by Sharon Rondeau

(Apr. 9, 2014) — A decision has been made public in a lawsuit filed in Maryland in early 2012 challenging the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as president and commander-in-chief under Article II of the U.S. Constitution and the laws of Maryland.

On Monday, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals rendered an “unreported opinion” in the case of Fair v. Obama which the plaintiff posted on her website on Wednesday after receiving a hard copy of the decision through the U.S. mail.  Judge Douglas R. M. Nazarian rendered the opinion.

Last week, The Post & Email interviewed the lead plaintiff in the case, Tracy Fair, whose website UnslaveAmerica contains a section listing all visitors to the White House on the evening of September 11, 2012, when the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya was attacked and four Americans killed.

Fair reposted the interview about her Benghazi research here.  As neither Obama nor his spokesman has accounted for his whereabouts or activity on that evening after his meeting with then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey from 5:00 to 5:30 p.m., Fair concluded that Obama was attending a fundraiser in the West Wing of the White House which he does not wish divulged to the public.

On her website, Fair has an informational section on the eligibility lawsuit, which she filed pro se and said she will take “all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court” if necessary to prove that Obama is not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of president.  Questions about Obama’s eligibility arose in late 2007 when commentator Chris Matthews stated on air that Obama was “born in Indonesia,” a contention echoed by Will Hoover of The Honolulu Advertiser the year before.  Several African newspapers reported Obama as “born in Kenya,” as did Obama’s official biography, until it was inexplicably changed to say “born in Hawaii” in April 2007, two months after he declared his candidacy for the presidency.

Americans generally understand that a person born outside of the country is not considered eligible to serve as president.  However, historical documents and U.S. Supreme Court cases show that the citizenship of the parents has also been a factor in determining whether or not a person is a “natural born Citizen.” Complicating Obama’s case further is his claim that he was born to a U.S.-citizen mother and foreign-citizen father, although theories exist that Obama’s past is not what has been reported publicly.

[Editor’s Note:  Our interview with Fair was conducted prior to the decision released on Monday, as some of our questions and Fair’s responses will indicate.]

Upon filing an amended complaint in Circuit Court in Carroll County, MD in January 2012, Fair alleged that state elections officials and the secretary of state engaged in “willfully neglecting their official duties and suspending laws which are detriment [sic] to the security of this nation,…removed all checks on determining the legitimacy of the candidates and has resulted in a candidate for President of the United States,…who is not required to certify under oath that he is a natural born citizen and legitimately meets the requirements under the U.S. Constitution and Maryland Law.”

After the case was dismissed for its alleged untimely filing, Fair appealed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals and awaited a decision, which was posted on the internet on Monday, a hard copy of which she received on Tuesday.

Fair has also conducted extensive research into the identifies of the “Obots,” who are suspected to be operatives of the Obama regime paid to disseminate propaganda and false information in order to keep Obama in the White House, whether or not he is qualified to serve.  A 31-month criminal investigation by the Maricopa County, AZ Cold Case Posse of Obama’s purported long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration form concluded after six months that the “documents” are “computer-generated forgeries.”

Fair referenced the work of the posse in her filings.

Cold Case Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo announced more than two years ago that Obama’s long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration form are “computer-generated forgeries”

Approximately two months ago, Cold Case Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo revealed that a second criminal investigation launched by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio had discovered that several “Obots” are employed by DARPA, a division of the Department of Defense, which is funded by taxpayers.

Obots generally use screen names.  Since 2009, they have engaged in defamation, intimidation, ridicule, harassment, breaching of email accounts, interference with court cases, website hacking, and issuing death threats to people investigating Obama’s background.  Anyone criticizing Obama has been labeled “a racist” despite the fact that Obama’s background, birthplace, and history have never been proved.

Last month in Philadelphia, a judge ruled that an anonymous commenter’s true identity must be revealed in a defamation case involving “name-calling.”

Some Obot websites have gone offline or have not been updated in months or even years.

Recent announcements and videos from Zullo and others indicate that employees within the Hawaii Department of Health, Selective Service System, U.S. Postal Service, and “Obots” conspired to place and maintain Obama in the White House with fraudulent documentation issued “with the intent to deceive.”

On Tuesday, Zullo stated that the Cold Case Posse website has also been the victim of hacking.

Of the lawsuit’s history and current status, Fair told The Post & Email:

I originally filed in January 2012 against Obama for perjury and a couple of other things because he lied on his certificate of candidacy where it says “I am eligible…”  That’s how it started out.  I was trying to get that certificate of candidacy to include in my case, but I had to fight with the Board of Elections for so long and they wouldn’t tell me anything about it, so I didn’t have it for my case.

I had to file within a three-day time period, so I filed my case, and I kept arguing with them to get the Certificate of Candidacy.  The judge had said that I could amend my case if I needed to add things as long as I hadn’t served anyone yet.  So I kept pushing and pushing to get this information.  Finally, on March 3, I went down to the Board of Elections and I found out that they no longer accept Certificates of Candidacy.  So candidates no longer have to sign under oath that they’re eligible.

That’s when I amended my case, and I added in the Board of Elections and the Secretary of State.  I found a group of laws, one of which was that if you file within ten days of becoming aware of an omitted law, you have standing.  I have standing because I filed during the original period after the certification came down, I had another reason to file because I learned something new that they omitted.  The law says that the state administrator has to certify the candidate for his qualifications.

So I did all of that and added in all the laws that talk about “natural born Citizen.”

There was a hearing in August 2012, and they ended up dismissing it for “laches,” saying I didn’t file it in time.  But I know I did; I have the proof that I did.  They used the Ankeny case from Indiana.  I think the Fogbow Obots wrote the decision.  [Obot] Rikker laughed and said, “I wrote that decision.”  I believe they wrote it and everything in it.

Is there any evidence that the Obots could have written the opinions in any other Obama eligibility cases?

I think I have proof on the Georgia case with Judge Malihi.  When his opinion came out, he spelled the Ankeny case “Arkeny,” and for the whole year prior to that case, I fought with these Obots all over the place, and they constantly would say “Arkeny.”  I have comments in my videos where they say “Arkeny,” and I would say, “You idiots, it’s “Ankeny.”  When that decision came out and there was that typo, I was like, “Oh, my gosh!”

[Editor’s Note:  Obot “Jack Ryan” misspelled Judge Malihi’s last name in a posting on February 3, 2012.]

Is it possible that it was done on purpose?

It’s just crazy.  They even admit that they get in to all this stuff…Walt Fitzpatrick…the Obots are “the ones” who were bragging about how they were going to get the police down to that courthouse…They were the ones who started all of this and got him into trouble.  It’s terrible what they’re doing to him.

Darren Huff is sitting in federal prison as a result.

I know, and he had nothing to do with it.

Is this man “the president” or a criminal?

Fitzpatrick filed the first complaint of treason against Obama, but now many have accused Obama of treason.

He’s a criminal.

Rep. Darrell Issa recently said that if allegations of the CIA spying on the Senate Intelligence Committee are accurate, the CIA is guilty of treason.  Where does your lawsuit stand now?

I filed my appeal in September; our brief went in in April 2013, and in August, they had a private hearing by a three-judge panel.

What is the relief that you are seeking from the suit?

To have the decision overturned, because I have the evidence that proves my claims, or to send it back to the court for a hearing.  It was dismissed for laches, so I never got to discovery or oral argument.

What kind of evidence do you have?

I have evidence from all government documents, the Founders’ writings, the 100% proof that he is not a natural born Citizen, even if he was born here.

What if it turns out that he was, in fact, born in the U.S. to two citizen parents?

From what he’s saying on his birth certificate, he’s not a natural born Citizen because the father was not a U.S. citizen.  In order to be a natural born Citizen, your father must have been a U.S. citizen.

His mother worked for the government, so it’s all interconnected.  Do you know who her boss was?

Peter Geithner, [former Obama Treasury Secretary] Tim Geithner‘s father.

Yes, it’s so strange.

Given what Rikker may have admitted, do you think perhaps every single eligibility lawsuit has been sabotaged?

Yes, I believe it.  Even if they were just sending something in to say, “You guys should know about these other cases that are happening.”  That’s what they do, and they let them know about all the prior cases such as Ankeny and the others that are overwriting, because they look like such new cases; they’re not old, historic cases.  They’re new, and they’ve gone through the process. Ankeny stopped in Indiana. It never went to federal court, so they can’t use that case.  But that’s what they came back with in their decision on my case.  My reaction was, “That case has no bearing on federal law.”  Plus, in Ankeny, if you read it, in Footnote 14, it says something like, “We realize that Wong Kim Ark did not pronounce him a natural born Citizen” (page 11).  They say that’s irrelevant, though…irrelevant, but “I’m going to say it’s relevant and make it my decision.”

They took what I said a natural born Citizen is and used it in their opposition brief.  They used it and said it meant something totally different.  But if you read the paragraph, it says what a natural born Citizen is.  I don’t know how they can get away with putting that in as evidence when it’s not…so you can tell that this case is just ridiculous.

The Congressional Research Service issued four memos which attempted to convince its intended audience, members of Congress, that Obama and others were “natural born Citizens” and therefore eligible for the presidency

Are you familiar with the Congressional Research Service memos?

Yes.  Jack Maskell totally changed the meaning of “natural born Citizen” and said that just about everybody is eligible.

Do you have an expectation that the court might come out with a positive ruling?

I don’t know.  The judges in the Alabama Supreme Court case had no opinion, but then they had dissenters.  Whatever happens with mine, if they dismiss it also, I get to file a Motion to Reconsider.  I have a list of so many new cases, and I’m going to add in the Alabama case.

Have you represented yourself all along?

All the way through, yes. I’ve never been able to find an attorney. I tried for the first six months before, and then after, probably for another six months.  Long before I filed, I wrote letters to all the Tea Parties trying to find an attorney who might be willing to help, and a Tea Partier helped to pay my expenses.

Many of us have seen that the Tea Partiers were not willing to look at the eligibility question.  Seeing as you have a Tea Partier who was interested in helping you, at least financially, why do you think so many would not get involved?

I think because they thought they’d be ridiculed and it would take away from their “real” mission.  They don’t want to be called “racists,” so they just don’t say anything nowadays.  “Oh, if you don’t like Obama, you’re a racist.”

One would think that they would consider that if he is not constitutionally eligible, anything he has signed or done would be in question.

Anything with his name on it:  even his Supreme Court appointees, everyone – is null and void.  That’s one good thing; if we do get him out, all that goes with him.  Most people say, “We just need to let this go, and we’re going to make sure that in the next elections, we check it more carefully.”  But if they leave him like this, it’s now set a precedent as to what a “natural born Citizen” is.  That’s one thing we need to get to:  to have that defined.  But it’s been defined; I have the statute where it was defined.

Which statute was that?

The Revised Statutes of 1873 and their definition of a “citizen,” which is a “natural born Citizen.”  Also, the first line of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 says “…That all persons born and not subject to any foreign power are hereby declared to be citizens.”  That is the wording that is in the Revised Statutes of 1873, Section 1992.  It says, “Who Are Citizens,” and it cites the Civil Rights Act of 1866.  It was an “Act,” not an amendment to the Constitution.  But Rep. John Bingham wrote the 14th Amendment to amend it to the Constitution.  If you put the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment side by side, they’re the exact same thing.  I don’t know why they changed the wording of “born” and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” but there is a court case that defines “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” from 1880 or so.  It uses the Civil Rights Act definition:  “a person born and not subject to any foreign power.”  If you’re born a citizen, that’s a natural born Citizen.  There is only a “natural born Citizen” and “naturalized citizen.”

Why do you think the Framers included the term “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution?

Article II, Section 1, clause 5 says “a natural born citizen or a citizen at the time of the Adoption…” But anybody who is a citizen eligible for that position is obsolete, because there is no one still alive who meets that criterion.  The Framers were naturalized by the Declaration of Independence.  The first ten presidents were “Citizens at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.”

They can say Obama is a citizen all they want, but go look at Article II, Section 1:  if he’s just a “citizen,” then that means he has to go by “at the Adoption of this Constitution.”  He wasn’t there at the Adoption, so he can’t be eligible.

Fair told The Post & Email that she had already begun writing her Motion for Reconsideration prior to Monday’s decision, which is due within 30 days.

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. “Born a Citizen” is NOT tantamount to being a “Natural-Born Citizen”. To be “born a citizen” means only that one must be born on U.S. Soil (Jus Soli). To be an NBC one must be born in the U.S. IN ADDITION TO being born of parents who are BOTH Americans themselves (Jus Sanquinis). Should it be shown that Obama actually was born in the U.S. to other Parents who were BOTH Americans (Not likely),Obama still committed fraud by misrepresenting his circumstances of Birth.

    1. Before I comment on the case/article above…

      If you are the Tracy Fair who filed the case being discussed in the above article, I would like some clarification as to what definition of natural born citizen you are presenting in court as that term’s legal definition.

      As Leo Donofrio explains in detail in his articles about Minor v Happersett, the Supreme Court held that a natural born citizen is “one born in the US of two citizen parents.”

      Are you in agreement with that definition?

      If you’re not familiar with the writings of Donofrio on this topic, you can do a Net search for the following article titles:

      “Minor v Happersett is binding precedent as to the Constitutional definition of a natural born citizen”

      “Minor v Happersett revisited”

      “Multiple instances of historical scholarship conclusively establish the Supreme Court’s holding in Minor v Happersett as standing precedent on citizenship”