Capt. Pamela Barnett speaks with The Post & Email

GIVES EXCLUSIVE PRE-TRIAL INTERVIEW WITH JOHN CHARLTON

by John Charlton

© 2009 The Post & Email

(Oct. 5, 2009) — Today Dr. Orly Taitz, esq., will stand before the bench of federal Judge David O. Carter, to plead the right to a hearing on behalf of her clients in the case Captain Pamela Barnett et. al. vs. Obama et. al.

The motion hearing to consider the defense’s claim that the plaintiffs’ action should be dismissed ,will be heard in Federal Court this morning, in Santa Ana, California.

For all who have followed this case’s long docket history — it was originally entitled Keyes et. al. vs. Obama et. al., — it has been a long, nearly 9 month wait.

In August the lead plaintiff in the case was changed to Captain Barnett; ever since there has been much interest in getting to know this courageous Army Captain & woman, whose name will be forever tied to this legal counter-attack by American patriots against the tyrannical usurpation of the U.S. Presidency by the Chicago Mob.

I requested an interview with Captain Barnet some weeks ago, and am publishing it verbatim without editing just before the trial, so that all who are interested in knowing something about the personal story behind her defense of the Constitution, can understand better her motives and patriotism.

News agencies which wish to quote from this interview must receive copyright release from The Post & Email, by sending an email to me at the address on our About page.

This entire interview is Copyrighted under the laws of the United States, no reproduction in any form is permitted, neither in text, voice, or other media.

All bloggers take notice! This applies to you, even if you would have wanted to cite it.  Release is only given to Dr. Orly Taitz’s website, if she desires; as courtesy for the favor of obtaining this interview. Bloggers can summarize in their own words, no citations allowed.  Please do give a link, so as to allow your readers to hear what Captain Barnett says.

——————-

The Post & Email’s Interview with Captain Pamela Barnett, U.S. Army, Ret.

MR. CHARLTON: It is a double honor to have the opportunity to interview you, Captain Barnett; first because you are a plaintiff in a legal action to protect this nation from the crime of usurpation — that of the highest office in the land — and second for your service to the country, in the U.S. Military.  Many of the readers of The Post & Email are familiar with the basics of Dr. Orly Taitz’s action, Barnett et. al. vs. Obama et al., but before I begin our interview, can you tell me something about who Captain Pamela Barnett is, and something about your military service to our great nation?

CPT. BARNETT: First of all, I would like to say that I am thankful for the opportunity as a retired Army Captain to defend the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it promises to all Americans in the legal action CPT Pamela Barnett v. Barack Hussein Obama et al.  I want to assure any reader of this interview that this is purely a legal action to get to the truth of whether Obama is a legal President under the U.S. Constitution.

I enlisted in the Army in 1990 and became a military journalist/photographer and deployed twice to Southwest Asia on various missions.  I was awarded an active duty scholarship to finish my bachelor degree in Business and earn my military officer commission.  As an officer, I have served in Military Intelligence, Public Affairs, and command positions.

I have always been an inquisitive person and began to investigate Obama’s eligibility when I had read about Philip Berg’s lawsuit against Obama in September, 2008.  The more I researched Obama the more evidence I found (more than 300 pages) that his Constitutional Qualifications (particularly the natural born citizen requirement), were never vetted by anyone in an official capacity.  My year of research has revealed that Congress has Never vetted Obama, Secretaries of State and county election commissions have Never vetted Obama, and the Democrat National Committee has Never vetted Obama.

MR. CHARLTON: For those unfamiliar with the case, can you summarize the chief claims of the plaintiffs, regarding the injustice they have suffered and the necessity of a court action?

CPT. BARNETT: Speaking for myself, I have not been satisfied that Obama meets the Constitutional Qualification of Article 2, 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.” My extensive research reveals that Obama does not meet the natural born citizen requirement.   This is why I am suing Obama.

The majority of plaintiffs are military veterans that swore and oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  For commissioned military officers this oath is forever unless we resign our commissions.  Retired officers and enlisted members still fall under the regulations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice; therefore, we are forever subject to recall to active duty and are obligated to report crimes that fall under the UCMJ.  As acting Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces Obama wages war on behalf of the United States and administers the laws of the UCMJ under Article 140.  If he is an unlawful CINC, then any order he issues is unlawful and any military member cannot follow an unlawful military order.

Our lawsuit against Obama is to force discovery of Obama’s vital documents that have NEVER been revealed to the citizens of this country, and have a court rule on whether he meets the qualification of Natural Born Citizen as our founding fathers would have defined it.  We have had to do this federal court action because of the massive failure of our election system, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, and the military to evaluate the Constitutional qualifications of Obama as well as his alleged fraud crimes.

The Plaintiffs and our attorney, Orly Taitz Esq., have contacted key members of Congress, the Military, the DOJ, and SCOTUS and made them aware of the facts surrounding Obama’s potential lack of eligibility and alleged fraud crimes, and have asked for investigation into what we believe to be the Usurpation of the office of the President.  Up until this point no one has investigated this serious matter so hopefully now we should have standing in Federal Court.  To deny us standing to adjudicate our grave concerns would be to deny our Constitutional rights.

MR. CHARLTON: Initially, this case was named Keyes vs. Obama; why did the name of the case change?

CPT. BARNETT: I have never asked Attorney Taitz why she had done this, but I think she feels that military members may have the best chance of obtaining standing in court.

MR. CHARLTON: Can you tell me when you signed on as a plaintiff in Barnett vs. Obama, and why?

CPT. BARNETT: As soon as Attorney Taitz started expanding the original plaintiff list of Keyes v. Obama, I asked to be included as a plaintiff.  By the way,  I was also a plaintiff on Lightfoot v. Bowen which was filed after Congress confirmed Obama,* but before he was sworn in.  This case was denied a hearing by California Superior Court and then denied a hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court.

MR. CHARLTON: Many citizens are asking on blogs and forums, why is it this case took so long to be heard? Can you explain something about this to us who are not lawyers, and are not familiar with the legal system’s process?

CPT. BARNETT: For our case Orly had served Obama for his actions before he became POTUS.  After months of waiting for a summary judgment, Attorney Taitz was able to get a court date to hear her request for a summary judgment.  The judge did not agree on the manner of service by the plaintiffs, but then allowed Attorney Taitz to re-serve Obama which added another 60 days.

For the other lawsuits, the wheels of justice really do turn extremely slowly as I have found out.  There have been approximately 30 cases related to Obama’s eligibility and not one case has been allowed to go to trial on the merits and not one judge has allowed any of the plaintiffs to have discovery of Obama’s birth and other records that could show him to be a British and or Indonesian citizen well into his college years if not until today.  Phillip Berg, a lifelong Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter filed his first lawsuit against Obama over a year ago.  The courts had denied him standing just like all of the other plaintiffs that have attempted to sue Obama or agencies that should have vetted Obama.    One judge had the audacity to say that Obama’s eligibility had been blogged and “twittered” to death.  Since when are twitters and blogs allowed as evidence in a court of law?

MR. CHARLTON: Were you present in court on Sept. 8, 2009, before Judge Carter?

CPT. BARNETT: No, I was not able to be present.

MR. CHARLTON: What is your impression of the character of Judge David O. Carter?

CPT. BARNETT: According to our attorney Orly Taitz, Esq. and court transcripts, Judge Carter, as a Marine veteran, realized the importance of our lawsuit and alluded to wanting to get to the truth of the matter.  Up until this point, Judge Carter seems to be the only judge to be brought an Obama-eligibility lawsuit that takes his oath to uphold the Constitution seriously.

MR. CHARLTON: What is your sense of the accuracy of reporting in the Main Stream Media, regarding your case?

CPT. BARNETT: The problem with the media in general is that they wanted Obama to win the election and helped him by not exposing the eligibility issue until after Obama was sworn in.  The media continue to be puppets of the Obama administration by regurgitating whatever Obama’s administration says instead of investigating to find out the truth.

Not surprisingly, Obama maniacs from MSNBC and CNN waved around Obama’s forged (according to affidavit filed with court) Hawaii Certification of Live Birth as proof that he was born in Hawaii when the state of Hawaii Never verified that document as being authentic.  There were obvious problems with the Certification of Live Birth documents the Obama camp posted on the internet.  One of the versions did not have the required Hawaii seal and the other one had the wrong seal for the year it was issued.  This is why we need full disclosure of all Hawaii birth documents and policies and procedures.

None of these “news” broadcasters ever investigated the claims that the document is a forgery, or that Hawaii allows for registration of foreign births, delayed births or births only declared by one person without any corroborated facts.  Also, of course the media did not research how our founding fathers would define a Natural Born Citizen.  The media is as ignorant on the definition of natural born citizen as members of Congress who swore an oath to defend the Constitution have proven to be.

The most fair interview I saw was Lou Dobbs interviewing Orly and Alan Keyes.  I am deeply disappointed in Fox News for never broaching the subject seriously when they have two attorneys as talking heads and a frequent Constitutional attorney as a guest.

Instead of being the watch dogs of our government, the media has become the lap dogs of the DNC and the Obama Whitehouse.  This helped to bring us to a point in our country where I believe we have an unlawful POTUS.

MR. CHARLTON: What are the facts that often get omitted or distorted by the press, regarding your case?

CPT. BARNETT: Polarizing racist commentators have tried to label “birthers” as racists.  Ambassador Alan Keyes, our most prestigious, well-known plaintiff is African American.  We also have other plaintiffs of color.  Race is a non-issue. Another big distortion is that the media has no idea of what a natural born citizen is, nor do they care to report the truth.  They repeatedly trumpet that Obama is a “citizen”, completely ignoring the Constitutional qualification of needing to be a Natural Born Citizen.  I have a letter from Senator Diane Feinstein that says Obama is a citizen, but fails to call him a Natural Born Citizen.  Feinstein references the 14th Amendment even though the term Natural Born Citizen is not once mentioned in the Amendment.

MR. CHARLTON: Can you tell the readers something about what America means to you, and what is your notion of patriotism?

CPT. BARNETT: God, America and my family are everything to me.  I can tell you how I feel about America by quoting a Kuwaiti woman whom I met in 1991.  After the United States had freed Kuwait from the Saddam Hussein dictatorship, I was invited to dinner at a Kuwaiti’s home.  I was astonished by the great wealth in the household and I told the young wife, “You are so lucky.  You have such beautiful things.”

She replied to me, “You are the lucky one.  You are free.”  I instantly got a lump in my stomach and got a tear to my eye.  I was very naïve about the rest of the world up until then.

That’s what America is to me – Freedom from oppression, freedom to worship how you like, freedom to make a family with a person of your choosing.  I regret that I lost touch with this woman, but she forever opened my eyes to how important freedom is, and America represents that to me and to the rest of the world as well.

MR. CHARLTON: What does it mean to serve the U.S.A. in the armed forces?  What kind of woman or man ought to consider this?

CPT. BARNETT: It was an honor to serve in the military.  The greatest honor is to be entrusted with the care of American soldiers.  I miss it greatly, but God has other plans for me now.  The love of my fellow soldiers and my country pushes me on to get to the truth of Obama’s eligibility.  I will refrain from saying much else on whether someone should consider the military at this point in time.

MR. CHARLTON: On the other hand kind of man or woman, should the President of the United States of America be, as Commander-in-Chief?

CPT. BARNETT: A person loyal to our country exclusively (not a citizen of the world), a person who will honor the Constitution and defend it to his or her death, and a person of great moral fortitude that also has the wisdom to surround himself with others of great moral fortitude.  If you have these qualities you would be able to carry out the duties of the POTUS and CINC and be able to honor you sworn oath to keep the greatest nation in history strong by protecting the God given rights of each individual citizen of the United States and forever representing a beacon of freedom to the rest of the world.

MR. CHARLTON: What kind of diligence ought the chain of command have for acknowledging legitimate orders, and questioning illegitimate ones?

CPT. BARNETT: Military officers take an oath to only follow lawful orders.  An officer following unlawful orders would be subject to punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Military officers operating outside the United States would not assuredly have the protections of the Geneva Convention operating under an illegitimate Commander-in-Chief.  For example, American soldiers in Afghanistan could possibly be charged with war crimes because they were following the unlawful orders of a Usurper Commander-in-Chief.

MR. CHARLTON: How important to the nation is the “natural born citizen” clause in Article II, Section i, paragraph 5, of the U.S. Constitution?

CPT. BARNETT: I think that is extremely important in ensuring a Commander in Chief only has loyalties to the United States.

Loyalty to the United States and the Constitution dwarfs any other POTUS qualifications.  Our lawsuit asks for the court to evaluate whether Obama would be considered a natural born citizen when according to Obama he was the son of a Kenyan and born with British citizenship and he was also the adopted son of an Indonesian man Lo Lo Soetoro, (according to Ann Dunham, Soetoro divorce records).  Obama has personally been involved in both Kenyan and Indonesian politics as a Senator which potentially go against the Logan Act.

MR. CHARLTON: Who is Barack Hussein Obama?  What kind of a man does he seem to be, in your opinion?

CPT. BARNETT: With a case pending against Obama I will only say that he is suspiciously secretive.

MR. CHARLTON: What is your view on the current national crisis; is it grave; are we in the greatest danger we have ever been as a nation since the Civil War?

CPT. BARNETT: In my opinion our nation is facing the greatest danger since the Civil War.  It is not just because there is a possible Usurper in the Whitehouse; it is also that Congress, state officials, courts and the Department of Justice have failed to safeguard the Constitution and are infringing on citizen’s rights like never before.

MR. CHARLTON: What can average American Citizens do on their own, to respond to this national crisis?

CPT. BARNETT: It seems as if the U.S. Congress and the DOJ don’t care to do anything about the crisis, but it looks as if some citizens are making inroads within their state governments.  There are a couple different states investigating whether Obama should have been on the ballot in the first place.

MR. CHARLTON: How can those who are interested in helping the plaintiffs in Barnett vs. Obama, help out?

CPT. BARNETT: Prayers of protection for those seeking the truth about Obama’s eligibility and prayers that all truths will be revealed and justice will be done.  Also, donations to Orly’s Defend our Freedoms Foundation, because she is doing the case pro bono and incurs a lot of expenses that need to be covered.  Her website is www.orlytaitzesq.com where you can make a donation to her PayPal account. Supporters can also gather at the court house in Santa Ana for the hearing tomorrow morning, Oct. 5.

MR. CHARLTON: Is there anything you wish to add?

CPT. BARNETT: My eyes have been opened greatly to the injustices done to our Constitution by Congress as a whole and by activist judges that create laws that go directly against our Constitution.

I have become more thoughtful of others that have suffered injustices under our legal systems as my own rights have been denied as a military officer and a citizen wanting to defend our Constitution.  I have also become keenly aware of a deep corruption within our government and its systems.  Being a plaintiff in Barnett v. Obama is my contribution toward trying to honor my oath to defend the Constitution.

It has been a very long tiring journey, I pray that on Monday Judge Carter will allow our case to proceed and grant us immediate discovery of all of Obama’s records.

———-

FOOTNOTES:

* CPT Barnett has asked the following note to be added (10/07/2009):” Lightfoot v. Bowen was originally filed under Turner v. Bowen in November, 2008.”

———-

© 2009 The Post & Email:  all rights reserved, internationally.