ASKS TO FILE QUO WARRANTO AGAINST BARACK OBAMA
News Summary by Harry Hunter
(Jan. 27, 2010) — On Jan. 25, Dr. Orly Taitz petitioned the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for permission to question the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to be president. She filed a “Motion for Leave of Court to file Quo Warranto,” listing herself as plaintiff and Obama as respondent.
Congress long ago provided a way to simply ask of an officeholder, “By what warrant (right) do you hold office?” Since Barack Hussein Obama has never established as a fact that he is a citizen of the United States, much less a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution, and since he has made every effort to conceal actual relevant records while staking his presidency on a possibly forged digital image of a secondary birth document posted on the internet, it would seem that Taitz has every right to ask that the court verify Obama’s eligibility.
In her motion, Taitz first deals with the question of jurisdiction: “The court has jurisdiction under DC statute Sections 16-3501—16-3503 . . . and the case revolves around the Federal Question of eligibility of the President under Quo Warranto.” Attorneys Leo C. Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo have dealt extensively with quo warranto at their respective websites here and here. Donofrio has subsequently sequestered his older blogs.
Taitz’s description of the respondent in this case is a brief summary of the eligibility questions surrounding our putative president:
Respondent – Barack Hussein Obama, hereinafter “Obama”, President of the United States and Commander in Chief, who refused to present in any court of law or to the public any legally acceptable vital records that would prove his eligibility for US presidency based on Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution, as one born in the United States to two citizen parents without allegiance to any other sovereignties. As described in the Law of Nations Emer De Vatttel, Vol 1, Chapter 19, §212. From birth and until now Mr. Obama had citizenship of and allegiance to three other nations: Great Britain, Kenya and Indonesia.
Not the First Time
Interestingly, this is not Orly Taitz’s first attempt to file a quo warranto petition. Under the heading “Background of the Case,” she informs the court that “Taitz has filed both with the Attorney General Eric Holder and the US Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor and his successor Channing Phillips a request for Quo Warranto in March and April of 2009 respectively. Exhibits 5,6, copies of the Certified Mail receipts, showing that those were received.” Taylor resigned – possibly influenced by this issue – and neither Holder nor Phillips even bothered to reply in all the months since then.
Under “Questions Presented,” Orly Taitz covers ground that is all too familiar to patriots who have followed the eligibility issue over the past year and a half. (Note that Taitz speaks a number of languages and that English is not her native tongue. Her readers sometimes need to make allowance for slight variations from standard idiom.) Taitz first questions proof of Obama’s birthplace:
Considering Obama’s first cousin Raela Odinga, Prime Minister of Kenya, sealed alleged records of Obama’s birth in Mombasa; while the State of Hawaii holds Obama’s “original” sealed birth records, allows registration of births out of State, allows registration based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence and seals original birth records.
Among the many other questions Taitz wants the court to consider, this one seems to be the key to the Pandora’s Box of our usurper-president: “ Does birth to or adoption by a non-citizen father or mother incur foreign allegiance sufficient to negate being a ‘natural born citizen’ and disqualify a candidate from becoming President?” For the sake of simplicity and clarity, one might wish that “adoption” had been omitted here. Adoption does bear on Obama’s legal name, which Taitz treats separately, but the absolute barrier to Obama’s eligibility for president is that his Kenyan father was a British citizen, a fact – not a conspiracy theory – which made Obama a British citizen at birth.
The State of Hawaii, Again…
Orly Taitz is not noted for brevity, and her Jan. 25 Motion is not brief. She even includes the role of the State of Hawaii in concealing Obama’s birth records, questioning whether Hawaii has violated the Constitution by obstructing the people’s right to a legitimate election and the right of Congress to vet a President-elect. She also points out that “The state of Hawaii statute 338-5 allows one to get a birth certificate based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborative evidence from any hospital.”
Taitz also raises questions about evidence of Obama’s possible foreign allegiance, “such as campaigning for a candidate in a foreign election, or traveling on a foreign passport.” Then there is the question of Obama’s Social Security number(s):
Most egregious is the fact that the respondent has used for most of his life in Somerville Massachusetts, Chicago, Illinois and currently in the White House SSN XXX-XX-4425, which was issued in the state of Connecticut between 1976-1979 and assigned to an individual born in 1890, who would have been 120 years old, if he would be alive today. Respondent never resided in the state of Connecticut and he is clearly not 120 years old.
As to what relief Orly Taitz is seeking, she wants the court to do the following:
- Issue a writ of Quo Warranto against Obama to ascertain his eligibility for office.
- Order an evidentiary hearing on Obama’s possible fraud, identity theft, and Social Security fraud.
- Request that the Commissioner of Social Security explain Obama’s use of a social security number issued to someone born in 1890.
- Request that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton release the birth certificate Obama used to obtain a U.S. passport. [This could be impossible, since the passport files have been compromised. Besides, Obama might never have had a U.S. passport until he became a U.S. senator. Senators automatically get a passport, no questions asked.]
- Grant Taitz financial relief for her expenses in pursuing the issue of Obama’s illegitimacy and for emotional stress caused by “an orchestrated effort by this administration to stop her, to silence her.”
strunk files motion to intervene in USDC-DC 10-151 Taitz v Obama
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26214034/NOTICE-OF-MOTION-with-Strunk-w-Affidavit-and-Exs-in-Support-of-Intervention-in-Taitz-v-Obama-DCD-10-Cv-00151-RCL-013010
The 14th Amendment was written to allow the slaves born on American soil to become U.S. citizens (following the civil war).
The words of this Amendment are wrongly assumed to confer natural born citizenship. But the Author of the 14th Amendment (Senator John A Bingham) clearly stated otherwise. In an address to Congress that
” any human being born on U.S. soil to parents owing no allegiance to any foreign power is, in the language of the Consitution itself, a natural born citizen… ”
Clearly, the 14th Amendment only confers citizenship, but NOT natural born citizenship. According to the 14th Amendment (and its author) …. the allegiance of the parents was a primary requisite to natural born citizenship… along with place of birth and in addition to it.
Thus a native born person would be a citizen, but a native born person born to two citizens would then be a natural born citizen….. and ONLY this class of citizens is eligible to be President (meeting age and residency requirements also).
Clearly then, by his own admission, Barack Obama does NOT meet one of the primary requirements to be a “natural born citizen” of the USA.
And thus, he is CLEARLY NOT qualified to seek and hold the office of President. Pity that no court sees and understands this and will take up the issue.
Which, means the We the People must not give up the quest for proof.
perhaps no more anchor babies will be the outcome of this entire affair, slaves were NOT anchor babies and 14th Amendment allowed them to natural born citizens — real US citizens deprived of their equal constitutional protection by factional citizenship scheme.
Again, the former slaves and their children were in fact natural born citizens empowered to be POTUS/CINC, non-slave anchor babies were not 14th amendment material.
finally, if no anchor babies being automatic citizens, should/would the prior anchor baby “citizens” be grand-fathered US citizens or have their US citizenship revoked or give an new different temporary status.
—————
Mr. Charlton replies: Though the institution of hereditary slavery is contrary to the natural law, nevertheless citizenship in fact is regulated by positive human law; so one cannot say that prior to the 14th amendment slaves and their children were natural born citizens; but rather that according to the natural law they deserved to be recognized as such. The 14th amendment sanatized a legal tradition which presupposed the injustice of race slavery; a form of slavery unknow in Roman Law and condemned by the Roman Pontiff in the latter half of the 16th century, but which spread under the economic enticements of slave labor and the Dutch slave trade, which was enormously lucrative. Succeeding decades of such practice created in common law a notion of slave holding which went from being illicit, to de facto, to a customary right, to being enacted into many of the early laws of each colony.
The 14th Amendment, therefore, is squarely in the tradition of Constitutional principles, since our nation was founded in such a manner that common law of England was corrected by the institution of natural law principles which would take precedent to the errant parts of common law. And race slavery’s recognition in early colonial and US law was based on such errant common law.
the pre-civil war / pre 14th amendment constitutional scheme made the slaves and children of slaves really fractional (not equal) natural born citizens and left moot the issue of a slave being eligible to be POTUS/CINC. The civil war and the 14th Amendment answered the defict for slaves and the children of slaves. The war and the 14th amendment were not faught and legislated for anchor-babies.
My fear is that Judge Lamberth will say Orly has no standing.
It’s simple;
1. His father was a Kenyan (no question about this)
2. In 1961 Kenya was under British rule (this is a simple fact)
3. In 1961 all male British Subjects came under the British Nationality Act of 1948 (this states that all children born to British Subjects while overseas will be born British Subjects at birth. This is a British law dealing with British Subjects and can not be overridden by American law, being that his father was never an American Citizen & never applied for American Citizenship, nor wanted to be nationalized)
4. Article 2. Section 1. paragraph 5. of our Great Constitution has never been amended or changed in anyway and still requires the status of Natural Born American Citizen be required of any American President. (Natural born = born of BLOOD & SOIL – That is the BLOOD of both parents being American Citizens at the time of your birth and that birth on American SOIL. We know for a FACT that his father was NOT an American Citizen at the time of Barack Hussein Obams Jr.s birth thus no American Citizen BLOOD on his father’s side and we have never been provided with any prof that he was born on American SOIL, the Hawaiian COLB does not substantiate this fact. Alone the simple fact his father was never an American Citizen negates BHO’s ability to ever be considered a Natural Born American Citizen)
This is all the information any reasonable American needs to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the man sleeping in our White House is a Foreign Usurper and all those that were behind putting him there are Traitors, Un American, and are participating is a Communist coup to take over our Great Country by deceit and trickery.
Wake Up America – The TRUTH is right in front of your eyes!
Well said! I would add a couple of points.
1. Those who believe that being born on US soil is all that matters need to look up the definition of “native-born”. They will find that it matches their incorrect definition of “natural born citizen”, which they believe is simply being born on US soil, and not the correct definition which is born on US soil and of the full blood (two citizen parents) of the nation.
2. It was not enough that presidents be natural born citizens — they also had to be 35 and have lived in the US the last 14 years. Why this 14-year residency requirement? Our Founding Fathers understood that foreign influence came not only from birthplace and birthparents, but also from the exposure from having lived in a foreign country.
Why did you delete my question? I’m a birther, but the years in the piece don’t make sense. The ssn was issued in 1976-1979, to a person born in 1890? I just want you to get the numbers straight so that ObaMaoBots don’t go off on a tangent.
—————-
Mr. Charlton replies: Delquattro you ask a question that a lot of Obots ask, because Obots ask — pardon my language — stupid questions to misdirect patriots.
Not everyone gets a SSN at birth; infact nearly nobody used to. I got mine when I turned 18. When the SS Act was introduced, obviously (I think in the 40’s) those born in the 1890’s probably started to get one. So use a little common sense, please…!
So obviously if someone born in the 1890’s got on in the 50’s and died in the 60’s in Hawaii, then someone (Madelyn Payne Dunham), working with county records, could steal that SSN and used it for her grandson. That’s the implication in several filings, filed by Dr. Taitz at least.
The implication has this significance: SSNs are not reissued to other persons. Mobsters and KGB and criminals use SSNs of the dead. To get a SSN you had to show a BC; if Obama was not born in the USA, perhaps that explains why he had to steal a SSN from a US Citizen, and has been using such all his life.
I suspect ACORN also mis-used SSN#s involvin HUD affordable housing programs and I suspect also the US Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac .
But first I suggest Orly in her USDC-DC 10-151 case “Taitz v Obama” keep an eye on the related case (USDC-NYED 09-4888 “ACORN v US”) ACORN suing US (us) to injoin/ bar the federal (and state/local) goverment from banning further ACORN funding.
ACORN hired the former Mass AG to “investigate” itself and provide its own umpire — see:
http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/08/acorn-whitewash-acorn-report-is-dishonest-legal-hair-splitting/
1:10-cv-00151-RCL TAITZ v. OBAMA
Royce C. Lamberth, presiding
Date filed: 01/27/2010
Date of last filing: 01/27/2010
Case Summary
Office: Washington, DC Filed: 01/27/2010
Jury Demand: None Demand:
Nature of Suit: 890 Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant Disposition:
County: 88888 Terminated:
Origin: 1 Reopened:
Lead Case: None
Related Case: 1:09-mc-00346-RCL Other Court Case: None
Def Custody Status:
Flags: PROSE-NP, TYPE-F
Plaintiff: ORLY TAITZ
Defendant: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
Natural born citizen party,
Your handle brings a question to mind.
Is there a political party in the US that stands up for the Natural Born Citizen requirement?
And I mean all the time, not just when there might be a question about a republican?
perhaps, but under slightly different if similar circumstance and participants
As the Feds would say, if he has nothing to hide what is the problem giving the information freely, maybe he thinks a lawyer is needed before speaking to authorities. Maybe his reluctance is due to not knowing any good ones.
reported docket 10-151-cv (not yet on PACER)
John;
your article stated; “staking his presidency on a possibly forged digital image of a secondary birth document posted on the internet”
The image posted on The DailyKos, Fight the Smears, and FactCheck are forgeries.
My site has all the evidence, including e-mails from the State of Hawaii, that clearly proves that the FactCheck document is a forgery.
—————-
Mr. Charlton replies: Snyc, I did not write above article, Harry did; so I do not know to what you are refering; but thanks for the notice about your debunking of the COLB images:
Readers take note: http://nobarack08.wordpress.com