Spread the love


by Sharon Rondeau

Debra Bowen, "chief elections officer" for the state of California

(May 12, 2010) — On May 10, 2010, Capt. Pamela Barnett (Ret.) filed a lawsuit against Debra Bowen, current California Secretary of State, on the grounds that Bowen has allowed an ineligible candidate to have his name placed on the ballot for the November 2010 election.

The website detailing Bowen’s duties as Secretary of State reads, in part:  “Secretary Bowen is also responsible for helping to carry out election laws and campaign disclosure requirements by maintaining a statewide database of registered voters, certifying the official lists of candidates for each election, tracking and certifying ballot initiatives, compiling election returns, and certifying the election results for all state and federal contests.”

Captain Barnett is the Northern campaign manager for Dr. Orly Taitz, who filed several cases in California and Washington, DC asking the courts to hear evidence against Barack Hussein Obama II’s eligibility to serve as president under Article II, Section1 of the U.S. Constitution.   Taitz is now a candidate for Secretary of State on the Republican ticket.

In an interview with Captain Barnett today, she discussed the framework of her case and the results she hopes to realize from it.

MRS. RONDEAU: When did you first consider filing a lawsuit against the named parties, and are they aware of the suit at this point?

CAPT. BARNETT: I decided to sue last week when I realized that Debra Bowen would allow unqualified (according to California election law) Damon Dunn to remain on the ballot after multiple complaints from me and others.  I do not know if they are aware yet, but I plan on having them serviced tomorrow.

MRS. RONDEAU: Why is Dunn ineligible to run for Secretary of State?

CAPT. BARNETT: Dunn broke Federal Election law on his voter registration form when he excluded previous addresses where he was registered to vote, thereby rendering it an illegitimate registration.  Because of that and when he received his nomination paperwork, he does not meet California election codes to legally be on the ballot.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you know when the case will be scheduled for a hearing or any preliminary actions?

CAPT. BARNETT: I’m not sure.

MRS. RONDEAU: What type of remedy are you seeking?

CAPT. BARNETT: I am seeking to have Damon Dunn, Republican Candidate for CA Secretary of State; Debra Bowen, current CA Secretary of State; and Edmund G. Brown taken off both the primary and general election ballots.  I am also seeking to have the AG’s office invesitgate Obama’s online forged certifications of live birth.  Hopefully this would lead to criminal prosecution.

MRS. RONDEAU: Does the lawsuit get to the heart of the eligibility of Damon Dunn?

CAPTAIN BARNETT: Yes, the lawsuit clearly points out that Dunn is not legally qualified to be on the Republican ballot for Secretary of State.  The evidence is overwhelming at this point, but there is even more to come at trial.  The evidence will prove him to be ineligible and the Secretary of State would be breaking the law to allow Dunn to stay on the ballot.  By supporting fraud she would be committing fraud and would also be liable for damages to Orly Taitz for causing her to deplete her campaign contributions to run against an ineligible candidate.  My goal is to have Dunn removed from the primary ballot.

MRS. RONDEAU: How does the eligibility or lack thereof of Obama figure into your case?

CAPTAIN BARNETT: I am demanding that the AG investigate the who, what, where, when, why and how of Obama’s forged online birth certificates.  By having the forgeries confirmed by the CA AG office, I would believe they would be entitled to see a real certification of live birth if it exists.  Of course I would love to have the CA AG office thoroughly investigate Obama’s ineligibility and the fraud around it by filing a  RICO lawsuit to see how deep the rabbit hole goes.  In a just United States of America,  the RICO case would be done and the AG would file a lawsuit to to rescind California’s electoral votes because of Obama’s fraud.

MRS. RONDEAU: In which district was the case filed, and who is the judge (or do you know yet)?

CAPT. BARNETT: California Superior Court.  No judge has been assigned yet.

MRS. RONDEAU: Who is your attorney, or are you acting pro se?  Right now I am Pro Se, but I might see if a civil rights attorney is interested in my case in the future.

MRS. RONDEAU: Are you the only plaintiff, or are there others?

CAPT. BARNETT: Because it is pro se, there are no other plaintiffs.

MRS. RONDEAU: Where does Bowen v. Lightfoot stand now?

CAPT. BARNETT: Lightfoot v. Bowen is long kicked out by SCOTUS after the case mysteriously disappeared from the SCOTUS online docket.  However, Captain Pamela Barnett et al v. Obama is on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A statement made by Dr. Orly Taitz on the allegations against Dunn can be found here.

Join the Conversation


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. This is pretty simple to see through. Bowen want to have a Democrat (Dunn) run against a Republican (Dr. Taitz) so if Dunn wins, then there will be TWO DEMOCRATS running against each other. Duh!

    Girl Reporter

  2. I’m fond if his courage to take this case up in the first place, but disappointed with his lack of understanding when it comes to Obama’s ineligibility. If he integrates Obama’s lack of eligibility due to only being born unto a “Parent” who is a citizen, and not “Parents” (as preceded to being a requirement for Natural Born Citizenship within multiple SCOTUS cases), then he would not only pull a victory for CA, but for the country, given he is found to have Standing, and his case is heard.

  3. Dear Supporter of LTC Terry Lakin,

    The Army has now officially scheduled a formal hearing its case against Terry, who is being court-martialled by the Army for refusing to obey orders to deploy to Afghanistan because the President refuses –even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary– to prove his eligibility under the Constitution to hold office.

    The hearing will be held on June 11, 2010 at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. at 9:00 a.m. in room 134 of Building T-2. All proceedings are open to the media and public.

    The court martial process, which begins with the military’s equivalent of a preliminary hearing in a civilian criminal court, known as an “Article 32 Investigation” (referring to the provision found in that section in the Uniform Code of Military Justice) was commenced on May 3, 2010, when LTC Lakin was notified that the Art. 32 hearing would take place May 6, 2010. Lakin’s civilian lawyer, Paul Rolf Jensen, immediately requested a continuance to June 11, 2010, and this request has been granted. Assisting Jensen in his defense of Lakin is a very experienced senior member of the Army’s Judge Advocate General’s corps.

    Your past generosity had enabled us to hire counsel and to prepare for the hearing, and we thank you so very much for your support. But you need to know that we continue to need your help to pay for witnesses to travel to Washington for this hearing (one of whom will be retired Major General Paul Vallely, who has spoken out publicly in support of Lakin!)

    We implore you to again stand with LTC Lakin who has put his very freedom on the line by inviting his own court martial in order to expose the corruption in our political system which has allowed our Constitution to be ignored, debased and disrespected.

    LTC Lakin, if convicted, will go to prison at Ft. Leavenworth for a very long time. You can continue to help prevent that by sending your most generous tax-deductible contribution to the American Patriot Foundation’s Legal Defense Fund. You can do so by either visiting our website at http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com, or by mailing your check, payable “American Patriot Foundation” to us at 1101 Thirtieth Street, N.W., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20007.

    If you saw the interview last week that LTC Lakin and his civilian counsel, Paul Jensen, gave to CNN, then you are in good company. More than 200,000 people have watched it on youtube alone! While it was tough to go on a program where the questions were as hostile as we expected them to be, LTC Lakin was completely unafraid, and if anything, this helped prepare him for the cross examination he will face at trial.

    Once again, we are so grateful to you for standing with LTC Lakin both in the past and going forward; thanks and God bless.


    1. Reply to American Patriot Foundation
      I questioned Jenson’s motive when he accepted Qeen Cooper’s invitation.This is a criminal trial. I would think good counsel would advise Lakin to keep quite..shut up…don’t say a word. What was he thinking when he agreed to perform in CNN’s circus act? Why would he throw Lt. Lakin to the CNN rabid wolves? Has he lost his mind? Or Is he just as stupid as he appeared during the interview? AMP stated, “the questions were as hostile as we expected them to be,…” I beg to differ, & you must agree, Lt. Lakin as well as Jensen were dumbfounded with Cooper’s hostility. Why? How? What did he expect from lamestream lick BO’s shoes media? Especially from BO’s favorite teabagger? I can go on & on; but, for the sake of brevity I won’t.
      I smell more than one rat in this woodpile.

    2. AMF,
      I hope LTC Lakin is much more prepared than he was during the CNN slaughter. He needs better counsel for a criminal trial; otherwise, he’ll be eaten alive by BO’s Chicago thugs.
      BO has spend approximately 2 million dollars (tax payer dollars) to 5 separate law firms to seal all records.
      Not 5 lawyers; 5 individual law firms! I also noted in the update, witnesses might need a bit of financial help to cover travel expenses? Uh. Again, this is a criminal trial; therefore, the presiding judge will act upon defense counsel’s request to supoena any/all witnessess. If they don’t show up an arrest warrant will be issued. This isn’t just a courtesty call.

    3. If matters continue as they are, there will soon be an all out revolution in this nation, millions are already extremely well prepared and very willing to fight to restore Constitutional law and make our nation great again. The courts and Congress are trashier than cheap hookers.

      1. John

        There is something in the air. I can’t confirm what’s cooking; but, the water is very hot & starting to boil. The Chicago thugs, the cheap hookers, and the rest of the trash in OUR house may run; but, they can’t hide!

  4. “I am demanding that the AG investigate the who, what, where, when, why and how of Obama’s forged online birth certificates. By having the forgeries confirmed by the CA AG office…” This statement concerns me as CA’s AG (Jerry Brown) would not pursue the truth behind the BC as he’s in bed with BO. Is the AG of the state where the buck stops?

  5. Interesting but a waste of time.

    There is no longer any judiciary fairness in America when it comes to Democrats/Progressives breaking election laws.

    Obama and his people have the judiciary under their thumb. Kagan will become a member of SCOTUS and so it goes.

    1. Mike : Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and many others realized that only rifles can eliminate tyranny. That’s a lesson we must remember.


    I implore all that read this to make a FOI request of your Secretary of State regarding how they determined BHO was qualified to be on your states election ballot.


    1. Agreed, their flank is their liability. They do not want the treason firing squad and wrath of 320 million people for the usurper who throws everyone under the bus sooner or later.

    2. Just how do we hold the SoS in our respective states accountable? I am curious. In the state I live in, Presidential candidates sign a sworn statement that they are “constitutionally qualified”. They can however be tried and convicted of perjury if it is determined they knowingly made a false statement. Interestingly, Obama did not submit his statement until one day before the deadline. So not to draw attention to himself? Likely.

      The election laws here in no way explicitly make it the responsibility of the SoS to actually validate the veracity of the statement. A big hole that can only be closed via new legislature or maybe through a citizen initiated referendum. The Democrat Party has a solid majority in both chambers here so such legislation would not likely get out of the starting gate. There is a little known law though by which an elector or group of electors can challenge a candidate’s eligibility on the election ballot. If the Usurper has not been disposed of by 2012, and he decides to run for re-election, hopefully enough of us will pull together and challenge his eligibility as soon as submits his declaration to the SoS.

      It is my understanding that there are several states that have a similar process. If there is a way to hold a SoS accountable under existing laws I would love to hear about it. Steve Pidgeon tried this in WA State and his case was dismissed for lack of standing. Seems like the same was tried in NH or CT as well. Donofrio’s first case in NJ was also along the same lines.

      Not trying to sound pessimistic, just realistic based on what the law is in various states.