James v. Obama: Motion for Quo Warranto, USDC for DC
Dr. Orly Taitz reports on her upcoming case, James v. Obama, to be filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia concerning her motion for leave to file write of quo warranto on the President.
From the Pleadings, here is the listing of parties involved:
ALLEN C. JAMES, US Army, active duty in Iraq
RAYMOND REFITT, Commander, Submarine, US Navy
harry Riley, Colonel, US Army
CHARLES E. MILLER, Lt. Col. US Air Force
TIMOTHY KENNEY, Citadel Instructor, US Marine Corps veteran, Virginia Army National Guard
RALPH H. JENKINS, Cpt US Marine Corps
ERICK SWAFFORD, State representative from Tennessee,
CYNTHIA DAVIS, State Representative from Missouri
LARRY rappaport, State Representative from New Hampshire
Petitioners/Relators
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, a/k/a BARRY SOETORO, as President
The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500 USA
LINDA LINGLE, as Governor of the State of Hawai’i
Governor’s Office, State Capitol,
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813 USA
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, as Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State, 2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520 USARespondents
Questions being presented:
1 What is a President elect’s or President’s deadline, burden and standard of proof, to prove his qualifications, under Quo Warranto, by U.S. Constitution’s article II § 2 and amendment XX § 3, by statutes, and by ethical duties?
2 Whether the Presidential qualification of “natural born citizen” over “citizen” re quires sole U.S. allegiance by birth to two U.S. citizens within the U.S.A.’s jurisdic tion and without foreign allegiance, to choose a Commander in Chief with undivided loyalty in time of war and to preserve the Republic from tyranny.
3 Whether birth to an alien father irreparably negates being a “natural born citizen,” or whether foreign allegiance by birth, adoption, or naturalization, incur foreign allegiance, to constitutionally disqualify a President elect.
4 Would a President elect have failed to qualify by neglecting, obstructing, or contesting constitutional duties to challenge, validate, and evaluate evidence of qualifications of identity, age, residency, and natural born citizenship, or by breach ing ethical disclosure duties, by withholding or sealing records by privacy?
5 Would misprision(s) by Federal officers, bound by oath, fail to qualify a Pres ident Elect, by neglecting to challenge, validate, evaluate, or declare his qualifica tion or failure, after citizens related information challenging those qualifications, via petitions for redress of grievance, or by law suits?
6 Whether a State withholding original birth records by privacy laws obstructs con stitutional duties of the People to vote, and of officers to challenge, validate, and evaluate qualifications of presidential candidates, and of the President Elect.
7 Whether, after attaining one’s suffrage, actions showing continued allegiance to a nationality of one’s minority, evidence foreign allegiance sufficient to disqualify a President elect, by having failed to maintain undivided loyalty to the U.S.A..
8 Do candidates for office disqualify themselves if they seek office under a birth name different from a name by adoption, having not provided election officers prima facie evidence of legal name changes, or neglecting to legally change names?
9 Whether the Constitution grants officers or citizens access to uphold its inviolability and supremacy, including by quo warranto, against misprision and charismatic negligence.
Attorney Leo Donofrio made the following observations about the quo warranto statute:
- Leo Donofrio Quo Warranto Legal Brief, Part 1
- Leo Donofrio Quo Warranto Legal Brief, Part 2 (with Exhibits)
- Leo Donofrio Quo Warranto Legal Brief, Part 3
- Leo Donofrio Posts Quo Warranto Letter to US Attorney
- Further Leo Donofrio Comments on Quo Warranto
- Leo Donofrio: SCOTUS has No Original Jurisdiction to Issue a Writ of Quo Warranto
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.
-Phil
Similar Posts:
- Comparing Military Enlisted and Officer Oaths
- Dr. Taitz Releases Pre-Litigation Letter to AG Holder
- Keyes v. Bowen: Subpoena Issued for President-Elect’s Occidental College Records; WND Update
- #eligibility: Dems Focus on “Birthers;” Manning’s “Moral Indictment;” Taitz: CA SoS or AG Run, Quo Warranto Filed
- Leo Donofrio Quo Warranto Legal Brief, Part 1
There’s only one question a fifth grader could answer…….why is he spending resources and money to keep these from the public: health records, academic records, birth records, and financial statements.
There is enough evidence to cause even the ardent Obama supporter to question his eligibility.
The fact that he has spent nearly 1.5 million dollars to hide his records is enough to make one ask, “What is he hiding?”.
Though, I support this effort, it is mute without citizen support. The left and the MSM have been successful thus far in minimizing this cause. Labeling those who question “Mr. Opaqueness” as fringe “Birther” lunatics and keeping the issue from the public.
History will reveal the Kenyan thug who took the White House via Chicago and sought to destroy nation all in the name of allah.
I believe when the truth is known, many will be surprised who actually knew and did nothing.
Interested persons would be anyone who was seeking the office of U.S. President in 2008, especially those on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the 270 min electoral votes. So, “intersested persons” would include Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, and Chuck Baldwin.
“Interested persons” could possibly include Alan Keyes and Ron Paul.
Since Joe Biden was not running for president, I’m not so sure that he could be considered an “interested” person.
No, under 16-3503, after the AG or US Attorney rejects the claim, the writ can be sought only by an “interested person”. The courts have in the past defined “interested person” as meaning a person with a claim to the office. (Example: the person claiming the right to be mayor of Georgetown used quo warranto to claim the office after the city council seated someone else).
So as far as I can tell, the only “interested person” under the statute would be Joe Biden.
[...] of Columbia. I have not heard from one person who got a response from him regarding their quo warranto [...]
After reading the research, I think quo warranto is the way to go, but of course there are going to be political battiers even here that have to be busted through.
If it were up to me, I’d just file one that states the man is trying to govern the wrong country! His communist ideology and policies are in no way are Constitutional in the United States.
1. He’s nationalizing banks with no Constitutional authority whatsoever.
2. He’s nationlizing the auto industry with no Constitutional authority whatsoever.
3. His Secretary of the Treasury is walking into the FDIC and the Federal Reserve to get money to buy toxic assets with no authority given to do so by public representatives.
4. His Secretary of State, who was in September of 2008, Undersecretary of the Federal Reserve, along with Bernanke, the Chairman, held a secret meeting with Congress informing them of a raid on US banks to the tune of $550 billion dollars on 2/11/2008, that would’ve toppled the world economy in 24 hours if they had not shut down withdrawals to $250,000, and that we needed to put $787 billion dollars (a made up amount) into US banks and financial institutions (by the way which are mostly foreign owned) and that we must pull up that money from the Federal Reserve immediately and hand it over. We will never see a list of those depositors as proof as such a raid ever existed. And a nicely manufactured economic crisis was born in an election year. I want to ask to see a list of those accounts as I think the whole thing was a hoax and a criminal act.
5. Mr. Obama’s actions at the G20 summit, were they Constitutional? Who gave him authority to agree to put our Federal Reserve and Securities Exchange Commission under ‘Coordinated Regulation’ through the IMF. We are a sovereign nation, and the Federal Reserve holds funds belonging to its citizens, not the governing body.
lol, I realize these are just my opinions and have no possibility of proving it, but to me, after the SCOTUS dropped the ball on getting the case heard before the election, the eligibility factor still needs to be addressed, but then so should his actions as president so far.
If Orly doesn’t break her pattern, I suspect we will see a “call to action” on her blog for her patriots to call AG Taylor Mon., Wed. at the latest because she has not received a response from AG Taylor. Of course, AG Taylor’s phone number, address and email address will be supplied on her blog.
No, under 16-3503, after the AG or US Attorney rejects the claim, the writ can be sought only by an “interested person”. The courts have in the past defined “interested person” as meaning a person with a claim to the office. (Example: the person claiming the right to be mayor of Georgetown used quo warranto to claim the office after the city council seated someone else).
So as far as I can tell, the only “interested person” under the statute would be Joe Biden.
(I don’t think quo warranto is allowed against a sitting president anyway. I think that’s obvious from the fact that it requires initial submission to the AG or US Attorney, who are part of the executive branch and serve as political appointees under the President. You’d need a special prosecutor appointed with independent authority.)
“Dr. Orly Taitz reports on her upcoming case, James v. Obama, to be filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia concerning her motion for leave to file write of quo warranto on the President.”
The above statement “to be filed” is somewhat misleading. What Dr. Taitz has reported is a “draft.” Now, this is according to her own blog.
http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/03/29/quo-warranto–united-states-attorney-jeffrey-a-taylor.aspx
Quo Warranto – United States Attorney, Jeffrey A. Taylor
“Encl. Draft Brief with Motions to the US District Court, District of Columbia to relate Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama II, testing his title to President.”
Bobert,
Excellent comment and thanks for correcting me as well.
-Phil
Okay…Okay… I very rarely comments on these type of sites, but I SERIOUSLY suggest all of you do a little research regarding the Quo Warranto statute (the article above includes the links to the Leo Donofrio research which contains links you to all the info and research that you need).
The first step is to request in a Quo Warranto proceeding is to request that either the US Attorney General or the Attorney General for D.C. bring a case on their own to investigate Mr. Obama’s standing via the Quo Warranto statute. If that fails (and I contend that we have not given either attorney enough time yet to determine if/when they will bring the case on their own) THEN any citizen meeting the statutory requirements under Quo Warranto (as interpreted by the US Supreme Court) can bring the Quo Warranto claim on behalf of the United States themselves (at which point, the Federal District Court for D.C. will determine if the claim has merit). Keeping in mind that the private citizen who will have standing to bring such a claim under Quo Warranto on their own is very limited, but there are people out there who will quilify (whether or not people like Dr. Orly are smart enough to pick the right citizen with actual standing is yet to be determined).
I actually believe that the US Supreme Court has known all along that once the electoral college nominated Mr. Obama as President, the ONLY way he could be removed by a private citizen is through the power of Quo Warranto – and thus, by punting on this issue until AFTER the elector votes, they do not have to hear the case at all unless it comes up to them on appeal from the D.C. Federal Court (and so they can avoid allegations that they have “thrown” another election should Mr. Obama be found to have failed to meet the NBC requirement of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5).
The Supreme Court ain’t all dumb. They have no desire to be remember as the court that removed the first miniority president from office. They will leave that honor up to the D.C. Federal Court.
Has anyone checked PACER to see if this James v. Obama actually has been filed?
Because Taitz has been known to say things have been filed when they in fact haven’t. (There’s no reconsideration motion pending in Lightfoot and Easterling was never filed.)
Phil,
“Quit being so defensive. I wasn’t saying you were necessarily referring to me. Everyone comments.”
My intent was not to be defensive. My intent was to clarify my previous statement because I interpreted your reply to mean that I was referring to you. Nothing more. Sorry if I misinterpreted your reply.
Sue,
Eh, fair enough; I’ll restate:
1. Criticizing Judge’s viewpoints on rulings or methods of procedure does not necessitate there being a “conspiracy” against said Judges or protocols.
-Phil
Sue,
Quit being so defensive. I wasn’t saying you were necessarily referring to me. Everyone comments.
No, I don’t think I have seen the report yet.
-Phil
Phil,
“1. Criticizing Judge’s viewpoints on rulings does not necessitate there being a “conspiracy” against said Judges”
I did not say there was a “conspiracy” against the Judges. What I said is that Dr. Taitz has accused/alleged that SCOTUS and clerk Danny Bickell have engaged in some type of conspiracy or wrong doing in the handling of these lawsuits.
Jacqlyn Smith,
I apologize for the typo in your name above. BTW, pretty name.
Jacqlyn Smith says:
March 31, 2009 at 7:23 am
“Sue—And who are you??? The Supreme rule of the land!!! All I was saying is….. we have to keep trying to find out what will work and giving up is not an option when we have so much at stake…..sounds like you could care less though…so I will assume you are an OBOT and believe he is your Messiah….could it be you are BRAINWASHED or is it BRAINDEAD???”
Jacqulyn,
I’m not here to trade insults with you. I was trying to point out why these lawsuits have failed. However, you proved my point quite nicely. Instead of trying to understand why this lawsuit will most likely fail; you would rather name call and try to insult me.
Phil,
“1. Criticizing Judge’s viewpoints on rulings does not necessitate there being a “conspiracy” against said Judges (such as my rant against Judge James Robertson);”
You have every right to disagree with a Judges ruling and voice that opinion. I was not referring to you.
However, Dr. Taitz has done more that just “rant” in my opinion.
http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/03/25/indictments.aspx
“Should the judges be indicted for not upholding constitution and not hearing the cases of Obama’s lack of eligibility?
Should clerk Danny Bickel be indicted for interfering with the justice system?”
And, per her “report” of her recent visit to SCOTUS, she has not yet produced this claim.
http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/03/23/todays-trip-to-dc-and-the-refillings.aspx
“Among their tasks in DC was visits to the Department of Justice and to the Supreme Court. It has been learned, proven, and now documented that many of the signed receipt documents send in since December have not been received. Dr. Taitz, or our Lady Liberty, will have a full detailed account for everyone soon.”
I have yet to see one shred of credible evidence produced by Dr. Taitz to back up her allegations of SCOTUS or clerk (Staff Attorney) Danny Bickell. Yet, she claims to have “proven, and now documented” her allegations and “will have a full detailed account for everyone soon.” Have you seen this report?
Sue,
Two things:
1. Criticizing Judge’s viewpoints on rulings does not necessitate there being a “conspiracy” against said Judges (such as my rant against Judge James Robertson);
2. I have actually read a great many of the eligibility lawsuits as well as the protocols of some aspects of the Judiciary. If there were something illegitimate about these rulings and protocols, I would have posted as such. What I find amazing is that when one route is taken and fails, people criticize when another route is tried. But, that’s their prerogative.
-Phil
“Practical Kat says:
March 30, 2009 at 4:21 pm
1. Orly is not a member of the DC bar, therefore can’t file cases without a local counsel. Based on Berg’s recent experience, its pretty obvious that she’d have a tough time getting admitted pro hac vice.
2. In any case, Orly definitely is not the US Attorney, and therefore can’t bring quo warranto.”
Practical Kat just cited two reasons Orly will probably fail with this lawsuit. Both are because of the rules of law.
Onother legal term that I have learned is “order to show cause,” which may also be a term brought up in Orly’s lawsuit if she indeed files this lawsuit. I’m sure one of the lawyers here can explain this.
Phil,
“I’m really thinking I ought to annoint you the Propagandist-in-Chief for the Illegitimizer Lawyers ™.”
You can annoint me anything you like but that still won’t change the fact that these lawyers who have tried to explain these lawsuits to people and why they will/have failed, so far have been on target 100%. And the reason is that they understand the Supreme Court Rules, rules of law, federal rules of evidence, etc.,etc. There has been NO conspiracy or shady dealings in these courts like some of these lawyers have tried to suggest. And, if you would take the time to actually read these lawsuits, all the rules and try to understand the legal process; whatever side you are on, it becomes crystal clear.
I’m not exactly the brighest crayon in the box when it come to legal jargon and I get it. Some of those Supreme Court Rules are pretty simple and very easy to understand. But, you’ve got to actually READ them to UNDERSTAND them.
Sue says:
March 30, 2009 at 10:23 pm
“Jacqlyn Smith says:
March 30, 2009 at 7:27 pm
All you doubters….you don’t know if it will work until you try”
Actually, in this case, yes you do know what won’t work. It’s called the Rules of Law. Orly is a lawyer and is suppose to know the Rules of Law and the Supreme Court Rules.
The reason the lawyers that have commented on this blog have been accurate in their predictions of the outcome of these lawsuits is because they DO know the rules of law. If you would pay attention to what they were saying, instead of argue with them, you would clearly see what they are saying is factual.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sue—And who are you??? The Supreme rule of the land!!! All I was saying is….. we have to keep trying to find out what will work and giving up is not an option when we have so much at stake…..sounds like you could care less though…so I will assume you are an OBOT and believe he is your Messiah….could it be you are BRAINWASHED or is it BRAINDEAD???
Sue,
I’m really thinking I ought to annoint you the Propagandist-in-Chief for the Illegitimizer Lawyers ™.
-Phil
Roderick says: ‘bamy is a criminal and at this point anybody who supports him is a criminal also as you are accessory to a crime.
I take it you supported “W” and Darth Cheney which makes you an accessory to war crimes and all sorts of high crimes and misdemeanors. See you in court!!!
“Jacqlyn Smith says:
March 30, 2009 at 7:27 pm
All you doubters….you don’t know if it will work until you try”
Actually, in this case, yes you do know what won’t work. It’s called the Rules of Law. Orly is a lawyer and is suppose to know the Rules of Law and the Supreme Court Rules.
The reason the lawyers that have commented on this blog have been accurate in their predictions of the outcome of these lawsuits is because they DO know the rules of law. If you would pay attention to what they were saying, instead of argue with them, you would clearly see what they are saying is factual.
“It is only the location of his birth and the fact that he became an Indonsian citizen and would therefore have had to give up all oather citizenships in order to do so and that he has never shown his naturalization papers that are meaningful.”
“I stil contend that to this day he is an Indonesian citizen living as an illegal alien in America.”
What you contend is false and has been debunked. Obama is not nor ever has been a Indonesian citizen. And Obama was born in Hawaii.
Here are two good links to the above information.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/
All you doubters….you don’t know if it will work until you try. No one got rich doing nothing….that’s why the Socialist plan is not going to work either….too many people doing NOTHING but collecting a check from the government!!
John
I am not a lawyer but I do not completely agree with you assessment on the Natural Born Citizen issue. The fact that it is in the constitution and subject to interpretation would not allow legislative action to determine what an NBC is. The courts and I would think the Supreme Court would decide what a NBC is. Therefore, one need not examine BHO status as to an NBC to determine what an NBC is. If one wants to one could examine John McCain for definition by the courts and not have as much static about it.
If I were a lawyer, I would tell you that laws are written in a specific time and place and should be interpreted by the time and place. The time was Sept 17, 1787 and Natural Born Citizen had a specific definition in THAT TIME and THAN PLACE. Just like cool might have meant
1. moderately cold : lacking in warmth it would never have meant
7. slang a: very good : excellent
both from webster.com. So it is that this issue needs to be resolved…one way or the other!
1. Orly is not a member of the DC bar, therefore can’t file cases without a local counsel. Based on Berg’s recent experience, its pretty obvious that she’d have a tough time getting admitted pro hac vice.
2. In any case, Orly definitely is not the US Attorney, and therefore can’t bring quo warranto.
“Becaue the followin facts are true.
1. Obama became an Indonesian citizen in the 60s when adopted by Barry Sotero in order to attend the school that he did in Indonesia. Indonesia did not allow dual citizens at that time so Obama even if born in America would have had to give up his U.S. citizenship whether he was considered “natural born” or not”
There is no evidence that Obama was adopted by Sotero.
There is no evidence that public school was restricted to Indonesian citizens when Obama attended.
Parents cannot relinquish their citizenship claims therefor you are saying a 6 year Barack Obama convinced the US embassy that he renounced his citizenship.
“2. Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1961 when U.S. citizens were prohibited by the U.S. State Department from doing so.”
There was no travel ban to Pakistan by either the State Dept nor Pakistan.
“3. Obama has never made avialable to the public in any wasy shape of form U.S. naturalization papers. Probably becasue either”
Probably because as a natural born citizen, he would have no use for naturalization.
“This HAS to work! She is asking all the right questions, and we desperately need the answers”
I would not get my hopes up if I were you.
Has James v. Obama been filed in the same sense that the reconsideration motion in Lightfoot v. Bowen and the Easterling v. Obama quo warranto were filed, i.e., only in Taitz’s mind?
I believe that question of whether Obama is considered a “Natural Born Citizen” if his farther was not an American citizen is totally moot. The reason is becasue the answer to that question is totally arbitarty based upon what the courts decide. It would also be no trouble at all for Congress to pass a law stating that one is considered a “Natural Born Citizen” even if one their parents was not an America citizen.
It is only the location of his birth and the fact that he became an Indonsian citizen and would therefore have had to give up all oather citizenships in order to do so and that he has never shown his naturalization papers that are meaningful.
I stil contend that to this day he is an Indonesian citizen living as an illegal alien in America.
Three cheers for the effort, but I seriously doubt that it will along with all these other Obama lawsuits will get anywhere.
I also find it intersting that in all most all of these lawsuits the issue of his still being an Indonesian citizen does not crop up.
Why:
Becaue the followin facts are true.
1. Obama became an Indonesian citizen in the 60s when adopted by Barry Sotero in order to attend the school that he did in Indonesia. Indonesia did not allow dual citizens at that time so Obama even if born in America would have had to give up his U.S. citizenship whether he was considered “natural born” or not
2. Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1961 when U.S. citizens were prohibited by the U.S. State Department from doing so.
3. Obama has never made avialable to the public in any wasy shape of form U.S. naturalization papers. Probably becasue either
A. He doesn’t have them and to this day remains soley and Indonesian citizen.
or
B. To present his naturalization papers would start to raise questions about where he was actually born which he has shown clearly that he does not want to have to answer before the the courts or the MSM.
Citizen grand jury being conducted by defendourfreedoms.us. Anyone interested, there is a contact to call about it. Georgia already voted their indictment. Texas is next. Virginia is looking for Virginians.
Out of the timesonline.co.uk. Dealing a little bit with the G20 summit. Angela Merckel the German Chancellor has said that she is not going along with ‘bamy’s stimulus plans in her neck of the woods. In other words she is not going to create money in order to make it look like the world economy is getting better. This according to the article represents a defeat for ‘bamy as other European leaders followed Merckel’s lead. Basically I believe ‘bamy had that meeting with PM Brown several weeks ago to get him to go along with his stupidity of increasing taxes around the world and then brainwashing us Americans by not allowing the results of this failed summit to reach cnn or the mainstream media. ‘bamy is a criminal and at this point anybody who supports him is a criminal also as you are accessory to a crime.
This HAS to work! She is asking all the right questions, and we desperately need the answers.
The QW is the only correct thing Orly is doing.But she should take the time to read all of Leo’s posts on the matter.These lawtyers are skimming and scanning and and are saying things that are outside the parameters of the statute.Too much emotion,and not enough reliance on the rule of law.They make good commmon sense rants on their blogs,but that won’t cut it in the courts.Trying to piggyback other issues on it will ruin the chance at justice.But given the fact that the DOJ,FBI,and other agencies are ignoring the pleas for investigations it is understandable that these lawyers are listing all these tangential issues in the lawsuits.