If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

Welcome Back!


by John Charlton

(Oct. 8, 2009) — Seeing that federal Judge David O. Carter, by his Minute Order has indicated that the case Captain Pamela Barnett et al. vs. Barack Hussein Obama et al. is to go forward, it would be very useful to consider in detail the legal arguments contained in the actual complaint or pleadings submitted on behalf of the Plaintiffs, so as to understand better what is to be expected to be argued, contested, and revealed in future court appearances.

But more importantly, since this case contains momentous and monumental issues, which if the case goes forward, will cut to the very foundation of the political status quo of the Nation,  it is important to have a clear understanding of what the Plaintiffs in this case are seeking.

Dr. Ory Taitz, esq., lead counsel for the Plaintiffs, submitted a First Amended Complaint in on July, 14, 2009.   This replaced the older version which was filed in on January 19th, the day before Barack Obama, by the ceremony of inauguration, usurped of the office of President of the United States, by intruding into that office without meeting the most important requirement of Article II, Section i, paragraph 5, of the U.S. Constitution: that a candidate be a “natural born citizen.”

The Nature of the Complaint

Attorney Taitz explains, right at the beginning, that she is seeking a declaratory judgment within the meaning of Title 28, of the U.S. Code, to require Obama to prove that he is a natural born citizen:

Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to seek, above all, a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201-2202, deciding whether Defendant Barack Hussein Obama can show by clear and convincing evidence that he is a natural born citizen of the United States of America within the meaning of Article II, Section I of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore whether he is qualified, or unqualified, for the position which he has held, de facto if not de jure since January 20, 2009.

Title 28, Part VI, Chapter 151, Sections 2201-2202, regard Declaratory Judgments.  The U.S. Code reads thus:

§ 2201. Creation of remedy

(a) In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, . . . any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such.

§ 2202. Further relief

Further necessary or proper relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted, after reasonable notice and hearing, against any adverse party whose rights have been determined by such judgment

Hence Attorney Taitz is seeking a form of relief equivalent in force to a quo warranto action; but which formally is not principally a request for quo warranto.

The Four Subordinated Requests made in the Complaint

Dr. Taitz then lists the subordinated and secondary requests of the complaint. The the first of which regards the Military plaintiffs and those who were candidates for Federal Office on the California Ballot:

The Plaintiffs are all American citizens, the majority with military service backgrounds (retired or inactive but subject to recall), a number of former and possible or prospective political candidates, including a number of state legislators and third-party candidates for President and Vice-President. Above all, these citizens seek an answer to the simple question of constitutional qualifications, but they also seek a declaratory judgment confirming their fundamental civil or constitutional right to ask and know the constitutional qualifications of any person elected or appointed to public office in the United States of America.

The second subordinate request is for injunctive relief, until the lawful holding of office is established by the Plantiffs, to prevent their unlawful use of the powers of their offices:

Additionally, however, the Plaintiffs herein seek injunctive relief against all four office-holding defendants to limit their powers to order new deployments or assignments of any armed forces of the United States outside of the territorial limits of the United States without express Congressional approval, and further to limit the execution of certain orders of the President of the United States relating to the conduct of foreign policy by and through the use of currently deployed and assigned military force, as well as the appointment of judges or justices and the ratification or modification of treaties during the pendency of this lawsuit until and unless Defendant Barack Hussein Obama’s constitutional qualifications are established in this court by clear-and-convincing evidence.

The third subordinate request is one of quo warranto to forestall Obama from the unlawful appointment of Federal Judges, Attorneys General, Supreme Court vacancies, and actions pertaining to the office of Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Military:

Specifically, but without limitation, Plaintiffs ask this Court to enter a declaratory judgment in or per quo warranto concerning the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Vice-President and President of the Senate, to enjoin the appointment and/or senatorial confirmation of new Article III (lifetime tenure!) federal judges or justices and meanwhile to enter a Preliminary Injunction against the exercise of certain critical constitutional functions by the de facto President during the determination of this action in or per quo warranto, namely (1) the appointment of any person to serve as the US attorney for the District of Columbia and (2) appointment and the confirmation of any person as a new Supreme Court Justice to replace retiring Mr. Justice David Souter until eligibility/legitimacy of Mr. Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro for the position of the president of the United States and (3) a Preliminary Injunction against new deployments or assignments of armed forces to sensitive and volatile areas of the world such as the Near and Middle East, Persian Gulf, West Central Asian, Western Himalayan, or Indian Ocean areas until the constitutional qualifications of the Commander-in-Chief can established by clear-and-convincing evidence as a matter of constitutional law.

Finally, the fourth subordinated request is a determination of criminal activity by the Defendants:

Finally, the Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment from this court determining whether certain crimes of fraud relating to identity or fraudulent use of sensitive individually identifying information (such as social security numbers or selective service applications) have been committed and concealed by some of the defendants, acting jointly or severally whether or not in formal conspiracy, which would constitute predicate acts of racketeering within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq., and thus whether the Presidency of the United States, in 2008, was procured by and through a pattern of racketeer influenced and corruptly organized activities. Injunctive relief concerning such activities will also be sought, although the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint does not include any prayer for damages although the Plaintiffs reserve their right further to amend their pleadings as this case progresses, especially once FOIA disclosures and discovery begins.

The Controversy that Exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants

Then, after explaining arguments regarding standing and jurisdiction, Dr. Taitz explains in detail the controversy existing between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants:

An actual controversy exists between the Plaintiffs and the defendants concerning the civil and statutory rights of the people as established under the First Amendment and Freedom of Information Act, among other sources, to demand clear and convincing evidence of the Constitutional Qualifications of their elected officials and of the executive officers, agents, judges, and ambassadors appointed by, or the treaties and executive orders and agreements, who or which may have been appointed or issued by or entered into by the Chief Executive Officer (President) of the United States in particular.

The 10 Questions asked of the Court

And then requests a trial by jury to answer 10 legal questions pertaining to this controversy:

Question 1: How are the eligibility for election as President and inauguration to the presidency of the United States of America to be determined pursuant to Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America?

Question 2: What are the role and what are the Federal Constitutional Duties of the chief executives or departments of state and/or vital statistics in each of the several states in the union to provide or require original vital records of a candidate for any elective office established by the United States Constitution, when such records are constitutionally required to verify his eligibility for the position sought?

Question 3: Does concealment and obfuscation of all such vital records as may or might be necessary for the public evaluation and/or official ascertainment of eligibility for election to or exercise of office under the United States Constitution, if and when effected by the use of as many as 150 alternate multiple names, addresses, and/or as many as 25 social security numbers [all in possible violation of 42 U.S.C. §408(a)(7)(B)], and further under the special circumstances where and when done by or on behalf of a candidate or later holder of a Federal position, violate the Constitutional duties of a holder of a position of public trust in Federal Government and does such conduct constitute either a constitutional or statutory disqualification to hold such office if it were found in this court to constitute a violation of either 18 U.S.C. §§242, 1001, 18 U.S.C. s1346, or 42 U.S.C.§408(a)(7)(B) or any other criminal or quasi-criminal statutes?

Question 4: What was the meaning and the Article II, Section 1, ¶5 eligibility definition of a “Natural Born citizen” provision and requirement for the Position of the President and Commander-in-Chief as it was written in the Constitution and was there any legal change in this definition?

Question 5: Does the Constitution permit any person to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief who owes split allegiance to both the United States of America and any other country or countries?

Question 6: Do the Article III Courts of the United States established by the Constitution and authorized by Congress, have the power, and should this United States District Court for the Central District of California exercise the power, to issue writs in or per quo warranto in the name of the United States against the Defendant President of the United States and Cabinet Members, and any other high officers or persons against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military?

Question 7: Do the people and electors of the President of the United States have standing to seek issuance from this Court by way of Original Action and Complaint or Application a writ in or per quo warranto, in the name of the United States, against the President of the United States, Cabinet Members, and any other high officers or persons against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military?

Question 8: Do either Article IV, §4, or the First and Ninth Amendments to the United States Constitution, guarantee to the people of the United States the Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances in any court established under Article III of the Constitution) where such grievances relate to the qualifications of persons to be elected or to serve as President of the United States, and to demand strict and valid proof thereof, according to the Federal Rules of Evidence?

Question 9: Are the executive orders and agreements, executive appointments to terms of lifetime tenure (such as Article III judicial appointments), of a President later proved to have been incurably constitutionally ineligible at the time of his election and inauguration void ab initio or merely voidable? If his executive orders and other official acts are void ab initio or merely voidable, how may the people seek direct and immediate relief from these orders if not through the remedy of declaratory judgment to seek to have these illegal orders “voided” by and through their First Amendment right to Petition for Redress of Grievances in the judicial branch?

Question 10: What sources should be used in support of authoritative construction of the language of the United States Constitution, aside from the statutory law of the United States as enacted by Congress pursuant to the Constitution and the opinions of the Supreme Court, especially when addressing questions of first impression such as those raised in this complaint?

The Natural Born Citizen Requirement & Its importance

Next, Dr. Taitz addresses the fundamental issue of the “natural born citizen” requirement:

Plaintiffs ask this Court to declare and adjudge that the framers of the constitution used, and that this Court must therefore apply in this case of first impression, the definition of the Natural Born Citizen contained in “The Law of Nations or, Principles of the Law of Nature, applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns” by the Swiss philosopher and jurist Emmerich De Vattel:

“…natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owns to its own preservation: and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will only be the place of his birth, and not his country”. The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

And then gives reasons on which basis she asks the Court to apply this definition as binding:

De Vattel’s treatise existed at the time of the creation of the Constitution, as it was published in 1757 and was readily available to the framers.

Emmerich de Vattel’s was widely quoted by the framers of the constitution, for example, by Hamilton, Jay, and Madison “Publius” in the Federalist Papers.

His book provides an exact and contemporaneous definition for the term used “Natural Born Citizen.”

De Vattel fully corresponds to the well-known statements by the framers of the Constitution.

The Vattel definition was used as a basis for the Senate resolution 511 of 2008, when Senator McCain was found to be a Natural Born Citizen, based on the fact that he was born in the zone of the Panama canal, US territory at a time and both of his parents were US citizens.

Apparently during the Constitutional Convention, John Jay wrote on July 25, 1787 to George Washington:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise or reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of National government; and to declare expressly that the commander-in-chief of the American Army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen”

In explaining the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, a principal framer of the 14th amendment, which redefined citizenship under the Constitution, John Armor Bingham explained that the phrase referred to “every human being born in the jurisdiction of the United States to parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”. (Emphasis added).

How Obama fails to Qualify according to this Requirement

Then Attorney Taitz brings up the British citizenship problem:

As Obama’s East African father owed (by reason of his birth and as a matter of international law) allegiance to British crown (whether or not he professed any), Obama was not a Natural born citizen and does not qualify for presidency. Dual Nationality is a rather new concept that did not exist at the time of creation of the Constitution and Plaintiffs submit that the definition used and the contemporaneous statements of the framers show a desire to exclude from the group of Natural Born Citizens anyone, with allegiance to other sovereignties at birth.

The Necessity of being granted Hearing

Attorney Taitz lists at length a variety of cases and actions attempted by citizens to see that this requirement is observed, and explains how they have been met with stonewalling or rejection by politicians and courts, in various states and jurisdictions.  She concludes that their response has be unjust and insufficient.

She then argues that the Plaintiffs have a right to see that this requirement is upheld and verified by the Court:

Plaintiffs submit and contend that the people have a civil right or series of rights, actionable in equity under 42 U.S.C. §1983, to demand that their elected officials prove their constitutional qualifications to hold office by clear-and-convincing evidence, and to petition for redress of grievances concerning well-founded doubts concerning their elected officials’ competence or eligibility for the offices which they seek or have obtained.

And that the Court has the authority to take appropriate measures:

This Court has the power to conduct hearings or make referrals to determine the exact contours of such extension of common and statutory laws consistent with the constitution in order to (A) conduct an accounting of Barack Hussein Obama’s conduct as a candidate for President of the United States, (C) establish the truth of Defendant’s qualification or lack of qualification to serve as President by clear-and-convincing evidence, and (D) to investigate all other matters related to Count I of Plaintiffs’ Original (January 20, 2009) Complaint.

Regarding Obama’s actions prior to usurpation:

Plaintiffs re-emphasize that they seek relief against Barack Hussein Obama only in regard to his conduct occurring or issues accruing prior to his inauguration on January 20, 2009. Plaintiffs’ FOIA and 1983 actions concern only conduct and actions conducted under colour of law by Obama as a private individual running for President of the United States, i.e., his “personnel” file, insofar as this reflects on his qualifications to hold and authority to “faithfully execute” the office of President of the United States.

And she concludes the complaint with this formal request, which summarizes its requests:

For all of the above-and-foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs pray that this court will enter final judgment against Defendant Barack Hussein Obama pursuant to 5 U.S.C §552, 28 U.S.C. §2201-2202, and 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1988(a). This Court should issue an order to Barack Hussein Obama to show cause why the full measure of relief requested by the Plaintiffs in this case should not be granted, and should in particular order that the contours of the final judgment under 42 U.S.C. §1988(a), including the extension or modification of common and statutory law to protect the civil rights of the people of the United States to demand clear-and-convincing evidence of the constitutional qualifications, eligibility, and competence of their elected (as well as their non-elected) officials, representatives, and executive agents.

Join the Conversation

No comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. It is such a shame that so many previous cases were improperly dismissed by the Federal courts. The Constitution clearly states that all Federal courts have jurisdiction over constitutional issues, and case law shows that any person adversely affected (anyone) has standing, but for strange reasons (partisanship or “Dead Fish” threats) the judges have dismissed cases due to lack of standing or jurisdiction.

    Candidates for office MUST PROVE that they are eligible for those offices. McCain ponied up the proof, but Obama hid it, and Nancy Pelosi was OK with that. There has been obvious harm (Obama usurping the Presidency), the required proof is Obama’s lack of proof, and the jurisdiction is over the individual, not the office. The only way this thing is getting dismissed is if the judge receives a dead fish in the mail. But then what would that say? That the citizens have no right to know that a person meets the legal requirements for the office they seek or hold? Then what’s the point of such legal requirements?

  2. I’m slowly piecing this story together thanks to your most excellent site.

    Is Obama being held to any of these aforementioned requests, namely those under injunctive relief?

    Only wondered if that is why Obama hasn’t made any commitment regarding Afganistan.

  3. For the record, my computer is blocked from directly accessing Orly’s website (I don’t understand why, but I do heed warnings that might damage my computer); I have found several reliable websites and blogs such as yours where I can confirm email rumors, and the like.
    BTW, my mother fought with General Patton and I don’t think she’d appreciate her general’s creative remarks to plagarized in this context.
    Mr. Charlton replies: If you use firefox, there is some kind of change that you need to make to allow access; maybe another commenter can suggest what needs to be done, on different platforms. — The American Defenders at Bastogne were not under Pattons direct command at the time. He was sent do “rescue” them.

  4. I like it. The people do have a right to a fair hearing of our grievances. So far we have not had such a hearing. We have a right to know for a fact whether or not our President and Commander-in-Chief is qualified under our Constitution. All we are asking for is fair play–that Obama play by the rules.