DID BILL AYERS WRITE BARACK OBAMA’S DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE? (redux)

I first posted on the subject of who wrote Dreams from my Father, the ‘autobiography’ attributed to its credited author, Barack Obama, in October 2008, using references that included work done by Dr. Jack Cashill published in American Thinker, which analysis underlies his assertion that it appears more likely Bill Ayers wrote Dreams.  I updated the post in May, to include a reference to Dr. Cashill’s latest de-construction.   On July 3, 2009 Dr. Cashill added another gem to his analysis of the authorship of Dreams.  http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/breakthrough_on_the_authorship_1.html

The more I learn about what is unknown about Barack Obama, the more likely it seems to me that his long time Svengali Bill Ayers wrote Dreams.  Because I believe, lacking both the foresight and intellect of Mr. Ayers, as well as the literary talent, BO would not have cleverly inserted in that text the reference to coming across his birth certificate when he was in high school, thus preemptively establishing in the minds of millions of readers, such document existed.  Sure enough, when BO’s political fortunes manifested as Mr. Ayers had planned, and questions arose as to whether he had established documentary proof of eligibility, BO’s supporters insisted, of course, he has a birth certificate; it says so, in Dreams.

Another big problem BA’s authorship of Dreams resolved for BO was the absence of race as a backdrop for his life.  How could he raise up his disciple into the pinnacle of political power without winning elections?  Lacking any substantive reason to support this substanceless political neophyte, votes of  white people  qua whites could only be extorted  in exchange for a personal relinquishing of guilt over either perceiving themselves as part of the racist ruling class or not doing enough to lift the bonds of oppression from the backs of the darker race as represented by this one man.  But in BO’s ‘real’ life, there was no evidence of such oppression.  So, BA made it up.

First, he entitled BO’s autobiography, “Dreams from My Father:  A Story of Race and Inheritance.”  The Chicago Tribune points out the fit between real issues of race and recalled issues of race often appears forced.

At the same time, several of his oft-recited stories may not have happened in the way he has recounted them. Some seem to make Obama look better in the retelling, others appear to exaggerate his outward struggles over issues of race, or simply skim over some of the most painful, private moments of his life.

The handful of black students who attended Punahou School in Hawaii, for instance, say they struggled mightily with issues of race and racism there. But absent from those discussions, they say, was another student then known as Barry Obama.

In his best-selling autobiography, “Dreams from My Father,” Obama describes having heated conversations about racism with another black student, “Ray.” The real Ray, Keith Kakugawa, is half black and half Japanese. In an interview with the Tribune on Saturday, Kakugawa said he always considered himself mixed race, like so many of his friends in Hawaii, and was not an angry young black man.

He said he does recall long, soulful talks with the young Obama and that his friend confided his longing and loneliness. But those talks, Kakugawa said, were not about race. “Not even close,” he said, adding that Obama was dealing with “some inner turmoil” in those days.

“But it wasn’t a race thing,” he said. “Barry’s biggest struggles then were missing his parents. His biggest struggles were his feelings of abandonment. The idea that his biggest struggle was race is [bull].”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-070325obama-youth-story-archive,0,3864722.story

Now, back to the earlier posts.

(From May 2009)

Well, thank goodness, Jack Cashill, Ph.D. (American Studies) has not abandoned his literary investigation as to who wrote Dreams from my Father,  Barack Obama or Bill Ayers.  In his latest article in American Thinker, he points to specific similarities between Dreams and, works published and attributed to Mr. Ayers, which likenesses, had Ayers not authored Dreams,  would otherwise be difficult to reconcile.

Here is just one example.

More intriguing still, Obama seems to borrow the one girlfriend in the oddly sexless Dreams from Ayers’ experience. “There was a woman in New York that I loved,” he tells his half-sister years after the fact.  “She was white. She had dark hair, and specks of green in her eyes.”

The woman of Obama’s memory evokes images of Diana Oughton.  As her FBI files attest, Oughton had brown hair and green eyes.  The two women shared similar family backgrounds as well.  In fact, they seemed to have grown up on the very same estate.

“The house was very old, her grandfather’s house,” Obama writes of his girlfriend’s country home.  “He had inherited it from his grandfather.” According to a Time Magazine article written soon after her death, Oughton “brought Bill Ayers and other radicals” to the family homestead in Dwight, Illinois. The main house on the Oughton estate, a 20-room Victorian mansion, was built by Oughton’s father’s grandfather.

The carriage house, in which Oughton lived as a child, now serves as a public library.  It may have already seemed like one when Ayers visited, an impression that finds its way into Obama’s memory of a library “filled with old books and pictures of the famous people [the grandfather] had known-presidents, diplomats, industrialists.”

“It was autumn, beautiful, with woods all around us,” Obama writes of his visit to his girlfriend’s country home, “and we paddled a canoe across this round, icy lake full of small gold leaves that collected along the shore.”  As can be seen from aerial photos even today, the Oughton estate also has a small lake and is surrounded by woods.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/who_wrote_dreams_and_why_it_ma_1.html

(Original Posting)

Did Bill Ayers write Barack Obama’s Dreams from my Father?

Here is what Barack Obama sounded like in 1988, when he wrote this essay entitled, “Why Organize? Problems and Promise in the Inner City,” for then Sangamon State University, now University of Illinois at Springfield.

http://www.edwoj.com/Alinsky/AlinskyObamaChapter1990.htm

That same year, he entered Harvard Law School, and in 1990 was elected President of the student-run Harvard Law Review. (There is no record he submitted a writing sample for consideration to the position.) According to his campaign, after being elected its President, BO never published anything in the Review.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/06/23/did-obama-write-something-for-the-harvard-law-review.aspx

(Politico unearthed an unsigned and previously unattributed 1990 “case comment” in which Obama affirms his support of abortion rights.)

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/when-abortion-wasnt-above-his-paygrade

(Here is a link to a good discussion of the difference between a case comment and an actual Review article.)

http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2008/08/obamas-belatedl.html

Here is what he sounded like during the primary campaign, without a teleprompter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbpWonUzlrc

Here is a literary critique of Dreams from my Father, with a contrast/comparison to the writings of Ayers.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77815

(Coincidentally, in the Acknowledgment to his book, Resurrecting Empire, published in 2004, Rashid Khalidi thanks “[f]irst, chronologically and in other ways… Bill Ayers”… who “persuaded me…that I should write this book, and he put me in touch with my editor…” He goes on to state that, “Bill was particularly generous in letting me use his family’s dining room table to do some writing for the project.”)

http://books.google.com/books?id=HCyg_iKpiXkC&pg=PA212&lpg=PA212&dq=khalidi+ayers+resurrecting+empire&source=web&ots=My1mp7GY1K&sig=dtE_RNrGYy6JUqLGAACQBCcOGq4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

(For more information about the relationship between Obama and Rashidi, see this story from the LA Times.)

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,1780231,full.story

JBJD TO CNSNews: WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?

I subscribe to CNSNews feeds.  I just received the following email from them.

Helen Thomas: Not Even Nixon Tried to Control the Media Like Obama
(CNSNews.com) – Following a testy exchange at Wednesday’s briefing with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas told CNSNews.com that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press. “What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”

Of course, I already knew before this email that BO has been staging his ‘events’ since the primaries.  And, since the press failed to blow the whistle,  I tried to warn the public of his subterfuge, joined by hundreds of other concerned citizens throughout the blogosphere.  For example, here is a comment exposing BO’s marketing ploy viz a viz the ’spontaneous’ rally in the park on a Sunday in Portland, Oregon, which I posted on RCP back in July 2008.  (In November 2008,  I was banned from that site for publishing a popular memo in “Readers’ Articles” advocating that a member of the National Guard subject to deployment could have standing in federal court to file a Complaint for Declaratory Relief  to ascertain whether BO is a NBC.)

Posted by: jbjd
Jul 10, 10:07 AM    Report Abuse
Reply

________________________________________
If Senator Obama receives the Presidential nomination from the Democratic Party; and accepts the nomination in the football stadium, everyone watching will wonder which trick he used this time to pad the audience.

In May, the candidate was scheduled to speak at a park in Portland, Oregon. Remember, he had been losing the last several primaries to Senator Clinton, who amassed more than 500,000 more votes than her opponent. His campaign described Oregon’s upcoming primary as a ‘must win.’ As late as yesterday, here’s how Michael Falcone, writing for the New York Times, described that gathering in Portland: a “sea of 75,000 people swarmed around” him, making this “the largest crowd of his campaign.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/obama-picks-stadium-for-acceptance-speech/

Except that, the whole scene was staged. In order to shore up his declining numbers, his campaign had set up an advance cross-promotional marketing effort with the Decemberists, a popular indie band based in Portland. Here is a link to the Decemberists’ web site, on which they announced they would be giving a free concert and asking their fans to contact the Obama campaign directly to RSVP, along with the link to the campaign’s web site.
http://www.bandweblogs.com/blog/2008/05/17/the-decemberists-to-perform-at-rally-with-barack-obama-portland-oregon/

I sent my year-old ‘expose’ to CNSNews, in response to their article on Helen Thomas.  Maybe they will hear me now.

HR 985 WILL NOT PROTECT BARACK OBAMA FROM FULL DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS TENDING TO ESTABLISH THAT HE IS NOT A NBC

Just a quick note to assuage the panic of some readers that this proposed bill will insulate BO from the forced disclosure of documents tending to establish, he is not a NBC.  Here is the link to the proposed legislation, H.R. 985, Free Flow of Information Act, which includes both a summary and the full text of this bill.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-985

In short, if passed, this law would apply to members of the press, and delineate under what circumstances members of the press would be required to provide the information requested by various branches of the government even absent a court order.

HELP ME HELP YOU – redux (see comments updated 05/08/09)

I am bumping this up because I want people to read the comments from activist citizens, and my responses. For example, here is my response to the copy of a letter I received from rlqretired, which he had sent to his elected officials in FL.

rlqretired: You wrote, “The DNC document submitted to our Secretary of State here in Florida says only that Obama and Biden are their nominees. It says nothing about them having been found eligible…” But know this: no candidate for POTUS can be legally qualified to serve under DNC rules unless he is Constitutionally eligible for the job. http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2008delegateselectionrules.pdf (It’s on page 14.) Plus, under HI law, the Party must actually certify the candidate is Constitutionally eligible for the job. (Seems redundant, huh, given those pesky DNC Rules.) Here is the Certificate the D Party sent to HI elections officials. http://www.scribd.com/doc/9656064/DNC-Obama-Hawaii-Cert-2008 So, now you have DNC rules saying the nominee for POTUS must be eligible for the job; and a DNC Certificate swearing he is eligible for the job. But so far, no one from the D Party will say, on what basis anyone determined he was eligible for the job. Sounds like fraud (on the voters of the great state of FL) to me. Good luck. Let me know if there is anything else you need. ADMINISTRATOR

Maybe rlqretired’s letter will give other people ideas. And if you want me to review any document before you send this to your elected officials, please, send it here. All comments are in moderation and so, if you do not want these letters posted, just let me know. Note, I delete identifying information before posting.

Finally, let me repeat what I have been saying now for months: stop trying to prove BO is not a NBC. Verifying the Constitutional eligibility of the nominee for POTUS from the major political party before allowing our state elections officials to enter his name on our general elections ballots was never our job; we sub-contracted that job to the major political party. And, in the case of the Democratic Party, they refuse to establish, they did their jobs.

For example, if we live in a state that enacted laws saying the candidate for POTUS from the major political party must be eligible for the job; we trusted that, by naming BO their nominee, the Democratic Party was implicitly warrantying, he is eligible for the job. If we enacted laws allowing the nominee from the Party to automatically be entered onto our general election ballots, we were implicitly saying, we trusted, the Party had lived up to Party rules and verified his Constitutional eligibility. However, when we asked the Party to provide some evidence they subjected BO to such verification, they ignored us. And this is what I hope your complaint to state officials is all about. That is, by requiring that the Party Certify the name of its nominee to elections officials in order to get the name printed onto the general election ballot, we did not intend this as a hollow gesture but as proof the nominee was Constitutionally eligible for the job. And by pretending their Certification as to eligibility-qua-candidacy is all that is required to satisfy state laws, the Democratic Party, both on a state and national level, has perpetrated a fraud on the electorate. ADMINISTRATOR

(Originally posted February 28, 2009)
Most states have enacted laws requiring the candidate for POTUS from the major political Party must be eligible for the job. (For example, the Official Code of GA Annotated (O.C.G.A.), §21-2-5, “Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; determination of qualifications.” reads: “Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party … shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” Yet the Democratic Party managed to get the name of its candidate onto the general election ballots notwithstanding overwhelming circumstantial evidence shows he is not a natural born citizen (“NBC”).

In order to complete drafting complaints to Attorneys General (”A’sG”) in each state, charging that the executive committee of the state Democratic Party committed fraud by forwarding to the chief elections official in the state – usually the Secretary of State (”S of S”) – their statement that Barack Obama is the official nominee of the Democratic Party for the office of POTUS, so that the state could print his name and or the names of his Electors on the general election ballot, notwithstanding it looks like he is ineligible for the job; I need to see the documents these state party chairs submitted to their state officials. I have already obtained this information for HI; there, the state party merely forwarded under the state party cover letter, a copy of Nancy Pelosi’s “DNC Official Certification of Nomination,” saying Barack Obama was their candidate (and that he was Constitutionally eligible for the job). Presumably, this was the procedure followed in other states, too. But I need to see the documents. That’s where you come in.

I need you to forward a request to your S of S for a copy of the documents, if any, that were provided to that office by the executive committee of the state Democratic Party and were the basis of the state’s decision the Party had satisfied all state requirements to print the name of Barack Obama and/or the names of his Electors on the general election ballot. Most states have public records laws mirroring the federal Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), entitling you to such information, on a timely basis. You could check with your S of S. Requests for records should be made in writing, referencing the public records law in your state.

Let me know what you come up with, ASAP. Thank you.




apPARENTly

I have watched and re-watched the clip of Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, uttering those off-color remarks about the Special Olympics during last week’s taped appearance on NBC’s The Tonight Show with Jay Leno (here). Casting the incident in its most positive light, even his supporters commenting on the blogs concede, this was an attempt at self-deprecating humor gone awry. But I want to offer a different interpretation of the offensive exchange.

BO made that nasty comment – “This is like Special Olympics or something” – after Jay responded to his statement, he had bowled a 129. See, he said he bowled 129; Jay jabbed, “That’s very good,” quickly followed by a sideways glance over at Kevin, fingers placed on his lips, as if to squelch a laugh; and a head turn back to his guest to repeat the sequence, with exaggerated sincerity. “No, that’s very good,” and then the glance-to-Kevin-fingers-over-mouth-to-keep-from-laughing maneuver, propping up his act with half-hearted clapping. BO, who had been smiling broadly, now chuckled aloud and, reaching out his left hand to touch Jay’s right sleeve, countered with the offensive remarks: “This is like Special Olympics or something.”

I believe that, unable to tolerate what appeared to me to be Jay’s good-humored mocking at the revelation of his bowling performance, BO drew a false parallel between the comedian’s reaction and the response of spectators attending the Special Olympics. That is, he wrongly likened Jay’s obviously insincere exaggerated ‘praise’ of his low bowling score to the genuine overwhelming pride pouring from spectators cheering on the athletic accomplishments of Special Olympians.

Only a mental health professional could provide words to adequately convey the depravity that is all things Obama.

NATIONAL GUARD: THE PERFECT MILITARY PLAINTIFFS FOR A LAWSUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT

Now that BO has indicated he might call up the National Guard to federal service in the conflict along the US-Mexican border, it is time to re-visit my original proposal to use NG Plaintiffs in a federal Declaratory Judgment suit to determine his Constitutional eligibility to be POTUS.

Obama Says National Guard Might Be Sent To US-Mexican Border
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/12/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4861510.shtml

Early last November, I posted a memo entitled, FIND OUT WHETHER BARACK OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AS REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE II OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND STOP THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE FROM VOTING FOR HIM, IF HE IS NOT! This explained my then new solution to gaining standing to challenge BO’s Constitutional eligibility in federal court, by using military Plaintiffs. In that memo, I specifically proposed using National Guard, about to be deployed. As I recently explained in detail on my blog, in responses to comments posted by my readers, NG are under the control of the Governor of the state until called up to serve in the military and are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice until federalized. Plus, the federal Declaratory Judgment Act, under which my Complaint is brought, acts as sort of a class action mechanism, without having to certify the class. That is, the ruling received by one Plaintiff applies to all similarly situated Plaintiffs. In effect, this means that if one Plaintiff gets called up to active duty, meaning he is federalized and under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ, he can drop out; and another NG member not yet called up can be substituted, no harm, no foul.

Please pass the word about this safe viable option to vet the CIC.

SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES

I have elaborated extensively on this blog to numerous issues raised in comments from my readers, not necessarily related to the topics of the posts where these comments appear. For example, I have explained that FactCheck cannot be sued for posting false information on BO’s COLB (no privity); and that the National Guard Plaintiffs I proposed to establish standing in federal court to determine whether BO is a NBC are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (until federalized). I have also provided information specific to both laws and events occurring in individual states, including FL, AZ, and HI. And of course, I have clarified legal misinformation appearing on other blogs. For example, Leo Donofrio’s pronouncement that declaratory judgment cases only seek advisory opinions and so, the federal courts are Constitutionally barred from hearing such cases since they present no “case” or “controversy” is patently absurd, given that the federal Declaratory Judgment Act authorizes such suits. (My federal military Complaint is a Declaratory Judgment case, as Leo well knows, having referenced my Complaint on his blog.)

If you want to understand more about how our government works – and does not work – please read these comments and my responses. They inform as much as the original posts.

A WORD TO THE WISE

I decided – again – to post on this blog various comments I have submitted to other blogs, which were posted; or comments I would have submitted to other blogs that have stopped posting my comments; or comments I would have posted on other blogs in the past but which such posting has subjected me to responses based on the tone of which I would otherwise have prevented from appearing on my blog. Especially I have decided to post explanations that counter the ‘legal’ edicts issuing from some other blogs which, absent more reasoned and accurate explanation, is apt to be swallowed up whole by a voting public eager to increase their knowledge of our Constitutional republic so as to perfect it, and who are ill served by such sophomoric ‘legal’ discourse on those blogs.

For example, now that Leo Donofrio has come up with Quo Warranto – after Orly, and Berg, and David Allan Herndon in CA 5 (five) months ago http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2121007/posts – he has decided to ‘explain’ that Quo Warranto is the “only” way to involve the court. Further, more than 2 (two) months after I posted my military Complaint, which is brought under the federal Declaratory Judgment Act, having fixed on Quo Warranto, he now opines that any Declaratory Judgment case is legally unsound because it requests an advisory opinion, only, which precludes hearing by a federal court. Of course, he is wrong; and I pointed this out to him in the following comment to his blog, which he has yet to publish.

Leo, you are miseducating your readers as to the scope of relief offered under the federal Declaratory Judgment Act. Basing a petition to the court on this Act does not ask the court to issue an advisory opinion which, while allowed in state court, is prohibited in the federal court. Rather, using this Act allows those who could face liability as Defendants in a future action to ‘reach the court, first’ as Plaintiffs in a Declaratory Judgment action. (See the Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys, http://ejustice.org/federal_practice_manual_2006/chapter_9/chap9sec3.htm.) And while ordering the removal from office of a ‘POTUS’ who is not a NBC, is outside of the scope of a Declaratory Judgment proceeding; once a federal court issues such a Declaratory ruling, I cannot conceive that usurper would remain in place, can you?

As for your statement that, “In order to protect the Constitution, we must not subvert the separation of powers,” this is precisely why your NJ suit failed. The court – judicial branch – will not order a state official – the executive branch – to carry out a ministerial function where no such function appears in the law – legislative branch. Absent a ministerial duty to vet the candidate for POTUS for Constitutional eligibility in NJ law, you asked the court to infer such a duty from an oath taken by the S of S to uphold the Constitution. The court, crediting counsel for the Defendant, rejected your argument. You say, you got “screwed.” I say, the court ruled to uphold the principle of governmental separation of powers.

Here’s something I posted on Pieter Nosworthy’s blog, http://thenaturalbornpresidency.blogspot.com/.

Pieter is an active duty military who signed Orly’s inflammatory Release consenting to become a named Plaintiff in her proposed military Complaint seeking to determine BO’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS and then rescinded such consent. He posted this suggestion. Why not identify the top Constitutional law scholars in the country and pool our money to hire these experts to champion the ‘perfect’ case?
Here is my response.

Arguably, the top Constitutional law scholar in the country is Professor Laurence Tribe from Harvard Law School. He taught BO; here is a November 2008 quote from the Harvard Crimson, wherein the recognized legal intellect (Tribe) adeptly avoids any mention as to the caliber of legal scholarship displayed by his former student while simultaneously singing his laurels.
“There are those in whom challenge stirs greatness, those who rise to challenge rather than letting it break their stride or spin their compass,” said Tribe about Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, whom he called “the most impressive and talented of the thousands of students I have been privileged to teach in nearly 40 years on the Harvard faculty.”
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=525102
To put things into perspective, here is what Professor Tribe placed into the Congressional Record during the passage of non-binding Senate Resolution 511, declaring Senator John McCain is a NBC, in April 2008.
“[B]ased on the original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers’ intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Senator McCain’s birth to parents who were U.S. citizens, serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution.”
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r110:S30AP8-0040:

As we have already been taught by almost every other legal practitioner entered into this fray, even the product of great legal minds can be motivated by self-interest, like potential openings on the SCOTUS.

Here is my explanation as to why military Plaintiffs in federal court must be in jeopardy in order to satisfy Constitutional “case” or “controversy” requirements to survive a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which I posted on Citizen Wells. http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/

Speedy and everyone else, in reference to your recollection that military Plaintiffs might have received guarantees in advance they would not be in jeopardy by becoming Plaintiffs in a military lawsuit… If military Plaintiffs in a Declaratory Judgment case face no liability in the future then, their case does not present a controversy that can be litigated and, therefore, becomes only a request for an advisory opinion. This means, the federal court has no jurisdiction to hear it. You might have gotten your idea of ‘exoneration before the fact’ for military Plaintiffs from Orly Taitz, who bragged on her blog that she was discussing with Pentagon officials how to free up from jeopardy any military Plaintiffs before she filed a military suit. But even assuming she was telling the truth and, in addition, could have obtained such guarantee from the military not to prosecute military Plaintiffs under the UCMJ; then she would have killed her chances of avoiding a motion to dismiss on this case, too, which motion would have been granted not for lack of standing but for lack of jurisdiction.

As for the cheering section whenever Orly posts another military Plaintiff has joined her suit – I have no idea which suit she is talking about – there is this caution, also on CW.

The South and everyone, the problem is, while individual military can be said to have the obligation to refuse to obey an order from a CIC they have a good faith belief is a threat to the Constitution; absent a ruling BO is not a NBC, from a deliberative body authorized to generate such a ruling, these military will not escape paying the legal consequences for disobeying the POTUS. Even Dr. King pronounced that those who in good faith defy unjust laws must be prepared to endure imprisonment.

“I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.”
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

WHAT’S IN IT FOR ME?

Pieter Nosworthy, an active duty military who originally signed Orly’s inflammatory Release consenting to become a named Plaintiff in her proposed military Complaint seeking to determine BO’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS and then, appreciating the legal quagmire into which he had just waded, rescinded such consent; posted on his blog this suggestion. Why not identify the top Constitutional law scholars in the country and pool our money to hire these experts to champion the ‘perfect’ case?

http://thenaturalbornpresidency.blogspot.com/

Here is my response.

Arguably, the top Constitutional law scholar in the country is Professor Laurence Tribe from Harvard Law School. He taught BO; here is a November 2008 quote from the Harvard Crimson, wherein the recognized legal intellect (Tribe) adeptly avoids any mention as to the caliber of legal scholarship displayed by his former student while simultaneously singing his laurels.

“There are those in whom challenge stirs greatness, those who rise to challenge rather than letting it break their stride or spin their compass,” said Tribe about Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, whom he called “the most impressive and talented of the thousands of students I have been privileged to teach in nearly 40 years on the Harvard faculty.”

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=525102

To put things into perspective, here is text Professor Tribe submitted to be entered into the Congressional Record during the passage of non-binding Senate Resolution 511, declaring Senator John McCain is a NBC, in April 2008.

“[B]ased on the original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers’ intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Senator McCain’s birth to parents who were U.S. citizens, serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution.”

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r110:S30AP8-0040:

Of course, just because Professor Tribe says BO was the most impressive student he has taught in 40 years; or that Senator McCain is a NBC because his parents, both U.S. citizens, were serving on a U.S. military base; does not make any of this so. As has we have witnessed happen with so many others entered into this fray, even the product of great legal minds can be motivated by self-interest (like potential openings on the SCOTUS).

FIND OUT WHETHER BARACK OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AS REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE II OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND STOP THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE FROM VOTING FOR HIM, IF HE IS NOT!

To: Concerned Americans
From: Team jbjd
Subject: Find Out Whether Barack Obama is a Natural Born Citizen as Required under Article II of the U.S. Constitution and Stop the Electoral College from Voting for Him, if He Is Not
Date: December 1, 2008

Introduction

By now, almost everyone paying attention to the election seems to know that under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the President has to be a natural born citizen. But hardly anyone seems to know there is no provision in either federal or state law that says anyone, anywhere, has to check. That’s right. Nothing. Even so, voters in general have the right to express preference for a Presidential candidate without respect to qualifications for office. Of course, Electoral College voters must ensure he is at least Constitutionally eligible for the job.

Issue: Given that Article II of the U.S. Constitution says the President must be a natural born citizen, could Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and Chair of the 2008 Democratic National Convention have certified that Barack Obama was “duly nominated” as the Democratic Party’s candidate for POTUS; and could the Party chairs of the Democratic Party in all 50 states and the District of Columbia then have submitted his name to state officials, along with Ms. Pelosi’s certification, to be placed onto the general election ballots; and could state officials have placed his name on the ballot and then certified the final number of votes cast for him; and can he receive the requisite votes for POTUS from the Electoral College (”EC”) when it meets on December 15 and then on January 20, be sworn into office, all without being a natural born citizen?
Answer: Yes, absolutely; if the EC fails to stop him.

While the U.S. Constitution spells out in Article II that the President must be a natural born citizen – “natural born” and “citizen” are distinct qualifications – neither federal nor state law requires that any government actor must determine whether the candidate for POTUS satisfies these conditions. True, Ms. Pelosi’s signed a Certification of Nomination after the Democratic National Convention; but in this document, she only promised he is the Party’s nominee and not that he is Constitutionally eligible for the job. http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/11/26/foia-request-response-from-va-document-from-va-sos-signed-by-nancy-pelosi-stating-that-pelosi-certified-obamas-qualifications/dnc-certification_of_nomination-082908-2/

In fact, throughout the entire election process, only one opportunity is prescribed in writing to confirm the candidate’s eligibility: when the state in which the candidate seeks to get onto the general election ballot has enacted both a law that says any candidate seeking to get onto the ballot in that state has to satisfy the requirements of the office sought; AND a law that provides for challenging the candidate’s eligibility under state law.

For example, here is the requirement to get onto the general election ballot in the State of GA, under the Official Code of GA Annotated (O.C.G.A.), §21-2-5, Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; determination of qualifications. “Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party … shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” (Note: President, U.S. Senator, or U.S. Representative are federal offices.) This means that, according to GA law, when the state Party chair submits the Party nominee to the Secretary of State (“S of S”) to be put onto the general election ballot, that nominee must be eligible for the office sought. But there is no corresponding GA law that says the S of S receiving this paperwork from the state Party chair must verify this eligibility. Under that same law, the State of GA set up a mechanism by which voters may file a challenge with the S of S questioning the eligibility of a candidate to appear on the ballot; and for the S of S to initiate such a challenge on her own. “The Secretary of State upon his or her own motion may challenge the qualifications of any candidate at any time prior to the election of such candidate.” But again, the operative word here is “may.” In other words, even in a state like GA, one of the few states with laws that provide for a mechanism for voters to challenge a candidate’s eligibility to get onto the general election ballot, no law requires the state to investigate the candidate based on that challenge. (Notice that technically, even GA law does not confer power on the S of S to determine whether any candidate is eligible for the office sought but only to determine this: whether he is eligible by virtue of satisfying the requirements of the office sought to get onto the general election ballot.)

Documentary evidence establishes that Presidential candidate John McCain is a citizen. At the time of his birth, both of his biological parents were U.S. citizens and had lived in the U.S. for the requisite years past the age of majority to pass on their citizenship to their newborn son. (Plus, there is no indication he was subsequently adopted by a foreign national of a country that disallowed dual citizenship, which condition could have ended his American citizenship.) As to the issue of whether he is “natural born”…, there is speculation both ways. He was born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone, where his father, a member of the armed services, was stationed at that time. While then officially a part of the Country of Panama, the Zone was administered by the U.S. Whether this set of circumstances satisfies the requirement of “natural born” which the drafters had in mind when they wrote the Constitution has never undergone judicial scrutiny. (Constitutional scholar Professor Larry Tribe of Harvard Law School, an advisor to Senator Obama who appeared in the candidate’s first TV spot of the 2008 Presidential campaign, in IA, has concluded McCain is natural born.)
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/06/26/2007-06-26_obama_lobs_ads_launches_tv_war.html

Some have charged that even if being born on the base would otherwise have made him a natural born citizen, he wasn’t actually born on the base but in another hospital outside of the U.S. Zone and so, while he is a citizen, he cannot be considered natural born. Confronted with these accusations, McCain voluntarily handed over his original long form birth certificate to Washington Post reporters whose investigation confirmed he had been born in the hospital on the base where his mother, still alive, said she gave birth.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html

On the other hand, nothing has been confirmed about the natural born status of Barack Obama.

As with John McCain, questions have also been raised as to whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. As previously stated, McCain responded to these questions by producing his long form birth certificate for the press, which investigators used to confirm his legal status. Here’s what Obama did last June to respond to questions as to his own eligibility: he posted on his web site, “Fight the Smears,” a copy of what his campaign called his “Birth Certificate,” which seemed to indicate he was born in HI. Further, they insisted this document put to rest once and for all questions as to whether he is a natural born citizen. In fact, it did no such thing.
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

Even assuming the document Obama posted is real; it is still not a “Birth Certificate,” anyway. Its title is “Certification of Live Birth.” (Yes; Annenberg Political FactCheck.org says it’s a real “Birth Certificate.” But keep in mind, Annenberg FactCheck is funded by the Annenberg Foundation, who employed Obama as the Chair of their Chicago Annenberg Challenge (“CAC”), selected by Bill Ayers for that position, where he doled out to community organizations the millions of dollars donated by the Foundation in a failed campaign to increase the test scores of Chicago public school students.) FYI, according to the government web site of the State of HI, officials there will accept a “Certificate of Live Birth” as primary evidence of, say, Hawaiian birth; but they will not accept a “Certification of Live Birth” without additional documentation.
http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl

Besides, even if it turns out Obama was born in HI, this does not resolve his natural born citizen status. What if he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, the Indonesian national who married his mother; would that have made him a citizen of Indonesia? And, if he was a citizen of Indonesia, would this have terminated his status as a U.S. citizen? (Circumstantial evidence indicates at some point, Obama was a citizen of Indonesia. The AP printed a copy of his Indonesian grade school registration form, which listed his name as Barry Soetoro and his nationality as Indonesian. (His religion was listed as Islam). At that time, only Indonesian citizens could enroll in school. According to U.S. law, when it comes to dual citizenship, deference is given to the law of the foreign sovereign. This means that, if Indonesia did not recognize dual Indonesian/American citizenship at that time then, neither did the U.S. And Indonesia did not recognize dual citizenship. Also, regardless of the type of document his mother was able to obtain in HI to verify that, in fact, sometime within the past year, somewhere, this baby was born, alive; that original document would have been sealed when he was adopted by Mr. Soetoro, and a new document issued naming Lolo Soetoro as the birth father.)

Obama’s personal narrative includes the story that his mother left Indonesia and brought him back to HI at age 10 to live with her parents. Assuming at that time he passed through U.S. Immigration and Nationalization, he then became a naturalized citizen. Of course, naturalized citizens do not qualify for the job of POTUS. If he never passed through Customs, he could be an undocumented alien. (His personal narrative also includes the story that he traveled to Pakistan for 3 weeks while in college. Seeing the passport he used to re-enter the country might clear up the mystery of his citizenship once and for all.)

Of course, if he was born in Kenya – a paternal grandmother in Kenya claims to have been present at his birth there – then at no time would he have been a natural born citizen, since his mother had not satisfied the U.S. residency requirements after attaining the age of majority, to automatically pass on her citizenship status to her son.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/3074

Then there is this entry from FactCheck.org on Obama’s web site, “Fight the Smears.”

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.
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

Several researchers have concluded that regardless of any other considerations, the clear language and intention of the founders/drafters of the Constitution means, this ‘dual sovereign allegiance at birth’ kills any eligibility for POTUS under Article II. (Notwithstanding his pronouncement that McCain is eligible for POTUS; Professor Tribe has remained silent as to the eligibility status of his candidate, Obama.)

Bottom line, just because the Democratic Party nominated Barack Obama as their candidate for President; and just because the state chairs of the Democratic Party in all 50 states and the District of Columbia submitted his name to be placed on the general election ballot; and despite the fact that state officials in all 50 states and the District allowed his name onto the ballot and millions of voters cast their votes for him, this does not mean he is eligible to be President.

Of course, he is not the President; indeed, he is not even the President-elect.

Once the results of the state elections are certified by the appropriate state authorities in each state, the next step in the process of choosing a President is the vote by the Electoral College (“EC”) on December 15. And like every other deliberative body involved with this election, the EC is not legally obligated to determine the candidate’s eligibility, either. Under the United States Constitution and federal law, the electors may cast their votes for anyone they want. However, under the laws of a number of states, the electors in those states must pledge to cast their votes for the candidate who won the state’s Presidential election. And some states have enacted laws that require electors to honor their pledges or their parties. Yet, in the history of the EC, no “faithless elector” has ever been punished for voting for someone other than the Party candidate. But since electors are generally chosen by their respective Party based on criteria like Party loyalty and years of service, they rarely go against the will of the Party. On the other hand, the Presidential electors in each state are presumed to honor the conditions laid out in the U.S. Constitution.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html

So, what would happen if the EC voted for him and then his ineligibility is confirmed? Under the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the worst that would happen is that Vice President Elect Joe Biden would be sworn in as President on January 20. Then, he would choose a VP of his own, subject to Congressional approval. Of course, if EC voters receive information before December 15 that Obama is ineligible for the job, pledged or not, it is unimaginable they would still cast their votes for him. Only, how are they ever going to get this information?

Several citizens have already filed lawsuits in both federal and state court to address the issue of whether Barack Obama satisfies the Article II requirement that the President must be a natural born citizen. The stated goal in several of these suits is to get the court to compel state officials – usually, the S of S – to vet the candidate as to eligibility, by arguing such vetting is a requirement of the job. That is, having sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution these state officials must verify the candidate’s eligibility. However, while some state laws explicitly require the political party to submit only the names of eligible candidates for inclusion on the state’s general election ballot; as previously stated in this memo, no state law requires a state official to confirm the eligibility of the candidate the major political party submits. As such, most judges have already dismissed these suits, ruling that the nexus between swearing to uphold the Constitution and having to investigate a candidate’s eligibility for POTUS is too attenuated for the court to compel the specific performance sought in the suit.

Some of the lawsuits filed in state courts have also been dismissed for lack of standing. That is, the Plaintiff lacked the particularized interest in the case of, say, another candidate on the general election ballot. Able to circumvent this barrier to standing, Alan Keyes, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. under President Reagan and candidate for POTUS under the American Independent Party filed a suit in CA attempting to prevent the Secretary of State from submitting California’s 55 electoral votes until Obama provides proof of his US citizenship.
http://urbanham.com/site/?p=256

The petition filed in August by Plaintiff Phil Berg, Attorney, in federal district court in PA is different. He asked the court merely to Declare whether Obama is a natural born citizen based on several documents he asked the court to order Obama to produce. He named as Defendants Obama, the DNC, and the FEC.

In Opposition to Berg’s Motion, Defendant Obama, joined by the DNC, insisted he does not have to produce evidence he is a natural born citizen. He pointed out that Mr. Berg is just one of millions of voters with no special interest in whether he is eligible. That is, as an individual citizen, he lacked standing to bring this action in the first place. Thus, under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, he had failed to present a “case or controversy” for consideration by the federal court. Justice Surrick agreed, granting Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss. It is this ruling against Plaintiff’s Motion for Declarative Judgment on the basis he lacks standing that Berg has appealed up to the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”), asking for Certiorari, meaning, an agreement to review the case. The SCOTUS has given Obama until December 1, 2008 to submit his arguments against Berg’s request for cert. But even if the court grants cert. AND rules in Berg’s favor on the issue of standing; the case will then be thrown back to the trial court for a new hearing, which could stall on deliberations over other procedural issues, without reaching the substantive issue of Obama’s eligibility for POTUS. In the meantime, the EC vote will already have taken place. Since they – like you – have no conclusive evidence Obama is not a natural born citizen, without demanding such proof, their vote for him is a fait accompli.

So, other than the EC, can anyone else prevent this from happening? Yes. You. You can bring the court case that will survive the challenge from Obama, the Plaintiff lacks standing.

Issue: Given that the President functions as Commander in Chief (“CIC”) of the armed services under the U.S. Constitution; that the CIC is authorized to order members of the armed services, including the national guard, into combat duty; that while serving combat duty such combatants may logically be required to inflict casualties on the enemy; and that causing the death of another under the color of law but not the rule of law could subject that combatant to criminal charges of murder and, on conviction, to execution for his crime; does a member of the military or national guard, currently deployed in or scheduled for deployment to a combat situation, have the particularized standing required by the federal court so as to create a case or controversy under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to successfully petition the federal court to examine whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen and rule on his eligibility to be POTUS?
Answer: Yes.

The elements that would establish standing in federal court, and which Judge Surrick found missing in the Berg case; would be present in a case where the nexus between the injury that would likely result if Obama is not a natural born citizen is more direct. For example, if Obama is not a natural born citizen then he is legally ineligible to be POTUS. And that means any orders he issues under the color of law of POTUS lack the real authority of law. Commanding troops to go into combat where they will likely inflict casualties on the enemy, if illegal, thus exposes soldiers to the death penalty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, merely for doing what they believed was their job. (Conversely, under the Code, questioning the legitimacy of the President to hold this position once he is in office subjects soldiers to discipline under “Contempt for Officials.”) This nexus between Obama’s ineligibility and the likely harm that would result establishes standing, in the eyes of the law.

Mr. Obama also pointed out to the court that alleging a violation of Article II “fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted because it fails to establish a cause of action.” Mr. Berg justified his presence before the court by citing the Declaratory Judgment Act. But as Obama successfully argued, this Act only affords a procedural remedy to an underlying cause of action. Thus, “a court must find an independent basis for jurisdiction.” And there is no federal cause of action under Article II. But he was wrong.

There certainly is a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for soldiers who would be compelled to engage in conduct that could result in execution, deprived of due process of law because their Commander in Chief is ineligible for office.

42 U.S.C. §1983 states

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or
usage of any State . . . , subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the
United States or any other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation
of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall
be liable to the party injured in an action at law …. “In order to bring action under §1983, one must allege that defendant violated plaintiff‘s constitutional rights and the deprivation must have been committed by a person acting under color of state law. Barna v. City of Perth Amboy, 42 F.3d 809, 816 (3rd Cir. 1994). Under the definition of acting under state law, the defendant in a §1983 action must have exercised power ”possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.“ West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 ( 1988 ) (quoting U.S. v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)).

And there’s a cause of action under that same law for all of the families of all of those members of the armed forces, including National Guard members who would be deprived of their loved ones under such a scheme.

The most obvious “person” subjecting Plaintiff(s) to this unlawful “deprivation” in a §1983 suit is the S of S in Plaintiff’s state. But Defendants could also include Barack Obama; Nancy Pelosi; the DNC; and the state Party chair, since all of these people were inextricably bound up in the governmental function of carrying out the election to be deemed state actors in this enterprise.

In conclusion, no one has verified candidate for POTUS Barack Obama is a natural born citizen as required by the U.S. Constitution, notwithstanding the EC is poised to cast their votes for him on December 15. Unless someone produces documentary evidence establishing he was born in Kenya, the only forum to conclusively decide his legal status lies in federal court. This means filing a suit that would survive a challenge to standing. Given the recent pronouncements by the court in the several cases pending, among the Plaintiffs who could establish standing necessary to force this inquiry are members of the military or National Guard scheduled for deployment or about to be scheduled for deployment to a combat zone; and members of their families.

TEMPLATE FOR THE MILITARY COMPLAINT AGAINST BARACK OBAMA

(Text in this Complaint has been updated to reflect the changes related to BO’s ‘Presidential’ status since the initial posting.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE *DISTRICT OF *
*DIVISION

Plaintiffs,

v.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, a/k/a
BARRY SOETORO,
Defendant

CIVIL ACTION
NO.:

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

SUMMARY OF THE CASE

Plaintiffs *, *, and * all served proudly in the United States military and were honorably discharged from active duty status subject to recall. On entering the service, these men swore a solemn oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” and to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same” and to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” So help them God. At all times in the past, they have faithfully served their country consistent with this sacred oath. And while it is true that, the Uniform Code of Military Justice metes out penalties for failure to carry out the mandates of this oath; this threat of adverse consequences is not what has motivated these men to put their lives on the line for their country. Rather, it was their deep abiding faith in our Constitutional Republic that formed the basis of this allegiance. However, on January 20, 2009, once Defendant Barack Hussein Obama is sworn in as the 44th President of the United States, their faith and allegiance will be tested as never before. Because having closely monitored events related to this latest election cycle, Plaintiffs now share grave concerns as to whether Defendant is eligible for the job. Specifically, under Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, is he a “natural born citizen”?

Back in December 2007, in the document he submitted to the Secretary of State of Arizona announcing he would participate in that state’s February Presidential nominating primary, Defendant did “solemnly swear” he was a “natural born citizen.” But by June 2008, he publicly acknowledged concerns as to his Constitutional eligibility for the job. At that time, he created an internet web site entitled “Fight the Smears,” with this stated purpose: to “spread the truth.” For example, here’s what Defendant posted on that site to address rumors he held dual U.S./Kenya citizenship.

“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.”

But being born with dual U.S./Britain citizenship means he is not a natural born citizen.

To address rumors he was not a U.S. citizen, Defendant posted information under the heading, “The Truth About Barack’s Birth Certificate.” Below was the photocopy of a document entitled “Certification of Live Birth,” State of Hawaii, with this added caption: “Barack Obama’s Official Birth Certificate.” Unlike a regular Certificate of Live Birth, which is filled with several boxes containing information like baby’s height and weight; the name of the hospital in which he was born; and the signature of the doctor attending the delivery, this Certification contains little more information excerpted from the original than the names of Defendant’s father and mother and that he was born in 1961 on the Island of Oahu. Yet he insisted posting this document established once and for all he was born in Hawaii. Only, in 1961, Hawaiian Revised Statutes §338-17.8 provided that the director of health may issue a Hawaiian Birth Certificate for a child born outside of the country as long as the child’s parents declared the State of Hawaii was their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth of the child.

In other words, under Hawaiian law, Defendant could have obtained a Certificate of Live Birth showing he was born in Hawaii even if that isn’t where he was born. Indeed, Hawaiian officials did say recently they have Defendant’s original Certificate of Live Birth but they did not say it shows he was born in Hawaii. He could also have been issued a Certificate of Live Birth that proves he was born in another country. Of course, being born in another country means, he is not a natural born citizen.

Mr. Obama also insisted this Hawaiian Certification he posted on the internet establishes he is a “native citizen.” Why did he swear to the Secretary of State in Arizona he is a “natural born citizen”? Having taught Constitutional Law, surely Defendant knows the difference between “native” and “natural born”; and that being only native born makes him ineligible to be President.

Defendant prominently displays on his site the logo for the organization called FactCheck, linking his site to their web page. FactCheck explained that Mr. Obama’s campaign made a copy of his “birth certificate” public after speculation by people they characterized as “conservative bloggers” that he might not be a “natural-born citizen.” Reminding everyone they are a “nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters,” they assured the public, Mr. Obama was born in the U.S.A. But this is untrue. In fact, the real name of FactCheck is Annenberg Political Fact Check. And Annenberg Political Fact Check is wholly funded by the Annenberg Foundation. That’s the same outfit that hired Mr. Obama to Chair the Board of their Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and handed over to him tens of millions of Mr. Annenberg’s dollars which he then doled out to community groups like ACORN and Bill Ayers’ Small Schools Workshops in a failed attempt to raise test scores of students enrolled in Chicago public schools.

Nevertheless, despite these long-standing close ties between Defendant and Annenberg, when voters contacted members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives with concerns as to whether Defendant is a natural born citizen, these members of Congress assured their constituents, there was nothing to worry about because the “non-partisan” FactCheck has confirmed his qualifications. And, in his latest response to a lawsuit questioning his eligibility, Mr. Obama ask the court to note that FactCheck – he even cites the web address – posted he’s for real.

On the other hand, if both of Mr. Obama’s parents were American citizens and Defendant was actually born in Hawaii, these facts alone fail to establish he is a natural born citizen.

In his memoir, Dreams from my Father, Defendant wrote that his mother married Lolo Soetoro, whom he calls his stepfather, when he was 4 years old, and moved her son to Mr. Soetoro’s native Indonesia. He remained silent throughout the book as to whether he was adopted. But during that time, only Indonesian citizens were allowed to attend school; and last year, the Associated Press released a copy of his elementary school registration. This document records his name is Barry Soetoro – he wrote he was called Barry as a child – and it lists his nationality is Indonesian. Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship; American law on dual citizenship deferred to the law of the foreign sovereign. In other words, being adopted by Lolo Soetoro would make him a citizen of Indonesia, and he would no longer be an American citizen.

Defendant’s mother brought him back to Hawaii at age 10. If he passed through U.S. Customs and Immigration on re-entering the country, now he would be a “naturalized” but not “natural born citizen.” And naturalized citizens are Constitutionally ineligible to be President. She left him in Hawaii with her father and mother, where he remained until attending Occidental College, in California. Last April, at a private fundraiser in that state, he let slip that in 1981, on a break from college, he spent a few weeks in Pakistan. Does the passport he presented that allowed his entrance into that country show whether he was a citizen of the United States of America; or Kenya; or Indonesia?

Despite all of these unanswered questions as to his Constitutional eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, Defendant nonetheless managed to become the nominee for President of the Democratic Party when super delegates supported him in direct proportion to money he donated to their political campaigns, while his opponent, Senator Clinton, amassed the majority of the popular votes cast in the primary and earned more pledged delegates from votes cast for her than for him. And he got (the names of his Electors) onto the general election ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia; and received the majority of popular votes cast in the general election.

Two days after the election, Detroit radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels, and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF’s “Mike in the Morning” show called Honorable Peter Ogego, Kenyan Ambassador to the U.S., at the Embassy of Kenya in Washington, D.C. for reaction to his countryman being elected the American President. Ambassador Ogego was understandably proud. He proclaimed that the President’s “birthplace” in Kenya is “already an attraction.” Asked whether the Kenyan government intended to identify the spot with some sort of marker, the Ambassador assured the interviewers, the site is “already well known.”

Again, being born in Kenya means, Mr. Obama cannot be President because he is not a natural born citizen.

Members of the Electoral College, long-time loyalists and activists selected by the Democratic Party cast their votes for President on December 15. They went along with their Party. Congress counted and certified these Electoral Votes on January 8. Still, no proof exists Defendant is a natural born citizen.

Being a natural born citizen is a Constitutional prerequisite to being President but Defendant has failed to establish he is eligible for the job. Plaintiffs, haunted by well-founded concerns as to whether he is a natural born citizen are confronted with this untenable Hobson’s choice. Does the fact he was sworn in as President on January 20 mean, they must now honor their vows to protect and defend the Constitution by disobeying what could be an illegal order issued by the man unlawfully acting as Commander in Chief, thereby facing certain discipline under the Uniform Code of Military Conduct up to and including prosecution for crimes punishable by imprisonment or execution? Or, should they face such discipline by obeying an order that in fact, is illegal, in violation of the sacred oath they took on behalf of their country?

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff * served as a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Air Force Reserve, Medical Corp. Lieutenant Colonel * is the recipient of several service awards including the Air Force Outstanding Unit with Valor; and Meritorious Service Award. Honorably discharged from active duty status, he is subject to recall. * resides at *.

2. Plaintiff * served as a Colonel in the U.S. Army. Colonel *is the recipient of several service awards including the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, and the Legion of Merit. Honorably discharged from active duty status, he is subject to recall. * resides at *.

3. Plaintiff * served as a Specialist 4th Class in the U.S. Army. Specialist *is the recipient of several service awards including the Army Service Ribbon and Good Conduct Medal. Honorably discharged from active duty status, he is subject to recall. * currently resides at *.

4. Defendant Barack Hussein Obama was the candidate for President under the Democratic Party. He is the winner of the votes cast by the Electoral College on December 15, 2008 as counted and Certified by Congress on January 8, 2009. On January 20, 2009 he was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States of America. His current office address is the White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C., 20500.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this claim pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. chapter 47; and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §2201.

6. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391 because Parties have substantial ties to the *District of *.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7. Upon entering the service, Plaintiffs swore a solemn oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” and to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same” and to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
8. Under the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section I, the President of the United States must be a natural born citizen or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
9. Defendant was not a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
10. The President is the only federal office holder who must be a natural born citizen.
11. No provision of federal or state law requires the candidate for President to prove he is a natural born citizen.
12. No provision of federal or state law requires government officials to verify the candidate for President is a natural born citizen.
13. Plaintiffs have been unable to confirm that any government official verified Defendant is a natural born citizen.
14. Plaintiffs share grave concerns as to whether Defendant is a natural born citizen.
15. The maiden name of Defendant’s mother was Stanley Ann Dunham.
16. Ms. Dunham was a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth.
17. Defendant’s mother married Barack Hussein Obama (Sr.) in February, 1961.
18. Mr. Obama, Sr. was a national of Kenya, a colony of Great Britain.
19. His citizenship was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
20. Defendant was born in August, 1961.
21. Defendant’s father and mother divorced in 1964.
22. In their divorce papers, his father acknowledged paternity of Defendant.
23. Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Defendant became a British citizen at birth.
24. In June 2008, Defendant created an internet web site entitled “Fight the Smears” stating his purpose was to counter “rumors” about his citizenship status.
25. On that site, he posted these facts: his biological father was a Kenyan national; in 1961, Kenya was a colony of the British Empire; and under British law, he inherited British citizenship.
26. Defendant explained this meant he was born with dual U.S./Kenya citizenship.
27. In 1995, Defendant published a memoir entitled Dreams from my Father.
28. He wrote his biological father and mother were divorced and she married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian national.
29. His mother and he left Hawaii to live in Indonesia.
30. He wrote his mother gave birth to his sister, Maya Soetoro.
31. He calls Mr. Soetoro his “stepfather.”
32. He writes as a child, he was known as Barry.
33. He writes in Indonesia, he attended a Catholic elementary school.
34. In August 2008, Associated Press reporter Tatan Fyuflana posted an image of a registration form for a student named Barry Soetoro at the Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia.
35. In that school registration form, the name of the father of Barry Soetoro was listed as Lolo Soetoro.
36. On the form, the Nationality of Barry Soetoro was listed as Indonesian.
37. Under Indonesian law, the child adopted by an Indonesian father is Indonesian.
38. Indonesian law at that time disallowed dual citizenship.
39. U.S. law on dual citizenship deferred to the law of the foreign sovereign.
40. Under Hawaiian law, an adoption by a foreigner of a minor whose birth is registered in Hawaii resulted in the issuance of a new Certification of Live Birth issued in the name of the child’s adoptive father.
41. Defendant’s mother divorced his stepfather in 1980.
42. Divorce records showed two issues from the marriage with Mr. Soetoro, a child under 18 and a child over 18.
43. Defendant writes his mother moved him out of Indonesia when he was 10 and repatriated him to Hawaii to live with his maternal grandparents.
44. He writes he lived in Hawaii until enrolling in Occidental College in California.
45. Defendant announced at a fundraiser in San Francisco in April 2008 that while in college, he left the United States for a visit to Pakistan.
46. Asked about this disclosure of that Pakistan trip by ABC News, Defendant’s campaign confirmed he spent 3 weeks in Pakistan in 1981.
47. When he returned from his Pakistan trip, Defendant presented his passport to re-enter the United States.
48. In 1996, Defendant won election to the state senate in Illinois.
49. In 2005, Defendant won election to the U.S. Senate.
50. In 2006, while a member of the U.S. Senate, Defendant visited Kenya.
51. While in Kenya, he campaigned alongside fellow Luo, Raila Odinga, running for the Office of President of Kenya.
52. In 2007, Defendant announced he was running for the Office of President of the United States.
53. The Democratic Party named Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from California, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, as the Chair of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
54. Senator Hillary Clinton won the majority of popular votes cast in the Democratic Presidential Primary.
55. Primary votes cast for Senator Clinton resulted in more pledged delegates for her than for Defendant.
56. Super delegates supporting Defendant enabled him to reach the requisite delegate votes to secure the Party’s nomination.
57. In August 2008, Ms. Pelosi signed an Official Certification of Nomination distributed to the chief elections officials in 49 states and the District of Columbia which read, “THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively: For President of the United States, Barack Obama…”
58. Ms. Pelosi signed a separate Certification of Nomination for the State of Hawaii in which she added a Certification of Constitutional eligibility for office which read, “THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution: For President of the United States, Barack Obama…”
59. Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-113 requires that the political party of a candidate must provide a statement that the candidate is legally qualified to serve as President under the provisions of the United States Constitution.
60. Elections officials in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia put Defendant’s name onto the general election ballot as the Democratic candidate for President.
61. Democratic Party officials in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia chose Electors from among long-standing Party activists and loyalists.
62. State Party officials submitted their slate of Democratic Electors to the elections officials for placement on the ballot.
63. Electors for Defendant won the popular vote in the general election for President on November 4, 2008.
64. Two days after the election, Honorable Peter Ogego, Kenyan Ambassador to the U.S., told an American radio station that Defendant’s birthplace in Kenya is “already an attraction.”
65. The Ambassador assured the interviewers even without a formal government marker, the site is “already well known.”
66. Members of the Electoral College cast their votes for Defendant for President on December 15, 2008.
67. Members of the U.S. Congress counted and Certified the votes cast by the Electoral College on January 8, 2009.
68. In December 2007 Defendant submitted a signed statement to the Secretary of State of Arizona indicating he would seek nomination as a candidate for the Office of President from the Democratic Party, swearing he is a “natural born citizen of the United States.”
69. In June 2008 Defendant insisted on his “Fight the Smears” web site he can prove he is a “native citizen.”
70. He posted the photocopy of a document he wrote was “Barack Obama’s Official Birth Certificate.”
71. The words “Department of Health,” “State of Hawaii, U.S.A.,” and “Certification of Live Birth” were printed across the top of the photocopy.
72. This “Certification” identified his father is Barack Hussein Obama, whose race is listed as African; his place of birth is Hawaii; and his date of birth is August, 1961.
73. In 1961, Hawaiian Revised Statutes §338-17.8, Certificates for children born out of State, provides that the director of health may issue a Hawaiian Birth Certificate for a child born outside of the country as long as the child’s parents declared the State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth of the child.
74. Defendant prominently displays on his “Fight the Smears” site the logo for the organization called FactCheck, linking his site to their web page.
75. According to their web site, FactCheck.org is “a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.”
76. The complete name of FactCheck is Annenberg Political Fact Check.
77. FactCheck was created and is funded by the Annenberg Foundation.
78. The Annenberg Foundation previously hired Mr. Obama to Chair the Board of their Chicago Annenberg Challenge (“CAC”).
79. The stated mission of the CAC was to fund programs that could raise the test scores of students enrolled in Chicago public schools.
80. As Chair of the CAC, Mr. Obama doled out tens of millions of Foundation dollars to community groups like ACORN and Bill Ayers’ Small Schools Workshops.
81. Test scores failed to measure any improvement as compared to students not involved with the Challenge.
82. FactCheck operates out of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
83. FactCheck.org posted on their web site that in Defendant’s campaign offices in Chicago, FactCheck staffers saw the original of the Certification posted on Defendant’s web site.
84. FactCheck called this Certification a “short-form Birth Certificate.”
85. FactCheck alleged the State of Hawaii does not offer the option of requesting a long form Birth Certificate.
86. On November 1, 2008, just 3 (three) days before the general election, FactCheck posted a notice alleging the director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu.
87. Plaintiffs are unable to find any evidence that any official from Hawaii made this statement FactCheck attributed to them.
88. The disclaimer at the bottom of the FactCheck.org web site specifically states that the University of Pennsylvania is not responsible for the material they put out.
89. The disclaimer at the bottom of the FactCheck.org web site specifically states that only FactCheck staff are responsible for representations made by FactCheck.
90. Constituents contacted members of Congress expressing concerns whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen as required by the U.S. Constitution for the Office of President.
91. In response to concerns raised by his constituents, U.S. Senator Harry Reid, Democrat Majority Leader from Nevada, claimed “Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawai’i.”
92. Senator Reid wrote that “his birth certificate is available on the Web site for the nonpartisan, nonprofit Annenberg Political Fact Check: http://www.factcheck.org.”
93. Responding to the concerns raised by his constituents, U.S. Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat from New Jersey told constituents, “The non-partisan organization Political Fact Check (this group monitors the factual accuracy of political information) has examined Mr. Obama’s birth certificate and they report that it is valid and he is a U.S. citizen. I have included a link to a Newsweek article that was written on this subject and includes links to pictures of the birth certificate (http://www.newsweek.com/id/154599).”
94. He concluded, therefore, Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.
95. Newsweek credits that article which Senator Menendez asked constituents to read, to a member of FactCheck.org staff.
96. Responding to the concerns raised by his constituents, U.S. Representative Jay Inslee, Democrat from Washington said that President-Elect Obama has indeed provided his actual paper Certification of Live Birth to “the Annenberg Foundation’s non-partisan “Factcheck.org” website.”
97. He wrote that “the director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed on Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu and that he is therefore eligible to hold the office of President.”
98. Responding to the concerns of his constituents, U.S. Senator Herb Kohl, Democrat from Wisconsin said “Hawaii became a state on August 21st, 1959 and President-elect Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, making him a United States citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.”
99. Senator Kohl also wrote that President-elect Obama’s birth certificate has been made public, and is widely available online; and that “this document has been authenticated by a variety of sources, including the Hawaii Department of Health and the Annenberg Public Policy Center.”
100. Responding to concerns raised by her constituents, U.S. Representative Tammy Baldwin, Democrat from Wisconsin wrote that Mr. Obama “posted his birth certificate on his
campaign website indicating he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961.”
101. She further stated that “media accounts report that Hawaiian officials verified health department records and determined there is no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.”
102. Responding to concerns raised by his constituents, U.S. Representative John Sarbanes, Democrat from Maryland said state officials in Hawaii have confirmed that their records indicate President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii.
103. Responding to concerns raised by his constituents, U.S. Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Democrat from Wisconsin stated that “claims that Mr. Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the nation’s highest office are unfounded,” and “No credible evidence has surfaced to call into question his eligibility to run.”
104. Responding to concerns raised by his constituents, U.S. Senator David Vitter, Republican from Louisiana wrote that “Hawaii state officials have verified that President-elect Obama was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961, making him a natural born citizen.”
105. Responding to the concerns raised by his constituents, U.S. Representative Steven LaTourette, Republican from Ohio said, “Hawaii state officials say they have checked health department records and confirmed that there is no doubt that the president elect was born in Hawaii.”
106. Representative LaTourette advised, “The Secretary of State of each state holds the responsibility of verifying that each presidential candidate meets the requirements as
outlined in the U.S. Constitution.”
107. Responding to the concerns raised by his constituents, U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe, Republican from Oklahoma said “with regard to Senator Obama’s birth certificate, in June 2008, Senator Obama produced a certificate of live birth from the State of Hawaii Department of Health…”
108. Senator Inhofe added that “Hawaii’s Health director verified the Health Department has Senator Obama’s original birth certificate on file.”
109. Responding to the concerns raised by his constituents, U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat from Ohio said “President-Elect Obama has provided several news organizations with a copy of his birth certificate, showing he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”
110. Senator Brown wrote that “Hawaii became a state in 1959, and all individuals born in Hawaii after its admission are considered natural-born United States citizens.”
111. He also alleged that the “Hawaii State Health Department recently issued a public statement verifying the authenticity of President-Elect Obama’s birth certificate.”
112. Responding to the concerns raised by his constituents, U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican from Alabama said lawsuits have been filed alleging that Mr. Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States, and therefore is constitutionally ineligible for the office; and that “Senate ethics rules preclude him from becoming personally involved in pending litigation.”
113. Responding to the concerns raised by his constituents, U.S. Senator Carl Levin, Democrat from Michigan said, “President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii as documented by his
official birth certificate. He is, therefore, a natural born citizen of the United States.”
114. Responding to the concerns raised by her constituents, U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski, Democrat from Maryland said, “The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. Since President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii two years after it was admitted as the 50th state, he is a natural-born citizen.”
115. She added, “He has released a copy of his birth certificate and it has been authenticated by experts.”
116. Responding to the concerns raised by his constituents, U.S. Senator Mike Crapo, Republican from Idaho said, “The Constitution and federal law require that, among other things, only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both American citizens) may be President of the United States.”
117. Senator Crapo wrote, “Furthermore, both the Director of Hawaii’s Department of Health and the state’s Registrar of Vital Statistics recently confirmed that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and, as such, meets the constitutional citizenship requirements for the presidency.”
118. Under the U.S. Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
119. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, questioning or defying the authority of the Commander in Chief subjects Plaintiffs to Court Martial and discipline up to and including execution.
120. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, refusal to obey an order from a superior officer during war time subjects Plaintiffs to Court Martial and discipline up to and including execution.
121. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, delivering an illegal order subjects Plaintiffs to Court Martial and discipline up to and including execution.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief

122. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 121 as if fully set forth herein.
123. Given that Defendant’s father was a British/Kenyan national, then Plaintiffs have a good faith belief and understanding he is not a natural born citizen and, therefore, in honoring both the letter and spirit of their oath under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, are liable to discipline including but not limited to imprisonment and execution.

Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray this Court will Declare whether under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, Defendant is a natural born citizen.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief

124. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 123 as if fully set forth herein.
125. Assuming Defendant’s father was a U.S. citizen but Defendant was born outside of the United States of America, then Plaintiffs have a good faith belief and understanding he is not a natural born citizen and, therefore, in honoring both the letter and spirit of their oath under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, are liable to discipline including but not limited to imprisonment and execution.

Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray this Court will Declare whether under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, Defendant is a natural born citizen.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief

126. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 125 as if fully set forth herein.
127. Assuming Defendant’s father was a U.S. citizen; that he was born in the United States of America; and that his mother married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian national; then Plaintiffs have a good faith belief and understanding he became an Indonesian national and not a natural born citizen and, therefore, in honoring both the letter and spirit of their oath under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, are liable to discipline including but not limited to imprisonment and execution.

Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray this Court will Declare whether under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, Defendant is a natural born citizen.

ADDITIONAL RELIEF REQUESTED

Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray this Court will award Plaintiffs reasonable costs and expenses of this action, including attorney’s fees, and further relief as this Court shall deem just and equitable.

Date: January 20, 2009 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

AND THE WINNER IS…MY MILITARY COMPLAINT!

Here is an email exchange between Orly and me this morning. I have been begging her to bring the military Complaint for Declaratory Relief as I conceived and wrote it. She informed me, she had too little faith to bring this, and was unwilling to jeopardize her license to practice on what could be a frivolous case.

In the meantime, she has attempted to enforce President Bush’s EO against BO notwithstanding the Order explicitly stated it created no such enforcement rights; and, even if it had, did not apply to government officers, like the POTUS. (She had called me on the Saturday before the inauguration, saying she intended to serve subpoenas under the Order. I asked when she intended to serve these subpoenas; “Wednesday morning.” I told her not to waste her time drafting these orders unless she could serve them before noon on Tuesday, as BO would rescind all Executive Orders he could, at 12:01 on Tuesday. She argued, the D.C. courts are closed on Monday and Tuesday; I told her to go somewhere else. Unfortunately, I hadn’t read the EO; I was merely advising her as to the futility of trying to enforce an EO issued by President Bush, on Wednesday morning, under a ‘President’ Obama.) (Note: for the first time, Orly shifted the burden of proof from Plaintiffs establishing BO is not a NBC, to having BO establish, he is, the tack I take in my military Complaint.)

So, this morning, given BO’s response to the Hollister case, she sent me the following email. (Note: Berg borrowed my idea of the military Plaintiff but, changed the cause of action to Interpleader.)

jbjd,
I was waiting to see what BO’s lead attorney Robert Bauer will write in response to Berg’s military complaint. As I expected, in his motion to dismiss he notes several hurdles common for all of these cases.
One of them, that the court has no jurisdiction and the plaintiffs have no standing. As discharged members of the military their standing is questionable. He is saying that any injury is highly speculative. Bottom line, the decision by the judge will be merely an advisory opinion, which is impermissible. Even though Dec relief does not require injury in fact, there still has to be a standing and real controversy. He is saying that according to Lujan v Wildlife the damage is not imminent, but rather conjectural or hypothetical. Even in Dec relief the has to be a concrete or actual invasion of a particular right. I suspect the judge will decide for BO. That is why I am still working on proper court, jurisdiction, standing and points and authorities. If I go with guns blazing without proper legal ground, the case will be res judicata and deemed to be heard on the merits. We will loose both the plaintiffs and the whole line of attack. We can’t afford to do that. I might be able to go to SCOTUS on this one on original jurisdiction. One of my active people has met with the top brass at the Pentagon. We are waiting to see their response, will they let an active military to seek dec relief on this issue without exposing him to court martial. It is not just him: there is a family and children. It is a catch 22: retired military will be dismissed quickly, but active faces serious repercussions.

Here was my response.

Orly,

“As I expected, in his motion to dismiss he notes several hurdles common for all of these cases.” Then why did you expand the set of Plaintiffs to include a 77-year-old Plaintiff; or someone retired as opposed to on inactive duty status? If you will note my original memo on the subject, the ideal Plaintiff would be someone about to be or anticipated to be called up to active duty status. National guard would have been great. You expanded the set of Plaintiffs, against my advice.

I will read the response. I have already been asked to comment on my blog.

jbjd

Then, I read BO’s response in Hollister.

Orly,

Thank goodness for Berg. Between his first case, which had no chance of success; and this last one, using my idea of the military Plaintiff but the wrong cause of action; he forced the hand of BO’s attorneys, which crystallized for me exactly how to counter them, on all counts. The Plaintiff I described in my initial military memo is the winner. And my decision to focus on the FactCheck angle in my military Complaint turns out to be pure genius. We will prevail, just as soon as we bring the Complaint I conceived and drafted.

jbjd

Finally, let me clarify for all of you that, the Plaintiff who faces no real jeopardy is not a valid Plaintiff; the case brought by a Plaintiff in no jeopardy fails to present a valid case or controversy to the Court. In other words, by claiming she is attempting to insulate the Plaintiff from liability in advance of filing the military Complaint, Orly is essentially depriving Plaintiff of the standing required to sue in the first place, and the Court of the jurisdiction to hear the suit.

I will elaborate later on today.

A SOLDIER’S LAMENT

I serve proudly in the United States military. On entering the service, I swore a solemn oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” and to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same” and to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” So help me God. At all times in the past, I have faithfully served my country consistent with this sacred oath. And while it is true that, the Uniform Code of Military Justice metes out penalties for failure to carry out the mandates of this oath; this threat of adverse consequences is not what has motivated me to put my life on the line for my country. Rather, it was my deep abiding faith in our Constitutional Republic that formed the basis of this allegiance. However, since January 20, 2009, when Barack Hussein Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States, my faith and allegiance is being tested as never before. Because having closely monitored events related to this latest election cycle, I now have grave concerns as to whether Mr. Obama is eligible for the job. Specifically, under Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, is he a “natural born citizen”?

Back in December 2007, in the document he submitted to the Secretary of State of Arizona announcing he would participate in that state’s February Presidential nominating primary, Mr. Obama did “solemnly swear” he was a “natural born citizen.” But by June 2008, he publicly acknowledged concerns as to his Constitutional eligibility for the job. At that time, he created an internet web site entitled “Fight the Smears,” with this stated purpose: to “spread the truth.” For example, here’s what Mr. Obama posted on that site to address rumors he held dual U.S./Kenya citizenship.

“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.”
But being born with dual U.S./Britain citizenship means he is not a natural born citizen.

To address rumors he was not a U.S. citizen, Mr. Obama posted information under the heading, “The Truth About Barack’s Birth Certificate.” Below was the photocopy of a document entitled “Certification of Live Birth,” State of Hawaii, with this added caption: “Barack Obama’s Official Birth Certificate.” Unlike a regular Certificate of Live Birth, which is filled with several boxes containing information like baby’s height and weight; the name of the hospital in which he was born; and the signature of the doctor attending the delivery, this Certification contains little more information excerpted from the original than the names of his father and mother and that he was born in 1961 on the Island of Oahu. Yet he insisted posting this document established once and for all he was born in Hawaii. Only, in 1961, Hawaiian Revised Statutes §338-17.8 provided that the director of health may issue a Hawaiian Birth Certificate for a child born outside of the country as long as the child’s parents declared the State of Hawaii was their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth of the child.

In other words, under Hawaiian law, Mr. Obama could have obtained a Certificate of Live Birth showing he was born in Hawaii even if that isn’t where he was born. Indeed, Hawaiian officials did say recently they have his original Certificate of Live Birth but they did not say it shows he was born in Hawaii. He could also have been issued a Certificate of Live Birth that proves he was born in another country. Of course, being born in another country means, he is not a natural born citizen.

Mr. Obama also insisted this Hawaiian Certification he posted on the internet establishes he is a “native citizen.” Why did he swear to the Secretary of State in Arizona he is a “natural born citizen”? Having taught Constitutional Law, surely he knows the difference between “native” and “natural born”; and that being only native born makes him ineligible to be President.

Mr. Obama prominently displays on his site the logo for the organization called FactCheck, linking his site to their web page. FactCheck explained that Mr. Obama’s campaign made a copy of his “birth certificate” public after speculation by people they characterized as “conservative bloggers” that he might not be a “natural-born citizen.” Reminding everyone they are a “nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters,” they assured the public, Mr. Obama was born in the U.S.A. But this is untrue. In fact, the real name of FactCheck is Annenberg Political Fact Check. And Annenberg Political Fact Check is wholly funded by the Annenberg Foundation. That’s the same outfit that hired Mr. Obama to Chair the Board of their Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and handed over to him tens of millions of Mr. Annenberg’s dollars which he then doled out to community groups like ACORN and Bill Ayers’ Small Schools Workshops in a failed attempt to raise test scores of students enrolled in Chicago public schools.

Nevertheless, despite these long-standing close ties between Mr. Obama and Annenberg, when voters contacted members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives with concerns as to whether Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen, these members of Congress assured their constituents, there was nothing to worry about because the “non-partisan” FactCheck confirmed his qualifications. And, in his latest response to a lawsuit questioning his eligibility, Mr. Obama ask the court to note that FactCheck – he even cites the web address – posted he’s for real.

On the other hand, if both of Mr. Obama’s parents were American citizens and Mr. Obama was actually born in Hawaii, these facts alone fail to establish he is a natural born citizen.

In his memoir, Dreams from my Father, Mr. Obama wrote that his mother married Lolo Soetoro, whom he calls his stepfather, when he was 4 years old, and moved her son to Mr. Soetoro’s native Indonesia. He remained silent throughout the book as to whether he was adopted. But during that time, only Indonesian citizens were allowed to attend school; and last year, the Associated Press released a copy of his elementary school registration. This document records his name is Barry Soetoro – he wrote he was called Barry as a child – and it lists his nationality is Indonesian. Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship; American law on dual citizenship deferred to the law of the foreign sovereign. In other words, being adopted by Lolo Soetoro would make him a citizen of Indonesia, and he would no longer be an American citizen.

Mr. Obama’s mother brought him back to Hawaii at age 10. If he passed through U.S. Customs and Immigration on re-entering the country, now he would be a “naturalized” but not “natural born citizen.” And naturalized citizens are Constitutionally ineligible to be President. She left him in Hawaii with her father and mother, where he remained until attending Occidental College, in California. Last April, at a private fundraiser in that state, he let slip that in 1981, on a break from college, he spent a few weeks in Pakistan. Does the passport he presented that allowed his entrance into that country show whether he was a citizen of the United States of America; or Kenya; or Indonesia?

Despite all of these unanswered questions as to his Constitutional eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, Mr. Obama nonetheless managed to become the nominee for President of the Democratic Party when super delegates supported him in direct proportion to money he donated to their political campaigns, while his opponent, Senator Clinton, amassed the majority of the popular votes cast in the primary and earned more pledged delegates from votes cast for her than for him. And he got (the names of his Electors) onto the general election ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia; and received the majority of popular votes cast in the general election.

Two days after the election, Detroit radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels, and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF’s “Mike in the Morning” show called Honorable Peter Ogego, Kenyan Ambassador to the U.S., at the Embassy of Kenya in Washington, D.C. for reaction to his countryman being elected the American President. Ambassador Ogego was understandably proud. He proclaimed that the President’s “birthplace” in Kenya is “already an attraction.” Asked whether the Kenyan government intended to identify the spot with some sort of marker, the Ambassador assured the interviewers, the site is “already well known.”

Again, being born in Kenya means, Mr. Obama cannot be President because he is not a natural born citizen.

Members of the Electoral College, long-time loyalists and activists selected by the Democratic Party cast their votes for President on December 15. They went along with their Party. Congress counted and Certified these Electoral Votes on January 8. Still, no proof exists Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.

Being a natural born citizen is a Constitutional prerequisite to being President but Mr. Obama has failed to establish he is eligible for the job. This soldier, haunted by well-founded concerns as to whether the man is a natural born citizen is confronted with this untenable Hobson’s choice. Must I honor my vows to protect and defend the Constitution by disobeying what could be an illegal order issued by the man unlawfully acting as Commander in Chief, thereby facing certain discipline under the Uniform Code of Military Conduct up to and including prosecution for crimes punishable by imprisonment or execution? Or, should I face such discipline by obeying an order that in fact, is illegal, in violation of the sacred oath I took on behalf of my country?

©jbjd 2009

(Now, please read the complete TEMPLATE FOR THE MILITARY COMPLAINT AGAINST BARACK OBAMA, below.)

LIAR, LIAR

JUST BECAUSE NO ONE HAS FILED THE MILITARY COMPLAINT THAT I CONCEIVED AND PERFECTED AND PUT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN WEEKS AGO DOES NOT MEAN PLAINTIFFS FILING THIS COMPLAINT WOULD NOT PREVAIL IN FEDERAL COURT!

I conceived the idea of establishing standing in federal court through the use of a military Plaintiff, back in November. That’s when I wrote the lengthy memo entitled, FIND OUT WHETHER BARACK OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AS REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE II OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND STOP THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE FROM VOTING FOR HIM, IF HE IS NOT! My goal in this memo was to explain to lay people that these legal cases already filed regarding BO’s eligibility hadn’t gone anywhere because they were procedurally infirm and not because the issue of his Constitutional eligibility was substantively baseless. And I wanted to propose a means to circumvent one of these procedural infirmities: using military Plaintiffs to establish standing in federal court. (I explained in the memo that, BO had provided a primer of sorts as to how to overcome any problems with standing; in the Opposition he submitted to the Court in the Berg case!)

I posted my memo on this blog (original posting date was November 14). Members of Team jbjd also distributed my memo throughout the blogosphere; as well as to members of the MSM, and attorneys and groups already engaged in trying to ‘out’ the fact BO is not a NBC, including Leo Donofrio; Orly Taitz; Phil Berg; and Edwin Vieira. (I called Orly Taitz and Phil Berg personally.) I had hoped someone would pick up on my idea that the military Plaintiff would satisfy any objections to standing; and run with it. But no one did. A couple of weeks later, I followed up with several attorneys, including Orly Taitz. Now, she informed me, using military Plaintiffs was an “old” idea. I reminded her; I was the person who brought this idea to her, weeks ago! She also claimed, she had several military Plaintiffs who had already signed Releases allowing her to file a Complaint on their behalf. But she hadn’t drafted a Complaint; she asked me to do this.

So, I drafted the military Complaint. The legal theory is mine; the SUMMARY OF THE CASE is mine; and the FACTS are all mine. Indeed, Orly had proposed I should just copy the FACTS section from one of her cases; but I said no. None of the other cases I read contained actual ‘facts.’ Rather, they contained rumors, theories, and hyperbole disguised as facts. Besides, my “FACTS” had to support the theory of my case, which was different from all of the other cases, in these 2 regards. First, I was not claiming BO is not a NBC. Instead, I was only claiming, Plaintiffs have no idea as to his legal status. Second, I was not asking the court to order him to prove whether he is a NBC though the production of documents. Instead, I was only asking the court to Declare his status; how to do this was up to the court.

So, now I just had to fill in the information for the military Plaintiffs she selected. That is, she would send information on a Plaintiff and I had to identify the local federal district court; and amend the Complaint to include his personal information. On January 3, 2009, I notified her of a problem with one of her proposed Plaintiffs, and sent her the following email.

from jbjd
to Orly Taitz
date Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 7:24 PM
subject AGE OF DEFENDANTS

Do you realize * is 77? I cannot say he is subject to recall; he is not a good Plaintiff.

jbjd

Here is her response to my concern.

Orly Taitz
reply-to dr_taitz@yahoo.com
to jbjd
date Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 7:57 PM
subject Re: AGE OF DEFENDANTS

Let’s keep him, he is extremely ewll known and putspoken. Let the judge kick him out, he will take the country apart

Orly Taitz DDS Esq

So, she had her Complaint, filled in with the name of 3 Plaintiffs she chose. But she did not file the Complaint. I told her, if she did not file this Complaint then, I would post it on line so that someone else could file this.

On January 12, 2009, I realized there was a problem with the Release Orly had required her potential Plaintiffs to sign, creating a conflict with the Complaint I conceived and drafted; which conflict is spelled out in this email.

From: jbjd
Subject: MILITARY COMPLAINT – CONSENT FORM REVISION
To: “Orly Taitz”
Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 6:45 PM

The Consent Form posted on your site needs to be revised if you use the Complaint I drafted. Because the Complaint only states that Plaintiffs have a good faith belief and understanding Defendant is not a NBC, whereas the Consent Form explicitly says, he is not.

The case I fashioned is not intended to require Plaintiffs to prove Defendant’s legal status; rather, it leaves that heavy lifting up to the Court.

jbjd

Orly did not revise her Release; so the conflict remains. Military Plaintiffs admit in her Release they will disobey orders and will be accused of treason; my Complaint predicts no such conduct. And evidently, this does not sit right with some members of our military, who would otherwise be willing Plaintiffs. One such Plaintiff who had previously signed her Release, subsequently requested my intervention to revoke his Consent to be a Plaintiff. I was able to rescind that Release.

Still, she would not file the Complaint.

Phil Berg filed a version of a military Complaint using Hollister, retired military, as his Plaintiff; and an Interpleader, totally different from what I had in mind. BO filed his Opposition. Orly sent me another email, now coming up with another justification as to why she had not filed a military Complaint.

Orly Taitz
reply-to dr_taitz@yahoo.com
to jbjd
date Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:12 AM
subject Motion to dismiss Berg’s military claim

I was waiting to see what BO’s lead attorney Robert Bauer will write in response to Berg’s military complaint. As I expected, in his motion to dismiss he notes several hurdles common for all of these cases.
One of them, that the court has no jurisdiction and the plaintiffs have no standing. As discharged members of the military their standing is questionable. He is saying that any injury is highly speculative. Bottom line, the decision by the judge will be merely an advisory opinion, which is impermissible. Even though Dec relief does not require injury in fact, there still has to be a standing and real controversy. He is saying that according to Lujan v Wildlife the damage is not imminent, but rather conjectural or hypothetical. Even in Dec relief the has to be a concrete or actual invasion of a particular right. I suspect the judge will decide for BO. That is why I am still working on proper court, jurisdiction, standing and points and authorities. If I go with guns blazing without proper legal ground, the case will be res judicata and deemed to be heard on the merits. We will loose both the plaintiffs and the whole line of attack. We can’t afford to do that. I might be able to go to SCOTUS on this one on original jurisdiction. One of my active people has met with the top brass at the Pentagon. We are waiting to see their response, will they let an active military to seek dec relief on this issue without exposing him to court martial. It is not just him: there is a family and children. It is a catch 22: retired military will be dismissed quickly, but active faces serious repercussions.

Here is my reply.

jbjd
to dr_taitz@yahoo.com
date Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 8:19 AM
subject Re: Motion to dismiss Berg’s military claim

Orly,

“As I expected, in his motion to dismiss he notes several hurdles common for all of these cases.” Then why did you expand the set of Plaintiffs to include a 77-year-old Plaintiff; or someone retired as opposed to on inactive duty status? If you will note my original memo on the subject, the ideal Plaintiff would be someone about to be or anticipated to be called up to active duty status. National guard would have been great. You expanded the set of Plaintiffs, against my advice.

“One of my active people has met with the top brass at the Pentagon. We are waiting to see their response, will they let an active military to seek dec relief on this issue without exposing him to court martial. It is not just him: there is a family and children. It is a catch 22: retired military will be dismissed quickly, but active faces serious repercussions.” Let me remind you that, the Plaintiff who faces no real jeopardy is not a valid Plaintiff; the case brought by a Plaintiff in no jeopardy fails to present a valid case or controversy to the Court. In other words, by claiming you are attempting to insulate the Plaintiff from liability in advance of filing the military Complaint, you are essentially depriving Plaintiff of the standing required to sue in the first place, and the Court of the jurisdiction to hear the suit.

I will read the response. I have already been asked to comment on my blog.

jbjd

Today, Orly posted this on her blog. I inserted my comments.

Aside from 4 cases mentioned above, I have about 50 consent forms from the servicemen, however I wasn’t rushing to file, as I wanted to see a response from Obama’s lead attorney Robert Bauer, whom I personally call Der. Gebbels machine, I wanted to see his motion to dismiss Phil Berg’s (Hollister) and Mario Apuzzo’s (Kerchner) cases, I wanted to see the arguments. A definition of insanity, is when you are doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results. No sense of filling exactly the same case. (My case has nothing to do with any of these other cases.) I hope that those cases are not dismissed, but what Bauer is saying among other things, is that the plaintiffs are retired military and therefor a chance of them being called to active duty pursuant Obama’s orders is highly hypothetical, and in order to show standing, you need to show an actual controversy. (My case called for military about to be deployed; check out the Memo posted in November. Orly insisted on using a 77-year-old Plaintiff, against my objections; check out her email, posted above. And her Release includes retired military!) A judge cannot give an advisory opinion for hypothetical situations. (My case is not hypothetical; Berg’s claims that a retired military could be recalled makes his case subject to a claim the case is hypothetical.) Due to the above, I am reworking my military case. (You never had a military case!) I feel it is better to take a bit more time and be better prepared, then go with guns blazing and be shot out of the court. (Except when you file subpoenas under an executive order that gives you no rights of enforcement…)

Liar, liar.

RIGHT IN THE BEGINNING

Here we go again.

Like Orly and Phil Berg before him, on January 30, Leo Donofrio announced his epiphany that military Plaintiffs have standing in federal court to determine whether BO is a NBC. (“Ineligible POTUS best challenged by active military in Federal court.”) Only 2 ½ months after I first sent him the idea, in the 6-page memo I originally posted on this blog on November 14. Not surprisingly, he does not mention where he got the idea; he never even uses my name.

I posted a comment on his blog pointing out, ‘his’ idea sounded surprisingly like mine. Following is his response.

jbjd Says:
January 30, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Leo, I wrote that military Complaint obliquely referenced in the heading of your article, weeks ago. And it does not require any military personnel to disobey an order, before acquiring the standing to bring this suit. I even added in an additional fact among the FACTS section that de-bunks FactCheck, courtesy of BO’s latest non-response response in Hollister.
http://jbjd.wordpress.com/

[Ed. Readers should take a look at his blog. But keep in mind, the concept requires a class action with MANY soldiers signing on. There's power in numbers. And there's standing.]

Now, Leo can use all the capital letters he wants but, he is just plain wrong that the “concept requires a class action with MANY soldiers signing on.” And he’s wrong to imply “numbers” confer “standing.” Obviously, he is opining without having done the research. Of course, I did the research before drafting the military Complaint. So, I wrote another comment on his blog, which was followed by another note from him.

jbjd Says:
January 31, 2009 at 10:44 am
Leo, the beauty of the Declaratory Judgment Act is that, Plaintiffs can act qua class without class certification or multiple Plaintiffs. This is part of the beauty of relying on this particular federal law. In other words, any decision that applies to the Plaintiff named, applies to all similarly situated potential Plaintiffs.
http://jbjd.wordpress.com/

[Ed. That's certainly interesting.]

A great source for research is the Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys. Here is the opening paragraph from the section on Declaratory Judgment.

The Declaratory Judgment Act offers a unique mechanism by which advocates may seek to remedy ongoing violations of statutory or constitutional law./115/ The Act may authorize broad, classwide declaratory and injunctive relief without resort to class action procedures./116/ Distinctive features of the Act:
• allow prospective defendants to sue to establish their nonliability/117/ and
• afford a party threatened with liability an opportunity for adjudication before its adversary commences litigation./118/
However, the statute on its face makes no express reference to, and creates no special preference for, the resolution of such “anticipatory” disputes. A party need not be a prospective defendant in order to bring an action under the Act./119/ Clearly, however, the unique declaratory form of relief created by the statute was intended to resolve pending or threatened controversies before the need for more coercive intervention was required.

http://ejustice.org/federal_practice_manual_2006/chapter_9/chap9sec3.htm

Finally, let me emphasize that based on the legal theories and causes of action underlying the military Complaint I envisioned and drafted, establishing standing does not require insubordination. Thus, I never even hinted that any soldier seeking to become a Plaintiff in this military Complaint should disobey any orders. However, the Release Orly printed on her web site, and which several military have already signed, does this; and as you can read below, when I saw her Release, I pointed out this conflict between the language in that Release and, my Complaint, and asked her to amend her Release. As of this writing, she has not.

(Military, please read the TEMPLATE FOR THE MILITARY COMPLAINT AGAINST BARACK OBAMA and get back to me with your thoughts.)

MESSIAH V. SAVIOR: A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE

An angry but unfocused electorate anticipating rescue from their plight by a charismatic political figure or a litigious lawyer equally portends disaster for our Constitutional republic.

I know that some of you who come here, read Orly’s site, too. In the past, I have posted comments critical to many of her endeavors, all of which comments explain for the lay person, my opposition to the targeted scheme. But Orly now refuses to post my comments. And while avoiding any direct criticism of my work product, she has begun to denigrate me, personally. So, I have decided to occasionally devote space on my blog to de-bunking ‘information’ posted as truth, on hers.

Above all, please, before forking over money to this new foundation Orly created, be certain you know what the money is being used for. For example, just because she claims she filed suit, does not mean she did; or, if she did, that there is a legally cognizable basis for the filing of such suit. For example, a reader asks why no one is suing FactCheck for misrepresenting that BO is a NBC. Orly responds.

Dr. Orly Taitz wrote:
I am ahead of the game on this, I have already served Factcheck.org with subpoena for production of documents. They have 30 days.
Orly

But as a lawyer, she knows or should know, there is no “privity” between Annenberg Political Fact Check and us voters. In other words, this organization has no legally cognizable relationship to us that would oblige them to conduct themselves in any particular way toward us; or would entitle us to expect let alone demand any specific performance from them. So, issuing subpoenas to this organization merely represents more form without substance. Besides, the disclaimer on FactCheck.org’s web site clearly states, only FactCheck staff members are responsible for the information posted on that site. (I previously explained this in my military Complaint.)

While you are mesmerized by the latest tricks Orly, or Berg, or Leo pulls out of a hat, our elected Congresspeople are receiving a $174,000 salary for not doing their jobs. (And, again, the latest legal actions filed against members of Congress for failing to vet BO as to Constitutional eligibility notwithstanding, they are immune from lawsuit for job-related misfeasance under an ancient principle of jurisprudence called Sovereign Immunity. All of the lawyers involved in these cases know this, too.) We would produce more effective results by insisting these people who work for us, actually work for us! And our money would be spent more prudently by supporting those candidates we would have replace the current inept crop.

There is a viable fraud claim to be made against Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, qua (in her role as) the Chair of the 2008 Democratic National Convention for Certifying BO is a NBC and for withholding the material fact, he is not, especially strong in those states where the law reads, the Party’s candidate “shall” be eligible for the office sought. Because this shifts the burden of proof to the Defendant. (Recall that, my military Complaint is the first case that shifted the burden of proof away from Plaintiff; in that Complaint, the burden would have landed on Defendant BO.) I anticipate posting the perfected fraud lawsuit tomorrow, after a trip to the law library. Drafting this fraud Complaint was more challenging than the military Complaint, which is a federal suit; because it has to be done on a state by state basis, since state laws as to fraud tend to vary state to state. But the set of viable Plaintiffs is huge, from regular voters who cast votes for BO to – and this brilliant idea was sent to me by wodiej61, a member of Team jbjd – HRC pledged delegates, who would have acted differently had they known, BO is not a NBC.

PRELUDE TO A LAWSUIT

Not all states are equal when it comes to honoring votes cast by their citizens in the state-sponsored caucus or primary contests of the major political parties. Some states have enacted laws requiring that delegates pledged to a particular candidate as the result of that state’s primary or caucus contest, must stick to the candidate to whom they are pledged, onto the floor of the Convention. The next legal action I propose will concentrate on these ‘binding vote’ states.

Observing the despicable conduct from BO’s supporters during the Democratic primary season, I was motivated to work on ensuring a fair contest for the Democratic nomination for POTUS between BO and HRC. Back then, I failed to fully appreciate that being a private club, the DNC could manipulate its written ‘rules’ in any way they wanted to suit the goals of the elders of the Party. Or that, being a private club, orchestrating massive caucus fraud on behalf of BO did not violate the voters’ Constitutional rights. Over the summer, with all of the pressure on HRC to drop out of the primary, notwithstanding she had received more popular votes than BO and, amassed more pledged delegates as the result of votes cast for her than for BO; my goal was to maintain her viability as the Party’s candidate for POTUS up to the August Convention. At that time, I stumbled onto the fact that, some states required their pledged delegates to stick to their candidates into the Convention. So, I did some research, and came up with about a dozen of these states. Here is the ‘primer’ I wrote and distributed before the Convention in an attempt to preserve her pledged delegate count in those binding vote states.

*****************************************************************************

PRIMER ON HOW TO STOP HARASSMENT OF CLINTON-PLEDGED DELEGATES

BACKGROUND

Some states, including AZ, CA, GA, IN, KY, MA, NH NM, OH, OK, OR, TN, and VA have enacted laws that bind their pledged delegates to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged as the result of votes cast in the state’s primary or caucus contest, at least through the first round of voting at the party’s Presidential nominating convention. Therefore, in these states, to threaten, pressure, or coerce pledged delegates to vote for a candidate other than the one to whom they are pledged is to solicit them to break the law.

PURPOSE

To stop harassment of Clinton-pledged delegates in those states that have these vote binding laws, notify the Attorney General of your state, someone is breaking the law.

RATIONALE

As has been reported in the press, in states throughout the country, delegates pledged to Clinton are under siege to switch their allegiance to Obama. A CO delegate was summoned into the office of the state chairman to explain the contents of an email she had sent to a fellow delegate, for expressing loyalty to her candidate. (“Explain, Dems tell Clinton delegate”) http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_10170139
A WI delegate was stripped of her delegate status. (“Wisconsin Democrats strip woman of delegate position for saying she will vote for McCain”) http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/25908499.html
A KY delegate for Clinton was replaced with a delegate for Obama. (“Clinton supporters protesting removal of delegate at Democratic National Convention”) http://www.whas11.com/news/local/stories/WHAS11_POLITICS_080814_CLINTONOBAMA.486a4d97.html

There are two sets of ‘rules’ that apply to state pledged delegates. There are the rules written by the Democratic National Committee in the “Call to the Convention”; and there are rules written by states, which are called laws. State laws always trump DNC rules. For example, DNC rules call for pledged delegates to use their “good conscience” to represent the will of the voters. State laws, however, require delegates to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged, at least through the first round of voting at the nominating convention.
Even DNC party ‘elders’ including Governor Ed Rendell (PA), fail to understand the difference between DNC rules and state laws. Speaking with Neil Cavuto on FOX TV, he opined, delegates are not bound to vote for a particular candidate at the convention. ‘There’s no such thing as a “pledged” delegate. We haven’t had a “robot rule” since the Carter Kennedy convention in 1980.’ Since PA is not a vote binding state, we can understand his confusion. But in fact, in these vote-binding states, the word “pledged” means exactly what it says. If even Ed Rendell is unaware some states have enacted vote binding laws, one cannot assume that Clinton’s pledged delegates are aware of such laws.

Evidence indicates that in addition to the DNC, Obama’s campaign has been pressuring Clinton-pledged delegates. For example, here is a portion of the letter sent to delegates throughout the country from Khalil Thompson out of Obama’s Chicago campaign office.

Updates: Delegate Paperwork
Fill out you National Delegate Web Survey… http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/delegate
This is one for the Obama Campaign, so if you filled it out for the DNC and the State Party, please we the campaign still needs you to do so…
If you have not filled this out you WILL BE MENTIONED on the call, so please take the time to do so…

(“Bearing Witness”)
http://heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/2008/08/bearing-witness.html

In any other political season, Clinton could hold her delegates’ hands, safely shepherding them through this nasty onslaught to the convention. But not now. Ever since she suspended her campaign, her delegates have been left to fend for themselves. And that’s where you come in. You can let them know: I have your back.

In those states that have enacted vote binding laws, to threaten, pressure, or coerce those pledged delegates to vote for a candidate other than the one to whom they are pledged is to solicit them to break the law. So, turn them in. Write a letter to your Attorney General, the chief law enforcement official in the state. Include the links already provided to just some of the examples of harassment occurring throughout the country. Send a copy to the Office of the Secretary of State, which in most states oversees the political parties’ participation in state elections, including qualifying the party’s candidate to get on the ballot. And, for the record, send a copy to the chair of the state Democratic Party.
©jbjd

********************************************************************************

(Here is the letter we sent to GA.)

August 15, 2008

Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
40 Capitol Square, SW
Atlanta, GA 30334
VIA FAX: 404. 657.8733

SUBJECT: Solicitation to Violate O.C.G.A. § 21-2-196 (2008 )

Dear Attorney General Baker:

Here in Georgia, pledged delegates selected as the result of votes cast for Senator Clinton in the Presidential primary election are legally required to vote for her during first-round balloting at the party’s nominating convention. OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL appended to the above-cited law explains, “This section reflects the legitimate interest of the state in insuring orderliness in the electoral process, and it provides a means of presenting the political preferences of the people of this state to a political party.” But in what can at best be interpreted as an overzealous advocacy on behalf of Senator Obama, in states throughout the country, including Georgia, proponents for his nomination have bombarded her delegates with subtle and not-so-subtle pressures to commit to switching support to him, before the convention. Or, failing that, they replace the Clinton-pledged delegate with one loyal to Obama. (See examples below. Note that while the first link shows the copy of a letter Senator Obama’s campaign sent to pledged delegates in Georgia, they distributed this same letter to delegates in all states, including states which, like Georgia,mandate pledged delegates to follow their candidates into the convention.) In Georgia, encouraging delegates entrusted with representing the political preference of Clinton voters, to pledge their support before the convention to Obama, solicits these delegates to break the law.

As a concerned citizen of Georgia, I am bringing this matter to your immediate attention anticipating that you will take appropriate action to ensure from now on, campaigning in this state related to the upcoming Democratic National Convention is consistent with Georgia laws.

Sincerely,

References:

“Bearing Witness” (posting of letter from Khalil Thompson, Obama for America, Chicago) http://heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/2008/08/bearing-witness.html

Clinton supporters protesting removal of delegate at Democratic National Convention http://www.whas11.com/news/local/stories/WHAS11_POLITICS_080814_CLINTONOBAMA.486a4d97.html

“Explain, Dems tell Clinton delegate” (article on state party efforts to discipline Colorado delegate for Clinton for refusing to switch to Obama)
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_10170139

Copy:

Karen C. Handel, Secretary of State
VIA FAX: 404.651.9531
Jane V. Kidd, Chairwoman, Georgia Democratic Party jane@georgiademocrat.org

(Then, we copied this letter and sent the copy anonymously to HRC pledged delegates in GA, along with this note: We have your backs.)

YOU DON’T HAVE TO GO TO COURT TO COMPLAIN NANCY PELOSI COMMITTED FRAUD

Take advantage of laws already on the book in your state to expose Nancy Pelosi’s fraud in Certifying BO is a NBC.

For example, all of you who live in a state with a law that says, the major political party must vet its candidate for POTUS for Constitutional eligibility; or the nominee of the party “shall” be eligible for the office sought, can file fraud complaints with your AG. Nancy Pelosi signed a Certification BO was eligible for the job. (See the FACTS in my military Complaint.) But no one made her prove this. And, BO’s Answer to Berg’s Hollister Complaint confirms what I proposed in my military Complaint, that is, his strongest ‘evidence’ he is eligible for POTUS is his old employer, Annenberg Political Fact Check, implies he is. And that organization is de-bunked in my military Complaint. So, on what documentation did NP rely before Certifying he was Constitutionally eligible for the job?

Do not let your state officials off the hook. We know the Democratic Party cannot have determined BO is a NBC, since he isn’t. And, by the way, the assistance given to political parties to get their candidates onto our state ballots comes with a price. In most states, if the party fails to ‘run’ a candidate in the general election – and this means, since BO is not a NBC, he was not really a candidate – the party is not entitled to get the name of their candidate on the next general election ballot. Check out your state elections laws and, policies from your state elections officials.

Visit your state offices. File formal Complaints. Bring along some friends. Have them file Complaints, too.

(Meanwhile, I am still working on drafting a civil fraud Complaint against NP.)

IN A POSITION OF PUBLIC TRUST

I post extensive comments on diverse sites, both left and right of center, concentrating on trying to instruct how legal means can be implemented to establish BO is not a NBC and force his removal from the Office of the President. Especially when someone posting on another site is motivated to pursue a legal strategy I consider is infirm at the outset, I try to point out, why this will not work. Sometimes, I feel like I am talking to the wall. I decided to begin posting some of these comments on this blog. The following exchange exemplifies why despite my best advice, getting BO out of there has proven to be more difficult that I imagined; and perhaps illustrates why it was possible for him to get in there, in the first place.

• truthbetold11 // February 14, 2009 at 12:18 pm

George Bush did leave us a parting gift, the exe order for investigating people in public trust on jan16th, Well slick obama on jan 21 first day in office, writes a retract order bascially to hide presidental records based on national security. Wow! I thought the economy was the main reason people wanted change, GW saw this fraud for who he was and wants us americans to bring cases against him, lawyers who read this should step up to plate and help out. Google GW orders on jan 16th. hope its not to late

• bob strauss // February 14, 2009 at 12:47 pm

truthbetold11, check out Dr. Orly Taitz’s site she is in the middle of a suit,right now, over the executive order you’re talking about. DEFENDOURFREEDOMS.US

• jbjd // February 14, 2009 at 12:58 pm

truthbetold11 and others, here is the link to President Bush’s EO:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=85657
Let me call your attention to some lines from that order:

“When agencies determine the fitness of individuals to perform work as employees in the excepted service or as contractor employees, prior favorable fitness or suitability determinations should be granted reciprocal recognition, to the extent practicable.”

“This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees or agents, or any other person.”

“Effective Date and Applicability. This order is effective upon issuance and is applicable to individuals newly appointed to excepted service positions or hired as contractor employees beginning 90 days from the effective date of this order.”

George W. Bush
The White House,
January 16, 2009.

In sum, this EO does not apply to anyone other than federal agency excepted or contractor employees; it does not take effect until 90 days after January 16; and, most importantly, it does not create any right that can be sued for in law or equity.

People, use your heads. Do your own research. (The Executive Order I linked is less than one page.) There are a million legal well-thought-out ways to expose BO is not a NBC, through the legislative and judicial branches of government. However, filing frivolous lawsuits only obscures the legitimacy of our campaign to expose BO is not a NBC; and invites monetary sanctions for clogging up the courts.

• jbjd // February 14, 2009 at 1:09 pm

bob strauss, on Saturday, January 17, before I read the EO President Bush issued the day before, Orly contacted me, asking whether I knew anything about this EO. I said I had heard about it but had not read it. So, she summarized the EO and proposed she would initiate a legal action to use that EO to investigate BO. She indicated she would spend the next few days working on this. I asked when she intended to serve BO. ‘First thing on Wednesday.’ I told her not to bother. ‘BO will revoke EO’s right after the inauguration. If you cannot file the action before he revokes, you have no legal basis for filing. But you can always serve him after the case is filed.’ She protested. ‘But Monday is a holiday and Tuesday the courts are closed for the inauguration!’ I told her to file where the courts are open. Well, she took my advice. Unfortunately, having not read the EO, I was unable to advise her, this EO has nothing to do with vetting BO; and does not confer a right to enforce, anyway. Just as is stated in the EO, this only affects personnel management, and nothing more.

• bob strauss // February 14, 2009 at 1:24 pm

jbjd, I will re-read the executive order. I thought it included persons in public trust.

• bob strauss // February 14, 2009 at 2:13 pm

jbjd, check out section 5 of order. This would include Barry, and others, in the Executive branch of government. I see at the end where the info is intended for the use by Office of Personnel Management. Let’s see what they have on these individuals, such as Barry Soetoro.

• jbjd // February 14, 2009 at 2:43 pm

No, bob strauss, you are mistaken. The section of the EO you cite, refers to people in “positions of public trust.” I understand you might think this would include the President but, common sense aside, you must interpret EO’s according to what they mean. “Positions of public trust” is a term of art. To find out which positions this includes, one has to look to the definitions section at the beginning of this EO. That the term “Position of Public Trust” appears there is your first hint this is a term of art. That is, it means something specific as opposed to, what common sense might interpret this to mean. Here, “positions of public trust” is said to have “the meaning provided in 5 CFR Part 731.” This requires going to the Code of Federal Regulations. Title 5 of the CFR deals with “Administrative Personnel.” (Title 3 deals with “The President.”) Here is the link to Part 731.101 of Title 5, which explains the purpose of Part 731, the section of the CFR referred to in the EO.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/janqtr/pdf/5cfr731.101.pdf

In other words, for the last few weeks, Orly has been pursuing a legal strategy aimed at vetting BO, that has no basis grounded in the law.

• bob strauss // February 14, 2009 at 2:51 pm

jbjd, what will it take to prevail over this
usurpation?

• Fernley Girl // February 14, 2009 at 3:01 pm

jbjd,
Would the EO “public trust” apply to people like Rahm Emmanuel & other o appointees?

• jbjd // February 14, 2009 at 3:55 pm

Fernley Girl, I cannot answer your question about whether Chief of Staff is covered by this EO without first doing the research. Perhaps you c0uld begin the research by looking up the position of Chief of Staff.

• Fernley Girl // February 14, 2009 at 4:22 pm

Will do later tonight, for now it’s out to the backyard to get my garden ready!

• JeffM // February 14, 2009 at 9:02 pm

jbjd,
I have found no reference to exclusions to any employee for any item in the EO as cited in Title 5 of U.S. Code. Could you point me in the right direction?

• bob strauss // February 14, 2009 at 10:23 pm

JeffM, are you saying Obama should be included in the persons of public trust in this EO?

HOW TO REPORT TO YOUR STATE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, OFFICIALLY REPRESENTED BY NANCY PELOSI, CHAIR OF THE 2008 DNC CONVENTION, PERPETRATED A FRAUD ON THE ELECTORATE IN YOUR STATE BY CERTIFYING BARACK OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN DESPITE OVERWHELMING CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT INDICATES, HE IS NOT

I have advised voters to approach their state government officials with complaints the Democratic Party, officially represented by Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, perpetrated a fraud on the electorate by Certifying BO is a NBC, despite overwhelming circumstantial evidence that indicates he is not, in order to get his name onto the general election ballot. But I now know that, I need to spell out exactly what this citizen complaint should look like, links and all, in order to maximize not only the likelihood that citizens will file this complaint but also that, once filed, it will be ‘heard.’

I expect to have this template posted shortly.

In the meantime, would you please contact Nancy Pelosi, in writing, to ask as Chair of 2008 DNC Convention, what was the specific documentation that was the basis for her Certification to state elections officials that BO is a NBC? These requests and, NP’s response, if any, will be part of the package you submit to your state officials to support your allegations of election fraud.

EQUALISM

Given the negative connotations the word “feminist” has been maligned to evoke in the minds of too many people, I have come up with a new word that captures the worthy sentiment of equal rights and opportunity originally intended:  equalist.  (Please note that, treating people equally still does not mean, treating them the same.)