Perhaps not the last, but Jones v Obama in the Central District of California is the only one of the scores of frivolous lawsuits filed over President Obama’s eligibility that is still alive in original jurisdiction. It was filed on February 12 of this year by Ruth Jones against Barack Hussein Obama II, Barry Soetoro and Barack Steve Obama. Since this lawsuit is filed against the President in his “presumed” official capacity, the US Attorneys office will defend. (Thanks RC for the case and JackRyan for the transcript — saved me $2.40.)
Jones alleges in her 64-page document that Obama is not the legitimate president because his born of a foreign father. The case is the usual “natural born citizen” stuff, John Jay, de Vattel, Law of Nations. You know the drill. However, Jones spends very little time with Apuzzo-style arguments on presidential eligibility, but takes the 2-parent rule for granted. For the most part she focuses on the court’s duty to carry out their oath to defend the Constitution. She has a rather naive view of standing, and in the most obvious ways lays out her claims of harm in the most general and universal way possible.
Jones weaves in some new themes like Obama winning the Nobel Prize and an Executive Order on INTERPOL However, Jones doesn’t say that Obama is Kenyan, American or British. Rather, she paints him a citizen of the ancient city-state of Troy, hiding in his White House “Trojan Horse.” She further alleges that the President has withheld his legal name from the people pointing out that Obama is quoted as saying his middle name was “Steve.” (I distinctly remember Obama disclosing his name when he was sworn in as President.) Jones is also afraid that Obama will declare “Marshall law” and put people in FEMA camps.
Alleges “horrific harm.”
As this document is filed, there is an unknown person who occupies the office of the U. S. Presidency with his own words he is a result of a birth of a foreign citizenship father. As a direct and proximate result Plaintiff has suffered fundamentally a specific harm identified as the the most horrific harm that can be filed under the jurisdiction of the U. S. federal courts of one named citizen of her U. S. Constitutional rights she has being violated by the Defendant. Nothing in this Land could be more of value and more a harmed right with a priority of mandate from Article VI the Supreme Law of the Land.
Jones has some peculiar ideas about the Constitution such as: “Article 2 section 1 clause 5 specifically forbids a person to hold the office of the U. S. presidency who was born to a parent of foreign birth.” Wow! I don’t know how many presidents and vice-presidents that would exclude. Hubert Humphrey immediately comes to mind. She thinks that “proof of eligibility” is written in the Constitution.
She also has an objection to Obama accepting the Nobel Prize money, which she thinks violates “Article 2, section 1, clause 7” a clause that forbids the President to receive “any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.” The Nobel Prize is not given by the United States or any US state. Later she cites a more on-point clause, but it still doesn’t apply.
A final twist is that she cites an executive order signed by Obama and claims that it places “INTERPOL above the FBI” (complaint Page 21 – court numbering), a theme to which she returns repeatedly throughout the rambling complaint. The December 17, 2009 executive order designates INTERPOL as a “public international organization” (which it already was). The President’s authority to make this designation is granted by statute (International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288). The Statue grants certain privileges and immunities to designated public international organizations.” Interpol has been granted such status since Executive order 12425 signed by Ronald Reagan in 1983. Reagan’s order placed some limitations in his designation, and Obama’s executive order removes these special limitations. Specifically Obama’s order amends 12425 by deleting from the first sentence the words “except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act” and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.” It appears that Obama is putting INTERPOL on the same footing as the International Cotton Advisory Committee and The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. Most likely Jones got this idea from some Internet commentary (also here and here) that made a big deal of it a while back. It does appear that the FBI cannot raid INTERPOL and confiscate their records unless the President says so. It does not give INTERPOL unbridled authority over US citizens. Here is an article from ABC News on the executive order with details.
Jones confuses INTERPOL, the Nobel Prize and the United Nations, alleging some kind of quid pro quo where the Nobel Prize Committee bribes Obama to grant immunity to INTERPOL and by way of thanks the UN makes Obama the chairman of the UN. Speaking of confusion, Jones in her zeal to defend the Constitution (what she calls the “Supreme Law”) ignore the entire section on presidential succession, and demands that the Court order Congress to call an emergency election.
We may be looking at another Joseph Farah brainwashing victim, as Jones cites the fake CIA operative report on westernjournalism.com. Quite a bit of her rhetoric comes straight from WND pages and copycat web sites, including the l0ng list of documents (kindergarten records, etc.) not available and the mention of “Where’s the birth certificate” billboards.
The complaint is typical illiterate denialist rant, beginning with a 7-page “short statement of the claim.” When one reads this, one can’t help but be reminded of Orly Taitz.