Obamas arrested

Obamas arrested
Pray for the day!

Senate Refused to Vet Obama

We're Never Gonna Stand For This

Freedom of Speech Will No Longer Be Possible

The original Kenyan birth certificate of Obama

Dog Day Afternoon

Is it here, yet?

This is an American Tradition That Has Always Been Valuable to Us

To Arrest Obama or Force America to Live Enslaved?

Obama is a Muslim

Restore America

There's a Communist Living in the white House

Dr. Taitz on Obama

The Enemy is Obama

How to Become an Underground Publisher and help take back America


GO TO:
http://usapatriotsshoutinfoservice.wordpress.com/

There you will find directions and suggested material and web sites to check to find other material. You are welcome to take material from this site, the info service site, or just find your own. Whatever please commit to spread the word.

Join us at http://blogtalkradio.com/usapatriots every Monday 3:30 p.m. pactific standard time































































LAKIN DEFENSE OPTIONS


STAND UP AMERICA EXCLUSIVE !
Lakin Defense Options !!!



http://standupamericaus.com/stand-up-america-exclusive-lakin-defense-options:37663


The Stand Up America BlogSTAND UP AMERICA EXCLUSIVE – Lakin Defense OptionsPublished on 09/03/10

Editor’s Note: The following report is solely the product of the authors and is posted here for the public to view, and discern for themselves. It is a scholarly work and may clear up many questions readers may have.

Courts Martial Defense For LTC Terrence LakinBy J.B. Williams and Timothy Harrington

World Net Daily, which has been following the Lakin trial step-by-step from the beginning, is reporting:

FT. MEADE, Md. – A career officer in the U.S. Army [Col. Denise R. Lind] acting as a judge in the prosecution of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin today ruled that the military is no place for Barak Obama’s presidential eligibility to be evaluated.
According to the WND report, presiding authority Col. Denise R. Lind used the following arguments to deny LTC Lakin proper access to a defense, summarized in the following three paragraphs taken from the 40 minute long reading of her decision Army Col. Denise R. Lind today ruled in a hearing regarding the evidence to be allowed in the scheduled October court-martial of Lakin that he will be denied access to any of Obama’s records as well as any testimony from those who may have access to the records.

With her decision, Lind mirrored a number of federal judges who have ruled on civil lawsuits over Obama’s eligibility. They have without exception denied the plaintiffs’ access to any requested documentation regarding the president’s eligibility.
Lind ruled that it was “not relevant” for the military to be considering such claims, that the laws allegedly violated by Lakin were legitimate on their face and that the chain of command led up to the Pentagon, and that should have been sufficient for Lakin.

We find foundational flaws in Col. Lind’s decision, which Lakin’s defense team must seize upon in order to alter the current course of this trial.

1 – Lind’s authority is derived from the same place as LTC Lakin’s and all other members of the United States Military – from the supreme command of the office of Commander-in-Chief, the President of the United States.

2 – Lind is attempting to use her authority under her Commander-in-Chief to break the military chain of command, isolating the Commander-in-Chief of the US Military specifically, exempting the President from his position of authority in the chain of command, without which, Lind herself has no authority to convene the Courts Martial.

3 – Lind then reaches outside of the US Military Justice system to the Civil Court, relying upon civil court precedent to deny Lakin any access to discovery and thereby, a proper defense guaranteed him by the US Constitution and UCMJ, Uniform Code of Military Justice. Civil Court precedent has no legal standing in a UCMJ criminal proceeding. In fact, the UCMJ is based upon the Articles of War (aka War Articles) and is a “penal system” unlike the US Justice System – as explained by Col. William Winthrop in Military Law and Precedents. As a result, precedents set in courts outside of the UCMJ are without legal standing in any UCMJ proceeding.

4 – Not even in the UCMJ can the United States government deny the accused his/her right to a trial, complete with discovery of related evidence. Yet Lind attempts to do so, under the authority derived from her Commander-in-Chief. If the chain of command is broken, then Lind herself has no authority.

5 – Lind’s statement that the legality of the Commander-in-Chief is “not relevant” in matters of military command is false on its face. As stated in a sworn affidavit filed by LTG Thomas G. McInerney executed on August 20, 2010 – “In refusing to obey orders because of his doubts as to their legality, LTC Lakin has acted exactly as proper training dictates. – By thus stepping up to the bar, LTC Lakin is demonstrating the courage of his convictions and his bravery. – That said, it is equally essential that he be allowed access to the evidence that will prove whether he made the correct decision.”

6 – Lind attempts to break the chain of command at The Pentagon level, which she claims has no issue with the current Commander-in-Chief and that this should be good enough for Lakin. Yet she cannot break this chain of command without eliminating her own authority, and Lakin’s oath requires that he decide for himself whether or not his orders are legal, as affirmed in LTG McInerney’s sworn affidavit.

7 – At issue is not whether or not LTC Lakin refused orders, but rather whether or not he “unlawfully” refused orders. If his orders were not “lawful,” including but not limited to, emanating from a “lawful” chain of command which begins with a lawful Commander-in-Chief, then Lakin must be found NOT GUILTY of “unlawfully” refusing orders.
At the heart of the matter is whether or not his orders to deploy were “lawful.” LTC Lakin has questioned whether or not his deployment orders were “lawful” on the basis that he believes that the Commander-in-Chief from which those orders are issued, may not be “lawful,” therefore making any orders from the top of military command “unlawful.”
To determine whether or not Lakin is correct in his decision to refuse orders, it is paramount to discover with certainty whether or not his orders were issued by a “lawful” command.
As we know, Article II – Section I requires that only a “natural born citizen” of the United States can hold the office of President, Commander-in-Chief. In this regard, a fatal misstep in the Lakin defense has opened the door for the illegitimate statements now being made by Col. Denise R. Lind.

LTC Lakin failed to directly assert that Barack Hussein Obama is NOT legal in his command on the basis that we know with certainty that he is not a “natural born citizen,” – and that LTC Lakin is “lawfully” refusing to follow orders on this basis. Instead, LTC Lakin only asked the “birth place” question and tied that question to whether or not Mr. Obama could and would present an official “birth certificate” proving once and for all that he was indeed born in Hawaii, making the wrong assumption that if he could and would provide proof of said birth via an official birth certificate, which has never been released to date.

The fatal error revolves around the reality that Obama’s birth place is of no consequence in the matter of his status as a “natural born citizen” eligible for high Command of the US Military under Article II – Section I of the Constitution. Although there is no shortage of opinions on the subject of what the term “natural born citizen” means, there is no honest debate on the matter either.

Every Supreme Court Justice knows exactly what the term “natural born citizen” means, where it came from, why it exists in Article II requirements for the office of President and that Barack Hussein Obama is NOT a “natural born citizen,” indeed ineligible for the office he currently holds.

They know that LTC Lakin is right to “lawfully” refuse orders from an illegal Command.

We know this on the basis of the following critical facts:

1 – The term “natural born citizen” is derived from the Law of Nations. An international treaty establishing a set of rules used to establish a “nation,” the issue of nation and citizen sovereignty, and internationally recognized definitions of universal terms, including the term “natural born citizen.”

2 – The Law of Nations is specifically mentioned in the US Constitution as an enumerated power of Congress under Article I – Section VIII – Item X – “To define and punish offenses against the Law of Nations;” (Note that in the original Constitution, Law of Nations is capitalized, referring specifically to THE Law of Nations.)

3 – From Emerich de Vattel’s 1758 book on The Law of Nations, Chapter 19 § 212. – Of the citizens and natives – Vattel establishes – “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.”

4 – In a letter from Founder John Jay to then President of the Constitutional Convention George Washington, Jay stated – “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”

5 – It was later learned that President George Washington had actually taken out Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations from the local library in order to study proper implementation of law in our newly formed nation, and never returned that book. On the basis of known history and facts behind the Constitutional term “natural born citizen” which is based upon “natural law” explained in the Law of Nations as stated referred to in the US Constitution, the proper assertion is not at all related to the actual “birth place” of Barack Hussein Obama, II. The ongoing search for a Hawaiian birth certificate has no bearing on the subject of “natural born citizen” status for Barack Hussein Obama, II.

The only relative question is:

Was Barack Hussein Obama’s birth father a legal citizen of the United States of America at the time of his birth, no matter where in the world he may have been born? Without a birth father who was a legal citizen of the United States at the time of his birth, Barack Hussein Obama, II cannot be a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, he is not without divided national loyalties, and cannot serve as President of the United States or Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military as a result, creating a national security and a full blown Constitutional crisis.

According to the two autobiographical books by Barack Hussein Obama, II – his birth father is Barack Hussein Obama, a British subject at the time and a legal citizen of Kenya. According to public family history, Barack Hussein Obama was at no time in his life a legal citizen of the United States.

On this basis alone, LTC Lakin is right (and lawful) in refusing to accept orders from an illegal command. The US Constitution and the Law of Nations, upon which our sovereign nation was formed, are very clear on the matter.

As a result, the need for LTC Lakin to gain access to the Hawaiian birth records for Barack Hussein Obama, II is eliminated.

LTC Lakin need only assert the following:

On the basis of Article II – Section I of the US Constitution, supported by Article I – Section VIII – Item X concerning the Law of Nations and the term “natural born citizen,” – I hereby refuse any and all illegal orders issued by the illegal Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military, President Barack Hussein Obama, on the basis that he does not meet Constitutional requirements for the office he currently holds and must further hereby demand that he be removed from office and immediately relieved of Command of the United States Military. I further assert that due to the illegal status of existing Military high Command that this Court Martial has no authority under which to proceed.

Under this assertion, there is no need for access to the birth records of Barack Hussein Obama, II, unless Mr. Obama chooses to respond by stating that Barack Hussein Obama is not his real birth father, in which case Mr. Obama is admitting to fraud during his pursuit of the Oval Office.
In the event that the UCMJ chooses to challenge the historically accurate definition of the term “natural born citizen” described herein, the US Supreme Court is the only court in the land with proper authority to rule on the true meaning of the term “natural born citizen” – as stated by the Constitutional protections that LTC Lakin has sworn a lifetime to protect and defend.

With this assertion is place, LTC Lakin does not have to prove that his assertions are true and accurate. As Commander-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama must prove that Lakin’s assertion is false in order to proceed with the government prosecution of LTC Lakin on the grounds that he has “unlawfully” refused orders.

In short, Mr. Obama must prove that his orders are in fact “lawful.” If Obama is either unable or unwilling to do so, then LTC Lakin is in fact NOT GUILTY of “unlawfully” refusing orders.

This particular case is not about one soldier refusing deployment orders. It is about a nation allowing a precedent to stand which makes it possible for any individual with any foreign allegiance to hold the highest office in this land, with no obligation whatsoever to demonstrate or prove national loyalties before holding the office of President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief.

This case is about whether or not the US Constitution stands as the official Law of this land.

NOTE: Past challenges on the term “natural born citizen” have been improperly argued upon cases revolving around the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment relates to “immigration” and “naturalization” laws, not “natural law” used to establish “natural born citizenship” status of an individual. Therefore, any and all cases pertaining to Fourteenth Amendment arguments are moot on the matter of “natural born citizen” claims.

Researched and Prepared By:
J.B. Williams and Timothy Harrington
The United States Patriots Union, LLC - Sheridan, Wyoming
Available pdf - Courts Martial Defense of LTC Terrance Lakin.pdf (399kb - 5 pgs)


http://patriotsunion.org/
Researched and Reviewed By:
The United States Bar Association

http://www.unitedstatesbarassociation.com/




Rise Up ! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwvuimX2bjIStand Up ! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83Het3H9iQIAir America - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dnq8o_7hPccI Am America - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2CzerawWho We Are - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHtVxDz43KY Come to Jesus - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fs10Rr14WxYWe The People - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVAhr4hZDJEAmerica Rising - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=662R2awSwPQI Fought For You - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTb6qdPu8JEChicago Tea Party - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp-Jw-5Kx8kChildren of Liberty - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWnrt0ZLKQIU.S. Cease to Exist - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6p3l8BXmhsGod Save Arizona ! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrA07jcIHZIGod Bless Arizona ! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKFuYykPSxIAwaken O, America - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fzKY0hS_PwRun Into The Conflict - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A6lWl_XzKAMuslim Demographics - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYUThree Things About Islam - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6wU.S. has 2 Constitutions - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVsMUpPgdT0These are the Oath Keepers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf2K4-BQYAIStop The Socialist Revolution ! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtjQzpfq9-UThe Hidden Covenant Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnO-x9hkpX4The Hidden Covenant Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI92qto8gYsOB Mocks, Attacks Jesus, Bible - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi-V_ilJu0wObama Admits He Is A Muslim - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCAffMSWSzYSecond American Revolution - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDkWeThePeople Stimulus Package - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyAThe Year of Living Dangerously - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsBOxDM_VekGOD'S JUDGMENT ON AMERICA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW6roFN7NAENWO Plans 3 World Wars from 1871 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0DIQgnNRY49/11 NWO - Eu USA vs Russia China - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhvfCFCfdNkToo Late to Apologize: A Declaration - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZfRaWAtBVgOur Lives, Fortunes, Sacred Honor 2010 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL5bPJFHRnA

Esoteric Agenda - http://blip.tv/search?q=esoteric+agendaCamp FEMA: American Lockdown (1:26:41) - http://blip.tv/file/3661748Don't Tread On Me: Rise of the Republic (1:35:45) - http://blip.tv/file/3644422/Meltup - InflationUS (54:37) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb1n1X0OqdwFall of the Republic HQ (2:24:18) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shUThe Obama Deception HQ (1:53:40) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLwLOOSE CHANGE ! Full Version HD - 9/11 Absolute Truth - http://preview.tinyurl.com/2cnhf29Police State 4: The Rise of FEMA HQ (2:20:38) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klqv9t1zVwwInvisible Empire - NWO Defined HQ (2:14:01) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO24XmP1c5ENorman Dodd On Tax Exempt Foundations (52:24) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYCBfmIcHMAmerica: Freedom to Fascism (1:51:16) - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173The Fourth Kind Encounters (1:38) - http://sureynot.com/v/1278/the-fourth-kind,-true-story-with-raw-footage.html

Shadow Government - Grant Jeffrey (4 parts)Pt 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td01pNoC8icPt 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8UlFZZwG3EPt 3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsHXb74M3JkPt 4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Du7SiYLa90

The United American Freedom Foundation - http://uaff.info/2010 Sex, Drugs & Religion (1:11:14) http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1021806902010 Global Eugenics - Using Medicine To Kill (2:04:57) http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1007205722010 The American Matrix - Age Of Deception (2:00:03) http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1007198422008 The Decline And Fall Of America - The Movie (2:00:46) http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=63997187

Twenty Ten - 2010 by Lloyd Marcus - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZkvkLmkYVgNBRA Feet to the Fire by Lloyd Marcus - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s8BGPy7_MULloyd Marcus - American Tea Party Anthem - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1byTDgu7iAWE THE PEOPLE, New Tea Party Unity Song by Lloyd Marcus - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlkgFpU_FB4Confessions of a Black Conservative - http://www.lloydmarcus.com/?page_id=1029Lloyd Marcus - http://www.youtube.com/user/LloydMarcusUSAhttp://www.lloydmarcus.com

Victory over All Creationhttp://downloads.cbn.com/cbnplayer/cbnPlayer.swf?s=/vod/MW131v2_WS

Run Into The Conflict - "Run For Your Life" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A6lWl_XzKA On the first Sunday following the tragedy of September 11th, 2001, Carter Conlon delivered this soul-stirring message at Times Square Church in Manhattan. The sermon was titled, "Run For Your Life" and it is certainly worth the effort to listen to it in its entirety. http://www.braveheartedgospel.com/Sermons.html

U.S. HISTORY REPETITIVE TO END TIMEI - Bondage to Spiritual Faith - Year of The MayflowerII - From Spiritual Faith to great Courage - 1776III - From Courage to Liberty - Constitution 1791IV - From Liberty to Abundance - 1900 to 1960V - From Abundance to Complacency - 1960 to 1980VI - From Complacency to Apathy - 1980 to 2000VII - From Apathy to Dependence - 2000 to 2009 VIII - From Dependence back into Bondage by CONTRIVANCEIX - From Bondage to Spiritual Faith - 2010 to ? by REVIVAL or DEMISE - WWIIIX - RAPTURE - Blessed Assurance has Come - NEW JERUSALEM

Antichrist Illuminati Obama New World Order Agenda 2012 Exposedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjCiz47_PTY

The Prophecies and Revelations of Saint Bridget (Birgitta) of Swedenhttp://www.saintbirgitta.com/

Yahuwah - Yahushuahttp://followersofyah.com/




Listen to the discussion--lessons learned in 2009--1/18/2010

The facts about the health care bill!

We're The Government and You're Not

Stand up for America

keep the fire burning

keep the fire burning
Keeping alive the burning desire for freedom

Thursday, January 15, 2009

GOD BLESS YOU, DR. ORLY TAITZ

*With the economic crisis sabotage of America and the world, this entire 2008 election farce, the exorbitant legal bills chalked up by Obummer refusing to produce a single document about himself, the cost of the inauguration itself, the 9 balls, and the rest of the entire performances, this is a gigantic flaunting of wasteful spending by the government to cover up actions that are going to "throw the bum out."

The irony of it all people are stupid enough to think Obama is going to fix our economy!

Therese

Here it is. This document is far too important to wait for you to look up. You need to read it now. This is both a public document and one of major historical significance. It is and will be the greatest indictment against The Supreme Court of the United States, the Senate and Congress for breach of fiduciary duty to the American Public, failure to honor their oath to uphold and protect the US Constitution, conspiracy to install a Usurper into the Whitehouse, and placing America into the great national security threat since 1776.

This document is a matter of public record and should be on the front pages of every newspaper in America. It should be the major news story of every television news station, and should be boradcast as a NATIONAL EMERGENCY AND BROADCAST ON RADIO AND TV AS AN ALERT TO AMERICANS. AMERICA HAS BEEN DEFEATED AND LOST IN AN INVISIBLE BUT VERY REAL WAR. WE HAVE JUST FOUR DAYS LEFT BEFORE A TRAITOR TAKES OFFICE.

TEAM SARAH MEMBERS CAN PASTE AND SEND THIS DOCUMENT TO EVERY NEWS PAPER, RADIO STATION, AND TV STATION IT CAN AND ASK THEM TO PLEASE BROADCAST THIS EVENT. THIS IS THE BIGGEST EVENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY AND MSM ARE IGNORING OR REFUSING TO TELL THE PUBLIC. ARE THEY, TOO PART OF THE DEFEAT OF AMERICA?




RLY FILES THIS TODAY !! OBAMA NOT QUALIFIED BY DEFAULT !! Exellent.

Thursday, January 15, 2009
Important, This motion was filed today
No. 08A524

In The
Supreme Court of the United States

GAIL LIGHTFOOT, NEIL B. TURNER, KATHLEEN FLANAGAN,
JAMES M. OBERSCHAIN, CAMDEN W. MCCONNELL,
PAMELA BARNETT, & EVELYN BRADLEY
Petitioners;

v.

DEBRA BOWEN, Secretary of State of California

Respondent.

On Petition For A Write Of Certiorari
Before Judgement To The
Supreme Court of California
Case Nos. :( S168690)

MOTION TO DECLARE THAT BY DEFAULT,
THE PRESIDENT ELECT RESPONDENT
BARACK OBAMA HAS FAILED TO QUALIFY
UNDER US CONSTITUTION ARTICLE II §1, &
AMENDMENT 20, PER RULE 21 (2)(B) & (4)

Attorney of Record
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

26302 La Paz
Mission Viejo CA 92691
949-683-5411

January 15, 2009

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Question I: Does the burden of proof lie with the Petitioner to prove standing and evidence lack of qualification by a candidate/President elect, where election officers rely on a candidate’s declaration? OR Does the CONSTITUTION amend. 20 place the burden of proof on the President elect to provide objective government certified witnessed proofs, with election officers under oath to challenge, examine and declare that the President elect has or has not qualified, enforceable by petition for redress of grievances?

Question II: Should the “natural born citizen” presidential qualification be interpreted expansively to expand civil rights under the 14th Amendment? OR Should it be interpreted restrictively as an essential guard against tyranny by ensuring the Commander in Chief has only had undivided allegiance to the U.S.A., to safeguard the Constitution and the Republic?

MOTION TO DECLARE THAT BY DEFAULT, THE PRESIDENT ELECT RESPONDENT BARACK OBAMA HAS FAILED TO QUALIFY UNDER US CONSTITUTION ARTICLE II §1, & AMENDMENT 20, PER RULE 21 (2)(B) & (4)
I. Motion to file Under Rule 21 (2) (b), and 21(4).
The Petitioner requests leave of this Court to file this Motion under Rule 21, (2) (b) which empowers Petitioner submit “any motion the granting of which would dispose of the entire case or would affect the final judgment to be entered”. By Rule 21 (4), “the Court may act on a motion without waiting for a response.”
To the Petitioner’s knowledge, the following two questions have not been brought to the attention of this Court by the parties or have not been adequately discussed:
Question I: Does the burden of proof lie with the Petitioner to prove standing and evidence lack of qualification by a candidate/President elect, where election officers rely on a candidate’s declaration? OR Does the CONSTITUTION amend. 20 place the burden of proof on the President elect to provide objective government certified witnessed proofs, with election officers under oath to challenge, examine and declare that the President elect has or has not qualified, enforceable by petition for redress of grievances?
Recent events strongly changed the circumstances relating to the Respondent relative to the Petition.
A. Respondent declared President elect
Congress in joint session recorded the Electoral College votes on January 8, 2009. It declared Respondent Barack Hussein Obama II to be the President elect. This event now brings to bear U.S. CONST. Amendment 20.
B. Burden of Proof on Respondent
The clause “have failed to qualify” in U.S. CONST. Amend. 20, place the burden of proof directly on the President elect, the Respondent in this case.
C. Respondent has failed to submit proofs
Per the Petitioner’s petition and to his belief and knowledge, the Respondent has to date failed to present to any constitutional election officer, any government certified proofs attested to by reliable witnesses, for any of the qualifications required under U.S. Const. Art II §1.
D. Respondent has hindered discovery
Respondent has actively hindered election officers and We the People from obtaining and examining proofs of his qualifications for President comprising government certified proofs attested to by reliable witnesses, and certified copies of military, public and educational records.
Per the Petitioner’s petition and to her belief and knowledge, the Respondent has, at great cost, systematically opposed in court every effort to require him to provide such proofs, including those presented before this Court by the Petitioner.
E. President elect has failed to qualify, by default and by opposition.
The Petitioner submits that, both by default and by active hindrance to officers and to petitioners seeking that evidence, Respondent, Barack Hussein Obama II, the President Elect, has “failed to qualify” as per U.S. Constitution Amendment 20.
F. Immediate Constitutional Remedy
In light of the importance of upholding the CONSTITUTION as supreme law, these changed circumstances bring Amendment 20 to bear, and because of the very high pubic importance of this matter, Petitioner prays that this Court provide the following immediate constitutional remedy to better satisfy the prayer of the Petitioner:
Find that the President elect has failed to qualify by default, under U.S. CONST. Article II §1 & Amendment 20.
This remedy would rely on observation of the Respondents actions of not supplying proofs that he qualifies, both by omission and commission, rather than on the merits of the Petitioner’s case.
The Petitioner’s previous and present prayers may then be molded to communicate that finding to Congress, which then would have constitutional business of the highest privilege to elect a President who does qualify.
G. Presidential candidates can then qualify.
This constitutional remedy would then return to the Electoral College and to Congress the constitutional duty to elect a President who did qualify from all the available candidates.
Question II: Should the “natural born citizen” presidential qualification be interpreted expansively to expand civil rights under the 14th Amendment? OR Should it be interpreted restrictively as an essential guard against tyranny by ensuring the Commander in Chief has only had undivided allegiance to the U.S.A., to safeguard the Constitution and the Republic?
Petitioner submits an underlying constitutional principle of undivided loyalty to distinguish the stringent qualifications of “natural born citizen” essential for the Commander in Chief for the common defense in time of war, and preserving domestic tranquility, versus upholding civil rights of “citizens”.
Petitioner appeals to the primacy of upholding the Constitution as invoilable supreme law, and preserving the essential protection of presidential qualifications to preserve the Republic.
Petitioner prays that the Court provide clear guidance on this question of interpreting this critical qualification of the President elect before the Inauguration on January 20th. This would enable election officers to examine proofs submitted by the President elect, or on lack thereof, to properly conduct their constitutional duty to declare that the President elect has qualified, or has failed to qualify, before the date of the Inauguration.
The Petitioner’s prayer could then be molded to communicate that finding to Congress, which then would have constitutional business of the highest privilege to elect a President who does qualify. The Petitioner comes bearing the burden of upholding our Constitution and protecting our Republic against tyranny, on behalf of We the People in this and future generations. Standing before the Judge of all the world for the rectitude of her ways:
“I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject
to punishment.” ___________________________, January 15, 2009
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ, 949-683-5411
26302 La Paz, Mission Viejo CA 92691

MOTION FOR WAIVER OF RULE 37(2)(A) OF THIS COURT
The Petitioner humbly requests waiver of Rule 37(2)(a) of this Court, requiring timely filing of a motion with specified notice to all parties. Petitioner appeals to the unique over riding change in circumstances created by the formal election by the Electoral College of the Respondent, Barack Hussein Obama II, and his delayed declaration on Thursday, Jan. 8th, 2009, by Congress in joint session, to be the President elect. This uniquely brings to bear the constitutional actions prescribed by U.S. CONST. Amend. 20.
Per the Petitioner’s case, the motion, and to her belief and knowledge, to date the Respondent has failed to submit to constitutional election officers the necessary government certified witnessed proofs verifying that he qualifies to be President. He has further opposed all efforts by election officers and by We the People to obtain such certified proofs.
Furthermore, to date, all State and Federal election officers appear to have committed misprision of their duties under U.S. CONST. amend. 20, by failing to examine the qualifications of the President elect, and thence by failing to declare that the President elect has qualified, or has failed to qualify.
The delayed declaration of the President elect left but five (5) working days to observe this misprision, prepare this Motion, and to submit it, before this Court meets in conference on Friday January 16th to consider the Petitioner case After that conference this Court has no (0) working days before the inauguration of the Respondent as President on Tuesday January 20th. That event without word from this Court would give the impression of fait accompli creating such enormous political barriers as to possibly prevent effective redress by the Petitioner.
Inauguration of the President elect having a popular majority while preventing his qualifications from being examined would nullify U.S. art. II §1. Conversely, declaration that the President elect had qualified or failed to have qualified would be of very high public import.
Were this Court to provide the recommended remedy, of declaring that the President elect had failed to qualify, that would provide obvious immediate constitutional relief for the Petitioner. This would cause far less political trauma by clearly upholding constitutionally defined procedures than any redress by granting existing prayers after the inauguration.
Petitioner presents analysis regarding critical safeguards to the Constitution that could be of existential importance to preserving the Republic. The constitutional principle of sole allegiance underlying the restrictive qualification of “natural born citizen” for Commander in Chief to protect the Constitution rather than civil rights of citizens, does not appear to have been so identified in the Petitioner’s case nor in other petitions to the Court.
The Motion would further support the cause of numerous subsequent Petitioners including Berg v. Obama No. 08-570 distributed for the Court’s conference on January 16th, who are committed to submitting petitions for similar issues.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on January 15, 2009. ______________________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTIONS PRESENTED I
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 1
ARGUMENT 3

I.The CONSTITUTION Places The Burden Of Proof On the President Elect, Who Has Failed To Qualify 3
A. The 20th Amendment qualification process 3
1. Burden of proof on the President elect 3
2. Qualification candidate 3
3. Constitutional qualifications exist 3
4. Officers competent to judge qualifications 3
5. Challenging Respondent’s qualifications 3
6. Venues for qualification 4
7. Period for qualification 4
8. Opportunity for qualifying 4
9. Time and Actors for remedy 4
10. Verification of proofs of qualifications 4
11. Electoral College 5
12. State Election Officers 5
13. Declaration of qualification/failure 5
14. Proofs for explicit qualification criteria 5
15. Inauguration would not remedy defects 6
B. Respondent’s refusal to supply proofs 6
1. No certified documents provided 6
2. Birth records sealed 6
3. Educational records sealed 6

II. Undivided allegiance to the U.S. underlies the restrictive “natural born citizen” qualification for Commander in Chief to preserve the Republic. 7
A. Stringency of qualifications 8
1. Increasing Responsibility 8
2. Increasing Maturity 8
3. Increasing Citizenship/Residency Duration 8
4. More Stringent Citizenship 8
Table 1: Stringency of Leadership Qualifications 8
5. Founders all U.S. citizens 9
6. Founders exception as not “natural born citizens” 9
B. Contemporary definitions: “native born citizen” 10
1. Emmerich de Vattel, Law of Nations (175 8) 10
2. William Blackstone, Commentaries (1765) 10
C. Primary allegiance passes through fathers 10
D. Birth to Colonials not U.S., “natural born” 10
E. RPE Obama born of a British Colonial 10
F. Birth to two citizens overseas 11
G. Commander in Chief in time of war 11
1. Foreigners excluded for Commander in Chief 11
2. Undivided Allegiance for Commander in Chief 12
3. International conflict over divided loyalties 12
4. Danger of Traitors with Foreign Allegiance 12
5. Avoid dual nationality through a parent 13
6. Avoid dual nationality through birth place 13
7. Power to Exclude Aliens 13
H. Natural Born under Amendment 14 14
1. Citizenship rights 14
2. Bingham affirms narrow “natural born 14
3. Reviews of “natural born citizen” 14

III. CONCLUSION 14

IV. APPENDIX A-1
A. Petition for redress of President elect’s failure to qualify A-1
C. Civilians killed by 20th Century Tyrants A-2
D. The Rule of Law, collective ‘unalienable rights’ and ‘ancient liberties’
A-3
E. Oaths Secure the CONSTITUTION & and Rule of Law A-4
F. CONSTITUTION of the United States of America A-5

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES
231 U.S. 9, 22 (1913) 10
322 U.S. 665, 673 (1944) 10
377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964) 10
Chae Chan Ping v. United States 130 U.S. 581, 603, 604 (1889) 13
Perkins v. Elg 307 U.S. 325 13, 14
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - (U.S. 1787)
U.S. CONST. pmbl 7, A-5
U.S. CONST., amend. XX passim
U.S. CONST., amend I. 7
U.S. CONST., amend. IX A-6
U.S. CONST., amend. X A-6
U.S. CONST., amend. XIV § 1 A-6
STATUTES: Organic Laws of U.S.A. & States
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (U.S. 1776) passim
DECLARATION (U.S. 1776) 9
DECLARATION para. 2. A-3
DECLARATION para. 32 A-5
Massachussetts Constitution §XXX (1780) A-3
STATUTES: Organic Laws - Common Law
1 Blackstone Commentaries(1765) Ch. 1 § 3 (1765) 10, A-3
BILL OF RIGHTS secs. 16, 17, 18. 1, W. & M., 2d sess., c. 2 , 16 Dec. 1689 (U.K.) 7,A-4
Blackstone, Commentaries, 152-154 (1765) 10
DOOMS (Code) of Alfred “the Great” (880). A-4
MAGNA CARTA, 17 John (1215); 1 Henry 3 (1225). 6, 7, A-4
Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, 476 (1856) 10
U.S. CONST., art. VI ¶2 6, 7
Washington, Writings (1932), Vol. XI, pp. 342-343, General Orders of May 2, 1778 12
STATUTES: Other, Bills, Proclamations, & Resolves
5 U.S.C. 3331 Oath of Office. A-5
10 U.S.C. 312. Militia duty: exemptions. A-4
28 U.S.C. 453. Oaths of justices and judges. A-4
29 U.S.C. 169 Employees with religious convictions[]fees A-4
Naturalization act of 1795, 1 Sess. II Ch. 21 414, 415 (1795) 11
BIBLE
Bible. A-3
Matthew 5:33-37. Affirmation. A-4
Ruth 4:6 10
TREATISES
Courtois, St├ęphane et al. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, 912 pp, ISBN 0-674-07608-7 (1999). 7
de Vattel, Law of Nations (1758), Bk. 1, Ch. 19, p 101 10, 14
John Locke 2nd Treatise of Civil Govt. ch. 4 § 22 (1690) A-4
Rushdoony (1973), Inst. Biblical Law, Craig Press 10
Story, Joseph Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 2 Vols. xxxiii, 735, 702pp. (Reprint ed. Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. 2001 ISBN 1-58477-193-3) (1858). A-5
OTHER AUTHORITIES
4 Elliott’s Debates p. 196 (30 July 1788). A-4
British Nationality Act (194 8) §5(1) 10, 11, A-1
Continental Congress, Declaration and Resolves 14 Oct. 1774 Tansill 1–5 #2 A-3
Rec. Fed. Conv. 1787 CCLXXXVIII p 385, 387 (March 28, 1800) 12, 13
Rec. Fed. Conv. 1787 LXVIII. John Jay to George Washington.3 (NY Jul. 25)
1, 12, 13
Trial of the Seven Bishops for Publishing a Libel. 12 How. St. Tr. 183, 415, (1688).
A-4
Washington, George Farewell Address (Sept. 17, 1796). A-5
MISCELLANEOUS
Samuel Rutherford Lex Rex (1644). A-26

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

1. The Petitioner submits that the U.S. CONST’s 20th Amendment places the burden of proof directly on the President elect to demonstrate that he qualifies to become President, and on government officers to evaluate and report on those proofs. It negates the lower court’s assumption that the burden of proof lies with the Petitioner.
The Respondents, President elect Barack Hussein Obama II (herein RPE Obama) et al., have failed to submit to election officers the requisite objective government certified proofs attested to by multiple reliable witnesses, as evidence that the President elect qualifies per U.S. CONST. Art. 2 §1 and §2. Furthermore, they have systematically acted to withhold from State and Federal election officers, and from We the People, the evidence necessary to evaluate the qualifications of the President elect.
Having thus failed to qualify by default, U.S. CONST. amend. 20 requires election officers to declare that the President elect has “failed to qualify”. Congress then has constitutional business of the highest privilege to elect a President who does qualify.
By misprisions of State and Federal election officers to perform these duties, Petitioner has the constitutional right and duty to challenge the qualifications of the President elect by redress petition preserved under U.S. CONST. amend. 1, by rights reserved by We the People, under U.S. CONST. amend. 1, 10 and 20, and by each government officer’s oath of office to uphold the CONSTITUTION as inviolable supreme law, U.S. CONST. art. VI.
2. The core issue underlying the Petitioner’s motion, this case before this Court, and to all similar cases is the constitutional interpretation of the restrictive “natural born citizen”qualification for President.
Prior cases with other issues have brought issues of individual civil rights of citizenship to the attention of this Court. The Petitioner brings the issue of the restrictive constitutional qualifications for President. This addresses the essential safeguard provided by the Founders to preserve the Republic and upholding the inviolability of Constitution as supreme law.
The intent of the Founders is clearly seen in John
II. The CONSTITUTION Places The Burden Of Proof On the President Elect, Who Has Failed To Qualify The 20th Amendment qualification process The U.S. CONST. amend. 20 prescribes that:
“. . . if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified;. . .”
The Constitution does not guarantee inauguration of a President elect. It requires that he first “qualify”.
The Petitioner has observed that the Constitution nowhere delegates the power and method of qualifying. Thus, the Petitioner appealed to powers reserved under the 14th Amendment. However, common principles may still identify methods by which the President elect may qualify, or fail to have qualified.
1. Burden of proof on the President elect By the past tense verb “have failed to qualify”, the CONSTITUTION places the burden of proof directly on the President elect to lay objective proofs before competent officers necessary to demonstrate that he has met the constitutional qualifications for President.
2. Qualification candidate Respondent Barack Hussein Obama II was declared the constitutional President elect by Congress in joint session on Jan. 8th, 2009. RPE Obama is thus the active subject of U.S. CONST., amend 20.
3. Constitutional qualifications exist The verb “qualify” indicates that the Constitution establishes objective criteria that the President elect must satisfy. See explicit restrictive qualifications in U.S. CONST. Art II, §1 and implicit qualifications listed below.
4. Officers competent to judge qualifications The verb “has failed to qualify” implies that there are election officers to whom those constitutional proofs of qualifications must be submitted. The electoral votes are submitted to the President of the Senate presiding over Congress in joint session with tellers appointed from the Senate and House. At least those constitutional officers are competent to receive evaluate the qualifications. The Chief Justice of this Court, and the President are other constitutionally defined officers before whom the President elect could submit his proofs for qualification.
5. Challenging Respondent’s qualifications All Executive, Legislative and Judicial officers, being on Oath to uphold the CONSTITUTION, have the power and duty to challenge the Respondent President elect Obama to show cause by date certain why he should not have failed to qualify.
a. Objections to reading Electoral votes
When Congress tabulates votes of the Electoral College in joint session, law explicitly requires the President of the Senate to ask for Objections after the reading of each State’s electoral certificates. 3 U.S.C. Ch. 1, §15. Objections to electoral votes may be filed if signed by one Senator and one Representative. Electing a candidate for President who would not qualify would violate the Constitution and justify raising a formal objection on reading each State’s votes. On reading the electoral votes, Senate President Dick Cheney failed to ask for objections on reading of each State’s votes on Jan. 8th, 2009. See also 3 U.S.C. Ch. 1,§17, §19(a) (1), and §19 ©) (1)
b. Point of Order on declaring President elect Obama has failed to qualify
Officers on oath to uphold the Constitution bear the high privilege to raise a Point of Order or Question of Order over any breach thereof, as well as over any breach of the Rules of each House. Senate Rule XX. When an appointed election officer fails to uphold the duties required by U.S. CONST. Art II §1 and amend. 20, any Member of Congress has the power and duty to raise a Point of Order.
Failing that, citizens, including the Petitioner, have the unalienable right of petition for redress of grievances, to petition their State or Congress with a prayer to raise a Point of Order over breach of Constitution. U.S. CONST. amend. I
Reporting the tallied electoral votes provided an opportunity to raise the Point of Order that the President elect has not qualified. However, no Member of Congress raised that Point of Order requested by numerous citizens by redress petition. See Appendix A. Every time any House is in session provides an opportunity for Members of Congress to raise a Point of Order that the President elect has failed to qualify.
6. Venues for qualification The joint session of Congress, held to count electoral votes and announce the President elect, is one venue in which the President elect could have submitted his qualifications. Thereafter, the President elect could submit his qualifications to the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, the Chief Justice of this Court, or the President as constitutionally recognized officers being under oath to uphold the Constitution.
7. Period for qualification By the classification “President elect”, Amend. 20 establishes at least the qualification period between the constitutional “election” of tabulating electoral college votes before Congress on January 6th (January 8th in 2009) and the inauguration on January 20th when the President elect is sworn in as “President”.
8. Opportunity for qualifying By “have failed to qualify”, the President elect will have been given the opportunity to submit proofs showing that he does qualify. By January 16th, RPE Obama will have had five business days during which to submit proofs of his qualification.
9. Time and Actors for remedy Were this Court to determine and find the President elect has failed to qualify by default, there would still be time to notify Congress, for Congress to appoint the Vice President as Acting President, and for the Electoral College and Congress to proceed with electing another President who does qualify, per U.S. CONST. amend. 20. This urgent constitutional business would have privilege over other business.
10. Verification of proofs of qualifications By “have failed to qualify”, the competent election officers must examine the proofs submitted by the President elect against the constitutional qualifications. The CONSTITUTION grants all powers necessary to perform constitutional duties including obtaining government certified documents from any Federal or State repository, and to subpoena other records as needed.
11. Electoral College By U.S. CONST. amend 12, Electors in the Electoral College are election officers with the duty to elect the President. Electors, and the Electoral College have the privileges and duty to evaluate the qualifications of all candidates for President, and the President elect. By their oath to uphold the Constitution, they have a duty to demand and evaluate proofs and to find that the Presidential candidate or President elect has or has failed to qualify.
12. State Election Officers Each State has the equivalent privileges and opportunities to evaluate the qualifications of all candidates for President and for the President elect. As the Petitioner has sought relief, the Secretary of State can communicate RPE Obama’s failure to qualify to the Governor, the State’s Senators and President of the Senate, and to its Representatives, and the Speaker of the House. Each State’s Senators, Representatives and Governor have the Privilege of the Floor in the respective House, and may communicate that failure, or raise a Point of Order. Senate Rule XXIII
13. Declaration of qualification/failure By “have failed to qualify”, the election officers have the constitutional power and duty to declare that the President elect has met or has failed to meet the restrictive constitutional requirements for President. They have the power and duty to communicate that determination to the authorities responsible to elect the President. I.e. to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House.
14. Proofs for explicit qualification criteria Objective evidence of qualifications must be commensurate with the level of proof required. Certified copies of original birth certificates are commonly required by citizens to obtain government photo ID, marriage certificates, driver’s licenses, and to register to vote.
To obtain security clearance, military officers must provide increasingly exhaustive evidence that they qualify. As Commander in Chief, the President commands the Chiefs of the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force bearing Top Secret clearance. Common sense requires that the President elect provide objective proofs commensurate with the higher constitutional office of Commander in Chief, and the Top Secret clearance required of those he must command. To verify constitutional qualifications, election officers should require the President elect to provide the following, and to verify their validity.
a. Age 35 years
Government certified copies of original full (“long form”) birth certificates attested to by two reliable witnesses, and all revisions thereof. U.S. CONST. art. II, §1.
b. 14 years residency in the US
Evidence of residence within the U.S., with certified copies of all passports held to confirm time within versus without the U.S., being more thorough than that required for naturalization, or documenting U.S. births abroad. U.S. CONST. art. II, §1.
c. Natural born citizen with sole allegiance
By the underlying constitutional principle of sole allegiance to the U.S.A. the Commander in Chief should have all biological and adoptive parents holding allegiance to the US, the President elect be born in U.S. jurisdiction, and have had only had sole allegiance to the U.S. CONST. art. II, §1.
(1) President Elect’s Citizenship
Government certified copies of the original (“long form”) birth certificates of the President elect, showing original place and date of birth, and both biological parents.
(2) Citizenship of Biological Father
Government certified copies of the original birth certificates or naturalization certificates, evidencing US Citizenship of the biological father at the birth of the President elect.
(3) Citizenship of Biological Mother
Government certified copies of the original birth certificates or naturalization certificates, evidencing US Citizenship of the biological mother at the President elect’s birth.
(4) Citizenship of Adoptive Parents
Government certified copies evidencing citizenship of every adoptive parent of the President elect.
(5) Change of Name
Government certified copies of every legal change of name since birth.
(6) Declarations of allegiance
Certified copies of each document wherein the President elect has sworn allegiance, or declared his citizenship or allegiance, whether as a youth or adult, including applications for higher education and financial aid.
(7) Military & Public Service
Certified copies of any registration for military service, and of each and every military and/or public service.
15. Inauguration would not remedy defects Official inauguration of a President elect do not remedy failure to constitutionally qualify. The US Constitution is inviolable, founded on the security of the U.S. CONST., art. VI ¶2 No certified documents provided Per the Petitioner’s application and current belief and knowledge, none of these documents having been submitted to election officers in Congress, in the Electoral College, or in any State, by RPE Obama, that are government certified with reliable witnesses. Upcoming petitioners including Gail Lightfoot have similarly found no evidence of such positive action by RPE Obama to qualify.
2. Birth records sealed The RPE Obama has refused to submit certified copies of any of his original long form “vault” birth certificates in Hawaii to any public officer or to any Petitioner. Relevant records in Kenya have also been officially restricted.
3. Educational records sealed The RPE Obama has sealed all educational records which might reveal his stated citizenship. These include Punahou High School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School.

III. Undivided allegiance to the U.S. underlies the restrictive “natural born citizen” qualification for Commander in Chief to preserve the Republic. When King and Parliament breached their rights with arbitrary laws, the Founders fought to restore the Rule of Law claiming ‘unalienable rights’ and ‘entitle[ment]’ by the ‘laws of God.’ DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (U.S. 1776) (herein “DECLARATION”). The inviolability of the Magna Carta (1215) was preserved in the U.S. Constitution (1787) as “supreme law.” Magna Carta (1215) §61. This security was restored by theU.S. CONST., amend I.U.S. CONST. pmblU.S. CONST., art. I §3 para. 5. The “natural born citizen” allegiance qualification was strictest of these, to protect against treason and tyranny.
Democracies Descending into Tyranny: Thirty three democracies descended into tyranny during the 20th century by failing to uphold constitutional protections. These included Germany, Russia, and China.
Secularist States Murdered Millions: States establishing Secularism caused the most extrajudicial deaths in the 20th Century. Courtois et al. (1999) detail the consequent horrors of atheistic communist governments killing more than 125 million - more than three times the 38 million killed in all 20th Century wars. See Appendix C, Hagen & Irish (2000).
The greatest threat to Domestic tranquility is not war but descent into mob rule and dictatorship. Preserving protections of the Constitution and Republic are critically important. The restrictive “natural born citizen” qualification for President, is a critical constitutional guard against tyranny. Petitioner applies the unalienable right of redress petition and security of Oaths to preserve the US. CONST. in face of misprision of failing to enforce presidential qualifications by election officers.
Petitioner humbly prays this Court evaluate the Petitioner’s case in context of how best to enforce restrictive qualifications for President to preserve the Constitution and Republic from tyranny, rather than its prior cases on protecting individual civil rights.
A. Stringency of qualifications The U.S. CONSTITUTION explicitly requires a progressively increasing stringency in qualifications for higher levels of officers of government. See Table 1.
1. Increasing Responsibility Representatives represent a portion of a State (< 30,000 citizens per U.S. CONST. art. I, §2 para 3). Senators have greater responsibility to represent a State and the Nation’s interests. The President is responsible for the entire Nation. In light of their increasing responsibilities, the CONSTITUTION imposes increasingly stringent qualifications for Congressional offices, with the greatest stringency for the President.
2. Increasing Maturity The minimum age increases from 25 to 30 to 35 years for Representatives, Senators and the President. After coming of age at 21, this requires from 4 years to 9 years to 14 years of maturity. The President must have 350% the adult maturity of Representatives.
3. Increasing Citizenship/Residency Duration The qualification of citizenship increases from 7 years to 9 years for Representatives, and Senators (no residency). ( U.S. CONST. art. I, §3 para. 3U.S. CONST. art. II, §1 para. 5 Each Member of Congress must be a “citizen” U.S. CONST. art. I, §2 para. 2; U.S. CONST. art. II, §1 para. 5. The features distinguishing “natural born citizen” from “citizen” are critical to this and other cases contesting respondent Obama’s qualifications.

Table 1: Stringency of Leadership Qualifications

Member of Congress President
Repre-sentative Senator Commander in Chief
Responsi-bility Part State State All States
Minimum Age years 25* 30** 35***
Citizen/
Resident 7 years citizen* 9 years citizen** 14 years a resident ***
Citizen Type Any * Any ** Natural born ***
US allegiance Sole or divided Sole or divided Undivided
Father a citizen Option Option Yes
Mother a citizen Option Option Yes
Naturalized Option+ Option+ No+
Born in US jurisdiction Option+ Option+ Yes (or Residency)+
*U.S. CONST. art. I, §1; **U.S. CONST. art. I, §3; ***U.S. CONST. art. II, §1; +U.S. CONST. amend. XIV §1 with statutory citizenship requirements

Petitioner submits that the qualification of “natural born citizen” for the President must be more stringent than “citizen”, both by logic, and by inference from the gradation of constitutional qualifications for Representatives, Senators and the President.
However, “citizen” is a binary qualification. As “natural born citizen” is not defined within the Constitution, what are the constitutional criteria for establishing for this greater stringency? The “jurisdiction” of birth, allegiance or citizenship of each parent at an individual’s birth, and the individual’s own actions regarding allegiance on coming of age create multiple subcategories of “citizen”. Following are distinctions between “naturalized”, “native”, and “natural born” citizens as shown in the CONSTITUTION, by the Founders, and by contemporary authorities.
6. Founders all U.S. citizens By U.S. CONST., art. VII para. 3, the U.S.A. is dated by “the independence of the United States of America the twelfth” codifying that it was established by the Declaration of Independence, (U.S. 1776). On adoption of the U.S. CONST. numerous candidates for Representatives and Senators satisfied the requirements of “citizen”, having 7 or 9 years of citizenship, and age per & §3. If Respondent Obama had been a U.S. “citizen” for 9 years and was at least 30 years age he would have qualified on his election to the Senate.
7. Founders exception as not “natural born citizens” However, DECLARATION (U.S. 1776)377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964)322 U.S. 665, 673 (1944)231 U.S. 9, 22 (1913) " Emmerich de Vattel, Law of Nations (175 8)
de Vattel’s Law of Nations widely quoted by the Founders. de Vattel stated:
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. ..” Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758), Bk. 1, Ch. 19, Citizens and Nations, p 101 para 212; cited in Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, 476 (1856).

2. " William Blackstone, Commentaries (1765)
Blackstone in reviewing the Common Law stated:
“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, . . . aliens, such as are born out of it. . . .
. . .every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, . . .” Commentaries 154-57 (Dean Gait ed., 1941)
Both de Vattel and Blackstone thus state that children born of two citizens in that nation are natural-born citizens. RPE Obama has not shown evidence that both his biological parents were U.S. citizens.
D. Primary allegiance passes through fathers In the Judeo-Christian legal tradition, allegiance flows through the father. Bible Ruth 4:6; de Vattel and Blackstone affirm this principle:
“ . .the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children.” de Vattel, Law of Nations (1758), Bk. 1, Ch. 19, Citizens & Nations, p 101 para 212.

“ . . .so that all children, born out of the king’s licence, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes,. . .” William Blackstone, Commentaries 154-57 (Dean Gait ed., 1941)

RPE Obama has not shown evidence his father was a natural-born US citizen.
E. Birth to Colonials not US, “natural born” George Washington was born to colonials of Virginia, and John Adams to colonials of Massachussetts. Both were born “native” to those Colonies, and “overseas” to Britain. Yet by the exception clause, the Founders implied that the restriction to U.S. “natural born citizen” disqualified both from becoming U.S. President. The CONSTITUTION’S exclusion clause by application disqualifies all U.S. citizens born to colonial fathers subject to the British sovereign.
F. RPE Obama born of a British Colonial RPE Obama has posted:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.” http://www.Fightthesmears.org
(Technically the British East African Protectorate of Zanzibar until Kenya gained independence in 1963.)
The divorce decree for RPE Obama’s parents has recently been posted. (http://www.plainsradio.com).
“That one child has been born to said Libelant and Libeled as issue of said marriage, to wit: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, a son, born August 4, 1961.” HI, 1st Cir. Domestic Relations, divorce decree D. No. 57972 Stanley Ann D. Obama v. Barack H. Obama p 2 §IV.

The Hawaii court thus confirms RPE Obama’s statements.
RPE Obama acknowledged that he had foreign allegiance, being a British citizen at birth through his Kenyan father (per British law provided exceptions for children born overseas to ambassadors, merchants, and citizens:
“Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: . . .all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England:” Blackstone Commentaries 154-57.

After adoption of the Constitution, Congress adapted this common law distinguishing between children born overseas vs those within the jurisdiction of the US, describing them as “citizen” rather than natural born citizen. Naturalization act of 1795, 1 Sess. II Ch. 21 414, 415 (1795), (with variations in 1790 and 1798.)
If born overseas, RPE Obama has not submitted proofs that he was born to two US citizens.
I. Commander in Chief in time of war The U.S. CONST. art II §2 provides:
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States;”

Petitioner submits that this unique constitutional duty of Commander in Chief provides a critical constitutional principle differentiating the qualifications of “national born citizen” for president vs “citizen” for Members of Congress.
1. Foreigners excluded for Commander in Chief John Jay, the first Chief Justice, wrote George Washington:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check on the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”Records Federal Conv. 1787 LXVIII. John Jay to George Washington.3 (New York, July 25, 1787)

Jay expressly defined the qualification of “natural born citizen” for the “commander in chief of the American army” as excluding all “Foreigners” with allegiance to foreign sovereigns. Washington acknowledged his “hint” and this qualification of “natural born citizen” was included in the Constitution without further discussion.
2. Undivided Allegiance for Commander in Chief Senator Charles Pickney affirmed Jay’s restrictive qualification, stating:
“It was intended to give your President the command of your forces, . . . to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible….” Rec. Fed. Conv. 1787 CCLXXXVIII p 385, 387 (March 28, 1800)

Petitioner respectfully submits that the underlying constitutional principle on the restrictive qualification of “natural born citizen” to become President is that of requiring undivided allegiance to the U.S.A. for the Commander in Chief to “insure attachment to the country” and exclude “Foreigners”.
On adopting the CONSTITUTION, the United States was just recovering from an existential war with the superpower Britain. The US endured ongoing conflict with Britain impressing US citizens for its ships, over this issue of the allegiance of native or naturalized citizens “natural born citizens”. Britain demanded the allegiance of all US citizens born in the colonies, or whose father was a British citizen, and who thus were not “natural born” with both parents being US citizens. In 1812 the US was forced to go to war with Britain to resolve this festering issue of allegiance to Britain.
5. Danger of Traitors with Foreign Allegiance “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” US Const. Art. III, §3. As Commander in Chief, the President must guard against Treason.
During the War for Independence, General Greene reported: “Treason of the blackest dye was yesterday discovered. General Arnold who commanded at West Point . . . was about to deliver up that important post into the hands of the enemy. Such an event must have given the American cause a deadly wound if not a fatal stab.” Washington, Writings (1932), Vol. XI, pp. 342-343, General Orders of May 2, 1778.

Though a U.S. citizen and war hero, Benedict Arnold had been born under allegiance to Britain and his wife has strong allegiance to Britain. In light of the Founders’ painful experience during their recent War of Independence, the Treason section reinforces the principle that “natural born citizen”as qualification for Commander in Chief is to exclude citizens having any foreign allegiance. I.e., to select Presidents having only ever had sole allegiance with both biological parents and adoptive parents being US citizens.
Since the attack on New York’s World Trade Center on “9/11", the US has been at “war on terrorism”. This enemy is not a nation state but radical Islamic religious faction bent on imposing its religious views through force. Indonesia is the largest Islamic country.
Similarly, Petitioner submitted affidavits detailing how relatives of RPE Obama in Kenya have used violence to subjugate Christians, coerce elections, coerce the government into granting political power (establishing a Prime Minister without constitutional amendment.) Petitioner documented RPE Obama as having aided and abetted this coercive effort.
RPE Obama has failed to show that he is free of foreign influence as necessary for a Commander in Chief in time of war.
6. Avoid dual nationality through a parent Tories retaining allegiance to the British sovereign were a major part of the “enemy” during the US War of Independence. The Founders’ experience directs an explicit avoidance of citizens having near relatives with foreign allegiance as a threat of direct opposition or of becoming traitors. This infers that “natural born citizen” should be interpreted to mean that both parents of the Commander in Chief should be U.S. citizens. Adoptive parents should also be U.S. citizens.
Petitioner documents that RPE Obama had Indonesian citizenship evidenced by school records and parents divorce decree. Petitioner submits that the core purpose of “natural born citizen” is that of allegiance to safeguard against tyranny. The issue is thus whether RPE Obama retained sole allegiance to the USA per requirements for a Commander in chief in time of war, rather than his personal civil rights of citizenship or if he lost his citizenship (cf Perkins v. Elg 307 U.S. 325).
7. Avoid dual nationality through birth place Foreign birth establishes foreign allegiance (dual citizenship). During World War II, Hitler recalled US citizens with dual nationality or German parentage. Pierce O’Donnell, In Time of War: Hitler’s Terrorist Attack on America, 2005. Some were trained sent back to sabotage the US war effort. By the sovereignty of the U.S., Congress has the absolute power
“to exclude aliens from the United States and to prescribe the terms and conditions on which they come in. . . .The United States, . . . are one nation, invested with powers which belong to independent nations, the exercise of which can be invoked for the maintenance of its absolute independence and security throughout its entire territory.” Chae Chan Ping v. United States 130 U.S. 581, 603, 604 (1889)

Making an Alien the Commander in Chief would incur the danger of the US losing “its absolute independence and security”by descent into tyranny. Pickney restricting the President from foreigners applies this power to exclude aliens and applies it to excluding any citizen with foreign allegiance, by birth or adoption, from becoming Commander in Chief, lest they endanger the U.S.’s “absolute independence and security.”
J. Natural Born under Amendment 14 Citizenship rights In ” John A. Bingham, appointed Union Army Judge Advocate by Lincoln, crafted the 14th Amendment (final April 28, 1866.) Bingham himself affirmed the narrow interpretation of “natural born citizen” clause stating:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. .” Rep. John A. Bingham, re S 61 Bill, March 9, 1866.

He confirmed de G. J. Chin, reviews U.S. SC cases finding that in Insular Cases, “persons born in unincorporated territories are not Fourteenth Amendment citizens.” Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President Mich. Law. Rev. 1st Impressions, Vol. 107, No. 1, 2008,
S.H. Duggin & M. B. Collins (Feb. 2005) provide a detailed review, arguing that “natural born citizen” is unfair. ‘Natural Born’ in the USA’ Boston Univ. Law Rev. However, they omitted the key contemporary definition of Petitioner submits that the Constitution places the burden of proof to qualify on the President elect. All officers sworn to uphold the Constitution including election officers in Congress, the Electoral College and all States have the duty to challenge and test those qualifications, and to declare that the President elect (or candidate) has qualified or failed to qualify.
The Petitioner and public record indicate explicit active refusal by the RPE Obama to submit any government certified witnessed proofs that he qualifies for President.
The restrictive qualification “natural born citizen” is essential to preserve the Constitution and the Republic from descending into tyranny. It should be guided by the underlying constitutional principle of enforcing sole allegiance to the United States and to exclude all candidates with any foreign allegiance through the allegiance of either birth parent or by any adoptive parent, or by the President elect’s own actions.
Petitioner humbly submits that this Court should therefore affirm the Petitioner’s Motion and find that the Respondent, President Elect Barack Hussein Obama II has failed in his constitutional burden of proof to qualify for President.

“I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.”

___________________________, January 15, 2009
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

No. 08A524

In The
Supreme Court of the United States
*

twe // January 15, 2009 at 6:35 pm

3 comments:

  1. Regarding Mr. Obama's Ineligibility to be POTUS according Constitution I placed here

    http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.org/index.php?topic=2170.msg8924#msg8924

    my letter to a DP Congressman (sent on 01/03/2009) where (I believe) I proved beyond any doubts that

    There is NO NEED TO GET Mr. OBAMA'S BC (Birth Certificate) TO PROVE HIS INELIGIBILITY TO BE POTUS ACCORDING CONSTITUTION

    Everybody who is agree with this foolproof (I believe) proof can use it as his/her own proof.

    The proof is based only on 2 fundamental documents - Constitution and the Oath of Allegiance.


    P.S. I understand it doesn't any practical matter what I'm telling about this subject... Someone said something like this: "Do what has to be done. And let be what will be..."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Therese
    please join us at www.iratenation.com Sorry to post this here buy I couldn't find an email address for you. Mine is admin at iratenation dot com

    ReplyDelete
  3. My apologies - but it's not my fault. There were some technical changes on
    http://restretheconstitutionalrepublic.org.
    As result of that the link that I placed inside my message (#1; posted on January 17, 2009 3:18 PM) doesn't work. So I'm placing here the same message but with the working link.
    ===============================================

    Regarding Mr. Obama's Ineligibility to be POTUS according Constitution I placed here

    http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.org/forum/index.php?topic=2170.msg8924#msg8924

    my letter to a DP Congressman (sent on 01/03/2009) where (I believe) I proved beyond any doubts that

    There is NO NEED TO GET Mr. OBAMA'S BC (Birth Certificate) TO PROVE HIS INELIGIBILITY TO BE POTUS ACCORDING CONSTITUTION

    Everybody who is agree with this foolproof (I believe) proof can use it as his/her own proof.

    The proof is based only on 2 fundamental documents - Constitution and the Oath of Allegiance.


    P.S. I understand it doesn't any practical matter what I'm telling about this subject... Someone said something like this: "Do what has to be done. And let be what will be..."

    ReplyDelete

The Obama Deception

Continental congress Live

Obama to sign treaty to give up American sovereignty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40&feature=player_embedded

For The Record

Search Posts

Medical Martial Law

Obama Health Care Plan is a Duplicate of HItler's Health Care Plan

Obama poisoned his grandmother

Hitler's Health Plan same as Obama's

object width="480" height="295">

We The People Congress.org / blog

USA must Wake Up About Muslims

Must Listen--Here's to You Obama--We Are Not Stupid