Judge Carter: “The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district.”
I was impressed with the integrity of Judge Carter’s ruling today. It gives me hope that the POTUS eligibility issue will eventually have its day in court on the merits.
POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE.
Congress is the branch the Constitution empowers to remove a sitting President. The power to judicially enforce any review of POTUS eligibility is a pre-requisite to judicial involvement as the federal courts do not have the power to issue simple advisory opinions. A declaratory judgment is more than an advisory opinion. This is because a declaratory judgment must have the power of enforcement attached whereas an advisory opinion does not.
The declaratory judgment requests of plaintiffs in the Barnett case had to be dismissed because the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. It’s really that simple. Judge Carter’s analysis of this issue was perfect.
QUO WARRANTO
Because a quo warranto is the only proper action to review the eligibility of a sitting President – and because such an action requires a trial of facts - Congress empowered the DC District Court to hold such a trial (by jury if requested by either party) when the eligibility of the President (or any US national office holder) is called into question.
There is no political question doctrine defense available to a sitting President for a quo warranto brought in the DC District Court. This is because Congress properly exercised its Constitutional authority to review a President’s eligibility via the quo warranto statute which also provides for the removal of an ineligible person from that office if necessary.
The US Attorney General and the US attorney have been empowered by Congress to institute a quo warranto on their own volition. Furthermore, any person may request that these officers do the same. If consent is not given by the DOJ, section 3503 of the quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to petition the DC District Court on its own. The Barnett plaintiffs failed to avail themselves of this option.
Additionally, the Department of Justice has created a genuine conflict of interest as to 3502 requests by any “third person” (meaning any citizen). By defending the President in this eligibility litigation involving quo warranto, it isn’t possible for the Department of Justice to remain impartial.
Therefore, either a special prosecutor must be named for purposes of allowing the Congressional intent of the quo warranto statute to be realized, or the DC District Court may waive the requirement and examine any verified petition on its own consent.
The conflict will eventually be tested in the DC District Court.
Meanwhile, it’s important for me to point out that everything I have told readers of this blog about quo warranto was confirmed by Judge Carter today.
JUDGE CARTER DID NOT HOLD THAT QUO WARRANTO WAS IMPROPER TO CHALLENGE THE ELIGIBILITY OF A SITTING PRESIDENT.
This was the most extraordinary part of today’s ruling. It opens the door wide for a proper eligibility challenge in the DC District Court where the hurdle for standing is different from ordinary federal cases.
Please take note that the Department of Justice attorneys argued before Judge Carter that quo warranto – even if brought properly in the DC District Court – could not be used to challenge the eligibility of a sitting President. Judge Carter’s ruling did not support the Department of Justice position.
The ruling today affirms that the proper venue for challenging the eligibility of a sitting President is the DC District Court.
This is a very encouraging ruling for those contemplating a quo warranto challenge to President Obama’s eligibility in the DC District Court.
THE ONLY SIGNIFICANT ERROR
The only part of today’s ruling I take issue with is footnote 3 on page 22 where Judge Carter assumes that since Congress has the Constitutional authority to enact legislation regarding naturalization and citizenship by statute that they also have the power to define the meaning of “natural born citizen”.
But Congress has not defined “natural born citizen” while they have defined “naturalized citizen” and “citizen by statute”. Since neither the Congress nor the courts have defined “natural born citizen”, we are left without a legal working definition.
Faced with a sitting President who admits to having been a British citizen at birth, the need for a quo warranto to be instituted is of the utmost importance to the future of this nation.
Here is Judge Carter’s correct ruling on the quo warranto issue:
C. Quo Warranto Claims…
The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.
Nothing in today’s ruling appears to question the power of the DC District Court to issue a writ of quo warranto to President Obama which would require him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of President. I must commend Judge Carter for his exercise of judicial restraint on this issue.
October 29, 2009 at 8:34 PM
[B]ut Congress has not defined “natural born citizen” while they have defined “naturalized citizen” and “citizen by statute”. Since neither the Congress nor the courts have defined “natural born citizen”, we are left without a legal working definition. ]
What I don’t understand is why NONE of these lawsuits use Rep Bingham and the copy of the 39th Congress which clearly defined NBC.
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen]”
Wouldn’t this qualify as a Congressional definition of NBC? To me this should be one of the very 1st arguments any lawyer should make.
Moving on, I also am glad to see Judge Carter follow the Constitution.
Leo, God Bless & God Speed in your journey to fight this Constitutionally.
October 29, 2009 at 8:37 PM
Leo,
Please help me (& others) to understand this (regarding the jurisdiction piece only).
From Judge Carter’s ORDER:
“The Court must establish that it has jurisdiction before it may reach the question of interpreting the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution.”
Yet, this statement is found in the SCOTUS brief overview:
“Jurisdiction. According to the Constitution (Art. III, §2): “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution”
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/briefoverview.pdf
Since this is a question of whether or not Obama is NBC as the Constitution requires (i.e. not some election law, or statue, or state law, etc), why is it that the courts seem to say they don’t have jurisdiction…when the Constitution say’s they do?
[ed. limitation of powers. all branches are limited. Presidential eligibility is not really a case "in law or equity". It's not a case for damages (aka "at law") and it's not an equity case (aka injunction)... it's a special case where the eligibility of the President is being challenged. The Constitution specifically doles that job out to Congress. Look at it this way... if the President was being impeached, the judicial branch would have to stay out of it even if the impeachment dealt with a Constitutional crime. Impeachment is in the sole power of congress. That's undisputed. Failure to be eligible is not a crime, but it is does give rise to removal of a sitting President. Not being a crime, it is not a proper basis for impeachment. But it the power to remove a sitting President is not limited to impeachment. Congress may remove the President when he becomes incapacitated as well. Congress is the only branch who has that power. They have exercised that power by enacting the quo warranto statute. No other branch is textually assigned the job. Think of this in the same terms as impeachment.]
October 29, 2009 at 8:52 PM
Can you tell us if/when you plan to file suite, either Quo Warranto in DC or in Hawaii for freedom of information? We’re counting on you Leo. Please let us know if we can help.
[ed. my correspondence with the state of Hawaii is ongoing. I will update the blog when the time is right.]
October 29, 2009 at 9:00 PM
Congratulations on being proven right once again and having at least one judge agree with you!
October 29, 2009 at 9:13 PM
Leo, I came to your blog, hoping you would elucidate for us the facts of Judge Carter’s ruling today. My heart was so heavy when I read headlines about the decision online a little while ago, but after reading your analysis, I feel hope once again. This past year has been such a roller coaster, and I know those of us who care for truth and justice and the life of this nation, just want all of the obfuscation and stonewalling by obama to come to a screeching halt.
Thanks for giving us a clear reading and understanding of Judge Carter’s ruling today. It is by far better for the Constitution to be scrupulously upheld (by those judges who are willing to do so) than to have a decision that would try to put a square peg in a round hole and destroy the hole (Constitution) in the process. I pray that quo warranto is presented to the D.C. District Court posthaste. Again, thanks for helping us to properly digest this crushing news today and to frame it within its proper context.
October 29, 2009 at 9:15 PM
Leo -
Does this information help with anything you are doing?
It seems that the DOH is converging to a common process for answering these requests. Here is a reply I received upon asking for “any and all Index Data for any and all filings related to Death Records for Madeline Dunham and Stanley Ann Dunham”.
==========
In response to your UIPA request, the following index data is provided:
DUNHAM, MADELYN LEE PAYNE
Female
DUNHAM, STANLEY ANN
Female
==========
Based on this, and other reports post on TerriK, it seems that they are now giving only summaries of the Index Data, not the Index Data itself. Rather than providing an answer, they are essentially just repeating the question in statement form.
Index Data is like the card catalog in the library. If you look for a subject like, say, “Civil War”, you will see many cards indicating the many books on the subject. What we are seeing instead is simply “Civil War? Yes we have that”.
This is surely not the intent of the UIPA laws. Any librarian who pulled this stunt would surely be fired.
###########################################################
More SUMMARY DATA instead of the requested INDEX DATA.
Note that in this particular request, I tried to ‘force’ the issue.
REQUEST:
Under the provisions of UIPA and Hawaii statutes, I hereby request ALL Index Data for any records you have for Barack Obama or Barry Soetoro (including any reasonable alternate spellings for Barry and Soetoro).
I am a computer scientist and very familiar with the concepts of manual and automated data repositories. Please do not send me broad categories of ‘index data’. I need the lowest level and most complete index data that you would get if you performed a search for the above names.
At a minimum, every document or note in the files or records must have the date, the name or purpose of the document or note, and a link to that actual information.
==================================
In response to your UIPA request, the following index data is provided:
BIRTH INDEX
OBAMA II, BARACK HUSSEIN
Male
MARRIAGE INDEX
GROOM
OBAMA, BARACK HUSSEIN
BRIDE
DUNHAM, STANLEY ANN
[ed. they are receiving hundreds of requests per day I've been informed. more on this down the road.]
October 29, 2009 at 9:18 PM
Leo,
So the battlefield has been shaped. When can we expect hostilities to commence in The D.C. Court?
October 29, 2009 at 9:20 PM
Leo, I am glad you are satisfied with Judge Carter’s ruling (that I have not read yet). As for myself, I am frustrated as hell. Quo Warranto has already been filed by Orly Taitz TWICE
[ed. It's never been filed. You are mistaken. She sent a letter to AG Holder requesting that he file Quo Warranto. He did not. She then failed to avail herself and her clients of 3503 which allows her to petition the DC Distirct Court for leave to file for the quo warranto without DOJ permission. No such quo warranto has been filed. Hasn't been done.]
October 29, 2009 at 9:27 PM
Mr. Leo Donofrio, Esq.
Special Prosecutor for We the People
Dear Leo:
This is Beyond Fabulous!!
I cannot even imagine how you must feel now. Your year-long, tireless-hard-work and brilliant analysis has been validated by a Federal Judge! Congratulations.
It is an honor to be one of your enumerable understudies in this endeavour. Yes, I know, there is much more yet to come.
Deeply & Respectfully,
Robare
October 29, 2009 at 9:28 PM
Thank you, Leo, for your comments on this case.
Because of your previous writing on this case, even while reading a negative assessment of judge Carter’s ruling, I was able to see that it played out like you said it would, and that it didn’t seem to affect the ability to bring quo warranto in D.C.
We are always grateful for your thoughts and your work and remember you in our prayers.
October 29, 2009 at 9:36 PM
If you are happy so am I.I was reading the transcripts of the hearing and noticed his tormented position on a woman travelling with her military husband overseas and being denied the right to someday have that offspring eligible for POTUS. He also seemed to hint somewhere in there that Congress could legislate these citizenship issues seemingly warning the plaintiffs of this Right perhaps.I did not see him exhibit an understanding of article II with the same concerns as you.He was focused on gender rights and you were bearing down on national security.
[ed. you are mixing up his comments at the hearing with his official holding. The comments are not precedent in any way at all... Judges may make preposterous hypotheticals during a hearing and say things which seem to make no sense but they are gathering information while doing that - they are engaged in a form of judicial discovery. When it comes time for the ruling and accompanying opinion, what goes on paper is what counts. his opinion was well crafted and he did not adopt the DOJ opinion that no quo warranto was possible against a sitting President.]
October 29, 2009 at 9:44 PM
Thank you for explaining this in a manner understandable by a layman. It seems Judge Carter helped rather than hindered the efforts of Dr. Taitz.
Semper Fi,
October 29, 2009 at 9:52 PM
Judge Carter: “The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district.”
>>yes but unfortunately obama’s executive orders impacts
everyone outside the Dof C.
[ed. i dont understand your point.]
October 29, 2009 at 9:57 PM
Thanks Leo.
October 29, 2009 at 10:03 PM
USDC-DC Judge Leon has the last case “standing” in the proper jurisdiction for quo warranto challenge.
The US District Court for the District of Columbia has the case 08-2234 Strunk v US DOS et al. Originally a simple FOIA case for travel records of Stanley Dunham and other dead relatives of non-nbc tourist. Case was amended to include quo warranto removal from office for ineligibility.
[ed. I don't believe Strunk will be able to meet the "interested person" test of 3503. Also, I'm not sure he brought the correct pleading. A simple complaint won't do. He needs a "verified complaint" with facts sworn under oath.]
October 29, 2009 at 10:21 PM
[...] attorney Leo Donofrio points out in his own take concerning this story, push for a quo warranto action. Immediately after what I last quoted from Judge Carter, there was [...]
[ed. good analysis by Phil.]
October 29, 2009 at 10:22 PM
Mario pumped out a pretty good blog;
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/real-kerchner-v-obama-congress-case-is.html
The part about not having standing really sounds good, what do you think? Does it fly?
October 29, 2009 at 10:48 PM
Once again you are proven correct, Mr. D.
If you do not take up this fight, then whom shall we “draft” to move this forward ?
What is really going on here ?
October 29, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Article 1 sec 3
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2009m6d20-House-impeaches-federal-judge-in-sex-crimes-case-First-since-Bill-Clinton-impeachment
“On Friday, the US House of Representatives formally impeached a federal judge imprisoned for lying about his alleged sexual assaults of two women.
Federal District Court Judge Samuel Kent of Texas will be tried in the US Senate, the first since the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. ”
“Even though Kent is a convicted felon and currently incarcerated his continues to be paid his nearly $175,000 a year salary. He has repeatedly refused to resign.”
“If he is convicted of the impeachment charges by the US Senate, he will be removed from office.”
“Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), told AP that the pretrial work can last weeks or months. But a trial can be swift.”
Hypothetical ? , If a POTUS is found guilty of any charge what means of removal does the DC court or any other court including SCOTUS ,have to remove the POTUS besides a impeachment & 2/3 vote to remove in the Senate ?
“Ironically Florida Congressman Alcee Hastings, a ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security Subcommittee, was present in the House during the impeachment debate. Hastings was acquitted of bribery charges as a federal judge, but in 1988 was nonetheless impeached by the House of Representatives.
The US Senate later convicted him for similar charges and Hastings was removed from the bench although he was never imprisoned.”
In the Hastings case , one difference occurs Hastings was not convicted in court but was removed by the senate
Does not congress hold the only power to remove the POTUS ?
Using the Kent & Hastings case doesn’t congress hold the only power to remove a sitting POTUS ?
Even if SCOTUS or The DC Court or any other Court finds a POTUS ineligible ?
[ed. If the DC District Court in DC is involved in an eligibility trial for quo warranto, then essentially that is Congress removing the President as this type of trial under tha quo warranto statute is the manner in which Congress has chosen to exercise their removal authority.]
Or can the only way a sitting POTUS be relieved from office is by impeachment from the congress & conviction in the Senate, or death or not capable of preform his duties, or end of his term. ?
October 29, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Of course you were right on this. It’s kind of mind boggling that Taitz, Kreep and Appuzo haven’t figured this out yet. I wish someone would get a clue before they file a suit. Thanks for pointing this out way back when.
October 29, 2009 at 11:07 PM
In early hearings of this case, Judge Carter told the Plaintiffs if he eventually dismissed this case, he would direct them on how best to establish this case elsewhere within the judicial system so the case could be heard on it’s merits.
By his granting of the DOJ’s motion to dismiss, he clearly stated (and as you have educated us all along) the proper venue for challenging Obama’s eligibility for the POTUS was the DC District Court with quo warranto.
Everyone needs to take a deep breath, stop the pot shots at Judge Carter and focus all attention on flooding the DC District Court with quo warranto filings until some courageous judge decides to hear a case on it’s merits.
IMO, Judge Carter gave everyone the roadmap today on how to remove Obama from office!
Thanks Leo for the education…how is Hawaii UIPA coming?
October 29, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Leo,
Thanks for taking the time to review Judge Carter’s opinion. While I hoped that he would grant discovery, then rule to accept the MTD, this seems inappropriate. I sincerely hope that someone takes this to the DC court, the issue should be settled. Discovery there would be inevitable, and once discovery is granted, we will be much closer to the truth. Congress cannot enact or vote someone NBC, the prior SCOTUS opinions have demonstrated that. NBC either is or is not, if it’s voted upon or enacted it is naturalized.
I hope that you agree with me that those accusing the Judge Carter of cowardice are incorrect; he made a reasonable legal judgment. I can disagree with his position but still respect the intent of adherence to the law. Sometimes it takes extraordinary effort to overcome criminal behavior, but you can’t break the laws your trying to protect in order to accomplish your goals.
Good luck and Please go find an ‘AG legal opinion on the State’s statement that Obama is NBC’. I’m sure this didn’t ‘rock your world’ but I sincerely appreciate your attempts to find the truth in this quagmire.
October 29, 2009 at 11:34 PM
Thanks Leo
Your interpretation is much appreciated!
Check this out…
http://citizenscott.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/what-can-he-mean-by-saying-that-the-common-law-is-not-secured-by-the-new-constitution/
Take Care.
October 29, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Thanks much for your post, Leo. I always feel better informed after reading your analysis/interpretations of the law. I wish more people would do the right thing – I hate to think that power and corruption will win out. This has been a fight that I’ve followed from Berg’s case, and I appreciate your discipline, passion and stewardship in this matter.
It’s hard for the lay person to understand all this so thanks for the clarification (and hope). The Constitution either means what it says or it means nothing at all.
A Natural Born concerned citizen,
Kelly
October 29, 2009 at 11:51 PM
Leo, I can only hope you are right.
It is always darkest right before the dawn.
October 29, 2009 at 11:55 PM
Will you be filing a Quo Warranto in DC District Court? It would seem to me that the only way this will happen is if there is a huge DEM loss in the house in the 2010 mid-term election, which would allow a new Republican house the opportunity to file the case. I doubt that ANY congress would have the stones to do this.
Holder certainly isn’t going to do it so that leaves an interested 3rd party. I am guessing that there have been other Quo Warranto’s brought in the DC circuit – have there? Were any of those brought by rd parties?
[ed. more on this to come.]
October 30, 2009 at 12:00 AM
Thank you for posting this, Mr. Donofrio. Many people, including myself were very discouraged when Judge Carter dismissed the lawsuit. Your analysis and explanation give us hope that all is not lost.
October 30, 2009 at 12:30 AM
Judge Carter conned Orly by getting her to re serve the case, so that he could treat it as being against a sitting President. Orly served the papers before Obama was appointed so shouldn’t have needed Quo Warranto. Therefore the Judge ended up dismissing the case on a technicality. Something he said he wouldn’t do. The fix was obviously in from the beginning because the Magistrate Judge introduced the false incorrect service issue right at the start.
Second. Judge Carter said the Congress has power to redefine “Citizen”, and he is correct. But Congress do not have any power to redefine Natural Born Citizen, as that is to be judged according to the intention of the Founders at that time.
[ed. doesn't matter if she filed it before or after he was sworn in. The Constitution kicks in when he became "president-elect" after the electoral college met. The "President-elect" after that electoral vote count has all the Constitutional protections as a sitting President. The issue is a red herring and had nothing to do with any of this. The man is a sitting President. You can kick and scream all you like, but that's the facts Jack. To treat him otherwise in the Courts would be a more problematic tear in the Constitution.]
October 30, 2009 at 12:36 AM
A Quo Warranto was submitted by Dr. Taitz in D.C. Hard to make it work when the person you submit it to suddenly retires or just plain refuses to let it be heard. Who is she to complain to?
[ed. you appear to be too emotionally involved to see the plain legal truth. So calm down and hear me out - the federal quo warranto statute in section 3502 requires that any "third person" go to the DOJ to request the AG bring a quo warranto. Orly did that and no such quo warranto was brought. Hence, her request was refused.
She was then entitled to proceed to section 3503 of the quo warranto statute and approach the court by verified (sworn under oath) petition requesting leave to issue a writ of quo warranto to the President on behalf of her clients. Such a complaint however cannot be based upon unproved allegations, but rather each fact complained of must be sworn to under oath. Under 3503, an "interested person" does not need the permission of the DOJ and such a person can go straight to the DC District Court.
3503 WAS NOT USED. IT WAS IGNORED.
There's no reason why it can't be used right now. Got it?
snip emotional attack on Judge---]
October 30, 2009 at 12:39 AM
I have made it a point to send several emails out referring them to page 25 starting at line 13. I know that too many individuals refused to believe that DC was the correct venue, even after you posted the statute. I am very glad that you have commented on Carters decision, perhaps, your post will help stop the ignorant ugly things being said about a judge that spent much time and patience deliberating and researching prior to making his decision. To say nothing of his patience with the ridicules behavior of the individuals (groupies) that were in the courtroom.
Any other judge would have cleared the courtroom. Some of their actions: booing and cat calling when co-counsel, attempted to speak. Applause, whistles and the “you tell em lady liberty.” shouts whenever Orly said anything. Noisy at times when the judge was trying to speak., and they wouldn’t stop until Orly would turn and nod to them.. I was out of there in 15 minutes I had enough of the dog and pony show. I though for sure the judge would clear the court room, but he has far more patience than I do.
October 30, 2009 at 12:46 AM
Exactly what can a concerned lay citizen do to start the ‘quo warranto’ examination in the DC District Court?
[ed. review this blog. study the law. educate yourself and keep your eye out for somebody who might be an "interested person" under 3503.]
October 30, 2009 at 1:00 AM
Leo, I though you once filed a Quo Warrento in D.C.
They ignored it if I recall. So what’s next since this was tried before?
[ed. you have a misconception. I sent a request for quo warranto to the AG and US Attorney in DC. I did that under 3502 as a "third person". I do not believe that I am an "interested person" under 3503 so I never wasted the court's time with such an application.]
October 30, 2009 at 1:16 AM
So, what is holding up the demand in DC for Quo Warranto?
[ed. An "interested person" under 3503 and prior case law.]
October 30, 2009 at 1:24 AM
Leo, throw us a bone, what are you up to?
October 30, 2009 at 1:41 AM
I agree that Judge Carter’s ruling did affirm that writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia.
However, in another section of his ruling, he states that only Congress has the power to REMOVE him from office.
Thus, if I read it correctly, the court could find Obama ineligible but not have the power to remove him from office as that would violate the separation of powers. It would be up to Congress to then take appropriate action, would it not?
[ed. They already have taken appropriate measures by enacting the federal quo warranto statute. That was an exercise of their authority to review the qualifications of a sitting President.]
Assuming for the moment that the political make-up of the Congress were conducive to consider the NBC status, could the Congress subpoena necessary documents (BC, passport, etc.) on it’s own, in other words, by passing quo warranto?
October 30, 2009 at 3:00 AM
Perhaps Leo will have someone ask him to represent them on this matter.
October 30, 2009 at 3:24 AM
Well, didn’t Judge Carter say that
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became president of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a president, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.”
Is that not a very peculiar interpretation of the rule of law or does an ineligible individual cease to be ineligible once the persons responsible for vetting him have failed in the exercise of their duties?
[ed. they exercised their duties by enacting the quo warranto statute. nobody has availed themselves properly of that statute.]
October 30, 2009 at 7:00 AM
You Sir are indeed a wonderful man thank you for your legal wisdom that you share with us God richly Bless you and America
October 30, 2009 at 7:32 AM
Leo,
Hopefully one of your potential clients is a QW interested party! This ruling verifies everything you said about QW, except Carter’s belief that Congress can define NBC, which is unbelieveable. I’m sure that a profylactic defence of Obama has been prepared for the occasion.
October 30, 2009 at 8:28 AM
Thank you Leo for posting. I’ve missed reading your opinions. Take care, Zach
October 30, 2009 at 8:56 AM
so why doesn’t Orly appeal her case directly to the DC court?
[ed. an "appeal" is not proper. she may institute a proceeding under 3503 but that would entail a verified petition with facts sworn under oath and penalty of perjury.]
and as well ask for a special prosecutor be assigned due to conflict of intetest in DOJ
Carter does correctly mention that Congress has lacked to due their duty in NBC definition, but Carter should mention that the COURTS have made significant case rulings in others with commentary. So he falls —
[ed. snip. He has no obligation to point out what other courts say. Those courts do not bind him in any way. Drop the emotional nonsense. Try to stay on point.]
October 30, 2009 at 9:01 AM
As for a Congressional definition of “natural born citizen” wouldnt the wording in SR511 (or the testimony of the participants) suffice?
[ed. No. That only dealt with one situation. Furthermore, 511 is not a law, it's nothing more than water cooler talk dressed up in a nice suit and tie. A resolution is pomp and circumstance. Mean nothing under law.]
October 30, 2009 at 9:19 AM
So, in other words, a 3503 Quo Warranto CAN be filed but the argument of the facts must be very succinct, something that can be testified and verified.
Couldn’t the evidence be Obama’s own testimony, either from his book or his website that where he states that his father hel kenyan/british citizenship at the time of his birth.
The argument will have to be extremely narrow, that NBC was defined in Vattel and this was the definition used by the founders would be the argument but the actual complaint would simply be that he is not NBC because his father was not a US citizen.
October 30, 2009 at 9:23 AM
The founders only required the president to be a natural born citizen.No other government office requires this qualification.That fact alone defines natural born citizen.
October 30, 2009 at 9:26 AM
Did Carter deny standing for 3rd-party candidates? Are military people “interested persons”? My frustration has been that the courts seem to think it is literally nobody’s business if we have a usurper in the office of president. I will gladly keep an eye out for people who would qualify as “interested persons” – if I had any idea who the courts would ever consider to have flesh in the game. Who would they say fit?
Also, I don’t understand the thing about having to have sworn affidavits before proceeding to Quo Warranto. Seems like if we can’t ever get discovery we can never get the prerequisite for Quo Warranto. What am I missing here?
[ed. You can swear to the fact that Obama admits to having been a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies when he was born. You cannot swear Obama was born in Kenya. Also, as to standing, Carter was willing to accept that Keyes might have met the first part of the standing issue, an injury regarding not being able to play on a fair ground against only eligible candidates, but Carter did not feel that the second part of the standing test had been met - that being whether the court can redress the grievance. Carter didn't believe his court had the power to remove a sitting President or to command the President to submit to the Court's will in any way on this issue. Carter held that Congress was textually assigned that power under the Constitution and I agree with him. Carter also directed plaintiffs to the DC District Court.]
October 30, 2009 at 9:31 AM
Would Sarah Palin be an interested person under 16-3503?
[ed. I think she has a strong argument.]
October 30, 2009 at 9:49 AM
I previously made a UIPA request for the first and earliest filed index data associated with file number 151 1961- 010641
Okubo responded that I need to give her a name in order to retrieve the record. Here is my response:
As I stated previously, I request an electronic copy of index data for file number 151 1961- 010641. According to Hawaiian statute 338-18(d), “Index data consisting of name, age, and sex of the registrant and date, type and file number of the vital event and such other data as the director may authorize may be made available to the public.”
According to Hawaiian statute 338-18(d) and several OIP opinions, the file number is part of the index data. I am asking for the name, age and sex of the registrant and the date and type of the indexed event. If there is more than one index entry with this file number, please include only the first and earliest filed entry.
I have worked in data processing for many years and the idea that you assign a unique file number to a record and then are unable to retrieve the record based on that number is ludicrous. The file number is the only part of the index data guaranteed not to change if, for example, a record were modified, corrected, or otherwise amended. A name might change, for example, but a file number would not.
Is it your claim that you are unable to retrieve vital event data based on file number?
Andre Mendotto (a.k.a Don’t Tread on Me)
October 30, 2009 at 10:04 AM
After reviewing Judge Carter’s opinion, it appears to me that he adopted the Gov’t’s argument that only Congress can impeach a President so therefore he lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter. While I agree with that statement, it appears to me to be creating a strawman since the Court’s job is to interpret the Consitution, not conduct impeachment proceedings. In this case, the term “natural born citizen’ in Art. II cries out for definition. The Obama case presents a classic factual opportunity to judicially define the term.
[ed. You are requesting an advisory opinion, a declaratory judgment without the power to enforce that judgment is a simple advisory opinion and District Courts do not have such authority.]
The term needs to be defined before any action can be taken with regard to Obama. Why wasn’t Judge Carter’s duty more narrow, i.e., just apply the Obama facts to Art II and issue a legal ruling on whether Obama met or didn’t meet the “natural born citizen” definition? Then it would be up to Congress to decide what to do with Obama. I also wonder whether Congress can Constitutionally legislate away its Article II responsibility under the Constitituion to another branch of government. It seems that the Quo Warranto statutue may have its own Constitutional problems.
[ed. what Problems?]
What Judge Carter seems to have done is to create an all or nothing approach which then gave him reason to conclude he didn’t have such sweeping jurisdiction al authority to act.
October 30, 2009 at 10:06 AM
I do not get why Taitz and Appuzzo do not avail themselves of the Quo Warranto statute. It seems if you are doing all this work, you might as well put your efforts towards a process that stands a chance of yielding some results.
I cannot believe with all the people harmed by Obama to date there is not one person out there willing to be an interested party. You would think an owner of a car dealership forced to close or one of the executives that have had 90 percent of their pay stripped would have a pretty good case.
October 30, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Strunk’s quo warranto verified complaint docket
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 19 Filed 06/01/2009 Page 1 of 27
scribd.com link to this document to be posted here
October 30, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Hey Leo,
Glad to see you surface for a time. There are a lot of people who miss your correspondence.
Could an “‘interested person’ under 16-3503 – aka a person with unique standing” be an individual with an application for Presidential Pardon before the POTUS for consideration, or a person that has been denied a pardon by the POTUS? It seems that even a person seeking a pardon is entitled to be considered by a non-usurper. Thanks.
[ed. Interesting question but ultimately a loser.]
October 30, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Please help me out. My layman’s understanding of the requirements for standing (as stated in Judge Carter’s decision) lead me to the conclusion that it is impossible to establish standing for a natural born citizenship challenge.
At the time the current NBC challenges were made all of the following seems to be true.
There is no injury in fact. The injury does not affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way. The injury is not actual and imminent. And the injury is conjectural or theoretical.
The purpose of the NBC requirement is to prevent some future injury. That is, we don’t want a person in office who would act in a way contrary to the interests of the United States because of his foreign allegiances. At this point in time it is mere conjecture what that act would entail. It is even possilbe that a non-NBC president could be the best president we ever had!
So, if there is ever is an injury in fact, it is in the future, and is therefore not imminent. Then it would seem that the injury would affect the entire population, and not be particularized to the individual.
[ed. incorrect. there are other types of injuries which would create standing. but if you are in the DC District Court, the issue isnt general federal standing, the issue is whether you are an "interested person" under 3503 and the case law. Much different analysis than that which was required for ordinary federal court standing.]
October 30, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Leo, It’s good to hear from you. I cannot wait to hear the nature of the legal actions you are working on. I really hope you get somewhere with the state of Hawai’i….I agree with you that the UIPA is good law, excellent law in fact. Unfortunately it appears that it is being administered by people who are uninterested in following it.
October 30, 2009 at 12:01 PM
correct scribd.com link to quo warranto verified complaint
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17508468/StrunkDOS-Opposition-to-Motion-to-Dismiss-19-20090601
October 30, 2009 at 12:30 PM
From the ruling:
“Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person
. . . must receive leave of court to do so. . .
Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.”
Is this highlighted text not the proverbial elephant in the living room? Even assuming an interested person does provide the requisite affidavits, what if that person never (shockingly) happens to receive leave of court to file? I appreciate the Carter road map and your analysis thereof, but what prevents judicial discretion from making sure no such case ever gets heard?
[ed. The real question you should be asking is why attorney discretion prevents the issues from ever being put before the proper court?]
October 30, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Glad you are back. I missed reading your blog.
I have learned a lot from you, but now have come back to this question : who is an “interested party” for quo warranto?
October 30, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Mr. Leo Donofrio,
Congratulations! You have been justified, vindicated and confirmed in your brilliant legal analysis of Quo Warranto by Judge Carter! You put it all out there from the very beginning and has resulted exactly as you said it would—dismissed! My hopes have turned 180 from discouragement and now praying that a proper QW will be filed in the Fed DC court. Thank you so very much for your hard work in preserving the US Constitution and America from the corrupt, mendacious, inelegible usurper-in-chief Obama. Will continue to pray that God bless you and keep you in the Palm of His Hand always!
October 30, 2009 at 1:28 PM
If quo warranto is filed now with the DC court by an interested person under 3503 and the DC court refuses to hear it, what are the chances for an appeal to a higher court? (I don’t know if there is a Court of Appeals between the DC court and the Supreme Court.)
October 30, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Leo,
It’s very interesting to read some of the other forums and see the howls of disappointment especially after first seeing the headline on TRSOL I actually felt a physical weight lift off my shoulders. I didn’t understand till seeing that headline how fearful I was that Judge Carter may not have dismissed the case. I’m ecstatic he dismissed this. My faith in the judicial system lately has been greatly diminished but is still marching on thanks in large part to Judge Carter. Thank you Judge. Thank you thank you thank you. Your decision may yet help us save this Republic I love so much.
October 30, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Mr. Donofrio, please forgive me for sounding like a broken record. It is not necessary to win a court case. All that is necessary is to find one federal judge among 91 or 92 (excluding U.S. District Judges Clay Land and David Carter) who will order discovery. Not convict the usurper; not even convene the trial. Discovery will expose so much incriminating corruption that the fraudulent impostor, his cover blown, will have to resign, just as Richard Nixon had to resign in 1974.
[ed. the ends do not justify the means. either the courts have subject matter jurisdiction or they do not. I will not support a Judge ordering discovery where he has no jurisdiction in the underlying matter. The law is the law. I do not want to see it broken again just because we believe it was broken as to eligibility. That is not my idea of law. I will not support your concept at all.]
This is politics, not “real life.”
[ed. This is law. Carter had to dismiss the case under law.]
In politics, it isn’t necessary to get a conviction, but only to establish a lack of confidence that makes it impossible for him to rule.
If intimidation and coercion have established their neighborhood turf in every federal courtroom, the military will have to restore law and order. To remove the criminal usurper
[ed. usurpation is not a crime. it's a civil matter clearly defined as such under federal statute. You are not following the law. You are following your own sense of justice. I am not out to "get Obama". That's not my purpose. I have fought just as hard against the theory that McCain was eligible. I am out to protect the law. You are out to break it. I am not your friend.]
from his advantage as Commander-in-Chief, the United States must have the military overturn the coup d’état Mr. Obama has perpetrated.
[ed. No. That's not legal.]
His dithering on Afghanistan, refusing for months to give his yea or nay to Gen. McChrystal’s request for reinforcements, is a life-and-death prod to action for the Joint Chiefs and flag grade officers.
[ed. that has nothing to do with eligibility.]
Only the military has the armor, the firepower, and the will and determination to repulse Is|amist terrorist cells, the Nation of Is|am, black gangs, Latino gangs, the Mafia, the Mob, and the Chicago Machine, the Democratic National Convention, the Democrat super-majority in the U.S. Congress, and the hitmen who killed Quarles Harris, Freddie Mac CFO David Kellerman, Donald Young and friends, Ron Brown, Vince Foster . . .
[ed. you are calling for the overthrow of the US Constitution. God forbid.]
October 30, 2009 at 2:32 PM
I am still confused about one thing. We can not “vett” the Presidential canidates, so who does and if they fail to do the “vetting”, how do we take them to court? If we take them to court, can a “discovery” be used to show what they used to certify the canidates eligibility?
Sorry, I am just completely lost on all of this.
October 30, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Leo,
Leaping fearlessly ahead to the Writ of Quo Warranto:
Should it be held that the present POTUS was ineligible to present himself as a candidate …. and is therefore holding the office in violation of the Constitution … would it be within the powers granted to Congress for them to choose to do nothing with the finding in the short term?
Or, could they, by omission, allow the ineligible POTUS the option of “resigning,” (i.e., in effect removing himself) thus making the VP President until the next election?
The real question is “He is found ineligible. Now what?” Is every act and undertaking of his presidency invalidated … or just those after the ruling?
Regards, and good luck in Hawaii,
FT
October 30, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Two recent items that might interest readers here. One is a graphic and the other is a new article.
http://www.jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com
Graphic Defining “Natural Born Citizenship”
A Final Exam for Professor Obama
October 30, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Leo:
What would be the qualifications of an “interested person” under 3503?
October 30, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Leo,
Is a citizen an “interested person” if the President signs a bill that directly affects them, by changing their rights or requiring them to pay money, where those affected are a “particular subset” of the population….I’ll invent the follwoing scenario:
[ed. no. a citizen is a third person under 3502 nit an interested person under 3503.]
T”oday the President signed into law the Declaratory Statement Law, which will reduce crowded courthouses involving civil cases, and save money by allowing for courts to decide cases based on written statements of the parties, and eliminating the need for live testimony and cross examination.”
This kind of law would violate the “due process rights” of citizens, of th 5 and 14th Amendment….and being so affected by the “Presidential signing of this law” could this interested person test be satisfied bbecause of the Presidents action ??????
Thanks
October 30, 2009 at 3:55 PM
On the ‘Birthers’ Lawsuits and Separation of Powers
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/10/30/on-the-birthers-lawsuits-and-separation-of-powers/
October 30, 2009 at 5:18 PM
There is something I do not understand here. How can an illegal POTUS be impeached since he is not the President, but just an ordinary person?
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm
“Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture…”
[ed. quo warranto is not impeachment. Vieira has never addressed quo warranto as far as I am aware.]
October 30, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Leo, What is to stop congress from modifying the QW statute soon, and carving out an exception for the POTUS and VPOTUS perhaps it gets stuffed into the back of an unrelated bill and no one knows except a few people?
[ed. what does it matter. the law is there now and should be used.]
October 30, 2009 at 6:29 PM
Hi Leo!
You are doing the Country a great service. I read all the above comments and noticed that no one asked how exactly does one become, or be defined as, an interested party, in order to file a Quo Warranto case, so I have reproduced the information here:
SUBCHAPTER I: ACTIONS AGAINST OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES
§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.
§ 16-3502. Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.
§ 16-3503. Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act; procedure.
§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.
A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.
(Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 602, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 562, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3501; 1981 Ed., § 16-3501.)
§ 16-3502. Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.
The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person. The writ may not be issued on the relation of a third person except by leave of the court, to be applied for by the relator, by a petition duly verified setting forth the grounds of the application, or until the relator files a bond with sufficient surety, to be approved by the clerk of the court, in such penalty as the court prescribes, conditioned on the payment by him of all costs incurred in the prosecution of the writ if costs are not recovered from and paid by the defendant.
(Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 602, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 562, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3502; 1981 Ed., § 16-3502.)
§ 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.
(Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 602, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 562, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3503; 1981 Ed., § 16-3503.)
Keep up the great work and be sure to yell when you need any help whatsoever!
Tom Dee
October 30, 2009 at 6:34 PM
some questions:
A) why couldn’t anyone who voted in the election be an interested person in the eyes of the law. We have to endure an ineligible candidate without any legal recourse?
[ed. read the SCOTUS decision in the Newman v. Frizzell case.]
B) Related to that: why are not fraud or other such charges possible against the Democratic party for putting forward a candidate they knew to be the son of a foreigner. Plus, is Pres. Obama possibly guilty of fraud.
Thanks for your work & insight. Godspeed to you.
October 30, 2009 at 7:26 PM
“”Failure to be eligible is not a crime, but it is does give rise to removal of a sitting President.”"
Yes, but committing FRAUD is a crime! He frauded the people knowing he was not eligible and the mere fact he spent over a million bucks to keep his records sealed, even before the election, shows his intent to fraud the people over his eligibility.
[ed. It was fraud to swear he was eligible in Arizona, but it was not fraud for him to believe he was eligible and to run. It's possible that he honestly believes he was eligible, and it's possible the Supreme Court will back him up. IT was not possible that he could swear he was eligible only that he believed himself to be eligible. So in Arizona, he appears guilty of perjury.
But he is not guilty of intent to defraud the nation in general by running unless he truly believed he was not eligible and I don't think you can meet that standard unless he was born abroad. I do not believe he was born abroad. And I have not seen any reliable proof to establish that he was.]
So while this may not be enough to sue to remove him, why couldn’t he just be sued for the fraud he committed in a civil suit?
And suing him is a problem, then why couldn’t Pelosi be sued for her fraud in this since she did serve as chair of the DNC and certified he was constitutionally qualified? The DNC claims they are a private organization that excludes them from FOIA, so that would mean Pelosi serving as chair of the DNC was doing so in her personal capacity and not her official capacity which should allow any civil suits against her in her private capacity while serving as chair of the DNC and as chair of the DNC certifying Obama was constitutionally eligible.
I would think this would cause them to be forced into releasing Obama’s documents in order to prove they did not commit any fraud which would expose the truth and open everything up where Obama can then be removed for being ineligible.
Is there a problem with this approach?
October 30, 2009 at 8:04 PM
Thanks Leo. It is unbelievable to me that you seem to be the ONLY legal mind able to wade through the quagmire of issues and get to the proper and only course of action regarding Mr. Obama. I assume from your veiled comments regarding your future that the issue as well as an “interested person” are either in or in the process of being in your capable hands and much much more will be forthcomming. You stated before that the petition wasn’t one that could be gotten over the internet, that it needed to be notarized and with a sworn statement. Let me know when and where to show up!
Thank so much and God speed.
October 30, 2009 at 8:12 PM
Leo,
A simple question: Could George W. Bush or Dick Cheney be considered “an interested person” in a potential quo warranto proceeding against Obama? (ie: concerned about an illegitimate successor)
[ed. no.]
If so, maybe someone close to them should petition them. But talk about fireworks, if that ever came about!?!?
Thank you for your Patriotic stedfastness. Patrick Henry would be proud!
~Resistyr
October 30, 2009 at 8:14 PM
I was relieved to read Judge Carters ruling. I think he had guts enough to do the right thing in pointing everyone in the direction of QW, instead of simply doing what all of the other judges have done.
I’ve read enough about Orly’s antics in the courtroom to wince when I hear about her. She puts the focus on the BC in such an over the top way, and then as an aside mentions the NBC issue. She tars both issues with the same brush by doing this. The time will come (maybe it already has, but I think not yet) when either the BC or NBC is mentioned it will be so thoroughly blended together into one meaning in the public mind that the separate NBC issue will have no credibility. This worries me as I am seeing a distinct trend in that direction.
With Judge Carter making it crystal clear how to proceed I do hope Orly and others pay attention. I wonder though.
I also wanted to mention that we’ve gotten a start on the forum that is dedicated to being a resource to providing an “internet rally location” focused on the NBC issue.
So, everyone, please take a look. Constructive criticism is fine, just keep in mind that it is not intended to function as a blog. I am happy to take ideas on how to make this most effective. I’m new at this
.
http://www.meetup.com/Natural-Born-Citizen-Coalition-for-Legal-Action/
October 30, 2009 at 8:41 PM
Leo,
By the way, with regard to your info requests in Hawaii and with the Hawaii DOH, which would supersede which – the UIPA and Hawaii statutes or an executive order by BHO that seals his records?
Thanks again.
[ed. he didn't seal his records as to anything but Presidential actions.]
October 30, 2009 at 9:34 PM
LEO:”The conflict will eventually be tested in the DC District Court.”
Good work Leo, but what makes you so certain that the DC Court will proceed with Quo Warranto? The new DC Attorney is no doubt an Obot.
Even if the DC Court finds that Obama is not eligible, how do you get the Democrats to act on impeachment?
[ed. you need to book up on Quo Warranto. You do not understand and I can't explain it again. PLease do your homework.]
October 30, 2009 at 9:47 PM
Pete Says:
October 29, 2009 at 11:12 PM
“I sincerely hope that someone takes this to the DC court, the issue should be settled. Discovery there would be inevitable, and once discovery is granted, we will be much closer to the truth.
SD: Correct me if I’m wrong, but we ALREADY HAVE THE TRUTH. Obama is not an Art. 2 NBC. The trick is to get it to the DC court. But as I mentioned to Leo, even if the DC Court rules Obama is ineligible, how do you get the Democrat Congress to impeach him?
October 30, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Bottom line is that only Congress has the sole authority to remove a sitting President, and they have delegated the DC District Court to do that for them in cases where the eligibility of the President is in question. It is very difficult to understand why all these other lawyers refuse to recognize this fact and still persist in filing all these cases unless 1) they are incredibly ignorant of the law or 2) they are doing this in order to bilk more money out of their clients and/or they are seeking publicity/notoriety for themselves and their law practice.
October 30, 2009 at 11:14 PM
Hi Leo
Do you believe that any of Orly’s clients or other clients of other cases that were filed have either “Standing” or would be considered “Interested Party” – which would be able to go proceed forward? I think many people are hoping that you “Leo Donofrio” will be the legal council(lawyer) for someone as they believe you have the experience but most importantly do NOT allow emotion to get in the way. Many others have or had good intentions but still fell short.
Just was curious as you make the points that is the most critical need for a Quo Warranto & seem to be very knowledgable with the issue & what is required to have the Best chance. I too hope you will be handling the case!!
October 31, 2009 at 12:15 AM
I was hoping you would post with an explanation… Thanks
October 31, 2009 at 12:49 AM
Leo,
Art 1 Sect 8 Cls 10 Powers of Congress
“To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;”
I infer from the comma preceding the conjunction “and” the intent was not to limit application of the Law of Nations to crimes on the high seas.
Are the Law of Nations embodied in the US Constitution?
[ed. the law of nations is not embodied in the Constitution. This clause simply gives Congress the power to punish crimes in international waters. Nothing more. Furthermore, the law of nations did not contemplate A 2 S 1 C 5 or the breaking of it. This argument is so absurd.]
October 31, 2009 at 12:53 AM
What don’t some of you understand. The case has been dismissed. That mean no discoveries, no warrants, and other legal procedures. To bad you just don’t realize this.
[ed. Incorrect. Judge Carter provided guidance for the proper legal procedure, a quo warranto in the DC District Court.]
October 31, 2009 at 1:03 AM
Leo, I begin and end my day with prayers for your safety, stamina and success. I pray also that any barriers to justice you run into be lifted and that the people you deal with be motivated by good conscience to follow the law as our founders intended.
I have two questions, if you have time…
The first one is a question regarding the Constitution that I posted months ago, Leo and you said you didn’t have time to study it then but would return to it at some point in the future. While I don’t expect you to have the time now, having read others’ posts here, I thought someone else might shed some insight on this particular clause’s meaning. Clearly, I have no legal training so I could be far off the mark. But nothing I’ve read (the footnote linked to it at FindLaw is a dead end) anywhere answers my question. So I come back to THE Constituional guru’s website (here) as a last resort.Everyone quotes the eligibility clause in the Constitution, but what about the clause that immediately follows it, regarding the succession in the case of POTUS removal from office due to his “inability to discharge the powers & duties of said office”? It further goes on to say that the office shall devolve to the Vice President etc (more in Article 25 on the order of succession) UNTIL THE DISABILITY BE REMOVED. Could that clause be interpretted to mean that if Obama was proven ineligible due to his admitted dual citizenship at birth, he would be guilty of fraud? He was a Constitutional professor therefore he clearly knew what he was signing when he filled out his Senate & POTUS campaign eligibility forms swearing that he was Constitutionally eligible. If so, then wouldn’t the entire Democrat Party who were ultimately charged with fully vetting their own candidates, also have the same “disability”? In that event, would they all be thrown out of office and a special election be held?
Again, Leo, I know your plate’s full, anyone else have an idea/answer?
Here are both paragraphs:
U.S. Constitution Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 AND Clause 6: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/
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.
In Case of the REMOVAL of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or INABILITY TO DISCHARGE the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, UNTIL THE DISABILITY BE REMOVED, OR A PRESIDENT SHALL BE ELECTED. (emphasis mine) Sorry for the caps, don’t know how to format posts (with bold or italics) here.
The second question is more of a point of clarification. In an earlier post (Oct. 30, 2009 at 1:41 AM)
RebelTex said, “…Thus, if I read it correctly, the court could find Obama ineligible but not have the power to remove him from office as that would violate the separation of powers. It would be up to Congress to then take appropriate action, would it not?
You replied: [ed. They already have taken appropriate measures by enacting the federal quo warranto statute. That was an exercise of their authority to review the qualifications of a sitting President.]
RebelTex is speaking of the current Congress possibly taking future action regarding Obama and you are speaking of a former Congress who wrote the quo warranto statute, right? In other words, I didn’t miss a recent major development, did I? As it is, it takes me 3, 4, or 12 times sometimes to “get” some of your writing on the more complicated issues. You are a great teacher, but there are times when this stuff just kicks my azz. At these times, I just wonder if I’m really understanding this whole thing or do I just THINK I get it. This makes my head hurt so I cannot imagine how your head feels with all our questions! My IQ is 146, which proves only one thing: IQ is utterly meaningless. I. Am. Not. Worthy. Sorry, I hope I’m not wasting your time by asking for “special help”, but I don’t know what I don’t know. This reminds me of a South Park episode where Eric Cartman asks his teacher, Mr. Garrison, a really dumb question. Mr. Garrison answers him by saying, “Remember, Eric, there are no such thing as stupid questions; only stupid people.” (Heh, I’ll understand if you feel the same way.)
Godspeed, Leo.
[ed. Judge Carter addressed this. Bottom line is that Congress enacted the quo warranto statute for this purpose. It has not been properly invoked.]
October 31, 2009 at 1:03 AM
Dear Leo,
I’m afraid Carter was actually saying that Congress has effectively changed the applied Constitutional definition of “Natural Born Citizen” every time they or ( in some instances) other countries changed (post the Framer’s era) any statutes which legally designate the status of the parents at the moment of the child’s birth (especially naturalized parents) laws like those establishing compliance with residency, domicile, paternity or legal father status, and marital status. Such laws change over time and differ among nations in ways that could not preserve with any fidelity, the loyalty calculus of the Framers. Disturbingly, it is easy to imagine unremarkable parallel personal histories that would let birth circumstances, identical except for the changing or differing statutes as outlined above, create situations where those statutory differences alone determined whether or not a given individual was Article 2 eligible or not. Put another way, the “Natural Born Citizenship” acquired at birth by the child, is really the product of certain circumstance and legal status requirements which must be met by the parent(s) at the moment of birth. Any statutes which change the reckoning of compliance for those requirements, change the operational definition of “Natural Born Citizen”.
Thank you for your persistent research and contemplation of this issue.
Diane
October 31, 2009 at 1:38 AM
It is interesting that Carter used good part of his decision to justify the dismissal of Keyes’ standing.
A third party candidate has no protection from running against ineligible major party candidates. Secretary of State did not verify eligibility of candidates to be put on the ballot, courts refused to get involved, Congress ignores the situation…
Did I miss something in Carter’s reasoning to dismiss Keyes and other 3rd party candidates?
[ed. yes. you missed Carter's admission that he has no power to redress the grievance. his judicial restraint was proper.]
October 31, 2009 at 2:34 AM
Leo, thanks as always for your perseverence and the continuing education you’ve provided for non-lawyers among us who have at times felt powerless in the face of the media’s continuing disparagement of those of us who simply want all the candidates to play by the same rules; that is the rules the rest of us are required to live by.
October 31, 2009 at 2:51 AM
Words can not express our gratitude . Thank you for everything . God Bless You..
October 31, 2009 at 6:26 AM
At this point it seems BO will succeed in blocking every action towards anyone trying to obtain a copy of his birth certificate. Since the “identity theft” for BO began in Hawaii and from what I have read that Madeline Dunham worked in the probate office there where she most likely obtained an SSN for BO. I am no lawyer, but doesn’t a crime revert back to the place of origin where it was committed? Then it would not have to be pursued in a DC court. Seems to me it makes more sense to pursue identify theft for him using an SSN which shows to have been issued originally to a person born in the late 1800’s and out of Connecticut. SSA will give all of the information on a deceased person if requested.
Debbie Schlussel also posted on her web site BO’s Selective Service form and clearly proved it was altered and could not have been filed in the timeline BO claims as required by law.
So since those forms are available, can’t this be the way to go and then BO would have to produce a valid birth certificate at some point?
This was the reply I received from SSA:
Question
How do I obtain information about a deceased person from Social Security’s records?
Answer
Our records are filed by Social Security Numbers (SSNs) and not by names. When a Social Security Number cannot be provided we can still search for a person’s records by using the individual’s full name, date and place of birth, and parents’ names (including mother’s maiden name).
If you can provide this information we will search our records to determine whether or not we can be of assistance. The Social Security Administration did not begin keeping records until 1936; therefore, we have no records about people who died before then. We cannot search for records of people born before 1865 unless you provide the SSN.
Generally, we can provide a copy of the Application for a Social Security Card (Form SS-5). This document contains the person’s name, date and place of birth, and parents’ names that were given when he or she applied for the number. However, we cannot make a decision on disclosure until we locate any records that we may have.
Please understand that our records are confidential and we do not disclose information about individuals unless they are deceased or we have their consent to do so.
October 31, 2009 at 7:27 AM
Leo, you said that the courts don’t have jurisdiction because these eligibility cases don’t concern cases regarding “law or equity”. That they are strictly a political question that has to go through Quo Warranto in the DC Court.
You also said “Failure to be eligible is not a crime, but it is does give rise to removal of a sitting President. Not being a crime, it is not a proper basis for impeachment.”
My question is this. Isn’t lying under oath, that is swearing eligibility when he isn’t eligible, fraud? And isn’t fraud a crime?
I’m not a lawyer so don’t chew me out. I have a tremendous amount of respect for your opinion, but am completely unclear how the courts can totally ignore the crime of fraud against the American people.
God bless!
[ed. As far as I am aware, only in Arizona did he swear under oath he was eligible. Until Arizona brings him up on charges, then there is no realistic basis for what you suggest. ]
October 31, 2009 at 9:11 AM
Leo,
Would any of these people be an “interested person” in your view?
Lou Dobbs, CNN tv personality
Alan Keyes, 2008 Presidential Candidate
any person negatively affected (fired) by the bailouts/merger mania
car dealership owner that has lost their dealership
active duty military
retired military
Congressman Bill Posey (FL)
October 31, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Leo, I see the words “interested person.” Just what is meant by that?
[ed. I suggest you look it up. I have been over this many times. The answers have already been made available. The teacher has given you homework.]
October 31, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Leo, I understand your view that Carter has strengthened your argument for quo warranto in D.C., but your overly generous support for Carter ignores some glaring excesses in his dismissal.
On p. 17 Carter said he could not take the case because if plaintiffs won it would “shut down the functioning of the government of the United States and leave this country defenseless.” That is an absurd lie.
[ed. I read that to mean that if he took it on illegally and plaintiffs won, that would cause anarchy. And he might be right about that. It would set a precedent for other branches to disobey the Constitution and for the military as well. He could have worded it better, but it's not really a false statement either.]
On p. 19 Carter quotes an irrelevant 1866 case (Mississippi v Johnson) thus: “in general ‘ this court has no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties’ ” That is just a red herring; no “bill to enjoin . . .” was submitted to Carter, and “in general” is meaningless.
[ed. I don't think it's a meaningless case.]
On p. 23 Carter contradicts himself regarding quo warranto when he proclaims that a president can only be removed by impeachment or by the 25th Amendment process. QW in D.C. is not impeachment in the standard sense of that word.
[ed. He didn't say qw was impeachment. He lists the 25th amendment as another source of Potus removal power granted to Congress.]
Throughout the dismissal Carter keeps returning to how he cannot “upheave” or “overthrow” the 69 million votes for Obama. This is another red herring, since the point of the case was not who won the election but whether the election was legitimate or not.
[ed. The fact remains that "He" does not have the power to overturn the election. He also does not have the power to review Potus eligibility at all since he has no power to enforce any findings thereto. Federal District Courts are not empowered to issue advisory opinions. They may issue declaratory judgments, but only if they have the power to enforce such judgments. A declaratory judgment which does not have the power of enforcement is a simple advisory opinion and neither Carter
nor any other Federal Court (other than the DC District Court) can take action.]
By the way, I know you will not work with Orly Taitz, but here FYI is her reply to your advice re QW:
“First of all I am not licenced in DC and they do not allow regular pro hac vice (out of state counsel), they have a special rule on that.
[ed. She could have used donations to hire DC counsel to file the motion if her argument is that she wasn't admitted. You shouldn't put your clients in the wrong court because you - their attorney - aren't admitted to the right court. You go out and hire outside counsel to assist you. Perhaps she will do that now that Judge carter has dismissed he case. It has no chance on appeal.
But she really doesn't need to be admitted in DC to have her clients bring a verified petition to the court. This is because the clients will not be the party bringing the action if the court approves their ex relator application. It will be the US who is the party. She doesn't issue the verified petition, only her clients are necessary for that. Furthermore, under the statute, if the court grants leave to her clients, the statute says that "any attorney" may conduct the proceedings. My discussions with other attorneys have led me to believe that there is no need to be a member of the DC Bar for this "miscellaneous" action and so she probably does not have to be admitted in DC.
But the verified petition can be brought by her clients without the need for any attorney to sign the pleadings.]
Second: If Donofrio believes DC is the best place, why doesn’t he file there himself? I’ll work with him. Keep in mind, I have to do 3 appeals: two in GA and one in CA. Donofrio has no cases going.”
[ed. Those are her clients. Not mine. I will file when and if a person approaches me to be their counsel and I believe such person has a reasonable chance of winning and also if I feel that it is in the best interest of that person to file a quo warranto. I will not just file it for the hell of it to test his eligibility. I require a genuine plaintiff who has good reason to file and who was injured by the POTUS.
But she doesn't need me to file for her clients there. She can prepare the verified complaint and have them sign it. Although, the plaintiffs all have different claims to whether they are "interested persons" and therefore it does not appear to be in their best interest to file as one claim. They should be separated.]
October 31, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Thanks for your hard work. Could you please remind or define for us the set of persons who would be considered “interested parties” for submitting a quo warranto suit in D.C.? Must the party be or have been employed by the Federal government and working in D.C.? What would be some hypothetical injuries which would make the party a legally accepted plaintiff?
Could a U.S. Congressman file for quo warranto action?
Regardless of the appropriateness of Judge Carter’s ruling, I was disappointed that we did not see public discovery.
[ed. he had no power to hear the case so he had no power to order discovery.]
I fear that the justice system is too corrupt to serve the rule of law. The only real court may be the court of public opinion. Too much of our U.S. populace know about the NBC eligibility issue. And far too many who know of the issue, believe all “birthers” are nut cases. Best of luck to you!
October 31, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Thanks Leo, for continuing to educate the U.S. and the world about Constitutional law in the U.S.
As stated before, I am not a lawyer, nor a law student; however, if I understand all that I have read so far, if the President is found to be a “usurper” somewhere down the road, then everything he has done and signed would be considered null and void.
[ed. not necessarily. after a certain time, it would stick. chester arthur's official actions will not be overturned.]
Does this mean that the countries that have been denied the Missile protection could renew their request; does it mean that all the drone strikes he (de facto) ordered should not have been carried out, and can he be held personally responsible for any repercussions?
I also wonder about things that cannot be reversed, such as the state of the U.S. economy and any agreements signed with foreign governments. Would foreign governments have any kind of standing with the U.S. Courts because of the impact of the President’s actions may have caused, or could cause to their countries?
October 31, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Leo:
Aren’t Gail Lightfoot, Wiley Drake and Alan Keyes interested persons under 3503. The judge in his ruling said that they suffered particularized harm.
[ed. "interested person" is the standard under 3503 and only in a quo warranto in the DC District Court. In Judge Carter's court, the issue must be analyzed in light of ordinary federal standing requirements under the Lujan case. Big difference. Carter did not rule on "interested person" status. He had no authority to do so. He is not the DC District Court.]
October 31, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Leo, I think da verg’s point (Oct. 29, 9:52 pm), which you said you did not understand, was that POTUS is a uniquely national office and that QW was intended for lesser officers.
[ed. That's a bogus point and I'm not sure if you are making this bogus point or if that was DaVerg's point. But there's nothing in the statute or legislative history or case law to back that point up. The statute is quite clear - "any US national office" is covered. No exceptions listed or implied. And Judge Carter did not state that there was any exception even though the DOJ argued that there was. This is VERY significant.]
Obama’s ineligibility is a special case because only the president and VP are elected by a nationwide vote. When Congress drew up the QW statute, I don’t believe they could have imagined that they, the Congress, would ever be so incompetent as to install an ineligible president-elect.
[ed. That's not a proper analysis at all. Congress might have done nothing wrong. Say for example it was found, due to no fault of Congress and no fault of the media, that the POTUS had forged all of his birth records and that he was an operative of a foreign nation. Are we supposed to be without quo warranto in that case? Of course not. Your hypo is not on point or even remotely proper.]
Precisely because this is such a rare and unforeseen case, it is unreasonable and arbitrary to limit the powers of the judiciary in this particular case to the ordinary, pedestrian constraints the courts routinely apply to standing and jurisdiction. The question is whether we have a legitimate government or not. This question is of the gravest import and deserves to be given a fair trial of truth ASAP in the court of any judge whose sense of justice can transcend the usual myopic fascination with precedent.
There are NO precedents for our present constititional crisis, but Article II must be enforced without delay. In this case of all cases, justice delayed is justice denied.
October 31, 2009 at 7:06 PM
Leo,
Last week I sent a complaint to US Attorney Central District CA, alleging
1) Obama is in violation of:
(1.a) US Constitution Article 1 Section 3 usurpation of senatorial power.
(1.b) US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 usurpation of pesidential power.
(1.c) 18USC1343 – Fraud by wire, radio, or television
(1.d) 18USC 1962. RICO Prohibited activities
2) Explanation:
Barack Hussein, was born in Kenya
[ed. and in the garbage it goes....]
, a British subject, as he is the birth father of Barack Hussein Obama II.
As a dual-national Barack Hussein Obama II, did enter into a political campaign for the US Senate and the US President; did accept funding, and did accept nomination, and unlawfully did usurp and did occupy a position on the US Senate and the Office of President of the United States.
(1.c) The website http://fightthesmears.com/, solicits money donations for Barack Hussein Obama II, and displays an image of CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH, file name http://fightthesmears.com/images/28.jpg, on web page http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html, while said document is invalidated, since the Certification number is altered and the document does not display a raised seal. Also noticed in the same file, is the notation “DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR” indicating the document has been filed; but not yet ACCEPTED BY REGISTRAR, which would indicate a valid document. (1.a & 1.b)
(1.d) Having been inaugurated as the US President Barack Hussein Obama II, continues to solicit and receive funding via http://fightthesmears.com/,
As usual, I expect nothing to happen, but feel better for doing something.
October 31, 2009 at 7:09 PM
Leo,
Good to hear from you.
“But Congress has not defined “natural born citizen” while they have defined “naturalized citizen” and “citizen by statute”. Since neither the Congress nor the courts have defined “natural born citizen”, we are left without a legal working definition. ”
I thought the SCOTUS did define it without doubts in Minor v. Happersett.
[ed. they didn't define it absolutely. They stated a certain class who was natural born but they didn't state such persons and only such persons were natural born. I used that to show that the "doubts" cited by the Court in Minor have not been resolved. I never said that Minor resolved those doubts.]
Based on SCOTUS opinion and the facts stated by Obama as to his birth being British. Should some person or persons meet the status of interested party, that is what I would swear too in the DC Court as a QW interested party under 3503.
October 31, 2009 at 7:28 PM
As an outsider (not a lawyer, not a participant in these considerations), I noticed one serious error in Judge Carter’s logic. He wrote that the presidential candidates cannot seriously claim “standing” considering that 69 million people voted for Obama, and that the losers garnered less than about 2 percent of the vote (don’t remember the exact percentage). Apparently, Judge Carter doesn’t realize that that is exactly the point. Does Carter believe that if Obama is, for argument’s sake, constitutionally ineligible, and openly campaigned with that admission (I am not a citizen, but I plan to run for president anyway) that he would have received 69 million votes? If he is not a citizen, and if the public knew that, he would not have been elected. Apparently this logic is lost on Judge Carter.
October 31, 2009 at 7:35 PM
Leo,
RE: “It opens the door wide for a proper eligibility challenge in the DC District Court where the hurdle for standing is different from ordinary federal cases. “
Would you please explain that or refer to a link? How is it different? The hurdle is easier to deal with?
[ed. not necessarily easier, just different and untested. a new frontier if you will.]
So far no one can have Standing because no one can prove personal or particular injury (paraphrased). How can that part of the hurdle overcome in DC?
October 31, 2009 at 7:55 PM
I thought both the AG and the D.C. District Court were petitioned and neither responded. What does one do – even if a fresh Quo Warranto is petitioned and there is still no response or actions deliberately taken that put it off? What recourse – everyone within the Obama regime appears to be co-opted. I mean, when they let off the thugs at the polling places, how can anyone force the issue? Who will do it, btw?
October 31, 2009 at 8:05 PM
[ed. They already have taken appropriate measures by enacting the federal quo warranto statute. That was an exercise of their authority to review the qualifications of a sitting President.]
Yes, but when the NBC challenge begins to get attention through a listening court or nears the order for discovery, couldn’t (or better, wouldn’t) this particularly characterized Congress simply pull another “proclamation” as they did with McCain and the public would just assume that everything is smoothed over? The legality of actions doesn’t seem to mean much to this bunch.
[ed. the McCain resolution is not law. the qw statute is law. all congress can do is try to repeal it before it is invoked.]
October 31, 2009 at 8:17 PM
So could Keyes fulfill the “interested person” requirement? What type of case would be the strongest example for “interested person”?
October 31, 2009 at 9:30 PM
Leo,
Good to hear from you. Happy Holidays. But NBC is not able to be defined by Congress. NBC is all what Congress has already said it was not. Example: Citizen, Native Citizen, Leagal Residence and all the rest which orgainizes immigrants. Since NBC is declared in a Ratified Constitution the states would have to ratify a different meaning.
October 31, 2009 at 11:36 PM
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Saturday, October 31, 2009
The DC District Court In Not the Only Court In Which to File a Quo Warranto Action
[ed. political question doctrine and this...
Article 1 Section 8 Clause17 states:
Compare the wording of Clause 17 with §16-3501 of the federal quo warranto statute:
When you read the two back to back, it appears Constitutional that the office of President – being in the District of Columbia – should be governed by the federal quo warranto statute.]
November 1, 2009 at 12:04 AM
Leo,
I have a similar question to the one asked by Claurila (October 30, 2009 at 3:24 AML) above.
I guess you are saying that the ceremonial swearing-in by the Chief Justice makes him a president regardless of eligibility. To me and apparently to Claurila as well, this is not so crystal clear. Did not the Chief Justice perform a ministerial act only?
Look at this analogy: Say a person practices medicine and claims that he is an MD, but in reality he never went to med-school and never passed the federal or state exams. Is he an MD just because no one checked his fake background? But he received OK from the board and took the oath.
Orly and Kreep would probably say that he is not, as they argued that BHO is not president, therefore DOJ should not defend him. Would you say that the doctor’s eligibility can be uncovered only with procedures available to stop legitimate MDs from practicing medicine, and any means outside of such procedures are not permitted?
This “sitting president question” is an important point for the right of DOJ to defend him as well as for future cases. Carter and you say BHO is a “sitting president”, Orly and Kreep say he is not president. In other words, Orly and Kreep were wrong on that point, and Carter right?
Also, you said that in a QW case there is conflict of interest for the DOJ to defend the president, why would the same logic not apply for this case?
[ed. he's the president. but if hes not eligible the election will be void.]
November 1, 2009 at 12:12 AM
Is there truly merit in this?
http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2009/10/orlys-case-still-alivedid-judge-screw.html
[ed. no.]
November 1, 2009 at 12:32 AM
RE: Hawaii UIPA – Kurt Fuqua relative of the pres.
According to the transcript of Judge Carter’s ruling of 10/29/2009, Kurt Fuqua, one of the plaintiffs, is a relative of the president. The Hawaii UIPA provides exception to relatives from the privacy regulation.
So could Kurt Fuqua with or without an attorney file a request, stating that he is a relative and HI must release the long-form-bc to him?
If the answer is yes – anyone who knows Kurt please tell him.
November 1, 2009 at 1:11 PM
I’ve been saying it for months now.. Almost every cas filed against Obama has been failed in the wrong court system and permature to the fact..Obama did not commit any type of crime running for the office of President.. It’s not AGAINST ANY LAW to run for for the office of the president and not be a US citizen.. Nowhere in the constitution does it forbid anyone from running for this office and not be a citizen..The statue states that A US President must be a natural born citizen..Obama broke no law until he took the oath and was sworn in.. Since taking the oath now Obama can be held responsible fr his action.. The federal writ of quo warranto can be used against him.. It covers the legal theory of being able to investigate a sitting president and is the only court that the power to do so is the DC District court system..Your case must begin at that point and work it’s way forward..
We have been saying it for months.. Once Obama took the oath…he broke the law not until then..
November 1, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Leo.
It appears to me that what is necessary for QW to be brought forward properly is to find that elusive ‘interested person’. I think this is going to be a hard find.
I went back and reviewed you blogs on QW to refresh my memory a bit on standing etc. as you’ve outlined. It’s interesting that at one time Congress allowed the QW to be brought forward under the possibility of a breach to the 14th amendment and the right to vote etc.
While I know your answer will be ‘no way’, a story that appeared in the news this week captured my attention. Are you familiar with the letter sent by Eric Holder via his assistant AG to officials in Kinston, NC which basically stated that non-partisan elections held there (candidates without party affiliation) would be a violation of law? I just thought that was interesting, and I think the DOJ cited potential violation of civil rights laws in the letter. So the question would be, (like I said, I know it’s a stretch), can the office of AG itself, and Eric Holder’s power to reverse the will of the electorate/elected officials there in Kinston be challenged under the premise that this particular electorate has been deprived in some way of their right to vote and these particular officials have been deprived of their right to hold office by the decisions of the AG and the DOJ?
Like I said, just trying to work the brain a bit.
Keep keeping us informed. Much appreciated.
November 1, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Leo,
RE: “It opens the door wide for a proper eligibility challenge in the DC District Court where the hurdle for standing is different from ordinary federal cases. “
I tried to answer my own question with regard to different Standing requirements of interested persons of QW.
What I found is that in “Newman, SCOTUS held that interested persons would include persons ousted from the office they are challenging. But they left the door open with that last line, …”and there might be cases under the civil service law in which the relator would have an interest and therefore a right to be heard.”
Is this what you mean by the different Standing requirements?
If the answer is yes, I find this very vague. In other words I would not bet on the Standing of any of the plaintiffs of this case, provided that Orly and Kreep will proceed with the QW in DC.
Is there something else I am missing?
[ed. yes.]
November 1, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Leo,
In your opinion would a State Governor or State Representative be an “interested person” under 3503?
Texo
[ed. no.]
November 1, 2009 at 10:44 PM
I’ve written a letter to my local paper. I’ve used your comments regarding Obama not qualifying as a NBC anymore than the sons of Bin Laden or the Iranian President should they impregnate an American woman who gives birth on U.S soil. Hope that’s OK with you, Leo. Just trying to get the real issue out there.
November 1, 2009 at 11:18 PM
Leo, I would think that any of the executives whose pay was recently cut by Obama’s “pay czar”, Kenneth Feinberg, would have standing as “interested persons”. And in their case, there are more unconstitutional issues to be contested beyond Obama’s eligibility.
[ed. possibly worth a try under the Newman case.]
November 2, 2009 at 9:28 AM
Leo,
I don’t know how many times I can email Orly Taitz about your post on Judge Carter’s decision before she takes your advise and stops slamming him. I’ve mailed her some comments on which you stated the details of your take and why quo warranto must be filed in DC District Court. I just copied and pasted your entire post on Judge Carter’s decision and the link which I included in my last three emails!
I also emailed Alan Keyes to contact you as an “interested person” when you stated that he was. You’ve stated all so simply that even I could understand it. I just don’t know what is wrong with that woman, she posts all kinds of emails to her on her blog, knocking Judge Carter who has shown her the way to go. Hope that you are progressing Leo vs DoH and quo warranto in DC. God bless you Leo, praying for your safety and success.
November 2, 2009 at 4:33 PM
I hope that Alan Keyes tries to bring a quo warranto request; as a 2008 presidential candidate, he should qualify as an “interested person.”
Leo, have you considered contacting Dr. Keyes and offering to help him prepare a quo warranto under 3503? I think it would be a worthwhile effort.
November 3, 2009 at 2:54 AM
So from what I understand you are needing Obama’s legal long form birth certificate to show “facts sworn to under oath” which could also bridge standing and show “interest” as a “third person”? Prick the courts ears by questioning his NBC status and how could he qualify by being a British citizen at Birth! Other question somewhat off topic- Do you believe that one of the reasons Obama is not ordering troops to Afghanistan is the possible mass challenges he may face from making Military Personal into “interested persons” with standing! General McChrystal would make quite a “interested person!
November 3, 2009 at 10:22 AM
From the beginning of this grand experiment it was understood by the people, NBC had a common definition. How else can we explain the recorded fact that for 232 years before Obama, all elected Presidents were grandfathered in, or were born to two citizens. That precedent withstood 232 years of test, without question as to the definition of NBC as written by Vattel, and where the framers include in the US Constitution, in Aticle One reference to the Law of Nations:
Art 1 Sect 8 Cls 10 Powers of Congress
“To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;”
November 3, 2009 at 10:44 AM
For the interested but non-attorney readers, could you post a brief description of the qualifications that the “intersted party” must possess in order to pursue the eligablity properly according to the existing laws? How would such a person proceed with this action? I realize how busy you are in the eligability arena so if you feel you have already spoken adequately on these qaulifications, I will seek other resourses to satisfy my curiosity. Thank you for your service to our great country.
November 3, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Leo:
You quote on 07/29/09 in “The Relevant Obama Admission that (and make valuable comments following):
‘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…’ “
Read that last line again.
“That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…”
That’s an admission that Great Britain “governed the status” of Barack Obama, Jr. He has chosen to highlight this on his own volition.
And this leads to the relevant question:
HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN?
A natural born citizen’s status should only be governed by the United States. This is the core issue before the Supreme Court of the United States.
If Obama admits to Great Britain governing the status of Barack Obama, Sr’s children, then how can Obama not be guilty of intent to defraud against the US?
In this regard I reference your reply to “Follow the Constitution Says” on 10/30/09 at 07:26 PM, as follows:
‘[ed. It was fraud to swear he was eligible in Arizona, but it was not fraud for him to believe he was eligible and to run. It's possible that he honestly believes he was eligible, and it's possible the Supreme Court will back him up. IT was not possible that he could swear he was eligible only that he believed himself to be eligible. So in Arizona, he appears guilty of perjury
But he is not guilty of intent to defraud the nation in general by running unless he truly believed he was not eligible and I don't think you can meet that standard unless he was born abroad. I do not believe he was born abroad. And I have not seen any reliable proof to establish that he was.]‘
How can Obama not be guilty of intent to defraud in such a case since he has made such an admission?
[ed. My definition of NBC has not been established sufficiently by law and either has the definition defined by Obama supporters. I believe the weight of authority supports my view that he is not eligible and I believe there is an effort to distract from that important question. This effort is being done by the media, litigants, Hawaii officials, Factcheck, Obama, and Congress. But that doesn't mean the issue has already been resolved. The issue still needs to be resolved.]
Obama joined as a signatoree on HR 511. Although not law, the existence of HR 511 shows that those Senators were making smoke concerning this “fog of war”, so to speak.
Or to say it another way, how can Obama truly believe that he is eligible while making making such an admission ‘on his own volition’?
I believe the intent to defraud standard must agree with the Great Britain governed the status standard.
November 3, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Some of the above posts discussed whether or not Obama knew/knows/believes that he is ineligible. I think he has known for some time based on his fightthesmears website where he states that he is a native born (rather than a natural born) citizen.
Also, Obama was supposedly a constitutional lawyer and supposedly studied constitutional law at Harvard. I have started googling law review articles and harvard course catalogs etc… I wonder if he was exposed to Vattel or to natural born citizenship issues either in law review work or class work at Harvard.
This would be easier, of course, if a transcript was available of his attendance there. Does anyone have or have access to a course catalog from Harvard Law School circa 1990. Were there any classes taught that discussed these issues. Likewise with the law review.
I’ve seen lots of analysis recently in re NBC and of the blood and of the soil (sorry, I would have butchered the latin) but is there older analysis like this out there that constitutional lawyers are likely exposed to during schooling?
November 3, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Leo,
I’ve been told by many bloggers, that Obama can hide behind the Full Faith an Credit clause in Article 4 of COTUS, and only show his laser prited COLB we see on FactCheck. I pointed out, Article 4 relates to relations and transactions between the states, not the Judiciary or Congress. On demand the original vault copy or certified copy of the original, photos of the original, and video of the original, can be brought forth. This assumes said document is under the control of the state government of Hawaii and failure to find it in Hawaii would put a few people in the hot seat.
November 3, 2009 at 12:00 PM
If the Law of Nations was considered to be part of the Common Law of England -as it was declared by Lord Mansfield in 1764 (Triquet and Others v. Bath), and the terms used in the U.S. Constitution are to be interpreted as they were used in the Common Law of England; then, without the existence of any other definition of “natural born citizen” how could any other interpretation be claimed to exist?
A citizen may also be a subject, but a subject is not necessarily a citizen. These terms are not (as some would claim) interchangeable. Article III of the U.S. Constitution clearly demonstrates that the United States does not consider them to be the same.
To rely on natural born subject to be the same as natural born citizen, would be like considering a jelly sandwich to be the same as a jelly doughnut.
November 3, 2009 at 12:10 PM
In addition, some have made claim that Wong Kim Ark supports their conclusion, because the court declared that Ark “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen”.
That is like saying that a peanut butter sandwich is as much a sandwich as a jelly sandwich.
It is true that both are sandwiches (I don’t think anyone would disagree). However, they are not the same. Any child would support that conclusion.
—A naturalized citizen is as much a citizen as a natural born citizen. The naturalized citizen has the same duties and rights as a natural born citizen. However, the naturalized citizen (this is undisputed) cannot be President of the United States.
[ed. exactly the reason why I cite Wong as a case which is most supportive of Obama not being eligible. Had the SCOTUS wanted to say the alien born child was "as much a natural born citizen" that's what they would have said. Instead they contrasted the native born child of an alien with the "natural born" child of a citizen. Clearly, they were making the point that while the alien's child is a US citizen, he is not natural born. That case was started because the State department wouldnt recognize Qong Kim Ark as a Citizen. SCOTUS said he was a citizen, but they didn't say Wong Kim Ark was eligible to be President.]
November 3, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Perhaps this is off topic, but I’m not entirely sure it is. I keep thinking about the Saturn automobile dealers and all those Saturn employees and owners whose interests were damaged by the willful destruction of Saturn Motors by UAW-run GM and Obama’s “agents” who by all appearances refused to bargain in good faith with Penske’s attempted rescue purchase, ensuring the final destruction of Saturn Motors along with the interests of it’s shareholders, stakeholders, employees and customers.
I’ve seen my share of corporations commit suicide, fatally mismanaged, deep-sixed and buried alive. Obama’s White House favor to the UAW was the first time I’ve seen a large corporation in its prime murdered in broad daylight for a political payoff.
Could those injured by this be interested persons?
November 3, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Thank you, Leo, for replying so fully to my Oct. 31 posts. Just a footnote, if you will. You said that if Carter accepted the Barnett case, “It would set a precedent for other branches to disobey the Constitution . . .,” but Obama and the Congress have already disobeyed the Constitution. That’s what this is all about, and every act, order, or agreement undertaken by Obama strengthens the precedent that disobeying the Constitution at the highest level of government is perfectly acceptable. That is why in this case of all cases, justice delayed is justice denied.
[ed. two wrongs dont make a right. our laws have not been invoked by litigants in the proper venues under the proper codes. full stop.]
True justice is larger than finely honed distinctions about the letter of
the law. To be just means to be fair, honorable, and morally right, and it is unfair to the people, dishonorable to the Constitution, and flagrantly immoral to permit Barack Obama to remain in the high office he gained through election fraud.
November 3, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Have you seen Attorney Mario Apuzzo’s article entitled “The DC District Court Is Not the Only Court In Which to File a Quo Warranto Action” at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/dc-district-court-in-not-only-court-in.html
In the words of my favorite attorney “My Cousin Vinnie”, in your opinion, does Mr. Apuzzo’s argument hold water?
[ed. Mario is wrong. He can make that argument till the cows come home, but he will never prevail. There are separation of powers in this nation and the political question doctrine will stop any District Court in its tracks.
But there's also the small matter of the The president's office being in the District of Columbia and as such Congress has "exclusive" jurisdiction under the Constitution.
Article 1 Section 8 Clause17 states:
Compare the wording of Clause 17 with §16-3501 of the federal quo warranto statute:
When you read the two back to back, it appears Constitutional that the office of President – being in the District of Columbia – should be governed by the federal quo warranto statute.
Furthermore, why doesn't Mario just file the suit in the DC District Court where it belongs? If he fails there then go on and try some exotic concept in another court. It just seems inane to ignore the very statute that covers all US national offices. I mean, after all, the statute actually uses the word "usurps". What's the deal?]
November 3, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Leo,
‘been following your site for 15 months and fine this all informative as hell! I read a reply earlier from you saying “The answers have already been made available. The teacher has given you homework.” Then later in another reply “I require a genuine plaintiff who has good reason to file and who was injured by the POTUS.”
So as I begin my homework I have a question:
“Injured”, would that include the following: bodily and/or resulting in death, financially or politically; and “by the POTUS”, would that mean by his own hand, by his signature, or by his failure to act which led to such injury?
[ed. read newman v. frizzell, scotus.]
November 3, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Leo,
I do understand your comments in, Minor and Wong. I also wish it was very clear.
I am trying to say two things. First I agree with you on Wong and Minor.
I see what they said as the least of standards. In as much as the parents might need be NBC as well and not just Citizens of the US. In other words as good as or better than.
I think it would be on Obama to show his lesser status. Obama Sr. and Obama II were British at OBama II’s birth. That this status also meets the NBc status or Less than those stated by the SCOTUS in Minor and in light of Wong.
I think that burden is on Obama II. I agree the Courts might see it his way and then we eill have more clairty as to what the standars is to be NBC as required to be POTUS.
I think these are facts that should I be able I would put my name on in a court of law. I just hope a person that is able will do so.
I also agree with you that this is about the Law and not the person.
Texo-
November 3, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Leo – This is a chain of reasoning that bothers a lot of us and makes us think that Judge Carter may have been “gotten to”. His dismissal, his justification, and your support of his logic is not something we “mere mortals” can argue with.
But all of this is nothing new. He could have written this opinion from day one. He did not need to let the case progress, set a trial date, etc. He could have just denied standing and jurisdiction straight away. But instead, he expressed an interest in hearing the case, he seemed to recognize the importance, and pledged to not get bogged down in technicalities.
Why do you think it played out this way. It sure seems suspicious to a lot of us.
[ed. it would have seemed suspicious if had denied it without consideration as well. how about the fact that he didnt agree with the DOJ argument that no quo warranto could be brought. he didnt adopt that in his ruling. look, the man said to the plaintiffs, "I will give you some guidance if I deny the case", right? Then he told the plaintiffs which venue to bring the case. the statute says the DC District Court. The statute covers usurpation of all US national offices in DC. Statute covers specfically one who "usurps". The case belongs there first out of respect for the statute. If the plaintiffs failed there, then go ahead and try an exotic conceptual law suit in another court. It's going to be dismissed, but why go for the exotic when the statute that covers this is staring you in the face?
As for Judge Carter, it's going to be the same for allJudges who face this issue. Quo warranto is a rare bird. There's not much on it. The Judges like the litigants will have to learn it as the go.
I dont like the way he viewed the British birth issue anyway and Im glad he didnt rule on the merits of the case.]
November 3, 2009 at 5:01 PM
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
This is as close as we can come to a fact but the key word above is “Foreigners” If your father came under another countries laws as Barack Hussein Obama Sr. came under the laws of England and that Law the British Nationality Act of 1948 caused your son to become a British Citizen at the moment of his birth no matter where that birth took place, that son is born a “Foreigner” to the United States of America being that he was born a Brit.
November 3, 2009 at 6:20 PM
[ed. You can swear to the fact that Obama admits to having been a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies when he was born. You cannot swear Obama was born in Kenya. Also, as to standing, Carter was willing to accept that Keyes might have met the first part of the standing issue, an injury regarding not being able to play on a fair ground against only eligible candidates, but Carter did not feel that the second part of the standing test had been met - that being whether the court can redress the grievance. Carter didn't believe his court had the power to remove a sitting President or to command the President to submit to the Court's will in any way on this issue. Carter held that Congress was textually assigned that power under the Constitution and I agree with him. Carter also directed plaintiffs to the DC District Court.]
Leo,
This is a critical point. Carter wasn’t saying that Keyes may not be an ‘interested party’ or that he didn’t have a legitimate complaint, only that he couldn’t remove the POTUS on his ruling.
Keyes need to go to the DC Court, ASAP.
Pete
November 3, 2009 at 6:45 PM
What is the problem here?
Why are we concerned with this man’s eligibility? Obama is nothing more than the current President/CEO of a corporation known as The United States of America. The perceived national “election was only a political show for we, “the People.”
As CEO of a corporation, Mr. Obama need not be “qualified” as defined within the parameters of Article II of the Constitution of the United States. He IS NOT the president of ANY country.
Until people understand this simple concept, we will not only be spinning our wheels, we will be chasing our tails as well.
November 3, 2009 at 7:28 PM
Blackstone’s “natural born subject” or Vattel’s “naturals or natives”?
These are the two competing definitions of “natural born”, both have compelling arguments for and against.
Unfortunately the fathers did not specifically tells us which definition they used. But sometimes what they didn’t say can be illuminating.
In the 84 Federalist’s Papers, Jay, Madison and Hamiliton give detailed descriptions of the provisions of the constitution. In 20 of them they talk specifically about the new constitutional presidency. While they discuss virtually every aspect of the new office, including the salary, they never discuss presidential qualifications or eligibility. It’s as if they knew that everyone knew the definition of “natural-born.” Just like everyone already knew the meaning of 35 years of age and 14 years a resident.
In St. George Tucker’s annotated version of Blackstone’s Commentaries, he dissects Blackstone line by line to show where the US Constitution and Virginia Law differ from English common law. In at least a dozen cases he uses Vattel’s Law of Nation as a reference to bolster his arguments.
But when he discusses Blackstone’s Chapter 10 “OF THE PEOPLE, WHETHER ALIENS, DENIZENS, OR NATIVES”, he becomes rather silent.
When Blackstone writes “Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king: and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject.”, Tucker doesn’t say a word. No comments about the US Constitution having a different definition.
Later when Blackstone writes “The children of aliens, born here in England, are generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.” Tucker is again silent. It’ is as if he agrees witht he definition put forth in Blackstone.
[ed. It wasn't even clear to the State department or anyone else that Wong Kim Ark was even a citizen, let alone natural born. The court held he was a citizen but they also indicated that he was not natural born. Minor defined the only group of citizens who are beyond question "natural born" as those born in the US to parents who were citizens. Regardless, the issue is certainly not settled one way or the other. The weight of evidence says Obama is not eligible. But it's not settled and it needs to be or the nation will suffer.]
November 3, 2009 at 8:15 PM
OK Leo, please speculate as to who might be an ideal “interested person” for this qw case to be brought to the DC Court. Name names.
November 3, 2009 at 8:59 PM
I perceive that you might not approach Sarah Palin to represent her, so I’m sending her this recommendation …
http://citizen.home.texas.net/SarahPalin_postcard.pdf
… unless you ask me not to before tomorrow’s mail goes out (11/03/09).
This is for printing on 8.5×11 card stock, two sided, cut in half for a large postcard size (8.5×5.5).
Unlike envelopes, postcards don’t have to go thru security screening.
November 3, 2009 at 10:18 PM
[ed. It was fraud to swear he was eligible in Arizona, but it was not fraud for him to believe he was eligible and to run. It's possible that he honestly believes he was eligible, and it's possible the Supreme Court will back him up. IT was not possible that he could swear he was eligible only that he believed himself to be eligible. So in Arizona, he appears guilty of perjury.
Leo,
He accepted campaign money via the mail, and signed a document in any state that claimed he was eligible
[ed. the only state I have seen where he signed anything to that effect is Arizona. There is no crime in believing he would be seen as eligible and running and taking donations. In my opinion there is a perjury in swearing to the fact that one is in fact eleigible - especially if one is a Constitutional scholar. If you dont see the subtle difference I cant help you on that.]
, he committed federal mail fraud—so many times I can’t count. He was, or was not, Constitutionally eligible, he has no defense if he was not. The ‘believe he was’ won’t cut it being a Harvard trained Constitutional lawyer. Obama knows this, ignorance won’t save him and looks utterly stupid as a defense in his case.
November 3, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Leo,
It would appear that while many of us “get it” when it comes to who can seek the Writ of Quo Warranto in DC, many do not…it might bear repeating after all the elections in Virginia and New Jersey are showing the popular disgust with the Dems….and rather than accepting either party, we really want a return to the rule of law for the sake of everyone….please at least in response to my post re-affirm in your opinion who besides McCain (for obvious reasons) would be a sample of who could seek this Writ…… ?????
We need those who have the ability and you must acknowledge that those of us who support you and this blog are quite willing to spread the word….and sooner or later someone will step forward….as soon as they can believe that they have the support of the people….
I also wonder how many attorney’s out their want to thank you for the good you have done to a profession that has been badly maligned by some pretty bbad apples….you should take comfort in your honorable acts that by simplying doing what is right you bring respect back to yourself and others….especially when Orly and the others leave no doubt by now where their priorities are…..
Thank you
November 3, 2009 at 10:29 PM
“Judge Carter assumes that since Congress has the Constitutional authority to enact legislation regarding naturalization and citizenship by statute that they also have the power to define the meaning of “natural born citizen”.” – Leo
There are three ways one can establish allegiance to a country.
natural = allegiance by parentage
born = allegiance by place of birth
citizen = allegiance by pledging one’s allegiance
There are three words that have specific meaning as to what constitutes a natural born citizen, like there are three words that have specific meaning as to what a big blue ball is.
To claim that congress has the power to define the meaning of what constitutes a “natural born citizen”, is like claiming congress has the power to change the meaning of what a “big blue ball” is. It would be like claiming to having the power to change reality, which is laughable.
No one has the power to change the meaning of what a “natural born citizen” is. All congress has the power to do, is to change the qualifications for what constitutes a president, by amending the constitution.
November 3, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Pete Says:
“I sincerely hope that someone takes this to the DC court, the issue should be settled. Discovery there would be inevitable, and once discovery is granted, we will be much closer to the truth.
SD: Correct me if I’m wrong, but we ALREADY HAVE THE TRUTH. Obama is not an Art. 2 NBC. The trick is to get it to the DC court. But as I mentioned to Leo, even if the DC Court rules Obama is ineligible, how do you get the Democrat Congress to impeach him?
[ed. you dont get it. if he loses in DC District court under the qw statute, Congress doesnt have to impeach him. he will be ousted under the statute that they enacted for this purpose. it's not impeachment.]
Slamdunk,
You have One truth, and I don’t dispute your statement or Leo’s on that issue or even Obama’s claim of being a British Vassal at birth. The thing is, and you have to stay with me here, you don’t go through the trouble he has to seal his records up and make that claim publically. Further, the State of Hawaii doesn’t break their own laws to cover up things, if there isn’t MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more to this story. Do I KNOW he isn’t eligible because he was born under jurisdiction of the English Crown—absolutely.
I just think the truth is more than the public knowledge released so far. The consequences for the conspirators may be proportional to the resistance to achieving the facts. You might want to ask Leo if he has felt any resistance from the DoH of Hawaii, or at the SCOTUS.
I hope people remember, I hope the people search out the ‘truth’ because with it we can protect our Constitution and our childrens future. I dream that no pardons will occur, that the laws will be followed. I don’t care if they have to fill every FEMA camp to make it happen.
November 4, 2009 at 12:09 AM
Leo, you are starting to look like one of those people who don’t play the game but stand on the sidelines and criticize those who do. Are the other attorneys perfect and all knowing like you? No, but at least they are making an effort. Other than criticize others what do you do Leo?… what do you do?
November 4, 2009 at 12:20 AM
Leo,
CA State election law has two sections I find interesting. I have requested four documents, the existence and content of which will motivate future actions. I suspect other state’s laws may hold similar.
(Opt Out Clause.)
6042. When the Secretary of State decides to place the name of a
candidate on the ballot pursuant to Section 6041, he or she shall
notify the candidate that the candidate’s name will appear on the
ballot of this state in the presidential primary election.
The secretary shall also notify the candidate that the candidate
may withdraw his or her name from the list of recognized candidates
by filing with the Secretary of State an affidavit pursuant to
Section 6043 no later than the 60th day before the presidential
primary election.
(Personal endorsement to be a write-in candidate for President of the United States on the California ballot.)
6441. Any person who believes his or her name may be used as a
write-in candidate for President of the United States shall, not
later than 21 days before the primary election, file his or her
endorsement of his or her write-in candidacy with the Secretary of
State, or no votes shall be counted for him or her.
November 4, 2009 at 3:55 AM
Hi Leo, Do you feel our best chance in Quo Warranto would be with one of the candidates listed below? If so, maybe we can all become Nader Raiders and convince Ralph Nader to file suit. This time he would not be the spoiler. He would be a hero. If neither Obama or McCain was eligible, he would have won. I sooo…. do believe that we need a thriving third party in this country. I think that George Washington was the one that expressed the importance of a third party.
Bob Barr has already filed one suit in Texas trying to keep McCain and Obama off the ballot for late filing.
Presidential candidate Party Home state Popular vote Electoral
Barack Obama Democratic Illinois 69,456,897 52.92% 365
John McCain Republican Arizona 59,934,814 45.66% 173
Ralph Nader Independent Connecticut 738,475 0.56% 0
Bob Barr Libertarian Georgia 523,686 0.40% 0
Chuck Baldwin Constitution Florida 199,314 0.15% 0
Cynthia McKinney Green California 161,603 0.12% 0
November 4, 2009 at 4:41 AM
Leo,
Can this be exploited in any of the cases?
§338-18 Disclosure of records.
(g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the
applicant requesting a verification is:
(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information
about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during
the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or
November 4, 2009 at 8:25 PM
RE: Fight-the-Smears website statement:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982. “
1. This statement is in quotes on fightthesmears.com which means, I believe, that is was a statement that Obama or one of his lawyers specifically provided on this site.
2. Reading over the 1st paragraph of this statement, it’s interesting that Obama Sr. is described as a “Kenya native” (or “native born kenyan) but also “a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948″
3. Obama has described himself–forget where– as a “native born American” but also admitted to being, like his father, “a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948″
There’s a difference between “native born” and “natural born.” It seems you can be “native born” and still be a British subject.
Over the past year, I’ve read several Obama-supporters argue that “native born” and “natural born” are interchangeable. . .and it appears that is what Obama has tried to imply himself or his lawyers may do so. I believe there is at least one court case that either implies these 2 terms mean the same or says so directly.
Problem is that it seems absurd to assume these 2 terms are identical and /or legally interchangeable. If you mean “natural born” then say “natural born.” “Native” and “natural” simply do not mean the same thing.
November 4, 2009 at 11:04 PM
USCIS National Record Center
FOIA Division
Lee’s Summit, MO
Freedom of Information Request
TITLE 5 > PART I > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 552. Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings
Please provide all information, documents, memorandum, memo’s, faxes, e-mails, opinions, legal opinions, conference notes, and/or any other communications, written or recorded, including, but not limited to, electronically, audio and or audio-visual, that pertains to and/or resulted in the approval, acceptance and/or authorization of the publication of the ‘Paragraph’ item found on page # 4 of “The Citizen’s Almanac”, M-76 (rev. 07/08), being specifically the following;
The Right to run for elected office.
U.S. citizenship is required for many elected offices in this country. Naturalized U.S. citizens can run for any elected office they choose with the exception of President and Vice President of the United States, which require candidates to be native-born citizens. (Emphasis added)
Your prompt response to this request to the address above is greatly appreciated.
Respectfully,
We’ll see……… Also submitted an N-600 Application for the Certification of Citizenship Status with the specific request of NBC Certification based on my parents Citizenship, citing ALL SCOTUS Opinions recognizing the TWO Citizen Parent standard as well as SRES 511, etc…………..we’ll see……….
November 5, 2009 at 12:15 AM
Leo, seems that if Obama signed that he was a natural born citizen, in Arizona, could any natural born citizen in Arizona be an interested party since he signed a document and the State of Arizona accepted it as true since he was allowed on the ballotl? Obama qualified himself, and Arizona confirmed his confirmation, but a natural born citizen could challenge this could they not?
[ed. nope. they are not interested persons, they are third persons.]
That signature, and the lack of procedure by AZ SOS still represents verifiable proof of an agreement signed by Obama with the State of Az and its citizens, that he was qualified.
November 5, 2009 at 12:49 AM
So Leo, WHAT are you doing now? You keep criticizing Orly which would be ok if you were doing something. Why don’t you gather people and set up a rally? Why don’t you file a lawsuit in District of Columbia?
Am I missing something? Because I hear a whole lotta talk and see a lot less action. I think your research is excellent but what are you doing to start mobilizing… what is your plan to get the job done?
November 5, 2009 at 2:30 AM
http://www.business-ethics.us/C/constructive_knowledge.htm
Constructive Knowledge
Black’s law dictionary defines constructive knowledge as “if one should have known a fact they are deemed to have knowledge of that fact.” One may not be able to prove that a waitress had no factual knowledge that meals were served with a knife, spoon and fork but they have constructive knowledge of that fact by exercise of their duties they would know that fact. A used car dealer makes a living buying used cars. If he or she new little about the mechanical condition of cars they would soon be out of business. Dealers know that the name of the game is marginalizing used cars, that is to raise the price on good looking cars hoping the buyer will overlook mechanical defect or not take the car to a mechanic for a check-up. You cannot prove that in fact they did not know the engine was bad, but then again they tactically avoided having a mechanic asses the car prior to sale. This is tactical ignorance. Moreover the dealer likely knows from experience that their cars are in marginal mechanical shape by virtue of the complaint they receive back from their customers. Constructive knowledge and constructive fraud bear a relationship here.
Constructive Fraud
Constructive Taking
A key concept in understanding constructive frauds of all kinds is “plausible deniability.” It is easy to deny that one had factual knowledge of say a bad transmission in a car that was sold to a naive buyer. But, a closer analysis would reveal a pattern of fraud. This sort of unethical behavior goes under the category of pleading innocence.
November 5, 2009 at 2:31 AM
Constructive fraud is a legal fiction used in the law to describe a situation where a person or entity gained an unfair advantage over another by deceitful, or unfair, methods. Intent does not need to be shown as in the case of actual fraud. …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_fraud
November 5, 2009 at 3:43 AM
“Kenneth Says:
October 31, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Thanks Leo, for continuing to educate the U.S. and the world about Constitutional law in the U.S.
As stated before, I am not a lawyer, nor a law student; however, if I understand all that I have read so far, if the President is found to be a “usurper” somewhere down the road, then everything he has done and signed would be considered null and void.
[ed. not necessarily. after a certain time, it would stick. chester arthur's official actions will not be overturned.]”
And you base this on…?
November 5, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Leo,
RE: [ed. “interested person” is the standard under 3503 and only in a quo warranto in the DC District Court. In Judge Carter’s court, the issue must be analyzed in light of ordinary federal standing requirements under the Lujan case. Big difference. Carter did not rule on “interested person” status. He had no authority to do so. …”
You seem to imply by this comment and by an earlier comment that the qualification for being an “interested person” under 3503 is less stringent than under ordinary federal standing requirements.
If the requirements are not less stringent, then Orly would be beating a dead horse using the QW in DC, at least with these plaintiffs.
If you covered this I apologize, but I can not find it.
Please give us a link or some comments. Thanks.
November 5, 2009 at 4:14 PM
I remember reading in one of your postings by someone that On July 28th, Congress made a non-binding Resolution (Hawaii’s 50th anniversary) that included a declaration that President Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Was this the U.S. Congress or the State of Hawaii Congress? After reading the latest TerriK post, it made me wonder, since Congress (whether U.S. or State) stated this factually, therefore public information, could a FOIA (or any applicable legal inquiry) be filed requesting the facts used to support that statement? It seems if so, then maybe some factual discovery could be learned.
November 6, 2009 at 2:28 AM
Thank you Leo. Actually, I do not believe one citizen should be able to overturn an election. I also do not believe one citizen should be able to ignore the Constitution.
I don’t believe that Alan Keyes had a chance to be President, and the horse and pony show of Orly Taitz, destroyed, the most important argument which was the Natural Born Citizen clause causing the birther circus.
The Arizona SOS also did a lousy job, but hey? It’s too late now.
November 6, 2009 at 2:34 AM
Seems to me that a good person of interest is Gerald Walpin the IG fired by Obama for “being disoriented” when in fact it was because of the fraud Walpin uncovered in Sacremento regarding the mlisappropriations of AmeriCorps funds by Mayor and former NBA player Kevin Johnson, a big Obama contributor and close friend. Walpin also uncovered a similar situation in NY.
Walpin was pretty peeved by his dismissal, even appeared on Beck or Hannity.
Here is a link to an article by Byron York that appeared in the Washington Examiner last summer. York would know how to contact him. Seems like he appeared with Walpin on Fox News.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Gerald-Walpin-speaks-the-inside-story-of-the-AmeriCorps-firing-48030697.html
[ed. we've been over the Walpin issue many times here. the man is not interested in quo warranto.]
November 12, 2009 at 8:50 PM
Maybe Judicial Watch could be asked to check out Obama’s “natural born citizen” status as they work over Hillary…
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/nov/jw-appeals-supreme-court-consider-lawsuit-challenging-hillary-clintons-eligibility-ser
November 13, 2009 at 7:42 PM
I suppose I need to do more research because the time I’ve spent looking at this tells me it’s much more likely Obama was born outside the USA than in Hawaii.
I appreciate what Leo is doing and I certainly respect his ability as a lawyer.
Something I can’t quite understand is the effectiveness of the Dems in shutting down any discussion of Obama’s eligibility in the media, Yes, much of the main steam media is in the tank for Obama, but, Fox News with people like Hannity and Beck won’t touch this with a ten-foot pole. Neither will Rush or Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin. The subject of Obama’s past has been put off limits for any discussion. Is the silence because they all really believe it’s over and Obama is eligible, or is the silence because they fear speaking out?
November 13, 2009 at 9:24 PM
BOB wonders why no public figure or media will discuss Obama’s eligibility. Well so do I. The silence makes absolutely no sense to me – it is crazy. Can you explain what is happening?
November 14, 2009 at 12:18 AM
To those who wonder why the silence from Republican politicos, it’s because the thing they are most afraid of is the fracturing of the Union, with the potential for Civil War. The Dems don’t care about that. The extreme left view Civil War as ideal revolutionary conditions.
November 14, 2009 at 1:39 AM
Ask Lou Dobbs, The Communist coup is now in charge of our America!
November 14, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Answer for Bob,
Any journalist with the balls to report on the question of Obama’s eligibility will be effectively castrated for doing so.
http://borderravenblogosphere.blogspot.com/2009/11/firing-lou-dobbs-is-like-castrating-all.html
November 14, 2009 at 4:47 PM
I must say that, perhaps due to too much conspiracy reading this year, what BOB and Brennan say is my own scary feeling. Like Occam’s razor is not at work here, directing people’s actions, but plots and counter-plots. I try to argue mundane explanations like laziness in fact-checking for the situation we find ourselves in and still think there would have to be an improbable epidemic of mundaneness happening unchecked. Even with media complicity, not really that hard when everyone depends on a few sources, the unassailableness and inevitability of 0 was too weird. Through the primary, sometimes watching Hillary or McCain do something that would agree with 0 or give him an edge, I could practically swear the two were conspiring to make sure he was elected, even though they also had to act disappointed. As if it was all choreographed to launder a few billion dollars, or something. The advances against the 0 facade have been through small accidents, like a plumber’s unscripted remark or a follow-through on a document request, things that weren’t scripted in this shadowy drama.
November 14, 2009 at 5:21 PM
RE: “Something I can’t quite understand is the effectiveness of the Dems in shutting down any discussion of Obama’s eligibility in the media, Yes, much of the main steam media is in the tank for Obama, but, Fox News with people like Hannity and Beck won’t touch this with a ten-foot pole. Neither will Rush or Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin. The subject of Obama’s past has been put off limits for any discussion. Is the silence because they all really believe it’s over and Obama is eligible, or is the silence because they fear speaking out? (BOB Says:
November 13, 2009 at 7:42 PM)
&
RE: “BOB wonders why no public figure or media will discuss Obama’s eligibility. Well so do I. The silence makes absolutely no sense to me – it is crazy. Can you explain what is happening? (Brennan Says: November 13, 2009 at 9:24 PM)”
This is the mystery of the century.
Add to that the Cheney did not ask for objections in January at the Electors’ Confirmation joint session. The GOP at that point could only gain and loose nothing more what they lost in the election already.
When one brings up the eligibility question with conservatives, who did not look into the eligibility issue at depth, one gets an answer like: “The issue has probably no merit otherwise the GOP or Rush would have exploited it. “
The issue is treated by almost all the media, all three branches of government, state officials, most electors, and business leaders similar to real undesirable topics like being anti-Semitic or racist.
It is difficult to listen to Rush, Hennity or other so-called conservative hosts when they are passionately attacking the president on policy but few words are uttered on eligibility. While some of the policy issues are important they seem trivial to the eligibility issue.
Rush single-handedly could create a political milieu resulting in congressional move towards uncovering the truth.
This issue is bigger than Watergate. The journalist who uncovered Watergate were treated like heroes after Nixon was out. Yet no mainstream journalist wants to be a hero this time. The mainstream media behaves exactly as the Pravda used to behave in the Soviet Union – being a propaganda tool for the ruling party.
Judges, like Carter, who originally indicted willingness to rule on merit, find technicalities to dismiss the eligibility suits.
[ed. Judge Carter's decision was legally correct and he exercised admirable judicial restraint, a concept the Indiana Court of Appeals does not appear familiar with. Where Judge Carter was on point, the Indiana Court disgraced themselves.]
No one has Standing at US courts, against the judges’ arbitrary wishes, except non-citizen GITMO terrorists. The rulings of the courts are full of almost childish, if not intentional errors.
Try to talk about these facts and you are immediately labeled “conspiracy theorists” similar to the Soviet system when the label was “reactionary” or “enemy of the state”.
Conclusion: No legal action is going to succeed unless the political situation changes by some miracle.
November 14, 2009 at 9:03 PM
MarkR, just reminded me of a guy in some Los Angeles area immigration rallies, in 2005-2008, who carried a flag that was half BLACK/RED. When asked what it symbolized, he stated, “Anarchy is the path to Communism.”
November 14, 2009 at 9:30 PM
Dennis says:
“Conclusion: No legal action is going to succeed unless the political situation changes by some miracle.”
You are probably right. I do wonder if this will affect Obama’s run for a second term. At least a couple of states have talked about new state requirements for proof of eligibility, though they likely haven’t actually done anything. If they would act it would be interesting to see how the Obamabots explain why Obama isn’t going to be on the ballot in that state or states.
Of course, that scenerio assumes we can survive three more years with this administration and actually have an election.