Three US Postal Receipts for Letters to US Attorney Taylor?
People are writing to me and claiming that US Attorney Taylor will never touch the eligibility issue to bring a quo warranto challenging Obama’s title to the office of President. Many are also saying that we the people have exhausted all legal options and that we must look outside the Constitution for justice.
I say there is no justice outside of the Constitution and that if you sink to that level of thought the true enemies of the Constitution will have defeated you and it forevermore.
But the people have not even come close to doing everything in their power to see that the Constitution is protected. The Constitutionally proper way to challenge POTUS eligibility is via the DC Code quo warranto statute.
I DO NOT SEE A CONCERTED EFFORT BY “WE THE PEOPLE” TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT US ATTORNEY TAYLOR BEGIN AN INQUIRY IN QUO WARRANTO AS TO OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY.
If the option fails then you only have yourselves to blame if you haven’t organized a million letters and a million citizen march to the door of the US Attorney’s office.
I have not seen a response from US Attorney Taylor but that doesn’t mean he’s shut the door on bringing a quo warranto inquiry. I certainly I have not seen a negative response from US Attorney Taylor. He has said nothing publicy either way, so why is everybody giving up on the possibility that our Constitution may be working as we speak?
Did you think US Attorney Taylor would simply make a shotgun decision on something this important? Don’t you think a complete in depth study of quo warranto, the DC Code, and all possible case law would be necessary for the man to properly come to a decision? That takes some time.
Furthermore, how many of you actually wrote to the man? I told you that the prosecutor would need your protection – the protection of an intense public outcry - in order for him do something this controversial. Have you given the prosecutor your protection? Have you written to him?
Three people have written to me and mentioned they have received their green return receipt requested cards proving that their letters were accepted by the US Attorney’s Office. Three people. I’d be willing to bet that the total number of letters sent to US Attorney Taylor is less than 500 and probably much less than that.
I’ve written extensively on quo warranto and I’ve made the case that the statute is the only possible means by which the POTUS eligibility issue will ever be resolved. But the people don’t seem to really care enough to contact the US Attorney… so why should the US Attorney believe that this nation will support a decision to challenge Obama?
Based upon the lack of public outcry and the vehement language of hatred used by so many people who comment on the Obama eligibility issue, if I were the US Attorney I’d probably conclude that these advocates are simply partisan instigators concerned with their own political views and not concerned with an objective concern for the Constitution and the nation at large.
If you don’t have the numbers, you won’t get the result you’re looking for. It’s that simple. Those who are advocating methods and tactics which violate the Constitution have not done everything in their power to use the Constitutional and legal methods available. You are just as much an enemy of the Constitution as any other thug.
If every person who was troubled by Obama’s eligibility wrote a letter to US Attorney Taylor and got on the same page, perhaps there might be enough of a public outcry for the US Attorney to move on this issue. But the forces are split up and divided. Much of this has been intentional and many have been duped.
You flock to sensational muckrakers spewing emotional diatribes and irrelevant judicial maniacal madness… and you will get what you sow in the end.
April 3, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Dear Leo:
It is an honor and a privlidge to be your partner in this most critical task. I have sent the letter below to both U.S. Atty. Gen. Holder and U.S. Atty. Taylor via email and U.S. Mail. It draws heavily upon your excellent research. I invite anyone to utilize this letter in any manner they choose.
Sincerely,
Robare
———————————————————–
Subject: Quo Warranto: Is Obama eligible? Not since Slavery; an Issue so Volatile!
To: “Eric H. Holder Jr.” ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov,
“Jeffrey A. Taylor”
Date: Thursday, March 26, 2009, 12:13 AM
U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.
United States Department of Justice
and
U.S. Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor
United States Attorney’s Office
Dear U.S. Attorney General Holder:
and
U.S. Attorney Taylor:
Apart from whether there is a legal basis for questions re the eligibility of Barack Obama – other considerations beg for your timely intercession via the Quo Warranto statue. Over the past twelve months the U.S. Constitution has been bypassed, questioned, dismissed, mocked and violated from several perspectives. Consider:
1) Senator McCain is not a “natural born citizen” (nbc) because, as he admits, he was born either in Colon , Panama or on a U.S. military base nearby, and neither is American soil. Yet, in April 2008 the U.S. Senate unanimously approved a resolution declaring John McCain to be an nbc, but this holds no legal value whatsoever much less any Constitutional merit. All Senators knew this, proceeded anyway and insulted every American.
2) It is conceivable the Supreme Court could, someday, make a ruling that declares children born to U.S. military parents serving overseas will, henceforth, be viewed as if born on American soil. But this question (case) must be posed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Quo Warranto process might well become the means to do so.
3) President Obama asserts he was born in Hawaii , but his only proof is the website posting of his certificate-of-live-birth. This may be correct, but a website is devoid of legal value, plus a COLB is not the primary document. Also, Mr. Obama admits his father never was a U.S. citizen. Mr. Obama’s place-of-birth is a simple fact, but never verified. His father’s non-citizen status requires judicial interpretation regarding its effect on a ruling re “natural born citizen.” Both are required to declare Obama eligible per the U.S. Constitution.
4) Granted, Hawaiian officials, on October 31, did state they had Obama’s birth documentation on file per applicable policies. However, they did not state he was born in Hawaii , and Hawaiian law in 1961 permitted a child born anywhere to be recorded in their state. The COLB cannot resolve these specifics, but the primary document (long-form of his birth certificate) can. Obama can easily authorize its release, but he has not.
5) Every President in American history was born to parents who were BOTH citizens. The one exception, Chester Arthur, as the VP candidate in 1880 (later made President) intentionally deceived America regarding his non-citizen father. Why have we now turned a blind-eye to the very same issue with Obama?
6) Members of the U.S. Military, active & retired, have questioned whether President Obama meets Constitutional requirements to be their Commander in Chief. These challenges have begun to threaten and erode the military chain-of-command. I cannot imagine a more precarious scenario for America ’s security, domestically and internationally.
7) A Florida Congressman has proposed legislation requiring presidential candidates, as of 2012, to submit their birth certificate as a prerequisite to initiating a campaign. A nice idea, but it does not address – on its own – the Constitutional requirements regarding “natural born citizen.” Furthermore, such a check cannot be legislated because nbc has not yet been defined by any court as it pertains to presidential qualifications.
8 – Some view Louisiana Gov. Jindal to be a potential presidential candidate, but is he a natural born citizen? How can he or his supporters ever know? How can any future candidate for the Presidency know? Jindal, similar to Obama, reflects the ever more multi-cultural mix of American politicians; hence another compelling reason to address this now.
9) Countless individuals have made enumerable postings in numerous online blogs. Their writings show that many people see absolutely no difference between the terms “citizen” and “natural born citizen” as used within the U.S. Constitution. Sad, but hardly surprising since a clear legal distinction seems to have been nebulous. However …
10) Recent legal research has built an impressive case that asserts “natural born citizen” means a person born on American soil to parents who were both U.S. Citizens at the time of their child’s birth. (Ref. http://www.naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com) Compelling though this may be; it holds little merit until adjudicated. History will view us poorly if we ignore these new findings. Quo Warranto is the only Constitutional means for an inquiry.
The foregoing has resulted in ever greater upset and confusion across this Great Land . I can only imagine the confusion it causes internationally. This confusion is not going away and will only get worse. This has gone beyond matters of “the law” and is being driven by passion causing grave concern for many Americans. We ignore this at our peril, for the Constitution is our foundation.
While emotional – it can be resolved legally; in fact it’s only possible to do so within our nation’s judicial framework. You two gentleman have been vested, by Congress, with the authority to initiate action via the Quo Warranto statute. Not since slavery has a matter this volatile come to the fore in America . It took a war to resolve that matter, and civil it was not! In the months leading up to our Civil War, leaders – so-called – on both sides arrogantly declared the looming conflict would spill no more blood than what a single handkerchief could absorb. Five years later nearly 600,000 Americans lay dead; in addition, this horrific 1860’s conflict still reverberates, to some degree, within our body-politic today – despite the passage of 150 years.
The matter of Obama’s eligibility places a huge burden upon each of you, but it is one America needs you to step-forward and assume – and both of you are needed to minimize the political rhetoric. I most respectfully implore you to do so. Thank you for considering my request.
Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,
NAME WITHHELD by the ORIGINATOR/SENDER
April 3, 2009 at 11:26 AM
the DC code only appears to address the local DC
not the FEDERAL level
no?
[Ed. DaVerg, how long have you been reading this blog? You post here all the time. I can't believe you asked this question. Read the freakin' statute my friend. There are TWO quo warranto sections in the DC Code
Subchapter I
is titled "I. Actions Against Officers of the United States."
Subchapter II
is titled "II. Actions Against Officers or Corporations of the District of Columbia."
Subchapter I applies to all officers of the United States
Subchapter II applies to local DC officers
Everybody is a freakin legal scholar, until they actually start reading. Teacher is ornery today. ]
April 3, 2009 at 11:27 AM
btw
re post his address
so that a public outcry can begin
[Ed. People can look his address up and make an effort in that regard. Did you mail a letter?]
April 3, 2009 at 11:39 AM
My letter will go out in the next day or two, and I will copy you. In addition, I have posted your recommendations on http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/forum/topics/a-quo-warranto-civil-case-if .
I’m a new member of SGP, so I don’t know for certain whether anyone will listen or act, but I’m hopeful because SGP initiatives have been discussed by Michelle Malkin on her web site, so we’ll see what happens.
Over the weekend, I will attempt to post similar blog comments elsewhere.
April 3, 2009 at 12:03 PM
I agree with you, Leo, and I stated something to this as a comment on Taitz’ website, and they didn’t publish my comment!!!
April 3, 2009 at 12:06 PM
My most wonderful husband writes to him every week by regular post.
April 3, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Leo:
Thank you so much for posting my entire letter. I am flattered.
Robare
April 3, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Teacher IS ornery today!! I like it though. You always make such wonderful points. The one that hit home and hardest with me was what you said yesterday about “you can’t save the Constitution by destroying it.”
My take on this is that we’re a microwave generation. We expect everything NOW and then throw a tantrum when it doesn’t materialize right away. The truth of the matter, as you’ve so wonderfully pointed out, is that if we REALLY REALLY want this bad enough we must be willing to put in the hard work to get the results.
I am still in the process of composing my own letter to Taylor and will let you know when I receive the green slip.
April 3, 2009 at 3:21 PM
I sent the following email, but have thus far not recieve any response or reply.
From: GK Pace []
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 8:13 PM
To: ‘dc.outreach@usdoj.gov’
Subject: The Honorable U.S. ATTORNEY JEFFREY A. TAYLOR
Importance: High
The Honorable U.S. ATTORNEY JEFFREY A. TAYLOR
I pray that you will take a minute to consider what I have to say, as I say it with the sincere heart of a patriot and veteran concerned for his country.
Our country is in serious jeopardy. We are at war, suffering severe economic problems, and many in this country are stressed to the point of fear. The fear comes from distrust of those who represent us, and for the man who has assumed ultimate control; Barack Obama.
We cannot solve all of these problems with the stroke of a pen, or some other easily arranged manner, but as a people we could handle the stress much easier if we had faith and trust in our President. Unfortunately this cannot be, as long as the issue of his meeting the Constitutional qualification of being a Natural Born Citizen remains unresolved.
I have studied this issue, and have concluded that he cannot meet this requirement, however my opinion alone cannot resolve this issue and it cannot provide any comfort to the public at large. This needs to be resolved in a court of law.
It really doesn’t matter whether or not you have studied the various aspects of this case or not – it should suffice to realize that many people have, and they have concluded that this needs to be resolved. These citizens have been frustrated in their many efforts to have this considered because it appears, that you are one of only two persons given the Constitutional right to bring this issue to court.
As this issue festers and gains momentum in the minds of more and more citizens each day, the need to have it settled becomes more and more a critical problem with national concern.
I cannot hope to argue law or eloquently convey the importance of this, nor suppose to challenge you in legal terms why Mr. Obama cannot possibly be a Natural Born Citizen, but I would ask that you consider what Leo Donofrio has written on this subject. His analysis can be found at this website: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
I ask that you take the time to read what Leo has written, and give this case its day in court. The citizens of these United States deserve to know the truth, and to have it determined in the manner proscribed by our Constitution.
I pray that you consider this request, and act honorably in the office you hold, by supporting the rights of the Citizen to petition the government and exercising the exclusive power given to you for this specific purpose.
Sincerely,
Gerald K Pace
April 3, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Does all the information in Robare’s letter even need to be sent (no disrespect Robare). Stuff like the dreaded COLB issue (why or why or why… ugh!…) or McCain or points 7, 8, and 9. Should the letter just simpy focus on Obama’s natural born Citizen status as it relates to the Constitution and his father’s citizenship?
[Ed. The COLB issue has merit in that the military plaintiffs have cited it. If he's going to bring QW he might as well bring it on all counts.]
I don’t want to copy your letter, so I’ve already read it. I want to send a unique letter. Just need some boundaries.
I haven’t sent a letter, but I will now that I think I can write one with enough knowledge that speaks correctly about the issue.
P.s. I have written to Paul Ryan, my district Congressman, about 3 or 4 times urging he begins talking to peers about Obama’s citizenship status. Just mainly canned responses though. (Hah! Ron Paul and Paul Ryan would be a great team. The Paul – Ryan team! Lol!)
April 3, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Hello Everyone,
If any of you are planning to attend your local tea parties on April 15th, it would serve as a the perfect forum and time to have some sample letters available. This is my first attempt at posting on any blog. This site contains the most thoughtful, educated patroits that I have come across. I believe this group can make the difference with sharing what we have learned and providing the sample letters that we can ask others to read, tweak and send. Let’s get to it! Yes?
April 3, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Leo,
I have also received back from US Attorney Taylor’s office the green Post Office signed proof of receipt. Dated March 24,2009…
Texas
April 3, 2009 at 4:08 PM
There is some information about Jeffrey Taylor that might be of interest. He anticipates that he will be let go by the Obama administration. http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/01/us-attorney-taylor-argues-first-dc-circuit-case.html
If Taylor gets a flood of letters, based on what I’ve read on this blog, he has two options. He can file quo warranto NOW on his own authority, or he can file a civil suit if and when he’s fired. Whichever happens, we need to give him support. Can you imagine the thoughts going through his mind as he thinks about the consequences of his actions if he follows through?
Jeffrey Taylor will need a great deal of courage; certainly as much as Leo has shown.
[ed. He'll need more courage than anybody on the planet. You're also correct when you point out that if he's fired, he would have the best possible standing under 3503 to bring a QW action as an "interested person" inlight of the holding in Newman and the text of the law.]
April 3, 2009 at 4:31 PM
[...] grand jury pronouncement, Leo Donofrio, attorney and Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, posted the following admonition for those concerned citizens who believe that the federal government has not properly addressed the [...]
April 3, 2009 at 5:41 PM
You raise good points…but I think many citizens feel we have been dealing with this issue for far too long and have done massive letter writing, faxing, pleading, calling and even snail mail over many months and have seen few results.
I agree that there should be a last attempt of massive mailing and then marching on DC with signs asking for them to answer the questions raised concerning Obama’s eligibility. After that….I fear the worst. We are no longer the United States of America….We are the Divided States of America. This is no way to run a country…..it didn’t work for Bush and it will be twice as bad for the USURPER as long as many citizens don’t trust him!! I hope you will continue to help whenever possible.
April 3, 2009 at 6:20 PM
Leo -
Please do not believe that if people are not sending you copies of their letters and/or mail receipts that they are not writing.
In fact, beginning on March 16, 2009 I have written regularly to both AG Holder and US A Taylor either via Express Mail and/or via snail mail. This makes about 3 or 4 letters to each man and EACH of those letters have been very courteous, non-accusatory, politely urging that they act on their own volition to institute the proceedings. I’ll be continuing this frequent letter writing campaign until either the USPS goes broke for lack of funding or until my letters are marked “Return to Sender” (for whatever reason).
The person signing the receipts for AG Holder has been (if I read the signature correctly) Ernest Parker and for US A Taylor a person named A. Jennings. Let’s see if this matches any names anyone has received on their receipts.
At any rate, in each case I typically include pointing out that no belief in guilt or innocence is required (nor do I offer any such opinion) but that it is for the good of the country. I also normally say that a jury trial is desired for the finding of fact and that the legal ruling required of the judge should be enumerated in the decision handed down and that any such case (regardless of the outcome) should be automatically passed to the SCOTUS as a matter of first impression to formally settle both the eligibility question and the meaning of “natural born citizen” for the present and for posterity.
I typically print this automatic SCOTUS review suggestion in BOLD to, hopefully, make it more noticeable and actionable. I would hope others would do similarly as it may be the only way the matter will ever get there – to SCOTUS (if QW is ever kicked off). I’ve mentioned that in this way there can be no doubt as to the level of legality achieved uinder out legal system.
Like you, I have my fingers and toes crossed, though, but I intend to keep at it. I also typically ask that they email me their decision and mention that time is of the essence – since I genuinely believe that.
But, please, don’t think that everyone is sitting on their hands … tain’t so!!
April 3, 2009 at 6:45 PM
no i didn’t send the letter , that’s why i asked for the address
i think if there is to be a successful effort the address needs to be posted to save people time and effort
i work 60 hours a week and friday is my day off, i have layoffs after layoffs coming and one grown man actually crying – no i am not the boss. Companies are doing pitiful backstabbing unprofessional things to get people fired or laid off.
I support you 150% and hope this effort succeeds. The more I look at the action of this president the more i see tyrannical , unprecedented behavior that is damaging our economy and way of life. Firing of CEOs, threatening Bank CEOs, etc. This man is going into the areas he has no business of going into it. He has absolutely no experience in these areas. Bank CEOs met with him and wanted to return the TARP money that the government forced them to take. He cut them off and said no. He is killing the key and fundalmental crux of our economy. Our banks. The quicker we are successful in these efforts the quicker we save our way of life, our economy, and get back to normal free market society. Creating jobs, and growing the economy. Not socialism that sucks up the innovate and entrepenurial spirit that founded this nation. This president doesn’t understand that he is destroying the spirit of the people that drive the economy. The reason why he doesn’t “get it” is because he is a product of affirmative action and never had to work a solid day in his life. Everything was handed to him. In addition our non representative representatives in CONGRESS have completely lost their way. They don’t even know the Constitution. The Framers would be turning in their graves.
April 3, 2009 at 7:01 PM
Leo,
Below is my letter to Jeffrey Taylor. I will go to the post office tomorrow and send it certified. I have also sent an email to our local network of activists, and explained your recommendations. I included my letter as an aid. The rest of this evening I will post the same on various blogs.
Before I paste in my letter, may I make a request of you? It took me a very long time to read through your entire blog. Because you are an attorney, minute details are vitally important. However, the average person’s brain hurts as they read through your material simply because there’s so much detail.
You can increase the odds of people writing to Jeffrey Taylor if you are willing to create a single page that enumerates the issue in simple words, and then state explicitly what citizens can to do to help. People don’t need to write letters that cite legalese; they can just refer to general concepts. In fact, I suspect Taylor is more likely to read letters if they are only one page long. If you do this, my job as an activist will be much easier.
Since I circulated my letter with commentary to a local network of activists, I have placed all comments below. Taylor’s letter is last.
**********
Dianna,
There is a way to pull the courts in to address the question of Obama’s eligibility to be President. Leo Donofrio is begging millions of citizens to write a letter to the U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor requesting he file a quo warranto case in DC District Court (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/two-us-postal-receipts-for-letters-to-us-attorney-taylor/#comment-6317).
Quo warranto simply means “by what authority he or she claims eligibility to hold a government office.”
Most Americans believe that the only way a president can be removed from office is through impeachment by Congress. This is not true. The U.S. Attorney General, and the U.S. Attorney in D.C. have the legal “status” and the power to file a quo warranto civil case on any sitting government official if evidence suggests that officeholder lacks legal status to hold the position. If an attorney can prove his case, the officeholder must immediately step down from the job. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to see Obama step down before his term is up, and especially before he does any more damage to our country?
Since you have a network of concerned citizens, would you consider forwarding this information to them, and encourage them to follow through? Obviously, the sooner people act, the sooner we have a chance to prove our case. Writers do not need to cite the law in their letters. All they need do is write a respectful letter to indicate their concerns and ask that the issue of eligibility be addressed once and for all.
Donofrio recommends that letters be sent by certified mail so that you get a returned receipt. Keep the receipt as a record. This will force someone in the attorney’s office to sign for the letter. Donofrio would also like to receive copies of your letters. After registering on his site, people can post their letters on the blog at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Hopefully, everyone will post this suggestion on other blogs, and forward this email to like-minded individuals. Please do not spam people with this message if they are not interested.
Below is the letter I’m mailing tomorrow.
Regards,
xxxxxx
********************
April 3, 2009
United States Attorney Jeffrey Taylor
United States Attorney’s Office
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Taylor:
When referencing your first case in the D.C. Court of Appeals, you said, “The trick is to learn the law, learn the arguments, and master the case as best you can,” and by all accounts, you truly understand the law, and deliver succinct and accurate arguments in your cases. Therefore, you are exactly the kind of individual we need to investigate a profoundly troubling constitutional issue.
I am only a citizen. I have no legal background. However, I am a patriotic American who follows political events with intense interest, so I am disturbed to learn that Barack Obama is not eligible to serve as President of the United States because he was a dual citizen at birth; his father was under the jurisdiction of the U.K. To be President, one must be a natural born citizen of parents who are natural born citizens. Even if Barack Obama is eligible, a quo warranto proceeding is warranted to stem a floodgate of litigation that is being filed with the Supreme Court. Now that Barack Obama has been seated, this has become a civil case, not federal.
Attorney Leo Donofrio, as well as a many other citizens have also written to your office about this subject, because you and Attorney General Eric Holder are the only authorities left who have the legal “status” and the power to pursue a civil case of this nature. This is equally true if the Obama administration fires you, because then you could file a personal civil suit.
I sincerely hope you will analyze the law on this issue, develop the arguments, and file a quo warranto case to put this legal question to rest. I also pray that you are a man of great courage and stamina, because a quo warranto case against President Obama will be a political nightmare for you, and will weigh heavily on your shoulders.
We will support you.
Sincerely,
xxxxxxx
April 3, 2009 at 7:03 PM
Leo – here is my letter, which I sent on 3/25. Perhaps if enough letters are posted here others will understand the need you are advocating and be motivated to send their own letters. – Thanks.
****************
VIA EMAIL AND US MAIL
March 25, 2009
United States Attorney Jeffrey Taylor
United States Attorney’s Office
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Taylor,
I am writing to you out of great concern and fear for the future of our constitutional republic. As I’ve watched events unfold since the 2008 presidential election I’ve learned about policies and actions proposed and/or taken by the executive and legislative branches of our federal government that are in stark contrast to the authorities and limits granted to them by our Constitution.
Witnessing this usurpation of authority on a daily basis, I grow increasingly concerned over the nagging questions regarding Mr. Obama’s allegiances and his constitutional eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States and serve as Commander In Chief of the military. As you should know, I am not alone. Numerous members of our citizenry and now some of our military members are publicly questioning his eligibility to the office and his allegiance to the Constitution. Some military members are even joining legal actions in our courts questioning his authority as Commander In Chief. It appears that these legal challenges, both direct and collateral, will persist until the questions are answered.
It is especially troubling when we see that our active and retired military are becoming involved, which has the potential to disrupt the military chain of command thus risking our national security. This is a mounting crisis that could have unfathomable consequences to our republic. I have even heard and read predictions of bloodshed and civil war! This is a serious matter and hopefully you agree that this crisis must be addressed sooner than later to preserve order and to protect our Constitution and nation from further damage.
I understand from the research by Attorney Leo Donofrio that this can be addressed legally (in accordance with the Constitution and statute) and peacefully by a quo warranto action by either yourself or the Attorney General. I quote the following from Mr. Donofrio’s open letter to you dated March 19, 2009:
“Since you are the main law enforcement officer charged with enforcing the District of Columbia Code, and since you are listed in 16-3502 as one of only two people who may institute a proceeding – upon their own motion – in quo warranto to investigate any United States public office holder’s qualifications if the office concerned is within the District of Columbia. I respectfully request that you bring such an action before the District Court for the District of Columbia as soon as possible.”
I too respectfully request that you bring such an action before the District Court for the District of Columbia as soon as possible. I fully understand that such an action will be highly controversial and will focus critical attention on you and your office. However, I believe this is exactly what is needed to quell the growing public concern over the eligibility and allegiance questions. It must be understood that the action is necessary to protect and defend the Constitution.
We must know if Mr. Obama is indeed a natural born Citizen as defined by the historical perspective of the framers when they included that specific eligibility requirement in the Constitution. It appears to me that it had a specific meaning to the framers. The qualifier “natural born” means that one’s “Citizenship” is absent of ambiguity – meaning both of your parents were US citizens at the time of your birth & you were born on US soil. According to the writings of the framers of the constitution, this qualifier was put in to avoid any allegiances to any other country and at the time in particular, England. The meaning of natural born Citizen over time perhaps has been obscured but the term has never been removed or altered by constitutional amendment. As further explained by Mr. Donofrio, the 14th Amendment has no effect on the natural born citizen clause.
If it is determined that Mr. Obama is constitutionally eligible, then his title to office of President will be cleared of all doubt and our nation can move ahead. If it is proven that he is truly ineligible and is therefore usurping the office, he must be removed. Either way, the matter will be resolved. This will be in the best interest of the nation and specifically the military chain of command.
It is not my intent to convince you with more details and citations as to the constitutional ineligibility of Mr. Obama for the office of President of the United States. It is only to convince you that the matter is indeed serious and is showing signs of reaching a boiling point. My great concern is that the longer it goes unresolved the more it puts our nation at risk of severe damage. I pray that you will have the wisdom and courage to take action on this matter and protect our Constitution and nation from such damage. God help us!
Respectfully,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[Ed. Anyone who sends me a letter to this comment section will see it posted here. If you sent a letter in comments to another section, resend it to me here and I'll post them all here.]
April 3, 2009 at 7:06 PM
Just printed out letters to mail and sent emails to:
Jeffrey A. Taylor
dc.outreach@usdoj.gov
Eric Holder
ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov
Jeffrey A. Taylor
United States Attorney’s Office
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
Eric Holder
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
–Linda (PS: I have posted here one other time, and I am not the Linda Starr that is connected to Philip Berg)
April 3, 2009 at 8:01 PM
Hello,
If my first (EVER) comment is posted – may I add…. if we hand out letters at the tea parties (Quo Warranto) perhaps we make a banner that simply says “Quo Waranto”? Folks who are savvy will come to the banner. Those that are curious can be edified. In either case we can hand out our sample letters. It’s our forum!!!
[Ed. That's a good idea...]
April 4, 2009 at 5:23 AM
Folks,
We need to write letters. My own letter which has been received is attached and you may feel free to use any or all of it as well. Like Robare’s letter it is largely based on Leo’s exhaustive research but I’ve written it in a more succinct manner. Send it Certified Mail – Return Receipt Requested. It will cost you $5.32 and is one of the best 5 bucks you’ll ever spend.
United States Attorney Jeffrey Taylor
United States Attorney’s Office
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Re: Quo Warranto
Dear Attorney Taylor,
Please consider this letter as my request of you to dutifully consider a legal challenge to the credentials of President Obama to occupy the office of POTUS, due to his failure to possess the requisite qualifications under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, I assert the president does not meet the Constitutional requirement of being a natural born citizen and feel the evidence in support of this assertion is quite substantial. I raise this issue not because of politics or emotion, but rather as a point of law, and you sir, as a guardian of our Constitution, have both the authority and responsibility to rectify a terrible wrong.
President Obama, to wit, proudly and publically states that when he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, HI, his father was a native of Kenya, and therefore a British subject, whose citizenship, and therefore his own, was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948. How can anyone, whose citizenship at birth was governed by the laws of Great Britain, be considered to be a natural born citizen of the United States? As you are no doubt aware, a natural born citizen is generally defined as someone born in the country to parents who themselves are citizens. By the president’s own assertion as to the citizenship of his father, he simply cannot be a natural born citizen which makes him ineligible to hold the office of POTUS.
Congress exclusively authorized the District Court of the District of Columbia with the power to hear cases challenging the eligibility of a sitting officer holding a United States national office located in the District of Columbia. Please, in the best interests of our nation, our Constitution and our republic, act to immediately resolve this eligibility issue.
Respectfully,
April 4, 2009 at 8:23 AM
Leo-This is a little off point but I would like to share this with your readers. DNC Chairman Tim Kaine knows that what ever answers he provides will ultimately be submitted to AG Taylor and further evidence of the need for the investigation. My letter to Taylor went out a couple of weeks ago.
y4/1/09
Robert Quinn
18 Lakeview Drive South
Haines City, Fla. 33844
DNC Chairman Tim Kaine
Office of the Governor
Patrick Henry Building, 3rd Floor
1111 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Chairman Kaine;
Subject-The Obama Secrecy Loophole, who allowed it happen??
Prior to the voters of Florida being given the right to vote for the various presidential candidates the electors had standing and during the electoral college meeting, in which all candidates and electors, Democrat, Republican and Independent alike, were all in attendance, they could make cross party demands for verifiable proof of constitutional eligibility, prior to the electoral college vote, not after and those found to be ineligible could be exposed and discarded before the vote took place.
Our system today is completely backwards and a denial of due process to the voters. The entire vetting process of the candidates US Constitutional eligibility has been totally turned over to the individual private political parties, the Secretary of State now blindly accepts the private party selection, ballots are printed, elections are held, the votes are counted, the electors are already committed as to whom they must vote, state certifications are made and sent to the electoral college, the official electoral votes are counted and only then, after the official electoral votes have been counted, does an elector have the opportunity to even raise an eligibility question and that must be submitted in writing. (And it’s in question whether this opportunity was even allowed in the 08 elections)
Our current election process is unconstitutional because it is denying the voters due process in that we have no standing to verify eligibility prior to voting as did the electors under the original system. According to the response I received from my letter of 2/3/09 our Secretary of State, in spite of his oath of office to defend the US Constitution, states this US Constitutional vetting responsibility has been totally and completely turned over to the political parties (Chapter 103) and he now has no responsibility or authority to ask anyone anything on behalf of the public. He further states that if a citizen chooses to challenge the qualifications of a candidate it is the citizen’s responsibility to bring forth a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction while he knows full well that we have no standing to do so. When the media is already in the tank for its favorite candidate, the public is simply screwed.
This process promotes fraud upon the voters in that, unlike the original electoral process, we voters, Democrat and Republican alike, are forced to vote for candidates that no Government Official has verified eligible. It is grossly unconstitutional and a clear denial of due process by our states refusal to factually verify, on behalf of the public and before the first primary election, that the political party appointed candidates are eligible according to the US Constitution.
For the first time in the history of this country we have an individual who has succeeded in becoming Commander in Chief of our military forces who has something so serious in his past records he has totally sealed his original vault copy birth, passport, foreign citizenship and educational records from everyone, including his own party officials and especially the military personnel who have good reason to question his loyalty and allegiance to this country. Much evidence exists, due to this secrecy, that very likely he may not have factually been born in the USA and very likely carries citizenship and a passport from a foreign country since he traveled to Pakistan and Indonesia before ever obtaining a US passport and at a time when US citizens were not allowed into their countries.
I have no interest in trying to overturn the results of the 2008 elections. The Quo Warranto process was established by congress many years ago to provide for the investigation and removal of a sitting president if he is determined to be a usurper and it is my understanding the petition for this process to begin has already been made.
My efforts here are strictly limited to understanding precisely how the current process of electing a president is carried out and precisely who is responsible to see to it that every presidential candidate that is placed upon the ballot is eligible to hold the office.
The DNC document submitted to our Secretary of State here in Florida says only that Obama and Biden are their nominees. It says nothing about them having been found eligible and our Secretary of State says that it is of no concern to him as it’s totally up to the political parties to do that. In that regard I ask for the following;
1- A copy of that portion of the official 2008 DNC rules and regulations that states it is the DNC’s responsibility to verify constitutional eligibility of your party’s presidential candidates for the general election as well as for the primaries.
2- A copy of the document that officially states who your candidates were for the 2008 general election and that they were found to be eligible. A copy for the primary election candidates also.
3- A copy of the document you used to verify US Constitutional eligibility as each being a natural born citizen.
Obama publicly announced his candidacy for the US Presidency back in early 2007. Since that time there have been many serious questions publicly raised about Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of president and these questions have been publicly addressed by popular Democrat supported web sites such as Snopes.com, Factcheck.org and Obama’s very own site Fightthesmears.com.
In this regard, as it’s totally your responsibility to verify the constitutional eligibility of your nominated presidential candidate, I ask the following;
1- Did the DNC ask to see proof of citizenship? If so what did he produce?
2- Did the DNC ask to see the passport he used to travel to Pakistan and Indonesia back in the early 80’s when US citizens were not allowed in? If so what did he produce?
3- Did the DNC ask Obama if he was ever an Indonesia Citizen known as Barry Soetoro, his adopted name while living and attending school there? If he answered yes, did you ask how he regained his US citizenship?
4- Did the DNC ask Obama if he was perhaps spending those hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep his Occidental College records sealed because he might have attended this school under his
Indonesian Citizenship name Barry Soetoro? Government aid to foreign students you know.
These were well-publicized and serious questions of eligibility long before the DNC vetted Obama to be eligible to hold the office of president.
If we were still operating under the system that existed before the right to vote for president was turned over to the people and the exclusive right to vet the candidates was turned over to the individual private nominating party only, all of these eligibility questions would have been cross party debated, between all of the electors who each had individual standing to ask and demand answers (without suing in a court of competent jurisdiction) and the answers would have been found and exposed within the electoral college before the electoral vote was ever taken. Thus, the Obama Secrecy Loophole was born.
As Chief Justice Marshall said back in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison, ”It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”
The Democratic National Committee owes the voters of this country an explanation and answer to each and every request laid out above. The words Natural Born were not placed into the US Constitution to have no effect; and to claim otherwise is inadmissible. Willful ignorance does not amend the US Constitution.
One further request, does the DNC nominating committee require an oath of office? If so please include a copy with your response.
We will all be looking forward to your response at your earliest possible convenience.
Sincerely
Robert Quinn
Realtor
Copy – Florida State Attorney General Bill McCollum.
United States DC Attorney General Jeffery Taylor
RNC National Committeeman Paul Senft.
US Representative Bill Posey
Bill Rufty-Political Editor The Lakeland Ledger
John Wood Florida State Representative
Paula Dockery Florida State Senator
April 4, 2009 at 9:41 AM
A Question for the Moderator & Readers
Leo, do you feel a face-to-face meeting with Atty. Taylor in D.C, would be of value? Assuming the logistics could be managed and that such a meeting could even be arranged, it would seem to be an ideal opportunity for a frank discussion of the issues with the likely prime mover of any petition.
Readers, assuming such a meeting is in our interests and could be arranged, who among you might be interested and available to attend? I’m not suggesting a mob or a tea party on the steps of the DC court, but a small, enlightened contingent of like-minded citizens wishing to express their concerns to a public official charged with the authority to right a wrong. Ideally, each attendee has already sent a certified letter to Attorney Taylor and therefore such a meeting would provide him with the opportunity to address many concerned citizens in a single venue.
Subject to your responses, I will accept the responsibilty to “attempt” the scheduling of such a meeting, and if successful, attempt to work out the logistics. This may truly be a “shot in the dark” but we won’t know unless we try.
Thomas
[Ed. I don't know what to tell you on that. Other than printing my open letter and writing, I don't have any plans to organize people into acting. I have no objection to it either. I think we all have a purpose. Do what you feel is just and what your heart leads you to.]
April 4, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Wouldn’t it be nice if some of our elected officials in Washington DC write letters of concern, and represent the people who elected them. What is going on?
April 4, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Sir,
I have also sent letters to both Holder and Taylor…Certified and Restricted Delivery. Total cost for each letter was $7.42. Mailed March 16th and as of yet no receipt.
I also know of many more who have done the same for I write for many websites and Forums. Dedicated and determined people have written me back and all have one thing in common…total frustration!!!!
We also know that many in the Congress, both the House and Senate, know that Obama was not vetted properly and was pushed through, with eyes closed due to his ethnic status and his backing by the Soros people. A very clever way of pushing through a candidate, a puppet, that if you went against him, the race card would be played and was. The ultimate PC card, in spades, was played and it worked and will continue to work.
What is also known is that if Obama was ever to be found a fraud, by legal means, and was removed from office, cities would burn. This is fact not fiction. The Newark and Los Angeles riots of the past would look like a “fiesta” compared to what would occur today. Fear of this outcome has silenced all…has corrupted the entire Congress and the Judicial system and literally trashed the Constitution.
The realistic outcome of all of this is to look to 2010…also for the States to amend their Laws of Election to include a certified REAL Birth Certificate to prove, beyond any doubt that a candidate is Qualified for the office they seek. Unless something monumental occurs, within the next few months, Obama will be the President for his “elected” term. All efforts, to date, have proven futile and will continue!!!
This, of course, is strictly my own opinion based entirely on events that have taken place to date. Will I give up??? Will those that I know give up??? The answer is NEVER!!!! The more people who are made aware of the fraud against OUR Country, the better chance we have to rid the Congress of those that refuse to act in our behalf. Target 2010 and work for that relief, yet keep up the pressure today, by what ever means necessary, within the frame work of the legal arena, for to give up means defeat.
Many States are now looking into the Valid-Original Birth Certificate Provision and they must be supported and within our own State, our Representatives and Senators must be contacted and advised to introduce this provision into our own Election Law. A common sense approach to making our Elections valid and avoid that which has occurred today. If they refuse or give some lame excuse, as they normally do, mark them for defeat in their next election and let them know.
whitewolf
April 4, 2009 at 2:10 PM
No disrespect jmdon, but your letter says that a natural born Citizen is someone who was born to parents that are natural born Citizens. That is not true. Both parents need only to be U.S. Citizens.
[Ed. That's correct and I've seen the mistake made more than once.]
If we’re going to send letters to Taylor and Holder, they should be consistent with the facts. Or else they might just throw up their hands and think that people are making stuff up just to try and get Obama out of office because they didn’t vote for him. They won’t take us seriously, and when they get new letters they’ll just expect them to be erroneous and might not set aside time to read them.
April 4, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Hi Mr. Donofrio – I have followed you, Mr. Breg and Ms. Taitz (among others). With all due respect, from what I have seen and heard, your actions contradict your advice.
You advise that “we” should unite and write Mr. Taylor to “inform” him on these matters and show him “support”.
How many people “informed” you (or the other Attorneys I mentioned) and/or “supported” your lawsuit(s)?
Were you ALL not courageous and intelligent enough to pursue these matters on your OWN?
If “we” need to “inform” and/or “support” someone in such a position as Mr. Taylor, he is likely NOT worthwhile and needs to be replaced!
[Ed. Theoretically that's somewhat true... but realistically it's not true. On an issue this volatile and political, a load of support will provide much needed protection. That's just the way it is...]
The irony of this all is that I STRONGLY believe that the Obama Administarion, if left alone, will likely SELF destruct within 4-5 months.
Their own “supporters” will turn on them (some already have).
Sadly, these legal attempts, I think, are a waste of time and I believe you are right that violence is NOT the answer – PATIENCE is!!
Thanks again for all of your input and PLEASE do NOT go away!
Kal
April 4, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Dear Mr. Jeffrey Taylor, April, 4th, 2009
In the capacity of me being a U.S. Citizen and you being the United States Attorney, I suggest you seriously contemplate my Rights during your decision of enacting or not enacting the Quo Warranto statute to investigate Barack Obama Jr. regarding his eligibleness to be President of the United States of America. As you’re well aware, the U.S. Constitution Article II, Section I clearly defines that a President of the United States of America must be a natural born Citizen. Although the U.S. Constitution doesn’t supply definitions for terms used within it, such as natural born Citizen, we can readily assume that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution didn’t make-up terms on a flight-of-fancy whim. The popular philosophy book concerning Law during the time the U.S. Constitution was inked was Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations. In Book I, Chapter XIX, 212. Citizen and Natives of The Law of Nations, Emmerich de Vattel writes:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence to what it owes to its own preservation; and it is assumed, as matter of course, that each citizen on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children;…”
Mr. Barack Obama Jr. has been proven to not be a natural born Citizen in two specific instances. The first occasion is when a pro-Obama website, http://www.fightthesmears.com, posted a comment stating:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.
The second occurrence was when Barack Obama Jr. himself sponsored Resolution 511, which clearly states that a natural born Citizen is someone born to American citizens (note that the term “citizens” is in plural form):
“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens…”
Just to clear up a misconception, below the aforementioned paragraph on http://www.fightthesmears.org it says:
“Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”
Just because Barack Obama Jr.was born in Hawaii (which is being debated) and that his Kenyan citizenship expired, that does not make him a natural born Citizen of the United States of America. He might very well be a U.S. Citizen, but he can never be a natural born U.S. Citizen, which he is required to be in order to serve as President of the United States of America according to our U.S. Constitution, because he was born to a father who had never been a U.S. Citizen.
It is your duty to enact Quo Warranto, based on the requirements for Presidency listed in Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution. The dignity of the U.S. Constitution and the future of America rests in your hands, the very same hands you used when you swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Sincerely,
David Mivshek
April 4, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Leo,
As soon as you showed us your letter to Taylor I wrote my own letters to both Taylor and Holder (on 17 March). I got my green receipt cards back last week. I appreciate all you have done to both educate us and to spur us on to action.
April 4, 2009 at 8:20 PM
you are SO RIGHT! Among all of the numerous catagories of citizens, are some who, APPEAR as activist leaders, and have the knowledge necessary to effect a responce, but their “heart” is to feather their own nest first by becomming a blogger of notoriety, which may be exchanged eventually into Greenbacks for themselves. Also, there are the “so called” minutemen; who, laud the second amendment above the body of the document that bare it, and they cannot wait to ignite a bloody coup – which would be instantly put down, and quench any further hope of redress. They have a hair trigger and a minute fuse, combined with a hair brained plan and a minute (my-nute) force. The TRUE patriot has loathing for the letting of blood; but is willing to pour out his own in defence of liberty. There IS resident in our unified body, a power not seen in America since 1800, and in the world since Ghandi. They are the FORTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT (we the People) who energize all the other branches. Our voice warns them of impending punity, our compliance demonstrates the verity of our power, and our financial upbraiding deprives them of the fuel of unconstitutional behavior. We must cohere, and set the course, while we also conspire to remove the head of the IRS serpent, so that we control our wages, not them. Lastly, we must work through the soverenty of the 50 states to encompass the Federal government, and bring it into submission. We may not have until the next election to gamble on a savior, we must answer the call today, and “TIVO” our couchworthy interests. OUR FIGHT is We the People vs. the Federal government, and one will win, while the other will be subservient to the victor.
April 4, 2009 at 9:00 PM
This open letter to US Attorney Taylor was posted on my blog since March 19th, (nobody commented on it at all)and only a hundred or so even viewed it.
I posted this comment to you also but you had said you would not be posting comments any longer.
Many people think the issue will go nowhere, due to the involvement with 911 truther lawyer Berg., the various dismissive remarks by members of Congress and the silence by conservative media voices.
Should a Rick Santelli moment happen, it might ignite a fresh movement, but most people have not followed the complex legal arguments, and are being disappointed by news of court cases being dismissed one after the other and the divirsionary bc question.
Here was my letter-
United States Attorney Jeffrey Taylor
United States Attorney’s Office
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Taylor,
I am writing, as an American citizen, for the purpose of asking about the exercising of your discretion by “quo warranto” in the matter made public over the last several months regarding the eligibility, or lack of eligibility, for Barack H. Obama to hold the office of President of the United States.
It is my understanding that now that Mr. Obama is seated in the office that only you as US attorney or Mr. Eric Holder as US Attorney General have authority of Congress and jurisdiction to initiate a challenging action of quo warranto for the purpose of finding facts regarding the eligibility of Mr. Obama.
The reason I feel this is of utmost importance is that by statements found on Mr. Obamas own website(fightthesmears.com), authorized by himself, seem to indicate that there is a violation of our US Constitution and the requirements stated within the applicable Article II. Section. 1. clause for presidential qualifications. Those statements appear to admit his lack of standing as a “natural born citizen” as required to hold executive Power as our President.
The ongoing debate in this country over this possible usurpation of Power indicates strong doubts about the question of our Constitutions authority if it provisions cannot be enforced.
We the People would quickly lose our Power for self-determination as a republic should those in which we have delegated responsibility fail to abide by our Constitution in the strictest sense.
Unfortunately, it appears the AG of US is in the position of having an unavoidable “conflict of interest” which leaves us with only one, verses two, possible sources to initiate quo warranto until the AG offers to recuse himself from this question. This seems to indicate that you alone have the unique authority(at this time)to initiate this challenge to preserve our Constitution based on the powers vested in you by Congress to administer these quo warranto matters within your jurisdiction.
I realize that I am only one American, that a majority of Americans voted to elect our President per our electoral college system.
Many of those whom did cast a vote may have done so without realizing the potential for damage to the very Constitution which confers that representative right of the People to select their own government.
The probability of injury to our country is certain if an ineligible person occupies an office that represents an entire branch of our government.
Mine are the concerns of one American, but I am far from alone in my doubts, as I am sure you are fully aware.
I have the utmost faith in your abilities and wisdom in taking whatever action you feel is warranted on this matter of preserving our nations Constitutional integrity.
Thank you for your time.
April 4, 2009 at 9:16 PM
Leo,
soldier on, my man, soldier on… and be assured that you are not a lone voice in the wilderness. we hear you, and our voice and yours are one.
i hope this blog quells any more of the extra-constitutional actions of some patriots… their hearts are in the right place though.
“Quo Warranto” will be on all my signs at the Dallas Tea Party. that is an excellent idea. God bless.
for our troops,
reeko
April 4, 2009 at 9:32 PM
I read somewhere and have not been able to confirm, that Mr. Taylor is a temporary US Attorney who did not go through a standard nomination and confirmation for the job. As a temporary US Attorney, would he have standing if fired?
[Ed. Interim US Attorney...but that means he is the acting US Attorney. It makes no difference to his standing in my opinion should he be fired.]
April 5, 2009 at 12:28 AM
Ok. My letter was sent certified today with a request for a receipt. Leo, if for any reason you need a physical copy of the receipt, please let me know by replying to my email and telling me where to send it.
FYI. I sense from feedback from friends and new acquaintances that our circle of influence grows with every day, and YOU are the person who is making it happen.
Bless you for being the rock upon which all our hopes reside.
[Ed. Your hope truly resides upon the Constitution and the original intent of the framers who wrote it. I am just one voice like yours. But thank you for the kind words.]
April 5, 2009 at 12:35 AM
P.S. Forgot to tell you that via http://taxdayteaparty.com/, I was able to send alerts about the natural born citizen issue to all planners in my state. As Katie suggests above, my tea party sign will say QUO WARRANTO! on one side to instigate questions from people and the media. Thanks, Katie, for the suggestion! I think I will also prepare a handout.
April 5, 2009 at 6:17 AM
Well done again and again Leo!!! Sending letters and my people also!!! would it do any good to write to Obama, a personal letter since API is reporting he will resign on June 16th I await your reply and blessings upon you ,all of them >Pastor Charlie
[Ed. I think that is not going to happen on June 16... it's ridiculous.]
April 5, 2009 at 8:05 AM
Sir,
I will write a letter to the U.S. Attorney, Taylor if it will help. Frankly, I have to wonder why the 350,000 signatures on the WND peitition means nothing, yet you believe that we need to write to Taylor? It is a contradiction at least. Do you have a petition that we can sign in order for you to send to Taylor? I would have to assume that would work just as well.
Thank you,
BP
[Ed. I don't believe in form letters. If you think it's an important issue, than write a letter in your own words form your own heart. If you don't want to than don't.]
April 5, 2009 at 8:31 AM
Leo,
Other than your justified concerns about military people getting involved in a quo warranto proceeding against Obama, what is your analysis of the quo warranto case filed by Taitz in D.C., which I now find listed on http://www.uslaw.com/library/Obama_Citizenship/James_v_Obama_Motion_Quo_Warranto_USDC_DC.php?item=427935 ? The suit includes three congressman as plaintiffs.
I am pleased to report that uslaw.com provides links directly to your briefs, letter, and other comments, including your statement that SCOTUS has no original jurisdiction.
[Ed. I assume US Attorney Taylor is reading everything that is sent to him. I don't want to comment on other attorneys suits...]
April 5, 2009 at 8:57 AM
I sent this letter via email on March 23 under the title “One Small Voice”:
Honorable Taylor,
Without all the legal documentation and citings of statutes, I am writing as an appeal to your common sense over the matter of presidential eligilibitity.
I am sure you have received numerous amounts of documents noting laws, precedents, etc., that require you to check and acknowledge in your scope of employment as U.S. Attorney. There is nothing more I can add in that regard.
However, I am a 46 year old divorced mother of three who works full-time, runs a part-time business from home, attends classes toward a degree, and participates in scouting events. I am extremely proud to live in this great country of ours. I strive to raise my children to be productive adults, do well in school, obey the laws, etc.
That is proving more and more difficult when the leader of our country shows them a different example. I teach truth and honesty, openess and integrity. It would not do for my children to hide away those things of which I am using to build their character. Why would Barack Obama hide away his records and sully his character?
Does it at all make sense that when asked to prove eligibility, Obama seals records — including in Kenya (what records exist in Kenya that must be sealed?) — which totally goes against the transparency he promised when running his campaign for the highest office in our land?
If the youth of our country were all to take Obama’s example as acceptable, we may never get anyone to submit their birth certificates any more.
Sir, you may very well be the only one to save our country from certain disaster, which seems incredibly dramatic considering the simple manner in which all this can be settled.
Of course, we need an authoritative voice to define “natural born citizen”, but how hard would it be for you to produce a birth certificate? I mean, I have to turn one in all the time for me and my children to obtain things like a driver’s license or entrance into school. Should the rules be changed for the president or for Obama? I should think quite the opposite!
Thank you for your consideration!
Lisa Smith
April 5, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Thanks Leo and DavidM for pointing out my misstatement, so please help me. What is the exact statement I should be using?
[Ed. Both parents need to be US citizens for a child to be a natural born citizen, but the parents don't have to be nbc themselves or even born in the US, just that hey were citizens at the time their child was born on US soil.]
April 5, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Leo, I think you should take a look at this amazing piece of Alan Keyes’ “Bidens’s Gridiron Humor-Is Obama Laughing?” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2213538/posts Keyes quotes a “joke” of VP Joe Biden that probably made Obama puke his guts out when he heard it. That “joke” gave me a shock, blew my mind, and started the five-alarm fire going on in my brain only because I have been reading your blog on Quo Warranto 1, 2, 3. Biden is on to something about Obama’s birth certificate that is not a joke but a blockbuster to his ineligibility to be POTUS. Take a read of the last section of the piece, and see who really has the power of the presidency in the White House! Alan Keyes says, “Though it’s generally considered bad form to explain a joke, I’ll take the risk of offering a reflection on Vice-President Biden’s telling a joke about the birth certificate issue at the Gridiron dinner last weekend. “You know, I never realized just how much power Dick Cheny had until my first day on the job. I walked into my office, and you know how the outgoing president always leaves the incoming president a note in his desk?” he asked rhetorically. “I opened my drawer and Dick Cheney had left me Barack Obama’s birth certificate.” Now, on the surface this seems to be a joke about Dick Cheney’s ability to get what nobody else has access to. Not far from that surface, however, the joke is not about the power Cheney had, but about the power Biden would have if the full birth certificate were in his possession. It’s an aging maxim in this information age that ‘information is power.’ In this case, the information Obama desperately seeks to conceal represents power over him and therefore over the United States of America. Here’s the question: Who has that power? Biden may joke about it. I somehow doubt that Obama is laughing. And neither should we.”
April 5, 2009 at 11:54 AM
I sadi:
No disrespect jmdon, but your letter says that a natural born Citizen is someone who was born to parents that are natural born Citizens. That is not true. Both parents need only to be U.S. Citizens.
jmdon said:
I was able to send alerts about the natural born citizen issue to all planners in my state. As Katie suggests above, my tea party sign will say QUO WARRANTO! on one side to instigate questions from people and the media. Thanks, Katie, for the suggestion! I think I will also prepare a handout.
I ask jmdon:
Do your alerts and will your response to questions and handouts supply the correct facts concerning the term natural born Citizen? If not, then you are harming the minds of people who are new to the situation or are already confused by misinformation.
April 5, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Here is my letter to U.S. Attorney Taylor that I sent on March 26. I wanted to present the issue of natural born citizenship from a perspective different from what I have seen in other letters.
As I was doing the research, I came across the case of Yaser Hamdi in reference to the birthright citizenship issue. The relevance of his case is stated in my letter.
Dear Mr. Taylor:
I am writing this letter to ask you to seek an answer to a very important question.
I believe that important questions that are not answered will not go away.
The question that needs an answer is this:
Is Barack Obama qualified to hold the office of President of the United States according to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States? In particular is he a natural born citizen?
I understand that you are one of two people who can initiate an action in quo warranto to challenge whether or not Barack Obama is eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. I respectfully request that you do so.
I do not consider this a partisan action. According to the definition below, I am aware of four persons in the political arena who are not natural born citizens, some of whom could be future presidential candidates.
• Democrats
o President Barack Obama
o Governor Bill Richardson
• Republicans
o Governor Bobby Jindal
o Senator John McCain
I have relied on the legal research of Mr. Leo Donofrio, and as a layman and concerned citizen I have come to respect his scholarship and integrity. He has written a letter to you to request that you bring an action in quo warranto to determine whether Barack Obama is constitutionally qualified to occupy the office of President.
The conclusion he has reached from his research is that a natural born citizen is one who is born on U.S. soil to parents both of whom are U.S. citizens. As you are aware this definition has not been adjudicated in any court of law and that is why it is so important that this issue be resolved.
If the issue of who is a natural born citizen is not resolved, I fear that a precedent will be established for future elections. We will lose the safeguards that the framers put in the Constitution to assure us that the person we elect to be our President has no foreign allegiances or loyalties. I believe the need for those safeguards is even more critical today. September 11, 2001 has forever changed how we view the world. There are still people in this world willing to use whatever means necessary to bring harm to the United States.
The dangers posed by the possibility of a usurper occupying the office of President were made vividly clear to me by the testimony of Dr. John Eastman at the Hearing before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Ninth Congress, First Session, September 29, 2005. Although Dr. Eastman was challenging the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that gave birthright citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil regardless of the status of his or her parents, his testimony could apply also to a person who seeks to usurp the office of President.
The following excerpts from the Committee hearings demonstrate the potential threat to our security posed by someone who is born in the United States, but has no allegiance to the United States.
In his opening remarks before the Committee, Chairman John Hostettler said the following:
The key portion of Dr. John Eastman’s testimony follows:
Later in his testimony, Dr Eastman said:
Dr. Eastman’s testimony is perhaps alarmist. Nevertheless, his example shows what could happen in the event that mere birth on U.S. soil makes one a natural born citizen. And I believe that this is the kind of situation that the framers of the Constitution wanted to guard against when they required that a President must be a natural born citizen.
I want to emphasize that I understand that Dr. Eastman was addressing who should be a citizen, and not who is a natural born citizen. I also want to emphasize that I bring up the Hamdi case in order to focus attention on the legal question of who is a natural born citizen. Obviously, Hamdi himself could not get elected assuming his background is known. But should a “Hamdi” with a different background, albeit an unknown one, be able to qualify for the office of President?
Some have argued that the Fourteenth Amendment also bestowed natural born citizenship status on those born on U.S. soil. This cannot be the case since that would render the natural born citizenship requirement in Article II ineffective. The following is taken from Mr. Leo Donofrio’s blog.
I hope and pray that you will take it upon yourself to institute a quo warranto action. I wish I could convey to you how seriously concerned I am about this issue. In principle, it should take only one letter to convince you to act, because a fundamental Constitutional issue is at stake. I cannot imagine the enormity of the burden that initiating a quo warranto action will place upon you. I hope that your devotion to upholding the Constitution of the United States will cause you to summon all the courage necessary to proceed with this very risky, but ultimately very necessary action.
Sincerely yours,
April 5, 2009 at 5:47 PM
I sent the following letter by email and hard copy to Mr. Taylor a few days after your letter was sent. I did not send it certified but I could re-send it certified. I didn’t post it here because I did not believe it was particularly worth sharing with others. Incidentally, I also emailed Patrick Fitzgerald , encouraging him to urge Mr. Taylor to proceed with Quo Warranto. For what it’s worth:
United States Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor
United States Attorney’s Office
555 Fourth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Taylor:
I first became aware in November of last year that the eligibility of some of the presidential candidates in that month’s election was being questioned by several attorneys. I was incredulous to find that these candidates could have gotten so close to the presidential election without their eligibility having yet been established beyond any doubt and that such a thing could even happen in this country.
As I began seeking out information I have learned more about our Constitution in the past few months than during my previous 56 years as an American citizen. The more I read the more clear it became that something terribly wrong had happened in regards to the legal checks and balances in place to ensure that all presidential candidates meet the eligibility requirements set forth in the Constitution.
While the press and several other law suits have focused almost entirely on Obama’s birth certificate I have come to understand that in order to conclusively establish whether or not Obama holds clear title to the office of POTUS it is necessary to determine two things: whether he was born on US soil and whether or not an individual who was a British subject at birth (as stated by Obama on his web site http://fighthtesmears.com) is a natural born citizen. As long as either of these requirements remains unconfirmed it will be uncertain whether or not we have a legitimate president. Since no court has ever officially defined the words natural born citizen, even Mr. Obama himself cannot know for certain whether or not he meets this requirement of the Constitution.
I believe that the risks of allowing these questions to remain unanswered far outweigh the challenges and difficulties of taking the necessary steps to answer them once and for all. After researching the matter, and in particular reviewing the research of Attorney Leo Donofrio, I understand that the only currently available legal option for resolving this deeply disturbing and profoundly dangerous situation is for you or Attorney General Eric Holder to institute the District of Columbia’s Quo Warranto statute 16-3502.
For the sake of the many active military personnel who are placing themselves at risk with litigation to determine the validity of their Commander in Chief, for our Country and for our Constitution I am begging that you institute this action now.
I am not a religious person but I believe that sometimes we are asked by our God to do things that seem beyond what any one person should have to bear. It would seem perhaps that such a task is being given to you now. I pray that the lights of faith and wisdom burn brightly in you and that the millions who are praying for you can help to give you the courage and strength to do what clearly must be done now for the sake of our beloved Country and her supreme law, the Constitution.
Sincerely,
Name removed from this post
April 5, 2009 at 6:04 PM
Mr. Donofrio,
I have drafted letter which will be sent by certified mail to US Atty Jeffrey Taylor for Quo Warranto Inquiry per your request. May I suggest that you furnish his address on your website, and may I request a favor?
The 1776 TAB Team is trying to build a powerful coalition of like-minded patriots whose ancillary interests may not always align, but whose primary interest to save the country will parallell in paramount importance.
Walt Myers is the founder and would welcome you to share your progress with the 1776 TAB Team in an upcoming Saturday forum.
It’s time to work with our state legislators on a state by state basis to save what’s left of our country! One and all are needed to help change America’s current course of cultural Marxism away from the brink of financial collapse and constitutional tyranny by networking with the in-place strategy of the 1776 Take America Back Team at http://www.tyranttamer.com/signup.php. Do it for America, do it for yourself, do it for your children, and do it because it’s time to honor our country and those who have given their lives to ensure its freedom, not its enslavement to a New World Order premised on Marxist principles of pessimism, despair and oligarchy. Tune in Saturday 4-11-09 at 6:00 PM EST http://www.tyranttamer.com/teleconference.php.
We’re in the process of implementing a ‘knock-your-socks-off’ communication infrastructure with state legislators rather than US legislators to attempt to enact change on the state level necessary to save the country from the self-serving enterprise currently in charge. Those readers associated through your website who sign on with us could also make such pleas to their state legislators. It’s a WIN-WIN for one and all with an inherent chance for success if all would unite together for the good of the country. Thank you.
April 5, 2009 at 7:22 PM
Dear Leo:
I hae been writing Jeffrey Taylor each week for a month. I send each letter through the regular mail and have yet to receive anything back from him. I will keep you posted should I receive a response. Here is a copy of the last letter…please keep the address out..
April 2, 2009
Honorable United States Attorney Jeffrey Taylor
Judiciary Center Building
555 Fourth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Re: Request for the United States to relate Quo Warranto
on Barack Hussein Obama, II to Test His Title to President
Dear Attorney Taylor:
As I write to you today I am mindful of our constitution. This document has inspired multiple millions of immigrant to come to our country and enjoy the freedoms that we have. That is the reason we are the nation we are today: A nation governed by laws which applies to all men no matter of their status or standing. This is something that I am sure you fully understand.
I say this to tell you a story. In my neighborhood of St. Louis there is a local merchant. His name is Otto. You see laws to him are important as when he was 17 he escaped from East Germany and legally relocated in America. He served honorably in our military and has raised a family here. Otto is very fearful of the ‘changes’ Barack Obama is bringing to our country. He says the course Obama is charting is something he has seen, and escaped from as a young man. He expresses his fear of an oppressive central government with its corrupt officials lording over all people and placing burden upon burden on their simple lives while enjoying the fruits of their labor. The freedoms we now enjoy, speech, travel, commerce, the right to fail or grow rich will be gone and replaced with a government that does not serve the people, but extracts a painful price on those who serve them. Otto tells of the hope he had as a young man of coming to America. Yes he escaped, risked his life and hope for liberty to reach our country where he has prospered in ways he never could under communist oppression. You sir may be our only hope to stop the onslaught of oppressive government Barack Obama is bringing to our country,
Please sir, consider the option as set before you. This is an opportunity for you to save our great country so our children will never want to escape.
Sincerely,
Doug
April 5, 2009 at 11:51 PM
A Pakistani government forum has scrubbed the data that listed Obama as “Kenyan born” (but I created my own screenshot here):
http://lgstarr.blogspot.com/2009/03/pakistan-government-records-lists-obama.html
This information fortifies the idea that Americans really do need to know the truth and will not feel safe or secure until they do. How can anyone support a President who would not respect us enough to very simply and expediently provide the evidence? It can only mean he has something serious to hide!
April 6, 2009 at 3:45 AM
Greetings Leo,
Your blog is insightful and inspirational. My letter to Jeffery A Taylor was drafted on 17 March ‘09, mailed from Tualatin, Oregon on 18 March ‘09 and according to USPS Track and Confirm, was delivered on 24 March ‘09; signed for by Aaron Jennings.
My letter follows.
Humbly,
Roger W Law
6 Apr ‘09 @ 01:45 PDT
*************************
17 March 2009
United States Attorney Jeffery Taylor
United States Attorney’s Office
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Re: Quo Warranto
Dear Mr. Taylor,
I write to persuade you to bring an action in quo warranto, to establish for the good of the United States of America, and for you to fulfill your sworn oath to uphold the United States Constitution, as to whether President Obama is actually eligible for the Office of President.
In that the United States Constitution is the basis for the rule of law in this, the most powerful country in the world; economically, politically and militarily, and to have achieved this remarkable feat in the span of less than 235 years, is truly an amazingly successful experiment of representative democracy supporting a constitutional republic. Yet, today my concern lies in recognizing that when the U.S. Constitution is knowingly and blatantly violated, the rule of law is then forsaken, and increasingly we will witness additional as well as uglier constitutional erosion and degradation, until eventually, the U.S. becomes a failed state; a land of anarchy, chaos, and mob rule or rule by the barrel of a gun. May this never be. We can only remain a free country if the foundational laws of our society remain intact, setting aside politics and putting in place, principles of law.
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution describes the requirements for the Office of President. One of the requirements is that of being a, “natural born citizen.” The “natural born citizen” requirement is constitutionally not defined, and has not been properly defined or clarified by the courts. This matter of “natural born citizen” is the heart of the matter, and should have been resolved long ago to avoid what is now an imminent U.S. Constitutional crisis.
Having followed this “natural born citizen” matter since well before the November 2008 elections, I am aware that numerous court cases throughout the United States have been filed, denied standing, dismissed, and appealed all the way to the SCOTUS. I am also aware that as of 20 January 2009, and the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama as President of the United States, the only remaining legal means to resolve the matter of Presidential eligibility is the Federal Quo Warranto Statute as detailed by Leo C. Donofrio, Esq. (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/).
Further, I believe that defending and upholding the U.S. Constitution is of paramount importance to the future of the United States of America. This matter is and must be kept above political party and politics. Therefore, with all due respect and solemnity, I ask that you thoughtfully consider this matter, and with all boldness and courage, act upon your convictions in prudent haste, for the good and preservation of our great country.
Humbly and sincerely,
Roger W Law
April 6, 2009 at 8:07 AM
I sent the following letter to both AG Holder and US Atty Taylor back on March 19th and received back the Return Receipt cards (one on Mar 25 and one on Mar 27) with a stamped signature of what looks like the name “Emanuel Z Parker” (although I could be wrong about this name as it’s rather unclear what the signature is supposed to read):
Jeffrey Taylor, United States Attorney
United States Attorney’s Office
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
cc: Eric H. Holder, U.S. Attorney General
March 18, 2009
Dear Mr. Taylor,
I am writing to make you aware of a brewing danger to members of our active military who have been influenced to join lawsuits challenging the eligibility of President Barack Obama as Commander In Chief. I hope you will deem it proper to take appropriate action to protect our military and the nation as a whole from further damage. These soldiers of freedom have already done so much for this country it would be an abomination to subject them to possible court martial proceedings, simply because no clarity has been brought to the question of whether or not Barack Obama meets all of the conditions to be President which have been established in our Constitution. The 3 requirements found in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 are here:
• natural born citizens (or citizens at the time of the Constitution’s adoption)
• attained the Age of thirty five Years
• fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Please note: these are “And” conditions not “Or” conditions.
Most of us can be readily convinced that Barack Obama is at least 35 years old. And most of us are willing to assume that he has lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years (though with his international upbringing and no access to his travel documents we are still relying solely on his own memoirs to ascertain this fact). The first requirement is the one which I think you will agree requires a little bit more investigation. Can you say with absolute certainty that Barack Obama is a “natural born citizen”? Emerich de Vattel, in Law of Nations, defined the term “natural born citizens” as “those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” Please note the words “parents” and “citizens” are in the plural.
Furthermore, John A. Bingham (the chief framer of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution) opined: “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” Once again “parents” in the plural, but also strikingly Mr. Bingham references “not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”.
You no doubt are aware that Barack Obama has openly admitted on his “fightthesmears.com” website that:
“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”
For the record Kenya received it’s independence from the United Kingdom in 1963, and since President Obama was born in 1961 his status was indeed governed by said BNA1948. So, the question is: How is it possible for President Obama to have his birth status governed by the BNA1948 and yet not owe allegiance to any foreign sovereignty? This is rhetorical of course; a 6th grader would reach the following conclusion: It is not possible.
This very scenario is the reason why the founders of this great nation had to “grand-father” themselves into A2, S1, C5 with the clause “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”. As framers of the Constitution they owed allegiance to Britain, and were willing to give themselves an out-clause and anyone else that might follow them within a single lifetime. Because he was born in 1961, Barack Obama fails the “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” out-clause. I submit to you that if Barack Obama was born on US soil that makes him a “Citizen of the United States”. But, in order to be a “natural born citizen” he also would have to have “two US citizen parents”.
My intention is not to convince you that President Obama is not eligible to the office of President. But rather my intention is to try and convince you that having his title to office cleared of all doubt is in the best interest of the nation as a whole and more specifically the military chain of command. Since you are the main law enforcement officer charged with enforcing the District of Columbia Code, and since you are listed in § 16-3502 as one of only two people who may institute a proceeding – upon their own motion – in quo warranto to investigate any United States public office holder’s qualifications if the office concerned is within the District of Columbia (§ 16-3501). I respectfully request that you bring such an action before the District Court for the District of Columbia as soon as possible.
Simply put, with active duty military now openly doubting the eligibility of their Commander in Chief, this country in on the precipice of some very dangerous times ahead and we have a need to have this brewing crisis resolved.
Very Truly Yours,
Kevin [redacted], concerned citizen.
April 6, 2009 at 9:56 AM
There are so many blogs, web sites, organizations, etc. that represent *huge* numbers of patriots who are passionate about the preservation of the Constitution and our country. It seems to me that if some articulate individual were to craft a fairly simple and concise statement calling for a letter writing effort to provide Mr. Taylor with evidence of the numbers supporting the quo warranto initiative, and posted that letter here, the request could be distributed widely by this blogs’ readers.
I did a quick Facebook search on “tea party day” and found many many resources with thousands of members – and that was just Facebook. Could someone more articulate than me write such a statement?
April 6, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Leo,
I sent this letter previously without asking for verification of receipt – so I am sending it again today, asking for verification of receipt. I also attached to the letter the page from the Law of Nations book and I have just posted the page at http://www.uniformdivorce.com/LawOfNations-OnePage.pdf
in case anyone else would like to include a copy with their letter.
Jeffrey A. Taylor
U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
April 6, 2009
Dear Mr. Taylor,
I am writing to urge you to bring an action in quo warranto to resolve, once and for all, whether President Obama is eligible to serve in the office of President. He has publicly stated that, at the time of his birth, his father was Kenyan and not a U.S. citizen, having come to the U.S. on a “student visa”.
The U.S. Constitution requires that a President must be a “natural born citizen” – a status that has never been explicitly defined by the U.S. Supreme Court, although many opinions have alluded to the meaning of “natural born citizen”: born on U.S. soil by parents, both of whom are U.S. citizens.
When presidential-candidate Obama told his story about his father. Obama, Sr., being born in Kenya, he was “admitting” to his own (Obama Jr.’s) flawed candidacy but hoping that, by putting it in plain sight, voters like me would not notice or care, and further, would not even CONTEMPLATE the meaning of “natural born citizen” since we are so poorly educated about what the Constitution says and means.
Just before the general election, when online discussion first erupted regarding the issue of Obama’s father’s status, this issue clearly overshadowed the swirling controversy over Obama’s “birth certificate” and “place of birth,” which provided fodder for talk radio shows with endless discussions that avoided this much more serious as well as easy-to-prove issue. If President Obama was a constitutional scholar and teacher, he certainly must have known or suspected his candidacy for president was flawed. The rest of us citizens are NOT constitutional scholars and therefore, were not as able to detect this flaw until very late in the game as the relevant information was finally discovered and then shared with citizens. The place-of-birth, while still extremely important to verify, has become grist for the rumor mill, and the matter easily could be laid to rest if his vault-copy birth certificate is finally provided. The place-of-birth has served as a masterful distraction that has camouflaged what was right under our noses about his father’s non-citizen status, but since we were not able to see the forest for the trees. I am as guilty as the next, even though I have a post-graduate college education.
I urge you to use the power vested in you through your office as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to clear up this matter by requiring the President to show “by what right” he is serving as President of the United States, which will require a clear ruling on whether his father’s non-citizenship disqualified him from running for election from the very start. (I understand that he did not need to be a “natural born citizen” to be seated as a U.S. Senator.) I understand that United States Code uniquely vests you with the power (along with Attorney General Eric Holder, who, due to serious conflict of interest, is extremely unlikely to initiate such an action) to bring a quo warranto action on a sitting President. You are vested with the power to challenge the legitimacy of any public officeholder in your district – the District of Columbia.
The 1758 legal classic, Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law, by Emerich de Vattel (originally published in French), was used by our Founding Fathers to construct our own constitution and this text clearly elucidates the meaning of “natural born citizen” which at the time was a term of art that everyone understood. I have attached the page from this book that provides the definition as understood by the Founding Fathers of this elusive term. The book is available to legal scholars at HeinOnline.
I hope this matter finally can be settled and laid to rest, whatever the outcome. If President Obama is, indeed, found to meet the “natural born citizen” requirement as set forth in our constitution, which may require a jury trial in order to reach a decision on all the relevant issues, then we will not have to face what will likely happen throughout the rest of his administration: a cascading array of challenges, coming from a variety of unsettled Americans with the most troubling challenges coming from those serving in the military.
Thank You and Godspeed!
XXXX
April 6, 2009 at 1:47 PM
what do i write and where do i send the letter.
April 6, 2009 at 6:22 PM
First, Unbamboozleus, your suggestion is similar to the one I made to Leo. I still hope he’ll write a “brief” synopsis or outline, and keep it placed at the top of his blog. It would be a very useful recruitment tool. Links at the bottom could then direct readers to his own letter to Jeffrey Taylor and anything else he thinks is important.
A couple days ago I wrote up something about this initiative, and then went to http://taxdayteaparty.com/ where I clicked the TEXAS link. Using the emails listed, I sent my letter to all the organizers. I recommend, as you do, that each reading this blog do the same in their own states. Oh, I also sent the notice to the people planning the D.C. party.
Second, JP-Research: Your letter is really great. I hope you will circulate it to tea party organizers in your state.
April 6, 2009 at 10:20 PM
I have sent a respectful letter to U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor along the lines you have suggested. I sent it Certified Mail, return receipt requested. I will let you know when I receive my green card back. Keep up the good work! Coragio!
April 7, 2009 at 9:53 AM
One signed letter should be enough for him to do his job.
He jokes with Obama about basketball … if he ignores one letter he will ignore a million. I don’t care if you publish this on your blog or not.
I give you Chief Justice Roberts as the precedent. What did he he do? he knows all the details.
One letter is all a real Attorney General should need. How many letters does Fitzgerald need to investigate a case if he knows a law has been broken?
[Ed. This not a criminal process. Read the statute. This is a civil case so the same criteria does not apply. There's no "certain" proof Obama isn't eligible. The main reason for Taylor to do this is that there is a schism in some people's minds, but that's not necessarily going to require he do anything this drastic. If you try to analyze this like it was just some law that was broken and he should prosecute than you've not done the proper homework. You simply do not understand the law yourself. I'm just telling you that as a lawyer who has done more research on this than you can imagine.]
April 7, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Jmdon, Leo has written amazing things here but I think this should be done by someone else. I’ve seen the work of several really excellent writers here. I saw your post a while back and that’s what got me to thinking that it might be productive if a really concise and well written (non-legalese) piece were written up, similar to a press release, as a call to action encouraging people to contact Mr. Taylor. Such a piece could be widely distributed.
I’ll start working on it to see if I can at least get a workable rough draft going.
April 7, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Leo, thanks for all your hard work on this extremely important issue!
I found the following, which might be of interest to you, but I have no way to verify its authenticity:
FBI InfraGard warns of a crescendo of public concern about Obama’s eligibility
by DefendUSx April 05, 2009 11:14
Tasked by the FBI to provide “informational analysis” on conditions which could be construed as potentially harmful to civil order and national security, InfraGard, of the FBI’s National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC), issued an unclassified Protective Intelligence Communication report in March 2009 regarding the “crescendo” of public concern about Obama’s presidential eligibility.
Authored by Dr. Lyle J. Rapacki, Protective Intelligence Specialist and Agent, the report summarizes the substance of legal challenges to Obama on the question of his constitutional eligibility and concludes that if it “should be discovered Mr. Obama is ineligible, a constitutional crisis would ensue attempting to determine which of his executive branch orders should be valid.” It goes on to warn that “if…Mr. Obama fights revealing his documentation, there is growing concern of civil unrest, or worse, being unleashed in the streets of our nation. The economic crisis coupled with this type of a constitutional crisis could prove to be a flashpoint that would test conventional law enforcement and elements of homeland security.”
The stream of law suits, the most recent of which have been tendered by high ranking military officers and state legislators, to compel Obama to prove his eligibility have been unremitting and increasingly vocal. A request for “quo warranto” action, an apparent last-ditch legal remedy, was recently delivered to both the US Attorney for the District of Columbia and to the Attorney General.
Dovetailing with this unsettling assessment, and pretty much out of public view, are the following national security developments which, in their totality, could well signal acute domestic instability in the period ahead.
Upon the recommendation of the Army’s Strategic Studies Institute, The Army Times reported that a somewhat euphemistically dubbed “Consequence Management Response Force (CCMRF),” currently the role of the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team, but which, reportedly, might eventually comprise upwards of 80,000 troops, is being trained and readied to deal with what could be widespread civil disorder resulting from an “unforeseen economic collapse” or “loss of a functional political and legal order.”
Symptomatic of festering civil unrest are the many “tea parties” springing up around the country, growing fears of economic disintegration and of both crippling terrorist attacks and even of perceived federal overreaching. Add to this the very real threat of a rogue nuclear EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) attack on the homeland which could instantaneously reduce the country to a paralytic pre-industrial condition, plus the unrest on our southern border, and there appears to be ample and justifiable cause for concern and appropriate contingency planning at every level of government.
http://216.221.102.26/blogger/post/FBI-InfraGard-warns-of-a-crescendo-of-public-concern-about-Obamas-eligibility.aspx
April 7, 2009 at 10:31 AM
I know that Obama’s current citizenship status is irrelevant, because “natural *born* citizen” refers to the status at birth, but nevertheless Mr. Apuzzo has written quite an interesting article. He maintains that Obama—even today—is still a citizen of the United Kingdom:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/obama-president-of-us-is-currently-also_07.html
Another short article from April 09 is here (but I haven’t read it yet):
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/more-on-what-is-article-ii-natural-born.html
[Ed. I think Mario may have it wrong on this issue. The following article is one of a line of articles I have read (can't find the links right now for the others, but this one should do)
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/10423
It concerns the Indians of Kenya who were given a choice by Great Britain between being citizens of Kenya or GB, such Indians were forced to choose... but native Kenyans and their offspring were not given such a choice and as to them I don't believe the same laws apply as to people form other colonies who also got to keep their British citizenship...once Kenya became indie from GB, the Brits took their citizenship (and passports I believe) away. If anybody finds more on this feel free to post it. ]
What’s interesting though is the comment left by Teo Bear
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/obama-president-of-us-is-currently-also_07.html?showComment=1239089280000#c6884285241751062867 ]
April 7, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Update. Newt Gingrich affords average citizens an opportunity to develop solutions to vexing problems, with an emphasis on government issues. Thus I have set up a solution page titled “Removal of Obama via Quo Warranto”. I would very much appreciate feedback, because this time I want to make sure the facts are absolutely correct. Please take a look and let me know how I can improve the solution. If you register on the site, you can comment using the “Discussions” tab.
The general lab solutions page is http://www.americansolutions.com/SolutionsLab/
The direct link to my page is http://www.americansolutions.com/SolutionsLab/Solution.aspx?Guid=9614c934-ce6a-4621-ab33-a07bff5368eb
[Ed. Looks good but I would make it clear that the section 212 thing is from Vattel and not some official Government authority...]
April 7, 2009 at 8:20 PM
Leo – perhaps this question treads too heavily on the forbidden territory you request we avoid. But let me try. I have no reason (and no credentials) to doubt your assertion that the Quo Warranto is the only legal/constitutional remedy left for us.
But I’m wondering why we have to bite this off all at once. We most urgently need to just get more exposure to the correct ideas and get this whole thing elevated out of the murk and muck of “conspiracy theories” and out into the mainstream.
To that end, it seemed that there was once a good idea to bring a case against Nancy Pelosi – specifically in her role as the chair of the Democratic convention – in regards perjury for falsy certifying BHO. That would certainly blow things wide open and get some traction. Why is no one seem to be pursuing this? I could REALLY get behind THAT cause! (I’m from California).
[Ed. If in her opinion he was eligible than there is no false certifying of anything. The biggest misconception most of you are making is that your opinion is somehow controlling law. My opinion is not controlling law... my opinion reflects what I believe the law is supposed to be, but it has never been decided so all any of us have right now is just an opinion... ]
April 7, 2009 at 8:53 PM
Leo:
I must strongly disagree with your contention that there is no justice outside of the Constitution. It is not divine – it only echos our divinity!
[Ed. I was speaking in terms of citizens, not as a spiritual being.]
You miss the primary point – it is not the Constitution that needs to be upheld – for it has been trampled upon for generations –
[Ed. That a contradiction in words.]
It is the underlying precepts that are above the Constitution that need to be upheld – and if that requires going outside of what you consider reasonable actions – so be it.
[ed. I disagree strongly.]
I often think that all of the great thinkers that have a law degree have some sort of fatal flaw in their thinking. They assume that all others that wish to trample on these God Given precepts respect them. My God man, they do not.
[ed. No kidding? Of course they don't, but I'm not them and don't want to be like them or do what they do or think what they think. If they want to destroy the Constitution, I'm not going to help them. ]
The Constitution is just a template that tries to state as best it can, nascent human values that all of us who incarnate possess.
[Ed. The Constitution is not a template... it is the law. If you break from it, you will reap what you sow... big trouble. Count me out.]
April 7, 2009 at 9:22 PM
Leo
One of the most frustrating things about this whole situation is the total lack of response we are getting other than the obligatory canned letters from congress spewing the “go see his certificate on factcheck.org” BS. I think that even if we were wrong, we as a significat number of citizens, deserve a legitimate explanation. Given that, would it be appropriate for you to visit or at least call Jeffrey Taylor and ask the status of your request? Given all the effort you put into research and carefully crafting the appropriate strategy for a remedy for those of us who are troubled by this issue, doesn’t his office at least owe you an answer to whether they intend to follow up on it at all or if they tossed it out summarily–and, if so, why? I know that puts the onus on you but let’s face it, you are the most knowledgeable and articulate of anyone concerning the quo warranto and since you were the original requester, you are the one they would owe a status to, if anyone.
April 8, 2009 at 9:11 AM
Hi Leo,
I sent my letter on March 18th and received my green receipt on March 25th. Thank you for encouraging your followers and students to send letters and get their receipts.
We may need them in the future, to prove that he was put on notice, if we want to bring a case against Mr. Taylor for failing to protect us and the Constitution. We must stop letting these elected and appointed officials chose which laws they will and will not enforce or follow.
[ed. there's no case to bring against taylor. the statute gives him complete discretion.]
Quo Warranto was created for the expressed purpose, and in the event that a ururper was ever able to get into the White House. We now find ourselves in that very situation, and Mr. Taylor has no right to simply ignore his responsibility. Please tell everyone you know to write to Mr. Taylor and to institute a Quo Warranto, and be sure to get a receipt.
God Bless you Leo!
April 8, 2009 at 9:29 AM
Leo, do you need any help with anything? Or do you mainly need help in the form of letters of support to U.S. Attorney Taylor and Attorney General Holder?
[Ed. People should write if they want to write. Thanks, but I don't need any help.]
April 8, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Leo,
This is my letter to Jefferey Taylor for which I am asking your approval. I thought to make it personal and appealing to his sense of patriotism and his obligation to defend the Constitution. Please do not publish if you do not approve, or correct and publish, if you do. I will not send it until I have your approval. Thank you.
Honorable U.S. Attorney Jefferey Taylor:
It is my understanding, from reading Mr. Leo Donofrio Esq. blog, http://www.naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com you have been inundated with letters respectfully requesting that, as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, you begin an inquiry in Quo Warranto as to Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to be President of the United States. What a mind-bending, soul-shaking, mission-impossible assignment to be placed on your shoulders! In essence, Mr. Taylor, you are being asked to take your place with the Founding Fathers of America, and make history with a legal challenge in Quo Warranto: by what warrant does an elected President of our great nation have the legal right to be leader of the most powerful country in the world! I have no doubt at all, our heroic Founding Fathers in Heaven are awaiting, with the greatest interest and intense expectation, your response to the most important question since the Boston Tea Party, the composition of the U.S. Constitution and the American Revolutionary War.
Hundreds of thousands of patriotic men and women of today are also appealing to you to initiate the legal action of Quo Warranto
[Ed. I think you should avoid speaking for hundreds of thousands...if others want to write, they will write. I can't "approve" your letter... it's up to you, but other than this part above, it's well written.]
to preserve the integrity of the U.S. Constitution and its requirements of a candidate for the presidency, a natural born citizen, born on U.S. soil, of two parents who are citizens of the U.S. As you well know, our most revered Founding Fathers would not have a British citizen, themselves excepted, or a citizen of any other nation, to be President of the U.S. As you have been well-informed and knowledgeable of the all the legal terms, excellent research and persuasive arguments of Mr. Leo Donofrio, Esq., I will not detail the legalese of Quo Warranto.
However, as an 82-year-old Veteran of World War II, having served honorably in the Navy aboard the USS Benham, DD 796, in the Pacific Theater, I am humbly appealing to your patriotic love for America, to take your place in history with our Founding Fathers, and undertake the heroic and honorable mission of the preservation of the U.S. Constitution, by initiating the inquiry in Quo Warranto as to the validity of Obama’s presidency. It is rare in the history of our nation that, at this point in history, it is absolutely necessary for one man to stand in the gap, tall as a great hero, and save its Constitution from those who would destroy it, the nation and its people! Honorable U.S. Attorney Jefferey A. Taylor, you are that man! May God bless you with great courage, wisdom and fortitude in your positive response to undertake this great mission, the preservation of the U.S. Constitution for the love of America and its people.
Thanking you most sincerely,
April 8, 2009 at 9:11 PM
JosephII,
Thank you for your honorable, military service to the United States of America! And by stepping up and writing your letter to Mr. Taylor, you continue to serve in the name of liberty. I love your well written letter. Suggest you send it and send it often!
CF
April 9, 2009 at 12:58 AM
private post >>> I hope something postive happens.But am ready for the worst. Read >>>> COMMUNISM THRIVES: OBAMA’S DEADLY “CHANGE” LIVES ON
By Greg Evensen
April 9, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
Never in my lifetime did I believe that I would ever witness the takeover of our nation by revolutionary forces dedicated to one socialistic goal. Naively, I held on to the presumption that when it REALLY came down to it, this nation would not allow communism the final victory. I based my life and my family’s safety and prosperity on that view. I just could not accept that my fellow citizens would encourage the rape and murder of our history, the betrayal of our collective sacrifices in times of war, and defeat in the centuries old debate over how much control Washington should exert over its populace.
We have experienced the destruction of our republic in a way that leaves virtually no possibility of a systemic change reversal toward our former sovereign status. Collective forces including global bankers, industrialists, social engineers specializing in tyranny, and the corrupted elites of every nation have realized their final victory over freedom, liberty and national identity.
The incredibly painful reality is that we have allowed for creeping incrementalism to wear us down for the final assault waged over the previous two years. It was during this time, that Wall Street, the banks, investment houses and corporate businesses crested in lunar orbit with unsustainable and unjustifiable run-ups in share values and the profane “margins” in the derivatives markets. Military misadventures killed our troops and our national morale. Universities have continuously and unrelentingly driven morality from the minds of our young and taught us that right is wrong and wrong is right. Public schools would take a pregnant girl to get an abortion, but go apoplectic if students ate ice cream at lunch.
In the meantime, these same students kill for sport on video games downloaded on their laptops.
And we wonder why Americans by the millions voted for a president devoid of every shred of “morality” except that of his Illuminati handlers
I have waged the battle for many years that has sought to insure our communities some hope that police forces would cling to their oaths and ultimately protect us from the absolute evil found in some of the state capitals and Washington itself. I have lectured, written, broadcast and lobbied for republic values and sovereign laws. Along with thousands of others just like me, I have tried to avoid this day and I have completely failed in my “mission.” The struggle, the battles, the war—has been lost. I am now a prisoner in my own land, awaiting an attempt to imprison me or worse. After all the battles I have been through, actual physical combat and armed confrontations too numerous to count in the streets of America, I face the prospect of standing the final battle virtually alone—at least that is how I view the near term future.
Only an enraged and unrelenting populace can change that fate for many of us. Only those who have felt the bitter sting of loss imposed by a leadership poised to sweep away all of our freedoms can fight back with the strength borne of desperation and personal betrayal. It will be those, who in the final hour gave their all for the ultimate fight for freedom, indeed the last great battle for freedom.
It will be high stakes all the way. Either we will emerge completely victorious or we will crawl out utterly defeated. It REALLY has come down to that. No hyperbole here, just ultimate, brutal reality. We will either survive as free people, or we will perish as a defeated people. To perish in the fight is to live on with God. To live as slaves in Obama’s communist America is not an option for me. If I am permitted to see a free republic victory, then all glory to God and thanks to my fellow patriotic freedom fighters. We cannot quit now or expect someone else to stand up to this bully government. There simply is no one else to resist these traitors.
I have reached that conclusion because I am now witnessing the final insult to a lifetime of advocacy from the ramparts. I watch as Americans continue the slaughter of their moral absolutes by vicious and vile people who advocate for the Obama nation and every horrific inch of the drunken excess called stimulus. I am incredulous at the “debates” in congress by officials who have sold out their fellow citizens, their common sense and their trust to the whorehouse that is Washington, D.C. I am sickened by men and women who justify abortion up to the moment of delivery as a human right for the mother but a human disaster for the child. Obama believes this is an absolute necessity in our brave new world of change. This same Obama who is of questionable heritage, unknown national origin, and the most incapable immoral leader in our history, is an object of delirium among nations who know nothing of him or his pending ultimate national betrayal.
Corrupted officials who demand that we pay unjust and unlawful taxes are hired for cabinet positions having not paid their own taxes. Truly, what do they know that we don’t? Eric Holder, the leftist moron, who occupies the chief law enforcement office in the land, makes John Ashcroft look flawless in retrospect. Hillary Clinton struts around the globe proclaiming United States authority to meld us into that (you know-for paranoids only, doesn’t really exist) global governance mindset that even has the Supreme Court drooling over how quickly we can all think globally, not constitutionally.
No matter how we paint this picture, the outcome is the same. It took hundreds of years, but the ancient evil ones among us have clutched the victor’s laurel wreath. Patriots, constitutionalists, anti-abortionists, militia supporters, UN haters, gun rights activists (you know, the ones the Fusion centers and various state police agencies long to stop, harass and incarcerate for their beliefs) are on the lists for government action and action IS pending.
Machine gun executioners under the employment of bailout giants in business and banking have melted down their barrels as they put millions into financial death and disruption across America.
Millions more were put to death by guillotines mounted on flatbeds and parked outside the agencies holding retirement programs and various savings plans meant to give peace of mind to those who worked decades to provide for THEMSELVES. The countless millions who have escaped this deadly fate by doing absolutely nothing and reaping the benefits handed out by the Executioner-in-Chief and his satanically inspired minions in government; deserve nothing but our scorn and absolute rejection. They include the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the NAACP, the Anti-Defamation League, NOW, NARAL, ACORN, affirmative action plans, entitlement programs and their recipients, and the thousands of other money sucking programs designed to divide Americans from each other, their legitimate constitutional government and the ideals of a prosperous free system of production and individual work environments.
I make it a habit to draw battle lines clearly and identify the “enemy” of our people and our republic.
I do it because many will not. They shy from it through fear, intimidation and the desire to be on everybody’s nice list. I detest Morris Dees, the communist leader of the SPLC mentioned earlier. I abhor Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Abraham Foxman, Catholic Cardinals who excuse sanctuary churches and illegal sanctuary cities. I hold complete contempt and rejection for the acceptance of sodomy, gay rights, gay marriage, or gay acceptance of any kind. Keep quiet about your perversion and practice if you must, in foul secrecy. I do not want to know what your preferences are. I will wage war with illegals that have come to this nation to violently take property, jobs, benefits, and possessions of native born farmers and ranchers. I will identify and pursue with any and all means available the maniacs who murder babies. The same goes for pornographers, drug dealers and child molesters. They have no place in our communities, our states or our nation–and certainly not under any protection or “color of law” anywhere, for any reason or by any jurisdiction, PERIOD!
Those ultimate fools who legislate day and night to seize my firearms are subject to my use on them if they force the issue. Firearm self-defense is a tool to resist tyranny and a natural right of every citizen. These are common sense virtues. Why are we discussing them? It is because common sense and virtue died with the republic. The same traitors that cheat us out of our liberties are the same ones that fear our right to own private land and defend it with deadly force if trifled with. We are the last guardians of the former American Republic. Make no mistake about that. Without us, the legions of freedom haters on earth, the Zionists, the communists, the globalists, and the Islamic Jihadists, would have enslaved America a long time ago.
So perhaps for the last time, for I see no reason to keep rehashing the obvious for the same choir month after month, I give you this solemn pledge and assessment.
The time has come for the freedom protectors still left in America to join with others of like mind, body and spirit in a defense force that will not yield another micron to the invaders, usurpers, sell-outs and true evil servers living amongst us in America. To allow them to do so is cowardly and insures that a potential victory will be that much more costly for those brave enough to make the final stand.
If any less confrontational, but successful way is possible in defeating this evil, then I say let’s pursue it. If rational thinking and common sense says no, confrontation and revolutionary change is at hand, then let it begin. We are losing precious daylight needed to identify, chase down and eliminate every last vestige of the enemy who will surely hunt us down first, if unopposed.I may stand alone, and I may go down quickly, but by God Almighty, I will not go with my head bowed and in chains. As I have prayed many times before going into battle, “Dear God, if I am to fall today, let me be successful long enough to help turn the tide toward victory and allow me to bring down enough of the enemy so that my fellow soldiers can make it home, and my family may live in peace and freedom…..Amen.”
© 2009 Greg Evensen – All Rights Reserved
original post found here>>>> http://www.newswithviews.com/Evensen/greg138.htm
April 9, 2009 at 7:19 AM
Leo thought I would send this to you check out this video of Olberman and Turley. Whats interesting is Olberman looks and sounds like he just lost his best friend. This needs to be pasted far and wide because of the comments by Mr. Turley at the end of the piece. Interesting view of Turley’s comments on the constitution and how he feels about Obama’s
April 9, 2009 at 7:38 AM
In response to 82 year old Navy Vet. He made me smile & cry at the same time & I thank him for his service & wonderful letter. If I received a letter like that I would certainly want to live up to it.
My letter was short & sweet with some quotes from greater minds than my own & I throw in some humor.
Leo, thank you for encouraging us to write. I will encourage others.
April 9, 2009 at 7:48 AM
Leo,
I’m of the same opinion as you that the term “natural born citizen” is best dissected by referring to Vattel, in that the framers certainly made reference to “Law of Nations”, namely that you be born of the soil and the blood of two citizen parents.
However, I’ve recently learned of a book available on Google’s website that has me a little confused. I realize that any old book is not –in and off itself– enough to be a legal reference but there is a paragraph on “natural born citizen” that seems to refer to a number of legal cases. The link is here: http://books.google.com/books?id=cJENAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA4664&vq=natural+born+citizen&source=gbs_search_r&cad=0_1#PPA4664,M1
and the paragraph reads:
“Every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen, within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to that capacity. Town of New Hartford v Town of Canaan 5 Atl, 360, 364, 54 Conn. 39 (citing Rawle Const. U. S. p. 86). See also Lynch v Clarke (N. Y.) 1 Sandf. Ch. 584, 2 Kent, Comm. (9th Ed.); McKay v Campbell (U. S.) 16 Fed. Cas. 157; Field Int. Code 132, Morse Citizenship § 203″
Can you please set me straight? I have no idea how to even start researching those cited cases, and even then I likely would have a tough time discerning what the conclusions from them should be.
Also, what do you make of the definition set forth here? http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
If this definition were to hold up in a court of law then Obama would be qualified per the first point “Anyone born inside the United States” (assuming for now that he was born in Hawaii).
[Ed. Read the Minor v Happersett case. Identitfy the "doubts" SCOTUS had regarding nbc status. That will answer your question. Those other cases are not controlling law, federal law does not follow and as such those cases reflect various opinions. As we've been saying all along, there are strongly opposed opinion on what a nbc is... SCOTUS expressed doubts that people born of foreign parents could be nbc... that is the most relevant decision in US Federal law and as such it remains controlling on the issue.]
April 9, 2009 at 12:09 PM
I WOULDN’T BE SURPRISED IF THE LETTER DON’T GET TO THE U.S. ATTORNEY. NONE OF THE THOUSANDS OF LETTERS SENT TO THE SUPREME COURT EVER REACHED THE JUSTICES.
April 9, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Amen to Leo for all the following. Please READ IT & Please understand it:
“We the people are the Government. You fail to acknowledge that we the people have failed to exercise our power as citizens. That is on each and every one of us. It’s our fault. I am not a victim. I am taking responsibility for my own personal failure as a citizen. Are you? Everything we the people needed to run this country free from tyranny was put into that Document called the Constitution. We the people let the framers down by allowing our power to be given by proxy to political parties and professional politicians… We have become fat and content and many who are so opposed to Obama were perfectly content to allow the Bush administration tell the world it was OK to crush the testicles of children in the fight against terrorism… We the people are totally to blame. So now you want to blame the Constitution and try to tell us that the magna carta will be our law and give us what we need. That’s a load off shit. Own up to it. You failed as a citizen. I failed. We all failed and now we’re going to reap what we sowed unless we find a way to correct this situation within the Constitution. Personally, I believe the nation has been judged for its wickedness and that the republic is going to be killed off. I’m still fighting…
April 9, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Leo, thank you for your positive response to my letter which I will send with request for signed receipt. In no way do I wish to justify my inclusion of those “hundreds of thousands” I referred to above. But I had in mind the thousands of signers of petitions, lawyers who have filed, and will file, various law suits, the many blogs of patriots, such as yours, with thousands of commenters who support their arguments, etc. Thank you Leo! You are THE MAN, standing in the gap and heroically and courageously giving of your substance in the battle to preserve the integrity of our sacred Constitution and our beloved America. May God continue to bless you with His courage, fortitude and wisdom, and keep you in the Palm of His Hand forever.
April 9, 2009 at 1:58 PM
This is our letter to Atty. Taylor going out today:
Thomas and Julia XXX
Idaho
Jeffery Taylor, U.S. Attorney
555 4th St. NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Taylor:
We respectfully request that you begin an inquiry into quo warranto as to Mr. Barack Obama’s eligibility to be U.S. President.
We, the People, are behind you in this effort, in numbers over three-hundred thousand even if each one of us doesn’t contact you. Most are busy with keeping house and family together in these extremely rough times.
We here writing and requesting this of you will not recite all that we’ve read on this matter for nearl six months — you have sufficiency of that information from Mr. Donofrio.
Please DO take action on this as theRule of Law and our Constitution’s endurance depend upon it, AS DOES OUR NATION, AND ALL ITS PEOPLE.
Sincere appreciation ~
Thomas: XXX
Julia: XXX
CC: Leo Donofrio, Esq.
April 9, 2009 at 2:01 PM
I couldn’t find an email address for you, Leo, so here’s our letter to Atty. Taylor going out today:
Thomas and Julia XXX
Idaho
Jeffery Taylor, U.S. Attorney
555 4th St. NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Taylor:
We respectfully request that you begin an inquiry into quo warranto as to Mr. Barack Obama’s eligibility to be U.S. President.
We, the People, are behind you in this effort, in numbers over three-hundred thousand even if each one of us doesn’t contact you. Most are busy with keeping house and family together in these extremely rough times.
We here writing and requesting this of you will not recite all that we’ve read on this matter for nearly six months — you have sufficiency of that information from Mr. Donofrio.
Please DO take action on this as the Rule of Law and our Constitution’s endurance depend upon it, AS DOES OUR NATION, AND ALL ITS PEOPLE.
Sincere appreciation ~
Thomas: XXX
Julia: XXX
CC: Leo Donofrio, Esq.
April 9, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Fantasize for a moment that a quo warranto proceeding takes place in D.C. Jury selection would be challenging to say the least. However, if Obama were proven to be a usurper, what would happen next?
April 9, 2009 at 11:23 PM
I hope you forgive me but I cited your article on my blog (a first). In the next three weeks I intend to discuss the HYPOCRISY of the “patriots” who are hellbent on seeing justice without regard for the principles that they purport are worth dying for.
I am sickened by lack of reason and standards of the active and retired military personnel in the their effort to see justice. I am at loss as to what measures of ends justifiy the means folks are willing to undertake.
I thought your article was dead on and noted, aptly, the end of any coherent attempt for redress. The readership in which you hope to incur favor is entirely too ambivelent, narcacistic, selfish, ignorant, and blind for such.
Sadly, the citizenry of this country will have to experience the loss of liberty or worse before the inertial lethargy will be overcome.
In fact, I am more discomfited by the American electorate than I am by the elected office holder. They (we) deserve it until otherwise corrected. What a freakin’ bummer.
Again, great article.
http://thenaturalbornpresidency.blogspot.com/2009/04/thus-spake-denofrio.html
SFC Nosworthy
April 10, 2009 at 12:06 AM
@Jimmy The C: regarding bringing a case against Mr. Taylor, this excess zeal really needs to be dampered down. I was shaking my head when I saw Dr. Taitz launch that crazy petition about indicting a laundry list of federal officials. That’s not how it works.
First of all, no, all laws do NOT have to be enforced. Part of checks and balances is that the executive branch does not have to enforce laws it believes are unjust or unconstitutional. In this case, yes, Mr. Taylor does have a clear duty to bring quo qwarranto, but you can’t prosecute him for not doing it. At best, Congress could impeach him for dereliction of duty, but as we all can see Congress is extremely complacent on this matter. We must pressure him to do what is right; we have no other legitimate recourse.
April 10, 2009 at 1:08 AM
I’ve taken a second look at the Constitutional requirements for becoming President:
“The Constitution states: No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”
Note this exception: . . . OR A “CITIZEN” OF THE UNITED STATES, AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, shall be eligible to the office of President . . .
At the time the Constitution was written, our Founding Fathers realized that they had a limited pool of candidates who would qualify as “natural-born citizens” because so many people were immigrants to America, so they made one exception to the rule. Thereafter, all Presidential candidates must be “natural-born citizen” rather than just “citizens”.
April 10, 2009 at 8:30 AM
Leo, Thank you for your information & inspiration. I have sent the following letter and have the certified receipt.
Dear Mr. Taylor:
As a citizen of the United States of America, I have a deep concern for the future of our Constitutional Republic.
I feel that there is an urgent need to resolve, once and for all, the question of Barack Obama’s eligibility for the office of President, under Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. As long as this issue remains unresolved, a cloud of doubt will remain over the office and entire government. Various lawsuits of all kinds will continue to be raised, public protests will continue and grow, and questions within the military ranks will grow.
It has come to my attention that you, as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, are in a unique position. Under the U.S. Constitution and District of Columbia Code Chapter 35§ 16-3501, you are uniquely empowered to initiate a quo warranto proceeding, which can have the effect of resolving this issue and putting it definitively to rest.
You may institute a quo warranto proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on your own motion. Quo warranto action is proper to settle title to the office of President for the good of the nation. Even if you are convinced Mr. Obama is eligible, it’s still proper for you to institute a quo warranto proceeding because the evidence emerging now is that, by leaving the controversy as is, a floodgate of litigation will ensue.
For the good of our great nation, I strongly urge you to take this historic action immediately. Failure to do so will surely result in great damage to the integrity of our Constitutional Republic as litigation, protests, and dissension will continue without any end in sight. You will be doing a historic service to your country by taking this action.
Very sincerely yours,
[VirginiaGent]
April 10, 2009 at 9:18 PM
Dear Leo,
I have sent off my letter to US Attorney Taylor via certified restricted mail delivery. I will post again when I get the green paper back.
I am also posting the information about Quo Warranto on all website comments that I think could reach people also interested in preserving our constitution. I will continue to do so and get the word out.
Thanks again for giving us a much needed education.
April 11, 2009 at 6:20 PM
Leo,
I have a quick question about whether or not a criminal charge of fraud could be brought forward
,in any state, against Barack Obama, if his ballot candidacy filing application statements were fraudulent?
Bob Davies
April 11, 2009 at 7:26 PM
dear leo,
you are doing great work. the title of your blog is a key to ths whole thing. we need a national education campaign: what is a natural born citizen?
if it is termed as a ‘national educational campaign’ then it seems benign enough..but then you ask, where are obama’s papers (colb,college etc)
just a thought.
thanks,
April 12, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Leo, sent my letter to US Attorney Jefferey Taylor, 4-10-09, certified mail returned receipt. Hoping and praying that he will have the courage to step out and file the Quo Warranto as soon as he has dotted every sentence and crossed every T of the argument. Taylor must be sweating over it big time, as it must be the unique challenge of a lifetime to shoulder the responsibility of changing the history of the presidency. We must support him in any way we can. I wonder if he is getting any flak from AG Holder and the obama crew?
April 14, 2009 at 11:40 PM
Leo, I understand your well-earned frustration and have written my own letter in support of the search for the truth, however the chips fall, about Obama’s eligibility to be president but, when calling for a million-person march, do recall how chagrined you were when people respectfully demonstrated at SCOTUS while we still had some hope that it was a, well, responsive court. I believe that there are many, many citizens of this country who feel that there are legitimate questions that Barack Obama was never held responsible for answering and that many of them would have been willing to quietly join the gathering outside of SCOTUS while that was still thought a viable organization but did not out of respect for your disavowal of that effort.
As always, you have the deepest respect of thousands, maybe millions, of truth-seekers.
Carry on..
April 17, 2009 at 10:58 PM
[naughty naughty. you haven't been keeping up w/ comments.]
Email response from my Certified letter to Taylor.
Date: 04/17/2009
David Mivshek:
The following is in response to your 04/14/2009 request for delivery information on your Certified Mail(TM) item number 7008 1830 0004 6789 3420. The delivery record shows that this item was delivered on 04/17/2009 at 11:31 AM in WASHINGTON, DC 20530 to A
JENNINGS. The scanned image of the recipient information is provided below.
Signature of Recipient:
(sig. Aaron Jennings)
Address of Recipient:
(Says something but hard to read)
April 18, 2009 at 7:06 AM
Leo,
My certified/return receipt letter was mailed to Taylor on 4/4/09, but as of 4/18/09 I still have not received the receipt. Has anyone else had the same problem? Could it be they have become so flooded with letters that the receipts can’t be signed fast enough?
April 18, 2009 at 5:10 PM
I had mailed a letter to US Attorney Taylor back in March but did not send it registered mail. I sent another letter to Attorney Taylor’s to each of his two offices in DC on April 3rd by registered mail. Today 4/18 I received one green card that indicated it was signed for by Daniel Parker. Could not clearly make out the first name but looks like Daniel.
April 18, 2009 at 11:43 PM
I would be happy to write a letter, but I just randomly saw the request on another website (www.ResistNet.com).
I know I’ve come to Leo’s site before. Is there an email list kept? Or a way to add our email to a list?
I certainly wouldn’t mind receiving emails reminding us to send letters!
There’s so much info out there you need to help us cut through the cr@p.
keep up the great work!
April 21, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Finally received receipt & it is signed by Parker.
April 22, 2009 at 9:49 AM
FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_United_States_Presidents_by_place_of_birth
Considering the source, it is a stunning admission for public consumption.
-Noz
http://thenaturalbornpresidency.blogspot.com/2009/01/first-post-natural-born-presidency-and.html
April 22, 2009 at 3:52 PM
leo can you shed light on what states could do to force the issue in the next election.
April 22, 2009 at 10:46 PM
I’ve always said to everybody the worst court is public court and with msm in his tank its like disney land everyday for him. on tv, interviews,smiling all the time. As long as the msm dumb downs the public i’m afraid that we will spin our wheels!! We could have a golden birth cert and it won’t matter to some. I have faith in God and believe that his will be done in all things, time to run to your faith and don’t let go!!! Lets hope that for the last 10 yrs powerful people have the goods on him! and will release it when the public opinion changes!
April 24, 2009 at 2:32 AM
private email. Leo,I heard the SEntinel Radio Show on blogtalk radio on Grand Juries.One person said they emailed you.You should rellay explain this matter to them.Going by the magna carta is not constitutional.Nor is there any enforcement arm with how they are going about this. http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/
April 24, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Where in the world are you Leo? Have you heard anything about Taylor or the AG? Please post a comment on what is happening with you, we are very concerned about your silence–it’s freaking me out! Tell us that you are alive and well and waiting to hear from AG and Taylor.
April 24, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Leo,
I am trying to put together a document, in easy-to-read question-and-answer format, to explain the Obama eligibility controversy to non-technical lay readers, such as my friends and relatives. I’ve tried to keep it simple, while addressing all of the major arguments that Obama eligibility believers have posted on various web sites.
Here is my first draft:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
If you have time, would you take a quick look at what I have written, and send me your comments? I am interested correcting any inaccuracies or serious omissions.
Thank you for your kind attention.
- Steve
[Ed. Excellent job. I'm doing a blog post on your web site.]
April 25, 2009 at 12:12 AM
http://unitewith.us/Appellant.htm
Hay Mr. Leo,
Try this letter on for size, If the LORD spare my life It is to be sent April 28, 2009 to the 9th. Circuit
Case No. 09-15562
2. What are the facts of your case?
Appellant, alleges as follows:
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 (d) If on a motion under Rule 12 (b)(6) or 12 (c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56.
The District Court ignored Rule 12 (d) in order to avoid the requested Partial Summary Judgment and erroneously granted appellee’s motion to dismiss.
The Federal Election Commission submitted to the United States District Court’s jurisdiction and venue when appellee raised a defense by providing material to the District Court containing matter outside the pleadings.
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction and venue are proper due to Common and Federal Law the Federal Election Commission is an independent administrative agency vested with exclusive jurisdiction over civil enforcement of the Federal Election Campaign Act. The Federal Election Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction includes the authority to litigate in the Court without the prior approval of the Solicitor General.
This Court’s jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332; and 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (a) (b) (c).
Federal Communications Commission Rules Title 47 Code of Federal Regulations §73.1940 Legally qualified candidates for public office addressed in Exhibit A, Case No. 1:08-CV-01538 presented to the district court in October 2008 in this matter seeking review.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This action arises out of a scheme to defraud citizens of the United States out of life, liberty and the economic pursuit of happiness, through fraud, malice, intent, and knowledge in the actors mind to produce the condition precedent: Circumstances sufficient for guilty minds to act. The probable cause “a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime, static repetition of false corroborating testimony saturate the broadcast stations and those without facts are by way of a fraudulent equilibrium scheme support conduct which is a direct violation of law. Wherein threats, libel, slander and failures to perform official acts predispose thoughts of legal confrontation. Nevertheless, the funding of international fraud is guided by those who consider themselves to be a royal class who agreed among themselves to induce and who did induce the public to invest in their conspiracy.
2. In furtherance of the conspiratorial fraud defendant, FEC issued a direct threat to appellant with the intention to ultimately intimidate or further publicly smear a legally qualified candidate from seeking to announce his candidacy through the purchase of legitimate press releases. While delaying governmental action regarding matters filed in FEC Complaint Exhibit A. Title 47 C.F.R. §25.701 (4)(iv) Burden of proof. A candidate requesting equal opportunities of DBS providers or complaining of noncompliance to the Federal Communications Commission shall have the burden of proving that he or she and his or her opponent are legally qualified candidates for the same public office. This responsibility clause placed the burden of proof on appellant, and was of such magnitude that opponent’s illegal qualification could not be trivialized.
3. In reliance upon fraudulent omissions, misrepresentations and commissions the voting public was persuaded to accept at that time a Federal Election for electors. The coconspirators then did through malfeasance of law further systematically ignore, misappropriate, convert, and ultimately transfer the fraudulent scheme and its conspiratorial network to the TOP administrative post of the federal government.
4. From the very start the conspirators engaged in an outright fraud scheme, they agreed to promote this fraud for their benefit. They committed to ignore the law regardless of the cost to their credibility or reputation. They never intended to provide neither a statement of true identity nor a Good Faith honest context of fact, but did hide for the purpose of furthering their scheme, their legal responsibility to announce their commercial advertiser’s true identity. Along with their fraudulent scheme they continue to rhetorically use their broadcast stations to pro-actively degrade truth.
5. With this conspiratorial depravity leading the way, the Federal Election Commission and the Office of Solicitor General are further engaged in the protection and promotion of unlawful conduct. Our nation expects to continue suffering from the devaluation of cash because of the recent printing and reported misplacement of over 10.8 Trillion dollars to the central bankers, who are holding these assets until the coconspirators domestic policies produce more strife and economic consolidation opportunities.
6. Through the conduct, as detailed below, Federal Election Commission participated, directly or indirectly, in the affairs of an international enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, and/or conspired to do so, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.
7. FEC Officials and the Solicitor General breached their duties and Oath to uphold the Constitution and relevant U.S. Code.
8. Through their conduct, defendants committed common-law fraud in connection with offering advertising over the regulated broadcast channels knowing it to be fraudulent.
PARTIES
9. We the people at all relevant times have been a multi person group to act and build upon the trust established under GOD, appellant.
10. On information and belief defendants Federal Elections Commission and Office of Solicitor General represent Federal Government authority and regulatory order.
11. At all relevant times in the acts alleged herein, the federal government agencies have failed to act within their scope of authority and have acted with the actual or apparent authority in furtherance of the scheme to enrich the co-conspirators. FEC further acted through employees and agents, including telephone threats to appellant from staff employee October 8, 2008 originating from the office of the FEC.
12. Federal Government is the principal overseer of information throughout the scheme to defraud the people who have placed their trust in government. Elected and appointed government officials, agency bureaucrats worked as a group of co-conspirators and served as agents, as well as conspirators.
FACTUAL BASIS FOR CLAIMS
The Beginning of Fraudulent Scheme
13. At the time Federal Communication Commission Direct Broadcast Satellite “DBS” license holders Direct TV and Dish Network first began transmitting paid advertising on behalf of Candidates seeking public office. They were obligated to inform the public of the true identity of the advertiser. Title 47 C.F.R. §73.1212 FCC Sponsorship identification 2 (e) fully and fairly disclose the true identity of the person. All broadcast stations licensed through FCC have the same contracted obligation including and not limited to Walt Disney Company, News Corporation, Viacom, Time Warner and all other legally bound broadcast stations that received money for transmitting an advertisement message.
14. When called in early January 2009, to come before the Supreme Court of the United States in Berg v. Obama No.08-570 to defend the Rule of Law the Federal Elections Commission nor the Solicitor General provided a legal comment or attempted to show any concern for the spirit of the statutory code, whatsoever.
15. Upon information and belief the FEC was and is even now concealing campaign wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering to protect co-conspirators.
16. There is as yet no agency of government cleared from the harm that has been caused by this fraud placed before the public and the government’s failure to actively address access issues regarding advertising on commercial broadcast services. The Solicitor General represents the Federal Communications Commission and it is the responsibility of the commercial broadcast stations by law to verify candidate qualifications which during the 2008 election cycle did not happen. Federal Communications Commission Rules Title 47 Code of Federal Regulations §73.1940 Legally qualified candidates for public office addressed in Exhibit A, Case No. 1:08-CV-01538 presented to the district court in October 2008 on this matter seeking review.
17. § 25.701 of Title 47 Code of Federal Regulations Public interest obligations. (b) Political broadcasting requirements (4) (iv) Burden of proof. A candidate requesting equal opportunities of DBS providers or complaining of noncompliance to the Commission shall have the burden of proving that he or she and his or her opponent are legally qualified candidates for the same public office.
18. AKA/Obama could never under any set of here to fore known circumstances be proven to be a legally qualified candidate for the office of President of the United States because he is an illegal alien. He would need a mother at the time of his birth that was of legal age, he would need a different father and if he could some how change all that he would need a different set of adult travel records.
19. No hand that is placed on any of these documents can point to one piece of evidence supported by signature or affirmation given under the penalty of perjury to refute the claim that on January 20, 2009 The Chief Justice of the United States stood before the assembled host to swear or affirm into office an AKA/illegal alien. If not for the collective failure of the federal government that the People have put their trust into this action would not be needed. This cause is now of the utmost concern and requires immediate determination in this Court.
Further more, TITLE 18 > PART I > § 2
§2. Principals (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.
TITLE 18 > PART 1 > CHAPTER 96 > §1962
§1962 Prohibited activities (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity. It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.
(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.
TITLE 18 > PART 1 > CHAPTER 96 > §1964
§1964. Civil remedies (a) The district court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 1962 of this chapter by issuing appropriate orders, (c) Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefore in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover three fold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit.
Appellant’s message was not on the FCC regulated wire services because appellant’s message conflicted with the full implementation of the totalitarian bureaucratic agenda. Only anti-American programs are worthy to stir the perpetual revolution. What matters most too totalitarian bureaucrats is destroying how people make a living and piling an even greater cost of living upon them.
FACTUAL BASIS FOR CLAIM
Conspirators knew that they were using the goodwill and legitimacy associated with a valuable government commodity (the right to broadcast media content) to induce the furtherance of their Conspiracy. Each fraudulent omission or commission helped to bring about their agreed upon goal to outright deceive the public. The failure of government to regulate DBS License Holders and their contracted media counter parts who knowingly approved and maintained their vast fraudulent alliance the activities of which affect, interstate and foreign commerce thereby did jointly conceal their separate and independent responsibilities to make known the material fact “that of” the AKA/Illegal Alien broadcaster’s identity.
The Federal Election Commission’s action to threaten appellant was to benefit coconspirators and was necessary to their desired outcome. Threatening Appellant and ignoring Complaint [Exhibit-A] is part of the FEC operational method. Information concerning: Beverly v. FEC is not publicly posted on federal government website. The FEC is responsible for giving public notice of all court matters and posting all civil actions for the public to see.
Federal Election Commission failure to act based upon information and belief covering AKA/Obama’s: RICO frauds, wire fraud, mail fraud transactions, his campaign’s FEC abuses of intentionally collecting multi millions of dollars in campaign contributions from un-track-able international sources, multi millions in undocumented small money sources and foreign government aid.
As co-defendants in Berg v. Obama, the Federal Election Commission, and the Solicitor General further promoted the illegal alien usurper when each decided it was better for them to hide the DBS stations legal obligations that were then and now being publicly exploited by station broadcasters to further the ongoing conspiracy. Therefore, each government agency continued to follow through in their chosen position to in fact condone the obliteration of statutory law and to further in fact vaporize the Constitution of the United States.
Where has AKA/Obama carried out other crimes to invoke the RICO Act?
First: Before a Grand Jury would read: AKA/Obama set upon a course with David Axelrod to commit fraud in a conspiracy with Whitehouse.org to smear one, Lawrence Sinclair, with a false polygraph test to cover up Mr. Obama’s homosexual relationship with Mr. Sinclair.
Second: In said conspiracy, David Plouffe, campaign manager for AKA/Obama, set out with Joe Biden, Beau Biden, Attorney General of Delaware, to silence Lawrence Sinclair when the Whitehouse.org action failed. A false arrest was issued under a sealed Grand Jury indictment for Mr. Sinclair out of Delaware, whereupon Mr. Sinclair was arrested and held as a captive kidnapped by DC police, deprived of his medications and his civil rights violated. This abuse of government power was maintained while keeping Mr. Sinclair intentionally lost in the system deprived of counsel, facing threats of high bail, under detention.
Third: Attorney General Beau Biden of Delaware for the AKA/Obama campaign issued false court papers to the Social Security Administration to have Lawrence Sinclair’s benefits denied.
Fourth: Chicago Social Security Administration where AKA/Obama resides and represents in Congress attempted on the forged Delaware information to threaten Lawrence Sinclair to repay all said Social Security benefits including medical benefits.
Fifth: In accomplishing the above terrorism of Lawrence Sinclair in violation of the Patriot Act, Sen. Joe Biden was given payment in the form of his parties Vice-Presidential nomination.
Sixth: Deputy Attorney General of Delaware, Susan Dwyer, threatened defendant, Lawrence Sinclair on behalf of the Biden political syndicate with life imprisonment for a misdemeanor crime when Mr. Sinclair had been a law abiding citizen.
Seventh: Delaware Attorney General’s office illegally planted court information into Delaware press to defame Mr. Lawrence Sinclair.
Eight: AKA/Obama and Joe Biden upon receiving their party’s nomination seeking not to have their actions exposed in the press by a Lawrence Sinclair trial had Beau Biden’s Delaware Attorney General’s office drop all charges against Mr. Sinclair in a cover up.
In the financial dealings of AKA/Barack and Michelle Obama, a list of over 100 addresses for Barack Obama and 100 business addresses for Michelle Obama. These are addresses obtained from a private investigator and an intelligence service. Obama/Soetoro’s addresses are connected to numerous different social security numbers. Michelle Obama’s addresses are from numerous media organizations that show her being employed by many major media outlets, including CBS, CNN, and some such as Gay News, Muslim World Today in CA, and the Federal Communications Commission. These media outlets refused along with other conspirators to provide an honest account of Obama/Soetoro’s lack of eligibility for presidency.
The issue here isn’t guilt by association; it’s guilt by participation. As Chicago’s Annenbuerg Challenge chairman, Mr. AKA/Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.”
Also included in the AKA/Obama mix is the Tides Foundation. A partial list of Tides grants: ACLU, ACORN, (ACORN and its affiliates have a multi-decade history of fraud and abuse of taxpayer funds) Center for American Progress, Center for Constitutional Rights (a communist front,) CAIR, Earth Justice, Institute for Policy Studies (KGB spy nest), National Lawyers Guild (oldest communist front in U.S.), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and practically every other anti-American group there is. ACORN’s Wade Rathke runs a Tides subsidiary, the Tides Center.
What makes AKA/Obama so Special?
His closest advisers are a dirty laundry list of individuals at the heart of the financial crisis: former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson; Former Fannie Mae CEO and former Clinton Budget Director Frank Raines; and billionaire failed Superior Bank of Chicago Board Chair Penny Pritzker.
Most significantly, Penny Pritzker, was the finance Chairperson of AKA/Obama’s presidential campaign helped develope the investment bundling of subprime securities at the heart of the meltdown. She did so in her position as shareholder and board chair of Superior Bank. The Bank failed in 2001, one of the largest in recent history, wiping out $50 million in uninsured life savings of approximately 1,400 customers. She was named in a class action law suit.
Everyone in the subprime business — from brokers to lenders to banks to investment houses absolved themselves of responsibility for ensuring the high-risk loans were good.
The mortgage lenders didn’t care, because they were going to sell the loans to other banks. The banks didn’t care, because they were going to repackage the loans as MBSs. The investors and traders didn’t care, because the MBSs were backed by Fannie and Freddie and their implicit government guarantees.
In other words, nobody up or down the line from the branch office on Main Street to the high-rise on Wall Street analyzed the risk of such ill-advised loans. But why should they? Everybody was doing what the lobbyist in Washington wanted them to do.
So everybody won until everybody lost. The narrative will be advanced by the “AKA/Obama-loving media” … and by the passage of more giant financial bailouts at the expense of law abiding citizens.
There is nothing to stop this illegal alien from total control of the American economy. Because there are no checks or balances, AKA/Obama policies, as they fail, will be compounded with more policies to rescue the failures.
Among the most disturbing fraud feature to come to light is the disregard by the AKA/Obama campaign of the most basic security protocols for identifying the actual source and amount of the contributions it received, collecting more money than any candidate has ever collected in history.
AKA/Obama is the first candidate to refuse public funding because of his ability to raise extraordinary funds from untraceable sources.
The federal campaign finance law requires campaigns to report the name, address, occupation and employer of every contributor who gives more than $200. Yet according to the Washington Post, National Journal and NewsMax, the AKA/Obama campaign took (or failed to take) steps to ensure it was not alerted to illegal donations.
Some of the acts and omissions are so cavalier, it’s impossible to believe they weren’t intentional. For example, the Post reported that the AKA/Obama campaign accepted prepaid credit cards that are untraceable, and National Journal reported that the campaign didn’t implement a verification procedure to even match the names of contributors using regular credit cards with the names and addresses of the credit card holders.
When asked about it, the AKA/campaign said such matching wasn’t “available in the credit card processing industry.” That is completely untrue such verification procedures are offered by companies that service credit-card transactions, as well as by banks and telecommunications companies (and was standard procedure for other campaigns).
In contrast the AKA/Obama campaign also refused to divulge the names of the millions of small donors who contributed (many repeatedly) under $200 to the campaign (totaling $218 million), saying it was “too difficult.” However, there are “few technical obstacles to sorting and identifying small-scale donors.”
Of course, disclosing that information would have revealed the many instances of fictitious donor names uncovered by the press (like “Doodad Pro”), which the campaign accepted. Media reports show that AKA/Obama campaign apparently lacked even basic software protocols to catch obviously fictitious addresses (like a donor’s state being listed as “NA” or “ZZ”) or employer names (like DFDFGDFG), or to track small donations made repeatedly by the same individual. If the campaign had done that, it would have had to refuse the contributions, return them when they went above the maximum of $2,300 per election, or identify donors once their contributions top $200,
Comparing AKA/Obama’s Campaign to Others.
To avoid the problems with foreign donors that plagued one presidential campaign, the candidate prudently required Americans living abroad to first fax a copy of their passport before accepting a contribution. In contrast, the AKA/Obama campaign had no controls whatsoever to prevent illegal foreign contributions by non-citizens. An investigation by NewsMax estimated that anywhere from $13 million to $63 million may have been received by the AKA/Obama campaign from overseas credit cards or foreign currency purchases (a red flag for illegal contributions). The Federal Election Commission itself flagged more than 16,639 potential foreign donations to AKA/Obama’s campaign long before the November 04, 2008 election. When confronted with this, the campaign started collecting passport numbers from foreign donors, a completely useless procedure since no effort was made to verify those numbers with the State Department to see if they were even valid.
AKA/Obama’s campaign has claimed that Federal Election Commission regulations didn’t prohibit taking prepaid credit cards or require it to verify credit cards. That may be true, but that doesn’t remove the campaign’s obligation to accurately report donor information and to verify that a contributor is really eligible to donate money. Given AKA/Obama’s unprecedented use of the Internet to raise funds, this is impossible unless one takes such precautions at the front end. Any reasonable campaign would know that such steps were necessary to actually comply with requirements on donor information and eligibility.
Running a campaign that reportedly failed to implement any controls whatsoever to prevent money laundering problems, if accounts of AKA/Obama’s campaign practices prove true, then it would seem that the decision was made to collect all of the money that came in, no matter what. Once the campaign was won, who would dare confront the usurper?
The Federal Election Commission allows elected officials to use their campaign funds to pay legal bills only if the action arises as a result of their tenure in office or campaigns. The source of all Constitutional matters calling for evidence to settle controversies arising against AKA/Obama predate the 2008 race for president of the United States even if AKA/Obama should argue the matter only came to light as a result of the campaign”.
Usurpers destroy the most important evidence of the legal government they replace and the memory of that government. Usurpers mingle small pieces of what was with what is! And when their domestic armies are formed, funded and in place they will command their victims to bow down on their knees.
The only question is whether the guilty parties can keep up the barricade now that AKA/Obama has received his public enrichment and has ripened as a RICO lead defendant? Broadcast Satellite “DBS” license holders and their contracted station counterparts have no defense. Each organization did make their separate facilities, staff, agents and operation membership available in this obvious fraud. Together each enterprise stood side by side in rank and file united in a spiritual as well as economic union to broker and further advance their association in this international crime syndication.
TITLE 2–CHAPTER 14–FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS SUBCHAPTER I –
§ 441f. No person shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another person.
§ 441h. Fraudulent misrepresentation of campaign authority (a) In general
No person who is a candidate for Federal office or an employee or agent of such a candidate shall–
(1) fraudulently misrepresent himself or any committee or organization under his control as speaking or writing or otherwise acting for or on behalf of any other candidate or political party or employee or agent thereof on a matter which is damaging to such other candidate or political party or employee or agent thereof; or
(2) willfully and knowingly participate in or conspire to participate in any plan, scheme, or design to violate paragraph (1).
(b) Fraudulent solicitation of funds. No person shall–
(1) fraudulently misrepresent the person as speaking, writing, or otherwise acting for or on behalf of any candidate or political party or employee or agent thereof for the purpose of soliciting contributions or donations; or
(2) willfully and knowingly participate in or conspire to participate in any plan, scheme, or design to violate paragraph (1).
47 USC 312 – § 312. Administrative sanctions (a) Revocation of station license or construction permit The Commission may revoke any station license or construction permit – (1) for false statements knowingly made either in the application or in any statement of fact which may be required pursuant to section 308 of this title; (2) because of conditions coming to the attention of the Commission which would warrant it in refusing to grant a license or permit on an original application; (3) for willful or repeated failure to operate substantially as set forth in the license; (4) for willful or repeated violation of, or willful or repeated failure to observe any provision of this chapter or any rule or regulation of the Commission authorized by this chapter .
§ 308. Requirements for license (a) Writing; exceptions
(3) in cases of emergency where the Commission finds, in the non-broadcast services, that it would not be feasible to secure renewal applications from existing licensees or otherwise to follow normal licensing procedure, the Commission may grant construction permits and station licenses, or modifications or renewals thereof, during the emergency so found by the Commission or during the continuance of any such national emergency or war, in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as the Commission shall by regulation prescribe, and without the filing of a formal application …
The Attorney General as is designated by statute, both Attorney General Eric Holder and Jeffrey Taylor, US Attorney for the District of Columbia, may institute an action in Quo Warranto upon their own motion in the name of the United States. In fact, as per the relevant Supreme Court of The United States case law, while the decision to bring such an action is entirely in their discretion, both appear to have an ethical duty to bring such an action at this time.
Furthermore, should either official institute an action in Quo Warranto on their own behalf, they may do so without leave of the court. If they do institute such an action, the issue must be brought to a hearing and determined on the merits. The statute grants the AG and US Attorney undeniable power and respect on this issue.
If AG Holder and US Attorney Taylor refuse to institute an action in Quo Warranto on their own motion, the same statute provides for all “third persons” (any citizen) to request, via verified petition, that either of those two officials institute an action in Quo Warranto on plaintiffs’ behalf, subject to leave of the District Court of DC.
If AG Holder and US Attorney Taylor refuse to bring the action on their own motion, appellant here and now makes a motion to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to verify this petition and Grant an Order to expedite settlement of all other remaining issues in the 9th Circuit, following appellant request immediate transfer of this verified petition to the District of Columbia to further petition officials on appellants’ behalf.
If the officials refuse consent to bring the action “ex relator” on behalf of such “third persons”, then the statute provides that any “interested persons” (a subset of “third persons”) may petition the court without the consent of the two officials.
Page 3
Case No. 09-15562
3. What did you ask the district court to do (for example, award damages, give
injunctive relief, ect.)?
Injunctive Relief Order to all 50 States
*****
Partial Summary Judgment
Restitution
4. State the claim or claims you raised at the district court
Federal Elections Commission is false advertising their roll in the
federal election process and acting in the best interest of criminals.
5. What issues are you raising on appeal?
FRCP 12 (d) Judgment as a Matter of Law
Expedited Verified Complaint to the District of Columbia
Page 4
Case No. 09-15562
6. Did you present all these issues to the district court?
__Yes__ If not, why?
Yes/No
7. What law supports these issues on appeal? (You may, but need not, refer to
cases and statutes.)
FRCP 12 (d)
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332
18 U.S.C. § 1964 (a) (b) (c)
47 C.F.R. § 73.1940, § 25.701, § 73.1212
Title 2-Chapter 14 SubChapter 1§ 441f. § 441h.
47 U.S.C. § 312, § 308
Page 5
Case No. 09-15562
8. Do you have any other cases pending in this court? If so, give the name and
docket number of each case.
No other cases are pending in this court.
9. Have you filed any previous cases which have been decided by this court? If
so, give the name and docket number of each case.
USDC for the Northern District of California
Beverly v. Network Solutions, Inc
No. C98-0337-VRW
10. For prisoners, did you exhaust all administrative remedies for each claim prior
to filling your complaint in the district court?
N/A
DATE April 27, 2009
SIGNATURE ____________________________
Post Box 1203 Bakersfield, CA 93302
April 25, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Mr. Donofrio,
I agree in that what is really needed is a massive INTENSE public out-cry similar to a 1-MILLION man march, in front of the U.S.DISTRICT COURT, in a controlled presentation, asking Attorney Jeffrey Taylor to initiate an inquiry and Quo Warranto against B.O.
Main stream media would not be able to look the other way, and hopefully U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor would be emboldened to honor his Oath, and do what’s right.
It would take marketing heavily to the Northern Va, Maryland, D.C. and Metro areas as a target market.
A $500. dollar 1 page website at $20.dollars per month, with a simple breif of Obama’s usurpation, asking for nothing but an e-mail for future e-mail blasts.
Next, place multiple two line only ads, in all the local papers, with the Website address, to capture all of the supporters email.
With marketing capital and persistence, a data base of Metro area supporters can be positioned for a Huge D.C. Rally, with large QUO WARRANTO Banners.
No im not smoking crack in front of the monitor, but the mighty oak was indeed at first, just a humble seed.
It may only take 500,000 supporters to give B.O. a brand new pin stripe suit, with D.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WRITTEN ON THE BACK !
Maybe only 200,000 to expose the purgery, forgery, falsifying of identification documents, wire fraud, high crimes and misdemeanors.
A website, a marketing plan, a money partner, could TKO B.O.
I guess we’ll have to bleed some more before someone has the guts and the courage.
April 25, 2009 at 9:24 PM
private-leo this was sent to Orly a couple weeks ago. Open Letter To Leo Donofrio— Leo,
I am fully cognizant that we are on the same side and that our goal is the same; uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. In keeping with that please accept my comments in the spirit of brotherhood in which they are intended. You made the statement “I say there is no Justice outside of the Constitution and that if you sink to that level of thought the true enemies of the Constitution will have defeated you and it forevermore”.
I agree wholeheartedly with the statement regarding relevance of Justice to the Constitution however, I strongly disagree with your reference to the Citizens Grand Jury. You go on to say: “But the people have not even come close to doing everything in their power to see that the Constitution is protected.
The Constitutionally proper way to challenge POTUS eligibility is via the DC Code quo warranto statute”.
To this latter statement I reply: While I appreciate your efforts you miss a MAJOR point. Those individuals such as the US Attorneys, Congressman, Officers of the Court etc. that have not taken timely action to ensure our Constitution is not being abused, ignored or dismantled are under oath to defend it.
It is nothing short of a travesty that those with the power to investigate the Constitutional qualifications of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of President must be forced or even asked to do what they are required by their oath of office to do.
I am sorry Leo, but what you are espousing as a reasonable course of action is by analogy like calling for 1 million letters to be sent to every single American Soldier demanding they uphold their oath of office to defend the Constitution.
This is absurd! We do this without asking. Our leadership is under oath just as certainly as I am. Make no mistake, if I fail in my duty or my oath of office which is to the Constitution there are severe
consequences that I will suffer.
So it is that I ask you. Should Congress, US Attorneys, Officers of the Court etc be held to a LOWER standard than each and every military member? Should we acquiesce to their dereliction or hold them
accountable? What are the consequences for them should they fail? My own Senator Mark Warner from Virginia has turned a blind eye to this and after 17 years in the service of my country absolutely turned his back on me.
Should those like him who send our young troops off to die in defense of the Constitution be given a pass on their allegiance to the Constitution and our Country? Should the American People have to send “a million letters” to get a US Attorney to do what they are sworn to do?
If indeed they are derelict in their duty or worse aiding and abetting treason at what point does the POWER vested in them return to the PEOPLE? How do we know when that point has been reached? If we
remain uncertain if they are derelict or not because of their failure to investigate the questions surrounding Barack Obama and his refusal to be forthcoming must we remain uncertain forever?
Should we have to wait until much damage is done to vote them out ? This again is absurd!! We are not asking them do die for our Country just see that our Constitution is being followed. Why have they not done so already and what does this tell us about their motivations and allegiance?
This discourse is not to say we should discontinue in our efforts to resolve this by every means possible using the methods you suggest to include writing letters in mass and calling them. This is to question by what reason you assert the people have not even come close to doing everything in our power via the Courts, pleading with Congress etc etc?
The truth is we should NOT even be burdened by this!! So how is it that you claim we have not done nearly enough through the courts? This is not to say that the ultimate responsibility to uphold the Constitution does not rest with We the People, because it does.
I hope that our leaders wake up and listen! I have already warned them, while it has been my prayer that the defense of the Constitution should not come to the citizenry and the ends of means allocated to them by the Constitution; I see it is already happening. The very fact that we are now seeing the formation of Citizens Grand Juries and TEA parties is saying we are farther along that road than we should ever have to be. Is the leadership really that blind or do they feel so empowered they may
ignore their responsibility to the Constitution without consequence?
With each tic of the clock the questions mount and beg to be answered but are only greeted with deafening silence or worse scoffing, arrogant public officials. The top on this kettle is going to blow and I would not want to be in the kitchen when it does but no matter, there will be no escape for most of us. Ignore the Constitution and we become a Nation without law. Based on my observations, without a change in course, we are headed for social chaos.
I know in most all things there is ALWAYS a point of no return; a marriage that fails, a war that is lost or a treaty broken. Just as certain there is surely a point of no return where the cost to restore our Country to the vision of our Founding Fathers will be at great human suffering and sacrifice. To think that we should lose her is not something I am ready to accept but I can not deny that possibility.
It is not the Citizens of the Grand Juries who have sank to a lower level of thought but our Government. God help us and God forgive them if THEY HAVE sank to the point where they believe the Constitution is not worthy of defense and in doing so placed us all in peril. I still hav hope in my heart that this great land will survive; my question now is at what cost and who among them are willing to be the first, if any, to rise to her defense when it is still not clear that they should profit themselves by it.
Sincerely,
Lt Col David A. Earl-Graef USAFR MC
April 25, 2009 at 10:34 PM
Leo,
In the new issue of Whistleblower on page 16 there is a photo of Judge Thomas with your name. I haven’t read it but obviously a mistake.
[Ed. That's funny. ]
April 26, 2009 at 12:53 PM
any truth to the story, about Scalia, hearing your case, after the info, was disclosed, from Occidental college, about BO’s Indonesian citizenship?
[Ed. Not that I am aware of.]
April 30, 2009 at 8:03 AM
I received my green card (sent restricted) to US Att. Taylor yesterday 4/29. IT was signed 4/24.
I also sent to Att Richard Blumental of CT. Green card signed and received back last week.
May 1, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Forgive me, I was working from memory. The 14 Amendment does not state that naturalization is retroactive to birth.
I remembered reading somewhere that naturalization was retroactive to birth and what I was reading probably referenced the 14th amendment. (Working from memory is dangerous.) So, I did a little research about retroactive effects of naturalization.
It turns out that in questions of land ownership, courts have held that naturalization has a retroactive effect.
Governeur’s Heirs v. Robertson, 24 U.S. 11 Wheat. 332 332 (1826) [Retroactive 1 month]
Osterman v. Baldwin, 73 U.S. 6 Wall. 116 116 (1867) [Retroactive at least 11 years]
Manuel v. Wulff, 152 U.S. 505 (1894) [Retroactive less than 7 years]
In Chester Arthur’s time, aliens were not allowed to own real estate in the United States. If William Arthur (Chester’s father) bought land and needed to protect his claim to the land or just wanted to buy land, he would have needed citizenship by naturalization. By previous court decisions, William Arthur’s naturalization would have been retroactive to at least the date that he acquired the land.
William Arthur moved to Vermont sometime before 1824. The relevant questions for Chester may have been “when did William Arthur buy real estate in the United States” and “was his right to hold that land challenged”? With Arthur claiming a birth date in 1830 when he was born in 1929, perhaps his father acquired land in 1830. Chester Arthur may have felt that by claiming a birthdate in 1830, his father’s citizenship status was covered by the previous court decisions involving land ownership and could claim “native” (natural born) status.
Chester Arthur’s claim to “native status” could still be seen as weak, as no maximum limit had been set on the retroactive effect of naturalization other than the dates cited in the actual cases. The maximum naturalization extension could possibly be interpreted as only eleven years, but the actual maximum that would have been allowed at that time on this basis was never tested and is an open question.
May 2, 2009 at 7:28 AM
Leo,
I have received my return receipt for my letter to Atty. Taylor.
May 5, 2009 at 12:17 AM
private.. leo listen to the Chalice show from yesterday.The secret service didn’t arrest Walter after their visit over his accusation of treason by Barry. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/patriotsheartnetwork
May 5, 2009 at 4:34 PM
An example of what to do with a DA who refuse to do his duty.
§ 7A‑66. Removal of district attorneys.
The following are grounds for suspension of a district attorney or for his removal from office:
(1) Mental or physical incapacity interfering with the performance of his duties which is, or is likely to become, permanent;
(2) Willful misconduct in office;
(3) Willful and persistent failure to perform his duties;
(4) Habitual intemperance;
(5) Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
(6) Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the office into disrepute; or
(7) Knowingly authorizing or permitting an assistant district attorney to commit any act constituting grounds for removal, as defined in subdivisions (1) through (6) hereof.
A proceeding to suspend or remove a district attorney is commenced by filing with the clerk of superior court of the county where the district attorney resides a sworn affidavit charging the district attorney with one or more grounds for removal. The clerk shall immediately bring the matter to the attention of the senior regular resident superior court judge for the district or set of districts as defined in G.S. 7A‑41.1(a) in which the county is located who shall within 30 days either review and act on the charges or refer them for review and action within 30 days to another superior court judge residing in or regularly holding the courts of that district or set of districts. If the superior court judge upon review finds that the charges if true constitute grounds for suspension, and finds probable cause for believing that the charges are true, he may enter an order suspending the district attorney from performing the duties of his office until a final determination of the charges on the merits. During the suspension the salary of the district attorney continues. If the superior court judge finds that the charges if true do not constitute grounds for suspension or finds that no probable cause exists for believing that the charges are true, he shall dismiss the proceeding. etcetera
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_7a/gs_7a-66.html
May 5, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Chapter 35. Quo Warranto.
Subchapter I. Actions Against Officers of the United States. (Refs & Annos)
§ 16-3503. Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act; procedure.
If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as to security for costs.
http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/default.aspx?action=Search&cfid=1&cnt=DOC&db=DC%2DST%2DWEB&eq=search&fmqv=c&fn=%5Ftop&method=WIN&n=2&origin=Search&query=United+States+Attorney+for+the+District+of+Columbia&rlt=CLID%5FQRYRLT5666433432255&rltdb=CLID%5FDB278931432255&rlti=1&rp=%2Fsearch%2Fdefault%2Ewl&rs=GVT1%2E0&service=Search&sp=DCC%2D1000&srch=TRUE&ss=CNT&sskey=CLID%5FSSSA1278931432255&vr=2%2E0
May 6, 2009 at 8:13 PM
As mentioned, and has played out to date….Atty. Gen. Holder and U.S. Atty. Taylor have not touched this…and never will.
Aside from a very slim chance that any of the lawsuits currently on appeal will be heard….this is a done deal. The fix is in and there isn’t a darn thing the citizens of this country can do about it. Our Constitution has been usurped by a British citizen. Oh the irony!
My guess, the media makes sure that he is re-elected in 2012 for a 2nd term. Too many sheeple in the U.S. now.
May 7, 2009 at 2:43 AM
Leo,
You probably know that an American Grand Jury convened on April 29, 2009 and returned a true bill indicting President Obama on crimianl charges. It was made up of people throughout the US.
http://americangrandjury.org/national-grand-jury-indicts-obama-for-fraud-and-treason
It was convened under the authority of the Constitution. As I understand it, it was modeled on grand juries that formed and investigated crimes a very long time ago. In other words, when Grand Jurys convened before the days when a prosecutor requested one and were impaneled by a Judge.
I do not think it is productive for us to focus on the indictment or its weight.
However, could you please just comment on the legality of this Grand Jury forming on its own accord with regards to the Constitution.
May 7, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Looks to me like Obama cut off any inquire into his records by this Presidential Order dated January 21, 2009.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/obama/presidential.html
I don’t think anyone will ever see his original birth certificate.
May 8, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Dear Leo:
I respect your legal opinions. I do believe that you are correct in admonishing people to be civil and respectful in their conduct. However, I detect a degree of arrogance in your responses to people. This is not required.
Further, please do not be so naive to believe that it is not the “duty” of citizens to revolt against a tyrannical government that is out of control. How do you suppose this nation came about in the first place. Our right to freedom does not come from our government but is natural and God-given, period.
I say, sure, let’s do everyting legally within our power to stop this takeover of our nation by a Usurper and his socialist friends but when all else fails and “we the people” are deprived of our freedoms and liberties guaranteed by our Constituiton, laying down and accepting this fate because we were unable to convince our corrupt government and courts to follow the rule of law is not the final answer unless you believe that folks in Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Russia would have been legally wrong to have risen up against their oppressors. Well, they didn’t rise up and look what it got them.
Sometimes, you just gotta make a stand based upon what is righteous and not what is legal. ‘Legal” can be redefined at any time by those in control but that doesn’t make it “right”. Freedom is worth fighting for. Our forefathers knew it and did it. We owe it to our children and future generations to defend our freedoms and liberties. To do anything less is morally wrong. That’s how I see it.
May 8, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Leo:
I would like to say something else about our so-called “legal” system. According to our Constitution, it is very likely that 3/4’s of the laws passed by our Congress are un-Constituitonal if you examine them. The Constitution has been hijacked.
We have Supreme Court Justices who make law, same for state and federal judges. These people have lifetime appointments. It is the role of Congress to over-rule and/or remove these judges when they take positions contrary to the laws that should be upheld. It is not the role of judges to make law. Our Congress is a bunch of cowards who have acquiesed to the courts. This was never the intent of the framers.
I guess what I am saying is, you say we should respect the law but I ask you, which laws? The ones that are Constitutionally correct or the ones that some out-of-control judges make up to suit their own agenda?
It’s kinda like this. Whoever is in power gets to make the rules. If you want new rules or to go back to the old rules that our founders set up, you gotta change who has the power. “Change”, isn’t that Obama’s mantra? Let’s see, he cheated, lied, broke the campaign contribution laws, used voter fraud etc. to get elected while he isn’t even a citizen. How much of what Obama did was “legal”? None of it!
Now, there are many ways to bring about change again, change back to what we once had in the founding of this nation. We may have to resort to using the same tactics our forefathers used to bring about change. Is it “legal”? NO. As I said, whoever is in power gets to make the rules. That has always been true throughout history and it will never change cause that’s a type of “change” that can not be changed.
May 9, 2009 at 2:09 PM
At what point do we move to phase 2 of the quo warranto process ( D.C. Code § 16-3502-3503 ; http://www.michie.com/ ) and try to bring the action as a third party? Who will lead such an effort?
May 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Leo,
Are you aware of the case of
ROBERT L. SCHULZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant
-against-
1:08-CV-991 (Lead)
UNITED STATES FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM,
BEN S. BERNANKE, Chairman of the United States
Federal Reserve System, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, HENRY M.
PAULSON, JR., Secretary of the United States
Department of the Treasury, and the UNITED STATES
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/AIG/USCOA-AIG-Appeal-5-11-09.pdf
While not involving Obama’s eligibility, Shulz appears to have an interesting approach to “standing” as it relates to damages incurred by the “unconstitutional” disbursement of money by the Executive and Legislative branches of government to AIG (and others).
“Schulz has standing to bring suit – his constitutional, fundamental Right to Government officials who abide by the spirit and the letter of the Constitution has been violated. Clearly and demonstrably, Schulz has been injured. The Court has jurisdiction even before the conspiracy has
resulted in economic or “tangible” injury, as has been and will be the situation with a continuation of Defendants’ exercise of (alleged) “authority” under EESA. See LeBlanc-Sternberg v. Fletcher, 67 F.3d
412 (2d Cir., 1995).
Violations of U.S. Constitutional Rights are commonly considered irreparable injuries for the purposes of injunctions. See Bery v. City of New York, 97 F.3d 689, (2d Cir., 1996).
18
The Court has jurisdiction. Schulz’s primary injury is due to Defendants’ encroachment on the zone of interests protected by the Constitution.”
I’d be interested in your take on this case.
Thanks,
Larry
May 23, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Leo,
I don’t know if you still read anything sent here, but I have sent my letter certified to Attorney Taylor and received receipt back. Rock on!!
Jeffrey Taylor
United States Attorney’s Office
555 4th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C 20530
Dear Mr. Taylor,
I am sure that you have been made aware of the Constitutional Crisis that is festering within the District of Colombia. The central Government of the U.S has been marching towards an ever increasing control over American Citizens by ignoring the tenets of Limited government as set forth by our Constitution. The political parties have usurped the state’s control of assuring a Presidential Candidate’s Constitutional qualifications to run for the office. You are probably aware of the deceptive nature of Resolution 511, an attempt by congress to legislate the meaning of Natural Born Citizen with a resolution that has no force of law. At the hearings for that Resolution Michael Chertoff and Senator Leahy agreed that a Natural Born Citizen was born of CITIZEN PARENTS. They got that part of the equation correct, but what about the jus soli part? Senator McCain, who’s Natural Born Citizen status the resolution was addressing, was born in Colon, Panama according to his Birth Certificate. How does Senator Leahy and the rest of Congress, who were all part of the hearing, support Barack Obama as a candidate for president, and now elected president, when it is well known that his father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan national? On Barack Obama’s “Fight the Smears” website he admits that due to his father’s Kenyan citizenship Barack Obama’s Citizenship was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1949. Barack Obama’s dual citizenship at birth (US and Great Britain) should disqualify him from holding the office of President.
In my home state of Florida State Statute 99.21 requires that candidates for all National political office take a candidate Oath that attests to the candidate’s constitutional qualification for the office he is running to attain. However Fla. state statute 103.11 institutes The Presidential Primary Selection Committee presided over by the Secretary of State of Fla., in which 10 members of the political parties and Congress select candidates to be on the State Ballot. Only a Presidential candidate’s own party member can raise a question as to the qualification of any presidential candidate. There is nothing in the wording of either statute that precludes a national candidate from taking the candidate oath of Fl. SS 99.21, yet that step is bypassed. The Citizens of Florida have effectively been shut out of the vetting process. The Secretary of state of the various states have said that they only perform a ministerial duty, and that the Political Parties verify the qualifications of their candidates, yet the Socialist Candidate, Mr. Calero, born in Nicaragua, was kicked off the ballot by the SOS’s of 5 states. Is this only selective enforcement?
I am sure that Mr. Obama had questions about his qualification as a Natural Born Citizen. He is after all a constitutional Lecturer and Harvard Law grad. There is not a clear on point Supreme Court decision that sets the meaning in stone as it relates to Presidential qualification, although Perkins v. Elg does define a Natural Born citizen as the product of a child born in the US of citizen parents, it is not a decision about who can run for president. The dicta of the case though does point to a Mr. Steinkauler born of naturalized American citizens in the US as being able to run for president of the US if he so chooses.
The argument has been made that the qualification for Natural Born Citizens to run for President is an antiquated relic of a time passed, or that it is discriminatory, or that it is not defined anywhere in the constitution. The Founders put the requirement into the constitution virtually without discussion. It was a well known term in the late 1700’s from a treatise on Natural Law by Vattel, a contemporary of the Framers, called “Law of Nations”. It is also well known that the framers used Vattel’s work in formulating their thoughts on Natural god-given rights of individuals. In breaking away from England, the Framers sought to break from the English Common Law dictatorial practice of England claiming as it’s citizens all those born within England’s territory, regardless of parent’s nationality. The only sensible way to avoid dual allegiances was to determine nationality of newborns by the nationality of the parents. Vattel said that “the natives, or Natural Born Citizens, are those born in a country to parents who are it’s citizens”. To the framers this was a common sense way to assure the highest probability of complete allegiance to the United States, and was a very well known term at the time, requiring no debate. In light of the framers well documented desire to assure allegiance to the US, and no other foreign power, could they possibly have thought that children born in the US of illegal aliens could be president or VP? This is not saying that Barack Obama’s father was an illegal alien, I only point to the belief that “Born in the US alone equals a Natural Born Citizen” as simply illogical in light of the founders well known reason for the requirement, as documented in the Federalist Papers. The qualification for Natural Born citizenship is certainly not discriminatory, as it comprises the highest percentage of US Citizens, and also does not require Native citizen parents, Naturalized Citizen parents can also produce Natural Born Citizens. Although the passage of time, lack of education, judicial activism, and congressional manipulation have blurred the meaning of the term “Natural Born Citizen”, there is much documentation as to the meaning of the term from a variety of sources over time. You can point to the hearings for Resolution 511 (4/2008), where Mr. Chertoff and Sen. Leahy agreed that a Natural Born citizen requires citizen parents (but prevaricated on the fact of McCain’s place of birth), Perkins v. Elg (1939), John Bingham’s statements during the Congressional hearings for the 14th Amendment, the Naturalization Act of 1790, and it’s repeal by the Naturalization Act of 1795 (passed by many of the members of the Constitutional Congress), and of course Vattels “Law of Nations”, all pointing to the born on US soil to citizen parents definition.
By the text of the Constitution itself we know what a Natural Born Citizen is NOT. Article 2 Section 1 clause 5 requires a president to be a Natural Born Citizen, “or a citizen at the time of the ratification of this constitution”. It is clear that the framers, although born British Citizens, trusted themselves since they fought for emancipation, but not others. Barack Obama and John McCain were certainly born after 1788. It is clear by the text of the Constitution that Natural Born Citizen is different from “Citizen”. Defenders of the “Born in the US equals Natural Born Citizen” argument may point to the Wong Kim Ark case, however that case is not about the requirements to become President, and Judge Gray also refused to deem Wong a Natural Born Citizen, although in deeming Wong a “citizen” he went diametrically against his own definition of 14th Amendment “jurisdiction” made 14 years earlier in Elk v. Wilkins. His Wong Kim Ark definition of “citizen” goes to a more Common Law view of jurisdiction that defenders of the “Born in the US equals Natural Born Citizen” notion tend to hold onto. However, as you well know, Justice Scalia has recently said that the Common Law is Dead. Defenders of the “Born in the US equals Natural Born Citizen” definition also point to the 14th Amendment, saying that it amends the Natural Born Citizen requirement. You will note that the words “Natural Born Citizen” are not in that Amendment, and that it is well documented that the writers of the Amendment meant it to reinforce the Bill of Rights and to give citizenship rights to negroes. Furthermore the seminal Marbury v. Madison case states that all Constitutional Phrases have an effect, and any argument that serves to make that effect moot is INADMISSABLE. If a 14th Amendment “Born” citizen is deemed to be a Natural Born Citizen, then Article 2 Section 1, clauses 4 and 5 are moot.
Mr. Taylor, as a citizen of this great nation I urge you to once and for all settle the question of Barack Obama’s qualification as a Natural Born Citizen through a Quo Warranto proceeding in the District of Colombia. The decision to bring this action rests with you and Attorney Holder (who may have a conflict of interest). It is the only constitutional avenue to address this Constitutional Crisis that is not going away. Members of our brave military need to be assured that they are taking orders from a legal President, collateral attacks (by death row inmates, for instance) are sure to pick up steam. I know that this issue must weigh heavily upon your mind, but I think that you are a patriot and you will see that it is right to go against the political winds and settle the question once and for all.
Sincerely and Patriotically,
May 29, 2009 at 8:40 PM
It looks like that U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor is leaving office. I check google for other news reports but this one came up.
U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor has announced that he is resigning effective May 29. The top prosecutor intends to join the private sector. He served as U.S. Attorney since September 2006. There had already been much speculation about who would fill Taylor’s position.
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/05/28/us-attorney-jeffrey -taylor-resigns/
May 30, 2009 at 1:47 PM
U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor has resigned.
Leo, are you still pursuing Quo Warranto?
May 30, 2009 at 6:37 PM
Taylor resigned. Now what?
May 30, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Looks like our last hope has decided to resign.
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/05/28/us-attorney-jeffrey-taylor-resigns/
May 31, 2009 at 12:41 AM
Leo,
Not sure if you’ve heard the news yet but, Jeffrey Taylor has resigned and is going to work for Price Waterhouse. It was just announced. Seems he gave a short notice.
Hope you are doing well. Miss hearing from your brilliant mind. Also hope you are winning lots and converting your winnings to a reliable currency.
May 31, 2009 at 6:39 AM
Leo,
Jeffrey Taylor resigned! That’s the last avenue in your opinion. Now what?
I guess that Taylor was not the standup guy that you thought.
May 31, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Leo,
I have not heard the reason why U.S. Attorney Taylor chose to resign. Could it be he took quo warranto seriously and the government/media complex forced him out? I hope we get an explanation. Something is rotten in Obamaland.
June 22, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Leo, the resignation of Taylor has discouraged many who thought he would be The Man who had the courage to institute a quo warranto vs Obama. And, to make matters worse, you, as the one person who led the charge with a brilliant legal attack against the alien usurper, take a leave of absence into a desert of silence! Leo, you left us hanging without a clue as to what we should do next. I once posted on this blog a comment to the effect, you cannot ever go back to your old, carefree lifestyle of poker, music and whatever, since God has given you a great gift which is given to few: a brilliant, legal mind and a patriotic love for America and the preservation of the integrity of the US Constitution. Leo, you cannot desert the battle field! YOU ARE THE MAN who must stand tall, with great courage and fortitude, to lead the patriots who are loyal to the Christian-Judeo foundations of America and the Constitution of our most honored Founding Fathers. Leo, you can run to anywhere in the world, play as much poker, music and chess as you want to, but you can’t hide–from yourself! You know in the deepest recesses of your innermost soul, Obama’s usurpation of the presidency and the compromise of the Constitution is always there festering, gnawing at your unconscious, commanding you to continue the legal battle to exorcise the deceitful usurper from his ill-gotten position of power. Leo, please return and show us the way open to successfully file a quo warranto. If a US attorney won’t institute a QW, then, as you have said, those who have been fired by Obama, corporate execs, bankers, etc., can institute a quo warranto according to Newman. There is still a way open, Leo, please lead the way!