UNDEAD REVOLUTION: Historical Attack on Obama POTUS Eligibility, Part 1


[The research team from UCONN – UNDEAD REVOLUTION – have published “Part 1” of their exhaustive research on the historical meaning of the “natural born citizen” POTUS eligibility requirement.  I am republishing their report here as my first guest blog.  Please click through to their blog for the full report.

I am simultaneously publishing my analysis of an incredible find by the UR team which firmly establishes that Chester Arthur’s British birth was not known to the public while he was President and therefore sets no historical or legal precedent for Obama.

Now, for your historical education, the Natural Born Citizen blog is proud to present…]

The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen

The time may ere long arrive when the minds of men will be prepared to make an effort to recover the Constitution, but the many cannot now be brought to make a stand for its preservation. We must wait a while.
N.Y. Historical Society’s Collections (Lee Papers), vol. III, 1873


There were three types of citizens at the time of the signing of the Constitution:

1. Those who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to the Declaration of Independence.  On that day, July 4, 1776, millions of former British subjects became citizens of a sovereign America.

2. The children, their heirs, born of those pledged citizens, were the first natural-born citizens of the new nation.

3. A person naturalized into citizenship through an act of law requiring an oath and and renunciation to any former allegiance.

We are either a United people, or we are not. If the former, let us, in all matters of general concern act as a nation, which have national objects to promote, and a national character to support. If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending to it.

George Washington, letter to James Madison, November 30, 1785


The scope of this writing is to focus on the intent of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States as it pertains to the clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

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.

This study explores the historical, legislative and judicial areas for factual evidence that defines the intent behind the clause. While it by no means gives the bulk of the research justice, for that would require a book, it should provide a sufficient template that destroys the theory that the definition was allegedly an ambiguous or an otherwise unanswerable question. Breaking it down into the three aforementioned parts, we are able to see a contiguous pattern that is easily digestable using the credibility of those who were living and present during those eras. It is crucial to set the stage during the American Revolution, for we find that it was the experience drawn from this event that provides the foundation from which everything else is drawn that embodies the spirit of the Constitution itself.

In GULF, C. & S. F. R. CO. v. ELLIS, 165 U.S. 150 (1897), the court advocated, as well as over 100 other courts who similarly advised, to look to this period for direction when applicable:

“… and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter [The Constitution] is but the body and the letter of which the former [The Declaration of Independence] is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.”

So we start at this point in history and provide a historical review of the events that shed light on the intellect that manifests itself later into the Constitution and subsequent legislation and jurisprudence.


We pick up events after the French and Indian War1 where King George III attempted to tax the colonists in an effort to recoup his losses incurred by the war…



72 Responses to “UNDEAD REVOLUTION: Historical Attack on Obama POTUS Eligibility, Part 1”

  1. With this and your (Leo) research and competent presentation, is it now time to “update” Wikipedia.org with this additional information for Chester Arthur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_Arthur) and indicate he was a usurper.

    And further expand Wikipedia’s entry under “List of Usurpers” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_usurpers) to expand it from just usurpers to a monarchy to… “The following is a list of usurpers – illegitimate or controversial claimants to the throne in a monarchy or in a democratic republic?”

  2. Important concepts here of nation-hood and allegiance, accented by Washington’s final advice to “shut up every avenue to foreign influence.” Until Obama had an American wife, GW would not have wanted Obama to even be in his army.

    Now at least Obama has an American wife, but he was still born with foreign allegiance and still carries a load of foreign associations and influences. Every day he remains in office is a national disgrace.

  3. The Undead Revolution also reminds us that Geo. Washington advised that we Americans “contract rather than extend national connections.” In view of Hawaii’s functioning as a handy gateway for foreign influence, as evidenced by the currently crippled state of our executive branch of government, I think we may have made a serious mistake by ever admitting Hawaii into the union.

    Extending our national connections into an alien culture has damaged our cohesiveness and our very identity as a Union. Let’s ask Hawaii to secede and take Barry Soetero aka Barack Obama with her. There he can be a king for life, and good riddance to him.

  4. Leo,

    Sharing information I found, our nation is in distress and who will protect it?

    3-2.110 History
    The Office of the United States Attorney was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 which provided for the appointment “in each district of a meet person learned in the law to act as attorney for the United States … whose duty it shall be to prosecute in each district all delinquents for crimes and offenses, recognizable under the authority of the United States, and all civil actions in which the United States shall be concerned …” 1 Stat. 92. Initially, United States Attorneys were not supervised by the Attorney General (1 Op.Att’y Gen. 608) but Congress, in the Act of August 2, 1861, (Ch. 37, 12 Stat. 185) charged the Attorney General with the “general superintendence and direction duties …” While the precise nature of the superintendence and direction was not defined, the Department of Justice Act of June 22, 1870 (Ch. 150, 16 Stat. 164) and the Act of June 30, 1906 (Ch. 39, 35, 34 Stat. 816) clearly established the power of the Attorney General to supervise criminal and civil proceedings in any district. See 22 Op. Att’y Gen. 491; 23 Op. Att’y Gen. 507. Today, as in 1789, the United States Attorney retains, among other responsibilities, the duty to “prosecute for all offenses against the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 547(1). This duty is to be discharged under the supervision of the Attorney General. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 519.

    3-2.120 Appointment
    United States Attorneys are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate for a four-year term. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 541. Upon expiration of this term, the United States Attorney continues to perform the duties of the office until a successor is confirmed. United States Attorneys are subject to removal at the will of the President. See Parsons v. United States, 167 U.S. 324 (1897).


  5. There is nothing in this “research report” that is relevant to this discussion at all.

    Surely no one would argue that times were different at the time of the American Revolution or that Washington wanted no foreign officers, but that is hardly worth mentioning here in the 21st Century.

    The Founders wouldn’t have wanted a woman, an Irish American, or an Asian American as President either, but yet, somehow, I think they would be eligible today.

    The fact is that the 14th Amendment gave us a uniform national standard for who would be a citizen at birth (i.e., a “natural born citizen) and many USSC decisions (including the decision by the currebt Court to pass on hearing any of these stupid lawsuits) have clarified what that means.

    How many times will you guys strike out before you give up?

    [Ed. If we struck out and the game is over, why do you still come to the game? Nothing here to see, right? If you’re so confident about that, just move on. Don’t worry about us tilting at windmills. This was part 1 of a mutli part series… It lays the groundwork nicely.]

  6. Leo,

    A most exciting first post by the UConn Undead. I can scarcely contain myself awaiting the other parts they will publish. Might you be able to post, here, the titles and prelim-abstract of these forthcoming parts? Such info will be most useful in my efforts to inform others, a sort of preview of coming attractions. (FYI I posted a similar request at the UR website.)


  7. billvanallen Says:

    Shocker! Judge orders trial on eligibility issue
    Arguments planned Jan. 11 for challenge to Obama

    Posted: September 08, 2009
    4:42 pm Eastern

    By Jerome R. Corsi
    © 2009 WorldNetDaily


    [Ed. The hearing on the motion to dismiss is October 5th. If that doesnt end it then Jan 2010 may be a hearing. This will be interesting. But if the DOJ loses motion to dismiss, it will be appealed before Jan 2010.]

  8. Something about the Obama school speech that I thought interesting, but mostly good for a couple laughs was this line:

    “When I was young, my family lived in Indonesia for a few years, and my mother didn’t have the money to send me where all the American kids went to school. ”

    I just find it funny, that even with all the various “birther” theories running around that Obama’s speech writers would drop the word “other” from “American kids”.

    “Where all the other American kids” sounds more inclusive. Yet as stated it makes Obama seem like he viewed himself as an outsider from the American kids. They were Americans, and he was something else.

    Just…… interesting.

  9. Leo, can you help decipher what is going on with the Orly case. WND is reporting it may go to trial if the motion to dismiss is not granted next month.

    [Ed. MTD hearing october 5, 2009. If DOJ loses, expect a lightning fast appeal.]

  10. Tony Stark Says:

    Little piece of interesting news today from WND: Judge Carter of the District Court of Santa Ana, CA today tentatively scheduled a trial for Jan. 26, 2010, for a case that challenges Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president based on questions over his qualifications under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. He did not immediately rule on Orly Taitz’ motion to be granted discovery nor did he rule immediately on a DOJ motion to dismiss the case.

    The judge did comment that if there are legitimate constitutional questions regarding Obama’s eligibility, they need to be addressed and resolved. He ordered a hearing Oct. 5 on the motion to dismiss and ordered arguments submitted on the issue of discovery. If the case survives that challenge, a pretrial hearing has been scheduled for Jan. 11 and the trial for two weeks later.

  11. can Judge Carter order discovery to start on Oct. 5 even if motion to dismissed is appealed?

    [Ed. He can, but the other side will have a minimum of 30 days to respond… and that’s plenty of time for an appeals court to move on it. My professional opinion, after reading the DOJ motion to dismiss will be published soon.]

  12. At last a judge who acknowledges and states a simple truth, which has been obvious to non-Obots for so long: “The judge [Carter] did comment that if there are legitimate constitutional questions regarding Obama’s eligibility, they need to be addressed and resolved.” Wow!

    Now why was it so heart-breakingly difficult to that little tiny admission out of our judiciary? At least a modicum of respectability has been added to our cause. Kudos Carter.

  13. So, I so glad you are back in the game, Leo. I contaced my Senator, Jim Demint, who is a staunch Republican, and has recently written a book about Tyranny, but he is completely ignoring this subject. He sent me an email quoting factcheck.org! COWARD!!! I send him your every post, and the information to go with it. I WILL NOT STOP UNTIL SOMEONE PAYS ATTENTION!!!! Thank you for all your hard work. I have not given up on this country yet. But all of this is scary as hell. I am wainting for a “false flag” attack, and martial law. Nothing, absolutely nothing, would surprise me.

  14. Tony Stark Says:

    Seems to me that the most important part of the case is really the motion for discovery and being able to pry open Obama’s past and reveal the things he has been hiding from the public. Unfortunately, there are still many hurdles before Orly or anyone can claim victory in that case.

  15. jvn said: “The Founders wouldn’t have wanted a woman, an Irish American, or an Asian American as President either, but yet, somehow, I think they would be eligible today.”

    If this was the case, then A2S1C5 would have been gender specific and nationality specific. IT IS NOT, it is only very specific as to type of citizenship, age and length of uninterrputed time spent in the US before running for office.

    Nice try twisiting the issue to support your radical views jvn, however the founding fathers were much more intuitive than you give them credit for and your statement only lends to your lack of knowledge on the subject of America history.

  16. Can the judge order an in Cameron inspection of the proported Hawaiian BC or documents on file prior to ruling on the motion to dismiss? Or could he order it be produced to be attached to the plaintiffs pleading since there Is no other way for plaintffs to obtain the necessary and essential document?

    [Ed. I imagine he can do whatever he thinks best and then face various appeals thereto.]

  17. “I think we may have made a serious mistake by ever admitting Hawaii into the union.
    Extending our national connections into an alien culture has damaged our cohesiveness and our very identity as a Union. Let’s ask Hawaii to secede and take Barry Soetero aka Barack Obama with her. There he can be a king for life, and good riddance to him.”

    Harry, we are looking at an urgent need for SOCTUS to make a formal decision on the NBC issue, especially considering issues dealing w/our nations security. The research is out there. I wouldn’t expect any representative to be so foolish & idiotic to point to factcheck from here on in as THE mother of all research in support of the usurper.

    Leo, the Undead & numerous people here have pointed to historical data that cannot be easily ignored or discarded. The founders showed instance after instance of their grave concern in foreigners garnering privilege on multiple levels due to questions of allegiance.

    With this in mind, regardless of where the usurper claims he is from or how uncooperative Hawai’i officials have been there are many of us here deeply concerned about the jeopardy facing this country. It may interest you to know that historically… Hawai’i knows *exactly* how this feels.

    I’m not going into further conversation on this topic as this is not the time nor the place. Yet, I will provide you with a few links that hopefully will allow another way for you to view your comment: “a serious mistake by ever admitting Hawaii into the union”. For the record Hawai’i never wanted admittance & to this day is fighting for their sovereignty. Hawai’i was one of the first states requesting to formally secede back in 2005.

    Below is a brief, yet succinct history lesson for you. Hopefully you may discover the damage that was done to a sovereign nation & its very culture against their will.

    The overthrow of the monarchy:

    Historical Chronology:

    KUDOS to the Undead Revolution!! Excellent presentation & wonderful groundwork for the remaining research!

  18. Hi, Leo:

    Hope you’re doing fine. Just wanted to tell you that I read this at the UR blog. It’s truly wonderful, and they have done such great research.

    I did want to explain something. I don’t know if this matters or not, so please think about it. Your case was really the best one so far and you did your research. This is no joke. But think back on it and BO was so highly thought of at the time, like many people were just foaming at the mouth over him. Remember that? So Orly has this case now and this judge rules and says, what, they can have a hearing? I’m not sure that I understand the legalities of it, but I’m sure that you do. Can they have discovery? I hope so.

    So, what is different now than when you had your case? Besides the fact that he’s president, there’s this thing of his unpopularity and the fact that this country is pretty much into a revolution of sorts. This is different from when you had your case. Do you think that this has made a difference? I can’t see any judge not noticing these things going on with our country, IF that judge loves this country and has guts. I hope that Judge Carter has the guts and courage to continue on. Maybe he thinks that we are in a huge amount of trouble. This must be resolved, and it doesn’t look like BO is going to do it.

  19. Leo, Have you taken a look at the Motion To Dismiss brief the government just filed in one of Orly’s California NBC cases? [Ed. snipped name of web site I do not publish links to] If I’m interpreting the government’s argument correctly, a court could never consider a case challenging a presidential candidate’s NBC status. According to the government’s argument, the Constitution commits the issue to the political branches only. In the first instance, the voters have a say through the electoral process. The electors who make up the Electoral College get a say on the matter. And then finally, Congress gets a say in the matter. Their argument doesn’t seem to contemplate even a state election official challenge to a candidate’s NBC status. \

    [Ed. The DOJ argument is concerned with a person’s eligibility after the election and Electoral College have met. At that point in time, the POTUS elect is governed by the Constitution. Prior to that, the candidate can be challenged in State courts as I did and Cort did. After the EC happens, everything changes. The general election is not contemplated in the Constitution, only the EC. More on this to come. I have a report about the DOJ motion to dismiss and Judge Carter’s orders pending. I also have a question – on the record – that I sent to Orly Taitz. I am waiting for her response before I publish my report.]

    I believe I’ve read previously on your blog cites to cases where a federal court upheld a California state election official’s decision to keep a presidential candidate off the ballot on the basis that he failed to satisfy the constitutional eligibilty requirements for the office. Once a president is sworn into office, only Congress can consider his disability to serve under the 20th Amendment the government contends. I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on the government’s argument that an NBC determination is non-judiciable.

  20. Jimmy The C Says:

    Hi Leo,
    You are on a roll brother. Keep pounding away. Regarding the DOJ Motion to Dismiss filed on 9/4 you can find a PDF file here:

    It really seems weak and I find it very madening that they say that the Electors and Congress could have qualified Obama and did not. They also are claiming that this is a political issue out of the realm of the courts. I believe this is a Constitutional issue and since he was never qualified for POTUS he can’t hide behind the separation of powers after the fact.

    God bless you Leo and keep it up.

    [Ed. I will have a thorough analysis on this soon.]

  21. Joe The Blogger Says:


    We have the BIG ‘MO’. There is no stopping us now.

  22. beyond baffled Says:

    Leo, will the “Undead Revolution” cover the following:


    “On the night of December 23, 1913 the United States Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act and thereby committed the greatest act of TREASON in history. It surrendered this nation’s sovereignty and sold the American people into slavery to a cabal of arch-charlatan international bankers who proceeded to plunder, bankrupt, and conquer this nation with a money swindle.”

    …”On March 9, 1933 President Roosevelt called for the passing of The WAR POWERS ACT TITLE 12 USC. Section 95 (a) and 95 (b). This act declared all United States Citizens to be the enemy of the United States Government, and placed us under permanent Emergency Rule, bypassing Constitutional constraints on government. ”

    ….” The Bill of Rights has been statutized into “civil rights” in commerce. You have destroyed the Republic. America has been stolen. We have been made slaves, i.e. permanent debtors, bankrupt, in legal incapacity, rendered commercial “persons,” “residents,” and corporate franchisees known as “citizens of the United States” ”

    Please read the full article as I have just pulled a few statements but I see no glimmer of hope.

    I don’t know all the legal ramifications of what happened during this time and where we are now relative to the constitution, i.e. is the constitution still in effect? From what I have read and heard there is an issue as to the ability of anyone to challenge the goverment.

  23. [Ed. The hearing on the motion to dismiss is October 5th. If that doesnt end it then Jan 2010 may be a hearing. This will be interesting. But if the DOJ loses motion to dismiss, it will be appealed before Jan 2010.]

    and if the appeal on the motion to dismiss is in defense favor, the plaintiffs will appeal that decision…..and up the ladder we go to our favorite court and their liberal baffoons lining up in the lobby waiting to pull their dirty tricks again.

  24. From what I read Judge Carter has stated that the MTD would have to be pretty compelling for him to accept it.

    We’ll just have to see what happens I guess. Frankly I feel if there was any info in any of these sealed records that could hurt Obama, it’s been taken care of.

    Hopefully It’ll at least get more people talking about the NBC issue.

    [Ed. Notice that Judge Carter’s orders dont mention the British birth issue.]

  25. Sheikh yer Bu'Tay Says:

    HATS OFF TO THE UNDEAD REVOLUTION!! Terrific work! Keep it up!


    [Ed. MTD hearing october 5, 2009. If DOJ loses, expect a lightning fast appeal.]

    Aw, hell. That means it will be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals??!! If so, we are sooo screwed! Gaaagghh! But wait, the Ninth is the most overturned court in the land. Orly Taitz will then go to SCOTUS on her appeal of the DOJ appeal. Once again, SCOTUS will have this in their docket, right? Then what? Are we back to square one?

    The name of the UConn group is most admirable: Undead Revolution. The Revolution is NOT dead!

    I can’t think of the name of the black activist, female Congresswoman from LA who coined the phrase after the Rodney King trial, but I remember it well: NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!

    WTF!! TAKE THIS TO THE STREETS PEOPLE! If we can’t at least get a day in court, we can tell everyone we know about this TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE!

    (and I know who is listening in as I type this, so be it.)

  26. The only precedent being set now is that his nbc status is being challenged.But Obama is the president as Arthur was and both were non-nbcs.They made it past the public and got into the oval office.That should be obvious to you as you corrected people every time they said he was not their president shortly aftyer the inauguration..Had you taken that approach[that he is not our president] then your stance on Arthur would be consistent and make sense.I would disagree but it would make sense as an opposing argument.But if you believe both men were our non-nbc presidents,but we need to expose this one but overlook Arthur because the public was in the dark,then it is a nonsensical argument.

    [Ed. Who said we should overlook Arthur? Not me, man. I’ve been looking at him the whole time.]

  27. BuckeyeTexan Says:


    Write the book. There are plenty of conservative, even Christian conservative, publishing houses out there who will fight amongst themselves to be “Leo Donofrio’s” publisher. Trust me.

    The time is now.


    [Ed. Send them my way then. I am too busy to waste my time on seraching for a publisher. I don’t believe any serious Pub house would dare publish my stuff.]

  28. undeadrevolution Says:

    jvn, Show us where in the Fourteenth Amendment that it changed the requirements in A2S1C5? Oh wait! It didn’t.

    Show us where in the Fourteenth Amendment where it states that anyone born on U.S. soil is a natural-born citizen?

    Oh wait! It didn’t. ………

    If you can’t handle a Washington intro from the Revolution, jvn, you’re not going to be able to handle the rest. It’s over your head already. To our minds, anyone who could start an argument over that piece, doesn’t even like this country and is looking to change it — pretty much exactly what Washington was warning about. People like that.

    Leo, from all of us on this end, thanks for the guest blog appearance. We’re not looking for fame. We don’t even want to be known. We just want what we found out known and then we’re going back to the books.

    As for the interim article that Leo alludes to, that’s separate from what we’re doing. He’s taking a piece out of it that solidifies his Chester Arthur investigation, which he’s done a damn good job of. But there’s a lot more in that article that clears up a few other misunderstandings. You’ll just have to wait since all you have to do is sit back and read it.

    If anyone thinks this hasn’t all been rehashed before and they’re saying something new (other than Chester Arthur which is NEW), they’re going to find themselves sadly mistaken. The same arguments were always found in history after the Fourteenth Amendment was added. But that doesn’t change almost 100 years of prior precedent before someone came along today and decided that the Fourteenth Amendment somehow changed A2S1C5. It never did. No one had the audacity to ever say it did either, until now maybe. It’s only today that people have lost sight of how the articles in the Constitution were constructed. And if you don’t go back and revisit your history, you’re never going to understand the truth of it.

    But we have a feeling that the truth some people won’t like from us will be the same truth they cling to tomorrow when someone they don’t like tries to run for President. All the more reason why the basic article had to go up first. You’re not supposed to judge things because you like or dislike a particular party. You’re supposed to value your Constitution because you understand and appreciate how much was sacrificed for you to have one.

    BTW, we don’t put women on most armed front lines of battle now. I suppose you think that would be a good thing? Are you forgetting that it was the women who defended the household while their husbands were fighting a Revolution so you could enjoy this country? Are the stories too old now of how the husband returned to find the wives and children who couldn’t defend, dead, impaled on stakes? You would like to see more of that I suppose?

    A Commander in Chief of the military, like any other job, should at least have some experience in what he’s in charge of. Times sure have changed. Not always for the better either. When you find me a woman that’s as experienced as Washington was, or a man for that matter, bring it on. He/she is hired. But please don’t talk to me about how much respect women get in the political arena by today’s standards. The disrespect we see for them is far worse today than it ever was back then. Total disrespect.

  29. You can never succeed if you quit. Keep up the effort.

  30. Civis Naturaliter Natus Says:


    The P&Em had a citizen-journalist/reporter at the trial…

  31. Voco Indubium Says:

    RE: Taitz & Kreep case

    Leo, please help to understand this:

    The defense attacked Standing, as usual, saying that presidential candidate Alan Keyes and vice-presidential candidate Gail Lightfoot, both of whom ran in 2008 had no “mathematical chance at winning”; therefore they were not directly harmed by the election of Obama. Consequently, they have no Standing.

    It seems to me that the “mathematical chance of winning” is a very feeble argument to attack Standing, because:

    1. For equality of the candidate’s rights inherent in a democratic process and probably protected by the Constitution, and

    2. If BHO were disqualified it is pure speculation what the statistical probabilities would have been. The court should not allow such speculation.

    So if the judge agrees with the defense, Taitz and Kreep have good arguments for an appeal.

    Please comment. Thanks.

  32. You can also look at the FRCP and UCC and other agencies and their mini-rulebooks.But it will all jive with the behemoth APA Act.Trip them up on violations of their own rules and that’s a foot in the jutice door to expose the rest.Outside of D.C> there are a million ways to dismiss on jurisdiction and standing.But if this goes back to D.C. and done the right way,all bets are off.Let’s all hope I’m wrong and Orly will save the day.But forgive me if I don’t hold my breath.The defense forgetting to respond in July?Multiple filing errors to prolong this ordeal.Far better cases shot down in milliseconds around the country,and hers gets heard because of the one judge? in America to see the importance of this issue?And yet,no expedition?We are still going to yawn and let things play out without quick resolution?Didn’t the defense have enough time in the past year to look these things over?But the DOJ is involved?And they were unaware of this issue,even though given all the information months ago by concerned citizens?No.Don’t put your guard down.The kill is coming.But Lucas filed an affidavit?Okay,now I’m laughing.

  33. Dr.Jim77 asks– can Judge Carter order discovery to start on Oct. 5 even if motion to dismissed is appealed?——— Sure he can.Will he?Time will tell.Here’s a good commentary from repubx by the owner– Five months to start the eligibility trial seems absolutely rediculous given the severity of the situation. The Plantiffs already had to wait 60 days for the Defendents to respond. It would put the total at 7 months and likely much longer as the trial could last several months.

    Why not set the trial for two months? Does Judge Carter have that many trials in between time, in that this is the soonest this trial can be scheduled?

    Why is the Department of Justice acting on behalf of Obama, though the case was initially filed before he became President?

    Knowing what i know and have seen thus far, it is distrubing to see that there appears no effort to get this moving.

    It is disturbing because, from what i have researched, America’s sovereignty will be effectively erased by January 01, 2010 in becoming the North American Union (NAU). The Bilderberg Group set this goal for the US some time ago, and things are moving in that direction quickly.

    If the date of the trial is set for January 26, and before then we’ve had at least one pandemic, martial law, and another economic blowout setting the stage for the NAU by 2010, then what’s left in terms of eligibility?

    If the US does become part of the NAU, then the entire legal system and election structure would surely change.

    Did you know that Obama today *sealed* the relationship between the Communist UN and the US? Did you know that, for the first time in America’s history, a US President has now become a member of the UN Panel? Obama is the first (alleged) President to become a member of the UN Panel.

    It goes right in stride with world order objectives in making the UN the world government and Obama President of the world. It may seem far-fetched at this point, but everything has come true in terms of the world order objectives thus far, including making America into a Socialist/Marxist nation before becoming part of the NAU. In fact, a former FBI senior agent said 90% of the objectives for the demise of the US as we know it is now 90% complete.

    Was Orly set up as to passify the masses and slowly acclimate the public to the fact that Obama is not a natural-born citizen (because, it won’t matter when the US is part of the NAU)?

    Also, there is distrubing information about Judge Carter in being one of the most corrupt Judges working for the Government. I found it last night, and don’t remember the case, but the Plantiffs’ claim that Carter blatently lied to protect the Justice Department. The case was against the Justice Department in 2008. It is just one case, but was against the Justice Department and seems to be some “foul play” according to the written summary of the case and the decision reached.

  34. madeleine7 Says:

    Wonderful news re. Judge Carter…!!! He is the only judge who has shown fairness, impartiality and courage in all this sad saga. Hardly surprising to know he is ex-military ….! The Military appear to be the only decent Institution left in USA. May God bless him, guide him and protect him. madeleine7

  35. robotech master Says:

    You’ll forgive if this has been covered however has anyone made the argument that the 14th amendment grants the same citizenship status as Article II, Section 1…

    In this I mean in Article II, Section 1 you have the statement.

    “or a Citizen of the United States,”

    In the 14th amendment you have a statement

    “are citizens of the United States”

    Is this not the exact same citizenship status… and since it is the exact same citizenship status in Article II, Section 1 it clearly states that this type of citizen may not be president unless “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”.

    At the time obama was born his mother could not pass on citizenship status… that means that the 14th amendment and only the 14th amendment(assuming he was born in the US) granted him citizenship status.

    Since the 14th amendment’s citizenship is the same as the non-natural born citizenship listed in Article II, Section 1 does this not mean by default that it doesn’t matter where obama was born that he can not under the constitution be president.

    [Ed. I’ve been arguing all along that the 14th Amendment could have been written with the words “Natural born citizen” but it isn’t. Your point is valid.]

  36. Civis Naturaliter Natus Says:


    Here is says that Attorney Orly is inviting as many amicus briefs as possible, in the action Captain Pamela Barnett et al. vs. Obama et al., which would arguing against the Motion to Dismiss….

    Resident attorneys, here is your chance to show your patriotism….



    [Ed. I will have to look into the rules in that court for Amicus Briefs, but the pleadings need to be amended or the British birth issue will not be litigated regardless of what Amicus Briefs say or do not say. The Judge can’t amend the pleading, Orly has to do that. His order for scheduling allows for amended complaints. Before I publish my analysis of all this – Judge Carter’s orders and the DOJ motion to dismiss – I am waiting to hear form Orly to see if she is amending the complaint – as I have previously suggested – to plead the British birth issue as a separate count.]

  37. Civis Naturaliter Natus Says:

    Here is a link to the Motion to Dismiss in Barnet vs. Obama


  38. Joe The Blogger Says:

    The Founders of The United States of America were only too aware of the perilous nature of their situation. They risked all to establish self-government, devoid of any vestiges of monarchical power. There was very little point in doing this if they couldn’t put in place mechanisms to preserve it. They chose, wisely, the instrument of ‘The Constitution’.

    But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.
    John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 17, 1775

  39. Joe The Blogger Says:


    Have you considered that part of the motivation of the DOJ in delaying, till the last day possible, their Motion to Dismiss, in Orly’s case was to DELAY, even further, the consideration of the merits of the arguments relating to Mr Obama’s Constitutional ineligibility to act as POTUS. No Judge could grant the DOJ’s Motion to Dismiss, without first offering the plaintiff a reasonable period of time to respond – hence the 4 week adjournment to October 5th. In the meantime, Mr Obama continues to pull the levers of power. Assuming that the DOJ, on behalf of Mr Obama, have adopted the strategy of DELAY AT ALL COSTS, how long can they put off the consideration by any Court, of the MERITS of the case against Mr Obama?

  40. Joe The Blogger Says:


    Can the DOJ be censured by the Courts for ‘Abuse of Process’, for the DOJ’s use of AMBUSH and DELAY tactics? The DOJ have no lawful excuse for this despicable conduct.

    [Ed. Forget that.]

  41. You may post or not post this as you wish.


    When do you think that you will be ready with the Chester Arthur article? I have been doing a lot of research on Chester Arthur and would like to offer you what I have for your review before you publish same. Please let me know if you would like to set a deadline for receipt of my research.

    Feel free to reply to my email. We have been in email contact before on Chester Arthur.


    [Ed. Will be up soon…]

  42. Thanks to juls for the info on our illegal annexation of Hawaii and the illegal vote re statehood, which denied the people a choice of independence. I wholeheartedly support rescinding Hawaiian statehood and recognizing Hawaii as a sovereign, independent country. It is an alien society and never belonged in our Union in the first place.

  43. They will soon enough tee-up the Hawaiian BC, hit the spotlight and cue the drum roll, and then plop it down in the public domain for all to see.

    That’s when they holler “Game Over” and the real issue of British Citizenship at birth gets buried in the wings.

    If I were Obama, I’d be paying Orly Taitz to keep doing what she’s doing.

  44. undeadrevolution Says:
    September 8, 2009 at 11:12 pm

    I deeply appreciate that post undeadrevolution!

    What heartens me is that Leo says you are students from UConn.

    I’ve been around a while longer that you and Leo, and seen many a changing of the guard in DC. The vermin just stay and thrive. What troubled me deeply about this election was not that the youth of America veered left. It was the mindless chanting and cheering of whatever the Pied Piper told them. No critical thinking, no irreverence, no questioning.

    I grew up believing it is the somewhat reckless mandate and privilege of youth to always challenge authority. It makes me proud to see you and Leo doing that, and with such discipline, intellect, and principle, based upon the most fundamental founding tenets of any Nation.

    These old Marxists, Maoist hippies never grew up or gave up. They never cared about humanity, freedom or liberty. They just amassed power in the shadows Send ’em all back to Haight Ashbury.

    I’ve a fortunate glimpse of what a new generation is made of.

  45. Bots always argue that SAD was too young to pass on US Citizenship ONLY if she’d birthed Barack out-of-country, then they start in about the HI COLB. Was birthplace relevant to that law of age requirement to pass on US citizenship at the time of his birth?

  46. If you want to get a hint as to what the Judge is likely to do with regard to the dismissal of the case, just take a look at the fact that he forced Taitz and Kreep to work together over their objections rather than allow Kreep to take his “plaintiffs” and start another lawsuit.

    He wants to dispose of this all at once.

    As for those who continue to attempt to whitewash the standardization of citizenship at birth effected by the passage of the 14th Amendment and its interpretation by the USSC, I suppose that you will believe what you want to believe. Take note, however, that President Obama is serving his first term undeterred by your erroneous beliefs. The SCOTUS had the opportunity to hear these issues and instead tossed the cases.

    Content yourselves then, with your belief that you are “right.”

    That and a couple of bucks will buy you a cup of coffee most places…

  47. Hey bho boo,

    Please save that “Paid for by Barack Obama” screen shot of the FTS/BC page you mentioned here;

    jbjd may need it for future reference in regard to the “MODEL COMPLAINT OF ELECTION FRAUD TO STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL” letter, as jbjd just completed and replied to my comment,
    “The screen shot could be useful if and when any of the A’sG undertake an investigation of election fraud.” – Thanks!

    Are there any Texas ‘dualers’ who would like to file a complaint to the TX A’sG
    regarding election fraud or any other state with a law that requires the candidate for POTUS from the major political party to be eligible for the job?

    See, http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/model-complaint-of-election-fraud-to-state-attorneys-general/#comments

    Leo, thanks for the the slight intercession. I always enjoy reading all your posts, all of the comments and Ed.’s which make your blog all the more exciting and educational!

  48. jvn: WTF? A2s1 specifically says no current US citizen can be POTUS. MvH says no 14ther can be NBC. So you argue he’s just a US Citizen? Well, then thanks.

  49. btw NO media is covering the Carter hearing.
    We are the journalists, the zombies and corruptoids are deadbrained and worthless.

    In fact, it’s time to interview the journalists about their censorship. “Hello, I am a citizen journalist, and we would like to know how much you are paid, or what threats you endure, to censure the news in such an embarrassingly obvious fashion. Specifically…”

    Then report on the reporters, name them by name!

  50. From Citizen Wells:

    ““Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 5:35 PM
    The expedited trial has been set for Jan. 26, 2010, just 4 1/2 months from now!

    I and many other concerned veterans and citizens attended the hearing today in Federal Court in Santa Ana in the lawsuit against Barack Obama to determine his eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief. About 150 people showed up, almost all in support of the lawsuit to demand that Obama release his birth certificate and other records that he has hidden from the American people.

    Judge David Carter refused to hear Obama’s request for dismissal today, instead setting a hearing date for Oct. 5, since Obama’s attorneys had just filed the motion on Friday. He indicated there was almost no chance that this case would be dismissed. Obama is arguing this lawsuit was filed in the wrong court if you can believe that. I guess Obama would prefer a “kangaroo court” instead of a Federal court! Assuming Judge Carter denies Obama’s motion for dismissal, he will likely then order expedited discovery which will force Obama to release his birth certificate in a timely manner (if he has one).

    The judge, who is a former U.S. Marine, repeated several times that this is a very serious case which must be resolved quickly so that the troops know that their Commander in Chief is eligible to hold that position and issue lawful orders to our military in this time of war. He basically said Obama must prove his eligibility to the court! He said Americans deserve to know the truth about their President!

    The two U.S. Attorneys representing Barack Obama tried everything they could to sway the judge that this case was frivolous, but Carter would have none of it and cut them off several times. Obama’s attorneys left the courtroom after about the 90 minute hearing looking defeated and nervous.

    Great day in America for the U.S. Constitution!!! The truth about Barack Obama’s eligibility will be known fairly soon – Judge Carter practically guaranteed it!

    Video from the press conference after the hearing coming soon. Congratulations to plaintiffs attorney Dr. Orly Taitz! She did a great job and won some huge victories today. She was fearless!

    Jeff Schwilk, Founder”

  51. citizen journalists should censure ersatz journalists for censoring

  52. Jeff Schwilk-

    Did you read the comment above from Leo? Did you miss this:

    “[Ed. I will have to look into the rules in that court for Amicus Briefs, but the pleadings need to be amended or the British birth issue will not be litigated regardless of what Amicus Briefs say or do not say. The Judge can’t amend the pleading, Orly has to do that. His order for scheduling allows for amended complaints. Before I publish my analysis of all this – Judge Carter’s orders and the DOJ motion to dismiss – I am waiting to hear form Orly to see if she is amending the complaint – as I have previously suggested – to plead the British birth issue as a separate count.]”

    Jeff, Orly Taitz’s complain omitted the most important issue of all. I don’t know if she will amend the pleadings to INCLUDE the British Citizen at birth issue. She may do so, but it seems her decision to not include the British birth issue was deliberate on some level.

    This is the acid test in my mind.

    A person running a false-flag operation would act to prevent the matter of Obama’s British Citizenship at birth from being place squarely and clearly before the court.

    I don’t know what to make of Orly Taitz declining to do so.

    I would be very pleased to see Orly Taitz disprove my false-flag suspicions and amend her complaint as Leo suggested to ensure the matter of our current President’s British birth is placed in the clearest of terms before the court.

    [Ed. Orly and I have buried the hatchet… see my forthcoming blog. This case has done some good in the responses it has solicited by the DOJ confirming much of what I have written as to jurisdiction. The complaint should be amended and I think there’s a good chance that might happen. But the Government has some very valid points as well.]

  53. 08hayabusa Says:

    I believe we are getting closer. That article drew me closer to understanding our founding fathers than all my previous studies in American history. All I can say is bravo.

  54. BuckeyeTexan Says:

    “Ed. Send them my way then. I am too busy to waste my time on searching for a publisher. I don’t believe any serious Pub house would dare publish my stuff.]”

    I have three specific publishers in mind: one who specializes in historical narratives, another in presidential biographies, and another in historical law texts. I will send them your way. I hope you will seriously entertain the idea.

    BTW, Watkins Publishing of London published in 2007 “The Secret Founding of America: The Real Story of Freemasons, Puritans & The Battle for The New World” by Nicholas Hagger. The subject matter of that book and the author’s conclusions are far more controversial than anything you’ve written or concluded and not nearly as well evidenced as your work. I don’t say that to denigrate the author. I offer it as proof that a “serious publishing house” will certainly consider (and enthusiastically pursue, IMHO) your work.

    I call “dibs” on a first printing, first edition, signed copy! ;-p

    [Ed. I would be happy to speak with any of them, especially about doing something on our discovery about Chester Arthur. That changed American history.]

  55. JP-research Says:

    The following is a description of the final workings of the Constitutional Convention as the finishing touches were being applied within a small committee.

    From Charles C. Thach, The Creation of the Presidency, (1923):

    Page 137
    One part of the committee’s report, it should be noted, was entirely new, namely, that part which required the chief magistrate to be a natural-born citizen of the United States, or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the convention. Its inclusion seems to have been determined by a letter from Jay to Washington – he may have written to others – in which he wrote as follows:

    Permit me to hint whether it would not 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 Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen. [Footnote: Jay to Washington, July 25, 1787; see Farrand’s Records of the Federal Convention, 1911, vol. iii, p. 61]

    The name of von Steuben is not mentioned, but there can be little doubt that it was he, ‘alieni appetens, sui profusus,’ with his sympathies for the followers of Shay, and his evidently suspected dealings with Prince Henry of Prussia, whom Jay had in mind when he penned these words. The silent insertion of the clause in a committee where matters could be managed quietly tends to confirm the conjecture. [Footnote: Apparently von Steuben was not a citizen of the United States and so was not exempted by the proviso exempting persons already citizens.]

    Definition of “alieni appetens, sui profusus”: greedy of others’ property, wasting his own.
    from: A Concise Law Dictionary of Words, Phrases, and Maxims, Stimson & Voorhees, 1911

  56. The argument that Obama was not born in the United States, if successful, would be big news.

    The push to have the Supreme Court define “natural born citizen”, if successful, would also be big news.

    However, both of those miss the major Constitutional requirement established by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment; to be a citizen of the United States:

    Amendment XIV of the Constitution states:

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

    In order for Obama to be declared a citizen of the United States, he must satisfy the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. Obama does not!

    It is undisputed that Obama was not born “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” regardless of where he was born and is not now, nor has he ever been, a citizen of the United States. There is no record that he became a naturalized citizen, the only classification of citizenship that has ever been available to Obama.

    It is not necessary for the Supreme Court to define the meaning of natural born citizen stated in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.

    It is an easily understood fact that a person who was never a citizen of the United States, cannot be a natural born citizen and is therefore ineligible to serve as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the American Army!

  57. Every member of the electoral college was contacted before and again directly after the election. It was requested that they inform us who vetted and determined Obamas’ eligibility. The responses and the return receipts received after the election were forwarded to Mario Apuzzo, by the members of Democratic Disaster.
    Not one elector admitted vetting Obama, most said it was not their responsibility, and that the DNC vetted him, others said the Sec of State allowed him to run and that made him eligible. In CA the response we received was that the responsible party was Pelosi and they sent us the form signed by Pelosi. But I suppose none of this is important if this is not a political question. Beyond the letters of inquiry sent by Democratic Disaster members it appears that no one has, formally, asked the question “who vetted Obama?” And to date no one has stated that they vetted him.
    According to Diane Feinstein he is eligible because he is a 14th amendment citizen, ditto for Boxer. But neither responded to the question as to who vetted him, or how they determined that he was a 14th amendment citizen.

  58. @Starbeau

    Actually Obama falls under section 305 of the INA if he was born in Hawaii.

    Sec. 305. [8 U.S.C. 1405] A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 5, 2009 at 8:30 a.m.,
    defendants Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Robert
    Gates and Joseph Biden will bring on for hearing the within Motion
    to Dismiss, before the Honorable David O. Carter”

    Wonder why DOJ is filing motion for Michelle? She is not elected to any office.

    [Ed. I see no precedent for the DOJ filing for her. I don’t understand that.]

  60. Curiouser and Curiouser

    “•The DNC drafted, signed and notarized TWO slightly different versions of their Official Certification of Nomination documents, not one.
    •One of those documents had complete legal language, and one of them was missing the text concerning the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama.
    •The version which is absent any certification of constitutional standing for the office of President is the version that was filed with every state in the country, and the one used by the DNC to elect Barack Obama President.”


  61. To: Dr. Bobbi Anne white

    Apparently a misreading of the order which “refers” the issue of discovery back to Judge Nakazato.

    The Big Boo

  62. Joe The Blogger Says:


    Perhaps the DOJ is acting for Michele Obama, because she is in jeopardy of being evicted from her ‘home’ at The White House. It is ironic, that she is a natural born Citizen.

  63. Voco Indubium Says:

    RE: “Expedited discovery”… in the Taitz & Kreep,… “Judge David O. Carter has granted “Expedited discovery” in California ”

    This is big news if true. Found nothing on Google News.

    Can anyone provide confirmation?


  64. RE: “[Ed. Orly and I have buried the hatchet… ”

    Best news for a long time.

    Hope she will amend the complaint. Please let us know when that happens.

  65. RE: Current Taitz & Kreep CA case

    Apparently, Judge Carter forced the two cases to join. However, Orly and Kreep have different interpretation of eligibility. So, they have to present an amended complaint together, agreed and signed by both attorneys, or the court will consider the two complains separately and hear it jointly only when parts of the two complaints match?

    [Ed. I don’t believe that is the case.]

  66. It says in the order by Judge Carter (signed 9/8/09) that the court “encourages the parties to begin discovery before the conference day (10/05)

    I am not an attorney, but it seems that Judge Carter has in mind to order discovery.

  67. DEMOCrat


    ILLEGAL ALIEN, mombassa kenya


    Public E-Petition:


  68. Thomas Jefferson to J.Cartwright 1824
    (It)Our Revolution….presented us an album on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no occasion to search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or to investigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry. We appealed to those(laws) of nature…

  69. In an earlier posts on what a natural born citizen is or is not, the argument was all based on one’s status and relationship or loyalty status at the time of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. The argument only included those involved in the “American Revolution”.
    The inherent flaw is this argument on natural born citizen is due to the fact that many of the debaters on this do not or cannot account for the inherent status and natural legitimacy of people who were/are classified as Native Americans and Indians and those people mainly from the Negroid race who were enslaved.
    In spite of the “good” and “patriotic” intentions of these debaters please note that your argument and its lawfulness will not of any merit of achieving true and real justice unless you are able to include and justify how Native Americans, Indians and Negroid Americans are also natural born citizens.

  70. Mr. Donofrio, why do you think that the powers-that-be will not simply ignore Miss Tickly’s request, just as they have ignored everyone else to date?

    Just because the Hawaiian Revised Statutes say they must respond, or just because the U.S. Constitution stipulates that no one except a natural born Citizen is eligible for the office of President, who will enforce the law? They ignore you, they laugh at you as crazies, they indict you for some picayune reason like “domestic terrorism,” and then they bury you on page I-74.

    “We’re not in your daddy’s United States of America any more, Dodo.”

    [Ed. They have responded and their responses trigger the statute. Also, the judiciary will be involved soon enough. Much more to come.]

  71. msgr wrote:
    “Let’s all hope I’m wrong and Orly will save the day. But forgive me if I don’t hold my breath. The defense forgetting to respond in July? Multiple filing errors to prolong this ordeal. Far better cases shot down in milliseconds around the country, and hers gets heard because of the one judge? [Is] America to see the importance of this issue? And yet, no expedition? We are still going to yawn and let things play out without quick resolution? Didn’t the defense have enough time in the past year to look these things over? But the DOJ is involved? And they were unaware of this issue, even though given all the information months ago by concerned citizens? No. Don’t put your guard down. The kill is coming.”

    I agree; the kill is coming. The new Barack Obama BC, printed by a 1960’s-era Heidelberg offset printer in Toronto, must be sufficiently UV-cured now to pass a sympathetic forensics examination. The absence of the Perkins and Coie lawyers from the defense table in Judge Carter’s courtroom is a sure tipoff that the new BC is ready.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: