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 14, 2010

Quo Warranto

Dr. Orly Taitz, Attorney-at-Law

29839 Santa Margarita Parkway

Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-3078

California State Bar No.: 223433

E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Captain Pamela Barnett, et al., §

Plaintiffs, §

§

v. § Civil Action:
§

Barack Hussein Obama, § SACV09-00082-DOC-AN

Michelle L.R. Obama, § REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, § MOTION TO TRANSFER;

Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, § MOTION FOR LEAVE OF

Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and § COURT TO FILE QUO

President of the Senate, § WARRANTO

Defendants.

Here come the plaintiffs in this case (aside from Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson represented by Gary Kreep ) and concur with the brilliant suggestion by the Department of Justice and move the court to grant the Leave of Court to file Quo Warranto challenging constitutionality of position of Mr. Barack Hussein Obama as the president of the United States under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States for following reasons.



(1.) The case at hand has not been heard on the merits, no discovery has been granted and the court simply granted the defendants’ pretrial motion to dismiss for want of Jurisdiction, when the defendants argued that the proper jurisdiction is Washington DC. In their opposition the defendants do not deny making such an argument.

(2.) The defendants twist the truth in their opposition claiming that the court didn’t find the jurisdiction in the District of Columbia. On page 26 of the order 89 the court states: “[T]he writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A Quo warranto may be issued from the United States District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States, civil and military”. D.C. Code §§16-35-1-3503. The court h! as denied the plaintiffs request to apply the District of Columbia quo warranto statute pursuant to California choice of law provisions. The court went even further by stating that “[W]hile the Court can apply the law of the other jurisdiction where appropriate, it is precluded from robbing the D.C. court of jurisdiction as to any quo warranto writ against President Obama because the D.C. Code grants exclusive jurisdiction to the District of Columbia. Plaintiff’s quo warranto demand is hereby dismissed for improper venue”. The court dismissed plaintiffs quo warranto due to improper venue, not on the merits of the case. At this time the plaintiffs have 3 options: A. App! ealing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as the DC statute quoted by the court itself does not state that the venue is exclusive and other district courts cannot apply this statute anywhere else in this country from Anchorage, Alaska to Tucson, Arizona, however an appeal might take a year and a half to get to trial, which means a year and a half of further usurpation of US presidency. B. The plaintiffs can file a new case in DC, however judging by stonewalling techniques of the Department of Justice, there will be another year of pretrial motions, which means another year of usurpation of US presidency. C. Motion for leave of court to file quo warranto to be granted by this court or to be transferred by this court directly to the Chief Judge of the US District of Columbia Royce Lamberth who currently has under submission a related case and to include by reference all the pleadings in the current case of B! arnett et al v Obama et al. This will serve the interest of justice, it will clear the jurisdiction hurdle and will give both parties an opportunity to proceed with discovery and trial on the merits of the case. As this court very eloquently stated during the July 13 hearing, that the case should not be decided on technicality but on the merits. It is important for the country and the military.



The plaintiffs have filed both with the Attorney General Eric Holder and the US Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor and his successor Channing Phillips a request for Quo Warranto in March and April of 2009 respectively. Undersigned has already provided the Court with copies of the Certified Mail receipts, showing that those were received. Hundreds of concerned citizens have called the Department of justice demanding a response to Quo Warranto submission. No response was received for ten months. Letters, e-mails, faxes went unanswered. Employees of the justice department were slamming phones in the face of the citizens calling and urging a response, even when those calls came from high ranking officers of US military. The undersigned does not know what was the reason for this t! otal dereliction of duties by Attorney General Holder and DC US attorneys Taylor and Phillips: was it A Laziness? B Lack of guts and spine? C Corruption? Regardless of the reason department of Justice cannot use their own inaction as justification in denying the plaintiffs ex-relators status in filing Quo Warranto. They cannot eat the cake and have it whole. This game of hide and seek by the Attorney General Holder and US attorneys played with the plaintiffs and their counselor is infantile at best and treasonous at worst, as National Security is on the line. Recent near tragedy of NorthWest 253, slaughter of CIA agents and tragedy at Fort Hood are only a few reminders of how dangerous it is to have a Big Question Mark with numerous stolen and fraudulent social security numbers sitting in the position of the President and Commander in Chief.



PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the undersigned counsel respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant Leave of Court to file Quo Warranto as ex-relators in the name of the United States of America against Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States and to transfer this leave of court or transfer the request for leave of court with the rest of the file as an attachment to the US District court for the District of Columbia to be assigned to Honorable Judge Royce Lamberth, chief judge for the US District Court of the District of Columbia, who currently presides over a related case.

Writ of Quo Warranto



QUESTIONS PRESENTED



I. What is Respondent Obama’s standard and burden of proof of his birthplace under Quo Warranto and ethical duties? - Considering Obama’s first cousin Raela Odinga, Prime Minister of Kenya, sealed alleged records of Obama’s birth in Mombasa; while the State of Hawaii holds Obama’s “original” sealed birth records, allows registration of births out of State, allows registration based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence and seals original birth records.



II. Does the State of Hawaii’s withholding Respondent’s Obama’s original birth records by privacy laws breach the U.S. Const. by obstructing constitutional rights duties of the People to vote, and State and Federal election officers to challenge, validate & evaluate qualifications of presidential candidates based on legally acceptable and not fraudulent records and the President Elect., per U.S. Const. art. II § 1, art. VI, & amend. XX § 3?



III. Does the restrictive qualification for President of “natural born citizen” over “citizen” include allegiance to the U.S.A. from birth without any foreign allegiance, as required of the Commander in Chief in time of war to preserve the Republic, including birth within the jurisdiction of the U.S.A. to parents who both had U.S. citizenship at that birth, and having retained that undivided loyalty?



IV. Does birth to or adoption by a non-citizen father or mother incur foreign allegiance sufficient to negate being a “natural born citizen” and disqualify a candidate from becoming President?



V. Having attained one’s majority, do actions showing divided loyalty with continued allegiance to the foreign nationality of one’s minority evidence foreign allegiance sufficient to disqualify one from being a “natural born citizen” with undivided loyalty to the U.S.A., such as campaigning for a candidate in a foreign election, or traveling on a foreign passport?



VI. Does a presidential candidate or President Elect by default fail to qualify under U.S. Const., art. II § 2 and amend. XX, § 3, if they neglect their burden to provide State or Federal election officers prima facie evidence of each of their identity, age, residence, and natural born citizenship, sufficient to meet respective State or Federal statutory standards?



VII. Do candidates for office disqualify themselves if they seek office under a birth name differing from a name given by adoption, or vice versa, when they neglect to provide election officers prima facie evidence of legal changes to their name, or if they neglect to legally change their name?



VIII. Does a President elect fail to qualify through breach of ethical disclosure duties, and obstruction of election officers’ constitutional duties to challenge, validate and evaluate qualifications for President, by withholding or sealing records evidencing identity, age, residency, or allegiance, or by claiming privacy and opposing in court efforts by Electors, election officers, or the People to obtain and evaluate such records?



IX. Does misprision by Federal election officers cause a President Elect to fail to qualify, if they neglect or refuse to challenge, validate, or evaluate qualifications of Electors or a President Elect, being bound by oath to support the Constitution and laws, after citizens provided information challenging those qualifications via petitions for redress of grievance, or by law suits?



X. To uphold its supremacy and inviolability, and to preserve the Republic, does the U.S. Constitution grant standing to Citizens to bring suit or quo warranto over negligence, obstruction, misprision, or breach of constitutional duties, and protect the People’s rights?



Here come the plaintiffs/ ex-relators in the name of the United States of America praying this Honorable Court issue Quo Warranto writ against Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States and Commander in Chief.



Ex Relators are seeking Quo Warranto under District of Columbia Codes §§16-3501-16-3503 which provides for the “Writ of Quo Warranto to be issued in the name of the United States of America against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military”. The ex-relators assert that respondent Obama has indeed usurped the franchise of the President of the United States and the Commander in Chief of the United States Military forces due to his ineligibility and non-compliance with the provision of the Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States that provides that the President of the United States has to be a Natural Born Citizen for the following reasons:



The legal reference and legal definitions used by the framers of the Constitution was the legal treatise “The Law of Nations” by Emer De Vattel as quoted and referenced in the Article 1, Section 8. The Law of Nations defines “…Natural Born Citizens, are those 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 conditions of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.” Book 1, Chapter 19, §212. In his book Dreams From my Father as well as on his web site Fight the Smears respondent Obama admitted to the fact that his father was never a US citizen, but rather a British citizen from a British colony of Kenya and based on British Nationality act respondent Obama was a British citizen at birth and a K! enyan citizen from age 2 on December 12, 1961 when Kenya became an independent nation. As such, for the reason of his allegiance to foreign nations from birth respondent Obama never qualified as a Natural Born citizen.



In spite of some 100 legal actions filed and 12 Citizen Grand Jury presentments and indictments Respondent Obama due to his ineligibility never consented to unseal any prima facie documents and vital records that would confirm his legitimacy for presidency.



The state of Hawaii statute 338-5 allows one to get a birth certificate based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborative evidence from any hospital. Respondent Obama refused to unseal a birthing file (labor and delivery file) evidencing his birth from the Kapiolani Hospital where he recently decided, that he was born. Similarly, respondent Obama refused to consent to unseal his original birth certificate from the Health Department in the state of Hawaii. The original birth certificate is supposed to provide the name of th! e hospital, name of the attending physician and signatures of individuals in attendance during birth. As such there is no verifiable and legally acceptable evidence of his birth in the state of Hawaii.

Circa 1995 Respondent Obama has made an admission in his book Dreams from My Father that he has a copy of the original birth certificate, when describing a certain article about his father he write “…I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms…” In spite of the fact that respondent Obama has a copy of his original birth certificate, he released for public consumption only a COLB, an abbreviated certification of life birth which was issued in 2007 and does not provide any verifying information, such as name of the hospital and name of the attending physician and signatures, which infers that he knows that he is not eligible and actively trying to obfuscate the records in order to usurp US presidency. An affidavit from one of the most prominent forensic document experts, Sandra Ramsey Lines, previously submitted to this court, states t! hat authenticity of COLB and inference of the US birth cannot be ascertained based on COLB alone without examining the original birth certificate in Hawaii, that respondent Obama refuses to unseal and present in court and to the public at large.



As respondents schools records from Indonesia, previously submitted, show him the citizen of Indonesia under the name of Barry Soetoro, and there is no evidence of legal name change upon his repatriation from Indonesia, there is a high likelihood of the scenario whereby the respondent was sworn in as a president not only illegitimately due to his allegiance to three foreign nations, but also under a name that was not his legal name at the time of inauguration and swearing in as the president.



Affidavits from licensed private investigators Neil Sankey and Susan Daniels, previously submitted to this court, show that according to national databases respondent Obama has used as many as 39 different social security numbers, none of which were issued in Hawaii, which in itself is an evidence of foreign birth. Most egregious is the fact that the respondent has used for most of his life in Somerville Massachusetts, Chicago, Illinois and currently in the White House SSN XXX-XX-4425, which was issued in the state of Connecticut between 1976-1979 and assigned to ! an individual born in 1890, who would have been 120 years old, if he would be alive today. Respondent never resided in the state of Connecticut and he is clearly not 120 years old. There is such a high probability of criminal acts of identity theft and social security fraud committed by the respondent that the undersigned requests this Honorable court to use its inherent powers to order Sua Sponte an evidentiary hearing on this particular issue for possible criminal prosecution of identity theft and social security fraud, as the respondent has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this Honorable court and can be brought to a separate evidentiary hearing to ascertain if fraud was perpetrated upon the court by assertion of false identity, even if the underlying case is not heard or closed for one reason or another. The undersigned requests to bar the US attorney’s office from representing the respondent in such hearing based on US Code 44 Section 22 and due to obvious inherent conflict of interest.



Wherefore the plaintiffs ex-relators in the name of the United States of America are requesting this Honorable Court to issue a writ of Quo Warranto against a respondent Barack Hussein Obama and order an evidentiary hearing whether fraud upon the court was committed and whether criminal charges should be brought against the respondent for fraud, identity theft and social security fraud.





s/ DR ORLY TAITZ ESQ

:__________________________________

. Orly Taitz, Esq. (California Bar 223433)

for the Plaintiffs

29839 Santa Margarita Parkway ste 100

Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

Tel.: 949-683-5411; Fax: 949-766-7603

E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com









PROOF OF SERVICE



I, the undersigned Orly Taitz, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that on this, 01.06.2010, I provided electronic copies of the Plaintiffs’ above-and-foregoing Notice of Filing to all of the following non-party attorneys whose names were affixed to the “STATEMENT OF INTEREST” who have appeared in this case in accordance with the local rules of the Central District of California, to wit:

ROGER E. WEST roger.west4@usdoj.gov (designated as lead counsel for President Barack Hussein Obama on August 7, 2009)



DAVID A. DeJUTTE

FACSIMILE (213) 894-7819

AND EXECUTED ON THIS 01.06.2010



/s/Orly Taitz



Dr. Orly Taitz Esq

29839 Santa Margarita PKWY

Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

1 comment:

  1. Affiliate Marketing is a performance based sales technique used by companies to expand their reach into the internet at low costs. This commission based program allows affiliate marketers to place ads on their websites or other advertising efforts such as email distribution in exchange for payment of a small commission when a sale results.


    www.onlineuniversalwork.com

    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