Holder or Jeffrey Taylor based on what happened with SCOTUS. They deserve a chance to do the right thing. However, you are correct in that I do not believe in my heart that this issue will EVER be heard on the merits. Yet, I believe we need to make our case to Holder and Taylor. If they say no way Jose, I don't believe the DC District Court will grant standing, not unless somebody real big... like a fired US Attorney challenges as an "interested person" under 16-3503. And if they do, they won't be coming to me to be counsel. It would take a very high powered plaintiff to have any chance. No such plaintiff will come to me for help. And I can't imagine the Court granting leave to hear this case based on the claims of plaintiffs with questionable standing. The Court will defer to the law officers. That's my opinion.

    Regardless, I am here to help anybody that wants to try. I'm just not going to be the attorney of record for a suit that doesn't have a chance in hell of winning. Our best bet is to get the message to the right authorities and I will do that to the best of my ability.]

    Hello earth to Leo!

    I have more faith in you than in those people.You can do this Leo.Do this in honor of all those who gave their lives,limbs and minds fighting for this country.They fought for you,now you fight for them.God has given you a great gift.Give God a great gift in return.Use your talent to fight for those who can’t fight for themselves.God needs your help Leo. He is waiting for your answer.

  61. You have probably seen this on Mario’s site:

    Zapem said…

    Here’s another case that contested an elected, sitting Governor due to ineligibility to hold that office.

    [Ed Let me stop you right there. You are discussing a state court case dealing with state court public office. The Federal Statute governs all quo warranto dealing with officers and offices of the United States — which are seated in the District of Columbia. You can take every state court case and throw it out. None of it is relevant to the legal issue we are discussing. Please read the Newman decision by SCOTUS. But since so many seem to have failed to do their homework, I’ll waste some time here once again tell you that SCOTUS has issued its interpretation of the DC Code quo warranto provision. Here’s what they said as to standing of citizens to have officials removed. Newman at 538:

    While every citizen and every taxpayer is interested in the enforcement of law and in having only qualified officers execute the law, such general interest is not a private but a public interest, which is not sufficient to authorize the institution of quo warranto proceedings.

    The mere fact that one is a citizen and taxpayer of the District of Columbia does not make him an interested party who may maintain quo warranto proceedings against the incumbent of an office on the consent of the court, although the law officers of the government refuse such consent.

    An interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the District Code in regard to quo warranto proceedings is one who has an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself whether the office be elective or appointive.

    Unless the right to maintain quo warranto proceedings under the District Code were limited to persons actually and personally interested, every officer attached to the government at Washington would be subject to attack by persons having no claim in the office or interest therein different from that of every other citizen and taxpayer of the United States.

    Forget every state court case which may give you some hope of citizens having standing. Unless the US attorney or the AG will give consent and then the DC Court also grants leave to bring the action, “third persons” aka citizens, have no chance because ordinary citizens are not “interested parties” according to SCOTUS.]

    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

  62. Tim Says:
    March 10, 2009 at 6:45 pm

    I would think you would be looking at Jury Nullification here. Especially after you had people talking about the ramifications of removing the POTUS.

    Would the USSC overrule a jury in this case?

    [Ed. It's a rather cut and dry issue on the fact part of the case. Either he can prove he was born in Hawaii or not. Once that's made official one way or the other then the court can decide the legal issue of nbc. SCOTUS couldn't over turn a jury verdict on the fact issue unless it went against Obama and he could show on appeal that his Constitutional rights were violated. SCOTUS could overturn on the District Court's interpretation of the nbc issue.]

    Leo

    “ The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy. ”

    —John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States

    [Ed. Excellent question. And perhaps I should have said excellent question to others who asked in the same vibe. I'm thinking this one out now.

    John Jay's quote sounds good but it's not exactly applicable to this issue. Of course, the jury may acquit of a crime even though the law says they should convict. Especially where they feel the law is unjust. But this isn't a criminal case. Don't know if that really makes a difference but we should point out that the quo warranto statute is a civil case statute by its very text.

    The jury is not allowed to "interpret" the meaning of Constitutional phrases and decide what Article 2 section 1 Clause 5 means... The Judge will tell them, "It means this... "

    But you raise a good point. I hadn't considered whether the nbc issue would go to the jury. It's kind of freaking me out trying to answer that question. Let me see if I can think it out loud...

    OK, the Govt attorneys bring the quo warranto and request a jury trial. The main factual issue is where he was born. But is it a factual issue for the jury to decide whether he is a natural born citizen? If so, the Court would have to give them a jury instruction and that would be the legal interpretation I discussed. But does he give them the responsibility of determining whether Obama fits into that description? Perhaps. Man, that's a good question.]

    It would seem to me the Jury could ignore the courts definition of NBC and rule however it see fit.

    [Ed. If they did, you’re certainly going to have grounds for appeal and SCOTUS would be making that ultimate decision should they accept cert. But there is a difference here between the cases of jury nullification we’ve discussed and this issue which is an issue of first impression. Usually the jury is passing judgment on a law enacted by statute, and in this case the jury would be passing judgment on the meaning of a Constitutional phrase which has never been decided before under these facts. I don’t think the jury could make that call. That’s my impression. The judicial branch will make that call after asking the jury to determine the facts.

    AND THE LIGHT GOES ON: Ok, it just hit me. We go to the statute and see what it says. 16-3544 “Pleading; Jury trial” says:

    In a quo warranto proceeding, the defendant may demur, plead specially, or plead “not guilty” as the general issue, and the United States or the District of Columbia, as the case may be, may reply as in other actions of a civil character. Issues of fact shall be tried by a jury if either party requests it. Otherwise they shall be determined by the court.

    “Issues of fact shall be tried by the jury…”

    The statute bars any decison about the law going to the jury. The statute only provides for issues of fact. Once all relevant facts are determined, the issue of whether Obama is a nbc is an issue of law and so the jury would not get this issue according to the statute.

    Excellent question, my friend.]

    Does this not make a good argument in this case of going to the USSC directly?

    The jury will be drawn from the DC district. Do you really think this is a smart move?

    [Ed I believe it is the best possible way by which the issue of "where he was born" should be decided. Let him produce the documents to the jury and let them become public record. ]

    If the court sees the NBC like we would like and instructs the jury then…

    If they nullify and ignore the law things happen:

    1. Nothing can be appealed, he stays as POUS but this causes a Constitutional crisis or maybe no one really cares and this sets precedent. We already had the President Chester A. Arthur precedent and this would make it twice. Maybe the new precedent would be one US parent and born in the USA.

    [Ed I disagree. SCOTUS could overturn on the basis of interpreting Article 1 Section 2 Clause 5. But like I said, the legal issue won't go to the jury since the statute doesnt allow it to. This is not a criminal case.]

    2. Congress takes the reins and removes him anyway directly or via impeachment?

    [Ed Please read my entire brief. I've addressed this. Congress can't impeach him other than for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Bribery or Treason. Ineligiblity is none of the above.]

    3. The Military steps in and defends the Constitution?

    [Ed. God forbid. Yoe're talking about civil war and the end of the US.]

    PS: There are only 93 United States Attorneys, but 94 districts as the Guam District Court and Northern Mariana Islands District Court shore one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Attorney_for_the_Districts_of_Guam_and_the_Northern_Mariana_Islands

    [ed. Thank you for the correction.]

  63. Leo, NUmbersUSA has a system that a person can send in a signature via fax or letter to Numbers and they will copy it to the Faxes that we want to send to our reps on the issues of Immigration. Perhaps you could find out what that program is and use it to have signatures transported from a fax to the petitions that might be needed, should the DC Attny not want to take this case on. The person to contact about this would be the owner of the site, Roy Beck and here is his link:

    http://www.numbersusa.com/content/about-us.html

    He might be able to steer you towards a program that might make it easier or more able to coordinate on your end so that we can send you our signatures (or anyone you want to be setupt to receive them) without too much hassle. We could probably also put our addresses into that ability with the signatures, to add veracity and honor to the couant, sort of like a registration process, to make sure that all the signatures are legal and only made once by each person who wants to participate. I know that it works as I have my name in there for when I send faxes and that makes them personalized.

    [Ed It's going to take a more direct approach than that.]

  64. NJ Citizen actually raises a very interesting point about the marriage (or not) of Obama’s parents.

    Obama’s website admits the BNA48 governing, however that isn’t clear proof that it does, in fact, govern. The Section 23 of the BNA you allude to refers to “legitimated” children only and seems to be completely silent (as far as I can see) on illegitimate children.

    This makes me wonder how a bastard child (with reference to birth, not a personal reference) would fit into the issue … could he even not be a citizen of any country since no one seems to claim him? Would he then be (or not be) a “natural born citizen”.

    I think, perhaps that the NJ Citizen observation is deeper than one might suspect on first glance, especially in view of this (most particularly nearly the last couple of paragraphs that say “There is according to the Law he was born under in the British Nationality Act of 1948, never an expiration on British citizenship.”):

    http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2009/01/obamas-british-nationality-act-1948.html

    [Ed There's a problem with this analysis. When Kenya became independent, the British citizenship was cancelled for those native to kenya and their descandants. I looked into this issue in depth. It's normally the case that you can't rid yourself of Britishishness... but it's a fact that as to Kenya, the Brits let them go and they lost their British citizenship. Not all Kenyans though, just those who were native to Kenya and the descdants thereof.]

    I don’t know if that reasoning is valid but it offers pause as does the illegitimacy issue. The Jan 4 blog on the linked site (2nd entry) is also worth digesting and relates to the one linked above.

    [Ed. See my response to his comments. It was a good question but it isn't relevant to the issue for all the reasons I listed in my response.]

  65. Unbamboozleus Says:

    May God grant you universes of patience. You appear to have enough love to be able carry out this monumental task. I think you’re just the cat’s pajamas, Leo.

  66. By the way, there is a photo copy of the DIVORCE PAPERS of Dunham-Obama and little Barry is mentioned in them as a child of the marriage, posted on the PlainsRadio site. I made a copy of them for my files. Also there is a copy of the Obama (nee Dunham)- Soetoro divorce posted there also. Go into the ListenLive and Chat page and there is a link below on that page that will show those (both) sets of divorce papers. They look real and accurate from my perspective, as a document reseracher.

  67. When (if) his college records get released, and it’s shown he was admitted to (oxy) college and/or received federal or state financial aid as a foreign student, that would be illegal and a felony if he was truly a U.S. Citizen. That alone would be an impeachable offense, even if the NBC question remains unresolved at that point. No?

    [Ed Impeachment is generally reserved for crappy acts done while in office.

    http://dictionary.getlegal.com/impeach

    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=impeach

    The Constitution doesn’t say that a President must not have committed any crimes before taking office. It only lists three requirements, 35 years old, 14 years a citizen, natural born citizen. ]

    b.t.w. re:

    “If the jury says Obama was born in Hawaii and the DC court says a child born on US soil to one US parent (or even zero us parents) is still a nbc then Obama is eligible for POTUS. ”

    If a court of law in this country finds that someone born on U.S. soil to Zero U.S. citizen parents is an NBC, that would open the proverbial can of worms as then ‘anchor’ baby’s would be eligible. It would also be a slap in the face to the framers (IMO) because then there would have been zero need for them…in the clause itself, to differentiate NBC and Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. They obviously knew the difference. From what I’ve read, there is literally no other written definition (during that time) to NBC, other than Vattel’s. His definition which we all know clearly states NBC = born in country, to 2 citizen parents, was the single available definition during that time period (mid to late 1700′s).

    [Ed I agree.]

  68. After the Gordon Brown hubub this week, I wrote a short blog on why he would be rude to the Brits. http://starmaker.today.com/2009/03/11/obamas-smackdown-of-gordon-brown/
    Kenyans would be British Overseas citizens and not eligible for residence in Britain. Basically 2nd class citizens.
    some other factors too.

  69. Unbamboozleus Says:

    You did a wonderful presentation on the Joyce Kaufman show today. You and she seemed very simpatico.

    [Ed I really enjoyed that. She was great. Well informed and really let me talk to her audience. I will out the link up to the show as soon as it's available. Thanks for listening.]

    I was especially pleased when she said that they would be posting a link to your blog on their station’s web site. I appreciated her saying several times that she’d been doing a lot of research on the eligibility issue and found yours to be a very sane and rational approach to the entire matter.

    I am beginning to believe that the powers of nature are aligning to facilitate the resolution of this very disturbing question of whether or not we have a valid president in charge of our troubled country.

  70. Ladyhawke Says:

    Leo,

    I just listened to you on the Joyce Kaufman show. Good job!

    I wanted to share with you an illustration I have found effective, to quickly illustrate the NBC issue – especially when confronted with the gentlemen that called in, struggling with discovering he may not be a NBC.

    I have been asking such people to consider what that requirement prevents. I tell them that if Obama is eligible, then so would the son of Osama Bin Laden (or other bad guy) born by an American woman in New York City. They often come to their own conclusion that the Constitution certainly should prevent that.

    All the best!

    [Ed. The issue they seem to get confused about is that Im not saying your parents have to be born in the US, just that in order to be a nbc your parents must have become US citizens by the time you were born.]

  71. The point on NJ Citizen’s comment is that the Obama site stating that BNA48 “governs” is no more definitive than his (putative) BC also presented thereon. He may NOT have been governed by that law if he were an illegitimate child.

    To prove (by law) that he was a legitimate child of the pair in question he would not only need the BC but also documentary proof of the actual marriage between them.

    [Ed. asked and answered in previous comments. it's irrelevant to the issue. The British act "governed" his status because his father was a British citizen. As to the issue of whether his parents were married before he was born, I don't have time for more conspiracy theories. It's Obama who would have to make the argument that his parents were never married before he was born in order to further this argument...and it's irrelevant anyway for all of the reasons previously stated in my answer to NJ citizen. If Obama ever makes this argument, then we'll revisit it. Until then---Snip and tuck. Don't bother bringing it up again. There are many other blogs you can bat this wacky stuff around on. It's not welcome here and either is anything about Frank Marshal. That's just evil.]

  72. betrayal site officer writes this in response to knoxville editorial on robertson’s decision.

    “”There are more than a dozen lawsuits seeking to expel Barack Obama from the White House. And, more plaintiffs continue to come forward as Americans grasp the enormity of the question.
    For example, recent plaintiffs include military members and veterans. Every such person swears to support and defend the Constitution and to obey the commander-in-chief. But, if that commander occupies the position illegally, then those personnel have an affirmative duty (under the Uniform Code of Military Justice) to disobey any order given by an unlawful authority. To my knowledge, it hasn’t happened … yet.

    Although Obama recently increased our troop strength in Afghanistan, he has not yet attempted to start any new war. If he does, and if soldiers disobey, the Manual for Courts-Martial is on their side. (As a former Air Force law-enforcement supervisor, and leader of counter-terrorist teams, I am familiar with the UCMJ provisions and the MCM procedures.) One cannot be punished for disobeying an order if the order was unlawful.””

    Is this guy correct?

    [Ed Only if the trubunal doing the court martial agrees with you. Otherwise you're going to jail... or worse.]

  73. [Ed Wind up warning. :) ]

    I don’t think any Quo Warranto codes and such matter, because Barack Obama was voted by a majority of the people to be U.S. President. It is the U.S. citizens who vote in a President, and regardless of Law, it is the sole discretion of the People to judge Barack worthy, even if he was a terrorist. Haven’t you heard, we live in a Democracy! It would be mean to not let everyone have a fair shot at becoming President.

    You keep on saying that SCOTUS has the ability to decide on such matters as natural born Citizen, but in the end the President is the final determination of the meaning of words. The President is like Webster or Merriam. I highly doubt Barack will write a definition that opposes himself.

    Which brings me to Resolution 511. Many people are arguing that since Barack Obama signed it that he himself was implying he’s not a natural born Citizen because in his own words he says his father was a British subject. Hoooey!

    [Ed What about Foooey and Loooey? Don't discriminate.]

    Haven’t you considered that Barack’s words written in his book were edited by the Publisher. They, the Publishers, probably misinterpreted what Barack was saying. I doubt Barack believes his father was even a Kenyan. It’s not his fault.

    Thank you for enjoying this absurd comment.

  74. Hoping in NH Says:

    Leo, I continue to learn from your great work. Thanks for putting it up for everyone to see (and hopefully learn from). Hopefully it will help guide the appropriate individuals to take the proper legal and Constitutional steps to put an end to this entire eligibility debate.

    You’ve said numerous times that all of the other (hypothetical) claims are distractions from the NBC issue. I agree with you that the NBC issue based upon the undisputed fact of British citizen status at birth is just that, the only issue based upon undisputed facts. But you also continue to go right back to all three requirements listed within the Constitution:

    “The Constitution only requires three things…

    35 years of age
    14 years citizen of US
    natural born citizen”

    You’ve stated in several places that a child could not give up his US citizenship. However, are there not still valid questions concerning B.O.’s citizenship status based upon his college entry status, passport issues, and lack of re-entry records and such that bring enough question regarding his adult citizenship status as to bring the qualification of “14 years citizen of US” into question?

    I guess one related question here is whether his years living essentially as an Indonesian citizen still count as years of his being a US citizen. Or removing B.O. from the picture entirely, is someone living abroad and having dual citizenship still accumulating years toward the 14 year requirement as a US citizen?

    I may be answering my own question here since I presume that the answer to my last question is indeed “yes”. Although this too may be muddied by the fact that Indonesia did not recognize dual citizenship, and thus neither did the US in regard to Indonesian citizens.

    So the only actions that would have possibly ended B.O.’s citizenship would have been his becoming an Indonesian citizen (if your assertion otherwise is incorrect) or any actions taken by himself as an adult. But the latter would have been after he had accumulated 18 (or 21?) years of US citizenship already as a minor, thus satisfying the 14 year requirement. Or does the citizenship issue require some number of years as an adult citizen, or that the only years that count are those when the citizen actually lives within the US? (But I’ve not seen either of these mentioned within anyone’s Constitutional quotes.)

    Finally, if a Quo Warranto action is ultimately brought by the right people in the right court, will all three requirements be reviewed out of course? Or might only the NBC issue be raised as the primary focus? Here, too, I suppose that Quo Warranto requires proof of all three requirements. But I’d hope that the 2nd and 3rd requirements are not glossed over.

    Sorry for yet another “distraction” from the NBC issue, but at least these questions relate back directly to the 3 Constitutional requirements.

  75. What’s your opinion on getting state laws changed to force Secretaries of State to require eligibility documentation from POTUS candidates and SOS certification in order to appear on their ballot? Can you draft some language? You have the best understanding of anyone I know on this. Your help could change the course of history if even one state passes legislation. (Sorry if my previous post on this was too long.)

    [Ed. The laws were already in place. They didn't obey them. Not drafting any legislation.]

  76. Deminimis Says:

    Leo, please note that each US Attorney only has authority within their own district:

    Except as otherwise provided by law, each United States attorney, within his district, shall—
    (1) prosecute for all offenses against the United States;
    (2) prosecute or defend, for the Government, all civil actions, suits or proceedings in which the United States is concerned;

    28 USC § 547

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/547.html


    [Ed I agree. I was just saying the statute is a bit vague on that issue
    … after having a few days to really think about it, i dont believe a court would entertain the motion other than by the DC US att…I am crossing that out of my blog.]

    There is ONE US Attorney for DC — you would be wasting your efforts and wasting the time of the 92 other US Attorneys to ask them to be involved, as they would know immediately that they have no authority outside of their districts.

  77. “An interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the District Code in regard to quo warranto proceedings is one who has an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself whether the office be elective or appointive.” – LD

    Before you go chewing out ZAPEM for not doing their homework, you should have read the previous comments they made, which clearly showed they were talking about Keyes and Nader, interested parties who would be in line for the office.

    [Ed. Before you go chewing me out, read the Newman case at 551. Neither Keyes nor Nader would have standing under the statute. SCOTUS doesn’t say that “any” candidate would be an interested party, SCOTUS says that somebody ousted from the office in question would be an interested party:

    “For in neither case is there any intent to permit the public office to be the subject matter of private litigation at the instance of one who has no interest therein which differs from that of every other member of the public. The claim that this construction makes the statute nugatory cannot be sustained, for the statute, as already pointed out, gives a person who has been unlawfully ousted before his term expired a right, on proof of interest, to the issuance of the writ…”

    Neither Keyes nor Nader had a chance in hell of winning. How about Winnie the Poo? Would Winnie the Poo be an interested party if he ran for POTUS? How about Roger Calero of the Socialist Workers Party? Is he an interested person?

    …the statute, as already pointed out, gives a person who has been unlawfully ousted before his term expired a right, on proof of interest, to the issuance of the writ…

    Furthermore, I don’t recall “chewing Zapem out”. Point me to the post.]

    It was followed up with the case precedent that agreed the party didn’t need the AG if he failed to act. That’s why the case was mentioned, because it happened exactly that way and was something substantial as far as having occurred and how the court handled it.

    You didn’t do YOUR homework that time. That is what was said at Apuzzo’s blog.

    [Ed. Was Alan Keyes ousted from office? Was Nader ousted from office? No. Furthermore, neither was ever going to be elected. Just running for office does not make you an interested party. Read Newman.

    "Shields". ;) ]

  78. Thank you Leo for reading my post about communicating with the AJ and DC US Attorney. Before I wrote it, I noticed your statements that 1) you weren’t going to present the case and that 2) there were many concerned citizens, and that 3) the AJ and/or US Att. should initiate the case. I was trying to visualize how citizens might bring pressure on the AJ and US Att. to initiate proceedings. What I suggested was probably not the first choice option.

    In my post, I was referring to possible hand delivery of letters written by individuals. I am concerned about any and all mailed letters reaching Mr. Holder and Mr. Taylor in a timely manner due to screening requirements. If the letters are not delivered in a timely matter, the citizen’s concerns are not effectively communicated to them and time is wasted all around.

    If another attorney (who Mr. Holder and Mr. Taylor know and respect) presents the quo warranto case to them, (s)he probably wouldn’t do it pro bono. That sounds like lots of money and the hassles of collecting the money. Could you offer an example of an appropriate attorney or how one could be found?

    [Ed. I don't have the answer on this issue.]

    I listened to you on the radio tonight. Thank you for giving your time to get this Constitutional question resolved. The issue follows you around like a shadow once you understand the implications. After there is legal ruling on it, we can all go back to what we want to do and need to do.

    Thank you also for your patience with readers who are not totally fluent in legalese and legal custom/culture.

  79. Basically I applaud your tenacity and willingness to remain focused on legal and constitutional issues. However, the truth of the matter is that we are stuck with this government and the only way to change it is to throw all the bums out at the next opportunity. However, the chances of that are about as likely as finding a truly honest member of any branch of the government willing to do a patriots job. We the people should not have to even entertain any of these questions if only our leaders and especially the so-called President would simply step forward and present the public documents and record that would put this issue to bed. Leaders who are willing to tear the nation apart because of an unwillingness to do the right thing hold the people in contempt, and we all know where that eventually leads.

  80. You’re not getting my point. I’ll be specific. The Boyd case should be included because it shows where an interest was had in the position whereas in Newman there wasn’t.

    [Ed. This is a legal concept many don’t seem to grasp. So I’ll take some time here to explain in detail exactly why the state court decisons are not relevant. The state court decisions are based upon state court criteria for the standing requirements. SCOTUS in Newman recognized that the various jurisdictions have different standards as to who is an “interested person”. SCOTUS in Newman at 548-549 discusses this as follows:

    “As pointed out in the carefully prepared opinion of the majority of the Court of Appeals of the District, there is much conflict as to the meaning of the phrase “interested person” in this class of cases. At first reading, the conflict seems irreconcilable. But, upon examination, it will appear that the difference is often due to a difference in the public policy and statutes of the respective states. In some, the writ issues only at the request of the government’s law officers; in others, at the instance of a person claiming the office; in others, at the request of a person claiming the office or interested therein; in others, at the instance of a person interested; in others, at the request of any person who can secure the consent of the court, and in five or six others, the legislature has thrown open the door and permitted any person who desires to do so to use the writ. This is true of the acts underlying some of the decisions relied on by the relator, Frizzell.

    For example, the English cases are based on the statute of 9th Anne, c. 20, which, in terms, related to suits against those “who unlawfully exercise an office within cities, towns and boroughs.” It expressly authorized the courts to permit informations in the nature of quo warranto “at the relation of any person . . . desiring to sue or prosecute the same.” Some of the other decisions cited are from states where the statute provides that the proceedings might be instituted at the relation of “any person desiring to present the same;” “upon the complaint of any private party;” “upon the relation of any person desiring to sue or prosecute the same.”

    There you have it. SCOTUS recognized that various other courts had taken various approaches to decide who was an “interested person”. But SCOTUS – as to the District of Columbia quo warranto statute – decided to REJECT those more inclusive definitions of “interested persons”. Here’s what they said in doing so:

    “The act of Congress of force in the District, instead of being limited to municipal officers, applies to any office, “civil or military,” and differs from those in any of these states. It specially differs from those which treat the writ as being available to any person. The Code provides that a “third person” — the equivalent of “any person” — may institute the proceedings only after he had secured the consent of the law officers and the court. It makes a distinction between a “third person” and an “interested person,” and provides that, if the Attorney General refuses to give his consent to the latter, such “interested person” may secure the right to use the name of the government by satisfying the Supreme Court of the District that his reasons for applying therefore are sufficient in law.

    Frizzell applied to the Attorney General for permission to institute the proceedings. Failing to secure that consent, he then applied to the Supreme Court, claiming that the fact that he was a citizen and a taxpayer made him an “interested person,” entitled to the use of the writ. But such a construction would practically nullify the requirement to obtain the consent of the Attorney General and the District Attorney. For, if being a citizen and a taxpayer was sufficient to warrant the court in giving the consent, it was useless to require an application to be first made to the Attorney General, because practically every litigant would have the qualification of citizenship, and many would have that of being a property owner.

    7. Considering the ancient policy of the law and the restrictions imposed by the language of the Code, it is evident that, in passing this statute, Congress used the

    Page 238 U. S. 550

    words “third person” in the sense of “any person,” and the phrase “person interested” in the sense in which it so often occurs in the law, prohibiting a judge from presiding in a case in which he is interested; preventing a juror from sitting in a case in which he is interested, and permitting interested persons to institute quo warranto proceedings. In the illustrations suggested, the interest which a judge had as a member of the public would not disqualify him from sitting in a case of great public importance and in which the community at large was concerned. The interest which disqualifies a juror from serving, as well as the interest which would authorize this plaintiff to sue, must be some personal and direct interest in the subject of the litigation. The same definition has often been given in quo warranto cases. The interest which will justify such a proceeding by a private individual must be more than that of another taxpayer. It must be “an interest in the office itself, and must be peculiar to the applicant.” Demarest v. Wickham, 63 N.Y. 320; Commonwealth ex Rel. McLaughlin v. Cluley, 56 Pa.St. 270; State v. Taylor, 208 Mo. 442; Robinson v. Jones, 14 Fla. 256; In re Stein, 13 Neb. 529; State ex Rel. Depue v. Matthews, 44 W.Va. 372, 384; Com. ex Rel. Butterfield v. McCarter, 98 Pa.St. 607; State v. Boal, 46 Mo. 528; Brown v. Alderman, 82 Vt. 529; Mills v. State, 2 Wash. 572; Antrim v. Reardon, 161 Ind. 250; Harrison v. Greaves, 58 Miss. 455; Andrews v. State, 69 Miss. 740(3), 746; Tontray v. Budge, 14 Idaho, 639; Hudson v. Conklin, 77 Kan. 764; Vrooman v. Michie, 69 Mich. 47; Dakota v. Hauxhurst, 3 Dak. 205.

    The language of the Code, supported by the history and policy of the law, sustains the proposition that one who has no interest except that which is common to every other member of the public is not entitled to use the name of the government in quo warranto proceedings.”

    SCOTUS above is making their policy argument for issuing their strict intepretation of “interested persons”. Let’s give them a bit more space. SCOTUS went on to say:

    “For if the allegations in such a suit by a private citizen set out any cause of action at all, it shows on its face that it was a cause of action belonging to the whole body of the public, and which therefore should be prosecuted by the public representative.

    The rule is the same regardless whether the office is elective or appointive. For in neither case is there any intent to permit the public office to be the subject matter of private litigation at the instance of one who has no interest therein which differs from that of every other member of the public. The claim that this construction makes the statute nugatory cannot be sustained, for the statute, as already pointed out, gives a person who has been unlawfully ousted before his term expired a right, on proof of interest, to the issuance of the writ, and there might be cases under the civil service law in which the relator would have an interest and therefore a right to be heard.”]


    From Boyd: “The case was stated by the Court as follows:

    On the 13th of January, A.D. 1891, leave was granted to John M. Thayer, by the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska, to file an information against James E. Boyd to establish the relator’s right to the office of governor of that state and to oust the respondent therefrom.”

    John Thayer was the interested party claiming he had the right to that office and not Boyd. The court agreed with him despite Boyd’s lawyers claiming he had no standing. It’s a quo warranto case. It definitely shows a contrast in judicial decisions.

    Here’s the link to it: http://supreme.justia.com/us/143/135/case.html

    Of course I liked it because it goes together with Gallatin and Shields. ;)

    I’m just saying, you might want to take another look. I thought you were telling them to do THEIR homework when you replied to KJ, who I don’t recognize from that group, “But since so many seem to have failed to do their homework”.


    [Ed. I'm sorry if that seemed to be chewing people out, but it's true as well. A thorough reading of Newman EXPLAINS exactly why these state court decisions like Boyd are not relevant. Besides the fact that they have no force of law as to precedent controlling SCOTUS, it's obvious from reading Newman that SCOTUS acknowledged and considered all view points, other quo warranto state statutes and cases etc... and only after doing so did they make their decision in Newman issuing the very strict standing requirements. I'm sure, once you read Newman all the way through a few times, you and everyone else will understand this point. Alas, my comment about doing homework. ]

    The state case referenced is talking about a state case under quo warranto and simply showing how they handled it. The Newman case is out of D.C. in 1915, but also before the Federal statute. Boyd’s case is out of Nebraska in 1892. Not so far apart and pretty close. Plus, interestingly enough, both of these cases are cited together in the SCOTUS Digest of Decisions. Check it out. The only two cases cited for quo warranto together in that digest:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=2f07AAAAIAAJ&pg=PT552&lpg=PT552&dq=Newman+v.+United+States,+Boyd+v.+Nebraska&source=bl&ots=2F4hDlCh1r&sig=yYhl6SdoxAe6Mfs_a9eI3l7Karg&hl=en&ei=44W4SY-TIsyatwef-Z2gBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

  81. I just gotta say this, but even with the very good and frequently articulated argument that obama’s real issue lies in his British subject status at birth, I deeply believe that along with that issue, there really is a valid question as to where he was born (even though that is not supposed to matter). I also think that too much credit is given to obama’s team of lawyers and the supposition that their ‘supposed strategy’ is to allow the BC issue to deflect from the real issue of obama’s British subject birth status.

    I think obama and the whole bunch of his ‘defense team’ were arrogant enough to think the phony BC they posted on obama’s campaign site would satisfy the bulk of the ignorant masses, and expected the issue to be swallowed up in the wake of the adoration of the people’s messiah.

    Since there were some pretty astute lawyers who were NOT asleep at the switch, but who were intent on litigating the issue to see if obama really could satisfy the three Constitutional requirements to be POTUS, that put the obama machine on full alert and attack mode.

    [Ed. There is no Constitutional requirement that he show a birth certificate. It's important to keep that in mind. We live with the Constitution.]

    So, yeah, I think there really IS a valid reason to press for BC and college documents to verify his birthplace, even if the British subject is the main point. And here’s why I think his birthplace, while not the preeminent issue, is still an issue–it’s because there are several lawsuits which are bringing up BOTH the British subject and the birthplace question. So I don’t see how obama would be using the birthplace issue as a red herring.

    [Ed. My case in NJ wasn't filed until late October. It was the first law suit which "specifically" raised the issue of whether his British nationality at birth destroyed his nbc status. That smokescreen worked wonders for almost the entire POTUS election campaign cycle prior to my suit being filed. Since that time, there are many law suits alleging the nbc legal issue, and had the issue arose in 2006 things might have been different. But up until about 10 days before the election, the big green COLB smokescreen did its job to perfection.]

    Seems to me it’d only work if the birthplace/BC were the only issue being addressed in the lawsuits.

    Well, we’ll just have to wait and see how this gets settled. But I really don’t believe that obama would go to all the trouble and expense of sealing all his personal records unless he really has something to hide. We already know and he admitted to his British nationality. That issue will not go away, so trying to throw lawyers off his trail with a red herring in the BC issue would really be stupid and a wasted effort.

    [Ed. But it worked for a long time. So it wasn't so stupid. Obama was on the verge of victory in late Ocotober when the issue first came up in my case.]

    No, I do not ascribe any brilliance to obama or his gang. I think they are going full bore into damage control and are trying to just keep the lid on info obama doesn’t want us to know about the place of his birth. JMHO!

    [Ed. Not crediting them with brilliance is not smart. He won the election. he sits in the White House. With all this going on, he made it there. And that took some serious intelligence. JMHO!]

  82. Would the ‘THE GRAND JURY’ with a presentment (a formal presentation of information to a court, esp. by a sworn jury regarding an offense or other matter.) have standing as a third party (interested persons)?

    “This miraculous quote says it all, “…the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.” The Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives rise to a FOURTH BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand jurors.”
    Leo Donofrio – Antonin Scalia (Inner Quote)

    [ed. No. Such a grand jury would not be an interested person.]

  83. Leo, keep up the good work. We who are silent followers of your work still appreciate all you are doing. Let us know when to jump in the fray.

    The fact that you are still trying to inform and help, not hurt, any military member who wishes to do something speaks volumes. That alone makes you a patriot in my book. Trust me on this, there is a vast rumbling out there that will explode if something isn’t done – constitutionally. YOU seem to be the only one doing it…

    fwiw: I know of 83 retired military Colonels who won a class action suit against being RIF’d in the US Court of Appeals, in 1997. (my former commander was one of them) The issue of challenging who had standing to RIF them only came up tangently unlike in the ANDRADE case, because the Colonels’ issue before the court was based on reverse-discrimination. (they won) Still, would they be the type of “retired military officers” that you are talking about to get the attention of the Atty Gen or US Atty on “behalf” of the active duty military? The court decision is here:

    http://www.bpsrss.net/pocats.html

    …and on behalf of, did you mean like as a Friend Of Court? How would that work?

    God bless and God speed. ;) reeko

    [Ed Absolutely. Please put any of them in touch with me leo_donofrio2000 at yahoo]

  84. I heard Obama wants statehood for the District of Columbia. Could this be an effort to derail Quo Warranto?

    Best of luck with your Quo Warranto. You are a true patriot Leo.

    [Ed. Interesting theory.]

  85. NJ Citizen Says:

    Recapitulating from above, with comments added in caps in order to avoid boldfacing:

    It seems to me that the British Nationality Act of 1948 on the topic of illegitimate births might be interpreted this way: “We (the U.K.) can’t ‘govern’ the status of a child born to a mother who is citizen of another country, and no legally documented father.”

    [Ed Since when was Barack Obama Sr. not legally documented? Is this yet another conspiracy theory? The BNA of 1948 states that Barack Obama Sr. would be a citizen of Great Britain.]

    No?

    [Ed. No. At the time of his birth the British Nationality Act "governed" his status in two ways:

    1. If his parents were married, he is legitimate under the act and he is therefore a citizen of UK at birth. (And I don't see any credible proof his parents weren't married in feb 1961 so this is another conspiracy theory we can spend time being distracted on.)]

    [Ed. Don't use all caps again. I had to retype all of this because you did. Just use regular type like everybody else.]

    It is hard to prove a “negative” (e.g., the lack of a marriage legally recognized at its putative originating date) Except by the absence of a “Positive” (a marriage certificate bearing that date). As an attorney myself, looking at these cases, and debating whether to undertake any personal involvement, I examined all possible fact/law areas for their potential to give rise to those lamentable “Ha! Gotcha” Moments Which Might create a valide claim by Obama to a finding that he enjoyed eligibility as “nbc”.

    [Ed. This is the final post I'm going to allow about whether Obama's parents were married. If Barack Obama ever resorts to claiming his parents were never married in order cause a "Ha! Gotcha moment" then we can revisit this. I think it's a BS conspiracy theory. And I will not let my blog get sidetracked with it. You have an invitation to raise it again if Obama raises it as a defense in future litigation. Should it ever come to Obama having to resort to a "smear" (ie he was not a legitimate child) to defend his eligibility, it would signal he was in very dangerous proximity to being ousted. Should that happen, we can discuss this conspiracy theory. Otherwise, move on.]

    I kept coming back to the apparently non-existent marriage certificate.

    While someone not familiar with, and adept at, research directed at producing biographical facts might have failed to trace a marriage certificate, it was puzzling that the resources of Time Magazine

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1729524-3,00.html


    [Ed. My experience with the main stream media is that they are lame researchers or they dont even bother. The incredible lack of fact checking reported on my NJ case and Cort Wrotnowski's case forced me to correct multiple main stream media reports. The reporting and fact checking was dismal. This proves nothing.]

    and of a biographer a publishing contract, both ran up against the same problem that less well-financed-financed (and amateur) investigators did. Maui reported itself unable to locate a marriage license.

    [Ed. And what does that prove? That a civil servant didn't know how to do their job? That they were told not to do their job as to Obama inquiries? Or that a marriage license doesn't exist? More conspiracy theories. Yadda yadda yadda. Sexy salacious conspiracy theories. Not here. ]

    2. If they weren’t married, the British Nationality Act of 1948 provides for his legitimacy within the act by adding a second factor, a “subsequent” event which happen after he is born – marriage of parents – but this relates to his actual birth. His birth is governed under the act in that British law requires a two step process for his UK Citizenship to take hold

    1. He is born to a British citizen
    2. his parents marry

    You can’t ignore that the British law governs the two step process which begins at his birth.

    Furthermore, when his parents were married the law is retroactive operating as if the parents were married at the time of his birth… and he is said by Britian to be a UK citizen from the time of his birth

    23.—(1) A person born out of wedlock and legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents shall, as from the date of the marriage or of the commencement of this Act, whichever is later, be treated, for the purpose of determining whether he is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or was a British subject immediately before the commencement of this Act, as if he had been born legitimate.

    But for his being born to a British citizen at birth, British citizenship can’t take hold. It’s not relevant whether his parents were married when he was born. Regardless, his parents were married in Feb 1961.]

    THE STATUS “AT BIRTH” WAS SOMETHING YOU POINTED TO IN CONNECTION WITH McCAIN AND OBAMA, JUST AS PROF. CHIN POINTED (IN MORE PARTISAN FASHION) TO McCAIN’S STATUS AT BIRTH. IN THE LATTER CASE, IT WAS THE PASSAGE OF A LAW IN 1937 WHICH MADE AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP RETROACTIVELY APPLICABLE TO 1904 FOR OFFSPRING OF AMERICAN CITIZENS BORN IN CERTAIN “ORPHANED” AREAS LIKE THE PANAMA CANAL ZONE, NOT FULLY UNDER U.S. JURISDICTION, THAT PROF. CHIN SINGLED OUT AS COMING “11 MONTHS TOO LATE” TO AID McCAIN’S STATUS. (CHIN WROTE HIS ARTICLE WHILE STILL UNDER THE FALSE IMPRESSION, CREATED BY McCAIN, THAT BIRTH HAD OCCURRED ON THE MILITARY BASE.)

    [Ed. You fail to grasp the major difference in each instance and as to the date each law was enacted. The British Nationality Act of 1948 was enacted 13 years BEFORE Obama was born. The 1937 Panama Canal Zone birth law was enacted AFTER McCain was born.

    The BNA of 1948 controlled Obama's birth status at the time Obama was born.

    The 1937 law did NOT control McCain's status at the time McCain was born. BIG DIFFERENCE.]

    snip… too many caps. too much conspiracy theory. when and if Obama ever resorts to calling himself an illegitimate child by changing the entire facts of his life history which he himself has told the world is true… ie that his parents were married in Feb 1961… then I’ll give you all the space you want. But this isn’t a tabloid.]

  86. Leo,
    In my opinion SCOTUS is wrong in their interpretion of the meaning of “third person” vs “interested person”.

    16-3502 states:

    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.

    16-3503 states:

    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.

    16-3503 is clearly referring to “proceedings requested by a third person” in 16-3502. Therefore the meaning of “person interested” and “interested person” in 16-3503 only has meaning if they are interpreted as follows: “said third person”.

    As in:
    “If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of SAID THIRD PERSON, THEN SAID THIRD PERSON may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued.”

    If “third person’ means “any person” and if I were to request such a proceeding under 16-3502 and if the AG or US Atty refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on my behalf, then 16-3503 only has meaning if it refers back to the proceeding as requested by ME.

    16-3503 does not provide an additional method of initiating a quo warranto proceeding for an additional class of persons, it provides ME recourse to be heard if the AG and the US Atty refuse to institute a quo warranto proceeding on my behalf.

    “Interested person” may have whatever meaning SCOTUS wants it to have anywhere else in law. However, 16-3503 clearly refers to 16-3502. Therefore, in 16-3503 “person interested” and “interested person” must refer back to the “third person” from 16-3502. Any other meaning ascribed to “interested person” in 16-3503 would simply be hog wash.

    [Ed. I strongly disagree with you. Had Congress wanted the statute to work the way you say, then Congress would have said "third person" in both 3502 and 3503. They didn't, they said third person in 3502 and in 3503 they wrote "interested person". "Interested persons" are subset of "third persons" 3502 and 3503 are different sections of the law. SCOTUS recognized this correctly. Also understand that SCOTUS interpreted the statute in 1915 and since that time Congress has had 94 years to rewrite the statute in light of the holding in Newman if they so chose. In 1963 Congress modified the statute to express that it applies to all officers of the UNited States, but they didn't change wording as to "interested persons" in light of SCOTUS in Newman. By not changing the statute in that regard, they essentially back up the SCOTUS interpretation.]

  87. Seizethecarp Says:

    For the jury you said “The main factual issue is where he was born” and that the legal interpretation of nbc could only be decided by the court. Yet doesn’t the interpretation of nbc require resolution of numerous other factual issues beyond merely where he was born such as identity, marriage and citizenship status of parents? Would those additional nbc factual issues also need to be put to the jury even though the ultimate ruling on meaning of nbc would be reserved to the court?

    [Ed. Yes. But the main issue of fact is where he was born. All the other facts would come out as well. ]

  88. As to your ‘Correction struck out’…….this!

    “On September 1, 2001, Fitzgerald was nominated for the position of U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois on the recommendation of U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald (no relation), a Republican from Illinois. On October 24, 2001, the nomination was confirmed by the Senate.”

    and

    “On December 30, 2003, after then-Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself from the CIA leak grand jury investigation of the Plame affair due to conflicts of interest, Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey, acting as Attorney General in Ashcroft’s place, appointed Fitzgerald to the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel in charge of the investigation.”

    “On October 28, 2005, Fitzgerald brought an indictment for 5 counts of false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice against Lewis “Scooter” Libby, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Fitzgerald

    The Scooter Libby case was brought to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Patrick Fitzgerald was Special Counsel for the Scooter Libby case and he is still in Illinois!

    Is it possible?

    Attorney General Eric Holder may very well recuse himself as to conflicts of interest (close to President, appointed by President, political appearance, etc.) and a U.S. attorney could be appointed as Special Counsel.

    or vice versa and is it possible?

    A U.S. attorney (as for the well being of the nation) may institute a proceeding being granted Special Counsel after recusal by Attorney General Eric Holder as to conflicts of interest (close to President, appointed by President, political appearance, etc.) and as for the well being of the nation (of cowards).

    and for fun,

    “… The truth is the engine of our judicial system. If you compromise the truth, the whole process is lost . . . if we were to walk away from this, we might as well hand in our jobs.” Patrick Fitzgerald

  89. Mr. Donofrio,

    I wanted to commend you for your renewed enthusiasm in this effort for redress. I live in a world of morale and purpose to propel our fellow citizen to perform unpleasant or dangerous chores. Perhaps you have no idea as to the influence you have on those that wonder as to the hope of a constitutionally premised republican future. I think you do know and the weight, at times, is oppressive. We have a couple of sayings in the military, “false motivation is better than no motivation” and “act as if it’s important until you see that it is”. You are doing well and it is appreciated.

    A couple of points…
    1. I think you are on the right track about the utilization of RETIRED senior officers to voice, for those that have no voice (active military), the importance of a clear and unambiguous chain of command in relation to the “lawful order”. Who better to explain such to the civilian authority than retired generals and colonels (and sergeant majors)? Dr. Taitz has the corner on this vein if she would only place mor emphasis on protecting her active duty plaintiffs.
    2. Thank you for examining in depth the QW approach for redress. No other litigator has provided the analysis and fundementals as to the proper course of action necessary to please the constitution and the courts. Folks in the military understand the hard right over the easy wrong. Some of us wonder if some litigators have chosen paths that are doomed to fail due to ignorance of viable due process, lack of faith in some government entities (i.e. AGs, DC district court, etc.), and a general inertial stubborness that has precluded certain opportunities.

    Anyway, thanks.

    SFC Noz

  90. Leo,

    Without question the NBC issue must be resolved or it will continue to haunt us. SCOTUS or some court needs to interpret the Constitution and give the country a legal definition of NBC. I’m thinking specifically of Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, a rising star in the Republican party and a possible candidate for POTUS in the future.

    He undoubtedly was born in the US however, his parents were citizens of India and only in the US for one month before the birth of their son. They could not have obtained naturalization so quickly, so here we go again. I don’t believe Jindal is a NBC but then again I don’t believe Obama is either and look how that’s turned out.

    I’m also not convinced that the NBC provision in the Constitution is needed any longer. It served us well during the infancy of our Republic but perhaps it’s time for a Constitutional amendment to remove it. We have many talented people in our government who were not born in the US who are prohibited from serving as POTUS yet might make great presidents.

    Just a thought.

    Thank you for all of your hard work.

    Thomas

    [Ed. Talent is one thing, two generations of attachment to this country is another. It has nothing to do with talent. The Framers wanted the Commander In Chief to have two been the product of two generations of citizenship. This makes alot of sense. I don't buy the "talented" argument. There can only be one President at a time. And there are always millions of possible eligible candidates who are nbc. Talented? Talented politician? Anybody who loves this country and actually respects the Constitution is more "talented" than any politician I've seen in my lifetime.

    Enemies of this nation would appreciate us doing away with the nbc requirement because it would be easier to infiltrate the highest office with persons and ideologies alien to the framers intent and to what this country stands for as a republic. I couldn't possibly disagree with anything more than what you have written above.]

  91. I just replied to an e-mail that I received. It was an e-mail petiton on Social Security. There were about 50 e-mail addresses that it was sent to. I clicked reply all and then added the below comment at the top and put it in red and increased the size. If you want to get the word out, when someone sends you this type of e-mail, as a suggestion take my lead.

    AND PLEASE VISIT THIS WEBSITE FOR FURTHER ACTION.http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

    The outcome of this action may determine if anything Obama has signed is Legal

    and Binding under the Constitution of The United States.

  92. Leo,

    I have followed you from the begining and you have thought us that read to use our imagination. So here is my thoughts.

    Our forefathers gave us the federal grand jury as a means to keep the goverment officals in line (checks and balances)> If one person on a f g j understands how to use the power instilled in them, the power as an investigative body means they can investigate anyone they think is has broken a law. the investigation then leads to an indictment . as to who they would indict would be after the findings. they are sworn to secrecy for this reason also. That is the intent of the framers so no person or bady can run and hide from the laws of our country. that is the power of presentments. If they investigate and find reason to give the information to the congress to hold hearings and the congress does not then the congress can be indicted for not doing so. If congress fails to due thier legal responsibilty they them self could be invistigated and indicted by the federal grand jury. The investigated power of the F G J is what was given to us by the way of forefathers with unlimited powers to investigate any thing we choose too as lond as F G J has reason to suspect illegal activity by any person and any goverment misdoing in any district by the federal goverment ruling or judgement covers and would allow any F G J in any district the reason to invistigate any of these unknown actions and known actions on the part of preident,the RNC,the DNC, or congress. So in thier investigative powers lies the means to find cause to have standing or not by several means and to who would have to deal with thier (F G J ) findings.

    The investigative powers is where the frammers gave us the real power to hold the courts,congress,and the USSC feet to the fire. That is why the FRCP has tried to hide the presentments issue. they know what power is there in presentments.

    The F G J has the power to obtain any information by any means they choose to (all legal ) and any records they so deem need in thier investigation and no courts can stop the investigative powers of the F G J as lond as they choose to investigate (up to three years I think)

    Please respond and correct me If I’m wrong. The frammers expeccted the people of the USA to pay more attention to our elected crooks.

    [Ed I agree with you... the problem is getting law enforcement to enforce the FGJ presentments and getting the courts to uphold them on appeal should they ever get to a trial... but, you have to start somewhere if you want to clean up a mess and last time I checked, the 5th amendment still allows for presentments... so, citizens need to educate themselves and their neighbors and start testing the Constitution when called to GJ duty. Have it folks. It's your branch of Government. Scalia said so himself.]

    Thanks for playing a major role in shaking Americans awake , and to the power we have if we will get involved in what is going on around us.

    Thanks,
    Richard

  93. I think Lynn did a great job with this logical analysis.

    http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter146.htm

    Leo,

    From what I read so far the focus is on legal remedies US citizens have to determine eligibility.

    Are there legal remedies for the international community (standing?) to cause the AG to determine presidential eligibility before negotiating or entering into agreements “in good faith” with the Obama administration? Given current events in Gaza, NK, Iran, Russia and Israel it would appear at least those countries have “a need to know” regarding Obama’s eligibility as soon as possible.

    [Ed. Absolutely not. God forbid.]

  94. Thomas’s discussion of Bobby Jindal prompted two thoughts.

    1. The natural born citizenship requirement for President is what I call a demarcation criterion. A demarcation criterion is something that attempts to establish a dividing line between two classes. We have a number of demarcation criteria already established in the law: the age at which someone can get a driver’s license, can vote, or legally drink.

    I would argue that there is no such thing as a perfect demarcation criterion. For example, consider a legal driving age of 16. No doubt there is a 14 year old who would make a more responsible driver than some 18 year olds. And no doubt there is a person who is not a natural born citizen who would make a better President than someone who is a natural born citizen. The reverse is true as well. Just because a person is an NBC does not automatically make that person more loyal to the U.S.

    Because the goal of the criterion is important enough, we are willing to accept the fact that among the excluded there are exceptions to that criterion. The goal that the we choose a President who will be loyal to the U.S. and exclude those who would do the U.S harm is that very important goal.

    2. Bobby Jindal is being touted as a future Presidential candidate. Since he has a personal stake in the matter, would it make sense to ask him to write a letter to the Attorney General or U.S. Attorney to clarify the meaning of natural born citizen? This would certainly reveal him to be one who is interested in following the Constitution, and show him to be a man of unquestionable integrity.

    [ED The US Attorney has no authority to make that decision. Only the judicial branch can interpret what the words "natural born citzen" mean.]

    And it would remove any doubts about his eligibility, should he choose to run. We don’t need another election cycle like this one.

    [Ed it wouldn't remove any doubts that I have. ]

  95. phil stone Says:

    leo – my lineage goes back to a farmer with my name in essex county england in 1302 – in 1635 simon and family came to watertown mass on the ship increase – they also were farmers and worked hard and prospered and were members of the community – justice harlan stone was one of their descendants – I joined the usmc in the early 50′s and served with some of the hero’s who fought ww2 in the south pacific – I try to live by my usmc enlistment oath – as a civilian I have worked many years in the defense of our country and it bothers me that we invite people to come to this country and then they turn into rabid left wing liberals and expect me to pay their bills – I think I have a good understanding of the phrase natural born citizen but wish it added another generation to it – we need to support and enforce our constitution and not change it

  96. Leo, you said in regard to my sentiment about obama and his legal team’s actions to protect him: [Ed. Not crediting them with brilliance is not smart. He won the election. he sits in the White House. With all this going on, he made it there. And that took some serious intelligence. JMHO!]

    I guess I am more cynical than you. I believe it was cunning strategy (including registering dead and fictional persons by the ACORN machine), euphoric-driven people who believed the Hope and Change hype, the weariness of the Iraq war and the belief by many people that George Bush was the incarnation of evil and the cause of all this country’s and the world’s problems, the expectation of largess from an obama administration, and let’s not forget the hideous and false sense of white guilt over slavery, and the perfect storm of all that put together is what I believe propelled obama into the WH. Not the “brilliance” of his political and legal teams.

    I give credit where credit is due. But I will not credit what I see to be a coup d’etat of sorts that was brought about by cunning and deception to be “brilliant”, when the credit for the success was likely driven by the perfect storm of all the actions stated above.

    [ed. I suppose I'm emotionally detached from it. They won and they were smart about it. Cunning too. ]

  97. Leo, obviously posting this is at your discretion but I have been searching constitutional lawyers. I have been sending e-mails with a short note asking them to review your brief. I have since stopped. Should I be doing this? Just tryin to get the word out and get some more real thinkers here. I sent one to Tully and in his, I basically said that I know he has been dismissive on the issue in the past but here we are 5 months later still discussing it. I asked him to review your blog and asked him to endorse this action so this can be settled for once and for all.

    [Ed. You are free to contact anybody with info from this blog. Who you contact is up to you. Thank you for having such confidence in the work.]

  98. Seizethecarp Says:

    How does the British Nationality Act of 1948, and Obama Sr’s citizenship under it controlling Obama’s dual citizenship as you assert, come before the court in a quo warranto hearing? Wouldn’t that require the US AG or DC US Attorney to buy into the dual US citizen parent nbc interpretation up front when structuring discovery and presentation of evidence?

    Would Obama’s prior sworn statements and assertions and the minimal information on his long form BC (presumed for argument the same as on the public computer summary) be sufficient evidence on which to base an nbc determination absent additional discovery such as the BNA of 1948?

    [Ed. His father was a British Citizen. End of story. He was a British citizen at birth. The court will take judicial notice of the BNA 1948. Evidence of his father's citizenship in 1961 will be produced by whatever documentation or proof is available. Those are simple evidence issues. The legal issue would come before the court in a verified complaint and the court would handle it as they see fit. Yes, the issue has to be brought before the court by the official attorney involved. ]

  99. There is one very obvious interested person, i. e. Hilliary.

    [Ed. She's not interested in being an interested person.]

  100. Leo, the US ATTNY for the DC is already working on a case and here are some of hte results upcoming:

    “(Copyright 2009 by WTOP. All Rights Reserved.)

    WASHINGTON – A D.C. Office of the Chief Technology Officer employee and a government contractor have been arrested in a federal bribery sting, sources tell WTOP.
    D.C. Office of the Chief Technology Officer employee Yusuf Acar and Advanced Integrated Technologies Corporation President and CEO Sushil Bansal have been arrested, sources tell WTOP.

    Acar, 40, was taken into custody Thursday morning by FBI agents at his home in Northwest D.C.

    Bansal has received multiple contracts from the D.C. Office of the Chief Technology Office, including contracts to develop Web-enabled applications and IT and anti-spyware support.

    The FBI is now serving a search warrant at the office of D.C.’s Chief Technology Officer, WTOP has learned.

    “We are there as part of a continuing ongoing criminal investigation,” FBI Washington Field Office spokesperson Katherine Schweit tells WTOP.

    Schweit would not comment on the details of the investigation.

    More than a dozen FBI agents – including evidence technicians – at the office, located at 1 Judiciary Square on 4th Street in Northwest, WTOP’s Mark Segraves reports.

    Most of the employees have been told to go home. Other employees have been segregated into a waiting room.

    Segraves reports the FBI’s search has expanded from 9th floor offices to 10th floor offices.

    A spokesman for D.C.’s U.S. Attorney tells WTOP he cannot discuss the investigation, as it is currently sealed.

    On March 5, President Barack Obama named D.C. Chief Technology Officer Vivek Kundra as the federal government’s chief information officer.

    Kundra’s last day was March 4.

    Kundra, who was in charge of technology in the District since 2007, has been a consultant to Obama since he won the election. ”

    Perhaps Taylor might be the one to contact first, because although it doesn’t give a reason for the arrests and what kinds of counts he is looking for or why, he iss clearly doing things that might be in the favor of Obama’s opposition, at least at certain levels….

    just a thought about who you should try to get involved in this first.

    [ed good post. thanks]

  101. The “best interest of the country” is the key question on whether this case really has a “snowballs chance” as you put it.

    Here is some brain freeze material.

    Imagine if artificial insemination,surrogate mothers and gay couple “marriages had been around back then!

    All of that is coming to the courts eventually and it is not out of the realm of possibility that one of these hyper complicated cases may involve a POTUS candidate in the future.

    With the actual meaning of nbc left uninterpreted by the court these cases become impossibly complicated.

    I just fail to see how any respect for the supreme law of the land and our forefathers is being given, when clearly they provided for unique eligibility requirements, and were guided by Vattels writings, and this question is valid and appropriate now.

    Clearly the nation is dividing over this question.

    Clearly the defenders of freedom have an understandable doubt as to legitimacy.

    Clearly the damage caused by division and doubt is only going to increase.

    Clearly our Constitution is not being defended by our authorized officers doing nothing.

    With all of this, how can it not be seen in the best interest of the country to initiate the writ and resolve these divides?

  102. IF Stanley Ann Dunham and Obama Sr. were NEVER MARRIED, then why would there be a DIVORCE RECORD on file for the dissolution of thier marriage. I can copy and paste it to here because of Copyright laws and it is on Plainsradio.com at this link:

    http://www.plainsradio.com/obama1.html

    should anyone want to really see it, pu cose and personal. IT list Barack Hussein Obama Jr as a child of this marriage and stipulates that S. Ann and Barack Sr, had been living apart for a period of two years and she suffered greivious injuries because of the style of their marriage. The marriage was real, at least in the eyes of the Court that presided over the divorce, and therefore Obama Jr, was a product of said marriage and Obaa Sr claimed, or at the very least, did not DENY his custodial rights over his SON.

    The reason I am posting this again is to make everyone understand that there is NO CASE about him being the product of a non-marriage or being illigitimate. He was claimed by the father. Therefore he is also under the not qualified as NBC as being a Dual Citizen in relation to Britain and Kenya rules.

    [Ed. Thank you, Claudia. Excellent post.]

  103. Leo,

    I’m sure you are aware that the Attorney General, Eric Holder, has not acknowledged in any manner the pre-litigation letter requesting ‘guidance’ relative to a Quo Warranto action that was sent by another attorney, and I respect your opinion regarding the necessity to proceed with a Quo Warranto action first through the US District Court of the District of Columbia.

    However, in my opinion, Eric Holder’s failure to even acknowledge the existence of the pre-litigation letter is very telling. I believe he is telegraphing his determination to deeply bury any possible Quo Warranto action beyond the reach of the millions of US Citizens who want to continue to believe in the US Constitution. And he can do so easily. In my heart, I am confident I understand his reasons for wanting to bury the last possible recourse the American people have — but I will not share my understanding.

    Instead, with tears I pray that you will concentrate your considerable talents, efforts and knowledge on determining a course of action to include possibly either identifying an ‘interested person’ to actually file the Quo Warranto action, or assembling — possibly under your umbrella of convenience — a group, such as retired military officers, to openly forward the required ‘verified petition’ to Eric Holder to file such an action and to compel a response; even if it is an open denial of a Quo Warranto action for the American people to see and judge for themselves.

  104. magna carta Says:

    any angle on who this judge would be in the DC court?

    [ed. All I know is it's the only game in town.]

  105. re:
    “[Ed. Talent is one thing, two generations of attachment to this country is another. It has nothing to do with talent. The Framers wanted the Commander In Chief to have two been the product of two generations of citizenship. This makes alot of sense. I don't buy the "talented" argument. There can only be one President at a time. And there are always millions of possible eligible candidates who are nbc. Talented? Talented politician? Anybody who loves this country and actually respects the Constitution is more "talented" than any politician I've seen in my lifetime.

    Enemies of this nation would appreciate us doing away with the nbc requirement because it would be easier to infiltrate the highest office with persons and ideologies alien to the framers intent and to what this country stands for as a republic. I couldn't possibly disagree with anything more than what you have written above.]”

    Dito. One of the primary roles of the federal government is national defense, and POTUS is at the top of that responsibility.
    Not stem-cell research, not public education, not environmental issues, etc. etc. etc. One of the most important roles of POTUS, is that of Commander in Chief. That is, the one single person who is the civilian leader of the military. As in, in control of the ‘nuclear football’ for one example. That is all to often lost on younger generations…especially those that have zero connection and/or appreciation to the military.

    To say that we must get ride of this CRITICAL safeguard requirement in our Constitution…because there are some (arguably) talented non NBC out there is literally setting this country up to one day to have a Commander in Chief that is more attached to and sympathetic to a foreign country than to the U.S. As we have seen during this recent election, the media plays a very important role in shaping the news and general public opinion.
    It’s therefore not inconceivable that they (MSM, Hollywood, Universities, etc) would someday back someone for POTUS like Arnold Schwarzenegger who wasn’t even born in this country…yet is a Citizen (Naturalized), or even someone like a green card holder and so on.
    As Leo pointed out, there are millions of eligible NBC…why must we even contemplate ‘outsourcing’ who is eligible for Commander in Chief? Answer, we shouldn’t….we must not for the sake of our sovereignty.

  106. “…if the US public doesn’t convince US Attorney Taylor or AG Holder to bring such an action on their own motion, things look very very bleak for seeing the issue resolved.” quote: LD

    “…say that applying for such aid is a crime and receiving it is a crime. NONE of these crimes make him ineligible to be POTUS.” quote: LD

    As we are all massively in debt to Leo for his courageous and unstinting intellectual leadership on the NBC issue, I am very reluctant to disagree with him: but what I shall say in this post is going to prove fatal to any QW case based on Leo’s brief APPLYING CURRENT EVIDENCE.

    1 There is a healthy and historical wave of revulsion for unaccountable power sweeping over our land. Interesting things ARE being done, in various states. Sooner than we think the truth about Obama’s Birth Certificate will be known.

    When that truth is made public, whatever the implications for Obama’s immediate grip on office (and a future QW challenge), it could expose him to the possibility of multiple criminal charges (not impeachment) which no Incumbent could hope to surf over.

    [Ed you don't "know" the truth about his BC leads to any crime.]

    Leo says a criminal can still be eligible to be President but I very much doubt America would think a criminal eligible to REMAIN President, especially from behind prison bars.

    [Ed. You'd have to wait until he was out of office to try him.]

    (25th Amendment: “…Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office…”)

    [Ed. only applicable to mental or physical disability.]

    In these circumstances the ensuing national debate (furor) would lead to profound official embarrassment, soul searching, and definitive action.

    “No evidence Obama actually broke a law has been brought public.” quote: LD

    [Ed. snip --- sorry but that;s not going on my blog.]

    “…whether a fake BC has been perpetrated as a fraud IS a conspiracy theory.” quote: LD

    3 Surely there is a distinction between a conspiracy theory and a conspiracy fact. A conspiracy theory in 1973 was that RMN had ordered the break in at the Watergate and covered it up. A conspiracy fact in 1973 was an 18 minute erasure on an Oval Office tape. Did RMN do it ? Maybe when he was drinking said Dean – maybe when clumsy Dicky was tired said Haig – I accidentally did 5 minutes of it, said his secretary. Whatever, whoever. There’s still an 18 minute erasure, just where Nixon wanted an 18 minute erasure, comprised of many deliberate erasures, concluded the Prosecutor’s Expert Advisory Panel. Conspiracy fact. Ron Polarik (pseudonym), an IT expert, has examined Obama’s online COLB and in an affidavit has demonstrated that it CANNOT be what it purports to be: photos and scans of an actual paper version. Polarik worked with other real, paper COLBs and could not reproduce what’s found in photos of Obama’s COLB. Polarik has invoked scientific method and invited anyone else to disprove him. No one has come forward with a rebuttal. Conspiracy fact. We can be sure that Polarik would welcome a court appointed panel to test his findings: to add more conspiracy facts.

    [Ed. It's an opinion - not under oath, not subject to cross examination. That man's opinion does not cause Obama's COLB to be factually proved false. Hawaii officials are authorities on the their own documents but they have not said the COLB is a fraud. That's a fact. Doesn't prove the COLB isn't fake, but it's a fact that goes against the other guy's allegations. And as long as Hawaii will stand behind the COLB in this way, then he has official recognition there. The COLB thing is conspiracy theory. You just don't know for sure either way, so it's all theory.]

    4 There are TWO ways Obama’s parents can be PROVED LEGALLY UNMARRIED

    [Ed. Snip. There are divorce documents posted in other comments. This proves his parents were married. I'm not allowing any more discussion about his parents not being married. Take it to another blog or The Globe or some tabloid. Not here.]

  107. Orly is trying to get Lightfoot vs. Bowen reconsidered and is going to Idaho to personally had deliver her motion to Justice Roberts on March 13th?!

    At the same meeting at the Unversity of Idaho the under signed counsel will be forwarding to Chief Justice Roberts a Petition for Quo Warranto and a Petition for Leave of Court to File as Original Jurisdiction her second case Easterling et al v Obama and State of Hawaii, whereby due to the fact that the Attorney General of the United states, Eric Holder, did not agree to institute Quo Warranto Proceedings against Mr. Obama, the petitioners led by active duty officer, currently serving in Iraq, Scott Easterling, Major General Carroll D. Childers, officers from all branches of the military, State Representatives and an elector are seeking the leave of court to file quo warranto as ex relators on behalf of the US government.

  108. 08hayabusa Says:

    Thanks again Leo for the highly informative information.

  109. messenger Says:

    PRIVATE-do not post.Hello Pal Leo.Good job on the show tonight.I find it amazing that the Quo Warranto expert only skimmed your brief the night before and then wanted to disuss it with you.The others I can understand.But if the guy wanted to try to make a case for his interpretation,it is common sense to look at the evidence you have so he can pick it apart,and have a good exchange of ideas,and then part ways agreeiing to disagree or maybe educate one another on some matter.He did what I’m witnessing with all these attorneys is a stiffnecked approach at defending their position with a depressing stagnation without any desire to learn or adapt to important information wherever it comes from.Berg came on and mentioned he was the first this and the first that.You finally mentioned the buckets of money and something doesn’t seem right.Amen! I’ve thought that for awhile.They keep saying the same thing about how unfair it is that we don’t have standing.Come on.They are lawyers.We know the system is corrupt.We know that months ago some cases were rock solid and were dismissed wrongfully.But now it is clear that these cases are a waste of time.They now do not have any chance to bring these cases on their own.And they are still chasing the smokesceeen of the birth certificate.I think if anyone read Newman they would fold their tents and head to DC or tell their donors to focus their energy on contacting Reps to wrote or speak to the AG or US Atty.The biggest mistake people have is not understanding that citizens are in a contract with DC,and haven’t been Sovereigns for a long time.And the only way to keep what freedoms and form of government we have we need to stick to the Constitution not try to circumvent it.Then,as you discussed with one person the education process can begin so that an empowered people can throw out the corrupt elements ,and restore the Constitution.I mean really restore it.I can understand your frustration when people want to look for loopholes or end runs around the Constitution.It sounds like after the letters you will bow out again.I don’t blame you.Not much you can do now.I just think that with all the people constantly asking you what they can do,you could give them those tips on contacting the AG and US Atty or their Reps.To educate themselves here and then speak up to these Attorneys before they blow the last chance we have.If Orly or Berg are heard,once they are blown out oif the water it will decimate the cause .Those two are the big visible lawyers,and my fear is that they will be reeled into SCOTUS to finish of freedom lovers with an offical pronouncement once and for all.That is how close we are to the end of the road.People from other nations have taken to the streets,and I fear that is coming here this year.I just see Orly and Berg as tools of the cult,either willfully ignorant or useful idiots.Neither of them have ever addressed the gaping holes in their cases when confronted for months.Not just your work,but many issues that were in error was corrected by concerned citizens,Let us know if you are still doing interviews or what.We don’t want to start emailing radio shows if you are bowing out.I didn’t catch that Florida show,post alink when you get it.Thanks.Take Care.

  110. Leo – was wondering if in fact that O was born into Brit rule (if it is ever proven and used to unseat him), would his children have to accept the fact that they themselves could never aspire to be POTUS?

    [Ed. They could be POTUS. As long as your parents were US citizens when you were born. YOur parents don't have to be nbc, just citizens.]

    That would be disheartening I would thing after all the -you can be all you can be in these United States that he and his followers have promised the youth of America that are Constitutionally Eligable. Seems to me that it would be Like Father Like Son as far as their elegibility if the situation were to arise in the far off future. Am I wrong on this?

  111. I neglected to include the rest of my thought on my last post. In addition, if in fact the claim that O was never naturalized or re-naturalized a US citizen after what seems to be his “probable” Indonesian naturalization in order to attend school there and his ability to travel in Pakestan in the early 80′s. Would he not have to go through the immigration process (which I have seen no proof of) to have made his future children eligable to one day be POTUS?
    Listened to your radio spot last night – very good!
    also if you ever have to change “all caps” to lower case again, just copy and paste into MS Word — highlight and hold down Shift while hitting F3 —- will save you some typing. :-)

  112. Leo,
    Thank you for your response to Thomas’ post regarding the necessity of the nbc clause. I am concerned that if this ever gets before a judge, the courts are going to rule on a very lax interpretation of nbc as there is little respect for the founder’s intent these days. Also, today’s society is so caught up with emotion over rational thought and making sure everyone feels good about how they are treated. This is not about any one indiviudal. The nbc clause has to do with the security of all Americans and having a safeguard to protect against a takeover of our government. Most people have had it so good in this country for so long, they could never conceive of such a possiblity occurring. They will just laugh off the idea of a takeover and say the nbc isn’t needed anymore and it isn’t fair to all the non-nbc’s out there. This is true on both sides of the political spectrum. And the people that do understand the importance of this issue are being labeled as fringe loons.
    I know you do not like getting into politics on your blog, but the one good thing I see from the econcomic downturn is that it is starting to wake people up a little bit as to the importance of personal responsibility, honest leadership and freedom to pursue one’s dreams. I think other nations too are starting to see how important America’s stability is to the rest of the world. Perhaps these difficult times will lead to a renewed appreciation for what has made America great. When you honestly try to answer this question, you are lead back to the founders and the constitution. The constitution is the framework for what has made the United States the most free, the most prosperous and the most humane country on Earth of all time. The greatness of our founders cannot be overstated.
    Thank you for your courage and for your willingness and patience to educate.

  113. You have always emphatically insisted that Obama (should we call him “President”, as you recently conceded his legitimacy) was born in Hawaii:

    [Ed. I have been consistent in saying I believe that he was born in Hawaii, or at the very least he can prove he was with documents that will pass muster under forensic examination. That’s my opinion. Perhaps I shall be proved wrong, but I doubt it. Regardless, nowhere in the Constitution does it require a birth certificate be handed over. ]

    the fact that his parents would have been — [Ed. snipped disgusting tabloid like attack on Obama's parents which I refuse to print.]

  114. Hoping in NH Says:

    Leo, within a QW proceeding it’s obvious that the defendant is tasked with proving that (s)he satisfies the qualifications by supplying supporting documentation for each (and all) qualifications.

    Who is tasked with, and who is allowed to, provide opposing evidence that may counter evidence provided by the defendant?

    For instance, to prove my identity I periodically have to show such things as a drivers license, passport, birth certificate, social security card, or any combination of them. Usually that’s sufficient, although even a bouncer at a bar can question the validity of a person’s drivers license.

    So at a QW trial, who may question the validity of evidence provided by the defendant?

    [Ed. Like in any other trial, the attorneys for Obama will provide whatever evidence they, in their legal judgment, think is best. The US Attorney will present whatever evidence he feels is important. They would probably introduce expert wtinesses. The Judge will decide what will be allowed as evidence, what he will admit into evidence, and the jury will decide what weight they want to put on that evidence.]

  115. when barrack huessin obama applied for his state bar in illinois he swore under oath not to have any other alias names……. IS NOT THAT A CRIME OF PERJURY…… you state he has done nothing wrong…… isn’t this criminal perjury?

    [Ed. If he committed a crime before he took office, a trial of that crime would probably have to wait until his term was over. As for impeachment, it's generally accepted that it applies to crimes committed while he is POTUS and doesn't apply to crimes before he was POTUS. The Constitution does not require the President not to have ever committed a crime. It just doesn't say that.]

  116. When reading all the different possible angles of attack in order to rescue Our Constitution from a variety of violations perpetrated by those that we have elected to represent us and Defend Her, I must say that you Leo are at the top of the list IMO of those who adhere to one of my favorite quotes by a man that I admire above all of our Founding Fathers. Thank you for all that you do.

    “Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”

    -Thomas Jefferson

  117. [...] Due to a little thing called “SEPARATION OF POWERS”, Congress is the only branch which has the authority to remove a sitting President.  For a comprehensive review of this issue, please see my prior series of posts entitled, Quo Warranto Legal Brief: part 1, part 2, and part 3. [...]

  118. The two issues are

    1. was his British nationality at birth a defect in his nbc status?
    2. was he born in hawaii?

    Leo It seems to me there is a 3rd issue for the jury to determine. Did he keep his citizenship being adopted in Indonesia. That is a big valid issue. If he is no longer even a citizen of USA then obviously he can not be President. You must not skip over this issue. It is big and important. The Jury must determine if he is a citizen of USA even if born in Hawaii.

    [Ed. It's irrelevant unless somebody can show he got rid of his US citizenship. HYPOTHETICALLY, assume he told Indonesia, "I'm not a US citizen". That doesn't destroy his US citizenship. US allows dual nationality. If he just gave Indo a lie and they bought it, that doesnt effect his us citizenship. His parents couldn't waive it for him as a child. I don't think Obama was stupid enough to waive his US citizenship, and if he did then documentary evidence would be of the public record. And it would have been found or at the very least evidence of it would exist. Indonesia is a red herring. Even if he acquired citizenship in Indonesia and still retains, according to the Elg SCOTUS case, he would still be a natural born citizen. ]

  119. [...] 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 [...]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: