Eligibility Case Inexplicably Reassigned to Obama Appointee

BUT IS THE JUDGE DE FACTO OR DE JURE?  WHAT ABOUT OBAMA?

by Sharon Rondeau

(Mar. 8, 2011) — In December 2008, Capt. Pamela Barnett (U.S. Army-Ret.) filed a complaint with the office of California Secretary of State Debra Bowen prior to the meeting of the Electors of the Electoral College.  In the complaint, Barnett asked Bowen to delay the vote of the Electors pending an investigation of the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as President of the United States.  She also asked that the online “Certification of Live Birth” bearing Obama’s name be investigated for authenticity.

Capt. Barnett hand-delivered her complaint to the office of the secretary of state and personally observed the clerk stamp the document “Received.”

Barnett told The Post & Email that according to the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), Bowen’s office should have provided a response to her complaint within 60 days. However, she received nothing, and 14 months later filed a second complaint requesting an explanation for why she had received no response.

This time, she received a reply which stated that the Secretary of State was not responsible for vetting candidates and which Barnett reported did not address any of the fraud allegations regarding the Certification of Live Birth.  It was the same response she gave to the Keyes v. Bowen lawsuit.

Capt. Barnett became a plaintiff along with a number of state representatives, retired military, and several California electors in Barnett v. Obama, filed in July 2009, which named Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, as de facto president and requested a Quo Warranto action to determine his eligibility to serve.  A complete list of the case motions can be found here.  The case was docketed for a hearing with federal judge David O. Carter, a former Marine.

Barnett told The Post & Email that “Obama’s presidency isn’t legal according to the Supreme Court and other federal rulings and historical definitions which define a natural born Citizen as a person born to two American citizens.  Obama’s father was British and Obama has publicly stated that he was born British.”

Originally Judge Carter had stated that Obama’s constitutional eligibility needed to be determined and that there “would be no dismissals on procedural issues,”  Carter later reversed himself and dismissed Barnett v. Obama on October 29, 2009.  At the beginning of that month, he had hired a clerk from the law firm which had represented Obama in other lawsuits filed against him alleging his ineligibility.

As The Post & Email reported previously, on May 10, 2010, Barnett filed an entirely new lawsuit against Secretary of State Debra Bowen for allowing Damon Dunn’s name on the 2010 ballot for Secretary of State when he was not “legally qualified.”   The lawsuit also alleged that Obama’s Certification of Live Birth was forged and again asked for an investigation.  Page 5 of Barnett’s pro se complaint alleged that “Defendant Dunn had not been registered and enrolled/affiliated with the Republican Party of California, any State, and or National Republican Party affiliation for 12 months as of November 13, 2010,” which she claimed violated California state law.

In response to the lawsuit Keyes v. Bowen, Judge  Michael P. Kenny  stated, “Petitioners have not identified any authority requiring the Secretary of State to make an inquiry into or demand detailed proof of citizenship from Presidential candidates” (page 8).  Judge Kenny dismissed the case in May 2009.  It was appealed in March 2010.

Of that opinion, Barnett stated, “I totally disagree with it, because it’s against the law, and Debra Bowen swore an oath to defend the Constitution of California as a state officer.”  However, Barnett reported that it was “pretty much the response” she had expected and that she noticed a pattern developing.  “I knew that she wasn’t going to do anything unless she was forced to,” said Barnett.

According to Wikipedia, in 1968, Eldridge Cleaver ran for President on the Peace and Freedom Party ticket, but “was technically not eligible to run since he was only 34 years old at the time.”  Therefore, California’s then-secretary of state refused to place Cleaver’s name on the ballot, even after Cleaver filed a lawsuit which went to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Last year, the Connecticut Supreme Court deemed then-Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz  constitutionally ineligible to have her name included on the ballot for Attorney General because she did not meet the state’s requirements for the office.

An opinion piece from the Orange County Weekly reported that Orly Taitz had not checked the facts about Dunn’s voter registration, stating that Dunn had been registered as a Democrat when he lived in Florida and had subsequently allowed his voter registration to lapse.  However, Barnett told The Post & Email that also at issue was whether or not Dunn had been truthful when he answered the question, “Have you ever registered to vote before?” as “No.”  Capt. Barnett stated, “He had lied on his voter registration saying that he had never registered to vote before.  I complained to the Secretary of State’s office, which said they wouldn’t do anything about it because ‘it wasn’t proven that he did it maliciously.'”  Barnett stated that she notified the California Attorney General’s office about the falsified voter registration form but that they did not respond at all.

“That was the spark that made me decide to follow a lawsuit against her.  After she had failed to answer, I filed a criminal complaint on her to then-Attorney General Gerry Brown, also known as Edmund G. Brown. He didn’t do anything, either, regarding the criminal complaint; he didn’t even send me anything; no acknowledgment, nothing,” Barnett reported.

In her First Amended Complaint against Dunn, Barnett stated that the “California SOS” and the Department of Justice were “actively breaking” the law and asked that both Brown and Bowen be barred from the California ballot for the respective offices each sought.  However, both won their respective races.

Barnett said that she included a federal agency in the First Amended Complaint because “the state wasn’t safeguarding the voter registration data base in California by allowing people to lie.”  Barnett stated that the issue comes under HAVA and includes “any state that maintains a database, which is the majority of states.”

Because she named the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) as a defendant, the U.S. Department of Justice removed the case to federal court, which occurred in August 2010.  The case was assigned to Judge Damrell, a Clinton appointee.  Barnett explained,”In the federal court, you have a magistrate and the actual district judge.  When the Barnett v. Obama case was being heard by Carter, he gave part of it to a magistrate; that’s how the federal court system is set up.  They have magistrates who are not full judges and don’t have to be approved by the Senate.  But they have power to hear cases on evidence to free up time for the full district judges.

“My magistrate’s name was Drozd, and those two were assigned to my case.  I had filed for a motion because when Orange County answered my First Amended Complaint, they admitted to not following federal election law.  Their admission came through a statement that they’re following this arcane state law which basically states that they’re not concerned if somebody registers to vote in another state.  They’re only concerned if it’s California.”

When The Post & Email asked Barnett if the statement made by Orange County officials was accurate, she said, “The law  is still on the books, although it actually isn’t a law; it’s ‘administrative guidance.’  They were working under an administrative guidance policy from the 1960s or 70s.  All states utilizing voter registration databases were expected to be in compliance with HAVA by 2006, so the state of California was then obligated to follow the federal law.  It’s required to ensure that people registering to vote aren’t registered in other states.  That would nullify the administrative guidance policy.”

“Their admission was the equivalent to admitting that they were breaking federal law by following some obscure administrative guidance rule.  So I filed a motion to get declaratory judgment under a three-judge panel under civil rights law from 1973.  I had standing automatically, so I didn’t have to go through trying to get standing in the case.  It was already built in there.  Other rulings have made it so that you don’t have to be a minority to be the one to file; it’s in the Civil Rights code.”

Barnett stated that because the state of California was not following federal law, it was in effect creating its own voter registration law, which, according to HAVA, must be reviewed by the U.S. attorney general’s office to avoid discrimination against minorities and the state.  “Anytime you weaken somebody’s vote, it’s discriminatory to everybody, including minorities,” Barnett said.

The response from California’s attorney general indicated that only certain counties in California fall under the federal HAVA law.  To that contention, Barnett responded, “That’s nonsense.  If it were a local race such as a county superintendent or something, it wouldn’t matter, but when each county is voting for a state race, it affects every county, including those counties with heavy minorities.”

Barnett filed her request for declaratory judgment, and a hearing was held on October 22, 2010 with the magistrate assigned to the case.  However, Barnett contacted The Post & Email about a striking recent unexpected development:

About five or six weeks ago, out of nowhere, I got this letter from the chief judge stating that my case was being transferred to Kimberly J. Mueller, who is a recent Obama appointee.  The recent replacement of my judge with an Obama appointee, Kimberly J. Mueller, has given me standing to legally challenge the Constitutional legitimacy of Obama if Chief Judge Ishii of the Eastern District of California does not remove her from my case.

I sat on that for about a week to think about what I wanted to do.  I look at it as a tyrannical action.  I discussed it with a friend who is very well-versed in federal election law, and he pointed out that once a three-judge panel request is filed, it cannot be transferred to another judge unless the judge becomes disabled.

The order to reassign the case from Judge Damrell to Kimberly Mueller is dated January 21, 2011.  However, Barnett stated that Kimberly Mueller is “only de facto, because Obama is de facto, and he appointed her.  Any judicial nominations from an unlawful de facto President would be in a legal gray zone.  These judicial nominations and the rulings resulting from these de facto judges would be subject to a legal challenge.

A request for Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be vetted is on the bottom of page 36 of the First Amended Complaint.

Of the impact of judges rendering decisions as a result of having been appointed by an ineligible de facto president, Barnett stated, “There have been 62 Obama judicial nominations confirmed including Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.  It is unfathomable how far-reaching the consequences of an unlawful presidency would be.  Federal judges hear hundreds of cases per year.”  She added, “Lawsuits can cost millions of dollars.  Imagine that you had won a case under an Obama appointed judge, and then later on it was overturned or reviewed because the judge was found not to be legally appointed.  Wouldn’t this open up the federal government to being sued?  Every party to a lawsuit including criminal cases would have standing for a rehearing and re-trial with the federal government paying the costs because they denied all of these people their right to due process.”

Capt. Barnett maintains a website which covers the Dunn case, the Obama eligibility question, and other constitutional issues.  Her letter asking Judge Ishii to return her case to Judge Damrell is posted here.  However, Judge Ishii refused, stating that the plaintiff “provides no legal grounds to reconsider the propriety of the reassignment.”

The Post & Email will be following up on future developments in Captain Barnett’s case.