(If the Supreme Court did hear a case forcing obama to prove his online certification of live birth is of legal value he would be forced to validate his US citizenship. As of this date obama has not provided a validated birth certificate. The DNC and 110th congress relied on a worthless jpeg on the web that has never be probated in a court of law.
The DNC has committed fraud. Obama has committed fraud. Congress relied on the DNC to validate obama as a US citizen. Congress failed to certify obama as a US citizen also. The 110th congress should have objected to electorial votes cast for a candidate that cannot validate his own US citizenship. The Supreme Court should have taken the Leo Donofrio case before the election in 2008 and decided obama's citizenship.) Story Reports
How to file your own writ of Quo Warranto against the usurper obama
.........................................................................................
Supreme Court distributed Atty Orly Taitz case for conference of all 9 justices to be held on January 7, 2011
No. 10-541
Title:
Orly Taitz, Petitioner
v.
Thomas D. MacDonald, et al.
Docketed: October 25, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-15418)
Decision Date: March 15, 2010
Rehearing Denied: May 14, 2010
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aug 12 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 24, 2010)
Nov 24 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Thomas D. MacDonald, et al. to respond filed.
Dec 8 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 7, 2011.
.......................................................................................
Writ of Quo Warranto Filed in Jan 2010 but No response from court
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
I. What is Respondent Obama’s standard and burden of proof of his birthplace under Quo Warranto and ethical duties? – Considering Obama’s first cousin Raela Odinga, Prime Minister of Kenya, sealed alleged records of Obama’s birth in Mombasa; while the State of Hawaii holds Obama’s “original” sealed birth records, allows registration of births out of State, allows registration based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence and seals original birth records.
II. Does the State of Hawaii’s withholding Respondent’s Obama’s original birth records by privacy laws breach the U.S. Const. by obstructing constitutional rights and duties of the People to vote, and State and Federal election officers to challenge, validate & evaluate qualifications of presidential candidates based on legally acceptable and not fraudulent records and the President Elect., per U.S. Const. art. II § 1, art. VI, & amend. XX § 3?
III. Does the restrictive qualification for President of “natural born citizen” over “citizen” include allegiance to the U.S.A. from birth without any foreign allegiance, as required of the Commander in Chief in time of war to preserve the Republic, including birth within the jurisdiction of the U.S.A. to parents who both had U.S. citizenship at that birth, and having retained that undivided loyalty?
IV. Does birth to or adoption by a non-citizen father or mother incur foreign allegiance sufficient to negate being a “natural born citizen” and disqualify a candidate from becoming President?
V. Having attained one’s majority, do actions showing divided loyalty with continued allegiance to the foreign nationality of one’s minority evidence foreign allegiance sufficient to disqualify one from being a “natural born citizen” with undivided loyalty to the U.S.A., such as campaigning for a candidate in a foreign election, or traveling on a foreign passport?
VI. Does a presidential candidate or President Elect by default fail to qualify under U.S. Const., art. II § 2 and amend. XX, § 3, if they neglect their burden to provide State or Federal election officers prima facie evidence of each of their identity, age, residence, and natural born citizenship, sufficient to meet respective State or Federal statutory standards?
VII. Do candidates for office disqualify themselves if they seek office under a birth name differing from a name given by adoption, or vice versa, when they neglect to provide election officers prima facie evidence of legal changes to their name, or if they neglect to legally change their name?
VIII. Does a President elect fail to qualify through breach of ethical disclosure duties, and obstruction of election officers’ constitutional duties to challenge, validate and evaluate qualifications for President, by withholding or sealing records evidencing identity, age, residency, or allegiance, or by claiming privacy and opposing in court efforts by Electors, election officers, or the People to obtain and evaluate such records?
IX Does misprision by Federal election officers cause a President Elect to fail to qualify, if they neglect or refuse to challenge, validate, or evaluate qualifications of Electors or a President Elect, being bound by oath to support the Constitution and laws, after citizens provided information challenging those qualifications via petitions for redress of grievance, or by law suits?
X. To uphold its supremacy and inviolability, and to preserve the Republic, does the U.S. Constitution grant standing to Citizens to bring suit or quo warranto over negligence, obstruction, misprision, or breach of constitutional duties, and protect the People’s rights?
......................................................................................
Ex Relators are seeking Quo Warranto under District of Columbia Codes §§16-3501-16-3503 which provides for the “Writ of Quo Warranto to be issued in the name of the United States of America against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military”.
The ex-relators assert that respondent Obama has indeed usurped the franchise of the President of the United States and the Commander in Chief of the United States Military forces due to his ineligibility and non-compliance with the provision of the Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States that provides that the President of the United States has to be a Natural Born Citizen for the following reasons:
The legal reference and legal definitions used by the framers of the Constitution was the legal treatise “The Law of Nations” by Emer De Vattel as quoted and referenced in the Article 1, Section 8. The Law of Nations defines “…Natural Born Citizens, are those in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the conditions of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.” Book 1, Chapter 19, §212.
In his book Dreams From my Father as well as on his web site Fight the Smears respondent Obama admitted to the fact that his father was never a US citizen, but rather a British citizen from a British colony of Kenya and based on British Nationality act respondent Obama was a British citizen at birth and a Kenyan citizen from age 2 on December 12, 1961 when Kenya became an independent nation. As such, for the reason of his allegiance to foreign nations from birth respondent Obama never qualified as a Natural Born citizen.
In spite of some 100 legal actions filed and 12 Citizen Grand Jury presentments and indictments Respondent Obama due to his ineligibility never consented to unseal any prima facie documents and vital records that would confirm his legitimacy for presidency.
The state of Hawaii statute 338-5 allows one to get a birth certificate based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborative evidence from any hospital.
Respondent Obama refused to unseal a birthing file (labor and delivery file) evidencing his birth from the Kapiolani Hospital where he recently decided, that he was born.
Similarly, respondent Obama refused to consent to unseal his original birth certificate from the Health Department in the state of Hawaii.
The original birth certificate is supposed to provide the name of the hospital, name of the attending physician and signatures of individuals in attendance during birth. As such there is no verifiable and legally acceptable evidence of his birth in the state of Hawaii.
Circa 1995 Respondent Obama has made an admission in his book Dreams from My Father, page 26 that he has a copy of the original birth certificate, when describing a certain article about his father he write “…I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms…”
In spite of the fact that respondent Obama has a copy of his original birth certificate, he released for public consumption only a COLB, an abbreviated certification of life birth which was issued in 2007 and does not provide any verifying information, such as name of the hospital and name of the attending physician and signatures, which infers that he knows that he is not eligible and actively trying to obfuscate the records in order to usurp US presidency.
An affidavit from one of the most prominent forensic document experts, Sandra Ramsey Lines, Exhibit 1, states that authenticity of COLB and inference of the US birth cannot be ascertained based on COLB alone without examining the original birth certificate in Hawaii, that respondent Obama refuses to unseal and present in court and to the public at large.
As respondents schools records from Indonesia, previously submitted, show him the citizen of Indonesia under the name of Barry Soetoro, and there is no evidence of legal name change upon his repatriation from Indonesia, there is a high likelihood of the scenario whereby the respondent was sworn in as a president not only illegitimately due to his allegiance to three foreign nations, but also under a name that was not his legal name at the time of inauguration and swearing in as the president.
Affidavits from licensed private investigators Neil Sankey, Exhibit 4 and Susan Daniels, Exhibit 2, show that according to national databases respondent Obama has used as many as 39 different social security numbers, none of which were issued in Hawaii, which in itself is an evidence of foreign birth.
Most egregious is the fact that the respondent has used for most of his life in Somerville Massachusetts, Chicago, Illinois and currently in the White House SSN XXX-XX-4425, which was issued in the state of Connecticut between 1976-1979 and assigned to an individual born in 1890, who would have been 120 years old, if he would be alive today. Respondent never resided in the state of Connecticut and he is clearly not 120 years old.
Writ of Mandamus
Title 28 Part 4 Chapter 85§ 1361 provides for an action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty.
Exhibit 2 herein is an affidavit from a licensed investigator Susan Daniels. It shows that most of his life Obama has used a social security number 042-68-4425, which was assigned to an individual born in 1890 and was issued in the state of CT. Since Obama is not 120 years old and was never a resident of CT, it is a sign of him using a social security number of the deceased, which is usually an indication of foreign birth.
Exhibit 3 shows a copy of the on line verification. This is an official record, that shows that indeed Obama used this social security number from the state he never lived in. This is yet another evidence of fraud, coming from an official governmental record.
Exhibit 4 Affidavit and Attachment from licensed investigator Neil Sankey. Sankey is a former member of an elite unit of Scotland Yard responsible for combating organized crime. Sankey has done compilation from several national databases, which shows that Obama has used as many as 39 different social security numbers, none of which were issued in the state of Hi, which is a sign of fraud, social security fraud, identity theft, possible IRS fraud, possible elections fraud, possible nonprofit organizations fraud.
Taitz was injured when she was subjected to retaliation and $20,000 sanctions upon bringing the above information to court in the Middle district of GA, Judge D. Land, Rhodes v MacDonald
Plaintiff is seeking a Writ of Mandamus from this Honorable court to direct Michael Astrue, commissioner of Social Security Administration to release an original application for this social security number, as was submitted in the state of CT and issued to an individual born in 1890, as well as order an investigation, how Obama was able to obtain a social security belonging to an individual born in 1890 and issued in CT, as well as an investigation, as to how Obama was able to use 39 diferent social security numbers according to National Databases Lexis Nexis and Choice Point.
Wherefore THE PLAINTIFF and Petitioner Dr. Orly Taitz is praying for following relief:
Petitoner is praying this Honorable Court to grant her the ex-relator status in the name of the United States of America and requesting this Honorable Court to issue a writ of Quo Warranto to the ex-relator against a respondent Barack Hussein Obama to ascertain if he was eligible to take the position and franchise of the President of the United States and the Commander in Chief of US military and order an evidentiary hearing whether fraud upon the court was committed and whether criminal charges should be brought against the respondent for fraud, identity theft and social security fraud.
Grant petitioner the Writ of Mandamus for the Commissioner of Social Security Michael Astrue to release explanation, as to how Barack Hussein Obama is able to use the social security number 042-68-4425, issued originally in the state of CT to an individual born in 1890, while Obama clearly is not 120 years old, was not born in 1890 and never resided in the state of CT.
Grant a petition for a writ of Mandamus for the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to release the birth certificate that was used by Barack Hussein Obama to obtain his US passport.
Plaintiff is asking for financial relief associated with time spent and costs of her pursuing the issue of illegitimacy of Obama for US presidency and fraud perpetrated by Obama in using multiple social security numbers of deceased individuals and numbers never assigned.
Plaintiff is asking for financial relief for severe emotional distress that she was subjected to when she was subjected to an orchestrated effort by this administration to stop her, to silence her, when she was subjected to sanctions for bringing forward legitimate issues of Obama legitimacy, when a group of convicted criminals, convicted, indicted and admitted forgers was used to derail her cases, undermine her and her license, while law enforcement stood idle, unwilling to prosecute and incarcerate those criminals and stop continued harassment.
Writ of Quo Warranto
........................................................................................
Everyone needs to read this report. It’s truly one of the best articles ever written on the natural born citizen issue by Atty Leo Donofrio.
What a citizen can do to EXPOSE THE FRAUD obama.
Apply to DOJ is first step. If they refuse and you are an “interested person” then according to 16-3503 you may go before the court without their permission to use the name of the US…if the court finds your petition sufficient in law then the writ will issue and the President will stand trial.
Remember:
All citizens are considered “third persons” under 16-3502, but all citizens don’t have unique standing and therefore 16-3502 requires permission by the Department of Justice to use the name of the US – ex relator – ina quo warranto proceeding.
(Lets All Petition The DOJ as “third persons” under 16-3502 and get permission of the DOJ to use the name of the US in a quo warranto proceeding!)
..................................................................................
NOTE HOW TO EXPOSE THE FRAUD OBAMA IN DC COURT!
..................................................................................
Section 16-3503 of the federal quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to approach the DC District Court concerning a quo warranto trial (by jury) without requiring the permission of the US Attorney General or the US Attorney for DC.
An “interested person” may sign a “certified complaint” which states facts and those facts must be sworn to under penalty of perjury. Only facts may be sworn to, not allegations. The “interested person” gathers up all facts known to him/her and puts them in the petition, swears to them under oath and hands that in to the Court. Pretty simple, folks.
One fact which could safely be sworn to is that Obama was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that he was – at birth – a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These are facts admitted by Obama. These facts have never been laid before the DC District Court.
16-3503 states:
If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person…
All citizens are considered “third persons” under 16-3502, but all citizens don’t have unique standing and therefore 16-3502 requires permission by the Department of Justice to use the name of the US – ex relator – ina quo warranto proceeding.
Don’t get confused. Unless your an intersted person under 16-3503 you need permission to go before the court.
*****Everybody: 16-3502*****
Petition The DOJ as “third persons” under 16-3502 and get permission of the DOJ to use the name of the US in a quo warranto proceeding! Then you become an “interested person” and sign a “certified complaint” which states facts and those facts must be sworn to under penalty of perjury. One fact which could safely be sworn to is that Obama was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that he was – at birth – a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These are facts admitted by Obama. These facts have never been laid before the DC District Court.
This is what I can do and any US citizen that is not an “interested person” such as Sarah Palin or Geral Walpin for example. These two people have been injured by obama and can go directly to the DC Court.
Leo has provided the template. Leo has deleted the template from his blog. I have preserved it. Leo stated it was for our use. I urge Americans to use this procedure that Leo has said will work. I also believe it will if applied as Leo has explained. I am disappointed that leo has deleted this excellent information on his blog for us to use. Leo must have known someone would preseve it.
How to file your own writ of Quo Warranto against the usurper obama
No comments:
Post a Comment