Maryland Resident To File Obama Eligibility Challenge with U.S. Supreme Court

“NATURAL LAW IS IMMUTABLE”

by Sharon Rondeau

Obama eligibility challenger Tracy Fair is taking her case to the U.S. Supreme Court after exhausting all possible avenues in the state of Maryland

(Jan. 20, 2015) — Maryland citizen and registered voter Tracy Fair plans to file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court in a case which began nearly three years ago claiming that Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible to serve as president of the United States.

Her deadline to file is February 18, and she continues to seek an attorney willing to argue the case should the high court decide to hear it.  Fair has represented herself since her case’s inception nearly three years ago.  She also needs to raise $2,200 to file with the high court and pay expenses and has established a GoFundMe page which as of this writing has raised $1,400.

Obama’s eligibility has been questioned since MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews stated in December 2007 that Obama was “born in Indonesia” and other printed reports related that Obama was born in Kenya.  In 1991, Obama’s literary agent said in his official biography that he was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”

Obama claims a father who was never a U.S. citizen, which several constitutional attorneys and scholars believe is even more significant than Obama’s birthplace, wherever that may be.

Obama’s school records, passport and college applications, Illinois state senate and U.S. Senate voting records, and medical records have been obscured from public scrutiny.  Both a “short-form” birth certificate and long-form birth certificate eventually made public have been declared forgeries by graphics experts and later, a criminal investigation launched by the Maricopa County, AZ Cold Case Posse in September 2011 which is ongoing.  Similarly, the posse found that Obama’s Selective Service registration form is also fraudulent.

Congress has refused to launch an investigation into the forgeries, and attempts to take complaints to county and federal grand juries have thwarted.

Lawsuits filed beginning in 2008 claiming that Obama did not meet the qualification of “natural born Citizen” set forth in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution have never been heard on the merits.  In early 2012, as Obama sought re-election to the presidency, numerous ballot challenges citing the fraudulent long-form birth certificate posted on the White House website were filed in accordance with state laws and adjudicated, all in Obama’s favor and sometimes without allowing the plaintiffs to speak.

On her website, Fair explains the various steps she has taken which have led to her upcoming action, beginning with her initial filing in the Circuit Court of Carroll County, MD in mid-January 2012.  In that filing, Fair accused Obama of having committed “perjury” as a result, she alleges, of his having falsely claimed to be eligible to the presidency.  “I’ve done the research, and I know he is not eligible,” Fair told The Post & Email.

Fair has posted items from historical documents gleaned from extensive research into the meaning of the Article II, Section 1, clause 5 term “natural born Citizen,” which was set forth as a requirement for the president by the Founders.  One item gives context to the letter written by John Jay to George Washington in July 1787 urging those attending the Constitutional Convention to mandate that the chief executive of the nation be a “natural born Citizen” rather than simply “a Citizen.”

Fair also presents evidence of the reliance by the Founders on “The Law of Nations,” written by Swiss philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, a copy of which in 2010 was found to have been checked out of a New York City library by President George Washington and never returned.  When management at Mt. Vernon, Washington’s home and museum in Virginia, heard of the missing book, they replaced it during a special ceremony in which it was presented to the New York Society Library, from which it had been borrowed on October 5, 1789.

According to The New York Daily News, the edition of the book would have cost the library $12,000 to replace, and Mt. Vernon provided it in gratitude for the waiving of overdue library fines which were calculated to have amounted to approximately $300,000.

In his treatise “The Law of Nations,” Swiss philosopher Emmerich de Vattel wrote:

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or 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 owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as 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 be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Among other exhibits, Fair displays a page from the 1794 Journal of the Senate which showed that the secretary of that body was ordered to “purchase Blackstone’s Commentaries, and Vattel’s Law of Nature and Nations, for the use of the Senate.”

Of the chronology of her case since its beginning, Fair said:

After finding that the state had omitted laws, I went back and amended in early March and added in the Board of Elections and Secretary of State.  There was a dismissal hearing in mid-August, and my case was dismissed.  I appealed it a month later, and briefs were due in April 2013.  We put all of those in, and the following September, they had another private hearing with a three-judge panel, and they followed the lower court’s decision and dismissed it for “laches,” which means I filed my petition late.  But I have proof that I didn’t.

Then I submitted a Motion to Reconsider which was denied, and in March 2014, I appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals, and that, too, was denied.  No hearing, no nothing; they denied it and said it was not in the public interest.  I filed a Motion to Reconsider a month later, and that, too, was denied.  That brings us to the present, where I am now in the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“Did it ever go to the Maryland Supreme Court?” The Post & Email asked.

We don’t have a “supreme court.”  We have a circuit court, court of special appeals, and then court of appeals, the latter of which is the state “supreme court.”

“Does the U.S. Supreme Court know that your filing is coming?”

No, they have nothing in hand right now.  I called and asked them some questions, but I didn’t give them a case name or anything.

In April of last year, The Post & Email interviewed Fair regarding her theory, substantiated in part by public records which reveal numerous visitors to the White House during the late afternoon of September 11, 2012, that Obama was attending a fundraiser during the time that a CIA compound in Benghazi, Libya came under attack by Islamic radicals and four Americans lost their lives.

Obama has never explained where he was or how he was engaged that evening.  The following day, he left Washington to speak at a scheduled campaign event in Las Vegas.

The Post & Email asked Fair if she felt her case was different from other eligibility cases which have reached the Supreme Court, to which she responded:

I do feel that way, and it’s mainly because most of the other cases didn’t deal with the “natural born Citizen” issue.  A lot of them went after the birth certificate and other reasons for Obama’s being on the ballot.  A lot of them were also dismissed for other technicalities of “standing” and “jurisdiction.”

“What about CDR Kerchner‘s case?  Did it not deal with the ‘natural born Citizen’ issue?”

His was dismissed for standing. They were told they never even had standing to file there, but I had two Maryland statutes which gave me standing.  Mine never had “standing” in it, so I had standing.  Rather, it was dismissed on laches, meaning that I didn’t file my petition on time.

“And you said that you had proof that you did.”

Referring to Maryland election law, Fair continued:

I had 100% proof that I did.  It started out in November; I was looking at how to file because I had a certain date to follow the law.  The Board of Elections would never tell me where the certificate of candidacy was because I needed to add that as evidence to prove perjury, saying he lied when he signed that he was eligible.  They just strung me along for months and months and finally I had to file my case without it and was told that I could amend it.  So I filed it within the two-day period.  I had two statutes, and that one statute gave me the standing right there, and I filed within the time.

I called them a couple of months later, and they would hang up on me or say, “We filed 8-502, which is not even their duty; that’s the duty of the secretary of state.

So finally I got mad; it was about two weeks before the election and I said, “I have to get this in.”  I went down to the Board of Elections, and that’s when I found out that they no longer require certificates of candidacy.  So you don’t have to sign under oath anymore; the law is that “you just have to be known in the media.”

“When was that law or policy changed?” The Post & Email asked.

I don’t think it’s changed; there’s a little exception at the bottom of one law that says if you are nominated by a party convention,  you don’t have to file that certificate of candidacy.  But in 2008, Obama wasn’t nominated, because that was the primary.  If I was filing for the general election, that would have been right, but I filed for the 2012 primary, and although he was elected by the convention in 2008, I don’t think that carries over.

Even if it did carry over, in 2008, they followed the same law:  he didn’t have to file a certificate of candidacy then, either, and he hadn’t been nominated by any party convention then because it was his first time.

So I asked, “Do you have his 2008 certificate of candidacy?” and they said, “No, we don’t require them anymore.”

When I looked through the law and found that one little exception, that’s what they used in court.  They brought that up; that’s why Obama didn’t have to file it.

But regardless of his filing that, he still needs to be eligible, whether he swears it or not.  I have three Maryland laws that revert back to putting people on the ballot who have qualified under federal law.  But they totally ignore that, and that’s  exactly under the duties of the state administrator at the Board of Elections.  But they’re saying they don’t have to file it and that the secretary of state’s duty is to certify all the names on the ballot by their being known in the media.  But then they revert back to 8-502 saying that’s what makes Obama eligible.  Then they tell me in court that it has nothing to do with eligibility; that it just has to do with their names and how it’s being placed on the ballot.

You can’t have it both ways; either it is about eligibility or it isn’t.  They can’t use it and then tell me I can’t use it to establish my standing.

“Would you say that the laws in Maryland are somewhat unique in that they allow a citizen to challenge eligibility without the ‘standing’ issue?”

There are about four other cases in Maryland against the attorney general and others with people saying they weren’t eligible.  All four of those cases were heard on the merits; the evidence came in. They all went to the Maryland Court of Appeals.  A couple of them were reversed or whatever.  But some of them were filed after an election.  They’re trying to tell me that mine was an 11th-hour filing, but they knew six months in advance that I was doing this. It wasn’t as if they didn’t know.

[Editor’s Note:  On March 30, 2007, The Baltimore Sun reported that a challenge to the qualifications of then-Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler “should not have been heard” because of its “11th-hour” filing.]

“So you’re saying that there are state-level officeholders in Maryland whose eligibility was challenged after they were elected?”

Yes, and the one they challenged is the same lady that I’m suing, and another whose candidacy has been challenged is the attorney general in my case.

“Is it possible that the person serving as attorney general of Maryland could be removed from office?”

Someone was saying that he had to have been an attorney for ten years in Maryland and that he had only eight.  They went through all the facts and evidence and found out that although he hadn’t lived in Maryland the whole time, he had put in his ten years in Maryland before he was elected.

Two of the cases filed against these people were after an election – very untimely.  There are quotes from the judge in there that say, “Regardless of when someone files, if someone is not eligible for office, he should not be in office, especially someone who’s running the state of Maryland…”  Well, what about the president?

I have a lot of things in my case:  equal protection under the law, and a number of cases that talk about freedom of expression that says you have more than just being able to vote; you have the right to have your vote counted.  Because mine is diluted by all of these other ineligible other votes, that means mine is not being counted.

“Could any registered voter in Maryland make the same claim?”

Yes, it could be a class action suit.

“Is the attorney general whose eligibility has been challenged defending the state’s placement of Obama’s name on the ballot?”

It’s his lieutenant.  He was the one I spoke to all the times I called there.  I said, “He’s ineligible, and I have the evidence; can you look at it?” but they just ignored me the whole time.

About a year ago I filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, and we put a lot of things in there such as “What is your process of deciding who is eligible?  Do you even do that?”  There were pages and pages of questions.  I never got anything back from that, and I replied to the person who wrote the letter when I went to the Board of Elections, and he just replied back really snarky saying, “We’ve already told you what law we go by, and that’s what we stand by.”  It was one sentence saying they weren’t going to answer my FOIA request.

“They are required by law to answer it.  If they have no responsive documents, they have to say, We have no documents responsive to your request.'”

They never did that.  But then you have to go to court to appeal, correct?

“Yes.  Each law has a different time frame in which they’re required to respond.  In Missouri, for example, it’s three business days.  I am still waiting for a response from a request I put in on January 1 and have put them on notice that they are either late in responding or their response was never received.  If they don’t respond, you can file an appeal, and if they still deny your request or ignore you, you can file suit in civil court.”

The Post & Email asked Fair why she believes she could prevail if the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear her case, to which she replied:

I’m just hoping that they realize that my right to vote was diluted along with all the other cases in which the Maryland courts heard evidence.  Mine never got to that point, even though everything was the same.  If they can just see that my case was timely, that’s all they need to do, and then I should be able to argue my case.  All I need them to prove is my case was filed timely, when the lower court said it wasn’t.

There is a clear controversy that the eligibility question will come up again, especially in 2016, where we already have three ineligible candidates.  It’s not settled.

“Do you think asking the court for a definition of ‘natural born Citizen’ will be important?”

I hope not, because we already have a definition.  There are already several Supreme Court cases that have gone through this.  There is Elk v. Wilkins, the Venus, and Wong Kim Ark has many citations from other cases, including from Minor v. Happersett, which defines “natural born Citizen.”

In Wong Kim Ark, they did not pronounce him “natural born;” they pronounced him a statutory citizen because his parents were domiciled here.  The key word in that case is “domiciled.”  Some try to say he was pronounced “natural born,” but he was not, because his parents were not citizens.  It’s impossible.  They can’t go and redefine “natural born Citizen” because it’s natural law.  Natural law is immutable; you can’t change it.

On Tuesday morning, the Terry Lakin Action Fund sent out an email on Fair’s behalf urging readers to donate to her GoFundMe account.  The email reads, in part:

We now have a case from Maryland with some merit. Tracy Fair has worked systematically and diligently to prepare a case that she may take all the way to the Supreme Court. It may seem hopeless. However, as long as some court is willing to listen, as long as someone is willing to work, as long as we have the freedom to pursue justice, we must keep trying.

Please review Tracy’s hard work. She has systematically built her case.
http://www.unslaveamerica.com/myobamaeligibilitycase

And she has found a way to move this case forward for less than $3000. Not hundreds of thousands, but just $2200. Follow this link to help her:
http://www.gofundme.com/USAEligibilityFund

There are more than 4000 people on Terry’s list. We are asking every one of you to make a generous donation to Tracy’s work. We’ve spoken with her and she is exactly like so many others. Modest, hardworking, and diligent. Much like Charles Kerchner, Miki Booth, Terry Lakin, Mike Zullo, myself, and many others, she has extended herself and her resources to the limits.

Tracy needs our help. Please consider making a contribution right now.
http://www.gofundme.com/USAEligibilityFund

Someday, somehow, the truth will be told. Maybe it will be Tracy’s case. Maybe it is the next case. But Tracy is ready now. Let’s help her today.

Lakin was jailed at Ft. Leavenworth, stripped of his Army pay and benefits, and given a dishonorable discharge for challenging the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama in 2010.  Lakin wrote in his book, “Officer’s Oath,” that he did not regret his decision.

3 Responses to "Maryland Resident To File Obama Eligibility Challenge with U.S. Supreme Court"

  1. gigclick   Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 9:21 AM

    Good luck- give Montgomery Sibley a call before you spend any more money.

  2. Donald Butcher   Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 11:49 PM

    What is the latest information on the cold case investigation being conducted? Is this going to end up as another ploy by Hussein to use
    his compatriots to delay any evidence being given that might bring this
    treasonous Kenyan to justice.

    Thanks Don

  3. Robert Laity   Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 11:31 PM

    We now have a situation where BOTH parties are proffering candidates that are constitutionally ineligible to be President, by virtue of not being Natural-Born Citizens. The logical conclusion is that BOTH parties are involved in trying to inculcate foreign influence into OUR sovereign nation. That’s enough to rile any true red blooded American.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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