Main Menu

Orly petitions Attorney General to test Obama Eligibility

Orly Taitz

Orly Taitz

Just moments ago, Mission Viejo dentist and part-time lawyer Orly Taitz notified Obama Conspiracy Theories that she had petitioned Attorney General Eric Holder to test President Obama’s eligibility quo warranto. Following is the complete statement Dr. Taitz provided to Obama Conspiracy Theories:

Attorney General, Eric H. Holder Jr.
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001 USA

March _1__ 2009

Honorable Attorney General Holder
Re: Request a Special Assistant for the United States to relate Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama, II to Test His Title to President before the Supreme Court

Relators, Major General Carroll Childers, Ret.; Lt. Col Dr. David Earl-Graef; Navy and Police officer Mr. Clinton Grimes; Lt. Scott Easterling, currently serving in Iraq; Major James Cannon, US Marine Corps, Ret; New Hampshire State Representative Mr. Timothy Comerford; Tennessee State Representative Mr. Frank Niceley  State of Alabama 2008 electoral college elector Mr. Robert Cusanelli bring information for Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama, II, testing his title to President per attached relation. Relators include:
Robert Cusanelli, Elector for 7th District, State of Alabama, in the 2008 Electoral College;
Frank Niceley, State Representative of Tennessee in his official capacity;
Timothy Comerford, State Representative of New Hampshire in his official capacity;
Major General Carrol D. Childers, 29th Infantry Div VA retired, lifetime subject to recall; Numerous Decorations
1st Lt. Scott R. Easterling OD LG US Army on active duty in Iraq;
Clint Grimes, Sergeant Long Beach Police Officer & CDR/0-5 US Navy (Active Reserve). Numerous Decorations, including two National defense medals, two Navy commendation medals
Dr. David Earl-Graef, Lieutenant Colonel Air Force MC , Military Surgeon- Active Reserve. Numerous decorations including Air Force outstanding unit with valor
James Cannon Major US Marine Corps, Ret, lifetime subject to recall. Numerous awards, including Bronze Star with combat “V” and two Purple Hearts
Relator’s oath of office grants standing. Relators are affected by actions of Respondent Obama and the outcome of this Quo Warranto, and thus have interest above citizens.
Information on Quo Warranto against a Federal Officer is normally related to the Attorney General to raise on behalf of the United States in U.S. District court of the District of Columbia per DC Code § 16-3502. However, the Attorney General defends the office of President and is appointed by the President. For the Attorney General to bring Quo Warranto on the President raises an intrinsic conflict of interest. USAM 3-2.170 Historically, a Special Prosecutor or Independent Counsel was appointed to eliminate such conflicts of interest. E.g., Attorney General Elliot Richardson appointed Archibald Cox as the Watergate Special Prosecutor over issues touching on President Nixon.
This information on Quo Warranto includes action between the United States ex rel. and the State of Hawaii over original birth records of Barack H. Obama II being withheld per Hawaii’s privacy laws. Hawaii’s action obstructs the constitutional duties of election officers to validate or evaluate President Elect Obama qualifications to become President under U.S. CONST. art. II § 1, and amend. XX § 3.
As President Elect, Respondent Obama failed to submit prima facie evidence of his qualifications before January 20, 2009. Election officers failed to challenge, validate or evaluate his qualifications. Relators submit that as President Elect, Respondent Obama failed qualify per U.S. CONST. amend. XX § 3.
Such negligence and misprision threaten to nullify these essential safeguards. Thus Relators request this Quo Warranto be related to the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction.
Enclosed is a summary motion for leave to file Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama II a/k/a Barry Soetoro, with the Supreme Court. The list of Questions Presented is attached. A full brief supporting this motion is in preparation.

1)     Relators respectfully pray that the Attorney General recuse himself over bringing this Quo Warranto for the United States on Barack H. Obama II, by reason of intrinsic conflict of interest.
2)     Relators pray the Attorney General appoint a Special Assistant (prosecutor) of Archibald Cox’s reputation and expertise, to relate this Quo Warranto to the Supreme Court per 28 USC 543.
3)     Relators request that their attorney, Orly Taitz, Esq. DDS, assist in relating this Quo Warranto, being recognized at bar before the Supreme Court.
4)     Relators further request the assistance of Patrick Fitzgerald, United States Attorney General for the Northern District of Illinois, as having familiarity with issues involving Barack H. Obama, II while Senator from Illinois and as President Elect.
5)     Relators request guidance from the Attorney General, within one week of receipt of this information, regarding his decision on whether to appoint such a Special Assistant.

With respect, in absence of such guidance, Relators will proceed to request leave from the Supreme Court to relate information for this Quo Warranto on Mr. Obama to test his title.

Yours sincerely

Orly Taitz, ESQ
Attorney for Relators
26302 La Paz
Mission Viejo CA 92691
949-683-5411

Encl. Motion to Supreme Court for leave to relate Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama II, testing his title to the Federal office of President.

Now we know what the military officers and Tennessee state legislators Orly recruited are being used for. Is this what they signed up for on their consent forms? Faustian agreements seldom come off as planned.

It’ll go nowhere, but as a publicity stunt it’s not bad.

Print Friendly

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

105 Responses to Orly petitions Attorney General to test Obama Eligibility

  1. avatar
    Bob March 2, 2009 at 11:59 am #

    It appears Taitz is asking the AG to either file a quo warranto, or for permission to proceed quo warranto on behalf the U.S. But if the AG denies that request (or, more likely, simply ignores it), then she’ll file a motion (technically, an application) with SCOTUS. Which will most likely deny it (especially since Taitz fails to explain exactly how SCOTUS has original jurisdiction).

    Funny how this isn’t on Taitz’s site yet. But speaking of funny things on Taitz’s site, I love this article:

    http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/28/100-vs-5050-odds-of-success.aspx

    “100% vs. 50%-50% odds of success.” Such glowing optimism!

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 2, 2009 at 1:44 pm #

    Obama Conspiracy Theories is on Orly’s exclusive distribution list. We are also following her on Twitter.

  3. avatar
    nbc March 2, 2009 at 2:35 pm #

    My reasons why I believe the request is doomed to fail.

    In Wallace v. Anderson, 18 U.S. 5 Wheat. 291 291 (1820), the Supreme Court ruled that:

    An information for a quo warranto to try the title to an office cannot be maintained but at the instance of the government, and the consent of parties will not give jurisdiction in such a case.”

    In other words, a Quo Warranto can only be initiated by the Government. This means that although Holder could potentially initiate such an action, he is not obliged to do so, and a petition or request to Holden is unlikely to be justiciable by the Supreme Court in case Holder refuses to take the request seriously.

    The problem with Orly’s argument is that she asserts that Obama failed to submit prima facie evidence of his qualifications, where no such requirement exists. The Constitution states that the Candidate must be eligible but does not specify how eligibility is established. Electors as well as the Congress were aware of the controversies and refused to take them seriously. The issue of ‘failed to qualify’ has to be rejected since such a failure can, per 20th Amendment, only result from Congress responding to objections raised during the certification of the electoral vote. Since no such objections were raised, the President did not fail to qualify.

    Furthermore, contrary to speculations, Obama was qualified to serve by Nancy Pelosi

    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 though 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…

    The Separation of Powers also provides a remedy, namely impeachment, and since this is the only Constitutionally permissible way to remove a sitting president, the Courts cannot force the Congress to impeach a sitting President. Furthermore, this shows that not all remedies have been exhausted.

    The independence of the three branches is the primary principle of our constitutional government, and it necessarily requires that each branch, in the exercise of its powers, shall assume the good conduct of the other branches. The only exception to this is the constitutional provision for impeachment trials, in which the official impeached can be condemned only after a hearing and trial.

    Source: Josiah Henry Benton The Veto Power in the United States, 1888

    In other words, once a president is sworn in, under the Constitution there remains only a single remedy. The reason is clear as was early on argued, the President could otherwise be rendered ineffective through Court challenges of his eligibility, something which would run contrary to the Constitutional principles.

    Some other relevant rulings

    Mandamus to compel action of quo warranto to try title to office.— “A mandamus will not lie to compel the attorney-general to commence an action in the nature of a quo warranto at the instance of a claimant of the office in dispute.” The fact that the incumbent of an office holds under a law attempting to abrogate the form of government of a municipal corporation and to create a new form, the law being claimed unconstitutional by a contestant of the office, does not give the contestant a right to compel the attorney-general to bring an action to settle the constitutionality of the law. People v. Fair- child, (1876) 67 N. Y. 334.

    and

    Since, under the American system, all power emanates from the people, who constitute the sovereignty, the right to inquire into the authority by which any person assumes to exercise the functions of a public office or franchise, is regarded as inherent in the people in the right of their sovereignty. And the title to office being derived from the will of the people, through the agency of the ballot, they are necessarily vested with a right of enforcing their expressed will, by excluding usurpers from public offices. Nor is this right in any manner impaired by statutes, granting to electors, in their private capacity as citizens, the right to contest the election of any person assuming to exercise the functions of an oflice. Such statutes may have the effect of sharing the right with the elector, but they do not take away the right from the people in their sovereign capacity.1 Where, however, the people have, by their proper agents, the legislature of the state, ratified by legislative enactment an election to a public office and have recognized the title of the person elected thereto, they can not afterwards question the title by proceedings in quo warrranto.

    When, under the constitution of a state, the power to determine the elections, returns and qualifications of members of the legislature is vested exclusively in each house as to its own members, the courts are powerless to entertain jurisdiction in quo warranto to determine the title of a member of the legislature. In such case, the constitution having expressly lodged the power of determining such question in another body, the courts can not assume jurisdiction in quo warranto, but will leave the question to the tribunal fixed by the constitution.1 So when a board of aldermen of a city are vested with judicial powers in determining the elections and qualifications of their own members, and have passed upon and rejected the application of a claimant for admission to the office of alderman, such adjudication is conclusive against the applicant until reversed, and is a bar to an action brought by him in the courts to establish his title, although it constitutes no bar as against the people.

    Similarly (see also State v. Tomlinson, 20 Kan. 692.)

    Sometimes the power to determine the right to an office in a legislative body is vested in the body itself, in which case it is sometimes held that the jurisdiction thus granted is exclusive and that the courts have no power to inquire into such right,3 especially where such power is vested in the legislative body by the constitution.

    State v. Tomlinson, 20 Kan. 692.

    In the case of State v. Tomlinson, 20 Kan. 692. Chief Justice Horton, delivering the opinion of the court, says: “The attempt to determine the title of the defendant as a member oí the legislature in this manner must necessarily fail, for the simple reason that we cannot and ought not to take jurisdiction of the case. We are powerless to enforce any judgment of oustor against a member of the legislature. While the constitution has conferred the general judicial power of the state upon the courts and certain officers specified, there are certain powers of a judicial nature which, b.v the same instrument, are expressly conferred upon other bodies or officers, and among them is the power to judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of members of the legislature. This power is exclusively vested in each house, and cannot by its own consent or by legislative action be vested in any other tribunal or officer. This power continues during the entire term of office. Section 8, art. 2, State Const.; State v. Gilmore, Supra. Within certain constitutional restrictions, the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of the state are independent and supreme; and neither has the right to enter upon the exclusive domain of the other. We should be passing beyond the limits of our power to judge of the election or qualifications of a member of the legislature, and, as the constitution has expressly confided this power to another body, we must leave it where it has been deposited by the fundamental law. If we are at liberty to interfere in this case, or if, with consent of the legislature, we assume jurisdiction, we may review all similar decisions of that body, and in the end bring the legislative power of the state in conflict with the judiciary. that we have no jurisdiction, in a proceeding like this, to oust a person from his seat as a representative after he has been declared and adjudged to be a member of the house by the power and tribunal having the exclusive authority to hear and determine that question. O’Ferrall v. Colby, 2 Minn. 180, (Gil. 14;) McCrary, Elect. § 515; Hiss v. Bartlett, 3 Gray, 468; People v. Mahaney. 13 Mich. 481.”

  4. avatar
    nbc March 2, 2009 at 2:38 pm #

    What is even more worrisome is that the request for Quo Warranto does not require the laundry list of plaintiffs. Which suggests to me that the action to have active military etc involved may be nothing more than a PR effort. If that is the case, then I deplore placing at risk the careers of these active military people.

  5. avatar
    Chris March 2, 2009 at 3:09 pm #

    “Just moments ago, Mission Viejo dentist and part-time lawyer Orly Taitz”

    Is it just me, or does this seem like the plot to NBC’s new crime drama? I can see it now…’Orly Taitz DDS, ESQ – where the truth gets a root canal’

  6. avatar
    thisoldhippie March 2, 2009 at 3:13 pm #

    We have an attorney here where I am who used to advertise with the slogan – “she’s an attorney and a nurse, too!” This reminds me of a very bad commercial for a used car salesman.

  7. avatar
    Bob March 2, 2009 at 3:32 pm #

    Taitz seems to be unclear on the nature of quo warranto; it is the government who is a party, and thus has standing. (Like any criminal case, where the prosecution represents the government, and not the victim.)

  8. avatar
    nbc March 2, 2009 at 3:37 pm #

    Per DC Code rules, she can request the AG to file, if not she can file a motion for leave with the court, all the way up to the SC if necessary.
    Once the AG accepts to file the writ, he leads the process, and Taitz’s request to be allowed to ‘assist’ may have no standing. Would be interesting to have Holder bring the suit to the Supreme Court :-). President Obama, hand over your certification of Birth. Hmm, it says Honolulu here… Never mind…

  9. avatar
    bogus info March 2, 2009 at 3:42 pm #

    “Taitz seems to be unclear”

    ROTFL Orly “unclear?” Wonder who wrote the petition for her? Sure doesn’t look like her work to me. Bet it was the guy who posted here who said he was a paralegal, maybe?

  10. avatar
    Bob March 2, 2009 at 3:51 pm #

    Here’s the DC rules:

    http://www.michie.com/dc/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=dccode

    Specifically says you file the petition in the district court, so if Taitz files with SCOTUS first, it’ll be a quick bounce.

  11. avatar
    Andrew A. Gill March 2, 2009 at 3:52 pm #

    I’d watch.

    (But you knew that, since I’m already watching the real deal)

  12. avatar
    bogus info March 2, 2009 at 4:15 pm #

    nbc,

    “Once the AG accepts to file the writ, he leads the process,”

    What are the chance of this happening?

  13. avatar
    2burmdad March 2, 2009 at 4:22 pm #

    Rather interesting…

    Orly uses the term “prima facie” as in “As President Elect, Respondent Obama failed to submit prima facie evidence of his qualifications before January 20, 2009.”

    Like Duh: The COLB states facts sufficient to establish that BHO was born in Honolulu in 1959, and the COLB says it is “prima facie”….

    That disposes of the request.
    So, Holder, having this piece of work, sends a letter back to Orly giving her that response (a bit less curtly- not that she deserves it). It provides the unassailable record in case she tries to take the pleading elsewhere.

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 2, 2009 at 4:28 pm #

    It would be really nice to know that Nancy Pelosi had seen the physical COLB prior to her certifying Obama’s eligibility to the states.

  15. avatar
    bogus info March 2, 2009 at 4:32 pm #

    If she didn’t, I’d bet she has now. LOL.

  16. avatar
    Ms. Cris Ericson March 2, 2009 at 4:36 pm #

    digital photos of actual relevant Laws to Obama citizenship Issue
    SEE actual relevant Laws!

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 2, 2009 at 4:36 pm #

    From the letters from congressmen I’ve read, they seem to be quite comfortable with the FactCheck.org article.

  18. avatar
    Ms. Cris Ericson March 2, 2009 at 4:37 pm #

    SCROLL BELOW CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH TO SEE ACTUAL digital photos of actual relevant Laws to Obama citizenship Issue
    SEE actual relevant Laws!

  19. avatar
    bogus info March 2, 2009 at 4:47 pm #

    Factcheck.org provides a good service. It’s a shame this bunch has tried to trash it.

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 2, 2009 at 5:00 pm #

    Allow me a moment of silliness here…

    Those aren’t the actual laws. Those are just images on the Internet. They aren’t even certified copies. The Vault Copy of those laws are what we really need to see. Where is the clerk of the legislature’s signature? Where is the raised seal of the State of Hawaii. How come there are vertical bands across some of the images–have they been Photoshopped? What version of Internet Explorer is that? What operating system? Are those natural born images? You can’t have natural born images unless both the monitor and the camera are made in the USA. I think we need a people’s grand jury to investigate the issues that have been raised.

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 2, 2009 at 5:02 pm #

    zeeee rooooo.

  22. avatar
    Bob March 2, 2009 at 5:43 pm #

    The AG is going to deny this request (or, more likely, simply ignore it).

    So then Taitz is supposed to go to the D.C. District Court and file a certified petition for leave to have the writ issued.

    The district court could:
    1. Summarily deny it;
    2. Seek a response from Obama (to argue would it should not be granted);
    3. Hold an evidentiary hearing (ka-ching!).

    Fun stuff: The rules require a “certified” petition, which generally means its has been filed under penalty of perjury that the allegations are true.

  23. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 2, 2009 at 6:48 pm #

    On these certified petitions, do people have to use their real names?

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 2, 2009 at 6:51 pm #

    Exactly what are these “relators” going to relate?

  25. avatar
    Bob March 2, 2009 at 7:00 pm #

    A relator “relates” to the court the reasons why the writ should issue (and then be granted). The relators will relate (on behalf of the government, or so the theory goes) why Obama is ineligible.

    But before getting to that part, they’ll have to convince the court that they a “person interested” in the office at issue….

  26. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 2, 2009 at 7:03 pm #

    Yes, but they don’t KNOW anything to relate. All they can relate is rumors. Surely a “relator” has to know something, not just question?

  27. avatar
    Bob March 2, 2009 at 7:14 pm #

    Not only do they have to “relate” (allege) facts, the petition has to be certified, which generally means signed under penalty of perjury.

  28. avatar
    thisoldhippie March 2, 2009 at 7:39 pm #

    Why do the birthers continue to post the certificate that is blacked out? The photos posted by FactCheck show the certificate number, the raised seal, the verification signature – yet you only see the one they complain about. Is that because their complaints were debunked and they just hate to admit it?

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 2, 2009 at 8:17 pm #

    I’ve often wondered that myself. The scanned image is iconic for them, like Birther holy writ maybe. It is said among Birthers that the FactCheck photos are faked (but not exactly how they are faked).

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 2, 2009 at 8:31 pm #

    This brings me back then to the Berg False Claims Act suit in DC (the so-called “sealed” case) where Berg himself is the relator. Instead of the shotgun blast of rumors and accusations in Berg v. Obama et al, Berg focuses on the core of his mania. I probably should not say more because the case is supposed to be sealed. I will say that one item of Berg’s evidence involves an affidavit by someone who signed it with a fake name.

  31. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 3, 2009 at 12:03 am #

    I think Orly’s “clients” need a lawyer.

  32. avatar
    James March 3, 2009 at 12:06 am #

    This is a manufactured blog.

    The purpose of this blog, as well as the blog, scotteasterling.blogspot.com is to try to create disinformation about Dr. Orly Taitz and her current lawsuit against Obama.

    All of this has been manufactured by the Obama machine in Washington.

    Don’t believe a word of it.

    Go to the source.

    visit Orly’s website:

    http://www.defendourfreedoms.us/

  33. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2009 at 12:13 am #

    Orly’s blog is doing more than any other blog to create disinformation. Did you not realize that?

  34. avatar
    richCares March 3, 2009 at 12:14 am #

    thanks James, great comment, have you thought of writing for “The Onion”, they appreciate good satire!

  35. avatar
    richCares March 3, 2009 at 12:34 am #

    James, in case your comments were not satire, read Orly’s comment:
    “Good news,
    Chief Justice John Roberts agreed to hear my case Lightfoot v Bowen, challenging eligibility for presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. Chief Justice Roberts is sending a message to them, telling them to Hold on, not so fast, there is value in this case, read it.”

    It helped her get donations from James and other suckers. Just after she said this the Supreme Court denied Orly’s case. Kinda Neat, huh James! First Roberts is a hero then he is a traitor. Orly sees a lot of traitors doesn’t she. A lot of hate there don’t you think James, lots of it!

    Full Orly statement:
    http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/chief-justice-of-supreme-court-john.html

  36. avatar
    Art Leritz, M.D. March 3, 2009 at 12:43 am #

    From: http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm

    Birthers
    AOL News brought “Birthers” to the mainstream publishing a small piece referencing Ben Smith’s Politico.com report, “Culture of conspiracy: the Birthers” — those who question Obama’s eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief because of his birth and/or citizenship status.
    Smith describes these people as those who believe in “obscure, discredited theories” and “operate and thrive on the fringe,” and he liberally sprinkles his opinion-piece with pejoratives — fringe; conspiracy theorists ; believers in UFOs and witches; wacko views; crazy, nutburger, demagogue, money-hungry, exploitative, irresponsible, filthy conservative imposters; the worst enemy of the conservative movement; crazy, demented, sick, troubled, and not suitable for civilized company.

    Smith’s goal is to marginalize “Birthers,” and builds his case on three assumptions:

    1. The challenges to Obama’s eligibility have no grounding in evidence.
    2. Courts across the country have summarily rejected the movement’s theory — that Obama can’t be a citizen because his father wasn’t — as a misreading of U.S. law.
    3. Hawaii officials, along with contemporary birth announcements, affirm that Obama was in fact born in Honolulu in 1961.

    Lets’ take a look at those statements:

    “The challenges to Obama’s eligibility have no grounding in evidence.”

    False. That’s a pretty broad brush — by not qualifying “challenges,” Smith clearly implies that all of the challenges to Obama’s eligibility have no grounding in evidence, which is patently absurd.

    The clearest evidence for a challenge comes from Obama himself, and it’s the Hawaii Certification of Live Birth (COLB) released by the Obama campaign.

    Sandra Ramsey Lines began her training as a forensic document examiner in 1991. She is a Certified Diplomat of Forensic Sciences, a member of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, a member of the Southwestern Association of Forensic Document Examiners, and a member of the Questioned Document Subcommittee of the American Society of Testing and Materials.

    In a sworn affidavit, Ms. Lines wrote, “After my review and based on my years of experience, I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine.”

    This is the document Obama’s lawyers have pointed at as their evidence. They keep referring to it as Obama’s “birth certificate.” They know that a misrepresentation.

    Obama’s own campaign website states:

    “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.”

    Hello????? Obama admits he was a subject of Great Britain and a Citizen of Kenya for 21 years. Does the term, “divided loyalties” ring a bell?

    Judah Benjamin, an historian and former journalist, has written a two-part series challenging the Constitutionality of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President — Part One — Part Two.

    And, there’s more EVIDENCE — that’s enough for starters.

    “Courts across the country have summarily rejected the movement’s theory — that Obama can’t be a citizen because his father wasn’t — as a misreading of U.S. law.”

    False. I guess Smith missed these two US Supreme Court cases — U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, and Perkins v. Elg, — both address “natural born citizen” — and Obama fails both tests.

    In U. S. v Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen,” and in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett. The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:

    “‘At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents [plural] who were its citizens [plural], became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents [plural] within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”

    Perkins v. Elg’s importance is that it actually gives examples of what a “natural born citizen” of the U.S. is; what a “citizen” of the U.S. is; and what a “native born citizen” of the United States. In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a “natural born citizen” is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents [plural] AND born in the mainland of U.S.

    Two American parents and on American soil — simple as that.

    “Hawaii officials, along with contemporary birth announcements, affirm that Obama was in fact born in Honolulu in 1961.”

    False. Hawaiian officials affirmed no such thing. Here is the statement of Linda Lingle, Hawaii’s governor and Chiyome Leinaala Fukino, M.D., Director of the Hawaii Department of Health

    Director Fukino never affirmed “that Obama was in fact born in Honolulu in 1961.” What she affirmed was, ” I have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

    Fukino only says she saw the document — she never, ever said what was on it. This statement is false, Smith. Take it back.

    Smith moves on, writing, “the suits share a vague, underlying notion that Obama must be some sort of foreigner, probably Kenyan, Indonesian or British, though none have any evidence or a coherent narrative to support the claim.”

    True: Mr. Smith click this link — there’s your evidence — it’s still on Obama’ campaign website.

    “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.”

    Don’t know where he pulled this one from — Chester Arthur was ineligible to serve as POTUS.

    True. Chester Arthur was ineligible to serve. Chester A. Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage. Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843, but Arthur was born in 1829 — 14 years before. T herefore, Arthur was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.

    We’ve also uncovered many lies told by Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year.

    What Smith is really saying in his piece is that a large segment of the American people don’t have a right to know if Obama is constitutionally eligible for the job? We should just take his word for it.

    In his article, Smith writes that the White House is, presently, ignoring the birth certificate questions, having released an official copy of the Hawaii certificate during the presidential campaign. The press aide once tasked with quashing viral rumors, Ben LaBolt, no longer follows the fringe. But lawyers for the Democratic National Committee and for Obama have been steadily batting down a stream of lawsuits, winning motions to dismiss the suits in courts from Pennsylvania to Hawaii, from the state level to the United States Supreme Court.
    Does Smith forget “stonewalling?”

    “the White House is, presently, ignoring the birth certificate questions,”

    “…having released an official copy of the Hawaii certificate during the presidential campaign.
    — “the official copy” — that’s the one discredited by Ms. Lines and Dr. Polarik.

    “…lawyers for the Democratic National Committee and for Obama have been steadily batting down a stream of lawsuits, winning motions to dismiss the suits in courts from Pennsylvania to Hawaii, from the state level to the United States Supreme Court

    — 48 lawsuits — maybe more — and certainly more to come — and they’re being dismissed for standing — not for lack of evidence — it’s a procedural thing — none of the cases have been given a fair hearing.

    Smith manages to twist a legitimate, rational question into a pejorative, “[Obama] is spending hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to keep this information from getting out,”

    — but Smith, why IS –”[Obama] is spending hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to keep this information from getting out,” — NOT a legitimate question — when he could release his vault-copy birth certificate for $12.

    Obama’s California lawyer, Fredric Woocher, who was named “Southern California Super Lawyer of 2009″ and gets $600 per hour claims he is working pro bono to prevent the release the president’s records from Occidental College

    – he has used the bullying tactic of threatening sanctions against the plaintiff’s lawyer for pursuing the case.

    I guess I’m a “Birther” — I don’t care about Smith’s smear — it is Smith who is attempting to defend the indefensible, and he’s doing it by by labeling reasonable people, who hold views different than his, irrelevant. He’s not doing it by presenting a cogent argument.

    Smith accepts Obama’s nation-wide army of lawyers as somehow normal and usual — without question — teams of lawyers — in a dozen states — and the Democratic National Committee has a bunch — an Occidental College has theirs.

    It doesn’t occur to Smith to ask, “why, why is that” — “why is Obama fighting the release of his bona fides so ferociously?”

    If there’s no there there, then why won’t Obama release his bona fides and send the lawyers home– his refusal diminishes Smith’s argument and reinforces mine.
    What are you hiding, Obama?”
    It’s a legitimate question — it deserves a full and complete answer.

  37. avatar
    NBC March 3, 2009 at 12:58 am #

    –False. I guess Smith missed these two US Supreme Court cases — U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, and Perkins v. Elg, — both address “natural born citizen” — and Obama fails both tests.–

    Again wrong. In fact, in Wong Kim Ark anyone born on US soil is a natural born citizen.
    Fascinating how people continue to misrepresent these cases

    Fascinating how people still misunderstand the US law and constitution on dual citizenship and children.

  38. avatar
    NBC March 3, 2009 at 1:00 am #

    –What are you hiding, Obama?”
    It’s a legitimate question — it deserves a full and complete answer.–

    No it doesn’t and no it is not a legitimate question and certainly not a legal question so stop pretending that Obama is somehow hiding something. He provided the certification of live birth which shows his city of birth as Honolulu.
    Before you rely on Orly do your own research or you will end up looking quite foolish as her ‘facts’ are not always what she believes they are.

  39. avatar
    NBC March 3, 2009 at 1:02 am #

    Kim Wong Ark

    –The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United State–

  40. avatar
    Bob March 3, 2009 at 1:04 am #

    This site has previously rebutted just about all of these rebuttals, if you care to actually look around.

  41. avatar
    NBC March 3, 2009 at 1:07 am #

    I have and I have found this site to be far more accurate that anything on the side of Orly and her crowd.
    Facts speak for themselves and this site makes an excellent point.
    Name an issue where you believe this site is in error.
    Care to stand up or slide back into ignorance?
    Your choice?

  42. avatar
    NBC March 3, 2009 at 1:14 am #

    Another misconception

    –– he has used the bullying tactic of threatening sanctions against the plaintiff’s lawyer for pursuing the case. –

    Sanctions are a legal prerogative when abuse is asserted. Bullying?… Who is asking whom to present any and all irrelevant material and when he refuses to do so, calls this ‘something to hide’.

    You live by double standards. And you are ill informed as well. Sad really

  43. avatar
    NBC March 3, 2009 at 1:16 am #

    –NOT a legitimate question — when he could release his vault-copy birth certificate for $12. –

    More ill informed assertions. In fact the state of Hawaii does not release long form copies. Note that you would still not get his vault copy but rather a long form which is a photocopy on security paper. However since the short form shows clearly that the city of birth is Honolulu, the issue of Obama releasing his long form is just another red herring.

  44. avatar
    NBC March 3, 2009 at 1:18 am #

    Orly’s lightfoot v bowen involved nothing more than filing a writ with the CA supreme court, have it rejected, petition the SC for cert and have it rejected.

    What a lovely record.

  45. avatar
    Art Leritz, M.D. March 3, 2009 at 1:39 am #

    To Summarize:
    1. Obama admits he was a British citizen at birth on his website.
    2. Anne Dunham had not sufficient residency in the U.S. and wasn’t of sufficient age to confer U.S. citizenship on Barack at his birth in 1961.
    3. If he was, in fact, born in Hawaii in 1961, he was a British citizen only, and only under British jurisdiction as a visitor to Hawaii.
    4. In 1961 the U.S. did not permit dual citizenship. So even had his mother been of sufficient age and U.S. residency, he could not have gained U.S. citizenship by a Hawaiian birth through her. His Certificate of Live Birth could not grant citizenship to a British national.
    5. As with any parents who are foreign nationals giving birth in the U.S., and “not under the juridiction thereof”, Obama would have to return to the U.S. and undergo the naturalization process, and sign a written citizenship oath to gain U.S. citizenship for the first time. This is exactly what happens to the children of foreign tourists whose children claim citizenship under the 14th Amendment birthright. Citizenship under these circumstances does not constitute being “natural born”.
    Therefore, Obama was never a U.S. citizen as a minor, could only become one by naturalization, and if he has not done so, he is an illegal alien like his half-aunt from Kenya.
    So there you have it. Case closed!. . If it’s ever heard. . .

  46. avatar
    Bob March 3, 2009 at 1:45 am #

    After pointing out the deficiencies in the subpoena issued, Obama’s lawyer said sanctions might be pursued it wasn’t withdrawn.

    The subpoena wasn’t withdrawn, but when Obama’s lawyer actually filed a motion to quash the subpoena, sanctions weren’t requested.

  47. avatar
    Bob March 3, 2009 at 1:47 am #

    By law, the COLB derives its data from the long-form certificate. So if the COLB says Obama was born in Honolulu, the long form would say the same thing.

  48. avatar
    Bob March 3, 2009 at 1:51 am #

    Wow. All of your points are wrong. Seriously: Poke around here a bit, and try again.

  49. avatar
    Art Leritz, M.D. March 3, 2009 at 1:57 am #

    I don’t poke around here. I do unbiased research.

  50. avatar
    NBC March 3, 2009 at 2:00 am #

    and yet you present such nonsense? Please define ‘unbiased research’?

  51. avatar
    NBC March 3, 2009 at 2:03 am #

    –1. Obama admits he was a British citizen at birth on his website.–

    Yes, and US law prescribes that Children cannot renounce their citizenship until they reach adulthood. Since Obama returned to the US to live with his grandparents his intents were clear and when he reach adulthood any citizenships he may have acquired would be dropped and his US birthright would be maintained.

    Surely your independent research must have shown you this to be the case?

    Well?
    Your ignorance on these matters place severe doubt on your claims of unbiased research as you are repeating almost verbatim the talking points.

  52. avatar
    richCares March 3, 2009 at 2:04 am #

    “I don’t poke around here. I do unbiased research.”

    Is that why the Birthers keep losing court cases? Send your research to the Birthers, we don’t need it!

  53. avatar
    NBC March 3, 2009 at 2:06 am #

    –As with any parents who are foreign nationals giving birth in the U.S., and “not under the juridiction thereof”, Obama would have to return to the U.S. and undergo the naturalization process, and sign a written citizenship oath to gain U.S. citizenship for the first time–

    Under jurisdiction merely means that one has to obey the laws of the country. As such, as Kim Wong Ark and other rulings show, a child born on US soil is a US natural born citizen. In fact, this even applies if the parents are both aliens. The only restrictions are 1) temporary passage 2) ambassadors and others with immunity.

    And no, the laws at the time of Obama merely required him to make his selection before reaching adulthood. Moving to the US is sufficient as such an action need not be in writing.

    How familiar are you really with US immigration law?

  54. avatar
    NBC March 3, 2009 at 2:07 am #

    The birthers lose because of lack of standing, lack of remedy, lack of judiciability and mootness. And that’s before we even get to address their flawed arguments. They stand no chance in court.

    That they often show evidence of poor research on matters of stated ‘fact’ is unfortunate but their cases already fail on legal grounds.

  55. avatar
    NBC March 3, 2009 at 2:09 am #

    I truly am amazed how people who claim to do unbiased research can be so wrong and repeat the talking points so mindlessly.

    There is nothing of substance in his ‘response’… I doubt he will stay around long enough to explain himself, let alone admit his errors or argue his points with actual evidence that he has read the relevant case law and immigration laws.

  56. avatar
    NBC March 3, 2009 at 2:11 am #

    –2. Anne Dunham had not sufficient residency in the U.S. and wasn’t of sufficient age to confer U.S. citizenship on Barack at his birth in 1961.–

    That’s the only correct statement. But this assumes that 1) Obama was born in Kenya and 2) that Ann was legally married. If as the evidence suggest Obama’s father was still married to his previous wife, the requirement is reduced to 1 year and Ann Dunham meets these requirements again.

    Educate yourself.

  57. avatar
    NBC March 3, 2009 at 2:12 am #

    Bye bye art…

  58. avatar
    NBC March 3, 2009 at 2:19 am #

    And if you are doing unbiased research, how come you seem to be totally unfamiliar with the research found on this site which is of much higher quality than anything I have found elsewhere, other than in the original sources?

    Pray tell.. My ‘unbiased’ friend.

  59. avatar
    NBC March 3, 2009 at 2:43 am #

    Just as I figured. Art seems to have lost his tongue

  60. avatar
    Bob March 3, 2009 at 2:46 am #

    But this assumes that 1) Obama was born in Kenya

    …which I why took the liberty to include that as a false statement; there’s no competent evidence he was born anywhere other than Hawaii.

  61. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 3, 2009 at 7:43 am #

    Hi James,

    It would be much more convincing if you pointed out something you think isn’t true. I try to update and correct any mistakes visitors point out.

    This blog is built in South Carolina, and is independent of any organization. By “manufactured” I assume you mean false evidence, but I cannot guess what evidence you think is false unless you say so.

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 3, 2009 at 7:48 am #

    I think everything in the preceding comment is already discussed in the main articles on this blog.

    And will the birthers PLEASE get the facts straight. Hawaiian Birth Certificates are $10, not $12 :!:

  63. avatar
    Ian Gould March 3, 2009 at 7:49 am #

    Perhaps Art would care to favor us with the results of his unbiased research into Chester Arthur’s parents’ citizenship.

  64. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 3, 2009 at 7:50 am #

    Not only is it not a legitimate question, it is an “unamerican” statement. It presumes guilt without proof.

  65. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 3, 2009 at 7:54 am #

    Unbiased research? Cutting and pasting from TheObamaFile? That’s probably the most anti-Obama biased web site I can think of.

    If you’re getting your information from there, no wonder.

  66. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 3, 2009 at 7:55 am #

    Or even “research”.

    Has the guy even read US v. Wong Kim Ark or Perkins v. Elg?

    He’s basically saying, “I don’t need to look at your evidence” because I have already made up my mind.

  67. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 3, 2009 at 7:59 am #

    We call this syndrome Obama citizenship denial (OCD) here. Perhaps we should have a little “talk therapy”?

    Seriously, OCD is a thinking error. The basic mistake seems to be in confusing “evidence” with “confirmation”. If one is truly unbiased, one takes the evidence and applies reason to come to a conclusion. Keeping in mine that with “real life” problems, logical certainty not always possible. Nevertheless juries use concepts like “reasonable doubt” and “preponderance of evidence” to make judgments based on evidence.

    Once a conclusion has been reached to a standard of evidence, then one looks at other facts to see if they are consistent with the conclusion (confirmation). The anti-Obama crowd start with the conclusion that Obama must not be president and seeks confirmation. Everything not inconsistent with their thesis becomes evidence. For example, Obama not publishing a second copy of his birth certificate becomes evidence (rather than confirmation).

    In the general case, birthers accept rumors on an equal basis with facts (like the travel ban to Pakistan).

    In a court, I’m not sure any of the birther’s so-called evidence would be admissible. Even if it were, any sane jury would find the evidence overwhelming that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

    I wanted to mention briefly that you cited Sandra Lines. She said that NO image on the Internet could be relied upon. That’s true, but she doesn’t say that Obama’s birth certificate image is any more or less reliable than any other. However, since Obama has the endorsement of the Hawaii Department of Health (plus contemporary newspaper announcements), the matter should have been put to rest for anyone with normal rational processes.

  68. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 3, 2009 at 8:27 am #

    I find a correlation between arrogance and misinformation. The more arrogant someone is, the less likely it is that they will listen to opposing views or verify their facts. That paralegal that came here is a good example. Dr. Leritz is not only wrong, but he is sloppy (see following). Now me, I’m scared silly that I have made a mistake, and I’m double checking myself all the time. That’s why this web site has the reputation for accuracy that it does (that and from the help of visitors).

    3. If he was, in fact, born in Hawaii in 1961, he was a British citizen only, and only under British jurisdiction as a visitor to Hawaii.

    I gotta find out what alternate universe you were in when your research found this nugget. That’s the WHOLE conclusion of US v. Wong Kim Ark was that children born in the United States to alien parents are citizens. Your comment is not only wrong, it is monumentally uninformed. Call an immigration lawyer in Spokane and ask them.

    4. In 1961 the U.S. did not permit dual citizenship.

    Also untrue. The US has allowed dual citizenship (although not encouraged it) at least since Perkins v. Elg (Elg had dual citizenship, but yet remained a natural born citizen of the United States).

    I would point out to you that the facts of Obama’s parentage are widely known, even posted as you know on his web site. If he were an illegal alien, don’t you think someone at the INS or the State Department would have said something? But of course they didn’t because you’re completely wrong.

    If that argument ever got to court to be “heard” the judge would take one look at it and inform the plaintiffs that their pleading was not according to law, and dismiss the case.

    Case dismissed!

  69. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 3, 2009 at 8:32 am #

    Using the “nothing to hide” argument, let me pose this to you…

    You can come on this web site and say pretty much what you want (as long as it’s not obscene or threatening). Anyone on the planet with an Internet connection can come here and read what you say.

    Orly regularly deletes and bans comments that oppose her. Berg’s ObamaCrimes regularly deletes and bans comments that oppose him. While there are a few exceptions, most anti-Obama web sites censor comments, and conspiracy debunking web sites do not. What do they have to hide?

  70. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 3, 2009 at 8:36 am #

    If Obama’s lawyers are spending millions, I guess the plaintiffs for all these other lawsuits (most of which name state officials) must be spending tens of millions. Where does all that money come from? Hmmmmm?

  71. avatar
    richCares March 3, 2009 at 9:22 am #

    Reasoning with people like Art is a waste of time. They have very large hands, that’s so they can cover their eyes and ears at the same time when shown real evidence. They are locked into the Birther nonsense much like they are locked into their 6000 year old earth stories. All you can do with these people is ignore them or make fun of them, they are delusional.

  72. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 3, 2009 at 9:49 am #

    I didn’t use the word “delusional” although I certainly thought it, because Art may well be a psychiatrist (there is one by that name) and may take it technically rather than according to popular definition.

    The DSM defines a delusion as:

    A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture.

    The problem in applying this definition to Obama citizenship denial and birther conspiracy theories is that there is an OCD and birther subculture where these ideas are “the norm”.

  73. avatar
    Chris March 3, 2009 at 12:16 pm #

    Another point – Why do you think that people who come to this country illegally are so quick to have children? Because those children become citizens when they are born here.

  74. avatar
    Chris March 3, 2009 at 12:20 pm #

    It wasn’t until reading this part of the comments that I realized my mind was playing tricks on me. I read that as ‘realtor’ – I thought they were trying to sell Holder a timeshare or something…

  75. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 3, 2009 at 12:21 pm #

    Yeah, I did that too.

  76. avatar
    nbc March 3, 2009 at 12:53 pm #

    Exactly, the plaintiffs are fishing at best. Of course, worse, they seem to point to irrelevant Hawaiian law to suggest that someone born outside of Hawaii could still get a Hawaiian birth certificate. How such a certificate would show City of Birth “Honolulu” is not explained.
    I cannot wait for a court to subpoena the short form and rule accordingly :-)

  77. avatar
    Bob March 3, 2009 at 8:49 pm #

    From WND: “‘In the worst case, in the long run, if [Obama] continues [to fight revealing his documentation,] it’s going to be revolution in the streets,’ [Harry Riley] warned.”

    http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90574

    Fear monger much?

    Bonus fun: Quick search for Harry Riley (a retired colonel and now a “relator”) leads to:

    http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/

  78. avatar
    Bob Weber March 3, 2009 at 9:27 pm #

    Birfers are expert in Danae’s Magic Math

  79. avatar
    Bob March 4, 2009 at 1:43 am #

    Donofrio on Quo Warranto:

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/quoa-warranto-a-new-hope-military-can-now-retreat-in-peace/

    1. Doesn’t think military personnel have standing;
    2. Thinks he and Apuzzo have identified others who do

    …50% correct is quite an improvement in these circles.

  80. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 4, 2009 at 2:29 am #

    Sigh.

    I think it is quite a stretch to think that the D.C. Code can be used to authorize an action against the President of the US….. but assuming it can, I believe the mistake that Mr. Donofrio and Mr. Apuzzo have made is failing to understand that for a the only “relator” to have standing would be someone who claims a right to the same office.

    See Newman v. United States, 238 U. 94 (“An interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the District Code in regard to quo warranto proceedings is one who has an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself whether the office be elective or appointive.”) http://supreme.justia.com/us/238/537/

    Thus – leapfrogging over all the other Constitutional and jurisdictional impediments, IF quo warranto can be sustained, there is one person (and one only) who has standing.

    His name is Joe Biden.

  81. avatar
    NBC March 4, 2009 at 2:30 am #

    Donofrio is right that no military personel is needed to fill the petition. However, his argument which is based on dual citizenship is doomed to failure given the case law on this topic.
    If Obama was born on US soil, he is a native born citizen, regardless of dual citizenship of his parents.
    The facts are clear.
    But his ‘threat’ to file countless suits, seems to be in line with Orly. Guess that desperate times ask for desperate measures.

    Oh the joy…

  82. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 4, 2009 at 3:13 pm #

    This doesn’t seem to help them. (Emphasis added.)

    Under the District of Columbia Code, a third person may not institute quo warranto proceedings without the consent of the law officers of the government and also of the Supreme Court of the District.

    The District Code makes a distinction between a “third person” and an “interested person” in maintaining quo warranto proceedings.

    While every citizen and every taxpayer is interested in the enforcement of law and in having only qualified officers execute the law, such general interest is not a private but a public interest, which is not sufficient to authorize the institution of quo warranto proceedings.

    The mere fact that one is a citizen and taxpayer of the District of Columbia does not make him an interested party who may maintain quo warranto proceedings against the incumbent of an office on the consent of the court, although the law officers of the government refuse such consent.

    An interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the District Code in regard to quo warranto proceedings is one who has an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself whether the office be elective or appointive.

    Unless the right to maintain quo warranto proceedings under the District Code were limited to persons actually and personally interested, every officer attached to the government at Washington would be subject to attack by persons having no claim in the office or interest therein different from that of every other citizen and taxpayer of the United States.

    As §§ 1538-1540, Code District of Columbia, apply to actions in quo warranto instituted by authorized parties against national officers of the United States, they are general laws of the United States, and not merely local laws of the District of Columbia, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals of the District construing those sections is reviewable by this Court under § 250, Judicial Code.

  83. avatar
    Bob March 4, 2009 at 3:50 pm #

    Just noting that Donofrio is aware of the case, and it looks like he is promising to argue around it.

    As always, it should be amusing.

  84. avatar
    Hitandrun March 4, 2009 at 4:01 pm #

    NBC,
    I agree with you the main Donofrio argument has little substance. Nonetheless, I was struck by your “temporary passage” restriction. Could you flesh this out for us? How does it relate to illegal alien births on US soil?

    Curious,
    Hitandrun

  85. avatar
    NBC March 4, 2009 at 4:08 pm #

    If a family is on transit through the US and the mother gives birth to a baby, then, as I understand the restrictions, the baby is not a US citizen. Aliens born in the US are clearly US (natural born) citizens by birth right.

  86. avatar
    Bob March 4, 2009 at 4:51 pm #

    Donfrio teases us with:

    “Regardless, military involvement isn’t necessary as [Donofrio and Apuzzo] have identified a subset of plaintiffs who SCOTUS has directly made reference to for Quo Warranto standing.”

    Nowhere is the specific subset (or the SCOTUS case) ever identified. However, Donofrio previously mentioned civil servants:

    “SCOTUS has stated that the civil service laws might provide Quo Warranto standing to some plaintiffs. For example, SCOTUS case law and various Federal District and Court of Appeals cases, indicate that any Government employee who loses their job by RIF (reduction in force) employment termination might have standing to institute an action in Quo Warranto.”

    Donfrio is referring primarily to Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475 (D.C. Cir. 1984), where the court basially ruled out the necessity for a quo warranto action for those plaintiffs.

  87. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 4, 2009 at 4:52 pm #

    I talked with a Vital Records office administrator about this last week. They said that if a baby is born in an airplane, the place of birth is where the plane lands.

    My understanding is that babies born on foreign-flagged vessels in US territorial waters do not become US citizens unless the water is “enclosed” like inside a bay. This is one of those areas where browsing the State Department regulations is helpful.

    I’m assuming here that the determining factor has to do with how much jurisdiction the US has over the boat of the plane, relating back to the jurisdictional requirement in the 14th amendment.

  88. avatar
    Hitandrun March 4, 2009 at 5:23 pm #

    Thank you, Doc, et al.
    I’ve been meaning to ask you all the following for some time: Based on your extensive reading, would the Framers have deemed a child born on US soil of foreign visitors (be they legal or illegal aliens) a ‘natural born citizen’? Did the 14th Amendment amend or merely confirm that child’s status?

    Puzzled,
    Hitandrun

  89. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 4, 2009 at 8:40 pm #

    Thanks — here’s an online link to the Andrade v. Laeur case: http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/729/729.F2d.1475.82-1880.html

  90. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 4, 2009 at 8:48 pm #

    Yeah, Donofrio has been such a roaring success thus far.

    Actually, I’m glad he is taking this approach. He might succeed in stopping what he clearly recognizes as misleading and dangerous attempts to undermine US military discipline and readiness.

    His quo warranto approach will have the net effect of slowing things down as he meets the procedural hurdles along the way – and it will be done in a way that respects the legitimacy of the Executive branch (AG’s office) and the judicial process.

    So though I think he will ultimately lose, he certainly has a right to try this approach.

  91. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 4, 2009 at 8:54 pm #

    I would point out this, however: a quo warranto action by definition is a case brought to “oust” someone from an office, when their eligibility or right to hold that office is contested. So it is a correct remedy, in abstract

    However, the US Constitution clearly and unequivocally says that the sole power of impeachment lies with Congress. The use of the word “sole” in the Constitution means that quo warranto cannot be used to “oust” a US President — so ultimately, even if standing could be established, I believe the case would have to be dismissed.

    It’s a clear issue of separation of powers. The Constitution simply gave Congress the ultimate power over the President, not the courts. The only role of the courts is that the Chief Justice is to preside over any impeachment trial in the Senate — but even then, he does not have power to render a decision.

  92. avatar
    Bob March 4, 2009 at 8:56 pm #

    Thanks for the link. (And thanks for alerting me to that free online resource!)

    Just noticed that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was on the Andrade panel.

  93. avatar
    Bob March 4, 2009 at 9:07 pm #

    The first part of Donofrio’s “brief”:

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/quo-warranto-legal-brief-part-1/

    …revealing this magical subset of plaintiffs with standing will have to wait for part two. Oh, the drama!

  94. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 4, 2009 at 10:55 pm #

    Looking at the decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark, the court seemed to say Wong would have been a citizen under the principle of British Common Law and that this is how the framers intended it. The Wong court cited Lynch V. Clarke (Supreme Court of New York 1844) which is pre-14th amendment, and Lynch very definitely says the children of aliens born here are not only citizens, but natural born citizens.

  95. avatar
    nbc March 4, 2009 at 11:52 pm #

    Note also that on remand, the district court threw out the suit after evaluating the position of one of the two defendants and ruled that he was constitutionally in power.

  96. avatar
    Bob March 5, 2009 at 1:08 am #

    Apuzzo dropped out:

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/a-change-of-plans/

  97. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 5, 2009 at 10:28 am #

    So Apuzzo will only be involved with Kerchner v. Obama. Donofrio’s comments on that link were interesting. I need to spend more time reading his stuff.

  98. avatar
    mimi March 5, 2009 at 12:27 pm #

    Hey Art, your an MD. Be sure to click that paypal button on Orly’s site… lots. She’s counting on you.

    Which crazy claim are you wanting Obama to answer to? I’ve seen Orly’s site. She has no less than a dozen conspiracies happening at a time.

    Which one do you want him to answer?

    Push the paypal. hit that paypal.

  99. avatar
    Hitandrun March 6, 2009 at 3:47 pm #

    Thank you, Doc.
    Am I correct in remembering that the Wong court emphasized more than once the prior US domicile status of both Wong and his parents? I still wonder if a mere visitor status of parents and child would pass muster with the Framers.

    Hitandrun

  100. avatar
    Glenn March 7, 2009 at 7:16 am #

    http://tinyurl.com/8b4okv

  101. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 7, 2009 at 8:49 am #

    I prefer THIS ONE.

  102. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 13, 2009 at 7:50 pm #

    What the decision said of interest was that determining the eligibility of the president is the responsibility of Congress (who certified Obama’s election without objection).

333333 44444
5555555
6666666