2008-03-29 – Orly Taizt – James v Obama – Part 1 March 29, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Born in Kenya, Certification of Live Birth, Indonesian Passport, James v. Obama, Lack of Hospital records, Lawyers, Legal Remedies, Myths, Name change, Orly Taitz, Pakistan, Quo Warranto, Subject to the jurisdiction thereof.trackback
Comment: A fascinating collection of previously shown flawed claims, arguments and assertions. Not surprisingly they have still made it in the next filing of Orly. My prediction: As with Holder, the DOJ will ignore her and Orly will call for the resignation of yet another Federal Officer. This is a work in progress in which I intend to address all the claims made. As others, who are much more informed that I, have pointed out, Orly has filed a court case in DC without proper local representation. That’s going to be interesting to see. In addition, the document contains several spelling errors such as Vatall and errors of fact such as “fn. 192 Hollister v. Soetoro, 2d Cir. D.C. Cir. No. 1:08-cv-02254-JR, Motion to Dismiss Jan 26, 2009.” Contrary to the citation “Hollister was neither in the Second Circuit nor the District of Columbia Circuit”, it was in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Sloppy researcha and proof-reading.
1No. _______________
In The
United States District Court, District of Columbia
In re
ALLEN C. JAMES, US Army, active duty
RAYMOND REFITT, Commander, Submarine, US Navy
HARRY RILEY, Colonel, US Army, Silver Star Recipient
ALLEN C. JAMES, US Army, active duty in Iraq
CHARLES E. MILLER, Lt. Col. US Air Force
TIMOTHY KENNEY, Citadel Instructor, US Marine Corps veteran, Virginia Army National Guard
RALPH JENKINS, Capt. Marine Corps
ERIC SWAFFORD, State Representative from Tennessee
CYNTHIA DAVIS, State Representative from Missouri
LARRY RAPPAPORT, State Representative from New Hampshire
Petitioners/Relators
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, a/k/a BARRY SOETORO, President, USA;
LINDA LINGLE, as Governor of the State of Hawai’i; &
HILLARY CLINTON, as Secretary of State, USA.
Respondents
Motion for Leave to File Writ of Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama II, President of the U.S.A., and Writs of Mandamus on Hawai’i Governor Linda Lingle, to provide evidence, and on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to provide and request evidence from the United Kingdom, and Republics of Kenya, Indonesia, and Pakistan.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1 What is a President elect’s or President’s deadline, burden and standard of proof, to prove his qualifications, under Quo Warranto, by U.S. CONSTITUTION’S article II § 2 and amendment XX § 3, by statutes, and by ethical duties?2 Whether the Presidential qualification of “natural born citizen” over “citizen” requires sole U.S. allegiance by birth to two U.S. citizens within the U.S.A.’s jurisdiction and without foreign allegiance, to choose a Commander in Chief with undivided loyalty in time of war and to preserve the Republic from tyranny.
3 Whether birth to an alien father irreparably negates being a “natural born citizen,” or whether foreign allegiance by birth, adoption, or naturalization, incur foreign allegiance, to constitutionally disqualify a President elect.
4 Would a President elect have failed to qualify by neglecting, obstructing, or contesting constitutional duties to challenge, validate, and evaluate evidence of qualifications of identity, age, residency, and natural born citizenship, or by breaching ethical disclosure duties, by withholding or sealing records by privacy?
5 Would misprision(s) by Federal officers, bound by oath, fail to qualify a President Elect, by neglecting to challenge, validate, evaluate, or declare his qualification or failure, after citizens related information challenging those qualifications, via petitions for redress of grievance, or by law suits?
6 Whether a State withholding original birth records by privacy laws obstructs constitutional duties of the People to vote, and of officers to challenge, validate, and evaluate qualifications of presidential candidates, and of the President Elect.
7 Whether, after attaining one’s suffrage, actions showing continued allegiance to a nationality of one’s minority, evidence foreign allegiance sufficient to disqualify a President elect, by having failed to maintain undivided loyalty to the U.S.A..
8 Do candidates for office disqualify themselves if they seek office under a birth name different from a name by adoption, having not provided election officers prima facie evidence of legal name changes, or neglecting to legally change names?
9 Whether the Constitution grants officers or citizens access to uphold its inviolability and supremacy, including by quo warranto, against misprision and charismatic negligence.
PARTIES
Comment: Where is Scott Easterling?
ALLEN C. JAMES, US Army, active duty in Iraq
RAYMOND REFITT, Commander, Submarine, US Navy (Comment: Retired)
HARRY RILEY, Colonel, US Army (Comment: Retired)
CHARLES E. MILLER, Lt. Col. US Air Force (Comment: Retired)
TIMOTHY KENNEY, Citadel Instructor, US Marine Corps veteran, Virginia Army National Guard (Comment: Status?)
RALPH H. JENKINS, Cpt US Marine Corps (Comment: Status?)
ERICK SWAFFORD, State representative from Tennessee,
CYNTHIA DAVIS, State Representative from Missouri
LARRY RAPPAPORT, State Representative from New Hampshire
Petitioners/Relators
v.BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, a/k/a BARRY SOETORO, as President
The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500 USALINDA LINGLE, as Governor of the State of Hawai’i
Governor’s Office, State Capitol,
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813 USAHILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, as Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State, 2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520 USA
RespondentsMOTIONS
1. Quo Warranto: Petitioners/Relators move to bring information that Barack Hussein Obama II, a/k/a Barry Soetoro (herein “Obama”), is usurping the office of President, and to request a writ of Quo Warranto, demanding that Obama show clear title, by proving that as President elect he had qualified, by giving clear and convincing evidence thereof to Federal officers, per Art. II, § 1 & Amend. XX, § 3.
2. Jury Trial: Relators request a jury trial to determine the facts on President Elect Obama’s qualifications; his foreign allegiances to and influences by Britain, and the Republics of Kenya, and Indonesia; and what evidence he provided Federal officers for clear and convincing proofs of his father’s and mother’s citizenship(s) at his birth; his birthplace, birth date, U.S. residency duration, and legal name.
3. Mandamus: In arguendo of Obama’s burden of proof, for the United States ex rel., Relators request leave for this Court to issue a writ of mandamus on the Governor of Hawai’i, Linda Lingle, for the State of Hawaii to provide evidence regarding Respondent Obama’s constitutional qualifications, to protect the People’s sovereign right to constitutional protections, and to a President with clear title.
4. Mandamus: In arguendo of Obama’s burden of proof, for the United States ex rel., Relators request leave for this Court to issue a writ of mandamus on the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, to appoint an independent Commissioner for the Department of State to provide evidence regarding Obama’s constitutional qualifications, and to request such evidence from the United Kingdom, and the Republics of Kenya, Indonesia, and Pakistan.
SUMMARY
1. Relators bring these motions for quo warranto, mandamus and jury trial based on public evidence that President elect Obama had failed to qualify.
Comment: Begging the question. No convincing public evidence exists that President Obama has failed to qualify. In fact, the simple fact that Obama did qualify in front of the voters, the States, the Electoral College and Congress indicates that President Obama qualified as defined under the 20th Amendment of the United States. In fact, it was argued when discussing the 1876–1877 electoral college crisis in the US Senate that Quo Warranto proceedings against an elected president were impossible because of the separation of powers and the impact of such a position on the ability of a President to effectively perform his duties.
No Quo Warranto proceedings against a President: Senate 1877
It follows from this that if an election of President or the right of an individual to the office of President can be contested in a judicial court of the United States, that contest must be begun in one of the courts inferior to the Supreme Court, and can only reach that court by Congress conferring upon it appellate jurisdiction from the decision of the inferior court. And furthermore, it follows, as the inferior courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever except such as Congress may confer upon them by law, that whether they should have jurisdiction in such a case or not would depend wholly npou the will of Congress, and therefore it would be just as one Congress might decide or as another Congress might decide whether there should be this judicial contest at all. Was it intended that the title to the office of President of the United States should depend upon a contest in a court, which contest itself is wholly dependent upon the fluctuating opinions of Congress? One Congress might pass a law clothing the Supreme Court of the United States with power to entertain a quo warranto in such a contest, and just when that contest was at its height, and before any decision had been rendered upon it, the next Congress might repeal the law conferring the jurisdiction. Was any such thing as that ever intended by the framers of the Constitution? It seems to me not. It would be a very extraordinary constitution that would thus leave it to the fluctuating will of Congress whether or not if the first place there should be any judicial cognizance of the question at all, and if the next place that would allow Congress one day to provide for this judicial cognizance and the next day or the next week repeal the law that gave the court jurisdiction.
Mr. Thurman: The Senator’s question seems plausible, but it is not satisfactory at all. What I say is that, from the very nature of the thing, it never could have been intended that the title to the office of Chief Magistrate of this nation should be subject to any such fluctuation as that. The idea of the framers of the Constitution was that that question should be settled, settled at once and settled forever, and that it was better for the peace of the country that it should even be settled erroneously than that it should remain unsettled. It never was intended that the President should be in the exercise ie facto, in virtue of the count made before the two houses, of the office of President of the United States, and at the same time that his right to that office should be a subject of contest in the courts. And how strangely would it work.
Suppose a contest of the office of President; suppose the case that has been supposed by the Sena-tor from Vermont, that one man is declared ; iu strict pursuance of the Constitution, to be President of the United States ; of course then he is inaugurated; and then a contest is begun by quo warranto in a circuit court of the United States. I say nothing now about how long it would take to decide that controversy, because if a quo warranto could be brought in one case and for one reason, it could be brought for any reason that would vitiate au election. I will suppose a quo warranto to be begun in the circuit court; that circuit court renders a decree ousting the President of his office; an appeal is taken to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court affirms the decision. How are you going to enforce it ? It is made the duty of the President to see that the laws are faithfully executed. How are you going to enforce that? The Supreme Court has no power to do it; it commands no army; it has no treasury. How can you enforce a judgment of ouster against the man who is de facto President of the United States and has the Army at his back ? Was it ever intended by our fathers that any such state of case as that should arise ? It seems to me certainly not.
Source: Counting Electoral Votes: Proceedings and Debates of Congress Relating to Counting the Electoral Votes for President and Vice-president of the United States By United States Congress, William McKendree Springer, George Willard, House Published by G.P.O., 1877
No Quo Warranto proceedings against a President: Legal treatise 1921
§ 468a. Writs of quo warranto in the District Courts. The better opinion is that the District Courts of the United States have original jurisdiction to grant the writ of quo warranto only when specifically authorized by statute; and that no writ of quo warranto can issue from them to try the title to the office of President of the United States. The District Courts of the United States have jurisdiction of all suits to recover possession of any office, except that of elector of President or Vice President, Representative in or Delegate to Congress, or member of a State legislature, authorized by law to be brought, wherein it appears that the sole question touching the title to such office arises out of the denial of the right to vote to any citizen offering to vote, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude: Provided, That such jurisdiction shall extend only so far as to determine the rights of the parties to such office by reason of the denial of the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and secured by any law, to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote in all the States.” * The Revised Statutes provide that “whenever any person holds office, except as a member of Congress or of some State legislature, contrary to the provisions of the third section of the fourteenth article of amendment of the Constitution, the district attorney for the district in which such person holds office shall proceed against him by writ of quo warranto, returnable to the Circuit or District Court of the United States in such district, and prosecute the same to the removal of such person from office..”8 This applied to persons disqualified from holding office by the Fourteenth Amendment, whose disabilities had not been removed.
Source: Roger Foster, Treatise on Federal Practice, Civil and Criminal, Including Practice in Bankruptcy, Admiralty, Patent Cases, Foreclosure of Railway Mortgages, Suits Upon Claims Against the United States: Proceedings Before the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, Callaghan & company, 1921
A. Burden, Deadline, & Standard of Proof
2. To show good title, by Quo Warranto, by U.S. CONSTITUTION amendment XX § 3, by statutes, and by ethical disclosure duties, Obama bears the burden of proof to show that he had qualified while President elect.
Comment: Begging the Question. The 20th Amendment places the burden to qualify the President in the hands of Congress.
3. Obama had to have submitted to Federal officers before inauguration, prima facie evidence of each of his legal name, age, US residency, and natural born US citizenship, including his birthplace and US citizenship of each parent.
Comment: No such requirements exist but assuming for the moment that such a requirement did exist, President Obama submitted his Certification of Live Birth, which is prima facie evidence of his location of birth. Since natural born status does not depend on the citizenship of his parents, and since he submitted his only known US legal name, it seems clear that this requirement was either non-existent or met.
4. To exercise the highest civil and military office, Obama should have met statutory criteria for transport pilots and military commanders.
Comment: A totally meaningless statement.
5. Obama should at least bear the “clear and convincing proof” civil standard in showing he had qualified before inauguration.
Comment: Again there is no supporting evidence that Obama had such a burden. In fact, by virtue of being elected by the Electoral College and qualified by Congress, Obama met all the legal requirements to be President.
6. He bears the ethical duty to have revealed both disqualifying and qualifying evidence.
Comment: There is no legal relevance to ‘ethical duties’ since such are not based on issues of law but rather subjective interpretations as to what some believe Obama should and should not do.
7. No Relator affects this burden by claiming title to the office of President.
Comment: I am not sure what this means.
B. Natural Born having Undivided Loyalty
8. To eliminate foreign influence, the Founders established the Electoral College and stringent presidential qualifications.
Comment: Statement of fact. Since the Founders did not explain nor define the term ‘natural born’, we have to resort to the common meaning and understanding of said term at the time the Constitution was written.
9. John Jay proposed “natural born citizen” as qualification for President over “citizen” for Senator and Representative.
Comment: Statement of fact. In order to understand how the term is to be interpreted, one has to look no further than US Common law principles which assign natural born citizenship to those born on US soil, with no reference to the nationality of the parents. See Elk v Wilkins and US v Wong Kim Ark.
10. The underlying constitutional principle is for the Commander in Chief to have only had undivided loyalty from birth with no foreign influence or allegiance.
Comment: Statement of fact but misleading. Being born to foreign parents in the US does not expose the child to foreign influence or allegiance. Certainly not until the child has reached adulthood and made a choice to continue his birthright citizenship. The only documented exceptions involve children born to diplomats who are not under influence or allegiance of the laws of the country in which they are born, and children born to invading military.
11. De Vatall’s definition of birth to two citizens (jus sanguinis) within the country (jus soli), unquestionably distinguishes the natural law fact of “natural born citizen,” from legislated civil status of “citizen.”
Comment: Sloppy and misleading, the correct name is Emerich de Vattel, not Vatall. Furthermore, de Vattel is one of the few arguing that natural born requires one to be born to two parents who are citizens. In fact, he does reference the English custom where location of birth provides citizenship but does not consider this, without further explanation or reasoning, to be a form of ‘naturalization’.
12. Constitution drafting sub-committee chairman Senator Charles Pinckney stated:
“A child born to an American mother and alien father could . . . never [be] entitled to be a natural-born citizen. . .”
Comment: Misquote: This appears to be a misquote. I tracked down the quote to the Federalist Blog which observes that
A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.
This is a conclusion by the writers of the blog. According to the same blog that Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.”
Or in complete context:
They well knew, that to give to the members of Congress a right to give votes in this election, or to decide upon them when given, was to destroy the independence of the Executive, and make him the creature of the Legislature. This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible. . . .
Source: The records of the Federal convention of 1787 “CCLXXXVIII. Charles Pinckney In The United States Senate” March 28, 1800, pp. 385-390.
13. 14th Amendment Framers affirmed this criteria for “natural born citizen.”
Comment: How can the 14th Amendment Framers affirm something that was not stated?
14. As candidate, Obama only declared that he qualified.
Comment: As required by some States. None raised any objections.
15. Obama posted an invalid redacted Hawai’ian “Certification of Live Birth” (COLB) on his website.
Comment: Misleading. Obama posted a scan of his COLB which was in some cases redacted but this does not affect the fact that the COLB is prima facie legal evidence.
16. This COLB failed U.S. State Dept.’s and Dept. Hawai’ian Homelands’ evidentiary requirements.
Comment: Misleading. The Hawaiian Homelands requires one to establish that ones parents were also Hawaiian born and thus a COLB is insufficient. However, one can still submit a COLB and the department will check the vault copy of the birth certificate.
