Eligibility Case Inexplicably Reassigned to Obama Appointee

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

by Sharon Rondeau

The California Secretary of State's website describes Debra Bowen as having "followed through with her commitment to opening up government by making the agency's work as transparent and accessible as possible."

(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.”

Letter from Capt. Barnett to District Judge Anthony Ishii requesting that her case be remanded back to Judge Damrell
Judge Ishii's Denial of Barnett's request to return her case to Judge Damrell
Page 2 of judge's denial

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

18 Responses to "Eligibility Case Inexplicably Reassigned to Obama Appointee"

  1. Daniel Cutulla   Thursday, March 10, 2011 at 4:42 AM

    > on the grounds that as the sitting president he is exempt from the requirement which can only apply to future candidates for the office. He will assert said law cannot be applied retroactively

    I don’t think such a defense would hold water. The rules for the ballot of 2012 are nothing that is applied retroactively, they apply to the placement in 2012. After all, such a law would not try to retroactively change the 2008 election.

    Also there is no basis in law or case law that a sitting president is somehow exempt from following the rules. The “I got through when the rules were lax, so now I can’t be made to follow the stricter rules” reasoning does not work. No president (legitimate or not) gets any “home advantage” on the ballot.

  2. geo   Thursday, March 10, 2011 at 1:33 AM

    Job Well Done! Responsible Journalism at work!

  3. Alicia Fitzpatrick   Thursday, March 10, 2011 at 12:22 AM

    Quite simply, the United States of America has been infiltrated, taken over and sold piece-meal to the highest bidders. Our “government” no longer exists. If we want it back, well, guess what? Yup. We are going to have to fight for it. In order to arrive at the solution, the problem must be exposed, examined and accepted. I have arrived at acceptance. Thomas Jefferson warned us of this and gave us the solution. LOOK IT UP.

  4. Jon Carlson   Wednesday, March 9, 2011 at 11:15 PM

    “Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive”. Sir Walter
    Scott quotes (Scottish Novelist, Poet, Historian and Biographer, 1771-1832)

    All of the corrupt Obama appointees will have to return their ill-gotten gains.

  5. Robert Laity   Wednesday, March 9, 2011 at 2:36 PM

    There is NO “President” Obama:
    http://thepostemail.com/2010/08/17/there-is-no-president-obama/

  6. RJ   Wednesday, March 9, 2011 at 1:53 PM

    Wouldn’t that be a wonderful result — even if too late to give the country an opportunity for a do-ever without consequences.

    Every executive order: VOID.
    Every treaty or international agreement: VOID.
    Every piece of legislation signed — including obamacare even though Irrevocably implemented with billions of dollars spent and thousand of regulations in place: VOID.
    AND, including but not limited to;
    Every judicial nomination at every judicial level (including the Supremc Court) even after confirmation by the Senate: VOID.

    We can dream . . .

  7. RJ   Wednesday, March 9, 2011 at 1:44 PM

    The following expresses my cynical prognostication relative to the possibility of even one state passing and signing into law a sufficiently specific requirement of irrefutable, visible proof of Constitutional eligibility to run for the presidency and be listed on that state’s ballot:

    obama will sue said state on the grounds that as the sitting president he is exempt from the requirement which can only apply to future candidates for the office. He will assert said law cannot be applied retroactively!!!! And the courts will likely side with him.

    Also, too many of the proposed laws being floated among states identify requirements that are, in my opinion, insufficiently specific to trap obama and keep him off an individual state’s ballot.

    I would so love to be wrong . . .

  8. RacerJim   Wednesday, March 9, 2011 at 12:06 PM

    Hawaii has had a law in place for at least since the 2000 election that requires each candidate’s State party to submit an “Official Certification of Nomination” (“OCON”) stating that the party’s nominees named thereon for President and Vice-President are eligible for their respective offices “under the provisions of the United States Constitution.” to the Secretary of State of Hawaii in order for those candidates names to appear on Hawaii’s presidential election ballot. The Democratic Party’s OCON for Gore-Liberman in 2000 and Kerry-Edwards in 2004 included the phrase “under the provisions of the United States Constitution” but its OCON for Obama-Biden in 2008 did not. Therein lies the seed from which the greatest election fraud in U.S. history, if not world history, sprouted.

  9. kingskid   Wednesday, March 9, 2011 at 11:59 AM

    Sharon,

    Thank you; you did just an awesome job on this article!
    ——————–
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Thank you, ma’am!

  10. PJPony   Wednesday, March 9, 2011 at 11:38 AM

    IF he is unable to run in 2012, will this allow more probes into his past? Will this allow a reversal of any of his Executive Orders or unconstitutional legislation? Why should his government years be allowed to be counted as legitimate if he isn’t eligible to run for a second term? Wouldn’t that automatically make his first term illegitimate?

  11. Bob1939   Wednesday, March 9, 2011 at 11:21 AM

    Extremely well stated thinkwell – right-on, Bravo !!!

  12. Bob1943   Wednesday, March 9, 2011 at 9:24 AM

    None of the states have actually passed a “Barry” bill to force candidates to prove their eligibility before being placed on the ballot, and, according to what I have heard, at least three states, Arizona, Montana and Oklahoma have already dropped or “tabled” their Barry bills. Arizona’s failed to get out of committee when 3 Republicans, one of whom was a sponsor of the bill, refused to vote for it.

    I have a feeling there is some strong, “persuation”, going on in every state that is considering a meaningful bill to force candidates to prove their eligibility to drop their efforts.

    Every state should be monitored very closely to insure this time that they actually follow the laws and rules they already have on the books. I believe in some cases this would have prevented Barry from getting on the ballot in 2008. I am not certain of that though, because I don’t know what the various state laws and rules currently are.

    We cannot depend on new eligibility laws to prevent Barry from usurping a second term though I. of course, hope some states will follow through and sign their Barry bills into law.

  13. Jedi Pauly   Wednesday, March 9, 2011 at 8:39 AM

    This is very significant. Pam Barnett has really got hold of the beast. This issue with the Judge being an Obama appointee is very good as a legal avenue dropped in Barnett’s lap to raise the illegitimacy of Obama. Now if Pamela Barnett could just disabuse herself of the failed Unity Theory regarding Article II “natural born Citizen” and learn about the correct theory of law the Natural Law Theory that I have discovered and been trying to teach everyone then Pamela would really be armed and empowered to take on the system. I wish she would talk to me an let me educate her some.

  14. bill   Wednesday, March 9, 2011 at 7:54 AM

    The most interesting thing about this thread is the statement that “Eligibility Case Inexplicably Reassigned to Obama Appointee.” I can’t put one shred of credence in this because there is no one in government that has the authority to appoint anyone to anything. In fact ,this man that goes by Barack Obama who is squatting at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. doesn’t have the moral or legal authority to have his dog take a walk on the White House lawn. Why so many Americans keep calling this smooth-talking street hustler “President” is totally beyond me. Cheers.
    ————————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: The Post & Email has never called him “president,” which is stated on our “About” page: http://www.thepostemail.com/about/ We have rejected many submissions simply because they do refer to Obama as the president. Since many authors refuse to change it in accordance with our stated policy, we do not accept their submissions. Nevertheless, Obama did appoint the judge, whether or not he had the right to do so. That is the question that must be decided.

  15. Ed '74   Wednesday, March 9, 2011 at 2:24 AM

    As I understand it, there are 12 states that should have, in place, a law that require proof of eligibility to be president before the 2012 election. If that is true, then Obama will not run again. There is no way he can prove that he is eligible to run. The battle will be won.

  16. thinkwell   Wednesday, March 9, 2011 at 2:01 AM

    Pamela Barnett, I salute you. Your dedication to the Constitution and rule of law and your unwavering perseverance in the face of stupefying adversity is awesome in the truest sense of the word. You invigorate my belief in the indomitable American spirit and give me renewed hope. You are a true patriot. And for that I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

    I cannot begin to fathom why most every judge, politician and government official is so willing to ignore, bend and break the very law and system they have take a solemn oath to uphold, simply to protect that worthless, two-bit fraud currently squatting in We The People’s house. For what all he has done to our great country, he really is a piece human garbage who should be kicked to the curb alongside the many other sacks of trash cluttering up Washington, DC. I think most of them must know in their hearts that something is very wrong and that their precious Pied Piper is actuality an ineligible usurper. Why do they continue tolerate it, many willingly so? May the whole lot of them be given due process and be judiciously trash-compacted into the smallest, dankest, darkest prison cell.

    If it is race riots they fear, I say “bring it” for it’s long past time to cleanse ourselves of those who support divisive, thuggish race-based tribalism over melting-pot America’s belief in equal opportunity for all (I say this as a true “Heinz 57” main-stream American mutt who feels not even the slightest twinge of bogus, so-called white guilt).

    If it is utter destruction of the dollar by the Sorros-Saudi cabal that holds them hostage in fearful inaction, then I say I would rather live (or die) as a free sovereign Citizen in abject poverty than squirm under the oppressive thumb of new world order socialism. Is there not one freshman Tea Party Senator or Representative who loves his or her country enough to brave the derision of the regime-stream media and defend the Constitution by demanding and/or instigating investigations of Obama and his enablers? What unbelievable depths of depravity has our once great country fallen to?

    Thank God for patriots like Pamela Barnett, Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, Theresa Cao and many, many more. You the brave few bring hope to and inspire the sleeping giant that is the silent majority. Because of you, America will weather this storm.

  17. Bob1939   Tuesday, March 8, 2011 at 9:55 PM

    Lets see where we are now, and lets just get serious for a lousy minute, while we talk about “THE ONE”… the one who has many false SS numbers… the one who has falsified a birth certificate, while hiding his Kenya BC… the one who hides all his historical data from the American people… the one who is trying to demolish the USA by way of Jihad… the one who supports Muslim Terrorists at every opportunity… the one who is trying to introduce Sharia Law into the USA… the one who is intentionally and viciously bankrupting America… the one from ACORN – you know the “Community Organizer”… the one who lost his law license, but hides the reason from us… the one whose Modus Operandi (MO), is via RICO – Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations… the one who admires, and follows Alinsky, Wright, Ahres, Soros, Chavez, Mao, Ahmadinejad, and other such ilk…the one who was born in Kenya, and pretends to be America’s President… the one who practices taqiyya, because we know he’s really a Muslim… the one who practices dhimmitude on us, because he believes that he has accomplished Jihad victory over us … the very one who doesn’t believe in God, because he thinks he is God.

  18. A pen   Tuesday, March 8, 2011 at 9:29 PM

    The rabbit is digging the holes faster than anyone can find out where they go or if they are even there for any other purpose than to create confusion and delay.

    Yes, imagine the cost and the gridlock of a legal system overburdened with cases. Now why would that be allowed to even exist? That is the reason why new government must be laid just as the declaration of independence states. A fresh start but you can’t start fresh until the old decayed mess is thrown out. It’s no mystery what that means. The only question is how bad is it going to get if we just keep ignoring the reality that we are already under a despotic government despite voting simply because the biggest part of the government is a faction that is not elected and is as corrupt as it can possibly get.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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